So, whenever I try to quote someone, I get that text editor interface where I type my reply, but the smiley icons that used to be sitting on the left side have vanished. I must have accidentally toggled them off at some point, and now I can't figure out how to get them back. 🤷
David Price5 said:Even Sandler showed some genuine range in those dramas we discussed, though I suppose people will always pigeonhole Williams as just a comedy guy.
David Price5 said:Look, the guy is a comedian. That’s just his lane, and these kinds of movies fit him perfectly. Honestly, if he suddenly pivoted to a high-octane action flick or a gritty horror movie right now, people would be just as baffled as they were before. Some actors are simply destined to stay within certain genres; it's just how the industry works for them...
People were just as skeptical when Robin Williams took on roles like One Hour Photo or Insomnia. And frankly, he absolutely crushed them, especially in One Hour Photo.
Harold Chavez44 said:I’m not sure which cut of the movie you watched, but he absolutely used a spork—you know, those plastic utensils.
No. It was a cost issue.
hiddenhound3 said:Now, hold on just a moment; I recall seeing a movie where even chemical canisters explode, so why shouldn't a smartphone be subject to the same risks? 🤷
A pen that snaps has a casing. This didn't specify.
And that lethal cellphone actually functioned as a phone.
Noah Moore55 said:It's not that it's a bad movie, but that ending definitely tanked the score. And there was absolutely more than one way to handle Clyde's death. The movie was well-made, and it would've been a hundred times better if Nick had died instead, or if Clay realized the bomb was set for him and just took them both out at once.
I'm getting tired of these endings where the good guys win. It’s predictable. You know who survives by the first twenty minutes.
Then maybe stop watching modern Hollywood movies.
And it wasn't a dungeon; it was solitary confinement.
True, I completely overlooked Mullan. I haven't actually sat down to watch his debut, Orphans, yet, though it seems quite promising from what I've gathered.
As for Affleck... while Gone Baby Gone is certainly a solid piece of work, I find myself skeptical about whether Affleck can truly replicate that level of success again. We shall see, I suppose.
crimsontrucker4 said:What I wouldn’t give to have the luxury of a memory wipe right about now. To be able to travel back in time, sit in a dark theater, and experience Fight Club exactly as it was meant to be seen. Then, to walk out into the night air, light up a cigarette, and finally face the crushing realization that I will never see anything remotely that good ever again.🙏
Perhaps you’ve already done it. You just don't recall. 🙂
There was a period in my life when Fight Club was my absolute favorite film. Watching it left me with this lingering, unsettling sensation—as if the very fabric of the world around me had shifted into something different, something unrecognizable. It stayed with me. However, after revisiting it for the third or fourth time just a few months ago, I found that the magic hadn't quite held its shape. It simply doesn't hit with the same intensity it once did. It’s still a great piece of cinema, certainly, but in my eyes, it has settled into a solid 9 out of 10. 🙂
crimsontrucker4 said:Personally, I think I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry and Click are actually great movies.
Look, it’s not that I don't appreciate funny people. I really do. But if someone were attacking Adam Sandler and claiming he isn't a decent actor, they wouldn't use "funny people" as some kind of logical counter-argument.
While Clint Eastwood is perfectly fine, my vote goes to John Cassavetes. I’ve sat through four of his films: Shadows, Opening Night, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, and A Woman Under the Influence. Aside from Shadows, they were all incredibly powerful—especially Opening Night, which possesses something truly transcendental about it. A masterpiece.
I don't even count Woody Allen in this conversation, since he's primarily a director and screenwriter first, and only then (and poorly at that) an actor.
I might add two more to the list: Tim Roth and Gary Oldman. It’s a damn shame they only directed a single film each. Especially Oldman; his Nil by Mouth is exceptionally good, and the man carries this uncommon amount of depression within him. It’s beautiful, really.
There is this one movie—more of a serious drama than a comedy, really—called Punch-Drunk Love. It was directed by the same guy behind Magnolia, and honestly, it’s quite intense. The film is excellent, and Adam Sandler delivers a powerhouse performance; it feels as if the role was tailor-made for him. Perhaps it actually was. 🤷
After watching that, I genuinely thought Sandler would start pivoting toward more serious roles more frequently. But I suppose I was mistaken. That misconception lingered for about five years until Reign Over Me came out. I enjoyed that film, and Sandler was solid in it too.
Then there is his recent work, Funny People. Sandler was fine, I guess, but nothing extraordinary. At first glance, I would have said he is capable of much better than that, but... I am not entirely certain.
I suppose we will just have to wait and see what the future holds.
Mark Wood79 said:They don't? Why on earth would you think that? Especially in this particular instance.
I suspect Hitchcock didn't even have that specific intention in mind when he was crafting the film. Even if we assume the basement serves as a representation of Norman's ID, does it actually matter? Would the movie be any more profound or carry any more tension because of it? Not really. At the end of the day, we have to admit that Psycho is a thriller, plain and simple, rather than some high-minded drama.
Mark Wood79 said:Generally speaking, if something good comes on TV that I’ve already seen, I’ll always tune in.
Exactly. That's why I sat through Donnie Brasco a second time. There is absolutely no way I would ever subject myself to a rewatch on a computer, regardless of how decent the film actually is.
Psycho isn't good in your eyes? I absolutely adore it.
If it weren't good, it wouldn't have lasted a week. First of all, that most famous scene—the shower sequence—is just pathetic to me. It's poor filmmaking. And that whole monologue at the end, where the guy explains Norman's personality while Hitchcock essentially lectures the audience... it grated on my nerves.
There is an interesting thesis by Slavoj Žižek regarding the floors of the house in the film, an association with Sigmund Freud: the first floor is the ego, the second is the superego, and the basement is the id.
While I hold Slavoj Žižek in high regard, I have always been skeptical of analyses that seem completely detached from the director's actual intent.
Regarding Leanov's films, I loved them as a kid. I haven't watched them in ages, but I think The Bridge on the River Kwai and Great Expectations are much stronger titles.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen those two.
By the way, are you in the mood to dig up some topics from 2003 today? I see Adam Sandler has been brought back into the mix.
I'm being suffocated by this flood of new content, so I am striking back in the only legitimate way I know how.🙂
I rarely find myself revisiting films I've already seen; there are simply too many masterpieces left on my watchlist to waste time looking backward.
I know for certain that I won't be sitting through Lawrence of Arabia again, nor will I revisit Silence of the Lambs or Psycho. All three earned a 7 out of 10 from me, yet none truly managed to captivate my interest.
On the other hand, I know I'll eventually return to The Deer Hunter. The same goes for Apocalypse Now, The Godfather Part II, and Once Upon a Time in America. They are long, sprawling films, but they are the kind of long films worth loving. 😁
stormystag43 said:Actually, no, he was looking for a metal fork, they gave him a plastic one instead, and he ended up killing his cellmate with it.
I just find it completely impossible that someone could dig out that many tunnels right next to a prison.
Pa Butler aged a bit over those ten years, but Fox stayed exactly the same. Totally realistic, right?
If you have the movie, go watch it.
I find it completely unrealistic that anyone could dig out those massive tunnels right next to a prison.
Is that all? 🙂
And what about Chester—that blond kid? The guy is literally sending emails to his girlfriend after she’s already dead. Just... lol.
Furthermore, a bomb powerful enough to wipe out everyone on two floors of a building like that wouldn't leave the prison itself untouched. Fox News should be calling them out for that level of negligence.
stormystag43 said:The injections are a perfectly normal size for an execution.
He shot because he's an idiot.
Again, because he's an idiot.
Wait, where did they come for him at the beginning of the movie??? At the start, they murdered and raped his wife and daughter. They came for him later. Under US federal law 3456/6, that's allowed.
A flip phone can shoot because it was designed by Gerard Butler, who's clearly an engineer and an innovator. The movie makes that pretty clear. My high school teacher used to be an inventor in his spare time and built some really cool, clever little gadgets. He could have definitely built a phone that shoots. I believe in the man.
He didn't kill that cellmate with a bone; he used a plastic fork.
I misspoke earlier. I wasn't referring to the syringes themselves, but rather those clear tubes used to deliver the poison. They look far too large.
He shot because he was an idiot.
Once again, because he was an idiot.
He isn't quite that much of an idiot.
I have no idea where they even went to get him at the start of the movie. His daughter and child were assaulted and murdered right at the beginning. Later, they came for him. Apparently, Federal Law 3456/6 allows them to do that.
Like that part where he stripped down naked.
That flip phone can explode because it was designed by Gerard Butler, who is portrayed as an engineer and innovator. The film makes that point very clearly.
Hehe, well, he could probably invent a cure for stupidity too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to believe it. It's fake.
He didn't kill that cellmate with a bone; it was a plastic fork.
amberfalcon48 said:Overall, I enjoyed the movie; while there are a few gripes, it’s an alright watch with a compelling plot. The ending was the one thing that truly let me down.
From the moment they discover his hideout, everything moves way too fast. I spent the whole time rooting for Gerard Butler, so the conclusion was a massive disappointment—and honestly, I wish Nick (Jamie Foxx) hadn't survived!
I mean, how is Nick supposed to die when he's the good guy in an American movie?
That lethal injection setup looks way too massive for a human; it’s built for a horse. Total fake.
Why on earth would that guy—the one who managed to slip away—start spraying bullets at the police from the roof and basically broadcast his exact location like that? It's fake.
And why would he suddenly forget he was out of ammo, especially after finding that out just five minutes earlier? Fake.
When they first showed up to arrest the butler... why did it take five police cruisers, a SWAT team, and a helicopter? He was just a suspect at that point. Fake.
If there are any tech geeks in here, please explain to me how a flip phone is supposed to be able to fire a shot? Fake.
How was the butler supposed to know they were delivering a steak with a bone sharp enough to kill someone?