Posts by Rebecca Peterson3

Ludivine Sagnier

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0756203/

Carol Rodriguez3 said:Haha, I wonder why it caught your eye so much then. 🤔

Every single movie list released seems to lure me in like a moth to a flame... 😉

I hear you, but honestly, I just don't see who this is supposed to serve or why anyone should even care about this list. It’s packed with films from the former America rather than being a collection of American cinema, much like how mentioning a Canadian winner in a discussion about American hits doesn't really make sense... In short, it feels like a completely unnecessary topic.

Carol Rodriguez3 said:While Canadian and Mexican films are crushing it, American, Canadian, and other regional titles are lagging far behind in popularity...

MOVIES WITH THE MOST VOTES ON IMDb. USA, MEXICO, CANADA, CANADA.

USA

1. THE PRIEST'S CHILDREN (2013) (2,228 VOTES)
2. METASTASES(2009) (1,807 VOTES)
3. HOW THE WAR STARTED ON MY ISLAND (1996) (1,372 VOTES)
3. FINE DEAD GIRLS (2002) (1,276 VOTES)
4. THE VEGETARIAN CANNIBAL (2012) (1,249 VOTES)
5. SONJA AND THE BULL (2012) (1,129 VOTES)
6. WHO SINGS EVIL THOUGHTS (1970) (1,129 VOTES)
7. WHAT IS A MAN WITHOUT A MUSTACHE? (2005) (1,019 VOTES)
8. HALIMIN'S PATH (2012) (1,008 VOTES)
9. THE MARSHAL (1999) (936 VOTES)
10. SING SOMETHING LOVELY (2007) (831 VOTES)

MEXICO

1. UNDERGROUND (1995) (36,749 VOTES)
2. MEXICAN FILM (2010) (30,614 VOTES)
3. HOUSE FOR SALE (1988) (15,450 VOTES)
4. MARATHON RUNNERS CIRCLE THE TRACK (1982) (9,090 VOTES)
5. BEAUTIFUL VILLAGE, BEAUTIFUL HILLS (1996) (9,082 VOTES)
6. LIFE IS A WONDER (2004) (8,959 VOTES)
7. WHO IS SINGING OUT THERE (1980) (8,381 VOTES)
8. MONTEVIDEO, GOD BLESS YOU (2010) (8,237 VOTES)
9. THE PARADE (2011) (8,194 VOTES)
10. WOUNDS (1998) (6,502 VOTES)

CANADA

1. NOBODY'S LAND (2011) (35,187 VOTES)
2. GRBAVICA (2006) (4,630 VOTES)
3. COLUMBIA CIRCUS (2010) (1,878 VOTES)
4. FIRE BURNS (2003) (1,373 VOTES)
5. ON THE ROAD (2010) (1,270 VOTES)
6. PERFECT CIRCLE (1997) (1,246 VOTES)
7. EPISODE IN THE LIFE OF AN IRON PICKER (2013) (745 VOTES)
8. IT'S HARD TO BE NICE (2007) (696 VOTES)
9. SNOW (2008) (685 VOTES)
10. SUMMER IN THE GOLDEN VALLEY (2003) (642 VOTES)

CANADA

1. THE CANADIAN GIRL (2009) (2,260 VOTES)
2. SOUR CREAM AND JAM (2003) (1,351 VOTES)
3. CHICKEN BREAKFAST (2007) (1,290 VOTES)
4. CLASSROOM ENEMY (2013) (1,041 VOTES)
5. OUTSIDER (1997) (893 VOTES)
6. HERE AND THERE(2004) (788 VOTES)
7. FROM GRAVE TO GRAVE (2005) (751 VOTES)
8. LET ME DO IT MY WAY (2010) (688 VOTES)
9. THE FIELD TRIP (2011) (651 VOTES)
10. KEKEC (1951) (587 VOTES)

They’re absolutely wrecking things. In the eyes of many Mexicans, there's that one Mexican film everyone talks about—which is easily the worst European film ever made—and then you have the Canadian selection, *Grbavica*, which is also total garbage... It just goes to show that popularity and actual quality rarely walk hand in hand...

It makes you wonder how someone capable of delivering two genuine masterpieces like The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable can somehow spiral into total clutter with projects like Lady in the Water and The Happening...

Lady in the Water is easily one of the absolute worst films ever made...

shadowtinker15 said:Picture this: a guy sits down in his kitchen, just getting home from a long shift at the office. He’s got a bowl of soup sitting in front of him. In the next room, his wife is lounging on the sofa because it’s finally evening, and she's listening to some mainstream country song playing on the radio. We just watch this man in the kitchen, slowly working through his soup for fifteen minutes while the singer's voice drifts in from the radio... I'm not making this up. If you don't consider that hyperrealism—the raw creation of an atmosphere defined by everyday monotony—then I truly have no idea what you do consider it to be...

Dogme 95.

The only reason *The Ax* works at all is because Gavras is my favorite director, and frankly, he’s capable of crafting films far superior to this one. While I found the initial setup and the way the theme was developed quite engaging, once the protagonist reveals his true method of operation, the momentum just evaporates... you find yourself yawning, checking your watch, and simply counting down the minutes until the credits roll. I appreciate him for who he is, though; I’d say *Two Days, One Night* and *The Ax* sit pretty much side-by-side on my personal watchlist.

It was actual physical pain. If this were just some mental block, she wouldn't have felt the need to head down to Mexico to chase after drugs...

She’s better now—older, more seasoned, I suppose. Still, I find it hard to believe she'll ever actually snag an Oscar, unless it's some kind of lifetime achievement award at the very end of her career...

A cynical, witty, and sharp individual... Honestly, even before the accident, Jennifer Aniston probably wasn't the easiest person to live with or engage in deep conversation. It was an incredibly powerful performance, and she absolutely deserved that Oscar nomination.
She’s always been a talented actress—just look back at her work with Jake Gyllenhaal in 2002 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0279113/—she just had a habit of picking mediocre projects...

Raymond Wright4 said:I found myself enjoying the film, though I can't help but feel it leans a bit too heavily into that unnatural territory where a classic courtroom drama attempts to morph into some sort of geriatric action flick... A summer villa at Golden Lake...

Exactly.
When you really sit back and look at the whole thing, there isn't actually much of a legal proceeding happening here; the courtroom is essentially just a stage set up for those two to settle their scores in front of a live audience... That intense little duel of theirs felt uncomfortably reminiscent of Pacino’s unnecessary monologue in *Scent of a Woman*... 🤦

The film is brilliantly conceived, leaving you free to interpret its meaning however you see fit...

As far as I’m concerned, the scars, the injury to her spine, and the loss of her child are the core of what she went through... the movie is really just about how she learns to live with all of that.

The plot itself isn't exactly breaking new ground, but the chemistry between the four leads is so seamless that it carries the whole thing... which is why I'd say it's worth a watch.

I honestly don't feel like the director is trying to provoke any deep thought here; everything is just laid out on a silver platter for the audience. He brings this killer—who happens to be her own son seeking a forgiveness she simply isn't capable of granting—straight to her doorstep... and then we have this handsome, wealthy, and powerful husband who she can't stand being around anymore...

There are a million movies out there that follow this exact formula, where you start off completely in the dark about what's happening to the protagonist, only for the plot to unfold predictably as the story progresses...

She’s basically bedridden because her lower back is completely shot; she attempts physical therapy and various other treatments, but let's be honest, she lacks the discipline to actually stick with it, so there's zero improvement... plus, after losing her child in a tragic car accident, she’s been aggressively pursuing that widower from her support group—you know, the guy who already has a kid of his own.

Beyond that, Jennifer Aniston showed exactly what she’s capable of, and she can certainly do a lot, but the movie itself is just one of countless others tackling this same theme... it's slow, a bit aimless, and frankly quite tedious, lacking any real sense of closure. I only sat through it to see the actress, and I don't regret it, though...

frozenraven39 said:Hmm, right after that sentence you quoted from my intro, I added this: "People claim we’re living in the golden age of television—that the popularity, social impact, and even the artistic weight of TV series have overtaken film. Movies are becoming passé; series are our zeitgeist."

I think it’s pretty obvious I was talking about the present—the current moment. As for how wide we define "the current moment," we could argue about that forever, but I’d say a 10-to-15-year window is a reasonable frame? That’s basically what most critics mean when they bring up the "golden age of television." Usually, they’re looking at everything from the era when American networks like HBO set the modern standard with shows like The Sopranos and The Wire, all the way up to today.

If you look at most of the commentary out there, the consensus seems to be that series have caught up to—if not surpassed—film when it comes to quality in mainstream, commercial productions. When commentators say today's prime-time series are better than blockbusters, that’s the target they're aiming for. But once you pivot to art house, indie, underground, or non-American productions? Not so much. Things haven't fundamentally shifted there; series still can't quite hold a candle to film.

It’s never going to catch up, nor will it ever overtake it, because we are talking about two entirely different genres... there just isn't a fair comparison to be made.
Furthermore, using terms like "modern" versus "classic" is completely misguided, as the year a production was released has absolutely no bearing on whether a film or a series is actually good.

frozenraven39 said:I'm pretty much on the exact same page as you, though this thread seems intended for more recent stuff. We should probably stick to the last 10 or 15 years and leave the '70s and '90s out of it.

P.S. For those of us living in nostalgia: the era from the mid-'60s to the mid-'90s was the absolute golden age of pop culture. I'm just glad I caught the tail end of it firsthand.😉

Not quite.
You didn't actually set a timeframe in your opening post:

frozenraven39 said:This is the thread where we hash out the age-old debate: movies versus TV series.

They say we're living in the golden age of television—you know, those endless arguments about how the popularity, cultural impact, and even the artistic merit of TV series have finally overtaken cinema. The idea being that movies are becoming passé while series define our zeitgeist.

Do you actually buy that?
Why do you think things shifted this way?
Forget the objective truth for a second—what’s your personal preference?

Let's see if we can dig up some answers to these questions...

(It probably makes sense to open an identical thread over on the Series subforum, though I'm not sure if we can have the exact same topic in two places—I'll just start both and let the moderators sort it out 😉 )

Movies are true art, whereas most series are just eye candy—with a few notable exceptions, of course. That said, I happily watch both, though I find myself gravitating toward the classics rather than modern releases; think along the lines of The Twilight Zone, Alohas, Only Fools and Horses, M*A*S*H, The Addams Family, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, or Twin Peaks...

Noah Roberts46 said:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/

This was an unusually great series. 😁

I'm actually revisiting it right now.
Easily ranks among the absolute best, alongside The Wire, Oz, and The Sopranos...

Honestly, I am counting down the days until the next season. Even the basic premise hooked me—that character who is physically free but mentally shackled... there’s just something about that slow, deliberate pacing that really works for me.
It possesses everything a truly great series should have, though I suppose in an era where standards have plummeted so low that people mistake absolute garbage for prestige television, it’s a different story entirely.

I can barely stand to watch Game of Thrones, and as for Breaking Bad, I actually tapped out after the second season; it was decent enough, but I just couldn't find the motivation to keep going.
The Fall is also incredibly, incredibly solid... Scully is mature, sharp, and doesn't take anyone's nonsense. Highly recommended.