This movie sucks


it does, it really does

reply

Yeah man!

I toooootally agree with you!

Who cares about Richard Nixon anyway?!
Plus I had to pee trouhgout the whole movie but i could'nt go becouse of all the people that were sitting next to me, and thay sucked to, becouse the didnt leave!

*beep* THIS MOVIE MAN!!

reply

I respect your opinions but I think your both very very wrong!

reply

[deleted]

i really liked this movie because it represents the feelings of many of the american people after watergate, this moviee, in a way is similar to the shining, in that it shows a man's ascent into madness.

reply

Wouldn't it be a DEscent into madness?

"Now get your patchouli stink out of my store!"

reply

I respect thoughtful argument and reasoning. Have any of that behind the statement you've made, OP, or is it validation you're looking for?

reply

Don't call one of the better movies out there *beep* just because you had to piss you *beep*

reply

Yeah, you have to actually have be an intelligent being to understand and appreciate it. Go back to the woods you trogledyte

reply

If you feel like they let you down in this film, you should give a critical appraisal of it otherwise the film makers will never know and you’ll keep wasting money on bad movies in the future.

reply

sean penn made us post this, he's crazy you know!

reply

Yes, sean penn is the couse of all this!

I liked him way better back when he......you know, wasnt an actor.

reply

your opinions are respected, but you should really give some reasons about why this is movie so terrible, youre so ignorant!

ps: aars

reply

Are you American? Is that the reason why you do not know how to spell your own language and your vocabulary is limited to simple words like "toooootally", "piss" and "sucked"?

reply

That's slightly insulting to those of us who are capable of properly using the language. Rather than making ignorant generalizations regarding the nature of Americans, you should come up with substantial insults such as "are you an idiot?"

Some of us "stupid Americans" are able to spell.

reply

I am really sorry I did not mean to insult you. But unfortunately it is a fact that the worst grammar and spelling is used by Americans. Those who learn English as a second language always have better knowledge of it whereas Americans do not seem to care about it because of their education system or something else, I really don't know, you can explain the reason why it is so. I apologize once again for those Americans who know English well (the minority???)

reply

Hooray for your superior education system! However, I believe you were sick the day they introduced commas and seperating different sentences with periods, etc.

The consistantly poor grammar and spelling on this site is due to the fact that anyone can use it: twelve year olds, high school dropouts, Bush voters, anyone.

The American bashing thing is so easy. I hope you enjoy our films!!!!!

reply

"Those who learn English as a second language always have better knowledge of it whereas Americans do not seem to care about it because of their education system or something else, I really don't know, you can explain the reason why it is so."

This has to be one of the most willfully ignorant generalzations I've seen in a long time. Grind axes much?

reply

Abc and d, that is just not true. The problem is that you are making horrible generalizations. I would say that most U.S. citizens probably have a much more comprehensive knowledge of English than people who are learning it as a second language. That it not an insult to those who are learning English as a second language, for instance, I certainly am not as good with Spanish grammar as the average Spanish person. I think it is logical I must assume that a person who has been using a language their entire life has a vast advantage over someone who is learning it as a supplementary language.

reply

You are obviously a moron. Suggest going back to grade school and start your education, and then get a spellchecker.

reply


Watch "The Plot To Kill Nixon" on the History Channel. It's 90 minutes long and has a lot more info.
"Why don't you have another beer?"-Scott Stevens



reply

This movie DOES REALLY SUCK. You want some reasons. Boring as hell. Had a hard time staying awake. Sean Penn's Character sucked. You could care less about him either way. You could see he was a loser. I didn't care if he lived or died. The supporting actors were hardly in it and not developed enough. And most importantly, I WAS NOT ENTERTAINED.
Good enough

reply

[deleted]

THIS MOVIE ROCKS AND IS ONE OF THE BEST FILMS EVER MADE. Anyone who thinks it sucks...just has an opinion that doesn't match some of the great film writers of our time (like Denby in the New Yorker). Anyway, I'm guessing you "this film sucks" people might be more entertained by super hero movies, really scary movies, action films...that kind of thing. I can like some of those too...but this film, is far superior to all of those...in my humblest of opinions. So, go enjoy your big Hollywood movies!!! There are plenty of those out there. And leave the quality films to those of us who appreciate 'em. Later gators!!!!! Ha ha ha!!!! lol

reply

if this movie sux why do you spend so much time talking about it? and for thoose people that think cause of they way they speak there better than everyone else don't worry about how people speak the lanuage you can still understand what there saying can't u and we don't speak the kings lanuage because we are americans!!

reply

well we're sorry that we took over Hollywood. Republicans have the real power anyway so quit your crying. DOWN WITH THE GOP!!!!!!!!!!!

reply

Most of the public had already believed Nixon was responsible for Watergate, including most of Congress. How is that "supposed"?

The Assassination of Bill Clinton could be made, what would be imposible would be The Assassination of George W. Bush considering that the GOP owns both the House and the Senate right now. Both would be screaming "the president needs support in war time. If you don't support the president you're fueling the terrorists"

If Hollywood is so liberal, how did Howard Dean lose the nomination and why was there so much press on the Clinton Scandal?

reply

Most of the public had already believed Nixon was responsible for Watergate, including most of Congress. How is that "supposed"?

The Assassination of Bill Clinton could be made, what would be imposible would be The Assassination of George W. Bush considering that the GOP owns both the House and the Senate right now. Both would be screaming "the president needs support in war time. If you don't support the president you're fueling the terrorists"

If Hollywood is so liberal, how did Howard Dean lose the nomination and why was there so much press on the Clinton Scandal?


ummmmmmmm let me think no!!!!!! there was'nt even a plot to kill clinton they made this movie cause ummm that was sams plan in real life to kill nixon

reply

"If Hollywood is so liberal, how did Howard Dean lose the nomination and why was there so much press on the Clinton Scandal"

This may very well be on of the stupidest statements I have ever read/heard/smelt in any medium. The reason Howard Dean lost his parties nomination is because of the democratic voters, not because of an industry that produces entertainment. The reason that there was so much press on the Clinton Scandal was due to the fact that we as American people love to hear news about famous people and we love to hear about sex. Both ingredients were largely represented in that example you so "wittingly" supplied. Not to mention that fact that the news media has nothing to do with Hollywood but like I said, I'm not going to mention it.

I think that the saddest/most hilarious/most awesome part of your amazing statement is the tone. Your arrogant "i'm smarter than you, a-hole" and "i've done my research but not really" tone really had me laughing. I'm not gonna say you should kill yourself because that's kinda mean. But really, don't reproduce until you learn how to live. Then get back to your precious internet and let everyone know how witty, smart, and intelligent you are because you've watched an independant film. Congratulations, you watch movies that most other people haven't seen. You must really be intelligent.

reply

"The news media has nothing to do with Hollywood" Boshek-1 2006

Now who's being naive and smug, boshek? That's about as dumb a statement as I've read on these boards. Might want to hold off on reproducing yourself til you figure things out a bit more clearly. But thanks for the chuckle.

reply

Erm, if there was a true story where someone had tried to kill Bill Clinton, and it was interesting enough, I'm sure they would make it. The Nixon film here was based on a true story, and, whether you liked the film or not, there was definitely potential in there for a good film. You speak of 'Hollywood' as an entity, or a corporation of sorts.

reply

not all films are mind numbingly entertaining. if you want moving pictures watch a blockbuster Hollywood no brainer film. This film requires a certain amount of intelligence and requires you to use your mind and your own imagination. Its not about mindless entertainment, if you want to waste time watch paint dry or Jerry Bruckheimer film? :)

reply

Thanks, information was what I was looking for.

reply

Sean Penn does a TERRIBLE job here. Considering that this screenplay is based on a true story it makes it that much more difficult to watch Sean Penn acting almost retarded. Maybe he was not yet recovered from that previous film he did where he plays a disabled father.

Anyway, the way he portrays the character, there is no way that anyone would have hired him to sell anything and he never would have married a woman. IF he did, her certainly would not have made it long enough to have 2 children. If you think I am joking, watch the film again. The character played by Penn is talking with his boss and he is asked to state what he remembers of a statement his boss just made. He screws it up and then stutters like a retard. These things are typical and then these scenes are interspersed with him going around bugging the crap out of his would-be partner and wife that wants out of the marriage. All I can think of is that the people involved in this film that would have known what a stinking crappy job he was doing, must have never been exposed to the kind of jobs and people that were portrayed in this film. I suppose many in Hollywood look down their noses at the nation at-large and that is why is is common to have a character who is supposed to be "disturbed" comes across as, well, like I said he acts like a retard. If someone would have fixed the main character then this film had a chance. As it is, I barely hsd the patience to sit through the whole DVD.

Moveable tires store.

reply

Way off on your analysis Chrismreynolds. You don't know the world of salesmanship at all if you don't recognize how perfectly it was depicted in this film. Nice try on dismissing "Hollywood" for not knowing the world. Anyone watching this film will know how accurate the world is depicted. From what I've read on this board and from some of the most prominent critics in this country I'd have to say you're in the extreme minority...Then again, I guess you can think you're right and everyone else is wrong. Go watch Star Wars, might be more up your alley.

reply

PS: Yikes! Right after I wrote to you chrism, I did a search and there was yet ANOTHER review that contradicted your assessment...Yikes, sorry!!!! Better luck next time though!!!!!

From May 29, 2005

Like a fine wine, Sean Penn gets better with age. Since his chilling portrayal of a death-row inmate in “Dead Man Walking” in 1995, to his Oscar-winning role in “Mystic River” in 2003, Sean Penn has been honing and perfecting his craft to an art form. He is able to embody character roles with such conviction we forget we’re watching an actor and not the real person.

His newest portrayal of a down-and-out salesman named Samuel Bicke in a little-known independent film called “The Assassination of Richard Nixon,” may well be his best performance yet, though few people may have seen it. His heartbreaking portrayal of this tragic man is so raw and unfiltered, you almost have to wonder if he wasn’t channeling the man himself.

Because this film is based on true accounts of this man’s life, we already know the ending. What we may not know is what led him to commit the desperate act of hijacking a plane in 1972 as part of a plan to assassinate then President Richard Nixon. That journey is where this film comes in. Like a modern version of “Death of a Salesman,” this film shows a tragic man in a downward spiral from which he cannot seem to recover.

Bicke works as a frustrated, meek and bitter furniture salesman, separated from his wife (Naomi Watts) and kids, but desperate to reunite with them. He thinks that if he can start his own tire business with friend Bonny Simmons (Don Cheadle), he will be able to turn his life around and win his wife back. But, somehow, at least according to him, life is against him. He loses his sales job, the loan for his tire business falls through and his wife files for divorce. Destitute, depressed and alone, he blames the president for his lot in life. If his world is falling apart, then the leader of his world must be at fault. Therefore, the only logical thing to do, in his unstable mind, is to hijack a plane and kill Nixon. Once he makes this decision, he has new purpose in his life. He practices with toy guns and airplanes in his tiny apartment. Not sleeping, barely eating, this becomes his obsession, and eventually his demise.

This film, at its heart, is not about hijackings or an attempted assassination, it’s simply a character study of a man, like Willie Loman, for whom the American Dream became a nightmare. Brilliantly played by Penn, his performance is what makes this film worth seeing. He’s come a long way since the days of “Shanghai Surprise.”

reply

Maybe that is how you are supposed to feel about Penns character. I must admit
it is a bit hard going but it is the best movie so far this year. He is not a lovable chic flick character or a super hero. He is just your average American
who wants to be someone and like so many in the past , turns to a gun to make a name for himself.

reply

Yeah, really well put eozgo...best film this year for sure. This movie rocks.

reply

"And most importantly, I WAS NOT ENTERTAINED"

And why should all films have to entertain you? I watched 'downfall' recently, about the last days of Hitler. it would be hard to argue that it was a bad film, but it certainly wasnt entertaining! Dont you think that films can be made to educate or to inform? PLus, if you went to see a film called 'the ASSISSINATION of richard nixon' and expected to be entertained, what kind of person does that make you?!

reply

Brilliantly played by Penn, his performance is what makes this film worth seeing. He’s come a long way since the days of “Shanghai Surprise.”

Sean Penn had an underrated performance in Shanghai Surprise.
:-)

I think that silent films got a lot more things right than talkies. --Stanley Kubrick

reply

Ummmmm...........3 children!!! Out of curiosity, which kids do you remember?

reply

[deleted]

By the time his boss was asking him to repeat what he said, Sam was already in the midst of a major breakdown. You need to learn more about humans and how they act when they are "losing" it, big time. "Stuttering like a retard" is the least of their problems.

Oh yeah, learn some compassion along the way; you certainly could use it. You're basing your opinions of him AFTER he began his descent into madness.

reply

To Chrismreynolds:

Yours is the first smart and informative review I've read in this forum. You must be the teacher and all the rest of these fools are the 3rd graders or the video gamers of the world - and by the world I mean America, since that's what all Americans believe their country to be (as John Cleese says: Americans are unaware that there is a world beyond their borders). As for this film? Well, I did not enjoy it at all. I found it to be deeply depressing, stark, sparse and reeking with hopelessness and despair. And who wants to pay to go and watch something like that? Not me! I saw it for free on DVD and even that hurt. It was like being in the emergency room at a city hospital and watching them bring in all the poor souls with no homes, or no health insurance, or no future because they are gangbangers handcuffed to a gurney and hovered over by armed cops even though they have a bullet wound and quite obviously aren't be going anywhere. You mention that Penn's character would never marry a woman and I say that, what's more, the woman played by Naomi Watts would never marry this guy. What on earth would possess her to do so? He quite obviously must have been the same person when she met him as he was by the time she wanted out, so what changed her? She had to have been a very different woman when they met because she certainly didn't come across as someone selfless or dopey enough to fall for him at any stage in her life. Unless you are right and he did became brain damaged somewhere along the way. This guy must have been married in real life but I contend that the woman he married could never have been so decisive or headstrong. She had to have been at least as much of a zero as he was. The bottom line is that films like this, if they are to be made at all, should be done on what Hollywood calls a shoestring budget (say two million - and please give me that shoestring!) and kept to the realm of late night television. We go to the movies to be entertained, not hammered in the head with a depressing slice of hellish life like The Assassination of Richard Nixon.

reply

My god!! Bobby 153, you represent everything that is wrong with this country and the film industry. When you say that this kind of films should "be kept to the realm of late night television" and the only purpose of cinema is to be entertained, you show your total ignorance of american film. Okay, let's say that these depressing films should only be made on shoestring budgets and shown late at night, alright, this means that all the taxi driver, Raging Bull,Easy Riders,all the Kubrick's films,Pi, even Citizen Kane would not be shown to a large public!! Are you out of your fookin mind?????? People who really like movies don't go only just to be entertained!! Sometimes,yes, I only want to be entertained, but sometimes I also want to think and be shown something thoughtful, provocative. Don't forget that cinema is an ART before being an "money-pumping machine aimed at the lowest common denominator".

reply

It's funny, reading the posts where people are blasting Sean Penn's performance as terrible, and who could believe him, etc etc. His performance is so TRUE TO LIFE, so real, this is how REAL PEOPLE ACT. Not like perfect humans with all the right things to say as in most movies. Penn did a great job "keeping it real" and not letting this movie go all Hollywood or campy. Especially the way he portrayed Sam's hyper focus on the 'Watergate' investigation and how it becomes more of a focus in his life as he becomes more unbalanced mentally. The camera work and cinematography was a big part as well.

This movie was absolutely brilliant. European audiences get it and this is why it did so well at the Cannes Film Festival. Subtlety is not somethings (most) Americans grasp.

reply

I agree with you Mr/Mrs above poster. It seems that the only people who really respect this movie are non-americans.

"I have a zest for life. So sue me."

reply


yes, it sucked big time. sean penn's character was one of the worst ever put on screen, i had no sympathy for him whatsoever. by the 10 minute mark i couldn't wait for the guy to die!!

total waste of time

reply

Do you really need to like every character in every film? The whole point of Penn's character was that he was a little bit strange and not very normal, his own brother did not even like him.

reply

Sean penn presented his character very good but the movie itself was very boring. I also found it frusterated to watch Sean Penn's character. All the screen time was on him and his character wasnt just interesting enough to carry the movie. I was so annoyed by Sam and the way he talked, did the director expect us to find it great to listen to his mumbling for 2 hours. The movie presented itself with having some answers about the problems that were brought up but nothing really happened. He just kept on whining. In the end he was filled with rage and just *beep* it up even more.

Well that was probably the character's and movie's purpose but it was still extremly boring

"Peter, you are drunk again"
"No, I'm just exhausted because I've been up all night drinking"

reply

It seems like many, many people disagree with you, LivingProof. And I would offer the many, many opinions that disagree with yours on this board as living proof that you simply have a different taste in movies. I recommend for someone like you: Star Wars, Wedding Crashers -- more standard Hollywood fare. This film isn't for you...that's all. But know that many, many of us find the filmss that you find so great to be, well...boring!~!! :) Best of luck!!!

reply

I am a movie buff and I have seen enormous amounts of movies and I like all kinds. It doesnt matter if they are long and slow. Just as long as its interesting. This movie wasnt interesting or fun to watch. It's as simple as that.

Im not the type of movie guy you think, the mainstream type. And I dont bash a movie just because I dont like the effects or the clothes the main character is wearing. I always have a point behind my thoughts.

"Peter, you are drunk again"
"No, I'm just exhausted because I've been up all night drinking"

reply

[deleted]

That is what Hollywood does to people!
There is no need for you to feel symapthy for the main character. You do not have to like that person at all. If you feel you have to, why don't you go and watch Mr & Mrs Smith? Everyone seems to love Angelina and/or Brad..

reply

[deleted]

I am knocking Mr & Mrs Smith down because it was a bad movie. I like most popcorn flicks and I don't mind people liking these films. As you say all movies don't have to grab your soul and as I am saying you don't have to like tha main character in all films. I think those people you accuse of belittling Hollywood watch and enjoy many popcorn films and they (we) do not bash most other films because they were good efforts. For example you would never see me on War of the Worlds board telling how many goofs there are in the film! I am just saying that Mr & Mrs Smith is a film completely standing on its feet with the help of the two charismatic stars of the film (there would be nothing really great about that movie if, let's say, Crispin Glover and Meryl Streep played Mr & Mrs Smith!!)Even if you are going to make a likeable, easy popcorn film you could put more effort in it than just getting the most beautiful stars in Hollywood. If I thought Mr & Mrs Smith was a good movie, I would be doing injustice to all those directors or screenplay writers who have made great things with easy-to-watch popcorn films. Sorry, but I cannot say that Mr & Mrs Smith was good. All I did is to give that user some advice as to which films he should watch if he wanted to sympathise with the main character. He could watch Mr & Mrs Smith or Bad Boys something like that.
As for Penn, he is a dislikeable guy FOR YOU. I really think he is a good actor and I find him to be attractive. I also loved him as Spocoli (that was so funny!). He is good in funny roles as well, like in U-Turn.



reply

This is your only post on Imdb and all you can say is "This movie sucks"?! You seem to be running out of words. Even if you do not like a movie, have the decency to explain why or at least use some proper words. Why "sucks"???? Why Why Why?????????

reply

The film is well-made, and the acting is great, but if you've seen Falling Down, The Fan, King of Comedy, One Hour Photo and Taxi Driver, then you won't be surprised by anything that occurs in Assassination of Richard Nixon. Let's see, you've got the deranged sociopath who is obsessed with a political figure while stalking a beautiful blonde (Taxi Driver). You've got the divorced, out of work malcontent man who wants to get public attention (Falling Down, The Fan). We also have the uncomfortable child visitation scenes with the divorced, psychotic dad (Falling Down, The Fan). There's the guy who won't take a hint from a receptionist to vacate the lobby (King of Comedy).

reply

[deleted]

This is the kind of movie that makes me hate the way they make movies these days. Every role, every character just seems to be vaguely reminiscient of reality, it's as if you're watching a production directed by pre-teens acting out how "grown-ups are supposed to act like." The man the movie is based on is probably a creepy, weaselly-looking ugly little man, so of course they cast Sean Penn for the role(!) Why not just find a creepy, weaselly-looking ugly little man??? Wouldn't that make it a bit more believable than having to pretend that you're not looking at SEAN FRIGGIN' PENN in every damn scene??? Speaking of Sean Penn, he behaves like he just recently graduated from the world's best acting school and now is the time to "test out" all the little tricks and techniques he picked up along the way. He's so disengenuous, acts and reacts so counter-intuitively to the way a real person in real life would think, speak and make decisions. And that's fine, if you're making a surrealist picture, but this is supposed to be a historical-conspiracy drama pic of some sort. If you want to convince the audience they are watching a true story, you do it with real people and real characters, not a bunch of hacked-up, over-wrought cliches, stiff-as-a-board acting, sophmoric writing, and devastating predictability.
I agree with one of the posters who said Sean Penn was better before he was an actor. So true. Sean Penn was discovered simply because of his look: physically, he perfectly fit the mold of a Jeff Spiccoli or a Mick O'Brien ("Fast Times at Ridgemont High" and "Bad Boys" respectively). He wasn't a great actor, but you forgave him, because he looked the part and he acted naturally. This forced sort of now-I-wanna-do-theatre-and-be-taken-seriously-as-an-artist schtick is just that: a schtick. It's transparent, it's disengenuous and it's utterly devoid of the artistry a true afficionado of the theatre and the cinema would hope to expect.
In other words, it's pure Hollywood all the way.

reply

[deleted]

I really dig this film. The ending is shocking enough, great acting all around, (Penn does a fantastic job as always), and it didn't get TOO hollywood sappy. If you've ever been in a sales job, this really hits home,too.

reply

[deleted]

At Close Range
Falcon and the Snowman
Colors
Casualties of War-- All of the above were earlier enough on in his career where he was still fresh and imaginative in his roles.

Hurlyburly-- Had to hold back vomit. Kevin Spacey is a horrible excuse for an actor as well.
She's so Lovely-- Utterly forgettable. Go watch a REAL John Cassavetes movie instead.
Mystic River-- Total melodrama.
21 Grams-- See above.
Carlito's Way-- De Palma is a hack. This is further proof.
Dead Man Walking-- Did I mention melodrama?
The Thin Red Line-- Didn't contribute much to this mostly visual piece.
Sweet and Lowdown-- Eh, I'm a big Woody Allen fan so no problem here.

Actors you mention: Robert Downey Jr, Brad Pitt, Meryl Streep, Edward Norton, Benecio Del Toro, Bruce Willis, Russell Crowe, johnny Depp-- Funny, you couldn't have narrowed down my sh*t list for crap actors any more perfectly. All are highly overrated Hollywood-a*s-kissers and none deserve any of the Oscars they may have received or been nominated for. Hollywood hasn't produced decent talent in well over a decade and in turn has succeeded in diluting once-promising careers. I could rant and rant about each of these tabloid queens.

Directors you mention: Woody Allen, Tim Robbins, Clint Eastwood, James Foley, Dennis Hopper Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu-- Woody has grown dangerously trendy in recent casting decisions, Robbins-- hack, Eastwood-- formulaic recipe for Oscars these days, won't be making a picture like "Bird" again anytime soon, James Foley-- fine, sure, Dennis Hopper-- maybe he was high when he said it, Alejandro whatever-- who?

You seem to be of the opinion that the Academy Award still holds some merit. It doesn't. It's a mere prop that Hollywood big-wigs use to congratulate themselves on producing overblown melodramatic opuses year after year, that's why the same four or five names get nominated over and over again no matter what they do. But "Million Dollar Baby" was a good movie, you say? Sure it was, and we all know the Academy has a tradition of appreciating movies about boxing. That's why the BEST boxing movie, "Raging Bull", got nothing. (True, it didn't have Hillary Swank or Clint Eastwood attached to it, you know, proven winners).

As far as Roger Ebert, he is a better man than I. I don't have anywhere near the patience he has to sift through all that garbage week after week. Personally, I always agreed more with Siskel, but Ebert likes just as many crap movies as he does good ones.

I never said Sean Penn was crap from day one. He's like Nicholas Cage in that way. Started off doing some great roles in some great films but his career got completely derailed in the '90s as he grew less and less in tune with reality (you know, like the day-to-day life you and I lead) as his fame and wealth increased, and suddenly he finds himself all hacked-up in sappy schlock-fests a/k/a Hollywood from about 1993 onward. Celebrity ruins actors. Fact.

Compare American cinema today with American cinema 30 years ago. I know, it's a really depressing thought. As the quality gets thinner and thinner with good films being constantly relegated to art-houses then called "art films" (when in reality, it's what everyone SHOULD be watching, if they had a pulse), the rest of the world has said *beep* it to our crappy studio system and in the last ten years, European, Middle Eastern and Asian filmmakers have BURIED us in the amount of good films they've produced. The ratio of good films made outside this country versus quality films made in Hollywood has got to be 100:1.

Anyway, sorry my opinions offend you. I promise you I'm not the only one.

reply

[deleted]

"Actors you mention: Robert Downey Jr, Brad Pitt, Meryl Streep, Edward Norton, Benecio Del Toro, Bruce Willis, Russell Crowe, johnny Depp-- Funny, you couldn't have narrowed down my sh*t list for crap actors any more perfectly. All are highly overrated Hollywood-a*s-kissers and none deserve any of the Oscars they may have received or been nominated for. Hollywood hasn't produced decent talent in well over a decade and in turn has succeeded in diluting once-promising careers. I could rant and rant about each of these tabloid queens.

Directors you mention: Woody Allen, Tim Robbins, Clint Eastwood, James Foley, Dennis Hopper Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu-- Woody has grown dangerously trendy in recent casting decisions, Robbins-- hack, Eastwood-- formulaic recipe for Oscars these days, won't be making a picture like "Bird" again anytime soon, James Foley-- fine, sure, Dennis Hopper-- maybe he was high when he said it, Alejandro whatever-- who? "

Funnily enough you've just mentioned the best actors around today.....

Edward Norton
Johnny Depp
Tim Robbins
and top of the pile Sean Penn.

EDIT: I missed out Daniel Day Lewis (I knew id forgotten some1 . Guess his name is pretty hard to remember lol). His acting in Gangs of New York is the best piece of acting I have EVER seen, and Iv seen ALOT of movies.

reply

Excellent post, Scwriter2000. I thank you for it.

Dr Donny
----------------
http://www.opinionsoup.com/movies.html

reply

Don't waste any more energy on this topic folks. This is the only post "nationalegla" has submitted and to say something as stupid as "this movie sucks, it does it really does"...

Just ignore this donkey!

reply

yeah.

reply

Every movie on IMDB has a poster who says "this movie sucks" without offering any further comment. I really think it's to infuriate people who liked the movie -- which is most of us who bother to post about that particular movie. I honestly wonder if these people have even seen the movie in question.

When I was 14 I thought doing that sort of thing was funny too.

reply

Nope, I saw this movie, and IT REALLY SUCKS !!!

reply



Yes, this movie does truly suck. My advice would be to watch maybe the first 15 minutes and then skip it to the last 15 minutes.

This is typical of a quite a few "depressingly boring" movies that I have watched based on the recommendation of IMDB user comments and ratings. Here is a list of some others:

Signs
House of sand and fog
Road to perdition
Big fish

reply

I wouldn't say the film 'sucked' - it didn't live up to my expectations, I must admit, but I thought Penn played a great part. I agree about Signs, though - a total let down and waste of time, the other two I haven't seen, but Road to Perdition? That was a great film.

reply