Just finished watching the movie, and honestly, it was pretty solid. 🙂 It’s definitely not some groundbreaking cinematic masterpiece, but it’s a really good watch. The kids are just brilliant—they have such distinct personalities (especially the little guy playing Zlatko), and man, they can actually act.
I caught this documentary last night, and honestly, I pretty much liked it.
Even though it gives a pretty one-sided look at the cinema from the old Yugoslavia era, it didn't bother me. The film isn't trying to claim that the South was some kind of utopia; it’s just pointing out the things that were actually beautiful and meant something to people back then. Legends like Bat and those old-school cinematographers breathed life into that era, and you can tell they basically lost their identity once the South fell apart—but they don't seem to mind, because life was genuinely great for them during that period.
At its core, this is just a movie highlighting the "feel-good" moments within state-sponsored filmmaking. If you go in expecting a "rigorous critique of the system" or if you try to burden the film with your own baggage (specifically those deep-seated nationalistic grievances), you're looking in the wrong place. The filmmakers made a conscious, explicit choice not to deal with that. Jumping on a film just because it doesn't portray the former country through your specific ideological lens says more about your own cultural—and personal—traumas than the movie itself. It’s a shame, really; I just want to learn about a previous chapter of my own culture without having every self-righteous Collins type swooping in to lecture me with their ideological nonsense. That seems to happen with pretty much any film, play, or book that dares to touch on socialism.
The reason I actually enjoyed it wasn't because I discovered some groundbreaking cinematic theory, but because I saw a sense of connection to the craft—a genuine love for a single field—that I rarely see in this country anymore. Seeing that packed stadium in the footage gave me this profound sense of loss. Back then, those big awards ceremonies felt massive and politically significant; today, they're just politically charged and utterly hollow. The film managed to capture those specific emotions that I just don't see in our society today. I'm not asking for much more than that.
P. S. How does Bulajić manage to lie through his teeth with that smug little grin, claiming they captured the bridge collapse over the Mississippi River perfectly? 🤣 🤣
Why on earth does an "Interior" section even exist under Housing? Is there going to be an "exterior" subforum too? What, is that specifically for the homeless?
melloworca6 said:And how can you actually be sure you're leaking your own data instead of someone else's?
You can't know for certain, because let's face it, you can't know almost anything in this life with 100% certainty.
What you can do is weigh the situation and see if you can reach a level of confidence that's "good enough." In this specific case, we have a user who's currently under a ban, yet she's providing her email address so other users can reach out via private message. To me, it sounds perfectly plausible. I don't see any logical reason why she would go through the trouble of posting someone else's contact details. I’d say there’s a 99% chance she's telling the truth about it being her own info. I’m leaving that remaining 1% just in case she completely lost her mind overnight.
If you want my take on moderation, doing it without using your brain is like going skydiving and deciding not to pull the ripcord.
Bradley Sanders4 said:As I understand it, those privacy laws about leaking info are meant to stop people from doxxing others, not from posting their own damn details. Is there a lawyer on this forum who can make sense of this mess?
What mess?
Person A posted their own email address just so other users could reach them while they're under a ban.
The upside of deleting it: you eliminate the tiny, microscopic chance that she accidentally leaked someone else's address (which is unlikely, since why would anyone bother posting a stranger's email just to tell people to send them private messages?) or that she tries to sue the site over her own self-published email. That wouldn't fly here in the States, either.
The downside of deleting it: you're stripping away her ability to talk to people outside the forum (which isn't actually part of the ban she received), you're setting a precedent where admins would have to scrub endless amounts of private info from profiles and posts across the entire site, you're fueling more drama with an already unhappy user, and you might even inadvertently push her to create a sockpuppet account just to stay in touch with people.
You don't need a law degree to figure out which option makes more sense.
Good grief, she got banned and can't actually talk to anyone anymore, so she left her email address for people to reach out. Honestly, why be so incredibly rigid? For God's sake, have a little bit of empathy for people! 🤦
melloworca6 said:I was responding to Bradley Sanders4's post; I wasn't targeting any specific individual.
Bradley Sanders4 asked why she couldn't post her private info on the forum, so I simply asked how we were supposed to verify those were actually her details and not someone else's.
No, I'm the one who screwed her over.
Oh, what a brilliant realization! Because obviously, Kuki is just some brainless sixteen-year-old with nothing better to do than drop other people's emails on a forum because she's a total psycho looking for blood and chaos.
My God, what a massive wave of hypocrisy.
There's no need to be rude. I asked a simple question.
But look, we're discussing a specific case here, and moderation is always about dealing with the specifics. Sometimes someone will post something like, "Hey, send dick pics to my email at anderlon@forum.hr," and then we'll know they're probably lying. Other times, you get a situation where the email address is likely legitimate. The point is, there’s no sense in deleting EVERYTHING; you have to leave the cases where it's highly probable the person isn't lying about their contact info.
quietdriver3 said:That all sounds great on paper, but consider this: if you build an entire theory around a movie, only for the director to tell you his intention was something else entirely, aren't you basically just performing psychoanalysis on the creator? 😁 The mind boggles.
Exactly. If Tarantino claims his film is about women, but you insist it’s actually about female empowerment through footwear, then you aren't interpreting the art—you're just psychoanalyzing the man behind the camera. 😁
northerncrane4 said:Anyway, there’s something on my mind. Today, I stumbled upon two different threads where people were citing quotes from directors or authors of the original source material just to prove a point in an argument.
How much do you guys actually care about those quotes from press junkets or interviews—quotes that, let's be honest, aren't always even authentic? Have you ever caught yourselves using them as a trump card in a debate just to try and flip the script in your favor?
Whether we're talking about an adaptation or an original film, an author's comments don't mean a damn thing to me when it comes to evaluating or interpreting the work. If a movie didn't move me, a director's statement isn't going to suddenly manufacture that emotion. Honestly, I find it a bit rude when an author tries to narrow down all possible interpretations to fit their own specific vision after the fact. Just because Clarke said the film shouldn't be understood, does that mean I should abandon my own process of making sense of it? Fak!
Don't get me wrong, it’s always a pleasure to read an author talking passionately about their own work or someone else's. "Lynch about Lynch" was one of my favorite books on cinema, but I don't view it as an official guide to his films; I see it as a monologue from someone who simply loves movies. When it comes to interpreting a film, a director's quote carries about the same weight as a comment from quietdriver3 😁 — it might be smart, it might be beautiful, but at the end of the day, the most important thing is watching the movie and forming your own opinion.
I haven't finished reading everything yet, but I’m digging it. You can tell everyone contributing actually knows their stuff, genuinely loves cinema, and did their homework on their specific topics. It’s refreshing to see such a solid approach without anyone trying to flex their ego or acting bitter. Nice work, 🙂.
If I were to offer one suggestion, maybe the magazine could be a bit bolder—lean into those weirder, more unconventional topics, like that piece on Ford's sexual hygiene. As for the piece on Terrence Malick, it's a good concept, but way too much of it focuses on the director's persona. Honestly, I’ve had my fill of all these myths surrounding "unconventional" directors. Look, a person should just make a great movie and let the critics deal with the films themselves, rather than making the whole story about how much of an oddball the director is. I find that same pattern annoying when people talk about figures like Thomas Pynchon or Wong Kar-wai.
Also, that entire translation of the Sight & Sound piece on Citizen Kane felt totally unnecessary. In my opinion, the writers at Variety are more than capable of producing a far superior text without needing to lean on a long translation just to "back them up." And frankly, those little jabs at top 10 lists and various rankings get under my skin, so I don't see why so much space is being given to someone who obsesses over that kind of thing.😁
Jesse Thomas7 said:a-ha, listen up everyone, I’ve actually got the BASICS ready for a lawsuit! Obviously, there’s a 99.99% chance I’ll end up as a punchline in the local papers under some "ridiculous" headline right next to that guy who tried to argue in court that he actually owns the sun, but hey, I can still sue them. If I somehow manage to pull off a scheme where the judge is forced to watch Tron: Legacy the night before making his ruling, my chances of winning this suit are absolutely MASSIVE, haha. So if I actually pull the trigger on this, you guys can all point and laugh at me when they publish my photo with a caption like: The girl who thought she could force Universal to preview their products before actually paying for them!
Btw, I see people are still totally missing the point. You’re all obsessing over how easy it is to stay INFORMED these days—which, fine, nobody is disputing that—but I’m just saying that out of all that noise, none of it matters to the one person who ends up NOT liking the movie. I mean, isn't half of those critics getting paid to sing the praises of absolute garbage? Don't they have their own little circles of bloggers and forum trolls doing the exact same thing? But noooooo, of course everyone is just writing the truth, pure truth, and nothing else...
So, I was under the impression that the whole point here was to critique the actual quality of the movie. But apparently, I missed the mark entirely. It turns out the real issue isn't whether the film itself holds water, but rather that one specific individual just didn't get what they wanted out of it despite having already paid for the ticket. Is that really how we're playing this? $12So, it looks like I was being a bit too generous with my interpretation, but hey, if you’re insisting that's the point, then fine... I guess I'll take your word for it.
Roger Long67 said:Well, sure—as if ratings and reviews are anything more than marketing fluff. There’s really no way around it; true objectivity comes from combining actual viewing experience with established film literature. That’s the only way to reach a legitimate judgment on a film's value (setting aside personal bias) and to assess its quality, even just based on a trailer. If we reduce everything to mere subjective impressions, we degrade the very idea of film criticism and open the door to total relativism where nothing has any real value. After all, we’re on this forum because we believe we know "a little more" than the average person, right?
Speaking of the topic at hand, the influx of capital into global—and specifically American—cinema over the last decade has essentially doubled. Consequently, movies have become more commercialized than ever before. Much like any other commodity, they've become more perishable and disposable. At the same time, the widespread democratization of filmmaking and access to tools has lowered standards and diluted overall quality, but I suppose that's just the cost of global capitalism. Film has undergone a fascinating transformation throughout its history: back in its early days, to draw crowds into theaters, it had to establish itself as an art form, whereas today, to attract an audience, it has to abandon the pretense of being art altogether!
I can get behind the take on how things look right now, but I have to push back on the nostalgia trip regarding the past. Seriously, when was "the majority" of the audience actually interested in art? And when exactly were most movies considered "great"? We all have this habit of cherry-picking the absolute masterpieces from decades ago while conveniently scrubbing the mountain of garbage from our memories. That’s fine for a conversation, but using that selective memory to claim the ratio of good-to-bad films has shifted drastically since the old days just isn't a fair argument.
Chloe Martinez5 said:Look, take that massive storm that brewed around Inception—I know plenty of people who aren't exactly die-hard moviegoers but still went to see it. And man, they were all disappointed. And how could they have avoided that? What, by reading a review in the New York Times? The Wall Street Journal? Maybe a film journal in two years (which, let's face it, would probably be the only thing left unsold in the US)? And as for IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes—even if people here find it weird—those are legit movie sites, at least from our perspective. Sorry, but not everyone spends their entire life glued to the internet and forums like you and I do. 😁
As for your other question, yeah, I feel totally coerced into watching trailers whenever I hit the AMC Theatres—unless, of course, I purposely show up late just to dodge them. And honestly, they work brilliantly. Sometimes you really get the feeling that a trailer can actually ruin a movie just by looking at it—not to mention the sheer hype alone.
Hold on a second. Are we really complaining that someone wasn't informed about a movie when that information is literally one click away? You just type the title into Google and boom—there's the IMDb page with everything clearly laid out and reviewed. Let's not get carried away here.
And regarding your "deep" question: yeah, I force myself to watch trailers whenever I go to the AMC Theatres—unless, of course, I intentionally show up late just to dodge them. And honestly, they do a masterfully good job. Sometimes you genuinely get the impression that a trailer can make a movie look bad just by looking at it; I'm not even kidding.
No one is going to make a trailer that makes a movie look terrible, but a trailer can certainly be informative. If I watch, say, the trailer for "The Expendables," then I know exactly what kind of flick I'm getting into. In that case, I also have a pretty good idea of the quality level. 😁
Jesse Thomas7 said:I’m honestly at a loss with this one, so if anyone has some actual insight—maybe an argument that won't make me feel totally ripped off, played for a fool, or just plain exhausted every single time I walk out of a movie theater—please throw it my way. Look, in today's world, consumers actually have rights, right? If you buy a shirt and it falls apart after the first wash, you take it back. If the food you bought is spoiled, you get a refund, and so on, and so forth. What I can't wrap my head around is why ART (and let's call movies and music that, even if that's debatable) is completely exempt from any kind of accountability toward a dissatisfied customer. How is it possible that this is the one industry where you HAVE to buy completely blind? No matter what, you have to pay for the film—whether it’s a streaming sub, a Blu-ray, or a ticket at AMC Theatres—but if the experience is absolute garbage, who do you even complain to? You paid your money, and that's it. It's gone. Of course, that's exactly why more and more people are turning to piracy. They’ve been straight-up scammed so many times that they're just looking for a way to actually SEE what they're paying for first (which is honestly such an unthinkable level of audacity!), though of course, that makes the artists who churn out the exact same trash incredibly angry. Thanks for listening, but I just finished watching Tron: Legacy ($12) and that was truly the final straw for me... I actually posted this over on the Legal forum too, because I am genuinely curious how they managed to become more protected from unhappy customers than a Siberian tiger. Long live Quentin Tarantino, though; he's the only one I'll keep buying into blindly...
Your analogy doesn't quite hold water. If a movie stream crashes fifteen minutes in and you can't finish it, you get your money back. On the flip side, if you buy bottom-tier food, you aren't getting a refund (just look at McDonald's).
The movie theater system isn't charging you for the quality of the film; they're charging you for the seat in the room. Ticket prices don't fluctuate based on whether the movie is a masterpiece or trash. When you pay for a ticket, the owner is essentially letting you legally watch a film in their building. It might be an unpleasant experience, but it’s hard to feel cheated when the terms of the deal were laid out right at the start.
Of course, that bitter feeling you get from low-quality filmmaking is definitely worth debating. There are movies so abysmal that the creators should honestly feel ashamed to even ask someone to sit through them, let alone charge them for the privilege. Then you have those movies that actually deserve a ticket price, but the distributor refuses to release them in theaters. It's just a million little frustrations. Thank God that, for now, there are ways to bypass such an unbalanced and frustrating relationship: torrents. We'll just have to see how long that lasts.
Se7en is my absolute favorite. I remember watching it for the first time back in the day, and man, I had never seen anything quite like it. I was pretty young then, yeah 😁 but it absolutely shook me to my core. It’s one of those films that just stays with you. Now, Fight Club is a different story. I actually read the book before seeing the movie, so the film didn't hit me nearly as hard. Honestly? The book is so good it almost feels like the adaptation was unnecessary—it doesn't really bring much new to the table.
As for the rest? Either I haven't sat down to watch them (like Alien, Panic Room, or The Game), or they just don't hold a candle to those two.
driftingeagle27 said:It’s honestly pathetic how this Reddit treats people who have been here for a decade and just want to stay active while raising some legitimate, good-faith concerns.
What does my business have to do with your little disciplinary action that you claim you earned? I don't care. If you enjoy getting kicked out, knock yourself out.
If the fact that blatant chauvinism in a thread I'm participating in (and I say blatant just to distinguish it from something more subtle, like Smoogjev's style) inspired me to report the post, reply to it to draw attention to it, and essentially force others to compare it to the post that got me a red card—if my post can just be deleted once the original gets sanctioned—then fine. But no, ruggedjackal46 hits me with a red card for it instead. Yet another one.
I'm not going to sit around letting some ruggedjackal46 ban me for no reason; I wouldn't touch a forum like that with a ten-foot pole.
And you’re seriously trying to tell me it’s fine for a moderator to claim that's just "part of their handle"? What is this, some lawless wasteland? And they even write it like, "Govnar—and you know it"—which basically translates to, "I have a pathetic sense of humor and can do whatever I want, act however I feel like, and you all just have to deal with it."
Look, if I actually sat here and listed every single thing worth complaining about on this Reddit, I wouldn’t have any time left for the stuff in my life that actually matters more than this place, haha. There’s just too much.
Fine, I'll mention it—actually, let me address him directly:
Anderlon, this Reddit is going downhill, you should probably do something about it.
Commenting on someone else's post saying "And then I get a card" is off-topic (since this isn't the place to debate moderation decisions) and completely unnecessary (especially since the moderator hadn't even issued the card for the previous post yet).
You knew exactly what you were doing, and you knew the consequences. What did you expect? A pardon based on your intellect?
When your ban expires, you're welcome to head over to other media, because you actually have the potential to be a decent, constructive participant. But every single time you respond to someone else's opinion by trolling, you're going to get a card for it.
Honestly, ads in newspapers and on PBS irritate me just as much. The only real difference is that in those cases, I’m actually paying for the privilege of being interrupted by commercials, whereas here everything is free, so I should probably be more patient with the ads. Since I can use a great resource like this forum to read and write for $0.00 anyway—and I get that forums need some way to stay afloat (if it isn't through subscriptions, it's going to be through advertising)—what am I really complaining about? Especially since I’ve got Adblock Plus running on Firefox.
Joe Johnston? Honestly, I wasn't a fan of his "Wolfman" at all. The movie just felt completely soulless, and visually? It didn't really do much for me either. At this rate, I've got a feeling this upcoming film isn't going to be anything to write home about.
I figured I’d toss in my own quick take on the films and the festival.
The festival itself was actually pretty charming and totally fine by me. The organization was surprisingly decent, aside from that last-minute blunder where the concert overlapped with a screening. But hey, whatever. I didn't have massive expectations going in, and it turned out to be quite solid. Most of the crowd was local, which made the atmosphere feel much more comfortable and way less pretentious than what you get at a big fest in Boston.
Anyway, here’s the short version of the movies I caught:
"Destination Unknown" – An American indie about two guys trying to drive to the coast in their grandad's old car without a map. It felt like the filmmakers just got high and spent an hour cracking jokes—most of which were either terrible or clearly inside jokes—and then decided, "Yeah, let's turn this into a movie." Truly awful. The jury gave it special praise, though I honestly have no clue why.
"Concert" – A comedic melodrama about a conductor from a better orchestra who gets demoted to a janitor during the USSR era, only to get a shot at reuniting his old crew (who are all working blue-collar jobs now) to perform a concert in Paris. Even though the theme sounds heavy, it plays out like one of those light Hollywood fluff pieces—just a breezy comedy. The Russians are likable enough, but nothing special. Plus, it stars that intense Jewish woman from Inglourious Basterds.
"Honey" – I actually really liked this one. It’s slow, so it requires some patience and focus, but the acting is top-notch (that kid is a legend!), the visuals are gorgeous, and the story itself is great. At the center is this little Turkish boy, maybe seven years old, who’s shy and stutters, living in a small town with his beekeeper father and stay-at-home mother. The kid's struggles—like having to read aloud in front of the class or fighting for that honor roll medal the teacher hands out—run parallel to the depiction of his relationship with his parents and the looming misfortune heading toward their family.
Short films – I watched "Libertango," "Yellow Moon" (again), "WAGs," and "Everything I Want to Be, I Already Am." "Yellow Moon" deserved its award; it was a very solid little film. "Libertango" is about two pretentious lesbians on the verge of breaking up who keep dropping these deep, heavy lines, but unfortunately, the film lacks any sense of ironic distance from them. 😬 "WAGs" is just a mediocre flick about soccer players' wives, and I honestly couldn't wrap my head around that last American film. I truly didn't understand the characters' behavior or even the reason why half of them existed in the script in the first place.