Alexander Cruz32 said:But they killed them specifically for the movie—those actors weren't exactly starving enough to need a turtle snack, and I bet it wasn't even their first choice on the menu while filming. I don't think you quite get the "art" angle here—there's a massive difference between killing an animal and literally starving it to death, or, you know, breaking Beagles' bones like those creeps used to do at vet schools. Most people know animal cruelty is a serious crime here in the States, so honestly, I don't see how anyone could find that okay.
Anyway, we drifted a little too far off-topic—let's get back to the main point.
Oh, come on, kids these days will shoot birds right out of the sky with a Flober for no reason at all, yet here you are, acting all horrified over one picked-apart turtle.
Alexander Cruz32 said:The real difference is you aren't gonna see someone dismember or tear apart a cow or a pig just for the sake of some movie scene. In my book, killing animals for food is totally fine. But killing them for "art"—like that psycho who starved a dog to death in a museum recently—that’s just straight-up idiocy.
I'm with the bolded guy here, but honestly, a turtle was eaten in Cannibal Holocaust, so I really don't see what the big deal is.
Matthew Anderson4 said:Because personally, killing innocent animals isn't something you can just write off as a "need for meat." Sure, maybe 10,000 years ago, but not today when there are so many other options. And honestly, anyone claiming they have a "right" to those animals... well, I've got thoughts on that, but I won't go there. Your comment is definitely heading in that direction.
So what's the actual distinction here between a turtle and a farm pig or a cow? What, are pigs somehow less innocent than a turtle?
Susan Bailey4 said:Directors who make movies like Cannibal Holocaust, where they actually go out and kill animals, could probably remake Hostel without feeling a shred of guilt. Honestly, seeing people get killed in a movie doesn't bother me at all, but slaughtering animals? That’s just low, even for us humans.
Justin White402 said:Honestly, I never really got the hype behind *Sin City* either, no matter how much everyone else raved about it. It’s hard to say the movie is actually bad, mostly because I can barely even remember the plot half the time, but man... the whole thing just felt like it was trying way too hard to be edgy. Overproduced and overhyped is my take on it. I honestly don't even have a clue which comic this is supposed to be from.I mean, looking back on it now, I just felt like an absolute idiot.
I mean, we're obviously talking about Sin City, right? 😁
Honestly, *Blade* is a pretty decent action flick. I wouldn't go so far as to say it’s some absolute masterpiece that changes the genre forever, but it definitely isn't a total train wreck either. It holds its own.
feralorca82 said:You know, if you look closely at how Sin City was put together, it’s pretty clear that it’s just a direct, frame-for-frame translation of the original comic book series onto the big screen—kind of like how they handled 300. It’s basically the graphic novel brought to life without any unnecessary fluff. Honestly, that was a brilliant adaptation. 🙏
I’m right there with you on that one. Honestly, I think it might actually be the best comic book adaptation we've seen to date.
Honestly, 🤷I’m just not sure how much I’m actually going to enjoy sitting through a movie where the whole "climax" involves characters getting hit in the face with pies. 🤣"
Honestly, it looks pretty rough... It’s clearly aiming to be a pure kids' flick, though if we're being real, the original cartoon wasn't exactly groundbreaking either.
I’m thinking of Guts - Berserk, maybe Misato from Evangelion, and honestly, just a handful of other characters from various anime that are currently escaping my memory 😁
Honestly, it’s pretty terrible. There are some attempts at humor, but nothing actually lands as funny—with the exception of a few scenes, mostly involving Chris Evans—and the action is just lackluster... frankly, it’s almost boring. The directing and the acting range from bad to mediocre at best. What really gets under my skin is how the movie spends its entire runtime trying so desperately to be "cool" and fancy when it simply isn't, which honestly just feels pathetic. Sure, the visuals are a bit of a plus, but even those feel like stuff we've seen a thousand times before. All in all, just skip it.
Jerry Adams71 said:Honestly, these days you're better off just grabbing DVDs at a gas station or a grocery store. You can find some decent titles for like 15-$6.75 bucks.
I don't know, I still think downloading is the way to go if you want to actually save money.
If I look at my collection, I've probably only got one legitimate original disc in the whole house; everything else is just some DIVX rip or a high-quality Blu-ray rip I grabbed online.
I didn't really get that suffocating, claustrophobic vibe from The Thingo; for me, it was more about the creeping paranoia that keeps you on edge. But when it comes to Alien, I am right there with you—honestly, that's hands down the most claustrophobic movie I've ever sat through.
Honestly, the second one is just straight-up trash, and even the third installment isn't much better—it’s just slightly less terrible than the second. The first one isn't exactly a cinematic masterpiece either, but compared to those two disasters, it feels like a goddamn work of art.
I haven't actually sat down to watch Degeneration yet, so I can't really weigh it up against the others.