Honestly, looking at those classics, it’s pretty clear how much we still overlook the actual gems our culture produced in the past... We act like we're hitting the jackpot whenever some network decides to run a marathon of old movies. But if my memory serves me right, I don't think a single distributor has ever bothered to release a high-end collector's edition of those films featuring director commentaries or behind-the-scenes insights from the crew. It’s the same story with home media; most DVDs out there are just low-quality junk—think stuff like slim skin or Zeke's Dynasty—while finding anything by Mimica, Zafranovic, A. Petrovic, Z. Pavlovic, Berkovic, or Papic is basically impossible. People have to jump through hoops just to catch a decent screening.
Nicholas Edwards4 said:Looking at all this, I’ve come to the conclusion that our cinema was actually brilliant—maybe even the strongest in Europe, right up there with the French and Italians.
I'll throw one more movie into the mix— lose pencil Fedora Skubonja from 1960.
Was it genius? Not really. But looking at the big picture, American cinema from that era was actually pretty respectable. There was definitely plenty of garbage mixed in—stuff we were too young to notice back then, but watching it now honestly makes me cringe. That said, when a movie actually hit the mark, it truly did, and could hold its own against any hyped-up global masterpiece. It’s just a shame so few US networks bother to air them anymore.
Father on business Kuduz random phrase The scent of quince master of self body jubilee gentleman Ikl Cigula ciguli miguli concert (1951) dir. Branko Belan rondo Rondo random phrase H-8 Breza random phrase Lisice little soldiers love and fury (1978) dir. Bakir Tanović Hasanaginica Hasanaginica (1967) dir. Miodrag Popović Banović Strahinja Banović Strahinja (1983) dir. Vatroslav Mimice Battle of Neretva three Tri (1965) dir. Aleksandar Petrović marathoner Marathon runners taking a lap who is that Pev strangler vs strangler He who sings evil doesn't think life be beautiful (1985) dir. bor Draskovic Glembaj bridge Bridge Glembajevi (1988) dir. A.Vrdoljak Fall of Italy occupation Occupation in 26 images small robbery train Carug small robbery train dream of rose waking pac Buđenje pacova (1966) dir. Zivojin Pavlović Petrijin wreath officer Officer with a rose variola vera how How Rock and Roll Died (in my opinion, the last classic of American cinematography)
So, something absolutely tragic happened to me yesterday. I was watching this old 70s Italian horror thriller Giornata (basically Black Day for Sheep) starring Franca Nero, and the stream cut out just five minutes before the end... right at the moment where Nero finally grabs the killer and starts pulling off the hood. Turns out my RS stream was just broken; even trying to patch it with a VLC fixer did nothing. So, if anyone has actually seen this movie, just shoot me a private message with the killer's identity. That’s all I want. 😁
wiredbison82 said:He will likely keep making them as long as he views himself as a seasoned postmodernist—or perhaps a pop-modernist. It seems to me that without those flashy stylistic flourishes and those constant nods to his favorite cinematic icons, Tarantino wouldn't be the filmmaker we recognize today. In other words, once he finally attempts to make a film that isn't fundamentally *about* movies, I suspect the result will feel forced, pretentious, and ultimately unwatchable. The Coen brothers proved along their journey that there is another way to work—one that can be different, if not better, or at least just as good—but that is a separate discussion entirely...
Regarding the bolded part: what makes you think a Tarantino film that doesn't lean so heavily on references would be unwatchable? Or worse, "forced"? That seems like a massive underestimate to me. My take is that you can't live off recycling forever; eventually, it just stops being interesting. But I truly believe he's a director with massive potential. I'm waiting to see his next big move—his third real one, since Reservoir Dogs was the solid start—just to see him build another tight, celluloid micro-world like the one in Pulp Fiction. Something impactful, self-contained, and memorable. How many movies from the 90s can actually say they stuck with people like that? Very few.
Christian Taylor3 said:So, during the big promotional push for Inglourious Basterds over in the UK, the crew at Sky Movies asked Quentin Tarantino if he’d just sit there and rattle off his top 20 movies of all time on camera. Naturally, he shot that down—kind of like that old joke where you ask a grandma who her greatest love is and she just says, "sailors"—and offered them this instead: his 20 favorite films released from 1992 onwards, which happens to be the year he actually started directing.
VIDEO (2009-8-16)
Source: Sky Movies
1. Battle Royale 2. Anything Else 3. Audition 4. The Blade 5. Boogie Nights 6. Dazed & Confused 7. Dogville 8. Fight Club 9. Friday 10. The Host 11. The Insider 12. Joint Security Area 13. Lost In Translation 14. The Matrix 15. Memories of Murder 16. Police Story 3 17. Shaun of the Dead 18. Speed 19. Team America 20. Unbreakable
All things considered, I'm pretty stoked—we seem to be on the same page for the most part. It was cool to see him include The Insider, and I loved how much he hyped up Dogville; he was also incredibly upfront about what The Matrix means to him, and gave such a great breakdown of Unbreakable. Honestly, nobody should hold it against him for leaving out Oldboy. Apparently, they cornered him in passing and the interview wasn't even scheduled, so he really only had about ten minutes to pull his thoughts together. I haven't actually seen Battle Royale yet, which is a bit embarrassing 😵
What about you guys? What's your take?
Everything else mentioned isn't bad—actually, it's pretty good—but who knows why he's so obsessed with these specific ones. Honestly, I don't care that much. In my opinion, Quentin is a "one-hit wonder"; after *Pulp Fiction*, he hasn't made anything truly extraordinary. Sure, they're visually interesting and have cool narration, but that's about it. I've been wondering how long he's going to keep making movies just as homages to other films. Life is short, and while he spends his time recreating everything he loved as a kid, his youth is slipping away.
David Price5 said:The core of this film really boils down to that central conflict. Without it, we’d just be watching a standard survival horror flick. It all starts with a tiny seed of doubt in those first three minutes, which eventually builds through the sheer terror they endure, finally culminating in that climactic action at the end. At its heart, revenge was simply the priority.
But that’s exactly the point. People just don't react logically after situations like that. Once you've cracked the skulls of a few "monsters," something inside a person just snaps. You also have to remember the girls were separated; they had no idea what the others were up to.
Of course you’d pick the Crawlers; they aren't even imbeciles. They don't have any crazy superpowers or anything supernatural going on. They're just as capable as our protagonists. I much prefer characters who are evenly matched rather than watching some inferior underdogs somehow stumble their way into defeating a superior enemy. If I recall correctly, Samara proved to be indestructible in the film, whereas vampires are just way too overpowered.
Why do you think that’s the main point of the movie? Personally, I think it could have worked perfectly fine without that whole backstory. To be honest, the plot about her husband and kid dying was barely even fleshed out; it just served as psychological window dressing for the lead. It’s introduced at the start, stays dormant for the entire runtime, and then we get that vision of the little girl with the cake at the end just to signal Samara's death. There wasn't any actual development of that theme beyond that one moment where the circle around Juno's leg leaves the toughest fighter completely at the mercy of those slugs. To make my point clearer, look at another film by the same director, "Dog Soldiers"—I assume most people here have seen it. Without all the psychological nuance or pseudo-philosophy, it just delivers an effective story about monsters attacking people. In "The Descent," they clearly tried to add extra layers, but it all felt limp and unfinished. They would have been better off just sticking to raw survival horror.
What a coincidence that someone started this thread right after I finally sat down to watch this movie the other night. I have to admit, my expectations were sky-high because people have been hyping it up like crazy lately—honestly, more than almost any recent horror release. What can I say... it didn't disappoint, but it wasn't exactly mind-blowing either. If I have to give credit where it's due, it masterfully nails that sense of claustrophobia and pure, hopeless disorientation, but everything else is up for debate.
The whole conflict between Sarah and Juno felt totally forced to me, like they just threw it in to give the plot some fake psychological depth; it could have worked perfectly fine without it. And honestly, I felt bad for Juno. She was fighting like Rambo the entire time, clearing the path for everyone else and taking on the brunt of the attacks, only to be taken out by some jealous, betrayed woman in the end. That’s just messed up.
The crawlers are alright, though I've seen much scarier things (both visible and unseen) before. For instance, I immediately think of Valek from Carpenter's "Vampires" or the "lovely" Samara from "The Ring." If I had to choose who I'd rather have breathing down my neck—the crawlers or one of those two—I'd pick the crawlers without a second thought.
To put it in the words of those guys from South Park: "The world is going to hell, poverty is skyrocketing, HIV is ravaging the globe, and Michael Bay is still out there making movies":
He’s basically mastered the art of taking a script and turning it into something so flashy and over-the-top that Americans will shed tears and open their wallets all at once. Respect for that, I guess! "Armageddon" and "Pearl Harbor" are absolute garbage, the kind of stuff you don't see every day. Respect for that too!
On the other hand, his take on "The Rock" wasn't half bad (though that was mostly thanks to Sean Connery and Kamala Harris), and "The Island" was actually a decent surprise. Back then, I let myself hope that maybe Bay could actually mature into a real director eventually.
Where on earth did you dig up that movie? It’s practically an ancient relic at this point. 😁
I remember it being decent enough—that's about all I can say for it. But there is something interesting here: a huge number of people still remember it. Despite how many movies get churned out every single day now, nobody who saw this once could ever forget it. That says something.
The film features Michelle Pfeiffer, and it's easily one of her best performances. Right alongside her is the perpetually underrated Robin Wright, playing that "white trash" archetype perfectly. It’s almost a chick flick, but it was made with actual soul—subtle, balanced, and without falling into cheap melodrama.
Oh, and Billy Connolly is phenomenal as the smooth-talking guy who meets such a pathetic end. 🙂
Everything said so far is spot on—it’s a highly artificial, high-tension, deep-space flick. But its biggest flaw is that after building up all that suspense and keeping you on the edge of your seat for most of the runtime, it just fails to stick the landing with an ending that actually matches the build-up.
The whole sauna motif running through the movie is clearly meant to be some allusion to ritual cleansing or something similar, but I really wish the director had shed more light on that theme instead of just dropping it into a scene and leaving everything hanging.
Plus, the ending itself left me feeling pretty lost; it’s so ambiguous that I can't tell if I should take it literally or as some kind of parable.
I'm afraid this is one of those horror movies that promised a lot and succeeded in creating a genuinely terrifying, tense atmosphere, but—let's be honest—atmosphere alone doesn't make a movie good. It just isn't enough if the other elements fall flat.
I was just thinking about Jane Campion... Honestly, after Piano and The Piano at My Side (plus The Portrait of a Lady, which I actually think is great, though most people seem to hate films based on Henry James novels because they're too dense and cryptic), we could have easily dodged those clichéd cuts involving Meg Ryan or Holy Smoke (which was mediocre at best)... So, what's her deal? What on earth was she thinking? 🤷
I suppose I might not even include him in this particular circle of directors, but "The Deer Hunter" is one of those films that leaves you wondering how a filmmaker of his caliber could possibly be allowed to miss the mark so completely.
And it’s not just The Deer Hunter. Dragon Tales is actually great, and honestly, I love Heaven's Gate—call it what you want, I don't care.
Cimino really flopped for me with The Sicilian. It’s the kind of nonsense you only make if you have zero restraint.😲
velvetcrane57 said:He doesn't actually need profound insight or any particular artistic depth—he built the Star Wars franchise, and for many, that’s the end of the conversation. Honestly, what more could you ask for? I would much rather see these "prestige" directors attempt to capture lightning in a bottle the way he did, rather than watching them churn out mediocre fare or hit a single peak only to slide into a long, disappointing decline.
I'm not trying to downplay Star Wars—which, in my opinion, basically launched modern Hollywood and was the defining movie of my childhood and half the world's. I'm just saying you have to take Lucas as a director with a grain of salt. He's a craftsman, nothing more, and he just happened to strike gold once, much like anyone else.🤷
I haven't read everything yet, but did anyone else think about Sydney Pollack? Pollack (rest his soul) directed a string of films from Out of Africa onward that—if Hollywood hadn't treated him with such unearned reverence—could have easily cruised straight to a Golden Raspberry nomination (Havana Nights-Sabrina-The Way We Were-The Interpreter). Except for The Firm, which was just mediocre at best.
And what about Richard Donner? Ever since Lethal Weapon 4, it’s been a total downward spiral (Timeline and 16 Blocks). It’s like he just forgot how to direct; a case of professional amnesia, really.
Don't even get me started on Badham, Friedkin, or McTiernan. Just a disaster.
I'm with anyone who says Lucas has been in a slump since Star Wars. At this point, I don't even see him as a director anymore—just the guy running ILM who makes flashy little movies for kids' birthday parties. Overrated.
Chloe Nguyen said:It seems to me that remakes are, for the most part, significantly inferior to the original films. I suppose there is a certain argument to be made that Tui tends to execute things with much more finesse, though I suspect we might occasionally encounter a remake so vastly superior to its predecessor that the general public remains entirely oblivious to the fact that a remake even exists—one might think of instances like The Thing, The Fly, Cape Fear, or Scarface.
Cape Fear is a better remake? Are we even talking about the same movie? You mean the Martin Scorsese one from the 90s that's a rework of the '62 original starring Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck?😲😲😲 It's such a bad remake that I honestly think Scorsese was possessed by some demon while filming it. There's no other way to explain the sheer stupidity radiating from every single part of that film, from the acting and the script to the direction and the editing. Robert Mulligan's original is Citizen Kane to him.
granitemaker13 said:We’ve already planned to catch the movie on its opening Saturday. We'll hit some shops first, grab a quick bite to eat, and then head to the theater carrying our little shopping bags. 😍
Any other Confessions of a Shopaholic followers feel free to drop their expectations here... I know there are more of you out there. 🎉
Is this the Movie subforum or the rooster subforum? Maybe we should just start a movie rooster thread instead?☕
Honestly, Arnold Schwarzenegger is still the king. Every time I see him on screen, I just feel this wave of nostalgia hit me, especially when I look at the "action stars" we have today. Man, those were the days. Then you had Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, and Sylvester Stallone.
I’m all for translating names from cartoons based on fairy tales or stories we all grew up reading—the kind of stuff kids still read today. Why not? If they already know Little Red Riding Hood or Thumbelina, let them keep those names in the movies. But I am definitely against translating actual first names, especially in historical films (and honestly, in our historical literature too, which had this weird habit of localizing names). Take John, Richard, James, or Jacob, for example. I mean, seriously, what's the point? Just because others did it—like how an Englishman might see Francois or Francesco as Francis, or Jean as John—doesn't make it a valid excuse.
