Posts by Amanda Nguyen5

Morgan Palmer2 said:Look, for me, the Nick Cave and The Prodigy sets were way more intense. I still don't quite get the hype surrounding N.E.R.D., but man, that year was legendary because you also had Franz Ferdinand, YYY, and Tricky on the lineup.

Oh, totally. YYY, Tricky, Franz Ferdinand—that's basically a list of icons right there. N.E.R.D. put on a solid show, but the real issue was that about 70% of the crowd was just standing there wondering, "Who even is N.E.R.D.?"

@ Andrew Roberts3 - I've got nothing against Cypress Hill, and nothing against Billy Idol either. Honestly, back in the day, those guys were absolutely king. Cypress Hill's first two albums sit somewhere between greatness and a total masterpiece, but then they just steadily declined, and for the last 10 years, they've been completely irrelevant. Same goes for Billy Idol over the last decade or so. What's the point of those names if they aren't even hitting anymore?

I’m seriously starting to think about selling my ticket. I mean, things kicked off strong enough with Arcade Fire, Jack White, and TV on the lineup, but everything they added after that—well, it’s just straight-up terrible. Everything else is a disaster.

coastalfox26 said:Look, Nick Cave and Arcade Fire aren't really in the same league as Metallica, Iron Maiden, Red Hot Chili Peppers, System of a Down, U2, AC/DC, or Rage Against the Machine... I think we can all agree on that (even if I don't personally vibe with RHCP or U2). I just don't get why American festivals keep pivoting toward the underground. Like, Ultra Music Festival goes indie, Hartera goes electro... It's stuff that only a few thousand Americans or Canadians actually listen to. Why not host a massive World Stage type event? What was missing for The Prodigy, Serj Tankian, or Franz Ferdinand? They might not be the absolute peak of the music scene, but they're definitely on the right track.

Arcade Fire actually outdid System of a Down and Rage Against the Machine, and honestly, maybe even the Red Hot Chili Peppers. They haven't quite reached the level of U2 or AC/DC yet, but they're getting close. By booking Arcade Fire, they proved they can snag the hottest band of the summer. But then you look at Gentleman and Cypress Hill and it proves they've never actually hosted a serious festival. That Kraftwerk/Moby/N.E.R.D. combo was one of a kind.😢

It started out strong with AF, G, and TV on the Radio, but then things just slowly went downhill once The Streets hit, eventually hitting rock bottom with Jamiroquai, Cypress Hill, and—Gentleman? wtf is Gentleman?

Man, I really thought this was going to be a legendary festival this year, like a way to make up for last year's mess. What a letdown.

Wait, what??

Look, Mary is the lead of this movie, period. There is absolutely zero doubt about it.

Alexander Hernandez32 said:Honestly, I feel like it's more than obvious that this was just a standard joke. 🙂

I'd say you're totally missing the point here.

Or maybe I'm the one who's lost? 🤔

To me, their marriage actually seems quite stable and healthy—even the way they tend to their shared garden and enjoy the harvest feels like meaningful symbolism—and I don't see them as parasites feeding on others' misery at all. Instead, they seem like genuine friends who are always there and truly mean well whenever they try to help.

What stood out most to me was the contrast between their calm, settled life—the kind of life you'd expect (or hope for) in old age—and the messy, chaotic existence of their friend. She’s so lonely, and despite her desperate attempts to grab attention and wedge herself into other people's lives, she just can't find her place in the world, drifting closer to old age (and whatever comes after) entirely on her own.

The ending, where she finally realizes the reality of her situation, is absolutely brilliant. 👍

1. Honestly, she’s aware of all that throughout the entire movie. It’s just that by the end, she finally accepts that this is how it’s going to stay. The film is basically just showing those last little flickers of hope.
2. Left to her own devices? Do you really think being alone is better than ending up like what Imelda Staunton does at the start of the film, no matter how bad things get? The movie starts and ends with close-ups of two simple, unhappy, lost women. Everything in between is just filler to plug those gaps. And what better way to fill them than with a sense of false harmony, just to make their loneliness hit even harder?
3. Always there? Well-meaning? Tom hasn't seen his brother in years, and Jerry only puts up with Mary when he absolutely has to, until he finally hits his limit near the end.

Just pay attention to how little Tom and Jerry actually have to say to each other. They mostly just echo one another and fill the silence (like "The sky is blue" --> "Is it, isn't it?"). All that stuff they do—cooking, reading, working in that garden you mentioned—it's all just a distraction so they don't have to sit down, look each other in the eye, and realize they've grown bored of one another. I'm not saying it's a failed marriage—that would be reaching—but I really think Mike Leigh is just as critical of Tom and Jerry as he is of Mary or Imelda Staunton. He just happens to have a bit more sympathy for the latter two.

I honestly think lonely people already know they're alone, so trying to "raise awareness" about their situation feels totally redundant. If there's any point to this story, it’s shattering the illusion—held by those very same lonely people!—that being part of a couple equals happiness. On one hand, you've got the character played by Imelda Staunton, who basically kicks the whole mess into gear. Then you have Tom and Gerry, that supposedly idyllic couple. A buddy of mine actually pointed out the nameplay there—Tom and Jerry—which I totally missed at first. Their marriage isn't nearly as perfect as it looks, either. In fact, their relationship only seems successful because they pit themselves against "losers." They specifically surround themselves with people they can look down on—like that heavy-set friend, the brother, or Mary—just so they can parasite off them and convince themselves they've actually made it in life.

So, if you ask me, your warning doesn't really hold water.

Robin Murphy5 said:Amanda Nguyen5
'A little masterpiece'?

Don't be so modest :-)
It’s a fantastic movie. Being able to portray everyday life like this—without relying on massive drama or some huge emotional outburst—and still keeping you hooked for the full 129 minutes...
it’s right on the edge of what the great Eric Rohmer used to do. That’s why it’s a perfect ten for Mike Leigh!

There’s plenty of drama, though there's definitely zero forced catharsis.
Comparing him to Rohmer is spot on.
By "little," I mean it’s unpretentious, humble, cozy, slow, and even stylistically very stripped down.

But man... what power!
It might not be his absolute best work, but it’s right up there with his greatest hits.

Man, I’m telling you, Mike Leigh just keeps getting better and better.

It was such a brilliant little gem. Easily one of the best movies from last year.

Of course there are going to be spoilers. As ridiculous as that sounds given what kind of movie this is, come on—this entire thread is literally about the movie!

You guys know the story: it won a Golden Palm a month ago, competing against heavy hitters like Ozone, Tom Tykwer, Antonio Banderas, and Jerry Schnabel. Okay, fine, I’ll throw in my guy Jacques Audiard too, but I’m not counting him because he hasn't quite hit that superstar status yet—I only listed the big names. So, the plot follows this famous actor who spends his life bouncing from one luxury hotel to the next, living entirely on pills, booze, and hooking up with gorgeous women. Everything changes when he wakes up one morning to his daughter looking him dead in the eye and saying, "Hi, Dad." He tries to cling to his old lifestyle for a bit—not that he was ever actually happy with it to begin with—but he quickly realizes it just isn't working anymore. There’s a little crying from her, a little crying from him. Then, he finally decides to turn things around, and the movie ends right after he flashes his first genuine smile.

Look, saying "questionable motivation" is an understatement. Honestly? There isn't any. Aside from that theoretical necessity where she just *has* to burst into his life to kickstart the plot—otherwise, there wouldn't even be a movie—there's nothing there. Plus, the whole thing feels way too sugary sweet and just poorly executed. Happy end!Honestly, all things considered, that movie was actually really good.

You can't help but see the parallels with her own life here. It feels like she was living through this exact thing while her dad was busy collecting Golden Palms—or if we’re being totally honest about the timeline, while he was basically circling the drain. 😁Honestly, I’d rather just drop it. Let's move on.

I love how repetitive this movie is. It sets that pattern right in the very first frame and sticks to it religiously until the credits roll. There’s this specific shot composition they keep using—two vertical elements framing the center—that pops up maybe five or six times. It feels like those frames are literally crushing the main character. The camera stays so incredibly still, too. It keeps him trapped inside these tight interiors, and it’s not until the very end that he actually steps outside of something—doesn't matter if it's a hotel, a car, or some fancy restaurant. It’s such a heavy-handed metaphor for "breaking free from his chains," honestly. It gets almost painfully cheesy at the end when he just abandons his black Ferrari on the side of the road and walks off into the sunset toward some better life. Typical. 🙄Look, like I said before, I'm willing to let it slide. Honestly? I actually love how quiet and calm everything is. It completely strips away that fake, flashy glamour you usually see in those types of lives. There's this minimalism at play here that reminds me of what we saw in Lost, but they’ve added this layer of raw naturalism to it that just works.

Look, I’m definitely not an expert on Coppola's recurring themes, his characters, or how he builds his stories. I haven't actually sat down to watch "Suicide" or "Marie Antoinette" yet. But honestly? Even without seeing those, you can see some pretty obvious parallels between "Lost" and "Somewhere." It's right there.

Honestly, there’s so much here that I absolutely love. I'm really crossing my fingers that this actually makes its way to US theaters at some point. As of right now, I haven't heard anything about whether the distribution rights have even been picked up yet.

There’s nothing quite like watching the first two minutes of this clip right after finishing the movie. It hits different. Seriously. The 67th Cannes Film Festival just wrapped up, and I’ve been thinking about Sofia Coppola all day. Honestly, she’s such a vibe. There’s just something about her style that hits different. Every time she shows up at a major festival like this, you know it's going to be special. She has this way of capturing things that feels so effortless, yet totally intentional. It's rare to find a director who can balance that kind of aesthetic grace with actual substance. Just my two cents! 😁

I have to give some props to Phoenix for the soundtrack—they absolutely crushed it. And man, having an old pro like Savides behind the camera was a total win. You could really feel that influence from Glazer’s "Birth," van Sant’s "Elephant" trilogy, or even those heavy hitters like Fincher’s "Game" and "Zodiac." Just top-tier stuff.

Alright, now it's your turn. Your move. 😁

Frank Rodriguez7 said:Two hours of music—the new tracks were killer, and the old ones were a total riot. But man, way too loud. Just way too loud...

And too loud? Look, even with earplugs, it was rough. Without them, it was pure torture. I seriously had to retreat to the very back of the venue just to hear the music without feeling like my internal organs were being shaken loose. Every single time, that kick drum hit so hard I could feel it vibrating through my entire skeleton.

Scott Long71 said:The topic is great, and I'm honestly surprised it didn't pop up sooner. It’s not just about great directors having a mediocre Debut film once in a while. It's about this weird phenomenon where, for quite a few people—and we aren't talking about a tiny handful here—their very first movie actually ends up being their absolute best work.

I agree that this isn't the spot to deep-dive into specific movies. If there isn't a dedicated thread for a particular film, go ahead and start one.

Hold on a second. So, just because a bunch of directors—most of them, even—had a debut that turned out to be their peak, that's enough to justify an entire thread? But what's the goal here? We start a topic, and then what? Just sit around waiting for everyone to say "yeah" or "nah"? And then what? What's the point?

Especially since you're agreeing with me that this isn't the place to talk about specific (debut) films.

Mark Wood79 said:Look, I get that you aren't feeling this thread, but you have to admit there have been much worse ones.🙂

I was actually planning on writing a bit about Ossessione, Element of Crime, L'Atalante, and La Commare Secca. But seeing all this spiraling where everything feels pointless? It just kills my vibe. I lose the will to even try.

It’s funny, though—those massive dedicated threads? Not a single soul in them.

It’s not that I "like" or "dislike" the thread. There isn't really anything to like or dislike here. I just don't see the point.
Again, I love your enthusiasm, seriously. Go ahead and write about those films (I'm a huge von Trier fan, by the way, totally blanked on the name), but I don't get why you're posting here instead of in the specific threads we already have.
Maybe people would actually show up there. Instead, we just keep opening new threads that, after a tiny bit of time, end up completely dead.

Plus, if someone wants to learn something about Jean Vigo a year from now, they aren't going to stumble upon a "Debut films" thread. They won't even know it exists. But if they check out the "Jean Vigo" thread? They'll find exactly what they need. Same goes for every other director.

Those are my arguments. Look, I'm not trying to be difficult. I just think it would be way more useful and simpler if we didn't have this thread. Save that energy and put it somewhere else. 😉

Christian Taylor3 said:Relax, this thread isn't nonsense—Amanda Nguyen5 was just having a rough day yesterday (whatever she meant by "nonsense" 🙂).

I meant nonsense as in futile or pointless, not like stupid or any other insult, because I’m really not about that kind of energy.

The issue is that these movies are only linked by the fact that they were the creators' first outings, and nothing else. It would be way more useful to talk about them in their specific director threads rather than here. Over there, you can actually connect them to later work or whatever, but here they’re just isolated because they're labeled as "Debut films." We end up with nothing to do with them except, as the nostalgic Christian Taylor3 puts it, reminisce and recommend them. 🤷

But honestly, this whole thread actually pushed me to rewatch the first Melville film, and once again, I realized I still don't get that intro at all—though I admire him even more for it.

Mark Wood79 said:My bad, I totally skimmed that sentence. Sorry, Amanda Nguyen5!

Just one more thing—it wouldn't hurt to specify which Debut film you're talking about, right?

Look, besides names like Welles or Tarantino, you've also got Pasolini, Wes Anderson, Scorsese, Resnais, Dumont, Linklater, Visconti, Varda, Gilroy, Corbijn—and honestly, a thousand more. This whole debate is kind of pointless because there are actually very few truly great directors out there, especially if you set aside the ones who got swallowed up by the Hollywood machine like Hawks or Ozu, whose first movies were pretty rough anyway.

Technically, "Mete" isn't Bogdanovich's debut. It’s got this weird sci-fi messiness to it that feels almost hilarious—or maybe just terrible—once you've seen his other early stuff.

Wait, you're actually making a whole separate thread for this?

Michelle Flores40 said:I'm getting ready to watch this, mostly because the director is behind one of my absolute favorite "Dogme" films. Let's see how much of that manifesto actually remains in this one. 😁

If you're talking about "Italian," that's easily one of the best Dogme entries for me too.
As far as the manifesto goes? Once it hits AMC Theatres, it's basically gone, but I'm genuinely curious to see how Scherfig handles the mainstream scene.

I've heard people calling it banal, but honestly, it's actually really good. We'll see.

Antichrist, White Ribbon, Black Man, Giant, Legion, Milk and Sorrow, Let the Right One In, Prophet, Ricky, All the Others, Everybody's Fine, The Princess and the Frog, Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel, and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs are all hitting regular theaters after the film festival wraps up.

As for Crazy Heart, Waiting for..., Wild Grass, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Io, don Giovanni, Kinatay, To Win, and Dust Time, you can catch those exclusively on MaxTV Movie Mania.

Just wanted to confirm that "Let the Right One In" was playing in Motovun.

Man, there are some seriously killer names in this lineup. Ozon, Haneke, von Trier, Angelopoulos, Sauro, Anderson, Resnais, Bellocchio—you just can't argue with that list.

Anyway, I've already managed to catch a few. von Trier is interesting, Haneke is top-tier, "All the others are strange and good" is a vibe, "Giant" is charming and really solid, but "Milk and Sorrow" was just meh.