And that’s totally fair.

This thread should just be all Arnold examples.

Running Man: Telling a tied up Maria Conchita Alonso that he’s saying “Please” as he lifts the entire weight machine she’s bound to.

Commando: Tearing out car seats bare-handed to make room for his bulk in a tiny car.

Terminator 1: Boyfriend fight.

Terminator 2: Biker Bar intro or handheld minigun.

Twins: Lifting a car to turn off the alarm while Danny DeVito steals it.

That’s the thing about being earnest. If the audience is already on board, the moment is awesome. If they’re not, it’s ludicrous.

Speaking only for myself, I love that moment and the blatant over-the-top drama of it.

Rumor has it that the prop was so well engineered that it was actually incredibly easy to push, despite looking like a tortuous task.

So on his first attempt, Schwarzenegger gives it some oomph and sends the whole thing spinning, knocking himself on the back of the noggin with the next spoke.

It was boring.

Which is a cardinal sin.

I wouldn’t say it’s bad, but I also wouldn’t go to bat for it and say it’s good.

It has some neat ideas and moments but is a bit muddled IMO.

I’m not gonna say she necessarily deserved the Oscar over Julianne Moore, but I think people are selling her performance short in this thread.

It’s not a terribly flashy performance, but there’s a lot of good subtle work in there, as the character she’s playing is, herself, playing different characters.

There’s Veronica Lake and there’s Lynn Bracken. Then there’s Lynn Bracken with Pearce Patchett, Lynn Bracken with Ed Exley, and finally the real Lynn Bracken with Bud White. They carry themselves differently and even speak differently.

That’s Oscar Isaac’s screen test for Hugh Jackman’s role in The Prestige.

Hugh Jackman and Oscar Isaac

I think he’s one of the greats but kinda boxed himself in once he became a leading man. He was protecting his reputation and only working with great directors, but the roles also tended to fall into a certain lead role category. He’s gonna be the confident guy in a suit who at some point breaks down and yells.

I’ve really enjoyed seeing him go a little outside that box with OUATIH and Don’t Look Up. He’s got excellent comic timing and, as I said, is a great actor. He just needs to stop trying to prove it.

But this is all nitpicking. If the dude stars in a movie, I’m gonna check it out. He doesn’t make bad films.

All of the direction and the acting support what I’m saying, and it’s been the understood meaning of the scene for decades.

Dutch is no less of a hero just because his hastily jerry-rigged trap doesn’t work as planned. It’s to his credit that he thinks quickly and still comes out on top.

This thread is seriously the first time I’ve seen people argue that Dutch spent all of that time creating a decoy trap that the Pred was supposed to almost walk into, then notice, then move himself to an arbitrary position under the counterweight for the “real” trap.

As opposed to the rather straightforward read, that it was a combination of luck and quick thinking that enabled Dutch to pull victory from the jaws of defeat.

But that’s just not at all how the scene is shot. This is seriously the first I’ve heard of this interpretation.

Here’s the scene: https://youtu.be/lOoOP2l_ahQ

Dutch has clearly made an effort to disguise the spikes by camouflaging them with leaves. And he’s actively goading the predator to follow him through the kill box.

The movie makes a big show of the predator almost doing it too, but accidentally bumping into the spikes and thus noticing the trap. Then we have a sequence where we, as the audience, are watching the alien internally debate the best path forward. That tension only works if we, and Dutch, actually want the alien to move into the kill box.

And then, when the predator decides to just go around, the film is clearly showing Dutch’s reaction as first a sort of “you’ve gotta be fucking kidding me” defeated look and then a realization that his counterweight is perfectly placed to drop on the alien’s head.

I really don’t think that’s the case, and the way that moment is shot does not support that interpretation.

You see Dutch both crestfallen that the predator sees the knives and dodged the trap, and when he has a moment of realization that his counterweight is positioned perfectly.

I stand corrected: you weren’t messing with them.

Paired with the title, your meaning was perfectly clear. They’ve gotta be messing with you.

I have no idea what you’re asking, regarding the guns. They were armed because they’re bounty hunters traveling across dangerous country. They were disarmed when Candie discovered their deception. Schulz had a hidden gun and used it. Where’s the confusion?

And calling someone the lowest of the low is a moral judgment and not at all a statement about their place in a professional hierarchy.

Then is your question only about Schulz’ hidden gun?

Do you know what it means to call someone “the lowest of the low”?

I can help out with some, but you’re probably gonna have to just rewatch the film, because it does look like you weren’t really paying attention to who these characters are.

But I’ll help out with a couple.

Schultz shot Candie because he absolutely detested every single thing that Candie stood for and he could not stand to A) be beaten by him or B) allow him to continue embodying everything that he views as wrong with the world. Probably a little more Column A than B. Candie demanding a handshake was not only rubbing in the fact that he got the better of Schulz, but also, in its way, demanding that Schulz seemingly approve of Candie and treat him with respect.

Why were they armed? I don’t remember if Schulz was conspicuously armed. Django probably would not have given up his gun.

As for Stephen, you’ve probably gotta watch it again, if you didn’t figure him out. It’s pretty straightforward and integral to the film.

And are you really confused that Django would call Stephen “the lowest of the low,” for having an important role on a brutal slaving plantation?

Love him in Adaptation.

“Then one morning I woke up and said, ‘Fuck fish.’ I renounce fish. I will never set foot in that ocean again.”

Yeah, kinda sad to see the sub dismiss this essay off a kneejerk reaction to the title and a single point in the first paragraphs.

It is, without doubt, one of the best critical examinations that I’ve read on this sub in a long time. The author clearly knows the Irish literary tradition very well and it’s fascinating to read about how McDonagh’s works fit into that history.

That’s only a very small part of this essay, which is very well written and covers quite a lot, incorporating a lot of Irish history and literary tradition.

It really shouldn’t be dismissed merely as someone calling out McDonagh for being raised in London.

Calvary is from the other McDonagh, Michael.

Iron Man sent him to the stratosphere, but he’d been clean and working on good projects with quality people for five years at that point.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Good Night and Good Luck, and Zodiac all came out before Iron Man IIRC.

No, it wasn’t. It was just before.