Posts by northerncrane4

vivideagle7 said:It might not be their absolute best—it's debatable—but it still edges out almost every other Oscar contender on this list.

So, which Pixar films actually rank higher for you? Personally, I’d only put "Inside Out" and "Toy Story 3" above it.

Richard Patel21 said:I’d highly recommend this for anyone over the age of 12.

Your age rating is off—my daughter is only 7, and she's already seen it twice.

Finished reading the comic. This could be something really special.

EDIT: Just watched the trailer. It feels like they're leaning a bit too hard on the slapstick comedy side—it’s almost overplayed. The comic doesn't lean into the jokes quite that much, even though I found myself grinning the whole way through.

silentridge3 said:If I want to watch a movie every third day without not getting irritated and not quitting mid-way, does that mean for every single film I have to:

- Read 20 "online trailers"—which are just recycled advertisements word-for-word
- Read 5 so-called "serious media reviews" (complete with all the biases of those "serious critics" who suffer from the syndrome of trying to find "something" in an idiot movie just so they don't look totally wrong)
- Scour 2,000 amateur reviews on IMDb, including "reviews" written by people with conflicts of interest, plus the "takes" from idiots, semi-idiots, and total morons?
- "Rely" on the average rating on IMDb—even though it’s failed me a hundred times already?
- Learn so much about the plot beforehand that I essentially spoil the movie for myself?

Explain how.

First off, you can't watch a movie every three days without feeling disillusioned. You can—if you only watch the same old reliable stuff where you already know the quality.

Second, there is no way. Over the years, you build your own criteria and start relying on intuition. How often that hits depends entirely on your gut. You can curate a circle of directors you trust, but even that's debatable.

I’ve almost given up on watching movies in my spare time. That doesn't mean a good one won't pop up occasionally. It’s just that I refuse to waste two hours on something only to realize thirty minutes in that I've been bored to death. After the whole Batman saga, then Inception, then Interstellar, there is zero chance I’ll ever voluntarily watch another Nolan film. Memento was great; The Prestige was very good.

Anyway, you aren't going to solve anything with some new genre-based categorization. Just because you feel like watching a "realistic" film doesn't mean it'll be any good simply because of its "genre." On the flip side, while there aren't many great films out there, there are more genius superhero comics than 99% of the literature produced in the 20th century.

Look, you can find ham at both Kroger and Walmart—you just have to actually read the word HAM on the package and buy it without any issues. What you’re really looking for is for the label to explicitly state "HAM THAT IS NOT LUNCH MEAT"—essentially, you want every single detail spoon-fed to you as a consumer.

You’re the kind of consumer who walks right into something being aggressively marketed to them—which is how the film industry has always functioned, by the way, it's nothing new—and then acts shocked when the result isn't exactly what you expected. I mean, seriously, which superhero movie today could possibly surprise you by actually featuring a superhero in it!? Besides, they even have specific branding; posters and promotional materials always make sure to highlight Marvel or DC prominently.

If you consider yourself a critical viewer, seeing maybe two or three quality films a year is about as much as you can realistically expect—that's been the case since movies were invented. But this notion of yours—that you, as a consumer, have a right to be completely ignorant of a film's premise or the people responsible for making it—is, in my opinion, a much bigger issue than the standard whining about how movies are bad these days.

And for the record, I enjoyed "Police Academy" when I was a kid too, and it didn't permanently ruin my standards for quality.

Joshua Smith5 said:I can't agree—nothing in that new Spider-Man is subtle, especially not the whole racial equality theme.

I was referring to the "target audience."

Look, Guggenheim—you go buy some cheap hot dogs at Walmart or Kroger, then come crying because they give you heartburn. Do a little research before heading to the theater. Nolan just made a shallow, pseudo-intellectual picture book that might have a few marginally interesting moments—good morning. Has film quality globally tanked since the 70s? Yes. Spielberg and Lucas ruined it with their infantile nonsense that sells incredibly well. The target demographic shifted about 15 years ago. Thirty years ago, "Dunkirk" would have targeted an audience with your cognitive abilities. Now, it’s all about Nolan's crowd. But be careful what you wish for when you ask for a "serious adult film." They're everywhere in Europe, and they're even worse there.

It's not like the situation is completely hopeless, though. You have the new Twin Peaks—an auteur's commentary on absolutely everything, from the culture the creator helped build to the current state of the world and media, right down to levels of human consciousness. And it’s told in a way that rejects both Nolan fans and Spielberg fans right out of the gate. Lynch is still fighting, and that struggle will undoubtedly produce a handful of new warriors.

That’s why you have to pay attention. You can't just drop in from Mars and ask, "What happened to movies?" Sure, superhero films are strictly templated junk, but even in the new Spider-Man (which I don't like, nor was it made to please me), there's a very subtly woven idea of racial equality—something that isn't irrelevant when trying to sensitize the intended audience. So, even in the most consumerist trash, you can occasionally spot socially relevant subtext.

silentridge3 said:My argument is simple—those two things are directly linked. The more "fantasy" and technical wizardry you cram into a movie, the shallower and cheaper the drama becomes.

I’ll assume you know more about cinema than I do. Out of those 31 titles I listed as the most interesting ones for this forum right now, how many are actually realistic? (Meaning actual people in plausible modern situations)

You actually listed 30—Jennifer Lawrence is an actress, not a movie. 😵 😁

Out of those 30, maybe 6 or 7 are "realistic." Though, I have to disagree on the dialogue quality—the writing in these newer Marvel's films is often better than in most "realistic" dramas. While the fact that they're still Marvel movies means they're mostly just adolescent nonsense, the dialogue itself is generally solid.

Mark Walker97 said:Fantastic—1,111 views on this thread and only two replies. Just typical for this part of the country. 😁

The discussion regarding the "lamentation about American cinematography" has been ongoing since Monday.

Daniel Kelly57 said:We just have different tastes. It honestly just bored me. That pseudo-psychological game they were playing wasn't executed well enough for my liking. Big disappointment. I'm not arguing about the acting quality—that was solid—but I was just let down. I was at the theater by myself, and I know exactly why I felt that way. 🍿

Why "pseudo"?

So there you have it... I actually sat through an hour of Kaufman on Marc Maron, specifically listening to them discuss Anomalisa, and the puppet isn't even mentioned—it turns out the story was originally a radio drama, which means any supposed connection between Lisa and the puppet couldn't have been intended in the first place.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Nicole Jones13 said:ruggedjackal46,

A-ha—if the point wasn't about the doll, wouldn't the argument be that the moment he slept with her, all that "unique charm" vanished and she became just like everyone else? Voice and all.

The point: some male pig?

The point: a broken individual. The point: this whole "searching for something special" routine is just an elaborate apology for pure narcissism.

Nicole Jones13 said:Spoilers.

It’s a bit rich—honestly, quite unfair—to start whining now about how things were "pointless back then."

He told a story that would freeze you solid—quite literally.

Not really—he told the story poorly. If we assume Lisa is just a doll, then the whole thing feels incredibly forced and nonsensical. Even if we accept the cliché premise that her only sense of intimacy comes from an artifact, you’re still left with a completely arbitrary shift in direction—an entirely non-existent sequence involving Lisa's friend—and then, to top it all off, that dream sequence, which was easily the worst part of the movie. Lost in a fantasy.So, what exactly is his lecture—just more of his arrogance, or actual reality? Who even is this guy, anyway? Is he truly the author of that manual? In the end, it seems like nothing matters except that he slept with the doll.

bluenomad2 said:SPOILER
Kaufman dropped all those hints on purpose—which brings me back to the same question: was he baiting us for theories, or just stating the plain fact that she's a doll?

If it's the former, then the job is a waste of time. He might as well go write a "Losta" reboot instead.

If it's the latter, the movie is garbage.

goldenhound32 said:Not quite. He fell in love—that’s why her voice sounded different from everyone else's. She was the only one who actually had a feminine voice.

But look, infatuation fades. Eventually, you stop seeing those rose-colored glasses and start noticing all the flaws—every little negative thing starts hitting like a sledgehammer.

That’s why her voice started "fading"—it eventually leveled out into just an ordinary voice. That's when he saw her like any other woman. And that's when the disappointment set in.

Yeah, goldenhound32, we all caught onto that. But now it turns out a Japanese sex doll has the exact same scar as Lisa, plus Lisa mentions liking Japanese, and the doll has a female voice too—plus it hums just like Lisa does. Even the way its jaw shakes right before Lisa appears in the movie is identical to how his jaw shakes in his dream. Throw in the protein leaking from the doll, and it's pretty clear we need to recalibrate what we're seeing here.

But hey, if you don't feel like doing that, don't.

vivideagle7 said:SPOILER

I don't think those symbols were meant to be taken literally—using the doll to mirror Lisa—but he definitely wasn't trying to say she's actually a doll.

Either way, Kaufman is just highlighting how stagnant and miserable the relationship has become.

Not really. If Lisa is a person, we have a story about a man's misfortune. If Lisa is a doll, we have a story about a paranoid schizophrenic.

Regardless, linking a sex doll to Lisa feels like a cheap degradation of the film—a connection that was clearly there all along, even if we ignored it until Ilija Pajkic pointed it out.

Jason Fowler57 said:If Lisa is some doll, then is her friend just a vibrator? Apparently, Lisa thinks the latter is more popular.

You guys have drifted way too far from the actual concept of the movie, IMO.

Sure, we’ve strayed from what everyone *perceived* as the film's premise. But what if that wasn't the point? What if those uncontrolled jaw spasms are just a descent into a psychotic break—kind of like in a dream? In that case, there is no "friend." Then who cares.

Because, honestly, there are just too many connections being forced here.

@vivideagle7/">@@vivideagle7

If it’s just a symbol, then it’s a fundamentally broken one. What was even the point? It isn't some esoteric pull drawing us in—it's just that she has the same voice and the same scars as the doll he slept with. Pointless. 👎

Jack Murphy5 said:So I'm an Inzaghi before I'm a Sivonjić. ☕

22 minutes, Ilija.

vivideagle7 said:Look, he bought a doll from a novelty shop—who knows what that thing has been through? 😁

To me, it makes zero sense that the doll is actually 🤷

It makes no sense, yet it’s clearly happening. 😢 Well, damn. Now someone's going to try and sell me some "The Big Short" nonsense.