Posts by redowl90

The movie isn't any good, and there's already a thread about it.

I picked up the DVD and finally sat down to watch it over the long weekend. I have to say, seeing it a second time actually made it even better than the first viewing. Truly excellent work.

This movie is absolute garbage. Just massive.
People honestly shouldn't be allowed to make stuff like this. It's gross. And when I think about how much money was wasted on this project... man, I’m actually tearing up here. The tears are just flowing. 😬

A total disaster.

Redemption in Shawshank Redemption 2: Zihuatanejo!

The Usual Suspects 2: The real story of Keyser Söze!

I honestly think these two movies need sequels immediately...

steelstag4 said:Honestly, I think it’s a fundamental failure in direction—or maybe just poor screenwriting. They completely gutted the character development. In the book, their relationship evolves through layers of subtext, making certain scenes feel earned and deeply meaningful. But when you strip all that context away for the screen, those same moments just feel hollow and unconvincing.

You really nailed it with that cliché comment, 🤣 you actually had me laughing. I don't even want to get into a whole debate about it right now, but yeah, LOL. No offense intended, 😉

I'm not following. What was so funny?

steelstag4 said:@ redowl90 - I’m not so sure; they already cut quite a bit from that second installment. If they had trimmed it any further, the whole thing would have been gutted. For me, the issue lies more toward the beginning—I think they could have used a bit more breathing room to really build out their relationship during those childhood years.

That's a fair point. In many ways, the theme is strikingly similar to what we see in Atonement.

I don't know. For me, that one terrible scene where they walk into the alleyway was enough. He asks, "If I asked you to eat dirt, would you do it for me?" and the other guy replies, "Of course I would. But would you ever really ask me that?"

When will people realize that kids DON'T actually talk like that? Honestly, that happens only five minutes into the movie and I already found myself smirking, and there are at least five or six more moments just like it before the credits roll.

To be fair, the scene where he returns to Afghanistan after all those years and gives that guy the book he dedicated to him was beautiful. That part gave me chills. But most of the other scenes meant to pull at my heartstrings left me feeling nothing because they were just such clichés.

Honestly, it was a bit too much melodrama, and the runtime felt way too long. They could have easily trimmed those last thirty minutes down to three. There were a few bright spots—the soundtrack is absolutely gorgeous—and I’d even go so far as to say that, from a directorial standpoint, this is probably the most convincing work Marc Forster has done. But beyond that, it didn't really land for me.

bluebison8 said:

I was reading an article in the defunct issue of Hollywood magazine today. It mentioned a local proverb from that very city: "Never make movies involving water, children, or animals..."

Whoever penned that advice clearly hasn't a clue what they're talking about.
Water equals Pirates of the Caribbean.
Children equals Harry Potter animal style cartoons like Nemo.
Animals equals various cartoons like Nemo.

I think when people talk about animal movies, they mean stuff like Babe, not animated films.

David Price5 said:How can you tell if a movie was released here in the States? Is there some kind of official registry, or do you have to track down every single distributor?

First, identify which studio holds the rights to the film, then check that against a list of major American distributors.

That’s pretty much all there is to it.

If you’re planning on screening a movie that was distributed here in the States, you’ll need to get in touch with the local distributors to clear all the legal requirements first.

I finally sat down to watch this movie last night, and honestly, I'm still processing it. It feels like it deserves its own dedicated thread here on Reddit, even if it’s been out for nearly two years and has popped up here once or twice before.

Bottom line: if you love cinema or just enjoy great chemistry on screen, this is essential viewing. 😍

I actually enjoyed it enough to dive into the special features on the disc. There isn't a massive amount of extra content, but the fact that I—someone who almost NEVER watches bonus features on any movie—actually sat through them says a lot. The "Behind the Scenes" segment was my favorite; seeing how they handled the concept, the casting, and the overall production process was fascinating. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it.

I'd highly recommend this to anyone currently enrolled at our local community college. It might give you some much-needed perspective.

Kate Torres said:That’s a stupid comment!

Why?

Richard Wilson4 said:I was reading in a now-defunct Hollywood magazine that there's this saying in Hollywood: "Never make movies with water, kids, or animals..."
That bit about the water applies to both "Cutthroat Island" and "Waterworld," though I bet that rule changed once "Pirates of the Caribbean" hit the scene...

And Titanic.

Richard Howard2 said:I had intended to bring up The Matrix as an outlier, specifically because it stands as one of the last truly cult films—the final representative of global phenomenon driven primarily by substance.

That said, we shouldn't ignore how perfectly it slotted into the geek subculture right at the height of the internet revolution. The timing wasn't entirely coincidental.

Furthermore, one must consider that its earnings were significantly lower compared to other massive blockbusters; it pulled in nearly three times less than Star Wars Episode I released that same year, making it quite obvious which film held the larger cultural footprint.

And what about the Sixth Sense?

Richard Howard2 said:I had intended to bring up The Matrix as an outlier, specifically because it stands as one of the last truly cult films—the final representative of global phenomenon driven primarily by substance.

That said, we shouldn't ignore how perfectly it slotted into the geek subculture right at the height of the internet revolution. The timing wasn't entirely coincidental.

Furthermore, one must consider that its earnings were significantly lower compared to other massive blockbusters; it pulled in nearly three times less than Star Wars Episode I released that same year, making it quite obvious which film held the larger cultural footprint.

You can't compare Star Wars to anything else. It's in a galaxy of its own.

Karen Smith9 said:Oh, please... Hollywood cranks out something like 23,536 movies like this every single year—some of them are bound to crash and burn. The Postman is just completely nonsensical; an American mailman saving the world? Really? And of course, they make sure to drop in some Shakespeare quotes for good measure. As for Waterworld, it’s basically just a spectacle—think of it as a sort of Water-based Mad Max. Honestly, just go watch actual movies instead of every piece of crap Los Angeles vomits out.

Film festivals??? 🙂

Richard Howard2 said:That is actually a rather astute question, and I have developed my own personal thesis regarding this matter.

I am referring specifically to high-budget blockbusters from the last fifteen years. In order to succeed at the American box office, these films simply cannot afford to be original in their core concepts.

If they fail to anchor themselves to some "external" universe—something that is currently trending or has long been etched into the public consciousness—they face the threat of total audience apathy.

Take the latter half of the 1990s; that era was definitively defined by disaster movies. Disaster was an incredibly potent trend back then, fueled by that general sense of impending doom at the turn of the millennium.

Then we move into the beginning of the 21st century, where concepts were almost exclusively harvested from established pop culture—ranging from the new Star Wars and Spider-Man, to Lord of the Rings, X-Men, Sin City, Batman, 300, and eventually Transformers, Cloverfield, Indiana Jones, Iron Man, and so on.

Every single one of them relies on an existing momentum; they are incapable of generating their own acceleration independently. (Of course, it goes without saying that they require such a foundation to maintain enough velocity to reach massive profits!)

Waterworld was conceptually unrecognizable. Any attempt to draw a parallel to Mad Max is incredibly forced and, frankly, a weak argument; that film was actually marketed as something quite distinct, a fairly unique idea in its own right.

The Postman serves as an even more extreme example of this phenomenon.

They lacked their own intrinsic "boost"—that specific catalyst required to drive revenue. If you look closely, you will notice that all these films (with a few exceptions, such as Titanic) derive almost all of their earnings from that initial surge during the first two weeks of release, after which the curve begins to plummet sharply. Without that built-in motivation, they would lose at least 70% of their commercial potential.

Just look at Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. At the time, it became the second highest-grossing film of all time worldwide. It is difficult to argue that the actual content of the film dictated that success—most people were deeply disappointed, quite frankly—rather, it succeeded because it rode the wave of the existing Star Wars brand and the massive fanbase that flooded the theaters.

Had Waterworld emerged from something deeply entrenched in pop culture, perhaps as a new adaptation of a powerhouse property (much like how Lord of the Rings was drawn from literature), it would have earned at least twice as much.

Look, the first Matrix movie didn't come from anything other than the heads of the Wachowski siblings, yet it still became what it did (and I'm strictly talking about that 1999 original).

Has anyone else actually considered that we might just be talking about bad movies here? Waterworld has a disastrous story and a plot that makes zero sense. Most importantly, it’s just plain stupid. It features one of the most irritating villains ever put on screen and the acting is pretty terrible.
Not to mention the lead character being a mutant, and that forced attempt at some kind of failed unhappy ending.

I didn't see The Postman in theaters; I caught it on VHS. Before watching, I had heard nothing but the worst things imaginable, so I think my brain just created a reverse effect, making the movie seem less bad than it actually was.
But if you really think about it, the story told in that film is incredibly naive. It might fly for the book it's based on, but for a movie, it's a bit much. Plus, it has a terrible villain who feels way too forced.

These two films are actually quite similar and they really tanked Kevin Costner's career (which sucks, because I've never thought he was a bad actor), so it's no surprise both were flops.

velvetcrane57 said:The movie was bad... I mean, not so bad that I couldn't finish it, but man, it was just bad...

Why on earth would it be?

rapidorca6 said:Jason X is terrible!! My favorite/worst part is when they slice him up and he falls onto that machine that builds him new parts, turning him into the ultimate version—Jason X!!! Terrible!!

That specific scene is actually what makes this movie an ingenious piece of art.

Honestly, what's the issue here? From start to finish, it's obvious this was made by true lovers of trash horror who decided to take their favorite franchise to a whole new level. And they nailed it.
There’s even one sequence that feels like a nod to 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is beautiful (and frankly, better than the actual Odyssey).
And then there's the K-M 14 character, acting as an ode to all cyborg women and the Terminator itself.

Plus her killer line: "I'm afraid I'm gonna hurt you a little, now." 🙏

I really don't get how people can think movies like this are bad.

This movie is an absolute masterpiece.
I honestly feel for anyone who doesn't see it that way.