I know we’re technically off-topic here, but I really think there’s a massive distinction between a "guilty pleasure" and something that’s just mindless brain rot. For me, it’s like when I mentioned Signs earlier. It definitely has its flaws, and I wouldn't go calling it a "good" movie by any objective standard, but I still find it genuinely fun to watch. There’s a difference between that and pure trash or something totally mindless—and honestly, I love a good trashy flick, but this isn't that. 🤷 Maybe I'm just getting my wires crossed.
I think guilty pleasures actually exist. To me, they’re those movies that just don't have any real quality, but they end up being hilarious and fun specifically because they’re so bad. At least, that's how I look at it.
Well, I guess I was speaking broadly when I said his movies aren't really my thing. It’s not that I have an issue with his framing—or whatever you call those technical directorial touches—because he clearly knows his stuff there. My real struggle is with his writing. For instance, things like *Occurrence* or *Lady in the Water* just felt... off to me, kind of silly, I guess 🤷 The whole thing with the twist in *The Sixth Sense* was actually pretty engaging, but since then, his twists haven't really landed for me. As for his most recent films, I won't even get into them 😬
I’ve never really been a fan of that Unknown. Although, I guess I have a bit of a guilty pleasure with Signs, even if it’s pretty flawed in a lot of ways.
If the director actually had the guts, it would be such a cool concept to pepper the whole movie with clues pointing toward some massive, obvious twist, only to pull the rug out at the end and have absolutely nothing happen. Just total silence.
Carol Johnson83 said:The whole "Paul is dead" thing is that conspiracy theory suggesting Paul McCartney from The Beatles actually passed away, and he was replaced by some lookalike just so the band wouldn't fall apart...
goldenscout14 said:Kris Kristofferson is actually a reptilian alien hailing from the Draco constellation.
Honestly, they’re the main reason I’m even interested in watching this. With those two involved, there's a real chance it could turn out to be a great movie.
It feels like one of those classic movie tropes where you've got a brilliant killer playing cat and mouse with a detective team (Hopkins and his crew) until they finally catch him (Farrell).
I was watching the trailer and noticed Bardem, and then there's this other guy who looks just like him later on. Talk about a resemblance.
Larry Fox5 said:I don't care if he hits a few flat or sharp notes here and there—honestly, I value raw energy and actual emotion over perfect pitch any day... It’s about how a performer connects with the crowd! Take someone like Bruce Springsteen, for example—he might miss a note once in a while, but he absolutely lights up every stadium he steps into. Same goes for Bono from U2... Look, maybe Dylan’s vibe just hits you differently because of his delivery—I get it—but even if we take the vocals out of the equation, the instrumentation is just... thin. Seriously, it's super lacking.
Not sure if you play guitar or whatever, but his sound is just plain basic—and honestly, I bet he doesn't even care that much since his whole thing was always about the lyrics anyway.
Just compare his guitar work to someone like Beck. It’s night and day.
You really can't put those two in the same category. Dylan has spent his whole life playing accompaniment—just chords, really, maybe some decent fingerpicking during his early years (think "Don't Think Twice, It's All Right" or "Girl from the North Country"). But Beck? He's one of the greatest solo guitarists out there. Comparing Dylan to someone technically near-perfect like Beck feels a bit ridiculous, to be honest.
For Dylan, the edge is all in the songwriting and the delivery. He doesn't have this smooth, melodic voice, but in most of his tracks, that gravelly tone actually works. And he often uses great vocalists to back him up. Take Joan Baez, for example—even though she’s a world-class singer, I’ve always found her covers of Dylan's stuff to be kind of mediocre.
Larry Fox5 said:Yeah, true—but the question is just which dimension we're talking about. Half the time Dylan is totally faking it, playing like he couldn't care less, and his voice? Absolute garbage. My old mentor always said he was a brilliant songwriter, sure, but a pathetic musician and singer at best...
Between Seal & Jeff Beck, Jimi & BB King, and even the Stones on *Stripped*, there are plenty of versions that are five classes better than the original.
I wouldn't go that far. I mean, I agree it isn't a musical masterpiece, but that sarcastic, mocking tone Dylan brings to it is what makes the song work. That's the one thing all those other covers completely miss.