It’s pretty rare to find a trilogy that actually holds up, isn't it? I mean, sure, there are plenty of terrible ones out there, and even a few great ones, but truly good trilogies are hard to come by. That’s why I think the Blade trilogy is actually quite good; you can sit down and watch all three installments and they won't waste your time. Are they cinematic masterpieces? Maybe not, but they’re definitely solid enough to be worth a watch.
Samuel Roberts said:It’s not three separate movies; it’s one single epic story split into three parts, just like the book. If you actually want to talk about the films, you have to look at the extended editions. Those are the definitive versions, and it’s pretty obvious why they had to cut stuff out for the theatrical releases in the first place.
And I don't get why people are calling The Two Towers bad here. It's honestly nonsense.
Look, everyone’s entitled to their own take, and personally, I also felt like the second installment was just okay—actually, even looking at the whole trilogy as a single unit, it’s a really good series, sure, but is it "masterpiece" level? Not quite.👍
They’re great movies, don't get me wrong, but calling them the best trilogy ever? I wouldn't go that far. Personally, I gave them all an 8, though if I'm being honest with myself, they're probably more like an 8.5 for me.
Anthony Smith3 said:Look... nobody's claiming he's some Oscar winner... but still... he's definitely better than someone like Steven Seagal. Then again, he's not much worse than Jason Statham, who everyone treats like the No1 action star today, or even Jet Li or Arnia. Dolph is just part of that specific breed where the whole appeal is just the presence itself. He's an action hero first and foremost, and at that, he's phenomenal.
As far as the actual acting goes, I'd say his best work was in Universal Soldier... he was killer in that one. Personally, he's one of my favorite villains... he basically stole the show from Jean-Claude Van Damme, who just stood there staring blankly and reciting lines...
If you want to see what I actually consider bad acting, check this out...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egwD4jTo3GE...or this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gIp...eature=related
I mean, you can't really say for certain that Lundgren is DEFINITIVELY better than Seagal, though I’ll always choose watching Lundgren over Seagal any day of the week. Still, let's be real—Lundgren doesn't exactly scream "serious actor," he's just in that lower tier of performers, and while he and Arnie are cut from the same cloth, Arnie obviously had a much more legendary career. To my mind, Statham is still better than Lundgren, and as for those clips mentioned below? Yeah, those are hands down some of the worst acting I've ever laid eyes on.🤣
I’m not buying what David Price5 is selling when it comes to Dolph Lundgren; I’ve sat through about four or five of his flicks myself, and honestly, the guy just can't act to save his life, isn't he? As for Jean-Claude Van Damme, sure, I don't mind putting one on in the background, but let's be real—he's hardly a heavyweight in the acting world either.
It looks like Pearl Harbor is going to snatch the win for best war movie 🤣
First off, I definitely agree that some absolute classics were left out, but how on earth is it possible that Pearl Harbor is pulling the most votes when there are so many heavy hitters on this list? I mean, we have Platoon—which is easily the best war movie in my book—and a whole bunch of other masterpieces, so seeing this result is just plain ridiculous.
shadowjackal27 said:Aliens 2 Terminator 2 Evil Dead 2 The Godfather Part II
I'm with you on Terminator 2 and Evil Dead, but honestly, I think the first Alien was actually better because that sense of claustrophobia and tension was just unmatched, whereas the sequel leans much harder into the action—though it’s still great, obviously. You really have to call it Aliens when talking about that second installment.
While the soundtracks for > and > are probably the most iconic horror themes out there, nothing beats > for me.🙏 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kg5N...eature=related
I honestly still can't wrap my head around how incredible this piece is—it’s just pure, unadulterated classic perfection. If we're talking top tier, I'd also throw >, > (which is fun but deeply unsettling), and Nosferatu into the mix. I'll probably think of more later, but > remains my absolute number one.🙏
Look, sure, there might be some ghost stuff going on, but it isn't exactly terrifying. When you look at all his absolute descent into madness movies, I’d say this one is easily his best work alongside >, mostly because he actually nails the atmosphere here.
I just found myself thinking back to this one horror flick that isn't necessarily terrifying in a jump-scare sort of way, but it’s just so deeply unsettling that I still get the chills whenever it crosses my mind http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0013442/. Honestly, haven't I already mentioned how much ghosts can actually get under my skin? Take something like http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057129/ for example.
David Price5 said:But you can find that depth in other genres too, like war movies, historical epics, or intense dramas. You have to admit, not every single horror flick actually nails the atmosphere properly.
Look, sure, atmosphere exists everywhere, but it’s just not the same thing you find in a horror flick... honestly, if we aren't talking about horror, the absolute peak of atmospheric tension has to be in Burton's Batman during that sequence where he's driving Kim toward her lair http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7Kg9...eature=related check out the 5:00-6:25 mark. And yeah, I'll give you that on war movies; they can have incredible vibes when you've got that gloomy weather, bullets flying, and rain pouring down—it's perfect. So, does every single horror movie have great atmosphere? Of course not, that goes without saying.
David Price5 said:It’s all about simplicity and realism. Just look at one [rec]. There aren't any Rambo-style heroes here..
I’m with you on that; I was actually just about to bring up [REC] myself.
I live for horror, and honestly, one of the main reasons is that horror movies possess this damn atmosphere that you just can't find in any other genre, which makes the whole thing special to me—like when I see heavy snowstorms, a dark night, a full moon, or some isolated mountain range... it isn't even about being scared at first, it's just that the mood is indescribably beautiful, and if you toss some werewolves into that setting, it’s perfect. But that's not what actually creeps me out; what I'm trying to say is that without a genuine sense of atmosphere, a movie isn't a real horror film, or at least it can't be a masterpiece. What actually scares me? A remote little town with maybe a hundred people where some monster—or even just one of the locals—starts a massacre? Even then, that wouldn't exactly leave me shaking. Werewolves, vampires, zombies—they don't scare me, even though there are some great films featuring them... what really gets under my skin? Ghosts, definitely ghosts, and stuff like [REC].
Keith Kelly3 said:Ghost Rider is just desperate, and honestly, Cage lacks that certain charisma required for a superhero role... and don't even get me started on Iron Man, which personally was one of the most tedious movies I've ever sat through, though I suppose if everyone else loves it, it’s all just a matter of subjective taste... anyway, now that I think about it, Constantine (based on the Hellblazer comics) was actually an excellent concept that ended up being a total disaster of a movie despite having a few decent scenes
If you view Constantine as just a standalone film, it's actually pretty great, but as an adaptation? It's a complete mess.
Look, my method for reviewing movies is dead simple, and honestly, I find it’s the easiest way to go about it.
I give the first thirty minutes a rating because, let’s face it, that’s just the setup—it’s not too short, not too long, and the actual story hasn't even started to kick in yet.
Then you move into the next half hour where the characters are actually established and you start to see how the plot is going to play out.
And finally, you've got the last thirty minutes, or maybe an hour... it really depends on the runtime, but since the final act is always the longest part anyway, everything just lines up perfectly, doesn't it?
So, that’s the whole thing, and it actually works remarkably well.
It’s such a pathetic knockoff of Indiana Jones, and honestly, when I have to sit through those nauseatingly bad CGI effects, I feel physically ill, but hey, if you're just looking to kill a Sunday afternoon—it’ll do.