Posts by goldenhound32

It’s a real shame they won’t let him release something actually decent for once.
I suppose they’re just digging through the archives again, much like how Disney+ pulls those old, dusty titles out of storage.

There’s a massive pile of movies that I absolutely loved when I was a kid, but looking back now, they're complete garbage.

And then there’s the opposite scenario. Films like *The Departed* or *Waterworld*—though with *Waterworld*, I didn't even need a second viewing to realize it was actually decent, if not quite great.

lonelynx16 said:Personally, I think Mouchette and Pickpocket are his absolute best, right up there with A Condemned Man Escaped or The Wind. In those first two, that brilliant minimalism and sheer simplicity just work perfectly... Mouchette has this almost obscenely erotic undertone, though if you look past that initial impression, there are these incredibly heavy layers of emotional impact underneath. It's funny, even though he wasn't some academic filmmaker, Bresson's approach feels almost like a craftsman's work to me. There's this strange contradiction where he uses non-professional actors but demands such cold, precise performances, yet I just can't shake that feeling.

Couldn't non-professionals deliver those kinds of cold performances?

Pure genius.
I’ve recently sat through Mouchette, Pickpocket, and Diary of a Country Priest. Everything was simply masterful.

As someone else pointed out earlier, a man of few words often says the most. With his work, there isn't a single scene that could be stripped away without losing the essence (at least looking at these three films).

I’ve sat through all three films now, and honestly, they’re all masterpieces. Each one is exceptional in its own right, even if there's a massive stylistic gulf between the first and the second. ...Kill Bill remains my absolute favorite though.

That makes sense. For the longest time, I couldn't quite wrap my head around why they called it '3 Steel,' but then someone finally explained it was the designation for a specific golf club. It clicked.

nimbleskipper10 said:I honestly resent most people for lacking the sheer grit required to sit through anything even slightly challenging.

But what is the actual incentive for anyone to seek out demanding cinema in the first place?

Great films are still being produced today; it's just that nobody bothers to watch them.

I can't argue with that. There is an abundance of quality new releases out there, and the classics? Even more so. I find it baffling when people complain about limited options at the local multiplex or a shrinking selection on streaming services.
It’s as if digital media and home collections simply ceased to exist.

4
There are certainly some aesthetically pleasing sequences, though I find the pacing tends to drag quite heavily at times.
What kind of horror are we talking about? Honestly... what exactly have you been watching lately?

analogharbor442 said:That post is from 2004, sweetie. I was just at the eye doctor... 😉

Yeah, I suppose I could, though I haven't been there in quite a while. 🙂

Lawrence Booth2 said:did you just get all of us mixed up? 😁

No.

analogharbor442 said:Ozu is brilliant... I have about ten of his films sitting around, but I’ve only actually sat down with "Citizen Kane" and "Equinox Flower"... I just can't seem to get around to the rest.

"I only have "Citizen Kane" on my hard drive..." is what you told me just last week. Have you really managed to track down a dozen of his films since then?

Lawrence Booth2 said:http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top100films.htm

"... A momentous story told with moral force...A revolutionary film in possessing an epic hero whom it doesn't hero-worship." - Alexander Walker, Evening Standard-----that was written regarding Lawrence of Arabia. Can anyone explain to me why that film is considered revolutionary?

I have the first three films on my list, though I haven’t actually sat down to watch any of them yet. There's plenty of time.

"Should I mention that I intend to follow the same path I took when I first watched Stanley Kubrick or Ingmar Bergman?" ... and what exactly would those footsteps look like?

Richard Hernandez13 said:Arguments regarding "subjective impressions" versus an "objective assessment" of a film never seem to subside on this subforum.

Could you provide a few links?

Unfortunately.

Why "unfortunately"? If people reach the same conclusion after ten years of debating the exact same impression, does that mean there's no point in discussing it in the eleventh year? Perhaps I haven't quite grasped your meaning.

Jesse Sanchez7 said:Therefore, claiming some reviews are "better" than others is pure nonsense. Subjectivity is baked into the process; the only real difference lies in how much information is provided, the strength of the arguments used, and the specific stylistic preferences the critic chooses to champion.

Do you actually agree with this logic:
If a person genuinely enjoys a movie, won't they subconsciously ignore the flaws they noticed while watching?

I realize when you say 'subjective,' you're talking about the emotional experience, but where does the behavior I just described fit into your framework?

Charles Taylor10 said:And how exactly would you know which wealthy individuals I’m referring to? Honestly. Let’s just say that if I were sitting on a massive pile of cash—enough to ensure I never had to lift a finger again for the rest of my life—I’d still find a way to work. I simply couldn't help myself.

Why bother working if you don't actually have to? Perhaps some might argue that one would simply succumb to boredom, but I suspect there is more to it. One could devote oneself to various pursuits—likely non-profit endeavors—where there is no such thing as a "wrong choice." These activities wouldn't qualify as a job, or even as true labor, but rather as mere existence.

And what exactly is she doing? Just wasting everyone's time for no reason. She isn't an artist, she isn't a scientist, and she isn't even a decent singer, for heaven's sake. She's nothing more than bottom of the barrel—that's the honest truth. 👎

What do you honestly think? Do scientists pursue science, or artists chase art, simply because it serves some greater societal utility? Please. They do it because they are driven by a fundamental, almost irrational love for the craft itself. She pursues her work because she loves it; therefore, I fail to see why anyone would label her "bottom of the barrel."

Rachel said:I find myself avoiding movies where characters feel the need to verbally dissect their emotions during those quiet beats between major plot points.

Is this just a theoretical observation, or have you actually seen this happen frequently enough to notice? If it’s a recurring pattern, I’d be interested in a few examples of films that fall into this trap.

Furthermore, I'm curious about why this strikes you as a negative trait. Is it because you find it unrealistic, or is there another reason? I haven't seen the film in question, but you've certainly piqued my interest.

Jesse Sanchez7 said:Is that so? A profound misconception, truly.

Perhaps if you took a moment to actually reread my sentence, you might finally grasp the point I was making.

newcomer said:When I say "pure," I mean the fact that space and time are synchronized to such an extent that there is no need for any mental exertion when processing information.

Of course there is a need for information processing. In a more complex film, it will be easier for you to connect cause and effect if you reflect on them while the movie is still playing.

The simpler the concept, the more accessible the film is to a wider audience... the more complex the concept, the fewer people will find the film good.

1. Why, when discussing Bresson, should we even consider the opinions of people who view cinema merely as entertainment?
2. And what about that whole "time will tell" argument? That approach often fails, at least in my experience.

And now we arrive at the concept of worldview, which is exposed to the film's concept; therefore, the 'critiques' written by someone are essentially an intimate window into the personal worldview within which the film attempts to install itself.

Not everyone is the same. There will always be more objective and less objective people and critics. I enjoy Lynch too, yet his 'Cowboy and the Frenchmen' was mediocre to me. Same with Dune. Of those two mentioned, neither aligns with my "worldview." I put that in quotes because I am not sure we even agree on the definition of the term.

I find reading such 'critiques' absolutely fascinating.

I do as well. However, the causal link between one's worldview and their critique (whether such a link exists or not) is much easier to establish when someone completely trashes a film.

Not to mention those who went mad after such a realization. Or even worse.

For example?

The Dude said:I’m just sitting here waiting for more Chinese filmmakers to finally get off that particular bandwagon.

Even if they slash the prices, is the next "big thing" really going to be any better? From what I can gather, those studios are experts at manufacturing drama—and I mean high-quality drama, provided you aren't exclusively watching their latest blockbusters.