Posts by David Price5

Austin Baker86 said:Honestly, I have no idea how I missed this:

Heh, redowl90, redowl90... hot actresses aren't a metric for quality... though I'll take comfort in the thought that any film featuring Matthew Gray Gubler has to be decent. 😉
(seriously, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou is basically an experimental sedative. 😉)

We weren't even talking about cinematic quality here. It was more about how a film keeps you awake and engaged... and Scarlett Johansson is certainly one of the better reasons for that.

The survey was conducted for Silentnight, America's biggest bed manufacturer.

You all are complaining about a survey put together by a bed company. Let's be real—most of these movies were probably watched late at night, tucked away in bed anyway..

copperseal9 said:so I can see what all the hype from the critics was about

The movie definitely earned its glowing reviews. It’s nothing but praise for this one..

1)I recently revisited Hot Fuzz. It’s such a sharp, witty film. It always puts me in a great mood.
2)Zodiac.
3)Pirates of the Caribbean: World's End
4)Ratatouille.
5)Planet Terror
6)Transformers. It’s such an intense ride! I remember seeing the first one at my local AMC and being absolutely floored by the scale of it all. Such a blast.
7)Superbad
8)Reign Over Me
9)Reign Over Me
10)Bridge to Terabithia
11)Paradise Lost
12)Shot
Zeitgeist
14)A Show Must Go On
15)Die Hard
16)The Bourne Ultimatum
17)Sicko
18)Battlestar Galactica
19)Harry Potter
20)proteg

I haven't included the films that came out over the last three or four months because I just haven't been able to track them down or find the time to sit down and watch them yet.

How are we supposed to determine what actually belongs in 2007? Most of the films you listed are dated 2006...

Amanda Nguyen5 said:Since there isn't much of a discussion going on, I’ll just keep this brief since I just got back from the theater screening.

Visually, the movie is an absolute assault on the eyes, and the sound design? Not great either. There’s way too much plot happening, which is totally unnecessary for a genre like this. The acting is just bad—super over-the-top—with everyone being terrible except for Jigsaw. Honestly, the only thing worth watching is when Jigsaw shows up and that whole aura he carries, though even that starts to feel a bit thin every time he reappears.
That opening puzzle was brilliant. There are a few other decent ones scattered in there, but most of them are just plain awful.

It’s a real shame, really. Saw I left such a massive impression on me, but everything following it just keeps dragging the franchise down. I remember Saw II being worse than the first, then Saw III felt a little better than the second but still didn't touch the original, and now Saw IV has completely ruined the whole vibe.
I’m telling you again, it’s such a bummer because Saw I really hit home for me.

On a different note, Jigsaw's wife looked great. I have no idea how old she is or who she even is, but man, the camera angles definitely did her assets justice.

👍 That’s just how it goes. You can never have enough nudity.

Jamie Wood5 said:I hear you, man. ☕That’s why I specifically used terms like filmmaker, director, or producer whenever they came up.

I just finished watching the movie myself. To be honest, those shootout scenes felt a bit forced.👍

redowl90 said:@George Alvarez3 - really nice post. Truly. It’s just a shame that the movie you're talking about remains total garbage, regardless of how well you wrote this.

😢 Just another film where we can't seem to agree..

Rachel Brooks63 said:3) Spies Like Us - watched this countless times, still hits the spot perfectly.👎

Ah, what a classic. Seeing Chevy Chase and Eddie Murphy at their absolute best is always a joy. Didn't one of them just make a comeback recently?😕

Larry Martin11 said:...well, I think we can all agree on this one 🙂 if you ask me, he’s easily the most powerhouse American actor from that younger—middle to high school age group—generation. > is right behind him, followed by this steady stream of "supporting" actors who are always top-tier (ranging from > and > as the slightly older guys, up to—guilty as charged—>)... but >? He just has this specific kind of genius. He’s truly something else 😍

Don't forget William H. Macy once you take a closer look at all the actors chosen by the Coen brothers or Paul Thomas Anderson...

redowl90 said:Hold on just a second—someone stop the world!

Am I reading this right? Are we actually labeling Showtime and Flawless as low points in De Niro's career? That’s blasphemy, for goodness' sake! Pure blasphemy!
I'm sitting here watching Showtime on local TV right now (probably my third time seeing it), and let me tell you, that movie is FUN. Seriously, it's one of the best movies you could pick if you just want to relax and have a good time.

Then there's Flawless, where you have De Niro playing a regular guy who's dealing with some heavy stuff alongside Philip Seymour Hoffman (😍). It's a combination that's hard to mess up, especially with a director involved. Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating about the directing part, but the fact remains: it's probably Schumacher's best work in the last 15 years (aside from A Time to Kill).

What about Tigerland (2000) and Phone Booth (2002)?

John Peterson3 said:I don't know, personally speaking, I just didn't think he quite nailed this role. He’s much better suited for something like his part in Recruit alongside Pacina.

Well, even she deserves a little break now and then. It would be nice if she filmed something that her grandkids could actually enjoy watching together..

redowl90 said:Oh, and one more thing: Warriors is actually a pretty terrible movie.

Hmm. In my opinion, it’s overrated.

Jamie Wood5 said:I think Michael Mann is one of the best directors working today. His films are masterfully crafted, especially those intense action sequences and firefights. 🙏

Actually, this film was directed by Peter Berg. ☕

wearytinker8 said:

Just because I haven't seen the movie doesn't mean it sucks...

Maybe they're good, but they just don't feel right coming from a guy who directed three of the greatest films ever made.
Take Kubrick, for example. He always prioritized quality over quantity, and the payoff is that you can practically recite his entire filmography by heart...

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Maybe they aren't geniuses like those first two mentioned. Whatever.

What bothers me is how Ridley, after the financial hit of "Blade Runner," pivoted to these commercial, "safe" projects—one-and-done movies that any hack could have directed. It's a waste of a director with such an incredible visual style and a knack for suspense.
Look, Cameron stayed true to his original vision for a decade and handed us four sci-fi masterpieces. Ridley could have done the same. Just stick to what you're good at. Forget what the critics think...

You forgot to put Big Trouble in Little China (1986) on that list above.

I couldn't figure out if it was sci-fi or a horror flick, so it didn't fit...

One simply cannot expect to produce a masterpiece every single time. I won't be discussing Kubrick, as I haven't actually sat through most of his filmography yet.

wearytinker8 said:

Just because I haven't seen the movie doesn't mean it sucks...

Maybe they're good, but they just don't feel right coming from a guy who directed three of the greatest films ever made.
Take Kubrick, for example. He always prioritized quality over quantity, and the payoff is that you can practically recite his entire filmography by heart...

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Maybe they aren't geniuses like those first two mentioned. Whatever.

What bothers me is how Ridley, after the financial hit of "Blade Runner," pivoted to these commercial, "safe" projects—one-and-done movies that any hack could have directed. It's a waste of a director with such an incredible visual style and a knack for suspense.
Look, Cameron stayed true to his original vision for a decade and handed us four sci-fi masterpieces. Ridley could have done the same. Just stick to what you're good at. Forget what the critics think...

You forgot to put Big Trouble in Little China (1986) on that list above.

I couldn't figure out if it was sci-fi or a horror flick, so it didn't fit...

Money is a powerful motivator. One has to provide for their family, after all. I remember my own father always saying that stability comes before ego. If this director had enjoyed the kind of luck Cameron has—where nearly every film is a massive blockbuster—he might have felt more comfortable taking risks. But look at Scott's filmography; he tackled just about every genre imaginable. He was willing to gamble while Cameron played it safe with action hits.

wearytinker8 said:

Just because I haven't seen the movie doesn't mean it sucks...

Maybe they're good, but they just don't feel right coming from a guy who directed three of the greatest films ever made.
Take Kubrick, for example. He always prioritized quality over quantity, and the payoff is that you can practically recite his entire filmography by heart...

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Maybe they aren't geniuses like those first two mentioned. Whatever.

What bothers me is how Ridley, after the financial hit of "Blade Runner," pivoted to these commercial, "safe" projects—one-and-done movies that any hack could have directed. It's a waste of a director with such an incredible visual style and a knack for suspense.
Look, Cameron stayed true to his original vision for a decade and handed us four sci-fi masterpieces. Ridley could have done the same. Just stick to what you're good at. Forget what the critics think...

You forgot to put Big Trouble in Little China (1986) on that list above.

I couldn't figure out if it was sci-fi or a horror flick, so it didn't fit...

That is a pure representative of the action genre, infused with just a touch of that classic 80s flair. It reminds me of the old movies I used to watch on Saturday mornings.

The lead actor is comedian Nicolas Cage. He is absolutely hilarious to me, especially now that he’s sporting a mustache.

A comedian? Have you actually sat through any of his dramatic performances? I personally found his recent stage work to be quite underwhelming.

wearytinker8 said:In the movie business, you see directors who walk away while they're still at the top of their game—think George Lucas or James Cameron—but then there’s the other group. These are the guys who didn't quit, even though they probably should have... or could have just switched to using a pseudonym to save face:

1. FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA

After basically delivering three of the greatest films ever made in Hollywood history (*The Godfather*, *The Godfather Part II*, and *Apocalypse Now*), Coppola spent the 80s churning out about a dozen movies that absolutely nobody has ever heard of.
Have any of you actually heard of *One from the Heart*, *Rumble Fish*, *The Cotton Club*, *Peggy Sue Got Married*, *Gardens of Stone*, or maybe *Tucker: The Man and His Dream* (okay, fine, I've heard of that one)?
Then he tries to reclaim some dignity with *The Godfather Part III* and *Dracula*, only to deliver what might be the biggest shock in cinema history: the guy who directed *The Godfather* makes *Jack*—which is basically just a rip-off of *Big*, starring that absolute nutjob Robin Williams as a ten-year-old boy who, because of some aging disorder, looks like a hyperactive, hairy gnome.

2. RIDLEY SCOTT

After handing us two of the best sci-fi flicks ever made (*Alien*, *Blade Runner*), Ridley decided to pivot to... well, whatever this was: a kid's movie with Tom Cruise (*Legend*), some mediocre thrillers (*Someone to Watch Over Me*, *Black Rain*), a feminist drama (*Thelma & Louise*), an incredibly tedious historical epic (*1492: Conquest of Paradise*), a female version of *Full Metal Jacket* (*G.I. Jane*), a pretty weak sequel (*Hannibal*), and a Nicolas Cage comedy (*Matchstick Men*)...

3. JOHN CARPENTER

Back in the 70s, he gave us two masterpieces (*Assault on Precinct 13*, *Halloween*), and through the 80s, he reigned as the king of horror (*The Fog*, *The Thing*, *Christine*) and sci-fi (*Escape from New York*, *Starman*, *They Live*).
It all started sliding downhill with a silly sci-fi comedy (*Memoirs of an Invisible Man*), continued with a totally unnecessary remake (*Village of the Damned*), moved into a terrible sequel (*Escape from L.A.*), and eventually bottomed out with some horror-of-horror stuff (*Vampires*, *Ghosts of Mars*).
Eventually, he finally realized he'd be better off just retiring and living off the royalties from the remakes of his own classics. Way to go, John! You really should have pulled the plug back in '88.

I'm open to theories here. Did aliens snatch them away or something?

Just because I haven't seen a particular film doesn't mean it isn't any good. For instance, I've heard plenty about four of the titles mentioned above, yet I haven't sat down to watch a single one. However, this decline following Dracula is genuinely concerning; perhaps he simply entered a different creative phase. We should ask Jerry Martin19 if he ever caught Youth Without Youth (2007).

wearytinker8 said:In the movie business, you see directors who walk away while they're still at the top of their game—think George Lucas or James Cameron—but then there’s the other group. These are the guys who didn't quit, even though they probably should have... or could have just switched to using a pseudonym to save face:

1. FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA

After basically delivering three of the greatest films ever made in Hollywood history (*The Godfather*, *The Godfather Part II*, and *Apocalypse Now*), Coppola spent the 80s churning out about a dozen movies that absolutely nobody has ever heard of.
Have any of you actually heard of *One from the Heart*, *Rumble Fish*, *The Cotton Club*, *Peggy Sue Got Married*, *Gardens of Stone*, or maybe *Tucker: The Man and His Dream* (okay, fine, I've heard of that one)?
Then he tries to reclaim some dignity with *The Godfather Part III* and *Dracula*, only to deliver what might be the biggest shock in cinema history: the guy who directed *The Godfather* makes *Jack*—which is basically just a rip-off of *Big*, starring that absolute nutjob Robin Williams as a ten-year-old boy who, because of some aging disorder, looks like a hyperactive, hairy gnome.

2. RIDLEY SCOTT

After handing us two of the best sci-fi flicks ever made (*Alien*, *Blade Runner*), Ridley decided to pivot to... well, whatever this was: a kid's movie with Tom Cruise (*Legend*), some mediocre thrillers (*Someone to Watch Over Me*, *Black Rain*), a feminist drama (*Thelma & Louise*), an incredibly tedious historical epic (*1492: Conquest of Paradise*), a female version of *Full Metal Jacket* (*G.I. Jane*), a pretty weak sequel (*Hannibal*), and a Nicolas Cage comedy (*Matchstick Men*)...

3. JOHN CARPENTER

Back in the 70s, he gave us two masterpieces (*Assault on Precinct 13*, *Halloween*), and through the 80s, he reigned as the king of horror (*The Fog*, *The Thing*, *Christine*) and sci-fi (*Escape from New York*, *Starman*, *They Live*).
It all started sliding downhill with a silly sci-fi comedy (*Memoirs of an Invisible Man*), continued with a totally unnecessary remake (*Village of the Damned*), moved into a terrible sequel (*Escape from L.A.*), and eventually bottomed out with some horror-of-horror stuff (*Vampires*, *Ghosts of Mars*).
Eventually, he finally realized he'd be better off just retiring and living off the royalties from the remakes of his own classics. Way to go, John! You really should have pulled the plug back in '88.

I'm open to theories here. Did aliens snatch them away or something?

Is this supposed to be bad? They certainly aren't as brilliant as the first two mentioned. Regardless. 🙏Take a look at his recent watchlist: Gladiator (2000), Black Hawk Down (2001), and Kingdom of Heaven (2005). I haven't caught that last one yet, so I'll have to add it to my list.🙂 In my opinion, he proved himself to be one of the finest directors working today. I remember seeing his early work in a small theater in Chicago, and even then, his vision was unmistakable.

wearytinker8 said:In the movie business, you see directors who walk away while they're still at the top of their game—think George Lucas or James Cameron—but then there’s the other group. These are the guys who didn't quit, even though they probably should have... or could have just switched to using a pseudonym to save face:

1. FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA

After basically delivering three of the greatest films ever made in Hollywood history (*The Godfather*, *The Godfather Part II*, and *Apocalypse Now*), Coppola spent the 80s churning out about a dozen movies that absolutely nobody has ever heard of.
Have any of you actually heard of *One from the Heart*, *Rumble Fish*, *The Cotton Club*, *Peggy Sue Got Married*, *Gardens of Stone*, or maybe *Tucker: The Man and His Dream* (okay, fine, I've heard of that one)?
Then he tries to reclaim some dignity with *The Godfather Part III* and *Dracula*, only to deliver what might be the biggest shock in cinema history: the guy who directed *The Godfather* makes *Jack*—which is basically just a rip-off of *Big*, starring that absolute nutjob Robin Williams as a ten-year-old boy who, because of some aging disorder, looks like a hyperactive, hairy gnome.

2. RIDLEY SCOTT

After handing us two of the best sci-fi flicks ever made (*Alien*, *Blade Runner*), Ridley decided to pivot to... well, whatever this was: a kid's movie with Tom Cruise (*Legend*), some mediocre thrillers (*Someone to Watch Over Me*, *Black Rain*), a feminist drama (*Thelma & Louise*), an incredibly tedious historical epic (*1492: Conquest of Paradise*), a female version of *Full Metal Jacket* (*G.I. Jane*), a pretty weak sequel (*Hannibal*), and a Nicolas Cage comedy (*Matchstick Men*)...

3. JOHN CARPENTER

Back in the 70s, he gave us two masterpieces (*Assault on Precinct 13*, *Halloween*), and through the 80s, he reigned as the king of horror (*The Fog*, *The Thing*, *Christine*) and sci-fi (*Escape from New York*, *Starman*, *They Live*).
It all started sliding downhill with a silly sci-fi comedy (*Memoirs of an Invisible Man*), continued with a totally unnecessary remake (*Village of the Damned*), moved into a terrible sequel (*Escape from L.A.*), and eventually bottomed out with some horror-of-horror stuff (*Vampires*, *Ghosts of Mars*).
Eventually, he finally realized he'd be better off just retiring and living off the royalties from the remakes of his own classics. Way to go, John! You really should have pulled the plug back in '88.

I'm open to theories here. Did aliens snatch them away or something?

Now, this part might be a bit sensitive. Personally, I've never been a huge fan of this director. There are some of his "cult" hits I skipped entirely or just found overrated. You actually missed Big Trouble in Little China (1986) on that list above. It's a fantastic movie. Moving on to his 90s work: I watched Body Bags (1993), In the Mouth of Madness (1995), Village of the Damned (1995), and Vampires (1998). Body Bags and Mouth of Madness were great, Village was just okay, and Vampires was weak. It seems clear his pace has slowed down significantly.

Jerry Martin19 said:In a nudist sense or an acting sense? 🙂

You know me... both.

Jerry Martin19 Unknown said:I'd love to hear your thoughts on Robert De Niro's second outing as a director. The Good ShepherdI haven't seen it yet, but I have a hunch it might actually be pretty solid. It feels like it could be better than most of De Niro's work from the last decade or so.

That was a really great movie. It’s just a shame they didn't make better use of Angie's character.

wearytinker8 said:Does anyone actually have a real explanation for why De Niro and Al Pacino are constantly lumped together as the greatest actors in history? It’s like they’re always being compared to The Beatles and The Rolling Stones... just two massive pillars that people can't stop pitting against each other. And then there was that whole buildup for their scenes in Heat... the anticipation was almost unreal. Why does that specific pairing carry so much weight?
Is it because they're Italian, or is it just because they both hit the big time with The Godfather?
Why not go with someone like Robert De Niro and Jack Nicholson instead? I'm not saying they're my absolute favorites or anything... but then again, Nicholson has three Oscars under his belt, while Al Pacino has only managed one...
Please, don't be ridiculous... every single model is going to end up saying "De Niro and Al Pacino."

It's true that "The Godfather" made them famous... but the funny thing is they weren't even in a single scene together until "Heat" became that big exception. You have to admit, that restaurant scene is absolutely brilliant. As for comparing Jack and Al Pacino... I have to agree, they really are similar.

Linda Lopez80 said:Besides Four Rooms, I caught him in that Tupac movie and some other one—I can't recall the title right now.

Gridlock'd (1997)