I was honestly torn between Hrid and Armageddon—mostly because I was really hoping to see Sean and Cage on screen together—but in the end, I’m throwing my vote toward Armageddon. It’s just a total blast if you’ve got a solid setup. 😁
Let’s talk about Michael Bay’s filmography. Honestly, if you want to understand his style, you just have to dive headfirst into his body of work. He’s one of those directors who really knows how to command a screen, even if people love to debate his approach. When you look at his biggest hits, like *Transformers* or *Armageddon*, there’s no denying he knows how to deliver that massive, high-octane spectacle. It’s loud, it’s fast, and it’s unapologetically huge. Even when you're watching something like *Bad Boys* or *Bad Boys 2*, you can see that signature energy—that specific way he handles action that you just don't see from other directors. It’s a very distinct vibe. He’s got this knack for working with major talent, too. Whether it's the chemistry between Will Smith and Martin Lawrence or the heavy-hitting casts in his disaster flicks, he knows how to lean into star power to drive the momentum. And let’s be real, the technical side of his movies is always top-tier. When you pair his visual style with a score by someone like Hans Zimmer or Nick Glennie-Smith, the whole experience becomes something much bigger than just a standard action movie. Some people might call it over-the-top, but I think there's an earnestness to the way he crafts these stories. He isn't trying to make a quiet indie drama; he’s making big-budget, blockbuster entertainment, and he does it with total confidence. Whether he's leaning into the chaos or focusing on the scale of a scene, he stays true to his vision. To me, that's what makes a director worth following.
Since I kicked off that poll yesterday about Roland Emmerich’s movies, it only makes sense to follow it up today with one for his long-lost brother, Michael Bay. Look, you can say whatever you want about them, but even if neither of these guys is exactly a cinematic genius, they definitely know how to make a movie that’s actually fun to sit through, whether you're catching it at the theater or just chilling on your home setup.
Bad Boys (1995)
It feels like Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are really out here trying to channel that Mel Gibson and Danny Glover energy.
The Rock (1996)
Nicolas Cage, Sean Connery, and Ed Harris all teaming up in this action spectacle with an absolutely killer soundtrack. Honestly, Sean’s hair at the start of the movie looks just like some unpolished version of Gandalf. It’s legendary stuff, especially that intense, high-octane energy that hits you like a chemical bomb.
Armageddon (1998)
Look, maybe it’s not exactly a scientific masterpiece, and yeah, there are definitely some plot holes you can drive a truck through. Some of the acting is a bit hit-or-miss, too. But honestly? This movie is pure eye candy and sounds incredible. I’ve sat through it a few times now, and nothing beats that sequence where the shuttles blast off into orbit—it is absolutely massive. And obviously, you can't forget about that crazy Russ guy.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
It’s such a slog. Honestly, the whole thing feels like a desperate attempt to rip off Titanic, which—let's be real—was already a massive endurance test. 😁 In my opinion, nothing beats the atmosphere of Pearl Harbor. You just can't top that vibe, especially with Cuba Gooding Jr.—aka A. Popeye—in the mix.
Bad Boys 2 (2003)
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are out here trying to recapture that old-school Mel Gibson and Danny Glover magic again.
The Island (2005)
This was actually a pretty solid flick. It definitely captures that same intense energy you get from watching a Special Report or even that high-stakes tension in Logan. Having Ewan McGregor and the stunning Scarlett Johansson on screen really elevates the whole thing, but you also can't overlook Ethan Phillips—most people probably know him best as Neelix from Voyager. 😁
Transformers (2007) was honestly such a massive moment for summer blockbusters. When you look back at it, Michael Bay really leaned into that high-octane, visual spectacle style that defined an entire era of action cinema. It wasn’t just about the robots fighting; it was about that specific, heavy-hitting kinetic energy he brings to the screen. Everything felt huge, loud, and incredibly polished. I know some people get hung up on the plot being a bit thin, but I think they miss the point. You don't watch a Michael Bay film for a deep philosophical lecture; you watch it to see massive machines tear through cities with incredible practical effects mixed with cutting-edge CGI. And let's be real, the score by Hans Zimmer and Nick Glennie-Smith added this layer of epic scale that made the whole experience feel much more significant than your average popcorn flick. It’s one of those movies that perfectly captures the mid-2000s vibe. It’s fun, it’s loud, and it’s unapologetic about being a spectacle. Even years later, the way those transformations were animated still holds up surprisingly well. It’s just a solid, well-executed piece of big-budget filmmaking that knows exactly what it wants to be.
They actually managed to turn a pretty mindless cartoon into a genuinely fun movie. Honestly, Shia LaBeouf was great in it, too.
I'm honestly torn between Independence Day and Stargate, but I’ve gotta put my vote down for Stargate. Without that movie, we wouldn't have my absolute favorite sci-fi franchise alongside Star Trek—the whole thing basically spawned three massive series (Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, and the Infinity animated show), plus two direct-to-video movies (The Ark of Truth and Continuum). On top of all that, we've got a third series (Stargate Universe) and a third direct-to-video flick coming out soon.
Let’s talk about the filmography of Roland Emmerich.
In light of this new cinematic spectacle... Roland Emmerich under the title "2012Since he’s gearing up to hit theaters again next summer—and we can probably expect to see "Fantastic Voyage" popping up sometime in 2010, which is basically his take on a "microcosm" style remake—I decided to put together a little poll. I want to see which of his movies you guys actually dig and which ones you absolutely can't stand.
1. Universal Soldier (1992)
It’s that classic flick where you finally get to see Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren go head-to-head for the first time. They play these intense, almost unstoppable soldiers who are basically built for war, going at it as bitter rivals. It’s a total blast.
2. Stargate (1994)
Kurt Russell (as J. O'Neill) and James Spader (as D. Jackson) head through the Stargate and land on the planet Abydos, where they end up going toe-to-toe with the Goa'uld—who we eventually find out are actually called the Goa'uldi in Stargate SG-1. Personally, aside from Independence Day, this is my favorite Emmerich film. It’s also the one that paved the way for awesome shows like Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis.
3. Independence Day (1996)
One of the absolute biggest hits from the 90s, and man, those visual effects are still seriously impressive. I’ve sat through this one a few times now, and honestly, I think I can confidently say it’s easily Roland Emmerich's best work to date. By the way, besides the heavy-hitting cast we all know, you really have to give props to Mary McDonnell—she's fantastic, and most people probably recognize her from her role as President Roslin over in Battlestar Galactica.
4. Godzilla (1998)
It’s a spectacular film about a giant lizard, but honestly, it feels a little bit dim-witted—kind of like the Japanese original.
5. The Patriot (2000)
Mel Gibson taking on the Red Coats. And then you've got Odo from DS9 playing a priest. 😁
6. The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Honestly, this movie is absolutely spectacular. Sure, it’s riddled with logic holes just like 10,000 B.C., but that’s not really the point. You just have to turn your brain off, stop overthinking it, and just sit back and enjoy the high-octane thrills from Dennis Quaid and the rest of the crew.
7. 10,000 B.C. (2008)
Honestly, whoever penned this script clearly didn't give much thought to whether the plot actually made sense. And don't even get me started on how Emmerich basically ripped off his own work from Stargate. But hey, if you just turn your brain off for a bit, you can still get an hour or two of solid entertainment out of it.
I couldn't catch any sleep last night, so I ended up watching The Forbidden Kingdom, this action-fantasy spectacle starring Jackie Chan and Jet Li (it's actually the first time we've seen them sharing the screen like this). Honestly, it’s a pretty solid flick. That kid acting alongside Jet Li and Chan is actually great—not bad at all, really. Plus, the visual effects are top-tier throughout the movie.
There are plenty of funny bits, especially with Chan's character; since he's an immortal, he basically has to stay drunk constantly because wine acts as his elixir 😁 The most Impressive scene has to be when the crew is trekking through the desert and Li challenges Chan to use his immortality to make it rain. So, Chan starts messing around with some ancient scroll, trying to summon the rain, and suddenly, out of nowhere, it actually starts drizzling. A moment later, you see Li just peeing on Chan from a rock. 😁
It was also a cool touch when the kid brings up Bruce Lee, and these two guys have absolutely no clue who he is. Also, the opening sequence has a bit of a Monty Python vibe to it, packed with those classic Bruce Lee moments. 😁
To wrap things up, the movie features two really stunning actresses: Yifei Liu and Bingbing Li (if you're curious about what they look like, just give Google a quick search 😁)
Larry Rivera83 said:I've been totally turned off by Charlton Heston and all his roles ever since watching Moore's documentary. It's permanent.
Personally, I actually grew to like Charlton even more after watching that asshole's documentary. It’s a shame we didn't get to see him out in the yard with a shotgun chasing a pig. 😁 😁
I’ve been doing some thinking lately, and I’ve come to the conclusion that Russell Crowe and Charlton Heston actually share a ton of common ground as actors, specifically when you look at their genre choices. Both guys are legendary for those massive historical epics. Honestly, if I had to make a call, I’d say Crowe is basically what Heston was during his prime from the late '50s through the early '70s.
When you look at Heston's heavy hitters in that historical or biblical epic category, you've got classics like Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, El Cid, Warlord, and The Greatest Story Ever Told. On the other side, you have Crowe’s run with Gladiator, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, 3:10 to Yuma (which is a Western, a genre Heston also tackled), and the upcoming Nottingham.
That said, I personally feel like Russell Crowe is missing one really solid WWII-era drama to round out his resume. Also, I just found out that Crowe was actually the original choice to play Aragorn in the LOTR series and Wolverine in the X-Men Trilogy.
Sam Hall15 said:If you haven't engaged in any high-risk behaviors, there is likely no cause for concern regarding hepatitis B or C... There are numerous reasons why bilirubin levels might be elevated... It might be wise to undergo a bone marrow biopsy or at least a peripheral blood smear, especially since the results indicate an elevated erythrocyte count.
Yeah, I lead a totally low-key life. I haven't even had blood work done in two and a half years, and I haven't stepped foot in a dentist's office in that same timeframe either.
My red blood cell count is just slightly over the upper limit, and my uric acid is up too.
Frank Moore4 said:So, a few days ago, I finally decided to go see my doctor because I’ve been dealing with this constant bloating and stomach pain—especially in the mornings—for quite a while now. She prescribed some Nexium, thinking it was just a case of gastritis. I went in for blood work the next day, though I had already taken the medication, so I'm really hoping that didn't mess with my numbers too much. Anyway, my bilirubin came back at 42.8 and my red blood cell count is a little high, but everything else regarding my liver looks totally normal. My doctor referred me to an infectious disease specialist, who then ordered tests for direct and indirect bilirubin along with hepatitis B and C markers. I got the blood drawn today, and I should have the results by Friday. Honestly, I’m pretty freaked out that they even sent me to test for hepatitis; I know deep down there's almost zero chance I actually caught anything, but the anxiety is hitting me hard until those results are in hand. Do you guys think this could just be Gilbert syndrome or something? I'm genuinely stressed about it... 😢
For what it's worth, my face is always bright red, like a bell pepper.
Hey everyone, I'm genuinely worried here, even if my doctor says there's no reason to panic. What are your thoughts? 😢
So, a few days ago, I finally decided to go see my doctor because I’ve been dealing with this constant bloating and stomach pain—especially in the mornings—for quite a while now. She prescribed some Nexium, thinking it was just a case of gastritis. I went in for blood work the next day, though I had already taken the medication, so I'm really hoping that didn't mess with my numbers too much. Anyway, my bilirubin came back at 42.8 and my red blood cell count is a little high, but everything else regarding my liver looks totally normal. My doctor referred me to an infectious disease specialist, who then ordered tests for direct and indirect bilirubin along with hepatitis B and C markers. I got the blood drawn today, and I should have the results by Friday. Honestly, I’m pretty freaked out that they even sent me to test for hepatitis; I know deep down there's almost zero chance I actually caught anything, but the anxiety is hitting me hard until those results are in hand. Do you guys think this could just be Gilbert syndrome or something? I'm genuinely stressed about it... 😢
For what it's worth, my face is always bright red, like a bell pepper.
I caught that on PBS last night. Visually, the movie is a total knockout and honestly pretty fun to watch, but man, it is absolutely loaded with historical inaccuracies. For starters:
So, I just saw a trailer for the film, and it’s making this pretty bold claim that historians are all in agreement that Arthur was actually a real historical figure thanks to some new archaeological discoveries. Honestly, that’s just not true. Historians aren't reaching that consensus at all. Even if they're talking about that Artognou inscription—which is likely the "recent find" they're trying to use as leverage—it has absolutely zero connection to the version of events they're trying to sell us in this movie.
The film plays fast and loose with the timeline, showing the Roman legions pulling out of Britain right after Arthur saves the Pope's godson. If we're looking at actual history, that doesn't hold up at all. The legions finished their withdrawal around 410 AD, which is basically sixty years before that whole rescue mission even happens. By 467 AD, there wasn't a single legion left on the island; the place had already shifted into a messy patchwork of territories run by various local warlords.
Sarmatian cavalrymen definitely made their way over to Britain during the 2nd century. But honestly, even though the film tries to push a different narrative, there’s really hardly any proof that they stuck around through the 5th century. When you look at the actual data, there’s just very little evidence to suggest that Scythian-born immigrants were being brought into late Roman Britain on a regular basis.
In the film, they refer to the Picts as "Woads." It’s a nod to a specific plant the Picts might have used to create blue body paint, but honestly, most scholars are pretty skeptical about whether they actually used woad at all. Plus, the historical Picts weren't ever actually called anything like that. In an interview, Fuqua mentioned they opted for "Wodes" instead of "Picts" simply because they felt the actual name sounded "a little weird."
Archbishop Germanus' second—and final—mission to Britain actually went down twenty years before the timeframe this movie covers. In fact, Germanus passed away in 448, which is way before the period where the film is set.
So, looking at the plot, that Roman family Arthur saves is supposedly living north of Hadrian's Wall. Honestly, that doesn't really add up. The Wall was basically the edge of Roman rule in the territory, aside from those short stints where they occupied parts of the north during the second century AD. That being said, you have to keep in mind that Romanized client states—like the ones the Votadini had going on—did actually exist north of the Wall, even moving into the Sub-Roman era.
People tend to get the history wrong on this one. The consensus is that Pelagius likely passed away decades before the timeline most people assume, and when he did go, it was just from old age—he definitely wasn't burned at the stake. Also, the whole idea of the Pelagian heresy is pretty much misrepresented in popular discussions. It wasn't some grand movement centered around political freedom; it was actually focused on denying the concept of original sin.
The movie tries to suggest that the Pope was calling all the shots in the Western Empire, but that’s just not how things worked back then. In reality, the Emperor held the title, while the actual day-to-day power was being wielded by the Magistri Militum and various other regional governors.
So, looking at the timeline here, there’s a pretty massive hole in the logic if you follow the history. We're talking about the Saxon leader Cerdic, who is estimated to have been born around 467. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, he and Cynric didn't actually show up in the Hampshire area until 495. Since the film is set right in 467, the math just doesn't add up—Cerdic wouldn't have even been able to lead an invasion yet, and Cynric (who's listed as his son or grandson) definitely wouldn't have been alive to see any of this happen.
Look, there’s no way Cerdic and Cynric died at the Battle of Mount Badon. It just doesn't line up. Most historians place that battle somewhere between 490 and 516, and if you look at the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, it clearly shows Cynric taking over as King of Wessex in 534—keep in mind, Cerdic was the one who actually founded the whole kingdom. The math just isn't mathing.
The movie shows The Saxons attacking Hadrian's Wall from the north, which just doesn't line up with what we know. By 467, they had already moved way past that point and were occupying territories far south of the wall—what people call the Saxon Shore—and they never actually invaded Scotland.
In the movie, there's this scene where Cerdic steps in to stop a warrior from assaulting a woman, and the whole reason given is that it would mess up the purity of the Saxon bloodline. It’s clearly a nod to that old-school theory that the Anglo-Saxons basically wiped out the Romano-Celts in the eastern part of the country. However, that whole idea—which mostly relies on linguistics—has really been shaken up by modern DNA studies. The latest genetic research actually points toward massive amounts of intermixing between the Anglo-Saxon and Briton groups. In fact, some historians are even arguing that Cerdic himself might have had Celtic roots, especially considering he carried a Celtic name.
In the film, they take massive liberties with Guinevere, turning her into something completely different from the actual Arthurian myth. Instead of the figure we know from legend, she’s reimagined as this fierce barbarian warrior who fights right alongside Arthur and his knights. Now, look, I get where they were going with that—there’s definitely historical precedent for powerful women warriors, like the legendary Queen Boudica—but when you dig into the actual sources, whether they're ancient or more recent, nobody describes Guinevere like this. There isn't a single shred of evidence suggesting she was some kind of rustic Celt, either. In fact, if you look at Geoffrey of Monmouth's *Historia Regum Britanniae*—which is one of the earliest deep dives we have on her—it actually says Guinevere had Roman blood, while Arthur himself was the one with indigenous Celtic roots.
The Sarmatian cavalrymen had names rooted in French (think Lancelot) and Celtic traditions (like Tristan or the original Drustan). Even though you see these names popping up in medieval romances as Knights of the Round Table, they don't really hold up against actual history or even the original folklore. Take Bors, for example. In the film, he’s basically just a loud, obnoxious jerk with a massive brood of kids, but in the old legends, he was more like a Boy Scout—someone so disciplined and celibate that he actually earned the right to witness the Holy Grail.
I also noticed how the film leans heavily into this trope of painting the Roman Catholic Church as the villain while framing pagans and paganism as the "good guys." You see it with the shady Archbishop Germanus and those priests helping the Roman landowner squeeze the local peasants, or when they throw Guinevere in jail. On the flip side, you've got the non-Christian knights—especially Lancelot, who’s portrayed as an atheist—and the free-spirited Picts. It’s pretty telling that Merlin, not some priest, is the one who marries Arthur and Guinevere at the end. Plus, Arthur is one of the only "decent" Christians in the movie, yet he's depicted following a sect that the Pope would consider straight-up heresy.
wearygardener13 said:Dammit, that should’ve been my line.😁 😁 To be honest, I didn't have a clue what you were even talking about regarding that detective from Law & Order: SVU and that psycho deputy from Oz, and it actually took me a minute to realize they're two totally different guys.😲
Actually, they aren't. Christopher Meloni is in both Law & Order and Oz.
It honestly blows my mind every single time how some people can look so much alike even when they aren't even related. I mean, sure, it’s totally normal that Donald Trump and Kiefer Sutherland, or Michael Jordan and Kirk Douglas, share some features, but then you have plenty of other actors—famous or not—who are practically carbon copies of one another.
One pair that I’ve always been a big fan of is Richard Herd (who played Admiral Owen Wilson on Voyager) and Karl Malden.
Karl Malden:
Richard Herd:
On a side note, one of my neighbors is a total dead ringer for Oliver Reed. 😁
