Posts by northerncrane4

electriccanyon26 said:Every Allen film could be shot in no time at all. Maybe I'm wrong—who knows...

Sure, he could. But it wouldn't hurt if he actually took more time to write them.

goldenhound32 said:Miike will absolutely crush them all. 🙂

Even Uwe Boll.

Literally, they're in the ring. 🙂

ruggedjackal46 said:If someone pumps out five films in five years and only one actually holds up—it’s no different than if they just made one good movie in that same span. Not much of a difference, really.

Honestly, I feel the difference—enough that I’ve completely stopped following the Coens or Spielberg. I can't even remember the last time I sat down for an Eastwood, Woody Allen, or Soderbergh film; I wouldn't turn them away like the first two, but I'm just not exactly itching to see whatever they've churned out this season. 🤷

The Democratic Party director. This is my own personal metric for directors who churn out at least one film a year—though I can't tell if I just missed them before or if they've actually ramped up lately. The reality is that you see more and more names on the A-list pumping out movies back-to-back without taking a decent breather in between. Just look at the Coen brothers, Woody Allen, Clint Eastwood, Steven Soderbergh, Steven Spielberg, David Fincher, and dada Matanić.😁Do you think this frantic pace compromises their signature style and aesthetic—or does this rapid-fire release schedule simply allow them to leverage technological booms that make the whole production process faster?

Personally, out of that list, only Fincher—yeah, I know, I'm predictable—actually maintains a consistent level of quality. Though, to be fair, Matanić holds his own too. 😁I don't get the energy behind it—honestly, I’d go as far as calling it a borderline psychological disorder. Of course, none of us actually know how much money these authors are pulling in—it might just be their way of keeping the lights on—but for the sake of this discussion, let's just set that possibility aside.

William Lee34 said:Exactly—it’s basically a masterclass in acting by Jack Lemmon. Al Pacino is just as incredible.

There isn't a bad performance in the bunch. Everyone is brilliant.

Glengarry Glen Ross is basically a masterclass in male acting. 🙏🙏🙏

quietdriver3 said:That all sounds great in theory—but watch this: if you build an entire interpretation around a film, only for the director to claim he meant something else entirely, isn't your "insight" just a case of psychoanalyzing the author?

Maybe it's just self-psychoanalysis.

quietdriver3 said:Didn't he say something similar? Basically, if you realize the movie isn't great on the first watch, then they didn't do their job. Kubrick didn't agree.

I'm glad you brought this up. Clark said something along those lines—in his own way. But you really have to consider the context behind it. Knowing Clark—and I grew up on his work—that statement was just him being a smart-ass. You also have to factor in the sheer amount of press these directors face during distribution. Some people can give parrot-like answers to parrot-like questions, but for others, it gets exhausting, so they start messing around. Then, forty years later, someone digs up one sarcastic comment and builds an entire "what the poet meant" theory around it.

Mark Wood79 said:I’d also add how ridiculous it is that so many people hold this deep-seated belief that a film adaptation won't be good simply because they read the book first—as if we've all built some sacred little world in our heads or something. What a joke.

I agree—it's nonsense. But I also find it baffling why, in so many instances, the very details that made a novel, story, or comic great are the exact things filmmakers decide to toss in the trash.

Anyway, it doesn't matter—not the point here.

And honestly? It wouldn't surprise me if the original authors were such hacks that they'd claim their life's dream was to see their work turned into a travesty—all just to prove they're "team players" so they can sell the rights to their next project. The fact that anyone would cite statements like that as proof of a quality adaptation is laughable.

John Peterson3 said:The original is just a mediocre take on the superhero genre—all the movie did was crank up the mockery. I wouldn't call that a departure from the source material.

Look, the original isn't exactly a masterpiece, but it had a vision. And that vision definitely didn't include the "hero gets the girl" trope, some jetpack finale, or a complete character overhaul for the kid's dad. To be clear—the author went out of his way to ensure the hero *doesn't* get the girl, the dad is no hero at all (just a guy lost in comic books), and there are no mail-order jetpacks involved. So, I find it hard to believe he’s actually thrilled that the very things he explicitly avoided in the comic were the exact things the movie didn't want to happen.

John Peterson3 said:But I highly doubt any professional author would actually state what the "right thing" is regarding changes to their work—especially once an amateur decides they aren't a fan.

Something tells me we saw this exact thing happen recently with > and the comic creator Mark Millar—who apparently wasn't thrilled with how much they butchered his original material.

Christian Taylor3 said:They aren't total bullshit—Palahniuk never once claimed the changes made during adaptation were actually a good thing.

Fine, whatever. I could go digging through Google right now and maybe stumble upon some obscure site claiming he said something similar to those quotes—which still wouldn't prove he actually uttered them.

But I'm not just asking because of Palahniuk; I've read several of his essays where he was actually quite friendly toward the film. On the 2001: A Space Odyssey topic, someone brought up Clark's comment about how if anyone actually understood the ending, then Kubrick and he hadn't done their jobs properly.

It reminds me of how people constantly attribute things to Lynch—suggesting you shouldn't even try to understand his films. Yet, in Catching the Big Fish, he wrote something diametrically opposed to that (I think I even quoted it myself, though I can't recall if it was on the Mulholland Drive or Inland Empire topic).

Honestly, I just wanted to say that it gives me the creeps whenever I read or hear "well, even [so-and-so] said..."

Anyway, something’s been on my mind. Today, I stumbled upon two different threads where people were quoting authors or the writers of the original source material just to prove a point in a discussion.

How much do you all actually care about these quotes from press junkets or interviews—statements that are often anything but authentic? Have you ever caught yourselves using them as a trump card in an argument, trying to flip the debate in your favor?

Because, if you ask me, those statements are total bullshit. Especially when it's some author from a completely different medium whose work was adapted, and they feel this desperate need to claim that every single change made during the adaptation was "exactly what was intended."

☕

Lisa Ross65 said:I was just reading that Bay is set to pocket somewhere between $80 and $100 million from the latest Transformers installment. Not a bad payday, right?

If I recall correctly—and I usually do—some girl on George Orwell's Big Brother made $100,000 just by sleeping with people constantly. That’s not exactly pennies, either.

swiftcrane96 said:Look, if I'm constantly being let down by something or someone,😢 I just move on to the next thing.

True enough. If you aren't feeling Big Brother, there's always Bachelor or Chopped to watch instead.

swiftcrane96 said:Hehe—it's just a fanboy, don't bother reading it.

But I actually want to read film criticism in the papers. I want to watch TV at 8 PM. I want to walk into a grocery store without having any doubts about the quality of the food I'm buying.

Frank Lee10 said:My point is—why bother reading his reviews at all if everyone knows they’re full of spoilers? Fine, maybe people hate his takes, but they still tune in week after week. If you know every single one of his reviews is going to ruin the plot, why keep putting yourself through his nonsense? 🤷

And why does the outlet keep publishing his garbage?

John Castillo2 said:Based on whose authority??

What do you mean "whose authority"? Spite isn't some calculated decision—it's a state of mind.

Mark Wood12 said:So why does he keep doing it?

Purely out of spite.

Anthony Smith3 said:Sure thing.😁

Thanks again for showing up... I honestly thought you were going to bail because of all that stuff you said you had going on.

Heh... I thought the same thing, but honestly, it’s not even my problem.😁Honestly, I had zero clue what this movie actually looked like until yesterday. I didn't know what to expect, but thanks to those little bits of inside info, I could finally wrap my head around just how ambitious this project really is. Still, I ended up being pleasantly surprised!
I’ll give you one thing... the movie is definitely a joke. It’s clearly trying to be some kind of low-budget parody of those massive Hollywood blockbusters. Of course it looks amateurish—that's most obvious in the technical side, which is easily its biggest weakness. You can tell right away they weren't shooting on high-end gear, the lighting is hit-or-miss in several spots, and the framing isn't always great. That said, if you ask me, that one segment with the Skots is way more interesting and exciting from a directing standpoint than the rest of Ivandin's "Knight," even with its flaws. But honestly, all of this is expected when you know the whole thing was made on a shoestring budget.
Look, despite everything... the sheer level of seriousness, passion, ambition, and grind poured into this project lifts it way above some neighborhood joke. The fact that they spent four years of their lives building sets and sourcing costumes—when they could have been out drinking at the local pub every weekend like everyone else their age—IMO makes it stand out. We're not talking about a few bored kids grabbing a camera for a weekend just to mess around before getting bored. To dismiss them like that would be an insult to all that effort and raw enthusiasm they had to make something people might actually enjoy. It’s basically like "Forest Summarum"—a film made specifically for an audience (probably the only one of its kind in the US). Or at least, that was the goal, even if it is amateur. Too bad you didn't stick around for the documentary... you really have to see it. Honestly, the documentary was genius, maybe even better than the actual film (even the director said so, haha). Watching it, you get the feeling you're seeing a high-budget blockbuster in the making rather than some low-budget indie project. And if they learned anything from the process? Yeah, they definitely did.🙂
By the way, the same crew is already prepping a new sci-fi flick. They’re still building sets, sewing costumes, and working on props. But getting back to Etida...

What really caught me off guard—in a good way—was the production value and how they handled the concept. The direction was solid. The way all six stories weave together into one cohesive unit with a clear beginning, middle, and end is impressive. In my opinion, nothing feels forced. Everything connects perfectly... every single thread hits its setup, conflict, climax, and resolution at the same time. It’s not some anthology like "Four Rooms" where you just jump from one story to the next; you're living through them all simultaneously. Like you said, the ambition here is insane, especially considering this was done within the realm of an amateur film...

I meant what I said then, and I still stand by it: there are plenty of these "enthusiasts"—talented amateur filmmakers who just need more seasoning—scattered all over the US. But these people will never get a shot at a big-budget Hollywood production because established directors like Papić, Matanić, or Ivanda will keep getting millions of dollars for movies nobody actually wants to see. Honestly, if those guys were given those same budgets (or even smaller ones), I bet they could make something far better and more engaging. This film is proof of that...

Anyway, thanks again for coming out and for the comment.🙂

It sucks that some of our local directors couldn't make it. Milić called me right around 6:55 PM saying he was still stuck on set... but I promised him a DVD.🙂

The lady let me through. 🙂😍

Anthony Smith3 said:Of course the film is amateur... that's most obvious in the technical aspects, which is its biggest weakness in my eyes. It’s clearly not shot on some high-end, top-tier camera, and you can tell the lighting isn't great in all the sequences—not to mention the framing isn't always genius. (Though, if you ask me, that one segment with the Skots, despite its flaws, is far more interesting and exciting from a directorial standpoint than the whole Ivandin "Knight" mess.)

Personally, I'm willing to turn a blind eye to the visual quality. But amateur acting—that kills me. Not that it could be any different given the circumstances here. These guys aren't actors; they're just enthusiasts messing around, but I don't find much joy in watching them since I don't know them personally. For instance, seeing that psychiatrist show up in the film today was almost laughable, and frankly, the guy means nothing to me.

Anthony Smith3 said:The mere fact that they poured four years of their lives into this—building sets, sourcing costumes, etc.—while their peers were out partying at bars every weekend, elevates it in my eyes, IMO. This isn't just a bunch of guys who had a whim to grab a camera and mess around for a weekend or a week before getting bored. To look at them (or the film) that way would, IMO, be an insult to that massive effort, enthusiasm, and the sheer will to make something that an audience might actually enjoy, God willing.

Look, I'm pretty skeptical about whether "audience enjoyment" derived from things like personal connections or outside influence even counts. And I have no intention of dismissing their hard work—props to them for the drive—but do you really think this "Etida," exactly as it stands, could mean anything to a random crowd picked up off the street?

Anthony Smith3 said:By the way, the same crew is already prepping a new film, some kind of Sci-Fi. They're still building sets and making costumes and props. But back to Etida...

And does anyone from this crew actually have any professional ambition? Who are these guys—what do they even do for a living?

Anthony Smith3 said:What particularly (pleasantly) surprised me about the film was the production value and the conceptual approach to the plot. The way it’s directed—how all six stories are woven into a single cohesive unit with a clear beginning, middle, and end. If you ask me, nothing feels forced. Everything is perfectly interconnected... every story follows its own arc of setup, rising action, climax, and resolution.

Not quite. The framing device—Mozart's opera—has connections to the Skot, who are listening to that music on a Russian submarine during WWII—but the harvest and the Western elements feel a bit abrupt. Either I missed that connection—(and just to preempt you stealing my girl, the title isn't a woman's name, it's a musical composition)🤷 But that's not really the point of this movie; I'm just giving an example of what there would be to talk about if we were doing a serious analysis.

Anthony Smith3 said:What I said then—and I stand by it now—is that there are plenty of these "enthusiasts," amateur filmmakers who actually possess talent that just needs refining, right here in America. But people like that will never get a shot at a high-budget American production, because established directors like Papić, Matanić, or Ivanda will keep getting millions for movies nobody wants to watch. Even though those same people could probably make much better, more engaging films with those budgets—or even smaller ones—if they were actually given the chance.

That's another discussion entirely. Making a professional film is a different beast than shooting an amateur one—but I'm not going to reopen that debate right now. The guys made a movie; they should enjoy it. And they ought to send that documentary to the American Film Festival.

Anthony Smith3 said:Bummer... the vibe and the movie were actually killer!! AMC Theatres was packed. People were literally standing along the sides of the whole theater...

No pics, unfortunately... but if I recall right, someone was filming or taking photos, so maybe some footage from the premiere will pop up somewhere...

Also... right after the movie, they played this hour-long making-of documentary that was genius!! Honestly, I was surprised by how well it was done. You definitely have to watch it with the film because it adds a whole new "dimension" to it. After the screening, there was a little snack in the lobby and they were handing out DVDs

I won't really write anything about the movie itself since I wouldn't be objective—I actually helped out a tiny, tiny bit with the production... but I'll quote a guy named Zadrijeti from another forum who said this...

I decided to go see this at the last minute and I'm glad I did!
The movie is great, and the documentary is pure genius.
Finally had a good laugh at the cinema

And here's an awesome review over on CNN...

http://www.cnn.com/showtime/film/...ih-hitova.html

By the way, I spotted one of our own forum members at the screening, so thanks for coming out... cheers. Hope you'll drop a few words about the film, whether you liked it or not...🙂

BTW... if anyone wants a DVD... hit me up via PM... we can work something out.

The DVD has the movie, the making-of, all the trailers (including that hilarious American trailer), plus the TV preview...

Is that my fault? 😁

A few words... Look, while the action sequences were shot and edited well enough, my overall impression hasn't changed since our earlier talks about the Etida trailers. It’s essentially an ambitious neighborhood project—monstrously ambitious, sure, but amateurish. I respect the production side of things—hats off to them—but the directorial vision just didn't land for me. If we were being critical, one might argue the heist plot and western elements feel totally tacked on to the framework, but I don't know if we're looking for a deep dive here. The guys clearly had fun with it—maybe learned a thing or two in the process—and that's fine.