Regarding my observation—are you suggesting that I'm mistaken... 😉 If you’re looking for some sort of profound revelation or a sudden burst of clarity, I’m afraid you might be searching in the wrong corner of the internet... unless, of course, you consider my particular brand of skepticism to be a form of enlightenment...
P.S. Just a heads-up, we’re talking political films here...
I have to say, I wasn't particularly fond of Life of Pi, though not because of the underlying message itself... it was simply a poorly executed film...
I’ve always been a genuine fan of Parker, but this particular one just didn't quite land for me...
When it comes to political cinema—take "The Candidate" starring Robert Redford, for instance...
I actually found it quite enjoyable... True Colors...It’s hard to say exactly how much of a political film this really is... it feels more like a story simply set within a political environment... The same applies to... Another Country...
Sure, Barry Lyndon features phenomenal cinematography; there is just so much done right there, and that duel scene is absolute perfection... True, Kubrick utilizes incredible lighting across his entire filmography; just take a look at Eyes Wide Shut, specifically how he handles the windows—the lighting is simply masterful...
I know it sounds a bit strange, but I find myself completely captivated by lighting...
In that same vein, you’d have to include Catch-22 by Nichols, which has some truly striking scenes utilizing backlighting... Then there is Apocalypse Now. Or even more recent work, like Black Hawk Down... The Man Who Wasn't There... I’ve seen the color version, but honestly, it loses that specific depth of contrast you only get from the black and white original...
Carl Bennett78 said:From what I can gather, the consensus is that the book blows the movie out of the water, but honestly, there aren't many films where that isn't the case anyway, so there’s really no need to dwell on it...
Take *About a Boy*, for instance. The movie actually holds its own against the book...
It’s hardly worth the effort to argue against James Cameron. He’s operating on a level just slightly above Michael Bay.
I used to feel the same way about Ridley Scott, but his recent work mostly just proves he’s a consummate professional—he knows how to nail a structure, how to manage a cinematographer, and so on and so forth... but you’d think that after amassing that kind of wealth (largely through his own production company) and delivering several masterpieces, he might actually try to make something driven by passion rather than just putting his technical prowess on display...
Jessica Nguyen85 said:I think there’s a distinction to be made between the subject matter—which leans toward cheap sentimentality—and the actual caliber of the acting. Penn is believable, which is precisely what this role demands. Personally, I wasn't fond of the theme or how it was handled... everything felt a bit forced... but the emotions are certainly there, if that's your cup of tea...
Yes, Penn is "believable." But is that enough to carry an entire film on his back? Hardly.
The biggest mystery to me remains whatever is going on with Michelle... It might be about time she actually landed a decent project...
In my tiny hometown—which happens to be a cathedral city, by the way—they wouldn't even touch "The Last Temptation of Christ," mostly because the Church was throwing a fit about it. And that was back when we were still living under the old regime...
By the way, did you realize that Michelle Yeoh doesn't actually understand or speak any Chinese; she’s Malaysian and only speaks English and Malay... She essentially had to memorize her lines by having someone read them to her since she doesn't know the language, regardless of her heritage...
It just crossed my mind that there’s this clever little bit involving seagulls, where their squawking is interpreted as them shouting "mine, mine"... You'll see why it works once you actually watch it, but personally, I find it quite clever...
What I was trying to get at is how there’s always this pervasive presence of a father figure being treated as the priority. A "father figure," if you will. Isn't it always the case? Even in the world of Donald Duck, he has all these nephews, yet where is the aunt? Or the mother? The male characters tend to dominate the narrative. You have Scrooge McDuck, then Sylvester, then Pluto... even Donald's female counterparts are relegated to the sidelines or don't show up until much later in the story. Take The Lion King, for instance—the mother is essentially a non-entity in the grand scheme of things.
I suppose these thoughts just started surfacing after I sat through Finding Nemo... Perhaps my perspective is skewed. Doesn't matter. Forget about it.
lonescout2 said:Well, even Monsters are owned by Disney...😉
Look, everyone, you have to realize that’s just Disney handling the distribution; the actual work was done by the Pixar team, just like they did with Toy Story, A Bug's Life, and Finding Nemo. And those critics? They basically hold all the cards. I haven't had a chance to sit down with Nemo yet since I only picked it up today, so we'll see... but frankly, I don't have any doubts about Pixar's quality.
Melissa Moore32 said:I'm with you on DreamWorks; the only one of theirs that really hits the mark for me is Antz, everything else is just mediocre. As for Warner Bros., I wouldn't go that far. Sure, they don't have many feature films, but their short series are actually quite solid. [/B]
Fair enough, maybe I was being a bit too harsh on Warner Bros., but DreamWorks is honestly pretty subpar in my book, and if I'm being completely honest, even Antz feels dull... I mean, please, just compare it to A Bug's Life, which is an absolute masterpiece.
As for Shrek, I won't even bother commenting anymore; it clearly reflects the tastes of both our audience and the American public. If people want to point out how dim Americans are, fine... it seems we're all cut from the same cloth.
We’ve touched on critics before, but I’ll say this much: most of them are just mediocre at best, and I honestly can't wrap my head around how anyone could actually enjoy Schreck with that constant, juvenile toilet humor...
The only ones who truly hit the mark are Pixar’s absolute masterpieces—Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, and Monsters, Inc. Even those short films they play before the features, like the one with the fireflies or the one about the birds, are just brilliant...
They have actual wit, whereas DreamWorks and Warner Bros. just aren't quite hitting that level of quality...
As far as Disney goes, Disney's Hercules is genuinely funny to me, but most of their other stuff relies way too heavily on singing and songs that feel a bit cheap...
Then there's The Lion King. Please... the whole circle of life thing... give me a break...
Even though I’m a California local, I finally made it out to the Sundance Film Festival this past Tuesday, though I’m rarely actually around home...
And—I am never going back. 🙂 That aside, calling this thing a festival is a stretch; it’s more of a street fair. There isn't even any actual production staff or makeup artists on hand, just a massive crowd of older teenagers and adolescents wandering around looking for a drink. They don't even spend money at the local vendors, which means the hospitality industry sees absolutely nothing from this; instead, everyone just grabs their booze from a convenience store and drinks in the streets and parks...
Not to mention that Napa has been completely trashed and covered in filth, with people relieving themselves in the yards of private residences because there simply isn't enough infrastructure to handle the crowd, it's a tragedy...🤮
My take is simple—they should just cordone off the historic district, charge a premium entrance fee, and then host the screenings for free throughout the rest of the city...
If the crowd is more interested in partying than watching cinema, then they can certainly do that outside of the official festival grounds...
djalminha said:That elevator sequence from the movie "Speed"...
Yeah, that one is actually quite good.
"M.A.S.H." is fantastic—those helicopters transporting the wounded, the gritty war imagery, followed by that upbeat little tune, "Suicide is Painless"...
But you absolutely have to include "Apocalypse Now" in any Top 10 list... That scene where they pan over the jungle, then "The End" by The Doors starts playing right as the flames kick in, it’s just pure darkness...
Austin Martinez81 said:Look, movies are meant for entertainment, not some deep artistic critique, and
Sure, if you say so... the real question is simply what passes for entertainment these days. If someone actually finds an Uber ride entertaining enough to hold a serious discussion about it—well, thanks, but no thanks...
Elon Musk said:I honestly don't understand why you're being so bitter about the fact that this movie even exists... personally, those endless Mexican soap operas they broadcast on TV drive me absolutely insane...
I find it truly hard to believe that people actually use Reddit to discuss garbage like Uber.
So, has anyone actually sat down and watched Punch-Drunk Love yet? I’ve been waiting for this one for quite some time now, and every time I find myself back here in the States checking to see if it’s finally available, I realize I just can't wait any longer—I simply have to figure out what prompted Paul Thomas Anderson to cast Adam Sandler in a role like this...
P.S. Hmm, Magnolia... To me, Magnolia is an absolute masterpiece, far superior to Boogie Nights and incomparably better than Shortcuts. Honestly, I can't even remember the last time I watched a film where the soundtrack played such a monumental role (perhaps Schindler's List, though in a completely different sense, or maybe Love Affair), once you finally realize how much it matters... I was a total wreck, and it wasn't until my second viewing that I truly grasped just how vital and consistent the music is to the entire experience...
Look, when I say the plot isn't the most important thing, this is essentially what I mean:
A screenwriter crafts the story, and then it’s up to the director and the producer to actually bring that vision to life. That execution can be brilliant or it can be a disaster, regardless of how good the underlying script might be. Take Angel Heart, for instance—one of my absolute favorites—what is the actual plot? The Devil hires a detective to investigate someone who, in an attempt to escape a deal with the Devil, ends up becoming that very detective. It’s a heavy concept. A powerful story 🙄... But the movie itself works phenomenally; it stands as one of the definitive film noir classics.
In my view, the substance of the plot isn't the deciding factor in whether a film succeeds. If I connect that thought to Life of DG—it might be a compelling enough premise for some, but the film itself feels thin and uninspired. As for the whole debate surrounding the death penalty—well, if Parker was trying to provoke any real reflection on the matter, he missed the mark entirely... even though I generally have a lot of respect for his work.