Posts by Karen Smith9

I honestly wonder when they’ll finally get around to digitizing—or at least have PBS air—those early films by V. Mimice. We're talking about a massive collection there... or even better, those 600 animation shorts from the school—it would be such a treat if they actually made them available somewhere.

Oh man, please tell me we aren't getting another remake. That classic western was filmed back in the sixties starring Marlon Brando—it was actually a pretty solid, psychedelic ride. I mean, look, maybe this new version will turn out alright, but there’s just something so incredibly uninspired about the way Hollywood constantly churns out these different versions of old movies.🙄

Christian Hughes92 said:IIIDEEEEMOOOOOOO!!!

I swear, I lose my mind whenever I hear that at a party 😁

😂

I always struggle with movies that set out to do something noble—and this one certainly does—but we’re dealing with truly horrific real-life events here. To make matters worse, we have a director who, in a rather bizarre twist, seems to stick around our industry far longer than he probably should.

fadedeagle39 said:In America, the intellectual right is the only force actually preserving this country's dignity. As for what people call the left? It’s a national disgrace. By any standard, I fall on the left, but I have absolutely nothing in common with the unpatriotic American left—the kind whose entire platform is built on erasing our history and spitting on our identity.

The right isn't more progressive; they're just more self-aware.

By those same standards, you're basically a charming little yellow townhouse on the outskirts of Seattle.

*Satyricon* is one of those massive cinematic trips—it’s meant to be experienced rather than just watched. Honestly, it only shares about 45 minutes of actual connection with *Petronius*. Truth be told, it isn't exactly the best entry point if you're looking to dive into this brilliant Italian director's work; starting with something like *La Strada* or *Amarcord* would be much more advisable. I've seen almost everything of his—well, maybe not every single thing, but close enough—and he is simply a *Maestro*. For me, it sits right up there among my top five or six "holy grails" of cinema.

velvetcrane57 said:Hands down, the greatest speech in one of the greatest movies ever made. 🙏

I'm not just signing off on this,🙂 I'm practically giving out autographs here. 😁Rutger Hauer

Gary Patel said:🙏🙏
I'd take the stepmother from Snow White over this any day.

Hmm, yeah—you’ve got a point there... it probably is... but this one? She basically sent Snow White off to join a dwarf gang bang...🙂

The wicked queen from Snow White... basically the ultimate queen bitch of the universe.🙂

Russell Crowe is definitely the superior actor, though there’s no denying Charlton Heston starred in far more iconic films. That said—and this is a big "that said"—I grew to despise Heston because of his militant gun advocacy; he really turned into a complete moron. He honestly didn't need those roles where producers just forced him into them—like playing the Mexican in Orson Welles's *Touch of Evil*.
Russell Crowe did seem to lose his way a little after certain roles, though. Yes, someone mentioned the role in *The Skin I Live In* earlier. Look, he is incredibly powerful when a performance demands raw emotional depth and dramatic weight—something Charlton Heston could never quite master.

Joseph Lee3 said:Man, you guys... do people even talk about "video rental stores" anymore? It feels like Americans have completely lost that sense of old-school romance. I actually miss it. Like, when I go visit my parents for the whole day on a holiday, part of me really wants to swing by a rental shop to grab a tape, since my folks still cling to their old VHS player instead of upgrading to a DVD player. But—of course, I can't. You can't find a single tape anywhere these days. 😢

Getting back to Lolita. Personally, I think Kubrick's vision is quite a departure from Lyne's. For starters, I wouldn't even try to draw direct parallels between the literary and cinematic expressions; I prefer to appreciate Lolita as its own entity, judged by the merits of each specific medium and author.

The fundamental difference between Nabokov's Lolita (aside from being the only true original), Lyne's Lolita, and Kubrick's version is that Kubrick offers a satirical commentary on the book itself. He takes the material and interprets it, but his film acts more as a critique of the story rather than just a straightforward adaptation. Because of that, Kubrick's Lolita shouldn't be analyzed solely through the lens of how Nabokov intended it, but rather through the way Kubrick uses the film to critique the literary Lolita. To me, it feels almost like a cinematic review of the novel. In that light, comparing Sellers's Quilty to the literary version seems a bit misplaced. It’s precisely through that character that Kubrick delivers his commentary on the entire concept of pedophilia and similar depravities.

Look, Lyne is just a plain old exhibitionist—you can tell by his massive filmography—so discussing him in the same sentence as Kubrick feels almost blasphemous. 😛

Jacob Jackson7 said:Lolita, what a massive glorification of pedophilia!☕

I mean, come on—are we really going to pretend that models, majorettes, and all that other nonsense don't count?🙄

You have to read between the lines when it comes to reviews—they aren't meant to be taken literally. Think of them more as a heads-up about the movie rather than a final verdict; you shouldn't let them dictate your choices. I truly believe people have enough common sense to decide what’s worth watching on their own—well, at least I hope they do, though judging by how people critique certain films, I have my doubts. We tend to label movies as "THE BEST" simply because we see ourselves reflected in them. If that's our metric, then those same people probably think they're the best versions of themselves, too. It’s pretty simple: either a film resonates with you, or it doesn't. Honestly, it feels a bit pointless to claim something is the absolute pinnacle of cinema, or to obsess over creating endless rankings like so many others do here. t

Brenda Lee50 said:To me, Tati is an absolute genius—honestly, he’s my second favorite director right after Jean Renoir. I don't think anyone else has made cinema feel quite as original or breathed as much fresh life into it since the Lumiere brothers first invented the medium. By essentially reinventing silent film through his innovative way of handling sound, and then topping it off with his unique approach to physical comedy, he truly revolutionized comedic expression—and cinema at large, really.

What I also find incredibly charming is how unpretentious he was as a person. There was this intellectual modesty to him, a willingness to share these almost childlike emotions and perspectives. That mental freedom—that raw imagination paired with such humility—is exactly what allowed him to turn tiny, simple ideas into massive, sweeping projects. Every single one of his films feels more original, more layered, and more inventive than the endless sea of mediocre movies that constantly clutter those "top ten" lists. It’s honestly such a shame how things ended for him. 😢

Hehe, Tati is definitely a genius... I've sat through all of his features... you can't help but laugh at him... sure, he picked up a few bits from Chaplin (especially in the way he moves) and that deadpan stone face from Keaton... but he actually pushed further—about as far as one could push the craft when moving from the silent era into the age of sound.
Tati😁

I mean, honestly—that whole mess set back 10,000 years before Christ... it really ought to have sequels for 9,000 BC, 8,000 BC, even 7,000 BC...

Hands down, the absolute best movie ever made from a comic book... or at least one of the top three—but man, is it exceptional.

Are they historically inaccurate films about Christ... or should we just be calling them mythological movies?😁

Brenda Lee50 said:I simply can't resist mentioning my absolute favorite—Jean Renoir. 😍

During the silent era, the two films that grab my attention most are "The Little Match Girl" and "On a Charleston Air." Renoir was truly a genius when it came to cinematic technique—and honestly, since filmmaking was still just a hobby for him back then (one he used primarily to try and make his wife, Catherine Hessling, a star), he had to rely on pure ingenuity for many of the technical solutions and innovations that wouldn't become standard until much later. People love to shower Orson Welles and "Citizen Kane" with praise for his bold manipulation and experimentation with deep focus, but in reality, Renoir was playing around with those very same techniques several years before.

You can see a massive amount of "special effects" in these two specific films. The second half of "The Little Match Girl" is a visually stunning fairy tale—that scene where the riders chase through the clouds is incredibly striking and, frankly, almost unbelievable for its time. As for "On a Charleston Air," he experimented with slow motion, which looks quite slick, though for me, the subversive elements are what really matter. The story is set in a post-apocalyptic Paris—not because of a nuclear war, obviously, but perhaps that primal fear of Armageddon has been baked into our DNA since the Stone Age—and it brilliantly flips racial stereotypes and geopolitical sentiments on their head.

"On a Charleston Air" was essentially a little romp for Renoir. He basically wanted to burn through the leftover film stock he had after finishing "Nana" and just have some fun while on vacation. He didn't give much thought to the film afterward, yet even today, it feels remarkably modern and fresh. He didn't even edit it himself, and despite being conceived as a musical, the film never actually received a supporting score. It’s genuinely hilarious watching Hessling and the minstrel singer perform the Charleston "dry"—just twenty minutes of dancing without any musical accompaniment at all! Some of those ideas would still count as high art today: a Black man traveling in a sphere—a flying saucer, really—landing on a pole and stepping out in one of the most ridiculous ways imaginable? It's totally avant-garde! 😂

Joseph Lee3, you're a legend... I saw that little flick once a long, long time ago... I'll have to track it down somewhere...🙂

Sophia Evans76 said:Sunrise - Murnau, The Birth of a Nation - D.W. Griffith, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari - Robert Wiene, Battleship Potemkin - Sergei Eisenstein, Man with a Movie Camera - Dziga Vertov, Metropolis - Fritz Lang, The Gold Rush, City Lights, and Modern Times - Charlie Chaplin

I have to agree with this selection—though, if you ask me, I’d definitely toss in The Golem, Strike by Sergei Eisenstein, Greed by Erich von Stroheim, The Phantom Carriage by Victor Sjöström, Nosferatu, and The Last Man by Murnau... plus Takový, Earth by Dovzhenko, Dr. Mabuse and Die Nibelungen by Fritz Lang... and so on.

Let Costner wave that American flag around all he wants... I'm just completely fed up with these fake patriots back home who robbed us blind, only to force us to sit through movies about people getting rich off the very things they stole from us.