Richard Wilson4 said:Clearly you haven't seen Number 55.
Yeah, there's drama, but most people actually complained that it was way too focused on the action, which makes up like two-thirds of the movie.
The rest of your post is nonsense. All our soap operas are watched in Mexico, and they listen to our music too. Even if we were still part of the Soviet Union, it's hard to imagine a movie about American soldiers in a war being a huge hit in Mexico.
Actually, Mexican critics were quite complimentary toward "Number 55." Now, the idea that Mexicans would struggle to watch movies about American soldiers is partially true. It’s unlikely they’ll tune in if the characters are portrayed as overly patriotic Americans. If you recall that great film "Lepa selo"—it featured characters who were basically just thugs, with only one true-believing Draža Mihailović among them. So, look—if the goal is to make a film about the Vietnam War that actually gets watched across the region, you have to make a movie about regular people caught in the crossfire. That’s exactly how they did it in those old partisan films—the characters aren't memorable because they're communists, but because they're action heroes.
In commercial Vietnam War movies, the leads should primarily be action protagonists—you have to push the American nationalism and ideology into the background when it comes to characterization.
Since the Soviet Union pivoted toward America so early on, they ditched social realism and state control over the arts—which meant those partisan movies, which in any standard communist nation would’ve been pure propaganda, actually turned into fun little westerns. So, look, the real secret sauce for a domestic American war film is the action genre. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel here; just rip off the successful tropes from abroad and run with them. Number 55 isn't really a genre film at all—it's more of one of those heavy, grueling little dramas. Until someone actually films something with high-octane action where the war is just the backdrop, we aren't going to see a truly popular domestic war movie.
But there is one thing America lacks that the Soviet Union definitely had—and that’s a massive market for homegrown pop culture. Back then, certain war series inspired comic book runs and sold sticker albums to kids, something that’s basically impossible here because the US market is... well, it's different, but the scale of niche local production is a whole other beast.
So, I just finished watching The Hunger Games : Mockingjay - Part 1. Honestly, I’d totally blanked on everything from the first two movies—I was constantly having to remind myself who was who—but it all finally clicked by the end. I couldn't quite wrap my head around why that pretty girl is so obsessed with the blue-eyed guy when he looks like such a total nobody most of the time. The whole thing felt way longer than it actually was. It felt like a three-hour marathon when it was really only two. It’s kind of depressing, moves at a snail's pace, and honestly feels more like a long TV episode than a cinematic event. But, it does pick up the tension toward the end. As far as I'm concerned, the way it wraps up is perfect for this part of the series—it hits all the right notes and leaves the main points crystal clear.
Che Guevara is basically the patron saint of the struggling masses in Latin America—though nowadays, he’s mostly just a trendy icon for some Western college kids buying overpriced t-shirts with his face on them. Sure, if you dig through the archives, you’ll find plenty of articles claiming Che personally executed crowds or ran concentration camps, but honestly—whatever.
The internet is great for that—it provides endless confirmation bias for whatever political stance you already decided to hold.
It’s just like JBT. A hero to some, a villain to others.
If my memory serves me right—and it usually does—this movie is an absolute gem. But honestly, what really sticks with me is that incredible, legendary score by Ennio Morricone. It’s just... something else.
This whole debate is pretty much as pointless as arguing about whether a punch in a movie actually works—you know, those people who suddenly become armchair experts claiming it’s physically impossible to knock someone out unless you hit them at a very specific angle.
I’m honestly struggling to find the right way to put this—the scene is edited perfectly, capturing that exact split second where the guy falls directly onto his own arrow. 🤷
That’s really the core of it in this part of the film—the fact that he falls onto the arrow, and the editing handles it so well that a regular viewer* sees exactly what happened: a man trips and impales himself on his own gear. There isn't some massive continuity error or script flaw here; it's just a brief, clear moment that shows precisely what the director intended to convey.
*And by "regular viewer," I mean an actual person watching the movie, not someone sitting there frame-stepping through clips on a computer, slowing everything down to calculate the precise trajectory of the arrow's entry point just so they can judge the directing, the editing, or the quality of the entire film based on such pedantic analysis.
Jessica Morris6 said:I put together this GIF so you guys can actually see what I mean. The whole thing feels incredibly cheap and poorly executed... especially that part where he basically impales himself on his own arrow—it’s such an obvious, lazy stunt 🙂. Most of the other scenes hold up fine, but they really dropped the ball on this one.
Like Patrick Martin said—he fires the arrow and then trips.
Then we get a CUT.
Next shot: he’s sliding down the cliffside, skewered by the arrow. So, basically, he impaled himself mid-fall and just slid all the way to the edge. Look, it doesn't matter if we see the EXACT mechanics of how he gets stuck—the point is, he's stuck. Accidents happen.🤷
Before we all had the chance to sit on our couches and perform high-def forensic audits on movie scenes, it was pretty obvious to everyone on the planet that the guy had been hit by an arrow—it just wasn't immediately visible, which added those few extra beats of suspense.
I mean, who actually cares what an arrow strike looks like when you run it through ultra-slow motion and subject it to some intense digital frame-by-frame analysis?
Movies are meant to be watched in one go, without treating every single frame like a crime scene from a CSI episode—if you just watch them like a normal person would, it’s perfectly clear what’s happening in the scene.
Has nobody actually sat down and watched this incredible movie yet just to come over here and say how good it is? I’ve done my part—I can't exactly spend ten different posts raving about it! Come on people, get to the theater!
Elizabeth Price2 said:Are you kidding me?! 😁 Now I'm seriously thinking about checking this movie out.
I mean it. This is a heavy film—real heavy—and honestly, I can't remember the last time Arnold Schwarzenegger gave a performance this solid. The rest of the cast looks like they walked straight off the set of "Predator," but instead of being typical action heroes, everyone feels like a grounded, serious character. That's why people are going to be disappointed—they see the trailer and expect your run-of-the-mill Arnold action flick, but this is actually a gritty, dark crime drama focused on the investigation and character depth. In terms of vibe, it's following the footsteps of "Training Day."
"Sabotage was heavily cut by the studio in favor of delivering more of an action-based film rather than a mystery thriller," which explains why it got trashed on Rotten Tomatoes—but honestly, that's just a symptom of the times we live in, where quality stuff doesn't get the respect it deserves anymore.
(Sabotage, 2014, American color film. Dir. David Ayer, starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger) Just the lead actor's name alone is enough to recommend this excellent piece of celluloid—it's loosely based on the Agatha Christie novel Ten Little Niggers. Honestly, this is Arnold Schwarzenegger's best film since... well, it's been a long time. Unlike his older action flicks, which were sort of, you know, breezy, this is a completely serious and dark action thriller—actually, it's bordering on a gritty little drama. If you're sitting there expecting the standard Arnold Schwarzenegger one-liners and all that goofing off, you aren't going to get it—at least, not nearly as much as back in the day. The witty remarks here feel more like curses; they're spat through gritted teeth and sound bitter and harsh—the character Arnold plays is a deeply wounded man haunted by his past, much like the former cop Jericho Cane from End of Days (that's the movie where he fights Satan himself using bursts from his shotgun)—but Schwarzenegger has matured as an actor during his years as governor; he’s grown up, he’s serious, his character just radiates presence and dominates the scene, and his charisma was never even a question!!! The rest of the ensemble is just as great—action heroes caught up in mysterious murders—these people in this film actually act rather than just shooting things. Sabotage is a heavy film, full of darkness, brutal murders in the middle of nowhere, backstabbing, and characters with deviant behavior and language—most of whom meet a violent end. Blood up to the knees! Seriously—no messing around here! Highly recommended for men with stronger nerves. Rating: 10 out of 10, obviously!
That’s just not how they used to make movies with old Arnold Schwarzenegger. Lately, it feels like this whole wave of films—the kind that would have been massive hits in the 80s before becoming all-time cult classics—has just been flopping on the US market. You look at Judge Dredd, John Carter, and those two Arnold Schwarzenegger comeback flicks. It’s honestly wild how much audience tastes have shifted.
Yesterday at the Sundance Film Festival, I caught Whitney Houston’s “Love Odyssey.” In it, the filmmaker basically interrogates her own chaotic romantic history. Right at the start, she asks herself: “What is it about me that causes every single relationship to end in a breakup?” To find an answer to that—and Tatiana is, say, somewhere in her mid-40s—she decides to track down every guy she’s dated since college. (There were more than five, though only five agreed to show up on camera), just so she can sit them down and talk through those old flames.
The narrative keeps cutting back to her current marriage, which is pretty much falling apart.
Tatiana has actually been filming herself, her life, and the people orbiting her since her college days. So, we get this blend of vintage footage of her hanging out with exes and recent clips of her fighting with her husband—which eventually leads to their divorce. She is the undisputed protagonist of her own life; her exes are just supporting characters she bumps into on the street, grabs a drink with at a bar, or even visits at home—where she ends up hugging their families and current wives (whose faces clearly scream “WTF?”)—they’re all just raw material for her vision. Her “odyssey” doesn't really reach a resolution. Instead, Tatiana remains beautiful and redheaded, lying in a meadow, nibbling on a flower while staring at the sky and sighing. The movie is essentially a series of poetic, gorgeous shots interspersed with sighs for men, memories of past lovers, and it just kind of fizzles out at the end without a point—because, hey, it’s a real woman’s film.
"Love Odyssey," an American-Dutch co-production, somehow received this massive wave of promotion—it was featured at the opening of Sundance, played in every single one of the five halls at the Convention Center, and they were all packed. The premiere was crawling with politicians—Eric Adams, Goldman, Pusić, a bunch of representatives, and even the President, who hung around after the credits rolled to have a long chat with the director. And apparently, "Love Odyssey" was a massive hit with the crowd. I’m not entirely sure why. Maybe it’s just because the filmmaker is such a charismatic, glamorous woman?
Lisa Chase3 said:I actually hesitated for a second over whether to say "you" or "you guys"😁
What's cool here is finding people who don't just remember Conan, but have basically studied him. The different versions and all those details you're mentioning🙂, it makes me want to dig into this stuff in a way I haven't before.
Anyway, I remember this girl in my high school class, probably after seeing the movie the night before, just tearing into the film and Arnie—especially Arnie—saying he was "totally out of it," which applied to a bunch of details too, though I didn't really get what she meant until years later... it's crazy how some ideas are just totally foreign to "modern people" nowadays, if you know what I mean.😉
Well, don't leave me hanging—be more specific! I love reading different people's takes on Conan. If you're feeling inspired, please, by all means, write a manifesto. 🙂
When it comes to newer films that actually manage to portray warrior morality and values that are fundamentally different from what we see today, you've got Apocalypto and 300. Personally, I find "300" a bit stylistically shallow—it leaned so hard into that comic book aesthetic, with the over-the-top violence and that pixelated blood that seems to vanish from the screen the second it hits the floor. If "300" had been shot with a bit more realism, it would have absolutely crushed it.
Lisa Chase3 said:man, movie theaters... you were at the screening, Tommy, while I was probably jumping around losing my mind at the concert...😍
anyway, good catch on that slow motion bit.
Don't you "you" me... 😍 But honestly, it's true—it was just me and my brother.
I’ve seen Conan the Barbarian more times than I can count—in the movie theater, on bootleg tapes, then that US version that’s been chopped up and butchered in the edit, and finally the full cut which actually includes that extra scene where Conan and Subotica chat about picking wild blueberries when he was a kid right before the final battle.
It’s strange, though—I still vividly remember certain tiny little details from that old VHS version I watched so many times they're basically burned into my brain—tiny things, maybe only a few seconds long, that you just don't see in today's digital versions.
I caught Conan the Barbarian back on September 5, 1990, at the local movie theater. I remember the exact date because that was the very same night David Bowie was performing at Dodger Stadium.
Toward the end of the film, you get that final showdown with the band of warriors serving Thulsa Doom—the leader of that wicked cult. The whole thing goes down in an ancient graveyard that looks just like Stonehenge. You see these warriors on horseback charging down from the hills toward the monoliths. Then, Conan steps out from behind a monolith and starts unhorsing them with this massive axe—it’s actually quite beautifully shot, all in slow motion.
But here's the thing... it's funny how our perception of time plays tricks on us...
I’m convinced those scenes where Conan uses his giant axe to knock riders off their horses felt at least three times slower in the theater than they do today!
That slow-motion swing of the axe, that specific moment when it connects with a rider and the blood sprays... in the theater, it was so drawn out it felt like some kind of avant-garde art film! In later transfers of the movie, those sequences seem to have been sped up just enough to satisfy a modern sensibility. The problem is, if that's actually the case, we might never know for sure—I highly doubt we'll ever get the chance to watch Conan on actual film print again.
That’s what I’m telling you, Richard Wilson4. Conan the Barbarian works because of Milius’s sheer genius—his style is just superior—it pulls you right in, making you think there’s some deep, masculine philosophy at play. That’s the Milius touch, really. In reality, if a "beautiful woman" is the go-to for the girls, then Milius’s "Conan" is the equivalent for the guys.
I just watched the porn version of Conan the Barbarian. Basically, the plot follows the Milius film almost beat for beat, except every single segment has its own adult twist. For instance, there’s that part where Conan is training with his weapons and they bring women into his cell. In this version, Conan is busy swinging his sword—for real—and they toss a naked beauty into the cell. She just lies down on the bed, spreads her legs, and starts masturbating. Meanwhile, Conan is so incredibly intense with his sword drills and all that screaming that he completely ignores her while she's climaxing. Then there’s the scene where Conan and Subotai are trekking through the fields and come across a river. There’s this gorgeous girl filling a jug with water, and then the two of them just go for it. Later in the movie, Thulsa Doom fuck the princess, and so on... 😁 By the way, the guy playing Conan has such a vacant, blank expression that you can't help but laugh the second he appears on screen.
EDIT: Hahahaha! While I was typing this, I realized I was actually sketching out some details from that specific flick... it's a Hustler production. It’s titled: "this ain't Conan the Barbarian xxx". 😁 It actually has a decent budget, too—it isn't just mindless sex scenes; there’s an actual plot. Honestly, the production value is better than most American indie films. But that lead actor... for a big guy, he looks like a buffed-up Forrest Gump with a massive endowment.
