Posts by wiredraven82

I couldn't help myself—I had to revive this thread. I just sat through this movie again (probably my 20th time at this point), and I swear, I lose it every single time because of the sheer MAESTRALNOST of the whole thing. It is a freaking masterpiece, and honestly, I don't care what anyone else thinks—the critics have been wrong about this one too...

Seriously though, this film is criminally underrated by the general public. It’s top-tier stuff. Pure gold.

What an absolute gem of a movie. Sorry guys, I just had to bring this back to life. 😁

Benjamin Sanders44 said:The Bourne series works because it beautifully tracks a man discovering his own identity—he's handed these incredible skills he doesn't even understand, only to finally piece together his past and choose his true path. Honestly, the books are even better...
To me, Mission: Impossible feels like a well-packaged version of James Bond; it’s a solid franchise, but at its core, it boils down to: "defeat the villain, sleep with the girl." Mind you, I haven't seen Ghost Protocol yet, though I hear nothing but praise for it...

Don't even go there. 🙂 Please, stop comparing Mission: Impossible to some sci-fi-adjacent thing like James Bond—with all due respect to the fans and that endless British mockery (though I'll grant an exception for Connery). Personally, I don't care for Bond or the entire franchise, even if it has been running for over half a century... My biggest gripe is how no one in those movies ever asks why Bond hasn't aged a day in fifty years. Maybe James Bond is a vampire, who knows... haha.

Mission: Impossible has what people call "soul," and it actually had its own distinct identity through the original TV series long before the movies. The films themselves are much more serious action pieces than Bond—especially Mission: Impossible 1996, which stands out as one of the truly intelligent action films (alongside the Bourne films, though personally, I find the 1996 entry even sharper than Bourne). To me, it's easily the smartest action movie out there. It’s almost an insult to compare a film like that—or even Mission: Impossible 3 and 4—to those Schwarzenegger action flicks like Commando, or to Bond for that matter. Let's not be reckless with our comparisons, people.

In terms of narrative depth and stylistic flair, the Mission: Impossible saga is far more substantial than movies like Lethal Weapon or Die Hard—and while I love both of those franchises, let's not compare apples to oranges.

I remember when Mission: Impossible 1996 first hit—it felt like just yesterday. It was a total phenomenon; you could never find a copy at the local video rental shop because they were always checked out.😁

Regardless of how this argument is framed here, Mission: Impossible possesses its own cinematic soul and style. It has absolutely nothing to do with Bond.

Kenneth Jackson3 said:I’ve been sitting here thinking about this clip, and honestly—it’s a perfect case study in how certain cinematic tropes have aged, for better or worse. When you look at the sheer scale of what they were trying to pull off, you have to respect the ambition, even if the execution feels a bit heavy-handed by today's standards. It reminds me of that specific tension you find in high-stakes spy thrillers where the momentum is everything—if the pacing slips for even a second, the whole illusion shatters. It’s similar to how we view the evolution of action franchises in the States. You start with these gritty, grounded foundations, and then suddenly you're looking at massive, gravity-defying set pieces that feel more like a circus act than a tactical operation. There’s a fine line between "spectacle" and "absurdity," and while some directors walk it perfectly, others tend to trip over their own feet trying to outdo the last installment. The technical side of it is what really catches my eye, though. The way they handle the tension—building it up through silence before slamming you with the payoff—is a technique that hasn't lost its edge. Even if the plot itself feels a little thin, the craftsmanship behind the camera is undeniable. It’s that relentless drive toward the climax that keeps you watching, regardless of whether you actually buy into the logic of the situation. Some might call it overkill, but I’d argue it’s just pure, unadulterated filmmaking intended to push the limits of the genre.

The absolute pinnacle. Period. 😬

Have you actually sat down and watched the series—maybe?

Oh, absolutely... hahaha. Seriously, that scene at the 0:25 mark where they lock eyes while looking toward Langley—it’s pure gold. I just love Reno's character, and honestly, Luther is easily one of my favorites. 👍

It’s especially hilarious when Luther starts rambling on about all the high-tech gear they need to pull the job off—especially that part where he ends up getting grease all over his mustache just to keep everything running. Haha. 😁 And then that music kicks in again right as they head toward Langley... and you just know—that's it.

I’ve always found that entire dynamic between Luther and Ethan to be absolutely top-tier—it’s easily one of the best parts of the series. There is that specific moment toward the end of the film where Ethan basically tells him, "Look, Luther, if it makes you feel any better, you'll always be a criminal in my eyes," and seeing Luther just soak that up with a grin? It’s gold. It captures their bond perfectly. 😁

Kenneth Jackson3 said:I honestly couldn't make a call on this one. The Bourne trilogy is easily the peak of the genre for me—it's just untouchable—but then again, Mission: Impossible 1996 remains one of my all-time favorites. It was so ahead of its time; unlike most action flicks from that era, the set pieces aren't just recycled clichés. That sequence where they drop into the vault 🙏
Mission: Impossible 1996 is definitely my favorite action movie of all time.
Even Ghost Protocol was fantastic!

Either way, M:I and Bourne occupy the same top-tier space for me. 😁

Fair enough—I’m with you on everything. For me, Mission: Impossible 1996 is also the greatest action movie ever made.

Whenever that main score from M:I starts playing Mission Impossible Theme(full theme) during certain scenes—especially in the '96 original—I get goosebumps from head to toe. 😁Who wouldn't feel that...

In addition to all those scenes you mentioned, there’s that one moment for me where Tom Cruise jumps from a train toward a helicopter right as the music kicks in. Some people might say that scene is "too much," but not me... the guy jumped out of sheer, unadulterated madness. Then the music hits, followed by that whole bit with the explosive gum—man... DAMN... 😁it's unrepeatable.

Check out the scene, starting from 03:49:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJRFSAVyX_E

God, I remember watching this in the theater when I was just a kid; I thought I was going to leap right out of my seat. 😁I distinctly remember almost everyone in the cinema shouting, "HOLY SHIT!!" the second he leaped for that helicopter, haha.

P.S. The person who uploaded this video clearly edited it a bit—they kept the original audio but layered the music over it—but regardless... I can't find the original clip anywhere, probably because of some annoying copyright issue.

Joshua Smith5 said:That scene where Tom Cruise slowly realizes in the restaurant that Jon Voight's villain is actually more compelling than the entire Bourne franchise combined. 🙂

There is definitely something special about this movie. 🙂 Maybe it's because the plot takes place in Prague—and I absolutely love Prague... Regardless, I dig it, and compared to the Bourne films, there's this distinct European atmosphere you can almost feel hanging in the air while watching. 🙂 It’s constantly jumping through European cities, and occasionally outside of Europe, of course.

And yeah, let me reiterate: for me, Mission: Impossible 1996 holds a unique place in my heart—it's a permanent fixture, and I'm not changing my mind on that. I remember being a kid in Prague right around the time the film was released, and then heading back there shortly after... it's one of those things you just can't quite put into words. 😁

amberwalker4 said:Hollywood: "We're going to remake Tony Montana's Scarface 🙂!"

Fans: "Say hello to my little friend!"

👍 And it doesn't even stop there—they'll probably throw in, "you wanna play rough, OK, say hello to my little friend, you want more"? 🤣

Kenneth Taylor80 said:Goodfellas, Scarface, Heat, Where Eagles Dare, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Kill Bill, The Matrix, Alien, The Fugitive, Hero, Taken, Bullitt... Honestly, what kind of question is that? These are the films where you actually have to use your brain—you know?

Everything being said here is spot on—the truth is that these films aren't just narrow action flicks; they really hit harder when you consider how they blend seamlessly with other genres.

Pure action flicks are basically just like *Die Hard* or *Lethal Weapon*—you don't exactly need to use your brain to follow them, right? Or, heaven forbid, let me even bring up *Schwarzenegger's Commando*.

Look, let’s be real—watching the Bourne series actually requires you to use your brain. It isn't just mindless noise. The pacing is relentless, sure, but the plot is intelligent and follows a coherent logic—layers upon layers of secrets buried within secrets from start to finish.

You can't seriously be sitting there telling me that Mission: Impossible (1996) is just some mindless action flick. Honestly, have some dignity. 😁 Look, you have to give credit where credit is due—you actually need to use your brain to follow this one.

Mission: Impossible 2 is, quite frankly, the absolute rock bottom of the entire franchise—I won't even waste too much breath dwelling on it.

In Mission: Impossible 3, things finally started to find their footing again—they regained some semblance of direction—but by the time we hit Mission: Impossible 4, everything clicked perfectly into place. You honestly can't dismiss Mission: Impossible 4 as just another mindless action flick, even if that’s what some critics might claim. However, you definitely can't say the same for the first installment.

Drew Allen77 said:Personally, I think the Bourne series would have been much stronger if it hadn't starred Matt Damon. As for Mission: Impossible—the first one is an absolute standout.

If it weren't for Matt Damon, I honestly don't think anyone would even bother sitting through these movies. He's really the glue that holds the whole thing together—without his presence, most of this stuff wouldn't even be worth the price of admission. 🙂 In other words—that just wouldn't cut it.

I’ve always had a massive amount of respect for Matt Damon as an actor—he just nails it every single time. His performance in the Bourne series was absolutely flawless; he really found that perfect rhythm for the role. Honestly, it’s getting to the point where it’s hard to find a single film in his filmography that doesn't land for me. Matt Damon rules.

Look, I think we need to clear something up here. Personally, I live for the Bourne films—specifically that first trilogy. To me, they are absolute masterpieces. There’s just something about them that hits differently, something deeper than just "objective quality" that I can't quite put my finger on. Now, I don't want to play defense attorney for Mission: Impossible—really, I don't—but I feel compelled to step in because people keep trying to compare the two franchises as if they're even playing the same game. They act like Mission: Impossible is nothing more than hollow, ego-driven spectacle, which simply isn't true—well, except for maybe M.I. 2.

David Price5 said:I used to think people in the '80s were saying the exact same thing about the '90s—everyone tends to romanticize their own era, convinced that the music, the movies, the games... that everything peaked back then.

Look, I was just a middle schooler through the '90s and spent my high school and college years in the 2000s—so naturally, I find myself bashing the 2000s too. 😁

It was a great time for me personally, but again, if we’re talking... globally... well, I’m just not going to go there.🙂

cosmiclynx57 said:I will never understand that frustration—that constant bashing of the 2000s and everything released after.

It’s exactly like my grandparents claiming the '50s were the golden age while insisting the '80s were absolute garbage.

Look, I wasn't trashing everything... we had some legendary trilogies emerge during that era... Lord of the Rings, Nolan's Batman... then you've got Bourne and plenty of others—it would take forever to list them all.

So, I'm not saying they were all bad; I'm simply pointing out that there used to be a higher density of high-caliber films across various genres. But fine, let's move on from this. 🙂

Kevin Stewart84 said:you're likely thinking of Griselda Blanco—the so-called Black Widow

Yeah, exactly... that's the one. 👍

Kevin Stewart84 said:Get David Reamke's work for just $45.95 😁

Now, this is getting unfair. 🙂

cosmiclynx57 said:Sign off on the entire post.

They say that if you focus on a tooth that isn't even aching, eventually it’ll start to throb—it's like you're inviting the pain. It's the same thing here—you clearly have such a deep-seated bias against the 2000s that you refuse to see anything beyond the absolute wreckage. You're so fixated on the flaws that you can't even see the basic fundamentals, let alone anything remotely positive. 😂

Look, there’s no denying that the 2000s delivered some absolute gems—it wasn't exactly a wasteland. But whether they actually hold up against the heavy hitters of the '90s? Whether the '50s carry more weight than the '80s, or if the '60s somehow pale in comparison to the '70s? Honestly, we’re just chasing ghosts at that point. It all boils down to personal taste, your own perspective, and how you choose to interpret cinematic history—it's entirely subjective.

Basically—it’s water, air, or whatever else you want to call it. 😂 What on earth are you doing—are you seriously sitting there watching The X-Files? 😉

If we’re talking all-time greats, nothing touches The X-Files for me—it's easily my favorite series ever made, though I'll grant The Sopranos a special exception, given its status as one of the absolute pillars of the 2000s. 🙂

Furthermore, I wouldn't agree with that assessment regarding the 2000s—not by a long shot. If we are going to claim we’re looking at "everything" when comparing this era to the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or even the 90s, then we have to be consistent. It doesn't matter if we're discussing a film released on a digital format or a physical print—the standard remains the same. If our criteria for comparison are shifting depending on how the medium is delivered, then honestly, there's no point in even having this conversation. We might as well stop writing altogether if we aren't going to stick to a single, objective metric.

It feels like we’ve hit a massive drought lately—there simply aren't any directors or actors coming out of certain genres today who can even stand in the same shadow as the greats from before the year 2000. It’s the same story across the board: there isn't a soccer player since the turn of the millennium who can touch the legacy of Maradona, nor is there a basketball player who could ever hope to eclipse Jordan or Petrović. Even in music, you won't find anyone reaching that level of pure, untouchable icon status held by Elvis, Jackson, Iron Maiden, Guns N' Roses, or The Beatles—regardless of what your specific taste might be. And honestly? Let's not even get started on the local music scene here in the States—I'd rather not go there, because I'm pretty sure some of you forum regulars would need a Xanax prescription just to handle the conversation.

There’s absolutely no way to sit here and start playing the relativity game—you know, that tired excuse where people claim "everyone views those eras through a different lens"—because, frankly, that's nonsense. It isn't about perspective; it is quite simply an objective fact, at least from where I'm standing.

We are living in an era where, by every measurable metric—be it art or the fabric of our society—we have fallen significantly below the standards set before the turn of the millennium. Is technology the culprit? Is it the digital age eroding our attention spans and our soul? That isn’t what this thread is about, but there is no denying that something has effectively "stagnated." Everything feels frozen in a state of mediocrity. That is my position, plain and simple. And look—I am an optimist by nature. I tend to look for the silver lining in almost everything—so when an optimist tells you that things have died out, you can be reasonably certain that they actually have. I suspect many of you will agree with me once you find your voices, even if you're staying quiet for now. 😁

briskhound2 said:Well, look at that. You finally see what Carpenter was going through when he made his version of The Thing. People hated him more than they hated osama bin Laden 😁 yet today, it’s an absolute classic that everyone swears by. It’s a similar story to when Michael Bay mentioned producing a remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre—in the end, people were actually thrilled. It's just like Snyder with Dawn of the Dead; the guy was practically lynched for touching a sacred cow, only to turn out with something that's arguably better than the original. Who knows? You really shouldn't judge a book by its cover before it's even printed.

The points about Dawn of the Dead and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre are debatable—I already mentioned that exceptions exist—but regarding Carpenter's The Thing, that movie came out in the 80s. I said there was just something in the air back then, some kind of vibe, or whatever 😁... you simply can't draw a direct comparison to the way things work in the industry today.

cosmiclynx57 said:They say there are exceptions—so, are you an exception? 😛

Once again—twenty or thirty years from now, maybe in the 2030s or 2040s—someone else is going to look back and say the exact same thing: "Modern movies are just garbage on every conceivable level; credit where it's due to the occasional standout, but the films of the 2010s were simply higher quality."

I don't particularly enjoy labeling myself an "exception" to any rule, but there are certain people capable of rationally assessing the era they inhabit. For them, it’s a certainty—and while a touch of nostalgia for the "good old days" is inevitable, it doesn't cloud my judgment enough to claim that our current era, and indeed the last fifteen years or so, can be measured against what came before in terms of artistry—or even the state of society, if you want to take it that far.

Maybe there was something special in the air back then—something in the water, who knows? 🤣 But when I look back at the entire stretch from 2000 to 2010 and see nothing but pure mediocrity compared to the 80s and 90s, my perspective isn't being warped by the present—because, let's face it, this period is already becoming the past. We've merely entered a new millennium that serves as a direct continuation of that decadence.

This whole discussion has drifted into sociology and philosophy; it'll likely be closed soon, which might actually be for the better. 🙂

neonsurfer6 said:All the dark sides of Hollywood that people point to as uniquely defining our modern era—well, they’ve actually been a constant fixture there for over a century now.

I have to disagree—if you want my take, the decadence really started around 2000. Let’s just use that year as a symbolic turning point. Sure, movies were garbage both before and after that era, but the real issue is that today’s "non-garbage" films often turn out to be total trash—and now we're seeing a trend where even the remakes of things that should have been left alone are absolute garbage too.

I honestly don’t even know what they’re planning to remake next at this point—maybe they just haven't laid their greedy eyes on The Godfather yet.

neonsurfer6 said:At the end of the day—if someone is genuinely bothered by the existence of a remake, does that actually stop them from just ignoring it? Why does it even matter? Whether it’s a poorly executed cash grab, a solid flick, or an absolute masterpiece, remakes have always been around and they aren't going anywhere.

Ha! That’s like walking up to an art historian and saying, "Hey, someone just carved a new David—forget about Michelangelo's version; just put them both in the same room and if you don't like looking at the new one, just look away." I mean, seriously, what kind of logic is that? Some things simply shouldn't be messed with—they deserve to be left exactly as they are.

Cinema through the ages—the absolute masterpieces, the heavy hitters—they serve as the cornerstone of our collective human artistry, much like Michelangelo's David does for fine art. Now, please, don't go thinking I’m making a direct, literal comparison between *Scarface* and *David*—I'm simply drawing an analogy to touch upon a larger point here. When we see these monumental works being constantly rebooted or remade, it forces us to ask a difficult question: what does that constant cycle of recycling actually say about the current state of cinematic art?

Take a look at one of Hollywood's big horror hits from last year—*The Conjuring*. Honestly? It’s nothing more than a mutant, a sort of symbiote composed of all the great horror classics from back in the day. It scavenged everything it could possibly find, copied it, and presented it back to us as if it were something new—but that's really it. There isn't a single original idea left in the tank. And don't even get me started on the cast—it’s the same group of actors over and over again.

cosmiclynx57 said:Again—someone said the exact same thing back when they were working on the remake of Scarface 1983.

Fine, whatever you say. 🤣 But I’m telling you—if we look at this through an analogical lens—the current state of artistry in our era is genuinely pathetic compared to when Scarface 1983 was being filmed. Back then, people thought nothing could ever surpass the original because when you're living through a specific moment, it's hard to truly gauge just how good it actually is. If it was great, it was great. Well, I *can* gauge the era we're living in now versus everything from the year 2000 to the present... and in a word? It's garbage across the board, barring a few rare exceptions in film and other forms of art.

For instance, you love the horror genre (as do I, along with pretty much everything else except comedies)—you should know better than anyone what I mean by "across the board."

Remember how before the turn of the millennium, everyone was predicting some sort of apocalypse for the year 2000? Of course, that was all nonsense. But when you really sit back and look at the world—specifically regarding art since 2000, and generally society, sports, everything (again, allowing for exceptions)—maybe it actually *was* the end of the world in that sense, we just didn't realize it yet. 😁

Take Sci-Fi, for example. What has been the pinnacle of Sci-Fi in recent years? Avatar? Prometheus? What are those even compared to T1, T2, or Alien? And consider the technology they used back then versus what we have today. Honestly, man, I am embarrassed to live in this era—and then you have these vultures coming along trying to pull a remake of something like Scarface... so... I really don't know what else to add besides walking away from this topic.

cosmiclynx57 said:Whoa, take it easy, man. 😁

The 1932 version of Scarface is a cult classic—that's an undeniable fact—and I’m sure plenty of people were making the exact same arguments you are back when they were prepping the remake Scarface (1983).

Personally, I’m actually looking forward to this remake; with a cast and director of this caliber, there’s a legitimate chance it could turn out exceptionally well.

Well, we'll just have to wait and see what the director of Harry Potter brings to the table for Scarface (I mean, seriously, look at the state of cinema when you consider movies like Harry Potter)—his only hope of even touching Scarface 1983 would be if Potter lent him a magic wand, and even then, it’s a long shot.

But no matter how you slice it, the bottom line is that this is pathetic. It’s painfully obvious that Hollywood has run dry of original ideas, which is why we see these projects being churned out. There’s no vision, no elegance, no artistry—none of the qualities that used to define these kinds of films and their narratives.

Call me nostalgic if you want, but the caliber of acting and everything else regarding crime dramas and thrillers from those eras is incomparably better than what we see today—exceptions exist, sure, but the era we live in is so artificial that the movies have become artificial too. Most of them are soulless, which is why... naturally, they resort to these types of moves. They’re like necrophiliacs fumbling with something sacred—idea-less, ultra-capitalist vultures... I don't even know what else to call them. 🙂

briskhound2 said:You realize that Scarface is actually a remake, right?

Sure, but we're talking about a remake that simply can't be remade. 🙂 Sometimes you just have to speak up when something truly iconic happens—and let’s be real, this movie is a cult classic, and I don't think anyone in this thread can honestly argue otherwise. Now, look, it might not be my absolute favorite Al Pacino performance, but it easily ranks among the greatest films of all time. So, when I hear people suggesting that someone actually *could* pull off a remake of a masterpiece like this... well, fine. Is it just me, or is everyone else here also losing their minds at the sheer audacity of it?

If they’re clearly enough of an idiot to go down this road, then fine—let them. Let them just remake everything that’s ever been made. Why stop there? They might as well go ahead and produce a remake of 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, or Goodfellas. Hell, let’s have them remake Carlito's Way too. They should probably just remake all of Hitchcock's greatest hits and every single one of Kubrick's masterpieces—not just the Odyssey—while they're at it.

It’s becoming painfully obvious that Hollywood has completely abandoned any sense of moral boundaries—there's no ethical compass left, no common sense regarding this kind of stuff... honestly, it's a joke. If they actually go through with this, I sincerely hope Alkaid just blasts the whole lot of them into oblivion.

One more thing—as much as people argue about whether De Palma's Scarface is actually a remake of the original, they’re missing the forest for the trees. De Palma’s version is loosely based on real events that unfolded in Miami decades after the original story ever took place. To be clear, the character of Tony Montana never actually existed—if I recall correctly from some old reading, it was actually a woman, maybe a Cuban or Colombian immigrant, who possessed that same level of sheer madness seen in the film. The movie is really just a reflection of those wild, chaotic years in Miami. Anyone who thinks they can simply "remake" an era like that is delusional. Honestly, all I can say to them is this—just watch the scene at the 03:29 mark: I’ve been sitting here staring at this clip, trying to wrap my head around the sheer audacity of what we're seeing on screen—and I don't just mean the technical execution, though that's certainly part of the equation. It’s more about the fundamental shift in how stories are being told today versus how they used to be handled back in the day. When you look at the way modern directors approach high-stakes drama, there seems to be this constant push toward spectacle over substance—a sort of hollowed-out version of what made the classics actually stick. We used to have filmmakers who understood the weight of silence, the tension in a single glance, or the slow, agonizing build of a character's descent. Now? Everything feels like it's being shouted at you through a megaphone. It lacks that quiet, simmering intensity that defined the great American crime epics. Think about it—if you compare the raw, visceral energy of something like *Goodfellas* to the polished, almost sterile perfectionism of contemporary blockbusters, the difference isn't just stylistic; it's philosophical. One feels lived-in, gritty, and dangerously real, while the other feels like it was assembled in a boardroom to satisfy an algorithm. It's the difference between art and product. There’s a certain laziness creeping into the industry—a reliance on nostalgia or "vibes" because they're too afraid to take a genuine creative risk. They'd rather give us a safe, predictable beat than something that actually challenges the viewer or leaves them feeling unsettled. It’s frustrating to watch. We’re being fed a diet of highly processed cinematic junk when we used to have access to the real thing. You can see the fingerprints of committee-driven decision-making all over these modern productions, and frankly, it's killing the soul of American filmmaking. "Listen here, buddy... it's your move." — BANG.

Go ahead and vote for Bourne in this poll—I honestly don't care... one of my all-time favorite trilogies, and two of the Bourne films (the first and third) sit comfortably in my personal top 50 greatest movies ever made, so you can think what you want 🙂

If I had voted for Mission: Impossible, I’ve already laid out my reasoning in an old intro post, but after rewatching the Bourne series, I found myself thinking about this poll again... There are nuances that separate these two sagas; for me, just being a kid back when the first Mission: Impossible came out in '96 made the difference by a hair... 🙂 But Bourne? That's a pure MASTERPIECE... (well, except for the fourth one)

Look, I couldn't just sit here and let this slide without starting a thread. I caught wind of this rumor and I honestly couldn't believe my ears—does anyone actually have any solid info on this? If there's even a grain of truth to it, I’m ready to grab some dynamite and level the whole damn Hollywood studio system.

A remake of Scarface? 😲 Seriously, is there anyone left in Hollywood who hasn't completely lost their mind? It sounds absolutely surreal to hear they're planning a remake of a legendary masterpiece, but this... this is just... I don't even have the words. If this is true, it’s pure insanity.

How do you even attempt a remake of the Bible? Scarface is cinematic scripture—it's a cult classic. Is it even possible to conceive of such a thing, let alone actually try to produce it?

And now I'm hearing the director might be David Yates—the guy behind Harry Potter. What’s next on the agenda? Are we getting a remake of The Godfather directed by the person behind Sleeping Beauty or Snow White?

I mean, even if God and Jesus themselves showed up to direct, they couldn't pull off a remake of Scarface, The Godfather, or any other film that qualifies as a cinematic Bible. There isn't a deity—ancient, Old Testament, or New Testament—who could replicate a film like Scarface. I don't know how much truth there is to this blasphemous nonsense, but once I heard it, I had to open this thread...

Screw all of them. At this point, it isn't even Hollywood anymore; it's just Jewllywood. Go ahead, give me a ban.

Lisa Ross65 said:What was your actual logic when picking directors for this list? You’ve got Robert Rodriguez, Howard, Lucas, Stone, Demme... but then you completely skip over Peckinpah, Aldrich, Visconti, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Murnau, and Lang. If you're going to put together such a massive survey, at least pick a coherent theme—like "best British directors" or "top indie filmmakers"—instead of this.

Look, the subject matter is massive—it's a broad survey, so there isn't really a "dilemma" to solve here. My goal was simple: include any director with enough weight and cinematic influence to actually pull votes. I didn't want to pigeonhole myself into narrow categories like "best British directors" or "greatest of the last decade"; I wanted to go straight for the jugular. Honestly, looking back, did I seriously miss that many essential names? Please, everyone else, weigh in—I'm open to being corrected.