Posts by Raymond Walker5

wearyowl29 said:To be honest, this Film just didn't hit home for me. It’s missing that certain charm you find in those classic American stories where you don't need guns or violence to tell a powerful tale.
Instead, it felt kind of lukewarm... a real "could have been" moment.

It isn't exactly fun, it isn't educational, and it barely qualifies as a drama either. Honestly, it lacks all three, which makes the whole thing a bit of a slog.
If you're looking for someone to blame, look no further than a lackluster script.

This is a Film for indecisive, aimless hipsters who genuinely believe that absolutely nothing is actually "something." It’s emotionally detached and so dry that it crosses the line into pure pretentiousness.

I put this list together based on those massive commercial hits—the kind of songs that get played so constantly you can't escape them. Just because they're everywhere doesn't mean they're actually the greatest songs ever written, nor does it suddenly transform Rolling Stone into some high-brow authority on musical genius.

It’s definitely watchable and had its moments of fun, but I have to admit the plot felt incredibly cliché. I'd give it a solid 5/10.

A movie about absolutely nothing, presented in the most uninspired way possible. 2/10.
Do I even need to mention that the emperor is totally naked and his business is swinging in the wind?

Michelle Robinson66 said:It really gets under my skin when people act like they’re suddenly the coolest people in the room just because they listen to the Pixies. They treat everyone else like we have nothing to offer... I actually know a few people like that from back in my college days... they fit that description perfectly.

Personally, that music isn't really my thing, but that doesn't make me an idiot. It certainly doesn't mean I'm sitting around blasting bubblegum pop or whatever nonsense is playing on MTV these days.

Usually, I find myself gravitating toward Leonard Cohen (honestly, the Pixies can't touch him when it comes to songwriting), and I enjoy Nick Cave and Norah Jones too. I also love listening to Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, and so on.

I listen to them because I genuinely enjoy it, and I don't think my worth as a person changes based on whether I prefer them over someone else's playlist.

You seem to favor all the established legends who are primarily songwriters—the kind of stuff all the high-brow snobs gravitate toward. The only major name missing from your list is Tom Waits, though he's arguably much more fun than anyone else you mentioned.😁

To me, Pacific Rim is really just a collection of aggressive, high-quality special effects. That’s honestly the only reason I’m giving it any credit at all, so I'd say it's a 2/10.

The first installment was 🤮

So, I’m honestly expecting the sequel to be even more explosive, aggressive, grotesque, empty, absurd, and just plain mindless.

redpanther20 said:

just my quick little take on the movie.

Regarding his chances at the Oscars, I honestly think he could easily end up as one of the biggest losers of the night. In my opinion, the award he really deserves is for Costume Design. As for the rest... it would be wonderful to see him take home Best Director, but I’d say it’s a total coin flip for me.

He'll either grab it or he won't. 🙂

Sally Hawkins was absolutely phenomenal, but the competition for Best Actress this year is just brutal. I suspect it's going to come down to a tight race between her, Margot Robbie, and Frances McDormand.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. 🙂

9/10?
Now, that's a rating I reserve for truly spectacular films, and I don't see how SOW could possibly fit into that category. It’s a film that tries so incredibly hard to be great, but it just doesn't quite land. Aside from the visual aesthetic, which does work, it leaves such an empty impression that it actually gives me a bit of a headache. And don't even get me started on the heavy-handed clichés. There isn't any real emotional connection to the story, which means you never truly connect with it as a viewer. It's a love story that has been told much better a million times over. The acting is solid, certainly, but it's just not enough to save the narrative.
4/10

Karen Smith9 said:For me, the soundtrack was always the main event in that film. It works brilliantly as a standalone album—something you can just put on and enjoy—but when it’s layered over the movie, it feels incredibly overbearing. Take that famous, lighthearted theme when Claudia Cardinale gets off the train and wanders around waiting for her husband. It feels completely out of sync—just totally misplaced—much like several other scenes. And, well, as with pretty much any Leone film, the acting tends to be a bit over the top, though I suppose it works for the genre. My take? The music is frankly pretentious as a cinematic element, even if it's great when you listen to it solo. That seems to be the case with most Morricone work, really.

The thing is, modern audiences are so used to that kind of high-tech, sterile sound, so they might struggle with this. That’s why I see this film as art on multiple levels. The music isn't necessarily "too much"; rather, it sits right on that razor's edge of parody without ever actually crossing it, because the themes themselves are either breathtakingly beautiful, genuinely haunting, funny, or just plain tragic.
Every single character is given their own specific theme, and honestly, this movie simply wouldn't function without that score.

Claudia Cardinale has a theme that immediately communicates her femininity, her character, and sort of her tragic fate. That melody is also tied into the essence of the Wild West and the landscapes themselves. In a way, the music bridges her connection to the surroundings in such a positive light. The intro might feel a bit Italianate (beautiful regardless), but once the other instruments and the female vocals kick in, everything just clicks into place. I will admit, though, the theme during the finale might be a bit too dramatic.


Jason Robards was given this cool, effortless little theme that fits his character perfectly. He felt a bit like the Lucky Luke of the film. The music tells you right away that he isn't the villain, even if he arguably plays one.


Charles Bronson has a harmonica theme that weaves together with an electric guitar and an orchestral section reminiscent of a Henry Fonda score. In other words, through a single musical thread, the fates of two characters are linked—characters who become karmically inseparable through their shared evil. The harmonica lends Bronson a sense of mystery, since we aren't quite sure who he is or why he's there; the electric guitar hints at the darkness and brutality associated with Fonda; and the orchestral elements act as the glue binding their stories together.


Morton, who many viewers perceive as being purely negative, actually receives a small but incredibly moving theme. It doesn't reflect the outward wrongdoings he committed out of ignorance, but rather his inner self (which, let's face it, defines all the characters here). Through it, we see a nostalgic dreamer clinging to a vision he wants to live, but never will—whether because someone kills him or simply because he's too ill.


Looking back from today's perspective, whether it's the perceived sterility or the campiness, some might find parts of this film misplaced. However, the fact remains that this is the pinnacle of drama, executed in its most moving, artistic, and brilliant form in cinema history. It is, quite simply, a Western musical that actually works.

vivideagle7 said:I'm pretty exhausted, but honestly, just watching movies isn't the same thing as true cinematography.

OT, Morricone is a god.

Morricone is a god on Earth! 😁

Jacob Cooper5 said:Look, I’m no expert on technical genre definitions, but I think you might be mixing up your metaphors here. "Art" is really about a specific kind of creative expression, whereas "blockbuster" is just shorthand for how much money was dumped into a production and how much it pulled back at the box office. Theoretically, an art film could absolutely be a blockbuster. Even in practice, Lynch’s Twin Peaks series probably fits the blockbuster mold because it was a high-budget production that became a massive commercial hit.

Correct me if I'm off base.

He isn't actually a fan of that successful run of TP; he's more focused on that pretentious mess they called the third season.

dustycanyon5 said:For over half a century now, it feels like the movie world has been split right down the middle between people who live for big commercial hits and those who crave indie, auteur-driven art films. I've been wondering lately... which camp do you guys fall into?

Personally, I’ve always leaned toward the latter without even thinking twice about it. I mean, don't get me wrong, a few years back I was totally fine watching those massive Hollywood blockbusters—stuff like Terminator, Die Hard, or Lord of the Rings... but everything changed once I really started diving into actual cinematic art. Once you discover directors like Lynch, Bergman, or Tarkovsky, there's just no going back. Nowadays, I mostly stick to those deep, artistic films and tend to steer clear of the big commercial stuff...

It really just comes down to whether the movie or series is actually good or not, regardless of whether it's labeled "art" or "commercial." Both categories have an endless capacity for churning out absolute garbage. You know my thoughts on the third season of your *Twin Peaks*, for instance, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate a well-crafted, artsy film that actually has a meaningful point to make.
Personally, my favorite film has to be "Dean Spanley." It isn't a massive commercial juggernaut, nor is it overly pretentious or "artsy" for the sake of it. It manages to deliver a brilliant analysis of the human psyche without being heavy-handed, using a seemingly lighthearted premise to do so, which is exactly why I find it phenomenal. I’ve truly never come across another film that left such a lasting impression on me or pulled me into its world quite like that one. It resonated with me more than any other movie I've seen. I'm drawn to that sense of warmth and genuine humanity in film—something that is so incredibly hard to find amidst all the clichés and tropes. This particular story captures human vulnerability and the kind of pain that people spend their whole lives masking behind sarcasm and bitter behavior. In the end, salvation comes for the character in a completely unpredictable way. To me, that is what real art is: a film that touches your soul and stays in your mind indefinitely. It's a story that tackles deep themes like the human psyche and reincarnation in such an unburdened, humorous way. It reminds me of how Lynch handled *The Straight Story*—a beautiful film in my eyes, even if it sits a bit lower on my personal list than the one mentioned above.
"Art" can be anything or nothing at all. If a film tries way too hard to be "art," it's usually trash to me—take that movie *The Lobster*, for example... the social critique was clear enough, but the execution was just indigestible. If that's your cup of tea, more power to you.

It’s heartbreaking to look at much of the developing world and see how certain twisted mindsets still hold sway. We’re talking about thousands of lives lost at the hands of just one single 'king.' The sheer brutality—public executions, decapitations, people being torn apart, leaving piles of remains on display for everyone to see. It’s a descent into pure horror and a total eclipse of human consciousness. I suppose the only "benefit" we get from such darkness is the entertainment value for audiences here in the States, who watch these tragedies unfold on screen because their own lives feel too quiet compared to that kind of nightmare.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Plus, you've got a main villain who’s totally forgettable, an overbearing and unnecessary cameo by Elton John, some character deaths that feel completely hollow, and a total waste of the Statesmen cast.

Hey, leave Elton alone! He’s worth more than the entire rest of the cast combined. 😛

I'd give the film a solid 6/10.

It lasted about an hour before it just shut down on me. I’ll give it a generous 2/10, if you can even call that being generous. Honestly, watching this felt like being stuck in a room with a five-year-old who thinks they understand patriotism; it was just a bunch of flat, one-dimensional caricatures being passed off as actual heroes. It was pure comedy, really.

Richard White8 said:Precisely. They claim to have spent 90 billion on cancer research so far. Then you have the pharmaceutical industry and the lobbyists. Take psychotropic drugs, for instance; these newer antipsychotics are an expensive way to deal with mental issues. One box of 30 pills costs a hundred dollars. And this Merck product—in the US, they call it Abilify and market it on TV as an adjunct therapy for depression. In America, the consumption of antipsychotics has surged by 100% over the last 15 years. Psychiatrists there prescribe antipsychotics for everything from anxiety to insomnia to god knows what else.

And companies like Pfizer and Eli Lilly make massive profits off this.

Pfizer also rakes it in producing Merck (aripiprazole). I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the pharmacy receipt—Merck— $217!!! Unbelievable..

If our local politicians have spent the last quarter-century proving how effectively they can run a country into the ground, I struggle to see why that same "philosophy" wouldn't apply to the higher tiers, like the pharmaceutical industry. Given that John Virapen himself worked in pharma for decades and pulled back the curtain on how things actually operate there, I find myself being extremely skeptical of everything now. I didn't believe much before, but his book really solidified that distrust for me. In this kind of cutthroat capitalism, there isn't really any concept of honesty; there are only buyers and sellers. And in this world, healthy customers aren't considered good customers.

Richard White8 said:And who is going to find it? It remains a mystery. Funding for psychiatric research is negligible. All the capital flows directly into cancer research, and even then, we haven't seen significant breakthroughs beyond standard chemotherapy and radiation.

Look, Burzynski actually found effective treatments for certain types of cancer, which is exactly why the FDA and the big players "researching" cures tried so hard to throw him in prison for life. When that didn't work, they moved on to faking research data. When even that failed, they tried to hijack his patents. And when they couldn't pull that off either, they finally allowed his treatment to be used—but only on the condition that chemotherapy fails first. 🤣
The medical establishment cares deeply about our health, clearly.

Richard White8 said:Are you perhaps practicing according to a specific psychotherapeutic school of thought? In American hospitals, most psychiatrists specialize in biological psychiatry—they claim everything stems from increased stress and overloaded coping mechanisms, rarely leaning on genetic theories. The human psyche remains terra incognita; it is largely unexplored, and individual cases frequently defy statistics and textbooks. They lack the actual instruments to measure the cause and effect of these disorders. My own psychiatrist admitted this because she is an honest woman. There are plenty of doctors who pretend to be all-knowing, yet everyone just ends up on antipsychotics and Zyprexa, depending on how the medication hits them.

I don't work in the field, nor am I deeply invested in psychiatry, but I do think it would be incredibly valuable to uncover the triggers for that smaller group of people who deal with schizophrenia but don't have a clear genetic predisposition.

Richard White8 said:Right, I neglected to mention that I dealt with depersonalization. That lasted about five or six years before the psychosis set in. I would essentially become whoever impressed me most. It felt as though that person was actually me—as if my face, my body, and my very movements belonged to them. I felt like them, both internally and externally. It was incredibly disruptive. I used to beat myself up, thinking I was just some poser imitating others, but I wasn't imitating anyone; I truly felt like they were me. I couldn't even take public transit—like riding the subway—because I felt everyone was staring at me. I couldn't meet anyone's eyes; I could only stare at the floor or a single spot. Eventually, the sensation of being watched on a bus became unbearable, so I started taking Ubers instead. It’s a terrifying feeling—everyone staring at you, knowing exactly what you're thinking. This went on for years prior to the actual psychotic break.
So, looking back, it was all pre-psychotic. It was just a cumulative buildup. And here is another diagnostic surprise: I spent two years living with auditory hallucinations, behaving aggressively but without any compulsions. Then, in the third year of hearing voices, I started arranging everything symmetrically—left to right, front to back. I would go back into the bathroom twenty-five times just to check if the shampoo bottle was positioned left, right, or centered. It drove me insane, worse than the voices themselves. The problem was that the voices eventually began commanding me to perform these actions. When that happened, a snake-like rage would boil up inside me, and I would start punching myself in the face. My face would be bruised and swollen every few days. I even cracked two dental fillings from the impact. I endured all of this simply because I didn't realize I was in a state of psychosis.

Perhaps if I had started on anxiolytics or certain antidepressants earlier, I might have avoided this. Instead, it had to be handled with heavy-duty antipsychotics.

Depersonalization is, unfortunately, a term that everyone experiences differently, and psychiatrists often don't quite grasp the nuances—some haven't even heard of certain variations of it. Usually, it's used to describe symptoms within dissociative disorders, which are rooted in anxiety stemming from a specific trauma, so it doesn't quite align with what you're describing. What you're talking about sounds more like "depersonalization" in a much more literal sense, which points more toward psychosis rather than the typical dissociation or derealization linked to a dissociative disorder.

You're certainly an interesting case, though I suspect there is something deeper going on than just simple stress. Plenty of people head off to war and experience horrific things, developing PTSD, yet they typically don't develop psychosis or signs of schizophrenia.

That's why it surprises me that you developed such intense, long-term psychosis without any genetic predisposition. Personally, I don't think stress played much of a role here.
As for marijuana, it can definitely act as a trigger for schizophrenia in individuals who are already predisposed to it.
It would likely trigger derealization for me too, since my brain tends to lean that way in certain situations. Though, honestly, so many people experience derealization from smoking weed that it’s enough reason for anyone with half a brain to avoid it entirely. It might happen once, or it might happen a thousand times, but personally, I wouldn't take that risk.

Richard White8 said:I haven't been diagnosed with schizophrenia, even though that is how I describe it. They gave me F23.2—an acute psychotic disorder, similar to schizophrenia.
According to international classification standards, those acute psychotic disorders are meant for episodes lasting about a month, yet mine lasted four years!!
The reality is that I believed the voices were real and lived according to their commands—I did whatever they told me to do. It wasn't some fleeting thing. For four years, I lived in constant conversation and conflict with those voices. Why didn't they diagnose me with paranoid schizophrenia? I was dealing with a sensation of a snake inside me that was persecuting me. I have no idea.
I walked into the psychiatric emergency room myself, explained everything, and stated that this had been going on for four years. A resident was the one who made the diagnosis. Since then, my outpatient psychiatrist accepted his finding and hasn't changed it. I don't understand how they arrive at these diagnoses. A friend of mine suffers from paranoia—specifically persecutory delusions—and is constantly in the hospital. Yet, he has never been diagnosed with schizophrenia because he doesn't experience auditory hallucinations. He is labeled with F29—unspecified non-organic psychosis.
I don't know what force drove me to psychiatry—I sent myself there after four years of this. It made no sense to me; the voices kept telling me that God was healing me from a curse, yet it hadn't passed after four years. They told me I had partial insight into my condition and let me go home simply because I didn't have supplemental insurance. Otherwise, they would have kept me hospitalized.
So, this wasn't a short episode lasting a single month; it was four years long, and they still slapped me with "acute psychotic disorder."
If I had been in the hospital and spent every single day telling the doctors during rounds that there was a snake inside me, or that Satan was talking to me non-stop, perhaps they would have finally changed the diagnosis to actual schizophrenia.

Is there any explanation for what might have triggered this, especially since it seems like there's no history of schizophrenia in your family? I assume you don't know for sure, but can you speculate if there was a specific trigger... maybe a head injury, some kind of toxicity, major emotional trauma, or anything like that?
I know that people dealing with intense anxiety can feel like they are losing their minds. Especially those of us who struggle with derealization or depersonalization often fear we are developing schizophrenia or psychosis, but in practice, that rarely actually happens. That's why cases like yours feel a bit different, so to speak.
I know a girl who slipped into derealization twice after just one hit of marijuana, which triggered terrible paranoia and made her think she was going insane. The derealization eventually cleared up, but she ended up struggling with OCD and intrusive thoughts later on—constatingly berating herself and feeling like she was losing it—but she never actually developed full-blown psychosis through all of that.