Posts by Jessica Nguyen85

Then you get these guys showing up who just happen to be incredibly good looking, so obviously they fit the part perfectly.

😁

What a brilliant analysis. Honestly. 🙄 This whole thread is starting to feel less like a discussion and more like a bunch of hormone-driven shippers competing to see who can obsess more. 😉

Quote : plus, let’s try to separate the quality of the movie from the sheer entertainment value. For instance, the only film actually brought up was "Monkeys," and I’ll admit, BP has a decent cameo there, even if it isn't exactly a heavy-lifting role.

So, I guess you could say:

Looking at that list above, it seems like you don't value money all that much 😁 😉

Talking about preservation.

Alright, genius, why don't you try finding me a single movie star from any of those names mentioned above who’s insulted someone for spending 12 bucks to see a film in the last five years? Just give me one. If you can manage that, I'll find ten pathetic works by those exact same people to throw back at you. Be my guest...

watch, discover, analyze, enjoy..

Read it, watched it... didn't really find much. And if there’s no revelation, there’s no real payoff. The book sort of hints at things—that whole social vibe tied back to the Reagan era in the US—but Easton Ellis doesn't actually have much of a point to make. His characters are just... pure nothingness. The movie works as entertainment, I guess, which might be enough for some people, but if I'm looking for pure entertainment, I'll go watch the circus instead of a film. Anyways... let's close this 🙂

it's this tiny, incredibly polished sub-film, edited with such a wicked rhythm where every shot lasts barely a fraction of a second. honestly, there's more adventure packed into those moments than in most full-length features.

Alright, sure, you're describing that classic MTV aesthetic, but... what's the actual point of that sequence? What does it actually signify regarding the character you're talking about or the movie as a whole?

anything else needed?

Enough for those who actually care. Though, I guess it's a bit dry. That top paragraph could pretty much apply to any decent movie out there.

Hands down, probably the best American movie released in the last year.

Just give me one solid reason why. 😉

TBH: even The Life of David Gale is ***

There's this one thing about the movie's plot that just isn't right. It's debatable, I guess.
Do you know what I'm getting at? 😉

This thread has drifted way off into ***** from what I was actually trying to say.

Maybe not. To me, it’s just interesting to figure out how to tell if a movie is worth a trip to the theater, which ones are better left for home viewing, and—most importantly—which ones to skip entirely just to save some precious time. For instance, I highly doubt—honestly, I highly doubt—that there’s a single movie starring Julia Roberts, Jennifer Lopez, Renée Zellweger, Brad Pitt, Colin Farrell, Mel Gibson, or those kinds of "stars" that I will EVER sit through. That last guy has basically become a specialist in "patriotic" flicks lately, whether they're American or Scottish. Or take this new one from Bruce Willis—Tears of the Sun 🙄
I just block them out and call it a day. Beyond that, I don't see myself ever watching that wave of comedies where Black actors show goofy white people how to actually "party." There have been maybe ten of them in the last few months ("Head of State" with Chris Rock, "Bringing Down the House" with Latif, and so on). When I check the Box Office Top 10 for the past week, there isn't anything intriguing enough to even bother looking up the plot.
Here is what’s actually worth seeing in theaters in North America right now—The Quiet American, The Life of David Gale, The Good Thief (Emir Kusturica makes an appearance 😁), and Spider.

The movie is based on a novella written by a guy back when he was under 30—around 1987, if I recall correctly—and he actually lived that lifestyle. It’s basically a sequel to the book "Less Than Zero," and both are considered staples of American literature. When I read the book back in high school in '88, the whole thing felt shocking and unbelievable... that’s pretty much all I remember. People were already hailing it as some kind of masterpiece, but personally, I think it falls into that category of unseen bullshit that millions of American novelists (since there aren't many actual writers left) spew out every single day. Still, I guess it's fine reading material for a subway ride or while sitting in a Starbucks.
Realistically, the film makes zero sense. It doesn't offer any real insight or even a hint of reflection from any of the characters. Everything just boils down to basic nonsense and hedonism, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's nothing special. The acting is pretty pathetic, too. Honestly, I feel like I wasted my $3.95 on this rental.

Next!

So you guys are just our massive, low-budget colony?

Is that so?

As if we actually have to walk on eggshells around those greasy little patriots waving flags everywhere, terrified that if we say the wrong thing, they'll pull our coverage from the local news stations.

p.s. shadowjackal88 - don't try to lecture me, you're gonna regret it. 😁

There’s nothing missing here.

But honestly, Toronto is just wayyyy better. Like, out of any top ten list, eight of those movies were shot right there in Toronto. Even Chicago was filmed in T.O.
Back when I was living downtown, every single weekend we'd find some notice taped to our building's entrance from a production company saying they were filming a new flick in a nearby park, cafe, or building.
🙂

Can you two "besties" do any better than that? 😉

In New York City, you can actually catch a movie before its official opening night since they often release those preview tickets. It’s pretty convenient—you might end up seeing a film on a Friday that doesn't officially drop until Monday. Plus, the Sundance Film Festival is such a great chance to get a head start on films that won't even hit theaters for several months. I managed to catch "11-9-01" and "Spider" 🙂

Just endless rap and darkness on the screen...

😁

You can't have rap without Snap. 😉

Someone smart once said—you know the world went downhill at 3 PM when the best rapper is white, the best golfer is Black, and Germany won't go to war.
🙂

Peter Greenaway

It’s a perfect example, really. There isn't much else to say. Honestly, I don't think his movies even make sense to him.

Narrative, visuals, and editing—if you hit that specific trifecta, you’ve got a masterpiece on your hands. Anything else is just a gamble that usually falls flat. Most filmmakers will tell you that the story is the bedrock of everything. It's hard to mess up direction too badly if the foundation is solid; basically, an average director can take a great script and turn it into something genuinely engaging. But if the story is garbage? You're fighting an uphill battle to make it anything remotely watchable. Which, honestly, explains why people struggle to call Signs a good movie. 🙄 😉 )
Film, being such a linear medium—not necessarily in terms of timeline, but just in how the information is fed to us—doesn't really leave much room for showing off. Unless, of course, the whole point is to make something completely incomprehensible from the jump. There’s this threshold where the average viewer's cognitive processes just... snap. If a movie doesn't actually keep the audience in mind, if it lacks that basic respect for the person watching, then it’s just a waste of time. Honestly, it shouldn't even be made. Take Lynch, for example. He’s one of those directors who constantly pushes that line right up to the edge where a film turns into pure chaos. Some of his stuff is just straight-up mayhem. You see similar vibes in earlier directors like Antonioni.
I can't help but feel like there’s this specific sweet spot you have to hit—you know? There needs to be a real balance between the actual story, the plot twists, and that raw dramatic tension on one side, and then the visual flair on the other. It’s tricky. Editing is basically the connective tissue of everything; sometimes it serves the narrative, and other times it’s purely about the visual rhythm. Finding a director who actually understands how to juggle both without leaning too hard into one or the other... well, that’s probably why truly great directors are such a rare breed. 🙂

when mada Cameroon-ka shows him her earring, then he unbuttons his shirt, and she starts kissing his chest

Man... 😉 ... it's a stinger

I just can't get behind mada Cameroon-ka for this role, especially not for that specific scene. The whole point is for this guy to be wild and actually intimidating, but she just doesn't really project that vibe. Honestly, I'd much rather have seen a young Dema Moora or Uma Thurman in that spot...

I’d go as far as calling it Fellini-esque!!!

👍

That scene where the elephant is just running circles during the ritual? It feels like a Scorsese Hommage Fellini moment. There are other influences tucked in there too... maybe some Visconti or Antonioni, though they aren't quite as obvious.

Hey, you could probably argue that 8 Mile counts as a subgenre of musical, right?

Only thing is, rap in music is basically the equivalent of pornography in film. 😁

I’m starting to think we actually need a dedicated "Pop culture" subforum. Just a place where all the "fun" stuff can live—you know, things like
*Chicago*, Jennifer Lopez, Stephen King, those teen flicks like *American Pie* or *Scream*, the Top 40 charts from some commercial radio station, monodramas, melodramas, and of course, those massive rock bands that sell out stadiums.
😉

Man, film reviews... 😁