Posts by goldenhound32

This movie wasn't even intended to be a comedy in the first place. Sure, there are some mildly amusing moments scattered throughout, but let’s be honest—it feels like we've entered this strange new era where studios try to market non-comedies as if they were hilarious just to grab attention. You see it all the time now with titles like Everybody's Fine, Lazarescu, or Defendor.

I was browsing IMDb earlier, and frankly, the plot summary for this film is a mess. It reminds me of how they handled the tagline for Everybody's Fine, which basically promised a comedy that just wasn't there.

I’m sitting here trying my hardest to dig up even a single thing I didn't like about this movie, but honestly? I've come up empty. 🙂

If I had to make one observation, though... this isn't your typical superhero flick packed with non-stop explosions and mindless spectacle. That’s actually where its strength lies—the heavy lifting is done by the drama rather than the stunts.

Even the main theme feels incredibly deep. 👍

8 out of 10.

Bradley Nelson2 said:One of those rare films I couldn't bring myself to finish, no matter how hard I tried. 👎

Just plain boring, then?

Christian Taylor3 said:It’s almost like he’s looking for trouble; honestly, it feels like Antoine Fuqua has completely lost his way. Anything produced after Training Day just doesn't hit the mark, at least not in my book. It's a damn shame.

I’m in the same boat—only Training Day really worked for me. But hey, if NYPD ends up being better than Shooter, I suppose that counts as progress. 🙂

It’s actually not all that bad; I managed to catch a glimpse of the sample.

Fuqua let me down with Shooter—not because the execution was poor, but because of the script he chose to tackle. I have a feeling this one will be a better move for him.

Exactly... it’s perfect for those action movie fans who don't mind seeing a little animated blood on the screen.

I decided to switch up my handle, so I'll be going by goldenhound32 from now on.

Works for me. Catch you later, Mi-24.

Larry Cruz51 said:I only really caught fail s with that chocolate she brought into her professor's apartment. She definitely didn't have it on her before that.

The internet says that in the scene where he heads over to the apartment, there are all these continuity errors like seeing modern cars on the street and stuff... but I totally missed all of that.

I suppose 🙂

there’s been a movie mistakes website floating around forever, where they point out things like seeing a plane in Gladiator 🙂 ...but I wouldn't exactly categorize that as poor resolution.

Ethan Vaughn22 said:I watched a movie today and, honestly, I was pretty disappointed....
The characters just felt flat and undeveloped...
Even the editing and direction had these glaring gaffes—stuff you wouldn't even expect to see in an NBC production
The plot itself is fine, so I'll give them credit for the screenplay...
As for the acting....it was okay, I guess....
But all in all, it’s just a purely mediocre film...nothing special to write home about...
Interestingly, I actually found the beginning a bit weaker than the ending; it's strange how it seems to pick up steam toward the finish line...
I can't help but wish there was a bit more romance, which would have really highlighted how odd and refreshing their relationship feels for this little story....
The pacing and sequence of scenes were solid, though..

Now, this is what I want to get into. 🍿

Anonymous said:I actually felt a chill reading this, and I’m being dead serious. Pure horror. Absolute nightmare fuel.

Exactly... just imagine how much worse it'll be once they turn it into a movie.🙂

Morgan Ortiz91 Asks:
It begins with the typical, almost predictable trajectory of a modern romance. A woman meets a man—there is an immediate, unforced connection, the kind that feels both effortless and inevitable. She falls, quite deeply and without reservation, convinced she has finally stumbled upon something genuine in a world of superficiality. Then comes the inevitable, crushing pivot. The truth surfaces, and it is always devastating: he is married, or perhaps he is facing a terminal diagnosis, or some other catastrophic reality that renders the entire affair a beautiful, doomed mistake. It is the classic architecture of heartbreak, stripped of its romantic pretension and laid bare in all its cruelty.

You can strip any film down to its basic components, but I honestly don't see what you're trying to achieve here. Even if they had finished together, someone would still find a reason to complain that the movie had a conventional, predictable ending. ☕

How does a girl that sharp and brilliant end up running with a pack of thieves?

Have you ever actually been in a relationship, or do you at least know someone who has? 😁
Believe it or not, when it comes to falling in love, IQ is completely irrelevant.

Besides that, by the time she actually realized they were stealing, she had already been caught red-handed.

What lesson did Jennyna actually take away from her relationship with David?

In this life, you can only truly rely on yourself.

Why on earth is Danny—who possesses the exact same moral compass as I David—suddenly acting like a saint and cutting ties with David just because he asked Jenny out?

Where exactly does this idea come from—that Danny possesses the same moral compass as David? When it comes to women, Danny has a girlfriend and he isn't cheating on her. His issue was with David's behavior, and if you actually pay attention to their dialogue, it’s clear that Jenny isn't some isolated incident. It's evident that Danny simply doesn't want to see Jenny get hurt.

Danny: Are you actually aware of the implications here, old man? What you're doing with Jenny?
David: This is the one, Danny.
Right.
You see, she’s different.
Danny: I simply have no desire to witness her suffering.

And the icing on the cake—David. It’s just awful. That actor is beyond greasy in this role. First, we’re bombarded with a heap of these pseudo-romantic images that don't even hint at anything scandalous or sexual...

It isn't sappy; it’s just masculine. 🙂
It wasn't the musical instrument that caused him to pull the car over; it was her. He saw her and simply had to stop. Honestly, even back then, it was painfully obvious to me that he wanted her.
As for why it took him so long to actually make his move—well, that’s simply because David is a gentleman.

Her final sentence was written in that specific style: some guy asked her if she wanted to go to Paris with him, and she didn't even tell him she’d already been there... Is Paris acting as a sort of symbolic stand-in for her virginity?

Maybe she’s already been to Paris on her parents' dime.

Because if she hasn't, and it's just some exotic destination for a girl who hasn't seen anything of the world...

She knows way more about Paris; she speaks the language, she's familiar with French literature, and she views Paris as this romantic escape—yet you're suggesting she head off to gritty India? lol.

I somehow couldn't get into the "romanticism" of the film at all... if such a thing even exists...

It doesn't matter; someone will 😁

David Price5 said:He wouldn't be just some common terrorist. His goal wasn't to tear down the entire system; he just wanted to expose the cracks within it. When an inmate in solitary confinement starts mocking you and taking out his rage on the guards, you know something has to change. It’s a clear sign that action is overdue.

How is it even possible to dig a tunnel through solid bedrock? Between the foundation work and the constant roar of the heavy machinery, I can't imagine trying to do that kind of digging by hand. 😲.

He certainly had years upon years to devote himself to that pursuit.

A federal prosecutor just set a prisoner and half the jail on fire. 🤷 .

It might be a bit tougher to prove he actually did it. He could easily just claim Clyde took his own life out of pure guilt or something along those lines.

I mean, what kind of prison is it if there isn't even a surveillance camera?

northernmoose26 said:The story kicks off with some real momentum, but honestly, it just kind of loses steam halfway through. The ending felt incredibly cheap—just this forced, happy little resolution where the girl ends up marrying a junkie with a wrecked back. Suddenly, all his massive problems just evaporate in five minutes flat. It’s ridiculous. I also thought Nicolas Cage gave a pretty weak performance here; it felt somewhat artificial to me. I really feel for Val Kilmer, though—watching him sink into these totally minor roles is just sad. And I couldn't wrap my head around his reaction during that arrest at the end. When he suggests they just kill the guy and grab the drugs 😕😕! Like, what does he have to do with that stash? He wasn't even involved in those "operations" with the lieutenant.

Eva Mendes is way too stunning to be playing a streetwalker; she looks more like someone who'd marry a tech billionaire. This role just doesn't fit her at all. Plus, there were a few scenes that left me scratching my head—I honestly don't see the point of them. 🤷

On the bright side, the movie doesn't lean too heavily on the old version, which is a plus. But let's be real: the original was much better, which isn't exactly a shocker. My rating: 4/10.

Not exactly. Take a look at Felon. The guy basically handed the entire movie over to the lead actor.

Joseph Miller3 said:This movie is absolute garbage—the plot makes zero sense, the pacing is a complete train wreck, and the characters are shallow as hell, except for one guy who’s played in such an incredibly grating way (he’s neither touching nor funny, just swinging his "humanity" wildly between 0 and 100 like he's rolling dice).

The whole sequence of events feels totally absurd and pointless, contributing nothing to the actual story or any potential message, which pretty much sums up how the supporting cast behaves in most scenes.

Honestly, this feels less like a standalone feature film and more like a really bad pilot episode for some low-budget TV series.

Those quasi-artsy shots featuring extreme close-ups of various creeps aren't even weird or funny; they’re just provocative in the worst way possible—like, I felt personally insulted every single time and was right on the edge of switching the channel.

Still, I powered through to the end, and I can say this is easily one of the biggest piles of crap I’ve ever sat through; it’s a total insult to the legacy of a Ferrara masterpiece.
If it’s actually true that the director admitted he didn't even watch the original and had never even heard of Ferrara, then the guy has some serious nerve and is just a total hack who should be banned from ever directing again.

That's my two cents.

That simply isn't true.

driftingeagle27 said:(Moderate to heavy spoilers ahead, though I wouldn't say anything too crazy—and if I recount the whole movie, you'll probably just need to go see it for yourself anyway 😁)

I’m not going to dive into Adaptation right now; we’re talking about this movie. In any case, good to know you aren't a hater when it comes to this actor.

No. I haven't read the script—I watched the movie. I'm talking about the character I saw in the film I actually watched; he's played by Nicolas Cage. Someone somewhere wrote that his hair alone in this movie deserves an Oscar 😁. There's something to that...

It seems like you and I have a fundamental conceptual disagreement here: you seem to want to dissect—to grasp and judge—this thing as if it were just some standard crime drama. I'm not saying you can't do that, and that approach isn't worthless, but in my view, it shouldn't be the only way to look at it.

To me, Werner Herzog's films connect with people and their lives precisely because he doesn't pretend that you can linearly or academically "tell" or experience some profound art through a film like it's some textbook lesson.

It's kind of like trying to understand Michael Haneke's Funny Games strictly as a slasher horror.

Except Haneke is more of a planner and a theorist, whereas Herzog... he's a poet.

Give the director the genre so you can get to know them better. But then, let the viewer enjoy the post-genre film they end up making...

Let's be clear here: I'd definitely grab a drink with Nicolas Cage. With that lieutenant from the movie... well, maybe. But only if the director is there too, just so he can, you know... keep things 😛 under control
.

And that kind of suggests that she isn't ordinary, or maybe she is...? All I'm saying is, I don't know.

Sure, but a gun and the fear of prison probably speak louder than a thousand words. Then again, did that gun trigger (just) fear, or... did it drive her to take that kind of action?

Oh right, there's that other movie too, I keep forgetting... 😛

I'm not saying it's better just because of that, but I am saying that might be the exact reason it deserves its own analysis.

Maybe I am, but that was a long time ago. Anyway,

Well, you've seen her neighborhood, and you know exactly what kind of clients she's dealing with. 😕.

So now I can finally say it—you were watching that with some serious attention to detail and actual insight. 🙂Val shows he knows exactly what kind of junkie he is, choosing to just execute the criminal instead of actually making an arrest.

Maybe he’d have popped more if he’d rocked a red wig and cranked his volume up about eight notches, but honestly, I didn't see the need; the way he played the role was actually pretty well thought out and executed. If they had leaned too hard into the partner's performance, the screen would've just felt cluttered, and frankly, that probably would've backfired anyway.

The follicular judgment being passed here is completely irrelevant to the film itself when compared to previous hairstyles. It’s an absurd metric to use. It’s like sitting there and claiming that *Inglourious Basterds* is total garbage just because it doesn't measure up to *Reservoir Dogs*. It's a nonsensical comparison.

To my mind, Werner Herzog's films resonate so deeply because they center on people and the raw reality of their lives. It’s largely due to his refusal to pretend that cinema can be some linear, textbook, or documentary-style vessel used to "explain" or experience life through art. He doesn't buy into that academic nonsense.

I’m not entirely sure I follow what you’re actually trying to get at here.

That’s a bit like trying to wrap your head around Michael Haneke's Funny Games by treating it as nothing more than a standard slasher flick.

In my estimation, what lies beneath the surface of this film—beyond the basic mechanics of the central plot—is something far more layered. If you look closely, there is a certain subtextual weight that elevates it. What makes it truly genre-bending is how it refuses to settle into a comfortable category; it dances on the edge between grit and something much more existential. It’s that sense of unease, that refusal to provide easy answers, which gives the whole thing its unique, unsettling texture.

Once again, I find myself pondering: did seeing that gun in her hands trigger nothing more than simple fear, or was it the catalyst that pushed her toward such extreme action?

You know, I didn't even think of that. It’s actually quite a clever point. Very nice. 👍

Oh, right—there’s that other film too. I seem to have a habit of letting it slip my mind constantly. 😛

Have you actually sat down and watched it?

Well, you’ve seen her neighborhood, and you certainly know the type of clientele she deals with. 😕.

Just because someone lives in a certain neighborhood doesn't mean they’re actually paying premium rent. And having one client who happens to be a well-connected face—even if that connection is just through a father or some relative rather than being direct—doesn't automatically make them expensive. A viewer might pick up on that as a suggestion, sure, but it wasn't explicitly stated. It doesn't have to be.

Now I can finally say it—you were watching with such incredible care and genuine insight. 🙂. Val shows he knows exactly what kind of addict he’s dealing with, and honestly, he’d rather just execute the criminal than bother with an arrest.

and that isn't even about the acting; it's about the character itself.

The screen would have been far too cluttered if his partner had been given too much spotlight; personally, I think that would have actually worked against the movie.

A hundred years ago, some old-school snack cracker used to say "small, but sweet." That’s basically Val here. He managed to nail the first half of that promise. He's definitely "small."

By the way, what am I supposed to take from those reptile scenes? To me, they feel like pure ornamentation. They don't force some heavy new theme onto the story, they just lean into that sense of strangeness the whole film radiates.

driftingeagle27 said:So, I decided to entertain myself a bit: for those of you who hated the movie, just lay out exactly what didn't sit right with you, and I'll go through your complaints point by point. 🙂

I don't know if you dig Nicolas Cage or not, but I've been a fan since way back. I'm not quite sure what people mean by him being "unbelievable" in this context, because to me, the Bad Lieutenant is just hilarious and touching all at once—he’s just that guy, totally unhinged yet deeply human, which makes him more than believable to me.

When it comes to believability, you have to look at how Werner Herzog operates—that constant tension between the accountant's version of the truth and some kind of ecstatic, raw reality. At the end of the day, we're talking about cinema here, not whether someone got their change right at the local grocery store.

Exactly. 🙂

I don't see what the big deal is if someone doesn't have one specific goal to chase, though I guess that's why Herzog poetry hits differently. I don't know what you're getting at with that, but I'm just sitting here waiting for something actually worth my time to show up on the feed. Just one goal that’s pretty damn obvious: trying to keep the whole thing from falling apart.

Look, let's just be real about it: this guy is... Not bad..

In that scene, Cage clearly has his eyes on the prize, and sex isn't even a factor in his head. Now, if that woman is just some regular person, then we're looking at one of the absolute worst horrors this movie puts in front of us.

I’d say Roger Ebert didn't exactly nail that one, though we can't forget the guy's packing a pretty massive piece in that scene. You really have to wonder if she's just playing along or if she actually means it. It's an incredibly weird moment, easily one of the most absurdly hilarious things I've ever seen on screen, yet probably the most deeply uncomfortable part of the whole movie.

Honestly, I think this might be the most explicit sexual scene in any Werner Herzog film I've ever seen, at least from what I've watched. Even just on its own merits, it probably deserves its own deep dive, but maybe we can save that for later.

And why wouldn't she be beautiful?

Prostitutes aren't necessarily ugly, especially when they come with that high-end price tag.
It’s all about that ecstatic truth, the kind of raw, unvarnished reality that hits you right in the gut when everything else feels like a lie.

For most of the movie, this guy doesn't even seem like he matters that much, but he definitely hits some high notes here and there. That arrest scene near the end is a standout, for sure. Whether he's just background noise or front and center, Val Kilmer is honestly killing it in this one.

Pure admiration right here 🙂. 🤷

I don't really fall into that camp. Adaptation is actually one of my favorites.

The villain they've given us is hilarious yet touching—just... the way he is, frantic and human... which makes him more than believable to me.

You’re talking about the character on the page here, not Nicolas Cage's performance. It sounds like you think, "the character is so unstable that no matter how Nicolas Cage plays him, it'll work, because there are so many ways to be mentally ill."

I don't see why it's an issue if someone doesn't have one concrete goal. Herzog poetry's treacherous fiancé, however, does have at least one fairly obvious goal: just trying not to fall apart....

I wouldn't call that a "goal"; it's more of a survival instinct. That doesn't make him any more distinct from every other cinematic degenerate (except for the ones who end up killing themselves).

Well, let's just say it plainly: this guy is likable.

Heh, double standards when dealing with reality versus cinema. Would you grab a beer with him?

In that scene, Nicolas Cage has a clear objective, and sex isn't even on his mind. Now, is that girl ordinary? If she is, then this movie depicts one of the absolute worst horrors imaginable.

In what sense is she ordinary? If you mean her mental state, she's anything but. That girl (drunk and/or high at the moment) gives the impression of someone who's going to post on her blog or Facebook later about how some creep forced himself on her.

I'd also argue that Roger Ebert didn't quite catch everything. But then again, let's not forget the instigator is holding a (pretty large) gun. So, is she acting like she wants it, or does she actually want it?

Give me a break... the point is that Nicolas Cage said nothing to her. The fact that she took the initiative tells you everything you need to know about her. Either that, or she's been through this before and knows exactly what to do.🤣

That scene is utterly bizarre—honestly, one of the most absurdly hilarious things I’ve ever seen on screen.

It didn't strike me as weird, just a pale imitation of the original.

By the way, I suspect this might be the most explicit sexual scene in the entire filmography of Werner Herzog, at least from what I've watched.

Quite possible.
But that doesn't mean it's superior just because it's more graphic than his other scenes.

And why wouldn't it be beautiful?

I take it you haven't seen Maid, because then you'd understand my perspective.

On a side note, I can't recall the details regarding her cost. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That character might not seem particularly vital for much of the movie, but he certainly has his moments. Especially that arrest scene toward the end. Whether he feels incidental or essential, Val Kilmer is truly excellent in this film.

I honestly don't remember anything from that scene at all 🤷 ...so, there you have it. That was the impression it left on me.

Voice acting is just another form of acting. It isn’t simply "someone reading lines from a script"; it’s about an actor actually inhabiting a character.

And why on earth would you expect anything more than just okay? Kaufman didn't write the screenplay here—Spike did. The dialogue isn't weak, per se, but it doesn't exactly leap off the page either.

As for those scenes that feel like they were ripped straight out of WrestleMania, complete with all the shouting and ecstatic screaming, they just don't do it for me. I suppose that's that "childlike" element everyone talks about, but I personally couldn't find a way to connect with it.

Just finished watching... it was alright. I'm actually glad I went in blind without knowing anything about it other than who directed it; it made it much easier to stay objective. It wasn't until halfway through that I finally realized which character from The Sopranos he was playing here. 7 out of 10.

I wasn't even aware that de la Iglesia had released a new film, Oxford Murders, where he plays some tiny version of Frodo. What on earth is the point of that?

As for Crimen Ferpecto, I’d suggest it to anyone who can look past an unattractive lead actress. Even so, the community behind it is top-tier.

vividfalcon14 As I have noted before, there is an inherent complexity to this matter that often escapes the casual observer. It seems we are once again circling the same fundamental issues, much like a driver caught in the endless gridlock of downtown Los Angeles. One cannot simply overlook the nuances presented here.
Click. Here.It’s all happening within those three houses under the hill. UI elements They simply must be checked. If they aren't, then go ahead and check them.

And at the very bottom of the thread. The text editor interface. It needs to be set to the standard editor.

Click on Save changes. 🙂

I was right to be skeptical about that whole idea—the notion that you could somehow trigger smiley icons just by toggling the avatar settings seemed completely absurd to me. As it turns out, my instincts were spot on. All I had to do was switch over to the standard editor, and there they were.

I appreciate you. You're like a brother to me.