Posts by neonsurfer6

I probably did. I don't recall specifically, but knowing how I operate, I likely wasn't being entirely honest about that either.☕

Frank Lee10 said:I've fallen down the noir rabbit hole lately, so I could use some solid recommendations from Wilder. Any suggestions?🙂

Whether it's Double Indemnity, Sunset Boulevard, or even Ace in the Hole—you really can't go wrong.🙂

Uploaded with Imgur as Billy Wilder

Just as Wilder kicks off Sunset Boulevard with a dead man's voice-over, I’m opening this thread with a photo of Wilder's grave—to be honest, the epitaph says everything you need to know about Billy Wilder himself.

If I were forced to pick my favorite auteur from the Hollywood Golden Age, it would likely be Billy Wilder. He was just another director who wasn't born in the States but left an indelible mark on American cinema. Born in 1906 in what is now Poland, he lived in Berlin before fleeing to Paris after Adolf Hitler rose to power, where he filmed his first movie. But even before that debut hit screens, Wilder had already made his way to Hollywood to begin a career that would prove to be both incredibly long and remarkably successful.

For me, the standout element in his films is always the dialogue. Don't get me wrong, Wilder wasn't lacking in any other area of writing or directing, but it’s those sharp lines and the overall tight scripting that really stick with you. Whether he’s diving into the dark shadows of a noir like Double Indemnity or Sunset Boulevard, or hitting the comedic notes in The Apartment or something like IT hot, Wilder hits his stride perfectly. Given how easily he pivots between genres—ranging from courtroom dramas to comedies and noirs—you could easily put him in the same league as versatile masters like Kubrick or Hawks.

I’ve also attached an article about Wilder from Senses of Cinema, which offers a deep dive by some real experts: Great Directors: Billy Wilder. You can find links to other pieces on Wilder at the bottom of that page.

I tried searching for an existing thread using both the forum search and the Family search tool, but came up empty. If I somehow missed it, my apologies; I didn't mean to duplicate anything.

granitemarlin38 said:...what can I even ...

Should probably check before starting a new thread, right?

crimsondriver54 said:Broken Blossoms - released back in 1915, I think. It remains an absolutely stunning piece of cinema even today.

1919.🙂

His actual name doesn't have quite the same ring to it—Yusen Wu🙂

Daniel Bailey39 said:And in that case, will they also sponsor a shortage of basic necessities, or is everything going to be just perfect, with stores fully stocked and all that?😍
Things used to be better before
Maybe they'll hand out coffee vouchers and a few free bus passes.🤣🤣

Look, man, this is a movie for kids. For kids. They set it in the eighties because it makes adapting a novel from the fifties way easier, and I guess they figured it would feel more relatable to the target audience. Honestly, seeing any kind of propaganda for the old regime in a children's movie—especially an adaptation of a beloved book—is just twisted.

Daniel Bailey39 said:Look, I am well aware there is a heavy lean toward Southern-style production values here, but I just don't understand the pushback. These were all typical propaganda pieces that everyone seems to enthusiastically despise at those various conventions, so now that we're in the 21st century and filming in an independent America, trying to recreate that same old vibe feels, frankly, a bit foolish to me.
What I actually want is ninety minutes to two hours of pure entertainment—without the nostalgia, without the old political baggage, or the endless rehashing of historical factions and outdated tropes.
And I have a feeling I won't find that in this movie.
We have all the necessary ingredients right in front of us:
-stunning locations
-competent screenwriters
-solid actors (if you know where to look)
But what we seem to be lacking is the actual drive, the vision... I just don't know.🤷

Why though? I actually suspect Kušanov might steer clear of those ghosts from the past entirely; if anything, he’ll do the opposite. Or is the issue just that the setting is stuck in the '80s?

Sure, but you can tell the photo is actually decent quality. It’s clearly an attempt at a retro aesthetic, likely meant to lean into that nostalgic vibe everyone associates with Coca-Cola. However, that strategy might backfire if the commercial is actually targeting today's kids.

cosmiclynx57 said:silent film


A scene from The Birth of a Nation, one of the most famous silent films ever made.

When we talk about silent film in the broadest sense, we’re talking about any motion picture that doesn't have an integrated audio track. Back then, showing these movies was almost always accompanied by live music to set the mood, you know? This whole style of filmmaking really started bubbling up toward the end of the 19th century across Western Europe and right here in the United States.

It’s funny when you think about it, because the tech to record and play back sound actually existed even before those first movies were hitting screens at the tail end of the 1800s. But, honestly, until the 1920s, there just weren't any reliable ways to sync up the visuals with the audio on the actual film strip.

So, aside from a few experimental oddities, pretty much every movie shot during that time was silent by default. That whole stretch of history is known as the silent film era—and it finally came to a close in 1927 when they released The Jazz Singer, which was the first "talkie" to really make waves in commercial distribution.

Silent film - Wikipedia
.

- Do you guys actually enjoy watching silent films?
- What to generally think about silent film—what's your take?
- Do you feel like silent films are just as good, or even better, than modern movies with sound?
- How often do you find yourself sitting down to watch a silent film?
- Roughly how many silent films have you checked out over the years?
- Which ones are your absolute favorites or the best you've ever seen?

.

I’ll just focus on this specific question; I think it’s a vital point whenever we discuss the era of silent cinema. It’s great that cosmiclynx57 brought it up.

To start with, my take is that, obviously, silent films can be just as high-quality as any talkie. There isn't some inherent reason why a movie should be considered inferior simply because it lacks a soundtrack. That said, it’s hard to watch them in the exact same way we approach modern films. It isn't so much a "handicap" caused by the lack of audio, but rather the fact that they come from an entirely different era. They demand that we adapt to the values and expectations of a bygone audience. Back then, cinema was still a young medium; many of the tools we enjoy today are the result of decades of technical and artistic experimentation.

Honestly, it seems a bit absurd to suggest that something like Griffith's Intolerance is a lesser film just because there's no dialogue, especially when it remains one of the most influential pieces in cinematic history.

I’ve only seen a handful of the heavy hitters from that period—bits of work by Lang, Griffith, Eisenstein, Vertov, Murnau, and Chaplin—so I’m certainly no expert on pre-1927 cinema. Still, I’ll admit that the silence can occasionally be a bit demotivating during a viewing. If I had to find a fault with them, that’s really the only thing I could ever hold against them (though, in reality, it’s more of a struggle for the viewer than a flaw in the art itself).🙂

http://www.cracked.com/article_18877...e-to-suck.html

Sure, it’s from >, but there's a solid point being made here: 3D doesn't inherently have to be nothing more than a cheap gimmick. It all comes down to whether you put the technology in the hands of people who actually know how to use it. To wrap things up, here's a pretty insightful quote from the end of the piece:

"To this day, movies don't have to have color to be great,but once given the tool, great film makers make amazing use of it.
3D will be no different. Sometimes, you may even get that rare gem that uses both."

frozenskipper12 said:Honestly, his favorite movie is that one about high schoolers dealing with evil alien teachers. I can't wrap my head around the title right now, but it’s a blast to watch.

Faculty. It’s actually a pretty fun flick.🙂

mistyotter35 said:I suppose it all comes down to the way the film was presented. It’s entirely possible that other movies have utilized a similar narrative structure, but I guess the real question is how much that actually resonated with the audience. The truth of the matter is that this style essentially exploded with Reservoir Dogs, and it was precisely because of that approach—and the dialogue—that the film became such a massive favorite.
I suppose one could argue that Reservoir Dogs was constructed in a similar fashion, though I suspect it didn't quite achieve the same visceral impact you get from total junk.

Everything you're saying might be true, but that doesn't change the fact that the movie isn't particularly original.

Christian Taylor3 said:And in that very same year—they were shot almost back-to-back, actually—we also had Before the Rain by Milcet Mancevski.

Oh, and don't forget Before the Rain. It's a great film.

mistyotter35 said:As I have previously stated, originality can be found in many different aspects of presentation, and I included him on my list primarily because of his specific narrative style—the way he jumps through various time periods to tell the story. I suppose I haven't encountered films structured in such a manner very often prior to seeing his work.

When I was discussing The Matrix, I suppose I was primarily referring to the technical execution—the special effects and the overall craftsmanship—as well as that specific narrative structure where the storytelling doesn't just hand you a finished product, but rather keeps the viewer from feeling like they're simply witnessing a completed act.
I suppose originality isn't solely defined by the narrative itself, but rather encompasses various other elements that others inevitably attempt to replicate, whether to a significant or minor degree. In my estimation, the emergence of The Matrix represented something akin to a minor revolution within the cinematic landscape.

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.

swiftcrane96 said:The Matrix and Oldboy... I can't really think of any others off the top of my head right now.

Calling it The Matrix is a stretch. It’s really just a cocktail of well-known philosophical dilemmas, handled in various ways from Zhguanz to Jean Baudrillard. This isn't even a new concept in cinema; Fassbinder explored a similar premise in Welt am Draht. Any sense of innovation here is strictly technical. Don't get me wrong, I actually think the movie is great 🙂

The real question is how much we can actually credit Inglourious Basterds with true originality. It’s definitely unconventional and creative, sure, but when a movie relies so heavily on nods and tributes to other works, you have to wonder if "original" is really the right word to use.

John Peterson3 said:Maybe it’s just because Street Kings is an older movie, so you didn't realize it was hitting theaters.

A movie from 2008 is "relatively old"? By what metric are we measuring that?

And since when has K. Reeves been considered a great actor?

velvetdrifter86 said:Personally, I’d much rather see his legacy reduced to some cheap movie role alongside Steven Seagal than see him turned into a pawn for the political agendas of neighboring countries.

This movie looks like it's going to try to do both—and squeeze Megan Fox in somewhere in the middle.

Jerry Martinez50 said:In Prestige, Tesla is just a cameo. And honestly, they botched the portrayal completely.

I know, that's exactly why it works there. In Prestige, they basically just slapped his name on the screen for flavor without giving a damn about historical accuracy.

You're saying they don't even have a website🤣? They must be some incredibly high-profile production house if that's the case. This project is never actually going to get filmed.