Posts by Jessica Taylor3

reply: 🙂

Out of everyone listed, Billy Crystal is the best..

Watched it... honestly disappointed to see that the third installment isn't essential.😢

I’m a huge fan of movies because they’re shorter and more engaging. When you’re reading a book, it drags on for days and the magic just fades away. At least, that's how it works for me.

Laura Fox3 said:I think you're talking about Eminem's instead of Hank's movie...

It doesn't matter. One is green, the other is 8, but a mile is a mile, right?

Actually, I completely missed the point of this thread, didn't I? 😬

The Green Mile rocks. 😬

This movie was a total dud... way too much filler and the acting was just pathetic.👎If someone else had directed this, and if some actual talented actors had been cast alongside Eminem instead of him, maybe people would have overlooked his amateurish performance.🙄

Norris said:I find it works best to watch a movie without any prior context or hype.

For instance, about 14 or 15 years ago when Society of Dead Poets was a massive hit and every girl in my class was obsessed with it... I went to see it, and honestly? It was total garbage.

Maybe the movie isn't actually that special, but if I hadn't gone in expecting a life-changing masterpiece, I probably would have found it decent enough.

On the flip side, I once went to see Spy starring Nicole Kidman without knowing a single thing—not the title, the cast, the genre, or the plot—and I absolutely loved it. Plus, it terrified me.

As for critics, their name says it all: their job is to criticize. They cling to that identity like a lifeline; otherwise, they’d just be called hype men or PR agents.
The issue is that American society is conditioned to hunt for flaws. The more you tear something down, the more sophisticated and intelligent you appear.
No critic with any self-respect is going to praise something actually watchable just because it happens to be a commercial success.

They only feel permitted to praise things like Citizen Kane, Death in Venice, or those obscure indie flicks nobody has ever heard of—movies with convoluted plots or no plot at all, essentially the cinematic version of stream-of-consciousness novels.

To them, the "depth" of their critique is measured by how many incomprehensible, complex sentences they can string together using words that most people don't even know.
The goal is often to make it so the reader doesn't even grasp what the writer is saying. That way, everyone assumes they're brilliant, and no one can challenge them because they can't understand the argument anyway.
In the end, the critic probably doesn't even know what they meant themselves, but does that really matter?

It's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about. And calling Society of Dead Poets garbage? It isn't.🙄

Arthur Gray said:Here’s my advice: if you want to see a movie, just watch it. Ignore whatever the critics are whining about. At the end of the day, their reviews are just subjective opinions that might not align with yours anyway.

A lot of people tend to agree with me on this. 😛

Nah, The Matrix completely botched how Neo actually gained his powers both inside and outside the simulation. Then that whole love affair just made everything even worse... by the end, the movie felt more like Mortal Kombat.🙄

Who actually said this was realistic?😕
Sure, it’s fun, and the acting for a flick like this is... well, let's just say it's something.
But realistic? 😂

Critics can be such jokes... I know from experience. I've watched more movies than all of you combined, and honestly, most of them just make me laugh. I can usually predict exactly what’s going to happen next. There isn't a single truly terrifying horror movie left. They actually praised The Village as some kind of masterpiece? Please. The plots are predictable, the acting is amateurish, and while the special effects aren't terrible, they definitely could have been better.😛

The adventures of Pee-wee Herman 😂

Well, obviously he's acting.👍

Let someone else take it if they actually need the help... I'm done with it.

Megan White4 said:I still remember the first time I watched that movie......

... honestly, I'm still trying to scrub it from my brain. 🙄

Why?

I caught this on DivX, and it won't hit theaters in cities like Chicago for another three months. Everything is explained in the second act, but even then... you actually have to use your brain. It isn't spoon-fed so a six-year-old can follow along. It’s a damn good movie. I didn't fully grasp the full scope until my second viewing. Everything is laid out, just through puzzles. I can't stand movies that hand everything to you on a silver platter.😳

options, so go ahead and fix those options at the bottom too..👍

I'm not sure if I have the title right, but it's Crimson River 2 - Angels of the Apocalypse, by Les (2004), and honestly, this movie rocks!! Did anyone actually wrap their head around the ending, or am I alone here? If you've seen it, let me know what you thought..
Personally, I liked it better than the first one.. everything except the finale..

He’s easily one of the best actors out there, and honestly, every single movie he does is a masterpiece.🙂

mistyfox812 said:There isn't a bad movie featuring Pacina (at least, I haven't seen one). I can't think of any other actor from the last thirty years who deserves that same praise.

I can:
- Samuel L. Jackson
😁