370 posts shown.
slybison8 said:I suppose if you look at how the Shiite populations behave in places where they actually hold power—like in Iran or certain parts of Iraq—those old colonial masters certainly seemed to know what they were doing. I've visited Bahrain before, and it felt like such a prosperous, pleasant place that I'd probably love to go back. As for Iran, I don't think I'll ever set foot there.
What's the reason behind this decision of yours?
Honestly, it’s a little disappointing to hear a take like that coming from someone like you, but hey, whatever.
Regarding this topic, Nancy Wood6 already covered it all. If anyone actually bothered to read the article, they’d see it’s nothing but "allegedly" this and "an unnamed official said" that. Just more nonsense. Even the Bahraini Minister of Labor stepped up to say the statement is completely false, claiming he has no idea who would even say something like that. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can buy into such garbage. What's the point? Why spend your time on some forum just to trash a country? Look, I don't exactly have high opinions of North Korea either, but I'm not going to waste my free time hunting down articles about them online just to sit around and talk about them on a forum. That's just twisted.😲
This is one of those movies that absolutely does not need a sequel. Just look at The Matrix.
As for the script? It’s 🤮 and just screams the mindless consumerism we see all over Hollywood.
Honestly, even Michael Dudikoff movies have more depth than this. This is just terrible.
Jerry Martin19 said:You could've just asked "do you like them" instead of "can you tolerate them." Now it sounds like we're all suffering through looking at them.😬
I know, I wanted to. But I already hit "Post," and editing was locked. Besides, once I actually thought about it, asking if people "like" something changes the whole weight of the question.
Whatever. Let's just leave it.😁
slywolf45 said:They aren't usually real cinephiles.
I only lose focus if the movie is garbage or just mediocre. If it’s actually good? No way I'm zoning out.
Exactly my point.
Though, looking back, I probably posted this in the wrong subforum. It feels like walking into a philosophy seminar and asking, "Hey, you guys like philosophy?"😁
My theory doesn't hold water here, but I bet it would kill over at the WNBA boards.😁
wiredeagle5 said:Fine, let me try to change your mind 😬
I'm a woman, and I can sit through movies all day long—provided they aren't boring as hell, obviously. 🍿
Talk about an exception that proves the rule.😁
Andrew Roberts3 said:If a movie actually hits, who cares if it’s 75 minutes or nearly three hours? Honestly, when a film is that good, I’m usually bummed when the credits start rolling. Long runtimes don't bother me one bit.
Exactly. Same here. I don't even look at the runtime. Looking back at my watchlist, I realized I actually prefer the longer ones.
Anthony Smith3 said:Fair point... but honestly? I haven't really had issues with stuff like this before. LOTR, King Kong, The Godfather, Heat, Once Upon a time in The West, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Aliens, Schindler's List... you name it.👍
Me neither. Now we just wait for the rest of the crowd to chime in. Because I genuinely don't get it—how can anyone be bothered by runtime? Especially if the movie is actually good? You find out how the pacing works *while* you're watching it.
Take Leone, for example. He wanted Once Upon a Time in America to run over six hours. Personally? I wouldn't have complained. Not even a little bit.
But of course, some clueless Americans thought four hours was way too long, so they chopped an hour and a half off the whole thing.😵
Lawrence Booth2 said:no
between long and short 😁
I'm going with long 😁
Either I totally misread you, or you voted completely wrong.😁>
Anthony Smith3 said:It really just comes down to whether the movie actually sucks or not... personally, I don't mind a long runtime if the story works.👍
Sure, but how are you supposed to know if it's any good until you actually sit through it?😉
Checking out this thread on Benjamin Button, and I noticed a huge chunk of people—mostly women—complaining that the movie is way too long.
It just backs up the theory I've been sitting on for years: generally speaking, women have way less patience than men. They don't seem to care for anything that drags past that standard 90 to 120-minute mark.
So, ladies, what gives? Why is it such a struggle to just sit down and watch a movie if it hits, say, 220 minutes?
Seriously, if I'm totally off base here, someone please prove me wrong.
goldenhound32 said:"Probably" just doesn't cut it.
I suppose I'll have to watch them again; I only caught them once the first time around. I just need to get my hands on a copy first.
No. I I know plenty myself, so I don't find it necessary to dwell on it, if you catch my drift.
For me, that isn't even a matter of choice.
That plot hole hits me right in the eye—it's just too glaringly obvious to ignore. 🙂 Robert Wilson, honestly, when someone rings my doorbell after only three seconds, it feels like they’re driving a finger straight into my ribs.
What am I even supposed to say? It's been way too long since I last watched him. And honestly, even if I sat down to watch him right now, I probably wouldn't pay any attention anyway.
For me, it’s not even a question of choice.
That plot hole hits me right in the eye. Like, seriously? It’s that obvious. 🙂 Robert Wilson, honestly? Someone knocking on my door after only three seconds feels like someone just shoved a finger straight into my ribs.
My advice? Just stop watching movies.👍
goldenhound32 said:I don't overlook them. I binged all three godfather films in two days about seven years ago, so my memory isn't exactly sharp. If there are similar issues in the godfather movies, feel free to point them out.
You wouldn't even know half of these things if you hadn't started digging into them.
What am I supposed to say if I already know more? lol.
Honestly, it drives me crazy when someone comments on a movie like that. In fact, I don't even watch movies with people like that.
Fair enough. As for me, I just eat while I watch.
You already got your answer to all of this in an earlier message.
Aha, so you're just repeating yourself and calling it a day? fine.
🙂
When I say "it bothers me," I mean it's unpleasant, not that I'm pulling my hair out.
And I find myself getting dragged into all sorts of debates, too.😢
Let me repeat myself:
"It seems to me that debating whether or not something should bother us is pointless.
But whether something is realistic or not—well, that's a different story altogether. And that's exactly why this thread is open."
Why and how did you conclude that? 😕
Risk mitigation.
I don't remember either—it's been way too long since I watched them. But yeah, there's probably something to find in there.
What am I supposed to tell you if I know more than you? lol.
No. I know plenty too, but I don't stress over it, you get me?
Aha, so he just repeats her and gets ready? ok
🙂
That gets sorted out later in the messages; clearly, there's nothing unrealistic happening here.
crimsondriver54 said:rustywalker42 As follows:
It doesn't surprise me one bit; in major American cities, taxi rates are standard knowledge, so you can pretty much estimate a ride to be around... $3.25 For an entire section of the city, they've turned the currency into a caricature. This isn't Washington, D.C.
If we follow that logic, I suppose there’s little point in watching movies at all.🤷
Those are just cinematic clichés; there's really no need to take them so seriously. Even when a guy is firing his pistol like crazy, he never seems to run out of ammo.👍
I know, that's exactly why I said if you follow that logic, you shouldn't even be watching movies at all.
goldenhound32 said:rustywalker42 As requested:
On the other hand, when they go out and film something like Rambo IV where everything is portrayed with a sickening level of realism, they still get criticized for being overly brutal.
I wasn't complaining. 🙂
It is an interesting point to consider that everything really hinges on the specific film in question. A lot of those Steven Seagal movies are riddled with such obvious goofs that people can't help but nitpick, which inevitably leads to constant complaining. However, when you're dealing with an actual cult classic, people tend to be much more forgiving. That’s just how it works.
I don't even bother watching movies starring Steven Seagal. Honestly, when you spot a blunder like that in a film like The Godfather, feel free to point it out. In Seagal's movies, I've come to expect completely unrealistic situations, which is exactly why I don't even bring them up.
They’re filming on location, yet there’s a Mercedes-Benz parked right in the shot that isn't scheduled to hit production lines for another three and a half years. Honestly, there are so many glaring inconsistencies they could focus on that I’d eventually lose interest in following the plot altogether.
Whatever I don't know doesn't hurt me. 🙂
It was exactly the same deal with that rocket launcher scene in Man on Fire. I remember one colleague on the forums arguing that it would be physically impossible to fire a weapon like that from inside a hotel room without causing a total disaster for the shooter. And now, I know he was right.
But my primary intention was to focus on the bullet wounds, since that’s the one detail I would insist on seeing handled with actual realism.
It isn't that I'm trying to be difficult or insistent; it's simply that I have a preference for things being done properly.
It isn't by accident that complaints tend to follow this specific pattern:
God, this is just unbearable.
It’s more like this:
God, this is just unrealistically well-made.
To wrap things up:
It seems to me that this entire debate over whether we should be making an issue out of this or not is becoming utterly pointless.
But whether any of this is actually realistic or not—well, that’s a whole different conversation entirely. And honestly, that’s exactly why I felt the need to open this thread in the first place.
I don't think you get my point. Look, I'm sure The Godfather has mistakes too, it's just a deeper movie than some Seagal action flick, so we tend to overlook them.
If I don't know it, I don't care. 🙂
Same deal with that rocket launcher in Man on Fire. A buddy on a forum told me it's impossible to fire one from a hotel room without blowing everything to hell. Now I know he was right.
That’s what I’m talking about. Don't sweat it; I don't pay attention because there's no point. You wouldn't even know half of this stuff if you hadn't started digging into it.
It's not that I'm being insistent, I just prefer it when things are done properly.
It's no coincidence that complaints usually look like this:
'There's no way they could have filmed this'
rather than this:
'Wow, this was filmed so realistically.'
Honestly, it drives me crazy when someone comments on a movie like that. To be blunt, I don't even watch films with people like that.
goldenhound32 said:True, though I suppose it all boils down to the specific character we're watching on screen.
I'm trying to recall the specifics here, but my memory is failing me. When Arnold Schwarzenegger repeats that little drill in Terminator 2, is he doing it at the start while prepping his gear, or is it when the villain is staring him down?
And I can't quite remember if he has that habit of reloading after every single shot, or if he just does one quick reload and then fires seven times straight? 🤷
From the psychopathic thrill of slaughtering human garbage.
Well, I certainly can't wrap my head around diving that deep into a psychotic mind.
You already got your answer to that in an earlier post.
crimsondriver54 said:When paying for a taxi, neither party ever seems to track the actual fare.
After the caller hangs up, the person on the other end just stares blankly at the receiver.
Whenever a car veers off the road, it inevitably erupts into a massive fireball.
A police officer is always shot just days before retirement, or they’re working a case while already being suspended.
In horror movies, the victim only lands one blow on the attacker, even when the villain gets back up for the tenth time.
If the camera lingers on a window in a close-up, someone is bound to crash through it.
Whenever someone breaks into a house—especially in horror films—the doors are never locked and nobody ever answers.
There is simply never enough time to sit down and eat breakfast.
Honestly, I’m not surprised. In major global cities, taxi rates are standardized, so you can pretty much estimate that a ride will cost you roughly $3.25 to cover an entire section of town (using dollars as a loose guide here). This isn't Washington, D.C.
And as for the rest of your logic? What's the point of watching movies then?🤷
goldenhound32 said:Characters in these kinds of action flicks have handled firearms long before the scene starts; they aren't going to suddenly forget to chamber a round just because of an adrenaline spike. That’s like saying someone forgot to load their pistol because the adrenaline was pumping too hard.
Or maybe you were just waiting to see him actually chamber one.
Why on earth would anyone do that?
What does that even have to do with anything? Everyone makes mistakes when they're on the job. Or do you honestly think every soldier or special ops guy out there is some kind of cold-blooded machine? How many of them do you think have lost it, broken down crying, or spiraled into anxiety right before a mission?
Why, for God's sake?
Pure psychopathic pleasure from taking out human trash.
silentpilot6 said:I agree with those who mentioned that plot holes or script inconsistencies are far more distracting than missed shots, unlocked car doors, or using the 555 prefix 😁... but since we are on the subject, I’ll add my own observation.
It seems like in American movies, almost all women have sex while wearing bras... I mean, actually taking the bra off during the act—who has ever seen that? It feels like extreme perversion 😬. Similarly, there always seem to be these sheets used to cover men up to the navel and women up to the neck... what a ridiculous invention 👍...
Furthermore, whenever there is a rustle in some dark corner of a house, a garden, a basement, or an attic 😂, some "genius" decides to go investigate it while wearing nothing but pajamas and slippers 🙄. Honestly, if you are foolish enough not to grab a knife, a bat, or whatever else is nearby (not to mention how almost everyone in the US is armed) then you don't deserve anything better than a bloody end 😁. Or take those moments when a villain (whether a human, an alien, or a vampire, whatever 😁) lies still and we all assume they are dead... the hero invariably goes to check on them, whether by turning them over or through some accidental clumsiness... only for that person, alien, or vampire to spring up and struggle with the protagonist. First of all—why don't the main characters watch movies 😁 so they would know that in 99.9% of cases, that creature isn't dead?
Is it really that hard to fire one more bullet, stab them with a knife, or just kick them 😁...
This bothers me too, but not because of the topic itself. It's the hypocrisy of Americans. You can watch a murder or a corpse on screen and it's totally fine, but breasts? Absolutely not. That's why I've always had more respect for American directors who are actually normal about this stuff. Honestly, I've always respected European films more; nudity and actual anatomy are treated normally there, without all these ridiculous sheets getting in the way.😁
Back to the main point. This whole debate is pointless to me. Film is art, plain and simple, and art demands creative freedom. It’s not some scientific research project where everything needs to be clinically precise.
In those early Dirty Harry movies, the guy takes a bullet right to the forehead and all you see is a tiny little dot, maybe 3 cm wide. Am I saying the movie is bad? No. Did it bother me? Not at all. In fact, it's one of the best films ever made, if you ask me.
And why? Because it's obvious that insisting on total realism would be completely mindless. What do they actually gain from that—the audience or the movie itself? Nothing. The movie would just end up censored, and what does the viewer get out of it? The point is the victim was shot; the exact diameter of the entry wound is totally irrelevant.
On the flip side, when they make something like Rambo IV where everything is depicted with sickening realism, people complain about the excessive brutality. So, who's actually crazy here?
Anyway, my advice? Just relax and enjoy the movie instead of nitpicking every stupid detail. It's also interesting how much it depends on the genre; plenty of Steven Seagal movies have these kinds of blunders that people love to mock, but when it comes to a cult classic, nobody says a word. That's just how it goes.
I once watched this Lebanese film—set during the start of the war in Lebanon back in 1982. They film a street scene, and there's a Mercedes parked right there that wouldn't even hit production for another three and a half years.
Honestly, there are so many ridiculous things you could focus on that you'd lose the plot entirely. What if I spent the whole time staring at the cars like I did with that one? Or looking at the trees and realizing that specific species doesn't even grow in the setting? Or if some expert in another field notices something isn't quite right?
But I wanted to focus on the bullet wounds specifically, because that's the very last thing anyone should be obsessing over for the sake of realism.
Richard Martin5 said:And let’s not forget those classic "20 against 1" showdowns. You know the ones—where the lead guy (some insanely handsome heartthrob) just tears through twenty martial arts masters one by one. Of course, while he’s busy pummeling two or three of them, everyone else just stands there dancing around him, totally frozen, waiting patiently for their turn to get beat up. 🙄
Sometimes this stuff gets so stupid. But look, if the choreography is tight and the camera work is solid, none of that matters. If we see nineteen guys just dancing in the background while one guy is getting his head kicked in? That looks cheap and dumb. I hate it. But if the camera stays focused and we don't see that nonsense? Then I'm fine with it. It actually looks like a well-shot scene.
goldenhound32 said:Incorrect.
I am speaking from memory here. I haven't always had a massive selection of films to choose from.
As for the whole thing about leaving cars unlocked, I see that quite often. It’s actually a nice touch that modern characters usually have remote keyless entry; they just press a button and lock the car. That makes things much more efficient. 🙂
You completely misinterpreted the part about the shotgun... it's actually quite simple.
In reality, someone who has a gun in mind will likely use it immediately to repeat the shot, rather than waiting until they are staring directly into their opponent's eyes.
Wait, what is this? Some kind of sniper code? Honestly, it’s just stupid to nitpick over nonsense like this. It’s not even a mistake. You get a rush of adrenaline and boom—you forget to chamber the next round. Or maybe you were just waiting to see if he'd actually follow through with the reload? Either way, it's a pretty weak argument.
placidtinker2 said:Ask the guy who sold his shares if he was looking at the ticker symbol or just focusing on the profit...
There were those times when Dukat was worth a tiny little million, and that’s exactly when the vultures from the "public" sectors were snapping up shares for pennies on the dollar. But let's be real—not everyone managed to actually scale those businesses...
The name. Luke Rajic was supposed to buy Hershey's. Not Peter Peric.