Posts by Karen Smith9

These are two completely different movies—both in terms of their setup and their overall approach. I’m not really going to weigh in on which one is "better," since they both have their own unique strengths and flaws. While Clint and that gritty atmosphere definitely give Escape from Alcatraz the edge, I think The Shawshank Redemption is slightly superior overall—though, if I'm being honest, that overly sentimental ending pulls it down just a touch for me. At the end of the day, we're looking at two solid films that stand on their own, regardless of the subject matter.

cosmiclynx57 said:After a solid third installment, this is definitely one I'm looking forward to. 👋

The second movie was a bit of a letdown—honestly—but the third really brought back that original magic, so I’m expecting the fourth to be just as strong.

If this kind of thing actually appeals to you, then we're clearly talking about some Karanormal inactivity..😁

goldenhound32 said:Honestly, forget Béla Tarr. Sure, Antonioni made slow films with very little happening—but they weren't boring. I can't say the same for Tarr.

Modern filmmakers since 2000—the true artists, in my book—include Haneke, Trier, Wong Kar-wai, and Ki Duk Kim. There might be a few others out there, but those are the heavy hitters.

As for Antonioni, my absolute favorite is Le Amiche. I've given one or two others a nine, but with this one, I was just... speechless 🙏 ...the movie moves along, getting better and better, and just when you think, "My god, this is a masterpiece," the film keeps going and its brilliance never fades.

Downvote me if you must.

Aside from a handful of films, I think Haneke is somewhat overrated—though fine, he's good. But man, Tarr is a once-in-a-generation talent... The Turin Horse is pure hypnosis... even so, I still think Antonioni is a slightly greater master than anyone mentioned here.

Jamie Nelson10 said:I’ve only seen Sátántangó by Tarr so far, and man, that film is pure genius... who else of his is even in that same league?
Honestly, though—how did Antonioni always have such an incredible eye for leading ladies? Every single one of them delivered such iconic performances... I mean, aside from Monica Vitti, who was quite literally his muse and partner in real life—effectively shaping the soul of his filmography through both her presence and her acting—it’s almost impossible not to remember the stunning Jeanne Moreau, who actually manages to steal the spotlight from Monica in La Notte. And then there's Alid Valla in the scream, Lucia Bos, Maria Schneider... he just knew how to draw out this effortless sex appeal from them; they completely commanded every frame. Not to mention the sheer passion, the tension, and that specific sense of anticipation he used to build... those glances between Moreau and Mastroianni at that party, or that intense scene in the room between Valla and Delon... it's just top-tier stuff. It’s hard to put into words—you really have to experience it for yourself...

Regarding Tarr: if we're talking about Werckmeister, Turin Horse, and Sátántangó (well, okay, it's long, but it's brilliant), I’d say those, along with Karhozat, are his best... but honestly, he’s one of those directors you really need to sit down and watch in its entirety to truly "get" him...

He’s honestly one of those rare Italian filmmakers who can turn anyone into a true cinephile—it’s almost inevitable. There is just something about his atmosphere, the way he handles actors, and that subtle, almost invisible layer of metaphor he weaves into everything. He presents this bleak, hopeless world through the lens of Monica Vitti (and man, what an actress she was...). My first real brushes with his work were L'Eclisse and Blow up... though picking a definitive favorite is tough—maybe La Notte? As a younger guy, I was definitely drawn to the rebellious, psychedelic energy of Zabriskie Point, but there was also something about seeing Monica in the red desert that just stuck with me.
I still find myself thinking back to that documentary on TV about Antonioni... honestly, he belongs in that rarefied air alongside the absolute greats—Fellini, Buñuel, Tarkovsky, and the rest. He wasn't just making movies; he was an artist, a true philosopher—the kind of filmmaker we just don't see much of anymore (though perhaps Béla Tarr and a few others might still hold a candle to him).
Kudos to whoever decided to revive that old thread—it’s an incredibly thorough and well-written piece of work!

Arthur Garcia59 said:Personally, I'm just thrilled that people might finally get a chance to discover the works of Renoir, Minnelli, and Chabrol.

Hehe, yeah—I suppose that’s really the only way it ever happens...😉

Rachel Fowler61 said:I haven't seen this one yet—is it actually any good?
I’ve sat through several versions of Anna Karenina, but honestly, none of them really hit the mark for me... mostly because they tend to completely ignore Levin.

Well, there are quite a few versions out there...
you've got the Chabrol version from '91, and then a handful of others...
but personally, this one just seemed to resonate with me the most.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041615/

Rachel Fowler61 said:I had no idea they were filming an adaptation—that is absolutely fantastic news! Though, let’s be honest, it can never truly capture the magic of the original book. As an American literature professor, I find myself getting completely swept up every single time I teach this particular text; the work is just... well, it's flawless. Absolutely perfect. I am genuinely looking forward to seeing how they handle it on screen.😍

That’s such a fantastic book—Flaubert really is a master of his craft—but wait, didn't you see the movie version already?

briskhound2 said:It’s actually kind of comforting to think that even in the far-off future, 😁Nike
will still be out there cranking out sneakers...

I can't help but wonder—just how much does an ad like that cost to run? 😁

vividmarlin11 said:Look, I'm not telling you how to live your life. If remakes and prequels irritate you that much—honestly, just steer clear. There are plenty of film industries outside of Hollywood churning out incredibly imaginative movies with fresh ideas.

Besides, how exactly does a remake hurt the original? I don't really watch them—and frankly, they’re usually garbage—but occasionally they spark an interest in the original, which is a win. Sometimes I'm even curious about a new take on an old concept. Now, I'll just blather on aimlessly... I'm a huge fan of the Halloween series, and I actually had fun seeing how Rob Zombie played around with the whole concept. Quality-wise, the movie was miles below Carpenter's original, but I enjoyed myself and satisfied that fanboy itch for a new Michael Myers adventure. 😁

And thank God, there are enough good movies to throw at you. Even if you watched five films every single day, you'd still be lagging behind and wouldn't even scratch the surface.

Damn it, Hollywood is built on money, and that’s exactly why it survives—that magic piece of paper. For sure. But, thanks for nothing, true cinematic art doesn't depend on Hollywood. 🙂

I know exactly what you mean, though. There was a time when Hollywood actually had some credibility and true artistry... and there really were great films back then. I agree with you—there's definitely a sense of loss there...

John Peterson3 said:Why not? Even if everything comes down to money, why shouldn't we tell a solid story using today's technology?

- I'm really looking forward to Total Recall; it’s a great story with wasted potential if you strip away Arnie's constant shouting.
- Raimi's Spider-Man is absolute garbage where every female character just turns into a damzel in distress for Spidey to save. The casting is terrible. Forget about the love interest when you're dealing with Dunst's character.
- I haven't seen a decent Superman sequel since the Reeves era.
- RoboCop is one of those childhood favorites I'd gladly rewatch in high definition.
- Mad Max might not be a total reboot, but its post-apocalyptic world is so unique—there's no reason not to revisit it.

I have absolutely nothing against remakes of movies that are meant for entertainment anyway. The original always remains the original.

That’s exactly my point... it's endless recycling, like a landfill stretching out to the horizon. The most tragic part is that they even touch the good movies—it loses all sense of dignity and credibility, if there was any to begin with in these modern attempts.

Sophia Grant39 said:The Thing is actually just Carpenter's remake of the 1951 original. This one from last year is just a prequel to Carpenter's 1982 version.

It’s honestly wild how absurd this whole situation has become...

I honestly don't even have the words anymore—it has truly gone too far. Hollywood is stuck in such a massive creative drought that I’m genuinely unsure when they'll ever find their way out. Is there really such a desperate need for all these remakes? Is it absolutely necessary to churn out endless sequels, prequels, spin-offs, or whatever else they call them these days? Look, I get it—it's all about the bottom line—but all they're doing is conditioning audiences to accept these kinds of productions, so maybe people stop looking for anything else? They just mash up ideas from old movies and call it something new. Perhaps the answer lies in the influence of television, where programming mostly consists of endless series, soap operas, and similar nonsense—now that same trend is bleeding right onto the big screen.
On top of that, there's this total lack of creativity in the storytelling and scripts; they try to mask it with flashy new technology and special effects, making everything look more and more like a visual circus.
Movies are meant to be entertainment, sure, but they should be more than just that. Unfortunately, the "fun" aspect has completely taken over, and pure profit has become the driving force—a greed that has swallowed even those who used to be creative, turning them into mere puppets for big capital.

wiredraven82 said:👍 Do you remember that one scene where they decide to whip up a series that couldn't possibly be more cliché? It features those killer names—probably the most ridiculous names ever conceived, yet somehow totally transparent: Brock Landers & Chest Rockwell 🤣😂🤣

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgYKYk4GryU What an intro 😁

epic 😂 what a beautiful tribute to trash cinema... haha, specifically for the villains in bell-bottoms 😂 colonel james presents 🤣

What an absolute masterpiece...😁 I was honestly cracking up at some of those scenes—that rollergirl, haha 😁 ...what a total bunch of lunatics.😂 Using the stage name Dirk Digler 😂 if you haven't seen this yet, drop everything and watch it immediately..😉

fadedseal8 said:You aren't following the thread very well 🙂
The uncles weren't mentioned in that context anywhere 🙂

😁 aha

fadedseal8 said:He isn't watching them because I'm downloading them right now.😛

Who? 😕 Movies or strippers??

Patrick Martin said:his shots—those frames—are just an end in themselves. It’s a clever little trick on his part, really.
You can't win me over like that.

Honestly, you were sold on Prometheus with way fewer gimmicks than this, damn it.

Mark Cruz15 said:and Star Wars🙂

See, I had it in my head all this time that THX 1138 was actually Spielberg's student project—not Lucas's. I guess my memory was a bit fuzzy there😕.

It really is quite fascinating and charming, though.

Patrick Martin said:the sheer cost of bringing their visions, ideas, and imagination to the screen is massive.
The reason why Andrei Tarkovsky didn't care about turning a profit—well, it's because his films cost a fortune. For him, the goal was to philosophize—honestly, that's really all he had left to hold onto.

Besides, these people have earned enough in their lives to ensure they don't have to work for another ten lifetimes. It’s actually quite sad that people fail to notice their enthusiasm and the effort they put in. And I’ll say it again: movies are made for the audience not just for private screenings.

Exactly—they are for the audience—but you're smart enough to realize that "audience movies" are becoming increasingly mindless. Charlie Chaplin made films for the public too, yet his social commentary keeps his legacy alive today (even if some might find his humor a bit naive at times). Why does everything catered to the masses have to be as banal as the shallow, flashy nonsense we see now? People will claim, "That's just how things are these days." I don't buy it. *Bicycle Thieves* used to pack our theaters. Even twenty-five years ago, an Andrei Tarkovsky retrospective at the local film institute would sell out in fifteen minutes.
Audiences watch whatever is served to them, and lately, what's being served is garbage. Now, I'm not going to drag James Cameron or Ridley Scott into this, but they are on the right track.
And honestly, why should I care about some producer's enthusiasm when they've already set themselves up for ten lifetimes? For me, a movie is supposed to be more than just that—damn it.
Andrei Tarkovsky had a specific vision regarding what to say and how to say it; you either accept it or you don't. That is what constitutes personality. Those who know anything about cinema will enjoy it, while everyone else will just go hunt for trailers. And that is simply the reality of today.