I think Henry Campbell5 is a genuinely great, fun guy. 🙂 I don’t think there’s a single thread where he hasn’t given me at least a little chuckle, especially when he drops a totally random, hilarious joke right in the middle of a long post. He really knows how to write quality commentary, but since he avoids being overly serious, he always leaves room for a bit of humor. It never feels forced or obnoxious; he’s just a naturally likable person.
I don’t really have the time or the energy to follow the whole history of drama between users and the moderators, but if Henry Campbell5 needs any support from my end, he has it.
I remember being a kid and watching Endless Day for the first time—it was easily one of my absolute favorite movies back in the 90s—and I knew right then that Bill Murray was in a league of his own compared to any other actor out there!
That moment where he just says "oui" after Andy MacDowell asks him, "You Speak French?"... 🤣
Or when Andy MacDowell starts listing all these traits for her perfect man, and he basically fits every single one, only to follow it up with, "this is a man we're talking about, right?" 🤣🤣
Of course, there’s a whole mountain of moments like that...
I'll never forget this one New Year's, though. I woke up around 2:00 PM, and we were all still completely wrecked from partying until 10:00 in the morning. You know that hazy, blurry state where you can't tell if you're still drunk or just hungover, and everything seems hilariously absurd? We stumbled upon "Endless Day" playing on the TV. I was literally losing it—rolling on the floor, laughing, crying... everyone else was in the exact same boat. I'll honestly never forget that feeling. Once the movie ended, of course, we just kept the party going.
Just wanted to set the record straight regarding my post #8. The director of "The Willow Tree" is actually Majid Majidi, not Kamal Tabrizi. I have no idea why IMDb had him listed as Kamal Tabrizi back then—it really threw me for a loop—and I was willing to take the blame for being wrong. But looking again, it's listed as Majid Majidi now, and everywhere else online confirms it's Majidi.
Joshua Smith5 said:Great, thanks for the heads up. I've seen most of the works mentioned, and frankly, some aren't worth hunting down on torrent sites because the quality is garbage. Speaking of Ford, is that Peter Bogdanovich documentary, Directed by John Ford, actually worth watching? I caught A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies yesterday, where the narrator—none other than Scorsese himself—made a reference to it.
I haven't seen the old version from '71, but I have seen the extended cut from 2006. Honestly, if you're a fan of Ford, it's definitely worth your time!
I'm familiar with him... I actually remember when his orchestra fell apart once, but they had a quick reunion shortly after. All I'm saying is that the topic itself is fine; obviously, I don't support any kind of powerbeating.
Joshua Smith5 said:Man, I really screwed up my experience watching that movie. All I can tell you is that I was hyper-focused and my vision was perfect. 😢 I've moved past the phase of binge-watching most of Argento's work, and out of all of them, Tenebre stands out. It hits all those essential giallo beats and uses all of Argento's signature tricks, but more importantly, it's his most successful attempt at playing with his own image.
Man, I know exactly what you mean. I can't even say if it would have been my first time watching if I had noticed that detail right at the start—and I’m definitely not going to say anything more because I don't want to spoil it for anyone else. Honestly, maybe God was being kind to me by giving me slightly weaker observational skills; it's probably better this way so I can actually just sit back and enjoy the mystery. 😁
Honestly, you can still have a great time with a movie even without that gut-wrenching suspense. I mean, when you’re doing a rewatch, you already know who the killer is, but you can still just sit back and appreciate the direction. It’s like how watching *Psycho* again didn't ruin the experience for me at all, even though I already knew the big twist from my first viewing.
I haven't seen Tenebrae yet...
Jerry Martinez50 said:Just you wait until he shows up again; he still has a few loose ends left to tie up ☕
Whatever the case may be, you have to admit he laid everything out really clearly and organized. It was a solid breakdown.
I wouldn't call myself a huge fan of Giallo, but ''Deep Red'' is an absolute masterpiece. Anyone who gets a kick out of Brian De Palma will probably get just as much out of this one.
I remember catching "Love for Deer" back when they ran a special series at the local cinema near Central Park. To me, it was a solid movie that tackled some pretty sensitive subjects, though I actually preferred "Two Sides of the Coin" when I saw that one during the same screening cycle.
Anyway, I had a colleague shoot me a quick DM to correct me on "The Alphabet of Fear"—turns out that one actually got a DVD release. He also mentioned that "Doctor of Madness" ended up getting a DVD release as well.
I honestly have no clue where to find that "Ambassador" site online, so I can't really point you in the right direction. That’s actually why I started this thread—I didn't want anyone here to miss out on this upcoming run, since there isn't any other source available as far as I know. You might try some old classic cinema archives...🤷
We're about to enter the Hadžić era, featuring "The Alphabet of Fear" and that excellent detective thriller "The Other Side of the Medal" that I mentioned briefly in my impressions once before.
It’s a nice post, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.
After just the first 15 or 20 minutes, it became crystal clear to me that the ambassador was likely just a selfish jerk who neglected his own kids while they were busy cleaning up his massive screw-ups. So, his motives aren't actually "unclear"—that's just bad phrasing on my part. From there, I'm just sitting there waiting for what comes next, and what follows is just a pile of clichés, pointless side characters, some misguided stylistic choices, and finally, a grand, sweeping explanation delivered through a heavy-handed dialogue between father and son explaining how he, get this, was actually a selfish jerk who ignored his children. As for the political layer, it basically boils down to nothing more than infantile irony.
Forget it. It's a movie that made me want to turn it off at least five different times. Honestly, I think I only sat through it until the end because of the credit I gave Hadžić earlier on.
Jamie Davis9 said:Well, wasn't his wife from the movie just a total depressive?
You mean Elizabeth Kukić? Give me a break. Sure, the guy aged well, but turning down someone 37 years younger... that actually puts him ahead of even Josip Broz Tito (since Jovanka was 32 years younger).
On a side note—don't tell anyone—but I definitely had a bit of a physical reaction to Inge Appelt when she was wrapped in that towel in the bathroom at the start... just a little one. I really hope I can't be sued for an "internet insult" under these new laws; hey, it's a compliment, for crying out loud.
And just to get ahead of anyone who might argue that the symbolic motif of the rotting root saved the movie—it didn't.
I just finished watching "Ambassador." Honestly? It was pretty bad. Out of the four Fadil Hadžić films I’ve seen, "Ambassador" is definitely his weakest work.
The whole movie feels sterile and washed out. The characters are one-dimensional, and their relationships don't hold any water—there’s no real foundation there, whether you look at it through class lines or generational gaps.
Their motivations are murky and left totally unexplained. You get this one dialogue scene near the end between the ambassador and his oldest son that tries to shed some light on things, but it barely scratches the surface.
There are bits of political subversion tucked in there, but it mostly comes off as unrefined and amateurish.
That "Ko-ko-da" song is an absolute nightmare, and don't even get me started on that slow-motion love scene—it was painful to watch.
I honestly think anyone who actually lived through that era would rather forget this movie ever existed.
I’m bringing this thread back to life because CNN started airing a series of Fadil Hadžić films last Tuesday, kicking things off with "The Journalist."
Next Tuesday, they’re showing "The Ambassador," followed by "Alphabet of Fear" and "The Other Side of the Coin." I’m not sure what comes after that, but they usually air around 9 PM.
Since there aren't any DVDs available yet and finding these online is a total nightmare, this is a golden opportunity for anyone who hasn't had the chance to dive into his work.
"The Journalist" was actually really solid when it aired last week. Even though the first half drags a little bit, the second half picks up significantly. By the end, you're left with the impression of a brave, meaningful, and honest film that successfully tackles socio-political issues and the thankless job an investigative reporter faces in a society like ours. Even though the political landscape has shifted superficially over the years, the movie still feels incredibly relevant today.
Anyway, I really hope you guys tune in and share some thoughts or reviews on the films—or even on Hadžić’s style in general—rather than just clicking a vote in a poll and moving on with your day.
I’m not disputing the film's strangeness, but the massive backlash it triggered makes sense—mostly because we aren't living in the era of Buñuel and Fellini anymore, back when avant-garde satires like "the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie" were still walking away with Oscars.
Personally, I thought the movie was alright. It didn't blow me away, but I’d love to find a well-reasoned critique filled with some descriptive flair. Despite all the praise it's getting, I haven't come across any truly compelling arguments IN its favor yet.
I’m certainly no film historian, and I wouldn't say Ford's ideology really aligns with mine, but I still love watching him. In fact, I count him—along with Welles—among my all-time favorite directors. But hey, I get it... it's pretty clear you aren't exactly a huge fan of Ford's work.
I can't really speak to any "conventional" takes on it. I watched Mr. Arkadin about three or four years ago, and if I remember correctly, the style definitely left a bigger impression on me than the actual plot, which felt a bit like it was rehashing older films. Who knows, maybe a rewatch would change my mind. I'll probably get around to seeing it again someday.
Let's actually move the conversation about Welles and his cinematic journey over to a different thread.
Dennis Martin6 said:General vibe on Ford’s stuff from the 40s and 50s—compared to someone like Welles? It's night and day. Ford is all about that raw, grounded energy, while Welles is out here playing with shadows and ego. One builds a world you can actually feel under your boots, the other builds a puzzle for you to solve. Different leagues entirely.
No surprise there—just another case where the students outdid the teacher. 🙂
Aside from 'Young Lincoln'—which I haven't seen—and 'Stagecoach', which is actually solid, everything else was just unbearable, banal, and dated. 'The Grapes of Wrath' holds some weight for me, but strictly because of Gregory Peck. It’s wild that in the same year Ford shot 'Valley,' Welles dropped 'Citizen Kane.' It's night and day.
I'm split on Hitchcock—he’s got absolute masterpieces, but man, he also makes some total garbage. Aside from a handful of films (most of which you already listed), the guy is basically just a director of static shots. Plus, all those experiments he messed around with throughout his career? They practically fit into a single Welles film—'Mr. Arkadin'. 🙂
Mark Wood79 Asks: Look, De Palma is easily one of the greatest stylists to ever pick up a camera—we’re talking about a guy who crafted some of the most iconic sequences in cinema history (that museum scene in Dressed to Kill? Pure genius). He’s been vocal about it plenty of times, too: he’s constantly citing Alfred Hitchcock as his ultimate inspiration and biggest influence.
It just comes down to sensibility—plain and simple. I could never get into De Palma; I couldn't even sit through Dressed to Kill without turning it off. 😁
Even though Hitchcock isn't exactly a "director of static shots," I’m curious what you mean by that. It feels like you're treating it as some kind of qualitative judgment—as if a static shot is automatically a sign of being outdated, lacking directorial skill, or just generally poor filmmaking.
I mean, I definitely have a soft spot for dynamic camerawork—which is exactly why I was so drawn to *The Tree of Life*—and I love those sweeping pans and fluid, slalom-like movements. But just because a shot stays static doesn't mean the director lacks skill. Sometimes, staying still is a choice, not a limitation.
So, if you look at directors like Ozu, who leaned into those static shots, or even Mike Leigh, Hsiao-Hsien Hou, Radu Muntean, and Haneke... where does that leave us?
Look, I’m not trying to start any debates about these directors; I’m just bringing them up as examples.
Look, just because a shot is static doesn't mean the mise-en-scène has to be stagnant. Even within a fixed frame, the way actors are positioned and how they move can be incredibly dynamic. That kind of internal movement is exactly what gives a shot its sense of rhythm.
Dennis Martin6 said:General vibe on Ford’s stuff from the 40s and 50s—compared to someone like Welles? It's night and day. Ford is all about that raw, grounded energy, while Welles is out here playing with shadows and ego. One builds a world you can actually feel under your boots, the other builds a puzzle for you to solve. Different leagues entirely.
No surprise there—just another case where the students outdid the teacher. 🙂
Aside from 'Young Lincoln'—which I haven't seen—and 'Stagecoach', which is actually solid, everything else was just unbearable, banal, and dated. 'The Grapes of Wrath' holds some weight for me, but strictly because of Gregory Peck. It’s wild that in the same year Ford shot 'Valley,' Welles dropped 'Citizen Kane.' It's night and day.
I'm split on Hitchcock—he’s got absolute masterpieces, but man, he also makes some total garbage. Aside from a handful of films (most of which you already listed), the guy is basically just a director of static shots. Plus, all those experiments he messed around with throughout his career? They practically fit into a single Welles film—'Mr. Arkadin'. 🙂
Mark Wood79 Asks: Look, De Palma is easily one of the greatest stylists to ever pick up a camera—we’re talking about a guy who crafted some of the most iconic sequences in cinema history (that museum scene in Dressed to Kill? Pure genius). He’s been vocal about it plenty of times, too: he’s constantly citing Alfred Hitchcock as his ultimate inspiration and biggest influence.
It just comes down to sensibility—plain and simple. I could never get into De Palma; I couldn't even sit through Dressed to Kill without turning it off. 😁
To me, *Mr. Arkadin* always stands out as a prime example of style over substance—something that, if I’m being honest, even happens in De Palma's work sometimes.