Grace Sanchez50 said:Thank God it's not like those Malickov movies—those would've been nothing but pretentious, unwatchable snoozefests.
And what about all those "conversations with God" scenes? Pretentious as hell, right? Plus, sitting through 140 minutes of that—wasn't that just a massive bore?
The main kid isn't even fully fleshed out. The movie just gives this super vague look at what war is like for a child—probably exactly how your average viewer imagines it would go down. They could've actually done something with the narration, but instead, they wasted it on some pathetic little boy monologues to God. And here’s the real kicker: the whole thing is basically a carbon copy of Terrence Malick films. It has zero identity of its own, which makes the entire sequence of events feel fake and totally staged.
To Live (1994) — basically follows one family through the chaos starting from the end of the Japanese invasion of China all the way to the fallout of the Cultural Revolution... unlike that claustrophobic experiment *Raise the Red Lantern*, which is Zhang Yimou's most famous flick, this one goes full epic scale—it actually leans into those typical Hollywood tropes. Which means the whole vibe is super melodramatic and some scenes get this annoying tendency where they over-explain everything verbally—like the director doesn't think the audience is smart enough to just get it. A lukewarm recommendation at best.
To’s easily his most mediocre work—just some routine Giallo drivel 🤷 . The focus shifts toward the plot compared to his other stuff, but honestly? The story is dull and totally unbelievable. Only two scenes actually stand out—the gallery sequence and that one by the stairs near the elevator. Otherwise, it’s just classic Argento.
Way too pretentious. This thriller tries way too hard to act like it’s high art instead of just being another cheap rip-off—it fails miserably. And that kid? Easily one of the most annoying characters I’ve seen on screen in a long time. Strictly for fans of 'Dexter' or shows with that same dark humor vibe.
Jamie Davis9 said:Great, thanks. Now I'm wondering about this: is this just a way of trapping characters and situations to create an impression of ordinariness, like northerncrane4 was saying, or is it some hyper-realistic move to redirect the audience's focus onto something outside the character itself?
I'm leaning towards the first one. Take 'm/other'—it’s basically all banal dialogue, but every now and then you get these tiny meta-film outbursts that break through the documentary feel, creating tension and making you question if what you're seeing is even real. You don't see that stuff with the Dardenne brothers.
hiddenbear4 said:''Jeanne Dielman'' isn't a bad movie, but when it comes to that feature film ''hyper-reality'' and documentary style, Olmi is still the heavyweight for me. For instance, ''Il Posto'' is half the length of Akerman's, but it's twice as good.
Never seen 'Il Posto,' but are you sure it actually breaks away from the typical neo-realist mold? 'Jeanne Dielman' isn't a neo-realist film to begin with.
hiddenbear4 said:You explained that distinction well, but they're all just children of neo-realism.
The Coen brothers make traditional realist movies. Their whole goal is to trick you into believing the events on screen are "real."
But stuff like 'Jeanne Dielman' or certain parts of 'Cafe Noir'—that’s what I call "hyperreality." These films use ultra-realistic, documentary-style techniques to actually highlight how fake they are. A standard realist flick—think something like 'Two Days in...'—keeps the focus squarely on the characters. But in 'Jeanne Dielman,' the attention is spread out equally between the person and the space around them. Take those long, static shots where a character is doing something at a table and then just walks out of frame. In a regular movie, there’d be a cut right there. Instead, the camera just sits there, forcing you to stare at the kitchenware—the colors, the shapes, the textures, the composition—basically building the "vibe" of the scene through objects.
Look at that five-minute opening shot in 'Cafe Noir.' It shows a woman eating a burger in real-time. There’s this neon "halo" hanging over her head, giving the whole thing a religious feel—it’s the director showing how fast-food joints have become the modern-day pilgrimage sites.
It’s the same deal with hyperrealistic painting, where they capture visual effects and details the human eye doesn't even normally pick up.
Not really—just look at movies like 'Jeanne Dielman' or even the opening sequence of 'Café Noir.'
though you're right about how '2 Days in...' isn't exactly hyperrealist. like northerncrane4 pointed out—The Coen brothers are actually just carrying on that neo-realist tradition.
hiddenbear4 said:Which Chinese films do you think deserve Criterion releases? Also, give me some recommendations. 😁
Look, since they haven't released anything yet, they could start with the classics—think 'Raise the Red Lantern' or 'Farewell My Concubine.' Then there's 'In the Heat of the Sun' (kind of like an American version of 'Dolly Bell') which always sits at the top of those Chinese film lists. After that, you've got the killer noir melodrama 'Suzhou River,' plus modern stuff like 'Still Life,' 'Blind Mountain,' and so on. If they dropped 'King of the Children,' it would be huge—it's impossible to find a decent version of that movie anywhere.
As for recs, if you're into Majida, try hunting down 'The King of Masks.' I bet you'll dig it.
hiddenbear4 said:India and whatever else besides Raya... but I don't really have much interest there...
A couple of years ago, I was tearing into Indian cinema pretty hard, but I've watched a few interesting ones since then, so I've dialed back the hate a bit. 😁
hiddenbear4 said:Regarding Taiwan, hsien's coming-of-age trilogy from the 80s definitely deserves a release—all of them are solid pieces.
I checked those out based on your suggestion, and yeah, they totally deserve a Criterion release.
Is it just me, or is there basically zero representation from Chinese cinema here? 😕 We've only got two titles from Iran, and both are Kiarostami?? If 'La Grande Bellezza' and 'Blue Is the Warmest Color' get fast-tracked releases, why is Farhadi being ignored? As for India, it’s mostly just Satyajit Ray—super safe, super predictable... Having nearly 200 titles from Japan feels totally overkill, just like forcing these "classics" down our throats... they could've left some room for Taiwan or Hong Kong. Or maybe show some genre variety, like Pinku Eiga or horror. Is there even any modern directors represented at all, besides Kore-eda with one single film??
Look, I'm just listing grievances here to keep things balanced on the thread—don't get me wrong, their releases are killer 😁
The lineup is honestly a letdown. There’s nothing here that actually catches my eye—nothing worth the hype. Maybe I'll eventually get around to 'The Congress' or 'When Night Falls in Bucharest,' but both have been sitting there forever and I haven't even bothered to download them yet. 😁
The first one is a killer idea and they actually nailed the execution. I watched two of the other sequels and they were total nothing burgers—just diluted versions of the original concept.
Just caught Farhad's 'Fireworks Wednesday'—it’s the precursor to his big hits like 'About Elly' and 'A Separation.' Honestly? It's great. A bit weaker than those two, sure, but still solid.
What’s wild is you can tell it's the same director within the first ten minutes. His formula across these three movies is pretty much the same: he spends the first third introducing characters and setups. Usually, there are way too many people to track easily, and the scenes are packed with tiny details—stuff you'll definitely miss on a first watch. Then, he grabs one specific detail and turns it into this massive central conflict. From there, everyone starts dissecting everything from the first act from different angles. The audience does the same thing because, frankly, there was just too much info to process at once to know what actually happened. It's this messy, "Rashomon-style" approach where he tries to hunt down the truth.
I could go on forever about the themes, really. But I'll just say this: it’s a breath of fresh air to see an American director focusing on the middle class instead of falling back on tired tropes like kids in danger or some radical extremist stereotypes.
Also, interesting note—Farhad hasn't been persecuted or thrown in jail by the government, even though his stuff is just as controversial as his colleague Panahi's. You know, the guy who's basically under house arrest right now while European festivals force awards on him, probably trying to sway some American court decisions.
Anyone here seen his first two, 'Beautiful City' and 'Dancing in the Dark'? How do they stack up?
Low budget always means cheap effects—especially when you're trying to pull off some epic spectacle. You mix that with a lack of originality and just ripping off Hollywood tropes, and you end up with total garbage. I just saw the trailer for The Blades and it’s exactly what I’m talking about—it looks like some weird bastard hybrid of Pirates of the Caribbean and Lord of the Rings. There is zero connection to actual kung fu or those classic wuxia flicks from the 80s or 90s.
I'm sick of these Chinese movies trying way too hard to mimic Hollywood. Their budgets are nowhere near the same level, so you end up getting crappy special effects. Plus, they just radiate this massive inferiority complex—it’s like they're desperate to chase after those Hollywood standards. But why even bother? The whole point of that Hong Kong genre renaissance back in the 70s and 80s was that they were different from American or European films.
As for why everything went sideways in the 90s, I can only guess: the integration of Hong Kong into China to create one unified national cinema, the fact that there wasn't a real generational shift (you still had the old guard like Tsui Hark and John Woo dominating the box office), etc. David Bordwell actually blamed Spielberg's Jurassic Park for the whole mess in an interview.
The Grandmaster is a decent flick, but honestly, it's probably Wong's weakest work, right up there with Happy Together (never saw that American road trip movie). The only new kung fu film on my radar is Hou Hsiao-hsien's Reign of Assassins. I think that movie—much like Wong's Ashes of Time from twenty years ago—could actually bring some much-needed life back to this tired-out genre.
Those movies are top-tier—perfectly directed—but I think gentlemarlin is just looking for some Hollywood-style Chinese flicks. Maybe they should give the Detective Dee series or Journey to the West a shot instead.
Eiko Matsuda—who basically went from that cult classic *In the Realm of the Senses* straight into a string of trashy erotic flicks before totally vanishing from the industry after the 80s.
Then there's Peter, the lead from *Funeral Parade of Roses*. He actually had one decent role in Kurosawa’s *Ran*, but after that? It was nothing but bottom-of-the-barrel cameos in obscure movies. Nowadays, he’s mostly just a TV personality giving beauty tips to women.