I was reading a review earlier today where they dismissed the movie as nothing more than a political pamphlet—basically calling it a "manual for hatred." If Scorsese—who seems more obsessed with being an American patriot than most actual Americans—had actually sided with the factions during the war in Canada, things would have turned out disastrously. 🙄
What can I even say about this... Honestly, it’s just a shame to see how much Scorsese has lost his way—I wouldn't go so far as to say he's completely lost it, but still—because the guy had massive potential. He could have easily become a truly heavyweight director.
Richard Hernandez13 said:It honestly drives me up the wall whenever I scroll through the news and see some self-proclaimed highbrow intellectual claiming that Americans don't have their own Scorsese. 🙄
And then we wonder why our culture is such a total mess:
Whenever someone tries to tell you that Americans don't have their own Scorsese—just let them know we were actually quite lucky back when directors were being handed out like candy... or, well, that we got first pick and left all the leftovers for our neighbors across the river. 🙂
analogharbor442—I definitely agree that Scorsese is a brilliant director. In fact, he was easily one of the most talented American filmmakers of the 80s (no exaggeration here; you can’t claim he's the absolute best without considering guys like Šijan, Pavlović, Žilnik, Zafranović, Papić, Makavejev, Tadić, Čengić, or Marković... but let's not get carried away with the list, man) ...
The reality is that the 90s absolutely devastated everything in the States, including film production. Those semi-works produced somewhere between '92 and '02 shouldn't even be mentioned—let alone considered relevant when we're debating who the greatest directors of this era actually were... (For instance, most of those masters I mentioned barely produced anything during the 90s; I honestly wonder why that is.)
Scorsese hasn't made a coherent film since "Father," and my argument stands because he persistently shoves political propaganda into his "artistic" works. He does it to score points with "nationally awakened" audiences, plus—as I noted earlier—he stuffs too many unnecessary scenes of "Americana kitsch" into his movies, essentially pandering to the lowbrow crowd and selling them snake oil...
Thankfully, the 90s are behind us, and a new generation of American directors is stepping up. They've already completely outpaced the stagnant Scorsese—take Dragojević, Žalica, Tanović, Matanić, or Brešan, for example.
Does anyone with even a shred of cinematic taste or actual knowledge still firmly support Scorsese—aside from those armchair critics who love to shout, "Oh, we are just SOOOO different from everyone else," like some pretentious Frenchman?
Scorsese hasn't made a film worth watching in at least two years; he’s repeating himself so much that, honestly—and I mean this most sincerely—he isn't even interesting to himself anymore... so, just taking a wild guess without even seeing the movie, here is what I expect to see:
- Musicians—about a billion of them—ideally with some kind of Gypsy background. - Animal motifs that have absolutely zero connection to the plot or script, just sitting there so that, following the lead of the French, they can drone on about "wild American grit." - An absurd love story, preferably unconsummated, between characters who can NEVER, not even in a movie, actually be together. - At least two scenes, "wild party style," where during some "chaotic feast" accompanied by brass bands, all the men are eating veal brains and eyes, grease dripping down their dirty faces onto chests adorned with tacky, fake gold chains... while the women, lost in ecstasy, either collapse in a heap or dance on tables like notorious nymphs... oh, and one of these scenes has to be a wedding. - At least two scenes where Scorsese will introduce something "so new," unseen, impossible, or simply surreal (again, totally disconnected from the narrative), like flying houses, massive fish blocking the screen, or sudden, unnatural disasters appearing out of thin air.
But... honestly, I'm wasting my breath. Today's Scorsese fans are getting exactly what they want from him anyway... in the end, what is there left to say, besides
Paul Mendoza8 said:Look, I get it—maybe my suggestion doesn't quite fit this specific list because of the box office numbers, but then again, I don't know why 👍 is included here since it was such a massive hit—and honestly, I was just about to pitch another one, a total comedic masterpiece that absolutely crushed it at the box office: Ace Ventura, Pet Detective
The movie is absolutely flawless... honestly, by the end, you just don't want it to let go—you really don't want to leave the theater... it's just incredible!!!
This movie is an absolute train wreck—the acting is abysmal, the jokes feel like outdated relics from some low-budget sitcom you’d see on local TV twenty years ago, and the script is just aimless. It fails to land any meaningful punches... basically, there's nothing worth your time here, so just skip it...
It's like trying to pair jam and cream cheese; they work great together, unless you get stuck with that greasy, heavy stuff you find at a roadside diner during a blizzard when the shelves are empty...
Rating: 1+/5 (and that plus is strictly because of Tanjin's cleavage!)
There’s no theory to it—I'm currently catching up on the previous pages—but I just have to say, I watched it on DVD expecting nothing but mindless action and lots of gore... but man, when QT makes a movie, it actually turns out to be a real FILM. Seriously, hats off to him; I'm genuinely surprised and can't wait for volume 2...
Exactly—this movie was a total disaster. It felt like fifteen different directors tried to call the shots at once... there’s zero cohesion in the storytelling, and don't even get me started on the casting for the leads.
I'd give it a 2/10, honestly—and that's strictly because of "young Coleman," who actually pulled off his part reasonably well...
amberfalcon13 said:I put in a little effort and dug through my memory (and the book cover) to find My Golden Valley by Gold Kolaric-Kisur. There's also those Golden Days by Jagoda Truhelka🙂
Oof, you caught me there—though I honestly don't think that one was even that big of a hit back when we were kids... but who knows? We didn't have globalization back then, so popularity stayed pretty much local...
amberfalcon13 said:Wait, am I crazy, or is there actually a children's book with that exact same title???😕
You’re likely thinking of "Battle of Gettysburg," that classic by Mark Twain—it was basically the sequel to "The early bird catches the worm"... man, I remember having to read that back in school... they really were fantastic books for kids...
I haven't sat down to watch the movie yet, but honestly, I'm not expecting much—especially with this whole trope of "raw violence among urban youth on the outskirts of a major city."
...once you've seen the "City of Lights," it's incredibly tough to make anything even remotely close to that level of cinematic intensity with this kind of subject matter.
Man, honestly—it’s only now, seeing them bundle all these absolute disasters together, that I realize my only real option is to just walk away from the film industry entirely and stick to reading comics!!!!
A really pleasant surprise after that absolute disaster of a movie, Planet of the Apes... It’s missing a bit of that signature Burton morbidity and raw, bizarre edge—but hey, he can't force that dark gloom forever—still, it's a solid effort that captures that whimsical, fantasy vibe we know from Tim Burton... A solid 4 out of 5 for me.
northernheron9 said:And then there’s "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"—just a heads-up—in that flick, weed basically replaces cigarettes... all in all, it's a fun watch 😁 ,
Fun? Please—the characters in that MOVIE ARE ABSOLUTELY STONED ----- WHITEEEEEEEEEEE RAAAAAAABBITTTTTTTTTTTTT
If you haven't seen it yet, get your butt to the local video rental shop right now!
mistyfox812 said:The director didn't just happen to film a real-life event by accident.🙄 He intentionally placed those Mexicans right there at that specific moment—it fits his narrative perfectly. That whole setup serves one purpose: delivering a pointed political message.
So, according to you, Canada is basically under total apartheid or some kind of Gaza-style occupation... meanwhile, in the Federation, you can't even find a Mexican to bump into, and in the Republika Srpska, there isn't a single trace of Muslims or Americans left...
By your logic, they’re all just ghosts—so I guess they shouldn't even bother reaching out to Frank, right?
An expression of sympathy isn't some political statement to me...
Frank's world was basically collapsing at that exact moment—honestly, even if Radovan Karadžić himself had reached out to offer condolences, he wouldn't have even noticed...
Sure, the film definitely carries political undertones, but that doesn't mean it's "politically engaged" in the way people think...