Shoutistics
254,891
Total Shouts
62
Last 24 Hours
Leaderboard


The Shoutbox

Originally Posted by FilmBuff
That's because they ARE overrated, but in all fairness they seemed a lot better when they were brand new!

Originally Posted by Corax
Unabashedly racist? Aronisred? Looks like I missed everything that happened in that thread.

Not really. His usual rants about movie stars and whatnot were annoying but ultimately benign - him being unabashedly racist in the THR thread legitimately came out of nowhere.

R.I.P. aronisred. Now how am I going to know if a movie is bad or not based on how much money it makes at the box office?

Originally Posted by mattiasflgrtll6
Gladiator 2 makes far less sense if you remember the ending.

Originally Posted by mattiasflgrtll6
Meanwhile Al Pacino still only has one.

Realised recently that this year marks five years since Meryl Streep's last Oscar nomination. The last time she went that long without a nomination was 1991-1996. Maybe the Academy has finally decided to stop giving her nominations "just because".

Originally Posted by WHITBISSELL!
You don't have to choose between hating "aggressively generic franchise junk" and self indulgent Oscar bait. There's no law that says you can't hate both.

Ehh, I'm still reserving judgment until I actually see it, but considering what kind of aggressively generic franchise junk tends to succeed at the box office these days, it's hard not to want the indulgent auteur stuff to succeed (or at least not to bomb as hard as it does).