Christian Taylor3 said:'In my opinion'; 'My issue with David Fincher'... No, ruggedjackal46, that (already highly subjective) argument doesn't rely solely on Benjamin Button and those unmade projects involving that weak-willed Mark Zuckerberg. It covers everything. ☕
edit:
That whole 'let's not act like martyrs' thing was probably an unnecessary generalization on my part (well, a paraphrase of it). Mea culpa. 🙂
So, what *is* it actually based on?
I'll take responsibility for being a bit difficult here. 😁
Christian Taylor3 said:Let's be real here, we aren't going to pretend otherwise—the script for The Social Network has been out for ages, and honestly, it’s not even remotely close to the old Fincher vibe. Then you have this new hype job, which makes me wonder, good grief, what are we actually doing? A movie about little brat Zuckerberg feat. a newly enlightened Hollywood sweetheart version of Fincher, backed with Kanye West's new single, 'Power." 😕
I could go on forever about Benjamin Button, but if you ask me, there is absolutely nothing Fincher-esque about it, IMHO. To paraphrase briskfalcon45 (just so there's no confusion): 'Well, he's finally sold out.' Or if you listen to xavierkat talking about Nolan: 'It's as if he's lost his sense of direction and his compass, just surrendering to the masses and simplifying himself so everyone can digest him and love him.' The last time Fincher truly felt like himself was with Zodiac, and since then, he's basically gone off the radar. Instead of maturing as a director, it feels like he's just started to rot.
As for this remake of an already mediocre film, everything has already been said, so I don't see why he even bothered. 🤷
I don't see why I'm being called "difficult" just because I refuse to judge a movie that hasn't even been filmed yet. Sorry, but that feels unprofessional to me. It's just as unserious as judging a film solely based on its script. And it's just as ridiculous as judging a film simply because I think the lead character is a total wimp.
So, Fincher leaked it? That theory is basically built on nothing more than Benjamin Button and some hypothetical movies he hasn't even made yet. Give me a break.
I really like the actor who played Selina Meyer—just incredible. From the relentless, top-tier swearing to that seemingly endless supply of pure negative energy, it’s honestly unlike anything else I've seen 😁
The only thing that didn't quite land for me was spoilers how Gandolfini’s character doesn't actually quit at the end. That twist felt way too sudden and lacked any real motivation. It felt like the writers were just checking a box, thinking every single character had to turn out to be a total piece of trash, so they forced it here too. end spoilers
And honestly, the title itself is kind of silly. It makes you think you're in for some sort of "lucky comedy." Don't let that fool you! The whole thing is shot like a political documentary trying to give off this gritty, real-world vibe, even though the characters and situations are absolutely maddeningly absurd 😍
silentpilot6 said:It all comes down to how you approach the issue at hand... we're constantly bombarded by Hollywood movies where most of them are absolute garbage or just mindless blockbusters designed solely to squeeze out a few extra bucks... on the flip side, when some European or Asian film makes its way over here, they tend to be genuinely high-quality gems. Because of that, we have this tendency to put every other foreign cinema on a pedestal, completely forgetting that European and Asian films aren't immune to crap, trash, or pure stupidity. If we watched as many non-American films as we watch American ones, we’d probably run into just as much nonsense... 🤷
I'm inclined to agree with Legion here.
Regarding the list, the lack of clear criteria bugs me too—mostly because I actually want to check out these lesser-known films, but I'd enjoy it a whole lot more if the author explained *why* these movies are supposed to be great instead of just asking us to take their word for it. :Skeptik:
From what I gather, the Student Union has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy lately, so it probably helped Puhovski out to have the documentary festival hosted there. But honestly, man—just come out and say, "I moved the festival there because it makes more financial sense for me," instead of all this vague nonsense about how the Student Union smells while trying to act all high and mighty.
Nancy Fox89 said:a) what kind of theme would you like to see explored in an American film
Something that isn't tied up in the American Civil War or the lingering social fallout from that era.
b) which American prose work would you love to see adapted for film
Unlike some of the other folks on this forum, I don't really see the point in adapting American prose just for the sake of it. I mean, what’s the real value in turning a Henry James novel into a movie? What do we actually gain by dragging a Jamesian story into the modern cinematic medium? I'm not saying there's zero merit there—of course there is—but I'm arguing that simply slapping a film format onto a piece of literature doesn't inherently make it worthwhile.
So, if you ask me which book should be adapted? Honestly, it just comes down to the director's specific style.
I guess I can't really say what the exact intention was—you’d probably have to ask the director himself about that—but since you brought up Bates, I feel like this movie offers such a different perspective. It still plays around with that whole duality of his character, but it seems to shift the focus toward seeing Bates more as a victim. It feels like a direct nod to Hitchcock's style, because Hitchcock never really judged anyone; he just laid out the conflict between Bates' internal reality and society's expectations, making us question what "normal" even means. That's probably why we get that psychologist's comment at the end about how it wasn't Bates committing the crimes, but his mother instead. Beyond that, there are a few other threads being pulled, and I personally found it pretty interesting to look for those little connections to the original and see which motifs stayed the same and which ones were flipped completely on their head.
Regarding the plot summary—I actually think you might be missing the point a little bit. I wasn't really suggesting that you’d actually enjoy the movie; honestly, that’s exactly why I started this thread in the first place, because I feel like I've read the most contradictory, completely opposing reviews ever, even from pretty respected critics. I guess it feels a bit unfair to judge it just because the premise sounds silly when it's summarized so bluntly. A huge chunk of Hitchcock's films—or even just good movies in general, if you want to look at it that way—can sound pretty underwhelming when you condense them down. To me, the real question is how the narrative layer is handled, or rather, how they actually bring that skeleton to life on screen. That ending you mentioned, which seems a bit goofy, doesn't actually reveal itself until you've sat through two hours of the film where there are very few clues pointing you in that direction, all leading up to a suspenseful moment that, I dare say, might even be stronger than what we saw in the original—though, I should probably add, I did figure out the twist in the original fairly quickly, but again, that's not really the point. If you only judge a story based on its basic plot rather than how the work is actually brought to life, I guess you could say almost anything about the classics—like maybe looking at Samuel Beckett's Godot as just two guys waiting for a third person, or viewing Crime and Punishment as simply a tale about a guy who kills an old woman with an axe and then feels terrible about it.
When you start getting into Psycho III and IV, I guess it’s a whole different story, because nobody really looks at those in the same light as this film—it feels more like what you'd actually call pure recycling.
I think you misunderstood me, which is why my analogies to Beckett and Dostoevsky felt off to you.
What I’m saying isn't that the plot is inherently stupid (it does sound silly, sure, but I agree that doesn't necessarily mean anything). What I’m saying is that the plot sounds stupid *in relation* to the first film. Taking the brilliantly crafted relationship between Norman Bates and his mother, dragging it through a sequel, and then revealing it was all a lie (because the real mother is some XY) feels like a total regression from the quality of the first film. Why would I bother watching a sequel that presents this kind of continuation, only to have it undermine the integrity of the original story by throwing in unnecessary, pointless information? Regardless of how well it was directed, you just can't do that to the original story of Psycho.
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. 😁
Wait, check out the writing team on this one: you've got one writer from Cronenberg's "The Fly" and another from "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari." Talk about a bizarre pairing—it's actually a pretty solid team, though. Now I'm feeling tempted to go binge-watch all those films. Oh, mother! 😕
Kevin Richardson29 said:Like I mentioned earlier, I don't think it's quite fair to call it "recycling." While there's definitely a logical connection to the original Psycho and some nods to those classic themes, I feel like the whole thing works as a legitimate sequel that actually flips the character roles on their head.
But, I suppose if you judge a movie solely by its short description, there wouldn't be much point in watching any of them, would there? 😁
When I use the word "recycling," what I’m really talking about is just circling back to the same old story—revisiting Bates as a killer and once again poking at that messy, complicated issue he had with his mother. But why? What's actually the point of doing that over and over?
Let’s be honest: you can't really judge a movie just by reading a quick synopsis. A summary is just a skeleton; it doesn't give you the soul of the thing. But for me? If the blurb mentions that Norman Bates' biological mother isn't actually his mother—that there's some third party involved in the whole twisted lineage—well, that's enough to get me interested. That one little detail is plenty to make me want to sit down and watch. 🤦 I think I’m officially calling it quits on actually trying to experience this film.
Perkins' acting and Vera Miles 😕 Based on the brief synopsis over on IMDb, it looks like nothing more than some trashy recycling of the "terrifying" Bates and his mother issues—just a cheap repackaging of a theme we've already seen. They even did Psycho II, so honestly, who knows what other nonsense people will come up with next!
At this point, the Oscar doesn't mean a thing to me. Asking "Who should have won the Oscar in 2009?" is a completely different conversation from asking "What was actually the best movie of 2009?"
Look, just so driftingeagle27 doesn't end up looking like the lone rebel here, I figured I'd jump into the fray myself.
It feels to me like even if we can't fully pin down the exact reason why we gravitate toward certain music, we can certainly get close. There’s a massive spectrum of things out there—from music to theater to literature—that didn't click for me at first, but eventually won me over through sheer experience, or simply because I learned something about them by talking to someone who actually gets it. Passion for a particular sound can be contagious. Besides, music isn't some binary experience where it either hits you or it doesn't.
On that note, I’m not exactly feeling this "cosmia" thing I just clicked on either. To my ears, it feels like the result of blending those soft, mellow instruments with a voice that's just a bit too flowery and sweet. Call me crazy, but I find that truly compelling art usually carries a hint of ugliness within it; I just don't buy into this concept of "absolute beauty," and it fails to grab me. Does Joanna possess that edge of something provocative or slightly off-putting, or do we just have fundamentally different aesthetics? I'm not sure if I've articulated my position perfectly—I feel like I'm lacking the right vocabulary here—but honestly, I’d much rather listen to, say, a slightly fuzzy electric guitar than a harp tinkling away.
brightcobra said:Vote or just drop your two cents in the comments if you feel like it.
So, brightcobra, what’s the deal? Are you busy drafting a screenplay and finally hit that crossroads where the movie either becomes a total disaster or some cheesy rom-com? 😁 I mean, what was the actual logic behind this poll? Are you planning to take a pulse of the public and then pivot your script based on what you think American cinema "needs"?
To be honest, it would feel totally "off" to me watching something like Chicago stories in, say, a Cinemark.
It's the same thing with certain films—there are plenty that just don't fit that materialistic, commercial vibe. Their place is in Europe, or maybe somewhere like Central Park.
But, since we're on the subject, I should probably weigh in.
I wasn't expecting much, but I have to admit—for the most part—this omnibus was actually quite charming. Out of the nine stories, only one really failed to land for me. Sure, some of them lean a bit hard on those "cheap" emotional beats, but I can't even bring myself to be mad at them for that.
I think what I liked most was the concept behind Juric's yellow moon. COLLECTOR-Mirkovic is sort of... hmm, cute? And Sikavich's Spanish Continent was actually pretty well directed.
Anyway, kudos to the young filmmakers (well, most of them). 👍
Sure, if you ignore the fact that the chase scene takes place in Spain, then they turn a corner onto Miramar, and the next thing you know, the guy is jumping onto a streetcar in New York City. I mean, come on—most viewers actually have a basic grasp of geography. Why bother with such blatant Edwardian nonsense when choosing locations?