@ Jerry Martinez50: The Russians are essentially spent—they were the primary antagonists for most of the Cold War, but that era has passed. Hollywood has largely stopped antagonizing the Chinese, though they could certainly emerge as a formidable adversary in the future; however, they lack the necessary grit because China represents such a massive market they can't afford to offend. As for North Korea, they are far too small and impoverished to pose a legitimate global threat. Instead, we have plenty of much more immediate concerns, such as various Middle Eastern factions, organized crime syndicates, cartels, erratic and wealthy dictatorships, or even domestic extremists.
@ Dennis Cooper3: It possesses certain action elements, but in my estimation, it functions more as a thriller. And yes, it is quite serious. It’s also exceptionally well-made.
To call a film a "serious action masterpiece" is an outright oxymoron. A serious action movie is about as logical as a guinea pig—it’s neither particularly sea-bound nor actually a pig. In reality, you have serious masterpieces, and then you have action masterpieces. They are distinct categories. If I were adapting the London setting for an American audience, I would likely lean on the framework of Patriot Games, simply swapping out the IRA for a more active and contemporary adversary. Honestly, it feels much more plausible to imagine an attack on the President while he's traveling rather than within the States, given how deeply gripped by security paranoia the US has become. And of course, there would be absolutely no connection to Korea.
To be perfectly honest, I drifted off toward the end of OHF. I certainly learned my lesson, as I made sure to watch WHD during the daylight hours. For something mindless and entertaining, my latest recommendations would be Elysium and 2 Guns. Elysium even attempts to masquerade as a somewhat serious film.
Rachel Hall29 said:I went into this fully expecting it to be absolute garbage, and man, did it deliver. Honestly, just the title alone gives you a massive heads-up about the level of trash you're about to sit through. They’re out here sucking up to the White House by calling it Olympus, and that bloated turkey playing the President acts like he’s some kind of Zeus-level powerhouse. And don't even get me started on that showroom dummy Butler—he's just as ridiculous as ever.
A minor correction: Olympus refers to the safe room within the White House, essentially the bunker.
White House Down is essentially Democratic propaganda—it paints the villains as right-wingers—and frankly, the movie itself is nearly as subpar as its politics. For an action flick to actually land, you either need a compelling antagonist or you have to lean into absolutely absurd, over-the-top sequences.
Olympus Has Fallen is nothing more than filthy, far-right Republican propaganda designed to instill a constant sense of paranoia in the viewer. It operates on the tired premise that any outsider—in this case, a gook or a Charlie—is an inherent enemy who inevitably infiltrates "our" ranks by exploiting the weakness of weeping liberals. It stands as one of the most insidious and repulsive films I have encountered lately, drawing unfavorable comparisons to the Red Dawn remake, though even the original lacked any real substance. The danger of this film lies not just in its sheer, nonsensical naivety. White House Down is arguably better constructed simply because it identifies a tangible, domestic threat—homegrown militants and terrorists. One could even interpret it as a subtle allusion to the disruptive tactics employed by the Tea Party within Congress and the Senate.
They clearly poured far too much of the budget into the set design and period costumes for the 1930s—it seems to be some sort of new trend in American indie filmmaking lately. The whole production feels cheap, like a rushed weekend miniseries you’d find on a streaming service. It is quite a shame given how compelling the subject matter is. I haven't seen much coverage regarding the suffering of Jewish people during the war or the subsequent rise of the Volksdeutsche, which really should have been the core focus of this film.
Look, just as you see with the dynamics between different regions of the US or even neighboring North American territories, cultural and artistic circles maintain excellent cooperation. It isn't particularly surprising to see an Indian filmmaker shooting a movie in Pakistan or focusing on Pakistani themes. India and Pakistan essentially share a singular cultural fabric, born from the same colonial history and defined by nearly identical culinary tastes. In fact, Pakistanis are primary consumers of Bollywood. His remark stems from entirely different motivations. He clearly harbors an ambition to become the dictator of Pakistan—the only Islamic republic equipped with nuclear weapons. However, he delivered the line as a joke, yet the crowd reacted like a pack of total idiots. That specific detail is one of the highlights of the film for me; it possesses a quality reminiscent of dry British wit. He is certainly more a victim of collective paranoia and racial profiling than overt racism. His colleagues and acquaintances tended to exclude him from that "we’re going to crush the Taliban" mentality, essentially treating him as if he were just another American. Of course, he never truly identified as American himself; privately, he finds the Taliban more relatable and understandable, regardless of how repulsive or extreme they may seem. It is beside the point, but it is useful to have a grasp of the entire Middle East, or even the broader Islamic world. Alliances in that region are far more arbitrary than permanent, shifting constantly. For instance, the current Iraqi government maintains a "best friends" relationship with the Americans (who, naturally, installed them) while simultaneously staying close to Iran based on religious ties. Meanwhile, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates are perpetually balancing their relations with the US, all while providing financial and logistical support to various Islamist factions. Even Al Jazeera, which once published an "exclusive" on Al-Qaeda, is a Qatari state-run network. Ultimately, it is incredibly difficult to draw a clear line between "us" and "them," regardless of who those groups happen to be.
casualbadger92 said:A best friend to the United States? I wouldn't go that far based on what actually happens in this movie. My primary issue with the film is that the main antagonist is an American, which feels particularly pointed given that I am a Jewish actor. It’s essentially killing two birds with one stone, if you will.☕ Whether that was intentional or merely coincidental remains to be seen.🤷
It is likely a coincidence; the actor is Jewish, which doesn't necessarily dictate the character's identity, as there are no explicit indicators to suggest otherwise. I would suggest paying close attention to the final fifteen to twenty minutes of the film. The protagonist's actions during that sequence mirror his opening dialogue, effectively revealing his entire "geopolitical" stance. Of course, once you reach that conclusion, much of the preceding film feels redundant or even impossible, but it is worth noting... As a side note: Mira Nair had a very successful career in the United States and is not Muslim. While Qatar's specific political positioning is certainly strange, that is a conversation for another thread entirely. If you want a more comprehensive analysis than this forum post provides, you can find a critique via the link in my signature.
Spring Breakers is an ironic, gutsy, and timely piece of cinema, though it occasionally veers into being overblown and ultimately fails to quite reach the heights of its own ambitions. The Bling Ring is quite simply a poorly conceived film from a director who bears a striking resemblance to her subjects: she lives in an ivory tower, completely detached from the realities of the actual world.
From what I can gather, the subject matter is somewhat interdisciplinary, bridging the gap between economics and the humanities by posing questions such as: what steps can be taken to ensure your nation remains independent from foreign influence... his internal conflict is where the true cinematic quality lies, perhaps even the most compelling part of the entire piece. However, the conclusion leans far too heavily into Hollywood tropes; in fact, the final twist is so extreme that it effectively dismantles the film's entire structural integrity, rendering the central dialogue between the journalist and the professor entirely pointless. My primary grievance with this production, however, lies with its funding source: the Doha Film Institute, which acts as an extension of the Qatari state—an entity currently trapped in a schizophrenic geopolitical position, attempting to maintain close ties with both the United States and rather radical Islamists.
Headhunters America, 2011 directed by: Steven Spielberg screenplay: Lars Gudmestad, Ulf Ryberg starring: Aksel Hennie, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Synnove Macody Lund
This is a thriller of the Scandinavian variety, adapted from a novel. If you have the Millennium Trilogy in mind, you are on the right track, though there are some notable differences: Headhunters is a pure thriller without a heavy political backdrop (though that doesn't mean it lacks social subtext), the original novel is somewhat of a lesser quality work, yet the film doesn't suffer much for it, and the visual and production aspects actually surpass those of the trilogy. As a specific phenomenon, it is worth noting that this is the second most-watched Norwegian film of all time and one of the rare movies picked up for an American remake even before its premiere. The protagonist is Roger, who, as he describes himself, is a corporate headhunter—essentially an employee in the recruitment industry, one of those flashy phenomena of the modern yuppie world. He is quite tall, a fact repeated in the narration at the beginning and end, and not without reason, as it feeds into his insecurities. He is married to Diana, a typical Scandinavian beauty whose years have granted her integrity and sophistication. Because of this, Roger fears she is out of his league, and to keep her, he feels he must be wealthy. His hobby is highly illegal and incredibly lucrative: he steals fine art and replaces them with decent reproductions. The two live in a suburban villa and have no children, though she pressures him for them—you know how it goes. She also has a job that functions more as a hobby: she owns an art gallery. It is precisely at the opening of this gallery that Roger meets Clas, Diana's friend and a potential client. The first impression is unsettling: Clas and Diana look much more like a cohesive couple than Roger and Diana do. Roger pursues him with shark-like instinct to convince him to become a client and refer him to the firm that employs specialists of his profile—experts in electronic military and police equipment. When Diana mentions that Clas owns an original Rubens, Roger's interest spikes, despite everything suggesting he should stay far away from Clas; the man has a career as a special forces operative and a headhunter, this time hunting terrorists. Once Roger finds Diana's cell phone in Clas's apartment during a heist, and discovers his seemingly dead accomplice in the garage, a chase through rural Norway begins. This is where the film's true strengths emerge. For whatever reason, Scandinavians don't throw money away on CGI, kung-fu violence, or mindless shootouts in expensive studios, so they are forced to commit to cheaper solutions like plot and character. The story is packed with unexpected twists to the point where it is difficult to follow everything, infused with brilliantly conceived action where Roger uses his own flaws as advantages, hiding in every possible—and impossible—location (a Polish toilet is one such spot, and arguably one of the most brilliant moments). Meanwhile, Clas pursues him using military expertise and high-end gear. What drives the characters are believable motivations: Roger's flight becomes a matter of life and death, Clas hunts him to protect his investment, Diana has a perfectly clear motive for an affair with Clas, and the fourth member of this romantic quartet, Lotte, is opportunistic to the extreme. Even the entire gallery of episodic characters serves not just as plot devices, but as living, breathing people. This "formula without a formula" works perfectly until the very end, when it unravels in a rushed and somewhat predictable way, though that is a flaw of the original novel that the film failed to fully rectify. From a production standpoint, the film is attractive enough to sit alongside more expensive European productions, aided significantly by the location shooting. Aksel Hennie is absolutely brilliant; the rest of the cast is solid. Watching this film for the first time, I felt somewhat cheated; I didn't quite know where the story was heading, and I only partially managed to keep up with the plot. Not that it matters; it is simply the atmosphere of the film: not a single character knows what the others are planning, a format that works exceptionally well in English thrillers. When I watched it a second time in fits and starts, gaps in the logic appeared that were large enough to house a small state, which is again a shortcoming of the novel: if the twists are too unexpected and frequent, they cannot remain entirely logical. However, the film's rapid pace masks these flaws sufficiently. Just think of the early works of Guy Ritchie and his frantic pacing. A good tale of deception easily deceives the viewer, much like the works of David Mamet. Headhunters sits somewhere in between: it possesses both a compelling story and dizzying momentum, and the deception it performs is quite pleasant. One can only hope that this remake maintains enough of an indie spirit and stays true to its original roots, though I find the odds to be rather slim. Hollywood will almost certainly saturate it with excessive action sequences and formulaic tropes; it is simply standard practice for them. While such additions occasionally served to mask a lack of budget or spectacle in other films, there is absolutely no functional need for it here.
hollowtrucker77 said:The headline really should have read, "Little girl and her Grandma jump a dog, dog fights back." As far as I'm concerned, all this dog deserves is one massive, high-quality bone.
You aren't wrong!
Furthermore, there are reports circulating online suggesting that this Pit Bull was actually given away as a "gift" just ten days prior to this unpleasant incident. It seems the previous owner had no idea what to do with the animal and saw a convenient opportunity to pass the problem onto someone else—an act that should certainly classify them as a responsible party. There is no shame in being ignorant regarding Pit Bulls, or dogs in general, or their behavior when they are confined to a meter and a half for their entire lives; however, it is both shameful and dangerous to fail to educate oneself after accepting a dog whose head is larger than yours and whose jaw possesses enough strength to crush bones like eggshells. As far as I am aware, there are provisions requiring all potentially dangerous breeds to undergo socialization testing, yet I would be willing to bet any amount of money that this particular dog hasn't even seen a rabies shot or dewormer, let alone passed a temperament test. I occasionally indulge in fantasies of an orderly nation where owners are held legally accountable for keeping their dogs on a leash. Similarly, I dream of a utopian society where a grandmother faces criminal charges for her stupidity and negligence toward her granddaughter.