Posts by Richard Hernandez13

Al Pacino has this tendency to slide right into being overly dramatic, almost theatrical ( Woo-h! 😁 ). He really needs a solid director to keep him in check, because once he's reined in, the guy is absolute gold.

Hmm... I don’t mean to be cynical or anything, but I can't help wondering how he’s actually going to nail an American accent.
Even though his accent definitely leveled up during all those years spent filming ER, what comes out of his mouth still isn't quite flawless.

Maybe they'll just have him dubbed in post. 😁

"I wish he’d just end it all, but I want to be the one pulling the trigger."

Honestly, this guy is exhausting... like, way too much for our little corner of the world to handle.

slyrider16 said:Whoa, I’m actually posting on the forum now without even touching my computer. If I could just track down that one specific post of mine in here somewhere... 😁

😳
Well, nope, it’s definitely not here.
I really shouldn't try to jump into several different threads at once anymore because my focus just completely goes out the window. 😁

Benjamin Gray66 said:But it feels like the horror genre is the only one where the "trash" label isn't actually an insult; it almost sounds like a fun little bonus you get when things go extreme, sort of like an extra kick in extreme sports...

That’s a really sharp observation right there.
Hmmmm, I wonder if it’s because those trashy Warner Bros. style flicks promise a much more guilty kind of pleasure? There’s usually this fantastic element involved—you know, like zombies or other monsters—that requires a massive amount of effort in terms of special effects and masks just to try and pull off a suspension of belief. But since the filmmakers are often such amateurs when it comes to the standard stuff like acting, framing, or editing, they end up looking even more ridiculous when they try to tackle those "advanced" technical bits.
The real kicker, though, is how much fun it is watching them trigger the exact opposite reaction from what they intended—instead of being terrified, you just end up laughing your head off.

I suppose that might be why other trash genres don't hit the same way; a trashy comedy just isn't funny, trashy action is totally unexciting, and trashy adult films aren't exactly stimulating. 😁

Benjamin Gray66 said:Trust me, that movie by Mary Smith definitely wasn't my inspiration...

I’m really sorry about that—I didn't mean that comment for you specifically, I was just venting about how people tend to slap a "trash" label on anything that looks a little low-budget or indie.

Sophia Williams said:Has anyone else caught how the movie slowly peels back the layers on James Leer (the guy played by Tobey Maguire)? He’s such a total parasite, honestly—just this classic "psychological vampire" who sucks everything dry from everyone around him, whether it's their best ideas, their assets, or just straight-up cash...

I wouldn't quite go that far, though.
It feels more like the guy just has a massive soft spot for fiction, so he ended up polishing his resume a little too much to fit the part.
Or maybe it's actually the other way around: he lies so naturally whenever the opportunity arises that being a writer is basically the only career path left for him. 😁

By the way, I find Michael Douglas to be a pretty irritating type of person myself, but in this specific film, I really can't picture anyone else playing that sleazy professor role so perfectly.

...
Man, if only my college days had been even half as glamorous as that. 🙄

I’d say this movie is a little overrated.
Even if it doesn't quite live up to all the massive hype from the critics, it still ranks pretty high among the films I've managed to catch this year.
I can't help but feel like there’s a bit too much playing it safe instead of leaning into genuine inspiration. Payne clearly knows his craft inside and out, but for a movie like this to really soar, you need something more than just technical skill.
Man, the cast is absolutely top-tier, though. Even when the casting feels a little too predictable, the actors manage to breathe life into the film in ways that Payne just can't quite reach on his own. Especially Giamatti—he plays the middle-aged loser archetype for the hundredth time, yet somehow, he never feels repetitive.

Anthony Kim18 said:Not too much time passed before Clinton won reelection!

God bless America!
God bless Clinton!
God bless Presidential Lies!

The Lewinsky scandal happened back in '98—which means it was during his second term in office.

🙄

Well, my worst fears have officially been realized.

Honestly, the movie was just a total letdown. I walked away feeling like the whole thing was cobbled together—and I mean really haphazardly assembled—from a bunch of half-baked ideas. It felt as though the director himself was trying to figure out what the story was actually about while the cameras were rolling. Nothing could save it; not the art direction, not those cute little nods to red caps, Adidas sneakers, and Speedo trunks, nor the ensemble cast where nobody seemed to know how to play their part. You had some actors leaning into caricatures, others trying to act as little as possible, and then there’s Murray just leaning into his usual deadpan routine.
The entire project feels like one uninspired concept: "Hey, let's remake the Tenenbaums, but this time set them at the beach!" ... and that's basically all there is to it.

The only bright spots were Bowie's songs in Portuguese and the incredibly sexy, curvaceous Cate Blanchett. 😍

Back when I first started hitting the theaters pretty hard—I was just a freshman in high school—a single ticket would run you about $2.50.

It looks pretty great.

..and I guess that’s about it.

Just like I mentioned over in the Star Wars thread—if you look at the numbers for the first quarter of this year, ticket sales in American theaters have plummeted by about 70% compared to the same stretch last year (back when we actually had heavy hitters like LOTR and Passion on the big screen).

Here’s why I think this is happening:
Digital piracy is everywhere (especially since being located near the border with Mexico makes it a total haven for DVD pirates), and the laws surrounding it are practically nonexistent.
Going to the movies has become way too expensive.
The technology in our theaters is seriously outdated; it feels like nobody has bothered to invest a single dime into upgrading the equipment in twenty years or more.
The management at most cinema locations is just unprofessional.
There’s zero coordination among the theater chains.
Distributors are constantly at odds with one another, mostly because they're only looking out for their own short-term profits.
Government agencies are incredibly sluggish (it took them forever to finally strip the sales tax from movie tickets, only for Bishop to step in with this rigid idea to slap a one-dollar tax back on every ticket, supposedly to fund indie films and non-Hollywood distribution 🙄).
...

Baaah, you walk into the theater hoping to finally catch a decent movie, only to be stuck for two hours watching some incredibly hard-to-swallow, messy slog that feels like it was scripted by Paulo Coelho himself.

The best way to describe this film is that just a few hours after leaving the theater, I completely forgot I had even seen it.

It’s such a shame for Bardem.

👎

Look, I’m sorry, but it feels to me like you’re actually taking issue with the topic itself rather than what was said. It would be a huge help if you could be a little more specific about your concerns next time.

Keith Morris9 said:I had no idea about this. What absolute idiots.

Wasn't that the same time they aired that movie about the Roman Empire instead?

I can't say for certain, honestly. If I remember right, it was sometime around 2003. I know for a fact I was chatting about it with someone back then at the Sundance Film Festival.

A few years back, NBC actually pulled the plug on the screening of the Roman Empire's Empire of Senses.

But from what I can see, things finally seem to be looking up.

I really hope so.

When I say that Irreversible is a work of art, what I really mean is that it functions as a piece of art in the broadest sense—basically, it transcends the standard way we experience cinema.
Whether someone actually classifies it as "art" or not really comes down to their own subjective perspective.

On the flip side, Koszjak is nothing more than a raw video recording of some people hooking up.

I mean, think about it: we don't go around calling the footage from security cameras all day long 'documentaries,' do we?

Scott Long71 said:I feel like what the Monitor article was really trying to drive home was the idea of a double standard.

I’m sorry, but we can only really talk about double standards if NBC acted exactly the same way OTV did. What I’m actually trying to get across here is that Koszjak and Irreversible aren't even in the same league. One is a movie where violence and sex are handled through an actual artistic lens, while the other is just a recording of a disgusting, immoral act that barely differs from a criminal offense (and honestly, it drives me up the wall when people try to label that kind of thing as 'pornography').

Scott Long71 said:My point is – if someone is already going to defend something on television, I’d say if they’re going to do it, they should be defending incredibly brutal scenes of violence before they even get to the sex.

I think you might be oversimplifying the whole issue.
Because when we discuss violence in cinema, we have to acknowledge that not all violence is created equal. Like I mentioned earlier, it isn't about how much violence there is or how intense it gets, but rather the purpose behind it. It’s precisely that purpose that leads me to call Gibson Passion a bad movie, while calling Irreversible an excellent one. That very same purpose is what separates a potentially 'dangerous' film from one that's perfectly harmless.

Scott Long71 said:There's no editing, no trickery, no fluff—everything is incredibly convincing and "explicit."

Actually, there is plenty of editing, trickery, and manipulation involved. In fact, I was quite surprised by just how much digital touch-ups were used in the film. But that doesn't really change my stance, because at the end of the day, all that matters is the final result we see on the screen.

To be fair, there isn’t actually any explicit sex happening—you don't even see penetration during the assault scene; all that intense discomfort we're feeling really stems from the expressions on the protagonists' faces.

What really matters is the purpose behind depicting explicit sex or violence. That’s where you find the line between actual cinema and just plain pornography.