Posts by Dennis Doyle3

Every single movie released in the last decade seems to feature this one guy playing the exact same role. He talks the same way, acts the same way, looks the same, and even wears the same clothes. Looking back at the old classics, I remember him being decent in Wolf. As an actor? Fine. As a person? He's a total nobody.

If you check the IMDb message boards for this flick, there’s an entire thread dedicated to how old Boulder was when they filmed it. Some people are claiming the movie was actually shot back in 1986, even if it didn't hit theaters until later. If that's actually the case, Boulder would have been 48 years old at the time.

Kate Harris4 said:👍

Donna, props to you for not trashing a classic like that, but hey, if you prefer this one, fine by me. To some people, both versions work—it really just comes down to what you're into.

I'm not joking, which pretty much means we're dealing with some kind of K 😂

Do me a favor—don't even bother watching The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) ever again, because clearly, it's not your cup of tea.

You basically tried to reinvent the wheel by obsessively bolding a movie that literally everyone has seen. Then, in a desperate attempt to feel relevant, you decided to trash a classic. Not only can you not explain why Prince should be considered bad, but you don't even have a clue why you're calling this rating a masterpiece.
The only pathetic response you'll probably give is: "just watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) again, maybe then you'll see how much better it is."

☕

Kate Harris4 said:What a garbage movie! Just total nonsense!

If you want to see what a real movie looks like, go watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)👍




The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) is the only Robin Hood flick worth a damn—I just rewatched it and man, it blew me away. It’s an absolute masterpiece, and Errol Flynn plays Robin with so much heart he basically becomes the character.

Now, look, Russell Crowe is one of my favorites, don't get me wrong, but I really don't think he could even come close to capturing the essence of Robin the way Errol Flynn did. It’s just not the right fit for Russell.

Seriously, if you haven't seen "The Adventures of Robin Hood" from '38, stop what you're doing and go watch it. It's incredible.

Kate Harris4 said:Go watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and then compare the two—tell me how much of a quality gap there actually is.

To me, it’s like night and day—the Flin version is a straight-up masterpiece, while the one with Kevin? Honestly, it's total garbage.

Kate Harris4 said:Do yourself a favor—watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and then try to tell me there isn't a massive gap in quality between the two. 👍

Kate Harris4 said:I honestly don't get the hype at all. This isn't actually a movie about Robin Hood—it’s just some pale, washed-out imitation. I’m giving it a pathetic 2/10 on IMDb. If you want the real deal, go watch the 1938 version; that’s a 9/10 masterpiece in my book.
Look, the '38 version of Robin Hood is an absolute classic—that’s just a straight-up fact. Maybe that newer version with Kevin is better simply because it’s more modern, and I get why people dig it, but at the end of the day, there is only one definitive movie about Robin.

Take another look at this. You know, I was revisiting *The Adventures of Robin Hood* from 1938 the other day—yeah, the classic Errol Flynn version—and it really hit me how much we’ve lost in terms of pure, unadulterated cinematic energy. It’s one of those movies that just refuses to feel dated, even if the pacing is different than what you’d see from a modern blockbuster. It’s got everything: swashbuckling action, high stakes, and that sense of righteous justice that feels almost missing from today’s cynical superhero flicks. You watch Flynn command the screen and it’s just effortless. There isn't any of that over-polished, CGI-heavy nonsense we get pumped into our brains now—just real stunts, real sets, and a story that actually knows where it's going. It’s like comparing a perfectly seared steak at a local diner to some overpriced, chemically-enhanced molecular gastronomy mess you’d find in a trendy LA bistro. One actually satisfies you, while the other is just trying too hard to look important. Honestly, sometimes I think we spend way too much time looking for "depth" in movies when all we really need is a damn good story told by people who actually know how to act. This film doesn't apologize for being an adventure, and frankly, that’s exactly why it still works. Maybe then you'll actually notice the difference in quality. 👍

Look, this movie is a total disaster. What’s your problem? Did you somehow miss out on the entire legend of Robin Hood growing up? Because if not, what exactly were you fed as a kid?
I honestly can't tell if you're pulling my leg or just being an absolute idiot.

Kate Harris4 said:Do yourself a favor—watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and then try to tell me there isn't a massive gap in quality between the two. 👍

I saw that one ages ago. CNN has aired it plenty of times; you can usually catch those kinds of flicks on Saturday mornings if you know where to look. Look, I wasn't asking you for a movie recommendation. I asked why you think The Adventures of Robin Hood is such absolute garbage that you have to label it trash.

Kate Harris4 said:Go watch The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and then compare the two—tell me how much of a quality gap there actually is.

To me, it’s like night and day—the Flin version is a straight-up masterpiece, while the one with Kevin? Honestly, it's total garbage.

What is so incredibly wrong with Prince of Thieves that you keep insisting it's complete trash?

If you haven't watched a single documentary about Adolf Hitler besides this one, then I don't see how it could be considered useless. Look, just because something is bad doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it. Someone once pointed out that if people are making films about Hitler, why on earth wouldn't they make them about Adolf Hitler too? Poisoning teenagers with something from sixty years ago? Since when is that considered poisoning? What’s your take here—shouldn't we be able to make documentaries about people and events from the past? Or is it only okay to make them if you personally approve of the subject matter? Censorship is never the answer.

Alex Long8 said:It feels a little weird to me that Israelis are making a movie about an American Hitler....
Mark Fowler4, do us all a favor and just disappear. You're embarrassing yourself and the whole country by claiming the biggest criminal in our history was just some local guy. It's people like you who give us a bad name and make us look like uncultured hillbillies....
Anyway, that movie is pointless.

edit: Oh, so the movie actually came out? I thought they were still filming it.

Why is the film pointless? Look, I haven't even watched a single documentary on Pavelić until now. Watching this, I actually picked up a lot of information I hadn't heard before—both regarding Pavelić himself and the movement he led. Personally, the film did the job for me. It isn't exactly a cinematic masterpiece, but it's a decent documentary, which is honestly more than I expected from Jack Sedlar.

My vote is cast

The Deer Hunter (though I wouldn't exactly call it a prisoner movie), to end All Wars, and Rescue Dawn

That Mexican in the wounds; "look at the swan" 😬
Not the one who overdosed on heroin, I mean the other guy.

Kate Harris4 said:21 votes in just about 12 hours—which tells me people actually dig this poll. Look, let's cut the off-topic nonsense; if you've got nothing useful to say regarding the actual topic, don't just bark into the void.

What’s eating you, Christian Taylor3? 😕 You not feeling the poll? Then why are you even hanging out here? 🤷 If you think you can do better, go ahead and start a better one, but personally, I think this is great. 21 forum members voted, which means they're fine with it. If you like it, vote. If you don't, just move on. It's not that deep.

Whenever I see a thread I'm not interested in, I just skip it. I don't bother annoying the person who took the time to post it.

We aren't handing out Oscars or some prestigious award here—it's not like the world is going to stage a protest because Full Metal Jacket didn't make the cut. The whole point is just to have a good time. To include every single movie, like Full Metal Jacket, the poll would need to have 100 entries. I narrowed it down to 29 by picking a decent mix of war classics, dramas, and adventures. Obviously, you can't please everyone, but I really don't get the people who show up just to bark like dogs trying to sabotage the fun.

Oh, and I almost forgot—I should probably add battles from Mexico, and I totally missed checking out movies from Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, the US, Canada, Spain, and every other country on the planet. Since they probably all have great war movies too, maybe I'll just throw them all in and make the poll 500 movies long. Ha ha ha! 👍

Not everyone is out to yell at your poll or sabotage it, so maybe you should dial back the barking a bit yourself. You started the thread, which means everyone here has every right to comment on it. Nobody is claiming you needed to list 100 different war movies; it's just a few of us trying to point out that if you're making a poll about the "best" war films, you really ought to include the best ones. It's like running a poll on the greatest action movies and leaving out Lethal Weapon or Die Hard, but then throwing in Double Team instead. That's just my two cents, anyway. Do whatever you want...

Where are they? Apocalypse Now, Cross of Iron, Full Metal Jacket, Paths of Glory, Brotherhood of War.....? Every single one of those is five times better than Pearl Harbor, Defiant, or even Tears of the Sun?

hollowpanther said:They just dropped a clip from the movie on YouTube!
It’s not even up on the site yet...
I watched the whole movie, and yet somehow, I completely missed that one scene...
But honestly? It looks downright terrifying!!!

I can't wait to catch this movie at AMC Theatres!

I just stumbled onto this video on YouTube, and honestly, I can't decide if I should be impressed or just plain annoyed. It’s one of those things that makes you sit back and wonder where we went wrong as a society. I spent way too much time watching it—definitely more time than I care to admit—and now I’m left with this lingering sense of frustration. It’s messy, it’s chaotic, and frankly, it’s a bit of a disaster. I have my thoughts, obviously. I'll probably spend the next hour overanalyzing every single frame while I regret my life choices. Just watch it and decide for yourself. You’ve been warned.

And what about it? You think this belongs in Montauk? And what on earth is this supposed to be:

I just stumbled onto this video on YouTube, and honestly, my head is spinning. I feel like I need a drink just to process what I just watched. It’s one of those clips that makes you question everything you thought you knew about how things work around here. It’s messy. It’s chaotic. It feels like we're staring down the barrel of some kind of digital Armageddon if people don't start paying attention to the fine print. I know, I know—I'm probably just being my usual cynical self, overthinking things while everyone else is moving on to the next shiny object. But there’s something deeply unsettling about the way this was presented. It wasn't just a presentation; it felt like a warning. Anyway, I'll stop rambling. I just needed to get that off my chest before I lost my mind entirely. Watch it if you have the stomach for it.

Speaking of long hair, I’d bet my life savings that the person running this page is one of those long-haired types myself.

Zachary Brown said:I stumbled upon this the other day...
http://sudcevsmrtnigrijeh.blogspot.com/
so I picked up the book and then the DVD. Honestly, I recommend both..
(you won't get the DVD without reading the book first)
And yeah... I already knew what the secret was.
👍 👍 👍 👍 👍

Wait, you actually bought that? To me, the whole thing just feels like some cheap, tasteless joke at the expense of Zlatko sudac. The Holy Grail? Give me a break. And a trailer using clips from The Exorcist? Please.

I honestly think we’re looking at a total repeat of the fourth and fifth installments. It’s going to be a dud. I mean, what else can they actually throw at us? Probably just some half-baked trap or a new "secret" sidekick thrown in to pad the runtime, and that'll be the whole thing.

casualskipper8 said:So why act shocked by what I put out there? Honestly, all that nonsense you just read about is happening in real life right now, just like how a bad movie can sometimes feel uncomfortably close to reality.

I honestly have no intention of arguing with you. I thought maybe you had some kind of dark sense of humor, but clearly, I was mistaken.

casualskipper8 said:Look, have you even actually sat down and watched Psycho?

Yeah.

casualskipper8 said:Screenwriters and directors looking for a spark for a modern horror flick should probably just dig through some old grainy footage from the last major war. We’re talking about the kind of stuff that stays with you—images of babies being ripped from their mothers, people having their eyes gouged out while they're still conscious, axes buried deep in skulls, or even folks being tossed into industrial meat grinders. And the real kicker? That kind of madness might have been carried out by the very neighbors who live right next door to us today.

So, that’s your idea for a modern horror movie? You actually think people should be sitting in a theater watching that just for entertainment?