The main thing is you guys always have a crowd, even when you're flying solo. 🙂
I mean, there’s always someone ready to jump in and start an argument. You’ve got one guy who hates TV shows so much he’d probably rather take a bullet than waste precious minutes on them when there are actual cinematic masterpieces out there worth studying. Then there’s the other, who’s watched so much junk in his life that he thinks he’s an expert on basically every single show ever made. Then we have the third, a die-hard hater of > who refuses to respect anything that isn't some hyper-original masterpiece—you know, the kind of stuff birthed from the mind of a director who actually earns the title of "artist." The fourth one? He’s fine with unoriginality, as long as it’s labeled a "remake" instead of a blatant rip-off. And then the fifth guy thinks "copying" someone else's work without permission isn't plagiarism unless the creator actually catches you and sues you—at which point you just grab a six-pack of Budweiser and call it a misunderstanding.
Anyway, glad you guys are having such a blast. With this group around, you’re never truly alone. 🎉
Man, this movie absolutely floored me. There’s just something so beautifully simple and understated about it, yet it feels incredibly full—especially when it comes to the raw emotion. It hits deeper than you’d expect. Jamie Turner80 already did a deep dive and dissected every single detail, and honestly, I can’t even add anything else because they nailed it.
If I had to pick one thing, though, I feel like the whole black-and-white choice didn't really move the needle either way. It didn't elevate the message, but it didn't hurt it either. To be honest, it felt pretty irrelevant to the actual core of the story.
I think the movie would have left me with the exact same impact even if it had been shot in full color.🤷
Heh, honestly, I’ve never really felt anything from Garner, so this isn't exactly an exception either.
She’s just plain weak when it comes to actually selling an emotional performance. For me, there's just nothing there.
I guess they probably cast her because she has that naturally warm look and generally gives off the vibe of being a good, decent person at first glance.
But at the end of the day, she’s got one face and that’s about it. 🤷
Jonathan Perez88 said:Watched it yesterday—really enjoyed 👍. All three nominations were totally earned, though whether they actually take home an Oscar remains to be seen; I still have a few more films to get through first.
Anyway, Jared was incredible—that scene where he goes to see his dad 🙏. No makeup, no costume, yet he looked like a complete woman.
On the other hand, Jennifer Garner was underwhelming. She felt exactly the same as always; her character just lacked any real depth. With MMA, it’s obvious what drives him: first survival, then profit. It’s only much later that he realizes he actually cares. But Jennifer 🤷, why did she care so much about Rayon? "He was my friend also"? Since when? Honestly, I think she’s only there to provide a little bit of reassurance that "hey, there are actually some good doctors out there."
Well, we didn't exactly sit through a mountain of "steamy" scenes between them—the movie wasn't really wasting time on that—but it’s pretty clearly established that she’s been his doctor for quite a while, way before MM even stepped onto the scene. She’s portrayed as someone who actually gives a damn about her patients and builds real connections with them, so it works for me.
That said, I totally agree that Garner is the weakest link in this whole thing. Honestly, maybe some other actress could have squeezed more out of that thin, skeletal script they gave her. Or maybe not.🤷
And I should probably mention the soundtrack. It’s honestly hilarious how much effort they put into digging up the cheesiest, most cliché tracks imaginable just to slap them in there. 🙏
It actually killed me when he showed up in Germany and that "99 Luftballons" track started playing. 😁
Honestly, I loved it. Sure, it gets a little over the top in certain spots, but I didn't mind at all. It kicks off with this vibrant, fast-paced, super stylized vibe—almost like a caricature—and just leans hard into that energy until the credits roll.
I mean, how else are you supposed to pull off a movie like this?
Leonardo DiCaprio really caught me off guard here; I don't think I've ever seen him play anyone quite like this before. The guy can seriously transform into whoever he wants to be.
I do have a question for the folks who actually read the book, though. I went down a rabbit hole trying to figure out the differences in the ending, but all the online forums and fan theories are just making my head spin.
HUGE SPOILERS AHEAD:
1. Does the book end with his ex-wife and kid walking into the house only to find him hanging there? 2. And was the whole police department aware of his mental state and all that mess the entire time, basically covering for him regardless? 🤷
The movie is just incredible. Everything about it hits the mark, and honestly, I don't have a single complaint. If anything, this was the one nominee I wasn't expecting a damn thing from, yet I walked away with so much more than I bargained for. 🙂
Anyway, is it just me, or are there actually people out there who still believe the FDA—and really the entire pharmaceutical industry for that matter—actually puts patients and their health first? 😕
It's money. Pure and simple. Money, money, and more money. We're talking about a web of corruption and machinery so massive it’s basically impossible for us to even wrap our heads around it.
I’m assuming you’re just messing with me at this point, but fine, I’ll bite. 😬
He’s picking out this hyper-specific moment to loop back to—a moment he’s already lived through (or so his old man told him). In that exact instant, there aren't two different versions of him—no past self and future self—there’s just him, one single entity. Even if he drops right into the middle of some massive crowd, he’s already experienced that entire scene; he knows it inside and out because he hand-picked it as his target for the jump.
It basically works like he’s "delivering" memories from his present self straight back to his past self, just so he can pull some strings and change things up.
The setup implies he can’t jump ahead into a future that hasn't actually happened yet, but I don't think anyone explicitly stated he couldn't "fast-forward" back to the point where he originally left off.🤷
I mean, sure, maybe they could have smoothed things over with a more detailed explanation during that scene where his dad lays everything out for him, but it's not like we can't just connect the dots ourselves based on what we saw on screen.
Pretty solid little flick. It’s got that breezy, charming British vibe—super gentle and relaxing. Honestly, feels like a bit of therapy. 🙂
@eek, look, until that kid is actually born, they’re just some blurry shape on an ultrasound. He isn't going to be able to tell one grainy image from another. It's not like he's already some tiny human being he’s been singing lullabies to, changing diapers for, or getting attached to.
They captured that perfectly in that scene where he heads back home only to be greeted by a child he doesn't even recognize.
But with this one, it doesn't work quite like that.
I definitely agree that keeping the time travel as just a backdrop for the human drama was the right call. If they had leaned too hard into the sci-fi mechanics, they probably would've tripped over their own feet trying to make the logic work.
"Hardly anyone actually goes for one-night stands anymore. And honestly, any woman who does is just asking for trouble. Personally, I try my best to stay far away from women who are heading down that path—unless it's strictly professional and I have absolutely no choice in the matter."
Kurtzius Kura
And honestly, who is he even offending here? From where I’m sitting, he’s just made himself look like a complete and utter moron. Does someone really need to get banned for this? Isn't the fact that he just broadcasted to the entire internet how unattractive he is—basically admitting nobody has ever wanted to touch him—punishment enough?
I mean, why are we even bothering to laugh, get angry, or debate this guy? We don't need more "intellectual gems" like him cluttering up society today. I have a proposal: let's have just one single day on this forum without a single moderator. I'll call in sick to work just so I can witness the absolute chaos unfold!😁
Christian Taylor3 said:I just caught this—she doesn't even know the actual title of the movie (and she's actually trying to get a refund over it). 🤦 🤣
I don't really get why this thread exists. You only started it because you're pissed off. Honestly, I watch total garbage movies all the time and I don't feel the need to start an entire online debate about them.
It wasn't even a user who started it; regardless, the whole thing just turned into a massive waste of time.
I honestly can’t even tell you what the name of that thing was, but I guess that just goes to show how much it actually hit me. Still, you guys have a point—if I had actually bothered to do some digging instead of just following the crowd like a sheep, maybe I would've seen some red flags popping up before it was too late.
placidjackal36 said:It’s not Throne, it’s Tron: Legacy. You're totally misinterpreting what happened with the Throne. ThroneLook, I’m telling you, that movie just doesn't have anything to do with... Throne. 😛
Yeah, look, the movie is pretty thin when it comes to actual substance. It doesn't hit me like those typical Steven Seagal or Jackie Chan action flicks where they just churn out a fifteenth sequel with the exact same title, but you have to admit—it’s definitely lacking in terms of depth.
I honestly don't get why you even started this thread. You clearly just opened it because you're pissed off. Look, I run into absolute garbage movies all the time, but I don't go running to a forum to start a whole debate every single time I see one. The movie theater experience is going downhill by the day. It’s pretty obvious why, too—the corporations running the show don't care about actually showing good cinema anymore. They only see a profit in pumping out endless blockbusters, and let's be honest, most of them are absolute garbage. What can you even do about it? You just have to be more careful when you're picking things out next time.
Sorry, I can't even focus on what you're actually saying because of that little poem in your signature... it's hitting me with all this nostalgia, especially that balloon with the deflated sleeves...🤣 I didn't "open" a thread; I just made a regular post, and it looks like the moderator turned it into this after a few people started piling on... And look, much respect to you, but no rebel in history has ever just shrugged their shoulders and said, "Well, what can you do?" There's always something you can do.
ruggedjackal46 said:So, I was under the impression that the whole point here was to critique the actual quality of the movie. But apparently, I missed the mark entirely. It turns out the real issue isn't whether the film itself holds water, but rather that one specific individual just didn't get what they wanted out of it despite having already paid for the ticket. Is that really how we're playing this? $12So, it looks like I was being a bit too generous with my interpretation, but hey, if you’re insisting that's the point, then fine... I guess I'll take your word for it.
I can get behind the take on how things look right now, but I have to push back on the nostalgia trip regarding the past. Seriously, when was "the majority" of the audience actually interested in art? And when exactly were most movies considered "great"? We all have this habit of cherry-picking the absolute masterpieces from decades ago while conveniently scrubbing the mountain of garbage from our memories. That’s fine for a conversation, but using that selective memory to claim the ratio of good-to-bad films has shifted drastically since the old days just isn't a fair argument.
No matter how you slice it—whether you're looking at it from a personal level or a global one—one pretty depressing reality (if you ask me) is that major Hollywood studios are basically the only industry left that's completely off the hook, whether we're talking moral accountability or financial responsibility, when it comes to pissed-off customers who bought their product. On top of that, they hijack the very same media channels that are supposed to act as an objective guide for you (TV, newspapers, the internet...) just to pump out fake, sanitized, sensationalist hype designed to make you think 'you've gotta see this movie.' The fact that most people end up feeling totally ripped off just keeps them entertained. They’re practically counting down the days until they can fleece us all over again.
Roger Long67 said:Well, sure—as if ratings and reviews are anything more than marketing fluff. There’s really no way around it; true objectivity comes from combining actual viewing experience with established film literature. That’s the only way to reach a legitimate judgment on a film's value (setting aside personal bias) and to assess its quality, even just based on a trailer. If we reduce everything to mere subjective impressions, we degrade the very idea of film criticism and open the door to total relativism where nothing has any real value. After all, we’re on this forum because we believe we know "a little more" than the average person, right?
Speaking of the topic at hand, the influx of capital into global—and specifically American—cinema over the last decade has essentially doubled. Consequently, movies have become more commercialized than ever before. Much like any other commodity, they've become more perishable and disposable. At the same time, the widespread democratization of filmmaking and access to tools has lowered standards and diluted overall quality, but I suppose that's just the cost of global capitalism. Film has undergone a fascinating transformation throughout its history: back in its early days, to draw crowds into theaters, it had to establish itself as an art form, whereas today, to attract an audience, it has to abandon the pretense of being art altogether!
🙏...that's pretty much all I've got to say about it.
I guess I’m still one of those stubborn idealists who actually believes everything can be fixed if enough people just decide to step up and make it happen. By now, I really should have learned that's just not how the world works... Anyway, everyone's acting like my constant complaining is solely because of Tron: Legacy, but honestly? That was just the spark that lit the fuse. This stuff has been building up inside me for years...
Jeffrey Fisher61 said:You don't have any grounds for a lawsuit because there isn't a single law that allows for it, and you won't even get in front of a judge since no lawyer in America is going to take a case like that.
And you're supposed to be some kind of expert? (and clearly one without a shred of a sense of humor, either). Oh, I have plenty of grounds for a lawsuit—we're talking three different angles here. Honestly, "emotional distress" is the easiest one to pull from; under the law, anyone can sue anyone else on those grounds, it’s just a matter of whether they can actually prove it in court. (Too bad I didn't get an EEG and a blood pressure reading before and after the movie, hahaha). As for this idea that no lawyer would dare touch such a juicy little problem... yeah, I don't buy that for a second. These guys absolutely CRAVE precedents that guarantee massive media coverage; it's basically free advertising for them, which doesn't happen every day....
Gary Collins4 said:I’ve noticed a few posts where people are comparing this movie to "spoiled food," suggesting that you’re entitled to a refund if that's the case. And sure, technically, you are. But I think that comparison is totally off base. The film didn't malfunction in the theater; there wasn't any audio glitching or picture issues... nothing like that. Personally, I’d look at it this way. Imagine you pick up some 😁 at a grocery store, and even though they turn out to be terrible, they aren't actually rotten. They’re a staple that everyone else loves and keeps buying, but for some reason, you just can't stand them.
Are you really going to head back to the store and get into a heated argument with the cashier just because those mushrooms didn't suit your palate? Of course not—you can't, and you shouldn't, because you chose to buy them. It’s the exact same thing with movies.
They wrap all sorts of mediocre stuff in flashy packaging to make it look appealing, knowing a small group of people will absolutely love it while everyone else just rolls their eyes.
I doubt I couldn't make a scene and somehow wiggle my way into getting those blueberries exchanged... I'll give it a shot and let you know. So, let's try to find a better, more fitting analogy—something actually within the realm of art. Let's look at painting. Does anyone expect you to buy a canvas based solely on someone's verbal description, or after seeing just one tiny corner of it, or do you get to stand there and critique the WHOLE thing as much as you want before you cough up the cash?