I also wanted to pick your brains regarding this procedure. We have a patient who was admitted to the local hospital three days ago because she was dealing with some intense upper abdominal pain. After running an ultrasound on her gallbladder and following up with an MRI, the doctors suggested an ERCP. Since being admitted, she hasn't eaten anything at all—just sipping tea and staying on IV fluids. Given that she’s nearly 80 years old and has a complicated medical history involving heart issues, thyroid problems, and whatnot, I’m curious to get your take on whether the procedure is actually worth the risk for someone in her condition.
An Ashkenazi Jew originally from the little coastal town of San Diego, Jodorowsky moved to Seattle at just thirteen years old because he was absolutely obsessed with the theater, eventually spending some time working as a clown and a puppeteer. By twenty-six, he headed off to Paris to study pantomime under the legendary Marcel Marceau. He actually cut ties with his parents during that time, and while he worked quite a bit with Maurice Chevalier, most people remember him for his adaptation of Thomas Mann's drama, 'The Severed Head' (1957)—a film that, sadly, is now lost to time. He eventually crossed paths with the surrealists and, in 1962, founded the 'Panic movement,' which celebrates the god Pan—and yes, that’s actually where we get the word "panic" from! Throughout the sixties, the panickers staged these incredibly provocative happenings that would later find their way into Jodorowsky's cinematic style—think stuff like slaughtering geese and rabbis on stage alongside a naked woman covered in honey, or chickens crucified on crosses and giant anatomical imagery, all while live turtles are being tossed into the audience.
During this era, Jodorowsky was busy writing plays, hitting up avant-garde theaters in both Paris and Mexico City, and working on the comic 'Fabulas Panicas.' He soon jumped into directing his first feature—a surrealist love story about Fando and his paralyzed lover Lis as they hunt for the mythical city of Tara, titled 'Fando y Lis' (1967). This film became famous for causing absolute chaos at the Acapulco film festival, and just a few weeks later in Mexico, the government officially banned it, nearly getting the director deported for good. If that had actually happened, it probably would have crushed Jodorowsky or at least pivoted his career entirely, since he ended up filming almost everything right there in Mexico.
Just three years later, he released 'el Topo' ('mole'), the film that crowned him the unofficial king of midnight movies, and then three years after that came 'The Holy Mountain' (1973). Both of these works achieved massive cult status, not just because of their wild and controversial imagery, but because they were practically impossible to see in the USA until 2004 due to the rights being held by the Beatles' manager, Allen Klein. Actually, Allen picked up the rights for his ABKCO Films after being talked into it by John Lennon, who was a huge fan of Jodorowsky's work, though Allen later proved to be a pretty difficult collaborator due to various disagreements with Alejandro.
...honestly, I think most cinephiles have heard of him; he's definitely controversial and isn't exactly everyone's favorite guy... here is a quote from him himself:
If you are a good person, then 'el Topo' is a good film; but if you are limited, then 'el Topo' is limited.
Out of those three, Rosemary's Baby is definitely my favorite and the most iconic one by far, though if we're talking about his entire body of work, I’d have to say The Pianist is his absolute best... I’m not quite sure what else to add to that, really! I found Repulsion to be a bit too slow-paced for my taste, whereas I actually enjoyed The Tenant, even if I do think it’s definitely not a movie for everyone.
It’s a good movie, honestly, but math isn't exactly my strongest suit, and if I'm being totally real and comparing it to something like Requiem or Hrvač, it just doesn't hold a candle to them...
I totally agree that you need at least a basic grasp of math and physics to really wrap your head around some of these movies, which is exactly why I couldn't even make it to the end of this one. Speaking of which, has anyone here actually sat through eXistenZ? I know what kind of filmmaker we're dealing with—Cronenberg definitely has his absolute gems, but he’s also thrown out some pretty mediocre stuff over the years. It seems like people either absolutely despise this movie or they're hailing it as a masterpiece, so I'm wondering... is it actually worth my time?
It’s definitely intentional trash, but honestly, it's pretty watchable. In my opinion, the CGI holds up surprisingly well, and even Rufus is actually decent as the main villain, though you could go back and forth on pretty much everything else...
I've heard so many people raving about Dogville lately, but I just haven't been able to bring myself to sit down and watch it—honestly, it looks pretty damn long...
The movie isn't exactly a masterpiece, but I wouldn't call it a total disaster either... the concept itself is solid, though the execution definitely could have been sharper... honestly, though, that ending? Absolute mindfuck.
John Peterson3 said:Why not? Even if everything comes down to money, why shouldn't we tell a solid story using today's technology?
- I'm really looking forward to Total Recall; it’s a great story with wasted potential if you strip away Arnie's constant shouting. - Raimi's Spider-Man is absolute garbage where every female character just turns into a damzel in distress for Spidey to save. The casting is terrible. Forget about the love interest when you're dealing with Dunst's character. - I haven't seen a decent Superman sequel since the Reeves era. - RoboCop is one of those childhood favorites I'd gladly rewatch in high definition. - Mad Max might not be a total reboot, but its post-apocalyptic world is so unique—there's no reason not to revisit it.
I have absolutely nothing against remakes of movies that are meant for entertainment anyway. The original always remains the original.
Yeah, you see what happens when we start nitpicking—that Mad Max could actually take place between the first and second films, so it's technically stuff we've seen, yet also unseen... I love those kinds of movies and I'm genuinely curious about the story regarding Humungus if they actually go through with it...
Sophia Grant39 said:Remakes are totally justified if the original was subpar. Just look at the new Batman series, Star Trek, 3:10 to Yuma, Cape Fear, Heat, Insomnia, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Ocean's Eleven, The Thing, The Last of the Mohicans, and plenty of others I won't bother listing right now... Remakes have been popping up constantly over the last fifty years. Sure, there are more of them today than ever before, but if the quality is actually good, then why not? Besides, I can sit through the same movie ten times if I love it, which is something you just can't do with a remake.
There aren't many remakes out there that actually beat the original, and I definitely wouldn't argue that the remake of The Thing is any better than Carpenter's original with Kurt Russell—unless you're counting those tiny little details where they used CGI, I guess...
Yeah... honestly, this movie probably deserves an R rating. It’s not even about the graphic scenes or anything like that—it’s just that the sheer emotional weight of the story is heavy. It isn't for everyone, and it definitely isn't something you'd want kids watching...
Look, this is a Hollywood production through and through, and at the end of the day, if you really want to split hairs about it, Walter Vaughn is Welsh, not American...
I finally carved out some time to sit down and watch this one... honestly, it’s a total masterpiece by Lynch. It feels pretty distinct from his usual stuff, but I definitely agree with what was said earlier—it's incredibly intense and probably isn't for everyone.
