Posts by Mark Nelson17

The world premiere is happening today, October 10th, though I haven't seen any specific details regarding the release schedule here in the States yet.

I’ve just finished reading two different reviews of the new Quentin Tarantino film, and both agree it’s an absolute masterpiece. They seem to throw in another superlative every other sentence—praising the acting, the directorial approach, the uncompromising vision, and so on and so forth. There isn't a single negative comment to be found. Quite something, isn't it? The only catch is that the movie is split into two parts, though they claim the first half wraps up perfectly.

If you’ve read my previous posts regarding the online reviews for The Matrix Reloaded or Terminator 3, you’ll know I usually argue that critic opinions don't necessarily carry much weight. However, in the case of Kill Bill, I am convinced these reviews are actually onto something.

I truly believe Quentin Tarantino has crafted one of the greatest films ever made, simply because you can feel his drive to create something genuinely unique and his refusal to stop until he reached total satisfaction.

Look, what I’m saying here is essentially baseless, and I’m admittedly caught up in the hype surrounding this movie, but I don't really care. I’m even finding myself wondering which film I’m more eager to see—this one or Return of the King. As much as I am a massive fan of the Lord of the Rings series, I honestly can't decide.

So, ladies and gentlemen, what are your expectations for this film? Does it intrigue you, or are you completely indifferent, thinking to yourselves that I'm just some idiot singing praises to a movie I haven't even seen yet?

Leslie Nielsen is absolutely legendary. I remember the first time I saw him in *Airplane!*—wearing that ridiculous stethoscope around his neck—and I honestly thought I was going to die laughing. His deadpan delivery and those priceless facial expressions make him the ultimate comedic actor.

He has this incredible knack for making even the most mundane lines hilarious. For instance, toward the end of the third installment, he says something to a beautiful woman along the lines of:
- "I should have known you were behind all this... but I didn't."
I completely lost it right there.

On a different note, I actually caught him in a much more serious role once, in what’s supposedly a cult classic sci-fi flick involving a monster brought to life by a scientist's dark emotions.

He might have been considered a B-list actor by some, but he delivered an absolute masterclass in my favorite film, Once Upon a Time in the Wild West. I have to admit, hearing this news actually gave me a bit of a jolt.

Charles, you were truly something special.

D. Lewis is a top-tier actor, and he proves it brilliantly here; the opening act is engaging, and that initial struggle is executed perfectly. Scorsese is a master director, which becomes evident when you analyze his scenes individually. The first half of the film is genuinely compelling. That covers the positives.

DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz were incredibly poor choices for these roles; neither seems to fit the characters at all. However, the film's fatal flaw is how it completely loses its way in the second half. The final sequence is an absolute mess—just endless fighting, groups attacking people, gunfights tearing through the streets... it’s just stupidity piled upon stupidity. Eventually, the viewer simply gets lost in the chaos and stops paying attention altogether. Yuck.

Richard Hernandez13 said:When Damian Chazelle was discussing the disastrous state of education at the Film Academy, we asked him how he actually learned to direct if not through formal schooling.
"I watch movies," he replied.

Interesting. I also get the impression that, compared to other American films, Chazelle’s ability to correctly and effectively set up and stitch together shots was clearly learned by studying high-quality cinema.

So, in a way, his statement serves as a shield against the Academy. Could someone here who actually studied at the Academy tell me why American filmmaking suffers so much from such poor narrative flow? Why do the shots feel so forced and unnatural once everything is finally edited together? Why does the direction—and by that, I don't mean the acting, but the very foundation of the craft—essentially feel amateurish, as if these directors haven't learned anything about directing or editing? Speaking as a layman, one would assume these skills are honed through practical exercises, yet it seems those exercises are either non-existent or completely inadequate.

I recently had the chance to see a report on a theater production put on by an Academy student. It was embarrassing. The lighting was terrible, the image quality was nonexistent, the interviewees were poorly framed, and the editing was tedious to the core. I worked on a much more demanding reportage with a friend who is a cinematographer and editor (he’s only completed a few short camera and editing workshops); even though I'm not a professional, my experience comes from studying films, series, and various documentaries. He was open to my suggestions, and together we produced a reportage that was a hundred times better than that disaster.

1. Once upon a time in the Wild West
2. Diplomat
3. Warriors of the Underground
4. LOTR
5. Superman
6. Blazing Saddles
7. Top Gun
8. Matrix
9. Rocky
10. Braveheart

I honestly believe Clint deserves the top spot. If we’re arguing that Tarantino is the definitive actor here, then sure, put him in second place—but I have to disagree with anyone suggesting that Gibson's 'Braveheart' wasn't a standout. To be perfectly clear, I consider that film a masterpiece, and that Oscar for Best Director was more than earned.

Cpl. Hicks said:I have to disagree with that assessment. Lundgren holds a distinct advantage over most Asian fighters simply due to his physical build—there is a massive difference between taking a hit from a 200lb man versus someone weighing 130lbs. That said, Bruce Lee remains exceptionally revered within the martial arts community for his Jeet Kune Do; furthermore, Jet Li was a legitimate wushu master long before he ever stepped onto a movie set.

PS: Holding a European championship title doesn't carry much weight here, as most action stars have likely been "champion" of some organization at least once in their lives. Given how many different federations exist, it isn't exactly profound.

Between Kyokushin karate and Muay Thai, you're looking at arguably the most brutal striking disciplines out there. The only thing "sport karate" actually shares with them is the name. Fighters like Andy Hug (who was a top-tier world and American contender in Kyokushin), Peter Aerst, and Hoost have all trained in it. It wasn't until the passing of the style's founder, Masutatsu Oyama, a few years back, that the movement split into two separate federations; Lundgren secured his title back when there was only one unified body. To suggest that winning a major championship in Kyokushin is meaningless... well, I won't even go there. I'm not interested in getting into the whole "ancient Kung Fu vs. Kyokushin or Muay Thai" debate right now. This isn't the place for it—we're on a movie forum—nor is it the right time. I used to enjoy those discussions, but I've lost interest lately.

Bruce Lee was undeniably a terrifying fighter and a technical genius, but he was also an incredibly charismatic cinematic icon. In terms of pure screen presence, anyone else mentioned here can't even hold a candle to him, and that is the point we are actually discussing.

Hicks said:There are rumors that Dolph Lundgren is actually a highly skilled martial artist. I heard he was an honored guest at some convention in Asia a couple of years back because of his proficiency in Kyokushin.

It isn't just a rumor; it's a fact. Lundgren was a heavyweight champion in Kyokushin karate—and let's be clear, that isn't your standard "sport" karate, it's something significantly more brutal. He could likely take anyone else on this list, including your Bruce or Jackie, and eat them for breakfast. Unfortunately, it seems his acting career hasn't quite reached those same heights.

To circle back to the topic for a moment, both critics and cinephiles tend to label De Niro as a "good actor" at the very least. It’s as if he’s perpetually surrounded by this aura of critical prestige in almost every film he touches. Essentially, people act as if De Niro is untouchable.

That whole "untouchable" sentiment surrounding him is actually something that has bothered me quite often. In his absolute masterpieces—think >, >, >, or >—I find myself caught in this mental split. One eye is watching De Niro as the actual character, while the other is thinking, "Oh, that’s De Niro, so obviously this performance is flawless," which forces me to constantly convince myself that what I’m seeing is exceptional. The first film where I truly accepted him as a character, without being distracted by the fact that I was watching an icon, was >, and that is exactly what I look for in cinema. In that film, his acting felt natural and softer; I could actually identify with the character rather than just observing a raw, technically perfect, but distant performance like the one in >. So, regardless of the universal acclaim given to those other classics, for me personally, his best work is found right there in >.

Larry Fox5 said:You all can say whatever you want and act like mindless critics—trying to push your own agendas just like most reviewers who rely on malicious or ignorant takes—but Heat is undeniably a good movie.

I am not sure if this applies to me, but looking at my comments, the only negative reaction I received was from someone claiming the film is garbage, which means I am hitting a nerve. To my mind, Heat is absolutely not garbage; in fact, I would go so far as to agree it is a masterpiece rather than trash. The heavy adjectives and nouns I used when describing specific scenes refer to whether Heat is truly a great film or not; I believe its quality sits far above your average or even merely "solid" flicks.

However, I genuinely do not understand how you weren't bothered by Pacino's drunken, over-the-top acting, or the simplistic way they dragged the wounded man away, even after that intense shootout in broad daylight. Then there is that blatantly forced conversation and the final scene between our dear protagonists. It feels as though the script is coerced toward the lead actors, forcing the story into certain beats regardless of the circumstances—which is a common trope in action movies. Honestly, one could probably swallow those flaws if there were enough chemistry among the leads, but with Pacino performing like that (while De Niro is actually quite good in the film), it just doesn't work for me.

Some people here have pointed out the excellent screenplay, the sharp dialogue, and the high-tension scenes they've ever seen, and there is no way I am going to disagree with them on that. Even so, if I see this film on TV, I certainly won't be changing the channel; now that I know what to expect, I will fully enjoy it despite its flaws.

Now, regarding the parenthetical remark in the quote (which is actually why I decided to chime in): if it was my intention to show off with my criticism of this film, it could only have been on a subconscious level. I enjoy studying both good and bad films in detail (good ones to see why they work, bad ones to see why they fail), but I am primarily a lover of American cinema and don't consider myself some sort of high-brow film snob. Besides, for Heat, I cited specific issues that bother me, without resorting to (I hope) heavy philosophy or pseudo-artistic pretension.

silentheron58 said:When they finally arrive in Aspen and he’s absolutely freezing... meanwhile, this guy is wearing two pairs of gloves, complaining that he’s already overheating.

I find it even funnier when he starts choking Carrey for that very reason, and instead of wheezing through the suffocation, he just belts out at the top of his lungs, "Grlklllllaaaaa !!! Harry, your hands are freezing!"

To be perfectly honest, this film is one of my all-time favorite comedies. As you all pointed out, it's the kind of movie you can watch a hundred times and still enjoy.

dustywolf13 said:Whatever........🙄

My comment wasn't intended as a continuation of the debate regarding humanoid Yodas or other such characters; rather, it was simply an observation that the seventh one in those website photos looks remarkably good for a robot. Feel free to insert whatever smiley face you think fits best after that period.

dustywolf13 said:For all the 7o9 enthusiasts out there, just click here! 👍

Fair enough, I stand corrected. It turns out Seven is actually a bit too humanoid to meet the strict criteria established for this thread.

Richard Hernandez13 said:It’s just "Westworld." Based on the novel and directed by Michael Crichton.

...Wow. Thanks a million. This forum is just incredibly informative, guys and gals. Truly impressive.

Anyway... I need to go hunt down a copy of "Westworld" (a DVD would be perfect, though a VHS wouldn't be bad either). I caught the movie once or twice back in the day on TV, and it was honestly fantastic. I don't think it suffers from that "Bud Spencer and Terence Hill" kind of campiness, and looking at the posters online where the heroes are all posing heroically, it seems like Cameron might have pulled some inspiration for the rugged look of The Terminator from this flick.

Casey Williams9 said:Film: East Meets West

I truly mean it when I say thank you.

Michelle Alvarez8, my thanks to you as well for the UI (truly, sincerely).

Like a broken record, I find myself repeating the same list of characters, but one specific figure remains etched in my memory: a robot cowboy from a movie I simply cannot place. The main antagonist—that cowboy—was played by Yul Brynner (I’m not entirely sure of the spelling, but he’s that ultra-charismatic bald actor from The Magnificent Seven).

Anyway, my recollection is that near the end of the film, some tedious hero throws acid in his face. Throughout the whole thing, Yul stalks his victims with the most effortless, cool swagger imaginable—it was "John Wayne, take cover" levels of smooth. He radiated such an aura of coolness that even The Terminator would have run away just to catch a glimpse.

I would give anything to see that movie again. If anyone happens to have any leads or more details about this film, I am humbly requesting your assistance.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Someone mentioned 7 of 9 and singing earlier... yes, 7 and the EMH were singing "You Are My Sunshine."[/COLOR]

I was certain that the two-part harmony of my favorite heroes was what had flashed through my mind. I am a true devotee of Voyager, though I assume the EMH—the Emergency Medical Hologram in solid form—refers to the Doctor.

If we're actually taking rankings into account, then Voyager even edges out the Alien, Hall, the current rigid Terminator, or Agent Kovac.

Does anyone else vividly remember when Voyager sang "You Are My Sunshine" during that legendary duet with the Doctor? Because I know for a fact she did. It was that moment where the Doctor really hits those high notes, and she just gives him that subtle, robotic eyebrow raise.

So, the DVD for 'Brown's life' with the subtitles finally arrived? That’s an absolute must-buy.

Hands down, it's the greatest comedy ever made. Even when you stack it up against the 'Holy Grail'.

Heh... thanks for brightening up a pretty dreary workday.