Posts by Jesse Sanchez7

This whole "movement" is pretty amusing. They’re calling for signatures on a petition that doesn't actually exist anywhere, telling the public to rise up while only caring about a handful of government directors, promising some massive website that hasn't even been built yet, and planning protests AFTER the City Council has already voted on the handover.

A normal person would have just built a site, launched a real petition immediately, engaged the audience first instead of just a few directors, and held demonstrations right at the City Hall on the actual voting day.

But this is the Film Guild—total old-school vibes, like watching a low-budget rerun of a fake revolution where the goal is just to pretend they're actually doing something.

Just look at how much funding the folks over at the National Endowment for the Arts are pulling in with those satellite projects; then it becomes obvious why this "action" feels so aggressive and "authentic."

If they really wanted to, they could probably just buy Europe.

the count said:... and this villain, Davy Jones, is such a massive presence. That scene where he’s playing the organ!!! 🙏 🙏 It kind of gives off those 1930s horror/monster movie vibes... 😎

Yeah, honestly might be the best scene in the whole movie.🙏 Total legends.😬

The law says everyone’s entitled to one copy for personal use, right?😁 Don't get me wrong—I'm not out here rooting for people to pirate movies that haven't even hit theaters yet. I'm only talking about stuff that's under Creative Commons, things you can't find anywhere, banned titles, out-of-print classics, or that kind of thing. Dukic will probably find a distributor for this one locally anyway.

northerncrane4 said:Does Dukic have a local distributor lined up? Is there any chance we'll actually get to see this?

The DVD exists. If you're smart enough, that's usually plenty. 🍿

By the way, Andrej Korovljev is the one who came up with 'scandals.'

Lawrence Booth2 said:There isn't a sequel, even though there's been some recent chatter about it.

It’s not that there isn't one; it’s that there are actually two other sequels out there.🙄

Cannibal Holocaust 2: The Catherine Miles Story / Schiave bianche: violenza in Amazon (1985) and Cannibal Holocaust 2: Natura contro (1988)

Sure. Unless you mean we're strictly talking shop about the technical specs during this movie discussion.

You call it autism; I call it grit. We’re talking about the exact same thing here: a guy who meets every challenge head-on and actually thrives because of it. Is he successful? Absolutely. He made it from point A to point B, found his footing, and even reconnected with his father along the way. Plus, he kind of shook up the status quo. Why shouldn't his neurodivergence be considered perfectly valid? If his way of thinking doesn't hurt anyone and actually helps him succeed, why should we see it as a negative?

northerncrane4 said:I don't know. It feels a bit too calculated to me. I don't see how the IRA episodes actually build his character. He’s a wimp from the start of the movie to the end, and he’d be exactly the same even without the whole IRA subplot.

He basically gets cast as the victim because the Americans needed an Irish scapegoat. He goes through the entire investigation and the torture, yet comes out looking like the hero, which just proves he’s incredibly resilient in his own weird way. Even with all the whining and the outfit that suggests otherwise. That's what makes it interesting. It wouldn't work if the lead was some tough guy who settles everything with two punches and a shrug. Character over cliché—that's why Breakfast on Plut is so much better than those other movies.

If someone made a movie about Crocop and portrayed him as a total weakling, I guarantee it would be fascinating. It's just boring to watch films that chew on the same tired stereotypes without any irony, contrast, or a twist.👎

northerncrane4 said:I have to agree that Stephen Rea is great, but unfortunately, you only see him for about seven minutes, and Gavin Friday is on screen just a bit longer. Bryan Ferry is good, too. And sure, the movie isn't a masterpiece like Transamerica, but that doesn't make it bad. I don't see the point, and I get the feeling the point is meant to be global—otherwise, why tell this poor guy's story at all? You say it's simple, but to me, it felt dull, clumsy, and forced. But hey, maybe that's just me. Regardless, I really don't think it deserved an award in this lineup.

Give me a break. An award for best foreign film at the San Francisco Film Festival? Is there any bigger joke? (Unless we're talking about the award for best domestic film, obviously. 😲 )

I didn't catch it being some shallow cliché about individual freedom, cross-dressing, and sleeping with whoever you want... following someone who was abandoned by society and is now desperately looking for substitutes (as Rajner Verner put it, "I just want to be loved" :-), in any format or any way. That's universal stuff; it has nothing to do with some gay lobby at the festival. 🤣 That scene with the IRA just establishes his character, along with other bits you might have found "forced." The guy's identity is very clearly defined, which is why even the sugary ending with Liam Neeson actually works. 😁 But whatever, let the public decide once the San Francisco winner finally hits theaters. :-)))))))

Hmm. It’s actually a pretty solid movie. Stephen Rea is great, and honestly, so is Gavin Friday. It’s just a straightforward film—it doesn't try too hard to be deep or lecture you. It certainly isn't some politically correct, calculated mess like Transamerica.

http://www.breakfastonpluto.co.uk/

stormyviper11 said:Rest in peace.
Most people only scratch the surface with this band, treating them like some joke without any real substance. But if you actually listen, they were one of the most fascinating acts to emerge from the American underground during the transition from the seventies to the eighties. They were incredibly skilled musicians. The brothers behind the project played around with different styles and genres with total ease, though it always felt like they were doing it for themselves rather than chasing a paycheck—unlike those purely commercial novelty acts like The Beach Boys or early disco groups (even though I dig those too). Honestly, their work in theater, film, and TV was the core of what they did; the albums and those few hits were almost an afterthought, which explains why their live shows felt more like a variety stage production. Their music stands on its own merits, even without the witty, clever lyrics. Is there any higher praise?

Facts.👍

Virgo 69🙏
Sunset Blvd🙏
Great body🙏

Samuel Phillips2 said:What's the damn point of rewarding and encouraging trash?

Oh, there's plenty of point. Let it bloom!👍

northerncrane4 said:Yeah. He and his producer, Mladen Koceić, personally gutted the Texas economy that year during "Great Transport." Let me break it down for you. 😉

Art requires sacrifice.😬

Spit play? Golden showers? Come on, let's see those photos then...😬

Jesse Sanchez3 Asks:
A slightly different take on how Americans showed up at Cannes:
So, I just stumbled upon this piece about the production behind Atelier 7. It’s one of those deep dives that makes you realize how much goes on behind the scenes of a major studio production before anyone even sees a trailer. The article breaks down the logistical nightmare of getting a project like this off the ground. You read about the constant pivoting, the budget battles, and the sheer chaos of managing creative egos under pressure. Honestly, does anyone actually have a plan, or are we all just winging it and hoping for a hit? It’s a fascinating look at the machinery of Hollywood. You see the friction between the visionaries and the suits, and it really makes you wonder how many great ideas die in a boardroom because they didn't fit a spreadsheet. Makes you appreciate the finished product a little more, even if it's a mess.

So, this guy sends over an email with his basic bio, which everyone’s kindly labeling an "interview." Give me a break. What does that have anything to do with the absolute circus Juka, Hribar, and Grlić put on for that tiny audience of ten people? It was just a mess of cheap drama, petty insults, and pure nonsense—all funded by American taxpayers. 😕

northerncrane4 said:I know, I’m not joking, I want to know too. And it looks like Jesse Sanchez7 might actually have some inside info.

The Department basically released a "call for entries," which is just code for sending invites to their buddies on the list for that booth. Applications were being sent to a private email for 4film—you know, Juka's little "production house" that somehow manages to churn out all of Zrinka Ogresta's animated shorts (just one so far, but more are coming, apparently). What was the actual criteria for getting a spot at the booth? Literally, whoever showed up first. Even though Carnerud claims she's acting as the "selector," she's really just picking up the mail for Juka. It’s all pretty funny if you think about it. 4film is essentially a shell company used for Department favoritism (classic Zrinko...), and now the star player at 4film gets to play "selector." Isn't that just touching? 🤣

Larry Cruz51 said:I don't buy Minin's critiques. They're too subjective regarding non-traditional gender identities because of her own orientation. She just can't seem to stop framing everything as straight people versus everyone else. But sure, I'm sure she knows way more about "that world" than those of us just watching it on TV.

So you're just incredibly open-minded and totally "get" the less conventional crowd, even though you don't actually trust them, right? 😕

Did you come up with that nonsense all by yourself, or did Ahmed Imamović have to help you out?🤣

Ah, love.😬 The whole application process was rigged from the start. Instead of sending submissions to the Department, directors were told to send them directly to private addresses belonging to 4film, Juka, and the Ogrestin Company. It’s being presented as an official government call, but the mailing address is just Juka’s house. There weren't even any actual requirements. It was basically a race to see who could get their application to Juka first to snag a trip to Cannes. No criteria, no standards—just whoever happens to catch Juka's eye.

That movie of hers is just awful. "What Happens During the Day" is nothing more than typical documentary trash about marginalized people—the kind of stuff that makes most filmmakers lose their appetite. Instead of doing something interesting with prisoners performing Shakespeare, she just gave us the standard confessionals from your average inmates in a run-of-the-mill prison. Why pick those specific subjects? Every single one of them has a heartbreaking story that could make you tear up. She’s the type of director who could take a grandmother claiming she invented a cure for cancer and turn it into the most predictable, cliché story imaginable.

Let them fight. Honestly, I’d much rather watch them brawl than look at those pathetic photos of people spitting on each other. Or better yet, let's see Juka spinning those Cannes Antonia applications through her private firm using money funneled directly from the Department. Wouldn't that be a show?🤣

goldenhound32 said:Go ahead, read my sentence again. You’ll probably get it this time.

My bad. Let me try that again.

"Not everyone is the same."

Fine. I wasn't even arguing against that.

"There will always be more or less objective people/critics."

What you just said implies there's a spectrum of objectivity among critics. My point was that "objective criticism" doesn't actually exist because, by definition, all criticism is subjective. So, claiming some are more or less objective is nonsense. The only things that actually vary are the level of information provided, the strength of the arguments, and the writer's specific stylistic preferences.

Your logic is like saying water from the Atlantic Ocean is wetter than water from the Mississippi River. Or more specifically: "Not all water is the same. There will always be water that is more or less wet."

Get it?🙄

goldenhound32 said:Not everyone is the same. There will always be people who are more or less objective critics.

Oh, really? That’s quite the delusion. Criticism is subjective by its very definition. Anyone trying to claim otherwise is just being a poser. It sounds like something written for people who want to act high and mighty—lots of deep words and fancy cards.😁 👍dustyscout53?

http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/c...f-judgment.txt