I am seriously counting down the days until Spiral !! I’m especially hyped about the fact that Darren Lynn Bousman is at the helm here. I mean, he directed some of the absolute best entries in the franchise (not counting the original, which was directed by von), so he might just be the guy to get this whole series back on track... I'm dying to see how they tie everything together with the previous movies, especially since they're being so secretive about the plot. Plus, you've got Samuel L. Jackson on the cast list. Honestly, there's no way this isn't going to be a hit. 👍
Unlike some of the other folks in here, I’m actually a huge fan of the original Planet of the Apes movies—well, except for the fifth one. That one was honestly pretty rough. But that first film? It’s totally untouchable. That final scene is just pure perfection! 🙏 Barton's movie is a total disaster! 👎 I still haven't gotten around to checking out the new trilogy yet...
Man, I’m almost hitting 26 soon. So yeah, I’ve been an adult for quite a while now... 😁
And look, it’s not like I’m saying every single blockbuster out there is trash. I was just saying that even though I’m a huge fan of guys like Tarantino and Nolan, their stuff is still basically high-end commercial cinema. It’s just that my heart really leans toward indie art house films... I feel like that’s where you actually find the soul of filmmaking, you know?
I don't hold any grudges against anyone personally. I respect every minority and every group out there, but let’s be real—I’m not blind to the shadow lobbies pulling the strings behind Hollywood. Especially the Jewish lobby... even Marlon Brando was one of the first big names to step up and call them out.
I’m just gonna stick to what actually matters to me. I couldn't care less about all that Hollywood nonsense—the Jewish, Black, gay, Masonic circus... none of that interests me at all. ☕
Look, money isn't the whole story here. I mean, how many movies get labeled as "Art" but end up pulling in massive numbers at the AMC or Regal theaters? Does a big paycheck suddenly strip them of their soul? Not really. To me, a real commercial flick is something made specifically to distract the masses, rake in the cash, and offer absolutely zero artistic substance...
Jacob Cooper5 said:But then what are we supposed to do with films like American Beauty, The Green Mile, Million Dollar Baby, No Country for Old Men, or Fargo...?
Honestly, I thought No Country for Old Men was kind of dumb and just... meh. American Beauty and The Green Mile are classics, sure, but I wouldn't really call them mainstream blockbusters. I haven't actually sat down to watch Million Dollar Baby or Fargo yet, so I can't really weigh in on those two...
briskhound2 said:Right. Commercial stuff is always garbage, but art is art even when it's just being a total pain in the ass, huh?
I wouldn't say commercial movies are always trash, though they definitely fall short about 80% of the time... But then you've got top-tier directors like Tarantino or Nolan who prove you can make big-budget stuff that actually matters. And as for "Art," it's not just random junk; it's more that people often struggle to wrap their heads around those abstract flicks by guys like Bunuel or Lynch...
To be honest, I don't always get them either, but man, I still have so much respect for that kind of genius...
briskhound2 said:Don't play God. Nature is the ultimate force—it doesn't care about our little plans. Goldblum’s character hits the nail on the head with that golden rule... life finds a way. 🤷 Just because some people write them off as shallow popcorn flicks doesn't mean they aren't deeper than they look. Sometimes even those high-brow indie films are just pretentious nonsense masquerading as "art"...
briskhound2 said:Wait, hold on—are you seriously suggesting that blockbusters can't carry a meaningful message or tackle the heavy stuff?
I mean, what kind of deep message are you even pulling out of Jurassic Park or Star Wars? Even if there is some sort of subtext there, that’s usually just whatever the audience decides to see, not necessarily what the director was aiming for. Let's be real... those movies were made to entertain the masses and rake in the cash at the box office, not to win awards for high art...
Kevin Turner4 said:The whole Twin Peaks thing is built on a commercial foundation, and the new season is no exception. Even if the ratings aren't through the roof, briskhound2 made a fair point with that Odyssey analogy. There’s massive money and heavy marketing behind it all. It's the same story with this new chapter. Honestly, aside from episode eight in season three, I actually found the first season to be more "artistic" than the third. Nothing is ever going to top the quality of that first season.
And yes, I did enjoy season three.
At its core, Twin Peaks is a commercial venture; it only leans into "art" when we start making these comparisons.
Just because something is popular and successful doesn't automatically make it commercial. Take a movie like *Solaris*, for instance—it stayed in theaters for basically ten years straight. Is anyone really going to call that a commercial flick?
Jacob Cooper5 said:Look, I’m no expert on technical genre definitions, but I think you might be mixing up your metaphors here. "Art" is really about a specific kind of creative expression, whereas "blockbuster" is just shorthand for how much money was dumped into a production and how much it pulled back at the box office. Theoretically, an art film could absolutely be a blockbuster. Even in practice, Lynch’s Twin Peaks series probably fits the blockbuster mold because it was a high-budget production that became a massive commercial hit.
Correct me if I'm off base.
The original 90s series was definitely a commercial hit, I'll give you that. But the Twin Peaks movie and this latest season? That's pure Art through and through.
Look, I never said Psycho or Rear Window were bad movies, I just meant they personally felt kind of boring to me. It’s totally subjective, obviously, not some objective truth. Maybe I just wasn't in the right headspace for Psycho at the time, but with Rear Window... I mean, the whole movie is basically just watching a guy spy on his neighbor from a balcony. Even for someone like me who actually loves slow-burn films where the dialogue does all the heavy lifting, that one still felt like a bit of a slog...
As for Kurosawa, I know directors like Bergman and Tarkovsky took a lot of inspiration from him, and since I’m a huge fan of both of those guys, I figure his stuff should click for me just fine.
Kevin Turner4 said:I’m not saying *Marnie* isn't a decent flick by any means. Even if it doesn't crack my personal top 15 Hitchcock films, it still has those brilliant, razor-sharp moments—like the burglary sequence where she's trying to hide and her shoe slips off. That old woman doesn't hear a thing, even though Hitchcock spent the whole scene playing us like a fiddle, cranking up the suspense until you'd swear someone was about to die.
But, strictly when you stack it up against his absolute heavy hitters, *Marnie* just doesn't hit that same tier. Honestly, I'm surprised you didn't bring up *Vertigo*; to me, that’s probably the closest Hitchcock ever got to pure fine art.
One quick question, though—what's your take on Kurosawa? I noticed he hasn't come up in our conversation yet.
Man, Vertigo is incredible. It's easily my second favorite Hitchcock movie. But honestly? Marnie just stuck with me more on a personal level. I actually found Psycho and Rear Window a bit tedious, if I'm being real... I don't totally get why everyone raves about them so much, though maybe if I give them another watch I'll see the light...
As for Kurosawa, I haven't actually sat down with his work yet. I'm planning to dive into him once I finally wrap up my Bergman marathon...