So, I’m figuring I probably watch at least one movie every single day. There’s gotta be five thousand of them out there worth seeing. Out of those, maybe 50 actually hit the spot for me. I write scripts and leave ratings too. I don't bother with full-on reviews because, honestly, I don't always have the patience for the endless arguments that come with them. A rating is just my thing—just my own unprofessional opinion, for whatever that's worth.
Jeffrey Torres said:And honestly, the movie was great. It’s right up there with all the classics like Taxi, Rambo, Terminator, Conan, Die Hard, Star Wars, Alien, Predator, Chronicles of Riddick, xXx, The Mummy, Two-Face, Deadly Weapon, and hundreds—maybe thousands—of others I've watched. I think I actually have most of them on DVD. Some people might call these kinds of movies trash, but for me, they're just a perfect way to spend two hours relaxing and unwinding.
Look, if Conan isn't "non-trash" for any other reason, it's the soundtrack. And it's good. Man, this is a real, legit warrior fantasy flick, right up there with stuff like Lord of the Rings or Eragon.
Zodiac is solid, but honestly? It’s way too long-winded.
Yeah—it’s MAGICAL—but it reminded me of that one movie that totally flipped the script on me—started off absolute garbage and then just kept getting better and better—Saw IV. XD
I’ll probably dig it up later, but right now? All I know is that Panov's Maze, Wind that Bends the Barley, and Bridge to Terabithia were absolute nightmares to deal with because of how they developed. -.-
Aside from the fact that the death of hand-drawn animation absolutely terrifies me—because honestly, this whole 3D trend is just getting harder and harder to stomach—I think you nailed the point here with your sense of humor (if I’m reading you right). The jokes they’re peddling aren't even meant for kids, and they lack that genuine charm you find in something like Mulan or The Lion King. It’s worse than that. Take Arthur in the land of the Minimoys, for instance. It’s dubbed over specifically to target children, yet it's packed with these ridiculous parodies lifted from other movies that those same kids were way too young to get, or hadn't even seen yet. Or it relies on these weird scene gags—like when characters start dancing to trip-hop mid-fight, or that entire ridiculous sequence involving bras and boobs and all that nonsense. Kids don't get it because they can't catch the subtext. Then you have the older crowd laughing while the little ones just sit there looking around, totally lost, and you can't even explain why it's supposed to be funny. Or look at Little Red Riding Hood. There are a million subtle layers there that kids might actually start grasping around age thirteen, assuming they even notice the cleverness behind the framing and how the story connects. And don't even get me started on Braveheart, which is basically just a carbon copy of some movie about USA vs Germany, like the United Kingdom vs Nazi Germany. Seriously?!
So yeah, the whole concept of an "animated film" is shifting, and I am definitely not feeling it. Oh, and... The Bee Movie? One of the bad ones. O.o
Look, I gave it a shot—the story isn't anything special, just the same old formula you see everywhere else. Special effects? Nothing to write home about. The acting? Meh. The cinematography? Same deal. But honestly, the movie is damn good, especially considering I usually go for those deep, philosophical, pseudo-metaphysical indie flicks. It’s two hours of solid entertainment with an incredible soundtrack, Bruce Willis, great visuals, a killer "hero team," top-tier shots mixed with humor, a romance, a heavy ending, and a heartwarming twist. For what it's trying to be, within its genre and purpose—it's almost a perfect score.
I don't get it. I honestly don't see where most people are coming from. From my perspective, the first one was okay but the acting was straight-up garbage. The second was just pure exploitation, and the third? Absolute trash. But then Saw IV actually caught me off guard, which is why I suggested we watch it. After three movies that felt like nothing, they finally put together a coherent film where things actually happen. They give you motives, flesh out the characters, throw in some psychological profiling, and the score is way better than the previous entries (even if it isn't the official soundtrack... whatever, doesn't change the movie). If they hadn't kept those annoying elements from the last few sequels that were totally unnecessary, this would have been a damn good movie. It’s just more complex and leagues better than what came before.
And yeah... watching movies on some crappy DivX rip is just stupid and sacrilegious.
Look, it’s just the same old Ivanna Orleans nonsense we've seen a million times before, except somehow we're stuck in 2007. And then there's Kate... Honestly, it feels like they're just remaking Cleopatra for the fifty-sixth time, only now it's 2008.
Jose Miller17 said:..this is a total disaster...gross. It’s like those overpriced, tasteless tomatoes you find at Whole Foods...zero flavor, zero soul...just boring. It feels thrown together without any rhyme or reason. I mean, what is Howard even doing? I sat through three hours just to learn he likes milk and building planes. We jump into the middle of a movie...he's filming a movie...but why? Why the sudden pivot to aviation? How? Why? Then there's that scene where he's naked in his room because he had an accident, filmed with some microscopic lens tech that looks so fake even Howard wouldn't believe it. He leaves the room, the movie ends...but how does it actually end? What was the point? Where's the momentum? What is even happening here? Is Howard really so dull that he had nothing to say? Nobody cares about his plane stories. And what does his mother have to do with any of this? So, he decides as a kid he'll build planes and get rich while sitting in a bathtub, and that's the whole story? That's it? This movie evokes absolutely nothing. Every single character is bland and hollow. Honestly, Scorsese, if you win an Oscar for this, just quit. Too bad there isn't an Oscar for robbing the audience or for pure boredom. I wasn't expecting much, yet I'm still disappointed...congrats on achieving that, though. Bravo, Scorsese. If you hadn't made that massive flop *New York Gangsters*, I might have actually thought you had talent left in you. thanks.
This probably made you the only person on this thread who failed to grasp an extremely straightforward movie with a perfectly normal flow.
redowl90 said:I hope you realize that your post from about two hours ago actually sent me back to rewatch the movie. My first time since seeing it in theaters.
And honestly, the second viewing was much easier to swallow. Probably because I went in fully prepared for the nonsense. Because that’s all this movie really is—one big, giant load of nonsense. I get why you loved it, though; there's definitely something there. But for me, the whole foundation of the story—these water creatures, the ships, the guilds, the guardians—it just feels totally ridiculous. It’s hard to buy into. It sits completely outside the realm of any believable fairy tale. Sure, it has some style, but *Signs* and *The Village* have style too, and they still don't hold a candle to *The Sixth Sense* or *Unbreakable*.
Don't get me wrong, Shyamalan is a great director. But I think he seriously needs to consider finding a new screenwriter, because it's pretty obvious his current direction isn't working anymore. Even so, I'm already hyped for his next one: *The Happening*. That’s the thing about M. Night—he’s brilliant at building anticipation. No matter how bad his last film was (and in my opinion, it was easily the worst of his career so far), people are still on the edge of their seats waiting for his next project.
There are really only two things worth saving in *Lady in the Water*: 1) the fact that Shyamalan himself plays the character who writes the book—the legendary novel that shapes an American child's entire future, and 2) the supporting role of the film critic, specifically that line from Jeffrey Wright: "Who are we to presume to know the intentions of others?"
Look, you can't just strip the magic out of a fairy tale and expect it to work. It’s stupid. It’s like watching a modern gritty reboot of Cinderella and being all like, "Ugh, where are the dwarves and the evil queen? Get real, I'm an adult." Give me a break. Shyamalan took this existing legend from the East and wove it into a contemporary setting in a way that actually works. He’s telling a story that, at its core—just like any fable or myth—explores the deeper facets of the human condition. But because he conceived this specific tale so well, he manages to cover a massive spectrum of themes. One reason he keeps these creatures in the movie instead of turning them into, I don't know, cars or something mundane, is to bridge the gap between our world and the transcendent. If you actually look at it that way—and you really should—the way these characters are drawn toward the magic, or even Giamatti’s total breakdown over her, serves a massive, vital purpose. It’s the whole point. Trying to dissect the "fairy tale" elements away from the actual story is just the wrong way to watch this film. And just to set the record straight since clearly a bunch of you missed the mark... the whole thing about her living in the pool? People are tripping. We don't know how she ended up in the pool, but when Giamatti says, "You live there," he isn't talking about her physical residence. He's expressing his belief that she belongs there. Period. Just clearing that up. *Lady in the Water* is his masterpiece. Honestly, I highly doubt he’ll ever top it. As for *The Happening*? I guess we'll see what else he's got in the tank.
redowl90 said:@George Alvarez3 - really nice post. Truly. It’s just a shame that the movie you're talking about remains total garbage, regardless of how well you wrote this.
Jerry Martin19 said:Word on the street is M. Night Shyamalan totally tanked with Lady in the Water... haven't checked it out yet
That’s because with Lady in the Water, Shyamalan tapped into the edge of human perception about a hundred years before we're ready, and through this flawless, stunning piece of cinema, he exposed just how much the masses don't know—and can't even recognize—what actual quality looks like or what standards should even exist. The Woman from the Water is pure cinematic art. The depth of symbolism, Shyamalan’s grasp on the world, the way he delivers his message... honestly, it left me reeling, and that was back when I caught it during its opening week at the local AMC. Even now, I’m still finding new layers of connection and symbolism in this epic, philosophical fairy tale. It’s a precise, pseudo-metaphysical breakdown of how society actually functions. Every single scene hits a massive amount of themes; it touches the essence of filmmaking itself and the audience too. He literally predicts within the movie how critics will react—questioning what they are, what a film is, and what actors even represent. On top of that, he crafts characters that strike this perfect balance between the divine and the human. This became my number one film since I started watching movies; it actually restored my broken faith in cinema as an art form. The lighting and framing? Brilliant. The character imagery is incredible—especially the lead woman, who feels almost transcendent. And James Newton Howard enriched the whole movement with one of the most beautiful, truly breathtaking soundtracks ever, proving once again why he’s a master. The composition is gorgeous; those melodies flowing from one minute to the next? You won't find anything like it anywhere else. The string ensemble doesn't get bogged down by overbearing, heavy tones; the piano moves warmly alongside flute vibrations and music box sounds, and most of the film avoids being cluttered by aggressive brass. The main theme is just magical. Howard took a simple melody and made the intro fantastic, reinforcing every essential scene and leaving a mark you just can't erase. As for the characters and the story itself, they belong in a league of their own. Sure, if you have a hyper-trained, pedantic eye, you might claim the acting isn't "up to par," but honestly, you should just ignore those kind of stuffy critics. You have to consider the sheer intensity of emotion surrounding Shyamalan’s characters—these creative, human, symbolic figures that basically cover the entire profile of our blue planet. Manayev’s Lady in the Water, in all its perfection, deserves to be at the peak of cinematic art. Personally, I just suffer seeing people be so arrogant in their utter incompetence.
restlessfalcon5 said:Children of Men is easily the best of the bunch. People tend to go overboard when they talk about The Matrix or The Core... especially regarding computer tech and A.I. Artificial Intelligence. We’re actually hitting a wall there; we can't just keep shrinking integrated circuits forever, and the era of microscopic processors is nearing its limit. Plus, we're running out of the raw materials needed to build them. And let’s be real—once the oil runs out, things are going to get ugly because renewables won't be enough to pick up the slack.
In my opinion, it's the most believable depiction of a collapsing society...
The plot sounds like a total cliché. I haven't actually sat down to watch it yet, but I'm looking forward to it anyway. I know it probably won't be some high-brow masterpiece, but I’m just hoping for some decent vibes and a little trip down memory lane to those old-school fantasy days—you know, the Narnia or D&D era.
feralharbor8 said:So, what's the verdict? Which movies are actually worth sitting through just for the special effects?
First off, you gotta look at Metropolis from 1926. Even now, it's worth the watch solely because of those effects. The actual plot? Total garbage. "No robot shall stand on the Zigurat of Power as Long as i Live !" — that's a real quote in there.
placidlynx23 said:Your reaction isn't even surprising. It’s perfectly logical. Someone who looks down on Lynch would naturally think a character like Hannibal Lecter—all forced intensity and emptiness—is actually exciting. And they'd probably call a movie centered around that tired old cliché of a "villainous face" a cinematic masterpiece.
And is it completely illogical to think both Lynch and Hannibal are incredibly creative characters? Honestly, it feels like someone insulted you or something, given how bitterly you're attacking such a brilliant portrayal (and Anthony Hopkins always delivers, just like Jack Nicholson does) of a serial killer that’s been a practical, undeniable cult icon for over 40 years. Whatever.