Posts by Lisa Davis46

Stop spreading misinformation. Sure, people always bring up Huxley's 'Doors of Perception,' but anyone who actually read the book (which definitely influenced Morrison, the rest of the band, and mid-to-late sixties culture) knows it's actually a reference to one of William Blake's most famous quotes from his collection 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' (1790):

'This I shall do, by printing in the infernal method, by corrosives, which in Hell are salutary and medicinal, melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid.
If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is: infinite. (MHH 14).' > link
(Huxley uses this exact passage in his essays and philosophical work, but it's widely accepted that he took the title of his book directly from this quote).

As for the movie, I guess I agree with everyone saying it's only worth watching for the music. Honestly, maybe you shouldn't even watch it—just listen to the soundtrack. Stone basically made a movie about everything except The Doors, and especially not about Jim:

'Oliver Stone is the anti-Doors. Oliver Stone’s movie makes Jim out to be an alcoholic, drunk weirdo; a strange poet totally out of control and you never see the intellectual side of Jim Morrison. You never see the wit, the charm, the elegance. You never get a sense of the real poet. You see a crazed Jim Morrison. Don’t forget the next movie Oliver Stone made, what movie did he make after The Doors?' > link

Morrison was an intelligent guy, a creative, a filmmaker, and a poet—not some brainless drunk or junkie like this movie portrays him. Besides the fact that the script is loaded with fake info, I think the movie is ruined by Val Kilmer's forced acting and constant facial posing. One of the biggest issues is the desperate attempt to hide how little Kilmer actually looks like one of the most beautiful faces in music history (he's even mentioned in Umberto Eco's 'History of Beauty'). They try to fix it with lighting and makeup, but the actor's constant, annoying lip-biting and unnatural expressions just make it worse.

Jim and The Doors didn't deserve this, but maybe at least that kid had a strong motivation to set the record straight with his film 'When You're Strange' 🙂

It’s been about thirty years since this book first came out in Denmark, and they finally got around to translating it into English.
Pink Moon.By gorm henrik rasmussen



So, this is about the first real biography of Nick Drake. It’s built mostly on interviews with his parents and his sister, plus people he went to school with, former bandmates, photographers, and basically anyone who actually knew him.

The foreword and intro look awesome. I guess I can't wait for this thing to actually show up in the mail. 😍

It’s been a minute since anyone posted here, but I’m sure there are still fans lurking 🙂
. The new album 'the something rain' 😍is finally out
.


I honestly can't stop playing the CD. That opening track 'chocolate'
is just genius—maybe even the best thing on the whole album 🙂.

So, have you guys given it a listen yet? What do you think? 🙂

I voted for the first one 🙂
Somehow I had the third one on my mind, so I had to sit down and refresh my memory on the trilogy order,
I ended up checking out the fourth one too, which was honestly a bit of a letdown, but compared to the junk they make in this genre today, it’s not half bad 😁

Mark Wood79 said:Just a quick heads-up from Lisa Davis46. I'm heading to see "The Naive Girl" tomorrow at 7. Count me in.

😉 🙂
I didn't catch that one, but I'm trying to squeeze in everything I can next week.

Mark Wood79 said:I caught a screening of "The Biches" at the local cinema yesterday—my first time seeing it—and honestly, I’m still reeling from the experience.

It was so incredible that I don't even know where to start.

As soon as I saw that the cinematographer was the legendary Henri Decae during the opening credits, I knew I was in for something special. And man, was I right.

The beginning of the film is brilliant. Those first twenty or thirty minutes are directed so masterfully; the cutting (I have to highlight those excellent, Hitchcock-style subjective shots in the car a few times) creates such a vivid sense of the city at night (thanks to Henri Decae 🙏), all while being anchored by an incredibly evocative performance from Bernadetta Lafont.

What really blew me away, though, was the actual structure. You can truly see Chabrol's talent on display here in how he weaves genre and non-genre elements together. It’s executed so skillfully that it almost pushes you into a state of—well, a very pleasant kind of confusion. Just when you think you’ve settled into a standard drama, the tone shifts abruptly with the sudden appearance of a mystical poacher accompanied by music that cranks up the tension. I think that whole forest scene, and the way it’s staged, says everything you need to know about the director's vision and his take on the cinematic experience.

That scene with the tiger at the zoo is an unforgettable piece of imagery.

The ending is also gutsy and fantastic because it leaves the viewer to draw their own conclusions. To me, it felt like a biting commentary from Chabrol regarding the "bright lights of the big city."

By the end, I realized I hadn't moved an inch in my seat—it practically glued me to the chair.

"The Biches" is a true cry from an innovative modernist, and it's the kind of film that stays with you.

I caught the newer "Merci pour le chocolat" on Thursday,
it actually turned out to be a freebie since it was an opening screening.🙂
Anyway, I was just as impressed. Even though it's technically a serious crime thriller, it keeps melting into comedy, cynicism, and dark humor, which is awesome.
Jacques Dutronc plays this pianist who spends most of his life in a semi-conscious, hallucinogenic haze—partly because of the chocolate, too.😁
Then you've got Isabelle Huppert, who is incredibly cold throughout (okay, maybe not quite as much as in Haneke's "The Piano Teacher"), and at times she tries to act approachable, but she manages to convey this massive level of pathology and pure malice just through her facial expressions, without any sense of morality (which, let's face it, is basically her trademark in every role).
I’ve seen the ceremony before, but because of Huppert, I'm definitely going to see "Violette Nozière" and "Business Affairs."🙂
The Chopin and Liszt pieces, the funeral march, the way they sync the musical tempo... it all just ramps up the tension. And the cinematography is gorgeous.
Not much else to say...

And honestly, seeing it on film versus a screen makes such a difference. It's nothing like watching some Movieplex broadcast or an HD DVD...

The Beverly Hills cinema kicked off a special series this Thursday:
An in memoriam tribute to Claude Chabrol

Over the next ten days, they're showing 8 films on NBC's program:

Thanks for the Chocolate -> Merci pour le chocolat
The Biches -> Les bonnes femmes
La femme infidèle -> La femme infidèle
Le Bucheur -> Le boucher
Que la bête meure -> Que la bête meure
Violette Nozière -> Violette Nozière
Une affaire de femmes -> Une affaire de femmes
La cérémonie -> La cérémonie

🙂

Okay, let's start with the good stuff. I finally found the time and just finished watching the long-awaited 'somewhere' (personally, maybe my most anticipated movie of the year 🙂). After watching the pretty disappointing 'Black Swan' yesterday,
I am super happy with it—and honestly glad I watched them in that order.

Even though 'somewhere' shares some DNA with Lost in Translation, it actually left me with a totally different vibe on this first watch. It’s much colder, more detached, and kind of static, which I don't think is a bad thing at all...
Of course, I wasn't expecting anyone to recreate the magic of 'Lost in Translation' or freeze that same kind of melancholy and atmosphere, but 'somewhere' gets incredibly close. It’s actually wild how they nail that terrifying sense of emptiness, loneliness, and insecurity during those shots where you just see the tight close-ups of Johnny Marco's face and hear that heavy breathing. That feeling runs through the whole movie, but here it feels pushed to the absolute limit. What surprises me every single time with Sofia Coppola's work is how she uses such easy, simple, and minimal plot shifts to show the deep emotional side of every character—the intimacy, the closeness, the relationships, or the total lack thereof...

Arthur Garcia59 said:I love the repetitive nature of the film, which is hinted at in the very first frame and stays true until the end. I like how they repeat certain shot compositions with two vertical motifs in the center across 5 or 6 different moments, which really seems to "crush" the character. I also dig the emphasized stillness of the camera and how the character is trapped in interiors; he doesn't actually step out of somewhere—be it a hotel, a car, a hall, or a restaurant—until the very end. That's when he "breaks free from his chains" using some pretty slippery metaphors, which ends up being almost pathetic and poorly done when he leaves his black Ford by the road and walks off toward a better future. But hey, like I said, I'll forgive it. I love the silence and calm that strips away the fake glamour of that lifestyle. I like the minimalism reminiscent of 'Lost in Translation,' but with an added layer of naturalism.

I agree with that word for word, though for me, the first sign of Johnny's 'liberation' is when the light exits the frame. 😁

Aesthetically, 'somewhere' is phenomenal. The cinematography is beautifully stylized and the soundtrack is gorgeous, but I guess that's just standard for any Sofia Coppola film. 🙂
And since she uses the same motifs in almost all her movies, she stays consistent here too: long stares out the window while driving, trees passing by, emotional venting over the phone...

Everything is still a bit of a blur right now because I'm still processing it, but overall, I really liked the movie and don't have many complaints. 🙂
7.5/10

xeoncro, check your DMs 😉

You've got several different versions 😉right
here

goldenhound32 said:And here I was, under the impression that trauma was exactly what turned "normal" kids into something else entirely.🤷

Me too.
2 against 1 😁 we win!

Has nobody else on this entire sub watched the movie? 🙂

Roger Allen3 said:And what makes you say that?

If a movie tackles a heavy subject with real weight, I expect a conclusion that carries that same gravity. This ending just felt completely disconnected from everything we’d watched up to that point. Honestly, that sudden jump to the credits felt incredibly rushed—almost like one of those abrupt, poorly edited YouTube clips.

Maybe the goal was to trick the audience into rooting for the massacre, only to force us to question our supposed "pacifist" views once the lights come up. I can see that logic, but it still doesn't change the fact that it felt totally inconsistent with the rest of the film.

Fine, maybe that was the goal. If so, then the movie worked for me.
Still, I think the ending is serious enough. It totally fits the vibe of the rest of the film and it definitely isn't some cheesy Hollywood bullshit. Isn't it possible the ending just hammers home the message? Like, violence only breeds more violence, and you have to find a way to stop it at the root before it just keeps repeating itself?

Of course it's unsettling. Who knows what Haneke would say about it 🙂
but I feel the exact same way about Peter and Paul from Funny Games...
I honestly don't know if there's any way to "fairly" punish bullies and predators like that. Like, in the case of someone like Luke Ritz getting beaten to death, should we just throw the culprits into juvenile hall—basically a reform school—and give them a chance to do the exact same thing once they're out, like that actually happened? Or should we meet force with force?
Please enlighten me if you know of any solution that actually works somewhere in the world. It would make my day 🙂

Correction: at the end, two girls in Klass are killed. One of them is Rina, who—despite witnessing all the bullying by the class predators (just like all the other girls)—didn't have the guts to push back against their narrative and ended up supporting them instead. Just because they weren't physically attacking Joseph and Kasper doesn't mean they weren't complicit.
The second girl is that eighth grader who ended up being totally innocent and right in front of the main target, Anders. Kasper shot her. An unplanned victim.
Joseph also shot at Kasper's ex-girlfriend, but he didn't let him finish her off...
All the guys in the class who directly bullied them were killed; they went after them specifically. They didn't care about anyone else, so they let them go right at the beginning...
Again, I'm not claiming that responding to violence with more violence is justified, but I think it's impossible to stay indifferent toward the abusers in this movie. They trigger something in you. Definitely not good feelings. And I'm sure you want to see them punished somehow.
+ Plus, obviously, the film pushes you to question your own moral compass, but at the same time, it puts you right in their shoes. You aren't just some outside observer...

What half of them?
From what I can recall, the only one was Kaspar killing that girl back in eighth grade. Everyone else was just part of some planned "cleanup" of the entire crew that had been systematically bullying them. 🤷
But obviously, that violence isn't justified either...

velvetdrifter86 said:Absolutely insane. I was literally on the edge of my seat during those last ten minutes.🙂

Me too. 😳
So, I guess I’m basically some kind of total pacifist now, too. Like, I'm supposedly against any kind of physical conflict whatsoever.
I got totally played here... honestly, to the point where I feel like they went way too far punishing my classmates. It felt almost inhuman.

I think Klass is absolutely phenomenal! 🙏
Honestly, I haven't been this blown away by a movie since I first saw Haneke's stuff. 😲

It’s kind of a bummer that people aren't talking about it more...

Yeah, apparently there's a version of each one running about 180 minutes
edit: if anyone happens to have a link for them, please hit me up via DM 😍

I read the books first and then binged the whole trilogy back-to-back... personally, I don't think the second movie is much worse than the first. I’d say they’re pretty much equal, especially since the second one works so well as that crucial bridge in the series (just like the book 🤷). As for the third, it just absolutely goes for the throat—it hits everything hard and has a perfect ending 😉
Besides, given the subject matter, the first film could almost stand alone, whereas the second is totally essential to make sense of the finale. So, I guess you really have to view them as one complete story...

Also, I see people calling the first film "boring," but you have to realize we're talking about Larsson's books here—over 600 pages packed with tiny, vital details. It’s a massive feat to condense all that into a tense, fast-paced, yet clear two-hour movie...

If we're comparing this to Ludlum's Bourne trilogy, I think this was handled way better (and don't even get me started on that pathetic TV version with Chamberlain—I've seen it countless times because my dad is obsessed with it)

And I definitely agree on the casting. They could have easily botched Lisbeth, but Noomi was honestly amazing! 😍

Pearce actually did a pretty solid job playing Andy Warhol in the hit movie *Factory Girl* [2006], and I don't see any major gaps in his filmography🤷 the guy stays pretty busy with his work, I guess

Nicholas Walker3 said:The Road by J. Hillcoat, unfortunately......

Why unfortunately? 😢
I've been dying to see that movie, I can't wait until I finally get my hands on it grr😢

Honestly, the topic itself isn't even that bad. It's just the title that sucks. 😉

Quote: good film where nothing seemingly happens.I guess you were probably talking about the actual plot, the narrative structure, or the dramaturgy of the film—you name it.

I'm on board with this title. I guess we could change it if we really wanted to, but honestly, the point stays the same regardless.

Look, someone already brought up Polanski... but I guess I’d say The Tenant [1976] isn't exactly his best work. Movies where it feels like absolutely nothing happens. 🙄 First things first. Repulsion [1965] The whole structure is basically inspired by stream of consciousness and the chaotic spiral of mental illness. Even so, Polanski uses this innovative narrative style to pull off a top-tier Hitchcockian thriller. Honestly, for like 105 minutes, we just watch a young Catherine Deneuve going about her life—working as a beautician, keeping things clean, walking through her apartment and the streets of New York... It’s a beautiful film.

And here's another completely different example—a director whose entire massive body of work is built on... Movies where it feels like absolutely nothing happens.It’s definitely Eric Rohmer. Every single film from this artistic heavyweight—who, sadly, passed away just two months ago and still isn't widely known enough—focuses on these smart, eloquent protagonists. He basically just follows their relationships, their conversations, and their vibes during specific windows of their lives. His movies rely heavily on "real time," which is probably why Gene Hackman once famously said watching a Rohmer film is most like watching paint dry. I guess Rohmer himself said he’s more interested in people's inner thoughts and desires than they are in actual actions... but his most famous film is definitely the one to watch. Claire's Knee [1970] In de Claire's Repulsion, the main guy develops this obsessive urge to touch a young girl's knee, which is basically the entire plot of the movie. 🙄😁 Tense...

There's honestly a massive amount of material out there on this topic. I guess there's just way too much to go through. 😉