Posts by goldenhound32

Out of all the documentaries I've watched, I've only seen Grizzly Man, and frankly, I wasn't a fan. I spent an hour and a half watching a guy who clearly isn't right in the head (I mean, why is he trying to protect bears?), and then the movie just ends.

I honestly can't wrap my head around what Werner Herzog was trying to convey with that film. I suspect Treadwell would have actually enjoyed it... but since he was unstable, well, you know how that goes... 🙂

I’ve sat through eight of Werner Herzog's films now, and while none of them are bad, I wouldn't say any of them particularly thrilled me.

Christian Taylor3 said:Only 6 out of 10? 🤷

Like I mentioned before, Nicolas Cage just isn't convincing to me.

When you weigh everything together, the Werner Herzog film feels more positive than the one by Abel Ferrara.

Keitel's lieutenant actually has a purpose—not right from the jump, but once he decides to track down those guys who attacked the honorable officer. Nicolas Cage's character, on the other hand, just talks about his goal. His true objective remains murky to the viewer; at least, it certainly wasn't clear to me.

Nicolas Cage's officer is crazy in a "wacky" sense, whereas Keitel's character feels more "demented."

Both characters have scenes where they harass ordinary people. In the Werner Herzog film, that scene falls flat, largely due to Nicolas Cage. Roger Ebert brings up rape, but if the girl is acting like she wants it, without any actual coercion, then there isn't even a hint of rape happening.

Oh, and in the Werner Herzog film, the lead's mistress is played by Eva Mendes... she doesn't belong there. She's far too beautiful for the role. It reminds me of when Jeanne Moreau plays a maid in a Buñuel film; you simply can't believe she's a maid.

The character played by Val Kilmer, the lieutenant's partner, is absolutely nothing. It's like he isn't even there. He’s just like Melvin Purvis in Public Enemies, only with much less screen time.

As for Ebert... I just finished reading his review, and I see exactly what I always see when he writes about Werner Herzog films. Pure admiration. Personally, I don't care for Herzog.

Don't lecture me on the plains, I haven't seen them, but these two are alright enough.

On the other hand, the ExxonMobil video is shot with actual cinematic quality.

Gregory Rodriguez10 said:🙂

Thanks. I was actually thinking more about her recent stuff—Knocked Up, then there's The Ugly Truth and 27 Dresses, which feel like they're in that same vein. Plus all that messy drama on Grey's Anatomy. Ultimately, her characters in Knocked Up and The Ugly Truth are practically identical, and that’s my point.☕ 🙂

If I were sitting in the producer’s chair, looking at a role that requires a specific kind of weight, I’d have to ask myself what kind of gamble I’m actually willing to take. Would I rather hand the keys to someone who has already proven they can carry a film on their shoulders, or would I risk everything on a newcomer just to see if there's lightning in a bottle? Honestly, my instinct leans toward the safe bet. There is a certain level of comfort in hiring talent that has already been vetted by the industry—someone whose reliability and range aren't just theoretical. When you're dealing with millions of dollars in production costs and the livelihoods of hundreds of crew members, "potential" starts to feel like a very expensive luxury. I tend to favor the seasoned pro who knows how to hit their marks and deliver under pressure. That said, I’m not blind to the fact that playing it too safe can lead to mediocrity. If you only ever hire established names, you might miss out on that raw, transformative performance that defines a generation. But in my view, unless a newcomer has a spark that is absolutely undeniable, the risk of a lackluster performance often outweighs the thrill of discovery. It’s a calculated decision, but I've always found more value in stability than in chasing a roll of the dice.

As for Katherine Tice... I personally believe that taking on roles in movies like this won't prevent her from landing something more substantial down the road—provided she actually wants to. It’s much like how Robin Williams or Adam Sandler could pivot effortlessly into heavy hitters like *Insomnia* or *Punch-Drunk Love* whenever they felt the itch for something serious.

Gregory Rodriguez10 said:It feels to me like Katherine Heigl just plays the exact same character over and over again: 😂 an ambitious, conservative, uptight woman in her late twenties who spends the first half of the movie refusing to admit she actually wants a man in her life—some "emancipated" or "self-actualized" nonsense—only to end up in the arms of some ranch hand at the end who wouldn't even be on her radar at the start. And then, suddenly, she’s happy, satisfied, and realizes she was being foolish the whole time.🙄🙄 🙄
I honestly don't get how an actress can keep taking these kinds of roles and actually build a career out of it. Maybe it's just about the paycheck.☕

Correct me if I'm wrong, but please name a single film where her character isn't just this magical blend of those same old tropes. 😁

Decendants, Bride of Chucky, The Ringer, Zzyzx Road.

A silent trigger? Honestly, that’s probably the only decent flick Dolph Lundgren has ever done. Though, I was watching it back when I was just some wide-eyed kid, so take my word with a grain of salt... :9

David Price5 said:Look at it this way: if a director makes about 40 films and you happen to catch just one for thirty minutes, and you hate it, should we assume you'll dislike every single thing they've ever made?

I haven't seen them either. However, I realized I was citing him as an example of a bad director without actually watching anything he made. I fell into the trap of following the hype surrounding the hatred for him. Whether that is justified in this specific instance is a different matter, but it becomes a bad habit nonetheless.

That's enough for me; life is too short to waste on his films.

The issue isn't avoiding his films, it's the "reflexive bashing" of them without even giving them a watch.

There is a distinct difference between me simply not enjoying a film—take something like Secretary or Temps de Loup, for instance—and a movie actually being complete garbage.

I'm not entirely closed off to new things, though. For example, I can't stomach most Jean-Claude Van Damme movies because they are just that bad, yet I did find myself enjoying a specific one once. Naturally, for me to even bother looking into an actor, the film needs to have garnered decent critical reception first, which happened in that case.

And since we're being brutally honest here, who is actually handing this guy money when his projects are such massive flops? (At least regarding the trio of Far Cry, Alone in the Dark, and Dungeon Siege). 🤷

David Price5 said:Regardless, it isn't fair to jump to conclusions based on just one movie, whether you're talking about a director or an actor..

I have to disagree. It doesn't take much more than seeing a single film to make up one's mind—in fact, you often need far less than that. Just remember: the worse the movie is, the less time you actually need to reach that realization.

As for Uwe Boll, I haven't sat through any of his work. Nothing about him ever really caught my interest.

Look, 13th Warrior is fine, assuming you accept that Rob Cohen isn't exactly John McTiernan.

Honestly, I’d much rather they film some total garbage in San Francisco and pad the city budget than have them shoot some "masterpiece" in San Francisco for a thousand bucks on a shoestring budget.

It’s certainly significant that they’ll be filming in San Francisco. Now, if only one could hope for the film itself to actually be any good—though, considering this is a massive Hollywood spectacle, I won't hold my breath. We both know they won't 🙂

driftingeagle27 said:Can this New World Order just get on with it already? I really need some rest.

I’m inclined to agree.

Regarding the claim that News Corp collaborated with Hitler... honestly, what does that have to do with the actual quality of the programming on network TV? 🤷

Kate Harris4 said:21 votes in just about 12 hours—which tells me people actually dig this poll. Look, let's cut the off-topic nonsense; if you've got nothing useful to say regarding the actual topic, don't just bark into the void.

What’s eating you, Christian Taylor3? 😕 You not feeling the poll? Then why are you even hanging out here? 🤷 If you think you can do better, go ahead and start a better one, but personally, I think this is great. 21 forum members voted, which means they're fine with it. If you like it, vote. If you don't, just move on. It's not that deep.

Whenever I see a thread I'm not interested in, I just skip it. I don't bother annoying the person who took the time to post it.

We aren't handing out Oscars or some prestigious award here—it's not like the world is going to stage a protest because Full Metal Jacket didn't make the cut. The whole point is just to have a good time. To include every single movie, like Full Metal Jacket, the poll would need to have 100 entries. I narrowed it down to 29 by picking a decent mix of war classics, dramas, and adventures. Obviously, you can't please everyone, but I really don't get the people who show up just to bark like dogs trying to sabotage the fun.

Oh, and I almost forgot—I should probably add battles from Mexico, and I totally missed checking out movies from Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, the US, Canada, Spain, and every other country on the planet. Since they probably all have great war movies too, maybe I'll just throw them all in and make the poll 500 movies long. Ha ha ha! 👍

I disagree. If we were truly seeing a consensus, I’d expect at least 50 votes within a 12-hour window to call it a success.

Come on, let's stick to the topic. If you don't have anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion, there's no need to just ramble.

I am not rambling; I am providing specific reasons why I believe this poll is fundamentally flawed.

Dennis Doyle3 said:Where are they? Apocalypse Now, Cross of Iron, Full Metal Jacket, Paths of Glory, Brotherhood of War.....? Every single one of those is five times better than Pearl Harbor, Defiant, or even Tears of the Sun?

I have to agree. This is a poorly constructed poll, and I refuse to participate.

Look, I'm not saying Brigade is a bad series. It’s just... it's a stretch to put it in the same conversation as The Sopranos. 🙂

@Christian Taylor3/">@@Christian Taylor3
What exactly is a VPN tunnel?

That’s true, there’s also that option, though it might take a while to materialize. For anyone stuck without high-speed broadband, I suppose you could always fall back on recording everything onto VHS using an old VCR.

If nothing else, you should fight back against public broadcasting by refusing to pay your license fees. 🙂

But then again, I suspect we have ourselves to blame. If people actually had an appetite for Russian cinema, there would be more of it on the airwaves.

If you decide to list any of those 'weaker' ones, I’d be more than happy to elaborate on my own take.

The Debt Collector isn't a bad movie, per se, but there were a handful of scenes that just felt incredibly stupid—it honestly ruined the whole experience for me... if my memory serves, they were some of the action sequences... unfortunately, I can't quite recall which specific moments I'm referring to.

It’s not exactly a masterpiece. I’d give it a 6 out of 10.

That said, Billy Connolly is absolutely top-tier, both in this role and generally speaking.

I’m not trying to draw any comparisons to Ferrara.

I have zero expectations here. I'll just watch it and then give my thoughts.

Here.