Posts by Laura Palmer25

Mark Johnson5 said:The thing is—a fool isn't even aware they're being a fool. ☕

Well, sure, those are clearly our "greatest" films. 🙄

First, go watch the Hong Kong original, Infernal Affairs, and then come back to talk to me. ☕

Exactly. It’s not that The Departed is a bad movie—it isn't—but where do they get the nerve? They rip off a Hong Kong film just four years after the original, then parade Scorsese around like he’s some kind of visionary genius, completely ignoring the actual creators from the Far East. It’s pathetic how those filmmakers have become easy targets for intellectual property theft; it's basically just working for Hollywood at this point. To top it all off, they hand him an Oscar for it. To me, that’s the ultimate proof that the Hollywood system is rotting from the inside, paving the way for pure arrogance and mediocrity.
I’d honestly give Infernal Affairs an Oscar in a heartbeat. But hey, can you blame them? If they just painted everything yellow to look white, they might actually stand a chance. What a joke.

Mark Johnson5 said:Then you give me a reason why Dogs is trash.☕

They aren't trash, they just feel like every other Michael Madsen flick. Video stores used to be overflowing with those quirky, crime-heavy, psycho-babble movies. Tarantino probably raided those shelves for inspiration when he sat down to write his scripts.

Jerry Martin19 said:True, true. There are definitely good and bad elements in films that almost everyone notices. But I still maintain that criticism (though I personally think it shouldn't even exist) should focus strictly on the technical side of filmmaking rather than "the other stuff," which is often just as important, if not more... If we're going to follow the majority voice as some mass that's easily swayed or misled, I wouldn't put much faith in them... Take 300 for example; in my book, it's one of the worst movies of the year, yet it sits at an 8.1/10 on IMDb with over 132,000 votes according to their metrics...

p.s. why would anyone crucify you for reading critic reviews (that's what they actually are, by the way)? Man, just do whatever you want...

Honestly, I actually thought 300 was one of the best films I've seen all year, regardless of what those IMDb ratings say (which often lack any actual common sense). I liked it mostly because of how original the adaptation felt and how well it captured that graphic novel vibe. Action isn't really my thing anyway, so I don't care much for that genre.

Jerry Martin19 said:I watch a ton of movies too, yet I'm still second-guessing my own takes while you seem pretty set in yours. Don't you think "film knowledge" is a bit more subjective than people make it out to be? 🙂

You took the words right out of my mouth. Knowledge is actually a fairly solid concept. You notice how most critics—and honestly, even the general public—usually agree on whether a movie is a masterpiece or a total disaster? (Don't crucify me for mentioning critics; I actually make an effort to read their reviews in the papers). There are certain constant elements of quality or failure that you can spot in a film. Personal opinions will always vary from person to person, but I still think the consensus carries more weight.

Jerry Martin19 said:Look, I’m not gonna get into whether Tarantino's work is better than Clint's since I've only seen this one from Tarantino. But I honestly don't get where you guys get off deciding which movie is superior?! You really think you have the authority to judge that? I know I wouldn't...

It's a toss-up for me. And honestly, I think anyone who watches enough movies and has seen a decent amount of stuff earns the right to have an opinion.

hollowsailor19 said:I know they aren't, I'm just saying they're better movies.
It’s just like how 1992 Reservoir Dogs didn't get a nomination, yet it's easily ten times better than...
Unforgiven

You're really exaggerating. That Tarantino flick is considered a cult classic just because a specific group of people hasn't stopped raving about it since, but comparing it to Clint's film...🙄

hollowsailor19 said:What’s everyone else’s take? In my opinion, they aren't even the worst—I mean, we can all agree
that those two definitely don't hold a candle to what should have won. Personally, I think
the wins were totally undeserved compared to the other heavy hitters (Se7en, The Usual Suspects)—which, if you ask me,
are much better films.

Discussing American award criteria is getting more ridiculous by the year. They seem to have some logic behind their decisions that the rest of us can't wrap our heads around—or worse, they're just plain laughable.
As for the movie in question, I actually don't think it was undeserving of the Oscar for Best Picture. Both movies you mentioned (Se7en, The Usual Suspects) are undeniably masterpieces within their genres, but I find Gibson's film much more impactful because it hits on such universal themes.
Aside from Rocky, which you brought up, here are a few Best Picture winners I would never, ever vote for:
1982- The Raiders of the Lost Ark
1989- Rain Man
1995- Forrest Gump
2000- American Beauty
2003- Chicago
2007- No Country for Old Men
I won't even get started on the older ones.

Douglas used to be the perfect target for women to push around, but hey, it just made him look more manly. A man who takes that kind of treatment without immediately losing his cool (Rosebud, Uncovering) is a real man
😛 😛 😛

I’m not sure if this thread is still active, but I just noticed it. A few years ago, I lost someone very dear to me—she was struggling with schizophrenia and ended up taking her own life. To make matters worse, her family kept her condition a complete secret, spinning all these alternative excuses and explanations until everything finally reached its tragic conclusion.

Joseph Lee3 said:Since you were already diving into American cinema, you really should have touched upon Asian film as well, just to give us a broad overview. It’s also a mistake to overlook the "Mediterranean circle"—you know, the heavy hitters from Italian and Spanish cinema (think Fellini, Visconti, De Sica, Rossellini, or even Almodóvar?). French cinema basically carries enough weight to stand on its own without help, and while bringing up Scandinavian films might feel like splitting hairs, it's still worth noting...

I'm with you; Italian and Spanish filmmaking definitely deserve their own spotlight, especially the former. If you feel like Spain is lacking true auteurs, just rename the category to "Spanish-language films" and pull in some titles from Latin America. I’d do that in a heartbeat. Personally, I've never seen a hard line between British and American movies anyway; they all kind of blur together. And honestly, don't blame me if I skip the Italians and Spaniards to include North American cinema—that just feels unrealistic.

Anthony Kim18 said:I wasn't saying the plot was off, it's more about how it looks visually

So you're talking about the fancy decor, the clothes, the jewelry, all that? I don't think any of it is over the top. The Netherlands has always been an incredibly wealthy country, and their middle class could afford luxuries that would be strictly reserved for the aristocracy in other places.

Anthony Kim18 said:Hmm, I have my doubts that life was actually like that.
Maybe they hit those standards, but it feels a bit too perfect to me.
It’s basically just a movie made to show how people back then wanted to see themselves.

What kind of idealization are you talking about? The service life during that era was brutal, and the film shows that faithfully. If I saw maids sleeping in feather beds, then I'd call it idealized. But look at the life of that famous artist and his family living in a Netherlands torn apart by religious tension? That's pure misery... a greedy wife constantly demanding money (while popping out a new kid every year), painting portraits for obnoxious elites just to stay in their good graces, and a mother-in-law who keeps the cash under lock and key... To me, it felt more like a descent into hell, where the only sliver of light is that sudden connection between two people from different worlds whose love is doomed before it even starts.
The movie is incredibly sad precisely because it feels real.

The Lord of the Rings
Scarface (strictly because the music and editing are a perfect match)

The Piano and The Portrait of a Lady by Jane Campion
A few flicks from Penny Marshall
Almost everything by Kathryn Bigelow
The world of Wayne via Penelope Spheeris
Lina Wertmüller’s metal era
The game played by Lina Wertmüller

Anthony Kim18 said:Childhood favorite 👍

Same here. I remember watching this during some old New Year's special with my siblings, and we all just laughed at Arnie. It was pure chaos. I actually picked it up at a Blockbuster a few months back just to see if it still held up. It was pretty much the same experience, though I wasn't quite as terrified of the chainsaw as I was when I was a kid. Realistically, the odds of someone chasing you down with one of those are probably slim to none...😍 😍 😍

Great movie, stellar acting, and the directing was top-tier.👍 👍 👍

When Steven Spielberg isn't being forced into a corner by producers demanding a half-billion-dollar blockbuster, he can actually deliver something high-quality and genuinely funny. And if Leonardo DiCaprio actually connects with a role, he’s capable of playing someone intelligent without being grating. Even Tom Hanks seemed natural and actually invested in his character here. All things considered, it's a more than solid film.

Absolutely stunning. It felt like Vermeer's Delft just sprang to life right in front of us, almost as if his paintings had finally started breathing. The attention to detail was incredible, and the casting—from the leads to the supporting roles—was spot on. Truly unforgettable.

Anthony Kim18 said:Honestly, I still feel like that price tag is way too high for what we actually saw.

Sure, I mean, who knows where that $150,000 went? They could have shot it for $5,000 if they wanted. But honestly, the budget isn't even the point. I prefer walking into a theater knowing nothing about the producers or the cost—just pure experience. When I watched this, all I knew was that it had already crushed it at Sundance. I just let the movie take over, and man, it genuinely creeped me out. I kept thinking: this could happen to you, too, out in some remote part of the Midwest where there's nobody around to help, facing something terrifying that you can't see, but can definitely feel and hear.

Anthony Kim18 said:The Blair Witch Project.
Total playground stuff.
Thank god the hype and the whole craze this movie started died down so fast.
I'm talking about all those cheap clones that popped up.
Everyone was obsessed for a second, but then it just vanished.
And honestly? Good.
Let it rot in the dustbin of history where it belongs!

Not really, because I personally haven't forgotten him one bit, even today. I've watched it twice more since then and it still gives me chills, even knowing it's all fake. I love horror movies—I've seen dozens since the days of The Blair Witch Project—but that film is special.
And I don't get why everyone keeps insisting the guys who made it only spent $150,000 and used a cheap camera. It's like saying, "Oh, I could have thought of that myself." Like some variation of the Columbus egg story. If it was so simple, why didn't anyone else think of it?