Posts by wearytinker8

Alright, just one more quick thing to say to Jerry Martin19, then we can finally get back to discussing those directors everyone keeps pitching...

Look, you can look at it however you want... but as far as I'm concerned... The Warriors... Pretty miserable movie. Honestly... the action sequences were just poorly executed.

The choreography and editing in the fight scenes in *The Warriors*—specifically that showdown with the Baseball Furies and those Punks—is just flawless. It’s perfection, really. If you wanted to find anything even remotely comparable, you might look at the "one against many" sequence in *Oldboy*... though obviously, you can't compare the actual editing style, since that entire brawl is captured in a single, continuous shot...
If you think this is bad, then you’re probably just one of those people who lives for mindless explosions and car chases... in which case, go watch *The Rock* or *Fast & Furious*. Just leave *Warrior* alone...

Honestly, if you ask me, A Clockwork Orange is easily the weakest Kubrick flick I've ever sat through...

I’m right there with you on this one...
I honestly just can't wrap my head around how this exploitative garbage keeps getting shoved into those "greatest films of all time" lists... seriously...
Is this even a movie? Between the over-the-top acting—especially that washed-up intellectual and the Monty Python-esque caretaker—there were moments where I honestly felt like I was just watching some damn stage play...
And what about the dialogue? Even that... gone?
It’s like when that new son says something along the lines of, "Others suffered because of you. Now it's your turn to suffer..." Or when that big guy pipes up with, "Don't try to take it out on me. I'm definitely not putting up with that..."
I mean, seriously... who exactly is the target audience here? Idiots?
And why is it that freaks find it so much fun to quote those idiotic catchphrases?...
Applesauce? Milkshakes? Eggnog? Honestly, it could be a blast... if you're really into that whole Teletubbies vibe.
Extreme "ultra-violence" is really just beating up a shack and some old-school cowboy brawl, the kind of thing you could see in any classic John Ford western...
And what’s with that whole thing where people just hurl these incredibly basic philosophical conclusions right in your face? Like when some priest starts preaching, "Without choice and free will, a man isn't even a man anymore—just a deterministic organism."...
So, if the whole point was to actually get people thinking... they could have at least left us a few clues to draw our own conclusions...
And if the whole point was to trigger pure disgust... well, mission accomplished. They definitely pulled it off...
Licking boots and spitting in faces? I heard they had to film that second scene over and over again... If that creep had actually asked me for something like that, I would’ve kicked his ass halfway across town before he even finished the sentence... then maybe I'd consider spitting on him.
And then we get that "brilliant" ending? The guy just leaps off a skyscraper only for it to reset back to where we started... seriously?
Honestly, every single episode of "The Running Bird" manages to outdo the last one when it comes to the plot twists... they just keep getting smarter...

Look, honestly... besides a few bizarre costumes and some scenes that look decent once you throw an editor at them, what's actually worth mentioning about this absolute disaster? ...
If we’re really going to go ahead and label "that" one of the greatest films ever made, then honestly, we might as well throw *The Last House on the Left* and *I Spit on Your Grave* into the mix too... just for consistency's sake.

Joseph Lee3 said:Yeah, it’s probably one of the most unlikely casting choices in cinema history. I can’t think of anything more improbable or surreal: seeing Peter Sellers playing a hardcore villain, a gritty gangster, or some low-life underworld figure in an American noir. Is this some kind of cosmic joke?

Never Let Go

It’s a classic example of that mid-century independent cinema style from roughly 1955 to 1965, directed by John Guillermin, who eventually headed to Hollywood to direct Blood Orange with Steve McQueen. The film manages to blend the grit of a social drama with Hitchcockian suspense and a heavy dose of American noir. The performances are incredibly intense, and certain scenes were so raw they practically earned an X rating when it first dropped back in 1960. Even today, the sheer realism of the violence and the crushing emotional weight hit just as hard. The plot keeps you guessing, the script stays composed... honestly, the movie is quite good, and considering it was Sellers' one and only foray into playing a bad guy, it stands out as something truly unique.

You can spot a few threads connecting it to Bicycle Thieves, though the neo-realism and noir elements here are mostly just serving as inspiration for that specific blend of storytelling.

It’s the same vibe here:



Forrest Gump as a cold-blooded killer? Give me a break.

Kate Torres said:You could pretty much list everything after Pulp Fiction for Travolta.

And honestly, even before that... go all the way back to Blow Out from '81.

Since we already have a thread dedicated to directorial disasters, it’s about time we had one for the actors themselves.
I mean, we're talking about those specific roles that any actor with even a shred of self-respect would have turned down... but apparently, some people thought saying "yes" was a brilliant career move.
Early career stumbles don't count here—like Tim Robbins in "Howard the Duck"—because honestly, we could go on forever if we included everyone's first mistakes. We're strictly looking at roles taken once they were already established names.



James Bond in diapers — Sean Connery in "Zardoz"



Oscar winners humiliating themselves — Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman in "Ishtar"



Scientologist or rastafarian — John Travolta in "Battlefield Earth"



Future governor — Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Batman & Robin"

redowl90 said:😕

Martin Scorsese actually said it himself—*The Departed* was his first real foray into a plot-driven narrative. You know, that classic four-act structure with a proper setup, rising action, climax, and resolution... unlike his earlier stuff, which mostly leaned into those crime dramas, romances, biographies, comedies, sports stories, or historical pieces.
Since he only finally snagged an Oscar after five nominations, the critics were quick to get snarky about the Academy's standards. They joked that he was only allowed to walk through those church doors once he’d actually turned in a film that was considered "Hollywood-correct"...

redowl90 said:So, here is our all-time top 5:
1. Spider-Man
2. War of the Worlds
3. Mr. & Mrs. Smith
4. Citizen Kane
5. The Godfather

Personally, I’d still put "Spider-Man 3" at number one...

Amanda Nguyen5 said:Spiderman is easily one of the best things to ever happen to Hollywood since the legendary masterpiece "There Will Be Blood."

Look, if you just don't get it, well, damn, I guess we aren't all cut out for movies, right?

I’m honestly glad velvetcrane57 is sticking by that theory.

In my book, Raimi is miles ahead of his namesake Sam, who just churns out mindless garbage like that "Life Storm" flick where everyone's just messing around, or that "Road to Destruction" mess where some Forrest Gump wannabe tries to take down the entire mob. And don't even get me started on how certain directors just shoot from the hip—you can tell immediately when the Parker stunts are missing. Even DeFoe's performance in "The Tarantula Man" was something we haven't seen since "Crucifixion," where he starred alongside Gene Hackman—that guy with the French connections, the sax player from those Copland tapes, helping out Will and the "I Am Legend" Smith from Bel Air in "Public Enemy Number One," which isn't even Cagney anymore because Volle stopped acting after losing an eye like Nelson, and then there's Mandela fighting apartheid and winning a Peace Prize that didn't even sit well with big peacekeepers like Bakarić, aka "The Dead Man," but whatever, that's irrelevant. Spiderman is basically the Caligari of the 21st century, but the 21st century is passing by way too fast, so really...

Then there's "War of the Worlds" and "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" following right behind...

"The Departed" — basically the first time Martin Scorsese actually leaned into a complex plot.
Marty, man...

Just because I haven't seen the movie doesn't mean it sucks...

Maybe they're good, but they just don't feel right coming from a guy who directed three of the greatest films ever made.
Take Kubrick, for example. He always prioritized quality over quantity, and the payoff is that you can practically recite his entire filmography by heart...

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Maybe they aren't geniuses like those first two mentioned. Whatever.

What bothers me is how Ridley, after the financial hit of "Blade Runner," pivoted to these commercial, "safe" projects—one-and-done movies that any hack could have directed. It's a waste of a director with such an incredible visual style and a knack for suspense.
Look, Cameron stayed true to his original vision for a decade and handed us four sci-fi masterpieces. Ridley could have done the same. Just stick to what you're good at. Forget what the critics think...

You forgot to put Big Trouble in Little China (1986) on that list above.

I couldn't figure out if it was sci-fi or a horror flick, so it didn't fit...

In the movie business, you see directors who walk away while they're still at the top of their game—think George Lucas or James Cameron—but then there’s the other group. These are the guys who didn't quit, even though they probably should have... or could have just switched to using a pseudonym to save face:

1. FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA

After basically delivering three of the greatest films ever made in Hollywood history (*The Godfather*, *The Godfather Part II*, and *Apocalypse Now*), Coppola spent the 80s churning out about a dozen movies that absolutely nobody has ever heard of.
Have any of you actually heard of *One from the Heart*, *Rumble Fish*, *The Cotton Club*, *Peggy Sue Got Married*, *Gardens of Stone*, or maybe *Tucker: The Man and His Dream* (okay, fine, I've heard of that one)?
Then he tries to reclaim some dignity with *The Godfather Part III* and *Dracula*, only to deliver what might be the biggest shock in cinema history: the guy who directed *The Godfather* makes *Jack*—which is basically just a rip-off of *Big*, starring that absolute nutjob Robin Williams as a ten-year-old boy who, because of some aging disorder, looks like a hyperactive, hairy gnome.

2. RIDLEY SCOTT

After handing us two of the best sci-fi flicks ever made (*Alien*, *Blade Runner*), Ridley decided to pivot to... well, whatever this was: a kid's movie with Tom Cruise (*Legend*), some mediocre thrillers (*Someone to Watch Over Me*, *Black Rain*), a feminist drama (*Thelma & Louise*), an incredibly tedious historical epic (*1492: Conquest of Paradise*), a female version of *Full Metal Jacket* (*G.I. Jane*), a pretty weak sequel (*Hannibal*), and a Nicolas Cage comedy (*Matchstick Men*)...

3. JOHN CARPENTER

Back in the 70s, he gave us two masterpieces (*Assault on Precinct 13*, *Halloween*), and through the 80s, he reigned as the king of horror (*The Fog*, *The Thing*, *Christine*) and sci-fi (*Escape from New York*, *Starman*, *They Live*).
It all started sliding downhill with a silly sci-fi comedy (*Memoirs of an Invisible Man*), continued with a totally unnecessary remake (*Village of the Damned*), moved into a terrible sequel (*Escape from L.A.*), and eventually bottomed out with some horror-of-horror stuff (*Vampires*, *Ghosts of Mars*).
Eventually, he finally realized he'd be better off just retiring and living off the royalties from the remakes of his own classics. Way to go, John! You really should have pulled the plug back in '88.

I'm open to theories here. Did aliens snatch them away or something?

The villains from Deliverance are back on screen together after 35 years:



Check it out here>

Does anyone actually have a real explanation for why De Niro and Al Pacino are constantly lumped together as the greatest actors in history? It’s like they’re always being compared to The Beatles and The Rolling Stones... just two massive pillars that people can't stop pitting against each other. And then there was that whole buildup for their scenes in Heat... the anticipation was almost unreal. Why does that specific pairing carry so much weight?
Is it because they're Italian, or is it just because they both hit the big time with The Godfather?
Why not go with someone like Robert De Niro and Jack Nicholson instead? I'm not saying they're my absolute favorites or anything... but then again, Nicholson has three Oscars under his belt, while Al Pacino has only managed one...
Please, don't be ridiculous... every single model is going to end up saying "De Niro and Al Pacino."

Carol King13 said:I’m siding with the
Gattaca
fans here.

Uh... "2001: A Space Odyssey"?

There’s actually some pretty wild trivia regarding "2001."
Most people know that Stanley didn't live to see the year 2001, but fewer realize there might be a darker pattern at play here... since Stanley passed away exactly 666 days before January 1st, 2001.
It gets even weirder when you look at the numbers—the film supposedly contains 666 frames, and the monoliths appear for a total of 666 seconds.
Could all of this have been some sort of foreshadowing for the attacks on the World Trade Center?
Some people point to those creepy images where you can almost make out a devilish face staring back from the smoke...
Take a look:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/962839/detail.html

nimblemarlin6 said:Why not just catch an American movie at the theater? If it’s good, great. If it sucks, it’s trash, which is also fine...

You can't really equate "trash" with a bad movie—a bad movie is just plain bad, whereas trash is its own special thing.
Though, I'll admit, you can definitely enjoy some American films too, in a sort of twisted way.
No, seriously... I have this weird, secret urge to collect every American film ever made, especially those from the first half of the 90s (Golden Year, Every Time We Part, Time for, Washed Out...), so when I'm feeling particularly low, I can just put them on and laugh my head off...

Talented enough, I guess.
It’s true he mostly plays these slimy, spineless characters, but what can you really say... some people are just born to play those types.
Though, in "Four Rooms," he’s just straight-up insufferable playing that little errand boy at the hotel.

Sarah Hayes10 said:I think more money equals more attempts... okay, fine, maybe more attempts means more failures too, but eventually, some quality stuff is bound to crawl out of the wreckage.

Yeah, right. If you take fifty shots and two actually land, you call that a success? Hardly.
That’s basically the logic they used this year (well, last year for this cycle). They used to fund five or six films a year, then bumped it up to ten back in 2007.
The whole thing just makes my blood run cold. Think about it: even if every single script submitted is total garbage—which the Department board knows full well—they still have to pick ten "winners." Which really just means picking the ten least terrible ones.
I mean, seriously... if there aren't any decent scripts out there, don't just throw money at them. Put it back into the federal budget. There are plenty of other things that actually need funding...

Mark Barrett3 said:I can't help but wonder who actually calls the shots behind the scenes here... I mean, who is even making these decisions? Is anyone actually held accountable for this, or is it just a black box? And honestly, why isn't the press dragging them out into the light and calling them out by name... it’s just strange...

We don't actually have any laws here that cover the side of film production where the government hands out the cash. All we’ve got is this outdated Cinematography Act from back in '88... which basically just deals with importing foreign movies and how they get screened...
So, here’s how it stands: the U.S. Department of the Interior was handed a specific chunk of change from the federal budget—about $4 million for this year—but everything else is just being handled on the fly without any actual legal framework in place...
Under the current Regulation on criteria for determining public need in the field of film and their financing, the co-financing agreement is signed by both the director and the producer. They’re both officially "on the hook"... though, funny enough, the commission members' own accountability isn't even mentioned. Both parties are held responsible for making sure the film actually gets finished on schedule and hits its projected success markers. The producer handles the technical execution, while the director carries the weight for the artistic side...
Since there’s no actual law in place, it’s pretty much a free-for-all... they'll just keep coasting along under that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, slipping through the cracks without any consequences... and then, naturally, they'll be right back at the trough to grab funding for their next project...

Aaron Martinez26 said:Sure, why not just take twenty million dollars from American taxpayers and hand it over to John Doe so he can film Fourfold...

Even John Doe isn't exactly the gold standard here. It's true, the Department gave him 4 million for "Fourfold," but most of his other stuff was funded by American-Israeli companies, Filipino Catholics, and Vince Lombardi (plus, he lost his apartment on "Gospi").

What really gets to me is this constant stream of cash—specifically 4.2 million—being handed out to confirmed nobodies. Take Stephen King and his project "To Rot in a Ditch" (even though only 2,500 people bothered to watch his previous flick, "A Journey Halfway"). Or John Smith and "Sinking Graveyard" (when his last disaster, "Transatlantic," only pulled in an incredible 800 viewers). Then there’s the 2.6 million already mentioned for Ruiz.
On the flip side, you have Dad Matanić. His debut, "The Cashier Wanting to Go to the Seaside," actually drew 48,000 people. Yet, for his follow-up, "Fine Dead Girl," he had to take out a 4 million dollar loan... even though that one still did great, pulling 20,000 viewers in the States and having a successful run in Mexico and Mexico.

So, looking at Matanić and John Doe, it shows you can actually make a movie without government handouts (though, granted, you might risk losing your house). I get that some support is necessary, but why $3 or $4 million?
The government should just offer something like 50,000 Euro (like they do in Mexico). If Bruno, George, Frank, and Vic want to make these massive spectacles with a thousand actors, they can put their own houses up as collateral...
instead of us handing over our hard-earned millions just so they can film whatever garbage they want for their own amusement.

Does anyone actually know how the system works over in Mexico? Is it also the Department of the Interior that pumps money into their films?
All I know is that over there, if a movie doesn't pull in at least 500,000 viewers, they basically treat it like a total failure.

nimblemarlin6 said:if the government stops handing out cash, the American film industry will just collapse.

Well, isn't that exactly what we're rooting for?
For our whole film scene to just crumble so it can rise like a phoenix from the ashes, hopefully in a better, more polished form...
What would you guys prefer? To have some "cool" crowd sitting on an audiovisual council deciding which projects get funded? Sure. If that were the case, maybe a decent script from a true cinephile would have actually made it through in the last 15 years...
I'll say it again: making a great movie doesn't require millions of dollars. It just takes a solid idea and enough grit...
Just look at the examples from the US—The Blair Witch Project, pi, Open Water. Their combined budget is a fraction of what that thief's production cost, yet they still work...