tdigle Tells You Why Your Favorite Film/Actor/Actress/Director/TV Show Sucks

[Big Nick Dudley]

Newman was another good actor, although he didn't deserve to win the Oscar for The Color Of Money.

No? Who did? William Hurt, James Woods,..?

Scorsese has been nothing but a run-of-the-mill director since Goodfellas. Sure, Cape Fear and Casino managed to raise themselves a notch about mediocrity through strong performances...

Some Scorsese films are more focused on acting, and on the characters, as opposed to the big picture. Cape Fear had a great story, and even better acting. The whole cast was amazing, and getting those kinds of performances out of your actors (as great as three of them already were) isn't easy. I think this is a horribly underrated film. I think people, like yourself, look at Scorsese's more "Hollywood" type films, and believe he is a "sell out," and it really creeps into your judgement regarding any one particular film.

*The Age Of Innocence - Is this Scorsese's attempt at a Merchant/Ivory-like production? If so, it's nowhere near as good as either A Passage To India, Howard's End, or The Remains of the Day.

I hated this movie, minus Day-Lewis. But he was attempting to branch out. It wasn't a bad movie, not by a long shot.

*Kundun - If I want to watch a politically motivated cup of fail, I'll go to the annual Tibetan Freedom Concert..

Once again, he was attempting to branch out. Would you like him to make a gritty, violent mob movie every time out? If he did so, you would be bitching about him not having any range. I'm a film student, and unfortunately I have to hear this kind of shit day in and day out.

*Bringing Out The Dead - Extremely boring look at an NYC paramedic's life, or at least that's what I think this film was about.

Boring? The movie never stops going! It's non-stop action, almost all of the time. I mean, just because Tom Sizemore isn't crushing skulls every five seconds, doesn't mean there isn't a ton of intensity throughout the entire film. The movie is about the speed of that lifestyle, and it does a damn good job showing that. One if his more underrated films.

When we get to the 2000s, Scorsese becomes a full-fledged Hollywood suit who directs films that any competent director can make.

ANY competent director? I guess I would have to understand your definition of competent. Do you have any clue how hard it is to make a movie on the scale of Gangs of New York? Another movie that could have been slow moving, but instead Scorsese gets the best out of that (huge) cast. I mean for the love of Christ, even Cameron Diaz wasn't shit.

Don't know much about this show, only that it prided itself on showing bare asses on primetime, network television. Unfortunately, I can't help you here, although I can say with confidence that Jimmy Smits sucks as an actor.

In every other thing he has been in, yes, Jimmy Smits has blown ass. But in NYPD Blue, he really made everyone take notice of what he was really capable of. The man hasn't had another decent role to show just how talented he really is, and whether that is his fault or not, I have no clue.

 

[Ferbian]

Are you kidding me? Wasn't this film a rip-off of Deep Impact? Anyway, Armageddon wasn't too bad, and it's a masterpiece compared to the shit Michael Bay started putting out in 2001 with Pearl Harbor.

Well there might certainly be other movies that are better in terms of production and everything, but that doesn't mean I have to like them right? I mean I could probably list you my top 10 favorite movies, you'd tear down half of them, but I'd still enjoy them.

It's like scientific law that Bruce Willis puts out 10 shit films for every good one he makes. Also, without producer Joel Silver, Willis is a black-hole of humor. Have you ever seen The Whole Nine Yards, or Breakfast of Champions? I highly advise you to stay away from those films.

That may be true, I have to admit I haven't watched all of his movies, I do believe I watched The Whole Nine Yards although and thought decently about it, but I don't recall completely.

But to me I would say the crappy movies are overshadowed by some of the great movies he made, Armageddon, The Die Hard series, Pulp Fiction (don't tear me here, you've already gone through that one) The Jackal and a few other movies here and there.

Again, I could list you more of my favorite actors, but Bruce Willis is just the top of the list.

Steven Spielberg is an efficient director, but he rarely makes anything of real artistic value. Of all American filmmakers, Spielberg is the biggest offender when it comes to giving audiences a simplistic and overly-optimistic view of the world. Escapism is fine and dandy every once in awhile, but it's definitely not something you should mix into almost every film you make.

That might be true, I'm only really choosing Steven Spielberg due to the fact that he has directed the majority of the movies I would put on my top 10 list, or top 20, it's the same as I would say Hans Zimmer is my favorite composer because he composed the music to a lot of movies I enjoyed.

Mark Harmon sucks, and CSI is 10 times better than NCIS. Crime can teach us so much about the darker side of humanity; I want a crime procedural that emphasizes this, not one that spends half of its time focusing on the lives of its characters.

I do agree Mark Harmon does suck, outside of this series, this is probably the only work I have enjoyed from him, but nonetheless I think highly of this show, but as you've noticed in the thread I made some weeks ago, I have other television shows I like.

Yes CSI might be the superior one, I do enjoy watching it from time to time, but I do find more joy in watching NCIS, simply because a regular criminal investigation series that doesn't leave the same interpretation of the character's involved as NCIS does, bores me to be so bold.

And I know there's probably gonna come out some "CSI does look into the characters more, or just as much as NCIS does" I don't know to be frankly, because I sure haven't detected the proper characteristics from the CSI series with the exception of Gil Grissom, who really seems like the only guy who we get to know much about, but that might just be me, I haven't watched THAT many CSI episodes.

And to top it off, I know NCIS does this as well, pisses me off, but CSI confuses me way too much in terms of there practically being, what, 3 different locations for 3 different shows with different seasons and everything? I can't even separate the characters from CSI New York and CSI Miami.

 

[The Hiphopapotamus]

Favourite film: No Country for Old men. It was a hard choice between this, City Of God and The Dark Knight, but The oscar winner for Best Picture wins. It combines a crime thriller with incredible suspense and brilliant performances from the likes of Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin and especilly Javier bardem. The character of Antoin Chigurh is one of the most intriguing characters ever. A symbol of pure evil, of inescapable fate, yet with a warped set of morals, a dislike of blood on his shoes, and a kick ass haircut. My favourite movie.

Actor: Robert Downey Jr. A great actor with the ability to deliver lines and performances perfectly. He's already been mentioned, so I'll leave it there

Actress: Don't really have one, to be honest. Although Scarlett Johannson would probably be my favourite in terms of looks.

Director: Ethan and Joel Coen. This was another tough choice, but The Coen brothers just edge out Chritopher Nolan. Nolan has made 3 of my favourite movies ever (The 2 batmans and Memento) but I just haven't seen enough from him to declare him my favourite ahead of The Coens. I know Tdigle hates them, but personally I love them. No country, The Big lebowski, Fargo, O Brother, Barton Fink and miller's crossing, All brilliant movies and enough to justify the Coens as my favourite directors.

TV Show: How I Met Your Mother. House and Scrubs ran it close, but HIMYM is my favourite TV show. It's the only show that constantly makes me laugh, and while occasionally it can be a bit generic, it's brilliantly done. The script is good, and the cast is superb. Neil Patrick Harris as Barney is the best character on TV. The premise also allows for the show to effortlessly move from story to story, flashback to flashback.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

No? Who did? William Hurt, James Woods,..?

Bob Hoskins for Mona Lisa.

Some Scorsese films are more focused on acting, and on the characters, as opposed to the big picture. Cape Fear had a great story, and even better acting. The whole cast was amazing, and getting those kinds of performances out of your actors (as great as three of them already were) isn't easy. I think this is a horribly underrated film. I think people, like yourself, look at Scorsese's more "Hollywood" type films, and believe he is a "sell out," and it really creeps into your judgement regarding any one particular film.

Yes, it is easy. De Niro, Nolte, and Lange are some of the finest American actors/actresses. Your argument only works for one person: Juliette Lewis.

I hated this movie, minus Day-Lewis. But he was attempting to branch out. It wasn't a bad movie, not by a long shot.

Once again, he was attempting to branch out. Would you like him to make a gritty, violent mob movie every time out? If he did so, you would be bitching about him not having any range. I'm a film student, and unfortunately I have to hear this kind of shit day in and day out.

If you're a film student with so much knowledge of Scorsese, why are you trying to make it seem as if Scorsese didn't branch out before the 90s? How are the following films not branching out?

*New York, New York
*The King of Comedy
*After Hours
*The Last Temptation of Christ

Scorsese did plenty of branching out before the 90s.

Boring? The movie never stops going! It's non-stop action, almost all of the time. I mean, just because Tom Sizemore isn't crushing skulls every five seconds, doesn't mean there isn't a ton of intensity throughout the entire film. The movie is about the speed of that lifestyle, and it does a damn good job showing that. One if his more underrated films.[/QUOIE]

The speed of the lifestyle? This is one part of the film. What about the parts with Patricia Arquette, the guy addicted to water, and the drug dealer who gets impaled on a wrought-iron post? This film was extremely boring; Scorsese had no clue what he wanted to do with the film, and just assumed he'd be able to sell it on name value and razzle-dazzle cinematography.

ANY competent director? I guess I would have to understand your definition of competent. Do you have any clue how hard it is to make a movie on the scale of Gangs of New York? Another movie that could have been slow moving, but instead Scorsese gets the best out of that (huge) cast. I mean for the love of Christ, even Cameron Diaz wasn't shit.

Any director that has gotten half the praise that Scorsese gets could have made that film. There's nothing particularly special that marks it as a Scorsese film; it's a 19th-century crime drama that had a $100 million budget. Yes, I stand by my statement: with that amount of money, anyone could have made that film.

Furthermore, Cameron Diaz wasn't shit in this film because the role she played required little to nothing on her part. While meaty, her role was nowhere near as significant or demanding as the roles filled by Daniel Day-Lewis, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Brendan Gleeson.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Bob Hoskins for Mona Lisa.

Interesting. Bob Hoskins was really good in Mona Lisa, and I don't think anyone would have been upset had he taken home the Oscar. But that doesn't make it any less of a win for Newman. He did a great job as Fast Eddy, probably even more so than in The Hustler.

Yes, it is easy. De Niro, Nolte, and Lange are some of the finest American actors/actresses. Your argument only works for one person: Juliette Lewis.

It's not easy. Nothing about making a movie is easy.

If you're a film student with so much knowledge of Scorsese, why are you trying to make it seem as if Scorsese didn't branch out before the 90s? How are the following films not branching out?

*New York, New York
*The King of Comedy
*After Hours
*The Last Temptation of Christ

Scorsese did plenty of branching out before the 90s.

He branched out, but nowhere near like he did after Goodfellas'. The King of Comedy, After Hours and New York, New York were all set in urban New York City, something he was obviously very familiar with. The Last Temptation of Christ was something he had wanted to do for over a decade. I have heard him talk about how religious of a person he is, almost becoming a priest, so this was also another example of him doing something close to home. Before Cape Fear, most of his films were very personal to him.

The speed of the lifestyle? This is one part of the film. What about the parts with Patricia Arquette, the guy addicted to water, and the drug dealer who gets impaled on a wrought-iron post? This film was extremely boring; Scorsese had no clue what he wanted to do with the film, and just assumed he'd be able to sell it on name value and razzle-dazzle cinematography.

The guy addicted to water had everything to do with a paramedics lifestyle. In big cities, you find guys like that all of the time. His interest in Arquette was far more important to his lifestyle than you believe. She was a total contrast to his non-caring approach to his job. Several times she shows great compassion for the people most in need of help, while he can't be bothered. You saying all of these parts have nothing to do with one another doesn't hold water.

If you find Bringing out the Dead to be a boring film, I am really interested in what you find entertaining. The story was a bit incoherent, which was totally reflective of his life. The pacing of the film reflected the way Cages' characters' mind worked, it wasn't all "razzle-dazzle."

Any director that has gotten half the praise that Scorsese gets could have made that film. There's nothing particularly special that marks it as a Scorsese film; it's a 19th-century crime drama that had a $100 million budget. Yes, I stand by my statement: with that amount of money, anyone could have made that film.

There are plenty of things that mark it as a Scorsese film. The opening fight scene, with the music, the long walk, the fast camera-work. Every shot in this film was unique, and had a total Scorsese feel to it. Nothing about that was ordinary. $100 million is a lot of money, but I have seen far bigger amounts wasted on larger pieces of shit that come nowhere near to touching the quality of Gangs of New York.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Well there might certainly be other movies that are better in terms of production and everything, but that doesn't mean I have to like them right? I mean I could probably list you my top 10 favorite movies, you'd tear down half of them, but I'd still enjoy them.

I'm not going to rip them apart, man...well, if they're other Michael Bay films, then yes. But, Armageddon was half-decent...a little too sentimental, but it's probably Michael Bay's best film.

That may be true, I have to admit I haven't watched all of his movies, I do believe I watched The Whole Nine Yards although and thought decently about it, but I don't recall completely.

But to me I would say the crappy movies are overshadowed by some of the great movies he made, Armageddon, The Die Hard series, Pulp Fiction (don't tear me here, you've already gone through that one) The Jackal and a few other movies here and there.

Watch The Last Boy Scout...that's Bruce Willis's best film where he gets top billing (well, it's at least tied with The Sixth Sense).

That might be true, I'm only really choosing Steven Spielberg due to the fact that he has directed the majority of the movies I would put on my top 10 list, or top 20, it's the same as I would say Hans Zimmer is my favorite composer because he composed the music to a lot of movies I enjoyed.

Nah, as I said before, Spielberg is an extremely efficient director...he can put out films that I'd grade either a B+ or B within six months; how many other people in the world can do this? There's probably only a handful.

If anything, I'm just a little shocked you didn't name some of the more famous Nordic directors. I know Ingmar Bergman is Swedish, but, from Denmark, you got Susanne Bier, Thomas Vinterberg, and my personal favorite Danish filmmaker, Nicholas Winding Refn (also, let's not forget one of the great actors of world cinema today, Mads Mikkelsen). Oh, and yes, I am well aware that your biggest claim to fame in world cinema is Lars Von Trier, but I loathe almost every single film this man puts out.

I do agree Mark Harmon does suck, outside of this series, this is probably the only work I have enjoyed from him, but nonetheless I think highly of this show, but as you've noticed in the thread I made some weeks ago, I have other television shows I like.

Yes CSI might be the superior one, I do enjoy watching it from time to time, but I do find more joy in watching NCIS, simply because a regular criminal investigation series that doesn't leave the same interpretation of the character's involved as NCIS does, bores me to be so bold.

And I know there's probably gonna come out some "CSI does look into the characters more, or just as much as NCIS does" I don't know to be frankly, because I sure haven't detected the proper characteristics from the CSI series with the exception of Gil Grissom, who really seems like the only guy who we get to know much about, but that might just be me, I haven't watched THAT many CSI episodes.

And to top it off, I know NCIS does this as well, pisses me off, but CSI confuses me way too much in terms of there practically being, what, 3 different locations for 3 different shows with different seasons and everything? I can't even separate the characters from CSI New York and CSI Miami.

Fair enough, man. CSI: Miamiaand CSI: New York are horrible, though, and you do a disservice to the original by comparing it to them.

 

[Ferbian]

I'm not going to rip them apart, man...well, if they're other Michael Bay films, then yes. But, Armageddon was half-decent...a little too sentimental, but it's probably Michael Bay's best film.

*Cough* Pearl Harbor is the third on my top 10 list *Cough*

But really the list is mixed of praised movies, Saving Private Ryan, The Die Hard series, The Godfather Series, Braveheart, The Sum Of All Fears, The Guardian, The Green Mile and Forrest Gump, and that is not posted in order.

All of these movies has had one or two of my favorite actors involved in it, Tom Hanks being one of the top 3 actors, and I've enjoyed them all with a special place for enjoyment, I have watched them all on more than one occasion and they still seem like great movies to me.

Watch The Last Boy Scout...that's Bruce Willis's best film where he gets top billing (well, it's at least tied with The Sixth Sense).

I have watched that one, and I enjoyed it just as well, I have yet to really watch a movie by Bruce Willis I haven't enjoyed, but that is due to the fact that I most likely haven't been through half of them.

Nah, as I said before, Spielberg is an extremely efficient director...he can put out films that I'd grade either a B+ or B within six months; how many other people in the world can do this? There's probably only a handful.

That's true, there's really very few people that can make a hit movie each and every time, to the extend where they all sell and generate a large amount of discussion and talk.

I'm sure if we posted a thread based on each and every single movie Spielberg ever made, it could generate a fair amount of discussion (taking into consideration the busyness of this section compared to the other sections that is)

If anything, I'm just a little shocked you didn't name some of the more famous Nordic directors. I know Ingmar Bergman is Swedish, but, from Denmark, you got Susanne Bier, Thomas Vinterberg, and my personal favorite Danish filmmaker, Nicholas Winding Refn (also, let's not forget one of the great actors of world cinema today, Mads Mikkelsen). Oh, and yes, I am well aware that your biggest claim to fame in world cinema is Lars Von Trier, but I loathe almost every single film this man puts out.

Ingmar Bergman is due to the fact that I can't brag about ever having watched a movie older than the 90's that weren't Godfather or Rocky.

Susanne Bier makes Danish movies, the majority of which are absolutely bullshit, not her movies in general, but simply Danish movie are movies I find absolutely shit.

I have yet to watch one single Danish movie I would praise.

Thomas Vinterberg just as well makes a mixture of both Danish and English movies, none of which I have ever watched.

Nicholas Winding Refn has made some decent movies, never watched a single one of them, they are once again Danish, and movies I have had a general lack of interest in.

Mads Mikkelsen is good yeah, but I've always been more into Viggo Mortensen when talking the Danish background of acting (he's part Danish, his father's Danish)

Fair enough, man. CSI: Miamiaand CSI: New York are horrible, though, and you do a disservice to the original by comparing it to them.

Yes I do know I disservice to them, but the overall fact that I can't tell them a part every now and then kills it for me, and that's mostly due to the fact that I didn't follow CSI from the start, I've been a pretty thorough follower of NCIS through the past many years, there's a lot of series I've been a loyal follower of, but there's also a lot of praised series I haven't.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I'm at a loss as to how anyone could have thought this woman was great in Monster; what she did was an impersonation, nothing more, nothing less.

Now, I have to give credit where credit's due: Theron proved that she wasn't a one-trick pony who lucked into an Oscar when she got another nomination for North Country. However, her portrayal of Aileen Wuornos shouldn't be considered a great performance; all she had to do was gain weight, stop getting beauty treatments for a few months, put in some false teeth, and watch Nick Broomfield's documentary about 50 times.

True. What Theron did in Monster was in impersonation, but she still did one hell of a job at it. Have ever seen Ted Bundy(2002) and Dahmer(2002), Tdigs? Just like Monster, these films were also based on serial killers, and the actors in these movies did impersonations of Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer, and what they did wasn't as impressive as what Theron did in Monster. Michael Reilly Burke's portrayal of Bundy was bland and he really didn't bring any life to his performance. Now Jeremy Renner did do a better job as Dahmer, but still, Theron's performance was truly amazing and better than both of these men. I believe just because a certain actress or actor is portraying a famous serial killer or villian, that shouldn't be counted as a strike against them. You still have to breathe life into that character, which is what Theron did in Monster.

Probably the greatest American director of the 70s and 80s. With the exception of Goodfellas, he absolutely sucked in the 90s. Probably after realizing that his shit just wasn't going to cut it anymore, in the 2000s he became a Hollywood-suit puppet, churning out big-budgeted epics that Spielberg or Zemeckis could have done in about half the time.

Also, his sympathy Oscar for The Departed only further proved that these awards have become a complete sham: it's not Clint Eastwood's fault that he outdirected Scorsese in 2006 just like he did in 2004.

The Age Of Innocence was okay. There's really nothing special about this movie, and I don't understand some of the praise it gets. But what about Casino? Surely that has to be considered a good film. Then again, Scorsese also had Bringing Out The Dead in the 90's Never was able to get into this film. I've watched it a couple times over the years, and I just can't stand it. I haven't seen some of Scorsese's other films from the 90's, but Casino and Goodfellas were two memorable films from the 90's.

As far as the 2000's go, what about Gangs Of New York? It was an amazing film, and Scorsese was spot on when it came to the historical aspect of the film. Do you really think Chicago was a better film than Gangs Of New York?

When it comes to The Departed VS Letters From Iwo Jima and Million Dollar Baby VS The Aviator, then yeah, it's kind of hard to argue that Scorsese's films were better than bath of those. I loved The Departed, but I can't put it over Letters From Iwo Jima, because that was a breath taking film. And while I did like The Aviator, it just came off as another random Hollywood blockbuster. Even if the film was based on Howard Hughes' life. It just looked like another blockbuster film.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Film - The Shining: Improves on the source novel, iconic scenes, annoying ''heroes'' that you actually want to see survive etc.

Actor - Gary Oldman: His main ocumaption these days is being the best thing in awful films. Before it was being the best thing in good films.

Actress - Umm, I find a lot of them to be very unlikable. Amy Adams: You are heartless if you don't like Amy Adams. She's somebody like Anna Faris, cunt deserves a new agent.

Director - Steven Spielberg: Y'know, I'm not really a ''favorite'' kinda person, I like individual pieces from different people. But Spielberg, he usually does at least one thing in a film that I think looks brilliant.

Edit: What am I talking about, Shane Meadowns. This Is England, Dead Man's Shoes, Sommers Town, A Room For Romeo Brass, Twenty Four Seven.

TV Show - Coach Trip, no wait, you haven't seen it. Peep Show: A TV show just waiting to be remade badly by Americans...hold on a second.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

Film - Snatch As good as 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' was, i thought this movie surpassed it in just about every aspect. I first watched it some 10 years ago, and i'll still to this day choose it over anything else that may be on at the same time.

Actor - Patrick Stewart I've followed Sir Patrick Stewart's career for as long as I can remember, in Star Trek: The Next Generation, his various Shakespeare roles, 'Moby Dick', 'X-Men', hell he was even in 'Conspiracy Theroy' with Mel Gibson as the villain, which i felt he played well.

Actress - No idea really, like Jake i'm not that fussed about who's playing what, it's the film in general that i tend to rate. I mean, i'm struggling to think of a film that i've sat and watched where the female lead actually stood out as having given a good performance. I guess i'll go with Natalie Portman because i thought she was the only thing worth paying attention to in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, and thought she did very well in 'V' even if the film was an abomination compared with the book.

Director - Scorsese i guess. Again, don't really pay attention to stuff like that. I mean, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Chopper are a couple of my favourite films, but i couldn't tell you who directed them. But i do know that i've enjoyed the majority of the Scorsese films i've seen.

TV Show I hate TV. I don't even watch TV. In the past year there is only 2 TV shows i've sat down to watch and that was on my laptop, not on TV and those are Lost which is now over, and Metalocalypse from the adult swim franchise. I gave up on Family Guy, American Dad and The Cleveland Show some time ago. So yeah, i don't have an answer for that one.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

The guy addicted to water had everything to do with a paramedics lifestyle. In big cities, you find guys like that all of the time. His interest in Arquette was far more important to his lifestyle than you believe. She was a total contrast to his non-caring approach to his job. Several times she shows great compassion for the people most in need of help, while he can't be bothered. You saying all of these parts have nothing to do with one another doesn't hold water.

If you find Bringing out the Dead to be a boring film, I am really interested in what you find entertaining. The story was a bit incoherent, which was totally reflective of his life. The pacing of the film reflected the way Cages' characters' mind worked, it wasn't all "razzle-dazzle."

What kind of films do you want me to list that I don't find boring? Films located in NYC, or films located outside of it?

There are plenty of things that mark it as a Scorsese film. The opening fight scene,

Anyone who had seen Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai and Ran could have done this scene. I'm not saying it's bad (it was actually quite good), I'm just saying that there was nothing distinctive about it, save for its context.

with the music,

I know Scorsese more for his popular soundtracks than for the scores he uses, so, I can't debate you on this point.

the long walk,

Scorsese has done tracking shots before, but I wouldn't argue that he's known for them (save for the Copacabana scene from Goodfellas).

the fast camera-work.

I guess so.

Every shot in this film was unique, and had a total Scorsese feel to it. Nothing about that was ordinary.

This is debatable for the reasons I listed above.

$100 million is a lot of money, but I have seen far bigger amounts wasted on larger pieces of shit that come nowhere near to touching the quality of Gangs of New York.

I agree, but this is only half of the point I'm trying to make: there are at least a handful of other directors that could have made this film. I'll even list five of them here:

Alfonso Cuarón
Ridley Scott
Steven Spielberg
Terrence Malick
Peter Weir

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

True. What Theron did in Monster was in impersonation, but she still did one hell of a job at it. Have ever seen Ted Bundy(2002) and Dahmer(2002), Tdigs? Just like Monster, these films were also based on serial killers, and the actors in these movies did impersonations of Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer, and what they did wasn't as impressive as what Theron did in Monster. Michael Reilly Burke's portrayal of Bundy was bland and he really didn't bring any life to his performance. Now Jeremy Renner did do a better job as Dahmer, but still, Theron's performance was truly amazing and better than both of these men. I believe just because a certain actress or actor is portraying a famous serial killer or villian, that shouldn't be counted as a strike against them. You still have to breathe life into that character, which is what Theron did in Monster.

Fair points. I wouldn't compare what Theron did in Monster to the films Dahmer and Ted Bundy, though, as these latter films were exploitation films (or at least they were marketed as such). If we were to compare Theron to anyone, then it would have to be Michael Rooker in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer/

As far as the 2000's go, what about Gangs Of New York? It was an amazing film, and Scorsese was spot on when it came to the historical aspect of the film. Do you really think Chicago was a better film than Gangs Of New York?

Scorsese probably should have won the Oscar that year; while I don't think it was a project only Scorsese was capable of directing (as I've already argued in this thread), I think he was a better choice than anyone nominated that year. I think The Pianist should have won Best Picture, though.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Favorite Film: Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters I know it isn't the best film of all times or the greatest acting or anything, but I still find it to be the funniest movie there is. The plot is hilariously random entertaining. All of the characters are also funny and interesting in their own right.

I loved this film, just as I love the show.

Favorite Actor: Tom Hanks I started thinking about my favorite movies and realized that Tom Hanks was in 3 of them. He had a great performance in Saving Private Ryan and I loved Castaway and the fact that if I remember correctly, there weren't many other people in the film since he was on a deserted island. If voice overs count, then I love me some Toy Story.

Tom Hanks is A-OK in my book.

Favorite Director: George Lucas I'm not big on the whole directors and producers knowledge, but I do know that I love the Star Wars saga and Indiana Jones. He hasn't made a bunch of hit movies, but he has one of the if not the biggest saga ever in Star Wars.

To the best of my knowledge, Lucas has made a total of six feature-length films: THX 1138, American Graffiti, Star Wars, The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith.

Honestly, Lucas should have stayed away from the director's chair for the last three Star Wars films. The Phantom Menace was fun, and Revenge of the Sith was decent, but Attack of the Clones is one of the worst films I have ever seen. It seems to me as if being nothing more than a producer for 20+ years really ruined Lucas's ability to tell a story and made him focus more on the eye candy that should aid a film rather than serve as its main focus.

Favorite TV Show: Scrubs Since you say no ATHF, Arrested, or Always Sunny, I'll go with Scrubs. The newer season(s?) without JD and the Janitor is just terrible. The older seasons of the show were great though. The chemistry of JD and Turk is great, and the whole cast worked well together. It offered great comedy and could be serious when it needed to be, after all it did take place in a hospital.

You like three excellent TV comedies, but then you go and list something like this? You should have just said you liked ATHF, AD, and IASIP. I never got the love for Scrubs; while I like sophomoric humor, I don't like sophomoric writing. I love me some John C. McGinley, but I can't stand Zach Braff or that dude who played Dionne's boyfriend in Clueless.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I truly only have two things that I can think of, at this very moment. (meaning more will come)

Favorite Film: The Crow: (1994) Ignoring the shit spawns of sequels it birthed, the original with Brandon Lee's last performance was in my opinion one of the best of its kind.

Its the story that isn't unique in any manner, (typical drama, action, vengeance flick) yet this movie in my opinion made you feel more for revenge than any I can think of. It didn't have any slow moving parts, everything flowed nicely and went sequence after sequence, with an ending that wasn't anti-climactic. So how do you view it as bad?

Favrotie Actress: Rachel McAdams: She's only 31, and has already been in some of the best romantic movies around. The Notebook & Time Traveler's Wife both rank among top romantic movies to me. She played amazing roles in each, and really fit the bill as far as making you accept every bit of the character.

If your sole defense would be that both movies were identical, then my instant reply would be.. Red Eye. While the movie was nothing extraordinary, she did take on the role of a whole different kind. She played the helpless victim turned heroine rather amazingly.

While her typical role is often the romantic lead role, the fact that she fits it so greatly should speak volumes. So, whats so bad about her?

 

[wweanimelinkfan32]

Favorite Movie: Boondock Saints. The reason being is that i completely love the story and they way it was directed. Also the ending was surprising to me.

Favorite Actor:Michael C. Hall. This is mainly because I have started watching Dexter and I just watched Gamer a few weeks ago. He is a guy that so far has been great in movies and tv.

Favorite Actress:Sally Field. This is mainly due to the movie Sybil from 1976. Playing a woman with 16 different personalities is extremely hard as well as playing Ms. Gump in Forrest Gump.

Favorite Director:Neil Jordon. I really liked his work with the movie Interview With The Vampire. He made it seem amazingly good like the book, which is hard to make it as good.

Favorite T.V. Show: Dexter. The story of a serial killer that keeps getting better with each episode as the story goes on. This is followed very closely by Avatar The Last Airbender.

 

[Coyo]

Matt Damon
Will Smith
Tom Cruise
Brad Pitt
George Clooney
Shia LaBeouf
Robert Downey, Jr.
Tom Hanks

I'm not so sure about Robert Downey Jr. Just based on Sherlock Holmes and Iron Man? Mainstream films yes, but this is new to him. He used to do interesting work, hopefully he will get back to that.

 

[Cookie]

I'm not so sure about Robert Downey Jr. Just based on Sherlock Holmes and Iron Man? Mainstream films yes, but this is new to him. He used to do interesting work, hopefully he will get back to that.

It's not just based on Sherlock Homes and Iron Man.

Iron Man, Tropic Thunder, The Soloist, Sherlock Holmes, Iron Man 2, with a Todd Phillips comedy on the way as well as another Sherlock Film and The Avengers... he's definitely mainstream.

 

[Coyo]

It's not just based on Sherlock Homes and Iron Man.

Iron Man, Tropic Thunder, The Soloist, Sherlock Holmes, Iron Man 2, with a Todd Phillips comedy on the way as well as another Sherlock Film and The Avengers... he's definitely mainstream.

Oh well, perhaps you are right. Still, I miss the days when he actually used to do challenging work, Chaplin and Two Girls and a Guy spring to mind.

Of more recent times, Zodiac and even Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.