I haven't seen the movie, but when it comes to business, show me one entrepreneur who follows every single rule to the letter and I'll show you a liar. It's all an illusion. The entire system is rigged so that those who cut the most corners reap the highest profits. If the expected value of breaking the rules is high enough and the downside is negligible, why bother following them? Does anyone actually believe there's any point in playing fair?
Then you have violations scaled by capability, ranging from the petty to the massive. You’ve got your local corner bar serving drinks without a receipt or staying open past midnight for a few regulars—minor infractions, minor stakes. Then you have the heavy hitters, the people who actually run the game and have the resources to exploit it on a massive scale.
At the end of the day, playing by the rules is a recipe for failure because the competition isn't doing it. Capitalism is inherently designed to encourage cutting corners. The whole system is a fight, and in any fight, you look for an edge. If the payoff for exploiting a loophole is huge and the risk is minimal, why wouldn't you take it?
It’s fascinating how that 1986 World Cup match in Mexico perfectly encapsulated everything about Michael Jordan—always living right on the edge. From the hand goal that risked an immediate ejection to scoring one of the greatest, most controversial, and most beautiful goals in sports history just four minutes later to clinch the semifinal spot.
Michael Jordan is the greatest of all time. He was a singular force, both as a man and an athlete. That’s precisely why he matters—he wasn't some manufactured, polished image; he was real, flaws and all, struggling with his own demons just like anyone else. Because he was a god on the court, people saw everything: the family drama, the vices, the raw reality of life. He went from nothing to everything, from the absolute top to the lowest depths. A pure genius.
That is the most iconic play in sports history. It’s the single greatest moment ever captured on film. People who don't even watch basketball know that moment. That was Michael Jordan.
Your idols are just sanitized, fake personalities. If you actually bothered to look deeper, you'd find things far darker than anything Michael Jordan ever did.
By the way, this is handled brilliantly in that Quentin Tarantino film.
It’s simple: no TV series can ever match the quality of a truly great film. I don't care if you're picking from cult classics or whatever else; it doesn't matter. Sure, certain shows have their perks—if the characters are well-written, you feel a connection to them—but even a masterpiece like Breaking Bad suffers from filler episodes. Sometimes an entire season or a huge chunk of it just drags. Real movies don't deal with that. That is the fundamental difference.
The issue is that inflated ratings make people think every single series is a masterpiece. An 8.5 rating should signify a mediocre show, and once you hit the 8.0 mark, you're looking at something subpar. But because the scores on the biggest rating sites aren't comparable to movie scores, it creates this false impression that shows are superior while movies are lacking. People swallow this misinformation whole.
If you actually look at things objectively, even the best series tend to overstay their welcome. They have dull episodes, tedious seasons, or they simply fall off a cliff. Yet, the ratings don't reflect that reality. They are biased upward, whereas movie ratings are often unfairly harsh.
I've said this before: when I've been working all day and want to unwind before bed, it’s easier to commit to a single episode than a full feature. That’s the advantage. If the show is decent or even great, fine. A movie demands two good hours, whereas an episode is only 45 minutes. I hate pausing a film just to resume it later; I prefer to start something and finish it.
The issue with TV shows is how insanely inflated their IMDb ratings have become. It feels like every single series is sitting at an 8. Is an 8.2 really supposed to be the standard for a mediocre show? Seriously, what is the point?
Besides, a series is just something you can knock out in a 45-minute episode before bed, but let's be honest—real quality still lives in movies.
bluecyclist64 said:What an absolute clown you are...🤣 Since sex with minors isn't even a crime under current laws, why would masturbation be any different?😒
You write absolute nonsense like this and then have the nerve to call other people clowns.
Did I read this review correctly? If he was actually molesting minors, then we aren't talking about art anymore—we're talking about a felony. Thank God this maniac ended up behind bars.
As for his supposed "artistry" and "genius," it’s just a bunch of washed-up, pretentious elites putting a mentally unstable predator on a pedestal. What a joke. Bravo to him, I guess, for wandering around cities naked. Truly a massive talent.
Bryan Taylor9 said:Setting this specific case aside, at least here in the States we have insurance to lean on. We don't have to lose sleep over astronomical out-of-pocket costs or worrying about some provider finding a loophole to deny coverage for a basic procedure. Over there, everything is just raw gross versus net calculations. But look, healthcare isn't even what this thread is about—I’m just letting my anxiety from that movie get the better of me!
Name one service I actually get for free when I genuinely fall ill.
What medications am I getting for free? What kind of quality are we talking about, and where are they even manufactured?
If I chip a tooth while eating today, what do I have? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. No hope.
We have nothing, and that is exactly why so many of our citizens die.
Our statistics are among the worst in the entire European Union. There are reasons for that—both in diagnostics and treatment—but nobody wants to have a real conversation about it.
If you don't have money, you don't have a chance. It’s the same story here. The only difference is that over there, they try to convince you it isn't true, and you don't even have the option of private insurance.
I know it's off-topic, but Americans are living a horror story here, and the whole point is that the movie Requiem for Dream shocks us.
Bryan Taylor9 said:Sicko was one of those movies that hit me hard back then, and honestly, it still hits just as hard today... I can't even pick out one specific scene, but man, the reality of living without health insurance? That’s a straight-up nightmare.
You want the truth? That’s just the daily reality for Americans.
We don't need a movie to show us the disaster people face when they get sick in this country.
The biggest lie ever sold is that we actually have coverage that matters. A quick glance at the actual statistics reveals everything—what we pay into this system is worth absolutely nothing.
If we want better services, we need to give people the option to opt for private insurance. Isn't that a must?
I would probably enjoy this more if it weren't on the level of the Election or the Drug War films I've seen from him, but it seems decent enough. It feels more like a drama than an action flick; sure, there are some action beats, but they don't take over. Some of those early scenes actually reminded me a bit of a Tony Scott movie.
In my opinion, the real strength here lies in the two leads. We don't get a deep dive into their backstories—they're mostly just written as "cool" characters—but they work. You have one top-tier police inspector and excellent hostage negotiator Ho Sheung-Sang, who is the smartest guy in the precinct surrounded by idiots, and then you have this mysterious high-level criminal with hidden motives. They're compelling because criminals are always more interesting than the cop; the officer is a total cliché, whereas the underworld perspective keeps things engaging.
As for the actual staging, that bus scene was great. I do wish they had expanded on the dynamic between the robbers and the girl a bit more; we could have learned so much about his character through that interaction, but instead, we're forced to learn everything through the investigation. Was that a mistake in direction? Maybe.
Overall, I found this to be a good, entertaining watch. The ending was a bit cliché and overly sentimental, but I guess it fits.
Johnnie is an interesting director. Even though I haven't seen much of his work yet, I'm digging his style so far.
Police inspector and excellent hostage negotiator Ho Sheung-Sang finds himself in way over his head when he gets dragged into a 72-hour game played by a terminally ill criminal seeking vengeance against US organized crime Syndicates.
Scarface is basically Cocaine Cowboys turned up to eleven. If people were actually on that level of coke, cities like Miami would be absolute chaos every single weekend. The last few minutes are a total joke, but it works. It’s a hell of a character study about the man who built an empire.
Mark White11 said:Honestly, I think Scarface is super overrated—it’s one of those movies that feels cool when you’re fifteen and all you want to do is post that "eyes never lie" quote on your profile.
But man, that final scene in Blow Out? That last shot is easily one of the greatest moments in cinema history. At least if you ask me. It’s a good scream
Give me a break.
No matter how old you get, the climax of Scarface remains one of the most intense sequences ever put to film. Has anything else even come close? It’s just an incredible scene.
To this day, alongside The Godfather and Goodfellas, it stands as my top pick for crime dramas. They're all different, obviously, but nothing beats that ending.
A Totally Epic cocaine-fueled meltdown. That was a real Blow Out, haha. Too good.
While both Carlito's Way and Blow Out hold up, Scarface is easily his masterpiece in my eyes. Has he ever even come close to that level again?
With Blow Out, the ending just falls apart for me; it’s comically bad despite the rest of the movie being great. Carlito's Way is solid all the way through, but it just doesn't touch the heights of Scarface.
I can't say for sure, but there were stretches where I wasn't watching much. I've never really taken a months-long hiatus; I always found something to watch. However, there were definitely a few years where I probably missed at least 50 movies—around 2010 to 2013, and certainly between 2015 and 2017. I was busy grinding through different jobs and just didn't have the time. This year feels much more intense, though. And honestly, back in the mid-2000s? Those were some legendary years for cinema.
I don't do those "phases" where I decide to take a two-month break or stop doing things until a certain date. Why bother? I just live based on how I feel. I don't schedule my viewing; if the mood strikes, I watch. If I feel like going out, I go out. I just follow my gut. Is anyone actually planning their life like that?
I mostly watch movies on my laptop; it’s just better that way. I can lie in bed with it right next to me and actually enjoy the film. I don't watch movies on my phone—it was never meant for that. I've used a tablet a few times, and sure, I'll catch some series on Netflix while traveling, maybe a bit of Black Mirror, but nothing else.
As for using a phone during a movie, I don't browse. If a message comes in from someone close to me that I actually want to read immediately, fine, I might glance at it, but otherwise, I ignore it. Basically, I barely touch my phone when a movie is on. And when I'm at the theater? It goes off. I've never once used a phone in a cinema; I always turn it off.
