Posts by Karen Smith9

Video games are migrating to movie theaters... just another step toward numbing those already smoothed-over brain folds that have long since lost their sense of purpose.

wiredbison82 said:If you want to dissect society, you don't need to turn to Pasolini—and Godard is even less necessary—just for the sake of watching European, or rather non-American, cinema... why not watch something by Altman or John Sayles instead of American Beauty?

Lynch doesn't have some "European flair," and honestly, the term "European style" is pretty meaningless here; if we’re really going to argue along those lines, Blue Velvet or Mulholland Drive couldn't be any more American than they already are...

Generally speaking, there's no such thing as "bad" or "overrated" cinematography—so all these posts about the superiority of non-American films versus the inferiority of American ones actually just boil down to the shallowest kind of snobbery.

Nothing new there, when I really think about it.

Altman and Sayles definitely belong to the upper echelon of great American filmmaking.
I wouldn't quite agree regarding Lynch, though—and I have plenty of reasons for that.
And look, it isn't snobbery; it's more of a pushback against the typical American way of viewing film, rather than being against the movies themselves.
A movie that wins an Oscar for Best Picture is essentially the film of the year—at least according to them, representing the whole world. And let's be real, the Oscar for Best International Feature is marginalized even when compared to an Oscar for editing.
You see that kind of arrogance everywhere—even in the names of the Super Bowl or the World Series or whatever else. I mean, what the hell does "world" even mean in that context?

Gerald Barrett25 said:I mean, take my subjective opinion if you want... honestly, given your username... there are a thousand reasons why someone would think otherwise 😉

Anyways... I find myself chatting with folks here quite often about European, Asian, and—very frequently—Latin American cinema. In those debates, we inevitably end up making comparisons along these lines: which film from a specific country or region dissects and exposes its society to the core the way "American Beauty" does? Or, just give me one—just one damn sci-fi flick from those regions that hits the level of "The Matrix"... or maybe a film that captures the devastation of war through visual poetry like "The Thin Red Line"... or even a work of pure genius on par with David Lynch's "Inland Empire"... I'm still waiting for an answer.

Sure, the conversation might drift toward topics that Hollywood doesn't touch—things an Asian film might handle perfectly—but my personal explanation (that is, my take, which I hold onto like a drunk holds a lamp post) is that the rating of such films is almost always accompanied by this ever-present sentiment: "Well, considering what this film is about and who made it, it's brilliant"—it’s almost like affirmative action applied to filmmaking.

Now, mind you, I don't want anyone thinking I have something against European cinema... I have my issues here and there, sure, but it often feels like I simply have to adjust my criteria when watching a European film just to meet the bare minimum requirements for it to be classified as "watchable," let alone a masterpiece.

So... yeah... that's about it.

"American Beauty" isn't actually that special... personally, I prefer "Ice Storm" (1997) on that subject... "Beauty" has that unnecessary element: the narrator...
and if you want to see society being dissected, look at early Pier Paolo Pasolini, or Fassbinder, or Godard, or a whole bunch of them.

"The Matrix" is a fun enough flick, but it's a bit too much "boom-crash"... check out "Stalker" instead; that is true sci-fi and layers of depth—compared to that, "The Matrix" is like San Remo compared to Richard Wagner or Bach.

"The Thin Red Line" is a great film, true... it should have swept the Oscars... but take a look at this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091251/ maybe one of the two or three best war movies ever made.

As for "Inland Empire"... well, it's tough to find anything remotely similar to Lynch, just as it's hard to find anything like Abbas Kiarostami, Theo Angelopoulos, or Jancs... he's one of those brilliant Americans who carries more of a European vibe than an American one anyway.

You've listed two mediocre films and two absolute gems... it's all a matter of taste, I suppose... so, really, the only area where Hollywood truly stands above the rest is the sheer amount of cash they throw at things. Everything else is a much longer discussion filled with beautiful cinematic gems from all over the world.

[QUOTE=Richard Wilson4;25474874]Say whatever you want, but American films have dominated the entire 20th and 21st centuries—everything else is just an outlier...[/QUOTE

Well, someone once said—and I think they were onto something here—that the majority is almost never right.[/QUOTE]

Noah Ross7 said:I don't get why you're acting so disgusted.
Just ask your mom about that singer—I highly doubt she doesn't absolutely love him.
Elvis Presley isn't even in the same league as today's country stars; he was the icon who defined the entire musical era of the old Soviet Union.

Defined? What, did he use a Sharpie?

Gregory Howard said:People are constantly buzzing about this or that American movie, but certain connoisseurs
—thinking like the critic and theorist Roger Ebert—remain skeptical
regarding the true scope and value of Hollywood as a whole.

Here is his list of 1,000 essential films:
http://www.alsolikelife.com/FilmDiary/rosenbaum.html

Whether you agree with a specific pick or not—just forget about all those
Titaniсs, Flights... or even Quentin Tarantino and Steven Spielberg, for that matter.
The real heavyweights are names like Kenji Mizoguchi, Orson Welles, Abbas Kiarostami, Robert Bresson, Jean-Luc Godard,
Krzysztof Kieslowski, and Andrei Tarkovsky...

The subjects of debate here aren't literary giants like Gustave Flaubert or
Leo Tolstoy, but rather someone like Zane Grey or John Doe.

Well, it’s certainly one of the better lists out there—and honestly, I still have quite a long way to go before I can work my way through the whole thing.

Well, I suppose it was only a matter of time before the trash from small screens finally graduated to big-screen garbage—just more mindless drivel designed for teenagers.

Henry Evans3 said:no.... Challenger🙄

😂😂😂

Aha! 😁

Henry Evans3 said:Who even turns into a Challenger?🤔

Steel😂

I haven’t really delved into this kind of tech before—though, honestly, my gut feeling was spot on from the start... it knew exactly what was coming...
What an absolute disaster of a film... it isn't even remotely entertaining...

Alright, look—maybe the moderator shouldn't have reacted quite like that, but seriously, who even is she?...
Why don't you just run a poll about the set decorators for Mexican horror flicks or the guys driving the equipment trailers on Spielberg sets...
Honestly, either you're just that bored and decided to make this poll (get a life, for once!) or you actually think she’s some famous actress (which is even worse)?

Frank Moore4 said:That remake project seems to have hit a bit of a wall, though. It was supposed to be directed by Bryan Singer, but it doesn't look like that's going anywhere. Apparently, Singer has his hands full with X-Men: First Class, a remake of Excalibur, and a film version of Battlestar Galactica (basically BSG 3.0).

An Excalibur remake?... I had no idea... are they really trying to ruin that masterpiece too? Honestly, Hollywood has truly gone to the dogs.

Tribute bands are essentially just glorified séances at this point—trying to conjure up a ghost that isn't there.

I still remember when they first hit the scene. What an absolute disaster of a band. And that hat she wore... just awful. It was a case of the name fitting perfectly—talk about a classic example of poetic justice, right?

Tribute bands are just as much of a disaster as movie remakes.

Back in the 80s, WABC-TV used to air this one most frequently during the winter break—usually right around lunchtime during those midday programming slots.
It was actually one of those handful of movies—maybe five or six in total—that they seemed to loop constantly on the schedule.
And look, it’s a solid flick; it has a certain charm to it, and I still hold it in pretty fond regard.

briskhound2 said:Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990)

Man, what can I even say about this one? 😁

Good grief, I completely forgot about this one...😂

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091799/

Honestly—this thing was clearly made just to be a sequel and to milk the franchise dry. Man, I’m actually at a loss for words here. You should only bother watching this if you find yourself stranded on a deserted island with Seven of Nine, and even then, only if she starts lecturing you about the futility of resisting fate. 😁

Sandra Patel23 said:Slumdog absolutely earned its Oscar—it checked every single box we look for as an audience, and clearly, so did the Academy.

But honestly—that’s exactly the problem with this award and so many others lately. It used to be that the director was the true visionary, the sole author of the work—now? They just seem to be checking boxes to meet certain expectations. Fuck that.

George Garcia24 said:I knew my emails were going to attract some negative criticism. Look, you all can hate on America because of Barack Obama or George W. Bush—that's politics—but please, let's not make it about the music. Taste is subjective, sure, but Mr. Benjamin Thompson66, your claim that everything worthwhile from Motown can fit onto just two compilations... well, that honestly makes you look like a complete novice, and frankly, it's embarrassing.
Only The Supremes had about a hundred grand hits, but what about the others? Think about the Four Tops, The Temptations, Stevie Wonder, and so many, so many others who enjoyed even longer careers.
Motown records possessed a certain "something" that nobody else could replicate. From those very first few bars, you just knew—it was unmistakably Motown. Their session musicians (mostly jazz players, by the way) unfortunately didn't get their due until late in life or even posthumously, eventually earning their spots in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. And their bassist, James Jamerson? He is, without question, the greatest bassist of all time.
The sound they pioneered will still be echoing through the next ten centuries.

Forget Obama, Bush, and all that nonsense. I've spent plenty of time listening to Motown, and as you noted, you can't really argue with taste. I've gone through four full CDs worth of Motown MP3s, and I reckon that's plenty. There’s a bit of everything in there. I never really connected with Stevie Wonder, personally. The Temptations might be my absolute favorites, but The Supremes? Not so much. That's all well and good, but I still maintain that a double compilation covers it.
I was just sharing what I love most about American music. But if we're adding rock to the mix, you've got the New York City scene from Velvet to this day, the West Coast vibes from the late '60s, and all that 60s garage psychedelia found on countless small band compilations.