Posts by steelgull542

American History X - an incredible film and performance🙂

He’s such a phenomenal actor. It’s a shame he hasn't been in the spotlight much lately; I’m honestly not even sure if he’s working on anything new. The last time I saw him was in Hulk, but truthfully, that movie never really grabbed my interest.

neonsurfer6 said:My bad. I assumed you were using "showing" as a synonym for "making them more accessible," because I honestly can't wrap my head around how filming a remake counts as showing an old movie. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting your use of the word "🤷

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what we call it; the point remains the same.

They essentially present it in a format today's kids are used to, since most aren't interested in films without a mountain of special effects—as you mentioned, they just don't care for older movies anymore. It's basically taking a film that audiences loved, say, 20 years ago, and selling it all over again with different packaging.

But since we're making the same point anyway,

Raimi's work... prequels and all that... they feel like a "necessary evil" to introduce older films to younger generations using modern effects. Most of them fall short of the originals, though there are some just as good or even better... but I suppose that's mostly subjective. Remakes will keep happening as long as people are watching; after all, there's a sucker born every minute.

The new The Thing is, in my opinion, a completely unnecessary movie. I watched it just for the sake of it and felt it was a waste of time, whereas I consider the original one of the best horror films ever made... though I'm sure someone feels the exact opposite.

I agree regarding Tarantino; remaking him would be foolish, and hopefully, no one ever thinks to try it. But in 10 or 20 years, who knows? Maybe we'll end up watching Reservoir Dogs 3D. 😂

As for sequels, they mostly seem designed for a quick buck. In my experience, the quality of most trilogies drops with every new installment (with exceptions like Lord of the Rings), not to mention movies with five or more entries, like Saw.

Everything else is fine by me—I don't have to watch a remake if I'm not interested. However, I can't stand it when Americans make a remake of every single horror film produced outside the US, presumably so the public doesn't have to strain their eyes reading subtitles. For instance, with Rec and Quarantine, I went to see the latter without realizing it was a remake of the first, and I ended up feeling 😲 disappointed.

neonsurfer6 said:No, remakes aren't meant to bring anything closer to us. They exist solely to repackage the exact same thing for a new generation that's already been sold it once before.

And let's be real—the new generation doesn't give a damn about the classics anyway.

🤷 I didn't say they were bringing anything closer; I just meant they SHOW older films to a new generation by using modern effects.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I wonder why we assume that counts as progress? Sure, technology has moved forward, but I guess we can only call it progress if it actually makes movies better. People always point to digital recording, CGI, and 3D as the big leaps. To me, it feels a bit like a trick being sold to generations raised on video games—it's the same tactic used in gaming, really. I think people had just as much fun playing 2D games back on the old Super Nintendo or Game Boy.

I completely agree. Technology doesn't make a good movie; it's something else entirely. No amount of special effects can save a bad film. Unfortunately, that's what's being pushed today. We're constantly being told that life is impossible without high-tech gadgets, so it makes sense why kids who grew up watching movies in the 80s or even the 90s find today's stuff lacking.

I’ve decided to pass on watching Avatar.

After a while, I ended up turning off The Departed, The Girl Who Played with Fire, Dogville, Sherlock Holmes, and The Grey... They might actually be good films, but they just didn't resonate with me at that moment, and I simply can't bring myself to force them.

wiredraven82 said:I have to agree—Michael Madsen is truly in a league of his own. His performances in *Reservoir Dogs* and *d. Brascu* were absolutely peerless. To be fair, I didn't include him or Harvey Keitel on my list because I decided to prioritize actors who had a higher frequency of those specific types of roles—though, looking back now, I actually regret leaving those two out. Even before you posted this, I was second-guessing that choice. But honestly, at the end of the day, if we're talking about pure impact, Clint Eastwood would still take a convincing victory regardless. 🙂

The only thing that really gives me pause regarding this vote—specifically the fact that people are splitting the difference between Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis—is that for me, Stallone will always be synonymous with Rocky. He’s got a heart the size of Jupiter, and honestly, *Rocky* is easily one of my top five films of all time. But hey, I get it—perception is subjective. Not everyone views him through that same lens; to some folks, he's just Rambo, or maybe just another cinematic bruiser. 😁

Man, Reservoir Dogs and that one scene... absolutely iconic. But I agree, even if both were on the list, it would still come down to Clint.

Clint Eastwood 🙂 Of course, I’d also include Robert De Niro from that list, and I would definitely add Harvey Keitel and Michael Madsen to the mix.

A good movie is a good movie. I can watch just about anything, though I usually skip romantic comedies—specifically those teen comedies they make these days.

If I absolutely had to choose, I'd say Drama and Thriller are my favorites. That said, I also enjoy a good Horror, Sci-Fi, or even a historical piece every now and then.

I really enjoyed this movie; I’d definitely recommend it.

I'm not quite sure how to upload an image for my avatar; I clearly missed that step during registration...
Also, does anyone know what the maximum file size should be?