Posts by Samuel Smith5

Maybe a remake of this? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090424/
By the way, that British miniseries was top-tier.

The easiest way would be through your ISP's customer portal
I'm pretty sure there's some kind of software for it. Maybe something like NetLimiter?

redowl90 said:It comes down to the talent involved.
The truth is, American films are just better than anything else out there.

😁

it’s probably just because

You don't really need to take our movie translations too seriously. It’s actually kind of funny how much interesting stuff is buried behind those ridiculous titles

Porco Rosso

Anthony Bailey said:northerncrane4 hit the nail on the head.
Go watch the movie again. If I actually tried to explain it to you, I'd end up spoiling a third of the damn plot.
🙂

If you laid it all out for him, you'd realize there's really only one reason anyone would bother paying for a ticket and sitting through this thing. Just like so many others before it, this movie leans entirely on a cheap, desperate twist at the finish line.
It reminds me of something a character once said in a truly great film: I'll tell you a secret. The last act makes a film. The End, and you got a hit. You can have flaws, problems, but The End, and you've got a hit. 🙂

redowl90 said:Word on the street is The New York Times wants nothing to do with the movie because of its plot. They’re acting all high and mighty now, but they were the first ones in line when it came to publishing fake interviews.

On a different note, the first half of the film is actually pretty engaging since you see the same events unfold from eight different Point of View. However, the last 20 minutes are absolute garbage. It's a shame, really, because that car chase was one of the best-shot sequences I've seen in a while.

and totally unnecessary

The movie has about as much connection to reality as Harry Potter. I mean, we see firsthand exactly what kind of security theater it takes just to let the President sleep soundly in our major cities.
I wonder if the Secret Service will give both Clinton and Clinton a thorough background check before they ever let them near Bush.

I can't stand Polimac. Honestly, if he actually starts raving about some movie, I’ll probably skip it just out of spite. 😬
I don't really bother with those newspaper reviews anymore. Like Joseph Lee3 was saying, they're fine for a quick heads-up, but after that, I just find everything else I need online.

Gregory Wood41 said:But seriously. What I actually want to see is another Alien directed by either Ridley Scott or James Cameron.

Well, even David Fincher didn't do too bad with his sequel, though in my book, Ridley Scott is the true master when it comes to Alien.

As far as I'm concerned, no movie should ever have a sequel. It rarely manages to hit the same level as the original, and it almost never manages to beat it.

Larry Martin11 said:@Chris Morgan67
The more I dwell on this movie, the less I actually know what to think about it 😳. So, here’s attempt number two—this time with a little bit of self-quoting...
While I was watching, it had me completely hooked. But staring at those credits roll, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was missing that other, fetishistic, mad, "associative," non-storytelling Cronenberg—that raw mastermind who treats sex primarily as a "symbol" rather than just an act, and whose violence is endlessly terrifying (because it's always a gateway to something else) while simultaneously being breathtakingly stylized 😍. Maybe, looking back at my favorite moments—after all, he’s the man who uncovered the unbearable side of media technology, but also the bearable side of Debbie Harry in Videodrome, and managed to pull a wilder Vaughan out of the "angelic" Noah (both, of course, are just different dimensions of my favorite Elias Koteas)—maybe I expected too much? Is it possible I’m unsatisfied because he decided to embrace straight storytelling, effectively stripping away a huge part of what I love most about his work?
To be fair, he’s usually figured out how to pull it off: History of Violence maintained a fine layer of social critique beneath the surface, along with that beautiful stylization of violence (that encounter with the brother 😍 ) and the way he repurposes familiar imagery in unexpected ways (that staircase sex scene is so quintessentially Cronenberg...). So, even if it fell apart toward the end, there was still plenty to enjoy... Here, though—perhaps due to the script alone—the use of contextual layers felt somewhat skimpy to me. The characters' motivations, rooted in their past mistakes or experiences, just didn't feel sufficient to drive the action, no matter how crucial they were to the plot. I wanted the horror of the American system, which results in the isolated segment we see in the film, to get more breathing room as either a political or social phenomenon. And while there were attempts—small sparks that mattered for both the story and the larger picture, like Nikolaiev’s attitude toward the Ukrainian prostitute—it just wasn't enough... All that remained of the stylization was a "stylized world" that feels like a bizarrely beautiful blend of noir and detective cartoons 🙂. It felt like the context was abandoned because the director didn't know what to do with it (...location isn't usually a big deal for Cronenberg, but occasionally it gains meaning beyond just being a setting—History of Violence absolutely had to have its roots in the US, because nowhere else would that story resonate as powerfully as in a small American town; Eastern Promises, however, fails to leverage its London setting, despite trying here and there. The exteriors are shot drastically worse than the interiors, making a good portion of the film feel like it’s taking place "nowhere." Even the attempt to use "doubly authentic" elements—like the Chelsea fans before a match—failed miserably in a poorly staged scene that missed a chance to use such a great "London" signifier
.) ...The core plot is a problem in itself. The female lead, who functions as the catalyst for everything, is basically a cliché. It makes me wonder if the film wouldn't have had a much better, more serious tone if she had been avoided entirely. That would have saved it from the naive, unnecessary "sugar-coating" at the end (which felt totally out of place) and the habitually unconvincing Naomi Watts, whom I simply don't understand was cast for this role. Granted, removing the female "moral compass" would mean needing to redefine the whole film, but I’d honestly be happier if that happened. Maybe then there wouldn't be room for that middle sentence, "Than make the next one right," which perfectly summarized her purpose in the film—but then again, I've never been a fan of those overly simplistic (and frankly, a bit cheap) screenwriter tricks, no matter how sweet they might seem...🙂

If we strip Watts out of the equation—which I did, because I was craving some "old school" Cronenberg—I actually stumbled upon some fresh acting dimensions. Viggo Mortensen delivers another stellar performance here; he’s quite frankly wonderfully unrecognizable and just plain brilliant 🙂. Mueller-Stahl is a fantastic foil for him, too. Both actors squeeze everything they can out of roles that are far less conventional than I’d like to believe—though they still possess a much finer layer of depth than what you typically see in "these kinds" of movies. Nuance matters, motivation is everything, and in this regard, nobody—not the actors, the writer, nor the director giving them space—fell short or felt forgettable. However, the one who truly delighted me was the least praised of the trio, Vincent Cassel. He’s the "pretty boy" of French cinema, often pigeonholed into mindless English-language roles, but here he takes on his most heartbreaking, expressive, and arguably most underrated turn. It’s easy to overlook how unusual this role is and how beautifully he plays it. He crafts such a "refined" portrayal of an unrefined man—someone whose existence is far less subtle or inconspicuous than Nikolaiev’s, even though he constantly insists on being invisible ("I'm just a driver."). He essentially becomes whatever he thinks people expect him to be, and since he knows he can't meet those expectations, he ends up destroying himself instead. He effectively has no voice—not literally in his decisions, but nowhere else either. His reactions always seem a beat too late, and honestly, the only thing saving him from total insignificance is the fact that blood is thicker than water. Cassel plays him with an unexpected tenderness that I didn't think he had in him—he isn't afraid of looking weak and shows a lovely ability to bypass clichés. Where I feared cheapness the most, I was instead met with that gorgeous scene with the "party girls." It’s beautiful, though not because of the content—which is endlessly brutal toward everyone involved. The girls are treated as mere "meat" or "merchandise," stripped of any dimension; Nikolai is caught in a situation where the end justifies the means (while also becoming "meat" for Kirill); and Kirill is bound by what his social standing demands, even if it leaves him torn. It’s all handled through the way it’s acted: I wasn't sure whether to laugh or feel awkward given the tension and that "forbidden" eroticism, which provided a stunning contrast to the usual banalization of "weakness"—something usually forbidden, yet so glaringly obvious here. There are moments of heavy, profound subtext, too—the basement scene is his best attempt at playing with the fragmentation Kirill can't escape from (even within the basement itself). The conversation with his father and Nikolaiev in front of the van is rawer, but equally successful. There's a pervasive, subtle sadness to it all, which reminds me most of the relationship between Tonny and his father in *Pusher II*. As a total sentimentalist, my biggest issue with this "favorite layer" of Cronenberg’s film is how much it mirrors Refn’s masterpiece, even if this doesn't quite reach those heights. Though, to be fair, Kirill has the upper hand because he betrays his father without the father having fully betrayed him first, whereas Tonny sees no choice at all and lacks even a false protector. Aside from that, both are immature, voiceless, and completely ill-equipped for their situations, which ultimately leaves them terrified. They are very similar. Cassel might not quite hit the level Mikkelsen maintains, but he does have the advantage of being the lead, so he has more room to maneuver...🙂
...and since Refn was mentioned, the similarities between the two films run deeper. Refn isn't particularly interested in underworld dynamics so much as human connections—specifically, the relationship one has with oneself. (Though Cronenberg is a stylist, so his characters carry their life stories tattooed on their skin, whereas Refn is a realist, and Tonny merely shames himself with that silly tattoo, even if he doesn't realize it). Honestly, I wish Cronenberg had learned a bit more from Refn's work, assuming he even watched it... I know most people will say they aren't comparable, but there are so many overlapping motifs...
...of course, aside from the pricing—which might have hit me a little too hard personally—the movie has its own obvious charms: that sauna fight is exactly the kind of thing I love about Cronenberg 😍, and the "initiation rite" is also masterful (if I felt even the slightest urge to slap Mortensen, it was right when he stood up from his chair), even if it leaned a bit too heavily into being a "caricature." And since the ending didn't quite land for me (and I don't just mean the very end, but those hospital scenes with both the detective and Anna, which felt like a subpar version of Deja Vu), I have to at least mention that brilliant, mosaic-like opening... the interior production design is way too good (it actually reminded me of how they play with space in Pusher—using a family celebration as a ritual within a setting that’s essentially hell, through which you see the hypocrisy of the central figures unfold: Semyon is much like Tony’s father, yet Milo is magically two-sided, sharing nothing but an obsession with detail between his refinement and his roughness; he operates on a somewhat different level, whereas in Kirill, just like in Tony, there's this dual need to protect and be protected when facing similar characters in similar situations), and you really have to tip your hat to the entire cast for those magical physical transformations... the cinematography is solid, but in a strange way—the gorgeously "costumed" interiors are pushed to their absolute limit, while the exteriors feel almost non-existent, which bothered me...

...but what kind of movie is this, ultimately? What is it even about? If I approach it as some sort of thriller (which it really isn't), then it’s visually striking, a little cliché, beautiful but somehow not all that unique... however, if I view it as a heavy study of how we behave, our motivations, the weight of external influences, and the horror of the choices that haunt us—then I like it much more, though perhaps it still "missed the mark" slightly. Maybe Ebert didn't win me over after all, but the simple fact that I watched this three days ago and I'm still thinking about it so intensely means Cronenberg actually pulled something off properly 🙂

That’s exactly what I was getting at 😬
well put

Man, this movie just refuses to leave you indifferent. It’s either a masterpiece or total garbage—there is no middle ground.
I definitely fall into the first camp, though I have to admit, it’s probably the most unsettling thing I’ve ever sat through.

That final scene hits way too hard. When the father is breastfeeding the son, and then the daughter walks in looking completely broken and joins them... 🙏

Here’s a little tutorial

Nathan Myers28 said:It's true—Transformers doesn't even crack the top 100 action flicks. But if you ask me, Spielberg deserves just as much credit for Transformers as Bruckheimer does for most of Bay's other hits. I remember hearing Bruckheimer once mention he'd never even heard of George Clooney or the FBI—what an absolute jerk.

Listen, give Vrdoljak 200 million bucks and he'd probably turn out a better movie. And you could probably cast George Clooney as Optimus Prime.😁

I mean, calling Transformers one of the greatest action movies ever made... that’s not even about having different tastes anymore. Putting Bay in the same sentence as "the best" is like putting Hitler in the same sentence as humanity.

bluebison8 said:Despite whatever criticism he’s faced, the guy delivered Transformers—one of the greatest action movies ever made.

I guess you haven't seen much actual action then.

George Alvarez3 said:Because it’s a perfectly packaged movie that’s just going to be total garbage to those people who think their "understanding" of cinema means they've moved past basic storytelling—you know, the types who think a good film has to be some meta-intellectual puzzle, or just people who don't actually respect film as an art form. On my own list of stuff I actually enjoyed, Armageddon would be one of the last things I'd ever suggest to someone, but the movie is so brilliantly woven into its own... let's call it "simplicity"... that it honestly deserves to be called a good piece of work. Regardless, it sits right at the top of the disaster movie genre, whether people want to admit it or not.

The same logic applies to Pearl Harbor. It's so incredibly stupid that it circles back around to being good. I mean, you rarely see this level of pure pathos packed into a single film.

George Alvarez3 said:Look, call it subjective if you want, but here’s how I see it:

Transformers: 4/10
The Island: 4/10
Bad Boys II: 3/10
Pearl Harbor: 1/10
Armageddon: 9/10
Dwayne Johnson: 5/10
Bad Boys: 6/10

Total: 4.6

My bar for a decent director: 8.5.

So…

😂

So, what exactly earned it a nine in your book?

John Peterson3 said:If you find his movies boring, numbing, or whatever, why on earth are you even watching them?

Well, so we can actually make an educated argument when we tear him down. Look, don't take it personally if I think he's pathetic. He is essentially the embodiment of everything wrong with the industry. Because of people like him, movies have turned into mere products—designed not to entertain or offer anything meaningful to the audience, but simply to lure people into theaters just to bleed them dry.

Bay is basically what Paris Hilton is to the music industry

Kate Torres said:🤣🤣🤣 I watched that episode of South Park.

😁
Just grab a bucket or a trash bag before you sit down to watch anything by Bay. You know, just in case you end up feeling sick and don't want to ruin the carpet.

Here is an interesting—though honestly, not that surprising—little fact. Back in the day, both Pearl Harbor and Armageddon were massive, juggernaut hits. Millions of people flocked to them, they pulled in billions at the box office, and yet, if you look at their IMDb ratings today...

Pearl Harbor user rating : 5.3/10 (62,668 votes)
Armageddon user rating : 5.9/10 (79,735 votes)