- Joined
- Oct 24, 2004
- Messages
- 163,179
- Reaction score
- 12,545
- Points
- 203
I'm sorry no one wants to watch your conspiracy theory documentaries anymore, Oliver.
When was the last time he made a truly good movie anyway, like 30 years ago? I'm tired of these veteran directors throwing shade at what's popular in film today when they're pretty far removed from their glory days themselves.I'm sorry no one wants to watch your conspiracy theory documentaries anymore, Oliver.
JFK was 1991. If you like Nixon, it was 1995.When was the last time he made a truly good movie anyway, like 30 years ago? I'm tired of these veteran directors throwing shade at what's popular in film today when they're pretty far removed from their glory days themselves.
He did a decent documentary series on US history for Showtime a few years back that I really liked. Does that count?JFK was 1991. If you like Nixon, it was 1995.
Never saw Nixon but JFK was good. The last two movies of his I saw were World Trade Center, which although not bad even I knew seeing it as a teenager at the time that it was a shameless capitalization on a very recent tragedy, and W., which was entertaining for the novelty of seeing actors cosplaying as the Bush administration but not a very good movie otherwise.JFK was 1991. If you like Nixon, it was 1995.
I read the artical and what Stone said. Nothing to shrug about, he just said it was unrealistic like a video game, which is was.
These kind of movies are not his cup of tea, nothing to build a drama over that.
The shrug emoji was my response as in I don't give a **** what he thinks, and he didn't just say it was unrealistic, he said it was disgusting, which is an insult no matter how you try to slice it.
No, they're movies. Before there was an invincible Leon Kennedy, there was the invincible John Rambo.I mean, Oliver Stone is not completely wrong and these movies HAVE become live videogames in a way. It's a reasonable assessment of JW4, in my opinion. I can admit this and still very much enjoy these films for the most part.
No, they're movies. Before there was an invincible Leon Kennedy, there was the invincible John Rambo.
The use of videogame in this context is derogatory and lacking in understand of both film and videogames. Because Stone is an old man yelling at clouds because no one gives a **** about his work.
Also what are the chances Oliver Stone has a deep understanding of what encompasses a videogames these days? You think he's platinumed Ragnarok and Hollow Knight?
John Rambo "won" the Vietnam war in a movie.I meant to say they've become *like* video games in a way. Of course it's a movie, and movies predate video games. Whether or not Oliver Stone understands videogames, I can understand the comparison and I have played many video games. Stone's understanding of video games is likely something along the lines of "non-stop shooting and fighting".
JW does kill hundreds of faceless goons in increasingly over-the-top ways leading to several "boss fights" and "levels". Even more so than Rambo, JW is nearly invincible and has survived some crazy situations only to get up and move on to the next fight. He wears a "suit of armor" and can be shot countless times without getting hurt, and the film is nearly non-stop extended action sequences. This is why I personally don't think it's unreasonable to say that a film like this is reminiscent of a video game in some ways.
However, when it comes to Oliver Stone, it appears his main gripe is that films like this are not at all realistic and instead fantastical -- something we can all likely agree on -- and he personally is bored by these types of films. Maybe he shouldn't have brought "video games" into the mix, but who cares. As you said, it's just an old man's opinion. Not sure why this is so offensive to you.

“We had a different ending,” Stahelski said. “[The theatrical ending] was the ending Keanu and I wanted, but we shot a different ending. We shot an ending where you actually saw John Wick at the end of the movie. So it was very clear that he was still alive. The audiences we tested with absolutely preferred the ambiguous ending.”