rustytinker81 said:Total bust... people were walking out of the theater like thirty minutes before the credits even rolled... I could've spent those $5.00 much better elsewhere
Honestly, I’m not buying that. Just because you personally didn't vibe with it doesn't mean everyone did—I actually stuck it out until the end... Untraceable definitely isn't the kind of flick that makes people bolt halfway through. You're exaggerating.
Maybe the ending could've been handled differently though—what really bugged me was: Spoiler this seasoned agent is on the bridge, right? And she just casually sits back down in the dry area when it was super obvious the killer was gonna jump her right there. [end spoiler] That part definitely needed a rewrite...
Aside from the casting, the lead actress's car choice was a huge win... a Saab😍
oooh... you guys are totally teasing me—I can't even get to the movie yet... not gonna lie, I usually just grab stuff online, but those "Mongol" copies floating around the web are either stuck with Russian voiceovers or they're in French, so... guess I'll just have to wait for a decent rip.
Finally—a Jason Statham flick that isn't just mindless action—mostly because... it’s actually based on a true story. It’s about this massive bank robbery in the States—one of the biggest ever, maybe even more than that famous train heist—and officially, it's still sitting there as an unsolved case. Everything is so intertwined it’s wild—honestly hard to believe a screenwriter's life can make things look this complicated 🙂
I wouldn't say the movie was bad or anything, but I definitely wouldn't be rushing to give it a perfect score. The way they show the plot from a few different angles is actually pretty decent—it keeps things moving—but man, that ending was just meh, which kind of ruins the whole vibe for me. The acting is just okay (not a huge fan of Quaid, Whitaker is just your typical guy, and Zurer actually did a solid job), plus the CGI looks super fake in a couple of spots...
Bottom line—it’s a one-time watch, maybe good if you've got a boring afternoon to kill.
Look, I gotta disagree with Raymond Palmer8—Alba totally nailed her role here. She plays the classic socialite perfectly... I mean, she’s high-class, sure, but definitely just a social climber at heart. I actually watched "The Eye" just yesterday where she played a blind girl, and man, it was a disaster. It was honestly embarrassing for both the director and Alba—they clearly have zero clue how blind people actually look or act...
Anyway, Inception is a pretty decent flick. I definitely got some chills once the operation starts kicking off and... well, you know, don't want to spoil anything. 🙂 Compared to the rest of the movie, which drags a bit, the ending feels kind of rushed—but all in all, it's a solid watch for once.
Richard Howard2 said:Don't take this as me calling you dim-witted, but it is a rather foolish question.
Is it really just about me being misrepresented by a false claim? Was that even the motive for filming? Is my personal satisfaction crucial to the viewing experience? And is this film being made about me while I'm alive, or decades after I'm gone?
What kind of factor am I, really? Isn't the audience always the deciding factor?
Though, you did give me a decent prompt: let's discuss actual historical biopics centered on individuals (not events, mind you, but people!): JFK, Nixon, The Doors, Harry Flint vs. people, Walk the Line, and so on.
That's a solid idea, for sure. But man, look—not a single movie anyone would actually call "historical" made the cut... meanwhile, 10,000 BC is sitting right at the top of this list. Kind of ruins the whole point of the list, don't you think?
Joseph Lee3 said:goldeneagle2, you're hitting a nerve here! 😉
I actually think the whole argument about movies being purely for entertainment and killing time is valid. Why? Because that’s exactly why I watch them myself. Whether I walk away with some profound life lesson is secondary. However, I draw the line at having things shoved down my throat when there is no reason to do so.
I don't buy the idea that we're running out of true stories capable of making a great movie. Nor do I believe we need to "tweak" essential facts just to crank up the entertainment value. That's total bullshit. It’s nothing more than a convenient excuse for lazy, incompetent filmmakers looking for an easy way out. Honestly, it feels like part of a larger trend toward mass-producing cookie-cutter cinema that insults the audience's intelligence—assuming, of course, that such intelligence still exists. If I were leaning into conspiracy theories, I’d suggest there's a systematic effort to cultivate an audience that demands less and less, eventually making the filmmaker's job completely trivial.
Fine. You get what you pay for, right? If I were a producer, I wouldn't make my own life harder by shelling out massive fees for historians, ethnologists, or archaeologists to check the facts... after all, we all know the foundation of any democracy is a kakistocracy. I rest my case! 🍿
Just a bunch of envious, ego-driven blowhards. Bravo.
why isn't "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" on this list? I mean, if we're talking about an "Odyssey" vibe, shouldn't "The Day After Tomorrow" and "The Omega Man" be in there too?
honestly, what creeps me out here is just the fact that anyone even bothered making a "list" that's basically absurd to begin with. the whole point of a movie isn't to give you a history lesson—it's just straight-up entertainment. if this were a list of documentaries, I'd get the backlash, but as it stands... hmm
online. Just because I can snag a few different perspectives all in one day. The Evening News, local papers, the New York Times, and even some foreign stuff like the NY Post or USA Today. As for actual physical papers—I usually just grab the free ones like the Metro or Newsday.
Otherwise, I might pick up a weekly paper here and there—maybe something like Rolling Stone or a local satire rag...
hollowhawk412 said:look ..right now the old car actually gives STR an edge, not a disadvantage...
I wouldn't totally buy that. That would only be true if they could actually carry over the useful parts from the old car to the new one—but they can't.
Clearly, a lot of these guys don't know how to drive without a license...
I’m digging Sebastien Bourdais—the guy’s holding off both Alonso and Heikki in last year's Toro Rosso 🙂 assuming that little Ferrari engine doesn't blow up first...
Kovalainen is just a total pushover during races. He let that guy in the final SC push him way back from second.
I’ve always said Kimi isn't really a driver. And he isn't.
Lewis Hamilton grabbed it thanks to being miles away from all the circus drama. Flawless driving and a well-earned win.
Only thing is, I don't get why Kovalainen just let Alonso by like that? Bad speed? Electronics glitching out?
Chloe Nguyen said:A truly magnificent piece of cinema. I was fully aware that the pacing would be deliberate and slow, so I made sure to clear my schedule in advance to give it the attention it required. Those who go in expecting a standard, fast-paced Western are likely to be quite surprised.
The acting is nothing short of superb. Brad Pitt delivers a compelling performance as Jesse James—he manages to be quite vicious, yet simultaneously appears profoundly unlucky and deeply isolated. That said, I suppose Casey Affleck actually steals the entire show; his portrayal of a complete and utter creep is so convincing that his Oscar nomination feels entirely earned. I am perhaps not entirely certain if he outshines Bardem, but I certainly wouldn't complain if he were to take home the prize.
Kudos to Nick Cave; the score is an absolute triumph. However, I found myself plagued by this nagging sensation throughout the runtime that the music sounded hauntingly familiar, though I couldn't quite place it. It wasn't until later that I realized the melodies were reminiscent of The Fountain.
Ultimately, it is a genuine shame that the film passed by almost unnoticed by American audiences—though, in my estimation, that is largely due to the studio's failings, as the movie deserved much more aggressive promotion.
The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford
It's drawn out, slow, and kind of a slog—but honestly? It's great.
It shows the Old West through a totally different lens—cowboys aren't just tough guys, and the outlaws are actually just regular folks... which they really are. Plus, it's a story about how nobody actually wants the fame that comes with killing the most famous outlaw of the era.
Brad Pitt is solid, Casey Affleck is okay I guess, but overall it's definitely worth a watch... even if you have to settle in for a long one.
Michael Jackson62 said:lol, what a brainless comment... 😂 man, if you're that dense, just skip these kinds of movies—if you can't spot how obvious the jokes and exaggerations are. it's total trash, but like, the best kind of trash next time just pop something else in the player and give it to someone who actually gets a sense of humor 👍
how yes no... my only mistake was not doing my homework before deciding to watch this movie. I don't usually go for comedies because, just like this one, I feel like they're always just one step away from being totally banal. maybe some people find it funny, but to me—it's just plain dumb.
anyway, I don't really get why a comment has to be called "brainless" or why the writer has to be called "dense" just because, you know, our senses of humor are different... right?
Man, that movie was absolute garbage. Honestly, thank god I had enough cocktails in me—otherwise, I might’ve actually ripped the Blu-ray out of my player... really, you’d think they’d want the audience on their side for once...this guy’s got a baby in his arms...like, go win an Olympic gold in basketball or something...on your own... trash.
