Posts by goldenhound32

1. When that guy has a loaded gun hanging on the wall—which already feels like a stretch—doesn't it only have two rounds? Because when he actually fires it, there are clearly three. 😕

2. How is the sound design even remotely possible? It’s like the microphone was shoved right into his gut or something. 👎

3. Why does he break down at the end? Is it because he finally crossed the line into becoming a killer, or is it the guilt over causing his wife's sister's death? Or maybe... just maybe, his entire vendetta was nothing more than a hollow, futile gesture? 🤷

4. Why can't the idiot just tell his family the actual REASON they shouldn't open the door? He spent the whole movie proving he was a sharp, intelligent individual, and then he pulls something like this.

@Michael Ortiz68
You’re certainly not showing any signs of being an expert here. 😢
If you were actually talking about those two, I could personally vouch for a fleet of stunning Hollywood leading men.

And honestly, can we please just accept once and for all that how attractive an actor is doesn't matter to me when I sit down for a movie? Good grief... I only spoke up because Roger Allen3 mentioned that Doss is basically FSM in every possible sense. I would have reacted with the exact same level of indifference if someone had claimed Russell Brand kept a skeleton-shaped ashtray at FSM. He doesn't.

Mark Wood79 said:In what sense? I don't recall that scene. At least tell me roughly what minute mark it's at.

I'd be happy to, but I don't have the movie handy right now.😢

Mark Wood79 said:I wasn't a fan of 500 Days of Summer either. The first thirty or forty minutes were alright, but as it dragged on, I just got more and more frustrated—honestly, I wanted to yell at everyone involved in making it. I remember starting to roll my eyes the second she began acting out in that dive bar while some idiot was drunkenly singing Pixies songs... something about love or commitment, I can't quite recall.

And seriously, enough with the split-screen talk and how "innovative" it is. You’d think someone might actually walk away thinking they invented the concept... 😂

Also, I don't really follow goldenhound32's logic regarding how we're all just used to looking at pretty faces... 🤷

I haven't seen it used taj like that anywhere... if you have, send me a link.
thanks.

I don't get what goldenhound32 means when they say we're used to looking at pretty faces...🤷

Fine, go ahead—list some Hollywood actresses under 40 who aren't attractive. When I say they aren't attractive, I mean the general consensus is that they aren't, not subjective takes like "I personally don't find Angelina Jolie that great." I'm talking people like Kathy Griffin.🙂

When I mention that we've become accustomed to seeing it, my point is that movies are mostly packed with beautiful women (and men, depending on whether we're discussing Hollywood or Europe).

Does anyone disagree?

Roger Allen3 said:Zooey has that natural girl-next-door vibe that works wonders for roles like this. She might not be the most stunning person physically at first glance, but her characters are way more intriguing, which makes them much more magnetic.

Honestly, though, none of this actually matters. Ugh, how gross would it be if he tried to play a "sexy guy" role? He wouldn't be half as convincing as Russell Brand or some other leading man. Who cares about looks when that's the case?

Hmm... I suppose it depends on whether we are talking about the initial "marketing appeal" used to sell the movie, or how the film actually holds up once you've sat through both of them.

It's like saying an iPhone 4 looks better than an HTC Desire, even though the Desire absolutely crushes it when it comes to actual performance.

Roger Allen3 said:Does the looks of the actors even matter?

It depends on the individual, I suppose. Though, if we're being honest, most people probably care more than they'd like to admit. We've been conditioned to stare at conventionally attractive faces on our screens for our entire lives.

But if you concede that Person A is more aesthetically pleasing than Person B, then it remains an objective fact that a film featuring Person A is "better" in terms of pure visual appeal.

So, take your pick—decide for yourself whether that matters or not.

A - http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1458345728/nm0005109
B - http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3092154368/nm0221046

It really depends on what someone is looking for... the actors in those Hollywood blockbusters might be easier on the eyes, I suppose. But even so, I find this film to be the superior piece of work.

Michael Ortiz68 said:Look, I did all sorts of ridiculous things back when I was in love, 😉 and maybe "pathetic" isn't quite the right word... But I was just waiting for a specific cinematic moment, and it happened exactly when I thought nothing would happen.

The whole movie felt like a predictable loop to me: okay, the guy is in love, the girl is this quirky, outgoing type who doesn't believe in long-term commitment. He thinks he'll change her because he's "special," then everything falls apart—that inevitable mid-movie "crisis" required for drama—followed by his doubts about love during some speech at the office, and finally the ending with the moral: When one door closes, another one opens.

It's all been done before; there isn't a shred of originality here.

Go ahead then—name another romance novel where they start off by insisting, "this isn't a love story."🙂

And while you're at it, where else can you find that tired little gimmick where the screen splits in half to show what he *thought* was going to happen versus the actual reality of the situation?

Look, you might think drawing buildings is a complete waste of time, but I actually find it quite engaging.🤷

It looks like something genuinely real, much like those moments shared by couples in love.

Me as well.

"To hell with this whole damn swamp
and the entire American Chamber of Commerce too.

🙂

The laws are absolute nonsense; it’s a crying shame that the band broke up.

I find myself wondering the same thing... where on earth did that thread go? 😕

Jerry Martinez50 said:Three whole pages and you people still haven't even agreed on the what, the how, or the when...

What do you mean three pages? I haven't even hit a page and a half yet.

When are you lot actually going to start reviewing movies? 😁

A valid question, I suppose.

The answer: once we finally wrap up all these endless debates regarding the main topic.

cosmiclynx57 said:This last bit—look, I intended it that way. I’m just repeating myself here: one person posts a suggestion, they decide what movie goes on, and that’s their prerogative. But then a handful of users chimed in to say that was a waste of time, arguing that actually holding a vote has its own charm and makes things a lot more exciting.

And that’s precisely where things fall apart. You give in far too easily, and once you do, the entire situation inevitably devolves into exactly what we see here.
One really ought to ask the moderator to scrub all this garbage from the board or at least move it over to the chat section. But then again, I won't be the one to do it; after all, I wasn't the one who started this thread in the first place.

The Weekly film is scheduled to be released every Friday at midnight.

Why on earth would it have to be midnight? It’s more than sufficient for the uploader to simply know which day they intend to drop a Movie. It isn't as if the world is going to stop spinning if someone decides to upload at noon instead of the stroke of midnight. I truly fail to grasp where this obsession with a precise, synchronized hour even comes from.

The individual responsible for uploading the movie has forfeited their right to post again immediately; they are now subject to the thirty-day waiting period.

That shouldn't pose much of an issue, provided we operate under the assumption that a month consists of exactly four weeks. 🙂

cosmiclynx57 said:Salis is...? haha, clearly impulsive 😂

I spent a few days drafting up some rules before finally launching this thread.

I am talking about this specific thread—this Weekly film concept—which you hadn't even planned out.

And now, somehow, it's become unnecessarily convoluted.

It should have been kept simple. For instance, one member suggests a Movie to watch and discuss within a week, then that person picks the next member to choose the following selection.

No voting, no bells and whistles. The whole point is to get people to sit down and watch something they otherwise wouldn't—something they might overlook or avoid because of a certain director, a specific era, or just general hesitation.

Furthermore, wouldn't it be more effective if there was an element of surprise? Ideally, the person choosing would pick something they consider high quality that most of the group hasn't actually seen yet.

I can't speak for everyone else here, but I think I’ll steer clear of this particular topic. It feels like it was thrown together without any real thought or direction, and now we're left in that awkward position where nobody knows who's picking up the tab.

@cosmiclynx57/">@@cosmiclynx57
To be honest, I find the idea of someone suggesting a film that most people haven't even seen much more appealing. I actually had a similar thought quite some time ago, but 🙂bluebadger14
beat me to it.
Besides, who on earth schedules a movie for midnight?

Honestly, what is the logic in waiting until midnight just to drop the first movie? 😕

She cast her vote for Fight Club, mostly because none of his other ideas even come close to that level of brilliance.

Look, just accept the reality: nobody gives a damn about the planet, so screw the planet 😁