Posts by northerncrane4

Daniel Cruz6 said:Just watched the movie and it’s awesome!!!!👍👍👍

A total must-watch. Every critic is loving it—only Polimac is being difficult about it!!!👎

Not really—not even close. Curica A bit much—total exaggeration.

quietdriver3 said:Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
The kind of script you'd be better off recycling into toilet paper—then sealing the actual film in a titanium thermos, burying it six kilometers underground, and spending the rest of your life pretending the whole thing was just a fever dream.

Exactly—and then some archaeologist digs it up in 6,000 years and thinks, "Now *this* is a definitive masterpiece of the era." 😉

Switching gears—looking back at last year's releases, only three actually left an impression on me:

"Cloverfield"—a damn "I'll show you the life of the mind" study masquerading as a monster movie. Honestly, I haven't felt that rush of cracking a cinematic code since "Mulholland Drive." 🙏🙏🙏

"Tropic Thunder"—sure, it could have been funnier or more riotous, but it leaned hard into bitter sarcasm—so I respect the director's need to get that out of his system.

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"—top-tier storytelling; they just don't make them like this anymore. That guy Fincher is like a mix of Kubrick, Capra, and Hitchcock all rolled into one. Probably the greatest director working today. Now, I'm just waiting for the genre to return—if not to Sci-Fi, then at least to the thriller.

I might throw "Gran Torino" and/or "The Wrestler" into this list once I actually sit down to watch them.

Look, I’ll leave it be, but honestly—it would be far more productive if you merged this with one of the existing threads on indie filmmaking. But hey, it's your call.

BTW, where does Dada Matanić (Mat😕) even have a thread here? Maybe over at the chicken coop.

goldenhound32 said:Superior book:
The Cider House Rules (it feels much more grounded and realistic)

Superior film:
American Psycho (even though the book is great—as everything in this thread seems to be—the movie aligns better with my take that the protagonist didn't actually kill anyone)
Fight Club (I honestly couldn't stand the book)
Sideways (the book wanders aimlessly in places it just doesn't need to)
The Process (while the book is technically flawless, I still find Welles's film more compelling)

Hold up—wait just a second. Care to explain? Because I am more than ready to go to bat for this. 😁

A ridiculous way to rank the Top 100 films. Locked tight.

The whole point of this movie was to shoot it on a shoestring budget, then hand it over to the Department of the Interior and PBS to beg for more funding than it actually cost to make—knowing full well neither the department nor the network would dare say no to a project with such a "monumental" theme and supposedly noble intentions. It’s just the classic Joza Patljak producer playbook.

bluecanyon18 said:Seriously—what exactly was so funny? 😉

Honestly, I found it pretty hilarious that the jury—made up of Sara Hribar, Diana Nenadić, and Nataša Janjić—was tasked with handing out awards in a competition featuring a film where a modern-day martyr endures a totally indifferent partner and an incredibly demanding child—all while they apparently have plenty of time to coordinate European projects, yet somehow lack the time to enjoy a well-deserved cigarette.

redowl90 said:It’s hardly surprising when the jury consists of nothing but damn women. Pure pathos.

I didn't even realize the jury was all female—checked the lineup just yesterday and had a good laugh about it.

quietorca30 said:BAD DAY FOR CAPTAIN COOK
John Doe, Hillary Clinton - Golden Carts for the best American film in the main competition

northerncrane4 said:The Golden Carts are going to "Bad Day for Captain Cook"—though, let’s be honest, it’s really just poorly disguised misandry. The director has every right to her views, of course, but I doubt anyone would react quite as favorably if the genders were reversed.

I didn't even need to sit through most of the competing films to know exactly which way the jury was going to screw us.

Jerry Martin19 said:Jesus God Smoogje 🤣

it’s pretty obvious we're such amateurs, right? 🙂

Not at all—it’s done out of affection. 😍

Aside from that, if I'm not mistaken, the consensus among the few of you running this thread is that you're just starting your journey with Fellini. Which is perfectly fine.

goldenhound32 said:Not me. 🤷
Aside from that, I only managed to watch *Decameron*, and it’s actually quite good—regardless of whether you've actually sat down and read the book or not. It definitely delivers on the dark humor.

As for Fellini... I started watching Dolce Vita, but I couldn't bring myself to finish it. Nights of Cabiria was the same story. Just couldn't get through.
While *Amarcord* is perfectly fine, my personal favorite remains *8½*. It’s a dense, complex piece—certainly not an easy watch—but there is a profound beauty to it that the others just don't quite reach.

I don't particularly care for Fellini, though my assessment remains somewhat unformed given that I haven't sat through much of his filmography.

His lesser-known work, *Proba Orchestra*, remains an intriguing study. Over the course of seventy minutes, we are essentially observers of a rehearsal, watching the chaotic machinery of an orchestra unfold. It serves as a sharp examination of the various tribulations faced by musicians—and, perhaps more pointedly, by those tasked with managing the massive egos inherent in the profession: the conductors. At times, the piece leans into the humorous, yet it maintains a consistently intelligent, cerebral edge throughout.

An excellent film. A perfect allegory for how totalitarian systems are born. Back in the day, I watched it every single time it aired at the KIC.

redowl90 said:You have to actually shoot something substantial before you can write about anything substantial.
Yellowjacket is just your run-of-the-mill student anti-product—it has no business being at any serious festivals.

It’s hardly a surprise that American films are a mess when people like you and everyone else I know are working in this "industry." Then you've got kids who just started at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences declaring Russian Vodka to be a masterpiece and claiming they'll make "films about people." It immediately brings to mind that ridiculous rant by Kreljin about people at train stations...

For God's sake, people, just make something good—something that isn't pure misery, patheticism, or rage. Give us happy people, a happy plot, some actual fun... instead of nothing but tragedy and depression. We've had enough of that, damn it!

Oh, look at you, the "Chihuahua from Beverly Hills." Clearly, a serious short film about a woman torn between her present life and her past (or desired) life isn't exactly your cup of tea.

redowl90 said:I can only hope this is some kind of joke.

Either you have something concrete to say—in which case, go ahead—or you can just stay out of my way.

Arthur Garcia59 said:Does "I don't know" mean "I haven't seen it," or is it just a commentary on what they actually watched?

If I had actually watched it, I’d have something resembling a meaningful comment—unlike redowl90.

Arthur Garcia59 said:Do you have a link or something similar?

And "Lunch"?

I don't.
I wouldn't know.

Arthur Garcia59 said:"Reciklus" has been getting praise on almost a global scale—and while some of those endorsements from other directors might just be subjective or based on social circles, I might actually go see if they hold up in practice, since their theory is sound enough.

"Reciklus" is, frankly, decent for a student film. Nothing more.

Someone posted a link here once for "Where the Penguin Flies"—pathetic.

The Golden Globes will likely hand one to "Bad Day for Captain Hook," though—to be honest—we’re really looking at some poorly disguised misandry. The author is entitled to her views, of course, but I doubt it would be received nearly as warmly if the genders were swapped.

I’m just endlessly disappointed that there wasn't room for that brilliant seven-minute short, "Who Lives with Yellow-beak?" by Kristina Kumric and Davor Kanjir. 😢😢😢

Arthur Garcia59 said:I assume there could be some solid entries at Sundance this year, too.

That’s exactly what I assumed last year—only to end up depressed because the Sundance lineup was absolute garbage.

quietseal15 said:Has anyone actually sat down and watched the original version starring Laurence Olivier?

I have. It’s easily one of my favorite chamber thrillers—pure entertainment watching Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine trade barbs for over two hours.

Maria Thompson2 said:Alright then, you're the moderator, so go ahead and moderate.

What I just can't wrap my head around is how you expect to prevent this from bleeding straight into conspiracy theories. To me, it feels a bit like trying to have a discussion about movies like "300," "Spartacus," or "Gladiator" while simultaneously demanding that nobody mentions any of the historical inaccuracies.

It's simple. I'm doing it as we speak. I've already provided links to the specific sections where conspiracy talk is allowed. That’s where we can debate documentary filmmaking techniques or the agendas behind them.

Maria Thompson2 said:I mean, it's like if people started discussing "300," "Spartacus," or "Gladiator"—we wouldn't even touch on the historical inaccuracies.

True. And there's no point in nitpicking historical errors that the movie doesn't even claim to address.

Enough about moderation styles—get back to the topic at hand.

Maria Thompson2 said:If you want to maintain consistency and keep your credibility as a moderator, northerncrane4, then you should probably delete this too. There isn't even a single word here about a documentary; this is strictly about a conspiracy.

Or are you planning on leaving it up?

And please, everyone, take note of that bolded part, because that is exactly how every conspiracy theorist operates: "Look, I'm not a physicist, and I actually failed physics in high school, but I'm telling you the physics at the WTC doesn't match what the government is selling us because..."

It does—in the final paragraph.

As I’ve already warned you—this thread is strictly for discussing 9/11 documentaries, not conspiracy theories. A few recent posts forgot that rule and were deleted. Going forward, anyone who ignores this will be banned.