Posts by David Price5

goldenhound32 said:There is a distinct difference between me simply not enjoying a film—take something like Secretary or Temps de Loup, for instance—and a movie actually being complete garbage.

I'm not entirely closed off to new things, though. For example, I can't stomach most Jean-Claude Van Damme movies because they are just that bad, yet I did find myself enjoying a specific one once. Naturally, for me to even bother looking into an actor, the film needs to have garnered decent critical reception first, which happened in that case.

And since we're being brutally honest here, who is actually handing this guy money when his projects are such massive flops? (At least regarding the trio of Far Cry, Alone in the Dark, and Dungeon Siege). 🤷

I don't personally watch much Jean-Claude Van Damme or Steven Seagal either. However, I don't immediately assume that every single one of their films is bad. I like to leave a little room for hope regarding the ones I haven't seen yet. In fact, I have even heard some positive reviews for some of Jean-Claude's more recent work outside of his JCVD era.

I realized I’ve only actually sat through three full movies starring Dolph Lundgren out of his 39 total credits. Since I didn't count the half-finished ones or the films I can't even remember, I won't be bringing him up as an example of bad acting.

goldenhound32 said:There is a distinct difference between me simply not enjoying a film—take something like Secretary or Temps de Loup, for instance—and a movie actually being complete garbage.

I'm not entirely closed off to new things, though. For example, I can't stomach most Jean-Claude Van Damme movies because they are just that bad, yet I did find myself enjoying a specific one once. Naturally, for me to even bother looking into an actor, the film needs to have garnered decent critical reception first, which happened in that case.

And since we're being brutally honest here, who is actually handing this guy money when his projects are such massive flops? (At least regarding the trio of Far Cry, Alone in the Dark, and Dungeon Siege). 🤷

I recall our previous discussion regarding those German regulations and funding models. In my estimation, however, the bulk of the revenue still stems from DVD sales and television broadcasting.

Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark, House of the Dead, Dungeon Siege, or Far Cry... it's impossible to decide which one reigns supreme. Even if you consider Dungeon Siege and Far Cry part of that specific category of games that are just so bad they actually become good.

It is important to take the time to watch them while you have the chance. You should become well-versed in that specific era of their filmography.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Or maybe just because of Kate Beckinsale? 😁

Or perhaps a Faith Hill song. 😁

goldenhound32 said:I have to disagree. It doesn't take much more than seeing a single film to make up one's mind—in fact, you often need far less than that. Just remember: the worse the movie is, the less time you actually need to reach that realization.

As for Uwe Boll, I haven't sat through any of his work. Nothing about him ever really caught my interest.

Look at it this way: if a director makes about 40 films and you happen to catch just one for thirty minutes, and you hate it, should we assume you'll dislike every single thing they've ever made?

goldenhound32 said:I have to disagree. It doesn't take much more than seeing a single film to make up one's mind—in fact, you often need far less than that. Just remember: the worse the movie is, the less time you actually need to reach that realization.

As for Uwe Boll, I haven't sat through any of his work. Nothing about him ever really caught my interest.

I haven't seen them either. However, I realized I was citing him as an example of a bad director without actually watching anything he made. I fell into the trap of following the hype surrounding the hatred for him. Whether that is justified in this specific instance is a different matter, but it becomes a bad habit nonetheless.

That's enough for me; life is too short to waste on his films.

The issue isn't avoiding his films, it's the "reflexive bashing" of them without even giving them a watch.

Christian Taylor3 said:Sadly, I've only seen Postal. So, yeah, that’s more than enough for me 🙄 (I was just checking, and apparently, after Max Schmeling, he knocked out two more films with a third in pre-production—the man really knows how to stay busy). Honestly, I can't help myself here... back then, I was working closely with Grubišić right around the time Boll first showed up at the studio in Washington, D.C. (June 2008). He even played the part of the gracious host; he was there overseeing the laying down of that massive red carpet right in front of the entrance to the management building; he was basically running around town like a complete lunatic... So, I'd say I'm sufficiently qualified to talk trash about him :klap:. For what it's worth, if anyone's interested, I think I might still have a paper Big Mac box lying around somewhere from when he threw up in it back in the day 😬

Regardless, it isn't fair to jump to conclusions based on just one movie, whether you're talking about a director or an actor..

rustyscout34 said:So, I guess you're trying to defend him? 🤣
(honestly, it feels like we're just supposed to trash him for the sake of it)

Something tells me people just love to bash him for no reason. They bring his name up constantly, yet I’d bet a decent chunk of this forum hasn't even seen one of his movies.

Nathan Myers28 said:Wow, Rob Cohen and McG🙏
Honestly, I’d much rather have Uwe Boll move to America and shoot a new Bloodrayne every single day.

It looks like a lot of you really can't stand Uwe Boll. I'm curious, how many of his movies has everyone here actually sat through?

It might actually be a good idea to suggest a series to him. I suspect he'd really enjoy Brooklyn Nine-Nine

Please go easy on the spoilers.

Not at all. It’s easily one of the best tributes to the 80s. No CGI involved either. I won't spoil too much for you! ;-)

To be honest, my previous comment was more about the whole thread, even if I did just quote you :-D. I’m glad the feeling is mutual! By the way, have you checked out Slither and Feast yet?

Here is an IMDb review that hit the nail on the head perfectly:

People keep bashing this movie for the wrong reasons. If you're someone reading reviews that say "one of the best horror movies," that doesn't necessarily mean it's scary or gory. This movie is an amazing horror film, but keep in mind that it isn't that scary and nor does it try to be. The reason it's good is , because IT truly captures The essence of Halloween. It's All about being a Kid on Halloween and hearing urban legends , and following Halloween traditions. On top of that, the effects look great. There's no CGI at all, which makes the movie feel much more authentic. The setting also helps; it feels like a real American suburb that just happens to experience some supernatural events on Halloween. The only People Who i could see hating this movie ara tortura porn addicts, and people who didn't grow up celebrating the holiday. For the rest of us who love Halloween, if you enjoy horror films, then make sure to see this movie.

Chloe Allen said:I enjoy watching movies on my own and forming my own conclusions, so what's wrong with that? 😬 There are a hundred different people with a hundred different tastes, so obviously one single film won't please everyone 🙂 I never actually said the movie was bad... it just feels more like a comedy than a horror to me, and I find comedies a bit silly (and comedies are just my way to kill time 😬).

But the issue is that it's already been established that you don't like those types of films (horror comedies). Once you state your preference like that, your opinion isn't really objective—is the movie actually bad, or is it just because you dislike the genre? For instance, I don't care for sports video games, but I don't go around talking poorly about them

Chloe Allen said:I wrote that because I view Halloween as a scary holiday, so to me, the film actually captures The essence of Halloween quite well. I didn't take Trick or Treat as a "scary" movie, but rather as a bit of fun. Since I don't care for horror comedies like, say, drag me to Hell, it was a decent way to pass the time. It was enjoyable, but I wasn't blown away since it doesn't hit the specific horror notes I look for. Hopefully, that clears things up 🙂

To be honest, after watching the flick, I feel a bit bummed that Halloween isn't as big of a deal here in the States with all its customs. The local costume parties in February just don't hit the same way. What really bothers me now is this: almost every online review correctly labeled it as an 80s tribute horror comedy. The people on this forum also clearly stated what kind of movie it was—not some scary, gory horror. And yet, someone still watches a movie when they already know they won't enjoy it 😁

Chloe Allen said:Of course, it’s the 1978 Halloween. To me, Trick or Treat feels more like a cheap joke rather than a serious film, so I don't take it seriously at all compared to the original. I honestly have no idea why anyone would prefer that 2009 remake over the first one; in my opinion, that new version is complete garbage. 🤷 I didn't find it interesting or even remotely fun. I barely made it through the film. Honestly, I probably wouldn't have sat through it if I hadn't already been at the theater. 😬

Explain how exactly it captured the essence of Halloween better. I am feeling quite exhausted after the holiday festivities.I still can't quite wrap my head around why people complain about *Trick 'r Treat*. Halloween is a slasher. *Trick 'r Treat* is a horror comedy—an omnibus tribute to other horror films.

Chloe Allen said:Of course the 1978 version of Halloween is better.

Those two movies only share the setting of Halloween; there isn't much else to them. To be fair, there are some nods to the holiday, like in the beginning of Halloween when you see that married couple. I have a simple question: which film better represents the true spirit of Halloween?

Jamie Morris91 said:I watched this movie a couple of weeks ago. Even though my memory of the plot was already fading—which suggests the story itself didn't leave much of an impression on me—it’s still a decent enough production. I found the stylized realism during the massive battle scenes quite striking; seeing that endless fleet preparing for combat felt like a blatant attempt to emphasize their military dominance, even if it comes off as extreme exaggeration. Honestly, how could any navy from that era possibly field enough ships to take on every other military on Earth at once? (specifically that shot transitioning from a bird's-eye view in a canyon filled with a sea of warships). It feels more like John Woo trying to compensate for things through heavy stylization (the costumes were perhaps a bit too polished for the period, though they fit the vibe) and sheer scale. 🙂

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Red_Cliffs

Just a third of a movie theater was enough to make the film worth it :-)

Tropic Thunder starts out as satire before transitioning into everything else..

In terms of production value, I expect it to be quite similar—somewhere right in between Poltergeist and Cache.

Since when did we start believing everything we read on the internet?