Why does the US control the supposedly "international" defence system? American exceptionalism, and belief in their own right to control the world, is sickening. I would join with the aliens to destroy the USA, if I could.
shareBecause America really is the defacto leader of the world. I know that is painful to hear, but it is true. How is this really a question?
(Besides that, criticizing an American made movie, tailored to sell to American audiences, with a title called Independence Day, is kind of stupid. Make your own alien movie rest of the world, and we as Americans will watch it an like it. Even if it is centered around your view point. Give it a rest.)
Because the US of A is the World Police. Team America: World Police is actually a documentary film disguised as a puppet show that explains is all.
shareThis is such a silly discussion. The mother ship in this film is so damn big you have to ask: why don't the aliens just build their own planet and leave ours alone? An object that size would be torn apart by tidal stresses before it could land. Meanwhile the damage to Earth would be less, but still more than enough to kill every living thing. Who controls the puny little defense satellites is kinda beside the point. Don't you think? It's only a movie kids. Quit arguing! If I have to pull this car over ...
shareThis is an asinine film for idiots and you pro-American simple minded blind patriots are all asse hats
Americans are idiots of the purest form, you have no clue what the rest of the world is about
While I agree this is a frivolous action flick best viewed with your higher brain functions switched off, it's also clear you're nothing but a worthless troll. Here's a sample of your rich and varied postings:
The Matrix:[/i]
There are hordes of intelligent, thinking humans that think the matrix is pure garbage. This film runs like a pop up book for children, the viewers need action, fights and special effects to keep their attention.[/quote]
[i]Patton:[/i]
[quote]That list is laughable, every Star Wars movie is in the top 20, list must be made by 12 year olds, they skipped so many classics it's ridiculous. Patton is #1 on my list, once you get to the top 10 it's basically a matter of personal preference.[/quote]
Interesting that your number one favorite film is about a clueless idiot [i]American[/i] general.
[i]Alien/Predator movies:[/i]
[quote]Anything Alien or Predator = 4 year old nonsense
Let's grow up and watch adult films can we ?[/quote]
[i]Allegiant:
[quote]Yeah, who cares about a few plot holes when I can see "ACTION" are you people serious ? Go watch cartoons, is your IQ lower than your age ?
This is pretty much the only thing you know how to say. Isn't it? Talk about childish and immature. Go find something better to do, you pathetic waste of space.
I would hardly compare the state of "movie making" today with that of film making in the early 1970's. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember but many classics came out of the late 60's and into the 70's. Bonnie & Clyde, Cool Hand Luke, The Graduate, what are your feelings regarding 2001 A Space Odyssey ? That is a film I would consider to be intelligent science fiction.
Just because Patton was in many ways a tragic figure does not mean the story is not worth telling. I base my film criteria on acting, scripting, cinematography and overall story line. George C. Scott became Patton in that film. You don't need a likable main character in order to create a great film.
The United States was a different place back in World War II. You could hardly compare it to the present day. I am not old enough to remember the Korean War however when I grew up Vietnam was the story of the day. That would be a war we had no reason to be involved in.
It seems obvious to me most of the meddling the USA does now in the Middle East is actually based on greed and oil. The citizens of the USA basically have nothing to be proud of in this present day yet they are mostly all full of blind patriotism. And films like "Independence Day Resurgence" fuel that non-thinking patriotism.
As you pointed out I am completely disenchanted with film making in recent decades. I try to stay away from anything with "CIA Operative", "Zombies", "Super Heroes" or "FBI" in the description. Not because those subjects cannot be used to create good cinema but because they are completely over done, and most of the remakes are simply attempts to cash in and end up being nonsensical trash, not good cinema.
Yet these same films are reaping in millions at the box office, which tells me the movie viewing public has no taste in cinema. I agree that at times my comments were heavy handed but that simply reflects my distaste with the industry today as a whole, and the people that pay out to support the crap that Hollywood dishes out these days.
If you took the time to read this you might better understand where I'm coming from. I'm not completely anti-American but I do question the government and I believe that 1st Amendment rights should be exercised before they are lost forever. We have fewer rights in this country than previous generations. Something that the flag waving American Exclusionists don't seem to realize.
I am fan of true cinema and excellent writing, Woody Allen, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese,
Francis Ford Coppola and Sidney Lumet to name a few. Anything less simply will not do, my standards are high. I prefer films that make me think rather than films that ask me to leave my brain on idle. That is why I believe films that rely on action and CGI are for children. If you are a fan of the SciFi genre I feel your pain, there are not many good films in that genre being made in the present day.
Insult me if you like, it really doesn't bother me or change my views, it did however persuade me to take the time to write this response, for what it's worth.
Oh yeah, and my post which you responded to was not directed to you, I simply clicked on the reply button. This forum seems to nest them automatically.
I'm honestly surprised by your response. And if I was hasty in my judgment, I apologize. Your profile looked[/i] an awful lot like a troll's. They usually make almost identical posts, and choose popular threads, because all they're really trying to do is start arguments and varying their shtick from one thread to another would take effort. Insulting particular nationalities or ethnic groups is another popular tactic for getting people riled up and angry. I can't count the number of interesting discussions that turned into flame wars and were completely ruined by those assholes (especially on IMDb). So if my irritation with trolls fell undeservedly on you, once again I'm sorry about that.
Most cinema, like most theater and most literature, is mediocre stuff. Entertaining to watch or read once but ultimately forgettable. The main motivation behind most of it has always been commercial. Filmmakers who can produce something truly unique and thought provoking are rare, and the ones able to achieve commercial success doing it are rarer still. Over the past ten years there's been a rapidly accelerating trend toward megabudget franchise films and the big studios have had little interest in taking risks by funding less formulaic projects that may or may not catch on with the general public. Cookie cutter sequels and reboots are guaranteed money in the bank at very little risk even if no one [i]loves[/i] most of the offerings. It's a good thing we have streaming services now to provide an outlet for independently produced movies that were previously viewable only by attending movie festivals.
The majority of films, mainstream and independent alike, won't stand the test of time. A few will. Just like there are books on the New York Times Bestseller List that will be known to people a hundred years from now, but most will fade away and be forgotten. And it's not a reflection on anyone's talent. It's the reality of the industry. You either write the story you want, for the sake of artistic expression, or you create for the mass market. Is it any great surprise most filmmakers choose the more lucrative path? It's the difference between a fast lane Hollywood lifestyle and having to crowd source your next film. Oh sure, sometimes you come up with a story that's both great artistically and resonates with the public at large but this is only possible on occasion. The legendary directors you mentioned could never have made some of their best films had they been entirely at the mercy of the big studios, [i]especially[/i] not in today's climate.
I don't much care for Big Media (in case that wasn't obvious). They're an exploitative, aggressively greedy bunch that want to control everything and care only about the money. Notoriously unresponsive to consumer demand, they expect the public to adapt to them instead of the other way around. A night at the movies is a social occasion. It's an outing with your friends. It's a first date. If we want to simply watch a movie we can do that just as well, better in a lot of ways given the resolution of TVs and the quality of sound systems now, right on the couch at home - without the expense of a ticket plus overpriced concessions. People see what's being offered because they're going to the movies to get [i]off their couches and have themselves a night out. A better indication of the public's taste in cinema is what they're viewing on Netflix, or Amazon, or Hulu. That's the stuff they're seeing because the synopsis looks interesting to them. Not because it happens to be "what's playing".