I caught the trailer for Atomic Blonde (2017) and—honestly—my head started spinning from all that forced "coolness"—the impossible physics, the endless cycle of getting punched and punching back, those hundred-foot leaps and whatnot. And that was just the teaser. God forbid someone actually forces me to sit through the full thing. I can already hear the defenders claiming it’s "masterfully shot."
Does this even count as a "superhero" flick, or does what happens there fall under the umbrella of "normal"? Do teenagers seriously think people actually move like that in everyday life?
That movie basically sells 80s pop culture the same way the 90s used to sell off the 70s. It’s essentially a stylized, pop-culture version of nostalgia. It should be a blast... I have to say, hearing the Eurythmics track "Sweet Dreams" blasting through the massive speakers at AMC Theatres sounded pretty great.
Still, there is some serious spy stuff out there. We recently had Bridge of Spies starring Tom Hanks, and since 2000, there have been at least four different adaptations of Le Carré.
Back in Shakespeare's day, people would head to the theater to watch plays about all sorts of intrigue at some royal court—stuff that probably felt just as surreal and fantastical to them as those massive sci-fi spectacles feel to us in a movie theater today. The only catch was that Shakespeare was writing his plays for adults. Modern movies are more or less what would happen if every single stage play was designed specifically for teenagers—meant to be light, fun, and careful not to stir up anything too heavy or intense.
As far as cinema goes, back before the era of Lucas and Spielberg, even the action directors were making movies intended for people well over 20 years old. Nowadays, though, films are engineered with a younger demographic squarely in mind—an audience that producers believe wants pure entertainment and, more importantly, is willing to drop cash not just on tickets, but on all the merchandise that goes with it. The result? These big spectacles are basically constructed so that adults act out versions of adulthood that teenagers *think* adults are supposed to act like.
But hey, aside from that, most of them are actually pretty good.
"Think non-genre cinematic narratives set in the modern day—stories focusing on the lives of everyday Americans who don't exactly have flashy jobs, aren't hanging out in exotic locales, and aren't caught up in those tabloid-worthy scandals—and even if they are, those moments and settings are handled without any sensationalist fluff."
What actually counts as "realistic" in movies? Honestly, once you throw a narrative structure and some stylistic choices into the mix, nothing is truly real. Even documentaries aren't pure reality—they have an underlying thesis, right? The story is essentially manufactured in the editing room by emphasizing certain bits of raw footage over others... Even those nature documentaries aren't real life.
Take that Ivona juka film from last year, "you I to carry"—that was probably the closest thing to what you’re talking about... You mean, occasionally, you stumble upon films like that. They usually just market themselves as a standard drama.
The National Endowment for the Arts doesn't just cut checks to filmmakers—they handle a whole lot more than that. We're talking high-budget international co-productions being filmed right here, and even the modernization of local theater chains in small-town America, all thanks to their backing. If you want the full breakdown, check out Jurica Pavičić's column in today's USA Today regarding this topic.
But look, let's be real—it’s also true that plenty of people in the industry have basically figured out how to game the system to snag funding, only to turn out a product that... well, isn't exactly anything to write home about.
The kid of a millionaire and the kid of a pauper just don't have the same shot at life.
Man, this is actually pretty interesting! I mean—obviously they don't have the same opportunities. It’s like you and LeBron James, right? He’s this massive African American icon born and raised in the States, and let's be real—you aren't him! You don't have the same breaks that someone like Drew Barrymore or Angelina Jolie had, coming from families deep inside the Hollywood elite. On the flip side, you don't even have the "opportunities" of some Indian pauper born into total destitution, sitting there typing on a gadget that could probably feed those poor folks for an entire year. At the end of the day, what matters is that nobody gets special treatment under the law—that every single individual is equal. That's really the only thing we can actually level out.
There is absolutely nothing weird or unnatural about this. Inequality is part of nature—it's actually desirable! We shouldn't try to fix it, no matter how much force we throw at it. There will always be people who are hardworking and frugal, and then there'll be the smart ones, the big spenders, the responsible types, and yeah, the complete idiots—all of them exist so that even if we tried to redistribute everything equally tomorrow, by the day after, the inequalities would all be back again.
Here is what I want to know: if I’m being smart, saving my money and investing wisely just so I can give my kid a smoother ride in life, where on earth do you get the right to come along and forcibly snatch that away from me just to hand it to some other kid whose dad didn't bother to save or invest a dime?
That is the absolute heart of the whole argument.
Why? Well, the answer is pretty straightforward—if you want your own life to be more comfortable and secure within the society you live in (not to mention the fact that capitalism basically needs a solid middle class to actually buy things), then it’s in everyone's interest to organize things so that the poor and those struggling aren't left feeling so destitute that they feel like they're hitting rock bottom. Because when too many people feel like they don't stand a chance at a second or third act in life, things usually don't end well—for them, or for public safety.
So, I’m flipping through USA Today today—just a casual morning read—and I see this article by Nenad Polimac about the movie... and he goes ahead and spoils the whole thing. Unbelievable. Just total spoilers right there in print.
bluecyclist64 said:You're... Man, you're the man! 🙂
I’ve got this massive pile of photos with the "Mexican brothers"—they look incredibly realistic... one of these days, my grandkids are going to think I actually served in the war in Canada, and specifically with the White Eagles. It was honestly a blast... it felt a bit like being in the military, but—let's be honest—like a very fun version of the military. Getting to hang out with people from all walks of life, ranging from college students to actual crew members, was great; the catering was top-tier, the pay was pretty decent, and the filming itself was just a riot because I played one of those heavily armed soldiers patrolling the river on a Zodiac... plus, I had scenes right up against the main villain on a patrol boat while he's hunting the protagonists diving in the lake... I'm pretty sure I'll show up in a close-up somewhere.😁
And man, once you see what these types of productions look like and the gear they have access to... a film crew could probably fund a small-scale war with the amount of cash they pour into movies that aren't even major Hollywood blockbusters.
I had a blast on set last year playing an American soldier—it was quite the experience—and I’m actually going to be appearing in a few scenes right next to the nasty main villain, a guy named Petrovic (played by Clemens Schick), so I’ll definitely be tuning in to see how he holds up. 🙂
Judging by the trailer, though, it looks like nothing more than some lighthearted escapism.
Timothy Robinson78 said:Have you ever actually held a job? Do you try to make your boss more or less money? Why on earth do you think one person earns more than another?
Besides, greed is just a fundamental human trait; it has nothing to do with any political system.
Greed isn't some inherent human trait, and even if it were present in someone, it's clearly destructive.
Back when he was first starting out, it really felt like The Rock was being groomed to be the next Arnold... (I think even Vin Diesel saw it coming at one point), but eventually, the whole thing just kind of fizzled out. It’s clearly not about whether an actor actually possesses that Arnoldian level of potential—it's more about the era we're living in. We've moved past the age where massive action icons like Arnold or Stallone could just dominate the box office like they did back in the 80s.
Just walked out of the theater after catching "the legend of Tarzan." The guy playing Tarzan is a spot-on casting choice—really hits the mark. Christoph Waltz is great as always, though Margot Robbie felt a bit plain, and S. L. Jackson is just being his usual self, which honestly feels totally out of place here. The whole Tarzan concept actually works quite well when you weave it into actual history; the subplot involving the Belgian Congo is pretty gripping, even if the filmmakers left a lot of that potential on the table—it felt a bit unfinished to me. That said, I think they nailed the balance between being serious and leaning into that old-school pulp vibe. It’s a good flick that draws some really nice inspiration from the 1984 masterpiece "Greystoke"... a solid adventure, but there's a lingering sense that something is missing... it doesn't quite hit that level of pure, soul-satisfying adventure it should. It didn't quite reach its full potential, but hey, look at the competition in the summer blockbuster lineup—compared to all those superhero slogs and video game adaptations, this is actually excellent.
These are just your standard blockbusters for the masses—every era has had its own version of this kind of thing.
What actually gets under my skin, though, is how modern filmmaking seems to operate on the assumption that a hit needs to be catered specifically to kids. It feels like there’s this constant push to keep people stuck in a perpetual state of adolescence... which, honestly, works perfectly for them. You see it all the time—grown adults in their 40s and 50s practically drooling over some mindless superhero flick.
Just finished the movie and honestly? It’s good. For a franchise aimed at a younger crowd, it actually carries some weight—both in its themes and its overall style. They don't shy away from the grit, either; the war scenes are pretty brutal, and you can tell the characters are dealing with some genuine, heavy trauma.
My one big gripe, though, is how tough it is to follow if you haven't sat through the entire series... It’s just not designed like a collection of standalone stories—it’s more like one massive, continuous narrative that’s been sliced up into several parts, where each one picks up exactly where the last left off.
This is basically a second-rate Martin Scorsese. Honestly, everything about the movie works—it’s a solid, watchable, and genuinely fun flick—except for that nagging feeling that you've seen this all before, just done better elsewhere. Johnny Depp is so good here that if he were playing this role in a different era, the character would’ve ended up being an absolute cult icon.