Posts by Richard Hernandez13

Heh, heh, heh.
I have to say, my take on this is actually the complete opposite of yours. Honestly, I think we’re looking at one of the absolute best films released this year.

Jessica Nguyen85 said:Is there actually any kind of sequel coming?

I mean, they really ought to make some documentaries, don't you think?

What I was trying to get at is that people frequently watch these historical movies and just assume everything on screen is the absolute truth, which is honestly such a huge misconception.

Jessica Nguyen85 said:
😕

I mean, it’s basically a media outlet for nothing but absolute facts.

Hey everyone, let's be real—movies aren't meant to be documentaries!
Even someone as legendary as Scorsese takes liberties with historical facts just to tell a better story. We really shouldn't take every single film that uses a historical setting at face value as if it's gospel truth!

Gerald Barrett25 said:
Well, let's stir the pot a little bit... here is a review of this movie from some supposed "critical elite," which just shows how they aren't just idiots, but totally incompetent fossils who are hermetically sealed off from anything intellectually stimulating—unless it's something like "Shrek." All they know how to say is "Two thumbs up." As for this review, you can take those 10 thumbs up and shove them right up your ass 😁 stupid m/f

At the end of the day, the guy at least made an effort to explain why he gave the film zero stars, whereas you haven't actually offered any reasons why you liked it. Honestly, you've just provided a cheap shot. Besides, Ebert was in a bit of a tight spot because his rating relied heavily on how the film ended, so it wouldn't have been responsible to spoil the plot twists in the review itself.
That said, if you had checked the 'Movie Answer Man' column, you would have seen that he actually answered the readers' questions and detailed the entire ending along with the reasons for his dissatisfaction with the film.

By the way, I haven't actually seen the movie myself, but it seems to me we're hitting on a problem that pops up all too often in the political thriller genre: are you judging the film itself, or are you judging the political idea it carries (regardless of whether you agree with it or not)?

And there you go, things are starting to heat up.

I don't know, I actually found the movie to be quite compact... it didn't feel long-winded at all. And since we’re already talking about Fargo... maybe it just qualifies as a cinematic holy grail. 😁 Honestly, I don't know how to put this without sounding completely crazy, but... I think I actually liked this movie more than Fargo.

I have to be honest—when I first sat down to watch Fargo, it just didn't quite click for me. It was one of those movies that felt a little off, like I was missing the rhythm. But then, a few years later, I happened to catch it on TV, and suddenly everything shifted. I ended up absolutely loving every single second of it. It was one of those rare moments where I finally "got it," if you know what I mean.

With *The Man Who Wasn't There*, I can't help but feel like the Coen brothers were playing around a bit too much with genre tropes and cinematic conventions instead of just letting the story breathe. I’ve actually sat through this one three times now—twice while visiting Napa Valley and once during its standard theatrical run—so I’ve definitely given myself enough time to sit with my thoughts, but that same nagging feeling just keeps coming back to me every single time.
Don't get me wrong now, I still honestly think the movie is quite good.

For me, the runtime felt at least 20 or 30 minutes too long. It starts to lose its momentum toward the end, especially once that classic Coen existentialism kicks in. Honestly, I think the brothers handled that vibe much more effectively in "Fargo."

Do you happen to know any of the jokes he used to tell?
I’m honestly just curious about whether a dictator like him actually possessed a sense of humor.

Blue Eyes said:I wasn't even claiming that... I honestly don't get why there's sarcasm involved here...

It’s not really sarcasm, more like just a touch of cynicism (I always seem to forget that you can't see body language when we're all just typing away on a forum).

So, you mentioned it was a shame that some people only discovered Khalid through watching the movie. But why exactly is that a bad thing? Honestly, a good film can be such a great spark for wanting to learn more about something. Is there really any other way to learn that holds more value than being inspired by art?

paliti Blue Eyes said:Oh, you really don't have to... it’s just like how you didn't need to be born knowing all about André Breton, Marcel Duchamp, Dalia, or any of those other surrealists...

I mean, were you honestly expected to know all about Frida Kahlo, Breton, Duchamp, and Dalia from the moment you were born??

paliti Blue Eyes said:
Geoffrey Rush was absolutely terrible playing Trotsky... seriously one of the worst Russian accents I've ever heard... 🙂

Is it actually possible that he’s even worse than John Malkovich was in "Rounders"?!?
I mean, honestly, Rush already has that sort of soft, mushy voice similar to Peter Sellers (he even plays him in that HBO series), so you can probably just imagine how much of a mess it sounds like when you throw a forced Russian accent on top of it.

Honestly, I think Jennifer Lopez could probably take every single stray hair she plucks from her backside and sell them all for charity. With the kind of massive profit she’d make from that, she could actually fund the economic development of entire developing nations.

Sean Miller78 said:Or maybe Rashomon, if we're being formal about it... 😛

Any thoughts on this one? I hadn't actually sat down to watch anything directed by Manchevski until last night, so this was my first real introduction to his work.

Nice! You can officially tell people you've checked off half of Manchevski's filmography now.

Blue Eyes said:I mean, what’s the big deal if a woman has some hair growing in certain places? 😕 😲 🙄

First it was Salma Hayek letting her natural look show, and now J. Lo has a backside that looks like she’s been spending way too much time in the woods with Bigfoot!! 😲

I don't think I'll be getting much sleep tonight after thinking about that!

Ethan Howard45 said:So, I actually heard through some pretty reliable sources that Jenny goes for an ass waxing once a week.

Brrrrr... man, I really hope that isn't as painful as it sounds.

It’s either going to be in 70mm, or we'll have to catch it on that new AMC setup at 48 frames per second.

Haha! It feels like this epic tug-of-war between highbrow elitism and pure populism just never ends.

To be honest, I really don't give a damn whether a movie I’m heading to see is some profound masterpiece of cinematic art or just a lighthearted way to kill an evening. I feel like I actually have twice the chance of having a good time at the theater compared to those folks who can only stomach one specific genre and turn their noses up at everything else.

In other words—I'm definitely not just being ignorant.

driftingowl27 said:I don't think you really caught the underlying point of Independence Day. Forget about the whole "America saving the world" trope for a second... the real key to the movie is right at the very end. Throughout the entire film, there isn't a single hint that they are a nation on the brink of collapse, but then suddenly, out of nowhere, you get this... Jew... and not just any Jew, but a Rabbi. They're searching for a priest or something, but no luck, and then suddenly this Rabbi pops up exactly when everything is reaching its peak—total apocalypse—and there he is. Because let’s face it, who else shows up in an American blockbuster besides a Jew, chanting away in his own language while things go crazy? It's like a formula.

...I was just watching Lethal Weapon 4 on one of those networks...
At the end of the movie, you've got this guy and a woman who want to get married before the baby arrives, so they're hunting for a priest in the hospital. They grab the first person walking by and ask, "Are you a priest?" and he replies, "No, but I am a Rabbi." I mean, talk about a coincidence! Out of all the people on the entire planet, it turns out to be a Jew again, right at the climax of the story, and once again, the Rabbi steps in to save the day, muttering something in Hebrew that makes everyone look confused, which is played off as being funny... even the Jew is supposed to be witty in these scenes. Honestly, give me a break.

Well, dig two holes and line them with concrete.
Because I guarantee you won't ever see or hear from a Jew again for the rest of your life.

Scottov's take on "Black Hawk Down" is actually much more honest about how it treats its audience. I know some people dismiss it as nothing more than American propaganda, but honestly, that’s such a shallow way to look at it.

fadedsailor932 said:..not quite, but you're getting there...

Maybe a prequel?
😉