It’s just a relentless barrage of profanity, toilet humor, and a few adult film production scenes designed to parody the genre... honestly, it's pathetic. The more I dwell on this film, the less I actually enjoy it.
I expected significantly more from Smith, though I can't quite pinpoint why I held those expectations, especially given the direction of Clerks 2.
By the way, Mewes plays Jay, not Silent Bob. Silent Bob is Kevin Smith.
And Seth Rogen is exactly the same as he was in Knocked Up... while I find the actor likable enough, he's just too repetitive for it to stay interesting, at least in roles like this.
What disappointed me about Smith was his failure to properly utilize the Tape Lords angle, unless he only included it as a cheap gag because the actress had a background in adult films.
You mentioned you handled the American translation for the subtitles... if that's the case, good job. There are a few errors here and there, but it's generally solid work.
I don't know about everyone else, but for me, there is nothing worse than that revolting feeling during the last five minutes when you're just desperately waiting for the credits to roll.
Don't get me wrong—the movie isn't total garbage, but it certainly isn't good either.
Alexander Cruz32 said:One of the worst spoilers I ever dropped was saying "Traitor is a great movie, but it's basically just like Fallout 6"🙂.—do you think the movie actually held up for your friend?
Heh, there's all sorts of us out there. For instance, I recall hearing someone mention it was similar to Fallout 6 once, but the thought slipped my mind entirely. I was genuinely caught off guard by the ending of Traitor when we finally figured out what was actually happening with the mother and the kids.
In general, reading comments doesn't really ruin the experience for me. By the time I actually sit down to watch the movie, quite a bit of time has passed since I read them. 🙂
I usually end up forgetting the specific details of what was written; all that lingers in my mind is just the lingering doubt of whether the film is worth my time or not.
And there is one more thing... I am currently reading Ebert's review of the film, and the man made a rather profound observation: "The father in 'Citizen Kane' often smiles and says 'yes.' That 'yes' can represent an affirmation, or it can mean 'no,' or perhaps it signals a deep sadness, or even a quiet decision to simply keep his true thoughts to himself."
I felt that same weight while watching the movie. While some directors might earn my admiration for managing to make a standard 'yes' carry such complex subtext, I find myself struggling with it. To be honest, I have little patience for spending two hours immersed in characters like that—people who merely endure life through silence and suffering. I just don't find myself sympathizing with them.
Regarding this Citizen Kane... I can't quite decide if it's a good thing or not, but it was certainly fascinating to notice that product placement was already a thing back then. Specifically, when Judy Garland receives a phone call at work, there is a Bridgestone tire sitting in her office (for reasons I can't quite wrap my head around 🙂).
And perhaps someone else might recall... in that scene where the father gets drunk, the camera pans over the musicians, and there's a woman playing the accordion among them. At that exact moment, in the upper left corner, you can see some sort of Japanese character. Does anyone have more insight on this? Is it actually part of the film itself, or is it something like a logo from the studio that distributed the movie?
It is nearly impossible to articulate why those films—or rather, that quintet of cinematic vignettes—resonated with me despite their complete lack of traditional plot.
Perhaps the final installment struck the deepest chord. It is steeped in darkness... and the atmosphere left me with an impression reminiscent of that sensory deprivation chamber from *Altered States* (assuming such chambers actually existed, of course). Specifically, in that fifth segment, there are stretches where you see almost nothing at all, and then the few shapes that do emerge begin to warp; they transform into something else entirely... a sort of fever dream.
And I won't sugarcoat it: wading through all of that was no easy feat. 🙂
I didn't care for it. I felt absolutely nothing during the screening. I understood the plot mechanics perfectly well, but there was zero emotional resonance. That lack of connection made the experience quite a chore, especially given the 2 hour and 15 minute runtime.
Furthermore, the way the characters exchange pleasantries and cutting remarks with these persistent smiles is, frankly, unsettling. Take that moment near the end where some random neighbor smirks while telling someone, "You're going to end up alone. You've always been alone." It’s morbid. It makes me wonder if Americans today possess that same detached attitude toward private matters.
This marks the third Ozu film I've sat through. The first was Late Spring, which was passable, though it felt somewhat dated. Then I attempted the one about the daughter living with her father who refuses to marry; I had to turn that one off because it was excruciatingly dull—pure torture, really.
But regarding this particular film, what exactly did the children do so wrong? Let's get specific.
Joseph Lee3 said:Dubiosity is basically just a dilemma mixed with a sense of depth—at least that's how I take it, anyway! 😁
Don't expect 'The White Sheik' to be some slapstick riot that leaves you breathless; it's more of a surrealist journey, almost like a three-dimensional comic strip. It functions more as a comedy of ideas than a traditional gag-fest, filled with funny moments, but the whole thing feels wrapped in this fantastical, upbeat atmosphere.
That "at least for me" part is pretty telling. 🙂 You're off base here. There is absolutely no connection between the word "dubioza" and any kind of actual depth.
I think I'll give "Seika" a watch; it looks interesting enough.
Joseph Lee3 said:It just hit me... In this case, Marcello is really just a conduit for the concepts and the sheer execution of La Dolce Vita; he isn't nearly as central to the soul of the thing as one might think, at least not to me. The movie probably feels unsettling because of its frantic, modernist style of storytelling. The whole point was to capture America during a period of massive economic growth clashing with a simultaneous moral decline. Everything feels rushed, ruthless, compressed, and superficial—which is perfectly reflected in all that heavy intellectual rambling from the "elite." Fellini comes across as much more pessimistic here than in his earlier work. The protagonist is essentially just a vessel for the director's need to channel those specific feelings about the state of the country back then into cinema. There isn't some deep, hidden philosophy at play here...
What exactly does the word 'ambiguity' imply in this context?
I’m genuinely curious about what kind of take we'll get on >. From what I gather, it's a comedy, and whenever it comes to those classic Italian comedies, I find myself hesitant to lean too heavily into my own expectations.
Gerald Perez5 said:I’m personally much more fond of early Fellini. Out of his later stuff, I thought *Intervista* was decent enough. Bringing up *Satyricon* is just getting repetitive at this point—it's practically negligible. Generally speaking, I feel like Fellini’s work has declined since he started leaning so heavily into that surrealist satire—for me, that "life is a carnival" style is just irritating. It feels like you look at the lavish costumes and... well, that’s mostly all there is to it. And honestly, I don't share his fetish for plus-sized women.
All in all, I think Fellini is overrated (though, I suppose I’ll sit down with *8 1/2* sometime soon to see what the actual fuss is about). I’ve almost found myself gravitating toward Pasolini lately (even if I still can't quite wrap my head around why some people insist that *Salò masterpiece* is actually a work of genius).
Not me. 🤷 Aside from that, I only managed to watch *Decameron*, and it’s actually quite good—regardless of whether you've actually sat down and read the book or not. It definitely delivers on the dark humor.
As for Fellini... I started watching Dolce Vita, but I couldn't bring myself to finish it. Nights of Cabiria was the same story. Just couldn't get through. While *Amarcord* is perfectly fine, my personal favorite remains *8½*. It’s a dense, complex piece—certainly not an easy watch—but there is a profound beauty to it that the others just don't quite reach.
I don't particularly care for Fellini, though my assessment remains somewhat unformed given that I haven't sat through much of his filmography.
His lesser-known work, *Proba Orchestra*, remains an intriguing study. Over the course of seventy minutes, we are essentially observers of a rehearsal, watching the chaotic machinery of an orchestra unfold. It serves as a sharp examination of the various tribulations faced by musicians—and, perhaps more pointedly, by those tasked with managing the massive egos inherent in the profession: the conductors. At times, the piece leans into the humorous, yet it maintains a consistently intelligent, cerebral edge throughout.
Amanda Nguyen5 said:there was way less money made on much worse projects, too. aha, if I'm watching for Deakins, I'd rather kiss my own palm.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about going to the theater, and quite honestly, I don't give a damn if it fails. I've already voiced my opinion on this numerous times and I have no intention of repeating myself.
nimblemarlin6 said:The movie is absolutely phenomenal—it’s one of those experiences you really should have on the big screen.
If they were showing "to be wanting blood"—which is also just this slow, three-hour slog—why on earth didn't they pick "The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward"? Distributers are such a weird breed sometimes...
Heh. Someone already pointed out there's just no money in it here, and frankly, they're right.
Thank God for streaming services; at least those actually interested can go watch it on their own time.
Even though I realize it wasn't exactly a massive marketing push, it still feels strange to me that so few people actually sat down to watch it. I suppose the reality is that being a slow-burn Western—one where you barely see a gun being drawn—with a three-hour runtime was enough to drive 🤷 away. It is an excellent piece of filmmaking, featuring a bizarre and (if history is to be believed) genuinely surprising epilogue along with a rather haunting message.
Casey Affleck is incredibly powerful... though, this might sound a bit odd, but looking at him, I feel like he’s much better suited for playing slippery, morally grey characters. I watched Gone Baby Gone previously and he was decent there, but in this Western, he absolutely crushed it. We'll just have to see what kind of roles he gravitates toward next.
I honestly can't wrap my head around how they pulled off such high production value on such a shoestring budget; the cinematography is stunning. And the lead? He’s incredible. It feels less like watching an actor and more like watching a genuine rock icon.
I need to track down the soundtrack immediately; every single track on there is a standout.
Richard Hernandez13 said:Do you remember that bit with Isaac's passport? The entire theater absolutely lost it during that scene. 😉
hehe...it's an interesting thought... I wonder which other countries would find that funny, besides America. Maybe the UK, France, or perhaps Germany—at least the customs agents there might actually get the joke, even if nobody else 😁)
The movie starts, and I’ll sit there for maybe thirty minutes, struggling to stay focused... but if I force myself to push through... an hour later, I'm completely sucked into the plot, dreading the moment it ends. It was truly excellent. By the way, it leans more towards drama than thriller, though there's plenty of tension.
It’s a shame there aren't more films where the killer actually takes center stage (think American Psycho or The Silence of the Lambs).