Posts by goldenhound32

Emily Thomas3 said:Yeah. They aren't really cheering; they're just watching. Especially in baseball. Trust me, I catch games for hours every single day. Sure, you might see some noise here and there depending on the stadium or the team playing, but it's not exactly a riot. But the whole point was that baseball doesn't have cheerleaders, which you already knew. Still, you totally dragged me into another pointless debate.

It doesn't matter; at least we've established that baseball fans don't really cheer. And why is that?
I see the average game runs about two and a half hours or longer. Nice.

Oh, right... I forgot to mention... I tend to avoid WWII movies (especially if they dwell on civilian suffering) because there are just too many of them, and I find myself thinking, "For heaven's sake, pick a different era of warfare." Still, I ended up watching Downfall because everything suggested it was a masterpiece. And it truly is.

Emily Thomas3 said:Actually, calling them "fans" is a pretty solid way to translate it. At their stadiums, you usually just have spectators, not hardcore supporters—the only ones actually cheering are, well, the cheerleaders. And come on, don't be such a stickler, I know you can 😉 😬

The mere act of spectating is what makes someone a fan.

hiddenhound3 said:However, there is always the possibility of a pleasant surprise, just as there is the opposite; some films seem excellent, excellent, excellent, only to fall flat at the very end. That is precisely why I watch them all. 🙂
Whatever, nerd :nerd smiley face wearing thick glasses and a goofy grin:

There is some truth to that, I suppose, though it rarely happens often enough to actually shift my perspective on cinema.

Fortunately for me, when Ebert gives a film a thumbs up—specifically when he hits that four-star mark—it usually lands well with me too, at least scoring a 7 out of 10 in my book. The man maintains a "Great Movies" list featuring over 300 titles. I haven't sat through about 100 of them yet, so I'm slowly working my way through that list (though, frankly, I have no intention of watching certain ones, like Star Wars). So far, not a single one has fallen below a 7 by my standards.

hiddenhound3 said:You didn't state it explicitly, though your immediate skepticism suggests you feel compelled to verify their quality online. As for why the source matters—it really shouldn't. One should simply surrender to the film and leave it at that. 🤷

You claim I watch a lot of garbage, yet I barely watch anything at all. I prefer my own way of doing things. 😉

By the way, right from the start, everyone seems just as questionable to me as Columbus. 😁

hiddenhound3 said:It strikes me as incredibly narrow-minded when someone claims they refuse to watch any film that carries an IMDb rating lower than a seven. 🤷

I certainly do. I find myself doing it quite frequently simply to satisfy certain social expectations. For instance, when I am sitting there watching one of those mindless, overly sentimental teen comedies with my cousin... what else am I supposed to do? 😍

Where exactly did I say that? Could I get a quote, please?

Here is my own rating for a few films that sit below a 7:
Spun (8), Pret-a-Porter (9), Aria (7), In Turn (10), May (8), Ararat (8), A Complete History of My Sexual Failures (8), Darkman (8), À ma soeur! (7), 2:37 (7), Night's Sex Comedy (7).

Emily Thomas3 said:@Nicholas Edwards4 - there aren't any female fans in baseball.

@goldenhound32 - honestly, that monologue was my favorite part of the movie. I actually think characters should break the fourth wall a bit more often and just realize they're characters.

ontopic: nothing like that here. I mostly watch movies on my PC, and when I turn on the TV, it's strictly sports. I've stumbled across all kinds of random crap while channel surfing, but no regrets—it's all research for the job.

Well, if they actually show up to the podium, then maybe we'll see something happen. 😁

By the way, "cheerleaders" aren't just fans or spectators. I honestly don't know if there's even an American term that captures the nuance perfectly, but we definitely need a better word for that concept.

@goldenhound32 - For me, that monologue was easily the highlight of the entire film. Honestly, I think the characters could benefit from breaking the fourth wall a bit more often—just to acknowledge their own existence as characters within the narrative.

I don't particularly mind when a film decides to break the fourth wall. It can work if handled correctly. However, I felt that the execution during that specific monologue missed the mark entirely. I'm planning to revisit it on YouTube later to see if it's actually available there, and then I'll provide a more definitive take on what exactly went wrong.

Not really my thing. I mostly stick to watching movies on my PC. While I was browsing through some TV channels, I stumbled upon all sorts of absolute garbage. Honestly, I don't even regret it; it’s all just part of the job.

+1.

Emily Thomas3 said:But honestly, knowing the van Damme catalog is key to actually getting this film. Without his past work, this movie wouldn't even exist. That's basically the definition of postmodern.

Heh, acting like we’re analyzing the complete works of James Joyce... what’s the point of studying this guy's filmography when every single movie he makes—with the exception of JCVD—follows the exact same formula? And let’s be clear here: I’ve sat through far more than five Jean-Claude van Damme films, and that’s not even counting JCVD.

Anthony Smith3 said:If you don't take my word for it—or the word of others here who've actually sat through it—then fine... here you go...

http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/20...ovies-of-2008/
http://www.imdb.com/List?year=2008&&...average%20vote
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jcvd/

Also... I think it's worth noting this surprising fact: according to Time magazine, van Damme's performance in this movie was ranked as the second-best male acting performance of last year... landing right behind Heath Ledger as Joker in The Dark Knight!
http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...864363,00.html

Well, obviously... and that’s precisely the problem. In this instance, the impression left by the movie is being driven by something entirely external to the film itself. And what lies outside the film? It's just Jean-Claude van Damme's previous body of work.

If JCVD had spent his entire career starring in heavy dramas, this wouldn't be perceived as such a great film.

rustyscout34 said:Have you ever consciously gotten yourself into some total garbage like Gigli? And if so, what? Also, I always finish what I start, but putting something like Nielsen or Gigli on while I'm sober? No way. It's just not happening, freaking impossible... (Cloverfield, Twilight, Signs are, for example, some movies I hate but I still watched them from start to finish, and there are tons more...) 🤷

I don't even care for the notion of 'finishing what you started' (it sounds far too much like a perfectionist's mantra), let alone applying that logic to watching movies.

If something is garbage, why on earth should I suffer through it until the credits roll? 😕

Nicholas Edwards4 said:

Nothing is garbage until I decide it’s garbage, honestly... I just can't stand prejudices, whatever kind they may be.

I guess the first sign that a movie is going nowhere is when you don't see a single recognizable face on the poster.
And honestly, the second thing is that as soon as I spot some busted-up cars or cheap-looking clothes—unless we're talking about some legendary cinematic classic—I'm probably just going to change the channel.

Hahahaha... give me a break.😁

By that logic, we’d have to say every masterpiece ever made was a failure: Scorsese's debut, Pacino's first outing, Brando's start—the list goes on forever. None of them were household names when they first stepped onto a set, right?😉

Anthony Smith3 said:I'm not exaggerating. You always have to nitpick some tiny detail in every movie that nobody even notices—like how you did with Wrestler, asking "how could a woman get backstage". Do some actual reading online... then tell me if I'm overreacting.

BTW...JCVD isn't an action star at all... check facts.😉

Exactly... Sylvester Stallone shot the same kind of crap throughout his career as Jean-Claude van Damme did... high-octane action for the masses... Judge Dredd, The Specialist, Cobra, Assassins, Demolition Man, etc. A lot of those movies actually turn people off today (maybe rightfully so), but he got lucky because he also did Rocky, Rambo, Cliffhanger, and Cop Land, which earned him that level of respect.
Same goes for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Luckily, he had Conan the Barbarian, The Terminator, Predator, Total Recall, and True Lies, which became cult classics... but he also churned out plenty of mindless action like Conan the Destroyer, Raw Deal, Red Sonja, Eraser... and even Commando, though that one hit cult status mostly due to its cheesy vibe. But looking at the big picture... they all (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Jean-Claude van Damme, Steven Seagal... even Bruce Willis to an extent) spent their careers making the same thing—big, loud action. Some just got luckier with a few higher-quality flicks in the genre.

Heh... I merely stated that Jean-Claude Van Damme has flaws; I didn't explicitly state my conclusion, yet you somehow jumped to the assumption that I was just being pedantic. It isn't. We are discussing a monologue.

Do a little reading online... then you can decide for yourself if I'm overreacting.

If I hadn't done my research online, I wouldn't have even bothered watching it.🙂

By the way... Jean-Claude Van Damme isn't an action star at all... check it.😉

It appears someone hasn't been reading my posts very carefully.

But when you look at the big picture... all of them (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal... even Bruce Willis to an extent) have spent their careers churning out the same kind of movies—big, loud action flicks. Some were just luckier than others to land a few higher-quality projects within that genre.

My point is simply this: Stallone's crap is better than Van Damme's crap. That's all I'm saying. It's the same genre, but the quality differs.

Anthony Smith3 said:Nothing is trash until I say it's trash. Honestly... I hate prejudice... whatever form it takes. Nothing bugs me more than people writing off movies before seeing them just because they don't like a certain actor, director, or genre.
Respect your own tastes (even if saying that feels like a tired excuse at this point), but sometimes taste has zero to do with how good a movie actually is...

I always say you don't watch all movies for the same reasons. You don't watch a classic the same way you watch some B-movie... and honestly, some of those B-movies are surprisingly decent. Take last year, for example: "Felon," a direct-to-video B-movie starring a beefier Val Kilmer and a slightly forgotten Stephen Dorff... it was one of my favorite surprises from last year. And there are plenty of gems like that out there.

Felon isn't a B-movie.

Anthony Smith3 said:It’s exactly because of those biases that I think tons of people missed out on "JCVD". It was easily one of the best films of 2008... and honestly, one of the best in his whole career. In my opinion, it stands out from the usual stuff other 80s and 90s action stars were churning out.

I think you're exaggerating a bit... sure, the movie is good, but calling it one of the best of 2008 seems like a stretch.
Either you're a fan of Jean-Claude van Damme, or simply the mere fact that he's attempting an action role inflates your rating, causing you to overlook the film's actual flaws.

...though, generally speaking, it remains one of the superior entries in his filmography, which, in my estimation, doesn't deviate significantly from the typical body of work produced by other action heroes of the 80s and 90s...

It does differ from Sylvester Stallone.

Before I even sit down to watch a movie, I make sure I already know the premise and the production credits; if I don't, I won't waste a single minute of my time on it.

If I happen to stumble upon a film and it turns out to be some horror flick, a kids' movie, a family drama, an Agatha Christie mystery, or something involving a serial killer, high-octane action, or a Danielle Steel adaptation, I’m switching it off immediately. Once I have internet access, I usually find myself running back to my computer to look up the details just to decide whether or not the film is worth the effort. If I'm ever in doubt about whether to stick with it, I typically rate the uncertainty as a 6 out of 10—for instance, something like Debt Collector with Pierce Brosnan or King with Stephen King adaptations—and occasionally a 7 out of 10.

rustyscout34 said:stunning, quiet, meditative, poetic...
you should definitely check out Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring by the same director... 👍

p.s.
the movie was actually South Korean (not Japanese!) though I suppose it doesn't matter much... 😉

Heh, of course it matters... imagine showing up to an American forum and claiming that some obscure local indie flick is your favorite American masterpiece.🙂

Since we're on the subject of Kim Ki-duk, has anyone seen his latest, Bi-mong? I hear it was a total disaster.

David Price5 said:But once you factor out African nations and transitional economies, it’s just Mexico and Russia sitting above them...

I fail to see the logic there. Why on earth would anyone exclude the African nations and those transitional economies from the equation?

Laura Palmer25 said:1. It feels like Americans never actually lock their windows from the inside, making it easy enough for a toddler to just wander right in. Plus, houses—especially in those horror movies—are filled with these massive glass walls and floor-to-ceiling windows just so they can "enjoy nature," completely ignoring the fact that some maniac is probably aiming a sniper rifle at them. And by the way, you never see a single set of blinds pulled down on those windows.
2.The layouts are a joke, too; there are endless entrances and exits practically begging for an intruder. You've got the kitchen door, the tiny basement window, a pet door big enough for a small villain, plus attics and five or six different balconies. It’s wild considering how high the crime rates are and how paranoid people actually are here. You'd honestly think the US was stuck in the 1950s, back in the era of the town of Peyton...

Go ahead, find me an American who can argue that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

By the way, they have about 2.3 million people sitting in prisons.

Whispers and Screams, or if you find those a bit too long-winded, Silence. There you have it—two quintessential examples of Ingmar Bergman’s work.

silentpilot6 said:Just how much have we been "conditioned" by Hollywood movies...

Like everything else, I suppose—it varies.
As far as I'm concerned, I haven't been.

Anthony Smith3 said:And yes, here is something that usually fits your criteria... it holds a 7/10 rating, which places it right in that category of films you typically deign to watch—anything scoring above a 7. 😉😁

I mean, I'm well aware of all that. 🙂

Kenneth Williams60 said:That was my assumption as well. Given that I tend to be quite accurate when predicting whether a film will resonate with me—I rarely miss—it seems I’ve miscalculated this time. So, here we are... 😛
You might not find this particularly surprising, but I still suggest giving it a shot. 😉

As I have already stated, I am not suggesting the film is inherently bad. If I happen to come across it—should it land on my screen in any format—I will certainly watch it.