850 posts shown.
"The mainstream is always sucking ideas from the underground, just as much as the underground draws inspiration from the mainstream."
I can't quite put my finger on who actually said that, honestly. Does anyone here happen to know?
So, look, there are definitely some aliens in there, but honestly, the movie leans much more into being a horror flick—specifically "splatstick." For those who aren't familiar with the term, it’s basically a mashup of splatter (think horror movies drenched in blood and guts) and slapstick (that classic kind of physical American comedy), which is a subgenre that Jackson practically pioneered himself.
Wasn't one of Akira Kurosawa's absolute favorites actually "Officer and a Gentleman"?
driftingowl27 said:2+2=5 👋
Don't you think that should have been the title of the new Radiohead album?
Alright, here’s one more thing to add to the pile:
Whenever your take on a movie doesn't line up with what some big-shot critic is saying, you immediately jump to accusing them of being "too subjective" in their review. Meanwhile, your own opinion is somehow perfectly objective—even though it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that your perspective is just as biased since it's your own view.
Honestly, it’s one of those things about this film forum that gets under my skin more than anything else. Let's get this straight: there is NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE CRITICISM! Film criticism is, by its very nature, subjective.
Sorry for the rant, but I just had to get that off my chest...
Shoot! And here I was hoping I wouldn't be quite so obvious about it!😁
Well, I suppose it’s finally time for me to start a thread of my own here.
I have to admit, I actually swiped this concept from the music forum, but honestly, so much of what applies there translates perfectly to the seventh art. So, let's dive in:
To you people, Hollywood is basically the incarnation of evil.
Your only real defense against Hollywood is European cinema.
And by "European cinema," you mean everything from the films of Asia and Africa to those of Southern and Central America—though you conveniently exclude Australia just because they speak English over there.
Whenever someone posts a "greatest films of all time" or "best director ever" list that feels a bit too predictable, you immediately tear them apart, calling their taste pedantic or academically sterile.
Then, just a few posts later, you’ll drop your own list which is just as pedantic and academically sterile (but, of course, it’s *your* version of it!).
You’re the ones starting threads like "The death motif in early Italian Neorealism" or "A comparison of semi-subjective framing in the works of Pier Paolo Pasolini and Michael Powell."
When you watch a movie, you don't cry, and heaven forbid you show any actual emotion that a normal human being might feel. No, when you watch a film, you simply a n a l y z e it.
Special effects are pure evil. A movie with special effects is, by definition, a bad movie. Generally speaking, any film where the technical aspects are too prominent (think frantic editing or heavy sound and visual stylization) is considered trash because you believe film is an organic art form—that the image on the screen is actually just a projection of a person's mind inside a dark room, emitting light through... well, you know.
If someone starts a thread about a movie you happen to hate, you’ll jump in after every single person who says they liked it to post a comment with the diametrically opposed opinion. By the end, most of the replies in that thread will be yours.
Whenever someone takes a stance on a film that contradicts yours, you demand they defend it with logic. You, however, never bother to argue your own point because your opinion is just an indisputable fact. You only feel 100% certain of your position once someone else has explicitly proven you wrong.
When you find yourself in a heated debate with some IMF bureaucrat over a film, your ultimate trump card is simply pointing out that you saw the movie before they did.
In your world, the adoration for a film is inversely proportional to its box office success. You especially despise that one movie with the ship and the iceberg (you won't even dignify it by mentioning its name).
Whenever you spot a thread populated by IMF types with mediocre knowledge of film history, you "innocently" chime in with a few posts mentioning obscure directors and indie flicks. You patiently wait for their reaction—which is usually something like "And who are you supposed to be?"—before you descend upon them like a predator.
You create threads about films and directors that almost nobody has heard of, specifically intending for no one to reply, so you can maintain the myth of yourself as the ultimate authority on cinema.
To anyone who might feel a little called out by this, please know that I’ve included a few of my own flaws in this list as well.
😁
silentpilot6 said:Does anyone remember the name of that movie? My brain is totally blanking on the title and who was in it—though they weren't exactly A-listers—and I can't recall the director either. It’s about Aliens taking over the world and using some kind of device to disguise themselves as regular humans, and then this group of people finds these special glasses that let them see the Aliens and all their hidden messages tucked away in things like commercials and movies.
That one is also by Carpenter—it's "They Live".
It seems like the name John Carpenter keeps popping up all over this thread!
The other one you're thinking of is "The Omega Man" (which, by the way, was supposed to be remade by Schwarzenegger as "I Am Legend").
James Williams3 said:
(To be honest, I'm mostly just buzzing at the thought of seeing the Jensen family again, though I probably shouldn't say that out loud, so I'll just tuck it away in parentheses here.)
Count me in too, I'm right there with you!👍
She basically gave them a case of Vietnam Syndrome.
😁 😁 😁
blueranger12 said:He actually went and made two more movies that ended up getting pretty decent reviews. Honestly, who has the time to watch all of them? And to top it off, they’re in Danish.
Dutch, blueranger12, Dutch.
blueranger12 said:
Well, if we're talking about SC, I’d have to suggest Barbarella—man, what a bizarre flick that is! I actually sat through the whole thing in one sitting! (Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a little because some parts drag, but still, it’s a total cult classic.) It was filmed based on a comic, it's super erotic, bursting with color, and features all those wonderfully weird, naive sets. The movie is pure camp, sort of like those old kitschy Americana vibes. And honestly, when Jane Fonda looks at you with those huge, innocent eyes, you just can't help yourself! It's wild.
It really is such a gorgeous piece of kitsch.
That was definitely Ms. Fonda's sexy era, you know? Back before she was posing in front of anti-aircraft guns and earning that Hanoi Jane nickname.
Nowadays, she's embraced a more spiritual path, which might be exactly why she’s moved on from "Barbarella."
She's certainly had an interesting career.
el Duderino said:Yeah, honestly, none of the actors are coming back... and when I really sit down and think about it, maybe it's actually for the best. 😁
Why though? Because they were easily the most subversive element of the whole movie. It was only later that I realized just how much the Hitler Youth vibe and the cast of Melrose Place have in common.
silentpilot6 said:🙏 🙏 🙏
silentpilot6, I’ve been hearing some whispers lately that they might actually be working on a sequel? Do you happen to know anything about that?
Are you absolutely sure about that? Honestly, looking at the numbers, the movie didn't exactly break the bank, and in Hollywood, box office success is pretty much the only reason anyone bothers making a follow-up.
Richard Howard2 said:Even though it’s not exactly a B-movie, you absolutely have to check out "Things to Come" from 1939, directed by William Cameron Menzies.
Oh yeah, that’s such a solid Sci-Fi Channel classic based on the work of H. G. Wells. I think IMDb actually lists the release as 1936.
Speaking of H. G. Wells, here is a really interesting one: "Time After Time" (which some folks call "Time Chase"). It’s about H. G. Wells using his time machine to hunt down Jack the Ripper in our modern era.
It sounds like it might be a bit of a mess, honestly, but the movie is actually pretty decent. I just am not entirely sure if it hits that specific level of "Sci-Fi enthusiast" vibes you're looking for.
briskmarlin59 said:Look, guys, I'm just telling you what I think, even if I am just some uncultured guy from the sticks 😁
Alright, fair enough, that's your take on it 😁. But seriously, are you actually studying film directing over in Prague?
Given how much you clearly disagree with Mr. De Palma's directorial vision in "Femme Fatale," I have a feeling I might need to approach any future films under the "directed by briskmarlin59" banner with a healthy dose of skepticism! 😉
Haha, oh man... he actually wrote out "Golden Olive," I didn't even catch that at first. 😁
For what it's worth, I'm not really feeling the Pegasus vibe either.
Pegasus said:From my semi-professional vantage point (I'm currently studying directing at a film school in Prague) 😁
So you're studying directing?
I honestly always felt that "Femme Fatale" would be way more appealing to people who actually speak the language of cinema rather than just the casual moviegoers.
In my book, this is easily the best thing De Palma has put out since "Carolito's Way." It’s pretty cool that he actually co-wrote the script, too. It’s honestly kind of a shame that a guy with his level of talent has to spend his time working on stuff like "Mission: Impossible" or "Mission to Mars"—man, it seems like every time his survival is on the line, the poor guy ends up stuck in some crazy "mission."
Is it really possible that I'm the only one on this entire forum who actually digs "Femme Fatale"?