Posts by Eric Jackson68

Look, this isn't a thread about Steven Seagal... please, for the love of God, let's move on.

Given that we're dealing with the director behind xXx, I have some serious reservations about how this whole thing is going to pan out.... And, oh yeah, if you're actually holding out hope that there will be any meaningful connection to the Republic, you might as well just treat that as wishful thinking. I highly doubt that particular crew even understands what that entails...

Honestly, blaming CNN or some small independent studio is missing the point entirely. If you’re wondering why those DVDs aren't hitting the shelves everywhere, you can look straight at AT&T; they’ve basically gatekept the whole thing by keeping it locked away on their own Max platform.

I could wrap my head around that being the case for the first few months, but we're talking about a full year now and there's still zero wide distribution... it's an absolute disaster...

Here we go again... reading this is honestly just painful:

http://www.popcorn.com/special/view/101/

Dennis Doyle3 said:

Look, Guardhouse is an American film. Period. The director is American, the screenwriters are American, the lead actor is American, the cinematographer is American...

Honestly, it would be nice if they actually released what they’ve already finished working on. They should be digitizing at least three films a year instead of just two... There is way too much classic cinema out there to settle for such a slow pace. At a rate of only two per year, we’re going to be waiting an eternity...

Nicholas Walker3 said:It’s great, considering how much HD quality DirecTV supposedly offers in their video library.👍
Birch is in 4:3 aspect ratio, which is exactly how it was filmed, so I don't see how it could possibly be 16:9.😕
There isn't a traditional cover; it follows that book-style packaging, though in this case, there's just a bit less text (which is interesting, especially for Lone Wolf) and a few more images... it looks quite unique (I actually think those book-style editions are fantastic), much like certain "American" Blu-ray releases.🙏

I was under the impression the movie might have been shot in 16:9, but if it's 4:3, then the image simply has to be that way... My mistake.

Good grief... it sounds absolutely wonderful, yet somehow nobody can actually get their hands on it... TRAGIC!!!!😠

Nicholas Walker3 said:Well, I suppose I owe everyone an apology...
THE DIGITALIZED CLASSICS WERE SENT OFF TO THE SCHOOL LIBRARIES MONTHS AGO!

As of today, they’ve finally made their way into my own collection (as copies) 🙏

So, come on, give us the details—how's the picture quality? Is Birch presented in 16:9? Are the covers the original versions featuring the movie posters? What does the whole thing actually look like? A little description would be appreciated... I'm genuinely curious here...

placidmarlin3 said:Sure, it’s all wonderful and absolutely lovely, but I frequently stumble upon posts on this forum where people take a condescending tone, implying that the average viewer simply lacks the capacity or the basic understanding to grasp what’s being discussed.
It’s high time we learned how to actually appreciate the sheer craftsmanship behind a truly supernatural feat.

Look, I’ll be the first to admit that *No Country for Old Men* was an absolute slog for me—a painfully tedious experience from start to finish. But despite my personal struggle with its pacing, there is no denying that the film absolutely crushed it at the box office.
The critics are practically giving us a standing ovation.
So, if you ask most of the self-proclaimed experts out there, they’d probably tell you that I fall into that category of the average viewer—the kind who just doesn't have the refined palate to truly appreciate what they're seeing.
Since you're asking about how one actually goes about scoring or analyzing a film—as if there were some secret rubric I’ve been keeping to myself—I suppose I should indulge your curiosity. If you want to move beyond just saying a movie was "good" or "bad" and actually start breaking it down like a critic, you have to look at the moving parts that make the machine run. It isn't just about whether the plot made sense, though that's a starting point. You have to dissect the technical craftsmanship. First, there’s the cinematography; you aren't just looking at pretty pictures, you're looking at how lighting, framing, and camera movement dictate the emotional temperature of a scene. Then you have the screenplay—not just the dialogue, which can often be clunky or overly expository, but the structural integrity of the narrative arc itself. Is the pacing dragging like a slow Sunday in Des Moines, or does it snap? You also need to weigh the performances. It’s easy to praise an actor for being loud or expressive, but a real analysis looks at subtlety, presence, and whether they actually inhabit the character or are just reciting lines for the sake of a paycheck. Don't forget the sound design and the score, either; those are the invisible hands pulling at your heartstrings, often doing the heavy lifting that the script fails to do. Essentially, you stop watching the story and start watching the construction. Once you begin seeing the seams where the editing meets the acting, you'll find you have plenty to "score."
I’ve finally reached a point where I actually appreciate quality, mostly because I don't consider myself some kind of mindless swine that just gobbles up pearls as if they were cheap scraps tossed on the floor.😉

Look, don't go getting all worked up thinking you’re somehow lacking in knowledge here—though, let’s be honest, nobody actually knows everything. Not the people dissecting movies on this forum, not the big-shot critics, nobody. We’re all just guessing in the dark to some extent. Personally, I actually enjoyed *No Country for Old Men*, but if it didn't do it for you and it didn't do it for the critics, well, screw it. If your taste only leans toward mindless stuff like *Pink Panther 2* or some cheesy *gigolo* flick—or if you're strictly an *alien* versus *predator* kind of viewer—then obviously *No Country for Old Men* isn't going to click, but I don't think that's really who you are. Since you've already checked an Oscar winner off your list, do yourself a favor and try watching the other top nominees from that year without feeling like you have to perform some intense, high-level cinematic analysis right away. Just sit with it. After a movie ends, give it some space; sleep on it, chew on the ideas, and ask yourself why certain parts actually resonated with you. Eventually, pick which one was your favorite of the year and compare them. That's how you'll gradually develop your own way of analyzing film, because let's face it, I highly doubt we all process and interpret cinema in exactly the same way. 👍

Still absolutely nothing from our domestic manufacturers...

From what I’ve been able to gather, they haven't even followed through on their promise to stock Birch and Lone Wolf in libraries and schools (though I'm not entirely sure about the school situation), but as far as the local library goes, there isn't a trace of them.

northerncrane4 said:Hey there, Eric Jackson68, my good friend. Seriously, just... wow.

I want to apologize in advance if I come across as too harsh or overly critical in what follows, but I can't help feeling a profound sense of melancholy when I am constantly reminded that the newer generations of young American cinephiles seem to have been raised on the aesthetic of cheap RTL soap operas. Take, for instance, one girl who sat on the youth jury at the Sundance Film Festival 2009; in the festival bulletin, she actually had the audacity to complain about the masterpiece "Tulpan" by criticizing its long shots where "nothing happens." Then we have our very own Eric Jackson68, a young film enthusiast right here on the forums, who describes Šorak's direction—which is always the same predictable template of master close-ups, lacking any actual concept of mise-en-scène because it’s just much easier to film every scene by having characters walk into a room, take their spots, and stay there until the end of the scene while trading scripted lines so the cut always lands right at the start or end of a monologue—as being "steady." To make matters even more absurd, Eric Jackson68 actually thinks Hitrec's "Man under table," which features jarringly inconsistent acting, is "well-acted," while claiming that Kenjč's protagonist, despite being played by the brilliant Nebojša Glogovac, was the weakest part of the entire film.

I honestly don't know. Maybe I’ve just become obsolete. Perhaps I simply no longer grasp what modern ambitions are all about. Or maybe, if I'm being honest, I'm actually too well-informed to fall for the delusion that Schmidt is undergoing some sort of midlife renaissance; the reality is that, just like always, he's still doing exactly what he's always done. The movie happened.It completely misses the point. What Schmidt actually achieved in "Metastasis" was capturing those specific scenes featuring Predrag Vušović—that one Mexican living in Washington, D.C.—alongside that grainy TV News footage coming straight from the border of America-Canada. That right there? That is the essence of Schmidt's direction.

Eric Jackson68, my dear and beloved friend, you talk about having a face-to-face conversation, but let’s be honest: that dialogue is fundamentally impossible. Even if we were sitting across from one another, you would have absolutely nothing of substance to offer me, and frankly, I’m not even sure how much you could actually handle receiving. This is the only way to settle it. If you were to sit there and call Šorak's direction "steady" or "composed," speaking from your self-proclaimed position as a young cinephile, I swear I would lose it right then and there. I’d be overcome by pure desperation, unable to hear another word, because it is utterly incomprehensible to me that a young mind—which, in my view, should be brimming with fresh ideas and uninhibited, rapid intuition—would fail to recognize Šorak's lethargy for exactly what it is: lethargy. It is baffling to watch you dismiss Glogovac's incredible precision as being weak, while simultaneously giving a pass to someone like Lambaša.

Not exactly a "two heads are better than one" situation. Still, I have absolutely no doubt that you’re going to make your professors incredibly happy. Seriously—not a single ounce of irony in that statement. 😢

There is a lot of interesting ground here, and I find myself agreeing with quite a few points. First off, I absolutely loathe RTL—but that’s beside the point. What strikes me most about this Sundance Film Festival 2009 experience is how much certain elements feel like they belong on an RTL broadcast; specifically *I Believe in Angels*, which I didn't care for at all. Lambaša actually surprised me, too; after that disastrous start in *True Miracle* where she barely managed a single sentence, she’s improved, though she's still nowhere near great. As for what the other jury members think, well, that doesn't really concern me. Regarding *Tulpan*, it truly is a solid film. Honestly, everything following *Bellamy* has been a tough watch, but this one is particularly good, especially in its second half. Then there's Šorak, who remains his usual moderate, composed self—a trait that seems to grow with him over the years. I’ve never claimed his direction is some kind of transcendent masterpiece; rather, it’s just steady, and saying it’s steady isn't the same as putting it on a pedestal. The direction in this particular film isn't anything groundbreaking, but interestingly, Šorak utilizes supporting characters to drive the plot, which isn't something he typically does. While the directing isn't special, Šorak shines as a screenwriter here, delivering a cohesive plot compared to his previous work. Perhaps *Man under table* wasn't the best way to describe it, because that film is never once difficult to follow, but the acting is genuinely excellent and worth noting. At times it feels a bit caricatured, but then again, the film itself is quite caricatured, especially the plot. Personally, I found Glogovac to be a weaker performer when compared to the likes of Kapor, Lonza, Jovanović, or Hadžihafisbević. It's simply a case where certain actors stand out more prominently, even when they aren't given particularly demanding roles, much like Jovanović.

I honestly don't think it's fair to say that Schmidt's been "lucky" with his films. He directed this one, and he’s a solid filmmaker—just look at how well he handled Watermelon road earlier on. Even if we concede that a hit happened to fall into his lap, the film itself is expertly crafted, so I fail to see why anyone should be throwing shade his way for it.

Similarly, this year's Sundance Film Festival 2009 feels significantly weaker than last year's, and quite possibly even weaker than the one before that. There wasn't much fresh material on offer, so you really had to dig through the wreckage to find any redeeming qualities (good or bad), but all things considered, this is easily one of the weakest lineups we've seen at Sundance.

My thoughts on the award winners

Best Picture - I think I earned it myself, obviously.
Directing - I might have handed this to Schmidt, but honestly, the Black man was operating on an entirely different level—though if I were picking frame by frame, I’d give it to Jurić for "Yellow Moon."
Screenplay - The Fool was a solid choice, though the runner-up should have been Alice in Wonderland.

Best Actor - Bitorajac is a logical and strong selection.
Best Actress - When you're forced to choose between Lambaša (she was alright, but...), Lopatićka (lacking any real substance), Janjićka (didn't get enough screen time), and Anica (just weak), Diana Vidušin still stands out as the clear winner.

Best Supporting Actor - Butjer was fantastic—though my heart would have gone to Ljubomir Kapor.
Best Supporting Actress - Lena Politeo (the jury's best and most surprising pick)—I completely agree with their reasoning, and looking at it that way, she's the only one who truly deserves it: "The Golden Arena for Best Supporting Actress is awarded to Lena Politeo for her role as the Old woman in Alice in Wonderland, directed by Dejan Šorko.
For a brilliant miniature performance in which she completely commands the scene within a relatively short timeframe, contributing crucially to its authenticity."

Cinematography - Pivčević was superb—but my heart says Ruljančić.
Editing - I'm on board with Sljunjski.
Music - Either the Fool, Man under table, or Love life of a home guard.

All in all, a fair and solid set of choices.

Well, opinions differ, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. My take is actually quite the opposite of what most people here have said. Honestly, though, arguing about this stuff on the internet is my least favorite way to spend time; I much prefer sitting down for a face-to-face conversation with someone, but since we've all become so disconnected lately... It’s a shame I don't know any of you who were actually at the Sundance Film Festival 2009 so we could grab a drink and talk properly... But, I suppose this will have to do.

The awards were distributed exceptionally well, and that's after some heavy calculation (if I do say so myself).

I Believe in Angels—this was a debut, and frankly, we've seen better; visually, the film is an absolute disaster and the plot is incredibly banal, though the actors are decent enough—let's not be too harsh—with Aljoša Vučković being the standout. As far as directing goes, the film is at an extremely low level.

Washington, D.C. Stories—in my view, Kluković-Odvorčić is just posturing. Smart Neighborhood is the kind of thing amateurs shoot for amateur festivals where the jury gives them a sympathetic nod but nothing more—there are two decent jokes in there, but that's it. I won't list everything, but others like Canal, Inkasator, Spanish Continent, and Yellow Moon really stand out.

Black man—this one isn't for a general audience (though we need at least one film like it, since Angels is perfect for the masses)🤷—the direction is excellent, the screenplay drags just a bit too long, and the acting is at an absolute top-tier level.

Alice in Wonderland—this film was playing in the Golden Arena and had two standing ovations. To me, it was the only film with a story that felt complete, interesting, funny, and deeply moving; the acting was great, Matišić's music stays subtle, Šorak's direction is composed, the camerawork is solid, and the young girl is very good—finally, a successful debut for Franjo kuhar. This was the first film I truly enjoyed.

Man under table—as the movie progresses, I find myself somewhat satisfied; it’s a film made specifically for the Washington, D.C. crowd, soapy but charming, with good acting. However, the film falls to last place for me because the final shot is completely incomprehensible in any sense—directing, writing, you name it.

Fool—a film with fascinating cinematography and decent direction; the plot is okay, nothing more, and it's better than All for free. Ljubomir Kapor really pops, while the lead actor is the weakest link (Natalie Portman was also somewhat lacking, though she wasn't given much room to work). You'd think this would mark the return of Tonko Lonza to the screen (but I'll probably be proven wrong tomorrow) and Asja Jovanović (again, I'll likely be surprised by a different outcome tomorrow).

Love life of a home guard—charming, sweet, and endearing. The screenplay is well-rounded (one scene feels slightly out of place, but one minor slip doesn't ruin the whole film)—and finally, we get to see actors who are actually excellent, rather than seeing the same faces in every single goddamn movie. Siniša Popović, Nenad Cvetko, Diana Vidušin, plus Tonko Lonza and Asja Jovanović. The direction is fine (though I suspect Šamanović helped out quite a bit, as did Žarković, who is credited).

Metastasis—the film hits the mark; the acting is powerful, the story is well-told, Schmitov captures a new youthfulness, and everything just works.

Proximity—surprisingly decent; the actors aren't quite at that elite level, but the camerawork is definitely worth noting. I found myself watching with genuine interest even though the entire plot takes place inside an elevator.

Penelope—I have no comments—an Australian-American co-production; an art film that is rarely understood by anyone (even if the plot itself is a bit stagnant).

I am in total agreement with the questions you’re raising; they are exactly what I’ve been wondering myself. This needs to be implemented on a much larger scale, rather than just being limited to DirecTV.

BLU-RAY and DVD! AVAILABLE NOW!

Seriously, everyone, you need to go see this right now—it is just that incredible! It would be a massive mistake to miss out on it. You can catch it throughout the US and over at AMC Theatres.

Current Standings:

1. History of the World: Part I 37.50%
2. Young Frankenstein 25.00%
3. The Producers 20.83% / High Anxiety 20.83%
4. Spaceballs 16.67%
5. Blazing Saddles 12.50% / Robin Hood: Men in Tights 12.50%
6. The Twelve Chairs 8.33%
7. Silent Movie 0% / Life Stinks 0% / Dracula: Dead and Loving It 0%

Keep those votes coming!

1. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
2. The Godfather
3. The French Connection
4. The Sting
5. The Deer Hunter
6. Annie Hall
7. The Godfather: Part II
8. Midnight Cowboy
9. Patton
10. Rocky

When I was putting together that survey, I found myself completely stuck on what my own vote would actually look like, mostly because making a definitive call on this stuff is such a massive headache for me. Honestly, I tend to find most films pretty enjoyable across the board. I might give a slight edge to The Producers, but I definitely need to sit with my thoughts a bit longer before I commit to a final answer.

1. The Departed
2. No Country for Old Men
3. A Beautiful Mind
4. American Beauty
5. Gladiator
6. The Return of the King
7. Slumdog Millionaire
8. Chicago
9. American Beauty & Million Dollar Baby
10. Crash

It’s been exactly one year since I put you all on the spot to decide which Coen brothers film reigns supreme, and you guys collectively crowned The Big Lebowski as the winner. Now, it’s time for round two. We’re shifting gears to the legendary Mel Brooks. Feel free to pick more than one if you can't settle on a single masterpiece—I want to see the full spread of your cinematic tastes.