Posts by Grace Edwards

Nah.
I mean, okay, but only if you've got the flu and you're absolutely stuck in bed.

hollowsailor19 said:Look,
Samuel L. Jackson working with Tarantino. He absolutely killed every single role. I mean, from Pulp Fiction all the way to The Hateful Eight. You don't even see a glimpse of that kind of talent when he's with other directors.

And you can't overlook Shyamalan (Unbreakable), too. Maybe that's the one movie in his whole career where he wasn't just playing your typical, loudmouthed Sam Jackson. He was probably at his best there.

I guess directors play a massive part in how an actor actually performs. A director can take an average actor and turn them into a prodigy (kind of like how Nolan did with Ledger) or they can take a perfectly solid actor and make them look like a complete idiot (like what Lucas did with Hayden Christensen in Star Wars).
People just don't give directors enough credit in this industry. I mean, sure, they get paid well, but the media doesn't praise them nearly enough. Everyone remembers and talks about Pitt and Norton in Fight Club, but Fincher barely gets a mention when people bring up that movie, even though he's the mastermind behind every single interaction and scene.

...it officially outpaced Spider-Man at the box office (though if you look at pure profitability, it beat Homecoming ages ago thanks to that much smaller budget) 🤣 I mean, just thinking about how Homecoming had to grind in theaters for three or four months just to scrape together those kinds of numbers, while Jumanji pulled it off in half the time with way less hype behind it.

briskhound2 said:Honestly, I see the guy more often sitting on the couch with Graham Norton than I actually see him in movies...

Now you've reminded me where I know him from 🤣

The teaser has already turned into a total meme: 1:16 😬

Honestly, what I caught in Mad Max, TDKR, and Inception just didn't really hit the mark for me.
I suppose I still need to check out Bronson and Taboo, but from what I've seen so far, he doesn't exactly strike me as an A-Class actor.

I've honestly seen better fan-made trailers than this one.

There isn't enough money in the world to get me into a theater to see this.

Peter Parker is the core of the whole symbiote story, and I feel like this movie is just going to blow up the Venom plot by cutting him out. Plus, you've got Tom Hardy playing the lead, which is just... he's an overrated actor who always seems to be overacting way too hard.
I read somewhere that Tom Holland showed up on the set of Venom for a few days, so maybe he’ll show up as Peter Parker—though probably not as Spider-Man. I honestly don't see how they'll pull that off, though, since Hardy is practically old enough to be Holland's dad, and Eddie Brock and Peter Parker were basically the same age back at the Daily Bugle.

Movie details you might have missed
For me, that whole thing with the reporter and Stambler was a total "holy shit" moment 😲

bluepuma9 said:All three are just parallel universes being messed with by that accident involving the Sheppard accelerator out in Cloverfield space. 😳

I mean, you know that's total nonsense. What's next? A romantic comedy about a love triangle between an American woman, a British man, and an Indian man where the Indian man wins her heart, and then in the last five seconds of the movie, you hear a monster roar—bam, now it's Cloverfield?🤣

Honestly, what the hell is going on inside Abrams' head? Is he even mentally stable?
The first movie was such a brilliant shake-up for film marketing and the monster horror genre—not to mention it was pretty solid at the box office.
The second one was a tolerable aberration that leaned way harder into psychological horror thrills; it had a much smaller budget but still managed to be one of the most successful films of 2016.
But this third one? With a budget larger than both previous Cloverfields combined, it’s just this incoherent, messy pile of trash that I can't even properly describe.
It’s like they just gave up halfway through the script, everyone in production started fighting, and they basically said, "J. J., just copy-paste a plot from one of your Fringe episodes," then dumped some half-baked product straight onto Netflix to see who would bite.
We went from such massive potential to... well, "this."

BTW, I don't know if this is just an internet troll, but apparently, the plot for the fourth Cloverfield is supposed to be about Nazi Germany using secret demon powers or some shit.

From what I've been reading, people are feeling extremely let down by 😢

ulcerative colitis said:The first one was a pleasant surprise and, honestly, one of the better action movies out in the last few years. The sequel wants to be bigger, crazier, and more fun, but unfortunately, it fails on every single level.

There were so many things wrong with this movie that I don't even know where to start. It’s not even like the whole thing is garbage—there are some decent parts, which just makes it a bigger shame that such a huge chunk of the film is so awful. When it hits, it’s okay, maybe a relatively fun action flick. I still thought some of the characters were fine, and there are still some great, creative action sequences with interesting camera work, though even those are ruined by way too much CGI. But when it’s bad, man, it is just straight-up terrible and hard to sit through. There are so many scenes that went way too far into parody territory, like I was watching Austin Powers. Yeah, the first one parodied James Bond a little bit, but it had some taste, whereas here they just overdid it—you can't take the scenes seriously, but they aren't even funny or entertaining.

fgzcvijetic said:When he jumped into the sewer, I actually wanted to stop watching for the first time. Once that metal hand got stuck in the computer, I was definitely done.

That almost made me turn it off too. That opening action sequence was a disaster, easily one of the worst things I've ever seen, just total Fast & Furious style crap.

The first movie felt like a real breath of fresh air for the spy-action genre. But this one, man, it really overshot everything. They took everything and tripled it: three times the swearing, three times the scenes with the princess, three times the action, and three times the CGI futuristic nonsense from the year 2150. It's just trash upon trash. The only things I can respect are the well-shot action scenes (except for the intro), a decent soundtrack, and that crazy President (he actually had me laughing).
And I almost forgot, freaking Elton John has more screen time than Channing Tatum and Jeff Bridges 🤦

Knowing that Dwayne Johnson will probably be the main villain in the third one, I already know exactly what kind of cheap thrill this franchise is going to try to pull to trigger a massive box office hit.
Kingsman needs a new director, someone more down-to-earth and actually fun. Edgar Wright did a masterclass job with Baby Driver, and his style would be perfect to pull this potentially good franchise out of the mud.

It's an original story and it's on Netflix too. Pretty great 👍

I’m not really a documentary guy, but this topic caught my eye so I gave it a watch.
It’s interesting, though it feels pretty Americanized—even if they try to play it neutral when the author goes over the reactions from the International Olympic Committee and those other heavy hitters, basically implying they're just as bad as the Russians.
The mastermind behind the whole thing is a fascinating dude, a total mad scientist.
Who knows if that guy with the mustache is even still alive, or if he just got too worn down and had a heart attack.

Dirty Grandpa - I mean, you've got this 70-year-old guy who can pull off one-handed pushups and actually looks better than Arnold Schwarzenegger ever did back in his bodybuilding days.
And yeah, he was pretty decent in Taxi Driver and Las Vegas.

The Godfather

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

I don't know, maybe I'm just being difficult, but I've always felt like The Godfather (1972) just hits different.

Quarterfinals: Here we go.
The Big Lebowski (1998) vs... what? I guess you didn't finish the thought. Maybe you were going to say something else, but I'm just sitting here staring at a blank comparison. If we're talking about a Battle of the Blockbusters, it’s hard to even pick a winner without knowing the other side. I mean, I guess if you put it up against something like The Big Lebowski versus some other cult classic, maybe it holds its own? I don't know. It’s a weirdly specific movie, right? Just a dude looking for his rug. Simple, I suppose. But then again, maybe it isn't. Anyway, I'm waiting for the rest of the prompt. If you're trying to start a debate, you've gotta actually give me something to work with. I'm not much for guessing games. I guess I should probably mention The Godfather. It’s one of those movies everyone talks about like it's some kind of holy scripture, and honestly, I get why. It’s just... heavy. There's a certain weight to the way Coppola handles the whole family dynamic. Maybe it's the pacing? It doesn't rush things. It just sits there and lets the tension build until you feel like you can't breathe. I don't know, I've seen it enough times to know that most people treat it like the ultimate standard for cinema, but I think it's more about the atmosphere for me. It’s quiet, then it’s violent, then it’s quiet again. It’s a lot to process. I mean, if you haven't seen it, you really should, but don't expect some fast-paced action flick. It's a slow burn. Just my two cents, I guess.
So, I was thinking about 2001: A Space Odyssey versus... well, everything else. It’s hard to even put it into words sometimes. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but there's something about how Kubrick handled that film back in '68 that feels different. It’s not like your typical blockbuster. I guess you could try to pit it against other heavy hitters, maybe a battle of the blockbusters scenario, but it doesn't quite fit the mold. It’s slow, sure. Some people find it boring, and honestly, I get why. It doesn't hold your hand. It just exists, and you kind of have to exist with it. I don't know. I've seen people argue about this for years. Is it a masterpiece or just a really long, pretty screensaver? I guess it depends on what you're looking for in a movie. Personally, I think it stays with you, even if it leaves you feeling a bit empty or confused. But hey, that's just my take. I might be wrong. I guess I've been sitting on this for a while, but I finally got around to revisiting Schindler's List. It’s one of those movies that just stays with you, maybe because it’s so heavy, or maybe because it’s just done that well. It’s hard to even call it "entertainment" in the usual sense, if that makes sense. It’s more like an experience you have to endure, though looking back, I think I needed to. The way Spielberg handled the cinematography... it’s almost overwhelming. That black and white look isn't just a stylistic choice; it feels necessary. It strips everything down to the rawest level. There aren't any distractions. Just the gravity of what happened. I don't know, maybe I'm being too dramatic, but it felt incredibly stark. Liam Neeson is incredible here. He plays Schindler with this complicated mix of greed and growing conscience that feels very real. He isn't some perfect hero right out of the gate. He's a businessman first, which makes his eventual shift feel less like a movie trope and more like a slow, painful realization. And Ralph Fiennes... man, he's terrifying. Not in a loud, screaming kind of way, but in that quiet, chillingly efficient way that makes your skin crawl. It’s a tough watch. I mean, obviously. You can't really watch this without feeling a weight in your chest. But I guess that's the point. If it didn't hit you that hard, it wouldn't be doing its job. It's a masterpiece, I suppose, even if it leaves you feeling pretty drained by the end. I'm still processing it, honestly.
Goodfellas (1990) vs... what? You didn't even finish the thought. I guess you want me to weigh it against something else, maybe The Godfather or some other heavy hitter. It’s hard to say without knowing what we're actually comparing it to. Maybe you were thinking about a Battle of the Blockbusters scenario? If you're asking if it holds up against the classics, I mean, it's different. It doesn't have that slow, operatic build of The Godfather, but it's got that frantic, kinetic energy that just hits differently. It's more aggressive, I suppose. I don't know. It depends on what you're looking for in a crime flick. Just give me a second movie to work with so I can actually give you an opinion. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975))
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) vs... what? You didn't even finish the thought. I guess you want me to weigh in on some massive showdown, but you left me hanging. Maybe you're thinking about a Battle of the Blockbusters involving some other classic western, or maybe you're trying to pit Leone's masterpiece against something else entirely. I don't know. It’s hard to have a debate when there isn't a second contender. If you're looking for my take on how the classics stack up, you've gotta give me both sides first. Just sitting here staring at a half-finished sentence doesn't really get us anywhere. So, yeah, go ahead. Finish the question. What are we actually comparing it to? I guess I should probably say something about The Shawshank Redemption. It’s one of those movies people always bring up when they want to sound like they have good taste, which, honestly, isn't a bad thing, but it feels a bit played out at this point. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like everyone treats it as some kind of untouchable masterpiece. I mean, yeah, the story is solid. The pacing works. Morgan Freeman's voice is... well, it's what it is. But sometimes I wonder if we all just agreed it was a classic because it's hard to argue against it being a "good" movie. It's safe. It hits all those emotional beats right on schedule, almost like it knows exactly when to make you feel something. I don't know. I'm not trying to hate on it. It’s a great film, I suppose. Just feels like we talk about it way more than we actually need to. Maybe I'm just being cynical. Probably.

ROUND 3
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) vs The Matrix (1999)
The Deer Hunter (1978) vs The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
Schindler's List (1993) vs Unforgiven (1992)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994) vs The Usual Suspects (1995)

The Godfather (1972) vs Taxi Driver (1976)
Goodfellas (1990) vs Leon (1994)
The Big Lebowski (1998) vs Psycho (1960)
Apocalypse Now (1979) vs One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)