wiredbison82 Asks: We kicked things off by dragging poor Michael Bay into this mess, then dragged an innocent David Lynch along for the ride too—even though he’s got absolutely nothing to do with this topic. And where did we end up? Somewhere between a greasy slice of pizza and a heavy steak dinner. Honestly, we're about two seconds away from just ordering a giant bowl of pasta and calling it a night.
😁👍
wiredbison82 said:We kicked things off by unfairly dragging Michael Bay into this, throwing an innocent and entirely irrelevant Lynch into the mix as well; from where I'm sitting, we've drifted from the point and ended up debating nothing more than local diner food, practically one step away from arguing over breakfast menus. I anticipate someone clever will soon chime in with the argument that a Ford actually produces superior vehicles compared to a Mercedes-Benz because, goodness knows, everyone has different tastes and you can't argue with preference... I also expect some "constructive" debate regarding Michael Dudikoff vs. Harvey Keitel, where there will undoubtedly be those willing to bet their lives that the former is a subtly better actor than the latter.
Look, I’m saying this constructively and I stand by it: Harvey Keitel is just a much better actor than Michael Dudikoff. Period. 😁
I honestly don't get the point of this thread. Seriously, I could have written pretty much exactly what you just said about any decade in history. You haven't actually concluded anything, asked a question, or even made a suggestion here. What's the goal?
Joseph Lee3 said:Totally! Umberto D. is just brutal—it hits you right in the gut. I’m usually not one for sentimental stuff, but this one... man, it gives you full-body chills. If I had to pick my favorites from Fellini, though, I'd go with his much earlier work, like I Vitelloni and The White Sheik.
Regarding De Sica and his different "phases," I haven't dug through his whole filmography so I don't want to step on any toes here. But everything I have seen, including "Umberto D.," is nothing short of masterful. They're classics for a reason, and honestly, there isn't much left to say about their greatness.
As for Federico, I have to admit I love that specific era too, even though I value "8 1/2" and his later gems the most. Actually, "Dolce Vita" is the only one that didn't quite click for me—though maybe I should give it another spin sometime. Speaking of his early work, I actually picked up some DVD editions of those early, semi-finished (or even less than finished!) Fellini pieces. Since they're pretty hard to find, if you don't have them, I'd be happy to burn them for you and send them over, especially since you were so willing to help with that burning job earlier: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045504/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042692/ (CC)
I'll hit you up once things settle down on my end.
Joseph Lee3 said:I’ve always felt that Peterlic leaned more toward an urban sensibility, the kind of director who would have naturally gravitated toward the sort of moody melodrama you see in an Antonioni film. Have you seen his Accidental Life? It’s his only directorial effort, and honestly, it’s a shame he didn't stick with filmmaking (though I don't think he failed us as a theorist). There's a certain grit to Accidental Life that feels reminiscent of the urban dramas by Aleksandar Petrovic, maybe even pulling from a Berkovichian "Rondo" or Mimičin's "Prometheus." Even in his early days, Fellini was already carving out his own lane, clearly moving away from the strictures of neorealism. He spent his career dancing along the edge of magical realism—sometimes leaning in, sometimes pulling back—and at points, especially after Satyricon, he seemed to lose his way entirely (not that I mean it negatively; look at a standout like Amarcord).
From what I can gather about Peterlic, he had much more respect for films that were a bit more depressive and intellectual.
If that was a comment on my post aimed at me, then yes, absolutely. (And it's funny how the guys from the local campus used to geek out over that movie, showing it around and debating it everywhere). It would have been great if he kept filming, but honestly, maybe it's better this way.
I get the whole "intellectual" thing—there was definitely a trend of valuing anything deemed highbrow—but since I never actually knew him or listened to him personally, and only heard about him through others, it felt really weird seeing the father of us all casually calling one of the greatest directors ever "boring."😁
Actually, my biggest fear is the influence of that specific taste. His students, like Kragic and Gillis, don't seem to push Fellini or anyone like him, yet they worship Hawks and Ford just like Peterlic did. To me, that just feels a bit off.
I see this is the only thread about Fellini, so I'll stick to this one. Honestly, I had to laugh again just glancing at how this topic opened. 🤣
So, here's the deal. I remember hearing somewhere that Peterlic once won an award for some newspaper essay about Godard or something similar, but I could never quite wrap my head around why that mattered. Then today, by pure chance, I’m flipping through some old issues of Polet—the early stuff, from around '64 or '66—and I see all these heavy-hitting headlines with headache-inducing essays. Tadic is writing about Hitchcock, Kurelec is covering the Czechs (he really should have picked a different subject), and then there's good old Antis rambling on about Godard. I connected the dots and realized that was probably the exact essay.
Fast forward a few issues later—doesn't matter which ones—and they're handing out awards for the best essay. Mandic took second, Peterlic took first, which confirmed my hunch. Then comes the interview with the winner. It goes exactly how you'd expect: "Oh, I just love Wyler and Hawks, blah blah blah," but then the interviewer asks, "And who do you dislike?" And then comes the killer line:
"Fellini was always boring to me."
I was stunned, to say the least. First, I started laughing, and then I just rolled my eyes. Seriously, man? What a take. I had no clue Peterlic wasn't a fan of Fellini, and honestly, I don't get it. The White Sheik, Danguba, and the massive 8½ (which, maybe, hadn't even come out yet)—those movies are anything but boring. Anyway, it would be interesting to see if he felt the same way about Fellini's later phases ten or fifteen years down the road. But man, that really caught me off guard.
Look, when a site like IMDb says a movie is out, I know it’s actually hitting theaters. If you can't find it listed elsewhere, that isn't some failure of the database—it's just a reflection of how much the US distribution system struggles. This thread shouldn't be called "IMDb updates," it should be called "Where's the damn movie?" or "Why is American distribution such a mess?"
northerncrane4 said:Oh, please. The US and the UK are working-class nations—you don't pay royalties every single time old content gets rebroadcast. 😢
I actually picked up three copies of the Criterion release of "Brazil"—had I realized things were this dire, I would've grabbed even more. 😬
😁😁
btw I have that exact one sitting right here at my place. It's an incredible release—honestly might be the most packed one out there besides "Lawrence of Arabia." Just clear your whole schedule for the weekend because you're going to be busy watching this thing. 😁
hollowfox682 said:p.s. for the nostalgia crowd: about half of it (counting those 4 fake endings lol) was by John Dowland—I think that was a total labyrinth of an album—and the other half was his (The Police, his solo rock and jazz stuff, and some blues at the end😉)...
It wasn't just his, though. They played all sorts of things, everything from Elgar to The Beatles (and honestly, their version of "In My Life" was the absolute peak of the set—what a killer arrangement).
I’ve been following this lineup for a bit, and I heard a rumor that the show is basically a rip-off of "Mad Pierrot"—specifically the version that played at the local community theater downtown, starring that incredibly polished actress who just moved here from France.
That was all the motivation I needed to go, but then I realized the schedule was totally packed—they had "Singin' in the Rain" playing at the same time as that Scorsese flick. Only a literal act of God could have kept me away, especially since it was a Sunday. And yeah, it was.
😠
but there will be other chances
I’ve gone out on a limb before for Melville and Godard, and look, some of the stuff is great, but it’s just not quite enough to make me drive across town. Still, if they keep putting together programs like this, people are definitely going to show up sooner or later.
Why? Why is there a Black man hanging from a tree? Honestly, why not?
Who knows. It’s been too long, too creepy, too confusing—but really, it’s just too simple, too explosive, too clever, and way too unnecessary. And just the day before that, I caught that great Morel flick.
That movie was absolutely terrible. Honestly, if I wasn't stuck there, I would've bolted out the door—I might have even just stood out in the middle of the street to escape. It happened after just 25 minutes.
Don't mess with me. I missed it on purpose, totally. But honestly? I think I'll go see it now. There’s absolutely nothing good playing at the theaters lately anyway, and I was actually pleasantly surprised by "Prison Work," so maybe I'll give that one a shot too.
I also uploaded a RAR file for you. It’s got three Word docs inside—some info on her and a couple of quick analyses. Plus, there are three PDFs: two short breakdowns and one beefier study looking at the connection between her and Beauvoir. It looks super interesting, though I haven't actually sat down to read it yet. Might be a bit provocative! --> http://rapidshare.com/files/174101316/breill.rar.html
Anyway, when things get this intense, why not dive in?
Man, this forum is actually starting to see some decent, heavy-hitting topics lately. Now we just gotta see if people actually show up to talk about them...
I caught a screening of "The Conformist" by the BFI today, and honestly? It was so incredible that I’m willing to forgive them for everything else up to this point!
Brenda Lee50 said:Right after everyone was raving about "M," the screening of "rules of the game" was an absolute train wreck! Every few minutes the movie would just cut out because the subtitles were missing—and it always happened during the most crucial scenes. Not to mention, they somehow managed to butcher a nearly two-hour film down to just seventy minutes. I don't know if they were playing some hyper-censored reel from 1939 or what, but it was a total disaster.
The print they had was just trashed; honestly, it was painful to sit through. If I didn't already own it on DVD, I would have stayed, but instead, I stormed out after thirty minutes like a madman.
"M" got all the praise for being a great movie, but even the presentation was a mess. It was rated R, and since there was only one R-rated projector available, we had to wait around for them to swap things out. That meant two separate breaks of maybe three minutes each. Plus, the subtitles were pretty hit-or-miss.
Supposedly everything will be fixed by today or tomorrow. Fingers crossed.
goldenhound32 said:Yeah, Smith directed it. And Gotovac is in the cast. But honestly, if you're actually going to watch it, don't go reading the whole plot summary on IMDb.😉
I didn't even check IMDb. If I had, I would've seen that Gotovac was in it.
I won't look up the plot—definitely not the whole thing—but man, I'm bummed I missed it. I think it was playing here recently, maybe at the Sundance Film Festival or something? I know I was torn between that and something else, and I ended up picking the other one.