[quote=mattiasflgrtll6][quote=Iroquois]I'm not denying that. Hell, I'm the one with an [i]Escape From L.A.[/i] avatar so I can't talk.[/quote]

I was gonna ask if you thought L.A. was as good as the first one (Since I assumed your avatar was from New York), but somehow never did. Now I know.

I definitely think the late 90's has some good stuff. The Mummy, Money Talks, The Fifth Element, Con Air (as mentioned before), Face/Off, Ronin, Absolute Power (though it's more of a political thriller), Eraser, The Negotiator and Truth Or Consequences, N.M. I also remember liking Code Mercury when I saw it as a kid.

While most of these movies aren't masterpieces or anything, they were incredibly entertaining.[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois]Man, imagine [i]Adaptation[/i] but it's about Ridley struggling to get a movie made about like Vikings or something while Tony's excitedly going on about the movie he's making about a terrorist who only blows up bridges.[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois]Ridley does the same thing but with "respectable" subjects like ancient history or true stories. They're pretty much if Charlie and Donald Kaufman were real directors.[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois]I think it might have to do with the subject matter of most of his movies and how they're rarely (if ever) any more ambitious than the average Hollywood high-concept, which just makes him seem like a glorified journeyman more than anything. I mean his best film is [i]True Romance[/i] and that's basically a Tarantino self-insert fantasy where he marries a hot blonde and they go on crime adventures together, which still makes it more distinctive than the thrillers that have such anonymous-sounding premises like "guy must rescue kidnapped girl" or "runaway train" or "guy on the run from conspiracy".

The aesthetic thing is definitely something that should be good in theory but often isn't, especially when he got extra-weird with it in his post-2000 movies.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda]Yeah, Scott's films always feel so close to being great. Hard to figure out what they're missing sometimes.

Like, why don't I love [i]Spy Game[/i]? I like it a lot. But I don't love it, and I'm not entirely sure why.

I think it might be related to the aesthetics. The washed out look he favors feels like it keeps the audience at a remove. But that might just be me grasping for an explanation.[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois]Ah, Tony Scott - now there's a director I like the idea of more than I like the reality.[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois]It's fun and jaunty for someone, but clearly not us.

Trying to imagine a world where Tony Scott had done it instead.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda]I've always been partial to [i]The Rock[/i]. Wish Michael Bay's career had leaned more into the clever cheekiness and thrilling practical effects of that film.

I don't want to speculate motive too much, but I have a feeling that guy's filmography would be really fun and jaunty if CGI weren't a thing.[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois]I'm not denying that. Hell, I'm the one with an [i]Escape From L.A.[/i] avatar so I can't talk.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda]There's definitely something charming about how unabashedly silly a lot of those films were.[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois]There it is.[/quote]