About ten new threads popped up on the new PDF. Fantasy and the controversial corner seem to have their own actual concepts, but the rest? Pure chaos. Look, I’m always ☕ against being a total clown, but honestly, I don't mind a bit of banter—it keeps things healthy and positive. Keeping all the threads is fine by me, but we really need to keep the jokes within their own lanes. For instance, if four different threads open up about specific teams, let's move them to the Top-tier section and actually talk shop instead of letting the trolling and mockery from the joke threads bleed everywhere else. A little sarcasm about what's happening on the field or a jab at a coach is fine, but we shouldn't be spreading these inside jokes and constant disrespect across the whole board. Sure, a random comment here and there is fine, but let's try not to make "making fun of everything" the entire vibe.
Come on, someone open up a thread for Fantasy Football so we can start trash-talking about who pulled Pepe or Piqué, or whose season is riding on Robben versus who's stuck defending with Cech...
Patrick Martin said:Oh, please, you're the one who isn't following 🙂the plot here. Do you honestly think I’d even bother getting into any kind of conversation WITH YOU 🙄unless I had spent a massive amount of time prepping myself first?
wait, we got a timeline issue here?
I already brought that up and Christian Taylor3 is asking
I don't get this "patronizing at the end" thing either, like the "Well boys & girls..." part? You're all over the place, Walter Grant5. 😁
And I'm telling him the same thing
The last scene.
and that's what you hit me with
He's referencing it, the last scene where Gibson kicks off his final speech with "Well Boys & Girls..."
ask me instead🙂
Read what you're reading. If nothing else, read Little Red Riding Hood.
Christian Taylor3 said:briskhound2, if a movie kicks things off with that kind of narration, the golden rule is that you stick with it all the way through to the end. In this case, I think it works pretty well—it’s subtle and keeps the story moving (and don't forget, everything was already set up from the very first foreshadowing, so it feels seamless right from the jump). I also don't quite get that "patronizing" vibe at the end, where he goes, "Well boys & girls..." It’s a bit much, Walter Grant5. 😁
And that's my sign-off on Lou's take.
The main thing is that we can all agree on one point—Mel delivers. 😍
I'm with you guys on this one. Nothing groundbreaking here, just solid action. It was a nice touch how LR linked the visuals back to Scott's film. Honestly though, the narration bugged me—I would’ve cut most of it. Especially that shitty, unnecessary patronizing at the end. It felt totally out of place with the rest of the movie, and I seriously hate when they feel the need to explain every little thing to you.
Never was a huge fan of Gibson, but you gotta admit, the guy’s got charisma. This had way more style and heart than The Expendables. In that one, you just have this untouchable cast acting like, "Oh look at us, having a blast doing old school stuff," and it feels forced as hell. Look, I love Dolph Lundgren, but what Gibson did here is better than that entire The Expendables crew combined.
You could probably just call this thread "The Trolls Are Running the Show" since we're out here dropping nothing but top-tier suggestions to make this Football forum actually useful and less of a dumpster fire ☕
p.s. Are we getting a "Coach Miller is Out" thread next? ☕
Isn't it a bit much making this the topic for every single game? I mean, what's even the point of having group stage threads then? Look, I get it for the knockout rounds, but like this? We’re supposed to actually use those group threads for something...
I’m calling for an end to that whole "if you don't see it, you're just an idiot" style of arguing. Seriously. That "I know, you don't" crap isn't even a debate—it's just trolling, plain and simple.
Whatever, I’m fine with it. Personally, a few tweaks would’ve made it way better, but yeah. First off, the message is just too on the nose. From the second things go south, the atmosphere feels forced and overly ominous. Some of the writing and directing choices are just patronizing. It’s like they’re insulting the audience—as if they were terrified we wouldn't catch the point, even though it unfolds naturally until that intense 20-minute climax where everything becomes crystal clear even to people who haven't seen the movie. Also, evil feels a bit fake, if that makes sense. It's portrayed so extremely and obviously, like a black-and-white caricature instead of something more gray and subtle. After about 30 minutes, there's nothing left to uncover. Evil isn't just one extreme; it's nuanced and takes all sorts of shapes.
And yeah, Keanu is honestly a terrible actor. Not even being sarcastic when I say he's at his best in scenes where he doesn't say a damn thing. No charisma, no nothing. Sometimes I see people talking trash about actors like Al Pacino or Robert De Niro and I'm just confused. Sure, they have their flaws, and after a while, you might get sick of them playing the same types of roles over and over. They might not be the most transformative guys out there, but they have presence and they hit hard in those roles, even when they overact. On the other hand, I have zero clue what kind of character Keanu was trying to pull off yesterday. He would've been better off just playing himself; he might have been inconsistent as a lawyer, but he probably would've been 16 times more convincing and actually had some substance.
A lot of people claim it's just some space western or call it Space opera. Honestly, neither of those labels would stop it from being part of the genre.
Fincher is always pretty solid, whereas Eastwood can swing between stuff that hits and stuff that totally misses, at least for me. Personally, both his 2008 flicks were great, but apparently, that newer one with Matt Damon flopped hard. Haven't seen it myself, just going off what I've read or heard. Honestly, I don't think pumping out movies back-to-back has to kill the quality if the director knows how to handle it—but if they don't, yeah, it'll tank everything. Look, those two Eastwood movies from 2008 were killer, so making two in one year didn't mess with the quality then. Still, it’s fair to say directors who churn out high-quality films one after another are a rare breed.
Richard Kelly7 said:Alright, let me ask you this—is "Avatar" actually a cult classic, or just that one original movie everyone talks about...?
Avatar The theme isn't exactly groundbreaking. We've seen the whole environmentalist angle played out a million times in movies—some do it halfway, others go full overkill. But it’s definitely got its own unique spin in certain spots. Honestly, as far as I know, you won't find another live-action flick that relies almost entirely on CGI like this one does. Visually? It’s basically in a league of its own.
Cult? Probably. He’s built up this whole group of fans who worship him in a pretty weird way. Honestly, though, I don't even know what the metric is for calling a movie a cult classic anymore.
Don't kid yourself. Just because a movie is original or has cult status doesn't mean it's actually any good. Personally, I think... Avatar Just your average modern guy. Blockbuster. I watched one once. That was enough for me.
Barbarella. Looks like it was based on something else, but honestly, I can't think of anything quite like it ever being filmed. I remember that movie as just a fun little bit of trash. Haven't seen those other two you mentioned.
Richard Kelly7 said:Look, I already laid it out clearly—my point is obvious—we're talking about a standard, universally accepted rule... I don't know... maybe it's just me, but I feel like we're missing the point here. It's all getting a bit repetitive—just more of the same noise without any actual substance... Critics' ratings are just one person's opinion—if they're calling some movie a "cult classic" or "groundbreaking," all I hear is that it's total shit...🤷
If you’re judging everything based on whether a movie is "special" or "original," then honestly, nothing since 1990 counts anymore—every single theme has been done to death. Even sci-fi falls under that umbrella if you think about it... I mean, we've had moonshots since 1905 or whenever that was.
Look, I used to get tripped up by the whole "Cult" thing too. I kept mixing it up with just being "original." But here's the deal: an original movie isn't defined by what some high-brow critic says about it. Just because a reviewer calls a flick original doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about.
Regarding that "original premise equals an original movie" theory... you're off base. A film can be original in a ton of different ways. Honestly, half the time it's more about the style being unique before you even get to the actual subject matter.
Look, I think you’re missing the point of the whole thread. And honestly, your logic is even more confusing when you drop this: "tastes differ and there's no arguing about them". If you actually know what "original" means—and I'm assuming you do—then you should realize a movie isn't unoriginal just because you found it boring.
Basically, an original film should logically be something that stands out on its own, marked by something no other movie has done before. Sure, everything is influenced by what came before, and almost nothing is 100% pure invention, but if something is uniquely recognizable, we can call it original.
Take David Lynch, for example. I’d call him an original director. Same with David Cronenberg.
