Posts by briskhound2

This looks like one of those fun little romps where nobody’s taking themselves too seriously—the kind of thing you just put on to unwind... might give it a watch.

I don't know, man... for some reason, the whole movie just felt like a lukewarm, watered-down version of St. Vincent from 2014.

It’s a pretty fun, unexpected spin on the whole classic whodunit setup. Instead of just cramming everyone into one room and having some genius pull a conclusion out of thin air—you know, how those movies usually go—Rian Johnson actually shows you the legwork behind the investigation. It was actually kind of refreshing... Unexpected, even. Honestly, the movie feels a bit weaker than the first one, but it's still a blast to watch.

Edward Watson18 said:Regarding Art... there's really no other way to put it than he's just a demon...

Then Michael Myers is a demon too, I guess.

Edward Watson18 said:Freddy Krueger is the most original and disgusting villain because he was an even bigger monster when he was still human—a serial killer who targeted and murdered kids...

Will... not really. He just killed them, though the original idea was that he preyed on them first—but that concept got tossed in the trash because it was a bit too much for that era. They brought that back in the remake. Freddy—God bless him—isn't actually original at all; he’s basically just a derivative of Myers and Jason Voorhees, only he limps and has the personality provided by Robert Englund. As far as originality goes, he's a zero, but he pulled it off through pure charisma. And even then, only if you're looking at the first movie and maybe the second... after that, Freddy turned into Pennywise, a guy who isn't even scary anymore.

If we're ranking Freddy within the whole genre, he belongs in tier one—definitely up there with The Thing, Predator, and Alien...

Again, not quite. Michael Myers deserves a spot there, provided you're only talking about the first Halloween. He’s literally unstoppable in that film, and you have no clue what kind of devil he is, but like John Carpenter says, he's the embodiment of pure evil. All those later nonsense explanations they tried to use ruined any sense of mystery around him, but that first movie... he's unbeatable, plain and simple. All those guys mentioned have a weakness that puts them in the "strong enemy" category, but with a little bit of firepower, they go down (fire being the obvious choice)

Norman Bates (Psycho)...

I'd put him in the same room as Francis, Jamie, Buffalo Bill, and Henry Lee Lucas—that's a totally different category. They're reflections of actual depravity, not this other stuff above.

Richard Wilson4 said:We shouldn't be getting political on this subforum.

The thing is, the movie is pure political propaganda from the very first second, so dodging the context is kind of a losing battle...

Mexicans have their version of history, Americans have theirs—we’re never going to see eye to eye.

Nah, Americans have the facts, while Mexicans just push fiction they want to pass off as their own truth.

Let them film and watch whatever they want; I actually think some American film critics might even dig it, but again, that’s more for a different subforum...

Looks like it's loaded with the same kind of cheap sentimentality our movies have, so there might be a grain of truth there...

Looking at the trailer, you can tell how casually they skipped over the part where they violently seized that territory before moving straight into the mass deportations. It’s like if Germans made a movie about the landings in Normandy and claimed it was just about "cleansing" Germany out of Poland, France, and Normandy, all while conveniently glossing over Hic and that whole messy occupation business...

neonfox65 said:Thanks for the heads up. I actually had no idea. Are there any other works out there?

There are a few novels and two short story collections—The Black Phone was actually adapted from one of them. He’s got a novel called NOS4A2 that was turned into a two-season series—it's actually pretty decent—and then there's Horns, which also hit the screen starring Harry Potter. Two of his novels, heart-shaped box and The Fireman, are still waiting on movie deals even though the rights were picked up ages ago. Both heart-shaped box and NOS4A2 have been published here in the States.

Mark White11 said:I honestly don't buy the argument that they over-explained the Grabber. There was plenty of subtext there for us to piece together ourselves—plus, the whole mystery surrounding why the phone works the way it does just fits the vibe and the premise perfectly for me.

The kids are awesome, especially the sister—she absolutely crushed it! And Hawke? He’s just great, so creepy and unsettling. Overall, the movie is solid and definitely worth a watch.

Okay, now for the gripes. There are some major logic holes here. First and most importantly: if one kid goes missing in the same neighborhood or suburb, fine—parents might still let their kids run wild, especially since it's set in the 70s. But if two or three kids disappear the exact same way in the same area? No way. Parents would be freaking out. They wouldn't even let them walk home from school alone; they'd be walking in groups or having an adult shadow them. It just doesn't track.

And second—this guy snatching kids in broad daylight in the single most suspicious van ever made, and somehow *nobody* ever sees anything? It feels a little ridiculous when you think about it.

That's exactly how I felt too! At first, it totally gave off those Stephen King vibes—I actually thought it was based on one of his stories, but turns out it isn't.

Only the fact that it’s by his son is the connection, since he writes with basically the exact same style...😁

Honestly, the costume is just a total disaster...

Betty Nelson71 said:The way he plays Poirot just gets under my skin—it’s like he’s overacting or being way too dramatic... almost like he's turning the character into some kind of caricature.

Well, that's just how Poirot is, though... I mean, Albert Finney really nailed that vibe, and even Agatha herself said that was probably the most accurate portrayal of the character ever. Poirot is just an inherently irritating guy...

Stargate is such a cool movie. It actually had some genuine originality and creativity to it—which is rare these days. It’s a total bummer they never gave us a proper sequel... Spader and old-school Kurt were such a solid duo.

Bryan Phillips2 said:The thing is, if you actually bother to look at the thread, people aren't even really talking about Tom Cruise's work anymore—they're just stuck in this endless loop arguing over whether he’s actually the GOAT or not... 🙄

How can you say that? We were literally just comparing him to everyone else—I mean, you have to use some kind of benchmark if you want to actually reach a conclusion, right? Then we moved on to the box office numbers, but then you jumped in and argued that ticket sales aren't a true measure of quality, so we dropped that too... So now what? We can't compare him to his peers, and we can't talk about how much money he pulled in... What exactly are we supposed to be discussing here? That he has a nice smile or something?...

driftingcanyon2 said:A few more posts got wiped—definitely three of mine, including my first one, plus those threads where people get all worked up over trolls being labeled as "controversial."

So, we’re all just hanging out perfectly fine here after exactly one deleted post... everything else happened much later.

By the way, who snatched my "Greatest Movie Quotes" thread from the other day? It's not like Charles Bronson suddenly became unlikable or anything... 😁

The absolute boss of this forum personally; I think we have at least three threads just like this buried in the archives somewhere...

Bryan Phillips2 said:There’s a massive gap between having an actual intelligent debate and just being a mindless troll—which is basically what's happening here, mostly because of how the headline was framed. Look, I’m not exactly the biggest fan of Tom Cruise, but he really doesn't deserve this kind of brainless "discussion."

And that "gap" is exactly why we're stuck in this mess—I actually ended up deleting one of my posts... 🙄 Honestly, someone give The New York Times a call, we've got the scoop of the century right here.

Bryan Phillips2 said:Speaking of biased moderation—I’ve gotta say, I have a bit of a bone to pick regarding how they're letting this headline slide... Is Tom Cruise actually the best actor working today? Just a thought...Honestly, what a brainless, embarrassing headline... some people just don't get when someone's clearly joking, and then they actually turn around and try to have this serious debate about whether it’s actually the best or not... ridiculous... 🙄

I’ve got a bit of a bone to pick with these totally mindless comments... 🙄

So, there's a question mark at the end. That’s what it is... just a question.

Just debate. It’s what this forum is for anyway...

Bryan Phillips2 said:That’s quite a reason to pull a post... 🙄

Total Stalinist tactics, I guess. What else would you expect...

Nothing weird about it here, honestly. Don't really get the fuss. Seems like the mod is just a little too big a fan of Tom Cruise. But hey, those little biases shouldn't really mess with how they moderate things, right?

And you guys clearly hate him just enough that you can't have a civil conversation. Perfect balance...

Now I see it—can I even say "damn"?!

🙄 Good luck with that...

driftingcanyon2 said:So, are you actually giving me a guarantee that if I keep posting there, negative reviews won't get nuked? Honestly, I have my doubts... Like, if I drop some data from an international survey or a ranking based on earnings or customer reviews—or whatever other metric—am I sure nothing's gonna get deleted?

Look, you clearly figured out how to make a post, but then you go around using terms like "die-hard fans" or "trolls" in another thread—and let me tell you, I'll personally make sure those get scrubbed...

driftingcanyon2 said:That’s just your classic excuse for scrubbing any counter-arguments—total Stalinist tactics right there... Look, maybe I was a bit blunt in my last post, I'll give you that, but the mod bias in this thread is pretty impossible to ignore. Otherwise, why would they be so aggressive about nuking anything remotely critical of their favorite actor?

Did you actually sit there and count all the negative comments? Because if you did, then they weren't deleted. So much for the "bias" argument... And just to clear things up for the back row—only ONE post was removed, yours. Any other admins can jump in and see for themselves if those "Stalinist methods" are actually happening or not.

A post was deleted.

Because of this.

Heh, it’s funny how the die-hard Tompkins fans get all worked up the second they take a hit from some negative criticism. Here’s another one for you...

That’s just not how people talk when they're having a serious discussion on a movie forum.

Jeffrey Howard79 said:To me, noir is those black-and-white flicks—you know, the ones with detectives and murders, dark alleys, shadows everywhere, rain or storms, trench coats, fedoras, and revolvers. I honestly don't get how so many movies without those specific tropes ended up being called noir... they just don't do it for me anymore. Neo-noir feels more like a trend, really. Just people making up new styles to stay relevant.

Look, noir evolved just like any other genre does. And you can't talk about these films without mentioning the literature behind them. Pure noir is depressing. There aren't any heroic detectives or moral winners in those stories—think along the lines of D.O.A. or Sunset Boulevard. Then you’ve got Raymond Chandler stepping in to create Philip Marlowe, which gives us The Big Sleep, moving into that hardboiled territory. By the 70s and 80s, the two genres started blending together. You get this bleak, depressing look at modern society (that's the noir side) mixed with films like Harper (more hardboiled), where you actually have a protagonist you can root for—someone with a bit of a moral compass. In my opinion, neo-noir is actually a more legitimate successor to hardboiled films than to pure noir, since "real" noir hasn't really existed since the 30s or 40s...🙂

Matthew Johnson30 said:I don't really get why everyone is trashing the fourth installment so hard...

Because it sucks. Period.

Every single fight scene featuring Jet Li is legendary.

It’s almost like they were filmed for a completely different movie—that’s just how they feel—they don't belong in Lethal Weapon at all, but hey, I guess those scenes were actually the best part of the flick...

One of the absolute highlights has to be that moment with Joe Pesci.

In the fourth one, Leo Getz is turned into this pathetic little creature rambling about crushed frogs. It's such a massive departure from how he was in the second and third movies, where he was actually this charming little loudmouth...

I'm not exactly looking forward to the fifth one—it's already too late.

Well, it was too late for the fourth one too, and it still managed to turn out okay-ish. The real issue with that movie was just throwing way too many new characters at us, and man, I can't stress enough how much I couldn't stand Chris Rock...

Knowing Mel Gibson, he and Danny Glover will just end up being side characters who die off just to make room for some new "younger" version of them to take over.

I think I saw some synopsis floating around about the two of them being retired and then coming back into the fray to help Roger's son crack a tough case. It sounded decent—pretty grounded, actually—but the big question is whether they'll actually stick to that or just go off the rails...