Bradley Taylor24 said:I was actually just about to type this exact sentiment. 😁 It is an absolute joke of a film, and frankly, I find myself questioning what Samuel was even thinking. Have you happened to see those parody clips floating around the internet? Bears on a Submarine 😂
On a different note, I recently sat through another recent release purely based on its title: Lesbian Vampire Killers. It possesses nearly everything one could desire—attractive lesbians, vampires, and assassins. Perhaps the only thing missing from the experience was a bit of chocolate. 😍
Daniel Day-Lewis is a force of nature. His performance in *In the Name of the Father* isn't just acting; it’s a visceral, bone-deep transformation. He captures that specific brand of righteous fury and quiet desperation so perfectly that you forget you're watching a movie. It's raw, it's punishing, and it's absolutely masterclass. Al Pacino’s performance in *Dog Day Afternoon* remains an absolute masterclass. It isn't just acting; it is a visceral, high-tension study of desperation. He captures that specific, frantic energy of a man pushed to the edge by a system that offers him no exits. Truly riveting work. Gary Oldman’s performance in *Sid and Nancy* remains an absolute masterclass. He doesn't just play the role; he inhabits the chaos. It is raw, unhinged, and frankly, terrifyingly accurate. Most actors would have played it for cheap sympathy, but Oldman leans into the wreckage. Pure brilliance.
There are certainly plenty of them out there, but these particular ones? They’re easily my favorites.🙂
Fine, I get it. The whole point isn't really the plot itself, but rather the deep dive into the psychology of the mobsters and the people they prey on... That said, I still think the writers could have squeezed out one or two more details to give the movie a more polished, complete feel. 🤷
Off-topic: Viggo is absolutely phenomenal in this. 👍
American cinema needs a GOOD movie first and foremost. Genre doesn't matter.
If we could just have at least one quality film per year that gets praised primarily by the audienceinstead of those pseudo-critics of ours. And obviously, a film that people actually bother to watch🤷. We need decent filmmaking to become the standard, not some statistical anomaly.
Right now, expecting a sci-fi film in America is a total joke. Let them try making something interesting on a smaller budget first.
And preferably, let's move away from war themes. If a war story is absolutely necessary🙄... let's try not to end it with the lead character being raped or dying. If I weren't American and watched one of our war movies, I'd honestly think we lost the war.🤷.
velvetwolf42 said:Since we’re already talking about her, here are some pics just so we can all stare at that face. Personally? I think Angelina is a billion times hotter.
Look, in my opinion, both are incredibly beautiful in their own way. They both carry that certain rebellious edge... which is probably why they cast Angelina. There isn't even much physical resemblance beyond them both being highly attractive. That actually bothered me a bit (even though it's a great movie). They should have put in more effort... maybe with the hair or the makeup... at least give us something to marvel at🙄. Anything at all😁..
Angelina’s acting is what truly carries this film. If she had been any less convincing, the movie wouldn't be worth much. She interpreted the entire spectrum of emotions—from pure negativity to positive—exceptionally well. Truly compelling👍
It is an undeniable truth that famous addicts or alcoholics are often over-glorified after they pass, and people always find excuses for them. People will excuse anything; one needs to be strong enough to overcome hardships—that is what true glorification looks like to me. But my take is that this film didn't turn Gia into a saint. It provided a realistic depiction of what an addict goes through: rock bottom. And that is exactly what films ought to show. There is no beauty in drugs. None. It simply did harm to an exceptionally successful YOUNG woman. Gia was the first famous woman to die from AIDS. Many consider her the first supermodel. So what if they needed her "title" to promote the film? I don't see anything wrong with casting ANYONE if the goal is to authentically portray horrors like drugs and AIDS..
You're thinking metaphorically—though, honestly, that's a bit hard to put into words.🙂 Anything is possible, I suppose... But that just wasn't my experience with him.
rustywalker42 said:I get the impression he was being slow on purpose, just to stop that guy from buying the necklace for the woman, and then later he went out of his way to help the kid at the airport.
Given that his old man basically pointed him out at the airport, I’m leaning toward this being some kind of shady cash deal... or maybe just heavy-handed coercion. I honestly don't know how much "angelic" influence is actually involved here.😁
Regarding that necklace... honestly, it doesn't even look like he's ever laid eyes on his wife.
My impression is that he starts off as nothing more than a total caricature—just one of those endlessly sycophantic, faux-polite salespeople. That scene with the necklace, for instance, absolutely grated on my nerves. But then, he resurfaces exactly when you least expect it, right when his role becomes genuinely necessary and impactful. He transforms from being a complete nuisance in that first scene into its polar opposite.
Thomas Cruz12 said:I love Leonard, and I hope you all do too. Let's make this thread entirely about him. Whatever you've ever wanted to say about him—your favorite song, a specific lyric, why he matters to you, or just your general thoughts on Leonard.
I have to admit, I don't listen to him much... but I've always found it fascinating how one man can simultaneously (and incredibly) look like Ali Pacina, Bob Dylan, and Dustin Hoffman.🤔
Yes, absolutely, it’s necessary... because look at what’s happening right now... whenever these "filmmakers" get even a tiny bit of funding from the U.S. Department of the Interior, it’s like they have no clue how to spend it. They dump money into all the wrong things... the wrong actors... terrible production value. My take? More money equals more attempts. Sure, that probably means more failures will follow, but eventually, something actually high-quality is bound to emerge from the wreckage of those attempts.
Look, an Oscar isn't some absolute, definitive metric of a performer's "artistic worth." However, when you’re looking at someone with 14 nominations—the most in history—and two wins to show for it, that certainly speaks to an above-average talent level. Or does it?
Personally, I thought she was brilliant in Sophie's Choice; it stands as one of the finest performances ever captured on film. Even in the other five or six movies I've seen her in, there was never a moment where I doubted how deeply she inhabited her characters.
What’s your take on her? Is she overrated? Underrated? Just mediocre? And what is your favorite role of hers? (Feel free to select multiple options in the poll)
It occurred to me: if Natalie Portman has her signature style, then Meryl Streep definitely deserves one too...
After watching a truly great movie, I feel somehow "reborn," inspired (I'm staying in today... watching Heart 🙏)... but when a film is garbage, I just feel frustrated (like, what the hell did I just waste two hours of my life on?). I always find myself hoping there will be at least one redeeming quality in a film—something to chew on for a day or a week afterward (let's call that my personal definition of a good movie)... but when I really think 🤔 about it, I spent the entire following week thinking about Showgirls 😬... it was simply a fascinatingly catastrophic film. I want the director's phone number 🙏 🙏
