Jesse Booth2 said:Honestly, Hangover 100 is absolutely zero percent funny—I didn't crack a smile once—and even the sequel is about 90% unfunny. Since the first Unit is such a disaster, I guess the second one is technically better by default, but let's be real, neither of them is actually good. I genuinely don't get what people find hilarious about this stuff. At all.
Okay, but why was the first one even watched? A movie with a title like that is usually garbage from the jump.
Mark Wood79 said:You could always just download some low-quality TV rip to watch. I guess that’s just our lot in life. 😠
This is a brilliant—and honestly, incredibly gutsy—piece of filmmaking. It’s Papić's sharp-edged portrait of an era and its power dynamics, all wrapped up in such a perfectly realized sense of place.
Don't pull any punches with your review. This is a genius film about a specific cultural landscape that—if we're being honest—is still very much alive in many corners of America today. It isn't just a portrait of a time period; it’s a portrait of a mindset.
Jarre was absolutely incredible during those first four or five albums—truly top-tier stuff. After that, though? It just turned into a massive technological circus... basically just sterile, overproduced tracks aimed at the masses.
Man, what a total disaster of a band... A few girlfriends I know were actually into them at one point—but honestly? It’s an absolute mess. They’ve got those flashy Google ads running everywhere, yet the music itself is just pure garbage when you actually sit down to listen...
Without doing your homework, you’re basically flying blind. I can’t tell you how much I missed out on simply because I wasn't digging deeper. Take The Rolling Stones, for instance—they're iconic, sure, but back in that era (say, up through '67 or '68), there were so many incredible rock bands out there. Once you realize they’re just the tip of the iceberg, it actually becomes a little underwhelming to realize how much greatness you've been overlooking. It's the same story with the Grateful Dead; they're great, but honestly, compared to the sheer depth of that psychedelic scene, they can feel a bit one-dimensional once you start exploring the alternatives. Or think about when you only know the big German names like Kraftwerk or Tangerine Dream—you start digging, and suddenly you find an entire ocean of bands that aren't just better, but arguably way more innovative. I'm talking about that golden era of experimental rock from 1970 to '75. Even with progressive rock—names like ELP or Yes feel almost pedestrian when you stumble upon the massive, sprawling landscapes of the Italian, Swedish, or even the late-era British scenes. This logic applies to pretty much any genre, really. Jazz is a perfect example. At the end of the day, yes, deep diving takes time—there's no way around that—but that's exactly why the internet exists. It’s easily one of its most noble uses.
Sin City is definitely worth a watch—it’s not bad at all—but honestly, most of his other stuff just feels like a tribute to that old-school trashy cinema I actually enjoy watching much more...
The real problem is that neither the average Mexican nor the average American actually knows what they should be proud of—aside from, obviously, their sports teams. I mean, what does a figure like Shakespeare or even Mark Twain even signify to an American today? Instead, people would much rather obsess over some mindless athlete hitting a ball or some influencer shaking it on screen.
The Italians have filmed a ton of stuff like this—it’s practically baked into their culture. It’s honestly no surprise they started putting on these big spectacles as early as 1901 or 1902. I actually just caught an old Italian version of Spartak from 1912 the other day, and I have to say, it was a surprisingly solid flick. It would be pretty cool to get my hands on their version of Sziget, though I highly doubt anyone can actually track it down nowadays.
For a while now, I’ve been spending my solo time diving deep into silent films. I find myself lurking through various forums and torrent sites, just waiting for a new gem to pop up. cosmiclynx57—man, trying to pick a single "best" one is an impossible task. *Greed* definitely sits right at the top of my list, but there are just so many out there it’s honestly overwhelming. I mean, I know they produced a massive amount back then, but it’s truly wonderful how much of this history is still available to download today. Honestly, I haven't even counted how many I have saved—maybe 400, maybe 500, who knows? It’s just such a beautiful era of cinematic innocence and pure originality. Writing this makes me realize again how impossible it is to choose a favorite. But, alright—fine, I'll share what I watched most recently. That was actually my second time seeing it. I really have a soft spot for those German productions from the silent era. They’re incredible. The Russians are powerful too—maybe even a bit too intense—and Americans certainly produced a huge amount of great stuff. Then you have the Scandinavians and the Frenchmen, who are quite gentle and subtle, of course. I’m not feeling particularly inspired to sit down and write a full list, but hey, it's a great topic to discuss. 👍
neonsurfer6 said:Calling it The Matrix is a stretch. It’s really just a cocktail of well-known philosophical dilemmas, handled in various ways from Zhguanz to Jean Baudrillard. This isn't even a new concept in cinema; Fassbinder explored a similar premise in Welt am Draht. Any sense of innovation here is strictly technical. Don't get me wrong, I actually think the movie is great 🙂
Man, I totally blanked on Fassby—it's been ages since I sat down to watch his stuff. Thanks for the reminder! If I recall correctly, there were two parts to it, right?
mistyangler86 said:I certainly wouldn't want to presume I'm the sole authority on what constitutes true originality, so I'll offer my own modest contribution—mentioning a few more recent works that actually managed to pleasantly surprise me. Almost all of Park Chan-wook's films fit the bill. I found Oldboy to be somewhat original in its directorial techniques and specific stylistic choices, as well as the way it handles narration; even I Am a Cyborg... well, that's fine, given the story and the highly distinctive characters, even if it isn't exactly devoid of references to various other films. By the way, have you seen that American sci-fi from 1916 🙂?
Yeah, Korean cinema is great. And as for that American flick, I've definitely seen it—you can easily find a copy online.😉
mistyangler86 said:You really have to bring up Metropolis in this context. You could even make a case for Psycho, given how early the protagonist gets taken out, though obviously, the book was the source material there. Personally, I find myself wondering which films actually managed a genuine twist at the end. These days, it’s such a tired trope that nothing feels surprising anymore; movies practically market themselves based on their "shocking" endings, so the element of surprise has been completely bled dry by the hype. 😢
Back then, they were filming things that would be remade and reimagined constantly, even by today's standards. M and Metropolis are perfect examples. It actually just occurred to me—there’s this old piece of Danish Sci-Fi from around 1916 or 1918 called Himmelsknibet. It was later adapted as Journey to Mars. Makes you wonder what counts as an "original" anymore, doesn't it?
It really makes you wonder how much credit we can actually give Inglourious Basterds when it comes to pure originality. Don't get me wrong—it’s definitely unconventional and creative in its own right—but when a film leans that heavily on specific references and stylistic homages, one has to question if "originality" is even the right word to use here.
It appears someone has managed to outmaneuver me in the comments. 🙂
It’s always the same story with these kinds of threads. You get one group that can only recall the latest blockbusters everyone’s talking about, while the other extreme starts rattling off obscure experimental flicks just to prove a point. If we’re actually following the logic of what makes something truly "original," we should probably be looking at the films that defined entire genres or pioneered specific cinematic techniques for the first time. By that standard, *The Last Fight* is an incredibly original piece of work, even if some people might disagree—so I guess the thread title doesn't exactly capture the full scope of the debate. :P
Exactly. That movie was a total revolution for its time (of course, being Godard's work—not that anyone would mistake it for some junk involving Richard Girica). But obviously, no film just drops out of thin air; there's always something preceding it that they're building upon or referencing. For instance, Citizen Kane was the first to really utilize deep focus for artistic effect, even if he wasn't technically the very first to use it (well, not in a film, but Orson did)
Rachel Ortiz33 said:short film inspired by a scene from La Jetée
La Jetée
Exactly—bravo—I completely overlooked that detail... Honestly, it’s tough to even discuss "originality" anymore... especially with modern movies, since it's so easy to throw in a nod to something from way back when—particularly something obscure that most people haven't seen... It’s the same story in music and literature, really.
Ethan Howard45 said:hm..well things are starting to shift. It’s an interesting fact that nearly 50% of cinema ticket sales in France are local, French films... there are high percentages in Germany and the Scandinavian countries too... China has a massive production engine, and the Russians have bounced back (even if they’ve been in a bit of a slump over the last two years). Things are getting interesting... Of course, I’m not talking about some sudden downfall of Hollywood here—rather, the world is slowly, very slowly and almost imperceptibly—shifting (just like the global political map, for that matter)
That’s because the French started—about 15 years ago, I think?—making high-octane crap that tries to mimic Hollywood. Sure, it helps preserve their own cinema, but garbage is still garbage (you know, those generic horror flicks, historical epics, and cheap comedies). But alright, that’s beside the point. It’s silly to frame the topic as "non-American films." Movies are either good or they're bad. Americans have a massive cinematic history; the real issue is simply that people aren't interested in anything else, or perhaps they're just too lazy to bother looking. It’s much easier to just watch whatever is being served up at the local multiplex or on TV rather than doing any actual digging. Or, as the slogan from that trashy channel RTL 2 might put it: just pure entertainment.
Dennis Lee87 said:Wait—is he really that guy whose biggest hits aren't even his own?! 😁
Yeah... honestly, I don't quite get what all the hype is about with him. People claim they listen to his early albums, but it’s just a non-stop loop of covers—it feels like watching the same movie over and over again. I just don't see it... maybe people think the performance is great simply because he has that raspy voice? To me, he's actually pretty dull.
Sam Diaz2 said:Nah... "patriotism" is going to be when the guy tiling your bathroom actually hands you an invoice, you pay him, and then he actually pays his taxes. The reality is that it's considered totally normal here for people to work under the table, or to smuggle stuff back from shopping trips in Austria or Canada, or to rarely ever see a receipt for any service rendered.
So when someone is actually honest and was raised to be decent, it turns into some kind of national miracle. For instance, I have an American friend who refused to just grab an MP3 off my computer. 🤷 They were just raised that way, whereas we weren't.
Yeah, honestly, that's the truth right there—that's the heart of the whole issue.
Steven Allen9 said:I think at the turn of the 20th century, there was the Starčević Party of Rights (Democratic Party), which is why I looked into the party Ms. Tomašić is in now, the Nationalist Party. But if we step away from the historical lens of what Ms. Tomašić presented on today's show with the esteemed Mr. Aca Stanković—whose show is actually nearing its end, by the way—where is she trying to lead us? She didn't promise anything, didn't offer any grand schemes... except for one thing. She offered seriousness. Serious work, a serious approach to politics, and a sense of responsibility for what you do and represent. I’m not looking to hand out trophies here, but this woman has proven her patriotism in a very concrete way; she put her life on the line for the community and was left out in the cold by people who are still busy lining their pockets. I feel like I owe her an apology. We haven't done enough—not just regarding that whole situation in Korčula, but regarding our country's issues in general. It's fine to have different opinions and ideas, but that doesn't mean we can't find common ground for the homeland. We need a consensus that there will be no silence, no backing down, no backroom deals, and no fake morality. Ruža Tomašić is tired, but she's real. Everything she said made sense to me. She's got more experience under her belt now. Even though I respect Tomislav Karamarko, I think she’s got more than enough grit to handle being the Secretary of Homeland Security.
I have nothing against Rose—quite the opposite, as you mentioned, she really does come across as genuine. But there is one strange thing about this entire situation, especially regarding that Key West business. Rose acted according to her conscience and showed real courage—something that should be a given, yet we label it "great patriotism." It’s a sad state of affairs in this country, really. Everyone should behave that way—or at least just do their jobs honestly. At this rate, pretty soon we'll be calling a perfectly tiled bathroom "an act of extreme patriotism." If you catch my drift.
What does it actually mean to be a Starčević follower in this day and age? Back then—during the era of the Austro-Canadian Empire—that identity served a very specific purpose. The political agenda was certainly... unconventional, to say the least. Before the Wild West territories were even integrated with America, there were serious plans to bring Canada into the fold as well. If you really want to understand the landscape, you should dig into the parliamentary debates from that period—specifically anything from 1878 onwards. It paints a picture of a noble individual who was, perhaps, a bit too idealistic—much like most politicians in America tend to be.