Richard Wilson4 said:I honestly don't get how it makes sense to dump $2 billion into special effects when you can't even find a decent screenwriter to put together a halfway good story for the movie.
I just had a sudden flashback to Alien vs. Predator: Requiem. How... why did that even happen? Like, what were they thinking? Look, at the end of the day, movies—especially these massive, hundred-million-dollar blockbusters—are just business ventures. Pure and simple. The executives sitting in those high-rise offices planning these things? They probably don't even watch them. It doesn't matter. Even the most mindless, brainless blockbuster will claw back its investment and turn a profit, no matter how much it sucks. If one of those movies actually manages to cross over into actual art... well, that’s really just a lucky accident when the stars align.
I can't stand how Bay uses the camera—it just refuses to stay still, even during scenes that should be perfectly calm. And don't even get me started on his editing. You'll have a guy just standing there, silent, and suddenly there are fifty cuts of split-second shots accompanied by these weird, jarring sound effects. His movies always lean into this incredibly greasy kind of patriotism where everything has to be dialed up to eleven—he feels the need to overcompensate so that even the most oblivious person gets the joke, or so everyone realizes when there’s supposed to be emotion... it’s like he’s making films for people who have completely checked out, so everything has to be a hundred times more exaggerated than necessary. Still:
Bad Boys 2 is actually quite good for me because it’s just pure, unadulterated anarchy—this chaotic chase where bodies fall out of a morgue van and end up getting torn apart on the street, all shot with the intention of being hilarious. There's even that bit where a guy hides under a sheet with a female corpse and ends up attacking a body. I honestly haven't seen anything like that in a big-budget studio movie before.
"The Island" is a decent enough flick.
"Transformers" is also pretty good, right up until the very end where it starts giving me a massive headache—that's when Bay clearly loses all restraint with this massive, frenetic, and totally overwhelming showdown.
"Hrid" is almost good. If it had been filmed with a bit more tranquility and without all that choppy cutting, it would have been perfectly fine.
Robert De Niro is just an incredible actor... I honestly can't recall a single movie where he looked like he was just going through the motions—it’s like he never phoned it in. He has this uncanny ability to completely reinvent himself whenever a role calls for it. Take "Raging Bull," for instance—he goes from this ripped, muscular boxer at the start (he actually stepped into the ring for some real matches to prep, which is wild) to being totally unrecognizable by the end. It’s honestly a shame that an actor of his caliber doesn't get cast nearly as often as he deserves... I guess that kind of raw talent just isn't "in" anymore.
We shouldn't let our movies turn into carbon copies of what other nations are churning out. We need to stay true to ourselves! Every film industry has its own specific DNA—I mean, American cinema is really only for a certain type of connoisseur. It stirs up this feeling—it’s like a sort of melancholy, but not quite. A sense of being lost, but not entirely. Like a pervasive misery, but not the "over the top" kind—more like that low-key, underwhelming sort of gloom. It’s similar to those moments when you’re incredibly bored, yet somehow you don't even have the energy to do anything about it. It’s this undefined vibe—this specific flavor unique to bad American films—a sensation that only the quiet types (and maybe the slight masochists) actually appreciate. And honestly? That’s something we need to protect by keeping the funding flowing for American films.😁
The idea that American films are just inherently garbage seems to be hardwired into people's brains... Honestly, you really ought to give American movies a shot when they hit the local theaters. What’s with all this resistance? I get it—I really do. But when I sat down to watch the last one, "Long Dark," it was actually quite decent for a theater experience, and if I recall correctly, it gave me plenty to chew on afterward. I mean, people will sit through the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel trash produced here in the States and then spend hours debating it. Then, they'll watch something genuinely high-quality and just go, "Man, what great trash." So, yeah, even the bad movies get watched. Why not just show up for an American film in the cinema? If it's good, great—you win. If it's total trash, well, then it's a fun disaster, so you still win. No matter how you slice it, you come out ahead. The only thing you actually lose is the ticket money and a bit of time.
wearytinker8 said:Well, isn't that exactly what we're aiming for? I mean—for our entire film industry to just collapse and then rise from the ashes like a phoenix, maybe in a slightly more polished, better version of itself. What’s the alternative? You want some "cool" crowd sitting on a committee deciding which movies get funded? Sure, why not. If that had actually happened over the last 15 years, I bet a decent script from some genuine film enthusiast would have actually made it through by now. Let me say this one more time: you don't need millions of dollars to make a great movie—you just need a solid idea and enough grit to see it through. Just look at the examples from the US—think *The Blair Witch Project*, *Pi*, or *Open Water*. Their combined budgets are barely a quarter of what that "thief's" production cost, yet they prove the point perfectly.
Personally, I’m more of a fan of building on tradition rather than tearing everything down just to start from scratch. To me, those films by fight Lee feel like they were shot out of thin air—zero budget, zero support, just pure DIY. Props to the crew, really, they clearly had a blast, but is that really how movies should look? Our cinema has its own history; what we're seeing right now is just a rough patch that's lasted a little over a decade. Even Hollywood was recently churning out all sorts of co-productions, including actual hits.
As for that whole thing about making a cheap movie that explodes into a hit and opens every door imaginable... that usually happens in English-speaking markets, not here. The English-speaking world is so massive that sometimes it feels like if anyone there manages to make anything at all, there will be an audience waiting to make it profitable.
Of course we need to fund movies—and culture in general—because if the government isn't footing the bill, the American film industry just falls apart. If state funding were ever scrapped, film production would probably dwindle down to nothing more than TV movies churned out by AVA, which would essentially just be extended soap opera episodes designed to hawk products and push the latest rising stars from "Big Brother."
It’s pretty obvious that movies here can't really be commercial ventures. There just aren't enough viewers. Commercially successful films are the exception, not the rule. That's why the government has to step up and fund films and the arts. I'd guess the only real hiccup is how the money is handed out—it's done "by the book" in the worst way, where certain "structures" decide who gets what based on political ties or who's considered "deserving," rather than following an actual strategy or rewarding pure quality. So, yeah, the government needs to provide the cash, but it has to be for actual, legitimate filmmaking.
What’s everyone’s take on this? Is there anything even remotely similar over in NYC? If not—which I'm guessing is a safe bet—what would be the closest thing to it? (Ideally somewhere in Manhattan or Brooklyn, just around those areas.)
Shaky cams, shots that flash by in the blink of an eye—you know the drill. Look, the action in Jason Bourne's ultimatum is actually top-tier, but it’s all wasted when these perfectly choreographed sequences get swallowed up by frantic cutting and a camera that won't sit still. Take that part where they shove Jason Bourne's car into an underpass wall. It's a fantastic crash, really, but you miss half the impact because the camera suddenly goes absolutely haywire. It’s as if they’re trying to simulate the physical shock of the collision—like the crash caused some kind of tectonic shift or something. But hey, we aren't sitting in the passenger seat! We’re watching this from fifty feet away! Even during basic dialogue scenes, everything feels unstable—it's like the camera is about to fly out the window or start buzzing around the chandelier like a confused fly. I mean, what’s the harm in just putting the camera on a tripod during a conversation so we can actually see the actors' faces?
I suppose filmmakers think this is some cutting-edge, music video meets commercial aesthetic that appeals to the younger crowd, or whatever... Truth is, plenty of people find it grating and complain about it, so maybe it'll eventually fade out. There's nothing wrong with a little movement or a quick cut here and there, but you have to actually show the audience what's happening. In my book, stylistic flourishes should be used sparingly, not as a crutch.
Kickboxing at "Forma" Gym in Chicago. Who on earth is Bruno?
So, I was looking into the kickboxing classes over at the "Forma" gym—you know, the one on Hebron Avenue here in Chicago—and I decided to give them a quick ring. I just wanted to see who was actually running the show, specifically the instructor. The answer I got? Just "Bruno." That’s it. Just Bruno. So I start digging—asking if this guy is actually qualified, if he’s got a competitive background, if he’s ever stepped foot in a ring. Their response? "We don't know." I mean, come on. I asked them if they could at least give me a last name so I could do a little digging online—standard procedure, right?—to see if the guy actually has a track record. And they tell me: "We don't even know his last name." Does anyone out there actually know who this Bruno character is? And more importantly, is the kickboxing program at "Forma" gym actually worth the time, or am I better off looking elsewhere?
A movie that leans heavily into the themes, elements, and motifs typically exploited by trash cinema isn't automatically classified as trash just because of those tropes .
In "28 Days / Weeks Later," there aren't actually any zombies.
Some critics—especially those hacks over at the local weekly papers—often, if you'll excuse my language, talk absolute nonsense. Honestly, sometimes I just want to grab them by the throat when I read some hack's take on an absolute masterpiece like "Zodiac." Being a critic isn't exactly rocket science—anyone who can string a sentence together thinks they're qualified. Around here on the forum, though, you see some truly sharp, witty analysis. Real criticism comes from the gut; there’s nothing "objective" about it. The kind of reviews I actually respect come from people who clearly have some skin in the game—people who've actually watched enough films to know their stuff, who genuinely love the medium, and who present a clear, passionate perspective. You don't necessarily have to believe them... you just take it into consideration. But those anonymous types in the newspapers, trashing a work of art? It's pathetic. Everyone knows at least one of those "critics" who couldn't care less and is basically just filling space to collect a paycheck, hiding behind those stiff, pretentious sentence structures they think make them sound professional...
Doesn't a director say somewhere: "Why doesn't any child dream of becoming a critic?"
Speaking of modern blockbusters that actually have some soul—has anyone caught Casino Royale yet? They stripped away everything the franchise used to stand for and basically delivered a movie that feels like it was filmed right on the heels of From Russia with Love. For my taste, Casino Royale is exactly what a blockbuster should be. Now, I can already hear Richard Howard2 arguing that personal taste is irrelevant here—that it’s just another formulaic product and just more proof that cinema is dead, and... (insert Jango's long-winded rant here). But honestly, this new Bond is such a breath of fresh air. He’s a character in a massive hit who actually feels human—he matures, he falls in love, he takes hits, and he's a different person by the end of the film... it's a real movie. It’s almost as if the template established by Goldfinger was never meant to be permanent, and we've finally landed back at the Bond we saw in the Dr. No era.
casualraven said:Well, look, that’s actually just one way for intelligence to develop...
I mean, honestly—I'd bet anything you'd just be stuttering the whole time, totally tripping over your words trying to figure out what to say next. 😬
Emotional and social intelligence—that stuff—is way more vital for making it in the real world than... uh... than that... what's the term... that "book smart" kind of intelligence. 🙂
Do mainstream hits actually have a soul, or are they just hollow shells... 🙄...and honestly, who's even qualified to judge that?😬 Take the trailer for Transformers—there’s this little girl who clearly has a massive soft spot for machines, and she climbs out of a pool only to be met by this huge, surprisingly decent-looking robot. Naturally, they’re going to become best friends... it's basically the same setup as E.T. But does that actually carry any emotional weight? 🙂
These massive blockbusters like Transformers... they really are just modern versions of those old 50s flicks with titles like "Creature from the Black Lagoon," "Attack of the Giant Ants," or "Alien Attack" from Mars... It's funny how what used to be considered cheap, low-budget trash for kids is now the absolute backbone of the entire film industry.
Blackbeard, seriously, nice work—really well written. 👍
But... man, I’d love to actually sit down and watch something like «Pirates of the Caribbean» that tries to lean into realism! You know, a true super-spectacle where they actually bother with things like drama, acting, blood, guts, and history. Now, «Master and Commander»? That was top-tier. That's the kind of pirate flick I'm looking for, but you just don't see them anymore! I want the massive spectacle, the huge budget, and all the effects, but without all that postmodern, ironic nonsense—all those endless little jokes and layers of self-deprecation.
In today's edition of The New York Times, they were actually praising the review of «Pirates III». They claim that with this movie: "…the modernistic screenwriters intended to create a 'bargain bin of antiquities,' poking fun at the sacred cows of nostalgic fans by ironically mocking the old adventure films of Errol Flynn... etc." So, get this—they are essentially mocking expensive pirate adventure movies. Does anyone else find it weird to be satirizing something that doesn't even exist in the first place? I have a bit of a hard time identifying with characters—kind of like in Monty Python—who, in the world of video games, spend their time mocking adventure movies I haven't even watched since who knows when. I'd love, just for once, if they actually filmed an actual template of what they're supposedly making fun of.
Charles Evans said:Even by today's standards, Terminator 2: Judgment Day is still technically the best movie ever made. No modern blockbuster can touch those special effects.
👍 And the storytelling? Pure perfection... just enough substance without overstaying its welcome.
Not long ago—though it feels like an entire era passed since the days of Krist—watching movies was actually a singular experience. Everything moved at a different pace. You bought your ticket, sat down, and just watched. There was no rewinding a scene just because a fight sequence or a special effect was particularly slick so you could study it in slow motion, then go home and make your own little fan edit. Back then, you’d see things once or twice, sure, but you watched them thoroughly. I suspect that's exactly why we ended up with so many cult classics. The newer generations view the world through a completely different lens than those who grew up without the internet, YouTube, or the ability to just download anything they wanted. Nowadays, you throw on some massive blockbuster and just let it run in the background while you're gaming or doing something else entirely; if the movie gets tedious, you just flip over to some other high-octane hit... (one guy on another forum even bragged about it, claiming, “I’m a pro at multitasking” 🤣 ). Some people have thousands of movies sitting in their libraries that they haven't even bothered to watch. If your taste was shaped before all these digital shortcuts existed, it’s no wonder the modern approach feels grating... there’s just no sense of gravity in these big franchise sequels anymore 😁 ... and let's be honest, hits have always been aimed at younger audiences anyway, so there you have it. If a movie doesn't come packed with mega-turbo cutting-edge effects, people today just shrug and say, "Ugh, this is boring..." Maybe that’s why some folks here think the great "Alien 3" is actually bad... but how could it not be considered "bad" by those standards when it’s so much leaner and stripped back compared to "Aliens"? 😁