That’s news to me, I suppose. But honestly, I don't think we need any more theaters in this small town. Even the ones we currently have seem to be struggling with pretty low attendance numbers.
I suppose I can respect the idea that some people prefer to go into a movie without knowing exactly where the plot is headed. However, there are certain films where it feels almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion about them without diving into the actual story—something like *No Country for Old Men*, for instance.
Nathan Myers28 said:Nah, he just has a different taste—for instance, he thinks AvPR is way better than Starship Troopers, which is probably a hot take nobody actually agrees with, but hey, that's his prerogative.
Bay is a mediocre director. I suppose he has never actually crafted a truly great film. However, he possesses a certain knack for churning out perfectly watchable popcorn blockbusters, which suggests there might be some level of talent there after all. The most insightful take I’ve come across regarding his work lately was simply, "Bay can't direct, but he can blow shit up really good."
There is, of course, no comparison to be made with genuine action masters like James Cameron or Joe McTiernan (back in his prime), yet he remains significantly more capable than absolute hacks like Uwe Boll or Paul W. S. Anderson.
Perhaps I am being a bit dramatic, but I suppose one could argue that the Red Line is somewhat thin, if we are being strictly honest about the situation.
I went to the theater fully expecting your run-of-the-mill war flick—you know, the kind packed with endless gunfire and mindless action sequences. Instead, I left feeling quite Betrayed. It wasn't until I finally sat down to watch it again recently, in a much more tranquil setting, that I actually began to grasp its true essence, and I must say, I’ve grown to love it immensely.
Even if Robert De Niro had never filmed anything else in his entire life, his performances in Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and even The Godfather would probably be more than enough to cement his status as a true acting legend—especially considering what he did in Raging Bull.
If I had to point out one single shortcoming in his acting toolkit, I suppose it might be his inability to cry on cue. But then again, I guess you can't really hold that against him when Al Pacino struggles with the same thing.
As for Gangs of New York, I don't think it’s a bad movie, though it certainly isn't anything special either. In my humble opinion, if the film had been built around Daniel Day-Lewis and his character rather than the somewhat uninspiring Leonardo DiCaprio, it might have actually been an absolute masterpiece.
It’s a remarkably solid piece of filmmaking, I suppose. I feel compelled to offer my compliments to Christian Bale and Russell Crowe; even if the rest of the production had been an absolute disaster, those two alone might have salvaged it—though, in this case, they didn't actually have to. That being said, while some might claim it’s the film of the year, I find myself disagreeing quite strongly. In my estimation, Zodiac and No Country for Old Men still hold a higher place, though I realize that is entirely a matter of personal taste.