He’s clearly never been out in real public. Every teacher who gets tenure uses that to break the rules. They even say, “I have tenure, you can’t touch me.” Actors continue to prove the only way to be a good actor is to have zero personal thought.
James Woods is intelligent and has personal thoughts, as does Mel Gibson and a short list of a few others and they're a good actor, but generally I agree.
The model should be like Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise's main agenda seems to be making the best movie he can for the audiences...not for the critics, not for his elitist friends in the industry, but to make the best theater-going experience.
That's what an actor should strive for.
That's what every job position should strive for....If you're a truck driver, excell at truck driving, if you're a salesman, excel at that, etc.
Seems like so many actors put their job second or see it as a mere means to promote "the message"
Hollywood press regularly runs obvious bullshit articles about how such and such actor or actress has some absurdly high IQ. Be smart. None of these people - including James Woods - actually have an IQ over 160. It’s just PR meant to counteract the public realization that most actors are borderline retarded.
I never really liked the Bourne movies. I feel they basically killed action movies as I knew them and loved them. Every action movie after wanted to be a gritty, shaky cam, overly serious political thriller.
But this was the video I saw many years ago where I straight up disliked Matt Damon. Rarely has a celebrity so quickly exposed how much of a liberal douche they are before the age of twitter.
Bourne 1 was sick. Love interest was a super sweet, believable German chick. Bourne 2 killed her offscreen in the opening and the series went downhill from there with shakier and shakier cam every minute.
The chase scenes were generally pretty good. There's one where he's literally reading a map while driving some narrow Euro side streets, that was pretty badass.
Yeah, that's the thing I like about Bourne 1 is the girl is one of the few women characters in movies that I like. Cute in that distinctly European way, and the soundtrack and fashion styles and editing feels very early 2000s/late 90s and the action wasn't shaky cam.
So it's an enjoyable watch for feeling like a time capsule even if it's not remotely a go-to movie for me.
But where that first one felt like that short period of when we had cultural specificity, and decade uniqueness, the sequels feel like that monolithic culture that doesn't feel distinct that's been the same for like 20 years now.
Like Bourne supremacy feels like basically any movie from the 2010s unlike the first Bourne which did feel like an early 2000s movie (which is a good thing)
To me the Bourne sequels fall squarely into 2006-2013 culture where everything was kind of loud and ubiquitous but it rolled off everyone's back like water off a duck. After 2014 everyone started to be offended.
That's more of the director that's in charge of what you are criticizing for the Bourne movies, and that's fine.
If it means anything I think John Wick 1 & 2 raised the bar for action movies and practically the camera work for a lot of those scenes is the opposite of a Bourne movie. You get wide camera shots with plenty of cause > effect visuals done in the same shot without any cuts.
I can't take the fight where the takes on the twins(?) in 2 3 seriously because if you go frame by frame you realise Keanu is possibly literally twice as tall as both of them. Even when he's on his knees he still almost ends up taller.
Yeah I don't blame Matt Damon for how Bourne was made, I'm just saying that's his major film/franchise and it's not one I care for so it's not like I'm a Matt Damon fan anyways.
The two Matt Damon films I like that I can think of are saving private Ryan and Good Will Hunting.
And that's a decent case. The worser case is because of the different incentives. One of the different incentives is to shape the mind of people against the will of the parents. They see it as their chance to use a position of authority to enact their will and agenda on a captive audience. Some people are so wired that they trade a good amount of money for that.
That's why you see these authoritarian moderators on basically ever website, most of whom do it for absolutely zero pay, because the thrill of controlling the narrative is reward in and of itself.
One of the different incentives is to shape the mind of people against the will of the parents.
It's quite terrifying that the people in control of children's minds would be the ones who get into such a trade to do that. That's exactly the kind of person you don't want in control of that. Just like people who want to be moderators are the ones you don't want to be moderators. The only good moderators that I've managed to find, are the people who weren't interested and I had to ask them to do it.
That's why you see these authoritarian moderators on basically ever website, most of whom do it for absolutely zero pay, because the thrill of controlling the narrative is reward in and of itself.
That, and probably combatng the boredom of people who do nothing productive in their lives. Also give you more time to do that. People with a job and a life don't go out of their way to do as much modding as possible.
All enabled by the welfare state. The only reason trannies can sit in their underwear and order door dash all day is because they’re scamming the state for disability or some other handout. Without the gibs, they would need to abandon their janny positions and get real jobs.
you think job insecurity is what makes me work hard?
Well, considering you make more in one movie than most Americans make over the span of an entire career, I think your perceptions of work, pay, and the need for job security are grossly distorted from those of a normal person.
Now, you may enjoy acting to the degree that you would do it for free, and I have no doubt that there are people in the world who love their jobs so much that they would work either for free or at the minimum salary needed to keep them fed and clothed, but most of us are here for the money.
As a rational actor who is occupying their time with something they do not enjoy so that they can get the money needed to live their life, if I had the opportunity to receive my paycheck without actually having to work for it, I would take it in a heartbeat. So would almost everyone else.
As a kid I always thought teachers were the losers of the adult world. Imagine spending your entire life surrounded by kids teaching them things you learn before you hit puberty. Often getting it wrong.
As an adult the people I met that became teachers confirmed it. Teachers are lazy, dumb or otherwise incompetent losers.
I went to two high schools and multiple junior highs and grade schools and only had one teacher that was worth a shit.
They're too self serious and in many ways changed the direction of action films and every other movie wanted to be a Bourne-like.
Closest analog is going to be the Bond films but the reason the Daniel Craig films turned out like they are is because of Austin Powers of all things, even with Casino Royale coming out 4 years after the first of the Bourne films.
It definitely fell susceptible to that trend, but I remember just about every movie me and my mom would walk out of for a pretty long period we'd go "it wasn't bad, but I hate the shaky cam....I can't make out the action and it gives me a headache". Shaky cam was a plague on movies for way too long and I'm glad it's been abandoned at this point. As someone pointed out, John Wick helped a lot.
As for the grittiness, to me it's an acting style that we've never really gotten away from since I'd say the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I know I'll get crap for saying this, but I think the Lord of the Rings was a big milestone in changing the style of acting in movies and not for the better.
Acting now tries to "sell a realism" instead of trying to sell their character.
There's a great middle ground between absurdely expresssionistic acting like the silent film era, and attempts at gritty realism, and I feel that the perfect middle ground was between the 1960s - 1990s.
They dialed it down to an artform where you believed the reality because they expressed the character properly.
Indiana Jones isn't like any person you've ever met, and that's why you believe him, because it sells the reality comes about by seeing a very specific personality expressed on screen as good as possible.
If they tried to make Indiana Jones talk and act like "realism" you'd get something that feels less real. This is a difficult concept to convey because acting is so subjective, but a writer, director and actors attempt to sell "realism" doesn't feel as real as when a writer, director and actor each do their job to sell "wonder" and "movie magic".
He's a yuro, not a US citizen. So he sometimes does, and sometimes doesn't when it comes to more U.S. centric items. U.S. pop culture isn't always popular in eurofagland, especially the more military themed stuff.
Mark Wahlberg is the cooler right wing version of Damon, and Shooter is better than the Bourne movies anyway.
Didn't know that knowing what you're talking about depends on familiarity with Hollywood. I'll be sure to watch more movies to gain the great wisdom that comes with them.
I've heard of Bourne just from people around me talking about them, but never seen any of the movies myself either. I'm someone who rarely watches new movies anyway. I only saw John Wick for the first time last year.
He’s clearly never been out in real public. Every teacher who gets tenure uses that to break the rules. They even say, “I have tenure, you can’t touch me.” Actors continue to prove the only way to be a good actor is to have zero personal thought.
James Woods is intelligent and has personal thoughts, as does Mel Gibson and a short list of a few others and they're a good actor, but generally I agree.
The model should be like Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise's main agenda seems to be making the best movie he can for the audiences...not for the critics, not for his elitist friends in the industry, but to make the best theater-going experience.
That's what an actor should strive for.
That's what every job position should strive for....If you're a truck driver, excell at truck driving, if you're a salesman, excel at that, etc.
Seems like so many actors put their job second or see it as a mere means to promote "the message"
Underselling it.
Hollywood press regularly runs obvious bullshit articles about how such and such actor or actress has some absurdly high IQ. Be smart. None of these people - including James Woods - actually have an IQ over 160. It’s just PR meant to counteract the public realization that most actors are borderline retarded.
Maaaatt. Daaaaamon.
"Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg"
What's that Hannibal Lecter guy? He said that people aren't interested in an actor's political views. Spot on.
Anthony Hopkins, and yeah, he's a gem.
Don't you mean...THE MESSAGE?!
their job is literally to say things they are paid to say. why anyone lends any credence to anything they spout, is still a mystery to me.
Almost as if he's an actor.
I never really liked the Bourne movies. I feel they basically killed action movies as I knew them and loved them. Every action movie after wanted to be a gritty, shaky cam, overly serious political thriller.
But this was the video I saw many years ago where I straight up disliked Matt Damon. Rarely has a celebrity so quickly exposed how much of a liberal douche they are before the age of twitter.
Bourne 1 was sick. Love interest was a super sweet, believable German chick. Bourne 2 killed her offscreen in the opening and the series went downhill from there with shakier and shakier cam every minute.
The chase scenes were generally pretty good. There's one where he's literally reading a map while driving some narrow Euro side streets, that was pretty badass.
Yeah, that's the thing I like about Bourne 1 is the girl is one of the few women characters in movies that I like. Cute in that distinctly European way, and the soundtrack and fashion styles and editing feels very early 2000s/late 90s and the action wasn't shaky cam.
So it's an enjoyable watch for feeling like a time capsule even if it's not remotely a go-to movie for me.
But where that first one felt like that short period of when we had cultural specificity, and decade uniqueness, the sequels feel like that monolithic culture that doesn't feel distinct that's been the same for like 20 years now.
Like Bourne supremacy feels like basically any movie from the 2010s unlike the first Bourne which did feel like an early 2000s movie (which is a good thing)
If you like 'the girl' she got famous in Run Lola Run (1998). It's a decent indie movie with catchy soundtrack. Definitely German though...
Yeah, that was actually a movie we watched in the screenwriting class I took in high school.
To me the Bourne sequels fall squarely into 2006-2013 culture where everything was kind of loud and ubiquitous but it rolled off everyone's back like water off a duck. After 2014 everyone started to be offended.
That's more of the director that's in charge of what you are criticizing for the Bourne movies, and that's fine.
If it means anything I think John Wick 1 & 2 raised the bar for action movies and practically the camera work for a lot of those scenes is the opposite of a Bourne movie. You get wide camera shots with plenty of cause > effect visuals done in the same shot without any cuts.
The Raid raised the bar. John Wick very cleverly modified that formula to focus on guns (because Keanu is a literal senior citizen).
I can't take the fight where the takes on the twins(?) in
23 seriously because if you go frame by frame you realise Keanu is possibly literally twice as tall as both of them. Even when he's on his knees he still almost ends up taller.https://i.ibb.co/HTFLgCpQ/jw3.png
Yeah I don't blame Matt Damon for how Bourne was made, I'm just saying that's his major film/franchise and it's not one I care for so it's not like I'm a Matt Damon fan anyways.
The two Matt Damon films I like that I can think of are saving private Ryan and Good Will Hunting.
The best Matt Damon film is Interstellar because he plays a sniveling dishonest traitor who hilariously gets himself killed.
Teachers can be great.
Most people in the "teaching" profession aren't teachers.
Cause you can't get anything better?
And that's a decent case. The worser case is because of the different incentives. One of the different incentives is to shape the mind of people against the will of the parents. They see it as their chance to use a position of authority to enact their will and agenda on a captive audience. Some people are so wired that they trade a good amount of money for that.
That's why you see these authoritarian moderators on basically ever website, most of whom do it for absolutely zero pay, because the thrill of controlling the narrative is reward in and of itself.
It's quite terrifying that the people in control of children's minds would be the ones who get into such a trade to do that. That's exactly the kind of person you don't want in control of that. Just like people who want to be moderators are the ones you don't want to be moderators. The only good moderators that I've managed to find, are the people who weren't interested and I had to ask them to do it.
That, and probably combatng the boredom of people who do nothing productive in their lives. Also give you more time to do that. People with a job and a life don't go out of their way to do as much modding as possible.
Teaching should be retirement age jobs for people with history in the subject, not 20 something faggots with a "teaching" degree.
All enabled by the welfare state. The only reason trannies can sit in their underwear and order door dash all day is because they’re scamming the state for disability or some other handout. Without the gibs, they would need to abandon their janny positions and get real jobs.
"Matt... Damon!"
Long hours?? LOL
Imagine having summer off lo
Well, considering you make more in one movie than most Americans make over the span of an entire career, I think your perceptions of work, pay, and the need for job security are grossly distorted from those of a normal person.
Now, you may enjoy acting to the degree that you would do it for free, and I have no doubt that there are people in the world who love their jobs so much that they would work either for free or at the minimum salary needed to keep them fed and clothed, but most of us are here for the money.
As a rational actor who is occupying their time with something they do not enjoy so that they can get the money needed to live their life, if I had the opportunity to receive my paycheck without actually having to work for it, I would take it in a heartbeat. So would almost everyone else.
As a kid I always thought teachers were the losers of the adult world. Imagine spending your entire life surrounded by kids teaching them things you learn before you hit puberty. Often getting it wrong.
As an adult the people I met that became teachers confirmed it. Teachers are lazy, dumb or otherwise incompetent losers.
I went to two high schools and multiple junior highs and grade schools and only had one teacher that was worth a shit.
MATT DAMON!!!
I liked him in Team America World Police
Being a teacher is a job like any other. Start to romanticize them when they do it for free.
You commented before I made my comment. I actually don't like the Bourne movies. The first one is tolerable, but I never loved it.
They're too self serious and in many ways changed the direction of action films and every other movie wanted to be a Bourne-like.
Action movies were way better before Bourne came out.
I do like Good Will Hunting. If a movies good, I don't care who the actor is, I can enjoy the movie.
Closest analog is going to be the Bond films but the reason the Daniel Craig films turned out like they are is because of Austin Powers of all things, even with Casino Royale coming out 4 years after the first of the Bourne films.
It definitely fell susceptible to that trend, but I remember just about every movie me and my mom would walk out of for a pretty long period we'd go "it wasn't bad, but I hate the shaky cam....I can't make out the action and it gives me a headache". Shaky cam was a plague on movies for way too long and I'm glad it's been abandoned at this point. As someone pointed out, John Wick helped a lot.
As for the grittiness, to me it's an acting style that we've never really gotten away from since I'd say the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I know I'll get crap for saying this, but I think the Lord of the Rings was a big milestone in changing the style of acting in movies and not for the better.
Acting now tries to "sell a realism" instead of trying to sell their character.
There's a great middle ground between absurdely expresssionistic acting like the silent film era, and attempts at gritty realism, and I feel that the perfect middle ground was between the 1960s - 1990s.
They dialed it down to an artform where you believed the reality because they expressed the character properly.
Indiana Jones isn't like any person you've ever met, and that's why you believe him, because it sells the reality comes about by seeing a very specific personality expressed on screen as good as possible.
If they tried to make Indiana Jones talk and act like "realism" you'd get something that feels less real. This is a difficult concept to convey because acting is so subjective, but a writer, director and actors attempt to sell "realism" doesn't feel as real as when a writer, director and actor each do their job to sell "wonder" and "movie magic".
This is the first time I've heard of 'the Bourne franchise'.
Have you been living under a rock for the last 23 years?
Yeah, that’s a big oof for AoV. Almost makes you wonder if he has any idea what the fuck he’s talking about ever.
He's a yuro, not a US citizen. So he sometimes does, and sometimes doesn't when it comes to more U.S. centric items. U.S. pop culture isn't always popular in eurofagland, especially the more military themed stuff.
Mark Wahlberg is the cooler right wing version of Damon, and Shooter is better than the Bourne movies anyway.
Ditto on Shooter. Great movie.
Didn't know that knowing what you're talking about depends on familiarity with Hollywood. I'll be sure to watch more movies to gain the great wisdom that comes with them.
I've heard of Bourne just from people around me talking about them, but never seen any of the movies myself either. I'm someone who rarely watches new movies anyway. I only saw John Wick for the first time last year.