What you're getting at here—if we really dig into the specifics—is essentially what one particular... well, let's say one specific example handles. 1984.It seems like you might have cut off mid-sentence there—wasn't quite what I was expecting. Anyway, if you’ve got something more substantial to say, I'm all ears. Just laying it out there. Quote : Mad MaxDon't even try telling me that you would... Quote : Mad Max He basically put them in the exact same tier as—well, you know. 1984.?
I can't really bring myself to compare Mad Max to 1984—it just doesn't work. I mean, 1984 is a direct adaptation of a novel, whereas Max was built from an original screenplay. It’s a completely different beast. But look, if we’re just talking about the movies themselves—purely the films—Mad Max is a better movie than the 1984 one.
Quote : Mad Max
Quote : Mad Max It’s basically just a story about one guy out for blood—set in some dystopian future, you know the type. As far as that goes, there isn't any actual connection to... The Fast and the Furious—man, what a ride that was. It’s funny how you look back at those early films and realize they were actually decent crime dramas before they basically morphed into superhero movies where cars fly through skyscrapers. There was something about that initial gritty, street-racing energy in Los Angeles that just felt... I don't know, tangible? Before everything became about impossible physics and international espionage. Now, it’s all just high-octane chaos, but hey, I can't say I hate the spectacle. Sometimes you just want to turn your brain off and watch a car jump between three different moving vehicles. It's a vibe.Even if you stripped away that whole dystopian vibe—which, let's be honest, is half the fun—it would still hold up.
So, look—you mentioned that Mad Max is set in some dystopian future, but if that's the case, how can you say it isn't Sci-Fi? It’s right there in the premise. Do you think that whole post-apocalyptic vibe in Mad Max is just pure window dressing? Like—maybe George Miller just had this deep-seated obsession with customized hot rods and leather jackets, and he didn't actually want to make a contemporary thriller set in the modern day using standard car models and actual police uniforms? Could you actually pull off a story like that set in today's normal society—say, some small town out in rural Australia? I mean, seriously. Could it work?
I mean, seriously—who on earth did he think he was hiring to design those vehicles and overhaul the entire police structure? And honestly, why even pretend this takes place in the future in the first place?
Look, it’s pretty clear that Miller made a conscious, deliberate choice to go ahead and shoot the movie—just like that. So, about the future—it’s a funny thing, isn't it? We spend half our lives worrying about what hasn't happened yet, building these elaborate mental maps of where we might end up, only to realize that reality rarely follows the script we wrote in our heads. It’s like trying to predict the plot of a movie while you're still sitting in the lobby—you can guess the genre, sure, but the actual twists? They always catch you off guard. I tend to look at it with a certain level of detached curiosity—not exactly optimism, not quite pessimism, just a steady, quiet observation of the inevitable chaos. We talk about progress as if it's a straight line moving upward, but history suggests it’s more of a jagged, messy scribble. Still, we keep moving forward—mostly because there isn't much of an alternative.It’s more than just some standard police revenge flick—it's way deeper than that.
Look, Mad Max definitely hits all those classic action beats—gang warfare, high-speed chases, pure vengeance—but at its core, it’s actually sci-fi because it uses those tropes to map out massive societal shifts. I get why you might think it doesn't fit the genre, though—if you watch Max and realize there aren't any robots, laser blasters, or starships flying around, you might be tempted to say it isn't science fiction. But that's just not how it works.
Nicholas Chavez70 said:Those two films don't have anything in common, nor do they come anywhere close... In "Mad Max," you see post-apocalyptic nomads surviving by moving from one location to another in a desperate search for fuel, water, food, women, and other resources absolutely vital to their survival... There aren't any races (because honestly, who would waste fuel on such senseless displays in a world where a single gallon of gas is worth more than a human life?), what you actually saw there was classic hunting, just performed with vehicles and scavenging... While "Fast & Furious" features gangs, they aren't even remotely similar to those nomads—they might be, perhaps, if the law had completely vanished... 👍
Of course those two films aren't the same—not by a long shot. But they definitely share a connection. And that link is—well, it’s the core structure of the action film itself. There’s a massive distinction to be made here—in *Fast & Furious*, the action is basically an end in itself. The car chases are just there because watching things go fast is inherently cool. But with *Mad Max*? Those high-octane pursuits are actually a vehicle for the narrative—it's how the film communicates the sheer decay of society in a potential future.
You could argue that the *Fast & Furious* flicks share some superficial DNA with *Mad Max*—they both lean into that same sense of being totally detached from reality, centered mostly on high-octane car chases and various explosive showdowns. But, I mean, let’s be honest—it’s pretty obvious that *Mad Max* isn't just some mindless spectacle about anarchist outlaws racing cars and killing each other.
(My apologies to anyone who felt personally attacked by me putting those two movies in the same sentence. 😁)
So, explain to me—why are (The Road and Mad Max) considered Sci-Fi films?
You can interpret Sci-Fi as just "Science," but I prefer looking at it as Speculative fiction. Think of Sci-Fi as this sort of "umbrella genre"—it's a broad category where various different genres meet to explore specific speculative themes. You've got space adventures, westerns, action flicks, war stories, dramas, and so on—and all of them can fall under the Sci-Fi banner.
Now, Mad Max and The Road fit perfectly because they speculate on how society and human relationships might evolve if the living conditions on Earth were to fundamentally shift in the future. The Road depicts a world where the ecosystem has been completely decimated—exploring that through pure drama—whereas Mad Max shows a world running out of oil that, for some implied reason (likely a nuclear war), is collapsing into total anarchy—told through the lens of an action movie.
Both are serious Sci-Fi films, even if they don't feature high-tech gadgets or explicitly dwell on scientific theories; the Sci-Fi element is simply "packaged" inside the genre itself.
I caught Wall Street 2 a few weeks back. Before that, I gave the original Wall Street another watch—and honestly? Wall Street is way better. People call the first one the definitive movie for the 80s vibe, but this sequel just fails to land when it tries to capture what today’s world feels like. The second film feels more like an expensive—though admittedly high-quality and well-made—soap opera. It's basically just a continuation of the story, purely to see what happens to Gekko—who, let's be real, was basically an icon of the 80s financial scene—now that he's out of prison. Sadly, we don't get any of those iconic lines like "Greed is good." And that bit where he mentions the "NINJA generation"? Not exactly cool. One highlight, though, is seeing Gekko cross paths with Charlie Sheen's character, who has somehow morphed into everything he absolutely loathed back in the original Wall Street.
Honestly, there’s no need to go making some direct sequel about the Corleone family...
But—and this is a big but—someone really ought to put together a solid, sweeping epic exploring how those old-school mafia families would actually function in today's world and all that jazz.
I wander over to the "Cult of Personality" site and stumble upon an article that some random guy just ripped off wholesale... I click the link, and before I know it, I've ended up here in the States..
There really ought to be some kind of way to penalize this level of blatant theft. Ghoul is basically an academic at this point, yet this guy just signs his name to the work without a second thought.
I mean, what is the point of even posting on forums if you aren't going to contribute anything original—especially when none of the decent long-form pieces belong to him? Not that he can actually make a dime off stealing content either, since everyone here is hiding behind a handle.
Honestly, it feels like we're looking at some sort of unidentified psychological disorder...
First Blood is basically its own standalone movie. The way they handled Rambo's character and the whole vibe of the film is so different in the second and third installments—it’s almost like we’re watching a completely different guy. But honestly, even though Rambo 4 actually picks up where First Blood left off, I don't think it would be nearly as much fun to watch if we hadn't already gone through the journey of the second and third movies first... (It's a bit of a stretch, sure, but look at it this way: you wouldn't appreciate Unforgiven half as much if Eastwood hadn't spent years grinding through all those classic spaghetti westerns first.)
So, here's my take: First Blood and Rambo 4 are the real deal, while Rambo 2 and 3 kind of just sit on the same level.
Hey, Ethan Hayes6, thanks for getting back to me. People everywhere talk about the bridge pose like it’s this ultimate, magic-bullet exercise—but honestly, when you watch someone who actually knows what they're doing execute it properly, it makes you wonder about the long-term cumulative impact on the spine if you aren't careful. So, yeah—my take? Approach it with caution and don't rush the progression. Thanks again for the info, and hey, if you ever decide to post some videos of your form, that would be killer to see.
Growing up, this was easily one of the most terrifying horror flicks I ever laid eyes on. And it stars Vincent Price, of course. I think this hits the mark for what you're looking for.
We're talking Renaissance territory here... 🙂
EDIT: Actually, hold on—it's definitely Medieval. Just rewatched a bit of it and the description says: The story is set in a semi-mythical medieval Europe.
I’d love it if an experienced martial artist—maybe someone like Robin Palmer3 could weigh in here: How safe is the neck bridge exercise actually for older practitioners?
Every martial artist does the neck bridge. It’s totally normal for young students to breeze through it while they’re still in their prime. But the years start adding up—so I’m wondering if older practitioners or martial artists run into health issues given all that accumulated strain from doing the neck bridge over time.
Here’s a quick breakdown of the move we routinely do in training: You’re balancing solely on your head and your feet. Your entire spine—especially the neck—is pushed into maximum extension. Then you rock your body back and forth on your head. Some people even let their nose touch the mat while their full body weight is pressing down on the cervical spine. To a layman—well, to someone like me—it honestly makes my skin crawl just watching how much stress that puts on the neck. I really want to know how safe this move is in the long run.
Honestly, looking at photos of these kinds of "developments" just gives me the creeps—it’s a visceral reaction. I can't wrap my head around the type of people who would actually choose to vacation in these hideous, grotesque complexes. It feels like something out of a fever dream.
Honestly, this whole megalomaniac project feels like nothing more than a massive shell game designed to flip land for a quick profit through rezoning.
At the end of the day, nothing much will actually come of it—we’ll probably just be sitting there in a few years hearing someone say, "Well, the American Dream didn't quite pan out, but hey, at least we managed to build some golf courses."
Does anyone actually know the deal with this Blagaić guy? It’s like he just materialized out of thin air as the producer for that "Last Will" movie starring Mr. Višnjić and Angelica Bridges. He was only 19 at the time—just a kid. How does a nineteen-year-old even land a gig like that, and more importantly, who was pulling the strings behind the scenes to make it happen? And here's the real kicker: where did the money come from? 😁
cosmiclynx57 said:Man, I am with you 100% on that 👍
So when we're talking about a remake, specifically that 2005 version of War of the Worlds, the atmosphere is just phenomenal, isn't it? It has one of the best openings ever because that scene at the very start where the Tripod emerges from the ground is just incredible—it totally pins you to your seat and makes you feel like you absolutely have to see the whole thing through to the end.
Even though the 1953 original is a total classic, if you ask me, both films are equally great.
And man, Independence Day is absolutely packed with scenes that grab you by the throat! Take the beginning, for instance: showing the moon and then having the vibrations from a passing spacecraft wipe out an astronaut's footprint from '69. (Not that the moon even has an atmosphere, but whatever.)
Then you've got the ships hovering over the cities. Then there's the destruction of all those major landmarks—the White House being the big one, obviously.
Plus, all those moments that cynics would probably dismiss as cheesy sentimentality, but honestly? They're just pure, raw emotion. The President of the USA personally hopping on a jet to save the world!
Look, Independence Day is full of legendary cinematic moments, and the best part is that it isn't weighed down by some bloated director's ego acting like they're filming a heavy-handed prestige drama.
Look, Robin Hood definitely isn't hitting the heights of his best work—but honestly, it’s not even bottom-of-the-barrel either. Even when Ridley Scott misses the mark—think G.I. Jane or Legend—those films are still, at the very least, perfectly decent watchable stuff.
A potential Director's cut for Robin Hood wouldn't even make sense—this is actually the first time a Scott flick has felt genuinely tedious, where the longer it drags on, the more it just feels like an endurance test. And frankly, who's going to care about fixing uninteresting characters or a dull plot? Legend and G.I. Joe were solid enough, but this? This is just a weak effort.
Historical films don't actually deal with history (though I realize that escapes a lot of people). They deal with the mythology born from historical events and how those things reflect our modern world—the whole genre has always been more about our current society and culture than whatever surface-level story it seems to be telling. Scott, being the cynical postmodernist he is, is fully aware of that.
Exactly! You see it clearly in Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Alexander, or 300, but it’s just missing from this Robin Hood. Maybe he could have tried to bridge the gap with his previous take on the legend?
First off—there is absolutely nothing in this movie that actually makes him Robin Hood. Aside from the fact that Crowe is an archer in the military, that’s about it.
It’s essentially a period piece dealing with the political friction leading up to the clashes between the nobility and the monarchy in America—all centered around the introduction of some historical document (it's called the Magna Carta, according to the internet)—so, a specific historical event.
Then, it feels like someone just forced characters with names from the legend into the script. They call them Robin Hood, Marion, Tuck, and so on, but they have zero connection to the actual mythos—neither in how they act nor the situations they find themselves in.
The casting is just... off. You've got Crowe and the female lead, and most of the cast is well into their 40s—which shows, quite clearly—and there is zero chemistry between them. No humor, nothing.
They just throw random elements at the screen with a shovel. For instance, the first 25 minutes are completely unnecessary. If the movie had just started with the ambush scene, it wouldn't have lost anything except runtime, which would have been a massive improvement. Then there's this: the main villain is aggressively collecting taxes just to trigger a rebellion among the nobles against the American King, who is acting like a tyrant (which is all part of a scheme by the French King to weaken America), aided by about 300 soldiers from France who speak French and arrived via landing crafts.
By the end, America is being hit by landing craft that look identical to the ones from D-Day.
At times, the film tries to pull off this cynical realism—kind of like Verhoeven's "Flash and blood"—but since it's rated PG-13, we don't get any of the "grit and gore." It feels like someone tried to force typical, slimy Hollywood moments into that realistic setting. You know, those "inspiring" sentimental speeches about freedom and all that. Robin tells Marion "I Love You" right before heading into battle, despite there being zero romance or chemistry between them for the entire film. It comes out of nowhere. Then, a minute later, Marion just happens to show up on the battlefield decked out in knight's armor. (????) And Robin tells her: "Get in the line, soldier!" (?????)
Generally speaking, there is no tension. Everything is monotonous. The characters are dull, the plot just drags and drags, and nobody actually cares about the outcome because there's no sense of catharsis. It lacks rhythm and focus—it lacks a drive toward... well, anything.
There are three major battles in the film, and each one is progressively worse and more boring than the last. The final battle is the worst-shot of the bunch. Despite all the flaws, the film is just poorly directed.
And the whole thing is structured like a prequel. In the end, an aging R. Crowe (47) and a rather unappealing Cate Blanchett (41) walk off into Sherwood Forest just to finally become Robin and Marion... So why bother with two and a half hours of a movie titled Robin Hood?!? The more I think about it, the worse it gets. Don't waste your time or your money.
Compared to this, "Alexander" and "King Arthur" are masterpieces.
The only decent thing about the film is the production design. You could take screenshots and just look at those. That's it.
So, I just sat through Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. Honestly, it’s easily one of the absolute worst movies I’ve ever had the displeasure of watching. I guess I shouldn't be surprised—I don't exactly expect much more than this from Scott's new Alien.