Posts by Jerry Martin19

velvetcrane57 said:You're just not a Kubrick fan, that's all.......
There are plenty of other films with an atmosphere similar to Eyes Wide Shut... Not to mention, if you haven't seen Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket or Paths Of Glory, those are, in my view, his best works alongside Clockwork Orange.
And once again... As someone who considers themselves a huge Kubrick enthusiast, I am telling you, you simply cannot deny that Eyes Wide Shut is his worst film—his absolute decline. I first read that online and couldn't believe he was capable of making a bad movie, but once I actually watched it, I realized everything they said was true. And frankly, the man didn't get the benefit of a graceful pivot like Hitchcock did with Frenzy. I mention him because he and Kubrick are my two favorite directors... Sadly, neither of them are with us anymore.😢

BTW: If anyone is interested, feel free to reach out and grab this phenomenal Kubrick collection... It just hit the shelves here in the States.....😁

Clearly you're just not getting me. It’s obvious I’m not a Kubrick fan if his movies don't actually blow me away... because if they did, I'd definitely be one of those people. Out of everything I've watched, nothing hits quite that deep atmospherically like... Eyes Wide Shut... Personally, I think that's just what the Kubrick fanboys claim. It’s their opinion, not some universal truth...
And you already know... whenever someone starts raving about Kubrick, they're definitely trying to pull something with...Not even gonna bring up the fact that you haven't seen Kubrick... but honestly, *Full Metal Jacket*, *Paths of Glory*, and *A Clockwork Orange* are easily his best...I watched five movies and broke them all down—some more than others—but honestly, your take is just built on some seriously outdated logic...Check out these two more. They're the best ones to go with this...... so I guess that means I have to binge his entire filmography just to get him, or whatever... but honestly, kids these days aren't falling for those kinds of tropes anymore...
And it’s right there in the next statement...Look, as a massive Kubrick fan, I’m telling you...What you're doing is just limiting your own arguments—which aren't really arguments to begin with. Like I said, being a fan doesn't mean you're right. If that's how you see it... Eyes Wide Shut... Just because Kubrick fell from grace doesn't mean everyone else has to follow suit. If you're actually trying to be objective, maybe try separating your personal feelings from the facts... you might get taken more seriously. I'm not saying he... A Clockwork Orange. The movie isn't even that great; it’s just all people talk about. I say I experienced it that way, and if someone can't handle my take, honestly, that's their problem, not mine. It’s like if I kept trying to force you to see things my way... Eyes Wide Shut... Go watch Kubrick's best movies. Maybe then you'll finally get why everyone else is positioned the way they are... like me, for instance...

Warriors isn't exactly some cinematic masterpiece... Wait, what am I even saying? Of course they are... Some people will love them, others won't... Whatever. Obviously, I've got them in my collection at home... And yeah, I'll probably rewatch them anytime without getting bored...👍

Like I just said... one person's opinion isn't everyone else's. That’s common sense. I never said I didn't like the movie; I said that from my perspective, it's a bad film. I've got plenty of reasons to back that up, but whether you or anyone else agrees with me isn't really my problem...

Out of the Dead feels like a total outlier in the Scorsesean catalog to me. It’s this super neurotic, heavy depression drama that just hits differently than his usual style. I don't know about you guys, but this isn't the Scorsese I grew up watching. Thoughts?

btw, great flick 😍

velvetcrane57 said:Is it just me, or are you actually taking a massive swipe at The Warriors here??

Look, do whatever you want with it, but for me... The Warriors... Pretty miserable movie. Or so they claim... garbage... It’s one of those classics that people swear by when they're younger, but honestly, I never got the hype. The script and directing are just lazy and uninspired, and don't even get me started on the acting—though that's not really why the movie stuck with me in such a bad way. Even if you look past all the technical failures, the whole thing was just incredibly dull. I didn't even know how to stay engaged. The action sequences were poorly executed, too. Maybe that's just how it's supposed to be... garbage... The aesthetics are fine, I guess, but there’s just zero tension in the action scenes for me. Makes the whole thing pretty dull. The only real upside is that vintage vibe they managed to capture, and the plot actually holds some weight, but beyond that... it's definitely a one-and-done kind of movie...

velvetcrane57 said:Eyes Wide Shut might actually be his weakest outing. Look, I am a massive devotee of his work, but you simply cannot compare the absolute zenith of Kubrick's career (like ''A Clockwork Orange'') to what I consider to be his decline (''Eyes Wide Shut'').

Being a Kubrick fan doesn't mean you're always right when you start talking about him... not that I'm claiming to be, I'm just saying... I don't know... just my two cents.). A Clockwork Orange. Honestly, this was easily the worst Kubrick flick I've sat through... and that’s saying something since I've already checked out these five: The Killing, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining... I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. You only typed "i"... Eyes Wide Shut... I’ve seen enough movies to feel like I know a thing or two about Kubrick... The Killing... i Eyes Wide Shut... Hands down, they're the best on this list...
I'm one of those viewers where the vibe is everything... Eyes Wide Shut... I'm feeling the exact same way. Also, I live for that Polanski-style mystery vibe—and this movie has it in spades. The visuals are killer, especially with those creepy undertones... Kubrick is just built different... vizual-sound It’s the director's job, so that's what you expect from him. Dark streets, endless wandering, searching for answers to questions that weren't even asked... those eerie sounds and that mysterious vibe—that's exactly why this is my favorite Kubrick flick. It gives me way more than that pretentious psychological deep-diving that ultimately leaves you with zero answers. Sorry, but I didn't really get much out of that one. What kept me watching was... A Clockwork Orange. Pure madness... It was all just vibes—visuals, sound design, the story itself—if you don't go digging for some deep meaning. The rest was just pure pretension and Kubrick's typical self-important philosophizing. Gave me nothing but a headache...

Joseph Lee3 said:Just a little piece of advice for Jerry Martin19: don't let your gut feelings lead you astray. At least for me, intuition has proven to be a pretty unreliable guide more often than not. Because of some vague vibes or preconceived notions, I’ve ended up stalling on cinematic treats that eventually became near-favorites. 😍

As for those outliers in a director's filmography—especially when dealing with someone major—I think those "misfit" films are exactly what you should be watching. They offer an antithesis to the usual style, creating this space to really contemplate where the film sits within their body of work. You often end up learning more from one of those deviations than from ten standard, formulaic entries. It’s much like how we learn best through our mistakes. I’m not saying a director's outlier has to be worse than their standard fare, but it definitely stands out.

Personally, I’ve always appreciated a good surprise because it brings a sense of freshness. It’s like when you go and drastically change your hairstyle; it doesn't necessarily have to be better than the old look, but it’s certainly different, and that gives you something actual to talk about.

I'll weigh in on those directorial outliers soon enough, assuming I'm not just talking to hear myself speak. 🙄

Go for it, Joseph Lee3. Your post is totally on-topic, just from a different angle. You're treating the outlier as a learning tool, which is useful and definitely not off-topic.🙂

Thanks for the tip. I already told myself I need to stay away from prejudices. I mean, who else would've pushed me to watch three Jim Jarmusch movies?😲

😬

@Carol Lewis, acting like I'm some kind of tyrant here. No need to explain if you don't feel like it. I just thought explaining things was a better way to keep the conversation going.🙂

That’s a weird take from you Trouble with Harry. I’ve seen plenty of Hitchcockian stuff, but I always somehow steered clear of that one. No clue why. I guess I just couldn't wrap my head around combining Hitchcock and comedy. It definitely feels like a bad misfit, just like redowl90 said...

offtopic:

@redowl90, interesting point. Ever since we cleared up that whole thing with Armin, we've been on the same page most of the time. Lately, you've mentioned a few movies in different threads that I've always had a bad feeling about, and your takes align perfectly with my gut instincts. Regardless, I guess I should probably watch them...

Carol Lewis said:First off (to Samuel Smith5): You really need to check out The Truman Show.
Secondly (regarding the original question): Are we counting actors here too, or is this strictly for directors?

Jesus, don't limit the topic that much...😲

Jerry Martin19 said:As "entry points," you can list negative (assuming mine were mostly positive) jumpscares, actors, directors, series, etc. I bet there's enough material here to blow this thread wide open. Just hope people don't take it as negatively as they usually do with other threads.

😉

Yeah. I was thinking the exact same thing when I wrote the intro. Totally agree. It feels like an "intruder" for two reasons:

1) it's a step down from its usual quality
2) the style is just different, which honestly isn't even a big deal compared to the first reason...

Alright, man, maybe I was wrong to assume all Woody Allen movies are just romantic comedies, but I still feel like Match Point hits differently than anything else he’s done, even if I haven't seen his entire filmography. If you were going to categorize his stuff, it feels like most of them have at least one "pair" or a recurring vibe, but Match Point doesn't seem to have a match... that's all I'm getting at. Btw, I don't know if Woody Allen has anything this cold in his catalog. Does he?

Not sure how much the title gives away, so I'll just lay it out clearly. I want to start a conversation about atypical "outliers" in cinema—whether they’re positive shifts or total flops. What am I talking about?

We've all probably felt that moment when a director does something totally unexpected, like stepping way outside their usual lane. Take Woody Allen's 2005 release, for instance. Match Point is a complete outlier for him. Up until then, he mostly stuck to those romantic comedies, sometimes even leaning into that classic musical vibe he's known for. He's got plenty of hits, with Annie Hall being the big one that even won over people who usually can't stand his style... though most of them didn't change their minds afterward. Why call Match Point an "outlier"? There are a ton of reasons, but the main thing is that even a casual viewer can see this was a massive, steep turn in Woody Allen's career. Unlike his earlier stuff, which, again, were mostly rom-coms, Match Point is this cold, clinical drama with a heavy thriller edge at its peak. It's a far cry from the warmer vibes of his previous work. Even the characters feel different—almost a sort of neo-Woody Allen-esque vibe—and the setting totally shifts that familiar atmosphere we expect from him. I could go on forever about why this stands out in his career, but I feel like I'm turning this into a full-blown review, so I'll stop there. This is a "positive" outlier. It's widely known that Match Point was well-received by audiences, though some might argue it was a misstep or a wrong turn for him. Personal opinions are totally fine here, just keep it relevant to the theme. Your definition of an "outlier" doesn't have to be obvious to count...

You can also bring up negative outliers—actors, directors, franchises, whatever you want. I'm guessing my example was on the positive side. I'm sure there's enough material here to keep this thread going forever. Just please don't take it as personally as people usually do with other threads...

Hopefully, the idea is clear, but if not, just speak up.

In a nudist sense or an acting sense? 🙂

Carol Lewis said:Unknown... man, you've got that one wrong—I definitely agree that The Aviator is easily Scorsese's worst work, but where on earth are you getting the idea that Gangs of New York is just as bad, maybe even worse? 🤷 I mean, how can you even begin to judge movies you haven't actually sat down and watched?

Oh, and yeah... kind of related to what we were talking about earlier:

It’s not even a judgment, just a gut feeling. I don't mind Leonardo DiCaprio (who was actually pretty solid in The Departed), and I don't mind Cameron Diaz either. What bugs me is that "screaming for an Oscar" vibe—exactly like redowl90 said. If I had sat through the whole movie, I probably would've ended up writing even harsher reviews... so...

It’s just a gut feeling. You know that vibe when you watch a trailer and get that sinking sensation—the one that almost never fails you—that the movie is going to suck? That was exactly my premonition after seeing the trailer for 300, and once I actually sat through the whole thing, my initial hunch turned out to be spot on...

Looks like I painted the wrong picture... My take... About De Niro and why he's even being brought up in this thread... I need to set the record straight. Not too long ago, one of the guys here—maybe wearytinker8—started a whole discussion about... Taxi DriverI haven't even really formed a solid opinion on De Niro yet. I’ve sat through maybe 15 of his movies, and for the most part, he hits the mark—most of them being pretty good or even great. I've never had anything negative to say about him, and that hasn't changed... He’s certainly not the first actor to settle into a predictable groove toward the end of his career, and honestly, calling him one-dimensional isn't exactly an insult. A lot of actors work that way, so I don't see why it couldn't be the same for De Niro... Just my two cents... Yeah, that's just how his performance works. Maybe it’s the casting, but who knows... People are probably gonna say something like, "If you don't think De Niro is a transformative actor, just watch..." Awakenings...I can't say I've sat through the whole thing, but I caught a chunk of it... specifically the end, and honestly, it was just...Just the same old pasta...Who says that's actually a bad thing? Not being a transformative actor doesn't mean you're a bad actor; it just means you're the kind of performer destined for more or less the same type of role—and I don't mean "soldier" vs "soldier," I mean the actual essence of the character. It's the same deal with Al Pacino, but... If you ask me... De Niro’s got way more range than people give him credit for...

I have no clue what the deal is with this... Cape Fear...Unknown... Al Pacino... If you ask me... One of the weaker Scorsese films I've seen, and trust me, I've seen plenty... After... The Aviator...And his worst one... but I missed it... Gangs of New York... Which one is probably just as bad, if not worse... The AviatorIf my gut isn't lying to me... before anyone decides to come at me again, they might want to take another look at... boldano...

Most people have that one favorite actor, and then there’s the "best" actor. They aren't always the same person—loving someone doesn't automatically mean you think they're the greatest of all time, and vice versa. I’m betting most of you here count De Niro as a favorite, maybe even the best, but hey, those are just individual takes that eventually turn into a consensus... For me, it’s Tim Roth. He’s my favorite and my pick for the best, all wrapped into one. Can't get much better than that. So what am I supposed to do now? Try to convince the whole world that my opinion is the only right one? Ridiculous...

I feel like we’ve already hit this wall a dozen times before: there is no objective yardstick to measure what’s actually "good" or "bad," especially when it comes to film. So why bother using one? We're basically just throwing our own opinions out there—some people will vibe with them, others won't, and that's really all there is to it. Why try to pin down some absolute standard of quality when it's something so inherently subjective anyway...

Carol Lewis said:You really need to read more carefully, because nobody actually said that... and honestly, I'm pretty sure nobody cares what your take on De Niro is... think whatever you want, I just don't see what kind of conversation you're even hoping to have here 🤷

fair enough, misread that 80% bit. my bad

In this context, a discussion is just a fight. The only other option is a scheme ---> 🙏 🙏 🙏

😁

Carol Lewis said:Oh, please, don't try to tell me that you can't objectively label certain movies as failures while others are just decent... don't overstate things like that—you claim you want a high-quality debate, yet here you are trying to deny the fact that De Niro has put out about 80% solid films, a good portion of which are objectively among the top 30% of masterpieces in the entire American film industry.

80% objective?! Since when is your opinion objective and mine isn't? At the end of the day, whatever you or I think is subjective, not objective, so...

p.s. I'm not denying anything. I already said plenty of De Niro's films (the ones that made him famous) are great or even masterpieces, but that's just my take, just like everything you wrote above is just your take. End of story. I don't know how "objective" anyone can actually be when talking about movies... 😕

redowl90 said:Whoa, slow down there, buddy... you're getting a little ahead of yourself. 🙂
De Niro is absolutely brilliant in that mediocre film, much like the character he plays is brilliant... A total psychopath, just plain crazy. It was a well-deserved nomination, and ultimately his last one.

I don't know. I'm just saying how I saw the film, and neither the movie nor De Niro did anything for me. I didn't feel that psychopathic vibe from his character at all. It all felt a bit "shallow" to me, and what am I supposed to do? Force myself to feel what you felt? 😵 Seriously. 🙂

It seems like you can't even post here unless you believe De Niro is some god-tier actor who turned out 80% masterpieces 🤮

Carol Lewis said:De Niro is everything, really, except for being a one-note actor, and even though I mentioned on another thread here that De Niro just pulls the same expression over and over—you have to realize I was saying that specifically when comparing him to another legend, Pacina—but that was far from my actual, honest opinion of the man...

Robert De Niro is a powerhouse ☕

If you want proof, just look at his career, which is basically a string of hits with almost zero misses (if we aren't counting those recent 😉), playing such an incredible range of characters, and honestly, it’s not even his fault that people mostly just want to see De Niro as some gritty tough guy, because he actually took those exact types of roles and turned them into cinematic perfection.

The movies where he absolutely crushed it:
-Raging Bull 🙏
-The Deer Hunter 🙏
-Awakening (happened to watch it ten years ago and it really stuck 😲 )
-rt fear 😠
-Jackie Brown 😂

In my eyes, his last truly great performance was in
City by the Sea
Even if the movie itself isn't anything special... actually, it's kind of bad, and I felt like De Niro's acting was totally unrecognizable compared to everything he had done up to that point.
Oh, and I just can't stand 😁

Quote: Long Beach. A coastal city... When I was a kid, everything felt so fresh...
...now it looks like a war zone passed through here.

And finally, my absolute favorite scene of his:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn3lt...eature=related

And what kind of "proof" is that? You're just taking compliments and repackaging them as facts...

Who even decides what counts as a flop anyway?

I agree he was killer in most of those roles, except maybe Awakening since I haven't seen it, and rt fear because I didn't think he was that great there, nor was the movie itself. At the end of the day, it's just a difference of opinion...

Personally, all those roles look solid to me, but they feel kind of repetitive, which I've already mentioned a few times...

ruggedfox28 said:I honestly think this forum works because it’s all about subjective takes (which is exactly why I’m here). If I wanted to hear from some stuffy expert or a professional critic, I’d just head over to those specialized review sites. What I actually care about is what you guys think—the perspective of the everyday viewer... not some guy who makes his entire living writing reviews for a living.

Look, before this thread turns into a total clusterfuck, I’m gonna back off here... I think I’m being fair, since we all show up to places like this with different agendas and priorities anyway... So, my bad if I stepped on any toes or messed with the vibe of the old-timers around here... 👍

You misread the situation. There aren't any "old-timers" here, just people. If someone's been posting for one, two, or three years and gets annoyed that new people are showing up, they can go ahead and deal with it. I'm not interested in that drama. I'm just saying most of the newer crowd (not naming names) doesn't really care about actually talking, which sucks for the vibe of this place. It's a shame. Not saying I'm perfect—I used to just post lists and emojis too—but I got tired of it. I'd much rather actually chat, swap info, and have some fun than just spamming the same stuff over and over with zero payoff...

There are plenty more out there, but I’m not gonna speak for them. We have enough people here to actually get a conversation going, but all these "newcomers" (not that I have an issue with anyone) just shut down immediately instead of jumping in. It totally kills the vibe 🤮

p.s. I lied about the off-topic thing. At least we're talking, if nothing else 🙂

Just one last little off-topic thought for today 😁:

It’s honestly tragic how this sub is filled with people who just want to suck up to a few big names 🙏 and call it a day. Real conversation and actual debate seem to bore them to death. That's why this thread is dying, and frankly, it's the same story with every other thread on this board. It's pretty pathetic...

A handful of people actually contribute something, while the rest—who unfortunately make up the majority—are just typing for the sake of typing... 🤮

ruggedfox28 said:Honestly, out of all the greats, De Niro is my least favorite...

They call this a "discussion forum"... but honestly, it feels more like a place where you aren't actually allowed to have an opinion or stand your ground...

If discussion is nothing more than airing personal opinions and stances, then where does objectivity fit in? What happened to just presenting facts regardless of how you feel about them? There are plenty of factors involved that have absolutely nothing to do with personal bias or opinion 😉

ruggedfox28 said:Is this whole thread just about dumping everyone else's opinions on Robert De Niro here?

From what I can tell, it’s not even titled "For those who think Robert De Niro is one of the greatest actors ever." 😉

Man, a topic is just a topic. As long as we're talking about the subject matter, it doesn't matter whose perspective it is or how they see it. Not trying to act smart here, but the simplest definition of a forum is "a place for discussion," not "a place to force your views on others"... 🙂

Look, even though I dig most of those flicks, De Niro's roles all feel like the exact same guy just going by different names. It’s always the same formula, the same acting style... I'm not saying he's bad at it, it's just getting a little repetitive, even if it doesn't bother me too much 🙂

redowl90 said:Those aren't my own words. I was just relaying the consensus from the Taxi Driver topic. 😉

I definitely don't think Robert De Niro is one-dimensional, or that he plays the exact same part every time. Does he have several similar roles? Sure. But each one feels distinct in its own way. If he carries the same expression or facial mannerisms through three different movies, that isn't a lack of range in him personally—it's just a trait of the characters he's portraying.

That said, I’d much rather watch Robert De Niro on the big screen playing a mobster (even if it's his tenth similar role) than watch him make a fool of himself in some silly comedy.

I try to imagine him playing a doctor or maybe a psychiatrist, and I just can't see it. I didn't say he's a bad actor just because I'm claiming he's one-dimensional—it's just that I haven't seen anything else from him yet. I think he's a limited actor, but that doesn't make him bad. An actor can be typecast into one or two directions and still be great; there's no need to lynch him for it.

p.s. sorry for passing off someone else's words as mine 🙂

And yeah. He's terrible in comedies... I'll eat my hat regarding what George Jones said. 😉