Posts by Jessica Nguyen85

Can someone help me out here? What genre does "Fatherland" actually fall into?

Sci-Fi—it fits right in under Dystopia.

Now this is actually a solid concept.

To be continued...

A confused BBB member ends up helping his best friend—who basically dealt him a death blow—just to help him dodge the cops. But the friend's behavior starts making him question things, specifically about some Roma criminal who just happened to wander into their neighborhood. Something feels off. After a scrap with some Torcidas fans, one of the big shots in BBB (Schmidt) reaches out with an offer to work on other projects. That’s when he meets the crew BBB uses as a front for their real business, including Lena, a drug addict who's pretty much everyone's go-to girl. It all clicks when he happens to spot a secret meeting between Schmidt and a local Roma criminal.

Imagine if someone actually made a movie about the American soccer leagues, maybe centering everything around a club like General Electric.

Speaking from experience—as someone who used to spend a fair amount of time at those General Electric matches—I’d say it wouldn't be much of an action flick. It would lean way more toward the horror genre. 😁

But seriously... I think the reason things fall flat is because American movies often lack that specific kind of over-the-top megalomania. You need that massive exaggeration just to make a film remotely watchable.

On the other hand, why not try something else? A gritty drama about a member of some radicalized fan group. Someone caught in this endless spiral of hopelessness, drifting toward far-right extremism, only finding some sort of twisted awakening when they get caught up in the murder of a Roma criminal in their own neighborhood...

I mean, look... I honestly thought an NFL movie would just be some formulaic recipe for pandering to the masses, but... man, the execution is actually great. Then again, it’s Oliver Stone... and you’ve got Al Pacino on screen... it’s a pretty solid flick.

well, my bad. thanks for setting me straight.

It's fine.

I’d say go with Ideal Husband.

With all due respect... that movie takes place at the tail end of the 19th century 🙂

Everything from the late 1800s and an endless supply of period costumes 🙂

Adventures of Baron Munchausen
Affair of the Necklace
Amadeus
Crucible
Madness of King George
Frankenstein
Quills
Rob Roy
Sleepy Hollow

Hold on a second... I was saying that R. D. actually holds his own when it comes to the dialogue compared to Beautiful Girls. I’m not claiming the movie is some serious heavyweight contender for the best script ever written, but still.

Part of the reason it might feel a bit off in this one is that we get hit with a massive wave of dialogue almost immediately—that bar scene, specifically. We learn everything about the lead through people just talking at him, rather than seeing it play out through actual movement or action, which is usually how you'd want to handle it in film. Still, I think the director makes up for those early stumbles later on in the movie.

For instance, I thought that bit where he breaks down the little secrets of a master who can measure and resize basically anything—including every woman within eyesight—was great. Pure cinema. 😁

Go ahead and tear me apart for making the comparison.

People have already been debating this in the Forum hallways... 😉

You have to remember this is a debut—the kind of thing where the guy writes and directs it himself, so it’s very much an auteur piece. Besides, Beautiful Girls and R. D. share the same core concept; it's just that one plays out in some small town in Ohio while the other happens in Manhattan. That said, R. D. is superior when it comes to the dialogue, whereas B. G. probably has slightly better casting. Actually, B. G. feels "beautified" and occasionally leans too hard into melodrama, while R. D. aims for a sense of realism that actually lands. Because of that, R. D. feels less mainstream, though I get the feeling that whether a film is considered "indie" or "mainstream" doesn't really matter when you're judging its actual value. But hey, everyone has their own definition of what "mainstream" means... 😉

'Rules of Attraction' and 'Lost in...' 😕

...but isn't he actually contradicting his own last sentence here? ...

I assume you’re talking about how QT tends to pick actors who aren't exactly "A-list superstars" for his projects (at least regarding his first three movies). From what I gather, his focus is on creating a "sustainable film industry." I think he means an industry that actually funds itself rather than relying on government subsidies—which is pretty much the standard model over in North America. Because if we follow that logic to its conclusion, for a film industry to survive, it has to pivot toward pure entertainment and the whole "star system" thing. Basically, churning out Hollywood or Bollywood-style trash and soap opera movies just so studios can bank enough cash to eventually fund more auteur-driven or high-quality stuff. In reality, market forces in almost any part of human existence tend to force mediocrity upon us; honestly, a tiny percentage of films coming out of those three regions are actually... really good. On the flip side, you have this "elite system" in North America where certain directors churn out films year after year like they’re in some kind of permanent employment contract. They might hit a home run one year, but then they go quiet for the next few. Generational shifts in American cinema move at a snail's pace and rarely feel revolutionary. So, despite the initial idea of funding this specific artistic approach to filmmaking, it all just boils down to "if it works, it works." I get the feeling that these two wildly different philosophies of filmmaking are actually just externalizations—you know, the outward manifestation of how different societies function.

hopefully there's more to come...

I caught Quentin on BBC News saying:

"There are only three countries in the world with sustainable film industries - America, India and Hong Kong," the director insisted. "What do these countries have in common? They each have a star system, actors that citizens of that country want to pay and see. At the end of the day people go to see films to see stars."

Blasphemy? 😉 Or maybe just the beginning of the end for Cannes, as we know it? 😁
Maybe what Quentin is actually talking about is 'entertainment' rather than actual 'cinema.' And that's coming from a guy who—if you ask me, though I might be wrong—is often treated like some kind of untouchable genius. Quo Vadis Cannes? We already know where QT stands. 😉

The Guardian article

Nobody even brought up the Movie forum when we're talking about hens.

Aha.. okay.. if that's how you look at it.. I guess they're all 'hens' 😉 ... though I thought Maristellin's comment was a little more subtle... 😁

Yeah, who's actually saying that?

I don't think northernfalcon30 really fits into that group. At least if we're talking about the film forum, so the mocking feels a bit off.

Maybe this is a bit off-topic... but I've been wondering... who actually writes better dialogue, Kaufman or Tarantino?

Just finished reading the review of 'Marmalade' in The New York Times. It’s predictably blunt, zero subtlety involved, and honestly, just Branka being her usual frustrated self. Here’s a snippet for you all... Lord help me... but here goes...

Because whether it’s a comedy or a drama, there seems to be this unbearable craving to watch other people’s misery, their cursing, even their specific slang—but only when the lights are down in a dark theater. It’s obvious that from the safe distance of a cinema screen, Americans will always love watching Canadians, even if they can’t stand having them around in real life, at the office, on the bus, or in a coffee shop... It’s similar to how Americans view Mexican films, which they occasionally elevate to cult status for no reason other than the fact that those characters don't do "that" quite as well, but they certainly do it with much more temperament, openness, vulgarity, and raw chaos.

Good grief... 😲 🙄 😕 😁

The New York Times article

Though, I have to admit, this section is touching on a different phenomenon entirely... a theme that pops up on the pages of Film Comment pretty often... American cinema, realism, acting, scripts, "us" versus "them."

Question... when is Branka getting appointed Minister of Film? 😉
One more thing... does she actually get paid for this writing?

I think there’s a real distinction to be made between the actual subject matter—which can feel like cheap, forced sentimentality—and the actual quality of the acting. Sean Penn is believable, which is really all you can ask from him in a role like this. Personally, I wasn't a huge fan of the theme or how they handled it... felt a little overblown at times... but the emotions are definitely there, if that's what you're looking for.

The supposed "problem" with Martie's LToC is that its core premise pushes back against Catholic dogma. But honestly? That’s exactly what sets it apart from the rest of the pack—including recent attempts at this kind of story. It’s that spark of innovation, that artistic freedom to actually try and grasp the essence of Jesus Christ by exploring his life through a different lens, giving him these vulnerable, deeply human qualities that make him feel relatable to us.

The casting is spot on, the direction is seamless without being overbearing, and as far as I can tell, the soundtrack is a total cult classic. Someone in a previous post mentioned how Dafoe has that perfect martyr look, but to me, it feels more nuanced than that; he isn't just portraying physical agony, but rather the internal struggle and the raw emotions Jesus felt for the people around him. Those scenes between Jesus and Judas, and the dialogue they share... they have a sort of seventh dimension. What’s the phrase... it's not just a movie—it's an experience.

So, there was this nineteen-year-old girl who basically landed the role of a lifetime... playing the daughter of a certain mafia boss in the third installment of The Godfather... In the first two films, she was just sort of filling up the frame, nothing substantial, just one of those background extras you barely notice... and then, silence. You didn't hear a peep about her career as an actress for years. Now, suddenly, she’s resurfacing, supposedly some kind of "prodigy" writing these totally incomprehensible scripts and even more nonsensical movies... anyone know who she is? 😉

Beyond just Blade Runner...

The Last of the Mohicans - Mann
Last Temptation of Christ - Scorsese
Last Emperor - Bertolucci

p.s. once I actually sat down and wrote this list out, I realized they all have "last" in the title; you could even call Blade Runner "Last Replicant" if you wanted to be pedantic.😉

Actually, I’d argue it’s quite the opposite:

You're taking my observations way too personally. You're getting defensive over something that isn't even about you—so who's actually being 'bitter' here? 😉 Try engaging with the actual discussion instead of turning it into a personal spat or assuming everyone is specifically targeting your views.

As for the comments regarding the screenplay—I mean, who else noticed how the two leads just whisper to each other in that scene, leaving it up to the audience to imagine what was actually said? That's how I can picture the whole movie. My point on this thread is simply that the film is overrated due to those Oscar nods (Directing and Screenplay), and that’s really it. From what I can see, most people agree the film isn't anything special; it's okay, sure, but it lacks that certain something.

EOD