Posts by Amanda Nguyen5

Sean Richardson9 said:Since I’ll be driving my own car, I was wondering about a few things... I know people usually leave their vehicles down in the lower lots and then just walk or grab a shuttle into town—but does parking actually get difficult, or can you usually find a spot without much trouble? Or is it one of those situations where you just end up circling around until you find any available space?

who's gonna be the first one to get a girlfriend

I still can't figure out if you were messing with Jessica Nguyen85 or if you were being serious.
Just come clean so we can get back to talking about the film.

Jessica Nguyen85 said:This needs to be passed along to Mr. Lynch. Even if it's amateurish, some of these ideas might actually help him craft a "better" film. It’s hard to find anyone these days willing to put in the work to make the world we live in better; though this would certainly serve as a sort of... balm for a seemingly cinematic genius to become even more brilliant. More brilliant. I haven't read this much constructive criticism since I started lurking on the Film subforum, so it feels like something incredibly targeted—at least in terms of being reminiscent of a lecture from the Academy of Dramatic Arts. Even if it feels banal at times or stylistically raw and repetitive, this critique tells us a lot about how one should actually watch a film and what to expect from it. While waiting for the next contribution to this community, kudos for hitting the nail on the head regarding the core issues of the film today. And in general.

😍
I'm telling you again, if he isn't just messing around,

Jessica Nguyen85 said:This needs to be passed along to Mr. Lynch. Even if it's amateurish, some of these ideas might actually help him craft a "better" film. It’s hard to find anyone these days willing to put in the work to make the world we live in better; though this would certainly serve as a sort of... balm for a seemingly cinematic genius to become even more brilliant. More brilliant. I haven't read this much constructive criticism since I started lurking on the Film subforum, so it feels like something incredibly targeted—at least in terms of being reminiscent of a lecture from the Academy of Dramatic Arts. Even if it feels banal at times or stylistically raw and repetitive, this critique tells us a lot about how one should actually watch a film and what to expect from it. While waiting for the next contribution to this community, kudos for hitting the nail on the head regarding the core issues of the film today. And in general.

okay
So, tell me straight: are you messing with my head, or do you want me to sit here driving myself crazy wondering if you're pulling my leg?
Seriously though,

otherwise, I actually really loved your comment.

northerncrane4 said:Weak. You opened with the wrong Felliniesque vibe.

I walked out of the theater feeling that exact same way. But honestly? I think it was a once-in-a-lifetime chance to see Fellini on the big screen. Any kind of Fellini works for me.

Joseph Lee3 said:*Satyricon* marks that shift where Fellini enters his more abstract phase, moving toward a fragmented, surreal style where he starts "speaking" through visual subtext rather than direct plots. You might find more enjoyment revisiting his work that actually tells a story instead of just throwing visual footnotes at you; for instance, *Amarcord*, which aired on NBC Plus yesterday, belongs to this later period along with *Casanova*. If you want classic narrative structure, stick to the absolute gems: *La Strada*, *The White Sheik*, *I Vitelloni*, or *Nights of Cabiria*.

Fellini essentially evolved from traditional filmmaking into pure surrealism. The bridge between those two worlds can be seen in films like *Dolac Vita* and *8 1/2*, where his personal creative struggles start bleeding into the storytelling. Everything after that point is usually labeled by critics as a surrealist spectacle. Personally, I’m not a fan—once he hit *Juliet of the Spirits* around the mid-60s, I pretty much lost interest.

If you're curious about that specific transition into his second phase, there's a documentary called *Fellini: To Be a Great Liar* that dives right into it.

Thanks for the write-up! I've got all of that on my radar, but man, I don't own those movies (except maybe Amarcord, I think it's lying around somewhere, and maybe some version of La Strada without subtitles—I could be wrong, but that's about it). I don't use the streaming services, and as for the documentary (which I definitely want to see), I sent you a DM.

Finally caught this one at Central Park today.
I mean, this was my first foray into anything Felliniesque, and honestly? I expected something a bit more grounded. Turns out, his idea of "normal" is just a little bit off the rails.
I’ve had the DVD sitting around for ages, but since Professor Gillis in my film studies class insists that "you can only truly experience a movie in a theater," I figured I’d jump on this rare chance to finally watch it.

So—what’s the verdict?
The whole thing is a total mess. The narrative is non-existent. It feels like Fellini didn't even bother trying to patch up the gaps left by those missing pieces from the Petronian novel; he just filmed whatever scraps were left.
Visually, it looks great and has this weirdly magnetic pull (even if some parts are totally repulsive, which, hey, it is 1969), but overall? It just didn't hit the mark for me.
It actually reminded me a bit of that new Lynch flick from yesterday.

I’m starting to think Fellini had quite a few Lynchian streaks in him.

Alright, jokes aside, what did you guys think?

I honestly meant to cram everything into a single post, but I got totally screwed by some weird "message" errors, and I haven't a clue what happened

But hey, I'm glad I managed to give someone a laugh (even if that wasn't really my goal, but whatever)

Alright, let's get serious for a second:

ruggedjackal46 said:Is it tomorrow already? 😬

Anyway, I find that woman at the start of the film—the one watching everything unfold on TV—really fascinating. I'm starting to think the entire story is actually about her own issues and frustrations, which she just projects onto this "normal," "happy" actress. I might dive deeper into that later, but my brain is currently lacking both the time and the focus for it.

👍

northerncrane4 said:Watched it.

There’s this whole school of thought claiming you should just "feel" Lynch's films rather than try to understand them. To me, that feels like the path of least resistance—I think his work has enough narrative structure that you can't just dismiss it as a series of random associations. Personally, I find it much more interesting to deconstruct the cognitive mechanics that allow that mosaic to take shape.

When looking at "Inland Empire," it seems to me the initial impulse behind such a project was the director's attempt to grasp the mental state of the film actress. This fits perfectly with how the plot begins—at the moment filming starts within the movie, the sense of cause and effect breaks down, mirroring the actress's own loss of self as she transforms into a film character. The actual process of filmmaking—which is inherently non-chronological—drives the disjointed nature of "Inland Empire" all the way to that final frame, where the actress has completely lost her identity and the character begins to live its own life.

Hmm.

It's actually a shame the theater screening doesn't start around 9:30 PM and run until after midnight; that would have made the concept feel complete.

🙏 🙏 🙏 👍 👍 👍
Damn, let me think about that for a second.

But seriously, for real though:

Honestly, this thread has been hands down the funniest thing I’ve ever read on this entire forum. Seriously, thanks for the laughs, everyone!
Human stupidity is brilliant in its own way, but honestly, northerncrane4's sarcastic remarks are even more brilliant—even if they’re painfully true.
He shakes it just enough so they don't get too used to it. 👍

Look, it's obvious this thread is all about Lynch's latest film, so let's just lean into it and talk about that:

My expectations were pretty standard, but honestly, the movie just didn't blow me away.
I’ve only ever seen Mulholland Drive from Lynch's filmography, and man, he jumped straight to my favorite directors and that movie became one of my absolute favorites. The first time I watched it, I didn't really get it, but I loved it anyway. The second time around, things started clicking, and I was still loving every second. By the third time? I finally realized I was making a huge mistake by trying to "figure it out." Now, I just sit back and soak in the brilliance.
I'm a bit conflicted about Inland Empire. To be honest, I didn't really vibe with it on my first watch, and I don't think I even fully grasped what was happening. I’m definitely going to revisit it—I have a feeling it’ll land much better the second time around—but for now, it just missed the mark for me.
I don't want this to just turn into a bunch of likes and dislikes. I’m actually going to try and put some effort into explaining things for once:

First off, the movie is way too long. Lynch's fantasies—if you want to call those weird fever dreams that—could easily be squeezed into a tight 30 or 45 minutes. I honestly felt like I lost about half an hour near the end. Sure, the finale lands well enough, but once a Lynch film starts dragging, you're already losing the battle. If it gets boring, it's not working.
Anyway, I don't know what his deal is, but those close-ups irritated me almost as much as Boorman's long takes in "liberation." I guess when it comes to pacing, I’m just a classic guy who prefers a moderate dose of everything. Those shots really bugged me during UC.
The long takes don't really sit right with me either. Like, okay, one lady says this, the other lady says that, and the camera should just cut back to the first lady instead of lingering for an extra second or two every single time. Maybe some people dig it, but not me.
And the camerawork? Man, it just looks so off. When I think back to "silencia" and that gorgeous, crystal-clear imagery—that magical vibe still gives me chills. UC was full of these "dirty" shots (probably caused by that camera we were talking about earlier; look, I'm no expert on technical specs /not that I'm an expert on the stuff I *am* talking about, but I feel qualified enough to have an opinion here/), and that just doesn't work for me with Lynch. I get that the atmosphere is miles away from MD (even though some parts are actually almost identical), but it still feels wrong.
I won't even touch the plot because I didn't understand a damn thing, and I'm not going to rave about the acting; nothing really clicked for me.

All in all, the "Zodiac" I watched yesterday left a much, much stronger impression on me.
And I'm guessing tomorrow's "Satyricon" will be the same story.

Also, one more thing: northerncrane4's posts are absolutely brilliant, but he doles them out so sparingly. It would be awesome if we got more. That whole idea about the actress didn't make sense to me at all initially, but now suddenly everything looks much better.
Just so other users can enjoy some high-quality posts too, I'm adding a quote from ruggedjackal4 above, hoping he's found his focus again and has plenty of time to finish explaining his theory.

So, yeah, that's about it for now. Thanks again for this hilarious thread.
Later

CrnaGuja said:How can anyone seriously claim Stanley Kubrick was influenced by Quentin Tarantino? Whoever said that is just plain stupid. Honestly.

🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

CrnaGuja said:Tarantino doesn't even have a single decent film that comes close to what S.K. was making.

🤣

Emily Johnson27 said:I don't know, I've sat through a few of his movies... honestly, you need a massive amount of patience and nerves of steel just to get through one. And even when you finish, you're often left wondering what on earth actually happened (unless you decide to go read some analysis online). I think he really overdoes it with the cryptic nonsense... especially with Mulholland Drive. I mean, seriously? Do I really need to go out and buy some supplemental material just to grasp the plot? Give me a break. Most likely, the guy didn't even know what kind of mess he was filming while he was on set, and then had to scramble later to invent an explanation for it. As for Eraserhead, don't even get me started—it's incredibly overrated. Sure, there might be some clever bits in there, but the whole thing is just excessive.
Personally, I'm more of a Scorsese type. A man stabs another in the neck and that's that. That's life. It isn't about all this pretentious artistic expression over every little thing.

🤣 Between the statement, the grammar, the tone... 🤣

Emily Johnson27 said:I don't know, I've sat through a few of his movies... honestly, you need a massive amount of patience and nerves of steel just to get through one. And even when you finish, you're often left wondering what on earth actually happened (unless you decide to go read some analysis online). I think he really overdoes it with the cryptic nonsense... especially with Mulholland Drive. I mean, seriously? Do I really need to go out and buy some supplemental material just to grasp the plot? Give me a break. Most likely, the guy didn't even know what kind of mess he was filming while he was on set, and then had to scramble later to invent an explanation for it. As for Eraserhead, don't even get me started—it's incredibly overrated. Sure, there might be some clever bits in there, but the whole thing is just excessive.
Personally, I'm more of a Scorsese type. A man stabs another in the neck and that's that. That's life. It isn't about all this pretentious artistic expression over every little thing.

🤣

northerncrane4 said:To me, that blaxploitation vibe from the seventies feels a lot like Tarantino's "Jackie Brown".

🤣 🤣

wiredranger30 said:I went last year and, honestly, it was a total waste of time because the lineup was garbage. 🤮 Just an absolute train wreck. It got to the point where I felt like losing my mind right in the middle of a screening 🙏. But I didn't—that would have been ridiculous—instead, I just walked out and 🤮. Napa Valley is essentially one giant pile of junk. I'm completely over the whole Sundance vibe. The films were an absolute d i s a s t e r 🤮 🤮 🤮

P.S. 🤮

🤣

Even though that’s the genre I was obsessed with a while back—the kind of stuff where I'd love a movie no matter how bad it actually was—I don't think Conversation belongs in this category... unless we're talking about the one where Gene Hackman ends up playing the saxophone at the end (not a spoiler, really)...

Anyway, everyone I wanted to bring up has already been mentioned, so...

When I was a kid, I found it so cool when (since we're talking about an Indian) the little girl in Signs kept leaving water out, and then later (spoiler ahead) you find out that aliens are actually terrified of water.
That part totally fascinated me
But honestly? Today, I'd probably think it was just silly.
And shallow, too.

Dennis Martin6 said:The final scene in Golden Age is actually a nod to Sade's 120 Days of Sodom, not whatever you're thinking—you clearly drifted off again. Look, I wouldn't be nitpicking if it didn't matter.
I haven't figured out if they're showing Los Olvidados yet. Total bummer if they don't, since that's easily one of his best—top 3 for me, right up there with Viridian and Angel of Destruction.

Yep, you nailed it.
Jesus walks out of some brothel, followed by those guys.
The part I was talking about happens just a few scenes before that.
If I haven't botched my memory of the movie, it really shouldn't matter if the action happens 15 minutes before the end or just 2 minutes before the end.

Linda Gray76 said:Has anyone else seen a Bunuel film where most of the action takes place in some villa's garden? It had such a surreal, fantasy vibe to it... I couldn't quite wrap my head around the ending—was the house haunted or something? I caught it on one of those satellite channels. Does anyone know the title? I think it’s quite an old one...

The big party in the movie "Golden Age" takes place in a villa garden, but that's just during the last 15 minutes. That's when I woke up, so honestly, you wouldn't even be able to tell if the whole movie actually happens in a garden or not.

By the way, there’s this scene at the end where the guy starts tossing everything he finds—and I mean *everything*—right out the window into a fire burning in the street. It's pure surrealism. He's throwing wardrobes, bishops, all sorts of stuff, and then suddenly he tosses a giraffe. Just when you think it might be an allusion to Dalí's "Giraffe in Flames"—since Dalí co-wrote it—the damn giraffe just falls into the water.
Think about that.

Just knocked out three more of them

- "Simon from the Desert" - super interesting stuff. Deeply symbolic and totally Bunuelian
- "Angel of Destruction" - absolute genius. Honestly, one of my all-time favorites. Pure Bunuelian magic
- "That's Called Dawn" - total skip. It was just... fine, I guess. Simple plot, predictable ending, way too many long shots, nothing special about the direction... definitely not a Bunuelian vibe

But hey, they were worth the watch.
Now we're skipping the Iranian film cycle and jumping straight back into Bunuel.

Anyone else catch these?
Let me know what you thought!

"Trash" is totally subjective, right? Depending on who you ask, it's one thing or another.

I caught that movie at AMC yesterday too.
It was actually a blessing in disguise that the showing was so late (around midnight), so I didn't have to pay *too* much attention to it. But the downside is that I went straight from seeing "Second Life," and that is definitely not a winning combo since I basically forgot half of what happened in the first one... though I might give it another shot later.

Ghost Rider.... I think someone already mentioned it above, but if not... two words: "Absolute garbage."
Still worth a watch, though.
It isn't trash.

So I was watching
Andalusian Dog—people can praise it all they want, but honestly? It’s total garbage. After digging through the internet for an hour, I finally stumbled upon a quote where Buñuel says he and Dahlia specifically wanted to make a movie where you couldn't draw any rational conclusions from it. Once I knew that, the movie actually got better. Still complete trash, though.
The Golden Age—I actually fell asleep halfway through because it was so boring.
Viridiana—I was absolutely exhausted, but I didn't even yawn once during this one. It is a very, very good film. Seriously, highly recommend it to everyone.

Anyway, this Saturday I'm diving into Simon of the Desert along with two other films of his. I'm feeling optimistic because all three are from his later period. That means we skip those silly ants coming out of hands and get more dialogue and hanging uncles, much like in Viridiana, so it should be good.
And my earlier recommendation for Simon is legit.
We'll see how it goes.

By the way, did anyone else catch these?

So, this is my first time checking out his work. They’re running another one of his retrospectives over at the Museum of Modern Art, and today they've got Andalusian Dog, Golden Age, and Viridiana on the schedule.

Has anyone seen them?
Anyone know much more about them?
Is anyone a fan?
Is anyone down to write a little something about them?

Maria Barnes said:Nice work!
But seriously, how many people are actually going to sit through all four movies in a row? I haven't owned a VHS in ages. Honestly, editor, this feels like another one of those pointless moves—like airing brilliant old classics on Saturday morning at 8:00 AM. They used to run a bunch of films by Billy Wilder, the absolute genius, whom I could watch any time, but I’ve never seen a single movie at dawn on a Saturday.

And that selection of Spielberg's is gold because these are his first four films before he became a household name. These are the ones where raw talent hasn't been tainted by Hollywood compromises, hits, or flops yet.

You're spot on.
They used to run Charlie Chaplin, Wilder, Humphrey Bogart, and tons of other beautiful classics on Saturday mornings, but I don't think anyone (not you, and definitely not me) has the energy to watch that stuff early in the morning...

But hey, what can you do?
That's why "runaway bride" and all those various versions of modern junk stay at the top of the charts.

It's a good thing they didn't mess up these cycles on Sundays too, starting something like Woody at 3:45 AM....