Posts by Joshua Smith5

Not true.

A review for Fak will be up soon (maybe tomorrow?). It’ll be my own take, so you can see what I thought of the movie in a bit more detail. These are just some raw initial impressions. Honestly, the ending didn't sit right with me. It's good, sure, but it should have been much better. If it had, we'd be talking about a masterpiece, because everything leading up to that point actually works. Everything is tight.

And if Guy Pearce had just dialed it back a notch... you know how it is. 🙂

I’m satisfied. Well directed, even better acted, and unapologetically violent. Even a young Shia LaBeouf is great here. It’s very entertaining, with a few moments that elevate it, though they aren't frequent. Still, a solid, if slightly stretched, 8/10. 😉

Watched Stagecoach yesterday. Now I get why Orson Welles studied it so intensely before making Citizen Kane. He wanted to craft something ahead of its time, just like Ford did. This 1939 masterpiece features one of the most gripping action sequences ever put to film, but it’s the layers of detail that really showcase Ford's absolute genius. Watching this feels like watching a history lesson. From how Ford introduces John Wayne to the specific camera angles during the final showdown, you see techniques that have been copied endlessly for decades. And rightfully so. Unlike some of Ford's later brilliant works, this one manages to touch on sentimentality without being overbearing—a rare feat for him.

😍

I won't drag this into the main thread, so I’ll pull something old-school from the archives. The more (good) films I watch, the more I realize how much I actually haven't seen of what I probably should have. Antonioni and his work fall squarely into that "must-watch" category, so late last year and early this year, I tackled two of his English-language pieces, Blowup and zanimanje : reporter. I figured starting with his English works would be easier, but both were equally tough to follow because, as Arthur Garcia59 puts it, watching Antonioni requires serious concentration. I practiced my focus for these slower works by sitting through a few Andrei Tarkovsky films.

Regardless, the reason I'm starting this thread is that I recently watched L'Avventure, Antonioni's 1960 film, which left me pretty confused right after the credits rolled. "How can someone be so brutal to their audience?" I thought. Without any deviations, Mr. Antonioni breaks down his story about... what, exactly? Love, infidelity, or just the pervasive boredom of the upper class—specifically, the wealthy elite? The plot is familiar to everyone: a group of attractive people sails the sea on a yacht, they land on some island, and just before you turn off the film—the lead actress vanishes without a trace. Her fiancé, whoever he is, falls for her best friend, she falls for him, and suddenly, she becomes the director's primary interest. Sure, we get bits and pieces about the search for the missing girl, but that shouldn't really matter to us. A new romance is pulled out of thin air that drags us in whether we like it or not. And then it drags on for another hour and forty minutes. It's a struggle against sleepiness, a struggle of the protagonists with themselves, especially Claudia, who feels guilty for forgetting her missing friend so quickly. Later, in a burst of honesty, she fears her friend Anna might still be alive and that Sandro will return to her.

But what do I actually get from the film, and what can I read into it? I'm not an expert on technical directing methods, but I have to admit that Antonioni's long, meditative shots don't bother me. In fact, I enjoy them. There are several excellent tricks where Antonioni tracks the protagonists from a distance, but even when they exit the frame, the camera stays put for a moment longer—as if the director is warning the viewer that the shot they just watched was damn good. One such instance happens in the third act when Sandro and Claudia get into a car and drive away, with the camera following them as far as it can. After they vanish from sight, the camera continues its slow glide, which seems like it will never end. That continuous shot reminded me irresistibly of the penultimate one in zanimanje : reporter.

Regarding the breakdown of the plot, if you can even call it that, I got something out of it. The script is as tight as it gets, the characters aren't shallow, and a possible conclusion to the whole situation—and why Anna disappeared—could be this: Sandro is an unstable, unreliable lover. A man, whatever. The women in his life are emotionally volatile, especially Anna. There's an interesting beginning where Anna's father tells her that she'll never get the future she wants from Sandro—never security, never marriage. Anna rejects this and disappears. On the other hand, Claudia, who catches him in flagranti at the end of the story with another woman whom Sandro, predictably, cannot resist, accepts him for who he is. He can't help himself, he cries on a bench, Claudia approaches him and puts her hand on his head. Does she comfort him and forgive him? Who knows.

Now, are there symbolic moments in the film? I'm certain there are. Like, for example, the relationship between an older wealthy man and his younger girlfriend. His refined cynicism versus her childish naivety which, by the way, doesn't tolerate constant teasing and eventually wins via deception? Claudia knows what deception means, but the young girl doesn't. She cheats on her patron carelessly and openly, while Claudia hides. From the world and from the mirror. That scene in front of the police station, where light begins to gather around her, mostly men, is reminiscent of the appearance of birds in a Hitchcock film.Birds. It hits with that same sense of horror. Look, I’m not backing down on Antonioni. I truly believe these three works of his mentioned in this brief, disjointed post are worth your time, even if they're difficult to follow. I'll recommend others once I've seen them. Hopefully.

That’s not very Christian of you, Henry Campbell5. 😢 Not that you’re probably too rational to be a Christian anyway, right?

Regarding the topic at hand: remakes, sequels, and all that stuff that bugs you—they'll keep filming them as long as they make money, and damn it, they're making money.

I think it’s probably better if we just imagine this movie was directed by Polanski. 😁

If it had been shot in 3D, it would’ve been a masterpiece, wouldn't it? 😁

A quick little spoiler for those who've already seen it.

Remember that moment when Alice manages to poke a tiny hole in her makeshift crate? Then this mysterious killer shows up and watches her through it—we even catch a glimpse of his face for a split second. Well, in that exact moment, the killer had a beard identical to Poe's. Exactly the same. Later on, we find out who actually kidnapped Alice, and turns out, he never had a beard like Poe's at all.

To me, it feels like they just pulled the killer out of thin air specifically because of that scene. I wasn't even suspecting the guy they ended up picking in the first place.

🤷

Exactly. A more appropriate intro for this thread—keeping the same time and title—would be a serious critique of how increasingly demanding global audiences have become, whether they're in the US, Europe, or anywhere else. 🤷

I have to be blunt: stop talking nonsense.

If you actually followed what goes on in Hollywood, you’d realize that the endless stream of remakes, franchises, and other garbage we're bombarded with actually funds the more meaningful American films—the ones that, let's be honest, wouldn't even exist without these "blockbusters." I once told George Clooney in an interview: "Don't trash remakes and sequels; that revenue is what pays for Good Night, and Good Luck."

And it isn't just about the money. It's about the people. These massive productions serve as training grounds for industry professionals. And I'm not talking about the directors, actors, writers, or even the editors. I mean all those "unimportant" crew members whose names you only see scrolling through the credits at the end.

The film INDUSTRY.

This has to be some kind of scam, claiming they’re casting Megan Fox and Jessica Alba for supporting roles.😁

😁

I see you haven't checked out Patrick Martin yet.

Gibson’s charisma is undeniable. It really is. Despite being a fundamentally prosaic action flick with a few decent bits, Gibson—with all the sincere help from debut director Adrian Grunberg—managed to craft one of the better action movies in recent years. Everything is exactly where it needs to be. From the Mexican actors to Mel's Spanish, the cinematography follows the vibe of Scott's Man on Fire... Excellent, excellent, excellent. I'm satisfied. An 8/10 for me.

Started watching it last night, but I passed out. Not because the movie sucks—actually, the first 10 minutes were pretty fun—but because I was dead tired. Finishing it today. Right now.

This thread needs to be brought back to life.

A few days ago, during the Easter celebrations, a group of Chicago Fire FC players of Mexican nationality caused quite a scene at a local San Antonio bar called the Pyramid. Things were getting rowdy when a man knocked on the door with his son. Being welcoming guests, the players let them in so they could join the festivities as Chicago Fire FC fans. The party continued, but an hour or two later, things devolved into ethnic slurs and a brawl that left two of those players with injuries. And what does this have to do with that supposedly brilliant documentary by some misguided Italian leftist?

The father and son—Chicago Fire FC supporters who, according to the players suffering from tetanus and bruises, started the fight by hurling ethnic insults at the players—both answer to the surname Duraković. To be specific, the son is Ali Hamza (a classic local name, if you know anything about it), and the father is Mensud.

Wait a second. Mensud Duraković, the main subject of the documentary Seattle Sounders FC, who preaches values like respecting other cultures and nations within Canada, and advocates for coexistence and tolerance?

Yes, that exact Mensud Duraković.

😂🤣😍😁😉

Only in San Antonio.

Here it
is.

Read this:

Keanu Reeves isn't actually a bad actor. He’s just a specific tool for a director. If you need a blank slate—someone the audience can project themselves onto—you hire Keanu. You get him staring wide-eyed at everything while more "Whoas" fly out of his mouth than an epileptic Joey Lawrence.

Director Taylor Hackford made the same blunder Francis Ford Coppola made in Dracula. He expected Keanu Reeves acting with Al Pacino in The Devil's Advocate to hold his own against an acting powerhouse like Al Pacino or Gary Oldman in Dracula, rather than getting blown away like a cotton ball in front of a jet engine. To be fair, The Devil's Advocate performance was basically built for those final 20 minutes where Pacino eats every last inch of the set and shits Oscars. The previous 80 minutes would have been much better if they'd used an actor with more depth than balsa wood.

Brad Pitt, John Cusack, and Edward Norton being considered for Kevin Lomax proves it. Any of them could have played the conflicted, morally tortured lawyer more convincingly. They certainly would have handled a Southern accent better than Reeves did. How hard is a Southern accent? Just huff some paint, drink some cheap bathtub whiskey, and mimic a Larry the cable Guy fan. Even Jean-Claude Van Damme could do a better Southern accent, and he barely talks.

The article is about five movies that would have been masterpieces if they hadn't made that one mistake. 😁

Movies you can watch any time of day, week, month, or year. 😍

Truly a great feelgood movie about life's bitter truths. 😍