Posts by Mark Wood79

Dennis Martin6 said:Look, I get why people watch him—if they’re trying to check a box on film history class—but otherwise, I just don't see the draw. Especially when you compare him to what Welles or Kurosawa were pulling off back then; Ford's camera work feels sloppy and dated in that context.
Same goes for a good chunk of Hitchcock's catalog—just another director who's been mythologized endlessly.

Sorry for responding to a post from almost four months ago, but I just hadn't seen this until now...

I'm not quite sure if this is a standalone thought that isn't referencing anything previously written, or if you're partially replying to Joshua Smith regarding Ford's style and then adding your own take on his camerawork.

If it's the latter, Reed is talking about a film from 1939. Neither Welles nor Kurosawa were even filming back then, and it’s actually interesting that you picked those two specifically, since they were both huge admirers and fans of John Ford's work.

Even setting aside "The Searchers" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," I consider Ford's peak creative period to be between 1939 and 1941. During those years, he made four pivotal films that truly cemented his legacy; besides "Stagecoach," you have "Young Lincoln," "The Grapes of Wrath," and "How Green Was My Valley." When you watch those movies, I honestly don't see anything sloppy or outdated—they have aged incredibly well. At the time, some of them represented the absolute pinnacle of social realism in American cinema, and they still hold up perfectly today.

As for the Hitchcock comment, that's even further from the truth. His stylistic choices and camera movements in many of his films and across various periods are incredibly inspiring and can still serve as a textbook for filmmakers today. Look at the car chase ending in a close-up in "North by Northwest," the subjective shots in "Rebecca" or "Notorious," the entire composition and camera movement within rooms in "Rope," or again, the way he builds tension in a single room through subjective shots in "Rear Window." Then there's the famous framing (subjective vs. objective) in "The Man Who Knew Too Much," and the techniques used in "Vertigo," and so on.
Look, Hitch knew how to pull a fast one, I won't deny that, but generally speaking—he isn't overrated or mythologized; he is a truly great director.

Besides, De Palma, who is one of the greatest stylistic masters in film history and responsible for some of the most iconic sequences ever filmed (like that museum scene in "Dressed to Kill"), has expressed his lifelong inspiration and the influence of Alfred Hitchcock multiple times.

Anyway, talking about Hitchcock here is a bit off-topic. It feels a little silly to be debating Hitchcock in a thread dedicated to Ford.

Dennis Martin6 and Karen Smith9, thanks so much for bringing those movies to my attention—I actually hadn't heard of either of them. They both sound right up my alley, so I'll definitely be adding them to my watchlist soon.

Marzieh Makhmalbaf is actually the wife of director Mohsen Makhmalbaf.

Alexander Hernandez32 said:I actually fell head over heels for Iranian Cinema just by diving into a huge collection of Majid Majidi films. 😍

There are three in particular that I still hold so close to my heart:

The Color of Paradise

The Children

Crazy Father

I just find those heavy social dramas so beautiful—the way they often focus on children as the main characters, while layering in such complex insights into human psychology and society.

Honestly, I think Majidi's latest, "The Song of Sparrows," holds its own just as well as the others you mentioned. It’s definitely on that same level qualitatively.

Wait, there's this one movie called... The Willow Tree I actually thought Majidi directed this one, but it turns out the film was based on his idea and written by him, while Kamal Tabrizi is the one who actually called the shots behind the camera. Regardless, the movie is absolutely fantastic and I can't recommend it enough. To me, it sits right up there with all of Majidi's other masterpieces.

Richard Johnson42 said:Watching *Gosford Park* and *Before the Devil Knows You're Dead* really reminded me that the old masters still have plenty of tricks up their sleeves. Both films are absolute masterclasses in direction—true cinematic gems.

I'm with you on this one! Count me in.

Dragon007 said:Well, that’s that. 🙂 I saw where the moderator said not to make lists, but honestly, I feel like I have to anyway. If I actually started diving into any of these movies, I’d end up having to explain my reasoning for every single one just to be thorough. At that point, I'd basically just be spamming the thread, haha.

I definitely don't want to spam this thread, so I’ll take a moment to actually break down why certain films hit so much harder than others.
Look, I wasn't trying to turn this into a list of movies. I’ve always said that I can't stand lists, regardless of what we're talking about. If you're going to mention a few things, you should at least add a sentence or two of context to explain why.

Jamie Nelson10 said:The Romanians were definitely solid, though while everyone talks about Lazarescu, I always felt Marti was the standout for me—not to mention Craciun, who doesn't get nearly enough credit.

I brought him up last year, mentioning that Radu Muntean is actually my favorite director working in Eastern Europe right now. His debut, "paper wants to be blue," was incredible—he used this gritty, textured cinematography to capture his own memories of those chaotic nights back in '89 when the regime was finally falling. Since then, he’s pivoted away from the heavy social realism that used to dominate the local film scene, choosing instead to explore modern themes like the complexities of marriage in films like "Boogie" and "Tuesday after Christmas." It’s been refreshing to see him push the boundaries of cinema like that.

When it comes to Iranian cinema, there’s a clear pattern. After that massive surge in popularity during the 90s, they didn't miss a beat moving into the 2000s either.
Majida is truly a genius. After hitting it out of the park in the 90s with masterpieces like "child paradise" and "color paradise," they kept that momentum going through the 2000s with incredible films like "Baran," "Willow Tree," and "song of Sparrows." Then, in the mid-2000s, we saw Asghar Farhadi burst onto the scene, capturing global attention with his 2004 film "Beautiful City." That movie was such a sharp look at how male stubbornness and a desire for revenge can play out, all while offering a subtle, biting critique of how major institutions function.

@People Can Fly

Nice work on this post. It's clear, concise, and hits the nail on the head!

Since we've hit 2012, I think it's finally time to take a little look back at the decade of cinema we just left behind.

What will stick with you most from this era? Who do you think emerged as the heavy hitters of the decade, and who maybe lost their touch? Did you discover any interesting international cinema during this time?
Feel free to drop a list of your absolute favorite titles from the 2000s.

While everyone usually talks about the big Hollywood blockbusters, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how American indie filmmaking evolved in the early 2000s too.

Our habits for watching movies have shifted so much lately... video rental stores are basically relics now that the internet has taken over. Even the good old days of renting a Blockbuster are officially history.

It would also be great if someone could briefly mention some of the major technological leaps in film production itself—things like new camera tech and gear—that popped up during the 2000s.

Basically, this is a broad discussion about 2000s cinema.

Just to keep our timeline straight, by "decade" I’m referring to the period 2001-2010.

goldenhound32 said:My dear colleague, we have been over this countless times already.

Yes, they do. They have to. Why bother with prime time when only a handful of true cinephiles are watching, while half the country is glued to mindless reality TV trash?

Regardless, there is no real loss here; the film is easily accessible online anyway 👍

As for the movie itself, it remains my favorite American production—a genuine masterpiece of the New Wave.

It is a heavy, demanding piece of cinema, punctuated by unexpected bursts of dark humor.

IX

They have to, because we're dealing with a conservative network that views airing an international film during prime time as too big a risk—get this—because of "ratings." 🤣🤣🤣

Basically, PBS keeps the status quo alive by feeding the nation a diet of brainless programming.

And as for those few cinephiles? I'm not so sure. I think plenty of people would just flip the channel if they realized it was a Romanian film. But those who did happen to stumble upon it wouldn't be disappointed; in fact, I think they’d actually appreciate how "unusual" it feels, mostly because they've been overexposed to mediocre Hollywood fare. They'd see reflections of their own lives in it—like the endless wait in a hospital hallway or the sheer arrogance of certain doctors.

I can't guarantee that The Death of Mr. Lazarescu would be a hit in prime time, but we won't ever know because they never even give it a chance. The same goes for Romanian cinema. That’s why I find it so frustrating when PBS runs a Romanian film marathon or a "Three Colors" series in the middle of the night.

YOU GUYS ARE ALL COWARDS!

Honestly, I couldn't care less whether the director thinks they nailed it or missed the mark, let alone the author of the original book.

Bottom line: if I enjoyed it, I enjoyed it, period. Same goes if I didn't.

I also find it wild how many people have this deep-seated belief that a movie adaptation is doomed to fail just because it's based on a book. They argue that they've already built their own version of the world in their head and anything else won't work. What a ridiculous way to think!

Even though the golden age of classic Hollywood is long gone, many of its legends still command huge respect today. One such icon is John Ford, a massive figure in American cinema who directed over 140 films between 1917 and 1966.

His influence was so profound that even his contemporaries, like Frank Capra and Howard Hawks, went out of their way to highlight his greatness. It wasn't just peers, either—Japanese masters like Akira Kurosawa and Kenji Mizoguchi looked up to him, while New Hollywood heavyweights like Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, and Sam Peckinpah have all paid him tribute. Even the French New Wave directors and countless film buffs across the globe consider him a giant.

But enough about the critics and the legends. Let’s see what the folks here on the forum have to say.

Nancy Fox89 said:I'm looking to analyze some high-quality feature films that take place entirely within a single location. If any such movies come to mind, could you please drop the title and maybe the director's name? Thanks!

Fassbinder's ''Petra von Kant'' is a perfect example. I'd give anything to dive deep into an analysis of that one.

It’s about two hours long and unfolds completely within one room—a bedroom.

Roger Allen3 said:This is just some snobbish chick flick🙏

🤣

I’m still laughing at Roger Allen3's comment here...

Personally, I think this movie is fantastic. It nails that sense of mystery, and the cinematography and the way they capture the great outdoors is really impressive (kind of like how they did in Roeg's "The Revenant"). I can still picture those cross-fades accompanied by the flute music... it was beautiful, truly beautiful.

Benjamin Thompson66 said:Don’t go easy on the review. This is a brilliant film about a specific way of life that still feels incredibly relevant in many parts of the country today. It isn’t just a portrait of a certain era; it’s a portrait of a mindset.

I’ve actually posted here before about this movie, specifically mentioning the mentality that Papić captured so well. But you can’t ignore how it captures the spirit of the times, too—especially considering the messy reality of 1948 (we all know what kind of year that was). In Papić's film, there’s this constant, underlying tension in the air, born from a pervasive sense of suspicion that basically paralyzed society back then.

And they set it all against that raw, rugged backdrop of Coastal California, under a blistering sun.

It’s a powerful piece of filmmaking.

feralorca4 said:They don't even have their own thread on Reddit 🙂 That conversation about Birch actually reminded me of this movie. Honestly, I feel like downloading it right now just to watch it all over again.

You could probably find some old TV rip to download. That’s basically our only option. 😠

It’s a brilliant, gutsy piece of filmmaking. Papić's work offers such a sharp portrait of that era and the power dynamics at play, all while capturing the atmosphere perfectly.

It’s honestly a crime that no one has released this gem on DVD yet.

Look, I don't really follow film criticism—especially not the American scene—but I have noticed that people are constantly tearing into Pavicic, mostly because of spoilers but also for other reasons. It makes me wonder why you guys let Professor James ruin movies for you like this.

There is already a dedicated thread for critics on this forum, so I am not sure why you all have such a specific obsession with Pavicic.

I see a lot of you guys here on the forum constantly going on about how Pavicic spoiled the movie, complaining for the hundredth time about how he ruined a film for you, or claiming he doesn't care about basic facts. But honestly, despite all that noise—you still can't seem to stop reading his reviews. 🤷

Honestly, this is an absolute classic. Aside from "Repulsion," I’d say this is Polanski at his most intense—and maybe even one of the finest examples of neo-noir ever put to film.

I’ll admit, I was holding out at first. It just didn't seem like my kind of thing, but I eventually gave in because everyone was making such a huge deal about how hilarious it was.

I'm not about to let anyone pull the wool over my eyes twice.

I didn't exactly see this influx coming, but hey, let's not be too hard on ourselves... only four posts about Wilder?

When you think about names like Howard Hawks or Hitchcock, Wilder’s name immediately jumps to the front of my mind as a titan of the Hollywood Golden Age—and that’s saying something given how much competition there was back then. Honestly, if I were putting together a personal top 10 list of the greatest directors of all time, he’d definitely be on it.

Wilder’s films just don't age. Even today, ''Double Indemnity'' stands tall as a premier crime thriller. It’s incredibly gripping, thanks to that smart use of flashbacks paired with internal monologue, and of course, that razor-sharp script where Wilder introduces us to a cynical protagonist caught up with the unforgettable femme fatale Barbara Stanwyck. All of this was brought to life by the brilliant cinematographer John F. Seitz.

''The Lost Weekend'' is another absolute masterpiece. It probably features Raya Milland's most memorable performance (aside from her role in ''to call m for murder''), and she had already teamed up with Wilder previously in ''The Major and The Minor''. It’s a profound psychological drama, driven by Wilder’s masterful direction and Seitz’s camera work, which builds this intense atmosphere as we watch the protagonist struggle against himself and his environment.

We’ve lost count of how many times we've praised ''Sunset Boulevard'' here on the forum, agreeing that it’s easily one of the greatest films ever made.

For me, Wilder’s ''Ace in the Hole'' hits especially hard, featuring a powerhouse performance by Kirk Douglas as the greedy, ruthless reporter Chuck Tatum.

Then there’s the unforgettable war film ''Stalag 17'', where William Holden (who actually fought against taking the part) plays the cynical Sefton. Much like how he cast Eric von Stroheim in ''Sunset Boulevard'', he brought in noir contemporary Otto Preminger here, which gives the movie its own unique charm.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

If anyone is looking to dive into the world of classic cinema, Billy Wilder is an essential starting point. He didn't churn out as many movies as some of the other giants of that era, but the quality is undeniable—it stays with you.