Posts by John Peterson3

David Price5 said:Well, even she deserves a little break now and then. It would be nice if she filmed something that her grandkids could actually enjoy watching together..

Fair enough. I was just stating my opinion, nothing more.

I don't know, personally speaking, I just didn't think he quite nailed this role. He’s much better suited for something like his part in Recruit alongside Pacina.

Larry Martin11 said:...yeah, I'm not following this either... let's be real here—he’s starred in movies way worse than that. I mean, wouldn't it be nice to just remember him for the hits? But reality isn't quite that kind. And even if we flip the script, Colin is definitely not the weakest link in a Stone film, nor is he even the worst actor—in my book, he actually did exactly what the director asked of him, and arguably did it quite well... unlike Angelina, who is just... well, polarizing, to say the least...
...it's no secret that actors make bad movies. It's also no secret that great actors make absolute disasters. I mean, calling Showtime the one "outlier" or stain on De Niro's career is almost laughable when you forget he was in Analyze That, Flawless (which, honestly, might be a bigger stain on the otherwise flawless Hoffman—that could easily be *his* outlier) and a whole string of other flops where his acting wasn't exactly top-tier. And we're talking about a man with a brilliant career built on iconic roles! So why shouldn't Farrell have more than one "outlier" in his relatively short, scattered career? 🙂

edit: taking back what I said about Hoffman—I totally blanked on Along Came Polly 😳

What some people see as a blunder, others see as a perfectly natural progression from the usual fare actors like De Niro and Hoffman typically tackle.

De Niro surprised me again playing Captain Shakespeare. Given the roles he’s played up until now—mostly just various tough guys—seeing him putting on makeup in front of a mirror and dancing in a dress in Stardust was quite something 😂.

Hoffman as well. Both belong to that group of actors who are allowed to deviate from their "standard" genres and personas. Any kind of change is welcome; whether it turns out bad or not is another matter.

redowl90 said:Unlike Daredevil, which has already become an absolute timeless classic!

😂

I think you have me confused with someone else. In my view, Daredevil is a total disaster.

That's just my take. I respect yours, but this is mine.

Alexander the Great - Colin Farrell

A total rogue...

I’ve watched all the Kubrick films mentioned above, even though that genre isn't usually my thing. For someone who doesn't typically gravitate toward this style, I have to say they were impressive. I'll admit my memory of *The Warriors* is a bit fuzzy, but I remember the other titles quite clearly.

As previously noted, there is a specific atmosphere in Kubrick's work that few directors manage to capture. The plot and characters feel strangely detached, even when they are right in front of you. As a non-fan, I was struck by how much my book reveals about both the director and his cinematic style.

"Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC!" — that one actually gave me a good laugh.

Quote : Firefly

Lisa Chavez7 As specified by Lawrence Bishop14: Space marines? That's just democracy in decline. Only those who actually earn their keep should have a say in how things are run—true citizens. It’s fine by me; you can't have every idiot running the show like they do here in the States.😁

Fair point... Ivo Sanders...

velvetcrane57 said:Well, what exactly was the expectation here?
Do you honestly expect a director to maintain the exact same level of brilliance found in *Taxi Driver* or *Raging Bull* for their entire career??

It's a bit absurd, really... *The Departed* and *Gangs of New York* are fantastic films; I find myself revisiting them quite often... much like those first two masterpieces mentioned.

velvetcrane57 said:I honestly feel Ridley Scott doesn't quite belong in this specific conversation... If you look at films like *Gladiator*, *Hannibal*, *Kingdom of Heaven*, or even *American Gangster*, they stand as absolute masterpieces precisely because they are executed with that unmistakable Ridley Scott signature. It’s highly unlikely we will ever see the likes of *Alien* or *Blade Runner* again, so I think it's vital that we don't let ourselves become ungrateful for his legacy.

I agree with both posts...

Regarding *Spider-Man*, the first two were solid, but the third felt far too long. The pacing drags, and honestly, it just didn't do it for me.

*Days of Thunder* is a great one. I love the scene right before Tom's Midget car hits the pit stop wall where he says, "This is gonna hurt..." 😂

In my opinion, though, movies should be categorized by genre before being rated. Otherwise, everyone's subjective takes just end up canceling out the next person's list in an endless loop.

You’ve overlooked the theological dimension. The return of the Son of God to Earth to liberate humanity from sin. Only then can everything begin anew.

Uwe Boll—he’s never made a good movie, and he isn't about to start now.

By the way, I have to disagree on Scorsese; his work isn't bad. I don't see what there is to dislike about The Departed.

His performance is pure madness... and his crew? Even more unhinged...

After watching Stardust, I have to admit that De Niro no longer feels like one of those one-dimensional actors in my book.

Rape scenes. I can't stand seeing them on screen. Between pedophilia and all the other depravities humanity is capable of, it just makes me sick.