I am absolutely obsessed with this series; today’s episode featuring Juliette Lewis was nothing short of legendary, and honestly, her performance was just next level—she is truly one of a kind. Randy is basically Peter Pan living in the suburbs, just your typical American suburban guy...🤣 they are way too much...
Well now... Why don't you just sit down and write this out: "I will think carefully before I post something foolish on this forum." "I won't toss around words if I'm not entirely sure what they actually mean." "I'll stop throwing every random adjective at a noun just because it sounds fancy..." "I am going to finally learn how punctuation actually works."
Please repeat that entire exercise fifty times...
Look, amidst a mountain of nonsense like "which three actors would you take to help you shake someone down?" or even "why do we watch movies," I don't really think my particular brand of cranky cynicism regarding the topic is such a massive pile of garbage... Furthermore: I am perfectly certain about the definition of the word scholasticism. Beyond its role as a medieval philosophical science serving theology, it can be used figuratively to describe idle speculation—essentially, pointless theorizing. My writing style shouldn't be an issue (unless you’ve decided to go all out and blame me for the way I present things), because it has nothing to do with the subject matter itself. The delivery isn't the point. And as for punctuation? Fine, I'll learn; I promise!
@Anthony Kim18, I've been wanting to put you on ignore for ages, but I needed a personal reason to justify it, so here is that glorious moment arriving, because some of your little pieces of wisdom and fascist tendencies are just straight-up unforgivable... 😢
Honestly, questions like these give me the creeps. They’re always born from some kind of rushed, half-baked logic and usually end up being nothing more than pure scholasticism—you know, just endless, useless mental gymnastics that don't actually lead anywhere!
So, I finally sat down with "Tjenu zabititi predkov," or "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors"...
Visually speaking, the thing is just stunning. It’s this gorgeous, lush exploration of folk customs and heritage from the Eastern European side of things, all wrapped up in a classic tale of love and tragedy. The camera work is masterfully handled, and there are these few incredibly striking, haunting scenes—like that sequence where they call forth the storm and it actually breaks—that just stick with you. Honestly, if you ask me, it’s a much more profound piece than the loud, overhyped "The Color of Pomegranates."
I also ended up watching a documentary about Parajanov called "Requiem." It follows him during his college days, where he talks about his time in prison and his whole philosophy on artistic expression. He’s actually hilarious when he starts explaining why Vladimir Lenin was essentially a born actor; he clearly has massive respect for the man's natural gift. He even refers to Pier Paolo Pasolini as a cinematic god. By the end, as he’s presenting his film "Ashik Kerib" in Munich, you can see how shaken he is—he’s practically on the verge of tears. He says he hopes to die soon and mentions that this will likely be his last film (which, looking back, was true). Then, with watery eyes and a trembling voice, he asks the audience for a minute of silence to honor the late Andrei Tarkovsky—keep in mind, Tarkovsky had been gone for nearly two years by then. The documentary wraps up with a shot of Parajanov and Tarkovsky together, which felt like a bit of an illogical creative choice to me, but still...
... purely because I can't stand that whole forced Russification nonsense aimed at pushing some Soviet agenda back in the day... so, what I wrote above is actually his original Armenian name, the one belonging to the director we all know as Parajanov.
I just finished watching The Color of Pomegranates, or Sayat-Nova...
The whole thing—if you can even call it a traditional movie (it feels more like a fever dream)—is basically one massive performance piece. It’s an entire showcase of Armenian heritage and culture distilled through the life and soul of a single poet... honestly, I’m struggling to figure out which genre box to shove this thing into. The camera stays totally static, while the actors act more like passing shadows drifting across the frame; I suppose that was meant to emphasize how tradition just flows seamlessly from one generation to the next...
To be blunt, it didn't really click for me. In fact, I found it pretty exhausting and, frankly, not all that groundbreaking (even Jean-Luc Godard would probably call it pretentious). Don't get me wrong, the colors are absolutely stunning and it makes Armenia look like a gorgeous place, but since I'm not Armenian, there wasn't anything in there that truly gripped me or made me feel like I had to bow down to it as some untouchable masterpiece...
...so, I'm moving on with the Parajanov marathon. Next up is Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors...
Does anyone have a lead on where I can hunt down an original DVD with the American subtitles? (I know for a fact they actually released an edition like this...) because everywhere I look online, it says they’re completely sold out...
rapidbear20 said:Gus van Sant is absolute top-tier👍. You know, that movie about college students and messy romance? There’s this one scene where the guy is hooking up with one girl while his mind is totally elsewhere on another... honestly, it hits hard. And then there's that part where a girl takes her own life and nobody can even wrap their heads around why. It’s just such a deep, layered piece of filmmaking. Does anyone remember the title?
You're definitely thinking of Rules of Attraction, which was actually directed by Roger Avary... not Gus...
You know, I was just sitting here thinking about those heavy hitters who never actually bothered with film school—or maybe they just skipped the whole academy thing entirely. I’m talking about names like David Lynch, Pedro Almodovar, Todd Solondz, or Todd Haynes. Then you’ve got the New Wave crowd, like François Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, Claude Chabrol, and Eric Rohmer... or even Gus van Sant, Werner Herzog, and Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Throw in Sergei Eisenstein, Dziga Vertov, Alejandro Jodorowsky, Luis Buñuel, Ingmar Bergman, Michelangelo Antonioni, Federico Fellini... even Edward Yang. It just kind of popped into my head all at once while I was staring at the ceiling.
Let’s take the USC School of Cinematic Arts (USC School of Cinematic Arts), specifically the USC School of Cinematic Arts. I mean, we’re talking about an institution where the faculty roster included legends like Sergei Eisenstein, Vsevolod Pudovkin, and Alexander Dovzhenko. And the alumni? You’ve got heavyweights like Andrei Tarkovsky (who studied under Mikhail Romm), Sergei Parajanov, Alexander Sokurov, Milcho Manchevski, Daniil Iosseliani, and even Nikita Mikhalkov, who just picked up an award at the Venice Film Festival...
When you actually sit down and weigh the sheer artistic impact and importance of these graduates, you realize something mind-blowing: these titans emerged from within the confines of a Soviet (Stalinist and post-Stalinist) dictatorship. Even with the constant weight of state censorship pressing down on them, they produced absolute masterpieces. Honestly, sometimes I catch myself wishing I were Russian... because that institute was founded back in 1919 and remains arguably the best in the world. Despite whatever technological lag existed in the old USSR or modern-day Russia, their creative output was unmatched. It’s just a shame that here in America, we can't seem to spark a total revolution in film school programs. It feels like there's always some group of self-important, megalomaniacal egoists running the show, backed by certain high-ranking bureaucrats in the industry, but I won't get sidetracked naming names right now. Anyone who actually knows the scene will know exactly what I'm talking about...
Look, you don't need a fancy degree to make great movies! Honestly, most directors who actually contribute anything meaningful to the art of cinema never even stepped foot in a film academy, so I don't think it's even worth mentioning them in this context. Take Tarkovsky, for example—he did graduate from the USC School of Cinematic Arts and ended up being one of the absolute greats, but that was strictly because of the mentorship he received, the specific people he crossed paths with at that school, his refusal to compromise, and just pure, unadulterated talent... Academies tend to put people in boxes... mostly...
Around here, it feels like most directors are just mere technicians, which is why our movies often feel like they were mass-produced on an assembly line. It’s not like there aren't talented people out there ready to shatter that status quo; the problem is that if you didn't go to the right academy, you simply don't get the opportunity... or you end up getting squeezed by financiers who have zero respect for artistic freedom...
I’ve been digging through film theory books and articles, but I honestly can't find any solid definition for this specific category or what actually defines its characteristics. In my mind, a medium-length film would fall somewhere in that 45 to 60-minute sweet spot. I’m really curious to know if anyone can point me toward some quintessential examples—you know, the standout works and directors that define the genre—and if anyone has links where I can actually watch them. I’d love to get a real conversation going about where medium-length films sit compared to standard shorts...
For instance, if you ask me, A Star Is Born (1987) by Todd Haynes would probably fit right into that mid-length, experimental niche. Let's use that movie as a jumping-off point for the discussion, assuming anyone here has actually sat through it... (here's the link: watch the film)
I wish Sellers nothing but the best; the man was an absolute powerhouse of talent. As for the Pink Panther series? Well, it actually made sense right up until the moment Sellers passed away. After he died, the whole franchise just lost its way. Every single movie—especially "Trail of the Pink Panther"—feels completely pointless, like they're just desperately trying to cash in on the genius of the late Peter by milking his legacy. They keep throwing in these cheap references to his portrayal of Clouseau that honestly feel tacky and even a bit repulsive. Watching something like "Curse of the Pink Panther" is just pure torture because it’s so hollow...
Clouseau certainly had his brilliant moments, but he also leaned hard into that over-the-top, slapstick burlesque style...
I still have this one vivid memory of when Clouseau (Sellers) disguises himself as this burly, bearded guy with a massive torso and tiny little legs, clutching a pipe. Someone knocks on the door of the shop where he’s hiding—you know, that classic costume shop we all remember. Clouseau opens the door, but instead of a customer, he gets handed a Bomb intended to take him out. He takes it in his hand, looking totally bewildered when the stranger says, "Bomb! It is for you," after Clouseau asks what the hell it is. Clouseau: "Bemb? For me? Stranger: "Yes" Clouseau: "Wait, I'm a little short" (as he starts patting his pockets looking for some spare change) 😁
He shuts the door and turns back to those two oddballs (the tailor and his servant), "Bemb? ooooh, Bemb!" And then he struts forward with those signature little steps, letting out that classic throat yell before tossing the Bomb... 🤣 🤣
After that scene played out, I genuinely thought I was going to die laughing; I couldn't catch my breath. 🤣 🤣
You see stuff like this all the time—like in one scene, a wound is clearly on the left side of someone's face, but then suddenly it’s moved up to their forehead. Honestly, that usually falls on the script supervisor; those continuity errors are almost always their own fault...
But look, this isn't just some amateur mistake found in low-budget American B-movies... even Almodovar makes massive blunders in his film "The Bad Education": "Manuel Berenguer claims giving a walkman to John as a gift. According to the plot, this was before Ignacio's death in 1977. The walkman was introduced to the market in 1979." according to imdb-a
electricstag2 said:Mine would probably be called One Night in February. It’d definitely be rated R, too—lots of heart-wrenching stuff and stomach-turning scenes...
Good grief, just picture her: that platinum blonde, sun-kissed skin, Ellen February starring in a flick called "One Night in February"... 😁 I'd drop a small fortune just to own a single 35mm reel of that entire masterpiece... 🙂
Why is it that you guys only ever think about American actors? Someone mentioned Damir Markovina 🤣—seriously, try looking at some talent right here in the States for once...
Honestly, someone should probably slap a copyright on these movie synopses you're posting. I mean, who knows? Some big-shot director could just swoop in, lift the idea, and pair it up with someone like Martin Sheen to make a blockbuster... ?!
I’d really appreciate it if you could actually provide the titles for these film premises of yours... A movie title is everything, after all...
I have a ton of respect for Iranian cinema, but honestly? It feels a bit too much like a monolith to me. It’s always the same themes, the same visual language, the same specific obsessions over and over again... so I don't really go out of my way to seek it out. On the other hand, if we're talking about truly essential movements that have shaped the cinematic landscape since the eighties, nothing beats the wave coming out of Taiwan. You've got legends like Tsai Ming-liang, Edward Yang, and Hou Hsiao-hsien—that's the kind of stuff that actually sticks with you. I've never really been able to get into Japanese films, though. When it comes to Europe, I usually gravitate toward Spanish or French cinema, but I also find myself drawn to the gritty, soulful works coming out of the former Eastern Bloc.
So, I just sat down and watched this movie again this morning—my third time diving into it in the last seven years... and honestly, it still stands as the most romantic film I've ever seen. It’s got this specific, lingering atmosphere, like being in Paris at Night during a cold autumn or winter stretch. Monica Bellucci looks absolutely stunning here, easily her most radiant role to date, just glowing with that effortless beauty. And Roman Bohringer? He’s definitely got "it"; I certainly wouldn't go so far as to call him unattractive, quite the opposite, actually. The plot itself is incredibly gripping and well-executed, even if it leans into a few tropes here and there (you know, like the whole burned goods in the bathtub thing or the way Lisa meets her end)... The whole experience feels like this bittersweet, nightmarish dream. The way the scenes jump around and reference what’s already passed really drives home that feeling of the joy of memory...
The DVD finally hit the shelves at the local Best Buy, so I went ahead and picked up a copy. It doesn't come with any fancy bonus features or anything, but honestly, that doesn't really bother me...
