Three prime examples of the Hollywood circus. Movies that say absolutely nothing, movies that lack any sense of direction, and movies that desperately struggle to outdo their predecessors—and in doing so, outdo one another. They are films that attempt to cram every possible visual onto the screen at once, pushing the camera to its absolute limit just to capture everything, completely disregarding the sensory overload forced upon the viewer. These are movies without an audience; they are merely sponges designed to soak up cash. In other words, the true cinematic killers we were raised on and what we have come to expect.
Utterly insignificant, these films play a very simple game: break every record at any cost. They aim to grab 90% of their total revenue on opening day by using cheap emotional tricks and sheer momentum, all to secure enough capital to birth their next offspring. This is how they feed; this is how they are born. Their "soul"—everything a film once meant for culture—has been traded away for box office returns.
Everyone will flock to see them, even though we already know exactly what happens; we can see the plot from start to finish. Within a month, they will be forgotten, and then the Transformers sequels and such will be arriving.
While you are watching the new Pirates, enjoy the unbearable fireworks and the barrage of special effects and scenes you won't even be able to follow. All you'll be able to mutter is "wow!"
Paul Scott said:How on earth can you even compare Lambert to Nicholson!?
Why not? At the end of the day, regardless of the role they take on, they both still feel like themselves. 😁
The only real distinction is that one possesses actual charisma and style, while the other lacks it. (Not to mention the fact that the latter has appeared in far superior, more significant motion pictures.)
It’s a bit of a joke, really, though there might be a kernel of truth to it—this theory was actually floated by that controversial Professor Mikić from my university, who specializes in the film industry and photography. A true actor is someone who becomes unrecognizable in roles where they are portraying someone else. Jack Nicholson, however, is always just Jack Nicholson, much like all those big Hollywood stars who achieved fame precisely because of that consistency. Audiences don't necessarily want to see actors playing completely different characters every single time; they want that familiarity. That's exactly why Bruce Willis became such a staple. 😁
The capital expenditure is entirely justified, provided one acknowledges that branding and marketing represent the absolute cornerstone of any corporate enterprise. Just consider the sheer scale of what AT&T pours into their branding—compared to that, Verizon is nothing more than a casual backyard picnic.
The new campaign is polished and meticulously executed; it is bound to yield results. This isn't a matter of subjective taste.
Furthermore, one must realize that logo design and campaign development are among the most significant investments a company can make.
Kudos to anyone who actually sticks to Vinyl Records. It usually suggests you value the music itself far more than mere convenience or cutting corners on cost.
Oscar movies are just projects, plain and simple—no different from any other marketing and advertising campaign. A major studio sets an annual roadmap that accounts for everything: the massive blockbusters, the total flops (!), the modest successes, and the Oscar contenders. Personally, I’m convinced every production house essentially buys their way into the Oscars; they know the exact formula used to assemble these types of films. My reasoning is quite straightforward: the sheer predictability of these movies is undeniable. 🙂
The Oscar is vital for long-term marketing, and honestly, the entire global film industry seems to revolve around nothing else. You find both good and bad entries in the Oscar category, but the key is that they share specific characteristics, making them highly programmable assets. The heavy hitters at these major studios consist of the absolute best in the business working for massive payouts, so it would be bizarre if they left anything to chance. In a capitalist society, we learn pretty quickly that when millions of dollars are on the line, people don't take unnecessary risks. What you can't really schedule, however, are true masterpieces from independent and foreign cinema. Those films prioritize the concept of art above all else, and because of that, they will likely never see an Oscar or a major publicity blitz.
David Price5 said:Die Hard. He managed to maintain high quality through three different editions... though I had a difficult time choosing between that and Terminator..
Die Hard doesn't really fit into that specific category for me... I mean, where are the muscles on Bruce Willis??? 😁
But then again, where are the movies starring Jean-Claude Van Damme or Dolph Lundgren? Well, I suppose that would be a separate poll entirely—something specifically for 80s action trash...
Actually, Die Hard ought to be placed in a different survey altogether, alongside Lethal Weapon. You know, those action films packed with action, and more action, and even more action, always culminating in a final showdown where the main villain somehow refuses to stay dead once and for all... 😁
nimblemarlin17 said:I genuinely enjoy heading to an AMC Theatres or a theater on Broadway because their technical setups are superior to other cinemas; honestly, any movie feels better when watched on a big screen. They really ought to drop ticket prices down to about $6.75.
The issue, however—and this is my observation—is that there hasn't been anything worth watching for the last two or three months. It isn't just the theaters; nothing good is hitting the streaming services either. I haven't noticed a drought like this in ten years. I walk into a digital storefront and end up walking out with some old classic because all the new releases are absolute garbage.
I actually first noticed this trend about five years ago 🙂
I don't bother with streaming services anymore. As for the cinema, I might go occasionally if I'm already out on the town, but I don't watch TV. I only sit down for a movie if the hype, the recommendations, or the subject matter is truly intriguing enough to grab my attention...
but then I find myself unable to access the older films I actually want to see...
That’s the truth of it, though one shouldn't look for technical explanations. Instead, the reasons lie within the current trends of modern Western society.
Quite simply, movie theaters have lost that sociological and cultural weight they once carried.
Consider why, for instance, an AMC Theatres in New York City might still be holding its own: it’s because seeing a film there isn't actually the main event. The primary goal is being seen and mingling with a more elite crowd; the movie itself is merely a pretext.
Add to that the fact that new releases are now so much easier—and cheaper—for most people to access through alternative media, whether legal or otherwise, and you arrive at the exact situation we find ourselves in today.
Richard Hernandez13 said:Big Trouble in Little China features the incomparable Russell playing that classic American hard-boiled macho lug who somehow manages to miss every single shot in the entire movie.
- What is that stuff? - It is black blood of earth. - You mean oil? - No, I mean black blood of earth.
- What's in the flask, Egg? Magic potion? - Yeah. - Thought so, good. What do we do, drink it? - Yeah! - Good, thought so.
🙏
A masterpiece. My favorite sequence? The finale. Russell, looking like an absolute idiot with roses smeared all over his face, hurls a knife at the sorcerer and misses by less than ten feet. The sorcerer picks up the knife from the floor—"nice try Mr. Tim Burton. Goodbye Mr. Tim Burton!"—and flings it back at Kurt, who catches it mid-air and sends it straight back into the guy's forehead in half a second.😁
crimsonmoose3 said:Good grief. My apologies, Richard Howard2, 😵 😵 It is one of the most insane films ever made—specifically that unforgettable final sequence where an astronaut ends up surfing his way back toward Earth.
Even though I found myself chuckling through nearly the entire runtime, my absolute favorite moment has to be when he's chasing that inflatable pumpkin-shaped alien, gets himself wedged under the elevator, and in a desperate attempt to call for help, manages to hit nothing but the button for the "Figaro" theme 🤣
Well, truth be told, Escape from Los Angeles actually earned some pretty stellar reviews from most critics. Personally, I find the film to be nothing short of top-tier.
You failed to mention my absolute favorite of his early work, his debut Dark Star!
Does anyone happen to have any of his rarer films available for trade, specifically including Dark Star?
Richard Hernandez13 said:Wasn't there a short story before the movie and the book—well, let’s be clear, I mean the 2001 version? The Sentinel Or something like that.
The Sentinel served as the foundational blueprint for the Clarke / Kubrick project, 2001. If my memory serves—and it usually does, despite my failings—the book and the film were released almost simultaneously, or at least within a very narrow window of time. It strikes me as odd that they don't share much beyond the core concept, though I have always found the discrepancy regarding the planetary setting rather baffling. In the book, the focus is on Saturn, yet the film shifts the entire stage to Jupiter. Aside from that specific orbital pivot, everything else remains essentially identical.
I haven't had the chance to read The Sentinel yet, unfortunately...