In my opinion, Christian Bale’s standout performance as a child actor was in Empire of the Sun; he was only about 14 years old at the time. I’ve always been a fan of his work, even today, and while he certainly has an impressive filmography, I don't think he has ever topped that specific role...
briskhound2 said:So, what defines a "movie star"? It’s one of those things that really depends on who you ask... but my personal picks aren't going to be found on any lists of the wealthiest, most successful, or most famous names out there. Honestly, most people in the industry are hard to pin down by their actual names—you mostly just recognize their faces—but they show up in projects that absolutely shake up the cinematic world (for better or worse), and more often than not, they end up being the only redeeming quality of the whole damn movie. For me, these character actors are usually the reason I even bother sitting through a film... because I know that no matter how shallow or messy the material is, their performance is always going to be top-tier. So, putting aside all those massive, overhyped, pampered, gorgeous, and untouchable A-listers... I want to know who your favorites are. Who are the guys that make you actually stick around even when some hated "lead" is driving the show? My personal shortlist...
Liev Schreiber Gary Sinise William Fichtner Tom Sizemore David Morse Bill Paxton Krunoslav Šarić Michael Wincott
...though I could probably keep this list going forever. This is just a tiny sampling of actors who have credits in movies I wouldn't even give a second glance if they weren't in them...
They all hold up, especially Bill Paxton, David Morse, and William Fichtner.
We should also mention John Turturro; the man has practically earned a PhD in delivering phenomenal supporting performances.
nimblemarlin6 said:And man, Independence Day is absolutely packed with scenes that grab you by the throat! Take the beginning, for instance: showing the moon and then having the vibrations from a passing spacecraft wipe out an astronaut's footprint from '69. (Not that the moon even has an atmosphere, but whatever.)
Then you've got the ships hovering over the cities. Then there's the destruction of all those major landmarks—the White House being the big one, obviously.
Plus, all those moments that cynics would probably dismiss as cheesy sentimentality, but honestly? They're just pure, raw emotion. The President of the USA personally hopping on a jet to save the world!
Look, Independence Day is full of legendary cinematic moments, and the best part is that it isn't weighed down by some bloated director's ego acting like they're filming a heavy-handed prestige drama.
I have to agree. It seems Emmerich saved all that inflated directorial ego for The Patriot. He was clearly under the impression he was making a weighty historical drama, but the end result turned out to be something else entirely...
At the beginning, if we are talking about truly weighty cinema, you have to look at movies like Blowup or The State of Things...
Deep Impact is an enjoyable enough film, but unfortunately, Mimi Leader doesn't quite have the range for anything beyond being a solid TV director. It feels like a decent television movie—slightly better acting and production values than your average broadcast, perfectly watchable and competent, but nothing remarkable.
On the other hand, Armageddon is pure trash, and it isn't ashamed of that; in fact, it leans into it with everything it has. From a directorial standpoint, it’s messy, frantic, occasionally kitschy and overly pathetic, frenetic, stylized, and sometimes excessive when it shouldn't be... but it does all of this with a full awareness of its own techniques.
My vote, then—as sacrilegious as it may sound—definitely goes to Armageddon.
casualeagle82 said:given all the current hype regarding the end of the world in one way or another..
If you want a serious and high-quality film on this subject, rather than lemonade or comic book fare, then you should watch The Road.
Independence Day has its merits, but it also serves as proof that Emmerich always seems to struggle with crossing the finish line to deliver a truly great film. The movie essentially unfolds in three acts—the first act, featuring the suspenseful build-up and the initial alien onslaught, is phenomenal; if the entire film had maintained that caliber, it would have been excellent. The second act starts to show some cracks, though it remains somewhat watchable. However, the third act contains some of the most nonsensical scenes I have ever encountered in a Hollywood blockbuster, but I won't go into detail here since there has already been plenty said about that specific issue. All in all, it’s a silly, entertaining ride, but it certainly could have been better.
War of the Worlds isn't exactly among Spielberg's finest works, but in this particular lineup, it is convincingly superior—it's more atmospheric, darker, and most of it is brilliantly directed. If only little Dakota wouldn't scream so much and pierce my eardrums; that's probably the main reason I've only watched this film a handful of times, even though I keep it in my collection...
I have honestly read far too much nonsense regarding this movie.
In my view, Robin Hood certainly isn't among the absolute best of Ridley Scott's filmography, but heavens, it’s not among his worst either. Even his weaker efforts—films like G.I. Joe or Legend—have always been, at the very least, perfectly solid productions.
There is a large group of people claiming the film is a total mess simply because it doesn't align with historical facts, but historical dramas aren't actually about history (though I realize that isn't clear to many). Historical films deal with the mythology born from historical events and how they reflect upon our modern lives. The genre has always said more about our current society and culture than the period it seemingly depicts. As a cynic and a postmodernist, Scott is fully aware of this. It is precisely this postmodern component that has allowed him to remain at the top for so long; it helped him evolve from a director of relatively routine genre pieces and a "director-for-hire" (which, realistically, accounts for most of his career) into one of the most significant cinematic authors of the last three decades. The other issue is that, judging by most comments, it seems postmodernism is falling out of fashion, though eventually, everything does...
Setting theory aside, Robin Hood sits roughly in the same tier as Scott's recent films like American Gangster and Body of Lies—very good movies whose primary flaw is failing to reach the high standards this director set for himself.
By the way, Scott is perhaps one of the directors with the most dramatic highs and lows in history, both commercially and artistically, so I am not at all worried about whether he will produce a masterpiece again. Besides, the very concept of a "masterpiece" is highly subjective. To prove my point, one only needs to look at the theatrical version of Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, which is visually stunning but narratively quite lacking, compared to the Director's cut of the same film, which is arguably his finest work since the days of Blade Runner.
Furthermore, Scott is the type of director who often quietly acquiesces to vague producer demands—like cutting down runtimes—but they grant him the opportunity to release Director's cut versions later and provide funding for new projects. It wouldn't surprise me if the current version of Robin Hood is the result of such pressures, especially since I've come across three different running times being mentioned lately, implying the film was likely being edited right up until the premiere. I am almost certain there is high-quality material here for an expanded, superior version.
Emily Thomas3 said:Just saw this at a press screening. Honestly, it was surprisingly fun and engaging, even if it’s packed with a million logical gaps and those classic historical blunders. But man, that final battle? Total disaster. Like, how are they crossing the English Channel in wooden landing crafts powered by freaking oars?! Did they just row the whole way in one go and then immediately jump into combat?! What kind of steroids are those guys on? Give me some of that stuff! That last fight really drags down an otherwise decent flick. The plot is totally reworked, the acting is fine, you get some fighting, some bickering, a tiny bit of romance, a touch of melodrama, and that's about it. Still, it was better than I expected. Either way, men in tights remains the best Robin Hood Movie ever made 😍
Well, if you've ever read Asterix, then you know everyone was fueled by Panoramix's magic potion. You don't mess around when dealing with the Gauls... 🤣
Both Tri and the feather collection, both directed by Aleksandra Petrovica. There are plenty of other great films out there, but these two are easily the best.
Samuel Baker3 said:Could someone help me understand why people say there's a connection between movies like *Se7en* and *Fight Club* that would somehow prevent them both from appearing on the same list?
In theory, they absolutely could be. However, it seems Tarantino likely intended to limit the list to just one film per director. Since both of those movies were directed by David Fincher, he probably felt it was best to pick just one.
I’m not particularly surprised by this list; it makes perfect sense given how much Quentin Tarantino was influenced by grindhouse cinema and East Asian cult classics growing up. You’ll find a mix of hits and misses here, but there are several undeniable modern masterpieces included—films like *Boogie Nights*, *Fight Club* (though I have a slight soft spot for *Se7en*), *Lost in Translation*, *Unbreakable*, and *The Insider*. In my opinion, *The Insider* is actually the standout achievement on this entire list, though I can't help but feel *Heat* really deserved a spot here too.
As for *The Matrix* and *Speed*, those are two stellar examples of genre filmmaking. Even Tarantino's nods to his Far East inspirations, such as *Kill Bill* or *The Host*, are certainly worth watching, though personally, I think a film by Takeshi Kitano would have been a more fitting addition.
Cave was absolutely incredible. This was my third time seeing them live, and I honestly think they’re even more captivating now than they were in their early days. Truly phenomenal.
While I went in expecting great things from Cave, the real surprise of the day was Ed Kuepper & Jeffrey Wegener. To be fair, the afternoon slot was terrible—you could practically count the audience on one hand—and they only played three songs. However, the sound was this fascinating blend of Sonic Youth and Midnight Oila, which makes sense given the guys are from Australia. They’re actually opening for Cave on their current tour, so I suppose that speaks for itself.
The vjestica and Amadou & Mariam sets were both pleasant and laid-back, though I ended up missing Sean Kutia. Let3 was as excellent as ever, but unfortunately, the venue was a total mess—muddy and way too cramped for everyone trying to catch them. It really would have been better if they had been moved to the Bud Light Stage.
As for everything else, it was hit or miss. I’ve never been much of a fan of Hot Chip or Go!Team, and personally, both sets felt a bit dull to me, though there seemed to be enough people in the crowd who enjoyed them...
