Posts by Ryan Hall4

Matthew Young35 said:I feel like I’m being targeted here, likely because I’m probably the biggest *Odyssey* nerd on this entire forum. So, fine. Let’s address it.

Age is an irrelevant metric when judging cinema. I’m old enough to claim I was at the premiere back in 2010 for *2001: A Space Odyssey* at the AMC Lincoln Square. That film holds up just as well today as it did when it first hit the screen decades ago. I remember catching Lynch’s *Dune* when it was brand new—the kind of film he famously didn't even want his name attached to because he thought it was a disaster. That one is harder to pin down. At times, it feels like pure genius; at others, it’s a total facepalm. Personally, I lean toward the former. Perhaps it's just the influence of all those classic novels I've read. Who knows?
On the other hand, you’ve got Star Wars. To me, that's pure trash, regardless of its legacy status. It’s more of a space western than actual science fiction, isn't it?

Now, tell me this: where on earth are you getting the idea that good movies aren't being made today? I specifically said that great sci-fi isn't being made—not that good cinema, in general, is dead. If you look at other genres, there is far more substance and quality being produced than what we see in science fiction. And honestly, this isn't just a modern grievance; it’s always been this way. Throughout the entire history of American filmmaking, truly intelligent, high-quality sci-fi has always been a remarkably rare breed.
It’s actually quite bizarre when you step back and look at the state of things, both in literature and in the world of graphic novels.

That is exactly my point. Once you spot a snob, they are incredibly easy to identify. graniteheron132 and Noah Roberts46 are textbook examples of that breed. They refuse to form an opinion unless it aligns with some arbitrary internet consensus. It’s always the same tired rhetoric: "You only praise classics like The Godfather because they're old." 🤣

Does that mean you two snobs won't be praising the movies you love today thirty years from now? Because if you intend to laud current cinema decades down the line, you are nothing more than hypocrites. You aren't just elitists; you are frauds. What’s truly hilarious about people like you is that you lack the self-awareness to realize you're being pretentious. People like graniteheron132 have existed in every era. I remember back in 2005, browsing old internet message boards and file-sharing sites; you could find the exact same brand of arrogance there. In my experience, these "connoisseurs" have actually seen very few films, genres, or directors. They don't want a debate; they simply want to belittle anyone who disagrees. Go ahead and claim I'm insulting you, but the reality remains: I am merely pointing out how weak your arguments are.

I’ll say it again: some people praise *The Godfather* simply because it’s considered a masterpiece, likely out of pure insecurity rather than genuine appreciation. It’s the same pattern with *The Odyssey* or *12 Angry Men*; while critics and audiences generally align, I refuse to believe these classics built their reputations on a foundation of fake enthusiasts. There is simply no chance that.

I am utterly exhausted by snobs like graniteheron132 and Noah Roberts46, who hide behind internet consensus and recycled talking points just to praise older films simply because of their age. Let’s be clear: there are "recognized classics" that I personally cannot stand. For instance, I have zero interest in the New Hollywood era, which everyone seems to agree was the pinnacle of American cinema. I don't care for films like *Dog Day Afternoon*, *Nashville*, or *The Exorcist*; they just don't resonate with me. That said, I can acknowledge when an older film is a genuine masterpiece, such as *The Odyssey* or *Vertigo*.

Matthew Young35 said:I feel like I’m being targeted here, likely because I’m probably the biggest *Odyssey* nerd on this entire forum. So, fine. Let’s address it.

Age is an irrelevant metric when judging cinema. I’m old enough to claim I was at the premiere back in 2010 for *2001: A Space Odyssey* at the AMC Lincoln Square. That film holds up just as well today as it did when it first hit the screen decades ago. I remember catching Lynch’s *Dune* when it was brand new—the kind of film he famously didn't even want his name attached to because he thought it was a disaster. That one is harder to pin down. At times, it feels like pure genius; at others, it’s a total facepalm. Personally, I lean toward the former. Perhaps it's just the influence of all those classic novels I've read. Who knows?
On the other hand, you’ve got Star Wars. To me, that's pure trash, regardless of its legacy status. It’s more of a space western than actual science fiction, isn't it?

Now, tell me this: where on earth are you getting the idea that good movies aren't being made today? I specifically said that great sci-fi isn't being made—not that good cinema, in general, is dead. If you look at other genres, there is far more substance and quality being produced than what we see in science fiction. And honestly, this isn't just a modern grievance; it’s always been this way. Throughout the entire history of American filmmaking, truly intelligent, high-quality sci-fi has always been a remarkably rare breed.
It’s actually quite bizarre when you step back and look at the state of things, both in literature and in the world of graphic novels.

What’s your take on Andromeda Strain?

Paul Martinez73 said:First off, I'm siding with Ryan Hall4, who showed up acting totally unhinged, so there you have it...
Modern movies are just tailored for today's mindless crowds and the aggressive marketing machine that keeps sucking people in because they get all their news from Facebook and Instagram, where paid ads are hitting them from every single angle.

You see the exact same thing happening with soccer—the actual quality of play is worse than it used to be, and the obsession with viewership numbers is killing the sport. It’s perfectly normal that someone who hasn't seen *12 Angry Men* wouldn't know what a real movie is, or someone thinks *Casablanca* is stupid just because it's in black and white and lacks the sci-fi special effects of something like *The Avengers*... much like how people are suddenly obsessed with modern soccer and massive transfer fees when they didn't give a damn about the game before.

The *Avengers* kind of reminds me of that one movie—maybe it was *New Year's Eve*—where they just threw twenty A-list stars into a blender and called it a movie, and everyone rushed to the theaters to see it.

Nowadays, they churn out films that don't make any sense at all. People are losing their minds over *Dunkirk*, yet there isn't really a plot to speak of; there are five better movies about Normandy out there, but somehow this is considered a masterpiece. It's the same deal with the *Avengers* smashing box office records.

But hey, to each their own...

Well put. You provided a perfect example with Casablanca. I was just as naive as a kid, listening to people rave about what a "great film" it was; naturally, when you hear nothing but praise for something you haven't seen, you end up resenting it. Eventually, I watched it. While it might not be my absolute favorite, it is undeniably an excellent piece of work. Bergman and Bogart famously clashed off-set, but that is the essence of great acting. It is packed with legendary lines and iconic shots. Bogart was a powerhouse.

That is precisely why we have lost our cinematic foundation. Did we grow up on blockbusters? Sure, but compare those classics to the hollow spectacles produced today. It wasn't just blockbusters, though. We grew up with whatever the networks broadcasted, and I know for a fact they regularly aired classics that allowed us to build a genuine appreciation for real filmmaking. Today, those classics aren't on TV nearly as much—I see it myself. Furthermore, it is nearly impossible for a kid today to sit in front of a TV without being distracted by a computer or Facebook; they are raised almost exclusively on modern blockbusters. When they finally try to pivot to an older film, they lack the fundamental appreciation we developed during our childhood. Even video rental stores played a massive role—I'd argue, the most significant role of all.

graniteheron132 said:Honestly, they’re just trying to sell us snake oil with Odyssey. If that movie came out today, people would absolutely tear it to shreds online. They'd be calling it "not even real sci-fi," just some cheap, pseudo-intellectual garbage. It feels like we don't get decent sci-fi anymore. I mean, give me classics like Solaris or Stalker any day. That's where the real stuff is at.

That wouldn't happen because nothing produced today would be shot with the technical precision Kubrick achieved. People fail to grasp that you simply don't see those specific shots or that level of perfection anymore. Furthermore, sci-fi is a far better vehicle for high-concept ideas than horror is. It’s the perfect genre for it, provided the ideas remain central. That’s where Arthur C. Clarke truly excelled. I’d love to see someone actually nail a proper adaptation of the Rama series.

The idea that people would bash older films today is a total fallacy. In fact, I suspect many modern viewers would find The Godfather incredibly tedious. For the first hour, it’s just wedding scenes and Brando talking. It would bore today’s kids to tears, but they’re just casual weekend viewers. Much like yourself. You’re acting like a snob, and this blatant sentence proves it. That sarcasm is a classic hallmark of elitism. When snobs see modern films being criticized, they feel compelled to sarcastically mock classics like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Solaris, assuming we only praise them because they are old. By mocking others' tastes while someone else dares to praise a masterpiece, you’ve become the only true snob here. I get the logic—2001, The Godfather, and Vertigo are at the top of the all-time lists for a reason, even if they aren't "action" movies.

Anyway, this debate is dying because you two are the problem. Go ahead, praise modern cinema all you want, but the reality is simple: there are older films and there are modern films. One era is objectively better than the other. Quality isn't equal across eras. It’s like sports; I find modern tennis much more engaging than the old days. Similarly, older films are often superior to modern ones, though that doesn't mean there aren't good movies being made today.

Look, Metropolis is a pinnacle of science fiction, but apparently, we shouldn't dare praise a film that’s nearly a century old. You all seem to have this mental image where your stomach turns the moment someone mentions an older film. I’m sure there are people who praise old movies just because they’re "classics," but they’re just as much snobs as the rest of you. Leave us regular people alone with your ridiculous generalizations; that's why extremes like you exist. You say 2001 is garbage just so you can feel superior and get a cheap adrenaline rush online to soothe your frustrations. Typical. You're just a snob.

It comes down to memory. Take *Ex Machina*, for example. I remember thinking it was solid, but if you asked me to recap the plot right now, I’d have no clue who did what to whom. That's the problem with cinema. Most modern films just evaporate. You might walk out of a theater feeling absolutely thrilled, but give it a month and it’s gone—it never truly stuck.

Regarding sci-fi or fantasy series: I’m a fan of *Farscape*. Has anyone here seen it? Most people bail after the first few episodes, but that show is absolute perfection once the seasons start progressing. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187636/

*Stargate* was decent, though it dragged on far too long. *Battlestar Galactica* was excellent, even if certain storylines started grating on my nerves toward the end. *The X-Files* is damn good, though calling it pure sci-fi is a stretch since it jumps genres constantly. Finally, *Babylon 5* is somewhat overlooked, but it's top-tier.

The state of cinema today is pathetic. Sure, legends like Steven Spielberg can still churn out a solid flick, but excellence isn't just about avoiding failure. Take *Lincoln*; by any objective standard, it’s a fine piece of filmmaking, but I gain absolutely nothing from watching it. Movies used to possess the power to stir the soul, fueled by actors who actually understood their craft. Now? You watch DiCaprio and all you see is that same tired, exaggerated scowl that becomes an eyesore after ten minutes. We simply don't have those cinematic faces or that caliber of talent anymore. They are extinct.

Exactly. Look at the 1970s—every single year was stacked with masterpieces. You had *The Godfather Part II* and *Chinatown* dropping in the same window. That kind of density is unthinkable today. I’m not delusional enough to demand that level of perfection from modern studios, but they can't even attempt to approach it. Those kinds of movies are gone.

It’s not that there aren't "good" movies being made; you can find decent ones every year. But for me, they are merely competent. They are good, not great. Give me something that leaves a lasting impression, something that actually blows my mind.

The horror genre is suffering from the same rot. I’m not even a die-hard horror fan, but you don't need to be one to see how abysmal the quality has become. Every once in a while, a decent film slips through the cracks, but most of it is just "meta-horror." I am sick to death of these self-aware, clever little commentaries. Oh, look at me, I’m making a meta-horror like *The Cabin in the Woods*, *It Follows*, *The Babadook*, or *Get Out*. Fine, they're okay, but give me some actual substance! Sometimes I just want an old-school horror movie without all the pretentious meta-nonsense.

That’s why we have *The Thing*. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/ Kurt Russell takes down a creature while testing the loyalty of his crew in Antarctica. That is what I’m talking about. Kurt Russell is a total powerhouse.

Noah Roberts46 said:Blade Runner 2049, Arrival, Interstellar, Inception, Ex Machina, Annihilation, District 9, Gravity, Children of Men, Edge of Tomorrow, The Martian, Moon, Donnie Darko, Her, Minority Report (the last Spielberg one was decent enough for me)...

Just off the top of my head—and look, I wouldn't call all of these masterpieces, but most are at least solid. You seriously cannot tell me there hasn't been good sci-fi coming out of America over the last 15 years. If anything, I'd argue there's quite a lot of it, despite this massive superhero wave everyone loves to hate on. Case in point: Villeneuve will probably turn Dune into a multi-film epic.

I'll concede that overall movie quality in the States has dipped compared to the 90s and previous eras, but people really go overboard claiming there isn't any good cinema left.

None of those listed qualify as "smart" sci-fi; they pale in comparison to the classics Matthew Young35 mentioned. Furthermore, claiming there is no good sci-fi left just because you think Spielberg's last decent outing was Minority Report is laughable. To then suggest pseudo-scientific flicks like Inception, Interstellar, or Donnie Darko as alternatives? Now you're adding Edge of Tomorrow to the list too. 🤣

Matthew Young35, what is your take on Soviet sci-fi?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091341/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091759/

And one forgotten gem: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089869/

Hand me those two before any of the titles you listed, you pretentious snob.

That is precisely the issue: all the titles mentioned above are populist sci-fi designed for weekend casuals. It is like reading a trashy pulp novelist while dragging Clarke, Asimov, and Heinlein through the mud. There is zero cinematic culture here, much like the state of modern literature. Everything has been inverted. Today, we listen to the moral lectures of celebrity reality stars. Modern sci-fi follows that exact same pattern. It isn't an issue if a film is populist—even the Odyssey was quite successful for its time, yet it possessed genuine substance. These modern productions lack that fundamental integrity.

I was being nuanced above. Personally, I find Odyssey superior to Interstellar, though it isn't my pick for Kubrick’s finest. That honor belongs to Dr. Strangelove, primarily because of Peter Sellers—undoubtedly Chaplin’s greatest comedic peer in the 20th century. Where are actors of that caliber today? He wasn't just a star; he was a titan. Look beyond the Pink Panther series or Dr. Strangelove at films like The Party or Being There. The man was a pure force of nature. An absolute legend.

He's only saying that because it sounds trendy and he picked it up from someone else.

I've shared my thoughts on Spielberg, but I haven't touched on Lucas. Honestly, I like him even less, but you make a fair point—Noah Roberts46 and his crowd don't realize the sheer scale of his impact on Hollywood. Early Lucas was a master at the helm. To me, Star Wars isn't even his peak; it’s more like American street art. And you just don't see films with that kind of raw, gritty soul anymore. Where did they go? That magic is extinct today.

These online consensus crowds drive me insane, and it’s always the same crowd. People who barely possess a basic grasp of cinematic history acting like supreme elitists. You can call me a snob if you want, but my stance isn't about feeling superior; it’s born from pure frustration with pretentiousness like yours.

Take Tarantino, for example. I actually agree with the sentiment. To be precise: yes, his first two films are his best. But that isn't the point. The point is that those aren't his *only* two good movies. They are the peak, sure, but some of his later work is perfectly decent. Tarantino isn't some untouchable deity, yet you and your ilk cling to this internet consensus, parroting the same tired talking points just like people did ten years ago.

Or look at *2001: A Space Odyssey*. brightpilot6 mentioned he prefers *Interstellar* and doesn't get the hype around Kubrick's masterpiece. Everyone jumped down his throat immediately. I say this as someone who loves *Odyssey* but isn't a fan of *Interstellar*. Once again, you snobs miss the mark. This isn't how intellectual discourse works. You just hear a "smart" opinion from someone else and repeat it like a script. If someone praises Spielberg, you'll just bark back that he only had two good movies, as if you actually know anything.

And you brought up Cameron. Look, I’ll be the first to admit Cameron is a thief—and I’m not even talking about *Avatar*—but the man still delivered the original *Terminator* duo, *Aliens*, the underrated *The Abyss*, and wrote the script for the excellent *Strange Days*.https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114558/ On their own merits, those films are better than the entire Marvel and DC catalogs combined. It’s infuriating to see that there’s simply no room left in theaters for movies with that kind of grit. Not just *Terminator*, either; I’d give anything to see *Back to the Future* on the big screen again. Where are the intelligent blockbusters? They’re extinct. We’re stuck with Marvel and generic junk now.

🙏 We need a revival of this style, a tribute to that mid-to-late 90s era of filmmaking and groundbreaking tech. I remember that period vividly. Approaching the turn of the millennium, there was this specific atmosphere, a sense of mystery surrounding the new century that fueled these high-concept films and disaster epics. It felt more sincere, more organic.

Take a page from the master . There simply isn't a director more technically flawless than Hitchcock. It makes you wonder why modern filmmakers can't replicate those insane, perfect shots he pulled off frame after frame. Even with today's advanced technology, we just aren't seeing it. What happened to true craft?

Noah Roberts46 said:@SS
Exactly. That’s why I don't get why people like GQ are so against those films. Look, I get that some people just don't like them—no skin off my back—but these movies are constantly being scapegoated as the primary reason for the decline in cinema quality. As if the dip didn't actually start way before that, back when we were getting heavy hitters like *There Will Be Blood* and *No Country for Old Men*.

Spielberg and Lucas have brilliant ideas. 🤣

The problem is they haven't produced anything worth watching in years; frankly, they're irrelevant now. Meanwhile, younger directors with actual vision can pull off hits without breaking a sweat—just look at the youngest Oscar winner behind *La La Land*. It clearly resonated with audiences. And honestly, seeing those old fossils like Cameron whining about the Marvel era? It's obvious they're just bitter because they can't make anything meaningful anymore.

People need to realize that almost every movie is available globally now. Who's actually going to pay to see something like *Lincoln* in a theater when I can just stream it at home with zero difference in the experience? I’d much rather go to the cinema for *Infinity War* than sit through some drama I could easily download. Even if the drama is technically "better," the theater experience dictates my choice.

And I don't understand why other genres are getting lumped into this mess. There are plenty of action movies thriving despite the mountain of superhero sludge out there—actually, there are twice as many. Take The Rock, for instance; his career is built on solid action, not capes, yet nobody blames him even though those movies rake in massive checks. Plus, you've got Netflix now, which will throw money at you if your idea is good. They'll hand Scorsese $150 million for a mob flick; that kind of budget just wasn't on the table before.

You are the only true snob in this thread, quite literally. You lecture everyone else about elitism while embodying it yourself. You are a textbook example of a conformist snob who simply parrots whatever outdated rhetoric he picked up from his elders.

Let me clarify my point. I am referring to internet consensus—the kind of tired tropes like "Spielberg is only good for his first two films," "Tarantino peaked early," or "Robert De Niro has been washed for twenty years." While that last one might actually be true, my point stands. People use these clichés solely to mock others and inflate their own supposed sophistication. And Noah Roberts46, stop repeating the same nonsense you've already put in your film PDFs; you’re nothing but a fraud. This Spielberg line is older than the Bible, but back in my day during the 90s, using that phrase was a quick way to get laughed at by everyone else. We didn't dismiss it because it was factually wrong, but because it was a hallmark of pretension. If you say "Spielberg only has two good movies and they were his first," you aren't a critic—you're just a snob.

From the very beginning of this damn forum, certain people have been harping on this just to feed their own egos. It’s honestly hilarious to watch; it’s obvious Noah Roberts46 only started discovering cinema in the last year or two, and now he thinks that one specific line makes him sound incredibly cool, so he keeps repeating it. Look, I’ll admit that Spielberg’s best work might be *Jaws* or *Raiders of the Lost Ark*, but I refuse to act like some pretentious snob claiming he only ever made two good movies. No way, man. I’m perfectly fine swapping out *Duel* for *Indiana Jones* or *Close Encounters of the Third Kind* because, quite simply, they are superior films.

Even as someone who isn't exactly a Spielberg superfan, I am telling you all: please stop following the online mob. In this country, people blindly follow whatever "internet consensus" pops up, much like how they jump on bandwagon opinions regarding certain directors.

It’s the same nonsense when Noah Roberts claims "they haven't made anything good in years." This is a classic trope used by certain directors. My friend here clearly worships that overrated Scorsese guy, who built his entire career on romanticizing Italian-Americans. You could argue Scorsese hasn't produced anything worthwhile lately, but even that isn't quite right. Even if the man is a hack, any true cinephile should recognize that his films are technically well-crafted—though, of course, perception is subjective. You can't apply that logic to Spielberg. *Lincoln* is a solid film. You claim he hasn't delivered anything good in years. I’m not a huge fan of that movie myself, but what I see is stellar acting across the board, sharp Spielberg direction, and great costume design. It didn't do much for me either, but for God's sake, stop clinging to these tired internet consensuses.

And you know who says this most often? Aside from being total snobs, it's usually people who haven't actually watched many movies. They want to feel special; they want everyone to know they finally sat through a "classic," but give me a break—you've barely scratched the surface of Kurosawa or Melville. And the best part is, you can try to flip the script and call me a snob, and fine, go ahead. That's just how you deal with people like you.

Seriously, stop following these online trends. It only happens in circles like this. People recycle the exact same tired catchphrases since this forum started; only the usernames change. I never once saw those cliches coming from ruggedjackal46 or Robert Torres, who are actual cinephiles. I've enjoyed reading their takes on film since the early days. Never. But you lot, who don't know a damn thing, feel compelled to parrot these phrases. I say this as someone who isn't a Spielberg fanatic and would agree that *Raiders* is his peak, but I don't use those lines to act cool, like "Spielberg only has two good movies and they were his first." Bullshit. *Indiana Jones* remains one of the greatest adventure films ever made. That is a real blockbuster.

James Anderson5 said:I think I realized about 5 to 10 years ago that the return on investment in the film industry was hovering around only 5%. The studios probably caught on, which is why they've largely abandoned "risky" projects like smarter, original films. These superhero stories are clearly just a formula for easy cash and easy marketing. Everything else takes a backseat. It’s all about the money, and everything else is secondary. I think that’s the biggest issue with modern Western civilization today (and probably everywhere else too, though I wouldn't know)...

Maybe so. Even those old Batman flicks weren't exactly masterpieces or deep intellectual studies. In fact, quite the opposite. But what we're seeing now is a step down even from that; for most of the movies I mentioned, Predator is basically Citizen Kane by comparison...

But every once in a while, a low-budget gem comes along that actually catches you off guard. A great example would be this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/

I stumbled upon this one by total chance. The budget was clearly as tight as it gets, but the movie isn't just smart—it's incredible. There isn't a single special effect, yet it stays completely intense...

James Anderson5 said:Speaking of great international cinema, we have to talk about the first two Elite Squad movies. They honestly blow just about every American action flick from the last few years out of the water... especially with that soundtrack 🙏

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861739/

And then there's this incredible piece of Scandinavian filmmaking

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1614989/

This is the same situation. Look, this first one is just pseudo-scientific New Age garbage; nothing irritates me more than movies that pretend to be profound when they have no idea what they want to be. It’s like *Coherence*. It’s the same junk as Marvel, just in different packaging. At least Marvel doesn't hide what it is. With this Scandinavian one, you can watch whatever you want, but calling bad movies "excellent" is a mistake. What exactly makes this an "excellent" film? Listen, my standards for excellence, as they should be for anyone, are high. This is based on a novel by that hollow author Jo Nesbo. His books are full of holes, and this movie is one giant, unrealistic void. Think of it as some sort of thriller. There's no supernatural element here, no superpowers—it's a serious film trying too hard to be something it isn't. I get why these are attractive to you; I call them "void movies." Sure, it's fine as mindless entertainment, but there is zero chance that such a hollow film qualifies as excellent.

It's not like you need to sit through Bergman or Vinterberg's heavy dramas, but there are plenty of genuinely good, serious Scandinavian films out there. Yeah, the *Hunter* stuff by Nesbo... 🤣 check this one out instead: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1332134/. There’s no exaggeration like in *Hunter*; it’s a serious, excellent film.

For a low-budget production, this is a masterpiece: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419677/. Unfortunately, not many people caught this gem. There are plenty of films out there, but recommending what you suggested is like recommending Marvel movies to someone. It’s incredible how many people talk trash about Marvel and then turn around and worship that film about Jesus and bounty hunters.

Modern film culture is lacking if you think this is normal. I grew up on Hitchcock. I was raised on his work, and I state this with absolute conviction: there will likely never be a better director than the great Hitchcock. His technical skill and storytelling were unparalleled. His films aren't heavy-handed dramas, yet they are pure fantasy in how he turns simple stories into something extraordinary. Take Scorsese, for example. He’s elevated by kids who are obsessed with mobsters and gangsters. Don't get me wrong, Scorsese is a quality director, but he sold his vision to the youth, and now the youth are the only ones putting him on a pedestal. Realistically, he doesn't belong in that inner circle of the absolute greatest.

Hitchcock is everything. If you actually want to learn about cinema, watch Hitchcock. Raise your children on Hitchcock. I am being completely serious.