I have to admit, it feels incredibly strange that there isn't already a dedicated thread about this phenomenal band...
If I were editing your post, the only thing I’d change is swapping out the word "North American" for "gypsy" when describing their melodies.
Every single one of their albums is solid, though the one mentioned in the title feels the most derivative of the bunch.
I caught them live at a small venue in Chicago—lost my voice from screaming along 😁—and they absolutely killed it.
I distinctly remember all the girls swooning over the Japanese guy. He’s quite handsome, and he even handles some vocal harmonies in one of their tracks.
I actually managed to grab a quick word with Gin while we were scribbling notes in the restroom 🙂—me in the ladies' room, him in the men's.
Jesse Ortiz4 said:The cold, hard truth is that Americans are totally incapable of making anything original, so they just scavenge ideas or straight-up rip off other movies.
Then they dumb everything down to suit the average American audience.
well, obviously not just for stupid Americans—they're doing it for stupid Irish people and stupid Chinese people too.
I just finished watching a film. It didn't hit me directly, but I have this visceral, almost allergic reaction whenever someone decides to spoil the ending. 😉
To be honest, the only thing that makes Wicker Park even remotely appealing to me is the cinematography. In every other conceivable way, it falls short of the original.
It’s an interesting observation, really—in both films, the actress who delivers the superior performance happens to be the less conventionally attractive one.
Arthur Garcia59 said:The film reel arrived in absolute shambles; honestly, sitting through it was an exhausting ordeal.
While "M" received its fair share of critical acclaim as a film, the actual presentation was anything but successful. We were dealing with a 16mm print and there was only one single projector available, which meant we had to sit through those tedious transitions—two separate breaks of about two or three minutes each. To top it all off, the subtitles were somewhat subpar.
Pathetic.
Why bother organizing an event at all if you can't manage to execute it properly? 🙄
coastalhawk14 said:...I actually bought it when it first came out at the shop, too. That was my first time seeing it. I was honestly floored by the movie. I had watched Wicker Park before this one, and I just couldn't help but tear up during that ending. Though, Wicker Park has a happy ending, whereas The Apartment is completely devastating—specifically that part where Monica dies.
Hey, man... how can you just give away the ending like that? There are people out there who haven't even seen the movie yet!
Larry Martin11 said:...Murna, then Fassbinder, Godard, Truffaut, Bergman... movies you just can't find anywhere else. Honestly, I think the rest of the American public should be watching them too—on a decent schedule, mind you, not just some random Sunday morning at 10:00 AM ...I feel like NBC could actually learn a thing or two from the networks over in Europe, where they actually bother showing both the classics and modern art-house cinema on their channels. It seems like NBC has decided to take a completely different approach to what television actually is—or should be—and they build their programming accordingly (for instance, why doesn't NBC1 have not even one show dedicated strictly to books, featuring literary discussions and things of that nature?)...and I'm not even counting FOX or CNN ...since Nova managed to completely mess up their NFL broadcasts, how could we possibly expect anything "cultured" from them?
Because most people simply don't care about books.
I wish they would just broadcast Old Hollywood classics from the '30s and '40s instead.
Brenda Lee50 said:Stojanović actually served three years in federal prison just for praising plastičan Isus—and he did it under the nose of Marshall’s administration. It was essentially his thesis project, a piece of pure, unadulterated avant-garde art. He decided to tackle communism, Nazism, and homosexuality all at once... honestly, he was far too brave for the era he lived in.
Right, great. But now tell me: have you actually seen it? And if you have, is it any good? I don't particularly care about how scandalous it was back in the day; I just want to know if it’s a quality film or not.
ruggedjackal46 As I have noted before: Honestly, I have the Inland Empire DVD sitting right here at home, but I just don't have the nerve to sit through it again. 😬
What exactly do you mean by "getting prepared"? Or rather, what kind of preparation are we even talking about here? It feels like such a vague, sweeping concept to toss around without any context.
I watched this film once, then went back to it again the very next day. I ended up giving it an 8, though I honestly can't quite articulate why. If I had any say in the matter, though, I’d definitely cut those rabbits out.
Arthur Garcia59 said:And what on earth does Gotovac have to do with that movie, assuming we're talking about the same one?
Yes, it's a Smith production. And Gotovac actually has a role in it. Though, if you're planning on watching, I'd suggest avoiding the IMDb plot summaries entirely—they spoil the whole thing.😉
Superior book: The Cider House Rules (it feels much more grounded and realistic)
Superior film: American Psycho (even though the book is great—as everything in this thread seems to be—the movie aligns better with my take that the protagonist didn't actually kill anyone) Fight Club (I honestly couldn't stand the book) Sideways (the book wanders aimlessly in places it just doesn't need to) The Process (while the book is technically flawless, I still find Welles's film more compelling)
slyrider16 said:Where the hell is the dinner scene with the family??? That was my favorite part of the original, and they just cut it out here!!!!! Absolute robbery!!! 😁 And they didn't even include Leatherface cursing when he swerves, you know, struggling with that heavy bike trying to make a sharp turn... hehehe, those were the classic moments in the original and they're totally missing here. 😢
Exactly!
I just finished watching the 70s original for the second time, and honestly, it holds up just as well as the first. I'd give it a solid 7 out of 10.
I used to think the same way when I tried telling people this might be different... I mean, if a movie sounds interesting and the reviews say it's a masterpiece worth watching, why not just give it a shot? Even if Van Damme isn't your usual type, right?!
I bet at least 50%—maybe even 30%—of the people who saw The Dark Knight only watched it because of all the hype and glowing reviews, not because they were genuinely interested from the jump or because they're huge fans of Nolan's work...🤷
It was more about the late Heath Ledger as Joker than it was about Nolan. Or perhaps just because they have a thing for Batman.
Anthony Smith3 said:Trust me... there are people who write this movie off with a laugh before it even starts just because it stars Van Damme. They assume he’s incapable of actually acting or making anything decent.😉
Prejudices.
I read up on what the plot was about a long time ago and was immediately intrigued, even though, truth be told, I haven't actually enjoyed a single film starring Van Damme up to this point.
Anthony Smith3 said:Here’s some more killer news for Van Damme and J. C. V. d. that’ll probably have half you guys rolling your eyes or laughing... apparently, according to Time, Van Damme’s performance in this flick landed him the number two spot for the best male acting performances of the year, right behind Heath Ledger as Joker in The Dark Knight!
The actual events: Some guy on a bus introduces himself to a woman as a famous director—he claimed to be Mohsen Makhmalbaf—and she actually fell for it. He ends up at her place, tells her family the exact same story, claims he's going to shoot a movie in their house, and starts asking for money. And they gave it to him. Eventually, they realized they were being played, called the cops, and the guy ended up in court.
Kiarostami (the director of the film I'm talking about) heard about this whole mess and decided to turn it into a movie.
The lead actor in the film is actually the same man who was facing charges in real life.
What makes it even more incredible is that Kiarostami incorporates actual footage from the trial into the film, and the "actors" playing the defrauded family members are actually the real people involved!
Anthony Smith3 said:Honestly, if you ask me, Val Kilmer is the one who truly carries this. It’s easily his career-defining role. He just radiates this calm, philosophical, and calculated energy as a killer.
True, Kilmer is absolutely powerhouse here. Though, I don't know if it matters much for the debate, but if my memory serves, he isn't actually some mass murderer.
For me, the absolute highlight of the movie has to be that guy with the incredibly deep voice—you know, the one dating the rugby player. You can tell just by the resonance of his voice that he’s got real presence; he carries himself with such confidence and isn't afraid to own who he is.