Posts by Noah Roberts46

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1435584600040986

It’s basically a Walking Dead themed party. 🙏

Sean Johnson40 said:Claiming that GBH is a good movie—hell, claiming it's better than KC—says everything I need to know about you. Honestly, I don't even have the energy or the desire to waste any more breath arguing with you.

And saying KC is actually a good film? That’s just pathetic. That's it. 👋

Sean Johnson40 said:A hundred times? Seriously? From what I can see, you only listed one guy, and honestly, the similarities just aren't there. This kid started at the absolute bottom of the barrel. He was out there delivering pizzas just to afford a computer, then he ended up crossing the border into Canada to pick up some cheap weed just to flip it for a quick buck—maybe a few hundred or a couple thousand dollars. That's a far cry from anything else you mentioned.

Scorsese can make whatever he wants, and you can worship at his altar all you like if you think sucking up to him among a bunch of trolls and liars is going to earn you some kind of "film expert" status around here. But let’s get one thing straight: the only film of his that actually deserves the title of masterpiece is Casino. Just one. And that’s it. Don't get me wrong, Goodfellas isn't a bad movie, but it doesn't touch the artistic level of Casino.

Don't you dare put words in my mouth. If you can't back up your claims with actual arguments, there’s no need to resort to insults. I never once said those movies were garbage, nor did I compare them to Kid Cannabis. You seem to think you're some kind of genius, judging me and acting high and mighty, when all I did was name Jack Strong and Draft Day as my top picks for the year so far. So, since you're clearly the expert here, why don't you finally weigh in? Tell me which movie you actually think has been better this year.

Oh right, that pile of heavyweight garbage—The Grand Budapest Hotel, isn't it?

I mean, seriously—if even you think this is going too far, then we’ve officially hit rock bottom. Truly.

Look, it’s all the same story to me. Sure, there might be a different level of scale here, but the core point remains unchanged. The guy built his empire on crime—it doesn't really matter how many billions are on the line. If you look at *Goodfellas* or *Scarface*, they follow the exact same trajectory. You have a guy starting from nothing, clawing his way to the top through illegal means, hitting that peak, and then inevitably crashing and burning. What’s actually new about this? I don't feel like scrolling through endless lists, but those are the first movies that come to mind.

Look, reviews are reviews, and the consensus is pretty clear: KC is just an average edit. I honestly don't get why you're attacking me or playing defense for this movie. To me, GBH is a much more high-quality, engaging film. What am I supposed to do? Just change my mind to match yours?

Do I really need some fancy "film expert" title on this forum? Honestly, I live for this stuff. 🤣
Look, I’m no film critic, I’m just commenting on what I’ve watched—that’s what this forum is for, isn't it? Honestly, Goodfellas is better than Casino, and you’re one of the few people out there who actually thinks otherwise. It’s faster, more dynamic, and way more engaging. Plus, it paved the way for the genre. Casino is high quality and beautifully shot, sure, but at the end of the day, it feels like a retread.

It’s honestly laughable to claim that Casino is Scorsese's only masterpiece. He has produced far superior films than that one, so unless you've actually sat through his better work, keep your commentary to yourself. I genuinely don't see how anyone could argue Casino holds more weight than Taxi Driver. 🙄

It’s obvious we’re never going to see eye to eye on this. Everyone can just stick to their own lane—there’s really no point in continuing this discussion.

Sean Johnson40 said:You clearly don't know the first thing about movies. Seriously, your critique is a total coma—completely empty, much like your taste in cinema.

Claiming that The Grand Budapest Hotel is better is basically an entry for a "Greatest Sh*ts of the Year" list. That movie is absolute garbage, but heavy-duty, top-tier garbage. If you actually think it's good, there’s honestly no point in even trying to have a discussion with you.

And saying the acting is mediocre is just another massive fail, as is claiming the plot isn't "seen a hundred times." At least I haven't seen it that many times—not even close—but that’s irrelevant. Please, enlighten me: name some movies where the plot is as overused as Kid Cannabis. I'm waiting.

By the way, Scorsese—whom you're hiding behind to mask your own ignorance and insecurity—only made Casino, which is worth mentioning. And that's it. Even Goodfellas isn't on that level. Not even close.

It honestly gives me the chills when I see someone has replied to my post. It’s just going to be ignorant people, frauds, and trolls all the way down.

Long story short, if it's coming from you, it's too much.

Go ahead, tell me Kid Cannabis is better than Goodfellas too. 🤣 🤣

Look, that whole trope of a guy rising from nothing, living a wild life, and then crashing? We've seen it a hundred times. Look at Vuks from Wall Street. 🤷

Fine. You think GBH is trash, I think Kid Cannabis is trash. Different tastes, nothing to debate there. We can just look at reviews to figure out who actually has better taste. ☕

So Scorsese only made Casino? Since I clearly haven't read enough stupidity today, please, lay it out for me. Taxi Driver, Street of Evil, King of Comedy, after Houers... all useless, apparently. But Kid Cannabis? I have no idea what you were consuming back then, because cannabis definitely isn't enough to make this crap the movie of the year.

Sean Johnson40 said:Cut the trolling.

Kid Cannabis and Jack Strong are two of the best films this year. It’s just typical of a troll like you to be unable to grasp that even amidst the absolute garbage you worship (like The Expendables 3, etc...), a movie can actually be top-tier despite having a rating that's only slightly above average.

And my ass if that's one of the better movies of the year. The Grand Budapest Hotel absolutely destroys it. You saying it was "cheaply" made means nothing to me—congrats, really—but why on earth would I care?

The plot has been done a hundred times already. Only Scorsese films based on true events contain anything remotely similar to this (and obviously, they do it a hundred times better). The acting is sub-par, and it's honestly pathetic how much it tries to be funny—it's laughably bad when that heavy guy starts acting like a badass and bullying that other kid.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Maybe if you stepped away from the screen for a moment and looked beyond this whole U.S.-Russia polarization, you might see things differently. This way of thinking doesn't really make sense to me. I don't think I could teach you in just a few posts how to realize that graveyards are full of leaders who thought they were irreplaceable.

I wasn't even talking about Russia—what does that have to do with anything? I’m talking about Syria. I mentioned the US because they explicitly stated they’re backing certain rebels/terrorists. 🤷

I'm not claiming Assad is indispensable, but what exactly do you gain by removing him? Chaos. It’s chaos right now. I don't know when you were last in Syria, but what exactly did you expect to find there? It makes zero sense to me: if he’s such a tyrant, how is he practically fighting off the entire Western world? Who is providing that support? Just the people? And why on earth would the people do that for a tyrant like him?😕

Jessica Gonzalez said:I’m not interested in spreading propaganda; I’ve actually been to Syria, so I have a sense of how things really work there. To be honest, Assad's military has killed thousands upon thousands of these rebels—and many of them are just regular people with families and friends. I guess you have to wonder how his rule can still be considered legitimate after killing so many people. It doesn't really matter who the opposition is or who leads them. There are specific reasons why things are happening in Syria and not in the States. Back home, if an American Prime Minister were caught taking a few million dollars in bribes, they'd be forced to resign immediately, yet this guy claims legitimacy just because he used tanks to defend it. How yes no. If Assad had any shred of morality left, he probably would have stepped down, since Syria is essentially a living hell right now and he’s largely responsible for that. Maybe he seems like a better option than the radical opposition at this moment, but his hands are definitely stained with blood. I suspect there's no way he could lead a unified, peaceful Syria after a war like this. Even before the conflict started, it was basically a police state where officers were on every corner, though I suppose some might argue that's just because the people love their leader so much.

The "rebels" aren't even citizens anymore; they're just a bunch of terrorists, or at least more than just insurgents. So, when a protest breaks out that's largely fueled by foreign interests, is the President supposed to just step down because of a mob of terrorists? How, yes, no. And what do they actually gain from that?? Just look at how Libya ended once Gaddafi was overthrown—total chaos. There are plenty of other examples.

If such a tyrant is what you’re portraying, then how stupid does the population have to be to show up at the polls and vote for him by a massive 90% margin? The eyes of the entire West are on them, yet the people just need to stand up a little bit and it's over. Who is actually supporting Assad? How is he holding his own against all that foreign aid being funneled to the "rebels"? How is he winning this war? Because the Syrian people are standing firmly behind him. It’s a hell of a story, and it’ll be even better once they secure a final victory. ☕

Go ahead, tell me it's perfectly legitimate for the US to be over there fueling terrorists. They accuse him of using poison gas without providing a shred of evidence, only for it to turn out that the "rebels" were the ones responsible in the end. 🙄

Jessica Gonzalez said:I've actually been to Syria, and I'd say Assad is a tyrant. If you had a regime like that here in America, you'd probably be talking differently.

Then why does the people support him? 😕
There were elections and the guy won convincingly. You're just swallowing propaganda.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Well, I guess I'll just say this: Crimea was taken at gunpoint, and that referendum was probably just for show.

Proof? Not a single shot was even fired. Russian troops were already on the ground. It was a setup. The whole world had its eyes on Crimea, and they turned that referendum into a complete joke. 🙄

Jessica Gonzalez said:I see people have started diving into debates about who lived where and when, or which group has some supposed divine right to certain territories—it all feels like fiction to me. Nations aren't fixed entities, and these territorial claims seem pretty arbitrary. BUT, and I really want to emphasize that BUT, the agreements made when joining the UN state that borders shouldn't be changed by force. And by "force," I mean using weapons. Since the Russians entered Crimea with arms, I guess any arguments about their "right" to take that land just don't hold up. Technically, anyone could claim a right to take back what they feel is theirs under those logic. Most modern states have moved away from that kind of policy. In stable systems—even if many people struggle to understand how they work—changing a border is a long, drawn-out political process, even if the citizens truly want it. You only have to look at how long it took the Scots to get a referendum, or the ongoing struggles for independence in places like Catalonia, the Basque Country, or even the divisions in Belgium and Quebec. Even terrorism isn't really an issue in those cases anymore; violent policies were more common in the 20th century and mostly just led to tragedy. If the people in Crimea wanted to rejoin Russia, I suppose it should have been a standard political process lasting years, settled through a peaceful referendum. When you have masked soldiers occupying a peninsula and then holding a vote under those conditions, I guess it's hard to call those normal circumstances.

You've got it wrong. The Russians already had a military base there. Crimea has massive autonomy, and their military was stationed there the whole time; they didn't "invade" or seize anything. A referendum was held first, and the secession happened after that. It's about a people's right to self-determination...

Walter Grant5 said:Anyone actually follow the details on that recent plane crash? A buddy was lecturing me all day yesterday about Americans. Obviously, he "hates" them, but that doesn't mean his facts are wrong. Honestly, I couldn't retain a single thing he said because he was just rattling off info non-stop while we were out. Also, how much weight do the Russians actually put behind those pro-Russian types in Ukraine? How much (or little) support are they giving them? How, and why? If anyone knows their stuff, give me the short version. Thanks.

Like ruggedjackal46 mentioned, the Ukrainians and Russians had some kind of profitable economic pact before the uprising kicked off and the government was overthrown. What took over was this neo-Nazi right wing, pretty extreme stuff. Things shifted in the country, and rights for the Russian minority were stripped away—I can't recall the specifics, maybe something regarding language laws. Naturally, that minority revolted. Crimea is vital to Russia because of their military presence there. That's why they have troops on the ground (the West accused them of moving troops in, but they've always been stationed there). They held a referendum for secession, which falls under international law regarding a people's right to self-determination. Most people voted to join Russia—around 90%—and frankly, Crimea has always been Russian territory.

After that, the U.S. stepped in, acting like Russia is the only one breaking international law. 🤣
Putin eventually checked them, but honestly, it’s ridiculous when the U.S. claims someone is violating international law when they acted like those laws didn't even exist for decades. Of course, the new government aligned with the West and secured their backing. Russia’s primary fear is NATO pushing its borders right up to their doorstep. That’s why they reclaimed Crimea; imagine if those high-value military bases—territory that is historically Russian and where they won massive battles—fell into NATO hands. It’s not surprising they reacted. I don't know what your friend told you about the U.S., but the reality is they run an expansionist policy, playing global sheriff and sticking their noses into everything. Look at France recently buying two warships from Russia; their relations started improving, and the U.S., despite being a long-time ally, isn't happy about it.

The absolute peak of U.S. political stupidity is the way they fund terrorist groups in Syria—calling them "rebels" when they're actually Al-Qaeda. Then, once those same rebels start causing chaos in Iraq, the U.S. has to pivot and oppose them because they have interests there. So, they back terrorists one day and fight them the next. And Syria is a whole other mess. What's happening there is horrific; they label Assad a tyrant and manipulate the media, conveniently ignoring that the man is incredibly sharp and has explained the situation clearly in numerous interviews.

We checked it out yesterday since it was the only place working for us, but honestly? It’s just a mediocre setup. A totally uninspired story that we've seen a thousand times before. There were a few decent laughs, mostly from how bad the "true story" copies felt compared to actual Spielberg films. 5/10

This movie is an absolute masterpiece; I loved every single second of it.

That scene where the bikers roll into the bar? Pure badassery. 🙏



The ending is gut-wrenching, but it’s such a beautiful story. The guy playing Sonny is incredible, and de Niro is just top-tier as always. As for the kid in the lead role, I’m pretty sure I recognize him from New Jersey. 🤷

Solid anti-war message and visually striking, but honestly, it drags on way too long.

Let’s be real: you almost never see a top-tier squad running a 4-4-2 anymore. ☕

It’s practically all 4-5-1 these days.

Patrick Martin said:You guys practically begged me to run it back, even though I still can't stomach Woods...

Look, if you haven't watched it in a while, just do it. 👍

Absolutely. This movie is an emotional powerhouse, but that first act? It’s some of the best filmmaking ever put to screen. 🙏

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj6v1jyqAq8

This scene is masterclass—it captures that raw, brutal reality perfectly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebStLI36t4w

And this one... just as stunning. It shows he’s still just a kid at heart, completely innocent. 😁

The ending is a total masterpiece too. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oczk6wf02qM)

Was Noodles just hallucinating the whole thing under the influence of opium?

What a phenomenal film. It’s probably my all-time favorite. Quentin Tarantino nailed the description—it's so poetic, yet it depicts such absolute filth. As for the acting, it's already been said, but Woods was incredible; he's such an underrated actor. Joe Pesci wanted to go full throttle with his role, but Leone shut him down. Honestly, thank God he did. It was the right call—just imagine if Pesci had been in that final scene. 🤣🤣

De Niro is one of the greatest of all time because of roles like this. Leonardo DiCaprio and the rest of that crowd simply can't compete with performances of this caliber.

My God, what a masterpiece. 🙏

Al Pacino and Jack Lemmon are absolute legends. 🙏

And the rest of the cast? Not even close to being second best—Alec Baldwin, Arikin, and dear Kevin are all incredible. Seriously top-tier lineup, brilliant dialogue, pure entertainment.

This is absolute genius. This movie seriously deserves way more credit than it gets; it’s easily one of Scorsese's funniest films, but it hits you with that specific brand of pitch-black, totally bizarre humor. 😁

cosmiclynx57 said:Honestly, this Film doesn't really have much going for it, and it definitely isn't on the same level or even better than The Godfather I or Godfather Part II.

That being said, every single second of it is totally worth your time, and since I haven't sat down to watch it in at least two years, I've actually been planning a rewatch since the start of the year!

My rating: 9/10

It all comes down to taste. Personally, I found the flashback sequences in Once Upon a Time in America to be better executed than those in Godfather Part II, and I actually felt the ending was more emotional than in The Godfather. It’s all subjective, really—for instance, I think Godfather Part II is superior to the first one. At the end of the day, it just depends on the individual.

Look, even if you take the bare minimum view, that level is an excellent film. Maybe the beginning didn't hit quite as hard for me, but by the end, everything comes together perfectly.