I guess there was some kind of trend back then to just bury this movie. It seems okay to me—it’s provocative, features attractive women, and has some recognizable actresses. Honestly, considering the junk being produced these days, it’s practically a classic. I feel like Showgirls isn't any worse than hyped-up movies like "9 1/2 Weeks" or certain Sharon Stone films.
Donna Williams4 said:Now, I have to disagree—The Italian Job was actually quite entertaining. While it might not be a masterpiece of cinematic quality, I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed myself during those 111 minutes.😁
The "Italian job" was pretty terrible, but I guess you could call this latest mess a total "razjariti bik." It’s honestly wild to me how audiences swallow stuff like this nowadays, turning these movies into multi-million dollar windfalls for producers. I think "Law Abiding Citizen" is a perfect example of how any movie can be pushed through a multiplex if the marketing is strong enough. You just grab two big-name actors, put together a decent trailer, and scribble a plot on some scraps of paper for them to act out. It feels like things have become somewhat morbidly stupid lately.
Aside from "2012," this was probably one of the worst movies I've sat through in the last five or six years. It’s honestly so bad that if someone tries to tell me they liked it, I might just delete their number and stop texting them altogether. I guess Foxx really showed in this one that he isn't much of an actor, regardless of his Oscar or anything else he's done. To me, he didn't seem like a pro; maybe he was just a lucky guy who happened to land a role that thousands of other talented Black actors could have played better.
Maybe the best performance I've ever seen in a movie. It's one of those rare moments where an actor stops playing a part and just becomes the character. Robert De Niro at his absolute peak, a level of acting I guess he could never replicate, let alone anyone else trying to top it.
feralwalker said:Based on this, I don't think a single movie coming out this winter will even come close to Tom Cruise... this is just absolute madness. 😁
-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCuxnofBIKI
I think one of the best things about the movie is how much Cruise seems to have invested in these scenes, and maybe he has done that in other sequels too.
Such an awesome movie. I think this was actually the first original DVD I ever received as a gift. It does a great job balancing different genres, blending them all into a sci-fi spectacle that never feels tiring. The cast is fantastic too, and the dialogue is just top-notch.
Compared to other movies in this genre, I guess this one isn't bad; it's pretty solid. However, it isn't exactly top-tier, and it's probably not even close to what it could have been. I sometimes feel like there isn't really a director left today who can make a high-quality film of this specific type—you know, the ones involving espionage, spy plots, action, and intelligence agencies. For instance, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was a high-quality movie that didn't rely on overdoing things just to tell its story. You can't deny the tension in this new installment, nor can you deny the great cast, and the plot itself is quite typical and fitting for a film like this. We have a terrorist wanting to trigger a massive war by detonating a nuclear bomb, facing off against the good guys who are doing everything they can to stop him. It’s basic math, really, but I suppose this isn't a simple film. It feels like that category of filmmaking barely exists anymore, except maybe in those few action flicks starring Liam Neeson. MI4 feels incredibly crowded—it's packed with locations, intense scenes, twists, fights, chases, explosions, and bodies. It's almost as if Michael Bay directed it. It seems like all directors nowadays follow Bay's philosophy. But I think bigger isn't necessarily better, unless we're talking about something else entirely. A quality action movie should be easy to follow, memorable, and shouldn't need constant flashiness just to fill up two hours of screen time. Also, I don't think it needs that much humor, especially since the stakes involve millions of lives; characters like Benj don't really belong in a movie like this. He isn't an agent—real agents aren't like that—he's more like a comic-relief caricature who gets way too much screen time. Sure, he's scared, but I guess I wonder what his fear and rambling actually contribute to the story? It feels like just more unnecessary filler. I'd say this is a step backward from the third movie; Philip Seymour Hoffman brought such a chilling intensity that there wasn't even room for comedy. Here, that sense of weight is missing because Benj gets more screen time than the actual main villain.
The actor who carries what might be the greatest action movie ever made (die a man 1) definitely deserves nothing but the highest praise in this regard. I guess it’s also hard to find any real misses among his other films, since most of them seem pretty easy to watch. He’s kind of an icon that Hollywood just doesn't produce anymore.
Edward Price6 said:Yeah, I guess that’s why they put it on Hubble.
Let's not be provocative. I think he described my impression quite accurately. Most documentaries like Hubble usually play in museum IMAX theaters that mostly just show docs anyway. People tend to talk about feature films or cartoons that just had a 3D effect tacked on. I suppose once something is labeled 3D, it loses a bit of its gravity, maybe even something like your Avatar.
I guess the only two times I’ve seen 3D actually done right were when I watched Hubble 3D and some surfing documentary at an IMAX theater in New York City. Hubble 3D was especially incredible. The way those shots are captured feels almost revolutionary, but honestly, after seeing so many other 3D movies in theaters, most of them just feel pretty pointless and unnecessary to me.
I think I totally agree with the author here; they really hit the nail on the head. It feels like movie theaters have lost that balance between serious dramas and fun blockbusters, leaving us with nothing but mindless movies that don't even meet the usual standards for their genre. I guess I’m right there with everyone else hoping this phase passes as quickly as possible!
shadowtinker29 said:Regarding Formula 1 and the '80s (which I remember quite well), perception has really shifted over the last 15 years or so. Some figures, like Ayrton Senna, have basically entered the realm of myth.
People talk about the "golden era" a lot lately, but I guess the truth is that aside from a few elite drivers, Formula 1 has probably never seen as many mediocre talents as it did back then. Most races—maybe 90% of them—were pretty boring, much like they are today. Scoring points was incomparably easier back then. I suppose just having a car finish the race was "enough," though most often they didn't even manage that. Over the last couple of seasons (ignoring last year), the gap between the fastest and slowest car was maybe just a second. In the '80s, that was the gap between the leader and the next closest car. Because of that massive performance gap (not to get into brake, tire, or aero development), overtaking was likely way easier in those years than it is now. I don't think today's drivers lack courage at all; they are essentially clinical machines nowadays.
As for Ayrton Senna, he's an example to me of an "overhyped sporting icon."
He was lucky to drive in an era when sports information was released in such small doses.
I wonder how a driver today—in an age where every single quote gets dissected—would fare if they claimed to have seen Jesus during a race, or mentioned having an "unusual" attraction to young boys, or something like that...
But sadly, he passed away, and the myth was born.
Yeah, I feel similarly about modern Formula 1. I guess everyone is either good or really good these days, and the cars are all top-tier too. It seems pretty tough to identify a true standout because tiny differences in car quality create huge advantages. All the champions from recent years seem like elite drivers who rarely make mistakes, and when they do, they tend to slip up at similar rates throughout the season. To me, Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel, Jenson Button, and Kimi Raikkonen are all in that same high bracket. If you give them a great car, I guess any of them could win since they all have the skill to take a fast machine to the top spot.
From what I’ve gathered, the older parodies seem to have a bit more creativity behind them, whereas the newer ones mostly just rely on over-the-top exaggeration. They often feel a bit cluttered with cheap gags and nonsense that might only land with ten-year-olds, especially with those mindless "yo nigga" type jokes.
Whether it was before or after the World Cup, this guy hasn't said anything wrong. He basically just suggested that we shouldn't overdo things—not with our expectations, not with the praise, and certainly not with the criticism. It seems like people on this forum always tend to go overboard, so I guess it’s no surprise when articles like this get mocked. Maybe a little bit of reality wouldn't hurt anyone.
George Robinson43 said:I guess we should take that Packer's opinion with a grain of salt, since he'll probably be singing Kljun's praises if Chicago makes it to the CL quarterfinals.
Well, if little Kljun actually makes it to those quarterfinals, then maybe he really does deserve a tribute. For him, that would be like reaching Mt. Everest.
Samuel Baker3 said:A lot of this misses the mark, much like most of his writing, but I guess I agree with this part
The only thing is, this isn't really an excuse since we've seen the exact same issues in previous World Cups
That’s probably the most accurate point—who does little Kljun think he is, acting all high and mighty like that?
"More important than any analysis from experts like Nenad Kljaić, who seems to have lost all sense of coaching camaraderie and now feels entitled to criticize Goluža despite having a pretty thin coaching resume himself"
Adam Moore said:I'm not quite sure why the amount of aerobic effort an athlete puts in is used as the main way to value a certain sport.
Even though there isn't much difference in terms of competition—since being the best is tough in any game—I guess I still feel okay making a distinction between sports based purely on physical factors. Something like downhill skiing or Formula 1, where a race could potentially end in a fatal accident due to the environment rather than a health issue, seems more stressful and physically demanding than, say, target shooting or curling. I think all sports and games are great, but maybe some just require higher levels of effort and risk. You've tried things yourself, so you probably know where you might hit a physical wall first, like in baseball or football. There are definitely sports where physicality is the main driver, and others where skill, coordination, and intelligence take center stage. In sprinting, it’s mostly the former, while in baseball, it's more the latter. It’s all pretty subjective, but I suppose I'm just more impressed by sports with higher stakes. To me, they seem to push the limits of human endurance more than team sports do. You mentioned soccer; it’s a pretty demanding physical game, but at its core, it's still just a game. Personally, none of the athletes I admire most play soccer.🙂
Raymond Anderson4 said:I feel like today's swimmers are a bit overhyped. There are entire studies, specific diets, training methods, and tech suits that have been perfected over time. Especially those 100m sprinters. The last swimmer I truly respected as a sprinter was Alexander Popov; guys like Allan Bernard just don't come close.
I respect Phelps, but I guess his genetics were just heavily on his side (not that I'm questioning any of his medals).
It’s not just about the records, though obviously, they tend to fall because of improved techniques, gear, and training. Maybe it's worth noting that Phelps managed to grab 8 gold medals in what, maybe ten days of competition? Amidst much tougher competition than before. So, he basically won every single race he entered. Since most swimmers don't even specialize in one discipline, let alone win them all, I think his performance might be the greatest individual feat at the Olympics, right up there with how Bolt swept all his events and set records at the same Olympics. They probably sit at the top together.
Adam Moore said:I guess you can only say things like this if you’ve never actually picked up a bat and tried to hit a ball. I don't know if there's any other sport that demands such intense hand-eye coordination, incredible speed, and agility. In baseball, you have about 0.3 seconds to judge where a tennis-ball-sized projectile is going to end up, swing, and make contact. If you haven't tried it, you probably don't realize how tough it is—not to mention having to overcome the fear of a rock-hard object flying at you at over 90 mph.
Even though people sometimes think players are out of shape (though, honestly, Babe Ruth was incredibly mobile for a bigger guy and quite muscular, which shows in his stats), baseball is an extremely demanding game, both physically and mentally. I suspect most people on this forum could probably sink an NBA three-pointer out of 100 tries or score a penalty against a top-tier goalie, but I doubt many could hit a single against an average MLB pitcher.
It's a bit frustrating when certain sports get dismissed for all sorts of reasons, especially since there isn't a single sport where you can reach the top without massive amounts of talent and hard work. As for Babe Ruth's place in baseball history, the only real criticism is that he didn't play against Black or Hispanic players, but even taking that into account, the guy is easily one of the top three players to ever play the game.
Since you know me, you know I don't look down on any sport, but I just wrote exactly what I felt. On a global scale, Babe Ruth isn't really a major figure in sports history, but in America, he definitely is. Most of us only know him because he gets mentioned in movies and TV shows. If I had to rank American stars by importance (whatever that metric might be), I'd say the names I listed earlier are much bigger than Ruth. Not all sports are equal, and it's hard to compare someone like Phelps to Babe. Baseball, like many other sports, doesn't have the same physical demands as swimming or cycling, and then there's the time zone difference to consider. That applies to more than just baseball, either; it's no secret that other sports don't play 162 regular-season games a year. American football is certainly more physically demanding than baseball. Sports vary from being purely about strength, speed, and endurance to those focused on intelligence and skill. So, while Ruth isn't overrated within baseball because he truly is one of the best ever, I struggle to see him held in that same high regard in the context of world sports as Americans do. I'm not really interested in the whole "baseball is silly according to Americans, handball is silly according to Americans" kind of relativism. Every sport has its fans, participants, and spectators, and popularity depends on a lot of different factors.