Posts by briskhound2

Henry Campbell5 said:and look at this:

The briskhound2 crew and everyone else. Because from what I can see, even the top Redditors get trashed if they don't fall in line with the power players. In fact, they're instantly branded as the villains just for daring to say something isn't working the way you want it to. Truly shocking...

🤷

Look, we can either keep bickering over nonsense, or we can actually talk about my car—as in, where's the explanation? Why wasn't procedure followed? Why didn't I get a warning? And why did you, in a total conflict of interest, get moderator powers on a thread specifically about moderating PDF movies? There are plenty more questions like that...

And then there's me, doing a freaking stellar job with this whole group since the people I argue with most are the ones coming over here to speak for me... without me even asking them to. Imagine if I actually had to walk around Reddit shouting at people to come join the cause...

I mean, we can either waste time with nonsense or we can actually talk about my situation—like, where's the explanation? Why wasn't procedure followed? Why didn't I get a warning? And why did you, in a total conflict of interest, get moderation powers over a thread discussing the moderation of PDF movies? There's a whole list of questions like that.

That isn't nonsense. Even the regular users are telling you they're fed up with your months of ego-tripping, constant trolling, and trying to spark a "principled revolt" every single time someone gets a warning—which honestly has nothing to do with the mods. But it does give a pretty clear picture of the state of the PDF section, which everyone is loudly claiming the moderators have completely ruined. You didn't get a warning because of my mistake; you should have gotten one regardless... As for the rest, take it up with the admin crew 🤷

Christian Taylor3 said:You totally missed the second part of that, the whole "stirring the pot" and provocation bit. Ranting and criticizing the way this PDF movie is being run—well, looking at the neighboring thread, you guys deleted a post of his out of pure spite (and we all agree there was zero actual reason for it), which triggered a reaction from that user and got him permanently banned from the PDF movie. That’s your version of moderation: banning one user and then banning another on the very same day. They complained about those sneaky deletions—basically, mods baiting people—and labeled it "ad hominem, iranian style." Are those really valid reasons to kick someone off the PDF movie? Honestly, you should be embarrassed.

I also remember your little vendettas against Dr. Mabuse; he spent years hanging around other forums before getting booted after calling a mod a "stinker." No, that isn't objective or impartial moderation; it’s just ego. You don't need to explain the reasons for the bias against Henry Campbell5 to me—explain them to him. This attempt at an excuse is pathetic; go ahead and provide some actual, concrete reasons for this favoritism. You can't, because we both know they don't exist.

That isn't constructive participation in the activity of a PDF.

Day in and day out, you guys are proving how non-constructive your own involvement in this PDF is (especially regarding management; just look at the adjacent topic for proof). And who even brought up clans on the Movie section? We could talk about them too. From where I'm sitting, I see users who aren't even on speaking terms, yet they all share one commonality: you guys "really screwed up, and you should seriously be ashamed", and that's twice in just a few months. Going back to the clans, there’s really only one clique running the Movie section, a group that is systematically destroying it, turning it into a private club, and pushing out anyone they don't like. If you just recall Henry Campbell5's old critique about the "cult-like takeover" of the Movie section, the real reasons for this bias will become crystal clear—including things like pinning an American movie in the sticky PDF. We could dive into that too, without leaking any private info or names, obviously.

And to answer Patrick Martin: this isn't some public town square. Reddit is essentially someone's "private bathroom," and the whole problem is that this clique in the Movie section thinks they own the place. They don't. Reddit belongs to Anderlon, but even looking at the previous administration, it shows that the users are the ones who always come out on top. The situation in the Movie section has spiraled completely out of control, and problems are just piling up. Nobody is going to keep supporting this—it's high time the PDF movie gets a brand new crew of moderators.

Then there's the guy I'm constantly arguing with on every single thread—someone whose views are basically the polar opposite of mine—and, get this, the man actually supports me. Shocking, I know...

Let's talk about these cliques. There's really only one group running this PDF movie site, a clique that's systematically tearing the place apart, privatizing everything, and kicking out anyone they don't like from the platform...

Au contraire, my captain. It's the family and co. clique and everyone else. Because from where I'm sitting, even the top users get slapped if they don't side with the "rebels"—actually, they immediately get labeled as the worst because they dared to suggest that things aren't exactly how you say they are. Shocking, I know...

The situation on the PDF movie site has spiraled completely out of control. Problems are just piling up and nobody wants to deal with them anymore—it's high time this PDF movie site got a brand new crew of moderators.

Oh, I'm still waiting for you to clarify what exactly was so controversial about those deleted posts. Once you do, we can move on to all those things you were threatening when you were banned. You know—tearing users apart over illegal links, shaking the very foundations of the site by threatening lawsuits, loud protests, and revolts... against whatever. All that stuff...

Henry Campbell5 said:I never received any kind of warning like that.

That's it?

Liar. It wasn't constant provocation. There was only provocation directed at those who wanted it, mostly you. So maybe ask yourself why...

As for contributions, how many people on this Reddit actually contribute anything? What’s the criteria here? If there even is one, you should probably be the first one kicked off the site, since your style of moderating has chased away everyone who isn't your target. At least I wrote reviews. They weren't great, but I wrote them. What exactly are you so proud of?

Honestly, I don't really care about the "why"—the point is you just need to admit to the provocation so there's no confusion about what happened.

regarding contributions, how many Reddit users actually contribute anything meaningful?

Pretty much everyone, really—through discussions, posting, and joining threads without intentionally stirring the pot or acting out just because they have some weird grudge against someone for their own amusement.

what's the actual criteria for a contribution?

Keeping things chill for the rest of the community.

if there even is one, you should probably be the first one to leave this PDF movie site—your style of moderating has chased away everyone, not just the people you're targeting. at least I wrote reviews. they weren't perfect, sure, but I wrote them. what exactly are you bringing to the table?

Whatever your petty reasons are, it doesn't matter. Your "why" question was answered.

Best,

briskhound2 said:Look, you've been warned multiple times already—a partial ban is definitely on the table if the tone doesn't shift. People were calling the mods out for making baseless threats back then, but honestly, the warning was legitimate enough.

how long does a partial ban last?

Permanent, as far as I know...

what exactly prompted the combined moderator-admin brain trust to make that call?

Constant trolling of the users and mods, flame wars, just straight-up spamming to stir the pot... there's zero actual contribution to the PDF movie besides, like I said, just poking people to get a reaction—especially from the mods.

My bad. You can actually ask for a review after 6 months have passed.

Henry Campbell5 said:So, we aren't even notifying users about this?

How long does the partial blackout last?

And what exactly prompted this decision from the combined moderator-admin brain trust?

Look, you've been warned multiple times already—a partial ban is definitely on the table if the tone doesn't shift. People were calling the mods out for making baseless threats back then, but honestly, the warning was legitimate enough.

how long does a partial ban last?

Permanent, as far as I know...

what exactly prompted the combined moderator-admin brain trust to make that call?

Constant trolling of the users and mods, flame wars, just straight-up spamming to stir the pot... there's zero actual contribution to the PDF movie besides, like I said, just poking people to get a reaction—especially from the mods.

Henry Campbell5 said:Some weird technical glitches on Reddit. I can't see the PDF movie. 🤔

Look, based on what the mods and admins decided, you've been partially restricted from the PDF movie section. That's why it's gone from your view...

Check out these fresh new posters and my own little American take on the film...

Official trailer...

Hey there (and sorry for the delay).

I had to pull this thread because it wasn't set up quite right.

Just a few lines down, you'll see a separate thread for RECOMMENDATIONS (we usually auto-delete any standalone posts like this) where you can jump in and ask folks for movie suggestions similar to ILS. Maybe just sharpen up the request a bit though... "torture movies" is a pretty massive umbrella term to try and cover.

If you're ever hunting for a movie but can't remember the title, we have a dedicated spot for that— right here—so feel free to drop a query there instead.

Normally, we'd just move a post over if it's strictly about getting a recommendation, but when things get all mixed up like this, we just end up deleting them.

Speaking of which, Niels Arden Oplev is teaming up with Noomi again for his next project: Dead Man Down.

Kyle Cruz said:Fincher's version is just superior. You don't even need to be some kind of film critic to see that, do you?

On what grounds? Just because Fincher was behind the camera? Aside from that one little detail... everything else feels like typical Hollywood cookie-cutter stuff—you know, the kind of thing they always churn out whenever they try to remake an original story that didn't come from the States...

Kyle Cruz said:And did it ever cross anyone's mind that he actually read the script? It’s just classic Fincher direction, which is exactly what that loudmouth 😂😂
was blathering about.

It’s pretty much a rule that David Fincher doesn't touch remakes—this is actually his first foray into that territory, though he did go ahead and binge-watch Alien 1 & 2 right before jumping into this third installment... so there isn't really anything "classic" about his approach here. The only thing you can truly call typical is that unmistakable visual style of his. As far as the actual movie goes, it just doesn't capture that raw energy the originals had. Plus, they definitely toned things down to appease the US censors—you know, cutting out the rapes, the decapitations, all that gritty stuff—so it feels watered down. Either he put an insane amount of trust in the screenwriters (who probably had to walk him through every single beat of the original movies since he hadn't seen them), or he saw exactly what would trigger the American audience and decided to play it safe...

Jerry Martinez50 said:Give me a break! briskhound2 grabs coffee with David every single day, so he definitely knows what's up 😁

Honestly, it doesn't even matter. Both versions are equally fantastic.

And what you’re saying... 😁

Honestly, it doesn't even matter... both versions are equally good...

I mean, I’m still gonna go with the original every single time. Noomi is just Noomi... 😍

Kyle Cruz said:Who else could it possibly be? You? You bet it is!

It’s impossible to call something a rip-off if they haven't even seen the original. Was it poor ball control? A technical foul based on a bad call? Or maybe just a free kick from the sideline?

Yeah, I’m telling you, he definitely watched it 🤷 All directors study the originals. Honestly, nobody would even bother making a remake if they didn't have a clue what they were doing. That's just amateur hour talk...

Kyle Cruz said:Fincher never even watched the Swedish version...

Who's saying that? Fincher? Yeah, riiiiiiighttttttt.....

Lisa Alvarez4 said:If you actually read the books, you'd realize Fincher's version is actually the better one and stays truer to Stieg Larsson. Noomi Rapace is a great actress, but her Lisbeth isn't Lisbeth from the books at all. It's almost like a different character.
Fincher did a waaaay better job. Even my friend from Sweden says so.

How can it be more faithful to the book if they have one female lead being tracked down in New York City instead of halfway across the world?

And that's just i'm to old stuff—stuff even the little kids sitting on the tree branches already know... 🙂>

A little deep dive into the upcoming fifth installment: some trivia, actual facts, a few rumors, and plenty of action. 😁

Have a Nice Day...or Die Hard

Just wanted to dig this forgotten thread out of the archives 😁 because I finally sat down and binged Burn notice, so now I officially know who Michael is (who honestly just earned a spot on my personal list of the most lethal guys out there)... but I really feel like I need to throw another name into the mix...



John Reese

The black suit, that dry sense of humor, basically a walking tank, and he’s even got a geeky sidekick whose secrets are just as deep as his own. He's a serious contender for the top spot, even if these days he's more about a quick shot to the knee than actual killing 😁... maybe...

It’s funny how Hollywood is basically a place where creativity just grows on trees—and somehow, two similar ideas can't exist at the exact same time. Since we already did Armageddon = Deep impact = Dante's peak = Vulcano, apparently next year the White House is going to be in danger not just once, but twice. To be honest, the plot of this one is still a bit fuzzy, but the gist is pretty standard—terrorists are planning an attack on the White House. And, of course, someone has to stop them. Who? Well, they go with the most predictable hero choice imaginable (though, let's face it, we've seen it a million times before) because he's: a former agent, demoted, kicked out, struggling with booze, dishonorably discharged, fired, replaced... kind of like a younger John McClane. Unlike the first flick, this one actually beefed up the cast with some decent stars—if you can even call them that—since we've got Gerard Butler leading the charge, followed by Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckhart, Ashley Judd, Radha Mitchell, Robert Foster, Angela Bassett... so, I guess you could say the acting powerhouse is leaning more toward this movie. Some might point to the directing since Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) is behind the camera, but Emmerich is still the king of the big spectacle... The film was originally titled White House Down, but they swapped it to what it is now (any hint that the American President is basically a god like Zeus is intentional) because the creators didn't want people to realize they were ripping off an existing idea, so... same movie, really.



IMDb

So, when some paramilitary group decides to take over the White House, who are you actually calling to bail us out? Harrison Ford? Look, the guy’s getting up there in age, and since he already had that run-in with the bad guys attacking symbols of the US Presidency—I mean, what's more iconic than Air Force One?—it might be time for someone else to step up... This kind of gig seems tailor-made for Bruce Willis. It’s basically John McLane on a sightseeing tour when the villains crash the party... standard stuff. Unfortunately, his line was busy because he was too occupied playing cat and mouse with the baddies in Die Hard in Russia. Jason Statham? Does he even have a green card? And with that heavy British accent of his, you could probably mistake him for one of the attackers—not to mention how a Brit usually ends up saving an American anyway. Steven Seagal? Sure, maybe he saved the USS Missouri once, but these days he should probably book an appointment with Renata Sopek just to drop a few pounds... maybe fifty of them, so he looks somewhat human. Which leaves us with the "younger" talent. Loved by some, loathed by others, but apparently, Channing Tatum is the one stepping up to the plate. He plays this Secret Service agent who somehow manages to be at the right place at the right time—thank God he wasn't somewhere else entirely—when some goons seize the White House (clearly the security sucks big time) and it falls on him to save the US President and all those high-ranking officials who actually run the show. We're looking at a new project from the master of destruction, that German guy living stateside: Roland Emmerich, who's returning to what he does best after taking a little break from blowing the world to smithereens. Joining Tatum, we've got Jamie Foxx, Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Woods.

>>IMDb>>

>
>

As more details trickle out about this totally "original" masterpiece—which honestly has the potential to be a decent, fun action flick—I'll keep you guys posted. 😁>

Honestly, I’d much rather sit through a Bond flick than watch Mother Asphalt...