Posts by northerncrane4

It’s interesting—my perspective hasn't shifted one bit after all this time. 😁

It starts off halfway decent—then comes the exhausting poetry.

quietdriver3 said:Wait, what website did they mention right before the movie started? I can only seem to find it on iTunes, but I really don't feel like setting up some annoying new account just to get it.

Look, I didn't catch it—I figured it would be easy to track down. It was probably iTunes, given that this guy spends the entire film playing music off an iPod.

quietdriver3 said:So, I guess Wes hasn't missed yet 🙏 he’s still on quite the winning streak. 😁

Did you ever get around to watching "Hotel Chevalier"? From what I can tell, it probably won't be part of the full "Darjeeling Limited" screenings.

It wasn't included—but there was a website listed before the film where it plays. Thanks for the heads-up.

Just a quick heads-up for the Wes Anderson fans out there. Three estranged brothers on a spiritual journey via train through India. It’s his usual brand of masterful—and quietly hilarious.

Predictable, though tedious due to how formulaic it all feels. The dialogue is weak—flimsy, really. It ends in a messy tangle featuring the mandatory sacrifice just to give the kid a sense of pride, followed by a villain whose repentance passes far too quickly.

lonelynx16 said:Personally, I’d define a medium-length feature as anything landing between 45 and 60 minutes.

Somewhere between 30 and 70.

The criteria have clearly hit rock bottom.

Laura Palmer25 said:Sure, they can throw a few bucks their way as "royalties," but it doesn't change the reality of the situation. They just strip-mine ideas and movies, repackage them, and then somehow walk away with American awards for it. It's pathetic.

And you know what else they do, you haters? They pay screenwriters a pittance to write the scripts, toss some scraps to the actors, and then hawk the whole thing on DVDs in Key West! Absolute crooks.

Laura Palmer25 said:Exactly. It’s not that The Departed is a bad movie—it isn't—but where do they get the nerve? They rip off a Hong Kong film just four years after the original, then parade Scorsese around like he’s some kind of visionary genius, completely ignoring the actual creators from the Far East. It’s pathetic how those filmmakers have become easy targets for intellectual property theft; it's basically just working for Hollywood at this point. To top it all off, they hand him an Oscar for it. To me, that’s the ultimate proof that the Hollywood system is rotting from the inside, paving the way for pure arrogance and mediocrity.
I’d honestly give Infernal Affairs an Oscar in a heartbeat. But hey, can you blame them? If they just painted everything yellow to look white, they might actually stand a chance. What a joke.

So, are you just going to Baratati information without mentioning they didn't even buy the remake rights from the original crew?😕

🤣 What a thread! 🙏 🙏 🙏 We really ought to implement a "not for anyone under 13" tag on this forum.

Bebać, you’ve got a whole pile of impressions sitting under "Grindhouse."

Roger Allen3 said:two in just two days 😲

Come on, Veljko!

copperseal19 said:Wrong thread. This isn't: "I lack an actual opinion, so I'll just insult people to stay relevant."

No—this is the "This forum didn't exist before me, and neither did Frank Miller" thread.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:Finally caught this one at Central Park today.
I mean, this was my first foray into anything Felliniesque, and honestly? I expected something a bit more grounded. Turns out, his idea of "normal" is just a little bit off the rails.
I’ve had the DVD sitting around for ages, but since Professor Gillis in my film studies class insists that "you can only truly experience a movie in a theater," I figured I’d jump on this rare chance to finally watch it.

So—what’s the verdict?
The whole thing is a total mess. The narrative is non-existent. It feels like Fellini didn't even bother trying to patch up the gaps left by those missing pieces from the Petronian novel; he just filmed whatever scraps were left.
Visually, it looks great and has this weirdly magnetic pull (even if some parts are totally repulsive, which, hey, it is 1969), but overall? It just didn't hit the mark for me.
It actually reminded me a bit of that new Lynch flick from yesterday.

I’m starting to think Fellini had quite a few Lynchian streaks in him.

Alright, jokes aside, what did you guys think?

Weak. You opened with the wrong Felliniesque vibe.

My impressions are still a bit scattered since it's all so fresh.

The weakest link here—without question—is that digital video camera. It has its moments of charm, sure, but it looks absolutely pathetic during Lynch's trademark shots moving through narrow hallways. It’s just... ugly and flat. You could try to justify it conceptually, but it still feels lackluster to me. Maybe he only used it for specific sequences, though that would probably lean too heavily into Stone's visual mess of a style.

ruggedjackal46 said:Is it tomorrow already? 😬

Anyway, I find that woman at the start of the film—the one watching everything unfold on TV—really fascinating. I'm starting to think the entire story is actually about her own issues and frustrations, which she just projects onto this "normal," "happy" actress. I might dive deeper into that later, but my brain is currently lacking both the time and the focus for it.

Not just that—"It feels like it's 9:45 PM, when in reality, it might actually be past midnight." 😁

ruggedjackal46 said:Anyway, I find that woman at the start of the film who watches everything on TV quite interesting. I think the film is about her own problems and frustrations being projected onto the "normal" and "happy" film actress. I’d write more, but I’m short on both time and focus right now.

Exactly—you see it too. The identification of the imaginary viewer with the film actress.

Watched it.

There’s this whole school of thought claiming you should just "feel" Lynch's films rather than try to understand them. To me, that feels like the path of least resistance—I think his work has enough narrative structure that you can't just dismiss it as a series of random associations. Personally, I find it much more interesting to deconstruct the cognitive mechanics that allow that mosaic to take shape.

When looking at "Inland Empire," it seems to me the initial impulse behind such a project was the director's attempt to grasp the mental state of the film actress. This fits perfectly with how the plot begins—at the moment filming starts within the movie, the sense of cause and effect breaks down, mirroring the actress's own loss of self as she transforms into a film character. The actual process of filmmaking—which is inherently non-chronological—drives the disjointed nature of "Inland Empire" all the way to that final frame, where the actress has completely lost her identity and the character begins to live its own life.

Hmm.

It's actually a shame the theater screening doesn't start around 9:30 PM and run until after midnight; that would have made the concept feel complete.

vividorca5 said:And why such a headband? Haven't you heard that some people see a color leaning toward purple, while others see brown? What's so strange about that?

The film reminds me of Tarantino's work. Period.

To me, that blaxploitation vibe from the seventies feels a lot like Tarantino's "Jackie Brown".

Is someone actually deleting posts from this thread? 🙂