Posts by Christian Taylor3

@Mark Wood79/">@@Mark Wood79

And who, exactly, is going to be reading these reviews anyway? 🤷

It’s like when Dad stumbles home totally wasted after work and drops the newspaper on the table—if nothing else happens during his afternoon break—are the kids really to blame just because they happen to run headfirst into an absolute force of nature like Jurica Pavičić? Of course they aren't.

He basically went out of his way to publicly crucify that one critic recently (I can't recall his name, the guy who trashed Nol and the FFA), so why hasn't the American Film Critics Association turned their sights on Pavicic yet? They should probably call him out publicly for being unprofessional and dragging the reputation of American film criticism through the mud.

Just imagine the disgrace—you actually embarrassed the entire American film criticism community. 🤣

Jerry Adams71 said:Does anyone actually know how things work over in the States?

(It) works like this.

Do they ask kids for ID at the ticket counter when they're buying movie tickets?

Of course they do.

Dear Melissa Thompson45,

People shouldn't be watching that movie unless they’re looking for an excuse to pack up the kids and move to the USA. Second, maybe take a moment to actually learn what the R-rated film label really means. Third, go watch that great documentary this film is not Yet Rated—you can even bring the kids along. Just try living outside the reach of the MPAA for once; you might actually realize how lucky you are.

Praise Jesus and Mary.

feralorca4 said:What's the issue?

There's plenty of issues to go around.

An Eastman Kodak spokesman told me in the late 1990s: "The irony is that their only real achievement is to cheat the customers." That was then. This is now. Driven by a mania to abandon celluloid in favor of digital, increasing numbers of chains are installing 3D-ready digital projectors. As everyone can tell simply by taking off their 3D glasses, the process noticeably reduces the visible light from the screen. I got emails from readers saying the night scenes in "Pirates of the Caribbean" were so dim they were annoying.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011...the_light.html

The following article explains why people are actually getting so worked up about this:

http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-2...siness-screens

There's also a decent thread over on the Audio and Video Tech forum:

We're seeing an unprecedented campaign against 3D (though maybe not against 3D itself, but rather against this kind of theater-chain trickery):

Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.

Why i hate 3 d Movies - Newsweek - http://t.co/uyh0K8C

Don’t Despair, Roger Ebert: 3D Is Going to Die - http://t.co/jXNKI9J

feralorca4 said:3D filming tech is more expensive, so it makes sense that the screenings cost more too. Some people like it, some don't. Big deal.

That depends...

It's easy to think 3D is 3D, and the only difference between avatar and Clash of The Titans is The difference between corny and extra corny. But there are actually two ways to do it -- the real way and the easy way. The real way is to actually shoot it with a two-eyed camera that films things the same way your two eyes judge depth and form a 3D image from it.

Here's the kicker: This camera is fancy and therefore expensive, so there's a lazy way too, which is to just shoot the whole thing with a regular one-eyed camera like a regular movie, and then youjust hire some cheap labor overseas to basically strip the actors away digitally and transform the whole thing into a hollow digital diorama.

Reliance, In-Three partner on 2 D-3D Conversion Facility in India

It’s such a cheap, shapeless way to do things.

Edward Price6 said:People really ought to do a little homework first.
I’ve skipped a few 3D flicks myself because the conversion was just terrible, which is something both audiences and critics have been pretty vocal about.
Plus, some people genuinely can't even see the 3D effect.
Personally, I have to admit, I still find it pretty thrilling.
I’m actually heading to IMAX tomorrow, and then back again on Wednesday for Kung Fu Panda 3D.
I’m confident the 3D will be solid: first, because it looks great in the trailers (The Last Airbender looked rough, so I stayed far away from that one), and second, because the experts are actually praising it.
I’ll probably skip Pirates of the Caribbean too, since word is the 3D is subpar.
But movies like Avatar, rupa strah, street dance, Legend of the Guardians, Step Up 3D, and Sammy kornjača—those were all fantastic, and the extra cost for the 3D experience was totally worth it.
Technology keeps moving forward, and films are only going to get more immersive.
And don't even get me started on 3D on an HD TV! Man, what an experience.

Great point. 👍

Do your research before you commit to a movie or drop money on a ticket.

mistyotter35 said:plus, this particular style of 3D just isn't everyone's cup of tea.

To be more exact, it fails to land for about 10% of the audience.

Apparently, some people are physically incapable of seeing 3D, according to NBC News: http://bit.ly/isQUBC

hollowtrucker77 said:It isn’t the moderator's job to go around editing posts, nor is it their responsibility to check whether some random user took their meds on schedule or if they’ve had an accident in their pants

Why such an attitude? 😁

I remember Gigi being a pretty constructive contributor here (over in Other Media, Literature, or Television), though maybe I missed something along the way.

Is it really not the moderator's role to tweak an opening post? Well, if that's the case, they should just lock the thread and leave a coherent explanation underneath (maybe our esteemed moderator ambermason16 could take a page out of Smoogj's book; we've seen that happen before in Literature/Ivana Sajko, where they'd ask the OP for more info before locking things down).

Like I said, this is a general observation, not a personal dig—I have nothing against ambermason16—but playing favorites or being arbitrary isn't exactly how you handle moderation. I can't help but wonder if Smoogj, acting as a fellow moderator over on Television, would just delete a thread without saying a word.

My two cents, I'm stepping out of this debate now. You know what you're doing. 🙂

@silentridge3

Just follow ambermason16's instructions and reopen the thread the right way (try to be less confusing, stop replying to yourself, and quit insulting people). There's never a valid excuse for being rude to users.

It's a free country!

Over in Movies, we have users who start about ten of their own threads every other night. We even have a thread titled 'Smart movies for smart viewers.' At this rate, we'll probably see a topic called 'Stupid movies for stupid viewers' next.

Mr. Smoogj said:If someone starts a meaningful thread, why not?

😁

ambermason16 said:Are you talking about that one thread with the totally incoherent opening post? You know the one—where you start by claiming this show is some rare gem being wasted on swine, then immediately pivot to your usual habit of criticizing absolutely everything under the sun. Then you end up arguing with yourself, somehow finding two billion flaws in a perfectly good educational program, only to circle back twenty hours later to insult everyone else on Reddit just because they didn't feel the need to chime in?

Go ahead, try to guess where it is.

That still doesn't really justify nuking the whole thread (especially considering your reasoning). If a moderator thinks the opening post is confusing, they could just edit it, so what's actually gained by deleting everything?

Let's be clear, I'm probably the first person who wouldn't say I'm a huge fan of silentridge3, but that doesn't mean his threads aren't worth reading—in fact, they're usually pretty constructive. And I'm not the only one who feels that way. From what I can see, there's just this underlying bias toward certain users, and honestly, moderators should really be above all that.

Daniel Bailey39 Asks:
I honestly don't even know what to say to you, but I think I'll pass on watching this one. I've had more than enough of that obsession with America lately, and frankly, it's practically oozing out of every frame of this movie.☕

Cut it out with all that American nostalgia already, would you? You keep looping back to that whole era like we’re sitting in a political debate at the New York Times headquarters or something. It’s getting a bit repetitive.

I mean, seriously, why didn't they just hand the money over to a hungry young director to actually get something made? Instead, they just gave it to... well, whoever they ended up choosing, I guess.🙄

Daniel Kušat is a young director, but I suppose you could say he’s already got a head start on the industry—being the son of Ivan Kušat, the novelist. It means he probably knows the ins and outs of Coca-Cola better than anyone else.

I was actually pretty blown away by it. teaser #1Honestly, those kids are absolutely killing it. I don't think we've seen that kind of raw spontaneity or genuine conviction from child actors in recent American cinema. It’s also worth noting that this was actually captured during the film's rehearsals, which honestly just gives me even more reason to believe they're going to be just as good once the actual movie hits theaters.

I honestly don't think today’s kids even care about the lack of cult classics like *Pomodori*; they’ve got their own thing going on, and judging by my nephew, he’s more than ready to hit the theater for whatever the big new release is. But it does make you wonder how you explain the fact that Kušanov novels are still being devoured by the younger generation with the exact same hunger as before. Even for those of us who grew up in 2011, Koko was such a defining part of our childhood, which just goes to show why everyone still ends up heading to the cinema together for a group watch. 🙂

It actually caught me off guard while I was getting ready for this interview—the fact that the first novel about Coca-Cola actually came out back in the late fifties. You decided to shift the whole setting of those fifties into the eighties for the movie. What was the reasoning behind that?

First off, I wasn't actually looking to modernize the plot; I had no intention of throwing smartphones, Facebook, or all that other noise into the mix. That’s exactly because the whole backbone of Kušanov's novel is the relationship between Zlatko and Coca-Cola, and my main goal was to really dig into that specific dynamic. It's all about how their bond shifts—how Coca-Cola starts out on the lower end of the totem pole only to eventually take the upper hand. Honestly, I felt like adding any kind of modernization would just kill the magic of the whole thing. Then there's the stylistic side of things; you see it in most foreign children's films where there's this constant sense of an unusual setting, a deliberate step away from reality.

The third reason is honestly just that I really wanted to make something my own. My old man used to spend so much time describing locations and the whole vibe from back when he was a kid, so I figured I’d weave in some bits from my own childhood too. I wanted this world to feel like mine for a change, rather than just living in his shadow.

I sat down for a chat with Daniel Kušat, the director and screenwriter tasked with bringing Ivan Kušat’s beloved children's novel, Koko and the Ghosts, to life on the big screen..

And here’s another take on how that film presentation at Goodreads went down— Goodreads - http://bit.ly/iP6wi0

Olivia Lee12 said:They plastered posters all over Cleveland, but the audition is held in Calvary. Once they get there, I've got a bad feeling about this.

Give me a break, they actually covered the city in posters? All of Cleveland??? 😕

It has to be some kind of gimmick, or just a total MacGuffin. Some viral stunt run by the Republican Party youth wing? 🤔 Honestly, those guys aren't even smart enough to pull that off.

Anyway, my apologies to everyone in the chat. Just please, not there—that would be an insult to this group.

Like I said before, this isn't the IRS or anything. And since the casting manager isn't even picking up the phone, we're basically stuck.

feralorca4 said:Think of it as me filming some experimental indie flick. Don't bother asking questions, because there aren't any answers to be found. 🙂

Seriously, just starting a thread for the sake of having a thread, then refusing to say anything else or reply to anyone... Is this spam or what? 🤷

This isn't Craigslist; if you want to post those kind of deaf-mute classifieds, go find a chat room, please.

@Sam Green73/">@@Sam Green73

So, is she back on the politics and subforum again? 😁

It’s all "Jane this" and "Jane that"—these topics are popping up everywhere like mushrooms after a heavy rain. 🤷

We actually had an agreement about how to handle one specific headline on the main page—which you decided to move down to the basement on your own whim—regarding 'The Administration led by Kamala Harris' (formerly known as 'Kamala Harris, queen of national lies').

Now Vince is opening yet another one: 'PM Harris abolishes tax loopholes for war profiteers' (really, Vince?). Have some guts and move his thread into that main topic, or just toss the whole thing over to the political scene (since he basically admitted it was all just campaign noise in his first post anyway).

Thanks.

Karen Cook51 said:I'm still sitting here waiting for the signature editing options to come back online.🙂

So, where did everyone disappear to?😕

And just look at the absolute mess that is my current signature down below.😁

My uncle's got eight sausages,
and my aunt's frying seven while holding onto the eighth...

@Jacob Foster11/">@@Jacob Foster11

What would actually happen if I tried to edit this (old) signature right now?



Everything would probably just go to hell, wouldn't it?

Sam Green73 said:You talked me into it.
Is this better?

Perfect, thanks. 🙂

This feels way better—implying someone is lying (which isn't quite right since the President is basically the queen of national spin), or calling for her resignation right in the thread title, just isn't particularly constructive for a debate (it mostly just attracts one specific side of the aisle). This way, everyone is welcome to join the conversation, even those who actually support Kamala Harris. 😁

Feel free to lock it.

Sam Green73 said:Now I've suddenly found the motivation to start reshuffling discussions. It’s not the only thing I’ve been moving around today.

The thing is, if you don't like how things are being handled, you haven't actually offered anything constructive. That's just how it works. Let me break it down for you: I’m assuming that during the last PDF reorganization (Politics), all the moderators over there were tasked with "skimming" through a few front-page threads and moving specific topics into the newly created subforums. For instance, the thread 'Kamala - queen of national lies' could always be found right on the first page of the PDF; none of the Politics moderators (yourself included) thought it was appropriate to move it to the 'political scene' section back then—which makes sense, given she was the head of the US Federal Government and the topic belonged right on the Politics front page. As for what happened this morning, I haven't a clue. Only you know that. And why isn't this constructive? By moving a thread so abruptly—especially when it's been a staple of the front page for over 12 months, even following that last reorganization—you're basically suffocating the discussion and killing its visibility. Who exactly stands to gain from that?

I won't drone on any longer, but I will ask the other Politics moderators to weigh in, including the admins (since the guys over at The Monitor/the editorial staff used to link directly to this specific thread).

Feel free to start a new discussion on the front page titled "Administration activity/results 2011" or something along those lines.

Thanks for the suggestion/permission. But since an actual human presides over the administration and not some robot, I'd prefer something like: Results of Kamala Harris's US Federal Government work in 2011, or better yet, The (lack of) results of Kamala Harris's US Federal Government in 2011. Because, honestly, there are no results.

And what does this achieve? We end up splitting the same conversation into multiple pieces (the Politics front page and the subforum 'political scene'/existing thread). Wouldn't it be much more practical to just rename the existing thread and move it back to the Politics front page? 🤷

Sam Green73 said:It counts as part of the scene because we're talking about a person.
If you take a look at the kind of topics they cover on that subforum, you'll see it fits in perfectly well there.

Right, a "person"—specifically the President of the US Federal Government. She isn't running the most important institution in the country based on my or your domestic advice; she’s leading the nation and shaping our lives every single day. I honestly feel like the current thread title is a bit underwhelming—maybe change it to something more fitting for the Politics front page. If the work of the head of the US Federal Government doesn't deserve to be featured, especially during a time when she seems to be losing her grip entirely, then what does? What was the deal with that "Bill Clinton Case" summary? It felt totally off. Besides, this latest reorganization of the Politics section happened just a few months ago, so why didn't any of the moderators think to touch or move this thread back then? I'm asking again: what are the actual reasons for moving or marginalizing this topic, and why specifically now?

Nothing, please, just give me a better title for the new thread (for the Politics front page, obviously): 'The President's Work: A Complaint Desk', and we'll open that one instead. The Politics front page simply can't function without a dedicated thread where people can critique the (lack of) work being done by the President or the Administration; it just can't. Though, I suppose there's my other one: 'Firing the Administration...', blah, blah. No, that won't do, it's too biased. We need to allow everyone—even the Republican Party voters, who are humans too, after all—to vent about how their President is doing.

😕

I’m wondering who decided to move one of our most active threads in Politics (with 2,817 posts and over 102,000 views) from the front page down to the 'political scene' section. What was the mysterious logic behind this sudden relocation? And why right now, of all times? There's really no reason for it; Kamala Harris is the head of the US Federal Government, so calling this a "dead" political scene feels a bit much, doesn't it?

I’d kindly ask the admins or moderators to please move the thread back to where it actually belongs—right on the Politics front page.

goldenhound32 said:Personally, I’m leaning more toward the version starring Michael Shannon. From what I gather by looking at the plots, it seems like they'll focus on one central protagonist rather than splitting the screen between two. It just feels more cohesive.

That doesn't mean the other option won't be any good, mind you. Tony Scott is certainly capable of delivering a solid film, provided he doesn't get too carried away with excessive stylization.

Tony Scott as the director for the second one? That would be a first.

Go ahead, enjoy that little "fiction" of yours. Ariel Vromen To be honest, he doesn't exactly inspire any confidence. If you look at his track record, he’s got two pretty grim movies and a documentary under his belt, which isn't exactly a glowing endorsement. 🤷 I’ve got this nagging feeling that the whole Richard Kuklinski story might be a bit too heavy-duty for him to tackle, honestly. It feels like the kind of intense, visceral material that really demands a director with a style like Cronenberg's.

On top of all that...

I've been looking through the writing credits, and honestly, it’s quite a lot to digest when you start digging into the specifics of who actually put pen to paper on these projects. It's one of those things where you think you know the lineup, but then you see the actual names attached to the screenplays and realize how much heavy lifting goes on behind the scenes. Naturally, I'll probably spend way too much time overanalyzing the creative shifts between different drafts, but that's just how I am.
Bruno's book
Morgan Land screenplay Ariel Vromen screenplay ajmo red
Ariel Vromen screenplay

Let's get one thing straight: Bruno's book, The Iceman : The True Story of a Cold-Blooded Killer, is basically pure hell. Phillip Carlo It’s basically the same story as the one they turned into that HBO documentary, The Iceman : Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer.

Screenwriters?

We already established that Ariela is a total hack, so I guess we're just waiting to see who else is on that list. Morgan LandWhich brings us to the real question: Honestly, I’ve been sitting here wondering the exact same thing—who even is this Morgan Land guy, and why does everyone act like he’s some kind of big deal? It feels like one of those situations where a name keeps popping up in industry circles, and you're just left scratching your head while everyone else nods along like they actually know something.You really have to be brutally honest with yourself; that way, at least you can't end up disappointed. 😁

goldenhound32 said:A century ago, a documentary was filmed about Richard Kuklinski, that hitman who worked for the mob. It’s actually a fantastic piece of filmmaking—you can still find it online today. Even my colleague familia brought it up once:

Now, they’re putting together a feature film based on it.

To be honest, when I first saw who was directing, I wasn't particularly interested... but then I realized Claude Shannon is playing Kuklinski (the same unhinged Agent Hank Van Alden from Boardwalk Empire), and I stumbled upon this clip on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArrcnjJgy88

Those who have seen the original documentary will immediately recognize how perfectly Shannon has captured Kuklinski's essence. As for everyone else... well, just watch it anyway. Shannon is an absolute master.🙂

🙂

So, it looks like they're finally putting a movie together.

Honestly, when I first saw who was directing, I wasn't exactly sold on the idea... but then I found out Michael Shannon is playing Kuklinski—you know, like that totally unhinged Agent Hank Van Alden from Boardwalk Empire—and suddenly things started looking a lot more interesting. Then I stumbled upon this scene from the movie on YouTube:

I can't quite wrap my head around what you're trying to show me here, but if you were hoping I'd jump through hoops to decipher that link, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. It's just a URL floating there without any context, and frankly, I don't have the patience or the psychic abilities to guess what kind of video you think is worth my time. If you actually want to start a conversation or get a reaction, you might want to try using actual words next time.

Anyone who’s actually sat through the documentary will see just how perfectly Shannon nailed the portrayal of Kuklinski. As for those who haven't seen it yet... well, honestly, you should just go watch it anyway because Shannon is an absolute king. 🙂

really powerful, Michael Shannon! 🙏

By the way, just so you guys know, they’re actually filming two different movies. The second one is an adaptation of Philip Carlo's book, The Iceman : Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer.Just a shot of Richard Kuklinski hanging out with the author Philip Carlo.).

Guess who's coming to dinner? Well, they actually agreed to it...



Natural Selection CEO Matty Beckerman just dropped some news from the Toronto International Film Festival—he’s officially announced that his company is stepping up to fully finance and produce a feature film adaptation of Philip Carlo's book, The Iceman : Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer. They've even already attached talent to the project. It’s basically the true story of Richard “The Iceman” Kuklinski, a guy who spent over 40 years living this wild, totally secret double life as both a notorious professional assassin and a devoted husband and father living out in suburban New Jersey.

While hanging out at the Toronto International Film Festival, Natural Selection CEO Matty Beckerman dropped some news today: his company is officially stepping up to fully finance and produce a feature film based on Philip Carlo’s massive book, The Iceman: Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer. And they've already tapped Mickey Rourke to take the lead. David McKenna, the guy behind the scripts for American History X and Blow, is currently working on the screenplay, which is being adapted from that same book written by Carlo.So, Matty Beckerman just dropped some news from the Toronto International Film Festival, announcing that Natural Selection is going all in to finance and produce a feature film based on Philip Carlo’s The Iceman : Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer. They've already got Graham Taylor at WME lined up to manage the North American sales for the project. For those who haven't read it, MAFIA CONTRACT Killer is The true Story of Richard “ The Ice man ” Kuklinski Who for over 40 years led a completely secretive double Life as both a notorious Professional assassin and a doting husband and father in suburban New Jersey. Beckerman mentioned that digging into Kuklinski’s actual life through Philip Carlo’s writing has been a three-year process, and he thinks the whole thing is just incredibly gripping—definitely not your typical Mafia story you've seen in Hollywood before. He also couldn't help but gush about the casting potential, noting that Mickey Rourke seems like the perfect fit for the role, especially since he's such a massive fan of David McKenna’s writing.

Growing up in the Bensonhurst neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, Carlo lived right in the thick of intense Mafia activity. His debut work, Stolen Flower, delved into the harrowing story of an eight-year-old girl abducted by pornographers and the subsequent attempts by the Cosa Nostra to recover her. Then there was his second book, The Night Stalker: The Life and Crimes of Richard Ramirez—which actually stands as the second most popular true crime book out there, trailing only Capote’s In Cold Blood—widely regarded as the ultimate word on Ramirez, the guy who terrorized Los Angeles for fourteen months and took twenty-nine lives by slipping into homes under the cover of darkness. Following that, The Iceman, which tracks the chilling life and crimes of Kuklinski, a massive Mafia hitman, climbed all the way onto the New York Times bestseller list. After being diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's Disease in 2005, Carlo has been busy working on a new project regarding Colombian drug lord Juan Carlos Ramirez Abbadia, backed by some pretty incredible, unprecedented access to the DEA. Looking back on the film deal, Carlo mentioned that when he first sat down with Matty Beckerman, he just knew he had found the right producer to finally bring The Iceman to the big screen. He felt Beckerman instantly understood the core tension of the story: the duality of a man who was a devoted husband and a caring father, yet also a professional killer traveling the globe to fulfill murder contracts with a predatory instinct unlike anything we've ever seen—this incredibly powerful man who could end a life with his bare hands or a weapon, all while his wife and kids remained completely oblivious. Even with how dark things were, Carlo noted that Richard absolutely loathed rapists and simply couldn't stand by when a child was being abused.

http://www.deadline.com/2010/09/mick...s-killer-role/

The big selling points here are definitely having Mickey Rourke in the lead and getting David McKenna behind the script—the guy actually knows his stuff, considering he penned two absolute classics like American History X and Blow.

The downside?

In the meantime, a little complication has surfaced (though it shouldn't kill the production), and the main financier behind this whole thing is—get this—some rich kid's daddy. . 🤣.

Hollywood Feels Ripples From Libya

I guess money doesn't have a scent to Americans, as filming is supposedly kicking off in mid-2011. Here’s what Mickey had to say about it:

Mr. Rourke, one of those people said, had expressed interest in the lead role but had made no formal deal and will not face any decision about working with a Qaddafi-backed company until the screenplay is done.

Well, wish them luck, I guess. It’s usually how it goes when multiple films tackle the same subject at the exact same time; someone is bound to end up looking pretty bad.

What’s your take on all this? Which movie are you actually rooting for?

quietmaker44 said:I’m jumping on the bandwagon with the positive reviewers for this flick 👍👍👍

Billy Bob 🙏

That chubby kid 🙏

Late Bernie atmosphere 🙏

Vibe, screenplay 👍

But hey, it wasn't all sunshine and rainbows—they totally botched the ending. Santa basically dodges death after a massive shootout and somehow avoids prison at the end.
I have a feeling the producers forced the writer's hand to cook up some cheesy happy ending because that's just how they roll... 🙄 I mean, that's just Hollywood for you, damn it.

It definitely wasn't about the happy ending; it was more likely because of this: Billy Bob Thornton in Talks for 'Bad Santa 2' - http://t.co/58B7C6e

Whatever, seeing this news actually made my day.

"We feel that it’s a Christmas perennial for the R-rated crowd," a The Weinstein Company spokesperson confirmed to TheWrap. "Everyone loves the character and Billy Bob’s excited to be in talks with us."

The actor hasn't exactly been shy about wanting to step back into the shoes of that alcoholic, safe-cracking department store Claus again, and it looks like a deal might actually come together pretty soon.

neonsurfer6 said:Look, Reservoir Dogs wasn't the first movie to mess with non-linear storytelling. If we're talking about true innovation and breaking the mold for its era, Citizen Kane clearly holds that title.

A few years before Quentin Tarantino came along, Jim Jarmusch used a similar triptych structure in Mystery Train. The only difference is that Jarmusch's timeline actually moves forward.

And in that very same year—they were shot almost back-to-back, actually—we also had Before the Rain by Milcet Mancevski.