Posts by Keith Jones36

silentgardener21 said:I honestly thought Stone had peaked and wouldn't deliver another quality film for the rest of his career.

I have to agree with you there...

.

The absolute absurdity of the American auto industry... just take a look at this commercial: tartan Prancer

.

redbear2 said:I think everything's already been said.

Lately, movies seem to lean heavily on flashy special effects just to drag people into theaters, while the actual storytelling gets shoved to the side. We're seeing endless reboots being pushed on us, too; there just isn't enough fresh, original ideas floating around anymore.

TV shows, on the other hand, tend to have much more dedicated fanbases who aren't afraid to give them higher ratings. You aren't forced to cram an entire narrative into a two-hour window; there's more breathing room for things to unfold and way more space for genuine character development.
They pull the viewer into the story more effectively, and the plots can actually be complex.

Over the last few years, TV series have really started to dominate. There’s more money flowing into the industry, and they're pulling in all the big A-list names. Essentially, the quality of television has skyrocketed, while movie standards have taken a dip.

Exactly.

I honestly think we've covered all the bases here.
Beyond just understanding why certain shows receive better ratings, we've also identified why they are increasingly outperforming films.

There is also one specific element movies simply lack. That is feedback, meaning the ability for a show to adapt and improve based on direct interaction with its audience.

.

Eric Patel7 said:Look, I wasn't even talking about character here—I'm talking about physical readiness. A woman just can't simply be part of a team like that.

If you want to talk about women, look at Ellen Ripley or Sarah Connor in T2. Those are actually well-written female characters because they’re shown having weaknesses too.

But movie characters like this woman in Sabotage? I just can't take them seriously, and honestly, they completely ruin the movie for me.🤷

Look, Ripley and Connor are serious characters... specifically within the context of sci-fi films.
Neither of them are professional soldiers or cops, and neither belongs to some organized squad; they both operate as individuals.

Ultimately, we're talking about characterization, not preparedness. Despite her issues with drugs and PMS, this woman in Sabotage is still superior to Alijeki or the Terminator.

Just try viewing her as a positive character in the film, flaws and all.

.

goldenscout14 said:One of the female agent's specific assignments within the squad was to lure in and eliminate that drug lord at the very beginning, a task she executed flawlessly precisely because of those "feminine qualities"—namely, the underhandedness and scheming you mentioned—so... 😁 Surely there’s room for at least one woman on a team? Any perceived shortcomings in terms of raw physical strength or pure stamina can easily be compensated for by other skill sets, depending entirely on what the mission requires.

The movie isn't bad, per se, but it certainly could have been handled better and felt much more convincing in certain aspects...

Yeah, I completely blanked on that scene...

Arnold Schwarzenegger miscalculated by ignoring that certain feminine quality. Had he been surrounded by his usual crowd of loyal, obedient, and naive men, the theft would have slipped right past them—just as it ultimately did.

.

Eric Patel7 said:I caught this one a few days ago, and honestly—Arnold Schwarzenegger had way better movies back in the day.

To be fair, the whole movie was pretty much ruined by that female lead. Her acting was just terrible—all that "f*** you bitch, I'll shut you down completely" attitude was so forced even Michelle Rodriguez would probably cringe watching it.🙄

Look, I don't want to sound sexist, but realistically, how is a woman supposed to be part of some hardcore undercover DEA or rogue S.W.A.T. team?
Failures like that generally just wreck the vibe of any movie for me. I'm not saying women should be chained to a kitchen or anything, but in the real world, a job like that would be physically overwhelming for a woman...

Well, that actually is the entire plot of the film. That’s the one thing that keeps you engaged—barely—to find out who the killer is, even though the title pretty much tells you someone from the team did it.

If this weren't a "woman's movie," it would have been over in ten minutes.

And what you're saying isn't even sexism. Women simply don't belong in those environments. Among men, there are instinctive codes of conduct and mutual respect.

Women tend to be more prone to being underhanded and manipulative.

-
.

analogbear40 said:It’s honestly shocking how lackluster and underwhelming this turned out for a major Hollywood A-list production.
The script and the dialogue? A total disaster.

The only thing that might save it is the rumor that the original cut ran nearly three hours and was intended to be a gripping mystery thriller, but due to heavy studio interference, we ended up with what we got.

That’s because this isn't actually a top-tier Hollywood A-lister, regardless of how they marketed it or what the budget looked like.

In reality, this sits somewhere in the awkward middle ground between a TV movie and a high-budget B-movie.

They basically hired former Hollywood stars who aren't quite big enough for the current Marvel/DC/Hasbro/CGI spectacle era anymore; they're just looking for one last decent credit on TV before retirement.

On the flip side, you have TV actors who used to be somewhat relevant, but they mostly end up degrading their careers by jumping into low-budget action garbage.

This particular film is just a mediocre, barely watchable blend of both those scenarios.

.

Terry Morris41 said:So what are you even doing in a thread about a movie you hate?
If you're just going to move the goalposts and copy my words because you lack the capacity to formulate two coherent sentences of your own—or perhaps you simply lack the ability to think independently altogether—then why bother?

I never stated that I hated the film. Once again, those are your own words; you are the one claiming it is difficult for you to write a meaningful review. Regardless, it is irrelevant.

My point was simply that there is no need to become angry or frustrated just because you spent an hour and forty-five minutes struggling through a tedious movie.

Everyone watches a bad film occasionally.
And yes, if a film is painful to watch, if it is dull, if it fails to make sense, or if it feels like a chore, then it has fundamentally failed its purpose.

The film industry is meant to be entertainment*, not boredom-tainment.

From our interaction, I get the impression that you are afraid to express your actual opinion on the film. Yet, you continue to lash out at me for no reason, when I am merely attempting to offer some perspective.

*Entertainment is defined as an activity designed to hold the attention and interest of an audience, or to provide pleasure and delight. (from Wikipedia)

.

Terry Morris41 said:That’s almost like saying a movie is bad simply because it’s boring...

Of course.....

Beyond being pretentious, exhausting, and a total slog, the film is also undeniably boring.

But what’s most damning is that I find myself in complete agreement with every single one of your criticisms.

Terry Morris41 said:Please
elaborate
on that.

I believe I already elaborated on this, using your own logic, just a moment ago in the thread regarding movies I've watched recently.

Terry Morris41 said:....it really is the perfect movie for a deep dive discussion....

But it isn't necessarily the best one to actually sit through and watch.

.

"Heritage unit"

....is officially going on my list of movies I will never watch simply because the title itself is so unappealing.

cosmiclynx57 said:This trilogy is absolutely powerhouse stuff, easily one of the best out there. 👍

The third installment totally blew my mind because, honestly, I wasn't expecting nearly that much from it. But looking back, all three films are just equally top-tier, and if you ask me, they each land a solid 8/10 in my book.

Zac Efron 🙏 is an absolute legend—man, his acting was incredible, especially in that third part where he just went off the rails; it was such an impressive performance. He basically carried the whole movie on his back. The character was so brilliantly written and he played him with such raw conviction that I actually thought about rewatching it the second the credits rolled just to soak it all in again.

Now, if I’m being picky, the first one might be the "best" since it feels like the most complete package, but the third one is definitely my personal favorite because you're basically crawling inside the protagonist's head. I got so emotionally invested in the guy that I was literally losing my mind right along with him whenever he got frustrated—it felt like his stress was my own!

Seriously though, the directing across all three is spot on, the storylines are super engaging, the acting is killer, and even the cinematography is just great...

And Marinela Dekic is just drop-dead gorgeous, seriously. 🙂

It's a breathtaking trilogy, and I'm certain we'll be seeing a revival or some kind of follow-up coming our way as soon as next month.

Which specific movies are you referring to... does anyone have a link for them?

Richard Wilson4 said:How many times has a trailer hyped you up, only for you to walk out of the theater or turn off the TV feeling totally let down?

Or how about the opposite—when a trailer looked terrible, but then you finally sat down to watch it and regretted waiting so long because it was actually good?

WARNING: THIS THREAD IS FULL OF SPOILERS

Here are a few examples of movies where the trailers were total lies, just plain bad, or unfairly pumped me up;

Bridesmaids (2011) - such a notorious one. The trailer promised a non-stop riot, basically a better, female-led version of The Hangover.
Aside from one genuinely hilarious scene, we just got a slow-paced comedy-drama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UW9Zks5L2A

Real Steel (2011) - maybe an even worse offender. It looked like a high-octane action flick set in the near future, packed with robot fights.
Nobody told me we were getting some kid as the lead instead of someone like Wolverine.😂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JtTS76us3Q

Super 8 (2010) - based on the trailer, I was expecting a legit sci-fi horror, but what we got was a much lighter "kids movie" vibe that felt pretty underwhelming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpzUCA5i6zY

Thinking back to other movies that pop into my head (no need to link the trailers for these), I remember being super disappointed with Hancock. I was expecting an action-comedy, but it was anything but that.

On the flip side, for Wolf of Wall Street, I was expecting mindless fun or some flashy TV commercial type of movie, but I ended up getting the best film of the year.

By definition, a fake trailer would be a trailer for a movie that doesn't even exist...

Richard Wilson4 said:How many times has a trailer hyped you up, only for you to walk out of the theater or turn off the TV feeling totally let down?

Or how about the opposite—when a trailer looked terrible, but then you finally sat down to watch it and regretted waiting so long because it was actually good?

WARNING: THIS THREAD IS FULL OF SPOILERS

Here are a few examples of movies where the trailers were total lies, just plain bad, or unfairly pumped me up;

Bridesmaids (2011) - such a notorious one. The trailer promised a non-stop riot, basically a better, female-led version of The Hangover.
Aside from one genuinely hilarious scene, we just got a slow-paced comedy-drama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UW9Zks5L2A

Real Steel (2011) - maybe an even worse offender. It looked like a high-octane action flick set in the near future, packed with robot fights.
Nobody told me we were getting some kid as the lead instead of someone like Wolverine.😂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JtTS76us3Q

Super 8 (2010) - based on the trailer, I was expecting a legit sci-fi horror, but what we got was a much lighter "kids movie" vibe that felt pretty underwhelming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpzUCA5i6zY

Thinking back to other movies that pop into my head (no need to link the trailers for these), I remember being super disappointed with Hancock. I was expecting an action-comedy, but it was anything but that.

On the flip side, for Wolf of Wall Street, I was expecting mindless fun or some flashy TV commercial type of movie, but I ended up getting the best film of the year.

A trailer is lying if it showcases scenes that aren't actually in the movie....

Nicole Martinez9 said:I still can't wrap my head around this... is this supposed to be some kind of parody? Or maybe just a really bad attempt at one? I seriously cannot believe a screenwriter actually thought they could scare anyone with this garbage. That scene where sharks are just flying out of the clouds one after another, and the guy is basically swatting them away with a gun like he's playing some cheap video game? That's pure parody territory right there. And don't even get me started on the rest of the scenes... Honestly, my gut tells me the writer wasn't even trying to make a comedy. They were dead serious... which makes it even worse.

The film isn't actually a parody... it’s just so poorly executed that it becomes impossible to watch.
While the core concept and the narrative premise are actually quite strong, the visual effects are on par with low-budget YouTube videos made by children playing with toys. This technical failure renders the entire production unwatchable, even if one were attempting to view it as a parody.

Nicholas Watson said:Have you seen Super?

I actually started watching both that and Defendor, but I just couldn't manage to finish them...

Did I miss anything important enough to warrant giving them another shot?

If anyone here has a soft spot for superhero family dynamics, then I would highly suggest checking out the TV series based on the comic of the same name, The Tick with Patrick Warburton (Puddy from Seinfeld) in the lead role... plus Nestor Carbonell playing Batman.



First episode

.

Paul Anderson7 said:Kick-Ass trailer

Based on the >, I was expecting some kind of wild comedy or a solid superhero parody. Instead, it just felt sort of pointless. It’s not even that the movie itself is terrible, it’s just that it wasn't nearly as funny as I had hoped it would be. I definitely walked away feeling disappointed.

The Men Who Stare at Goats

Same deal here; I went in expecting a laugh, and while it technically qualifies as a comedy, pretty much everything remotely funny in the whole movie was already spoiled in the trailer.

I generally try to avoid watching trailers or reading reviews before seeing a film, but even then, I still end up stumbling onto total crap sometimes.😛

My own expectations were a bit different; I was looking for a mindless comedy or a lighthearted superhero spoof.

What I actually got was something completely unexpected.

It ended up being one of the best films I watched all year.

It simply isn't worth wasting more than two minutes of your life on this particular "masterpiece."

For those who feel an overwhelming urge to watch it anyway, here is a condensed version....

Sharknado in 2 minutes

.

Jesse Thomas7 said:Pretty solid little flick. It’s got that breezy, charming British vibe—super gentle and relaxing. Honestly, feels like a bit of therapy. 🙂

@eek, look, until that kid is actually born, they’re just some blurry shape on an ultrasound. He isn't going to be able to tell one grainy image from another. It's not like he's already some tiny human being he’s been singing lullabies to, changing diapers for, or getting attached to.

They captured that perfectly in that scene where he heads back home only to be greeted by a child he doesn't even recognize.

But with this one, it doesn't work quite like that.

I definitely agree that keeping the time travel as just a backdrop for the human drama was the right call. If they had leaned too hard into the sci-fi mechanics, they probably would've tripped over their own feet trying to make the logic work.

However, from a technical standpoint regarding the mechanics of time travel, the execution is flawed.

The premise establishes that one can only travel into the past. Yet, here, he is returning to his own present (which serves as the future relative to the point in time he traveled to).
If he had actually altered something in the past, his own memories should have automatically adjusted to reflect this new timeline; he ought to have known he was a man who had just been born.

It would have been much more compelling if he were forced to actually relive those intervening years, rather than simply skipping over them and effectively breaking the established logic of defined time travel.

From a cinematic perspective, they could have easily achieved a better result without sacrificing any of the movie's overall watchability.

nimblemason3 said:Groundhog Day is the latest from Richard Curtis—the guy behind Love Actually and Manhattan. It’s pretty much what you’d expect from his usual style.

The story follows young Tim (Domhnall Gleeson), who finds out the guys in his family can travel (only) back in time—so he tries to use that to fix his life and, well, find a girlfriend. Naturally, the lovely Mary (Rachel McAdams) shows up soon enough...

It’s a sweet, charming little flick that actually made me laugh quite a bit—solid rom-com territory, really. But honestly? The total lack of actual conflict started to grate on me by the end. Stretching a movie with zero real stakes to two hours felt a bit much.

6/10

More details here:
http://passpopcorn.com/2013/12/09/we...out-time-2013/

The fundamental issue with the film lies in the writers' inability to maintain internal logic. They simply fail to stick to their own established rules, specifically regarding the protagonist's return to his own future.
It was likely done to accelerate the pacing... but if we are strictly discussing the past, then that is how it ought to be. Otherwise, you run the risk of triggering a new sequence of logical fallacies within an already paradoxical time travel narrative.

There are various cinematic techniques employed to facilitate a FastForward progression of the narrative.