It’s actually because of projects like this that I’ve been diving deep into those massive Hollywood classics from the 30s, 40s, and 50s... just trying to find some substance. If there is one thing I absolutely cannot stand, it's when a production insults the audience's intelligence, and honestly, making a movie based on Friends is nothing short of that. I have zero tolerance for that kind of (un)inspired work.
David Price5 said:I recently acquired a vintage 1990 motorcycle that feels almost supernatural. It has this dark, magnetic pull to it that reminds me of an old horror film. I am quite thrilled with the purchase. I recently revisited Samurai Vampire Bikers from Hell (1992). It was quite a nostalgic trip down memory lane! I caught a screening of *Blade* recently. It was quite an energetic experience. I remember seeing similar action flicks back in my college days in Chicago, and they always provided such a spirited escape.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) is a masterpiece. It remains a brilliant satire on the Cold War.
That one's easily at the top of my list! A few others too... "Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul geurigo bom" "Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead"
A "director's cut" of absolute cinematic garbage! How did we even get to this point?! Back in the good old days, back when people actually had some sense of professional dignity and respect for the craft, these kinds of disasters would have been credited to John Smith, and no sane person would ever claim they actually made them. But now? Now they turn this junk into a "director's cut."🤷 It's just pathetic... honestly, it's tragic.
The one thing that really kills me about seeing this thread pop up is looking at who actually started it. Some guy who thinks pretty much any pile of cinematic trash is a perfect 10/10...
1/10. It’s honestly stupid how much they missed the mark... it couldn't have been any dumber. Just pure, unadulterated stupidity. A total garbage fire of a movie. Just complete idiocy from start to finish. The absolute bottom of the barrel. I can't even find the words for how bad it was...
Honestly, the most brainless, totally pointless remake ever made has to be Psycho Gus by David Van Sant. I mean, David Van Sant is such an incredibly talented and powerful director... I just can't wrap my head around what he was thinking or what he was going through to even decide to do this...
Watched it for the first time yesterday. Probably the last time, too. 6/10. It was a decent enough movie. Didn't exactly blow my mind or anything, but... it definitely has its moments. It works much better as one whole thing rather than trying to break it down into pieces. So, yeah, props to the director on that front. But man, that script... it felt way too thin. That's where it really falls short.
There Will Be Blood. T. Anderson and Lewis are back at it!... Honestly, it’s the best movie of the year... maybe the only true masterpiece from 2008.
No Country for Old Men. The Coen brothers are clearly back in peak form. Probably the second best film of the year.
In Bruges. Such a pleasant surprise this year... definitely the third best film of 2008. Martin McDonagh is definitely a new name to watch on those lists of world-class filmmakers. He says he’s watched Pulp Fiction and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels about a hundred times... sounds like great schooling. And Colin Farrell gives a career-defining performance here (that raw, drunken, rough criminal vibe)...
Return of the mouth. I just love that specific sensibility; especially when it comes from the Sverák family... we all still remember that Oscar award winner from '96.
Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Unquestionably an incredible film, a real cinematic treat. But I have to admit, I prefer the Woody stuff set in New York City. Mighty Aphrodite, Bullets Over Broadway, Deconstructing Harry...
The Dark Knight. I’ve never been much of a fan for comic book adaptations, let alone those massive action spectacles. But Christopher Nolan really does it at a top-tier level. An excellent movie. Pure entertainment. And Heath Ledger was just brilliant.
A few others worth mentioning: 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days; Darjeeling Limited; Savage family; Broken marriage, American Gangster, Iron Man.
Most overrated film of the year: Without any doubt, Juno. It’s just a weak little thing, much like the equally overrated and underwhelming Little Miss Sunshine.
It’s not about that... I just can't stand directors who lack the actual skill to make a coherent movie, yet somehow walk around thinking they're geniuses destined to revolutionize cinema. "Romeo and Juliet" and "Moulin Rouge!" are the kinds of films that just... they honestly repel me. They actually gross me out a bit. Based on everything I've read about "USA," I have a feeling I'd feel the exact same way if I sat through it. So, I think I'll pass...
I honestly can't stand Baz Luhrmann's style or his movies... so I'm going to skip this one, just like I'll probably skip every single one of his films from here on out.
I mean, you really have to expect more when R. Scott is at the helm. For me, this was just okay... nothing special. The movie just lacks focus, honestly. It jumps from one corner of the globe to the next without warning, and the side characters? There's basically zero characterization there. Everything feels so cluttered and rushed... It’s almost like the whole thing was directed by some rookie who used to shoot MTV music videos and decided to try his hand at feature films. But still, it isn't a disaster; I can't say it was bad, per se. You can sort of sense an "invisible hand" at work somewhere, though it’s not Adam Smith’s hand, it’s definitely R. Scott's... To be honest, I forgot about the movie the very second I walked out of the theater. 6/10
Btw, I'm not much of a fan of di Capri, if I'm being blunt. And even after this role, I'm still not feeling it.
Caught this Japanese thriller on PBS last night. I managed to record it, and honestly, it looks like it’s going to be incredible—it’s sitting at an 8.0 on IMDb. It’s one of those legendary films by the old master Steven Spielberg... you know, the kind that sweeps the awards, two Palm Springs wins plus a mountain of other trophies. Has anyone else had a chance to see it yet?
Adam Sandler was actually incredible in Punch-Drunk Love. I mean, it’s mostly because he had Paul Thomas Anderson calling the shots behind the scenes. That combination just... it produced something truly special.
Everything else he’s ever touched (this little thing included, really...) is just so mindless and poorly made. It’s honestly kind of fascinating, in a weird way, how someone can maintain such a long streak of nothing but absolute disasters... how does that even happen?
nimblemarlin17 said:You’re a really unfriendly person, a jerk, and a total provocateur. I don't think I like you, and the bitter side of me would probably say I hate you.
I mean, I get it. Totally understandable. People like you just can't handle someone who actually takes a stand and can back it up with logic. You’re basically operating at a ten-year-old level here... if someone shares an opinion you don't like, your entire vocabulary shrinks down to stuff like "You're boring" or "You're a brat." It's like you can't even come up with anything remotely substantial...
Even Euripides saw this coming way back in the day... "If you speak reasonably to a fool, he will call you a fool."
I honestly don't see why, in a thread titled "Do you guys like parodies?", you're trying to make this about my character just because I don't care for them... If that's how you jump to conclusions about who I am, then you're definitely too quick to pull the trigger... it's pretty irresponsible, really... Besides, those kinds of personal attacks shouldn't even be part of the conversation in the first place...
nimblemarlin17 said:I think you should just stop. You're incredibly boring and exhausting.
That’s what we call making a constructive contribution to the discussion. No wonder you’ve racked up nearly 13,000 posts. Just talking for the sake of talking...
Parodies basically work like this: you take dozens of scenes from recent movies—films actually made by people with imagination, skill, and the genuine talent to create something original—then you just tweak one little detail so it becomes "hilariously funny" to people who can't tell the difference between quality cinema and garbage... and then you market the hell out of it in major US theaters, specifically targeting those mindless American teenagers.
Since I don't fit into any of those categories, and since stupid, low-brow humor just doesn't do anything for me, I really don't think there's any actual value in it. I mean, I know there isn't.
Honestly, I’d much rather sit through my 20th rewatch of something original by W. Allen, Billy Wilder, Charlie Chaplin, Menzel, Jim Jarmusch, DiCill, the Coen brothers, or even Monty Python (who don't just do parodies). That stuff actually has value...
It’s a pathetic genre, even if Mel Brooks is its leading figure. Just pathetic...
Anthony Smith3 said:Come on, don't talk nonsense... those highly acclaimed Mel Brooks and Monty Python member movies aren't "low art" like David Price5 claims. Taste is one thing, but movie quality is something else entirely... Honestly, parody is an incredibly tough genre. You actually have to be clever and funny to parody something effectively, especially if it's a cult classic, because you don't want to just be offensive for the sake of it. Sure, most of what's out today is total trash and makes no sense, but some of those old classics? They’re legit masterpieces of the genre...👍
By the way... forgot to mention a phenomenal parody series... "Sledge Hammer!"... the way they poke fun at Dirty Harry... it's brilliant hahah... when he pulls a bazooka out of the trunk, aims at a sniper on a rooftop, levels the whole building, and goes..."I think I got him", legendary!🙏
I really can't debate film with someone who lacks even basic knowledge. Monty Python isn't doing parodies; their whole vibe is satirical humor. And those two things aren't even remotely the same... They are original above all else. Parody, by its very definition, is unoriginal; you take something someone else already built and you reshape it. That is the exact opposite of being original. Maybe pick up a film encyclopedia or something and learn the basics if you're trying to act smart...
That parody is a lower tier of filmmaking is obvious to anyone who actually knows movies. You just have to look at a list of directors throughout history who specialized in it, and anyone with even a tiny bit of film knowledge will see that not a single great director's name is on that list. It's beneath them to "parody"—they are auteurs, they make auteur films. Instead, they leave it to these third-rate, talentless hacks (like Aaron Seltzer, Ezio Greggio, Bob Koherr, Allan A. Goldstein, Gen. Quintano...) to do the parodying.
And what can these third-rate "wannabe" filmmakers create? Total third-rate garbage. The parody genre.
Parodies are just a low-rent genre... Honestly, you’ll never find a real filmmaker—someone with actual talent or even a shred of cinematic craft—who would ever deign to make a parody. It's just bottom-of-the-barrel hacks, those third-rate types at the very bottom of the Hollywood food chain, who churn them out. The end result? Just a bunch of nauseatingly bad movies made for people who clearly have zero taste in cinema. Fortunately for them, that demographic is massive, which makes making parodies a pretty lucrative business model... But it has absolutely nothing to do with film as an art form. Or common sense.
Hmmm... Mike Leigh is working on this new film titled Happy and Lucky. The lead is this incredibly charming girl... just so likable.
I’m definitely intrigued, though. After those heavy, intense ones—and they were all brilliant, really—like Naked, Secrets & Lies, All or Nothing, and Vera Drako Leigh, it feels like he’s shifted gears a bit. A change of pace, maybe...
He's a great director, a total genius, and honestly, you can't miss his work regardless... but I’d say there’s an even better reason to check this one out this time.
If Andy Tennant ever actually directs a movie that doesn't feel like it was made by someone suffering from a massive brain infection, I’m going to be genuinely shocked. So far, he just hasn't been able to pull it off. This disaster, Fool's Gold, is just more trash in a long line of mindless, nonsensical junk. Just like Fools Rush In and Sweet Home Alabama and... It’s almost funny how he seems to have a pattern of picking titles that start with Fool...
This kind of thing really takes me back to that one old-school horror flick from '84... you know, Razorback. It had such a killer premise, just "A wild, vicious pig terrorizes the American Southwest." I mean, I’m a sucker for those kinds of movies—you know, the ones where animals just go absolutely rogue and start hunting people... stuff like Jaws, Piranha, The Pack, Barracuda, Birds, Tremors, Anaconda, or Alligator... so yeah, I'll definitely be adding Rogue to my watchlist.