I'm skipping this one—changing the channel!

Nicholas Edwards4 said:

Nothing is garbage until I decide it’s garbage, honestly... I just can't stand prejudices, whatever kind they may be.

I guess the first sign that a movie is going nowhere is when you don't see a single recognizable face on the poster.
And honestly, the second thing is that as soon as I spot some busted-up cars or cheap-looking clothes—unless we're talking about some legendary cinematic classic—I'm probably just going to change the channel.

Personally, I find that lack of stardom is exactly what makes a film intriguing to me. 🙂

Nicholas Edwards4 said:

Nothing is garbage until I decide it’s garbage, honestly... I just can't stand prejudices, whatever kind they may be.

I guess the first sign that a movie is going nowhere is when you don't see a single recognizable face on the poster.
And honestly, the second thing is that as soon as I spot some busted-up cars or cheap-looking clothes—unless we're talking about some legendary cinematic classic—I'm probably just going to change the channel.

Hahahaha... give me a break.😁

By that logic, we’d have to say every masterpiece ever made was a failure: Scorsese's debut, Pacino's first outing, Brando's start—the list goes on forever. None of them were household names when they first stepped onto a set, right?😉

Nicholas Edwards4 said:

Nothing is garbage until I decide it’s garbage, honestly... I just can't stand prejudices, whatever kind they may be.

I guess the first sign that a movie is going nowhere is when you don't see a single recognizable face on the poster.
And honestly, the second thing is that as soon as I spot some busted-up cars or cheap-looking clothes—unless we're talking about some legendary cinematic classic—I'm probably just going to change the channel.

Excuse me? That's a pretty harsh bias to have. Honestly, it feels a bit childish.
Think about movies like Walkabout, Eraserhead, or even Benny's—they aren't exactly packed with A-list stars, yet they are absolute masterpieces.

hiddenhound3 said:I find myself in the exact same position. There are many times when I feel a sense of regret, and truthfully, in most instances, I realize from the very beginning that I have made a mistake. Still, I cannot help it; I have this compulsion to see through everything I start.

Have you ever consciously gotten yourself into some total garbage like Gigli? And if so, what? Also, I always finish what I start, but putting something like Nielsen or Gigli on while I'm sober? No way. It's just not happening, freaking impossible... (Cloverfield, Twilight, Signs are, for example, some movies I hate but I still watched them from start to finish, and there are tons more...) 🤷

rustyscout34 said:Personally, I don't mind Jean-Claude van Damme either way. I've seen maybe ten of his movies and they're fine for killing time with a beer, I suppose. > has been on my list for a long time, and everyone seems to praise it, though I doubt it's actually among the best of '08... 👍

If you don't take my word for it—or the word of others here who've actually sat through it—then fine... here you go...

http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/20...ovies-of-2008/
http://www.imdb.com/List?year=2008&&...average%20vote
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jcvd/

Also... I think it's worth noting this surprising fact: according to Time magazine, van Damme's performance in this movie was ranked as the second-best male acting performance of last year... landing right behind Heath Ledger as Joker in The Dark Knight!
http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...864363,00.html

rustyscout34 said:Have you ever consciously gotten yourself into some total garbage like Gigli? And if so, what? Also, I always finish what I start, but putting something like Nielsen or Gigli on while I'm sober? No way. It's just not happening, freaking impossible... (Cloverfield, Twilight, Signs are, for example, some movies I hate but I still watched them from start to finish, and there are tons more...) 🤷

I don't even care for the notion of 'finishing what you started' (it sounds far too much like a perfectionist's mantra), let alone applying that logic to watching movies.

If something is garbage, why on earth should I suffer through it until the credits roll? 😕

Anthony Smith3 said:If you don't take my word for it—or the word of others here who've actually sat through it—then fine... here you go...

http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/20...ovies-of-2008/
http://www.imdb.com/List?year=2008&&...average%20vote
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jcvd/

Also... I think it's worth noting this surprising fact: according to Time magazine, van Damme's performance in this movie was ranked as the second-best male acting performance of last year... landing right behind Heath Ledger as Joker in The Dark Knight!
http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...864363,00.html

Well, obviously... and that’s precisely the problem. In this instance, the impression left by the movie is being driven by something entirely external to the film itself. And what lies outside the film? It's just Jean-Claude van Damme's previous body of work.

If JCVD had spent his entire career starring in heavy dramas, this wouldn't be perceived as such a great film.

@Nicholas Edwards4 - there aren't any female fans in baseball.

@goldenhound32 - honestly, that monologue was my favorite part of the movie. I actually think characters should break the fourth wall a bit more often and just realize they're characters.

ontopic: nothing like that here. I mostly watch movies on my PC, and when I turn on the TV, it's strictly sports. I've stumbled across all kinds of random crap while channel surfing, but no regrets—it's all research for the job.

goldenhound32 said:I don't even care for the notion of 'finishing what you started' (it sounds far too much like a perfectionist's mantra), let alone applying that logic to watching movies.

If something is garbage, why on earth should I suffer through it until the credits roll? 😕

Look, I already spoke up when someone claimed that a true cinephile is someone who watches everything—if that's the case, then I'm not a cinephile at all. There's just no way, and honestly, I don't have the TIME. Movies aren't my job; I watch them because I love them, and I'm old enough now to know what doesn't interest me. For instance, take comic book adaptations that I have zero interest in. People can talk to me about how phenomenal the special effects are all they want, but the truth is, I simply don't care, and that's that.

Anthony Smith3 said:If you don't take my word for it—or the word of others here who've actually sat through it—then fine... here you go...

http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/20...ovies-of-2008/
http://www.imdb.com/List?year=2008&&...average%20vote
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jcvd/

Also... I think it's worth noting this surprising fact: according to Time magazine, van Damme's performance in this movie was ranked as the second-best male acting performance of last year... landing right behind Heath Ledger as Joker in The Dark Knight!
http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...864363,00.html

Look, I believe you that he's good and his performance was great! But I think calling him the best of 2008 is a stretch. He's good, maybe even excellent, I don't doubt that, but I won't know if he's truly the best until I see it myself (though I have my doubts...) 👍

p.s.
goldenhound32, you've got me on your ignore list, so I can't really respond to you...

goldenhound32 said:Well, obviously... and that’s precisely the problem. In this instance, the impression left by the movie is being driven by something entirely external to the film itself. And what lies outside the film? It's just Jean-Claude van Damme's previous body of work.

If JCVD had spent his entire career starring in heavy dramas, this wouldn't be perceived as such a great film.

But honestly, knowing the van Damme catalog is key to actually getting this film. Without his past work, this movie wouldn't even exist. That's basically the definition of postmodern.

Mark Wood79 said:Look, I already spoke up when someone claimed that a true cinephile is someone who watches everything—if that's the case, then I'm not a cinephile at all. There's just no way, and honestly, I don't have the TIME. Movies aren't my job; I watch them because I love them, and I'm old enough now to know what doesn't interest me. For instance, take comic book adaptations that I have zero interest in. People can talk to me about how phenomenal the special effects are all they want, but the truth is, I simply don't care, and that's that.

What about Ghost World?

goldenhound32 said:Felon isn't a B-movie.

Look... it's a direct-to-video flick produced by some tiny, obscure outfit like Stage 6 Films and a couple of others. It’s got a $3 million budget and two actors who used to be big names but haven't been A-list in ages. Trust me, B movies aren't what they used to be.😉

If the movie was actually bad, nobody would even know it existed. Just like how nobody talks about Val Kilmer's other B-tier stuff like Conspiracy, Columbus Day, or even Streets of Blood—which is loaded with stars, but looks pretty weak based on the trailer.

goldenhound32 said:Heh... I merely stated that Jean-Claude Van Damme has flaws; I didn't explicitly state my conclusion, yet you somehow jumped to the assumption that I was just being pedantic. It isn't. We are discussing a monologue.

Do a little reading online... then you can decide for yourself if I'm overreacting.

If I hadn't done my research online, I wouldn't have even bothered watching it.🙂

By the way... Jean-Claude Van Damme isn't an action star at all... check it.😉

It appears someone hasn't been reading my posts very carefully.

But when you look at the big picture... all of them (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal... even Bruce Willis to an extent) have spent their careers churning out the same kind of movies—big, loud action flicks. Some were just luckier than others to land a few higher-quality projects within that genre.

My point is simply this: Stallone's crap is better than Van Damme's crap. That's all I'm saying. It's the same genre, but the quality differs.

I don't get why the monologue is an issue, since it's one of the strongest parts of the film. I've seen people comment that it felt a bit much, like it stood out too much from the rest of the movie and signaled that this wasn't just any random flick. But to me, it felt like the main guy's internal reflection during a crisis. Like he's re-evaluating his whole life. You know how people say that in life-or-death situations, you suddenly rethink every decision and mistake you've ever made? That's basically what this monologue is.

Whatever works for you, I guess. To me, it's all becoming the same. All these guys had a few hits in their careers... like I said, Sly had Rocky, Rambo, Cliffhanger, Copland, and even Demolition Man. van Damme had Bloodsport, Hard Target, Timecop, Universal Soldier, JCVD, and maybe Maximum Risk. Bruce Willis had Die Hard, The Last Boy Scout, Armageddon, Sin City, and then stuff like the Fifth Element and Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. And Arnie probably had the biggest hits, most of which I already mentioned.

hiddenhound3 said:I find myself in the exact same position. There are many times when I feel a sense of regret, and truthfully, in most instances, I realize from the very beginning that I have made a mistake. Still, I cannot help it; I have this compulsion to see through everything I start.

Same here👍

Nicholas Edwards4 said:

Nothing is garbage until I decide it’s garbage, honestly... I just can't stand prejudices, whatever kind they may be.

I guess the first sign that a movie is going nowhere is when you don't see a single recognizable face on the poster.
And honestly, the second thing is that as soon as I spot some busted-up cars or cheap-looking clothes—unless we're talking about some legendary cinematic classic—I'm probably just going to change the channel.

Mistake... and a massive one at that, if you ask me...😉

goldenhound32 said:I don't even care for the notion of 'finishing what you started' (it sounds far too much like a perfectionist's mantra), let alone applying that logic to watching movies.

If something is garbage, why on earth should I suffer through it until the credits roll? 😕

It strikes me as incredibly narrow-minded when someone claims they refuse to watch any film that carries an IMDb rating lower than a seven. 🤷

rustyscout34 said:Have you ever consciously gotten yourself into some total garbage like Gigli? And if so, what? Also, I always finish what I start, but putting something like Nielsen or Gigli on while I'm sober? No way. It's just not happening, freaking impossible... (Cloverfield, Twilight, Signs are, for example, some movies I hate but I still watched them from start to finish, and there are tons more...) 🤷

I certainly do. I find myself doing it quite frequently simply to satisfy certain social expectations. For instance, when I am sitting there watching one of those mindless, overly sentimental teen comedies with my cousin... what else am I supposed to do? 😍

Emily Thomas3 said:@Nicholas Edwards4 - there aren't any female fans in baseball.

@goldenhound32 - honestly, that monologue was my favorite part of the movie. I actually think characters should break the fourth wall a bit more often and just realize they're characters.

ontopic: nothing like that here. I mostly watch movies on my PC, and when I turn on the TV, it's strictly sports. I've stumbled across all kinds of random crap while channel surfing, but no regrets—it's all research for the job.

Well, if they actually show up to the podium, then maybe we'll see something happen. 😁

By the way, "cheerleaders" aren't just fans or spectators. I honestly don't know if there's even an American term that captures the nuance perfectly, but we definitely need a better word for that concept.

@goldenhound32 - For me, that monologue was easily the highlight of the entire film. Honestly, I think the characters could benefit from breaking the fourth wall a bit more often—just to acknowledge their own existence as characters within the narrative.

I don't particularly mind when a film decides to break the fourth wall. It can work if handled correctly. However, I felt that the execution during that specific monologue missed the mark entirely. I'm planning to revisit it on YouTube later to see if it's actually available there, and then I'll provide a more definitive take on what exactly went wrong.

Not really my thing. I mostly stick to watching movies on my PC. While I was browsing through some TV channels, I stumbled upon all sorts of absolute garbage. Honestly, I don't even regret it; it’s all just part of the job.

+1.

Emily Thomas3 said:But honestly, knowing the van Damme catalog is key to actually getting this film. Without his past work, this movie wouldn't even exist. That's basically the definition of postmodern.

Heh, acting like we’re analyzing the complete works of James Joyce... what’s the point of studying this guy's filmography when every single movie he makes—with the exception of JCVD—follows the exact same formula? And let’s be clear here: I’ve sat through far more than five Jean-Claude van Damme films, and that’s not even counting JCVD.

The reasons people come up with... it's honestly terrifying🙄

goldenhound32 said:Well, obviously... and that’s precisely the problem. In this instance, the impression left by the movie is being driven by something entirely external to the film itself. And what lies outside the film? It's just Jean-Claude van Damme's previous body of work.

If JCVD had spent his entire career starring in heavy dramas, this wouldn't be perceived as such a great film.

Maybe... but still... it wasn't just JCVD's acting that made this film great. There are other layers too—smart directing, excellent (and sometimes long, lingering) shots, expressive camera angles, that washed-out, specific cinematography, the overall tone, killer music choice, and a solid concept (which, honestly, God knows, would work with any other star).

PS: BTW... Emily Thomas3 is spot on about "knowing the catalog." As funny as that sounds when talking about van Damme... JCVD hides a lot of little "Easter eggs" that mostly only people who have actually watched his stuff will catch, giving the movie extra depth...

Anyway, enough off-topic rambling. All I'm trying to say is... don't let your prejudices make you skip this (or many other) films. Just watch it. 😉

Emily Thomas3 said:What about Ghost World?

What am I even supposed to say to you now? You’ve already seen where I stand on this.

hiddenhound3 said:It strikes me as incredibly narrow-minded when someone claims they refuse to watch any film that carries an IMDb rating lower than a seven. 🤷

I certainly do. I find myself doing it quite frequently simply to satisfy certain social expectations. For instance, when I am sitting there watching one of those mindless, overly sentimental teen comedies with my cousin... what else am I supposed to do? 😍

I haven't seen anyone else say that yet, but honestly, if they did—kudos to them for coming up with the absolute stupidity of the decade.

On IMDb, it’s technically possible for twenty-five guys from a local gym to get together and give Rambo 10 a perfect score. If they did that, you could basically math your way into making even a total piece of junk look like a solid 7 or 8 out of 10.
I’ve never really put much stock in IMDb ratings. To me, the site is mostly just a handy online guide if you can't quite remember what year a movie came out or something along those lines.

Honestly, letting other people dictate how you should feel or think is just sad. If we actually started digging into this, we’d end up deep in the territory of Plato, debating the whole gap between what we see and what we actually know to be true.

hiddenhound3 said:It strikes me as incredibly narrow-minded when someone claims they refuse to watch any film that carries an IMDb rating lower than a seven. 🤷

I certainly do. I find myself doing it quite frequently simply to satisfy certain social expectations. For instance, when I am sitting there watching one of those mindless, overly sentimental teen comedies with my cousin... what else am I supposed to do? 😍

Where exactly did I say that? Could I get a quote, please?

Here is my own rating for a few films that sit below a 7:
Spun (8), Pret-a-Porter (9), Aria (7), In Turn (10), May (8), Ararat (8), A Complete History of My Sexual Failures (8), Darkman (8), À ma soeur! (7), 2:37 (7), Night's Sex Comedy (7).