There’s this insane sport that actually exists, though I haven't seen it on TV in ages: hill climbing on dirt bikes. They find some massive, steep incline, mark out distances—like 30 feet, 60 feet, 90 feet—and then a bunch of riders just charge straight up until they can't anymore. In about 95% of cases, that climb ends in a brutal wipeout on the way back down. It's absolute madness. 😁
Robert De Niro has a much broader range. He even took a shot at comedies that weren't exactly his usual thing, and he killed it. It goes without saying that both of them are in a league of their own.
I sat through that piece of trash too. I won't say the movie is boring, per se, but man, it’s a total masterclass in being unbelievable and completely illogical. And when you factor in that two of the BIGGEST actors... I won't get into spoilers, you know exactly what I'm getting at. 😁
casualpuma71 said:I haven't actually sat down to watch the movie yet. I just caught the trailer, and my first impression is that it portrays fans with a ton of bias. It feels like how people in America generally view them too.
Let's not drag this thread back into that old debate, but there's clearly a reason why people look at fans that way.
slywolf9 said:Talking about him like he’s some kind of high-brow artist and comparing him to Bergman is a total joke. That was never even his goal; he’s always been about the paycheck. I’m not saying all his movies are trash, but most of them definitely are...
Any filmmaker who approaches a movie purely as "art" is basically begging for financial ruin. Movies aren't just art—everyone knows that. To me, all the artistic quality in the world doesn't mean a thing if the movie isn't entertaining or engaging enough to keep me from falling asleep.
redowl90 said:I don't think you guys get what I'm actually saying... Back in the eighties and before, computer tech just wasn't where it is now. You couldn't have filmed something like LotR in the eighties...
They could have filmed it then, and honestly, probably better than they do today. Plus, your post doesn't even address what I actually wrote. Even commandos have special effects.
redowl90 said:HA HA!! That doesn't make the story any better, that's not the point... The thing is, the producers behind Command were actually BELIEVING in the project (meaning they genuinely thought it was a good, high-quality movie)
This being stupidity de-luxe. Command was built to turn out exactly how it did. An action riot like nothing else.
Look, there might be a bit of a thematic gap between the 80s and the 90s when it comes to the typical blockbuster. The 80s were all about those high-octane action flicks, but once the 90s hit, disaster movies started popping up way more often than they used to, and science started creeping into everything.
redowl90 said:Sure, you've got Rambo and commandos... but they didn't blow millions on special effects. Those kinds of movies just aren't made anymore (sadly)...
Look, think about what "special effects" actually means. It covers everything, not just the CGI stuff. Both Rambo and commandos movies rely heavily on special effects for explosions and fight scenes.
northerncrane4 said:It’s like you went out of your way to misunderstand everything I said. Look, a movie doesn't need to be some dramatic masterpiece with perfectly polished characters to actually be good. It really bugs me when a director decides to focus on "deep" character motivations right when they should be running for their lives from rampaging dinosaurs, Nazis, aliens, time glitches, zombie hordes, or genetically modified eggplants, just because they have this desperate need to feel like an "artist." And half the time, those "deep motives" are about as profound as some cheap copy of Psychology for Beginners from Jesenski Publishing or Turk.
Man, if everything bothers you that much, just go watch Mortal Kombat. 🙄
It’s basically the same trajectory as Dreamcatcher. You get this incredibly promising setup, only for the whole thing to derail into some stupid alien plot. Total waste. 👎
Eric Jackson43 said:I just realized, there isn't a single Black or Jewish lead character in War of the Worlds.😲 😲 😲
Well, those people are basically the heavy hitters in Independence Day.🙏
It just hit me—they even threw in a gay character. That boss working with Goldblum on TV. They covered every single strategic demographic. Nothing was left out.🙏
rapidbison42 said:I can't believe Independence Day is leading.
Turns out Dolph Lundgren is actually a better actor than Jim Carrey.
Independence Day is an incredibly watchable movie. It took me a minute to realize why. It’s because it uses every single cliché ever conceived in the history of cinema. You've got the funny Black guy, JEWS, the President and his Advisors, hot chicks, fighter jets and that whole Top Gun vibe, aliens with even better planes, EXPLOSIONS, kids tied to every main character, USING MORSE CODE, a unified world (it feels like those guys at the end are shouting USA, USA!), the ATOMIC BOMB and, most importantly—we win by absolutely smashing those aliens into the dirt led by the USA!
How did they not think to throw a comic relief character into War of the Worlds—you know, some clown who got abducted by aliens way back in the day and is now coming back for revenge? And seriously, how did they miss the chance to show a President and his Advisors just leaning in and whispering "Nuke 'em" into his ear the whole damn time?🙏
Season 2 and Season 4 of "24" were solid. Even that Affleck flick "Sum of All Fears" wasn't half bad. There are plenty of these "nuclear" movies out there.