Posts by briskhound2

The only one I haven't checked out yet is The Killer Elite Is it even half as good as his other stuff... or was it just some quick attempt to boost his market value?

I'm putting my vote in for this classic...😁


Cross of Iron (1977)
Straw Dogs (1971)
The Osterman Weekend (1983)
Convoy (1978)
The Getaway (1972)

Straw Dogs (1971) - Trailer
Cross of Iron (1977) - Trailer
The Osterman Weekend (1983) - Trailer
Convoy (1978) - Trailer
The Getaway (1972)- Trailer

Same as always... a little bit of material regarding the director.

Peckinpah: Man of Iron (1992) The Wild Bunch: an album in Montag
The Wild Bunch: An Album in Montage (1996)

Two documentaries covering Peckinpah and his filmmaking process, plus this book filled with his interviews... Only a few chapters are available from the book, but it's pretty decent reading...

The Ballad of Cable Hogue (1970)
Ride the High Country (1962)
The Wild Bunch (1969)
Major Dundee (1965)
Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (1973)
Junior Bonner (1972)
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)
The Killer Elite (1975)

The Ballad of Cable Hogue (1970) trailer
Ride the High Country trailer
The Wild Bunch trailer
Major Dundee trailer
Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid trailer
Junior Bonner opening
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia trailer
The Killer Elite trailer



Sam Peckinpah -
Sam Peckinpah WikipediaSam Peckinpah - IMDb

c/p

David Samuel "Sam" Peckinpah (February 21, 1925 - December 28, 1984) was an American director who really hit the big time with his western, The Wild Bunch (1969). He became one of those heavyweight directors of the seventies—mostly because of how he reinvented action and violence through such an explicit lens, plus his whole revisionist take on the western genre. Peckinpah’s movies usually dug into the friction between core values and ideals, and the sheer corruption of violence within human society. His protagonists are almost always loners or losers trying to hold onto some sense of honor, even when they're forced to make compromises just to survive in a brutal, nihilistic world. Honestly, though, his combative nature—fueled by years of battling alcoholism and addiction—ended up overshadowing a lot of his professional legacy. A ton of his films are famous for the behind-the-scenes warfare with producers and crew members, which definitely took a toll on his reputation and his career.

It’s easy to see himself in those (anti)heroes he loved to portray, judging by this description... but when you have guys like Martin Scorsese and John Woo citing him as a major influence when they were starting out, the story gets a lot more interesting. I first stumbled into his work through The Wild Bunch, and ever since then, I’ve always had a craving to watch anything that carries his signature—which, thanks to the era of high-speed internet, has become way easier to track down 😁. The guy is a legend by any standard; an auteur who, much like his predecessors and successors, didn't get the credit he deserved for trying to revitalize genres and push boundaries until a decade or two had passed (in Peckinpah's case, he didn't even live to see or read the massive critical praise his body of work eventually garnered). Since I’ve always leaned toward "retro" directors—I actually have The Getaway queued up to watch again today—I figured I'd check in here to see where he stands with the local forum crowd, and which of his films holds the highest rank in your filmographies or your personal favorites...

Christian Taylor3 said:p.s. Dahlia isn't on my radar yet—is it actually possible that de Palmer's adaptation is really that much of a disaster? 🤷

The movie's a dud. I mean, maybe some folks will dig it, but it doesn't deliver even a shred of that Ellroy atmosphere... and the casting is pretty much a miss (putting Josh Hartnett next to a gritty, hard-boiled type just feels wrong, they don't belong in the same sentence) As far as that quote from Ellroy goes... I'm inclined to agree, though this film is definitely better than de Palmer's version. Only one thing I can't forgive... what they did to Dudley Smith from his Quartet series—I mean, James Cromwell was absolute perfection in that role... it was something else entirely 😠 Won't spoil it, though—if you've seen it, you know, and if you've read the books, you already know 😁

White jazz — or rather, the latest trap known as the next adaptation of a James Ellroy novel. There's more coming, but I stumbled onto this first thread, so here it is...

film Cop (1988)
Brown's Requiem (1998)
L.A. Confidential (1997)
trailer Dark Blue (2002)
trailer The Black Dahlia (2006)
trailer Street Kings (2008)

film Cop (1988) - clip - apology - My bad, but finding a trailer for this one is basically a suicide mission... so here's a 2-minute clip just so you get the vibe.
Brown's Requiem (1998) - Trailer - Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't... just a heads up.
L.A. Confidential (1997) - Trailer
trailer Dark Blue (2002)
trailer The Black Dahlia (2006)
trailer Street Kings (2008)



James Ellroy - Wiki

Since my fellow forum members have started leaning a bit more toward quantity over quality with these massive polls lately... I figured I’d pivot to something a little simpler—maybe even a bit more personal. Since there's already some literature having themes about Ellroy going on over in the Lit section, I thought I'd pull the focus over here to his "cinematic" side. I'm one of those people who automatically links interesting writers—well, favorites, let's say—with their screen adaptations. And since Ellroy is active in the industry both with original stories and scripts, it makes sense to bring him into the conversation that way. This is meant to be the kind of thread where you actually need to know a writer's body of work to judge a film objectively—I've got a few more ideas like this in the works, hence the plural... but yeah. Also, if a movie actually inspired you to pick up one of Ellroy's books... feel free to mention that. The poll is mostly just a formality, really, just to see how his movies stack up against the books. But anyway, let's take it one step at a time...

He’s basically the legitimate heir to Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett—though at this point, he’s kind of in a league of his own—with a writing style so distinct it’s practically its own genre. Most famous for his L.A. Quartet series (I’ll throw in the Loyd Hopkins Trilogy too—the first one was turned into the film Cop), James Ellroy was never really a massive magnet for filmmakers. Aside from the adaptation of Blood on the Moon, there wasn't much until L.A. Confidential came along, which was a massive hit with critics and finally gave him some global recognition. After nearly a decade of silence on the film front, Ellroy suddenly became a hot commodity in Hollywood, though the results have been a bit of a mixed bag. Corrupt cops, immoral bosses, dirty little secrets, throwing in real-life celebrities or historical scandals, hard-boiled characters, and unapologetic violence... those are the staples of his work, and they definitely sell.

Regarding the film Cop here’s a quick critique and breakdown... it’s pretty much what you get with most movies based on his books, but it’s been totally overlooked by the industry, so I’m just trying to dust it off a bit and suggest it if you're into gritty detectives, gorgeous women with questionable morals, gruesome murders, and all that fun stuff—plus, you get James Woods in his absolute prime. Just my two cents, but none of the subsequent adaptations quite capture that specific magic this film has, though that's just me. The famous L.A. Confidential isn't a bad movie per se... assuming you don't compare it to the book (anyone who actually read it knows how much was cut and how simplified the plot got), but in terms of pure quality, it gets easily outshined by the newer adaptation, Brown's Requiem. I'll pass on comparing that one since I haven't actually read the novel yet—it's been sitting on my shelf for a few years now. And then you have De Palma’s decent failure, though "failure" probably carries more weight than "decent" when talking about his take on The Black Dahlia. Honestly... less ambitious movies seem to nail the atmosphere of his writing better than the big-budget productions.

As the author of the original story for Dark Blue, Ellroy delivers exactly what you'd expect: a morally bankrupt cop, a corrupt police department, a hero's desperate attempt at redemption, and turning his back on the very people he's been protecting for years. What else can I say... it’s a brilliant movie in every sense. Russell is right up there with Woods, and he absolutely eats up guys like Josh Hartnett and Keanu Reeves, who should be playing the roles his character represents in this (underrated) flick. Street Kings, his last foray into film, credits him as a screenwriter, and while it has all the usual ingredients from his previous work... the movie is a bit of a slog, a relatively exhausting miss. With more adaptations of his work being announced lately (White Jazz is already starting to look like a mess where they can't even find the right cast), you have to wonder how well they'll actually turn out.

So, a question for the group: do you actually consider James Ellroy an author whose work is worth paying attention to, or are the elements of his novels and films just relics of a bygone era?

Man, there’s so much anxiety surrounding Pelham 123. Based on the trailer, it looks like Travolta was supposed to deliver something seriously cool, but they totally missed the mark on the character's essence. I'm really hoping it doesn't turn out to be the same old story this time around. Either way, I'll probably end up watching it... Travolta back in his Face/Off and Broken Arrow days...😍

nimblemarlin6 said:Die Hard is the absolute best.
Coming in just a step below are Die Hard with a Vengeance and Die Hard 2—they're both solid, but I'd say the third one edges out the second by a hair.
Now, Die Hard 4.0 is alright, but it feels a bit too much like it's trying too hard—it lacks that specific charm found in the first three—and honestly, that plane scene is way too over the top for a Die Hard film.

It’s a bit much, honestly—kind of over the top—but man, it still gave me flashbacks to that roof scene at Nakatomi Tower... specifically that part where he’s sliding through the debris with all that fire trailing right behind him. Up until that point, the movie was actually surprisingly fun, packed with those "die-laughing" lines that just land perfectly...
"You just took out a helicopter with a police cruiser..." 🤣

Christian Taylor3 said:briskhound2, briskhound2, you're seriously blocking me from voting again? 🙂 So, I’m basically stuck in this endless loop of indecision, unable to actually make up my mind between... Die Hard It looks like you might have hit send a little early there. I'm standing by whenever you're ready to actually say something. Die Hard with a VengeanceBoth of them are just perfect. 😍

Die Hard

When it first hit theaters, I honestly felt like it was one of the absolute best action flicks of its era. People always point out how it basically breathed new life into the whole action-thriller genre, paving the way for movies like Under Siege, Passenger 57, and Speed. It’s pretty much responsible for creating that specific "action hero" archetype we've seen everywhere since—you know, the flawed anti-hero who looks like he's been through a blender, barely says more than a single word at a time, and maintains a permanent scowl on his face. In terms of the box office, the film pulled in $80,707,729 here in the States.

Critics absolutely loved it, and they ended up churning out three sequels to follow it up. In the June 22, 2007 issue of Entertainment Weekly, it was actually crowned the greatest action film of all time.

In the last scene, where Karl suddenly resurfaces just to try and take out McClane, you can actually hear the score from the movie Aliens by James Horner playing in the background.
In the German version of the film, they actually swapped out the names of the German theorists for English ones—mostly switching them to British equivalents. For instance, Hans became Jack, Karl turned into Charlie, and Heinrich Henry was changed too. They even reframed the German terrorists as Irish radicals who were more interested in a payday than any actual ideology, which caused a bit of confusion. It turns out they translated the names because terrorism was such a sensitive subject in Germany at the time.
The Nakatomi Tower is actually the headquarters for 20th Century Fox. The company basically rented out its own building just to make their own production possible.

Die Hard with a Vengeance

The film actually started out as a script by Jonathan Hensleigh, originally titled Simon Says, which was initially meant to serve as a blueprint for an action flick starring Brandon Lee. After that fell through, it was being looked at as a potential fourth entry in the Lethal Weapon series. The first half...

Die Hard with a Vengeance is basically just a recycled script, where they tacked on a heist element just to make it feel more like the earlier movies. The original pitch actually involved the robbers breaking into the Metropolitan Museum of Art. That idea didn't fly with the studio, but you can see its fingerprints all over that other John McTiernan flick, The Thomas Crown Affair.

Die Hard with a Vengeance was actually the first entry in the series where we weren't stuck in the middle of the Christmas holidays—even if they did throw in a few nods to Santa Claus and Christmas just to keep us on our toes. It was also the first time we saw McClane operating as an active cop with an actual badge. Beyond that, it’s pretty interesting that for almost the entire runtime, he finally has a legitimate partner in Zeus Carver. In the original Die Hard, Sergeant Powell tried to lend McClane a hand, but they barely even crossed paths until the very end. Then in Die Hard 2, his "partner" for the first half is just some air traffic controller, only to be replaced by a security guard later on. The third installment basically follows that same pattern, where the partner only gets pulled into the chaos because of the mess McClane's already made following the terrorist threat.

Just a few interesting tidbits for you guys:

On a DVD commentary, screenwriter Jonathan Hensleigh mentioned that the whole concept actually popped into his head while he was thinking about what might happen if one of his childhood friends—whom he’d accidentally hit with a rock—decided to come back for revenge once they grew up.
In the original version of the screenplay for Simon Says written by Jonathan Hensleigh, the lead character was actually an NYPD cop named Alex Bradshaw, while the role that eventually became Zeus Carver was originally written as a woman. Apparently, the studio stepped in and pressured Hensleigh to swap Zeus's race from Black to either White or Asian.
The film was actually shot under the working title Die Hard: New York.
- To avoid any mess during filming in Harlem, the sign McClane carries actually just said "I Hate Everything." That extra racial slur was added later in post-production, though you'll still occasionally catch the uncensored version on certain TV broadcasts or even in some airplane movies.
- In one of his commentaries, director John McTiernan mentioned that the future Vice President, Dick Cheney, actually makes a cameo appearance.
- Most of the movie was shot over in Charleston, South Carolina, which includes those subway scenes (filmed on a set) and the bridge sequences shot on the actual Cooper Bridge.
- There’s that one moment where John McClane quips, "I smoke cigarettes and watch Captain Kangaroo" when Zeus asks him a question. It’s a nod to "Flowers on the Wall" by The Statler Brothers. Fun enough fact, Bruce Willis hums that same tune in Inglourious Basterds, where he and Samuel L. Jackson both had pretty massive roles.
- The whole "Simon Says" game, where McClane and Zeus have to race through the city to hit specific payphones or deal with whatever Simon wants them to pick up, feels very similar to the setup in Lethal Weapon, where Detective Callahan hunts down Scorpion through San Francisco. You know, the whole "get to the phone in time or the hostage dies" vibe.
- In that final scene, while Simon and his crew are getting ready to bail out of the USA with all that gold, someone mentions the trucks will be ready in "...zwanzig Minuten"—which is German for twenty minutes. Interestingly, the English subtitles say "ten minutes," which would only make sense if they had actually said "zehn Minuten."

Alright, fine, out of respect for the poll, I guess I'll vote for the guy, With a Vengeance 😁 There are really two big reasons why: Samuel L. Jackson as Zeus Carver, Willis's unlikely partner, and Jeremy Irons playing the heavy, Peter Krieg. Both were such stellar, unforgettable performances. It's no exaggeration to say I absolutely love Jeremy Irons in this one. 🙏

Die Hard with a Vengeance - Ants Go Marching (COMPLETE)



🙂

A little extra stuff for you guys:

DIE HARD FRANCHISE SCREENPLAYS

Everything is in a formatted .pdf. Just click the images or posters to download the scripts:

Just a few more scripts to add to my collection... 🙂 big thanks!

Donna Gray4 said:Speaking for the first installment, which is absolute perfection—it features one of the best villains ever and that final scene is 🙏

Right on its heels comes the second part, which also boasts an incredible ending, so I’d rank the fourth one next, followed by the third, which isn't bad at all, but still...

Anyway... alongside Lethal Weapon, it's easily the greatest action franchise out there.

Truth is, the villains in the second one feel kinda weak—they just don't have that charisma you get from someone like Hans Gruber (man, I had no clue that was Alan Rickman's big screen debut back then). And yeah... Truth 😍 Even if the Dynamic duo is off the table for future sequels, McClane might still show up in some other installment. Personally, my vote goes to the second one... I dig the more spectacular action, Harlin was really delivering the goods there.

Die Hard (1988)
Die Hard 2 (1990)
Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995)
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

Die Hard (1988) - Trailer
Die Hard 2 (1990) - Trailer
Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995) - Trailer
Live Free or Die Hard (2007) - Trailer

After watching >, I figured it was time to dive into the other massive pillar of the modern action flick... honestly, it’s a pretty cool trip through film history and those slightly more recent decades—so I thought I’d throw this one up as a topic to see where everyone stands on its legacy... You probably know the drill: detective John McClane rolls into Los Angeles to visit his wife and almost immediately gets caught up in a mess with international (German) terrorists inside the Nakatomi Plaza. Director John McTiernan managed to craft this explosive action thriller that became an instant box office smash, and it basically birthed a whole sub-genre—that "trapped in a confined space" vibe—which you can see echoed in solid follow-ups like Under Siege (1992) - Passenger 57 (1992) - and Speed (1994)... I’ll definitely circle back to that last one in a bit...
Now, > puts McClane in a similar boat—terrorists taking over Washington Dull International Airport—but McTiernan isn't at the helm this time. Instead, we get the 90s action heavyweight Renny Harlin, who actually does a decent job... even if some critics argue the sequel is better than the original because of the broader range of action scenes, deeper characters, and just overall tighter filmmaking. McTiernan eventually returns to direct the third installment, but it doesn't quite hit the mark for me... the plot feels a little forced, the editing is kind of messy, and some of the weaker action beats actually make the series feel like it's regressing—even if the idea of ditching the closed-off spaces to turn the entire city into an action playground was a smart move... plus, it didn't hit the box office numbers anyone was expecting. Then, with icons like Indiana Jones and John Rambo being revived, the final adventure for John McClane—the cop who always seems to be in the wrong place at the wrong time—arrives nearly 13 years after the last entry and ends up being a huge hit again, both critically and commercially, leaving the door wide open for the series to keep going...

Here's a weird little detail: none of these sequels were originally intended to be "Die Hard" movies. The original was actually supposed to be a sequel to Schwarzenegger's commandos (since General Esperanza from > was going to be moved over from Valer, that fictional country where the commandos movie took place)... but after that fell through, it morphed into what we got. > wasn't meant to be a sequel either, but rather a standalone film based on the Walter Wager novel "58 Minutes"... and > came from an original script by Jonathan Hensleigh titled "Simon Says" (no connection to the Rodmanov stuff from the movie, obviously). A fair amount of critics actually agree that what keeps the series feeling fresh is the fact that the previous material was proven to be good enough to stand alone before being folded into the Die Hard universe. Two scripts were rejected initially, only to become their own separate films later, which were then stitched together into the franchise... specifically, the scripts for > and > were both originally pitched as potential follow-ups to >...

Since I'm basically that one obsessive freak who has to dig through every corner of the internet for any scrap of info on a franchise, I actually had a bit of a "wait, what?" moment when I realized Bruce Willis wasn't the first guy ever to play McClane. Honestly, props to Frank Sinatra 🤣



The Detective (1968)

Roderick Thorp’s novel is actually part of a short two-book series featuring the same character (the first attempt at an adaptation flopped back in the 70s—though apparently, the role was actually offered to Sinatra)... Die Hard made some minor tweaks compared to the book—like the character's name and his age—but pretty much all the action from the movie was ripped straight from the pages (which was considered way too intense even for its time). In case anyone is curious...Joe Leland - Nothing Lasts Forever - Novel - Die Hard- just a little tidbit about the book itself and how it differs from the flick.

A few extra bits to wrap things up...

Bruce Willis Interview

Die Hard - Music Video - the lyrics are inspired by the events of all four (4) movies 🤣

Sorry for the massive wall of text. I'm a fan... what can I say?

Anthony Smith3 said:I mean, I don't really see how any of this changes anything... honestly, if the actor was just a little less grating, maybe I'd feel differently... but if he’s sticking to that same exact persona... then it feels like nothing has actually shifted, kind of like how Rock stayed exactly the same...🤷

If we’re actually looking at the movies themselves—and I mean really digging into the characters—Riggs and Murtaugh have such a specific vibe that bringing in someone like Chris Rock just felt... off. In the third installment, Nick was portrayed as a much calmer kid, which would’ve provided that perfect contrast to the two chaotic legends we know and love. The issue with Rock was that his energy was basically identical to theirs; you had three high-octane personalities clashing all at once, and it felt way too crowded. There was zero chemistry with Glover and Gibson, and honestly, a lot of those scenes felt forced—like he was trying too hard to jump into the fray—which just killed the whole mood. Adding another comedian to the mix would've been overkill... a more grounded, chill character would've been a total breath of fresh air and could've actually given us some clever room for banter. But hey, if we're all playing movie critics here...😁

Anthony Smith3 said:Basically.. they’d just swap out the guy who played Chris Rock in the fourth one with Murtaugh's son...

And honestly, they wouldn't be making a huge mistake—to me, Rock was easily the weakest link in the whole cast. That scene where he’s "arguing" with Leo Getz about making phone calls... man, he gets eaten alive in seconds. Rock's performance feels a bit too much like he's performing on some comedy stage (look, I love his stand-up, but movie comedy is a completely different beast) and it gets pretty grating... especially when he starts "shouting" just to make a point.

Jeffrey Martinez2 said:So you've got this cop who's all about those modern-day tactics, and then—just when some massive case hits the fan—they drag these two old fossils out of retirement to show him how things were actually done in the old days!!!!👍
You already know the plot at this point...🙂

🤣 Funny. Honestly, I wouldn't even mind seeing that happen.

Christian Taylor3 said:I can't find that trio's script anywhere online... though I'm pretty sure I've got a copy tucked away on my hard drive somewhere—later... 🙂

Sold. Thanks again...😉

So, I was reading up on some industry news, and it looks like Richard Donner is basically saying that Lethal Weapon 5 is dead in the water... which, honestly, doesn't surprise me one bit. After everything we've seen lately, the idea of another installment feels pretty thin. It's kind of a bummer if you're a fan of the original vibe, but at this point, it just seems like they're chasing ghosts... turns out the magic might actually be gone.

Lethal Weapon 5 is looking more and more unlikely... honestly, at this point, it feels like the whole thing might just be dead in the water. It’s getting harder to imagine them actually pulling another one together after everything that's happened.

Honestly, looks like the Lethal Weapon series is dead in the water... just feels like the magic is gone at this point.

Since I’ve been getting pretty curious about what's actually going on with the rumors surrounding a fifth installment, I had to do a bit of digging online—and man, I was honestly blindsided by how much junk has already piled up out there (dropping links to three older articles just so you can see how much of a rabbit hole this whole thing turned into)... and just, man, how messy it all is... 😵😵😵

So, after fans went absolutely wild thinking they’d get the original writer, Shane Black, back in the driver's seat, things hit a massive wall during "intense" negotiations with the lead actors—who, for what it's worth, were actually down to return... but then the drama started. Apparently, Richard Donner, the guy who directed the first four films, gets canned by producer Joel Silver—and honestly, nobody seems to know exactly why that happened. Once he was out, Gibson decided he wasn't interested in doing a movie without him, which Donner basically confirmed—there's even a bit in the article suggesting they just need to reach out to Donner if they want Gibson back on board. But Silver isn't having it; he's insisting the movie is happening regardless, arguing that Shane Black should just take over directing duties (which, let's be real, was met with a pretty lukewarm reception)... and because of all that, Gibson is officially passing on the series. But wait, Donner is throwing a curveball again. He's saying the real issue is that there are two different scripts floating around. He’d be willing to come back to the director's chair, but only if they ditch Black's script and use the other one—the one written by Channing Gibson (who did the fourth one). Of course, Black and Silver aren't having any part of that, and in a move of pure loyalty to Donner, Gibson is siding with him... Still, since there are some loose agreements in place with Donner for an unrelated project next year, there's always that slim chance the Weapon series could make a comeback... but right now? This whole thing has turned into a total game of political ping-pong. It feels more like a media circus of people trading insults than anyone actually getting any real work done...

As for the movie itself... Black's script basically sets things up with Murtaugh finally heading toward retirement—about time—while Riggs is right on the edge of hanging it up himself. They end up teaming up one last time to crack a massive final case, this time bringing Murtaugh's son into the mix, who—surprise, surprise—is a cop. On paper... it sounds pretty solid. It’s just a shame we don't have any more details on the actual plot (this little summary was just pulled from some article) or the fact that they're apparently cutting Chris Rock from the main cast—supposedly because people weren't feeling his vibe in the fourth one—in an attempt to get back to those original roots...

After spending a few scattered hours digging through all that... honestly, it might be better if they just don't make another one. Better to let the series stay exactly how it is...

Christian Taylor3 said:Not even close to being one of the best—for me, it’s hands down the greatest franchise ever. How am I supposed to vote? briskhound2, are you out of your mind? You're asking me to choose between a poll and my own kids...

🤣

p.s. briskhound2, sorry, I just can't bring myself to vote, you know what I mean...

Crystal clear 👍 THANKS for digging up the script. Just downloaded it—definitely gonna dive into it once I have a free second...

Anthony Smith3 said:No worries... he finally showed up.👍 That makes ten films down...😉

Oops, missed the mark on that one. Man, there are just so many titles out there...😁

Killer poll... 👍 To be honest, most of the titles posted around here are pretty much misses—total duds... but Hot Shots! and Loaded Weapon are absolute classics that I can watch over and over again. The Scene...😂😂😂🤣

Maybe it is... The Onion Movie... just one of those flicks that hits you in a weird way. It’s definitely got that specific kind of chaotic energy—kind of like if someone took a bunch of classic parody tropes and threw them all into a blender without looking at the instructions first. You know how some movies try to be clever by mocking everything under the sun? This is basically that, but dialed up to an eleven... which works if you're in the right headspace for it, I guess. Not exactly high art, but there's a certain vibe to it that stays with you... even if it's mostly just pure, unadulterated absurdity. He really could have pulled it off... Owen Wilson actually did a pretty solid job parodying himself there.

After giving it some serious thought... I had to go with the second one. There’s just so much going on—from that opening chase scene, all that back-and-forth arguing about counting to three, the random bits of slapstick, even that drive in his wife's station wagon 🤣 the toilet-bowl bombs, the "ficus-in-the-pants" thing... honestly, it's a riot that's hard to beat.

Lethal Weapon (1987)

Trailer



Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)

Trailer



Lethal Weapon 3 (1992)

Trailer



Lethal Weapon 4 (1998)

Trailer

Spent the whole weekend bingeing all four movies and just had to start a thread 😁 (one a bit shorter than my usual ramblings...) to see where everyone stands on the franchise. Pro tip: if you haven't seen the Director's cuts, fix that immediately... the films feel much fuller now, even if the core stays the same, and some of those weird scenes actually make sense for once. You can really feel the extra footage in the first one—that whole new opening with the sniper in the schoolyard and Riggs' cool classic shootout with the Beretta adds a whole new layer to that "suicidal loose cannon" vibe he's got going on 🤣 If you’re already deep into the series, you'll spot the added bits easily enough

The series itself is basically essential viewing for any action fan, right up there with the Die Hard series, though it didn't exactly start out with franchise ambitions. The original script by a then young and relatively unknown Shane Black—who eventually ended up in that loop of high-paid Hollywood screenwriters—wasn't meant to be a saga. It was just a standalone flick following that predictable buddy-cop formula about two partners who couldn't stand each other to put it mildly (some people even say Riggs was supposed to die at the end). Even though they brought in a veteran director like Richard Donner, whose resume already includes a cult horror classic like The Omen and arguably the best comic book movie ever, Superman, the movie was just another summer actioner on paper. But everything changed once it became a massive hit. Mel Gibson's career was kind of stalling back then, and dealing with the booze, the fame, and his own temperament alongside this title—which many believe kicked off the second half of his big run (since Mad Max was the first, obviously)—really helped cement things. It also gave us the other half of the duo, Danny Glover, in a totally different, more laid-back light compared to his role in Spielberg's Purple color

Even though the quality dips with every sequel—shifting from a gritty story about a suicidal cop dancing with the devil into a collage of explosions, gunfights, and snappy dialogue, almost turning into pure comedy when they brought in Joe Pesci—you can't deny the series has this effortless charm. It’s just... fun, which is something a lot of later movies trying to copy the formula failed to capture. The proof is in the pudding: the series spanned nearly three decades 🤣) So, even though they’ve officially pulled the plug on any new installments, there’s always some rumor floating around that gets fans all worked up—personally, I was 😲😱 when that rumor dropped about how Riggs might actually die and leave Murtaugh to fly solo. Plus, you get that classic director-actor synergy popping up again since Donner and Gibson are teaming up for two other flicks (*Conspiracy Theory* and *Maverick*) which are hitting that same sweet spot of fun and commercial success. Whether we ever see another entry from this high-octane duo (or the whole crew, judging by the cast in "four"🤔) remains to be seen... but honestly, even if they don't, the legacy alone makes it worth a rewatch.

A few little extras for you...

Richard Donner - Archive Interview Excerpt Part 1

Richard Donner - Archive Interview Excerpt Part 2

Richard Donner - Archive Interview Excerpt Part 3

Richard Donner - Archive Interview Excerpt Part 4

Richard Donner - Archive Interview Excerpt Part 5

Richard Donner - Archive Interview Excerpt Part 6

Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Weapon - A Diane Sawyer Interview

And, it would be a crime not to mention the soundtrack that defined the whole series—especially those bits featuring Eric Clapton and David Sanborn. Just a few clips and songs that popped up in the movies.

Sting & Eric Clapton- Its Probably me

(Knockin on Heavens Door) - Eric Clapton From Lethal Weapon 2

Elton John & Eric Clapton - Runaway Train (Lethal Weapon 3)

George Harrison - Cheer Down (Lethal Weapon 2 Soundtrack)

Lethal Weapon 4 end Credits - No clue who's singing this one, but it's pretty cool seeing a retrospective of the whole franchise through what looks like private photo albums.

hollowsailor19 said:Harrison Ford playing Rick Deckard in Blade Runner.

Deckard: human or replicant?

Rick Deckard serves as the anti-hero of Blade Runner, essentially a bounty hunter tasked with "retiring" replicants. While The Nature of most of The Characters is clearly shown , yet Deckard's character is ambiguous, leaving audiences stuck in a state of doubt—it's a debate that fans have been chewing on forever. if Deckard is human , then his being spared by Roy and his Love for Rachael soften The Lin between human and replicant, throwing a massive wrench of ambiguity into the whole narrative. But if Deckard is actually a replicant... man, that irony hits even harder. Then you have the Director's cut version that alters The significance of The origami unicorn that Gaff leaves in Deckard's Apartment, which kind of implies that Gaff is aware of Deckard's dream in the same manner that Deckard knows about Rachael's implanted Memories. Basically, if The origami unicorn seen in The Director's cut reveals Deckard as a replicant right at the finish line, it forces us to look at our own biases and what it actually means to be human.

Here's the breakdown of what the key players have said:

* Philip K. Dick wrote The character Deckard as a human.
* Hampton Fancher, who penned the original script, has mentioned he intended for Deckard to be human, though he wanted the movie to leave that door cracked open just a bit. When pressed on whether "is Deckard a replicant?", Fancher basically shot down the idea, saying, "No. It wasn't like I had a tricky idea about Deckard that way." Later, while sitting down with Ridley Scott to talk about Blade Runner : The Final cut, Fancher again stated that He believes Deckard is human ( saying that " [ Ridley Scott's ] idea is too complex), though he made it clear he loves the mystery. He noted, "I like asking the question and I like it to be asked but I think it’s nonsense to answer it. That’s not interesting to me."
* Ridley Scott mentioned back in a 2002 interview that he views Deckard as a replicant.
* Harrison Ford considers Deckard to be human. "that was The Main are of contention between Ridley and myself AT The time," Ford told interviewer Jonathan Ross during a BBC1 Hollywood Greats segment. "I thought the audience deserved one human being on screen that they could establish an emotional relationship with. i Had won Ridley's agreement to that , but in fact i think He Had a little reservation about that. I think he really wanted to have it both ways." (Though, interestingly, in Wired magazine in 2007 , Ridley again states that He believes Deckard is a replicant , and jokingly says that Harrison Ford May have given up The idea of Deckard being human.)

The whole conversation blew up again once the Director's cut was released with The unicorn sequence. Since The original Theatrical version ( OV ) points to Deckard being human , whereas The Director's cut suggests he's a replicant, it feels like your answer might just depend on which version you find more "real." Of course, some people still argue the whole point is the ambiguity itself.

There's plenty of fuel for the fire here... this is just a tiny slice of what I stumbled upon without much effort, but the big thing is... "pops" Dick wrote the novel where Deckard (or rather...''🤣) So, look—Hampton Fancher, the original screenwriter, wrote The character Deckard as a human, and even Harrison Ford considers Deckard to be human... but then you've got Ridley Scott playing both sides of the fence. One minute he's hinting the guy is artificial (back when they were pushing the Director's cut version that alters The significance of The origami unicorn that Gaff leaves in Deckard's Apartment), and the next, he's leaning into him being flesh and blood during the Final Cut promos... basically, the verdict is a mess. If you ask me, the doubt really starts creeping in with the Director's cut, but if you stick to the original theatrical version ( OV ) or even the Final Cut, the evidence points to Deckard being human since all those weirdly ambiguous scenes—like that red glint in the eyes—got stripped out
.
I mean, I’ve toyed with the whole "what if he's a replicant" theory myself once or twice... 😁 Just for a second, though. At the end of the day, I'm definitely human—been surviving longer than four years now 🤣.

Michael Ortiz68 said:I've actually got it sitting right there on my desktop. Total geek move on my part... 🤦

🤦 Same here.