No, I didn't miss Paul's bit about "loyalty"—that part felt pretty aggressive. But honestly, the whole setup regarding that meeting, which is supposed to be the core of the plot, just feels incredibly forced and unconvincing to me.
When Ida blackmailed Stephen, why wouldn't he just calmly tell her, "Look, what you write hurts, but of course I already talked to Paul and told him I was just going to see what Duffy wants"? She could only really squeeze him if she was absolutely certain he wasn't acting in "coordinated action" with Paul, yet it’s pretty obvious that Stephen didn't give a damn about Paul leaking the news to Ida in the first place....
And why couldn't Paul himself, when the same guy called him right after the Duffy-Stephen meeting, just say he had literally just walked out of a meeting with Duffy—or even better, that Duffy actually tried to poach him? What's so scandalous about that? There’s even that call FROM BEFORE the meeting (which Paul couldn't take) serving as proof that he wasn't trying to hide anything.
Finally, why does Paul even need to leak info to the press??? It's pretty clear he could just fire Stephen from the team without all that drama....
Even the whole origin story for Stephen's suspicion feels like pretty weak writing.
Even if we buy the idea that young, hot-headed, idealistic Morris's driver doesn't actually live by his principles and just clings to whoever is winning, how exactly could Duffy's talk convince Stephen that the victory for the clueless Pullman (who is trailing in the polls) is a done deal? Like, Pullman is fighting to win over Thompson? Really? And Paul is literally on a mission to him with that exact same goal...
Duffy's theories about Republicans turning out in droves to elect a weaker Democrat (Pullman) are about as believable as Paul's theories to Thompson that irritated Republicans would want to crush Pullman, even though Morris is closer to the neutrals.... In any case, it hardly qualifies as some earth-shattering "revelation" that would leave someone breathless, especially someone who's already been through three or four campaigns... 🙄
Did it ever cross your mind that it's being intentionally unrealistic and stretched thin? 😍
Some directors just let being busy kill their craft (Woody Allen).
On the flip side, I’m glad Fincher is more productive now, but I wish he’d pick better scripts. Honestly, I can stomach "Button" and—as ruggedjackal46 once put it—Citizen Kane starring Justin Timberlake; the latter is actually a decent enough movie, but did he really need this American version of the girl with the dragon tattoo? Or is he just banking on a big payday to finally fund Rendezvous with Rama, that project he's been talking about for a decade?
Personally, I think directors should wait a few years between projects—at least two, but no more than five.
Eastwood started out incredibly strong, but then he just started churning them out like an assembly line. Some were fine, others weren't.
I don't watch Spielberg, and I've given up on Soderbergh too. I never particularly cared for the Coen brothers either, so I'm not sure how much their recent productivity has actually hurt them.
dada Matanić is a whole different story. northerncrane4 claims his films maintain a consistent level of quality (😁), but if you ask me, every subsequent film just gets worse and worse. 😁
I know he isn't exactly a crowd favorite here, but among modern directors, I’d say Nolan has found the best rhythm. So far, he hasn't made anything less than a great film.
I can't remember the last time an album hit me this fast. Swallowed it. It’s "for Emm, Forever aga." But look—as much as his debut was a masterpiece, damn, that follow-up is just weak. It isn't a total disaster; there are a few tracks that actually land, but the whole thing is just incredibly tedious. Honestly. 😢
I couldn't wait, so I just sat down and watched it. Even that stubborn Gleesonov accent was easy enough to follow.
As for the movie itself? It feels like a spiritual successor to in New York. Look, I’m not saying gangsters don't question their purpose or existence, nor am I claiming FBI agents can't be hilarious... but even when they talk about art or the pointlessness of their jobs, I doubt they're ever as articulate as the characters in that McDonald film. That's my one gripe. Honestly, the movie is incredibly charming; you simply can't help but enjoy the dialogue between Gleeson and Cheadle, Strong and Cunningham—basically every single character in the cast.
The plot isn't exactly groundbreaking, but the actual story matters less than the chemistry between the main players and the supporting cast. The way it portrays a host's classic skepticism toward guests, the dissection of prejudices, and all that refreshing (political) incorrectness is great.
I can't claim to be some massive expert on his work (yeah, I know, my bad), but I watched a few of his movies back when I was just a kid.
A few months ago, I sat down with two of his westerns, The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, so I can give you my take on them right now.
Both films have perfect openings and endings. That said, the opening and closing shots of the first one are among the most memorable in cinema history. That shot of the door opening to reveal the valley—showing a character who slowly morphs into an anti-hero as the story unfolds—always felt like a wink from Ford. It’s like he’s saying, "Here, I'm opening the doors to the Wild West for you, but don't expect Wayne to play his usual, unquestionable hero role." When those same doors close in the final shot, you get a perfectly rounded narrative. Personally, though, I think the middle drags due to some silly scenes and terrible acting from Wayne's sidekick.
As for the second film, which basically aims to demystify Wild West legends, I have to say it's the best Ford movie I've seen so far, and arguably the best performance of Wayne's career. He throws Jimmy Stewart into the mix, who—unlike his usual persona—plays a confused, immature lawyer forced to face Liberty Valance. Meanwhile, Wayne, my favorite face (even if he turned out to be a bit of a wimp during his military enlistment), plays a man who is easy to love despite being incredibly arrogant and abrasive.
I probably need to watch more of his stuff before I can pass a definitive judgment on Ford, but based on these few, the man knew how to tell a story effortlessly and make me connect with the characters. In a way.
I downloaded the two previous issues. I’ll read them and then leave a comment on the magazine's (lack of) quality. Though, judging by the contributors, I probably won't even need the parentheses.
That’s just how it is, Frank Lee10. His "reviews" are nothing more than a multi-car pileup on the highway. You're trying to look away, but you can't hide from it. 😢
I could try to claim it was an honest mistake or a one-time thing, but let's be real—it happened more than once. I went back and watched those movies later.
Like Norm Macdonald said, there’s no payoff for lies like that. They just slip out of your mouth.
Men From Dusk Till Dawn and Desperado are great movies. They fall into that category where I’ll happily rewatch them, or at least won't change the channel if they happen to be on TV.
Now, I have this issue where Sin City—which I can't deny has some quality—just didn't do it for me. It was painfully boring, honestly. I spent the whole time just waiting for it to end. 🤷
I remember my first encounter with Claude Chabrol. I was young and hadn't really gotten used to that style of filmmaking yet. But, just like Mark Wood79 said—I was glued to my seat for the entire 112 minutes.
I’ll be seeing and hearing Grinderman and Arcade Fire at both Lollapalooza and Coachella. Someone mentioned The Strokes in the States, but there hasn't been any word on them for a while, so if anyone knows anything—post it.
What else? Two or three weeks ago I would have said Radiohead, but I'm worried they'd just play that garbage from their last album. I'd rather pass.
Michael Ortiz68 said:That’s really just a matter of taste... But they did receive critical acclaim, which is something I wouldn't say about any Sedlar film.
Honestly, I haven't followed Jakov Sedlar's work. I just remember seeing an interview where he claimed he was more recognized globally than back home in America... 🤷
Michael Ortiz68 said:I’ve never even performed surgery on a person. Do I have the right to criticize a surgeon who decides to stitch a guy's junk onto his big toe?
It’s easy for an American to make a good film when they have all that money; one single scene of theirs costs as much as three of our movies combined!!
That doesn't hold water. Look at the films coming out of the Czech Republic, Romania, or Iran... none of them have Hollywood budgets.
Anyway, I was being a bit cheeky in my last post. Sedlar is indeed a terrible director, but he—just like the rest of us—is simply looking for love. 😢 So, restlessmoose23, good luck with your search. 👍
Just finished the movie. Not sure where I stand, but here is what worked for me:
- the static camera work - driving the Ford on the Hollywood Freeway - letting the score play out fully, start to finish, without any edits
Now, the downsides.
The portrayal of the movie star lifestyle missed the mark. After seeing those first ten minutes—that opening shot and the Ford drive—it felt great, but once the credits rolled, it just didn't hold up. Don't ask why.
The script is weak. Specifically, how they handled the minor characters. It ranges from disingenuous, quirky assistants to that one wannabe actor at the party asking if our lead is a "method actor."
And the lead's name? Johnny Marco? What the hell?
To put it bluntly: the film is beautifully shot. The framing is excellent. But the script is mediocre enough that I can't justify giving this anything higher than a solid 6/10.
For what it's worth, I liked it better than Lost in Translation.🤷