Posts by cosmiccanyon68

illegal said:Reading what you wrote... man, it’s like looking in a mirror from back when I was just starting out—maybe about a year in? You know how it goes... your income starts creeping up, people actually start trusting you with more, and eventually, you stop making the rookie mistakes. There’s definitely some truth to that old saying, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained"... if you aren't willing to take a swing, you aren't going to hit anything.👍

At the end of the day, you just have to arm yourself with a ton of patience and pure, stubborn persistence.
Experience and actual know-how... those things only come with time.

That’s a fair way to look at it.

Reading your post actually took me back—man, it feels like forever ago, maybe 7 or 8 years back—to when I first started dipping my toes into the stock market, just tentatively buying up little bits here and there.
I threw a measly 3 $0.00 into some Sun Life Financial fund that was trading at about $1.75 per share. And honestly? I didn't have a clue what I was doing... total amateur hour.

But hey, you gotta take that first step, right? Then it’s just a matter of... well, fortune favors the bold, as they say!

Fast forward to today, and my portfolio is looking so healthy that I could basically coast straight into retirement and live a much better life than most of those folks scraping by on Social Security.

My rating: 2/10

What a letdown.
It’s just totally cliché, predictable, and way too long... honestly, the whole movie feels like it's just coasting on the fact that they hired some big-name actors.

If you ask me, handing out Oscars to mediocre movies (like Chicago, for instance...), while completely snubbing Scorsese, Daniel Day-Lewis, and everything else... it’s just pure American demagoguery.

Scorsese's only real flaw is that he's an American—he actually looks at the USA through a realistic lens. It’s much easier for Americans to sit there and watch some foreign bloody history—you know, like the Holocaust stuff in Schindler's List—and hand out awards for that, rather than actually looking in the mirror to acknowledge that their own history was just as bloody and genocidal... especially when an American is the one telling the story or filming it.

If Scorsese were, say, European, he’d be celebrated and praised in the States ten times more than someone like Polanski, not even mentioning how many Oscars he would've walked away with.

Anyway, if Chicago managed to snag that many Oscars, then "Gangs of New York" should have taken home somewhere between 25 and 50 of them.
I'm just comparing those two films here. I'm not saying that way more, much better movies haven't been made in Hollywood over the last few years... or decades...

Steven Hernandez9 said:Look, let's just be real—Titanic is sixteen times better than this absolute garbage.

Wow, really? Such refined taste you've got there... truly sophisticated.

If I were measuring pure, unadulterated cheesiness, I’d probably have to start with Titanic.

But hey, whatever. To each their own, I guess...

The movie is alright, I guess, but nothing special... just okay.

Spent my weekend catching up on two films.
Gangs of New York (my rating: 4/5)
Chicago (my rating: 3/4)

It’s the exact same issue I had with "Gangs"—you know, how Leonardo DiCaprio's role felt totally misplaced? Well, Renée Zellweger's performance here was a totalllll miss. Just like how Dietrich was phenomenal in "Gangs," C. Zet is easily two classes—maybe even two leagues—better than Reneica, who honestly brings nothing to the table besides a baby face and some pretty features. There's zero substance in her acting, and don't even get me started on her voice... she just squeaks or sings like some three-year-old kid. Honestly, Zet and Reneica look like a solid professor and a troublemaking student. Personally, I can't stand Richard Gere—he's just unappealing to me, both in his acting and his whole vibe (feels like a total Hollywood manufactured product to me)—but I suppose he's slightly better than mediocre in this one.

All in all, it's a decent flick, but it's nowhere near deserving all those Oscars it swept up.

Can't wait to dive into the other Oscar contenders (The Pianist, 8 Mile, etc.)...
So far, "Gangs" was outstanding and actually deserved the hardware—at least for Dietrich.
"Chicago" grabbed those Oscars undeservedly.

I’d give this one a solid four or five out of five.
It’s just missing that tiny bit of magic for me to personally crown it a masterpiece... but it's close.

The plot itself? Honestly, it's fantastic. It does such a killer job showing how the USA was actually being built—you see those massive American metropolises coming to life right before your eyes. And if you look between the lines, you can really dig into the whole settlement of the country, the birth of that specific breed of politician we're stuck with today, and all that stuff...

Where it kind of trips up, though, is definitely L. di Capri's performance. I mean, he just wasn't the guy for this role. To me, he's more in that tier of "weak, flimsy, total pushovers"—you know, guys like Tom Hanks or Richard Gere. He would have been way better served by a real character actor, someone like a young Robert De Niro, or maybe Liam Neeson... honestly, nothing else is jumping out at me right now.

Anyway, bottom line: DEFINITELY WATCH THIS MOVIE—it's worth your time!