Walter Alvarez76 said:I think my take is pretty much summarized by how this local magazine reviewed the movie. They wrote:
"The angel-faced protagonist makes the admirable choice to turn to check fraud just to settle his old man's debts, which basically gives director Steven Spielberg the perfect excuse to lean hard into every single American cliché imaginable." 😁 😁
That description really hits the nail on the head, honestly, and I feel like the opening animated sequence captures that vibe perfectly too—you know, with all those dramatic sighs like, "Will they catch him? Oh, they will! Oh, they totally will... or maybe not!" kind of stuff, almost following some weird Pink Panther sort of poetic style. 🙂 The real issue with the movie is just how drawn out everything feels, which isn't surprising since it drags on for a full 140 minutes.
Tom Hanks is stepping back into the kind of role that basically built his career, but even so, if you ask me—and I mean with all due respect here—a whole panel of critics pretty much agreed that this is more of a movie for little kids than adults, and they mostly just pointed out how much of a missed opportunity it was because a more interesting director didn't helm it. So, like, is it actually worth spending money to go see it in a theater? I'd say no.
You’re probably better off just picking up some men's magazine instead. 😁
1. Anthrax 2. Slayer 3. Metallica 4. Kud Idijot 5. The bombing of New York City
I mean, this last one isn't even really just a band, it feels like something way bigger than that, you know? Big thanks to the intergalactic legend Zdenko Franjic.
You guys really need to wrap your heads around the fact that the Internet, which is basically the biggest miracle of our age, is actually built on this totally anarchist core idea at its heart and soul.
👍
Exactly! See?! And now you're getting all defensive just because someone called you an anarchist?
As for everything else, yeah, that all sounds super pretty and wonderful, but... You’re kind of ignoring some pretty hard truths here, hiddenpuma75. Like, for instance, the computer hosting this whole forum isn't some public commons—it's private property, which means whoever owns it can moderate the place however they damn well please. So, I guess if you actually wanted your vision to work, we'd first have to dismantle this entire messed-up version of civilization we've stumbled into.
😁 😁 😁 VIVA ZAPATA!
I mean, sure, there are probably people out there who agree with you and think moderation is total garbage, so they can just go somewhere else if they feel suffocated here. I'm not trying to kick you out or anything, heaven forbid, I'm just laying out the rules of the game. But if you wander over to one of those unmoderated corners of the web and run into creeps, predators, or whatever, well, hey, that's just part of the deal. Plus, I honestly think moderation is necessary, mostly because we should be keeping the enemies of freedom and democracy away too!
By the way: Hitler!
Regarding g. Pes, even though I'm still a relatively new face around here, I don't have any complaints about how she moderates; I actually think she does it in the true spirit of that freedom we're talking about.
unknown, thanks for bringing up FM magazine, because honestly, that was such a perfect example of what happens when you take someone who’s been totally left behind by the times, scramble their brain, and then hand them a fat paycheck and total freedom—they end up completely wrecking a mainstream music mag that, let's face it, there are barely any of even in parts of Africa.
A buddy of mine was telling me about how Joe Biden and that rest of the "heavyweight" (+90kg) critic crew were doing their thing at the A&M festival in San Francisco a few years back: while the actual bands were out there performing, these guys were just busy gorging themselves on greasy sliders and beer backstage until they were basically stumbling around smelling like a BBQ pit. I have no clue how they actually wrote their articles, which were obviously paid through the nose, but word on the street is that the bands practically had to come over and feed them themselves, so everything ended up being settled on a purely personal level. 😲 After hearing all that, does anyone still find it confusing why we haven't seen a single decent music magazine in America since the death of unknown? And look, the fans of unknown shouldn't be mad, because if you ask me, that magazine was way too niche, so it probably just never found a large enough audience anyway. 👎
Hey guys, can we actually dig into this a bit? I feel like I see so many posts just saying "this movie is great" or "this movie sucks," but there's no real substance behind it.
Personally, I thought the movie was pretty decent. With movies like this, you’re always left wondering how on earth a director is going to take some wild Philip K. Dick concept and turn it into something that actually works on screen. Maybe that's why they love adapting the late Philip K. Dick's work so much—since he isn't around to chime in anymore? In this case, the whole thing about hunting down crimes before they even happen felt totally believable to me, like, it felt genuinely possible. Honestly, that scene with the doctor alone is worth the price of admission; that eye extraction part was absolutely BRUTAL. Plus, the constant suspense is just top-tier, which is what Steve is so incredibly good at, regardless of what anyone else might think about it. 😁 😁
By some weird stroke of luck, I managed to binge both versions back-to-back in a pretty short window, starting with the original. Honestly, the Remake is way more faithful to the source material than I was expecting, though there are a few tiny tweaks here and there—mostly things we can probably blame on modern political correctness—plus one of those typical Hollywood twists that doesn't really serve much of a purpose, but hey, whatever, let them have it. Anyway, I feel like it’s almost mandatory to read the book before diving into either version. Without that context, a ton of stuff just feels blurry, especially with the original, since no movie can ever truly capture everything laid out in the novel, and some of those details might actually be crucial for asking the right questions. So, here's my take on the similarities and differences, roughly speaking: The original is basically designed as this deep philosophical and psychological study, which means it throws a million questions at you without giving you any easy answers; it just forces you to sit there and think. It’s an incredibly powerful film. After watching it, I honestly had a giant question mark floating over my head all day, kind of like something out of a comic book. The set design is pretty minimal, too—I guess Tarkovsky probably felt like emphasizing the technology wasn't necessary, which I personally think was the right call. The Remake, on the other hand, feels more like a practical exercise in film and psychology. Steven Soderbergh tries to answer a few of those questions in a more Westernized way, but he doesn't go overboard; he just deciphers some of the easier pieces of the Solaris puzzle instead of daring to push all the way to the end, which is a smart move, I suppose. The production design is much more pronounced, leaning into that sci-fi atmosphere; while that wasn't a big deal for Tarkovsky, it’s definitely front and center here, maybe just because of the passage of time. In a way, the film feels like an upgrade to the original—you could easily call it Solaris 2.0. As for the acting, that American guy whose name escapes me is just on a completely different level compared to George Clooney, who is clearly trying his best, but... yeah, not quite there. To wrap it up: Steven Soderbergh took a brave, unpretentious crack at a mystery that Solaris somewhat robs from the viewer, staying true enough to the original that it’s still digestible for the average person. I think he pulled it off, though judging by the box office numbers, I’m probably wrong about that. I’d give it a 4+. Plus, extra points just because of Natascha McElhone!
So, basically, these are those movies that I feel like any serious film library absolutely needs to have on the shelves, even though they don't really align with my own specific tastes or what I usually go for
Casablanca Citizen Kane 2001: A Space Odyssey Ben-Hur A Beautiful Mind
some extras too: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas The Godfather Mad Max
I should probably mention that they're all American films, unless you count stuff from overseas, but I guess that's just how I was raised and what I grew up watching