Posts by redowl90

Henry Campbell5 said:Adam Sandler: Punch-Drunk Love☕

Even though I haven't seen it yet, I'd probably add Reign Over Me to this list. I heard it's supposed to be some kind of drama... (?)

John Peterson3 said:Uwe Boll—he’s never made a good movie, and he isn't about to start now.

By the way, I have to disagree on Scorsese; his work isn't bad. I don't see what there is to dislike about The Departed.

Scorsese doesn't make bad movies. It's just that his newer stuff isn't quite hitting the mark like his older work did.

velvetcrane57 said:In the grand landscape of superhero cinema, Spider-Man arguably stands as the gold standard for comic book adaptations. I mean, if we aren't counting Batman—which, let’s be honest, operates in its own stratosphere—Spider-Man is the pinnacle. The brilliance lies in Sam Raimi's direction. He managed to tackle such visceral, high-stakes themes while maintaining a certain level of restraint; in those first two films, he delivered incredible tension without needing to resort to gratuitous gore or excessive bloodshed. It was handled with a certain grace. As for the third installment? I think I'll pass. That one was a complete disaster that completely lost its way.

And you think that's a good thing? Those "missing drops of blood" just mean a PG rating, which helps the movie pull in more cash here in the States. To me, that's an automatic 🙂

It's the exact same deal with most Disney releases like Pirates of the Caribbean or Narnia.

Coppola's Dracula is a disaster in my eyes. And honestly, Apocalypse Now isn't nearly as great as everyone claims it is. On the flip side, Jack Nicholson delivers one solid performance in a comedy—a genre I usually can't stand.

Oliver Stone has become a total joke. Since his Nixon era, the guy hasn't delivered anything worth watching, peaking with that wild WTC movie where Jesus Christ shows up out of nowhere. 🙂

I'm pretty split on Ridley Scott. Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma & Louise are all fantastic. But Gladiator, G.I. Jane, and Hannibal? Absolute train wrecks. Black Hawk Down is actually a good film because the action on screen is genuinely spectacular. Unfortunately, though, it was made right in the shadow of 9/11 when cinematic patriotism felt mandatory. That forced sentimentality—like the scene where a character wipes away the blood of American soldiers with a towel—drops the quality by at least two notches for me. As for Matchstick Men, it's a perfectly fine, lighthearted way to spend a Sunday afternoon. No complaints there.

Isn't Mission to Mars also kind of an outlier in Brian De Palma's filmography?

Jerry Martin19 said: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...

Which movies and posts are you referring to?

Isn't Hitchcock's Trouble with Harry a bit of a departure from his usual suspense thriller style?
If it is, I'd say it feels like a bit of an outlier, even if Shirley MacLaine is in it. 😍I LOVE YOU, SHIRLEY MACLAINE!!!

I suppose this might be the only topic where you can't really argue about Kubrick when discussing directors. Every single one of his follow-up films seemed to jump into a completely different genre. 😬

Carol Lewis said:I'll just say this: Daniel Day-Lewis... if there is any reason at all to sit down and watch this, it's because of him.😉

You really have to see There Will Be Blood. If nothing else, watch it just for his performance. 😉

Jerry Martin19 said: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...

Either way, give the movie a watch. It isn't total garbage, but that specific atmosphere (at least for me) always kept me at arm's length. And the ending let me down—I was expecting something more. Something better.
Even so, even with those flaws, it's still better than more than half the other films from that year.

Since we’re on the subject, here’s my two cents: Gangs of New York is a subpar movie because it reeks of "give me an Oscar" energy. The same goes for The Aviator.

I’ve always had a distaste for those kinds of films—it's exactly why I have a bias against American Gangster.

goldensailor15 said:...I think the whole point of this movie is just to make a quick buck...

I can't stop laughing reading this.
Isn't making money pretty much the entire point of most movies these days?

You're hilarious.

Jerry Martin19 said: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...

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...

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.

Jerry Martin19 said: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 🙂

We won't be off-topic if we write like this:

We won't be Robert De Niro being Robert off-topic if we write Robert in the next De Niro way.

😬

Jerry Martin19 said: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... 🤮

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 😉

That is exactly my point.
But at least in this corner, it's just me, you, and the pacifist. 😉

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

I just wanted to point out how absurd it is to open a thread like this, especially since we just finished a massive debate about the same actor on another thread where most people were basically tearing him apart.

And that absurdity was proven by the fact that only about four people actually shared their own take on this actor (who is undoubtedly one of the most famous of all time). It’s pretty tragic, really. ☕

Joshua Jones97 said:mainly because I was bracing myself for another mindless Hollywood action flick, which—thankfully—turned out not to be the case. 🙂

I'm with you on that.

Jerry Martin19 said:It’s not that I don't like him, but I'm definitely with redowl90 on this one—he's just kind of one-note.

I actually want to stay alive, you know? 🙂

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.

ruggedfox28 said:Falcon, you said it, man... and you lived to tell the tale.

I’ve never held any particular grudge against Robert De Niro, nor do I plan to. But relatively recently on another thread (I think we were discussing Taxi Driver), people started really tearing him apart.
Maybe "tearing him apart" is a bit dramatic for what was actually written, but regardless, there wasn't a single positive thing to be found.

Zachary Thompson2 said:What's wrong with action movies? I mean, it was a joke, but why should a high-quality action flick (where people actually shoot things 😁) be considered any less than a solid drama or any other genre? People always seem to use that as an excuse to dismiss someone else's opinion. :/

A good action movie doesn't have to be inferior to a drama, but let's face it—truly great action films are incredibly rare these days. Really rare. Honestly, aside from The United States (if you can even call it that), it's hard to think of another decent action movie released this year. Okay, fine—I did find Transformers pretty entertaining.

Zachary Thompson2 said:Syriana was just totally inaccessible for me. It took half the movie before I even figured out who was who, and even then, it didn't really stick with me. It felt overstyled and overly convoluted; they could have handled it much more elegantly.

I can definitely agree with you there—the movie is pretty complicated. That said, I'm not exactly an expert when it comes to political themes in cinema, so please forgive my positive take on it. 🙂

rapidwolf13 isn't exactly a huge fan of Robert De Niro. The general consensus seems to be that he can be a bit one-note.