Posts by Amanda Nguyen5

Michelle Wells3 said:Look.

That's just how I experienced the movie. Your fatalistic take is just as valid a perspective. It’s very... Coelho-esque, I guess.

Look.
Experience the movie however you want.

But don't talk nonsense.

redowl90 said:I don't see it that way. It really just comes down to how you interpret things, because in my view, nothing was intentionally pushed into the background. To me, her friend stays front and center throughout the entire movie. Everything else—what happens while she’s away from the hotel, staying with her boyfriend and his family, and then later with him—is secondary, if we even need to call it that.

Another take on this one. I didn't experience it that way, and I don't think the focus was really on the family bickering at the table. Especially since the camera stays completely static, keeping the lens locked on the main protagonist—who, let's be honest, definitely earns that title—throughout the entire scene.

I can't tell if my friend just pushed her question aside, if she was simply exhausted, or if she truly didn't care... But honestly, the woman is being foolish. That’s just the fact of the matter, and that's how I'd describe her decision to just sleep it off.

Nothing was misunderstood here. The movie is excellent. We're all on the same page.

Before I watched this, I had absolutely no clue what I was getting into. I've actually reached a point where I've stopped doing any research on the internet about films, watching trailers, or reading synopses... anything, really. I just realized that watching a movie that way is much more rewarding. So, I didn't have any idea what this was about; I just popped the disc into the player and hit "play."

Well, alright then. It’s always about "different interpretations," isn't it?

redowl90 said:I don't see it that way. It really just comes down to how you interpret things, because in my view, nothing was intentionally pushed into the background. To me, her friend stays front and center throughout the entire movie. Everything else—what happens while she’s away from the hotel, staying with her boyfriend and his family, and then later with him—is secondary, if we even need to call it that.

Another take on this one. I didn't experience it that way, and I don't think the focus was really on the family bickering at the table. Especially since the camera stays completely static, keeping the lens locked on the main protagonist—who, let's be honest, definitely earns that title—throughout the entire scene.

I can't tell if my friend just pushed her question aside, if she was simply exhausted, or if she truly didn't care... But honestly, the woman is being foolish. That’s just the fact of the matter, and that's how I'd describe her decision to just sleep it off.

Nothing was misunderstood here. The movie is excellent. We're all on the same page.

Before I watched this, I had absolutely no clue what I was getting into. I've actually reached a point where I've stopped doing any research on the internet about films, watching trailers, or reading synopses... anything, really. I just realized that watching a movie that way is much more rewarding. So, I didn't have any idea what this was about; I just popped the disc into the player and hit "play."

Hmm. You really have to chew on that one. I didn't spend much time dwelling on it. But honestly, the focus the film seemed to aim for wasn't actually either of them—it was just the general state of things, from their situation down to the abortion clinic (interesting, how do you even refer to someone performing an abortion?). You should give your theory some serious thought, but I don't think that's quite how it landed for me. Even if one of them "carries" the film—meaning they hold the foreground, obviously not the quality—I’d call her the protagonist, but I’ll probably stick to what I said at the start: neither of them actually matters.

redowl90 said:I don't see it that way. It really just comes down to how you interpret things, because in my view, nothing was intentionally pushed into the background. To me, her friend stays front and center throughout the entire movie. Everything else—what happens while she’s away from the hotel, staying with her boyfriend and his family, and then later with him—is secondary, if we even need to call it that.

Another take on this one. I didn't experience it that way, and I don't think the focus was really on the family bickering at the table. Especially since the camera stays completely static, keeping the lens locked on the main protagonist—who, let's be honest, definitely earns that title—throughout the entire scene.

I can't tell if my friend just pushed her question aside, if she was simply exhausted, or if she truly didn't care... But honestly, the woman is being foolish. That’s just the fact of the matter, and that's how I'd describe her decision to just sleep it off.

Nothing was misunderstood here. The movie is excellent. We're all on the same page.

Before I watched this, I had absolutely no clue what I was getting into. I've actually reached a point where I've stopped doing any research on the internet about films, watching trailers, or reading synopses... anything, really. I just realized that watching a movie that way is much more rewarding. So, I didn't have any idea what this was about; I just popped the disc into the player and hit "play."

Different interpretations again. To me, that stillness and monotony reflected the character's own state—so monotonous, slow, pointless, and trivial. And the "worst" part—exactly what is being shown to us—is that the actual high-stakes situation (tense, significant, a real "yes" or "no" moment) is the very thing we are denied access to, even though everyone (the director, the actors, the characters, and us) would kill to see it.

redowl90 said:I don't see it that way. It really just comes down to how you interpret things, because in my view, nothing was intentionally pushed into the background. To me, her friend stays front and center throughout the entire movie. Everything else—what happens while she’s away from the hotel, staying with her boyfriend and his family, and then later with him—is secondary, if we even need to call it that.

Another take on this one. I didn't experience it that way, and I don't think the focus was really on the family bickering at the table. Especially since the camera stays completely static, keeping the lens locked on the main protagonist—who, let's be honest, definitely earns that title—throughout the entire scene.

I can't tell if my friend just pushed her question aside, if she was simply exhausted, or if she truly didn't care... But honestly, the woman is being foolish. That’s just the fact of the matter, and that's how I'd describe her decision to just sleep it off.

Nothing was misunderstood here. The movie is excellent. We're all on the same page.

Before I watched this, I had absolutely no clue what I was getting into. I've actually reached a point where I've stopped doing any research on the internet about films, watching trailers, or reading synopses... anything, really. I just realized that watching a movie that way is much more rewarding. So, I didn't have any idea what this was about; I just popped the disc into the player and hit "play."

😂😂

redowl90 said:I don't see it that way. It really just comes down to how you interpret things, because in my view, nothing was intentionally pushed into the background. To me, her friend stays front and center throughout the entire movie. Everything else—what happens while she’s away from the hotel, staying with her boyfriend and his family, and then later with him—is secondary, if we even need to call it that.

Another take on this one. I didn't experience it that way, and I don't think the focus was really on the family bickering at the table. Especially since the camera stays completely static, keeping the lens locked on the main protagonist—who, let's be honest, definitely earns that title—throughout the entire scene.

I can't tell if my friend just pushed her question aside, if she was simply exhausted, or if she truly didn't care... But honestly, the woman is being foolish. That’s just the fact of the matter, and that's how I'd describe her decision to just sleep it off.

Nothing was misunderstood here. The movie is excellent. We're all on the same page.

Before I watched this, I had absolutely no clue what I was getting into. I've actually reached a point where I've stopped doing any research on the internet about films, watching trailers, or reading synopses... anything, really. I just realized that watching a movie that way is much more rewarding. So, I didn't have any idea what this was about; I just popped the disc into the player and hit "play."

👍

redowl90 said:I don't see it that way. It really just comes down to how you interpret things, because in my view, nothing was intentionally pushed into the background. To me, her friend stays front and center throughout the entire movie. Everything else—what happens while she’s away from the hotel, staying with her boyfriend and his family, and then later with him—is secondary, if we even need to call it that.

Another take on this one. I didn't experience it that way, and I don't think the focus was really on the family bickering at the table. Especially since the camera stays completely static, keeping the lens locked on the main protagonist—who, let's be honest, definitely earns that title—throughout the entire scene.

I can't tell if my friend just pushed her question aside, if she was simply exhausted, or if she truly didn't care... But honestly, the woman is being foolish. That’s just the fact of the matter, and that's how I'd describe her decision to just sleep it off.

Nothing was misunderstood here. The movie is excellent. We're all on the same page.

Before I watched this, I had absolutely no clue what I was getting into. I've actually reached a point where I've stopped doing any research on the internet about films, watching trailers, or reading synopses... anything, really. I just realized that watching a movie that way is much more rewarding. So, I didn't have any idea what this was about; I just popped the disc into the player and hit "play."

Man, I didn't read up on it either, let alone watch a trailer (does one even exist?😁), or dig through a synopsis or whatever. But this movie was being talked about everywhere—from reviews at Cannes to essays on the Romanian New Wave to the Sundance Film Festival. People were buzzing about it constantly. It was honestly impossible to avoid knowing that "4 Months" is about abortion, just like I can't avoid knowing that "Deer Hunter" is about war, even though I've been waiting for a peaceful day to finally sit down and see it.

redowl90 said:I don't see it that way. It really just comes down to how you interpret things, because in my view, nothing was intentionally pushed into the background. To me, her friend stays front and center throughout the entire movie. Everything else—what happens while she’s away from the hotel, staying with her boyfriend and his family, and then later with him—is secondary, if we even need to call it that.

Another take on this one. I didn't experience it that way, and I don't think the focus was really on the family bickering at the table. Especially since the camera stays completely static, keeping the lens locked on the main protagonist—who, let's be honest, definitely earns that title—throughout the entire scene.

I can't tell if my friend just pushed her question aside, if she was simply exhausted, or if she truly didn't care... But honestly, the woman is being foolish. That’s just the fact of the matter, and that's how I'd describe her decision to just sleep it off.

Nothing was misunderstood here. The movie is excellent. We're all on the same page.

Before I watched this, I had absolutely no clue what I was getting into. I've actually reached a point where I've stopped doing any research on the internet about films, watching trailers, or reading synopses... anything, really. I just realized that watching a movie that way is much more rewarding. So, I didn't have any idea what this was about; I just popped the disc into the player and hit "play."

I saw it in the theater, and it was awesome. Look, I try not to go to stuff in theaters lately if I can help it, but I'm telling you, it was great seeing it on the big screen.
As for "paziti seks" by liti Anga and that Winnerašnicla cycle? Yeah, that's a wrap. Done and dusted.

Michelle Wells3 said:Honestly, there are very few moments in life where you truly have zero options, and I don't think this was one of them. Usually, when people say they have no choice, it’s just because they can't see the alternatives right in front of them.

I feel like you missed the actual point here. It's about how we're constantly making decisions—some good, some pretty terrible—that end up shaping our lives and everyone else's too. And honestly, the movie is great mainly because it captures that reality so well.

Cut the nonsense.

Thomas Chavez8 said:You’re either 1) contradicting yourself, or 2) you have no idea what you're talking about, so you're just tossing out nonsense that cancels itself out.
I recall Wild once noted that fools contradict others while the wise only contradict themselves—but even then, there isn't an internal conflict within her, because there's simply no room for one. You almost sense this later through the references to a "lack of freedom and choice" or "imposed decisions," but I fail to see why you'd present two opposing theses in a single sentence.

How can you say there's no conflict? She has been blatantly betrayed on multiple levels, and none of her dilemmas have an exit strategy... that entire stretch from the sex scene onward reeks of her tangled emotions—shame, guilt, anger, fear for her friend, and this desperate urge to see things through to the end. You can feel it in those long silences, the way she walks, the drives, the dinners. She had a choice: she could have been a total coward and screwed everything up, or she could play the naive saint who got played—and she knows exactly which one she chose. When she looks at her friend in the restroom mirror, or even when she says goodbye to head to dinner, she’s simultaneously livid over the betrayal and motherly in her concern. At dinner, she’s paranoid and fixated on Gabita, all while becoming increasingly aware of the looming impossibility of any future choices—options that just keep mounting (living with a boyfriend, the possibility of an abortion, the hypocrisy of the people at the table). Their conversations provide us with the echoes of her thoughts, which are only subtly hinted at through her facial expressions and movements... before she finally voices them in the room. That’s why I think it's unnecessary.

Just go all in on the betting.
2. There aren't any options here. Once she decided to take that path at the start, she had to see it through to the bitter end. No choice. Just like their little fish (or fishes, whatever), sitting there alone after they all left—it wasn't by choice, but now that she's stuck, there’s nothing left to do but sit tight and starve for two days.
And just pray someone doesn't come along and fill her up.
Some kind of gust of wind.

redowl90 said:Haha, well... depends on how you look at it. Personally, I don't think there's a dip here because we needed to see how the whole subplot with the boyfriend would resolve since he was already part of the story. That bit with the phone ringing in the background while the rest of the family talks endlessly was actually incredibly effective. And their conversation in the guy's room and her abrupt exit? I loved it. I didn't feel the tension slackening at all, mostly because the question of "what happened to the friend" is hanging in the air the entire time; you can practically taste it.
Besides, you can't keep a movie at a constant, breakneck tension from start to finish. But once you realize what the movie is actually about and what might happen next, the tension stays constant.

I think the most important part of that sentence is: "...who claim to be huge cinephiles..."
They should go watch a Haneke film instead!

I mentioned the phone thing earlier, but honestly, the tension definitely lets up a bit. The "what's happening with the friend" subplot tries to be pushed to the background by showing us something else entirely, but it shouldn't work that way. For me, it worked, and honestly, the focus shifted more toward what's happening with them rather than "what's happening with her?". That question is still hovering in the air, like you said, but it’s definitely suppressed. Plus, when she returns to the hotel, we see that even the friend herself has suppressed her own "question," since she's basically half-asleep.
Can you make a movie tense at the exact same level the whole time? No, you can't. You go through a natural flow and slightly ramp up the intensity, but I've already said what I think about the tension in this specific film.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say it again: the movie is excellent.
And about what you said at the end, "once you realize what it's about." Man, I've seen so many times where people just skimmed over the plot and wrote things like "girls are aborting" and stuff, which is just stupid. The movie is intentionally made so that for the first thirty or forty-five minutes, you don't quite get what they want; instead, you see that whatever they want, they can't quite grab it (which is the whole point), all while the abortion theme is being shoved in our faces. It's unnecessary. It would have been better if nobody knew anything about the movie beforehand. Though, yeah, you really couldn't avoid that word.

Now I just remembered the beginning. Two genius little details: the main character first says she'll "handle everything with the conductors without any problems," and then when she gets back to the room and her friend asks, "Why did you come back?", she replies, "Don't be superstitious (you aren't a peasant, or something like that)."
Just three minutes later, she goes from being almost kicked off by the conductor to being saved by some nice people who give her a ticket. Then five minutes after that, when the guy tells her to buy 48 roses for his mom's birthday, she says with this slight hint of fear: "Why an even number? Never an even number."
Both those bits show she's screwed. Not heavily, but seriously screwed.
While the second one is deeply, seriously screwed (not regarding the abortion, but just generally regarding life decisions and behavior), but that's a different story.

redowl90 said:Haha, well... depends on how you look at it. Personally, I don't think there's a dip here because we needed to see how the whole subplot with the boyfriend would resolve since he was already part of the story. That bit with the phone ringing in the background while the rest of the family talks endlessly was actually incredibly effective. And their conversation in the guy's room and her abrupt exit? I loved it. I didn't feel the tension slackening at all, mostly because the question of "what happened to the friend" is hanging in the air the entire time; you can practically taste it.
Besides, you can't keep a movie at a constant, breakneck tension from start to finish. But once you realize what the movie is actually about and what might happen next, the tension stays constant.

I think the most important part of that sentence is: "...who claim to be huge cinephiles..."
They should go watch a Haneke film instead!

Look, I'm not even worried about them, I'm just pointing things out.
Haneke is great, but don't go bringing up Haneke unless you want Xavi to ban you.

Thomas Chavez8 said:I agree—it doesn't quite land. In that specific segment, she really has to face two things: processing what actually happened and bracing for the fallout. To me, that’s the true heart of the movie—it captures that core internal struggle of an individual clashing with decisions forced upon them, essentially dealing with a total lack of agency. That dinner scene? Absolute peak. The part in the room with the guy is a bit weak—honestly unnecessary since it just explains what's already obvious. But from there, the pacing stays intense right until the end... pure adrenaline.

Either you're contradicting yourself, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just tossing out nonsense that cancels itself out.
I remember Wilde saying that fools contradict others while the wise contradict themselves, but honestly, there is no internal conflict here because there's simply no room for one. You almost hint at it later by mentioning a "lack of freedom" or "forced decisions," but I really don't get why you'd put two opposing ideas in the exact same sentence.
It's not that I care, I'm just saying.

redowl90 said:Can you walk me through the exact moment when a movie starts to lose its dramatic momentum?

It’s right after the lead girl walks out of that "room of evil" where everything finally hits the peak.
Then comes the whole sequence with her riding the subway, getting to the boyfriend's place, and dealing with his parents—well, mostly just eavesdropping on them. They’re just sitting there eating and talking, shoving all their high-and-mighty doctrines down her throat while she’s left totally lost about what happened with her stupid friend.

It’s not that the segment is bad. Honestly, there are some great bits—like when the phone rings "quietly" in the background, or that part where she complains he thinks her parents are idiots compared to his doctors. She ends up sneaking into his old bedroom to bring them some fancy French dessert, even using the actual French name for it.
It isn't terrible, per se, but after that intense, hilarious, and looooong stretch in the room, this stuff feels way too slow. It just drags the whole thing back down to a basic level.

I forgot to mention that I ran into some acquaintances at the screening who claim to be huge cinephiles. We chatted for a bit afterward, and they were blunt: "Slow, boring, dragged out, monotonous, total waste of time. How did this thing even win an award?"

Just got back from the first screening and a looooong coffee break.

The movie?

It’s excellent.
It keeps the momentum going for that Romanian New Wave tradition that just keeps churning out masterpieces.
My only real gripe—compared to what Nemescu and Puiuu have done—is that "4 Months" takes its usual narrative flow and suddenly spikes it to a massive peak (that abortion scene in the room), but then struggles to keep up that high energy, causing the pace to dip before it climbs back up for a triumphant finish. Nemescu and Puiuu didn't really have those issues; they maintained a consistently high level that actually built toward the end. "4 Months" jumps too high too fast, then settles back down to where it should have stayed all along.
Because of that tiny nitpick, I'm giving it a 9.5/10. It doesn't quite hit the heights of "Lazaresc" or "California Dreamin'," but that doesn't change the fact that, as redowl90 mentioned, it was easily one of the best films of last year. Period.
The acting is superb, and the direction is masterful. We all know long takes are trendy right now, but you've got your Hollywood-style long takes with constant action, and then you've got these types of shots where things are more passive. This direction couldn't be better.

It’s a brilliant film as it stands, but with one little tweak to the dramaturgy, it would be an absolute masterpiece.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:You make a fair point, but honestly, I'm right there with you.
January was basically a total wasteland for cinema—nothing but some Australian and European stuff at the very end of the month. Then suddenly, out of nowhere in February, we get two absolute gems like the Human Rights Watch Film Festival and an Antonioni showcase. What's next? A Verve retrospective playing at Lincoln Center during the height of the Felliniesque era?

Guess I’m talking too much.

By the time Fellini rolls around, we'll be at the Sundance Film Festival.

ruggedmarlin15 said:I don't mean to start an argument here, but I wouldn't call that a "huge drawback" for the whole festival. No cultural event has an absolute monopoly on scheduling, and there's always going to be some overlap with other things happening.

As far as the programming goes, I think it's looking pretty interesting...

You make a fair point, but honestly, I'm right there with you.
January was basically a total wasteland for cinema—nothing but some Australian and European stuff at the very end of the month. Then suddenly, out of nowhere in February, we get two absolute gems like the Human Rights Watch Film Festival and an Antonioni showcase. What's next? A Verve retrospective playing at Lincoln Center during the height of the Felliniesque era?

First off, I’m putting out an SOS to all you almighty moderators: please don't move this over to the "Announcements" section. This isn't just a quick heads-up. This thread covers the entire project from start to finish—it's meant for the announcements, the follow-up comments, the impressions, and eventually, the big debates. Let's keep it all in one place!
And another thing—the stuff in the sticky threads is way harder to read than it is here. It's like half the size!

Page Check out this link for the Human Rights Film Festival! It's honestly such a great resource if you're into films that actually tackle the big stuff. Definitely worth a look. There really should be way more content on this page. That’s what they say.

The 5th Human Rights Film Festival.

Whether people realize it or not—and honestly, sometimes even with the law backing them up—human rights get violated, ignored, or just completely overlooked all the time. We’ve been debating and redefining what these rights actually mean for centuries. That’s why the Human Rights Film Festival matters. It’s a chance to step back, rethink everything, and see the world through a totally different lens. We’re hitting the big five this year, which is pretty huge! This is easily the most inclusive festival in the city. We’ve lined up over thirty films—everything from heavy-hitting documentaries and features to short films, and yeah, we’re even throwing in a classic Hollywood musical just for fun. The HRFF is all about tackling those deep ideological debates and giving a voice to the marginalized, the silenced, and the perspectives that usually go unnoticed. Plus, we'll have some heavy-hitting guests, panel discussions, and a killer lineup of live music to keep things moving.

The festival is happening this year from February 8th through the 13th over at the Europe cinema!

The festival kicks off with Emilia Estevez’s “Bobby.” It’s an adaptation centered on the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and honestly, I have no clue why this movie skipped over our local theaters and festivals despite all the massive praise it got from critics and audiences alike. It’s a heavy-hitting critique of the social and political chaos gripping America in the late 60s, blending gritty archival footage with fictional portraits played by Hollywood legends. Looking at the rest of the lineup—which is a wild mix of genres, lengths, and origins—there are a few standouts you can't miss. First up is John Gianvit’s “Motive for Profit and the Whispering Wind.” It’s visually stunning, radical, and a total, uncompromising elegy for American political history. Critics are calling his style "anti-Michael Moore," which is a pretty bold claim. Then there’s “Why Didn’t Anyone Tell Me It Would Be This Bad in Afghanistan?” by the contemporary Dutch enfant terrible Cyrus Frisch. It’s a deeply subjective psychological drama and actually holds the title of the first feature film shot entirely on a mobile phone. If you want something different, check out Alex Cox’s “Trackers 2.0.” It’s a minimalist social satire that plays with Western tropes and B-movies; the characters even dive into things like Charlton Heston’s role during the war in Iraq. Finally, we have “Landscape Production,” a documentary featuring the lens of the famous artist Edward Burtynski. He has this incredible way of capturing both the beauty and the sheer strangeness of landscapes shaped by massive, permanent industrialization.

The side program dives deep into "female authorship" through the lens of film history. We’re looking at twelve different directors who, from the 1920s all the way to today, have dared to treat women as actual subjects. It’s about seeing them as complex individuals—full of their own unique perspectives—instead of just being used as objects to fuel some big cinematic spectacle. It’s a quick, diverse journey through how bodies, emotions, desires, joy, drama, oppression, and pure logic are portrayed when seen through a woman's eyes.

We’ve got a special guest joining this part of the program: Hito Steyerl. She’s an incredible film and video artist, plus a brilliant theorist. Her essays and documentary works dive deep into post-colonial critique, tackling the heavy stuff like globalization, migration, racism, and nationalism within the cultural and political landscape of the US. It's going to be intense..

There isn't a whole lot on this site, honestly. But hey, at least you can grab the essentials—you can download the full program as a PDF.

There’s a ton of good stuff on the lineup—honestly, a few absolute gems that are totally worth your time.

I’d have to pick the older stuff, specifically those classics by Varda and Chytilová—you know, like "Happy Accidents" or "Fruit of Paradise."
You’ve got your absolute classics in there—think Deren or Dulac—but then you’ve also got some fresh new stuff like Potter. It's a solid mix.
Word on the street is that De Palma’s latest stuff is pretty easy to skip. Honestly? I'm fine with that. But if you were one of those people obsessed with "Passion of Joan of Arc"—which, let's face it, was such a masterpiece when we saw it back in the day during that local film series—you actually have something worth watching coming up. We’re talking about the new Ulrich Seidl flick, "Import/Export." It’s getting huge praise, and I think it's definitely worth the hype.
Sokurov, the guy behind that modern classic "Russian Ark," is showing his new flick "Aleksandra." Honestly, it’d also be pretty cool to catch "Bobby"—you know, that Emilia Estevez project. For some weird reason, it completely skipped our theaters here (and video stores too, if I recall correctly).
I haven't really followed Aaltonen’s work, unfortunately, but out of these recent picks, the new Alex Cox movie might actually be worth your time. People over at PBS got a taste of his style a few months back during his film night, where they showed the cult classic "Repo Man." His newest one, "Tracers 2.0," is basically a parody of Westerns and B-movies—the title pretty much gives it away.
Also, Arzner and Sagan are definitely must-sees for any real cinephile.

The biggest pro is definitely these older films you don't get to see every day. Plus, getting a free ticket is a huge win, even if it does feel a little bit cheap sometimes.
The massive downside to this whole festival, though, is that it clashes perfectly with the Antonioni series running over at the local independent cinema—specifically those last three films from his famous tetralogy (originally a trilogy). It's such a huge bummer because the entire month of January was totally empty for screenings (except for that winning cycle at Europe toward the end of the month). Now, suddenly, at the start of February, you've got Antonioni competing with an awesome Human Rights Film Festival. And we all know this is exactly when the heavy hitters hit the big screens right before awards season—this time it's "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country for Old Men."
And then there's February itself. It's cat month and finals season for students, who are exactly the people these festivals are supposed to target. That's another strike against it.

I guess we'll just have to find a way to squeeze it all in somehow.

Q. As Juha Terho of Washington, D.C., pointed out in a really sharp Glossary entry, "All feature films directed by James Cameron since 1984 have names that Begin either with The letter a or with The letter T." You won't be deleting this one anytime soon, either; Cameron's next big flick, set to drop in 2009, is titled "Avatar."

But look, there's trouble on the horizon. Right after that, he’s planning to put out a manga adaptation called "Battle Angel." Now, this would be a crushing BLOW to The integrity of The Glossary, but there's one little loophole. See, the actual manga is called "Battle Angel Alita"! I'm calling on you to use whatever influence you've got with Cameron or his crew and see if you can nudge him to rename the movie. "Alita, the Battle Angel" sounds awesome, stays totally true to the source material, and is perfectly Cameron-orthodox. I think we can all admit how vital this is for James Cameron's cinematic legacy, the integrity of your Glossary, and—let's be honest—world peace.
Matt Sersen, Blaca, USA

A. Believe me, I'll pull every single string I can.

taken from: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...gory=ANSWERMAN

northerncrane4 said:Now that Smith has passed away, even if those theories still exist, it feels like they’re just gone. 😢

I was lucky enough to be there right when both Solar and Smith—the two main pillars—stopped teaching. I can't really speak on them personally, but everything I heard from Brown was top-tier stuff (even though out of that trio, Brown-Miller-Johnson, only Johnson actually teaches filmology itself while the others focus on different areas... but you get my point)

rustyviper6 said:I was wondering if there are any film studies lectures held anywhere in Washington, D.C.?

From what I've heard, the College of Arts and Sciences actually has its own dedicated department for film studies. I'm curious, though—are their lectures open to the public? Like, can someone show up even if they aren't a student at the College of Arts and Sciences?

Thanks in advance to everyone for the help! 🙂

So, within the comparative literature program over at the College of Arts and Sciences, they have departments for both theater and film studies. Not too long ago, Smith and Johnson were teaching the film side of things, but now Johnson is the main guy (and honestly, the only one)—he was actually Smith's student. During the summer semester, he runs two courses: feature film structure and American movie; you can check for all the specifics.
As for the American Film Institute, they do film studies there too, but their website is pretty useless, so your best bet is to just head down there, look at the posters, and ask around. From my own experience sitting in on classes, Miller's stuff (film history, film aesthetics) and Brown's classes (film analysis, montage theory, Something-else-to-do) are totally worth the trip. Just keep in mind Miller teaches everything in two-semester blocks, and I'm not sure about Brown's schedule.
Basically, the whole university system is designed to be open—that’s kind of the whole point of the modern credit system—meaning you can jump from studying dentistry to American movies if you feel like it. Now, whether you actually walk up to a professor and let them know you're there is entirely up to you. And hey, you don't just have to sit and listen; you can actually enroll in them as electives and take the exams if you want (I pick and choose which ones I bother with, personally).
You might also stumble upon some shorter guest lectures popping up here and there at other spots like the KIC, Matica America, or even hanging out near Central Park, but that's pretty much the deal.

If none of that sounds fun, just stick to Bordwell, Smith, Mitry, Stojanović, Brown, and reading chronicle + Central Park or watching the classics. Do that for a few hours every day for six months and boom—you're basically a film buff without any of the hassle. Then you can decide if you want to go deeper later.

By the way, if you're actually serious about film and not just interested in lectures, you really ought to check out that Australian film festival circuit. Theory is totally useless if you don't get any actual practice.

George Alvarez3 said:Look, call it subjective if you want, but here’s how I see it:

Transformers: 4/10
The Island: 4/10
Bad Boys II: 3/10
Pearl Harbor: 1/10
Armageddon: 9/10
Dwayne Johnson: 5/10
Bad Boys: 6/10

Total: 4.6

My bar for a decent director: 8.5.

So…

🤣🤣

redowl90 said:I think you're taking Bay a little too seriously. His goal isn't to hit up film festivals and pick up awards. He wants money. And he's incredibly good at getting it.

There are serious films (which aim for, or at least try to serve, an artistic purpose) and then there are popcorn movies. Michael Bay is a popcorn movie director. The whole point of those films is to ENTERTAIN the audience, and I think Michael is currently the best in the business at that. There's no art here (nor will there ever be).

That is some pretty serious art.

I honestly thought I’d seen all the big ones like "Transformers" and "Armageddon," but looking at my list—I've actually missed everything except "The Island."

Everything released up through 2007 was great, especially "Hrid," but I won't dwell on those right now because 1) the details are a bit fuzzy (I mostly just remember the plot) and 2) I’d probably watch them with a much more critical eye today.

All I can say is that the only recent Bay-related work I've caught is "Transformers," which felt like it was playing in theaters here just not that long ago.
It’s one of those incredibly rare mainstream blockbuster movies that I’d give a solid 9/10.
I think I actually wrote a whole detailed breakdown about it in a different thread.

Honestly, this might be the most mind-numbing movie I’ve ever sat through in a theater. Seriously. It’s right up there with Antonio’s "History of a Love Affair" in terms of pure boredom. Though, let's be real, trying to draw any other comparisons to Antonio is a bit of a stretch.
The only part that actually grabbed my attention was when the bear first loses its cool and starts roaring. After that? It just drags on. You find yourself thinking, "Okay, fine, you roared. What's next?" And look, there was this one scene meant to be this massive, edge-of-your-seat "wow" moment—the bear fight—but it felt way too much like Apollo vs Rocky. Only instead of Adrian worrying about her fighter, we have this innocent little girl clutching The Golden Compass.
Movies like "American Gangster" remind me why I love going to the cinema, but stuff like "Ghost of Sarajevo" and this mess remind me why I shouldn't waste my hard-earned cash or my precious time. Honestly, the best thing about this movie is that it'll probably disappear from theaters in seven days, saving everyone else the trouble.
I’m not even going to touch Ebert's perfect 4/4 rating, but I will say this: the lead actress was fantastic.

Asking who the greatest actors are versus asking who the best comedians are? Those are two totally different questions.

First up, you’ve got Groucho Marx, and everyone else is just playing catch-up. There’s definitely still a hierarchy, though—like knowing Keaton is above Jim Carrey and all that.

I wasn't even going to bring up the 10/10 rating because, honestly, there's just no cure for this one... it's beyond help.

George Alvarez3 said:Aside from the fact that the death of hand-drawn animation absolutely terrifies me—because honestly, this whole 3D trend is just getting harder and harder to stomach—I think you nailed the point here with your sense of humor (if I’m reading you right). The jokes they’re peddling aren't even meant for kids, and they lack that genuine charm you find in something like Mulan or The Lion King. It’s worse than that. Take Arthur in the land of the Minimoys, for instance. It’s dubbed over specifically to target children, yet it's packed with these ridiculous parodies lifted from other movies that those same kids were way too young to get, or hadn't even seen yet. Or it relies on these weird scene gags—like when characters start dancing to trip-hop mid-fight, or that entire ridiculous sequence involving bras and boobs and all that nonsense. Kids don't get it because they can't catch the subtext. Then you have the older crowd laughing while the little ones just sit there looking around, totally lost, and you can't even explain why it's supposed to be funny. Or look at Little Red Riding Hood. There are a million subtle layers there that kids might actually start grasping around age thirteen, assuming they even notice the cleverness behind the framing and how the story connects. And don't even get me started on Braveheart, which is basically just a carbon copy of some movie about USA vs Germany, like the United Kingdom vs Nazi Germany. Seriously?!

So yeah, the whole concept of an "animated film" is shifting, and I am definitely not feeling it. Oh, and... The Bee Movie? One of the bad ones. O.o

Yeah, you read me perfectly, though unfortunately, it just proves my terrible taste in movies 😲. I haven't seen any of the ones you listed except for Arthur, but I totally get what you mean
.
Speaking of Arthur, there was that one guy who seemed constantly high, if I remember right, which just adds more weight to my point (which you totally agree with)
.
The Bee Movie isn't exactly a masterpiece, but out of the three movies I've actually sat through this year, it firmly takes second place. It's miles ahead of the nonsense in Simpson, and a couple of miles behind the sheer genius of Auguste Gusteau (by the way, another subtle touch by the author... even people who aren't into wordplay, even kids, will sense that there's something going on with that name. They won't realize it's Dadaism, but they'll feel that charm, much like we've seen before, whereas The Bee Movie just lacks that level of finesse and charm)