So, we were actually diving into this for a college seminar recently. It turns out superhero movies weren't just some random fluke—they were strategically rolled out right during the Ronald Reagan era. That’s when we saw the launch of Superman and a whole bunch of other icons.
The thing about referencing Ronald Reagan is that his presidency really kicked off the spread of neoconservatism. If you follow political theory at all, the connection is pretty easy to spot...
But basically, what does this massive wave of superhero cinema tell us from a cultural standpoint? I mean, comics have been around forever, but Hollywood didn't really get obsessed with them until much later on.
In a nutshell, it's about the rise of tactical media. They use these movies to sneak in subliminal messages that glorify the American way of life, and as globalization spreads, so does the influence. And let's be real, Jack Nicholson didn't just make bank playing the Joker; he made a fortune from those toy licensing deals with the industry! The ideology is totally baked into the commercial side of things. (You should really check out that documentary "The Commercialization of Childhood"—it covers some other wild effects caused by the same industry).
So, what do these hero movies actually signal? Well, Superman protects the American lifestyle, and Rambo (even though he didn't start in a comic book, he fits the vibe perfectly here) was all about fighting against enemies of the American state. Even though the original idea was to show the Vietnam War in a negative light, they leaned so hard into the action and skipped over the deeper themes that Rambo just became this icon of bravery... everyone thought he was such a cool, macho figure.
There was even this weird trend where whenever the Republicans held power, there was a huge surge in superhero movie production.
Of course, today’s obsession with turning everything into a superhero franchise looks a bit different. Now, it’s almost purely about the bottom line. Even so, I think there are still some bright spots in the comic world, even if most of it drives me absolutely crazy... from the endless Marvel slog to how they basically butcher DC characters until they're unrecognizable xD
My folks went to see this movie at the local theater and they were actually saying it wasn't that bad 😛
I honestly can't believe it. You don't always have to trust the IMDb ratings, but let's be real—anything under a 6 usually stinks. I've learned that the hard way... 😬 (and it’s sitting at a 3.6 there)
electricridge6 said:Check out Kingdom of Heaven. I mean, he showed up in it a few times and absolutely crushed it.
I get that, but that's not really my point... sure, there are movies where he totally shines, but he isn't legendary in every single one. Honestly, there are plenty of films where he’s just kind of... there? Nothing special. He’s always professional and gets the job done, but he doesn't always stand out in his roles. I bet most people here can only name maybe five or six performances where he was truly incredible, especially considering how much stuff he's actually done. It's not even a quarter of his whole filmography...
Hmm... kind of like Edward Norton, except he doesn't go to see a psychiatrist or anything...
Really? I wouldn't say that (I actually didn't know that, to be honest). So he doesn't fully lose himself in a role and transform completely. I mean, sure, he's convincing and creative and all that, but he just packs his intensity into small doses and doesn't always own the whole scene...
Mark Cruz15 said:The movie is solid—great direction, strong acting—but honestly, the premise feels a bit silly. It’s basically trying to tell us we shouldn't judge people based on prejudices...
But hey, looking at when this was made and who they were targeting, you can't really expect it to be some deep philosophical masterpiece. And why should it be? It’s accessible, it hits all the right marks, and that makes it a great watch for just about anyone! Sure, today that message might feel a little "after-school special," kind of like how certain cinematic tricks that were revolutionary back then just feel like tired clichés now. But look, we have a complete movie here with a tight plot and a sequence of events that actually works together perfectly...
Samuel Scott54 said:Daniel Day-Lewis hasn't really been doing much lately... I mean, what, maybe four movies in the last ten years? I don't know what people see in him, honestly. Personally, I think Leonardo DiCaprio and Edward Norton have way better filmographies.
He doesn't film because he’s incredibly picky about his roles! He’ll spend two whole years just prepping for one single character. Once he starts that deep dive, he basically lives as that person... it's all prep, all the time. He actually has to see a therapist after filming just to shake off the character's habits! It's all part of how he creates those legendary performances.
And in between projects, he just retreats into total solitude. He stays busy with hobbies, too—fishing, wood carving, stuff like that...
I haven't seen the remake, and honestly, I don't even want to... Lumet's classic is just flawless, almost like a thriller where you're constantly guessing how things will play out.
The story itself is just incredible! I mean, the sheer willpower of Henry Fonda's character is fascinating... he refuses to back down, insisting on his perspective even when the accused guy—who basically has zero chance in court—seems totally guilty.
And since they were working with such tight spaces and limited time, the dialogue and character development really had to hit hard, which was easy for Lumet to pull off... he just gets it.
Now, my translation software keeps giving me "12 Angry Men," so I guess that’s the official title we know.
Thinking about when this was actually filmed... it’s pretty wild that there aren't any movies today that can truly top it.
The main reason I picked up Inception specifically is because it’s such a massive blockbuster. Plus, I honestly think it's one of DiCaprio's weaker roles... but I still love it for those wild, original ideas and the way Christopher Nolan tackles themes that clearly fascinate him...
Alright, look, I wasn't trying to put them on the exact same level 😛 I was just pointing out that DiCaprio doesn't waste his time acting in those empty, hollow blockbusters...
Between the technical glitches, those weird plot holes, some cringey dialogue, and a few actors who just didn't fit the roles... man, there's a lot to unpack. Honestly, it's on the production team too, because I feel like Christopher Nolan could easily pull off a six-hour epic without breaking a sweat 😬 But look, I still love his movies! It’s just that something always feels like it's missing for me...
Joseph Edwards4 said:I mean, I don't know, these kinds of polls just feel pointless to me. Saying > is even close to anything by Michael Bay is honestly insulting... Bay is just terrible. Every single one of his movies is awful on every possible level, and don't even get me started on his moral compass, which is always bottom-of-the-barrel...
What I meant was in terms of being a massive blockbuster hit! >—like pretty much every Christopher Nolan film—is super well-conceived conceptually, even if it definitely has its flaws...
And look at Marlon Brando! He had such a killer start, then went through this string of mediocre movies before totally reinventing himself with >—which was such a shocker given his reputation back then... and then he just kept delivering those legendary roles. You never really know, right? But man, it feels impossible nowadays to make a movie that hits with that same kind of impact, especially the kind of masterpieces that actually sweep the Academy Awards...
bluenomad2 said:Just because something is a massive hit doesn't mean it's actually a good movie. Box office numbers and popularity? They've never been a metric for quality...
Well, it definitely isn't a "Michael Bay hit." The closest thing we have is Inception, which somehow pulls through with decent reviews despite everything because the themes are actually handled well...
The others basically relied on heavy marketing just to get noticed, even if it was just for the trailers.
I'm not saying that should be the deciding factor in who's a better actor, but there's definitely a much higher chance people will actually watch and judge his work. I mean, anyone can rattle off at least half of Leonardo DiCaprio's roles, but I bet you couldn't name even a third of Edward Norton's! Does anyone here—without checking Google—actually know the name of the character Edward Norton plays in a Woody Allen or Wes Anderson flick? Like, specifically Moonrise Kingdom?...
We end up judging them based on this scale where people compare ten of Leonardo DiCaprio's movies against, what, maybe five of Edward Norton's? At least in my humble opinion...
Alright, I'm with you there. I’ve seen it firsthand just watching Brand's and Depp's movies... they don't have any bad roles per se, they just end up picking some pretty weak projects, though I don't think they're necessarily to blame for that.
On the other hand, almost every single movie with DiCaprio is a massive hit. I really think he's the one who's way more careful about where he shows up...
I don't buy this idea that he only plays neurotic characters on the fringes of society just to "show off his genius acting chops." Seriously, Shutter Island, The Departed, Revolutionary Road... they're all just a string of incredible performances, along with everything else he’s done before and after those.
He was lucky enough to work with directors who actually knew how to guide him through a role, especially his partnership with Martin Scorsese—that definitely shaped his growth. I thought he was a bit weaker in Inception, which doesn't surprise me since Christopher Nolan doesn't really work with actors in that kind of way.
Honestly, all these debates about who is more talented or who has more skill feel pretty pointless to me. Someone who truly puts in the work can easily overtake someone who's just naturally gifted. Norton probably has better formal training, but looking at his filmography, there aren't tons of movies that stick in my mind. On one hand, it's cool that he stays away from the massive blockbusters, but still, scrolling through IMDb, I can tell he's been stuck in quite a few mediocre films.
And now I'm just wondering, what does it even mean to be "more method"? There are actors who totally misunderstand the concept and start practicing it the wrong way, which I get. Sometimes it's harmless, like when Robert De Niro went out and got a job as a taxi driver just to soak up the experience for Taxi Driver... though maybe he pushed the method a little too far when he decided to grind his teeth down for Cape Fear! I mean, learning to ride a horse is one thing if you're playing a cowboy, but to play a cab driver, isn't knowing how to drive a car enough?
Anyway, I don't think Norton falls into that group of people who get the whole method concept wrong. 🙂
Honestly, I think comparing actors this way is kind of pointless... I mean, it would be a real conversation if they were playing the exact same role in two different versions of a play or drama. Like, you could compare Brand and Heston playing Mark Antony in Julius Caesar, or Laurence Olivier versus Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet (and hey, if you really want to, throw Mel Gibson into the mix 😛)...
And by the way, Norton has three Oscar nominations under his belt. His third one was just last year for his supporting role in Birdman.
anyhow, both of them have such distinct vibes on screen. Norton is actually a super chill, low-key guy in real life—not exactly tabloid fodder, just a total pro who gets the job done. He’s got this pleasant, unobtrusive presence and has landed in some seriously great movies, though he usually shines brightest in supporting roles rather than leading ones. Don't get me wrong, he doesn't have any bad performances, but you can tell he thrives more when he isn't carrying the whole movie. He was amazing in Fight Club, American History X, and 25th Hour, but I found his role in Birdman a bit more playful, like some of his earlier stuff. And Primal Fear? Such an incredible debut for a rising star back then.
While everyone is constantly obsessing over Leo, it feels like people mostly follow him because of his private life. There was even that list recently going around about all the supermodels he's dated over the last twenty years! Plus, he’s turned into this huge advocate for global activism. It’s not even his first time speaking out about climate change; he just used the Oscars as a platform to repeat what he's said before. You won't see Norton on a "Top 10 Sexiest Men" list, but Leo was basically built for that kind of spotlight right from the start. Norton doesn't exactly have a ton of romantic scenes, whereas Leo is practically in them in every movie—well, except maybe The Revenant, and I guess Catch Me If You Can and This Boy's Life where he was still just a kid.
Leo is a fantastic actor, and honestly, he was at his absolute peak during the 90s and early 2000s. I'm talking The Basketball Diaries, The Aviator, and Catch Me If You Can (and of course, What's Eating Gilbert Grape). I also really love The Beach. He was great in Django, too, but for me, his best work has to be in Blood Diamond.
Maybe the link between them is just how nuanced they are from one role to the next without being totally one-dimensional. Norton might be a bit more subtle, and because he stays out of the media spotlight, it's actually easier to just get lost in his characters. As for what you mentioned about him suggesting the stutter for his character... that’s nothing new in Hollywood. It’s actually encouraged! An actor should definitely put their own spin on a role and add layers the director or writer didn't even see coming. To me, that's just a sign of true creative talent...
Brandon Myers2 said:I was actually talking about that wrestler, Triple H... you know, like Hulk Hogan vibes? They did a bunch of stuff for him, like those Evolution eras—you had King of Kings and I think there was another one too. He used to be buddies with Lemmy, so he probably just asked him for a favor, and boom, there you go!
Could be! Honestly, they probably commercialized the whole thing so much it popped up in movies or TV shows everywhere. But I've got this nagging feeling I heard it somewhere for real... definitely...
And then, while I was diving into some Motörhead tracks I hadn't really bothered with before, I stumbled right onto that 😬 I swear, I love those little moments when you discover new music... I always end up falling down a rabbit hole online looking it up...
Just finished watching one of the weaker Coen brothers movies...
It’s got those charming little moments and that signature dark humor they do so well, but honestly, the people just don't act like they're actually living in the 60s. It felt a bit off...
Funny at times, and the music scenes definitely hit the mark. It's a decent enough flick, but nothing groundbreaking...