Posts by briskhound2

hollowsailor19 I can't even begin to explain how much this hits home... honestly, I'm just sitting here staring at my screen thinking about how wild everything is lately—it’s like we’re living through some weird, unscripted indie flick that nobody actually signed up for... anyway, what was I saying? Oh yeah...
Samuel L. Jackson with Tarantino... man, he just absolutely kills it in every single role. From Pulp Fiction all the way to The Hateful Eight—he’s on another level. Honestly, you don't even see a shadow of that same energy when he works with other directors... it's just different...

Samuel L. Jackson belongs in that special category of actors who basically play the exact same character in every single movie they're in. Honestly, I can barely tell the difference between his roles in a Tarantino flick versus anything else... It was really Pulp Fiction that catapulted him into the stratosphere, though before that, he had much smaller parts and played way more serious characters. But once he established himself as this effortlessly cool, swaggering guy with an attitude, he just never let go of it. Now, I hear he’s working on a new reboot of Shaft—which, let’s be real, is basically the definition of a walking provocation. You could even throw Christoph Waltz into the mix there; he plays two virtually identical roles for Tarantino, where you can barely spot the distinction...

John Goodman with the Coen brothers... man, he should've walked away with an Oscar for both Barton Fink and The Big Lebowski. He’s just on another level when he's working under the Coens—it's like they just get him. With other directors? Nothing special, really. But then you look at his performance in Cloverfield, and he was absolutely stellar... well, with one exception...

Honestly, John Goodman has basically become the gold standard for how to nail a powerhouse supporting role. I mean, he showed some serious range in Fallen—had his good moments and his rough ones, sure—but man, he should’ve walked away with an Oscar for The Baba. He’s got these incredible, high-impact performances scattered all over the place, even when he isn't working alongside the Coen brothers...

Joe Pesci working with Martin Scorsese... honestly, it’s just the same vibe every single time.

Joe Pesci played those two iconic roles for Martin Scorsese with basically the exact same energy—just these loud, high-strung, totally unpredictable guys. It’s like he’s playing the same character every single time. Same goes for Kurt Russell working with John Carpenter... I mean, I love all their stuff, don't get me wrong, but aside from Elvis Presley, it feels like he's just playing the same guy with a different name...

Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe really proved they could tackle just about anything—different genres, totally different vibes, you name it. You never get that weird feeling like you're just watching some recycled character or a retread of something else... it stays fresh every single time.

Edward Price6 said:Wait, didn't I see Chris O'Dowd in the trailer? He isn't exactly unknown. Especially for fans of British TV. Plus he was in Molly's Game and a few other Hollywood films.

Honestly, I see the guy more often sitting on the couch with Graham Norton than I actually see him in movies...

Mostly just a fun time. The movie isn't quite the laugh riot the trailer makes it out to be—it’s more like a collection of decent little jokes scattered throughout. The plot is a bit thin, if I'm being honest—even though they're supposedly deep in enemy territory, they seem to stumble upon that lake way too easily... The action is solid enough, but nothing that’s going to blow your mind. The real standout for me was the underwater stuff; those scenes were surprisingly well done, really high-quality effects. It’s just lighthearted entertainment, sort of in the vein of Three Kings.

Patrick Martin said:So, I started this thread for Alien: Covenant over in the movie subforum, and if I’m reading the room right, there’s this unwritten rule where the person who kicks off a topic basically acts as an unofficial moderator... which means you're expected to keep things moving by posting all the latest news, trailers, debates, rumors, deep dives, and so on...

So, what was the actual post that supposedly "revived" this thread?

Just a link to a clip we've seen ten times already, one single quote (without even a link to show it's actually new), and the usual "Ridley Scott is a genius" commentary—nothing really happened, other than the thread being bumped back to the top.

Look, I do that from time to time, too. Some days I just jump in with my own take—which is totally fine since everyone knows I'm a huge fan. It’s actually pretty constructive, honestly... using my words to keep the conversation alive because we all know the debates get intense and people have strong feelings about where this movie is heading.

Just drop a link to some actual new info and give us your thoughts—nobody’s been deleting your posts until now.

And then some random guy shows up acting like everything I'm doing is just some selfish attempt to be annoying—basically saying I'm trolling. Is that really enough reason for the mods (one of whom is a known hater of this movie) to go ahead and wipe my posts???

Are you seriously trying to say you deleted my post (and the ones after it—where people were asking why you're repeating old news) just because you don't like the movie, rather than because the posts themselves were pointless?

So I'm asking you guys now: has my involvement—even just a single letter or comma—actually infringed on anyone's rights on this forum?

In principle, you're just repeating the same stuff over and over, flipping your opinion every other post... That's trolling. Smart trolling, sure, but still trolling. If you find actual news, post it. But there isn't any.

So, what's the catch?

Explained.

Honestly, I’d be thrilled if someone showed even 1% of the passion for any other movie that I feel for 🤷...

Look, you're being provocative here—acting like nobody loves any movie as much as you love the last Alien. Or maybe Mad Max. You don't know this community... you have no clue how much people actually care about the films they love watching.

Can someone please give me a coherent response? Because honestly, if this is how you approach a discussion, you're just wasting everyone's time... ☕

Pure drama.

dustycanyon5 said:I wouldn't say commercial movies are always trash, though they definitely fall short about 80% of the time... But then you've got top-tier directors like Tarantino or Nolan who prove you can make big-budget stuff that actually matters. And as for "Art," it's not just random junk; it's more that people often struggle to wrap their heads around those abstract flicks by guys like Bunuel or Lynch...

To be honest, I don't always get them either, but man, I still have so much respect for that kind of genius...

Well, there you go—you basically just proved my point. Mainstream movies are almost always a bust, while true Art? That's always perfect... even when it's just someone being weird for the sake of it...

I mean, half the time I don't even get them myself, if I'm being honest, but man... I can't help but respect the sheer genius behind it.

What are you gonna tell me about The Room then? Some misunderstood masterpiece?

dustycanyon5 said:Or maybe people just don't get them... 😉

Right. Commercial stuff is always garbage, but art is art even when it's just being a total pain in the ass, huh?

dustycanyon5 said:I mean, what kind of deep message are you even pulling out of Jurassic Park or Star Wars? Even if there is some sort of subtext there, that’s usually just whatever the audience decides to see, not necessarily what the director was aiming for. Let's be real... those movies were made to entertain the masses and rake in the cash at the box office, not to win awards for high art...

Don't play God. Nature is the ultimate force—it doesn't care about our little plans. Goldblum’s character hits the nail on the head with that golden rule... life finds a way. 🤷 Just because some people write them off as shallow popcorn flicks doesn't mean they aren't deeper than they look. Sometimes even those high-brow indie films are just pretentious nonsense masquerading as "art"...

dustycanyon5 said:Basically, they're movies where the goal is to actually deliver an artistic message... rather than just chasing a massive paycheck at the box office.

Wait, hold on—are you seriously suggesting that blockbusters can't carry a meaningful message or tackle the heavy stuff?

Joshua Smith5 said:It’s not The Shinning, it's The Shining. It’s not Illitiga, it's Irradiation.

Whatever, man, whatever... 😁 If we're being pedantic about the American translation, they actually titled the book *Clairvoyance*...

dustycanyon5 said:I don't see Odyssey being made for the money at all. To me, the movie dives straight into the most universal theme there is—the actual meaning of being human. Like, who are we, where are we headed, and what's our purpose? If you don't think that's a universal theme, I honestly don't know what is...

Oh yeah? Really? You think those massive, mind-bending special effects—some of the most complex stuff ever put on celluloid—were just there so Kubrick could show them off to a handful of buddies at a backyard BBQ? The budget was $11 million, which would be like $80 million by today's standards... Are you seriously still trying to argue this wasn't built to make sure MGM got their money back?

The movie tackles the most universal theme imaginable: the actual meaning of human existence. Who are we, where are we headed, what’s our whole purpose? If you don't think that's a universal theme, I don't know what is.

That isn't really what 2001 is about. I mean, sure, you can interpret it however you want—that's the beauty of it—but the core boils down to questions like whether machines can be more human than humans, or if there's something much greater out there beyond us. BUT, regardless of how you spin it or what conclusion you reach, you can't honestly claim this is some niche indie flick meant for obscure film festivals or limited screenings. It's a commercial production through and through. Just like The Shining.

Jessica Morris6 said:Exactly. The first true blockbuster was Star Wars.

Actually, it was Jaws. That was the one that really kicked off the whole summer blockbuster thing—wide releases everywhere all at once...

dustycanyon5 said:Wait, did you seriously just call the Odyssey a blockbuster???

Nah, I’m asking what makes it so deep or dramatic that people insist on labeling it "art cinema." The whole concept of a "blockbuster" didn't even exist back then, though Odyssey was definitely shot with commercial appeal in mind—kind of like how they approached The Shining...

dustycanyon5 said:I wouldn't say Hitchcock is one of my all-time favorite directors, even if everyone else seems to treat him like some kind of god... I mean, don't get me wrong, there are definitely movies of his I enjoy—they're solid, engaging, and fun to watch—but he just never really dove into those heavy, universal life themes that you see with guys like Kubrick, Bergman, or even Scorsese. To me, that’s what separates a good filmmaker from a true cinematic artist...

Wait, where exactly does Kubrick deal with deep, universal themes? His two biggest hits (2001 & The Shining) are basically style over substance... honestly, most of the criticism regarding The Shining is because he completely ignored the dramatic core of the book just to focus on the visuals.

Mark Cruz15 said:^Man, you really ought to check out Ezel if you want the full picture... It's basically The Count of Monte Cristo, just with a Turkish twist.

And honestly, that series Revenge also does a pretty solid job of cranking up the main plot... 😁

dustycanyon5 said:The whole point of the book isn't even about the fights. If that’s what you were looking for, man, I feel for you. Most people think The Count of Monte Cristo is just some basic adventure novel, but it's actually more of a deep dive into philosophy and psychology with a massive life lesson at its core.

Right, because he spent so much time obsessively describing all that exotic stuff—the scenery, the clothes, everything—since it's clearly not an adventure story...

Did you even actually read it?

dustycanyon5 said:The ending is exactly how it should be...

I’ve forgotten some of the finer details, but isn't it true that in the book, the main villain—the guy who actually stole his wife—just ends up killing himself? I mean, how is that a satisfying payoff for a massive novel that spends hundreds of pages just building up the tension for those final showdowns? The guy just walks away and takes his own life... The movies at least gave us actual fights, which helped ramp things up a bit...

dustycanyon5 said:That Hollywood nonsense—aside from the title—barely touches the actual book. And don't even get me started on that nauseating ending. 🙄

Not that any of the previous versions were any better... none of them really capture the soul of the book, besides the basic plot points. To be honest, the book itself is kind of a letdown—especially that ending, where this massive, long-awaited revenge saga just fizzles out into a few short paragraphs. A total anticlimax... The movies actually flesh out the adventure side of things, and honestly, the 2002 version isn't an exception there. Plus, it’s basically one of the last old-school adventure flicks you see nowadays—the kind they just don't make anymore. I mean, fair enough, everyone has their opinion, and there are plenty of much worse adaptations out there if we're just talking about butchering classics... but still...

dustycanyon5 said:So, honestly... who would you even vote for if you were looking to pick the absolute worst option? None. 🤦

Why call it the worst? Honestly, I think this version works just fine—it’s a bit more modernized, definitely moves at a faster clip... The casting is solid too, everyone brings their own kind of charisma to the table. The guy behind it did something similar with Robin Hood, and he clearly knows how to handle this kind of material...

I think we should just hang tight until we get some actual, solid, and reliable info on the table... then we can go ahead and kick this thread off.

The US Navy Diver isn't some frontline combatant—he’s more of a high-stakes salvage specialist. If something goes missing on the ocean floor, he tracks it down. If it’s sitting at the bottom of the Atlantic, he hauls it back up. If it's blocking the path, he clears it out. And if the luck turns sour? He might just kick the bucket while he's still twenty years old, two hundred feet under the surface... which, honestly, is probably the closest thing to being a hero he’s ever gonna experience...

...and they didn't even bother to include it as an alternative option, let alone a real choice.