Posts by briskhound2

Patrick Martin said:God dammit!
Honestly, when I see the kinds of arguments people pull out just to justify this shameless exploitation, I feel like my head is actually going to explode. 😢

Just so we’re clear here—even Training Day (which should be, like, the absolute pinnacle of fucking cinema) is a total waste of time to me. I seriously don't get what everyone is raving about, or why Denzel even snagged an Oscar for that role. 🤷
It’s the same deal with Departed; I honestly can't recall a single fucking frame from either of those movies.

And really, now that I've already laid out my thoughts on the greatest fucking movie ever made, do I even need to bother giving an opinion on this latest disaster?

Better if I don't...

What arguments? 😕 It’s just mindless shooting meant to entertain. The movie isn't out here trying to sell us snake oil or anything. I don't see anyone actually defending it as some masterpiece of action...

Sean Johnson40 said:Come on, don't be shy. You're among friends here. Just tell us—what's actually good in your book? Avatar? Titanic? With taste like yours, I’d be shocked if you had any actual standards.

And don't even try lying! 🙂

Avatar 😍 Where’s Face to tell people all the fights I've picked just for that flick? It's basically a gorgeous pile of garbage wrapped up in pretty 3D visuals... Titanic isn't bad, it holds its own, I guess, but I'm just not feeling Lea in that one. And if we're really going there... Let's say, a John Carpenter venture—the guy whose work is in my avatar, though he's definitely lost his touch lately, so sticking to his old stuff is safer—I don't mind him, nor do I have an issue with Peter Hyms and those 80s sci-fi flicks, even his crime dramas aren't half bad. Just because I can enjoy some mindless junk like Olympus doesn't mean that's all I live for. I just watch them without being a snob about it. It's funny how people assume I only like the classics just because I tend to rant loudly against all this empty CGI bullshit...

and stop lying! 🙂

Anyone who actually knows my taste and follows what I write can vouch for that...😉

Sean Johnson40 said:What’s your deal? Are you just a masochist? Or maybe you’re just unappreciated in real life and trying to act like a big shot here?

Only an idiot tortures themselves with garbage once a movie becomes unwatchable. Obviously, I sped it up, and even Die Hard is better than this junk.
I think you have to be pretty low-brow to actually enjoy a flick like this. And usually, those types are the ones acting all high and mighty about morality around here.

My advice: go work through your issues somewhere else.

Look, Sinek, if you actually think Die Hard is better than the original... it might be time to just switch to cartoons and coloring books...

Sean Johnson40 said:I haven't even sat through the whole thing. I'm not crazy enough to torture myself with that garbage.
I tried watching it, but I bailed after five minutes.
Honestly, it’s just not for anyone with half a brain.

So, you mentioned you actually sat down and watched it... 🤷 It’s pretty simple, really—you either are, or you aren't...

I checked out the first five minutes before totally bouncing... just wasn't feeling it.
Enough with the smartassery...

So, what you're saying is... anyone who actually sat through it and had a good laugh was just an idiot? ... 😕

Not even really about your specific comment here, but I’ve always been fascinated by people like that—you know the type. They don't even bother watching the thing, they just instinctively know it’s garbage. It’s honestly just snobbery in its most obnoxious form... which, to be fair, I’m perfectly fine with. I can have my fun watching something like JFK, sure, but I can also enjoy this kind of stuff too. If we’re being totally honest, it almost broadens my horizons just seeing how much elitism can actually limit someone's perspective...

Sean Johnson40 said:I watched the movie since it didn't cost me a dime.
Die Hard is trash, and using it as a benchmark for this flop tells you everything you need to know about how bad this was.
I'm talking real masterpieces here—stuff like JFK (1991) or Where Eagles Dare (1969). That's my level.

Sean Johnson40 said:The only thing that isn't fair is treating the audience like idiots by feeding them garbage like Olympus Has Fallen.

Even so, you still sat through it. Just because something was free doesn't mean it's worth your damn time... and I’m guessing you only watched it just so you could go around telling everyone it’s total garbage and that JFK is actually a masterpiece...

Personally, I’d say it’s pretty fun... I was just sitting here thinking about that one film... you know the one... and honestly, I can't stop looping back to how much it actually holds up. It’s funny how some movies just age like fine wine while others feel like they were made in a basement yesterday. This one? It’s got that specific kind of grit—that raw, unpolished energy that you just don't see much anymore in those big-budget, CGI-heavy blockbusters we get thrown at us every summer... anyway, where was I... right, the pacing. It’s perfect. No filler, just pure momentum. It makes most modern stuff look like they're moving through molasses... turns out, sometimes less really is more.Honestly, one of the better action marathons I've sat through in the last decade—well, at least the first half was solid. There isn't a single brain cell working in the script, but hey, if I wanted something smart, I wouldn't be watching this... 😁

The tragic death of actor Vic Morrow (along with two child extras) during the filming of a Twilight Zone film... (nothing explicit shown here). John Landis—who was an absolute idiot for demanding the helicopter fly low right through the pyrotechnics, which eventually caused the crash—never actually took responsibility for it. Spielberg, though, didn't hold back at all; he blasted him publicly, both for that stunt and for the sheer stupidity of using live ammunition on set.

wiredraven82 said:It’s not even that I skipped it—the movie was just straight-up garbage. Like, they could've used relativity theory to explain why the skull logo wasn't on his chest, but honestly, they should've just used some basic CGI to get it there. It's the Punisher's whole signature look, so... seriously, WTF? That kind of stuff just kills it for me... 🙂 So, for me, it doesn't feel like Punisher at all, just some random guy being played by Dolph Lundgren.

They didn't have the rights to use the logo, which is why it isn't there. It wasn't like they couldn't print a shirt with it if they wanted to...

And I gotta say, this Thomas Jane movie could've been absolutely killer if they'd just found the right director to helm it. As it stands, it turned out decent enough, but Thomas Jane was just perfect for the part, so that's about it.

The director was more than fine, really, and they did exactly what they set out to do. A Punisher western vibe. The fact that they were working with a peanut-sized budget is a totally different story, so yeah, it's not exactly eye candy like the modern adaptations you see now. And Jane actually nailed the role, he even put together a little video Tribute for the fans. 😁

northerncrane4 said:I think we're talking about two different movies here. In "Die Hard with a Vengeance," you can actually tell what’s happening in every action sequence—who's going where and who's chasing whom. Compare that to "Armageddon" or "The Rock," where the action is just a blur.
Besides, I don't get what your issue is with "Die Hard with a Vengeance." It was easy enough to follow, especially considering this was McTiernan's follow-up to "Last Action Hero." 🤷

As far as I know, they didn't let McTiernan handle the edit on that one. And honestly—it isn't fair to group that movie with "Predator," "The Hunt for Red October," or "Die Hard."

Honestly? I actually struggled to follow the action in "Die Hard with a Vengeance"... specifically once the chase sequences kick in. I'm thinking of that car chase bit, with the spinning on the road and the constant shooting... it was messy, just visually cluttered, and you could barely tell who was fighting who. With "The Rock," I didn't have those issues at all—honestly, it's probably one of his most coherent movies. Sure, there's fast cutting and those sweeping camera movements he loves, but it flows. As for "Armageddon," yeah, I'm with you... there are parts where you just straight-up lose track of everything.

I don't really get why "Die Hard with a Vengeance" bothers you so much. It was pretty easy to watch for me, especially considering it was McTiernan's follow-up after "Last Action Hero." 🤷

Well, like I said before... 🙂 And I gotta add that whole finale with the helicopter and the trucks... it was so chaotic that even now, I'm still not entirely sure how that blue-clad woman actually died (if she even did)...

From what I know, McTiernan wasn't even given control over the editing on that one. It doesn't seem fair to put it in the same conversation as "Predator," "The Hunt for Red October," "Die Hard," and stuff like that.

Actually, you just reminded me—it seems like "Die Hard with a Vengeance" had that same issue, where someone else had to handle the edit without him being involved...

northerncrane4 said:No—it’s not even that Dwayne Johnson can't be mentioned in the same breath as Harlan, McTiernan, or early Scott; it’s that they don't even belong in the same language. While those three actually produce coherent, legible cinema, Bay is just pure directorial chaos—zero logic, zero structure.

I don't know who to blame for it, but the editing in Die Hard with a Vengeance is so bad it's almost unwatchable halfway through. And Rollerball? Just a complete mess from start to finish.

Look, you guys seriously have no clue what kind of director Bay actually is because you're skipping over his entire filmography. It’s just a conclusion based on pure guesswork at this point 😕

Quote : Xerxes

Morgan Brown4 said:Dwayne Johnson
Con Air
Face/Off
Raising Arizona
Adaptation.
Kick-Ass
Lord of War
The Weather Man
Bad Lieutenant
Seeking Justice

Just trying to list about ten of his solid ones.

+ Plus, in the Dwayne Johnson one, you've also got Sean Connery, Ed Harris, Michael Biehn, David Morse, and William Forsythe. 😛

James Mason—retired from the CIA, obviously... 😁 (steals the whole damn movie)

Casey Bennett79 said:If you ask me, San Francisco is actually great... Most of his movies really hit the mark for me, like Bad Boys and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre : The Beginning—which, honestly, I think is the best version of that franchise out there... There might be some directors who top him, sure, but I’ve got nothing against him personally 🙂

San Francisco didn't direct TCM—not even close. He was just the producer on that one...

He’s a great director—delivers solid action flicks, definitely has that signature style, and doesn't try to peddle any of that fake philosophical bullshit... If he could just grab a slightly more serious title, maybe tackle a heavier theme while keeping that same vibe, he'd be the legitimate successor to Tony Scott.

trailer 2#

Unlike that absolute train wreck that was Die Hard in Russia, this actually looks like it might be fun...

goldenhound32 said:Look, I get that the Soderbergh flick is better, but I actually dug this one too. Just try comparing that Marvin guy to this total mess from 2013...

It's on my watchlist for tomorrow, so I'll have a better idea once I've actually sat through it.

It doesn't have any of that humor you find in Payback with Gibson, and it isn't even dark. It’s just... watered down 👎 ...even Statham isn't really doing it for me here.

Depends on which Payback you're talking about. The original is way more fun, whereas the director's cut is basically a different movie entirely. Not necessarily "better," just different—definitely less of a blast.

goldenhound32 said:+1, though I actually sat through that one with Lee Marvin too. Both were pretty much a wash...

That Lee Marvin flick just can't decide if it wants to be a gritty crime thriller or some high-brow art house piece—it’s stuck in limbo, really. It just doesn't work, or at least it didn't work there... Soderbergh's The Limey is way better, honestly.

northernpilot2 said:Movies split up! - One review per movie—simple as that!

Stay safe out there 😁

The cast is so much like a real-life crew it’s actually wild 🤣

casualcobra5 said:That’s the truth. Honestly, I’d probably still write even if there wasn't any prize involved. Wait—actually, that's exactly what I do... 😁

Yeah, you're definitely not alone there... 😁

The prizes, whatever they may be, aren't exactly life-changing, but they're cool enough. What really gets to me is that general sluggishness and chronic laziness—we're talking about maybe an hour of focused work. People won't lift a finger even for much bigger rewards than these. That’s the part I’d love to change.

Good luck with that. But yeah, it's true—for an hour of slightly better effort, you can put together a decent piece and send it in. The prize isn't everything, it's just a nice feeling knowing you earned it through your own work. Though, if my experience is anything to go by, it's always way easier to just sit back and complain...

Shutter is just okay—mediocre, really. One Missed Call was even worse, honestly... The Ritual was pretty weak too. I didn't bother with Black Swan, and as for Carrie, that's the only one actually worth watching. Regarding the prizes, I totally agree they aren't exactly highlights—it feels like stuff you could just grab at Walmart for pocket change. Even if they were actual masterpieces, like maybe a Dawn of the Dead director's cut with commentary by George A. Romero, 😁 it wouldn't really change much. Personally, I remember when Dragonrage used to run games and the prizes were actually decent, which gave people a reason to participate... now there's zero motivation. If someone truly loves the genre, they'll post something regardless.

Some pretty cool concept posters for an action flick...



Plus, there's this brand new trailer

And, of course, the classic everyone's waiting for...