rapidviper54 said:The dubbed version of 👎 😠 is coming to AMC Theatres.
As per usual, theaters (at least here in Washington, D.C.) will likely show both versions. I suppose it really just comes down to personal preference, doesn't it?
Ah, I missed it. I really ought to check the papers more frequently. And honestly, wouldn't it be nice if idiots occasionally programmed decent films instead of their usual fare, even during these relatively normal times? I saw a stage adaptation of that movie over at the Comedy Club, and my stomach was actually aching from laughing so hard.
*Nikita* is a flawless piece of cinema, and *Subway* comes remarkably close to perfection. I’ve always had a particular fondness for *The Fifth Element*, whereas I found *The Blue to Overestimate Kitsch* to be nothing more than overrated fluff. As for the rest, I haven't bothered to sit through them. *Nikita*, then.
Nikita is a flawless masterpiece, whereas Subway falls just short of perfection. I have a particular fondness for The Fifth Element, though I must say Blue to Overestimate Kitsch is nothing more than overrated fluff; as for everything else, I haven't bothered to watch it. Nikita, then.
Marakeš said:Most likely, it will be empty. Just like how Broadway sat vacant during that Asian film series. Some self-proclaimed 'cultural elite' showed up to take photos on Friday and Saturday, but for the rest of the week, the theater was a ghost town. I watched 'remembrance of a murder' in a theater with maybe three people. Between you, me, and perhaps another hundred souls in NYC 😁, I honestly think it isn't worth the city's money to maintain a cinema at all. People actually bother showing up to the theater. No one is asking for Spartan conditions, myself included, but most of the theaters owned by the city of Washington, D.C. are just like that. Uninviting.
Throughout this summer, I went to the cinema in Europe twice, and in both instances, the house was more than adequately filled. So, the notion that nobody would bother traveling downtown for a movie simply doesn't hold water. Personally, I much prefer watching a film in Europe over some dingy AMC Theatres; when I go to the movies, I go to see a film that actually interests me. That is a far cry from the AMC Theatres crowd, who don't choose films based on interest, but rather on whatever convenient showtime is available, while they gorge themselves on stinking popcorn and even smellier loaded nachos and chat through the entire screening.
redowl90 said:For your own sake, I truly hope you were on some heavy narcotics when you typed this message out...
Are we having a disagreement? Regardless, I am sticking to my guns: Wolf is easily one of the worst films ever to be honored with an Oscar. Is it the script that fails us, or is it the acting, which makes even the most amateurish soap operas look polished by comparison? If it weren't for the cinematography, which is perhaps the only redeeming quality, the whole thing might have passed for a documentary. As it stands, the film is a mild catastrophe.
redowl90 said:But honestly, Walk the Line is actually a GREAT movie... It’s easily three times better than that mediocre Raya mess from last year... And now Walk the Line isn't even nominated, probably just because they didn't want to deal with two years in a row having a biopic about a legendary deceased American singer up for awards...
Pure 👎
I take your word for it. I simply meant to point out that whoever wrote "including a Best Picture nomination" might have gotten a little ahead of themselves.
redowl90 said:While watching some TV promos for "Walk the Line" with a colleague, I happened upon a commercial from Fox claiming the following: "A 5-time Academy Award nominee, including Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Actress..."
The problem is, "Walk the Line" wasn't actually nominated for Best Picture. Does this change my fundamental view? Not in the slightest. It only reinforces my suspicion that the Academy Awards almost always go to massively overrated films of strictly mediocre quality.
Icepick said:I find it genuinely amusing that anyone could sit through an LNH broadcast. 😂 [/B]
My children are all under fourteen, which perhaps offers some level of justification for their viewing habits. You, however, are likely well beyond that age, so I find myself wondering what possible excuse you have for offering such profoundly "intellectual" commentary.
I am quite disgustingly old, so please bear with me while I indulge in a bit of historical reminiscence. Back in the seventies and eighties, whenever some politician from the old administration passed away, we’d be plunged into three days of national mourning. Since the average age of those officials was around eighty, it wasn't exactly a shock when we found ourselves observing such mourning periods two or three times a year. In those days, it wasn't just that theaters were scarce; even on television, there was absolutely nothing to watch except the news and somber classical music. For those who might not realize, video technology and satellite TV simply didn't exist. Honestly, it's a miracle we survived, and I find it genuinely amusing now when my children whine because a day of mourning means their favorite late-night talk show isn't on the air.
Elizabeth Mendoza43 said:I’m honestly baffled as to why Geoffrey Rush even made it onto this list. Is this just a chronological rundown, or does the person who started this thread actually believe Rush is a subpar actor?
It seems fairly self-evident that the list is organized by year, specifically covering the last decade. That is likely the reason those specific years were chosen.
Nicholas Doyle2 said:Question: Would you guys be interested in spending seven days this spring out in the countryside? You know the drill—hiking through nature, eating lamb, blah, blah, blah...
Jerry Evans57 said:this movie is an absolute train wreck. easily one of the most tedious, uninspired pieces of cinema I've ever sat through, and the acting? completely lifeless.
Precisely. It is quite possibly one of the most overrated films in recent memory.
I recently found myself at an AMC after quite some time. The experience was practically identical to going to a Regal Cinemas ($9.75)—you’ve got those standard fifteen minutes of trailers and previews, the same inflated ticket prices, and that ubiquitous popcorn stench. If I'm being honest, though, even the seats felt significantly less comfortable. I’ve always had a bit of an aversion to Regal Cinemas, but it seems like nowhere else is much better either.
Richard Hernandez13 said:When I was watching The Matrix Reloaded in NYC, there was this ten-minute break right in the middle of the movie, and they just bombarded us with nonstop commercials during the interval.
I can hardly believe it. Which theater was that? I'd like to make sure I avoid it at all costs.