Posts by Joseph Edwards4

Honestly, this is one of the better threads on any forum out there. I have my own Hall of Fame, but this hasn't quite topped Bug's computer/helmet thread yet.

My interest in watching this for free online is a zero out of ten.

But I have one genuine question stemming from a critic's take—and I’m glad it’s coming from a woman. Why was the discourse surrounding the Joker movie centered on "white male rage"? Why wasn't it framed as "white female rage"? Why is violence viewed as a sign of impotence and fury in one instance, yet seen as liberation in another? Is the underlying message that achieving emancipation through killing white men is perfectly acceptable, while there's no such thing as Joker finding emancipation through violence? What's the actual problem here?

Great, now someone actually expects me to sit through this. I can't even bring myself to read about it—feminism, gender wars, white privilege, who’s doing what to whom... Honestly, these SJWs are just mentally ill. They're nothing but exhausting, divisive bores. It's a pathology that psychologists should be studying.

I already figured Greta Gerwig would take heat for this, even if I'm being generous. There are way too many white faces in her films. Where are the trans people? Where are the Black women or Black trans women? You need frogs and mosquitoes in there too, right? Diversity is supposed to be the norm, yet here we are. It's pathetic.

Well, I guess they can just do a race-swapped version of Little Women next year to make up for it. That seems to be the standard procedure now.

It’s honestly fascinating how some of these new movie campaigns work. They push this narrative that "this isn't for men," or they try to intimidate men into feeling inadequate. What the hell is that? First they try to force an audience, then they resort to threats in their ads. Imagine if a massive male-driven epic like The Irishman had a campaign saying "this isn't for women." What would that even look like? Pure hypocrisy.

Besides, I wouldn't watch movies like this regardless of who directed them or what they called them, whether it was Little Women or whatever else. But hey, if they paid me, I’d watch.

I wouldn't even watch this if they were paying me. They'd have to cough up $100 an hour before I'd consider sitting through it. Is free entertainment even worth my time?

Everyone’s got their own taste, I guess. To me, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood beats Pulp Fiction any day. It’s easily in my top three for 2019—well, maybe not the absolute top three since I haven't seen everything, but it definitely sits up there alongside Ford v Ferrari, The Irishman, and Parasite.
And Brad Pitt? He was incredible. Honestly, he and Leo were the best duo of the year, right up there with Matt Damon and Christian Bale in Ford v Ferrari. Absolute top tier.

I’m not sure what to say. Superhero movies are just boring to me in general; I might sit through one, but they slip my mind almost immediately. I prefer Star Wars, though the newer Star Wars entries aren't anything special either.

Deadpool is good, but from what the hardcore fans explain, it isn't even part of that saga. Honestly, it’s just not my thing.

Forrest Gump in the politics thread, N2, keeps labeling every single man in America a rapist, yet nobody seems to care.

Does the rulebook actually allow this? It’s insulting to me, and frankly, it should be offensive to any decent person. If this isn't grounds for a ban, then what is?

Why is this kind of talk being permitted without a single word from the moderators or anyone else?

So, is blatant misandry just part of the culture here now?

briskmarlin44 said:Another one about Al Capone? Why not just do a series on Al Capone instead? 😁

Al Capone won't let them use his name. Apparently, Netflix wanted to produce a series about his life, but the man refuses.

I have to say, there’s definitely room for Patrick Martin’s interpretation here. The conversation flows like this: a reporter asks the director where the idea for the "scene where WE see Shaman Putting a Hex on a girl" came from, and the director talks about his upbringing—Christianity, Buddhism, and so on. Regardless, I think the right takeaway is that the Shaman and the Japanese person were in on it from the start.

Keep in mind, a Shaman in that culture heals illnesses caused by evil spirits, so there's a chance Patrick Martin is onto something. But honestly, I just paraphrased the director saying "Putting a Hex" to keep things simple. To me, the clash of religions is the core theme. Given the director’s history, his background, and his research, my take is that the Shaman and the Japanese person teamed up to come to that place specifically to take the souls of the locals. They work together to beat the angel guarding the area.

By the way: both the Shaman and the Japanese person are in danger of facing the devil if they don't do their job, which is why they fear Satan too. Just as a priest represents God on Earth in some capacity, perhaps the Shaman represents Satan? But they aren't powerful enough on their own, which is why they need the angel—who is much stronger—to play out this whole game. This is the conclusion I reached after looking into the director's interviews, his childhood, his research, and what everyone else thinks about the film.

You all have one major issue. The director describes the scene where the Shaman performs his ritual as "Putting a Hex," which implies a curse. That makes your entire interpretation pretty problematic. Then you have an angel at the end repeating what our protagonist says, yet the man lacks both faith and patience. Finally, there's that ending where the Shaman takes either a photo or the hero's soul.

Regardless, this is easily the best film of the year so far. The atmosphere is stunning from the opening shot, almost reminding me of Seven during those first few minutes. There’s some decent humor sprinkled in, too, and that scene where the Shaman does his thing is genuinely one of the highlights.

Larry Walker24 said:starting with remakes for Hellraiser and He-Man

I'm on board with Hellraiser, but let’s be real—I won't live to see a legitimate remake with an NC-17 rating. They'll just water everything down with R ratings or worse. Why even bother if they're going to strip the soul out of it?

Why would anyone sit through movies like that? I’d much rather just play >. I don't get it. When I watch a movie, I want a story to follow, not to be shoved into the middle of one. And I certainly don't want some glorified > flick. If that's what I wanted, I'd just fire up > or whatever other great game I feel like playing. That's not cinema.

It's better to actually play an > than to watch one. It's like watching a friend run through > levels.

That was way too heavy-handed, honestly. She asked for an opinion, but Remam shut the whole debate down. Remam won the argument, period. Here’s the link to his post if you want to see for yourself.

I mean, who can actually top this? The emotional range is insane, and the lead actor nails it all in under thirty seconds. Pure class.

I simply pointed out that we're talking about him, while some others who aren't much better get far more attention. He’s had some truly incredible roles.

electricridge6, you've finally admitted this is just your subjective take, which makes it completely irrelevant to the actual debate. You went after someone else there, and frankly, I have no interest in personal opinions. Remam hit the nail on the head; there's nothing left to say.

I think Russell Crowe is a fantastic actor. He was particularly good in that understated role in Master and Commander; there wasn't any over-the-top melodrama or forced speeches, just pure talent. It’s a shame people don't talk about that film much anymore. Crowe has such a diverse filmography, ranging from Insider to A Beautiful Mind to Gladiator, yet he seems to get overlooked lately.

electricridge6 said:Since when did the Oscars become some definitive benchmark for quality? Sure, DDL is talented, but he’s nowhere near a Marlon Brando. It'll take ages before anyone even touches Brando's legacy.

What defines quality? Awards and the consensus of industry experts—that's as objective as it gets. I'm not saying it's just about the Oscars, but when the entire industry agrees, you're looking at a professional judgment. That's how every other profession works.

What you're doing now is offering a subjective opinion because you have a soft spot for Brando. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with objectivity. In fact, that's exactly where objectivity fails—when personal bias creeps in. We have to stick to the facts, and the facts are the consensus of industry professionals. That's the only thing that matters.

There's no need to drag this debate out further. The facts are clear: DDL is one of the greatest. Personal feelings and fandom are a completely different conversation.

So you’re claiming you don't want subjective opinions, just an objective assessment of acting caliber? This man has three Oscars for Best Actor. He has a mountain of awards from the heavy hitters—directors, fellow actors, the whole lot. When the industry elite vote him one of the greatest of all time, isn't that enough? If you're hunting for "objective" truth, how much more proof do you need? Objectively speaking, he's already surpassed Al Pacino.

I honestly don't know what you're looking for anymore. To me, he's the best, and objectively, he's the best when the entire industry agrees. The top directors, the legendary actors, the awards—it all confirms it. Anyone who has actually watched his films can see it's a consistent 10/10 performance every single time. You can't do better than that. What else is there to say?

That is exactly the point. You might not think he's the best personally, and that's fine, but objectively? He is.

Once again, you're bringing up him and Edward Norton. Honestly, why even bother arguing? It’s a lost cause. Every single role is a perfect 10/10. How could anyone do better?

You aren't looking at actual quality; you're just chasing a brand. The talent is identical, and that’s the level Daniel Day-Lewis operates on. Just look at his filmography again and tell me his caliber isn't exceptional. It's about quality, not some superficial brand name or sheer volume. Polanski represents true craftsmanship regardless of how many films he makes or what label is attached. Who is actually better? The quality is undeniable. You only need to see two of his films to realize he's in a league of his own.

Look at Al Pacino or Robert De Niro; they built a brand and a level of stardom that Daniel Day-Lewis just doesn't possess. That has nothing to do with talent. His performances are a perfect 10/10 every single time. Can you actually do better? Maybe, but we haven't seen it from anyone else yet.