Caught Body Heat yesterday. Classic noir, nothing out of the ordinary. Honestly, that last third drags a bit. But hey, there’s enough eroticism in there to make it worth the watch. I’ve always had a soft spot for those Southern thrillers.
Stumbled onto Bound (1996) by accident while digging through a list for something else to watch. It’s from the Wachowskis—sisters or brothers, whatever—back before they did The Matrix. People say it’s good. Might give it a shot sometime soon.
Supposedly, they were working off some thirty-year-old script they were too cheap to actually update. Then, halfway through production, they realized they’d totally botched it, so the movie just ended up as a January release during the COVID crisis—absolute bottom-of-the-barrel timing for any film. Between a lackluster cast and some seriously muddled directing, you end up with this hollow, mindless cat-and-mouse game between the cops and a serial killer. It could have been a decent rip-off of Seven.
The production design is just a bunch of old cars and a few pagers in a pathetic attempt to make it feel like the nineties. The special effects? Total garbage. You can clearly see where they botched the green screen several times. But the absolute worst part is the random cutting in scenes that are supposed to be tense; it just leaves the viewer confused. Honestly, those cuts mostly just serve to hide the fact that a sixty-year-old Denzel Washington can't exactly be scaling rooftops or coordinating things without a smartphone.
The cast had potential, but they could've been better or at least better directed. Rami Malek—or whatever his name is—just doesn't sell me as a detective at all. To be honest, I think he and Leto should've just swapped roles. 🤷 The plot itself is just meh. There isn't a single thing here you haven't seen in a thousand other thrillers. And the characters? They aren't exactly acting like geniuses.
So, all in all, you can safely skip this one. You're much better off watching Insomnia, Crimson River, Seven, Manhunter, Nightcrawler, or the Mindhunter series instead.
mistyhound94 said:Nobody attacked ruggedscout76, so quit the nonsense. Daniel Kelly57 explained everything perfectly and hit the nail right on the head. If you’ve never actually met Lottie, you don't know the full story here. And now it's clear how the forum owner acts like some high school kid, trying to act all sophisticated while pushing irrelevant topics onto subforums where they don't belong. I guess that's why this whole thread feels like I'm just talking to a brick wall. It's pathetic.
Hey, there you are! I've been looking everywhere for you.
Don't be bummed out. Everything's gonna work out fine.
The concept works. They nailed the casting, too—everyone feels right in their roles. Even that romantic subplot actually lands for once. 🤷 It’s not some gritty, tactical masterpiece about combat, but hey, if you're looking for a dry history lecture, there are plenty of other movies covering the same battle.
It’s not boring, per se, but it definitely didn't hit the hype levels I was expecting. I honestly don't know much about the actual plot. My reasons for checking it out? Pretty simple: The nod to Citizen Kane—yeah, not really feeling it. A Fincher film—look, he's got better stuff out there.
Blowup is actually a solid flick. Don't let the trailer fool you. That actor was also that guy with the sharp eyebrows in Gladiator. 😁 I gotta admit, The Manchurian Candidate bored me to tears. But I’ve been getting back into those spy thrillers lately, so maybe I’ll give it another shot.
Wanna go chronologically? So, we're looking at the sixties now.
The Spy Who Came in from the Cold is essential viewing. Seriously. It's black and white and doesn't lean on action, but there isn't a single wasted second. Tense, great twists, kind of claustrophobic. A total classic.
Torn Curtain (1966) isn't bad either, if you ask me. It's a bit weaker than the usual Hitchcockian stuff, so the die-hard fans might feel let down, but anyone hunting for a good Cold War story should be pretty happy with it. If you want something else, try Topaz (1969).
If you're digging for WWII stuff along the lines of Guns of Navarone or Where Eagles Dare, check out Operation Crossbow (1965). I watched it right after those first two and honestly, it sits right up there with them, even though nobody ever talks about it.
I was hunting for Sherlock Holmes movies the other day and stumbled upon A Study in Scarlet. Supposedly decent. 🤷 I'll hit you guys up once I've seen it.
Are you really going to just gloss over this classic like that? What a joke of a topic. 😬 I mean, looking back, even the old posts here aren't exactly inspiring.
Let’s take it from the top: It’s the tail end of the 90s. America and the rest of the world don't know it yet, but the era of pure prosperity and endless optimism about the future is about to hit a wall. 9/11 hasn't happened, gas is dirt cheap, Western influence is at its absolute peak, and so on. David McNally was part of that generation of filmmakers—guys like Michael Bay—who cut their teeth making music videos and commercials. This guy is sitting poolside at some hotel when he gets handed the script for Coyote Ugly, sent over by Jerry Bruckheimer. You guys ever heard of him?
Anyway, McNally gets tasked with turning a story about women flocking to a big city chasing career dreams, only to end up as dancers in some basement dive, into a summer PG-13 hit. The whole "dive bar" concept was basically at its zenith back then. The idea was to take some unused space, flip it into a bar over the weekend, cram a few hundred people inside, and sling cheap drinks. Then you throw in those dancers with their show to keep things moving. Article.
There are a few reasons why this movie actually matters: - It’s probably one of the last relatively low-budget summer hits. Especially considering how "ordinary" the story is. No massive explosions, no high-octane action, no global conspiracies. Just life. - The cast is packed with recognizable faces, even if they weren't all A-list superstars yet. Tyra Banks was already a famous model in her twenties, Andy Garcia was playing a dancer from Australia, plus Piper Perabo, Mischa Barton... and John Goodman was still doing those goofy, lovable supporting roles. - That hit single by Leann Rimmes was one of the biggest pop tracks of the era. She even shows up near the end (though she was a minor back then, oops).
The movie is a blast! Honestly, I have no clue where people lost their ability to just enjoy a movie over the last twenty years. There aren't really any major flaws. Sure, the plot is a classic, (pre)optimistic vision of big-city life. The character names are total trash. But that’s exactly why it works. The vibe, the fashion, the dialogue—it’s quintessential late 90s. It’s like a nostalgic look back at a better past. Everything is gritty and a bit sleazy, but there’s this rosy lens over everything. They don't make movies like this anymore. 😍
@ user_name: Honestly, that's a rigged question. If you were running a local diner and, because some rude waitress gave you a hard time, you sent the owner a list of "better" candidates to replace her, they’d think you were losing it. I have zero clue how the moderator selection process actually works. I don't know what the criteria are. Besides, there’s no proof that regular users' opinions even matter here, so why bother? 🤷
But hey, your posts are actually useful because they highlight the fact that administration clearly struggles with picking the right people. It's obvious—they just can't get it right. It's not on us. They just aren't capable of putting a decent person in that role. That's a pretty important takeaway too (that filing final appeals is basically pointless).
The number of active members has tanked because the Wikipedia crowd has basically hijacked the PDF, cluttering every single thread with their mindless platitudes. Even the current moderator is getting in on the action.
user_name, if you can find a spare moment, I’d really appreciate it if you could take a day or two to see what's actually going down over there. Just head over to the adult section and flip through the last few pages of any thread.
They totally lowballed you guys with that choice for moderator. 😢
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:The Labor Party is about as legitimate as the Nazi regime. They weren't elected; they were just hand-picked puppets used by the Communist Party to hold onto power. Sure, you could argue the Labor Party laid the groundwork for the future state, which didn't actually get its democratic legitimacy until those first multi-party elections in 1990.
So, basically, John Doe's point stands: America was caught between a rock and a hard place, squeezed by Communists, nationalists, and Nazis.
Most of us probably know this already, but at its very first meeting, the Labor Party passed two major documents. The first one was the Yosemite resolution, which correctly called out every single enemy facing the American people:
-anyone working for foreign interests against American interests -Mexican politicians -Canadian fascists -Italian fascists -Nazis -fascists in general -the leadership of the Agrarian Party
The second document was a call to arms, urging the people to fight these enemies and reclaim every inch of stolen land under American sovereignty.
That was mid-1943. By then, it was crystal clear who everyone was and what this whole war was really about.
The only people who would even try to deny the Labor Party's legitimacy are: -the uninformed -people with an ideological leaning toward fascism
The first group usually wanders into the History subforum thinking they're going to learn something. The second group? They're the forum admins' problem—it's their job to keep people like that from poisoning any serious discussion.