Do yourself a favor and steer clear of this movie in every possible way!! Seriously, the entire theater was in total shock yesterday—just people sitting there, staring at the screen, wondering how they could have possibly wasted their hard-earned cash. I heard people whispering things like, "That’s it, I’m never picking a movie again," or just, "Who's going to give me my two and a half hours back?"
The only thing this film actually offers is a collection of painfully retarded, cliché scenes and massive battle sequences so chaotic you can't even tell which character is shooting or who's paying the price. It’s all just pure, unadulterated chaos. Complete nonsense. I honestly want to send a massive middle finger to that reviewer over at ESPN because I actually recommended this flick to my crew based on her take. Though, looking back, the only logical explanation is that she's clearly missing half a brain. Never, and I mean never, trust a movie just because some self-proclaimed "expert" claims it’s good. As for John Woo—never again. NEVER!! That script... honestly, you'd be better off performing amateur surgery on yourself in your theater seat while reading something useful instead. He tries to depict that legendary Eastern prestige we all know and respect, but he manages to (unintentionally!) turn it into a joke. As an audience member, you walk away feeling like you could have done a better job portraying that ancient culture yourself than whatever this guy managed to scrape together. It’s so shallow, so pathetic, and so incredibly thin... God help us.
DON'T THROW YOUR MONEY AWAY!! 😁 And don't waste your precious time either.
briskhound2 said:George of the Jungle isn't actually a Tarzan remake—it’s more of a parody based on the same comic books. Honestly, Tarzan himself deserves his own massive thread at this point since there have been so many different versions made... but yeah, I'm pretty much a fan of all of them 😁
gentlebadger88 said:3:10 Honestly, the Yuma remake is hands down better than the original 🙂
Look, I’ll give you that—the remake holds up better, sure. But that ending? Once they step out of the motel and that final showdown kicks off, it’s a total catastrophe. Just a complete disaster. The technical stuff is laughable; bullets are flying everywhere like it's some amateur paintball match. Then you have Russell just picking people off ten at a time, one by one, like it’s nothing. It loses all sense of tension.
Anyway, my pick for the best in this thread is going to be-->>
This movie is pure genius. It’s been ages since I last saw it, so I only managed to catch about thirty minutes of the opening yesterday before life got in the way.
Can anyone point me toward the absolute best films centered around the D-Day landings and the Normandy invasion? I'd really appreciate some solid recommendations.
William Roberts2 said:Good grief... Man, you really need to develop a sense of humor. Forget about those brainless comedies. Try watching some British stuff instead... All in the Family, Monty Python, Trainspotting, things like that. Or maybe stick to the Jerry Lewis classics... Once you get past that level, then you can move on to the smarter stuff, like Some Like It Hot, Annie Hall, Duck Soup, The Big Lebowski, Airplane!, or even Charles Chaplin. If you’re lucky, you might eventually manage to wrap your head around Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove.
Please, don't insult my intelligence by suggesting I might struggle to "get" Dr. Strangelove. I saw Strangelove long before you even left your small hometown to go study at an Ivy League university. Honestly, I’ve seen 95% of the list you provided. You talk about retarded humor? Monty Python is the literal definition of absurd, ridiculous humor. Every single scene is pure madness... so I have no idea what you're talking about when you claim the humor in Sex Drive is mindless. I've watched M*A*S*H from start to finish a million times; I don't need to tell you that I practically idolize them, along with Seinfeld. But M*A*S*H, Seinfeld, and Jerry Lewis are completely different beasts. That kind of comedy relies almost entirely on verbal wit, clever wordplay, and punchlines woven into a tightly scripted narrative. It takes a massive amount of intelligence to pull that off. You have to sit down and constantly grind to invent jokes that actually land and feel fresh every single time. For a five-season series, that's a Sisyphus-level task, and it deserves immense respect. So, friend, in your neck of the woods, watching all those films you listed might be quite an achievement, but where I'm from, it's just basic culture.
crimsontrucker4 said:Desperate, stale, mindless, forced, predictable, unimaginative... every single "joke" has been done a billion times already. Just pathetic. One of the most desperate comedies I've ever sat through. The only things worth watching are the car and the lead actress. And that was the Director's Cut. UTTER TRASH.
Either you’re starving or someone in your family just passed away. Either way, my condolences. I mean, what exactly are you expecting? Comedy as a genre basically died yesterday. Do you honestly think we need some divine intervention to invent brand new, unseen ways to approach comedy with every single release—somehow making it more riotous than the last? If you had even a shred of common sense, you'd realize a Director's Cut isn't some groundbreaking revelation. I get it, this reminds you of American Pie or Superbad, but that's really it, man. You either stick to the teenage sex comedy tropes, or you go the route of Borat, Jackass, Mr. Bean, or Jack Black—plus maybe a few others I can't be bothered to name right now. That's the limit. Everything else is just a recycled variation on a theme. So, tell me, since you're such an expert: what do you think about Taken starring Liam Neeson?
OH MAN, YOU HAVE GOT TO SEE THIS!!! Absolutely hilarious 😁LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL AND IT’S THE Director's cut TOO!!!
Honestly, it's been ages since I've seen this many funny scenes packed into a single movie. If you have even a shred of a sense of humor, you're going to love it. Take my word for it.
Look, I’ve always considered Howard one of my absolute favorites—truly one of the best directors out there—but this? This is easily one of his weaker efforts. The whole setup for the interview felt incredibly messy to me. It was rushed, disjointed, and frankly, just didn't hold water. The way they gathered intel on Nixon, the production vibe, that complete lack of cohesion within the crew... it all felt off. You had this third type of character who seemed to harbor these deep-seated personal grievances against Nixon's policies, yet the film failed to lean into that. There was so much untapped potential for emotion, for actual intrigue, for depth. It’s glaringly obvious. As far as the interview itself goes, it played out like a mediocre boxing match where both fighters trade blows for a few rounds until the ref just ends up raising both their hands at the end. It lacked teeth. I have to give credit to Langella, though; the guy in the movie bears almost no resemblance to him. ^^ I was expecting so much more. 6/10
Not me. Honestly, the movie just left me... I wouldn't say I was indifferent, but it wasn't exactly far from it either. It felt way too one-note for my taste... but hey, at least the girl lost her crap 😁
Kenneth Williams60 said:Exactly! Look, I never claimed to be an atheist. It's just that I believe in God—or whatever you want to call THAT HIGHER POWER—and I also believe in the right to abortion, same-sex marriage, condoms, and actual, decent sex education in our schools. But hey, I guess for some people, those things just don't sit well together...
Fair enough. On that point, we’re definitely on the same page. Forget about Motovun-Varaždin or Cannes... just head STRAIGHT to Hollywood!! 😁
Kenneth Williams60 said:p.s. folks, my bad for the massive wall of text here 😬 let's skip the bickering and just pool our resources to actually film something!
Heh, well, look at him go. Where's he even going to head off to now? Savannah? Honestly, who's going to take any of you seriously over there anyway... ^^
My bad, rustywalker42, looks like you’re actually a bit older than I gave you credit for 😁 If you were planning on filming a documentary or some kind of sketch, what people usually call a 🙂, you have to accept that bias is inevitable—it’s baked into the interviews themselves. The people giving comments will always have an angle. What *shouldn't* be biased are the structural elements: the narrator, the specific questions asked, how they’re framed, and who gets targeted. That’s not exactly rocket science to pull off, but honestly, it’s tedious. AND... doing it that way won't yield anything groundbreaking because you’ll just end up with a collection of opinions everyone has already heard a thousand times. Boring. So, I’m proposing a completely different approach. A systematic method where you pick one person—let's call them the "neutral party"—whose sole job is to go in swinging with spot-on questions at both sides. You’d grill the preachers and the believers, but you’d also grill the atheists or those folks who just live by the "I don't know" philosophy 😁 and keep going until the screen fades. That way, you leave the audience to decide for themselves what the truth is. I haven't seen anything like that anywhere else, frankly. Is this a decent concept?
Kenneth Williams60 said:Heh, I don't know. 😁 It’s all good. I wasn't even taking that personally... honestly. Besides, I get it. I really do. I have this habit myself—I often find myself shutting down someone else's idea before they even get the chance to finish the sentence. It just happens. 😛 Look, I’m pretty sure we’re all just cinephiles with actual lives outside of this screen, but sometimes that damn sharp tongue of mine just gets the better of me. My bad.
No problem at all. 🙏Look, I’m telling you, I don't always think you're wrong... sometimes you just end up feeding those idiots exactly what they want.
hehe Kenneth Williams60, that last post was absolutely top-tier 😁 but regarding what came before... Kenneth Williams, we aren't being lethargic, nor are we bitter, and god knows we aren't even jaded forum users 😁 I'm nearing the end of my second year in mechanical engineering, been in a relationship for three and a half years, doing everything young people are supposed to do without exception, and I still find pockets of time here and there for this forum—well, just this section, because I live for movies. Honestly, I’d love to put together a documentary on this subject. I'm just waiting for some absolute maniac (in the best way possible 😁) to step up and handle most of the heavy lifting with the organization. I simply don't have the bandwidth; I'm just not the kind of person who enjoys drowning in endless bullshit.
Alex Walker5 said:he’d love for us to prove that people still believe in absolute nonsense. and they even go as far as teaching others how to swallow those lies.
Look, this right here is proof you're stuck at age fifteen. If you aren't, then this is just the intellectual level you've decided to operate on.
Look, man... first off, most of the people actually participating in this debate have already seen the documentary... so congrats on discovering warm water. It’s truly groundbreaking. Second, I don't think you’re even remotely ready for the kind of work you claim you want to do. You express an "opinion" just by quoting other people to validate their words... that’s what kids in middle school do. And while you went on about wanting to film something like this and gave us your glowing recommendation for the doc, you didn't say ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING else. Nothing about yourself, nothing about your actual project. That’s not how this works, and frankly, it's proof that—no offense intended—you're just being amateurish and impulsive. Personally, I'm down to work on a project like this. But I'm talking about a project involving serious people—people who might not have decades of experience, because hell, I don't either, but they have the drive to make up for it.
Jerry Martin19, I honestly can't wrap my head around what you're actually fighting against. Is it the promotion of the gay community—which, let’s be real, is definitely facing discrimination today—or is it just the struggle for basic human rights? I'm guessing you'll claim it's neither. I get it, though; your main gripe is probably that instead of getting those classic, cookie-cutter biographies, we were sold a movie focused on some current global issue that people are tired of hearing about. Especially if you're a conservative believer, and let's face it, that's the majority. That's a fair point. But that doesn't change the reality that there are massive communities of people out there who still don't have the same rights we do. People dealing with discomfort every single day in places where they shouldn't have to. So, I really don't see what the big deal is, and I certainly don't see anything wrong with them fighting tooth and nail to achieve the status they deserve—the status of equality.
I watched the Oscars, saw the live broadcast, and I'll say it again: I don't see anything wrong with the speech. Look, draw a parallel to the Civil Rights movement—it's the exact same issue, just a different foundation. Would you call a film about Martin Luther King Jr. "propaganda for Black people"? Or take that Will Smith movie about Muhammad Ali—would you call that "propaganda for Islam" or "propaganda for Christianity"? You simply can't judge movies like that. Whether intentional or not, every single film has a bias; at the end of the day, they're made by flesh-and-blood human beings.
And to wrap this up, I just wanted to share something I realized a long time ago, something that makes me damn proud of myself. It's this: we're all just like balls in a lottery machine. You never know which one is going to pop out. The moment you realize that, and start building your life around that truth, is the moment you stop being a slave to social hypocrisy.
Jerry Martin19 said:hm, I figured a movie titled Milk starring Harvey Milk would actually be a biopic first, and then maybe some secondary propaganda for his cause. But the movie doesn't really show that. It feels more like they used his name as a vehicle to push an agenda rather than actually projecting his life...
One-sided? Sure—but that’s the concept and the spirit of the film. I have no clue what kind of "objective" viewpoint you were looking for. Did you expect *your* subjective view to be the one presented? Or were you expecting the opposing, homophobic side to be portrayed as correct or positive?
The discrimination the gay community faced there (and everywhere else) was pretty damn real and objective. Again, I don't know what you wanted. If you wanted a deep dive into the other side—you know, the homophobes fighting against gay rights, like that crazy bitch whose name I can't remember—then that's a different movie entirely. This movie is about Milk and the people around him. So yeah, maybe it feels "subjective" to you, but that's how movies work...🙂
What objective viewpoint was I expecting? I already said this, but fine, I'll repeat it. They spend the whole time implying Harvey Milk was a fighter for everyone's equal rights. If they wanted to show him as a broad-minded liberal, fine, but they didn't quite pull it off—or rather, it wasn't in their interest to. They just wanted the audience to see him as this activist who understands everyone, using that persona as a mask to "sell" whatever fits their narrative best. Doesn't feel objective to me. I wouldn't have minded if they didn't constantly harp on how broad-minded they are, but they did, and without justification. If you aren't following me, sorry, I tried to be clear. Besides, did you even hear what the screenwriter said at the Oscar ceremony?
Oh, give me a break... go sell newspapers or something. What kind of twisted logic is that? Honestly! You probably would have had a problem with > too...
I think it’s fair to say a huge part of who he was is defined precisely by the fact that he was gay. The greatest thing he ever achieved—the thing he’s likely most proud of and why anyone even knows his name—was his political impact fighting for human rights.
AND BEYOND THAT, there's a moment in the film where he HIMSELF admits that before he started fighting, he was absolutely nobody. Just a non-entity, a parasite, someone whose life lacked any real purpose. That clearly shows the screenwriter knew exactly what they were doing when they glossed over his earlier years.