Thanks so much, but I was actually wondering about this specific Masters. Is there anyone who has performed even worse than Woosnam's eight strokes on the 11th hole?
Hey everyone. I'm pretty new to the world of golf, so I have a quick question for you all.
Where can I find stats for the 'Highest Number of Strokes Recorded on Any Hole'? I tried digging through player by player manually and found that Ian Woosnam had an 8 on the 11th hole during his first round (https://www.cbssports.com/golf/playe...59/ian-woosnam), but is there actually a place where this data for The Masters is listed so I don't have to hunt through every single profile manually? Thanks!
quietfox38 said:It's true, the format here is a bit different than your standard golf tournament, but if the Ryder Cup doesn't get you hooked on golf, I don't know what will.
Well, thanks a million! In that case, I'll jump in then—I'll try to get myself hooked, and while I'm at it, I'll probably annoy you all just a little bit with some silly questions about the rules.
quietfox38 said:What kind of shady business are you even running here?
Oh, nothing shady at all! In principle, we just pick up our sports bets through Pinnacle, but every once in a while, things don't settle automatically for some reason, so I have to step in and settle them manually. Or, in this specific case, you—thanks a million, truly. You were such a huge help and explained everything so clearly.
Actually, you've got me curious about the sport itself now. Are there any major tournaments I should be watching to really dive in and get hooked? I've got Golf Channel, but is the crew over there good for learning the ropes—kind of like how the folks on ESPN helped me get into Pool? Or should I be looking for something else entirely?
Hey everyone on this thread, if you'll indulge me a little bit—I figured I'd come to you guys first for some help, even if it's just to stir the pot a little.
So, here’s the deal: I work for a Bitcoin prediction market, and occasionally I have to manually settle bets that didn't trigger automatically. The catch? I'm staring at sports data for a game I don't understand at all. I've got these four specific ones to settle, and they're all tied to the PGA Championship:
36 hole cut score - Over/Under 144.5 Lowest completed round - Over/Under 64.5 Players under par after 72 holes - Over/Under 16.5 Winning 72 hole score - Over/Under 271.5
I tried digging through the results on the official website, but honestly, it's all Greek to me. Is there anyone out there feeling generous enough to explain how these work? I would be incredibly grateful for any insight.
Chloe Jackson95 said:The movie really should have wrapped up about 10 minutes earlier, right when things go south in the subway because someone jumps under a train. Basically, his sister should've been the one meeting her end under those tracks. Everything that follows that moment doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the story, especially the way it all winds down. 🤷
Those "long distance wide shots" are fine enough when they're talking in a restaurant—you know, having to sit there and take the bosses being total creeps to his sister, or while he’s sprinting through the city while she's busy in bed with that guy. But that marathon close-up sex scene? Seriously, why on earth did we need such extreme, "politically correct" angles? 🙄 🙄 It was just nonsense. Honestly, it felt more like a bathroom break for the audience than actual cinema.
The kissing scene with the guy isn't even that impactful, though maybe that's just because I hadn't fully bought into him as the embodiment of heterosexuality by that point.
I mean, look, it's a decent film, but the director went a bit too "daredevil" with the camerawork, I think.
For me, even after that, I didn't see him as straight. Instead, I saw that whole scene as the peak of how far a sex addict will go just to find release—especially since, immediately after that brief kiss, he redirected all that energy toward oral sex. At that point, it doesn't even matter who the partner is; he just needs that release...
But then again, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe he *is* straight? It honestly confuses me why he couldn't get turned on by Marianne, yet here he is without any issues. Great, now I'm even more conflicted! Still, the fact that I'm still dwelling on this movie two days later tells me it really stuck with me. Especially all those long, lingering scenes...
I finished reading the novel today and sat down to watch the '71 film adaptation. Since that one-sided movie version left out quite a few juicy details, I actually think Zdravko Šotra had plenty of room to craft a really beautiful film here.
I've always been a fan of Aleksandar Berček. And while I'm certain this won't come anywhere close to "Barking at the Stars," I can't wait to just sit back, relax for two hours, and enjoy the legendary John Doe. Not to mention his even more legendary students. 🙂
I just finished reading this Shakespearean drama a few days ago, and I am genuinely excited about the upcoming adaptation. Honestly? It didn't bother me one bit that they changed Prospero to Prosper; if anything, I actually quite liked that creative twist. Based on what I saw in the trailer, the atmosphere and the cinematography look absolutely stunning.
That being said, I’m trying not to get my hopes up too high regarding the cast. Can a director really pull all of this off on the big screen? I have this nagging fear that if the comedic elements fall flat, it might just drag the whole production down with it... But I truly hope I'm wrong. It's such a shame I won't be able to catch this in theaters—I guess I'll just have to wait until it hits the streaming services.
They might not hit quite as hard as the ones we already talked about, but if you’re really into this genre, I bet Hey DJ (2003) will still hit the spot... 😉
Yeah, that’s what I figured—Customs is going to take their cut. And since I’m from Ottawa, I can already tell they’re going to squeeze me even harder... 🤣 Thanks anyway! I’ll have to do a bit more digging locally to see if I can find a better deal somewhere else.
Has anyone here actually tried ordering jerseys directly from official English club websites or their online shops? I’m curious—how does the shipping and delivery process work these days? Any insights would be hugely appreciated. Thanks!
141 minutes on the clock, and honestly? Not once did it feel like I was actually watching Robin Hood. Everything he stands for just isn't there in this version, so I really don't get why they even chose this title. 👎
Now, if I look at this movie as more of a "Richard John swap-out featuring grain in Nottingham," maybe it’s a tiny bit better, but still not very convincing. The script is incredibly thin. As someone who knows a decent amount about this era—not an expert, mind you—I actually found the action sequences in the last 'King Arthur' to be better executed. While the film didn't completely bore me to tears, it certainly never jolted me awake either.
As for the direction, it’s fine. There were a few nice shots and some clever camera work (specifically during the arrow shots), though I really missed seeing much more greenery and beautiful landscapes. Regarding the cast, Russell is okay, but not as Robin—more like some random knight. Cate Blanchett fit in nicely, as did Max von Sydow, whereas Mark Strong felt pretty unnecessary to me. 🤷
All things considered, the movie is alright to watch (it wasn't a total disaster like, say, Wolfman). Even with a runtime of over two hours, it didn't wear me out too much, though I won't be remembering it for long. This score is definitely a bit of a stretch: 7/10.
We absolutely have to talk about the brilliant debut of Richard Kelly with "Donnie Darko". For me? It’s easily the best film from the first decade of this century. 🙏
The thing is, Kelly didn't just direct this masterpiece; he wrote an incredible script too. And get this—he was only 25 years old when it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Isn't that just wild? Truly impressive.
"Donnie Darko" quickly cemented itself as one of the greatest indie films ever made. Unfortunately, people are still waiting for Kelly to really prove himself again, since "Southland Tales" and "The Box" didn't exactly blow us away... But hey, fortunately, time is on his side.
It seems like everyone is absolutely losing their minds over this movie. People are just tossing out perfect 10s left and right, aren't they? I’m seeing all these claims that everything about the film is just flawless... 🤷 Wait, are we really seeing Forrest Gump in a superhero suit? 😕 Is this really the ultimate deconstruction of the superhero genre? 🙄 The way this movie plays around with comedy and drama doesn't actually result in a cohesive dramedy. Instead, it feels more like this strange "comedy-drama" hybrid that, honestly? It just doesn't work for me. What’s the verdict?Are we really going to keep arguing about this? Seriously?
Check the corresponding thread for more.
Crazy, right? Honestly, that was my very first thought too. I didn't say anything at the time because I was low-key wondering if I was just losing my mind—thinking maybe it was just me—but hey, turns out I’m not the only one feeling this way. 🙂
Honestly? Despite everything, I actually really enjoyed the film (as I mentioned above), and I don't have much to complain about...
Heh, I didn't spot this thread earlier. I actually loved this one too—here’s a quick copy-paste of my last review:
This was one of those movies I was genuinely hyped for after seeing the trailer, and honestly? It didn't just meet my expectations; it completely subverted them in the best way possible. I went in expecting a straight-up comedy, but it turns out there's a lot more drama baked into Defendor than I anticipated. It makes for a much deeper, more layered film than I originally thought it would be.
So, for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, the story follows a guy who's a bit mentally unstable and is basically trying to escape his own reality by masquerading as a superhero called Defendor. He's attempting to help a crumbling city while simultaneously seeking vengeance for his mother's death. Just a heads up, though—don't go looking for non-stop heroic action sequences. The real focus here is the psychological state of someone living like this.
Woody Harrelson is absolutely fantastic as Defendor. Honestly, it’s just great to see him winning again with these recent roles; he really is such a top-tier actor, even if this specific film doesn't get much mainstream hype. Then you have the talented Kat Dennings, who fits perfectly as a drug-addicted prostitute with a good heart, and Sandra Oh playing the psychiatrist.
All in all, it's a really solid film that manages to go way beyond what the trailer suggested. It carries even more weight knowing this was an indie American production made on a modest $4 million budget, marking the directorial debut of Peter Stebbings. Definitely worth your time, and I'd recommend it to anyone. From me, it earns a well-deserved 8/10. 👍
I don't know about you guys, but I honestly feel like we’re confusing quality with sheer quantity here, when at the end of the day, the result ends up being roughly the same. Personally, I don't think Hollywood is actually as bad as people claim; I think it all comes down to the math (just some rough numbers I'm throwing out here):
Americans might churn out 500 movies a year. Out of those, maybe 10 are absolute masterpieces. If I watch 100 films, I'll probably catch all 10 geniuses, 50 mediocre ones, and 40 total flops.
Meanwhile, the French (for example) might only make 40 movies a year. Of those, 5 are brilliant. I'll likely watch all 5 of those gems (based on recommendations, obviously) plus another 10 average ones.
So, logically, I’m going to praise the French. It’s hard to miss the mark with them, mostly because they don't produce the kind of mindless comedies or poorly made action flicks that you see in the States. What reaches the average viewer from countries outside of America is usually the cream of the crop, whereas what floods out of America is often just straight-up trash. I really think that's the crux of the matter. 🤷
Anyway, I'm not trying to start an argument 🙂, but I feel like only those who have seen maybe 20-30% of American cinema—while having seen over 70% of everything else—have any right to say that America is terrible and Peru, or wherever else, is superior. But I doubt many will actually do that, because if they did, they'd just pick the best stuff from America and end up buying into some failed stories from Peru. Mark my words. (It's why most of you find American indie cinema a disaster, while I, as a Canadian, can pick out a few gems and be perfectly happy.)
So, it's a bit ridiculous to claim America is entirely bad and France is entirely good. Everything has its bright spots and its dark moments; it's just a question of which ones we happen to encounter more often. And just to be clear, I'm not some huge fan of Hollywood, but I'm trying to be objective. ☕
Sure, money plays a role, of course, but let's just imagine for a second that it isn't the deciding factor.
Nicholas Walker3 said:Could we maybe stick to American English? I'm having a hard time actually following what's going on here!
That newcomer was honestly hilarious. He actually claimed that in your signature you have... wait for it... (pause for dramatic effect, you know, to build the suspense so the punchline hits harder)... a list.
Nicholas Walker3 said:If there’s anything in the film world that qualifies as a total joke or a circus, it’s these lists and all these various award ceremonies. Honestly, even my own "list" is just a bit of fun... it represents a tiny fraction of the movies I've actually sat through and bothered rating on IMDb (though clearly, you weren't hanging around this forum back when we established that IMDb ratings have absolutely nothing to do with our lists)!
And what on earth do you mean by "... wait for it... a list"? 🤷
Caught this at the theater tonight, and honestly? It didn't blow me away. 🤷
Right off the bat, you could write off the "comedy" aspect because the trailer basically spoiled every single joke—and even if I hadn't seen them, would they have actually been funny? I guess you could also toss out the romance since it felt pretty uninspired, though I'll admit there was *something* there. So, what's left? Just the drama, and even that lacks any real punch.
Look, fine, let’s say I just approached the movie the wrong way. Let’s say George Clooney’s performance rubbed me the wrong way for most of it, or maybe I just wasn't feeling that pseudo-philosophical message about karma and all that. But even if I set my personal biases aside and try to look at this objectively, I still don't get it: Why six Oscar nominations? 😕
If I pretend I’ve never seen George Clooney before, I suppose I’d say he did a decent job (though he barely had to act), and sure, little Anna Kendrick did a solid job pivoting from a career woman to someone leaving her partner. But Vera Farmiga? She didn't move me one bit. There. That's my take.
If you ask me, the only thing worth recognizing is the screenplay, which was okay (I see it actually won a Golden Globe for that), but nothing else. Is 2009 really such a bad year for movies, or am I just missing something here? 🙄
Speaking of missing things, I was thinking... my reaction to Up in the Air is almost identical to how I felt about Juno. Neither one of them touched me, even though most other films lately have. To get the full Jason Reitman experience, I should probably watch Thank You for Smoking soon, but I already have a sinking feeling I'll walk away feeling the exact same way.
All in all, if it weren't for everyone else's opinion, I might have given it a 6/10. Instead, I'll settle on a 7/10—mostly because the soundtrack was good and a few other bits worked. I'll just group it with Juno and leave it hanging there; maybe someday I'll finally understand why both are considered "good" movies. For now, I'm just deeply disappointed in the critics. 👎
Slumdog was just okay for me, honestly—pretty middle-of-the-road. I don't think I'll ever feel the urge to rewatch it. Out of this list, Reader is miles ahead of it, though Benjamin is creeping up right behind. I haven't actually sat down to watch Milk or Frost / Nixon yet. ☕
Right now, if I had to pick my top three from 2008, I’d go with In Bruges, WALL•E, and Doubt. There are still a few I need to catch up on (especially Gran Torino), so who knows? My rankings will probably shift soon enough. 😉