Posts by Jessica Nguyen85

Benjamin Thompson66 said:And it’s not about being a snob; it’s more about pushing back against the standard American way of looking at movies, rather than hating the films themselves.

Some really sharp modern philosopher with a Marxist bent once argued that in this age of mass mechanical reproduction, art has reached a point where anyone who experiences their own "artistic" pleasure—which is usually more emotional than aesthetic anyway—suddenly decides they're an... expert. It’s kind of like how a die-hard football fan watches enough games and thinks they know the game, or how a cinephile watches enough movies and starts approaching arguments in a very uncritical, purely subjective way.

So, we aren't really debating film as some "objective, standalone work of art," but rather the act of "watching"—basically, what kind of individual reaction does the viewing process trigger?

Which brings us back to my take, and the take of quite a few others here, regarding those famous "best films" lists. What criteria are people actually using when they pick them? Let's just agree on what makes a film "the best" first... if we can settle on the standards, picking the titles will be the easy part.

My main benchmark—after the obvious technical stuff like space and time, editing, internal consistency, and structural integrity (where I think about 95% of everything produced fails, honestly)—is whether there is a core idea,

... preferably something fresh,

... that the film attempts to convey through its entire structure (not just one or two flashy scenes, but the whole thing; I know that sounds pedantic, but that's my biggest gripe with certain Asian cinema, for instance),

... how uniquely identified that idea is (subtle dialogue and visual cues shouldn't just create conflicting ideas; a film shouldn't wander down several paths only for them all to end in a dead end, which seems to be a common trait in European cinema),

... and how much the movie relies on the viewer's cognitive abilities given the "suspension of disbelief." For me, that's the most vital requirement for a film to succeed as a specific visual medium of moving images. In the best films, a rationally dosed amount of tension leads to a "suspension of judgment." It’s that feeling where you're still thinking about the movie three days later, or even three months later, using it as a frame of reference—like, "I think I've experienced or felt something similar before." Sorry, I'm overcomplicating things, so this might come off as a bit half-baked.

//** There's probably a hundred other points, but I have to head to a meeting... actually, maybe it's better this way because my biggest struggle is ever consolidating my thoughts into a coherent post... which is why people often accuse me of trolling... better to just skip it...

Dennis Sullivan46 said:It’s true that in America they make movies with $100 million budgets just to compete on earnings, mostly targeting an audience between eight and twenty years old. For someone who's 40, 50, or 60, it feels pretty mindless. Most of the time it's just comic book adaptations, animations, or high-tech spectacles aimed at the masses—all about mass success and the money they raked in. But when you add it all up, personally, I still think Hollywood is the best, and I should mention that's just my subjective opinion.

Right, that subjective opinion of yours... your handle is practically a warning label... a thousand fireflies flying through the night, why would anyone think anything else? 😉

Anyways... I talk to people here quite often about European, Asian, and very frequently Latin American films, and those discussions inevitably lead to comparisons like this... what is the one film from that specific country or region that strips a society down to its bones the way "American Beauty" does? Or, give me just one damn sci-fi production from those regions that hits the level of "The Matrix"... or maybe a film that speaks of war through devastating visual poetry like "The Thin Red Line"... or just give me a work of pure genius like Lynch's "Inland Empire"... I'm still waiting for an answer.

Sure, the discussion might veer off into other topics that Hollywood doesn't touch—things an Asian film might handle perfectly fine—but my own little explanation (that is, my explanation) which I cling to like a drunk to a pier, is that a rating for those kinds of films is often accompanied by an unspoken, ever-present "well, considering what this is and who made it, it's brilliant"—it's almost like affirmative action applied to cinema.

Mind you, I don't want it to seem like I have something against European cinema... there's good and bad there too, but I often feel like I simply have to shift my criteria when watching a European film just to meet the basic requirements for it to be classified as watchable, let alone a masterpiece.

So... yeah... that's that.

Nicholas Walker3 said:I’m curious—what on earth drives someone to actually sit down and read these lists?

Says the guy whose signature contains... wait for it... an entire list!!!

Restore my faith in PDF Film by "admitting" that quoting me was just a joke. 😳 😁

Austin Collins5 said:Love Streams is an absolute masterpiece, easily the best. And F for Fake is the definitive Walles. If you actually want to understand why, you’d have to grasp why Kiarostami made the cut.

How am I supposed to explain something to you that you just don't see? It’s like someone trying to sell me on the spiritual wonders of Sedona when I'm just not feeling it.

I was actually a little intimidated by such powerful reasoning 😍

There's nothing worse than fears that stop being imaginary and start becoming a reality. ☕

Gregory Howard made a list of the best movies. Please tell me he didn't. 😁

Rather than debating the actual movies on this list, I’d much rather talk about the criteria used to get them there in the first place. Honestly, I’m dying to know what kind of logic puts Jim Jarmusch's "Dead Man" and Steven Spielberg's "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" in the same conversation... though seeing that last one makes it pretty obvious how they squeezed silent films like "Greed" onto the list. And then there's Abbas Kiarostami... he feels more like a cultural phenomenon produced by his environment than someone operating at a Leo Tolstoy level of craft. Look, I respect Kiarostami, but three of his films? Come on.

Or why are we seeing "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes," "Love Streams," "F for Fake," and "Eclipse" on here, yet "Blowup" is nowhere to be found?

Then you have four works by Orson Welles. Meanwhile, "The Third Man" is missing. And to top it all off... where is David Lynch?

Like I said, any attempt to establish a cinematic canon—much like you would in literature—should really start with some "full disclosure" regarding the selection process. To me, this whole list just looks like it was thrown together haphazardly, like someone just piling up logs for a bonfire.

Amanda Lopez50 said:...just waiting on a thread titled "great movies where the protagonist only ever walks on the right side of the road"...☕

so, alright then. what's yours?

🤣

hollowdriver18 said:well, no wonder! 😳

☕

A move right in line with what gottcha was saying. Now I just need to find a spot for my collection—it's currently the off-season for anything interesting.☕

Sophia Evans76 said:Look, being out of touch with tech and missing the boat on how content delivery is evolving is one thing—that’s just being behind the times. But stalking? That's a whole different level. And honestly, Mazarine, that’s exactly what you’re doing here.

I don't want to derail another thread, but... do you think the real letdown with the iPad is just that they failed—or maybe Apple just couldn't quite nail it—to make the experience for books, magazines, and newspapers as seamless as they did for music with iTunes?

Sophia Evans76 said:Maybe you think they’re all just super cool or whatever, 😁 but honestly? Most of them—aside from kikin, because I still have zero clue how she even functions in the real world 😕—could probably be listed in a "society of unattractive people" handbook. 😁

I figured there was a reason why every single one of them is so incredibly conservative. 😁

Sophia Evans76 said:it's pretty obvious, isn't it? you mods are just miserable little nobodies in the real world. honestly, I can't think of any other reason an adult would spend their precious free time playing hall monitor in a digital space for zero dollars, unless it's just a cheap little power trip.

🤣

//Sophia Evans76... isn't it kind of pathetic that the old guard from back in '03 still has to show up in the PZK newsletter☕

John Taylor19 said:I have an opinion and I gave it. This isn't an answer to you, it's just that you all started psychoanalyzing one another, which makes it pretty ridiculous to read. Just aimless rambling...☕

so maybe... it might be funny... but who knows... the thread title itself contains a key term from psychoanalysis: "conditioned"... and I don't know about the rest of you, but my mind immediately goes to those poor Pavlov's dogs 😳 and that whole concept... and when I sit with it for a second, I see there's actually something there... being overexposed to something—no matter how much you resist—eventually takes its toll... so in relation to the movie, it's a vital concept for me—even if I do love to "ramble," as you put it 😍

well, since I need to ramble a bit... I still owe an answer to this:

rustyscout34 said:And where did you forget your American English, if I may ask?

Some people who've been on this forum long enough know I've been in Canada for 12 years now, though I was watching movies in English without subtitles way back in elementary school... however, what's personally fascinated me is the process over the last decade where I've become emotionally sensitive to English words... for instance, sometimes it was much easier to say something in English because saying that same thing in American would feel too heavy with emotional charge... that simple intimacy with certain words or phrases would trigger a specific chemical reaction (I don't know whether to go into detail... maybe I'd blush or look away or something... in that sense) so it was just easier to say it in English... and now, that's started happening to me with English especially when I try reading books translated or originally written in English that I used to read in American... so, you're wondering what I'm getting at... I'm saying that for me, a movie is primarily what they call a "storytelling medium" and where—for me—a word spoken the right way still carries more weight than, I don't know... "long shots" or "jump cut editing" blah blah blah in some movie... which is why—again, for me—David Lynch is the greatest director ever, because he understands that the visual aspect of a movie is there to create context, but that context is worthless if what is said within that visual context isn't worthy of the visuals themselves... incidentally, something like this is my own version of mental masturbation... weird, I know 😳

anyway... having rewatched all his movies (since I saw some way back down south) with this conditioning regarding the emotional weight of the English language that's formed over the last 12 years... I rediscovered this cinematic genius... to the point where—as someone mentioned in the thread about >—I don't haveHell might as well pop that DVD back in and give it another watch...

I mean, is there actually any point to this? 🤷

rustyscout34 said:Calling Asian movies "theatrical exaggerations" is something only someone who’s never actually sat through an Asian film—or maybe just harbors a massive grudge against them—would say. Who knows, maybe you think Bruce Lee is the only blueprint for Asian cinema?

😍

Just wait until you hear my take on Indian movies... 🤣

rustyscout34 said:it's basically just this paradigm of travel and religious individualism. First off, I’m genuinely confused by the phrase Anglo-Saxon film. By definition, that refers to Old English, which you barely see in modern English-speaking cinema, if at all.

Look, maybe after twelve years away, I've lost my touch with expressing myself in American... but looking back at what I wrote, I really can't wrap my head around how anyone could have misinterpreted me so badly.

Alright, let's just break this down... I feel like language is just the tip of the iceberg for something much deeper ... see, when I say "language," I mean the English language, since that's the topic... so if that's only 1/11th of the whole picture... what I'm trying to get at is that language is just the formal surface of a much larger phenomenon... those other 10/11ths... and that "something" is the Anglo-Saxon film gestalt. To me, "Anglo-Saxon" acts as a general descriptor for countries where English is the dominant tongue—places like the United Kingdom, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. But they aren't defined by the language alone; it's their history, their traditions, democratic principles, and their social and cultural heritage... things like the WASP identity in the US. Then there's the "film gestalt" part... think of it as a cinematic system, the totality of a film from the moment an idea is born to the people consuming it... the complete ecosystem. So, the "gestalt" means this entire system is shaped by those Anglo-Saxon foundations (with the US and UK leading the way). My point is that within such an environment, you inevitably end up with a specific cinematic "paradigm"—essentially, a set of rules for what works and what doesn't in film. This creates a value system where a movie like > can be hailed as one of the greatest ever. And that specific film is exactly what I'd call the "individualism of the Protestant spirit." Don't take "Protestant" too literally as a religious thing; it's a broader concept tied to how society and the individual developed within it (and goodness knows, I shouldn't have to explain everything). Not to mention how the superhero trope is a quintessential Anglo-Saxon theme—running the line from > to >—a concept that doesn't really exist in the same way in Continental European or Asian cinema. So, in this "Anglo-Saxon film gestalt," the English language is just a formality because they need a medium to speak, but the real influence is that cinematic paradigm—all those values communicated through language and imagery that we absorb without even realizing it. That "closeness" to the paradigm is why the English language sounds so natural to us. My point is... the Latvian language could sound just as pleasant if they had produced as many great films in Riga as they did in > or >.

Reading this back, I think it's only going to get more ridiculous... 😳

Interesting topic... feels to me like language is just the 'tip of the iceberg' regarding what we might call an Anglo-Saxon cinematic gestalt. Does that gestalt include certain core elements? Like, maybe a focus on that Protestant-style individualism, or how almost every movie follows some sort of 'journey' paradigm—whether it’s a hyperbolic internal shift where a character evolves, or a literal road movie. At its heart, there's this hero-type concept where the film connects with the audience on such a personal level that the act of watching the movie itself becomes a journey.

It’s quite different from those European existentialist contemplations or the theatrical flourishes you see in Asian cinema, which people over here always seem to watch as something exotic.

So, I find myself thinking... perhaps the English language in film acts as a kind of 'condition setting.' If that makes sense... the cognitive processing for a movie gets tuned to certain expectations based on that Anglo-Saxon gestalt, and then the film either disappoints or delights you based on whether it meets them.

And look... maybe this has nothing to do with what the OP is actually getting at... but, I don't know... it just occurred to me because that's more or less how I experience Anglo-Saxon films.

I honestly never would've guessed there was enough meat in that novella to make a full-blown movie. But hey, I suppose they could have streamlined the whole point during the adaptation just enough to make it watchable 🤷
.
Mada, if it actually picked up an award at the Sundance Film Festival, I’ve got this nagging bias about what the movie is actually going to be about... basically the same skepticism I had—even if it was a bit fuzzy at the time—when I first read the book.

Just one question though—is there any actual hope that the character of this American Mexican deviates from... well... those predictable, stereotypical tropes?

Anyway, whatever. I guess I should just watch it and see. 😳

Nicole James said:I can't help but feel that a big chunk of that sense of unreality comes down to the casting of the actors and extras. If you take a look at most American films, everyone seems almost unnaturally attractive. It’s glaringly obvious that even an extra just walking through a scene has been meticulously selected—they aren't exactly the kind of people you'd run into while grabbing groceries at a local Kroger. Everyone is perfectly dressed, clean, groomed, and polished—it all feels almost artificial, if you know what I mean. On the flip side, when you watch European films, you're much more likely to encounter a guy with a mustache and a slightly awkward build who looks like he actually lives in the neighborhood.

That’s because when Americans make movies, they’re thinking about the people sitting in the theater. With those "European" productions, the people they intended to watch it have usually already seen it... mostly because they were on the set. 😬

Personally, I think it boils down to two main things. First off, there's the whole attitude inherent in American filmmaking. It's usually the product of a massive team effort—specialists working together to nail specific details. In European cinema, there’s still this lingering tradition where the director is treated as the sole genius, even though the medium itself really demands a collective push from top-tier artists across different fields.

Second, American film is market-driven (much like society as a whole), so what matters is how the audience perceives it, how they react, and how technical execution meets their expectations. I’m not saying European filmmakers don't care about the viewer; it’s just that they often approach it from the wrong angle. Their mindset is more like: if you don't get it, that’s your problem, not ours.

David Price5 said:What about marriage counseling, like in The Simpsons?

😬

Those shows aren't actually mocking anything... they're more like a way to glorify and validate things.

There was some talk about this idea... people were even suggesting certain casting options for 😳

A few theories floating around here..

First off, it seems like the main conflict for the strip is its lack of success in the States. But honestly, I don't see how a comic that basically lays bare all the grit and glamour of American society—mocking its core pillars, no less—would ever fly there. Who would even market that as entertainment? Alan Ford worked because it was anti-American back when that was actually risky. I shouldn't have to explain that logic. - edited: I'm with Ljelja drugi

Second, let's not forget that if AF succeeded here, the heavy lifting was done by Nenad Brixy. He wasn't just a translator; if you compare the Italian and American editions, he added a layer of depth to the whole vibe through sheer consistency.

Third, the closest thing to a movie I can think of is Welcome to Collingwood—even some guy from Cleveland mentioned that in an IMDb comment. But we all know it’s not quite right. Superhik isn't just an anti-hero... he's the antithesis of the American comic book landscape. He exists specifically to puncture the superhero mythos that dominates US comics. Besides, who wouldn't look at number one recently and see Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve? There's nothing particularly entertaining about that.

Larry Martin11,

From what I gathered while watching, Kirill is really the core figure here, and that tension building between him and Nicholas is what actually drives the narrative. Even before that most suffocating scene in the movie hits, it felt pretty obvious that Kirill is caught in these specific patterns—his underlying sexuality is constantly clashing with the hyper-masculine world he lives in, which explains those outbursts of irrational rage and violence. It definitely colors his relationship with his father, but the real dynamic is set through Nicholas. That turning point in the house with those young girls brought over from the East as white slaves... it starts with Kirill demanding that Nicholas prove his manhood. After trying to resist a few times, Nicholas finally gives in. At one point, while he’s getting ready to go through with this "test" of masculinity, Nicholas realizes the true intent behind Kirill’s insistence. Kirill isn't just there to witness the act; he's indirectly "taking" a piece of Nicholas through that poor girl, acting out his own sexuality. That's when Nicholas understands that this horrific, vile act is actually a "breakthrough"—which we, as the audience, pick up on later. He realizes he has Kirill right where he wants him, and naturally, he uses that leverage later in the film.

William Gonzalez said:Take a look at Light, he’s basically going to be representing Canada in Mexico City!

Light

😍

I honestly can't tell if this music video is a parody of Windows Vista marketing or just part of the Retarded Hit Season 🤷