I’ve been watching this and thinking—it’s good work. The cinematography is solid, though it feels a bit overextended in certain spots, but I suppose that’s just how it is... It almost feels as if Woo is treating this like his most significant masterpiece to date, yet at the same time, I find myself feeling a strange sense of nostalgia for The Killer, even though I was never really one of Woo's biggest devotees during those early years.
David Price5 said:Disturbia might resonate more with today's crowd. It’s always easier to connect with a protagonist who feels closer to your own age rather than someone from an older era..
I was referring specifically to the idea of being "more polished." While the term is a bit vague, Rear Window stands as one of Hitchcock's absolute masterpieces, whereas this seems to be a Caruso film, if I recall correctly. They really aren't in the same league.
I’ve sat through the original *Rear Window*, but I have to say, *Disturbia* actually works better for me—it feels much more polished. It is certainly easier to craft a tight piece of cinema when you're working from an established foundation provided by someone else, yet regardless of that advantage, *Disturbia* stands out as an excellent film.
The versions of Freddy Krueger from 1984 and 1994 serve as the definitive pillars of modern horror; frankly, the rest of the sequels haven't held much water since their initial release, let alone by today's standards.
If you’re looking to undergo a condensed educational program—essentially a crash course in the history of American independent cinema—you should definitely start by picking up a quintessential first American indie film. Cassavetesian Shadow, then the earliest lines. Steven Soderbergh Caged Heat, Crazy Mama, Handle with Care—I love your work. Brian De Palma Greetings, Hi Mom, as if they were absolutely essential. John Waters I'm here. Ready when you are. Abel Ferrara.
If you aren't feeling that particular direction, there’s plenty of ammunition to be found in the offbeat corners of 1980s and 1990s Hollywood—since you've already sat through Dead Man, you might want to look into... Jim Jarmusch Pick up copies of Stranger Than Paradise and Down by Law.
How the author is. Hal Hartley Like *Simple Men* or *Amaterasu*. John Sayles Any movie at all. No. Gus Van Sant Back in my younger days, it wasn't half bad—kind of like watching My Private Idaho. Od Tarantinoesque One must distinguish between the generations. Tom DiCillo If you want to truly experience the essence of indie filmmaking, you have to watch both Living in Oblivion and In the Soup. They capture that specific, frantic energy of the industry like nothing else. Alex RockwellThe Trader Kevin SmithKilling Zoe Roger Avary...
I'm not exactly a huge fan, but you should take a look at Gummo. Harmony Korine Larry Clark's Kids remains a visceral, uncomfortable piece of cinema that refuses to look away from the raw edges of youth. LarryClarkaPerhaps you might find these interesting...
I neglected to mention that perhaps the only true contemporary "indies" in the fullest sense of the word are— David Lynch I'm here. What's on your mind? Terrence Malick But they belong in a league of their own, and given your taste, you’ve likely already encountered their filmography.
When it comes to independent filmmakers outside of the Hollywood machine, I always find myself recommending... Aki Kaurismäki, Mike Leigh, Alexa Coxa, Atom Egoyan And don't forget The Piano. Jane Campion.
I hope this was helpful; I certainly endeavored to be thorough.
P.S. Since redefine recommended those Asian titles, I figured there was no point in repeating myself.
Nicholas Walker3 said:If you're claiming this is totally unique without knowing about the Brass project... well—unfortunately, everything ended up being pretty much the same anyway—though one version could honestly be classified as straight-up pornography!
It is one thing when Tinto Brass—a director who primarily focuses on anatomy regardless—ventures into Hollywood seeking his dream directorial project, hiring heavyweights like Malcolm McDowell and Peter O'Toole just to shoot his usual fare with a higher budget and better lighting. It is an entirely different matter when De Palma, a director who has worked with untouchable Hollywood icons like Travolta and Pacino (in films like Blow Out and Scarface) and has been a staple studio director since Carrie, decides to assemble a cast featuring a certain "queen of adult cinema" and the scandalous Annette Havens. His goal was to bring them to Hollywood to film a sort of "Hitchcockian" erotic thriller where the lead actress might serve as a provocative incarnation of a Hitchcockian Grace Kelly or Kim Novak. While the content might share some superficial similarities in a purely pornographic sense, the context and the circumstances surrounding the creation of Caligula versus De Palma's film are actually diametrically opposed. A while back in London, I picked up the DVD of Body Double which includes some excellent supplemental material; apparently, the producers De Palma approached with this concept were absolutely livid, reacting with pure disbelief and fury. In short, De Palma's idea back then—much as I fear it is now—was a precedent in the truest possible sense of the word.
Nicholas Walker3 said:Wasn't Caligula actually one of those big-budget productions back in the 70s—it feels like it was? 🤷
I haven't seen it myself, but this De Palma project was intended to be the first high-budget porn featuring actual adult stars making their debut in a "mainstream" film, all under the direction of a man who was considered part of the Hollywood establishment at the time. It was, by all accounts, something completely different.
Henry Lee84 said:Back when they were gearing up to shoot the latest James Bond flick, Casino Royale, Quentin Tarantino was actually on the shortlist. He’s always been obsessed with the idea of tackling 007 himself... but apparently, the higher-ups got spooked by his style and played it safe by picking some "reliable" director instead. I can't help but wonder what that movie would have looked like if Tarantino had actually taken the reins.
And then there's the rumor that Stanley Kubrick was actually looking into making a massive, high-budget porn... man, imagine. We really missed out on the greatest adult film ever made.😁
In the early eighties, Brian De Palma—arguably one of the most daring directors working in America today—was reportedly set to direct a first high-budget porn. He was in talks with Trace Lords, who was at the peak of her career at the time, as well as the slightly more seasoned star Annette Heaven. The producers ultimately couldn't be swayed; the project was scrapped, and De Palma went on to film Body Double, which featured nudity, though certainly nothing beyond what Hollywood typically expects.
Laura Palmer25 said:Regarding the bolded part: what makes you think a Tarantino film that doesn't lean so heavily on references would be unwatchable? Or worse, "forced"? That seems like a massive underestimate to me. My take is that you can't live off recycling forever; eventually, it just stops being interesting. But I truly believe he's a director with massive potential. I'm waiting to see his next big move—his third real one, since Reservoir Dogs was the solid start—just to see him build another tight, celluloid micro-world like the one in Pulp Fiction. Something impactful, self-contained, and memorable. How many movies from the 90s can actually say they stuck with people like that? Very few.
I stated how I *suspect* such a situation might unfold; I did not claim to possess certain knowledge. While I agree that Tarantino is a director of great potential and ultimately a master of his craft, I maintain my view that directing a purely straightforward film—devoid of allusions, quotes, and intertextuality—would likely lack the specific resonance found in everything he has produced to date. This isn't an attempt at disparagement; rather, I believe my perspective is firmly rooted in the established patterns of Tarantino's body of work.
Laura Palmer25 said:Everything else mentioned isn't bad—actually, it's pretty good—but who knows why he's so obsessed with these specific ones. Honestly, I don't care that much. In my opinion, Quentin is a "one-hit wonder"; after *Pulp Fiction*, he hasn't made anything truly extraordinary. Sure, they're visually interesting and have cool narration, but that's about it. I've been wondering how long he's going to keep making movies just as homages to other films. Life is short, and while he spends his time recreating everything he loved as a kid, his youth is slipping away.
He will likely keep making them as long as he views himself as a seasoned postmodernist—or perhaps a pop-modernist. It seems to me that without those flashy stylistic flourishes and those constant nods to his favorite cinematic icons, Tarantino wouldn't be the filmmaker we recognize today. In other words, once he finally attempts to make a film that isn't fundamentally *about* movies, I suspect the result will feel forced, pretentious, and ultimately unwatchable. The Coen brothers proved along their journey that there is another way to work—one that can be different, if not better, or at least just as good—but that is a separate discussion entirely...
It’s an odd choice, yet strangely predictable—the kind of predictable that makes Tarantino’s usual patterns feel a bit stale. A few years back at the Empire State Building, he was swearing by Brian De Palma and "Carlito's Way," waxing poetic about Eastwood, or treating Scorsese’s "Casino" and "Oldboy" as if they were untouchable masterpieces, only to pivot away from them later. The inclusion of Lost in Translation, Boogie Nights, Dogville, and Fight Club feels less like the intimate selection of an indie cinema guru and more like a template curated by a mid-tier critic hitting all the mainstream marks. I was anticipating a heavier dose of international cinema, perhaps some deep cuts or those cult classics that true cinephiles live for. Then again, one can't exactly take Tarantino at his word; one moment he’s crowning "Rio Bravo" as the greatest film ever made, and the next, it’s "Seven Samurai." Furthermore, if the man truly only had ten minutes to assemble this list, who among us could reasonably be expected to recall every great film in a single sitting?
rustyscout34 said:I second everything said here! 👍 If you ask me, the movie should have been titled Adolf Hitler with a Facelift and Penis Enlargement by Jack Sedlar. This will probably just be another one of Jack's cinematic trips into the messy, failed parts of history. Maybe the movie won't be the absolute worst thing ever made, but its stench will definitely knock people unconscious and cause acute brain hemorrhages. Personally, I see Jack as an American version of Shyamalan, except Shyamalan actually has an "unexpected twist," whereas Jack's films just poke at "national pride." In any case, both are extremists of bad filmmaking. Look, Jack, if you're reading this, maybe just quit directing and go pick up a shovel or a hoe instead... best regards.
Once you watch Raging Bull, you realize the search is over; you've finally found "your" movie for life. Some might point to Taxi Driver or The Godfather, but at this stage, those differences are just mere nuances or minor matters of personal taste. This is truly it—the absolute pinnacle of modern American cinema.
Olivia Evans8 said:Look, he might be the better actor, but only within his specific genre. That’s the part people try to explain, but it's hard for some folks to see when they're sitting on those high horses of pure arrogance... acting like there's only one cool filmmaker and anyone else who doesn't get it should just be thrown to the lions. Because apparently, if you don't "get it," you just don't understand art. 👎
The way you emphasized "within his genre" is a perfect illustration of how you lack any real depth of opinion, especially regarding cinema. If we are playing by those rules, Michael Bay is superior to Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, and even Alfred Hitchcock, simply because Hitchcock was a genius within his own lane. Within the confines of his genre, no one is more powerful than Michael Bay, and within that same narrow scope, no one is better than Michael Dudikoff, as they both represent the absolute peak of their respective categories.🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Joseph Lee3 said:Hmm, is it camp or just straight-up trash? Sounds intriguing, I haven't seen it. Is it something you can find on Netflix or at a local video rental?
Pure camp. I'm not sure if you can still find it in a video store, but it's definitely worth a search.
I can recall Salajev’s "See You Later" and Matanic's "Final Dead Girl," but perhaps I should lead with "Grandfather and Grandmother are Divorcing." It was such a disastrously bad film about an incredibly heavy life topic—so spectacularly bad that it actually becomes quite good, and likely stands as the only true indigenous American masterpiece of camp cinema.
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.