Posts by Paul Mendoza8

Jose Miller17 said:So, how does it actually look? ...

Exactly 👍as
expected.

Jose Miller17 said:You clearly have no clue. Maybe you just can't stand Lars, but using him as an example is a total stretch...

😍 I just wanted to see what kind of meltdown I’d trigger by touching the *deity*. 👋

Richard Hernandez13 said:Artistic freedom is a myth!!! 😁
...
Did lazy, talentless "artists" invent the whole concept of artistic freedom just to mask their own mediocrity?

Oh, absolutely. Lars von Trier is the perfect example of that.😁

I'm asking 🙂 since I won't be home this Tuesday and will miss the broadcast, even though I have it on DVD and watched it recently. 😁 What do you think—should I just record it on video? 😬

This movie is absolute garbage. Just... wow.
Meg Ryan is clearly desperate to prove she can actually act, so she decides to show some skin instead. Wow! 😲 Is this really the proof we need? That because a Hollywood sweetheart showed her breasts, she’s suddenly a serious actress?!?!?! 😲 And as if that wasn't *controversial* enough, she shows off her backside too! 😲 Wow, such bravery. It’s about as "edgy" as Sylvester Stallone putting on a pair of glasses to play a genius—nobody’s actually taking him seriously.
Then there's Meg throwing in those sad, distant stares, acting like she’s lost in thought. She barely smiles because, hey, she’s a tragic intellectual now. If that’s the secret recipe to turn a commercial blonde into a *real actress*—bravo! Julia Roberts won an Oscar, so why couldn't Meg Ryan eventually land one? 😉

The only redeeming quality in The Cut is that cop she hooks up with, though if he’d just shave his mustache and find a rug, nobody would even look his way! 😁

Sophia Williams said:It’s almost as if we watched two different movies entirely...🙄

Personally, I find The Karen Carpenter Story to be nothing more than a mediocre, mainstream biopic. I have much more respect for those TV movies that take every biographical detail literally and just hit you over the head with them. As for Charlie Chaplin? Forget it. 🙂

I haven't actually sat down to watch "The Dark Knight" yet🙂
but considering how many awards it swept up...

My soft contacts were absolutely killing me too—constant irritation and total eye fatigue. After a week of pure misery, my optometrist swapped them out for a slightly larger, thinner lens designed specifically for sensitive eyes. At least, that’s what they claimed. Honestly, they actually work; the discomfort is gone. If you're struggling with soft lenses, maybe a similar switch would help you. Where did you pick those up?

Steven Williams5 said:Sam Raimi really loses all credibility when he makes movies that critics adore and somehow rake in a billion dollars... 😕

Right, because those are the gold standards: making billions of dollars. 👍

Jose Chase2 said:Oh yeah, here's another masterpiece—John Mellencamp's 'Rough Riders.' Sure, it’s a TV movie, but honestly? It still outshines 90% of mainstream Hollywood productions. 🙂 🙂 [/B]

Ah, Mellencamp 🙏! A once-in-a-generation talent. You practically need to watch his work religiously at least three to five times a year just to stay sane. 🙏

As for the list, I’d definitely throw the whole 90s Cronenberg catalog in there. 🙏 Take the misunderstood 'M. Butterfly,' which those geniuses at the Academy butchered by renaming it 'M. Butterfly'— 😠 a total crime against cinema. Or how about the auto-erotic 'Crash' and the low-budget Matrix, 'eXistenZ'? 👍
If those films weren't overlooked, then I have no idea what qualifies! 🙂

I’m honestly surprised QUICK AND THE DEAD didn't make the cut. It’s a western with a genuine twist, featuring Russell Crowe back before he became a total jerk. 👍Even Leonardo DiCaprio was actually tolerable in it. Plus, it’s nice to remember Sam Raimi from his days before he started embarrassing himself with those Spider-Man movies. 😲
The guy who signed off on that script also wrote and directed an excellent crime thriller, SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE—a smart whodunit that doesn't insult the audience by hiding the real culprits! 👍

Richard Hernandez13 said:[/i]My Best Friend's Wedding[/i] made a ton of money. Even Andrew Sarris called it the best film of the 1990s. Hard to call it overlooked.

Look, let me clarify my point: most people watched that movie as just a "not bad rom-com." Of course it made money; it starred the incredibly bankable Julia Roberts. But since the film is pigeonholed as a romantic comedy, I don't think it's actually *recognized* for what it is. In my opinion, it isn't a romantic comedy at all. Calling it one is like saying Titanic is a great musical.
As for Andrew Sarris, his opinion means absolutely nothing to me. Besides, I think I read somewhere on this forum that "bottom-feeding critics" or something like that 😁

Fine, I agree my suggestion might not make this list because of its box office numbers. But then why is Very Bad Things here? It was a massive hit. I was actually about to suggest another profitable comedy masterpiece: Ace Ventura, Pet Detective. 👍

So, just to be safe, I’m proposing Starship Troopers. It's fantastic sci-fi that flopped at the box office and barely anyone liked. I guess people were just too squeamish about the giant bugs. 🙏

Maria Barnes said:By the way, this prestigious group curating the list Rotten Tomatoes actually includes an American representative, Dragan Antulov (who also writes in English), who used to collaborate with the now-defunct IMDb. Dragan has churned out an incredible number of serious reviews—well over a thousand the last time we spoke—and they’re all hosted over at RogerEbert.com. 🙏

And what exactly does a massive volume of published reviews prove?
In Antulov's case, nothing except that he's a workaholic with too much time on his hands.
Look, everyone has their own taste, but I find his writing dreadfully academic, dry, unengaging, and completely lacking insight. His points are just banal.

Regarding the overlooked films, I’d throw in 😁My Best Friend's Wedding😲. It's a subversive love story with a brilliantly ironic ending where Julia Roberts ends up losing. It was a truly unexpected twist for a very good movie that is far more than just some breezy little comedy. It was a Shakespearean tragedy! 👍

Comparing The Ring to LOTR

He’s the protagonist for the entire story, yet he’s barely on screen. He spent most of his existence in terrible conditions—stuck underwater or rotting in a cave. Everyone is constantly fighting over him, yet he remains elusive. For an entire cinematic era, he’s just hiding in some Hobbit's hair, only to end up meeting a miserable death in a fire.
that's what i call a tragedy!
🙂

Betty Walker said:....anyway, it's better than 28 Days Later
..........as if they'd actually fund a fourth one for Romer🙏 [/B]

Funny... you recognize Romer, yet somehow miss Boyle's genius in "28 Days Later"?😕

Jerry Moore2 - check your inbox

Given how much of a masterpiece the original was, I honestly wasn't expecting anything 😁so this movie actually managed to surprise me: IT WASN'T TRASH.
But let’s not get carried away—it isn't exactly a masterpiece either. There are a few decent scenes that aren't tied to the zombies (like when an ambulance runs someone over at the start, or when a guy accidentally chugs a Coke while fleeing—don't worry, no spoilers here!). My main issue? The zombies were running a bit too fast; they felt way too energetic overall.
Is it watchable? Sure. But after about an hour, you start getting that "okay, let's go, when is this thing going to end?" feeling.
👋