Posts by goldenhound32

Grace Sanchez50 said:Honestly, is there a single movie out there where the mob hasn't bribed someone?

Just because organized crime relies on bribery doesn't mean every corrupt individual is a mobster.🙄

He’s responsible for that child's death; he was involved in a hit-and-run. Those two wanted to check on the body, but he told them they had to flee. Who knows—maybe the kid was still alive, and if an ambulance had arrived in time, they could have been saved.

He isn't guilty of causing the death; he wasn't the one behind the wheel.

He's guilty of leaving the scene of an accident, just like those other two. And the woman is the one responsible for hitting the child.

I find myself staring at the horizon again, wondering if there is truly any sanctuary left to be found. It’s a heavy thought, perhaps a bit too grim for some, but I’ve always struggled with such lightness. We spend our entire lives searching for a harbor—a place where the storms finally subside and the engines can rest—but the more I look, the more I suspect that "harbor" is just a beautiful myth we tell ourselves to keep from drowning. In this country, we're taught that if you work hard enough and navigate the currents correctly, you'll eventually pull into a calm bay. But the sea is indifferent to your effort. Sometimes, the storm just doesn't let up. kaže:
So, he isn't exactly some mobster, yet he’s out there greasing the palms of the local police? Makes you wonder.

Do you actually grasp the weight behind the word "mafia"? It isn't just some cinematic trope; we’re talking about organized crime.

Bribing a police officer isn't some niche underworld drama—it’s pure, textbook corruption. Let's stop pretending it has anything to do with the mafia. It's just plain old graft.

Furthermore... I’m not sure how much you actually know about India or how many Americans from that region you’ve actually encountered. From what I can gather, corruption there operates on a level far beyond anything we see here in the States. It’s practically a standard greeting—as common as saying "good morning."

He’s out there killing people—taking out the boss and then stepping up to claim responsibility for the casualties his drivers left in their wake. But you have to watch yourself around him; after all, he’s a "businessman."
And that is precisely why we find ourselves living in a nation defined by such a narrow, stagnant mindset. 🤦

Why on earth are you peddling such blatant falsehoods?
It wasn't a mass killing; he only took one life.

Exactly. He isn't some mobster; he's just a highly successful businessman.

But he serves as the narrator from the very beginning. The story kicks off with him sending a letter to an official in China.

SPOILER

Why on earth wouldn't he be happy for him? I can't imagine feeling any joy for some old billionaire boss who spends his time humiliating him and forcing him to sign a confession for a murder he didn't even commit.

casualsailor55 said:It’s an okay movie, I suppose, but I find the narrative structure somewhat flawed. It remains miles away from reaching the level of a street-level Millionaire; it lacks both the tension and those raw, gripping scenes that defined the original work.

Where on earth did you get this absurd notion that these two films should even be compared?

It would be as nonsensical as me trying to compare Nightcrawler to About Schmidt just because they both take place in America.

I couldn't agree more.

Pure cinematic bliss! 👍

It feels like a Hollywood production set in India, yet somehow liberated from the creative shackles that plague modern American cinema.

Much like how our protagonist struggles against the chains imposed upon him simply by being born into a lower caste.

SPOILER

If you ask me, the guy did the right thing. His entire family—grandmother included—is solely interested in his money. They couldn't care less about his internal struggle. And the absolute peak of their dysfunction? His grandmother actually gives her consent regarding a written confession for a murder he didn't even commit! 🙂

Furthermore, his boss... despite spending years living in America and being far more enlightened than the other Indians (rich or poor), still lacks the backbone to resist the influence of his regressive family. Even when it comes to losing his wife, the family ties prove stronger than anything else. In the end, that very family cost him his life.

This is a minor detail, but it was so poorly handled I feel compelled to mention it. At the start of the film, the protagonist states in a voiceover that Islam has one God, while Christianity has three. 🤣

By the way, can someone please explain the actual purpose of that improvised meeting with the Chinese premier?

I haven't sat down to watch those two yet, but honestly, if I’m being truthful, for the last few years, Aferim is the only one that’s actually stuck in my mind as a truly great film.

Samuel Scott54 said:The Czech Republic?

Everything. Miloš Forman? Vera Chytilova? Menzel? Nemec? I can pull those names out of thin air if I really wanted to.

Taken completely out of context!

We were discussing the last twenty years.

Ah, I wasn't aware. I was under the impression they had been locked up.

Even better. 👍

Hold on a second, what theaters? I was under the impression that movie houses were still shut down because of the pandemic.

Well, it's a relief to see I'm not the only one feeling underwhelmed by this.

Finally got around to watching it.

While I’d give this film a six out of ten—much like I did with Black Forest—I have to admit the supplemental lectures were actually more engaging.

There are flashes of genuine brilliance here. The interviews with parents outside the school, the dialogue between the nine-year-old hostage and his captor regarding water heaters and utility bills...🙏

Then there's the opening, where the father bursts into the classroom with a gun... he asks the teacher where the children went, noting there used to be more of them. And the teacher just calmly replies, "Yes, there used to be more."🤣

In the middle of a hostage crisis, the cameraman decides to go buy supplies and drive them back to Chicago. For God's sake, business hours are business hours, I suppose.

However, the film suffers from a distinct lack of cohesion.

It feels somewhat overambitious. I don't mind a genre blend, but the moment Abid and his crew show up at the school, the momentum just evaporates.

A few random, numbered observations:

1. A uniformed officer realizes something is wrong, but instead of calling for backup, he enlists an unarmed duo consisting of a janitor and a professor to handle the situation.

2. Where were the cell phones? While stuck in the gym, the teacher could have alerted someone dozens of times that things had gone south and that they were now dealing with a different set of hostages.

3. Why would the janitor intentionally cause the professor's demise? He cuts all the lights in the gym, only to flip them back on seconds later, effectively resetting the poor man's brain.

4. The actor playing the mayor is easily the strongest performer. On the other hand, the actor playing the father failed to win me over,👎 which is a significant flaw given that he is the catalyst for the entire plot and one of the central figures.

5. What was the point of that final scene where the father and the police officer get into a physical altercation? It felt entirely superfluous.

6. My colleague Joshua Smith5 already brought this up, but it seems there is still no answer. What was the intended meaning behind the scene where the opponent's assistant loses his temper at him?

Ultimately, this is a mediocre piece of cinema filled with details that even low-budget foreign productions wouldn't be ashamed of. Unfortunately, the director's excess ambition drags the whole thing down.

December is nearly upon us, which means it is finally time to crown the film of the year.

To be honest, this hasn't exactly been a prolific year for me. Only two films managed to earn an eight out of ten.

I ask that you please select just one title.

I will lead the way.

While Hamilton was a fantastic production that earned my respect, this second film is my true favorite.

Black Bear.



It is quite rare for me, especially in 2020, to encounter a film where I have absolutely no inkling of where the plot is headed.

In this instance, the story follows a young director who rents an Airbnb far out in the middle of nowhere just to work in peace. However, as the runtime progresses, things become increasingly erratic and surreal, leaving the viewer unsure of what the actual narrative arc even is.

One might draw a subtle parallel to "The Bear," where the tension and the protagonist's internal state dictate the very rhythm of the viewing experience.

Aubrey Plaza delivers a career-defining performance here. I have always appreciated her ability to play eccentric characters in offbeat roles. Fortunately, her trademark quirkiness is perfectly channeled into this high-energy part, which I found deeply compelling.👍

Now, it is your turn.

Dennis Martin6 said:Oh, come on. Long takes, hyperrealism, deep political undertones, meta-cinematic layers... Iranian filmmakers were basically getting their PhDs in those techniques thirty years ago. 😁

Well, if it’s all that easy to "copy," why isn't everyone else doing it?

@jk
Sure, Aferim is great.
👍

Mark Cruz15 said:It’s clearly no easy feat being a truly great director. Most of those supposed "masterpiece" filmographies from smaller nations essentially rest on the shoulders of just one or two individuals. Take Iran, for example; you wouldn't even recognize Iranian cinema without Asghar Farhadi, though there are certainly other gems out there. Similarly, the world only really took notice of Romanian cinema because of one specific man—Cristi Puiui.

Hold on now!

But why am I unable to name a single significant director from:
Portugal, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, or the Czech Republic?

Yet, when it comes to Romanians, I can recall several names. At least I’d actually recognize them if their names popped up on a movie poster.

Dennis Martin6 said:Or perhaps it's because they simply haven't seen much Iranian cinema from the nineties? 😁

Haha.

While Iranian filmmakers certainly hold significant weight, I don't think those two specific cases are particularly similar.

At least, personally, I fail to see how a movie like *Nunta Muta* or *The Most Happy Girl in the World* could have even come to exist if Kiarostami, Makhmalbaf, and Majidi hadn't been making their mark back in the nineties.

Morgan Brown4 said:Isn't it because you only ever see the highlights? You only hear about the absolute best, most prestigious headlines coming out of those places? 🤔

It's all over the place. When you look at any European nation, you really only catch wind of their top-tier successes. But somehow, you seem to hear about Romanian cinema more often than you do about anything from Ukraine, Bulgaria, or Estonia.

That's simply because the movies are better.

I am merely attempting to figure out what exactly drove the Romanians to become so proficient in this arena.

My theory? We can probably attribute the success of Romanian film to a specific cocktail of heavy-handed Communist influence and a certain gritty, marginalized subculture.

Samuel Scott54 said:I suppose I’m just overthinking it—perhaps because they seem to be chasing the shadows of certain European cinematic giants. That dry, dark wit you see in Kaurismaki, the stark minimalism of Bresson, or even the stylistic flourishes of the Taviani brothers.

But if those three elements are supposedly the secret sauce for cinematic success, why haven't we seen any standout films coming out of Portugal in the last two decades?

Does anyone have a theory as to why Romanian New Wave films are consistently so exceptional?