Posts by neonsurfer6

One of my all-time favorite cinematic moments has to be the deactivation of HAL 9000 in Kubrick's Odyssey.



There’s a certain brilliance in how Kubrick approaches this computer shutdown; he treats it less like flipping a switch and more like performing euthanasia on a human—specifically a child. It isn't a small detail that HAL mentions his activation year, because it implies he’s essentially nine years old in this scene. To top it all off, he even sings that little song 🙂

The sad reality is that most people point to the sheer amount of screen time a TV series gets as some kind of magic ingredient for character development. But let’s be honest—can we really claim that characters in a TV series are inherently more complex just because they have more hours on the clock compared to those in a great film? Aside from a few rare exceptions, I'm not sure I'd agree with that logic.

wiredraven82 said:I wouldn't go along with that. I’d argue the decadence really kicked in around 2000—let's use that year as a symbolic marker. There was garbage before and there's been garbage after, but the point is that nowadays, even things that aren't explicitly "trash" often turn out to be, and we're seeing plenty of remakes of stuff that should have just been left alone.

At this point, I’m starting to wonder what they won't try to remake next. Maybe they haven't thought about doing a version of the Godfather yet...

Fair enough, you’ve picked 2000 as your turning point for whatever reason, but I’ll tell you this: the foundations Hollywood operates on haven't changed much since the beginning. Things aren't fundamentally different today than they were decades ago. If we're talking about remakes, The Maltese Falcon from 1941 is essentially a remake, as is Leone's A Fistful of Dollars, and so on. Those are examples of good, memorable remakes, but how many bad ones have been dragged through the entire century? Ultimately, sequels, adaptations, and remakes exist because Hollywood is an industry, and it always will be. Occasionally, true art happens, or you get a strong wave of auteur filmmaking like in the '70s, but the core business model remains the same.

wiredraven82 said:Some things just shouldn't be touched; they ought to be left alone.

No one. Nothing. Is. Being. Erased. A remake doesn't invalidate the original; that version still exists and we can always go back and watch it. You talk as if the old Scarface (though I'm not sure which one—the '32 version or the '83 one?) is going to vanish from the face of the earth. It won't. They'll film a new version, likely an inferior one, and you'll be perfectly free to ignore it.

All those dark sides of Hollywood you think define our modern era have actually been a constant fixture there for over a century.

Besides, if someone is bothered by a remake, does it really stop them from ever watching it? Why does it even matter? There will always be bad movies, good movies, and remakes, just as there will always be masterpieces.

bluebadger14 said:You really have to check out Will Ferrell in Stranger Than Fiction...

I actually avoided this movie for the longest time just because of him, but man, he delivers such a genuinely serious performance here...

He’s solid there, but he’s also great in Everything Must Go. He definitely knows how to deliver when the opportunity arises. It’s similar to Adam Sandler—he was fantastic in Punch-Drunk Love and Funny People.

Anyway, this thread seems to be pulling in names like Naomi Watts, Robert De Niro, or Nicolas Cage based on some recent flops, completely ignoring the fact that their filmographies are packed with top-tier performances.

Casey Cox2 said:Nah, I haven't really noticed him—mostly just caught him in *Clerks* and maybe *Caligula*, if I'm remembering right.🤷

People tend to forget the role that actually put him on the map: Lindsay Anderson’s *If...*

briskhound2 said:So, can someone please explain to me why we don't go to the Series section when looking for recommendations?

Because credibility matters when you're asking for a recommendation. If I ask in the Series section but I'm actually posting in the Film section, I have no idea who is giving me the advice. That's one way to look at it.

steelgull542 said:🤷 I didn't say they were bringing anything closer; I just meant they SHOW older films to a new generation by using modern effects.

My bad. I assumed you were using "showing" as a synonym for "making them more accessible," because I honestly can't wrap my head around how filming a remake counts as showing an old movie. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting your use of the word "🤷

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what we call it; the point remains the same.

steelgull542 said:Raimi's work... prequels and all that... they feel like a "necessary evil" to introduce older films to younger generations using modern effects. Most of them fall short of the originals, though there are some just as good or even better... but I suppose that's mostly subjective. Remakes will keep happening as long as people are watching; after all, there's a sucker born every minute.

The new The Thing is, in my opinion, a completely unnecessary movie. I watched it just for the sake of it and felt it was a waste of time, whereas I consider the original one of the best horror films ever made... though I'm sure someone feels the exact opposite.

I agree regarding Tarantino; remaking him would be foolish, and hopefully, no one ever thinks to try it. But in 10 or 20 years, who knows? Maybe we'll end up watching Reservoir Dogs 3D. 😂

As for sequels, they mostly seem designed for a quick buck. In my experience, the quality of most trilogies drops with every new installment (with exceptions like Lord of the Rings), not to mention movies with five or more entries, like Saw.

Everything else is fine by me—I don't have to watch a remake if I'm not interested. However, I can't stand it when Americans make a remake of every single horror film produced outside the US, presumably so the public doesn't have to strain their eyes reading subtitles. For instance, with Rec and Quarantine, I went to see the latter without realizing it was a remake of the first, and I ended up feeling 😲 disappointed.

No, remakes aren't meant to bring anything closer to us. They exist solely to repackage the exact same thing for a new generation that's already been sold it once before.

And let's be real—the new generation doesn't give a damn about the classics anyway.

Spoilers!

You actually just reminded me of how the movie ends. I think I mentally re-edited the whole thing in my head, which is probably why I’m treating that bridge scene as the "real" finale 😁 Honestly, if the ending is the weakest part of the film, it’s no wonder I pushed it to the back of my mind. Everything gets wrapped up a bit too neatly and saccharine at the end—it feels forced, like they tacked it on just to satisfy us. It’s a shame, really. There wasn't any real need to hammer home their fates; the whole thing could have ended right there with that showdown on the bridge.

Joshua Smith5 said:I’m satisfied. Well directed, even better acted, and unapologetically violent. Even a young Shia LaBeouf is great here. It’s very entertaining, with a few moments that elevate it, though they aren't frequent. Still, a solid, if slightly stretched, 8/10. 😉

That’s pretty much where I landed too, though for me, it feels like a very firm 8. It’s highly engaging, and that final scene on the bridge is one of those standout moments that pushes the whole thing up a notch.

wiredraven82 said:The fact that Americans and most Europeans have become so "Americanized" that they’ve lost the ability to think critically—even while they complain about Hollywood, they'll still line up for the next big American horror flick (usually just a remake of someone else's work or some new American garbage, since the truly good ones are relics of the past, much like how people here just constantly look out for one another)—that’s really just a sociological observation about modern society and the media we consume today.

Saying audiences are conditioned by marketing isn't exactly a revelation; it's a pretty banal conclusion. My point was that you and fgzcvijetic were so adamant that it's specifically the average American who can't handle watching The Seventh Seal. If you're now claiming that everyone is essentially the same way—which I don't disagree with—then this whole thread, at least in its current form, doesn't really serve a purpose.

brightheron64 said:I can only imagine how an average American would react to watching something like The Seventh Seal or 20th Century.

Could you imagine an average American sitting down to watch The Seventh Seal? Just as a reality check, during its opening week in local theaters here, the top performer was actually a Disney blockbuster—even while independent cinemas were running retrospectives featuring films like Turin Horse or A Separation. It’s the kind of stuff any non-American would naturally gravitate toward, right?

@Lou: You're spot on. It's honestly wild how people manage to keep both entire film industries and their audiences stuck in such a one-dimensional loop.

Do all Americans just rush to watch European or Asian cinema? It’s incredibly naive to assume that there are 300 million idiots living in the States while the rest of the world is somehow brimming with geniuses. Fools exist everywhere; it's pretty much a universal constant.

The American film industry seems to have nothing left but the ability to churn out remakes and milk them for profit. Sure, it kills off any sense of imagination, reinforces the stale status quo in Hollywood, and—let's be honest—they’re almost always worse than the originals. Yet, despite all that, this year and last, American cinema actually managed to produce gems like *The Cabin in the Woods*, *Moonrise Kingdom*, and *Take Shelter*. The thing is, the local cinephiles who usually pride themselves on hunting down exotic foreign films didn't even notice them. I suppose it’s because they're American productions; people are too busy convinced that Americans only ever make remakes to realize they've actually been handed something worth watching. 🙄

Patrick Martin said:his shots and frames are an end in themselves. It's a clever move on his part.
You can't buy me with that kind of logic.

It’s hard to imagine you being some unshakeable force that money can't touch. Karen Smith9 was just walking you through the basics of stalker, and now suddenly you're claiming Tarkovski's cinematography is art for art's sake. 🤣

So, you're incorruptible? Good for you. Way to go.

Andrei Tarkovsky really is one of those directors who possesses an incredible gift for visual storytelling 🤷

Gene Roddenberry isn't a director, which is enough of a reason right there; besides, his work is much more rooted in television, whereas this is a standalone movie.

Joshua Smith5 said:😁

It looks like you haven't checked out Help yet.

Normally, I can just shrug something like this off, but this feels genuinely inexplicable.😬

nimblemarlin6 said:Out of the directors mentioned, I voted for James Cameron. He leans much harder into hard sci-fi than the others. Beyond being a filmmaker, Cameron is an engineer at heart; he isn't just interested in the plot, but in how things actually work technologically. He designs believable, almost functional machines and ecosystems that feel like they could actually exist.

Those who know more than I do claim the spacecraft in 2001: A Space Odyssey were designed to follow all the principles of astronautics. It might be an exaggeration, but knowing Stanley Kubrick's perfectionism, it’s probably not far from the truth.

I honestly can't believe I just read a single post calling Scott a "painterly director" while dismissing Stalker as garbage.

Look, I'm not trying to bash Ridley Scott or put Andrei Tarkovsky on a pedestal here, but that’s just a total mess of an argument.

Kubrick.

But if you're asking me who the greatest director of any genre would be, my vote goes to Kubrick. 🙏