Jerry Rogers6 said:Don't fucking screw with me. Why are you implying this user is some kind of degenerate? Are you guys actually sane?!
You’ve got another moderator right here who has been operating on that exact same principle for years—harassing people, sometimes for absolutely no reason at all. He spends, well... basically 90% of his time posting troll-style nonsense about sixteen letters long, which, heaven help us, is apparently how he built his entire career on this Reddit. And now, suddenly, his specific stylistic persona becomes an issue?
🤣
Henry Campbell5 is being treated incredibly unfairly—first by those arguing with Stiletto, and now by you guys too. It’s honestly pathetic. In this whole situation, Bloomer is the victim here.
As for the other thing, I didn't follow the whole mess involving briskhound2 and those conflicts closely. But what really struck me was when you appointed him; personally, I think he brought a much-needed breath of humanity to this PDF movie section. He disrupted—or rather, "disrupted"—that sense of elitism and the occasional over-the-top snobbery you guys tend to push. Personally, I liked him because he's cool with Joshua Smith 😬, but that’s beside the point. I think briskhound2 is a perfectly fine moderator, and I actually enjoy reading his takes, even the ones where I disagree.
For God's sake, get your act together, because what you're doing right now is completely self-sabotaging.
This is actually a significant point. This particular user has the audacity to show up here and lecture Henry Campbell5, when in reality, this same individual used to mock other users relentlessly—not to mention his association with briskhound2. Just a bunch of trolls, edgy movies, and shady collaborations.
And why exactly are you defending him like this? I mean, maybe you could try being a bit more realistic. It’s pretty obvious that you’re siding with the moderators. It shows immediately. You don't even need to "try" to act neutral because everyone can see exactly which side you're on. And honestly, we are talking about sides here.
Now you're coming in here claiming that's what he intended. But how can you be so sure about that? He said it doesn't contribute anything at all. I'm sorry, but that just feels like a lie. If you're being honest, they'll eventually face the consequences. They won't give you any special treatment if you betray them. Or, I guess, maybe they will.☕
briskhound2, man, you really should feel ashamed for saying that Henry Campbell5 doesn't contribute to the PDF movie. I suppose, with all due respect to everyone else on the Reddit, he actually contributes more than most users there.
I suppose everyone gets that one career-defining role, regardless of how mediocre they might actually be as an actor. Stallone isn't exactly a powerhouse performer, but he is absolutely brilliant in Rocky. I feel the same way about Cop Land. It just seems to me that Rocky stays with you much longer because both the character and the performance are so memorable. As for De Niro, his performance wasn't bad by any means, but after hearing all the endless hype, I was expecting something truly groundbreaking, and I just didn't find it. I mean, I saw a good De Niro and a good movie, but the whole thing felt significantly overrated to me. Maybe it’s just my perception of modern De Niro that colored my view. Looking back at his work over the last 15 years or so, I guess you realize he's always been pretty much the same. He used to hide it better, but now you can see his patterns everywhere. Once he gives that little sour smirk or those squinted eyes, I know exactly who he is. He hasn't changed. And if we're talking about being overrated, he's definitely an actor who fits that description. 🙂
I don't think so at all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLNft6cO0I4
If you look closely at this scene, you can clearly see he put on quite a bit of weight. I can't recall the exact number of pounds right now, but I suppose many people assume that if an actor just gains a few dozen pounds—or if they lose weight like Christian Bale—then they have automatically delivered a great performance. In my opinion, true acting transformation is something entirely different from simply gaining weight. While it is certainly a physical transformation, I would argue that the most vital part of the craft isn't captured by the scale. It feels like this aspect of acting is, goodness knows, vastly overrated.
I feel that both the movie and Robert De Niro's performance are somewhat overrated. In my opinion, Rocky Balboa and Stallone's portrayal is significantly better. It seems like everyone assumes that once you put on thirty pounds, you've delivered an incredible performance, when really, one could just act well without needing to gain all that weight.
While Dobor did a decent job, I suppose it's still quite far from being a perfect performance, haha.
wiredraven82 I suppose it could be said that: I suppose it’s just the way things are now, but I can't help but wonder why Americans and most Europeans seem so completely "Americanized," to the point where they don't even seem to think for themselves anymore. It’s almost funny—they’ll sit there criticizing an American blockbuster, yet they’ll immediately turn around and go watch some other American horror flick, whether it's just a cheap remake of something else or just more mindless American garbage. I guess I wonder where all those truly great American horror films from back in the day have gone. It’s really just a matter of how one views modern society and the media through a sociological lens, much like the way mutual aid functions within American culture.
What an absolute load of nonsense. I think I could list twenty genuinely great American horror films released just within the last decade. Honestly, it’s ridiculous how this myth has been built up—this idea that American horror, or American cinema in general, is somehow subpar. I suppose it probably stems from those endless remakes, or perhaps because the internet allowed everyone to discover European and Asian cinema and decide it's flawless simply because they don't churn out garbage at the same rate. And then you have these newer Asian directors, especially the Koreans; their movies feel like they're trying way too hard to be "art" every single second.
You mentioned Omen and The Exorcist as being older classics, but I feel like it isn't just those two; there were actually so many incredible masterpieces produced during the 70s and 80s that people in Asia or Europe could only dream of seeing. Of course, they certainly produce some great horror films too, especially the French, I suppose.
I guess you could say that Americans are essentially the embodiment of evil. 🙂
Oh, please. Americans are just inherently malicious, a truly foolish people. I suppose I was far too bold for ever suggesting anything positive about them.
Let’s just completely disregard all those magnificent films they’ve produced—films that absolutely outclass any other cinema out there. Let's just forget about all those incredible classic horror movies that make every single overrated Asian horror flick look amateur by comparison. And while we're on the subject... I've done the math, and even when looking strictly at the last decade, I'd argue the US has turned out more quality horror than Europe or Asia combined, which might suggest they're actually better at modern stuff, not to mention the classics.
Drew Wright5 said:Honestly, I find the American circle much more appealing than the Asian one... it feels faster, more dynamic, and just way more exciting... so feel free to tear me apart if you want 😁 .....what's gotten into you? :P
I also think the American side is superior. Besides, they have pretty similar ratings on IMDb, so it’s not like they're bad at all. That Asian circle is honestly just overhyped garbage. In my opinion, most Asian horror films are massively overrated. Since the OP is being subjective and seems to think Americans are the only ones making bad movies, I suppose I can allow myself to trash Asian films and the repetitive nonsense from their newer directors. I will always go back to their older classics rather than this recent "God forbid" stuff 🙄
rowdyowl said:I guess I really ate a bit of humble pie when I claimed Caprica wasn't actually Sci-Fi.
But then again, I just didn't particularly enjoy the whole thing.
Maybe I should try to articulate my own personal take on what truly constitutes Sci-Fi;
-Outer space—but not just a simple space shuttle; I mean space stations (if such a movie even exists) or perhaps Apollo-era stuff and older. -Robots, provided they aren't just the industrial ones we see in real life today. -Aliens; though I suppose things like rebellions and such are often attributed to horror, much like some of the creatures in the first Alien, even if that could pass as Sci-Fi too. -The future—but not like that damn Caprica, where everything looks just like today; I think something visually distinct would be better, like how Back to the Future Part II was absolutely perfect. -Now, regarding post-apocalyptic films, I would say they don't really count; for instance, I don't see why Mad Max 2 would be considered Sci-Fi. -Traveling to parallel worlds and other dimensions—those are mostly Sci-Fi.
That is pretty much how I would categorize it as well.😉
Just like with Star Wars, I never really viewed Alien as Sci-Fi, but rather as a horror film—and an excellent one at that, which honestly still manages to terrify me to this day.
Honestly, I have never once heard anyone categorize Star Wars as sci-fi. If we follow that logic, then Goodfellas is just a pure thriller, and arguably one of the greatest thrillers ever made. 4. Genres : Action | Adventure | Fantasy | Sci-Fi ☕
Look at this, Goodfellas is listed as a thriller, though I guess I have never actually seen anyone categorize it that way or rank it among the greatest thrillers, much like how it is always hailed as one of the best gangster films ever made.
I suppose we mostly just disagree on this point. For some it might be Sci-Fi, and for others, maybe not.🙂
David Price5 said:😕Spaceships, androids, laser weaponry... if that isn't the literal definition of Sci-Fi, then I suppose I simply don't know what is.
Hmm, I'm not entirely sure about that. For instance, it isn't even categorized as Sci-Fi on IMDb, nor do Wikipedia or other various databases list it under that genre. In fact, many people don't even consider it Sci-Fi; they'd probably classify it as fantasy first.
I suppose this is my first time hearing anyone categorize Star Wars as Sci-Fi. 🤷
Personally, I feel that Alien is primarily an incredible horror film, whereas 2001: A Space Odyssey stands as the ultimate example of masterful Sci-Fi.
Michael Mitchell69 said:Well, I suppose I have to say that I don't quite see eye to eye with you regarding Morgan Freeman being one of the greatest actors ever, nor do I agree that Se7en is overrated; because if Se7en is considered overrated, then I honestly wonder which films actually deserve our praise... But that's fine, I guess, since everyone has their own tastes. 👍
Well, I suppose everyone has their own particular tastes, don't they?🙂
I suppose I don't personally view him as being in the same elite tier as De Niro, Nicholson, Pacino, Hoffman, or even the old Hollywood legends like Bogart, Stewart, Cagney, or Grant. To my mind, Se7en is somewhat overrated, though that is merely my own subjective take on things. I do shvaćati that a movie carries a certain weight because of his status, but I just don't feel it truly deserves that level of acclaim. In fact, I think Kevin Spacey was actually ten times better in that particular film than either Morgan Freeman or Brad Pitt. If I recall correctly, Morgan Freeman didn't really hit his stride until the late 80s, so everything prior to that felt a bit underwhelming to me.
I suppose he might be slightly better than Denzel, though if we're being objective, he's still quite far from the absolute greats, since he seems to play the same type of character every time with that same heart-wrenching voice. There are moments when I find him completely unconvincing; honestly, Sidney Poitier is his true mentor, and in my view, Sidney remains the greatest Black actor to ever live, whereas Freeman is quite good, but perhaps not among the all-time legends. While Shawshank is an excellent film, I feel Seven is somewhat overrated, Driving Miss Daisy is good, and Unforgiven is fairly decent, but the rest is likely
Andrew Roberts3 said:I’ve just never been able to fully connect with Denzel. I mean, look, it’s not like he irritates me enough to skip his movies entirely, but it honestly feels like he’s playing the exact same character over and over again. In my opinion, he’s one of the most overrated actors out there...
I suppose I agree, which is why I kept mentioning that point about Pacino from the first page. But honestly, looking at the numbers, it feels a bit strange that Denzel, Tom Hanks, and Russell Crowe each have two Oscars while Pacino only has one. It seems somewhat odd considering none of those three possess a body of work quite like Al Pacino’s, especially since he won his Oscar for Scent of a Woman, which I personally think is a great film. 🤷 I suppose there is perhaps a bit too much sentimentality involved here, especially considering he didn't receive an Oscar for Scarface, Dog Day Afternoon, or The Godfather—which are, if you ask me, absolute masterpieces and genuine, timeless classics. This leads me to the conclusion that the competition used to be significantly tougher back then. Just look at films like Dog Day Afternoon, or even things like Birdman, Raging Bull, or maybe those gritty dramas set in London or Nashville; you know exactly what I mean.
I find myself wondering who actually believes those three actors possess better character acting skills than Al Pacino. I only chose Pacino because he holds a single Oscar; I didn't select Jack Nicholson because he has three, or Robert De Niro because he has two, but the idea that Pacino only has one—and for what feels like just a decent, pathetic film—is something I simply cannot wrap my head around. If anything, maybe this just goes to show that movies used to be better and the actors were superior, which I suppose is just a plain old fact.🙂
I suppose I might be overstepping, but I truly feel that Denzel Washington is somewhat overrated, much like Tom Hanks and Russell Crowe.
Rebecca Ramos said:He’s an absolute action icon, though I’d argue he brings about ten times more style to his roles than Schwarzenegger (if one can even call him an actor) ever could.
He acts, sure, but he just doesn't have that charisma or that kind of legendary status that Schwarzenegger possesses, and honestly, I don't think he ever will. Maybe Sylvester Stallone comes close to that level, but even then, he isn't quite there either. You can argue all you want, but in my opinion, Schwarzenegger remains the greatest action star to ever do it.🙂
Al Pacino holds one Oscar and has nearly half the total awards of this incredible actor, who boasts two Oscars and almost double the accolades. 🤷
A truly great actor... I suppose he lacks the sheer volume of legendary films that Al Pacino possesses, yet Pacino himself has fewer awards and one less Oscar than Denzel. It makes me wonder why things turned out this way. I guess the competition used to be much more intense back then, both in terms of the quality of filmmaking and the caliber of actors; perhaps that's why icons like Tom Hanks or Denzel ended up with two Oscars and nearly twice as many awards. It feels like better movies were being made in that era, which might explain why Pacino serves as such a perfect example.