Posts by goldenhound32

Hannah Green2 said:Naturally, I view it in a positive light. I have extracted significant value from cinema over the years. I make it a point to selectively absorb the constructive elements while remaining entirely insulated from the negative ones. It is highly improbable that after watching a film like SAW, I would suddenly find myself attempting to engineer a torture device; rather, I will instead retain specific insights that can be practically applied to my own life.

Great. Got any specific examples?

I’ve always held the view that while films certainly have the power to impact an individual, the weight of that influence ultimately rests on the person watching rather than the movie itself.

Why bother sending private messages 🤷 ...when you can just say it right here.

neonscout5 said:The movie had me laughing until I cried, but once the credits rolled, I was left with nothing but pure melancholy over the sheer incompetence of the people running this planet.

Well, let’s be realistic—it isn't some central crew running the show; it's the massive corporations and the lobbyists pulling the strings.

As for the film itself, it’s excellent. We've already covered that extensively on this sub.

Christian Taylor3 said:He suffocated the second guy using a plastic zig-zag garden tie (😁), immediately after shooting him in the chest. And honestly, what’s even strange about that, especially given the genre? 🤷

As per usual, when we get into the gritty details of cinematic violence, things sometimes feel... physically improbable. So, I find myself wondering if this was actually doable. Couldn't the Black actor have just loosened the tension on the strap? Maybe slipped a finger in there to create some slack? 🤷

rapidtrucker14 said:Of course it worked... it’s arguably the simplest way to suffocate someone. You just tie their hands behind their back and tighten this around their neck. It’s more effective than a garrote...

Hmm... weren't the hands already tied on that first Black man? If my memory serves me right, he managed to strangle the second guy, who showed up at the door just moments later.

rapidtrucker14 said:We’re talking about a massive guy, maybe 6'7" and 260 lbs, living on steroids and protein shakes; someone built like that probably wouldn't even feel a single bullet...

I wouldn't go so far as to say he was 6'7" and 260 lbs, though that's beside the point regarding my actual observation... the way he was struggling to breathe just looked wrong 🤷 ...in your opinion, is it actually possible for someone to die from that?

Christian Taylor3 said:One thing is certain: they both lose out when this partnership ends.

The film industry loses a bit here, though I suspect Iñárritu will manage to bounce back just fine.

I fear we’re seeing the same pattern with Arriaga as we saw with Alan Ball—the man behind the series Six Feet Under. Now, don't get me wrong, Ball is a brilliant screenwriter (he even snagged an Oscar for the American Beauty script), but his transition into the director's chair? Not exactly stellar. His debut, Nothing is Private... if he had handled the direction with a bit more finesse, it could have been an easy 🙂

But even so, it remains a decent enough film.👍

Since we've drifted into the territory of writers turning directors, I can't quite believe I overlooked a genius like Charlie Kaufman.🙈

His debut, Synecdoche, New York, is an absolute masterpiece.🙏 It’s far more visceral than Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, or Adaptation. The film is so intensely specific that attempting to critique Kaufman's directorial style feels almost impossible; there is simply too much density to unpack.

Joshua Smith5 said:That’s simply not true.

It is.>

Christian Taylor3 said:p.s. I wonder who saw the first Hillcoat movie— Ghosts... of the Civil Dead?

As far as I'm aware, it was just me. 🙂 🙂

Hillcoat's work is intense, arguably his most grueling. A prison-set art film... well, if that's even your cup of tea.

Scott Long71 said:The most fascinating part is that most of these were put together under incredibly modest production budgets. It just goes to show that having deep pockets isn't actually the deciding factor.

It’s more than that, really. Sometimes the money follows the film. If you have the capital, sure, you pay for what you need. But if you're broke? Then you better have a concept so damn sharp and original that its sheer ingenuity compensates for the lack of funding. Look at something like *Braindead*.

There is an endless list of things I could bring to this discussion, but there is little sense in rehashing titles already mentioned. Instead, I shall turn my attention to the films that have gone unaddressed.

Following (Nolan)... in terms of sheer impact, it stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Pi. I watched Memento first, followed by Following, and found them to be equally compelling. It centers on a man who stalks strangers he encounters on the street, operating under a strict rule: never follow the same person twice. Naturally, that rule is broken quite early on. 😉

Following was produced for roughly six thousand dollars. Given that it was shot in London, that budget is even more impressive than Robert Rodriguez’s seven thousand for his film shot in Mexico.

In a curious twist, Nolan’s own uncle actually appears in the film 🙂 ...just a simple way to help out a nephew, I suppose 👍 ...and there is one other aspect I find particularly redeeming: the location shooting. It is not merely a hundred times cheaper than building sets, but it lends the film a sense of gritty realism that many directors struggle to achieve.

Steven Torres41 said:And as for Kelly, we are still waiting for him to prove he has anything left in the tank after Southland Tales and The Box failed to impress. Fortunately, time is still on his side.

I am inclined to believe Kelly is a one-hit wonder, and that his best work is behind him. As much as I pity Kelly, I feel an equal sense of disappointment for Akerlund; a man who transitioned from directing music videos to helming a fantastic spin-off, only to follow it up with that nonsense, Horsemen. 🤦

Christian Taylor3 said:Just shoot him.

I remember when Gere was squaring off against that guy; he ended up killing him by using those zip ties—you know, the kind American forces used back in Iraq—around his neck. ...It would have been cleaner if the guy had just collapsed... but instead, he went ahead and shot him with a revolver.

northerncrane4 said:He didn't say that so he could watch her—it was about letting her live her own life regardless of his absence.🤷

Exactly.

Now we just wait for our colleague 🙂Davor

northerncrane4 said:Her husband with "pathological demands"? Where did that come from? It’s been a while since I watched it—I can't quite recall that specific detail.

I suspect my colleague Davor is referring to that moment when bessin's husband told Bess to go screw herself with everyone else.

ironmarlin1 said:First off, he concludes by showing that she really *was* speaking with God—which is precisely the central tension the movie forces us to question. Secondly, the logical fallout is that Bess is essentially compelled to submit to God's demands. Now, I wouldn't say she *has* to in a literal sense, but within the confines of Trier's little fantasy, she absolutely does. You argue that all this nonsense happens to her "because of who she is," but the reality is that she is who she is because Trier wrote her that way, specifically to demonstrate that her behavior stems from following divine commands. And I mean actual, legitimate ones!

Where am I getting the idea that he’s suggesting this is desirable? It’s exactly what I pointed out earlier. By the very end of the film, he passes an ethical judgment on everything that has transpired by essentially saying: "God approves."

It sounds as if you believe that being a warrior is a virtue in and of itself. 🤷
He places that combativeness within the context of a struggle defined by men. Even war criminals were likely passionate warriors who simply followed the orders of superiors commanding them to commit atrocities. But that kind of warfare is inherently immoral. In the same vein, the female submission to men here is repulsive, yet through the lens of Trier, it is justified... for the sake of a "higher purpose."

And what evidence, precisely, do you have to support such a claim?

ironmarlin1 said:I’ve already laid out exactly what bugs me about this. If Jesus hadn't ultimately triumphed, his story would possess a genuine, gut-wrenching sense of tragedy. But because he did, all that intense suffering gets stripped of its weight; it just becomes a functional means to an end. It’s a similar dynamic with the way people view the narrative in *dancer in the dark*. Just as the work of Jesus is traditionally hailed as this brave, ultimate example of goodness—though I personally disagree, but let's stay focused—Bess is framed as "good" simply because she allowed herself to be degraded by men. It’s that specific, hollowed-out version of virtue. Trier makes that exact point clear by the end of the film. Even the presence of God in the movie seems intended to drive home that very observation.

All this talk about "strong women" feels completely misplaced here. That wasn't my point at all. My critique was that the film had genuine potential, but its objective wasn't to explore the dichotomy between weak or strong women; rather, it framed weakness and submissiveness as something desirable. And frankly, that’s what makes it so nauseating.

I didn't interpret it that way... what we have in the film is one unstable individual who believes she's speaking with God, and because of her nature, a massive amount of nonsense happens to her.

And where exactly did you get the idea that the director is suggesting this behavior is desirable?

ironmarlin1 said:Of course it is. In this film, women are essentially subjugated to men, existing merely to fulfill their twisted fantasies. There is absolutely nothing touching about trying to mask blatant chauvinism and primitivism behind religious messaging. It feels like Trier is attempting a bit of a bluff here; he knows the only way to justify such an injustice is to package it as a spiritual truth for a gullible audience. Since that’s exactly who he’s targeting—people looking for a cinematic catharsis who will swallow whatever is served to them—it isn't much trouble for him to pull off such a stunt.

You (much like Trier himself) seem to measure female goodness by how much it serves the men in their lives. Yeah, that sounds like small-minded chauvinism to me.

I'm not entirely sure what it is that bothers you so much. Is it the idea that characters like our protagonist don't actually exist in the real world, or does it simply grate on you that Trier chooses to include such figures in his films at all? 😕

If you're looking for a film about strong women, just watch G.I. Jane. 👍

Well... it isn't quite Training Day, but it holds its own enough. 👍

There is one clumsy little detail regarding one of the shootouts, though I suppose I'll save that critique for when someone actually sits down to watch the film.

I haven't actually read through the entire thread, so I'll just offer my own take and cast my vote in the poll.

No.

My view is pretty simple: if you commit to sitting down for a movie that runs three and a half hours, you ought to see it through. Unless, of course, the film is absolute garbage—in which case, you're free to walk out for good.