Emily Thomas3 said:Both of them look awesome to me! 🤷 I actually lean toward Team America a bit more, mostly just for that Pearl Harbor song and that one wild sex scene. I know "significance" is totally subjective, but what makes you say BLU holds more weight? (Not being sarcastic or anything, I’m genuinely curious!) Personally, I’d argue Team America is the bigger deal because it brought puppetry to the big screen in such a groundbreaking way. BLU is definitely great, but it feels like an extension of South Park with a slightly more subtle political edge, whereas Team America is just unapologetically blunt. Not sure if that changes how much impact it actually has, though.
Maybe it’s just me—but pulling off the jump from a 22-minute TV format to a 90-minute feature film this smoothly, without it feeling like a "stretched episode," is a massive achievement. I'm not certain if anyone else has pulled that off before or since. Plus, BLU is arguably much more subversive than that polished, hyper-explicit Team America.
But clearly, Tarantino's brand of explicitness works. To hell with Jan de Bont.
Christian Taylor3 said:Well, I certainly do 😍 (since we're looking at Tarantino's list, it's hardly surprising Speed made the cut). For instance, Roger Ebert (and yes, you read that right—four stars. For those of you who struggle with clicking links, or for anyone looking to defend QT's honor or our very own Jan De Bont against Karen's blistering critique, I'll just lay Ebert's review of Speed right here alongside her take):
"Speed is like an ingenious windup machine. It's a smart, inventive thriller that starts with hostages trapped on an elevator and continues with two chases—one on a bus, one on a subway—so that it's wall-to-wall with action, stunts, special effects and excitement. We've seen this done before, but seldom so well, or at such a high pitch of energy. Films like 'Speed' belong to the genre I call Bruised Forearm Movies, because you're always grabbing the arm of the person sitting next to you. Done wrong, they seem like tired replays of old chase cliches. Done well, they're fun. Done as well as 'Speed,' they generate a kind of manic exhilaration. The director, Jan De Bont, has worked as a cinematographer on many action classics, including 'Total Recall' and 'Die Hard.' Here he shows his own mastery, in a great entertainment."
"Keanu Reeves has never had a role like this before. In fact, in his previous film, he played the mystical Prince Siddhartha, and generally he tends toward dreamy, sensitive characters. That's why it's sort of amazing to see him so cool and focused here, a completely convincing action hero who is as centered and resourceful as a Clint Eastwood or Harrison Ford in similar situations. He and Bullock have good chemistry; they appreciate the humor that is always flickering just beneath the surface of the preposterous plot. And Hopper's dialogue has been twisted into savagely ironic understatements that provide their own form of comic relief."
(Wait, what? Speed actually snagged some awards? It probably just swept the Razzies. My mistake, that list is way too long).
We could really dive deep here: what did Spielberg, Lucas, and Coppola have to say about Speed (it’s almost hard to believe); how it stands as Keanu Reeves' only decent role besides Matrix; plus, if we ignore that tiny cameo in Crash, it's the only legit performance from Sandra Bullock; and of course, the consistently great Dennis Hopper (back then he was drifting through all sorts of low-budget B and C-list productions, when he wasn't being great, that is)... Last but not least, all my friends seem to think Speed is a pretty okay or even great movie...
Off-topic:
Okay, so Seven isn't there—but Fight Club is! (either way, northerncrane4 would probably recommend a hospital visit 🤦). No Oldboy—but we've got South Korea! We have Speed, so does that end the debate? Or is everything included and nothing is actually good? (hiddenhound3, you broke my heart—what about Michael Mann's The Insider??? Good grief, where in the 21st century have you seen something like this, such a massive breakdown of how and why America sold its soul?).
Personally, looking at that famous Quentin Tarantino list—at least from my uneducated perspective—I don't think Speed is a true interloper. Brothers and sisters, let's find the real intruder! Singular, plural, whatever. Squawk, scream, call 911—which title on Quentin's list hits your stomach, your liver, or your nerves the hardest???
p.s. as for me, the sequel—who in their right mind even watched that?
Exactly. Se7en is an absolute masterpiece—flawless—whereas Fight Club is just a visually flashy, narratively clunky attempt at adapting Palahniuk’s work. Personally? I'd argue The Game carries way more weight than Fight Club.
EDIT: Also, "Bigger, Longer & Uncut" is a much more powerful, impactful film than "Team America."☕
Christian Taylor3 said:So, during the big promotional push for Inglourious Basterds over in the UK, the crew at Sky Movies asked Quentin Tarantino if he’d just sit there and rattle off his top 20 movies of all time on camera. Naturally, he shot that down—kind of like that old joke where you ask a grandma who her greatest love is and she just says, "sailors"—and offered them this instead: his 20 favorite films released from 1992 onwards, which happens to be the year he actually started directing.
VIDEO (2009-8-16)
Source: Sky Movies
1. Battle Royale 2. Anything Else 3. Audition 4. The Blade 5. Boogie Nights 6. Dazed & Confused 7. Dogville 8. Fight Club 9. Friday 10. The Host 11. The Insider 12. Joint Security Area 13. Lost In Translation 14. The Matrix 15. Memories of Murder 16. Police Story 3 17. Shaun of the Dead 18. Speed 19. Team America 20. Unbreakable
All things considered, I'm pretty stoked—we seem to be on the same page for the most part. It was cool to see him include The Insider, and I loved how much he hyped up Dogville; he was also incredibly upfront about what The Matrix means to him, and gave such a great breakdown of Unbreakable. Honestly, nobody should hold it against him for leaving out Oldboy. Apparently, they cornered him in passing and the interview wasn't even scheduled, so he really only had about ten minutes to pull his thoughts together. I haven't actually seen Battle Royale yet, which is a bit embarrassing 😵
What about you guys? What's your take?
There is no Se7en—only Speed. The list is disqualified, and the mechanic is in the hospital.
Eric Jackson68 said:Šorak remains consistently moderate and composed—more so as the years go by—but I’ve never claimed his direction is some kind of "perfect" masterpiece; it's just steady, and saying that doesn't mean I'm putting him on a pedestal.
Šorak doesn't know how to frame a scene, let alone handle mise-en-scène or direct actors—take that cast featuring Dora Lipovčan, for instance. To me, it isn't cohesive; it’s just amateurish and poorly executed.
Nuić’s direction in "Fool" was composed—steady, even. Meanwhile, Šorak’s work is just amateurish, sloppy stuff that clearly appeals to someone like Branka Turkalj.
Eric Jackson68 quietseal11 said:Compared to his earlier work, Šorak comes across as a much more complete screenwriter—his plots actually feel cohesive now.
The thing about Šorak's circular plot structure is that it includes that phone call—the one where I just squeezed my eyes shut, pressed my palms against my ears, and started chanting: "No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no..."
Eric Jackson68 quietseal11 said:Maybe "Man under table" isn't quite the right way to put it—the film is actually incredibly straightforward from start to finish—but even so, the cast really stepped up and delivered. At times it felt a bit caricatured, though I suppose that matches the tone of the plot itself.
The movie flips between caricatures, social drama, neighborhood crime, and slapstick comedy—all while maintaining this weird, David Lynch-esque surrealism. These shifts happen constantly—line by line, right within the same scenes.
Eric Jackson68 quietseal11 said:Glogovac just doesn't hold a candle to Kapor, Lonza, Jovanović, or Hadžihafisbević—not even close. To me, those actors simply stand out more; some of them don't even have roles that demanding (looking at you, Jovanović).
Glogovac is phenomenal. Precisely because it doesn't stand out.The character he plays is just deeply depressed and introverted—which is why Glogovac is actually brilliant here; he doesn't force anything onto the role. Though, to be clear, I’m generally not a fan of casting Mexican actors as leads in American films like Nuić's or Glogovac's. 🙏.
Eric Jackson68 quietseal11 said:I don't think it’s right to criticize Schmidt just because he had a breakout moment. He directed his previous work—Watermelon road—and it was solid. Even if this current project is a sudden hit, it’s well-made; so why blame him for his success?
Because we need to call things by their real names.
I should apologize in advance if I come off as too harsh or overly critical in this post, but I can't help feeling a certain gloom when I'm constantly reminded that the new generation of young American cinephiles seems to have been raised entirely on the aesthetic of RTL soap operas. For instance, one girl—a member of the youth jury at the Sundance Film Festival 2009—actually complained in the festival bulletin that the masterpiece "Tulpan" had shots that were "too long" because nothing was happening. Then there’s our own Eric Jackson68, a self-proclaimed young film buff, who calls Šorak's direction "steady"—which is just a polite way of describing his repetitive template of master close-ups. It’s a style where mise-en-scène doesn't even exist; it’s much easier to just film characters walking into a room, standing there until the scene ends, and trading scripted lines so the cut always lands right at the end of someone's speech. To Eric Jackson68, Hitrec's "Man under table" features "well-acted" performances despite being wildly uneven, while he simultaneously claims that the protagonist in "Kenjč's" film—played by the brilliant Nebojša Glogovac—is actually the weakest part of the movie.
I don't know. Maybe I've just grown old. Maybe I simply don't grasp modern ambitions anymore. Or perhaps I am just well-informed enough to know that Schmidt isn't experiencing some second youth; rather, as always, the film happens to him, completely bypassing him. What Schmidt actually provides in "Metastasis" are the scenes featuring Predrag Vušović—that thick-accented Mexican in Washington, D.C.—and the TV News report from the America-Canada border. That is Schmidt's actual direction.
My sweet, overly precious Eric Jackson68, you would want to settle this face-to-face, but such a conversation is impossible. In a private talk, you would have nothing to offer me, and I'm not sure how much you'd be capable of absorbing. This is the only way. If you were to call Šorak's direction "steady" to my face, speaking from your position as a "young cinephile," I’d lose it instantly—despair would take over and I wouldn't hear another word. It is incomprehensible to me that a young mind—which should be brimming with fresh ideas and sharp perception—fails to recognize Šorak's lethargy as being, well, lethargic. You judge Glogovac's incredible precision as weak, yet somehow Lambaša is acceptable.
No face-to-face meetings. But I have zero doubt that you will make your professors very happy. Truly, without a hint of irony. 😢
No way—the Motovun Film Festival proves year after year that it’s easily the most charming festival in the area. This year felt particularly poignant, if you ask me—the fact that the winner had to wait an entire year makes it even more touching, since they can now take their award home to both Motovun and Ottawa. 👍
Even Schmidt couldn't hold it together at the awards yesterday. He completely lost his cool. According to his little announcement to the crowd, *Metastasis* only pulled thirty thousand people into theaters because—get this—a copy leaked online the second editing was finished. So, technically, he claims a full million people saw it via the internet! Apparently, all of China and half of India were watching too!
And then they handed him a check for thirty thousand dollars—likely just one dollar per theatergoer—to compensate for the "emotional distress" caused by the internet.
Grlić started spreading the exact same rumors after *Guardhouse*. It seems the internet only stays alive thanks to pirated copies of films by these mediocre American directors. 🤷
I’ve seen Eric Jackson68 and his little clique before. You’re putting Šorak in second place? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!? Kitano standing right in front of Tulpan? 🙄
"Love life of a home guard." Meh. It’s actually a pretty charming romantic comedy—right up until about fifteen minutes before the end. Then they pivot into these social-political allegories that just don't belong in a movie like this; everything that worked so well before just falls apart instantly. Cvetko and Diana Vidušin are great, and Šamanović captured it beautifully.
There’s already been enough talk about "Metastasis" on its own thread.
Spent the afternoon watching Costa-Gavras' "Paradise to be West." A postcard of Europe seen through an immigrant's eyes—I thought I'd enjoy it more, but it felt like a decent little flick that was clearly struggling to meet its production demands on such a tight budget.
And that's about it. I haven't watched "Proximity" or "Penelope," nor do I plan to. The awards ceremony is tomorrow; the big ones will likely go to the Black man, the Fool, and Metastasis. They'll toss out a couple of Interfilm awards just for show, and the head of the National Endowment for the Arts will probably snag a newcomer award—especially if Metastasis snatches the Audience Award at the last minute.
Once I get back and put my hands on a real keyboard, I can dive deeper into each one if anyone actually has questions.
Special shoutout to all the festival attendees checking this thread day in and day out. Just remember that every time you pay for the daily or weekly papers at the newsstand.
"Fool." I can't tell if this stems from the lowered standards set by this season's other releases, but personally—I found it quite solid. It’s better directed than written, though the stellar acting manages to mask the script's various flaws (aside from a weak performance by Natalie Portman, and frankly, I've grown tired of the generic, good-natured Canadian archetype played by Hadžihafisbević). Most importantly: Mirko Pivcevica's cinematography is absolute genius. Just sit back, watch, and marvel. Pivac is the Federer of the lens.🙏
I also caught John Wuov's Chinese-costumed war epic "Red Rock." It really drives home just how massive those budgets are—scales we can't even fathom here. And honestly? It's a good movie—truly—even without Wuov's usual trademark subtext. It'll hit mainstream theaters soon.
"man under the table /". Ha. Watch this twist coming—every single American film at the Sundance Film Festival 2009 is actually great. But today? Today was a total catastrophe. I expected a lot of things, but not this absolute chaotic mess. It felt like some unintentional, bizarre version of Lynch. Honestly, I’m still struggling to believe I actually sat through that. Respect.
BUT ON A BETTER NOTE! Had an excellent viewing of the Kazakh film "Tulpan" this afternoon. It follows a young Kazakh shepherd looking to get married. Shot entirely in sequence-based frames across the Kazakh steppes—everything feels genuinely authentic and incredibly funny. There’s one scene involving a girl where I literally lost my breath from laughing. Highly recommended if you can find it anywhere.
Larry Thompson85 said:What’s the problem here, man?!?
No, it’s actually great because it explores Glavaš's struggles. By that logic—how is Jurdanina's "Accidental Companion" not great, given it deals with criminal conversion? Anyway...
NEWSFLASH
"Jurić in Wonderland." Please. It’s not even that—I’m already bored of my own constant nitpicking and complaining—but this is genuinely awkward. There were moments where I actually had to squint and cover my ears.
And I can't forget yesterday's viewing of "Transsiberian"—that third act felt like a parody, almost like it was ripped straight from Kaufman's Adaptation—or today's "Achilles and the Tortoise" by that Japanese version of Uwe Boll, Kitana; it’s barely a movie, just a pile of scenes thrown together without any sense of rhythm or cohesion.
"Blacks." A group of completely uninteresting people stuck in an incredibly monotonous situation. It would have been nice if—before jumping straight into filming a feature—they had actually, I don't know, written a damn screenplay first. 😠
"Chicago Prices." Nine stories (most of which, for no apparent reason, shouldn't even have the Chicago prefix)—"smart settlement in state" was very, very, very funny, while "yellow moon," "The Inca," and "The Canal" were solid—the rest was either mediocre or just plain bad.
Then I spent the afternoon watching two French films, one short and one long: Lišcev and Killer—both were bad, bad, bad.
NEWSFLASH "I believe in angels." Halfway through, I just checked out—I couldn't bring myself to care anymore. The acting was subpar, though hardly surprising given that the writing and directing felt like they came from an untalented ten-year-old.
The only thing I enjoy more than nitpicking how people moderate active members like ruggedmarlin15 is watching new accounts roll in—whose first order of business seems to be hitting the Film subforum just to hawk vacation rentals.
If you haven't seen all three films mentioned, there’s really no reason for you to weigh in on this thread.
OT: Borat and Bruno are top-tier—Ali G in Da House, however, is a sloppy, amateurish attempt at a feature. It's clear even Cohen realized that himself, which is why he pivoted his formula.
Here is what David Lynch himself says regarding the idea that his films can only be truly understood by him:
A film should stand on its own. It's absurd if a filmmaker needs to say what a film means in words. The world in the film is a created one, and people sometimes love going into that world. For them that world is real. And if people find out certain things about how something was done, or how this means this or that means that, the next time they see the film, these things enter into the experience. And then the film becomes different. I think it's so precious and important to maintain that world and not say certain things that could break the experience. You don't need anything outside of the work. There have been a lot of great books written, and the authors are long since dead, and you can't dig them up. But you've got that book, and a book can make you dream and make you think about things. People sometimes say they have trouble understanding a film, but I think they un-derstand much more than they realize. Because we're all blessed with intuition—we really have the gift of intuiting things. Someone might say, I don't understand music; but most people experience music emotionally and would agree that music is an abstraction. You don't need to put music into words right away—you just listen. Cinema is a lot like music. It can be very abstract, but people have a yearning to make intellectual sense of it, to put it right into words. And when they can't do that, it feels frustrating. But they can come up with an explanation from within, if they just allow it. If they started talking to their friends, soon they would see things—what something is and what something isn't. And they might agree with their friends or argue with their friends—but how could they agree or argue if they don't already know? The interesting thing is, they really do know more than they think. And by voicing what they know, it becomes clearer. And when they see something, they could try to clarify that a little more and, again, go back and forth with a friend. And they would come to some conclusion. And that would be valid.
"Catching The Big Fish", David Lynch
My final literature recommendation for anyone trying to wrap their head around Lynch. (Though the old man is a bit senile—he doesn't always remember what's sitting right behind him on the shelf. 😳)
