Terry Fisher2 said:Writing by Nenad Polimac Those polished robot movies made just for toddlers...
Honestly, there are zero rules left in Hollywood these days. Back during the Golden Age of the dream factory, people actually believed you had to base movies on novels, plays, or maybe some comic books just to have a solid narrative foundation to lean on. Now? It's a free-for-all.
Old-school movie moguls would probably just shrug their shoulders if they heard how blockbusters are made these days. It’s all based on picture books like "Night at the Museum," theme park rides like "Haunted Mansion," or entire franchises ripped straight from the "Pirates of the Caribbean" vibe. Now, we've got movies built entirely around toy lines. That's basically how "Transformers" happened—a massive collaboration between Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks that likely burned through $150 million, if not a whole lot more.
Back in 1984, the Japanese giant Takara dropped these tiny robot toys that could flip into vehicles and back again. They eventually teamed up with the American powerhouse Hasbro and basically conquered the world. Luckily for the producers of today's Transformers, right when those toys were first hitting store shelves, they cooked up an animated series with the same name. That show pretty much set the gold standard for how a story about giant robots should actually look.
TRANSFORMERS Director: Michael Bay The cast list: Shia LaBeouf, Tyrese Gibson, Josh Duhamel, Anthony Anderson, Megan Fox, Rachael Taylor, John Turturro, and Jon Voight.
They eventually put out this feature-length animated movie that wasn't exactly a smash hit, but man, those new TV seasons were the real deal. They basically hammered it home over and over again: these two warring factions of robots, the Autobots and the Decepticons, dragged their fight from their home planet, Cybertron, all the way down to Earth, where they ended up picking up some new allies and making plenty of enemies along the way.
Turns out turning an animated series into a live-action flick isn't exactly a walk in the park. Who knew? The thing is, the original show mostly had kids hooked, but if you want a Hollywood blockbuster to actually land, it’s gotta appeal to everyone. It's a whole different ballgame when you're trying to please every demographic under the sun.
To fix the generational and gender gaps in the original, they brought in top-tier writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (the guys behind The Legend of Zorro and Mission: Impossible 3). They basically aimed straight for teenagers, since that’s the biggest crowd you can find at any modern AMC Theatres. Sam Witwicky was a pretty big deal in the series, but by the time he hit the big screen, he’d aged up a few years and was dealing with all those awkward puberty growing pains.
Choosing Shia LaBeouf was actually a brilliant move. After he crushed it in Paranoia and with his upcoming role in Indiana Jones 4, he’s basically the hottest young star in America right now. There’s this one scene where he’s playing the kid pretending to listen to his parents' advice about masturbation, while secretly hiding the fact that he's got actual alien robots hanging out in the backyard. Honestly, he’s easily one of the best parts of this whole movie, mostly just because of how good LaBeouf is at acting.
The way the Transformers first show up to those US soldiers stationed somewhere in the Middle East isn't half bad. Honestly, the way they tie current political realities to such childish, high-stakes nonsense is a pretty solid nod to how subversive Hollywood can actually be.
Everything goes downhill the second the Transformers actually have to step up and be real heroes. You know, when they start blasting each other, leveling skyscrapers, and tearing up the streets, leaving regular people scrambling just to stay alive under those massive metal feet.
The problem is that nobody can hide the fact that they’re just toys. Not even Michael Bay, the guy behind *Armageddon* and *Pearl Harbor*. No matter how flashy the execution is—especially when you look at Optimus Prime, the Autobot leader, or that lovable Bumblebee—those final action sequences, even though they're shot to the highest Hollywood standards, still feel like something straight out of a kid's imagination.
Honestly, "Transformers" really needed a director like Robert Rodriguez from those "Spy Kids" movies—someone who actually knows how to mess around while still keeping the scenes feeling grounded. Bay just doesn't get humor, lightness, or that sense of playfulness. It’s the kind of flick that'll probably blow the minds of little kids, leave older teens acting like they're too cool for it, and leave the adults completely bored. Besides, I doubt anyone in that older crowd is even going to bother wandering into an AMC Theatres to see it.
I don't really get this sentence. How is that even a problem? 😁
This movie is awesome. Sure, there’s a romance subplot, the dialogue is cheesy, and some scenes feel like they were shot just to sell GM vehicles... but those are just "edge cases." The human characters are basically side players; they aren't even relevant in the final hour. What matters are the giant robots who know kung-fu, tear up cities, and are just straight-up cool. There's none of that annoying waiting around—five minutes in, and you're already seeing Decepticons in all their glory, tossing tanks at other tanks and absolutely wrecking everything in sight. The "human element" of this film is actually quite fun. It leans more toward a comedy or a parody rather than trying to force some heavy-handed love story or family drama, which is how these massive spectacles usually blow it.
Two and a half hours of pure entertainment. You can tell Spielberg had his hands in this. I really hope it crushes the box office so they can get a sequel out ASAP. They definitely need to give Optimus Prime more screen time; he's way too cool for such a brief appearance.
This Film is completely pointless. It lacks any sense of identity; it feels like every single scene was ripped off from somewhere else. It’s just a messy mashup of Solaris, Odyssey, Alien, and Event Horizon... If the goal was to make something psychological like Solaris, why end it with a captain losing his mind? If they were aiming for an action thriller, why waste the first hour with slow pacing and pretty shots of the Sun? My gut feeling is that after watching the first hour, they realized they had nowhere to go, so they just tossed an "eighth passenger" onto the ship to slaughter the entire crew. Real original. 😁
Morales isn't cool. And he sure isn't underground. You can't claim to be underground if you aren't trashing Morales. Period. I remember this one time at a party—a friend of mine was just starting out as a DJ. Right in the middle of his set, he pulls out a pair of sunglasses and starts acting like a total clown behind the decks, just messing around. This guy walks up to him—someone who actually helped "introduce" him to the scene—and tells him straight up: put the glasses away. That's not what being underground is about. 🤣You can't tell me you're underground when you're acting like that. 🤣
Chloe Wells37 said:Westbam
Honestly, if I could just listen to him all night, I'd be set. Just give me some heavy tracks and let me vibe to Westbam, and I could retire happy.😬
I think it was somewhere around 6 or 7 PM. I can't say for sure. I used my student ID. By the way, Tuesday and Wednesday tickets at AMC are actually cheaper. Last night, instead of paying $15, I only paid $12. It’s not a massive difference, but hey, I'll take it.
nimblemarlin17 said:Spider is absolute trash. They’re the only video store that used to charge an annual membership fee (do they still do that?), and they were always the most expensive. Plus, the local Spider in my neighborhood was incredibly unfriendly. I hope they go out of business.
I haven't been around here in a while, but I'm pretty sure they still charge that yearly membership fee. Back when I didn't have high-speed internet, I was a member because, honestly... their selection was unbeatable. Especially the one over in the suburbs; you could find just about anything there. They even carried imports that weren't available in the US—foreign DVDs without any English subtitles. That part was impressive, but $6.00 the price is just insulting for a one-day rental. Personally, I think $4.00 is way too much. It isn't worth skipping a movie in the theater (if I can help it) just to save those $3.25 bucks. If movies were only 7-$2.75, I'd be renting them constantly.
nimblemarlin17 said:From what I know, the standard price for a new DVD at over 90% of video rental stores is $4.00.
At Spider, older DVDs go for 12 bucks, while new ones are mostly 15. Some of those "blockbuster" new releases can even hit $6.00. $6.00, seriously. And you can't just grab one on Saturday and drop it back off Monday—you have to return it by Sunday. Last Wednesday, I paid $6.25 for a movie ticket at AMC, yet they rent movies out for $6.00.👎 Honestly, they're going to business.
Whatever I can manage, I’m heading to the cinema. There is simply no comparison between the experience of seeing a movie on the big screen versus watching one on a TV. When I can't make it to the theater, I just stick to DivX. I’ve never been much for surround sound, so I don't really bother renting DVDs either—on my specific TV, there's practically zero visible difference in picture quality between DivX and a DVD. New releases usually don't hit the rental shops until about 18 or $5.00 days after release, but you can catch them in the cinema for just $6.75. Honestly, I've stopped visiting video rental stores altogether.
Such a fantastic movie... honestly, it’s what you’d expect, given that Leonardo DiCaprio has been picking such incredible projects lately. I actually ended up watching it twice within a week, and it holds up beautifully on the second viewing. It's exactly like redowl90 said—so much happens in those 140 minutes that there isn't a single dull moment. And even though it falls into that "movie with a moral at the end" category, it manages to avoid being overly sappy or melodramatic.
Definitely watch it. If you don't do it for anything else, do it for Jennifer Connelly. 😍
There’s just zero variety here; it’s always the exact same crowd. At first, you think it’s great because everything feels fresh, but eventually, it just starts to piss you off. You see the same names on the lineup every single time, and if someone actually new shows up with a different sound—suddenly fifty people show up for the party (DJ Food). Honestly, the only two gigs that actually felt worth it to me over the last two years were Carl Cox and LTJ Bukem. I agree. After LTJ, I was almost sick of the scene because of those DJs playing that aggressive, terrible 800bpm drum and bass sound that’s been clogging up every single D&B party for years. To hell with a scene like that.
I just finished it, and honestly, it was a total letdown. "Film" is a strong word for this; it felt more like a technical exercise. Sure, there are some decent moments with sudden bursts of violence or that specific sense of humor, but overall, it’s just exhausting and a tough watch. Why isn't he going back to making those gritty crime dramas? What is this nonsense even supposed to be? 😢
I can't help with that request. said:That’s exactly why I stick to Steel and Rock. There’s just a certain soul in those genres that you simply won't find in electronic music.👍
What kind of electronic music have you even been listening to if you can just claim it has "no soul"? Do you honestly think those repetitive tracks from some Scandinavian producers about the apocalypse, demons, and the devil actually have more heart?
Look, I wouldn’t say I was blown away. I’m not sure how the original story goes, but the storytelling in this movie is just messy. It feels disjointed and scattered, and after a while, you lose interest because you can't tell what's actually happening. Honestly, it feels like Brian De Palma only focused on the plot during his breaks from filming beautiful shots. Visually? It's stunning. I loved that little nod to Alfred Hitchcock during the scene where the detectives are waiting for John Nash, with that camera movement swinging over the building and back. It was beautifully shot, just completely lacking any sense of direction.
Lala pun said:I feel like I'm writing in hieroglyphics here. It’s obvious the owner doesn't give a damn about showing movies, the audience, or the films themselves. He’s intentionally run this theater to the brink of bankruptcy just so he "has" to sell it. To him, it doesn't matter if the building gets torn down for a shopping mall, turned into a nightclub, or becomes a CVS. He just wants to grab the cash and wave goodbye to us all.
So, what’s the move? If he acquired the theater illegally, then take him to court. But if he didn't—well, damn, it's his property. He can do whatever he wants with it. An organized campaign to save one single cinema? Please. That would just mean someone gets a choice between 25 theaters instead of 24. Besides, most of these places are half-empty anyway. 😁
Anthony Davis6 said:I have to give credit where it's due—Broadway did a solid job promoting that Asian film festival, especially from a marketing standpoint. Almost every screening was completely sold out.
Give me a break. Every time I showed up, the theaters were either totally empty or half-empty.
I’m left with just one nagging question in all of this... if people are truly so desperate for indie cinema or alternative venues—to the point where they’re organizing protests, petitions, and massive outcries—then why is Central Park usually empty? Why was Broadway a ghost town during those Asian film screenings? And why on earth was I sitting COMPLETELY alone at an AMC Theatres screening of 'Hell's Kitchen'? That movie was hailed by several American critics as one of the best films released in our country last year, so it definitely wasn't some obscure indie flick.
Don't get me wrong, I love going to the movies, and it honestly breaks my heart to see the Europa theater closing its doors. But from an outsider's perspective—say, a business owner looking at the bottom line—it seems obvious that there isn't enough interest in high-quality programming in America. At least, not enough to actually keep a theater running.
Maria Peterson said:A profit-driven business will always strive to maximize its earnings.
That’s just how it works. They make more money when more people show up at the theater. And people show up when the theater offers top-tier AV equipment, comfy seats, a decent cafe to grab a latte while waiting for the show, and easy parking. So, businesses invest in better service because high quality attracts crowds, and crowds mean higher revenue.
Maria Peterson said:You're saying capitalism has finally hit our city. But isn't culture—and things that serve the public good—supposed to be the one area protected from the jaws of ruthless capitalism through government funding, donations, and foundations? Simply because it serves a public interest? I mean, what's next? Are we going to have nothing but private theaters left? Will the FC Barcelona building end up being rented out as corporate office space?!
I completely agree with you there, but I fail to see the "socially beneficial" value of screening a Caribbean pirate movie at a theater in Europe, especially when it's already playing in much better venues.
Now, if they were planning on showing a unique, high-quality, or niche repertoire, that would be a different story entirely.
Maria Peterson said:It seems like the exact opposite to me. The 'Give Us a Cinema' campaign doesn't even make sense for most other cities in America because everything there has already gone downhill. It only makes sense for Chicago, where we aren't facing that same level of decay.
Now I'm wondering why I even bothered getting so worked up and invested in all this, acting like it's a personal matter. Probably because nobody seems to understand my point.
Does the 'Give Us a Cinema' movement make more sense in a city that's about to have three multiplexes with over 20 screens, compared to other places that have either one or absolutely none? Honestly, I'm lost.