And this particular sentiment feels especially accurate: "It’s so violent and meaningless that it’s like the movie is committing a hate crime on the gay part of your brain that wanted that introspection bullshit to go somewhere. Universal Soldier: Regeneration really doesn’t care what’s happening in the scene you’re watching– someone is going to die every 20 seconds even if it makes no sense." 😁
The film certainly possessed a certain degree of potential. It featured an intriguing setting and offered a somewhat novel approach to the vampire genre, which was bolstered by a decent cast of actors.
Regrettably, however, the actual execution is quite dreadful. I found the movie to be tedious, lackluster, and strangely disjointed. It is a genuine shame, I suppose.
Forget The Big Lebowski; we’re talking about Friday here. 🤷
It’s a rather peculiar list, though I suppose Tarantino is a pretty eccentric fellow himself. Still, there are some truly excellent films tucked in there. For instance, he included Memories of Murder and The Host, yet bypassed Oldboy, which I actually think is a rather astute choice. (I mean, I respect Oldboy, I really do, but I suspect those two might just be the superior films.)
Nicole Jones said:......................👎!We figured out you aren't exactly a fan of Sedlar, Hitler, or history, no matter how it's written. If the bigger villains and even worse directors got their "five minutes" of fame, let's see what these "five minutes" bring. Run away from that stench and all that nonsense about brain hemorrhages... before the movie even starts.🤣
Making a film about villains isn't inherently problematic at all; after all, there have been several quite competent films made about Adolf Hitler, so I fail to see why one couldn't be made about Pavelić.
The real issue here—given my familiarity with Jack Sedlar—is that this project will almost certainly manifest as a biased apology for Pavelić's politics, rather than serving as an actual historical document regarding a significant figure of a nation, much like the film Downfall.
northerncrane4 said:And why does this idea keep dragging on—that Michael Bay just isn't "given" a decent script? Who exactly is "withholding" it from him? Does he even actually want a good script in the first place?
I mean, why bother wasting resources on a screenplay when you could just pour all that money into massive explosions instead?
As an aside, here is what I imagine a perfect Bay script looks like: http://www.cracked.com/blog/transfor...omment-page-4/
rustyscout34 said:I guess if you had to choose, I’d rather see Michael Bay kill off Uwe Boll with a massive budget (their award-to-nomination ratio is basically the same anyway)... it’s like choosing between plain white truffles on beans or black truffles on cabbage rolls.
Ugh, I don't think he's quite that terrible.
No one is ever going to hand Uwe Boll over $100 million to make a movie, I suspect. However, studios will hand that kind of money to Michael Bay without even blinking. Uwe Boll has been making his own little features for ages now; they usually cost about twenty million apiece, and they almost never recoup their costs. It seems to me that Uwe Boll simply lacks any semblance of actual talent.
Now, Michael Bay possesses a very specific type of talent, if you could call it that. It's a knack for those silly, high-octane action flicks. Boll’s movies aren't even that—they're just plain unwatchable. I believe Jerry Bruckheimer recognized that particular Michael Bay talent, handed him $20 million to direct Bad Boys, and walked away with a mountain of cash. For every subsequent project, his budget grew, and so did his profits.
Jessica Gonzalez said:I guess Michael Bay in the director's chair is essentially what Jerry Bruckheimer is in the producer's office: a populist creator of flashy nonsense. To be fair, Michael Bay is a huge name, and maybe that's why we're even discussing him. He's definitely made a name for himself in the film industry and modern pop culture, earning plenty of money for himself and everyone else involved. Fortunately, that doesn't necessarily mean he's a good director.
I would argue that while Michael Bay isn't an artist in any traditional sense, he is certainly a highly skilled craftsman.
In the realm of mindless, loud action cinema, it is hard to find anyone who produces movies quite as foolishly boisterous or excessive as he does. His entire philosophy seems to be that "more is always better," which inevitably results in films that are utterly over the top. However, I must reiterate my stance: Michael Bay is ultimately harmless and insignificant, regardless of how many millions his projects rake in at the box office. It is much like how Britney Spears' albums will remain inconsequential within the broader context of musical history, no matter how many fans purchase them.
That particular "more is better" approach doesn't actually put him in the same league as David Lynch; rather, it places him alongside directors who truly master action while offering so much more substance—directors like James Cameron, Michael Mann, Ridley Scott, or Peter Jackson, whose action sequences provide a significantly deeper experience. Michael Bay isn't even attempting to offer anything beyond a pure audiovisual assault on the viewer's senses.
The food analogy is actually quite fitting, I suppose. Michael Bay would essentially be McDonald's. Everyone is well aware that the food is low-quality, unhealthy, and likely to lead to weight gain, yet even the most sophisticated gourmets might occasionally succumb to a craving for a cheap burger and some fries.
Michael Bay is... well, let's just say he's harmless... if that's even the right way to put it.
The man simply churns out his loud, mindless blockbusters packed with endless explosions and an excessive amount of American flags, and somehow, it actually works for him. As long as he sticks to that specific formula and doesn't try anything else, I suppose I won't have any issues with his work.
However, once he starts under the delusion that he’s capable of something more profound and decides to ruin a meaningful franchise—much like McG did—that's when I might actually find myself annoyed.
Zachary Brown said:It’s just blindingly obvious that this was an inside job orchestrated by the government or whoever is pulling the strings behind the scenes... I mean, it is just NOT POSSIBLE for a steel structure to collapse like that... it simply isn't physically possible... The buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions right inside the main steel framework. It's actually common knowledge that they were doing all those elevator repairs around the buildings just a few weeks prior... acting as total cover... Of course, you won't hear a peep about this from most of the mainstream media outlets, but if you just look at who actually owns them, 90% of the media is controlled by just a handful of massive corporations... we're talking Time Warner, News Corp, Viacom... And you can find those exact same owners showing up at secret Bilderberg meetings and stuff like that...
People who genuinely believe those buildings were taken out by planes are living in a complete fantasy land, and honestly, they're clearly just uninformed... The truth is, it's way easier and much more comfortable to just buy into the official story. If you do, it makes it feel like the world isn't such a brutally messed up place, and it lets you pretend that Americans in the Middle East are actually spreading peace and democracy, and that everything is going to be fine... but the reality is unfortunately the exact opposite... it's just fucking messed up...
For more info, you should really check this out http://www.ae911truth.org/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HOTAUy_mrQ
Bravo.
This drifted away from a discussion about the movie a long time ago, so I suppose there is really no point in trying to restart it again. Lock, lock?
wiredbison82 said:Call me a heretic if you want, but Smith hit his stride with Clerks and everything else since then has just felt like overreaching. Some filmmakers capture lightning in a bottle with their debut; anything they attempt afterward is essentially just trying to catch shadows.
Chasing Amy? It’s actually a brilliant romantic film—personally, I think it holds up even better than "Merchants." Granted, Jersey Girl and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back were pretty terrible, but Zack and miriti make a porno is actually quite excellent. I wouldn't go so far as to say he hasn't lost his touch, but one certainly never knows what to expect from him.
It seems to me that Coppola has certainly experienced the most significant decline in quality. And yet, I suppose one might argue he has contributed so much to the fabric of American cinema through works like The Godfather and Apocalypse Now that his recent missteps are somewhat forgiven.
northerncrane4 said:I'm afraid—to my great disappointment—that even Gilliam has lost his touch. His last two, "The Brothers Grimm" and "Tideland," were practically forgettable. 😢
I am inclined to agree, unfortunately. However, I have been hearing nothing but glowing reviews regarding the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, so perhaps, just perhaps, it isn't too late for him yet.
I honestly find it impossible to sit through a single Rob Schneider movie without my mind immediately drifting toward those absolutely brilliant South Park clips 🙂
This isn't actually a documentary. It’s more like pretentious propaganda. Though, I suppose a great many people will undoubtedly mistake this for objective fact and truth, feeling quite superior for having seen it while labeling everyone else as mere sheep.
Much like Zeitgeist and those other similar "documentaries," this doesn't really belong on a film forum, given that it possesses absolutely no cinematic or artistic merit (nor does it have any intention of possessing such things). One can only really discuss these pieces from a purely political standpoint.
It seems to me that remakes are, for the most part, significantly inferior to the original films. I suppose there is a certain argument to be made that Tui tends to execute things with much more finesse, though I suspect we might occasionally encounter a remake so vastly superior to its predecessor that the general public remains entirely oblivious to the fact that a remake even exists—one might think of instances like The Thing, The Fly, Cape Fear, or Scarface.
The fundamental issue with these kinds of debates is that if I were to state which one I prefer, most people would (incorrectly) assume I’m implying the other is inferior.
In reality, both films are absolute masterpieces, albeit in entirely different ways, and their primary connection is simply the genre they inhabit. I suspect any argument regarding which one holds more merit would eventually just devolve into a debate over Kubrick's direction, which, I suppose, isn't necessarily everyone's cup of tea.
Ultimately, I found myself leaning toward Blade Runner for one solitary reason: it is much more watchable and, frankly, more accessible. I have revisited it numerous times, and I suspect that if I were forced to choose which film to spend an evening with, I would almost certainly pick Blade Runner.
Frank Moore4 said:On a different note, if one were looking for a film that captures the visual essence of Alan Ford, I suppose the closest thing might be that classic American dark comedy about the marathon runners. 😬
