silentgardener21 said:The movie covers what happened after the hit too, but it focuses on UK intelligence agents rather than regular civilians.
Also, just to set the record straight—those agents weren't actually British. They were just trained over in the United Kingdom and had their backing, along with support from the government-in-exile. The actual assassins and the people helping them out were Czech and Slovak.
silentgardener21 said:The movie actually covers what went down after the assassination attempt, but instead of focusing on regular civilians, it’s all about those British intelligence guys.
It's hitting theaters today, so I'll catch it and let you guys know if it actually holds up.
Honestly, it’s kind of wild that this whole thing hasn't been turned into a major movie or a prestige TV series yet... I mean, come on. The actual events played out like something straight out of a Hollywood thriller; if you tried to write this as a script, people would tell you it was too unrealistic to be true. I'll definitely be watching, but I'm curious if they're just focusing on the assassination itself or if they'll dive into the aftermath. Because historically speaking, what happened after the hit was way more significant than the shooting. For instance, the CIA launched these absolutely horrific retaliatory strikes—we're talking about them literally wiping an entire town off the map. They didn't just kill everyone; they used heavy machinery to level the whole place to the ground until nothing was left but dirt.
One thing is already glaringly obvious from the trailer, and honestly, it’s enough to make me skip this one entirely—the dialogue. We're talking dialogue that feels like it was ripped straight out of some old-school, cheesy war propaganda flicks. It's all big words and over-the-top gestures with zero actual reality behind them. Instead of characters actually talking to each other, they just spit out scripted clichés. That kind of stuff kills any movie for me. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with stylized writing in general, but you've got to have a sense of balance and know when to use it, especially during those key strategic moments in the story. I really hope I'm wrong here, but I've got a bad feeling I'm not... As for comparing it to Black Hawk Down? From what I can see, those two movies don't have anything in common besides the shared theme of military operations. They probably only made that comparison because the scenes look similar at first glance, and the cinematography definitely leans heavily on the Black Hawk Down vibe.
I don't get why everyone is acting so shocked by Jared. This isn't even his first rodeo when it comes to playing intense, heavy roles. If you ask me, this performance is actually pretty weak compared to what he did in that movie
vividranger8 said:Alright then, if that's how it works, can you actually point me toward the specific legal statutes that force banks to demand exactly what everyone else on this forum was complaining about earlier?
Look, here’s the foundation. It’s a massive pile of regulations, plenty of stuff in there to dig through.
I mean, seriously, what even was that??? I’m having to dig through the deepest corners of my subconscious just to find something remotely resembling this absolute train wreck of a movie. Such a frustrating experience
Man... It wandered off into nowhere fast. Once that IT guy started tearing into the haters at the bar like he was just messing around, I totally checked out. There was zero point in watching anymore. It was actually decent enough up until that point, though—the dialogue had those snappy vibes you’d see in a Segal movie. But from Mann? Nothing even close to "M".
Patrick Martin said:So, I finally sat down and actually watched the thing after wasting a ton of time, but this time I went with the extended cut (251 min.), and man, it’s a completely different beast altogether.
It’s way more emotional (yeah, right), way more provocative, more brutal, more explicit... it just feels much more intimate. But yeah, it’s slower too. The shorter version was basically just some long horse ride but this one? This one absolutely wrecked me. It was like a total soul-crushing experience.
But honestly, weirdly enough, it didn't even bother me. If anything, I actually dug how Leone shows everything out in the open with that old-school style of his.
And look, I don't want to go on forever, but this is textbook cinema, actually, forget textbook, this belongs in a global encyclopedia.
☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
Just imagine how many breaks modern Hollywood would force into a movie like this just to sell a few more buckets of popcorn, and they'd end up totally ruining the flow... They'd probably only show it for a week before moving on...
But when you're actually watching this thing, you're praying for it to last as long as possible.
Honestly, I've got this soundtrack blasting in my car non-stop... It’s probably the best score ever put to film. Everything just hits perfectly—they just don't make stuff like this anymore. It’s like Maestro Morricone was actually living inside the movie while he was composing/picking the tracks.
Austin Rodriguez5 said:Since basically 99% of the audience falls outside that demographic, they didn't really have anything to lose.
But we’re talking about To be the King of Kings here.
Yeah, it's a topic, but let's actually look at them side-by-side when it comes to the actual risks involved. Honestly, To be the King of Kings was a safe bet. There was zero risk there—it's just your standard, straight-up Hollywood blockbuster. You've got Jesus looking like a total model, all wrapped up in those over-the-top, melodramatic dialogues and a massive budget... It's a polished movie, sure, a good one, but it isn't exactly "brave." It just plays right to its target audience and gives them exactly what they're looking for...
Compared to that, Passion could have easily drawn heat from all sides—you'd have the Jews breathing down their necks on one hand, and then even the Christians on the other, because nobody was quite sure how the Christian community would handle that level of ultra-violence in a movie. It is what it is, though. It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback after the dust has already settled...
Look, I just said the movie sucked because the violence was way too over-the-top for me. Don't try to twist my words into something they aren't 😉 It felt more like they were just chasing a quick buck by using shock value and hype instead of actually telling a decent story. Again, that's just how I saw it.
Total lack of reading comprehension and nitpicking here 😉 👍 moving on.
I don't think that's really the point, though. If they wanted to go that route, they would have risked alienating a huge chunk of the audience (think about the rating). It ended up with an R-rating, but they could've easily pushed it to an NC-17, which isn't exactly a gold mine for box office returns...
Austin Rodriguez5 said:It’s way more believable that they whipped him and crucified him like everything else shows, rather than just letting him rot away for days on end🤷
Anyway, talking about what’s actually "realistic" here is kind of pointless 👍
It just bugs me that they went for shock value instead of putting that effort into other, more important details.
That’s just my two cents, if you think it’s great, fine by me 😉
Actually, there’s plenty of sense in discussing reality—especially when we're looking at how Roman torture worked, where crucifixion was the grand finale. Nothing in this movie was made up out of thin air. Since that was the standard punishment for slaves and the absolute worst criminals in Rome, I'm telling you, Gibson's portrayal is probably much closer to the truth than anything else out there. It doesn't matter whether I personally dig it or not...
And I don't think the whole point was just being edgy or showing pain for the sake of it. The point was to show that everyone loves to talk about patience and martyrdom, but nobody actually wants to face the gritty details. People prefer the sanitized version, like, "Oh, he got whipped a little, then crucified, and that was that." Anyway, the crucifixion is the core of the movie, but that doesn't even kick in until about the 50-minute mark. For the most part, the film stays pretty faithful to the Bible (aside from a few artistic choices, let's call them "creative liberties").
Austin Rodriguez5 said:The Passion is such a garbage movie that even Monica can't save it.
They just went for shock value and nothing else.
I wouldn't put it quite like that. Personally, I don't think the Passion is a bad film at all—actually, quite the opposite. The reason it feels so shocking to people is because, up until now, biblical myths have almost always been shown through this romanticized, glorified lens where everything is wrapped in flowery language and high-minded melodrama... But if we're talking about the actual biblical myth, if Jesus suffered the way he did—through Roman crucifixion—then the Passion is way, way closer to "reality" than any other depiction of that part of the Bible we've seen before...
The fact that it hits people hard isn't a flaw in the filmmaking... It makes you wonder, though, how you actually imagine those moments of suffering and crucifixion looked?
Obviously, it’s easy to see why a lot of believers find it easier to cling to some romanticized vision of Jesus's suffering rather than facing a hyper-realistic portrayal of the kind of Roman torture that was actually happening back then.
Frank Moore4 said:Truthfully, people should probably be terrified of the idea that it’s somehow "normal" for gay people to adopt kids. But hey, that's a whole different rabbit hole altogether...
And as for me being offended? It's not about that. It's just that Alex is out here claiming everyone is watching the Passion just because of Monica Bellucci, which is total nonsense. Maybe he is, but not everyone else—certainly not me. If I'm ever going to watch a Bellucci flick, I'll pick one where she actually has a decent role.
My point was simply about movies. Doesn't matter if it's religious—like this biblical stuff—or a book, a painting, music, whatever. You get what I mean?
I don't get why anyone, including you, would feel insulted just because someone says they don't like a movie or thinks it's bad, or even says they're only watching it for the actress. I really don't see how that could possibly offend anyone in any way.
That first thing you brought up just shows how much you love slapping unnecessary labels on things. Like, based on one guy's comment about a movie, you've suddenly decided he also believes "it's normal for gay people to adopt kids." That's a massive leap.🤣
So, here’s the deal according to the latest buzz: if you don't absolutely love some movie based on the Bible, suddenly you're the bad guy. Apparently, if you judge it like an actual film instead of treating it like some sacred scripture, or if you watch it for any reason other than being totally awestruck by the religious themes—like, say, just appreciating the cinematography or the cast —then you're officially "offending" people. It's ridiculous. Honestly, we should be pretty terrified of what kind of thoughts are actually allowed these days. ☕
Rachel Ortiz33 said:You're the only one here playing the "film expert" card to feel superior on this forum, but let's be real—you're just a frustrated kid. You couldn't give two solid arguments about a recent flop because you probably haven't even watched more than 10 minutes of them. I bet you just pull all your "knowledge" straight from Google, huh?
Have you even seen First Blood? Read the book? You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. I'm talking about Stallone as an actor. He made fun movies, sure, but he knew how to deliver a great performance when the material was actually good, like in Cop Land.
Look, I don't think it's all about the scripts. Stallone just picked his lane, which happens to be action flicks, and that's just his choice. Period.
It feels a bit misplaced to go hunting for some deep acting mastery here, but he’s proven in certain films that he can definitely act. Calling him some kind of acting moron is just plain stupid.
Haven't checked this one out yet. Doesn't really grab me. Even though De Niro is a hell of an actor, he's had a track record of picking absolute garbage projects. Not sure if that's on him or if his people are giving him terrible advice...
From what I remember, back when the movie first dropped, the critics absolutely tore it apart. You had all those "sophisticated" reviewers who just couldn't wrap their heads around what they were watching... Of course, Arnold took the brunt of it, and the usual line was that he didn't even say a single word in the movie, let alone show any actual acting chops. But hey, time has a way of trampling those critics, leaving the film standing on its own—sometimes it's a hit, sometimes it isn't, but that's just how it goes...
I don't think you can even put this next to The Godfather, even if they both deal with the whole mafia/gangster thing. The entire vibe of Once Upon a Time in America is way more emotional, almost sentimental, and it constantly touches on this idea of those "better, old-school days." That first part—the childhood stuff—is probably some of the most unique filmmaking anyone will ever see on a screen.
And man, nobody talks about the soundtrack, which in my opinion, actually beats the movie itself. I still blast the whole thing on my player all the time... Maestro Morricone absolutely crushed it with those tracks for this film.
