So, I finally sat down to watch the movie, and honestly? It blew me away—even though my expectations were basically subterranean after how lackluster and uninspired the second installment was. But this third one? It’s genuinely fantastic. I’d even go as far as to say it outshines the first one. 🙏
Now, I suppose I should follow the standard playbook for a review: drone on about how the direction was blah blah blah, praise how some actor nailed their role, mention the score here and the editing there, comment on the cinematography and sound design, and toss in a few mentions of Steven Soderbergh just so everyone knows I actually recognize the director. Then, to ensure the post doesn't feel entirely monotonous, I should sprinkle in a couple of mild grievances, and then—crucially—wrap things up by comparing it to some other Soderberghian work. And if I'm feeling particularly thorough, I'll draw a parallel to some classic film from the European circuit. Not to mention, (it's practically mandatory at this point, perhaps even the most vital part of the whole exercise) I need to drop the word "beautiful" a few times and clutter the screen with a million emojis, 90% of which are as useless as this one: 😍. Without those, the post is essentially meaningless, right? Blah blah blah.
But cutting through all that nonsense, the film is absolutely engaging and interesting, without a single dull moment. Definitely worth a watch. 👍
Ethan Ruiz2 said:I am clearly referring to what Napoleon—not the historical figure, mind you, but our resident forum regular😛—pointed out back in his fifth or sixth post. He mentioned that we are actually looking at a comparison between the most defining works of two specific directors. One of them, heaven help us, is none other than Sergio Leone, who—believe it or not—directed more than just 'Once Upon a Time in the West.' He has several other films under his belt that I personally find far more representative than 'A Fistful of Dynamite'... well, at least a little bit more.😁 😁
Yeah, I see now that he followed up later to clarify that he’s interested in a head-to-head matchup between those two directors. For the most part, I haven't bothered reading any of the other posts except for the opening thread and the one immediately following mine—which happens to be yours, 🙂. Everything clicks into place now. 👍
Ethan Ruiz2 said:I honestly don't think you can view *A Fistful of Dynamite*, *For a Dollar More*, and *Good, Bad, Ugly* as isolated pieces of cinema—especially when you try to pit them against an epic like *Once Upon a Time in the West*. It just doesn't hold up. If you want to actually appreciate them, you have to watch the trilogy as a single, cohesive unit; otherwise, they aren't even really comparable. In my book, the trilogy as a whole carries much more weight than *Once Upon a Time in the West*.
😕 😕 What exactly are you talking about?
So, we’re really doing this? It’s the ultimate showdown: The Wild Bunch versus Once Upon a Time in the West. Honestly, it’s a bit of a lopsided fight if you ask me—not because one isn't a masterpiece, but because they aren't even playing the same game. If you look at The Wild Bunch, you’re looking at pure, unadulterated chaos—a visceral, blood-soaked descent into the end of an era. It’s loud, it’s messy, and it feels like a punch to the gut. Then you have the Leone classic, which is more like a slow-burn fever dream—all atmosphere, sweeping vistas, and that tension that builds until you feel like you might actually snap. One is a riot; the other is a symphony. Comparing them is like asking whether a heavyweight boxing match is "better" than a grand opera. They both involve drama, sure, but the experience is worlds apart.
Right after the Leonov trilogy starring Clint Eastwood, my absolute top-tier Western has to be The Wild Bunch. In my book, it easily outclasses anything involving that harmonica player Charles Bronson. 😉
Joseph Hughes7 said:I’m only 28 and I’ve already spotted three gray hairs. The other day I was venting to two guys at work—one’s 29 and the other is 30.
The oldest one (30) is practically balding already, and the 29-year-old is halfway there. Is this some kind of glitch in my system, or is it just temporary? I guess.
Now they won't stop messing with me, saying I'll look just like them in two years😲 , which honestly has me feeling pretty depressed. I mean, seriously, I just started getting my life together, finally got my finances sorted, and now I'm already an old man.
God help me.😕 😕
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 God help us if people actually think this way.
Jerry Martin19 said:External opinions—which are essentially forced upon readers and viewers by some sort of media dictatorship—are being taken "as gospel" 😠
once those views coalesce into what people call "public opinion," I simply cannot ignore them. 😠
So why can't I, for instance (and please, don't thank me, this is just an illustration 🙂), write something myself and have everyone else follow my lead? 😕
Look, don't take them as gospel. If someone else chooses to swallow the hype, that’s their business—it shouldn't be your headache. 👍
And why on earth can't you move past it once it becomes "public opinion"? Is your own perspective more important than the consensus? I assume it is, which means you're stuck.
Anonymous said:Selling smoke to Hollywood seems to be working wonders—I’m honestly curious how much longer people will fall for this tired trope of blowing up cars or shooting people in the middle of a massive metropolis.
As long as they’re showing it on those massive cinema screens with perfect surround sound, people will keep coming. 👍 There’s nothing quite like hitting a high-end theater to watch a movie where an SUV detonates in downtown Chicago, taking two or three skyscrapers down with it—you actually feel that rumble in your chest, almost like the debris is flying right past you. It’s a rush. That’s the only reason I’m even bothering with 👍 Transformers. I mean, seriously, I'm not trekking to the theater to sit through some indie drama from, say, Prague. 🤣 🤣 Get real.
It’s pure, unadulterated stupidity pushed to the absolute limit—but honestly, damn it, it makes you laugh, and I suppose that’s kind of the whole point. 👍
Charles Evans said:It’s clearly impossible to make you people understand that whatever is playing in theaters right now is garbage, par excellence.
Stop talking nonsense—who exactly are you to decide what counts as trash and what doesn't? Why even bother trying to convince anyone else that a movie is bad? If it's garbage to you, fine, that's where the conversation ends. But going around lecturing everyone else that something is "trash" just because it didn't meet your personal standards is, frankly, pretty idiotic.
Look, there’s just something about the spring season that makes everyone a little more high-strung than usual. Why does that happen? Take college students, for instance—they’re staring down the barrel of final exams and summer sessions, so everyone is perpetually pissed off because they have zero leeway left, yet they know they absolutely have to grind through it (and yes, I definitely fall into that category 🙂). It doesn't help that the beach is practically calling your name, while you're stuck hunched over a textbook in ninety-degree heat. 😕
Charles Evans said:Comparing Terminator to Spider-Man is just nonsensical. It’s flawed on two levels—firstly, because of the sheer difference in quality, and secondly, because they represent entirely different philosophies regarding filmmaking and the industry at large. Movies like Spider-Man are essentially more like video games now; pretty soon, people will be looking for version updates or seasonal patches alongside the title. They'll be treating Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest like software that needs a patch by next year. 🙄
😕 I am not comparing Terminator to Spider-Man—I chose those two specifically as arbitrary examples, though I could have picked any other pair—I am simply drawing a parallel to illustrate that there has always been an inherent drive to create something newer and better than what came before. The only variable that has changed is the velocity at which this evolution occurs. Think about it: you once had black-and-white cinema, and it took nearly half a century to transition into color. Nowadays—and I’m exaggerating here—you could shoot a film using one technique in June, only to find a more advanced method available by August that makes the previous work look obsolete. That is the crux of my point.
So, what we're really discussing here is a phenomenon—though there are separate threads dedicated to those specific franchises—that has exploded since the turn of the millennium: this hyper-accelerated production of mega-hits. We aren't talking about projects meticulously planned as trilogies from the jump (like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings); rather, once a standalone hit takes off, studios dive headlong into a race for sequels. They usually aim for a two-to-three-year gap, but the catch is that every single installment is under immense pressure to outdo its predecessor in every conceivable way. .......
I won't "quote-spam" the entire thing.
Sure, everything tends to strive for being better, faster, bigger, and so on—it’s a trend that bleeds into every corner of life, just as you pointed out. But isn't that how things have always worked?😕 In my view, this isn't some groundbreaking new development. It's just that the velocity has shifted. We live in an accelerated era now; everything moves at a much higher frequency, and that’s the only real distinction. Take the Terminator franchise, for example—it took twenty years to get to the third entry, whereas Spider-Man managed to roll out a sequel in just two or three. Yet, both franchises were driven by that same impulse to surpass the last one, right? My point is, while your observation is spot on, it isn't actually "new." This drive has existed forever and always will. Therefore, I don't see much point in getting worked up over it.
nimblemarlin6 said:Looking at the list of "third entries" posted by feralorca82, I’d argue these were actually decent sequels for reasons beyond just chasing a paycheck: Star Wars Episode VI, Rocky III, Die Hard with a Vengeance, Alien 3, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade... Their whole purpose—aside from, obviously, making money😁—was to flesh out the lore and the characters; they actually had something new to say... or something like that. .
Hold on a second—if I’m following you correctly (though I might have misread the situation 🙏 ), you’re seriously suggesting that Die Hard with a Vengeance and Alien 3 were produced specifically to deepen the character arcs and the narrative????????? I can't help but laugh at that. 🤣 🤣 🤣
Richard Howard2 said:That’s exactly why I used the phrase "new generations." You listed previous entries, but it seems you're missing the point entirely—you've included several "third installments" that don't even belong to that specific group.
The guy literally asked "what's the point"—which is a dead giveaway that he doesn't grasp the concept and is begging for an explanation (one you failed to provide). You're trying to draw a conclusion based solely on his list of "incorrect" third movies. 🙂Let me take a guess at which ones you think don't fit: Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and maybe even Rocky.
It looks like people have been listing plenty of characters like...
- Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) in American Beauty.🙏 - Maximus from Gladiator. - William Wallace from Braveheart.
And so on—there are tons of them out there.
But honestly, looking at the more recent movies I've watched, the most tragic figure has to be Che Guevara (Jason Statham) in the movie Crank.🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏
nimblemarlin6 said:The movie is garbage, but not the pathetic, bottom-of-the-barrel kind of trash you get with \"The Wicker Man\" remake—more like the kind of garbage that’s actually watchable and fun enough to enjoy. To be honest, I actually really liked the flick, so I went ahead and wrote out basically every major spoiler from the plot.
I don't know, though—as Joe Pesci might say in Goodfellas, \"ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fucked up maybe\" 🙏—but those first two sentences of mine are incredibly contradictory. 😉
As for the movie itself, I'll probably give it a watch. 👍
It’s a solid film—really holds its own. The cinematography is quite striking, too. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that Van Deer Beek can be an incredibly grating individual in his other work, but he actually pulls this one off. He fits the role perfectly—it’s one of those rare instances where the casting just clicks.