Posts by Richard Hernandez13

Even Otto’s manga wasn't really your typical style; he was actually leaning much more into that classic American comic book vibe.

Kimberly Brown6 said:What else is the spirit of an era if not the actual people who lived and breathed through it, along with their entire way of thinking? This film captures all of that so brilliantly; you can just feel it radiating from every single scene.

Are you sure about that?

To be honest, I don't really see Akira Kurosawa leaning into those classic Western tropes much at all in this particular movie.

Seven Samurai is absolutely legendary!!

You really have to sit down and commit to the full, uncut version—it’s nearly three hours long—instead of watching those chopped-up edits made for people who can't focus for more than five minutes.

Cabin Fever — I think you already have a thread going for this one, so I’ll just merge mine in with yours.

....
...it's actually not showing up on the list.
I'll have to go hunt it down myself.

9 Songs Michael Winterbottom was filmed in just one single shot?!? 🤔

Anthony Harris14 said:I really appreciate Pavičić because he doesn't just tear the movie apart; instead, he actually talks about the film and breaks down what worked and what didn't. It feels like the most balanced perspective to me.

🙂

The thing is, I don't think "objective criticism" truly exists.

Norris said:I think you might be missing the point here. From where I’m sitting, it seems like most critics don't actually share their honest thoughts on a movie because they’re too afraid of not looking "cool" or being out of step with the trend.

Oh, so you just magically know what's actually going on in their heads?

That's absolutely fascinating!

😛

Ms. Norris said:When it comes to critics, I guess their name pretty much says it all—their whole job is to find flaws, and they cling to that role like a lifeline. If they actually liked everything they saw, we’d probably just call them hype men or PR experts instead.

Have you seriously never had a bad take on a movie before?

So, did Rabbit actually pull it off at the end of the movie?
I honestly can't tell if he did or not, but my gut feeling says no.

I have to admit, it actually caught me off guard seeing how many kids these days are obsessed with those Black comedies. Especially the ones centered around urban life.
Bad hip-hop definitely played its part in that. 😁

That being said, Don't Be a Menace to South Central While You're Rockin'' Em does actually land some pretty hilarious jokes. Like that bit where the dad ends up being younger than his own son, or that guy who basically flips the script on historical dynamics by doing to white women what had been done to his people for centuries—just kidding, mostly. And honestly, even that mailman popping in right when things get heavy just to shout "Message!" is gold.
Whenever I’m watching a movie or a show that tries to squeeze in a moral lesson, I find myself wishing that guy would just jump onto the screen.

Man, I feel like I’ve really lost all my street cred with you guys now. 😁

Of course, the real question here is whether they were being responsible in doing that.

Then again, maybe they just weren't fans of how P. Diddy titled his campaign: Vote or Die. If you ask me, it feels a little out of line.

Maybe it’s just because Glitter is nothing more than a massive ego trip, whereas 8 Mile actually has some soul, right?
Or perhaps it's because Glitter is such a shallow success story, while 8 Mile feels like the real deal, don't you think?

quietdriver3 said:Wait, really? A guy? 😛

...honestly, you just took the words right out of my mouth. 😛

Alex Perez33 said:For instance, whenever I run into those comments claiming "Spider-Man 2 is just a stupid movie because there isn't enough action..."

It's funny because the person actually explained they thought Spider-Man 2 was silly due to a lack of action, rather than complaining about it being "unrealistic."

robybaggio said:I honestly don't think money is enough to be the primary driver behind someone's passion for their work...

Of course it can't. Money just covers the bills. 🙂

...it feels like Turturro is playing the role of Spector, while Matt Dillon is giving off those real Brian Wilson vibes.

I've always wondered, were Bacharach and the rest of those legends actually sitting down to write their hits during a regular nine-to-five grind? Or was their process something else entirely? 😁

So, you actually called it a financial investment.

I guess I meant it more in the sense that art isn't just some commodity you pick up at a department store where you can just ask them to wrap up five pounds of whatever you're buying.

But honestly, if you think about it, countless masterpieces that we all blindly accept as the absolute pinnacle of world art were actually created because someone commissioned them. It’s pretty much the same way you’d order five pounds of something at a big-box retailer.

Even some of the most legendary and critically acclaimed films aren't any exception to that rule.

Douglas Robinson12 said:I’m almost ready to agree with that. In my humble opinion, artistic freedom and actual quality tend to be inversely proportional. Though, I suppose there might be some exceptions to that rule?

Those exceptions are actually what we consider true works of art—which is exactly why they’re so incredibly rare.

😁

In the example you just gave, we're talking about financial investments, not at all about setting the stage for artistic freedom.

I have to disagree that those were strictly financial investments—in those first two cases, it’s pretty much undeniable. Neither the folks at Cannon Films nor Kevin Eastman weren't actually looking to see a return on their money.
There's also this concept called a patron, isn't there?

They basically told the artist, 'Here's some cash, just bring us whatever you come up with.' Well, these guys took the money and ran without delivering a single thing.

So, why did they do it?

…
And honestly, what on earth does 'creating conditions for artistic freedom' even mean?!?
It sounds a bit too much like romanticized nonsense to me. Are you perhaps one of those people who thinks Vincent van Gogh was the only "real" artist because he was starving, creating out of pure suffering, and never sold out (quite literally)? 😁
If creating conditions for artistic freedom even exists as a concept, shouldn't the artist be the one responsible for making it happen?

is exactly why I started this whole thread. Because every kind of freedom—even artistic freedom—comes with a side of responsibility, something a huge number of so-called 'artists' seem to completely forget.

Since filmmaking is such an incredibly expensive endeavor, it strikes me as the perfect subject for a deep dive into the balance between artistic freedom and artistic responsibility.