The man is depressed, disillusioned with life, and frankly delusional. As a defense mechanism against his own mental reality—numbed by constant disappointment—he constructs a fantasy world that eventually collapses under its own weight. He’s hit by a brutal midlife crisis, and even though he’s successful professionally and has a family, he remains chronically dissatisfied, spiraling into an obsession that crosses every line of normalcy. It seems he's so deeply unstable that he manages to wreck even his own fictional relationship, leaving himself completely devoid of emotional fulfillment. Every single one of his connections ends the exact same way. In the end, he finds a semblance of peace and an escape from a reality that fails to satisfy him (returning home) through yet another fantasy—Lisa and her friend talking to him while driving in a car. But given how prone he is to self-sabotage, even within his own delusions, one has to wonder how long this latest illusion will actually last? Perhaps the ending can be viewed as a sense of closure for everything that unfolded at the hotel, serving as just another flight from the situation waiting for him back home.
There are far too many breadcrumbs left by Kaufman suggesting that Lisa is actually a figment of his imagination; if he didn't want us to take the film too literally, why include the scar, the singing, the sperm, Lisa calling herself Anomalisa, the name of the hotel (as Stumper pointed out earlier), his medication, or the breakdown during his speech? It’s simply too much. If all of this was merely intended to add a layer of mystery—just to mystify and confuse the audience for the sake of it—then I don't think Kaufman would ever stoop that low. On the other hand, perhaps it serves to illustrate the sheer depth of the crisis the protagonist is enduring. It’s quite profound.
Sure, you get everything you’ve come to expect from a modern-day Malick: those breathtakingly beautiful shots, sweeping vistas, hands reaching toward the sky*, deep dives into spirituality and philosophy, plenty of visceral action, and that perfect sunlight filtering through the clouds. It isn’t exactly the kind of movie you can put on repeatedly, but I didn't find it half bad... Still, there is something fundamentally different about his approach compared to how most films are shot these days, even the big-budget Hollywood blockbusters, don't you think?
I didn't have particularly high expectations for this one, so I can't say I’m feeling disappointed. Once I heard that Noah was filming something featuring such explicit, uninhibited sexual content, I pretty much knew exactly where this was headed. I tried to keep an open mind, hoping for a pleasant surprise, but that simply never materialized. Sure, the cinematography is gorgeous—the framing is elegant, the colors pop, and the camera work is solid—which is precisely what I find most compelling about Love. But everything else? It just falls short, especially when you start looking at the dialogue, the underlying themes, the script, and those other fundamental pillars of filmmaking. I have a real distaste for directors who take a downward trajectory by essentially recycling their previous works, only to produce something that feels like a diluted, weaker version of their earlier material. A handful of well-executed shots and a desperate urge to experiment aren't enough to save a movie in my eyes; ultimately, I can only categorize this as mediocre at best.
It’s just bad. Honestly, it could have been so much better, but there wasn't a single coherent blueprint to follow during production. It’s not like we’re dealing with a Roth - Haneke collaboration here; if they were aiming for that nihilistic, unsettling vibe found in Funny Games, then they completely missed the mark.
If I had waited until Monday morning at 8:56 AM to hand out these points, I am certain the results would have looked entirely different, but since I sat down on Sunday at 9:58 AM, this is the reality we are left with...
30 points = Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms 29 The Doors - Riders on the Storm 28 Depeche Mode - Enjoy the Silence 27 Funkadelic - Maggot Brain 26 Pink Floyd - Another Brick in the Wall 25 Joy Division - Love Will Never Tear Us Apart 24 The Cure - A Forest 23 Art of Noise - Moments in Love 22 Kraftwerk - Autobahn 21 The Beatles - While My Guitar Gently We weeps 20 New Order - True Faith 19 The Doors - The End 18 Fleetwood Mac - Black Magic Woman 17 Jimi Hendrix Experience - Hey Joe 16 The Cocteau Twins - Aikea-Guinea 15 The Animals - The House of the Rising Sun 14 The Mamas & The Papas - California Dreamin' 13 Radiohead - Paranoid Android 12 Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here 11 New Order - Blue Monday 10 Depeche Mode - Policy of Truth 9 Queen - I Want to Break Free 8 The Rolling Stones - Paint it Black 7 The Shadows - Apache 6 CCR - Have You Ever Seen the Rain? 5 White Stripes - Seven Nation Army 4 Toto - Africa 3 Metallica - Master of Puppets 2 Xymox - Obsession 1 Boston - More Than a Feeling
Before that specific feature was even implemented, people would just press their finger down on the platter while the track was playing and slowly rotate it in reverse to get the effect they wanted. 🙂
Larry Walker24 said:I find it absolutely fascinating—how on earth can you actually play a record in reverse?!
You hit the reverse button on a turntable and the vinyl spins backward, yet why that same functionality isn't available on YouTube videos remains one of life's great mysteries. There’s even a legend that the Prince of Darkness himself personally demanded that feature be included on high-end turntables.
Rebecca Flores33 said:"If you take any Nickelback album and play it backward, you'll hear something that sounds significantly better than Nickelback." That was a finding by Dave Grohl.🙏 🙏
Well, now that is witty, and more importantly, an absolutely brilliant observation...
Let’s not get too carried away talking about the reptilians, just in case they haven't fully infiltrated this forum yet and are busy monitoring exactly who is saying what about them.
bluenomad2 said:I think you've got it wrong. While Stanley Kubrick had a signature style he executed perfectly, M. Night Shyamalan doesn't need constant twists—he just forces them on the audience, and he's been overbearing for a long time now. His directing is weak, too. I haven't seen a worse director who manages to stay this popular. Sure, Christopher Nolan can fall into that trap, and Quentin Tarantino does too, though Tarantino lacks a true signature because he just steals from other movies. Yeah, all great artists steal, but with Tarantino, it feels different.
So, Shyamalan is easily one of the worst directors to emerge in the last twenty years. Wayward Pines was an absolute embarrassment. I don't buy the "guilty pleasure" excuse.☕
Does the fact that he borrows necessarily mean he isn't injecting his own soul into the work? To me, his identity is unmistakable, specifically through that highly distinct way he crafts dialogue.
Look, if you refuse to embrace guilty pleasure, then guilty pleasure certainly won't have any faith in you. 😛
Wayward Pines is a relatively recent discovery for me. Guilty. I suppose there’s a certain pleasure to be found in an Unknown production—though if I'm being honest, that pleasure is often fleeting and leaves you feeling somewhat empty. It isn't exactly peak cinema, but it isn't a total disaster either, so I'm holding out hope that this latest release will actually be top-tier. However, we have to address the elephant in the room: a film like this simply cannot function without a proper twist. To strip that away would be like watching a Quentin Tarantino film stripped of his signature snappy dialogue, or attempting to appreciate a Stanley Kubrick masterpiece without that intense, singular focus where everything converges into a single point. That element is his unmistakable trademark, isn't it?
Anjzz said:Fantastic movie! This is random, but did anybody else wonder why they all have english accents when Sleepy Hollow is a day and a half's carriage ride from New York?!
Is it possible that back in the 18th century, the American accent was still going strong in the region?
briskhound2 said:Sure, the movie is straightforward. Sure, the lead is a bit of a simpleton. And yeah, the film is about as subtle as an elephant in a greenhouse when it comes to its messaging. But damn it, the movie hits way harder than Taxi Driver. Or is it just that old cliché—where if Sylvester Stallone is in it, it's a dud, but if Robert De Niro is starring, it's a masterpiece?
Over the years, the Oscars haven't just been handed out based on cinematic merit alone; they definitely take broader social contexts into account. However, in my view, those initial reasons you mentioned are more than enough to prevent a film from winning an Oscar, especially when the competition is fierce.
It’s not that I have anything against Rocky or his Oscar win; as far as I'm concerned, he earned it, especially when you consider Sylvester Stallone's life story. His energy and sheer enthusiasm are genuinely moving, though I suspect he didn't play the "simpleton" because he lacked the range of a top-tier actor, but rather because he simply hadn't mastered anything else yet. But honestly, who cares?
When you run into a weak year for cinema, it really makes me regret that some of the heavy hitters from previous years didn't get a shot at competing or winning. I feel for the people for whom the Oscar actually matters, but there are plenty of other film awards and accolades out there; surely, they still hold significant weight for someone's specific career in the industry.
