Eric Jackson68 said:Since you all seem so incredibly convinced of yourselves, fine then—prove it. Get out there and actually find some work. Given how much "talent" you claim to possess, I’m sure the industry will be tripping over itself to hire you. Stop hiding behind your degrees if they aren't doing anything for you; you clearly have everything you need. If those other guys managed to make it, you can too. Just let me know when you’ve finally shot an 80-minute feature that actually hits all the marks of a decent movie. I’ll be right here, waiting to watch it with absolute, breathless anticipation. Truly, I'm counting on it. You’re all just so remarkably capable. Personally, though? I’d probably just take the path of least resistance and call it a day.
See, that’s just classic for people around here. Everyone's a critic or a philosopher, always ready to spout some deep wisdom, but nobody wants to put in the actual grunt work. When it comes time to stop talking and start doing, everyone suddenly has an excuse. Sure, maybe there are talented folks in the mix, but honestly? In a setup like this, grit and sheer willpower matter way more than raw talent. Seriously, screw the diploma! It's all about the hustle.
lonelynx16 said:Look, you don't need a fancy degree to make great movies! Honestly, most directors who actually contribute anything meaningful to the art of cinema never even stepped foot in a film academy, so I don't think it's even worth mentioning them in this context. Take Tarkovsky, for example—he did graduate from the USC School of Cinematic Arts and ended up being one of the absolute greats, but that was strictly because of the mentorship he received, the specific people he crossed paths with at that school, his refusal to compromise, and just pure, unadulterated talent... Academies tend to put people in boxes... mostly...
Around here, it feels like most directors are just mere technicians, which is why our movies often feel like they were mass-produced on an assembly line. It’s not like there aren't talented people out there ready to shatter that status quo; the problem is that if you didn't go to the right academy, you simply don't get the opportunity... or you end up getting squeezed by financiers who have zero respect for artistic freedom...
Listen, every craftsman needs to be good at what they do. Even "mass-produced" stuff is supposed to maintain a certain level of quality—which, by the way, American indie film basically lacks lately.
Edward Harris11 said:The real question is, how do you define "making it"... For me, I'm not even looking at the Academy. No shot I'm getting in, and even if I could, I don't have the cash... But right now, I'm working on a script, I've got actors, a camera crew, and I'm directing. Once the film is done, it goes to festivals—both here in the States and abroad. I couldn't care less about the academy; the film's gonna be good... maybe not perfect, since we're tight on budget... And yeah... If you're looking to rake in massive money like someone out of Hollywood, forget about it. Directors around here make about what a Tim Burton gets from a studio just to cover coffee and donuts during a shoot...
Man, forget it then, I guess we're all just heading to Hollywood to chase the dream! But seriously, damn, it's not like Americans haven't made their mark on the global film scene. Just look at Branko Lustig!
Man, I’m also super into directing, but honestly—if I don't get into film school, am I just supposed to throw in the towel? Like, walk away from my own damn dream? I don't buy that. If you stay persistent, you can pull off pretty much anything. At the very least, you've got to be out there networking and making connections with people in the industry—just being relentless, you know? When something is your whole life, giving up isn't even an option.
Look, unlike some people hanging out here, I’m actually giving huge props to how they slowly crank up the madness and paranoia. The direction is just spot on. I mean, come on—you can't just overlook the fact that we're talking about Friedkin. He wasn't just some random guy.
You know that classic line—"It's just a movie!"—that people always throw around? Honestly, it says everything you need to know about how much they're missing.
Austin Roberts8 said:Handheld camera work—you know, that shaky "walking" style. It’s used specifically because it pulls you right into the middle of the action, making everything feel way more visceral and real. Unless you just don't get it.
Yeah, I get that—shaky cam works fine when it’s subtle, you know? But in the second half, they definitely overdid it (and considering it's the same director, you'd think they'd have found the sweet spot by now). There are moments where it feels less like "gritty realism" and more like I'm sitting through a literal earthquake.
I’m totally fine with the first one, but the second? Kind of a letdown. Honestly, the whole two-part saga feels pretty uneven—it’s super obvious they only greenlit the sequel because the first one was such a hit, so you can really feel the plot being stretched thin, if you know what I mean. As for the third installment, I’m probably going to be way too picky, but hey, I can't really expect much given that Paul Greengrass is behind the director's chair for this one since he handled the second part.
cast: Michael Ironside (playing some seasoned, wicked manipulator) Hilary Swank (his younger sister—kind of a masochist, really) Karla Potente (a young detective who’s totally smitten with Michael) Wallace Shawn (Michael’s right-hand man) Nicole Grimaudo (a model who eventually falls prey to the manipulator) Peter O'Toole (a psychology professor and the former detective's mentor) Keanu Reeves (the model's fiancé, just looking for sweet revenge)
Alright, let's say the director was Christopher Nolan.
Drew Wright5 said:It’s billed as a horror drama, but then you end up with this whole heavy thing about people struggling with schizophrenia. I was totally geared up for a straight-up horror flick—the movie itself is solid, it's just that ending where they "realize" what they actually are felt a bit over the top for me.
Honestly, I thought that part was brilliant. Maybe if you're watching it a certain way it comes off as a little much, but it really isn't—people dealing with those kinds of issues are very real, and those two actors played the roles incredibly well.
Chloe Bishop44 said:I haven't caught it yet, but I was totally planning to until my friend told me the movie was mind-numbingly boring—apparently, people were practically walking out of the theater in droves mid-screening... ?!
Look, if you're just looking for some mindless, typical Hollywood commercial horror crap to pass the time, then honestly? Just skip it.
Seriously great flick. For anyone who hasn't checked this one out yet—and look, I’m not gonna spoil a single thing—just a heads-up: don't go in expecting a straight-up horror movie. The trailer is one thing, but the actual film is a totally different beast. It’s more of a really polished, deep psychological drama. If you've already seen it, please, drop your thoughts below. I'm dying to know what you guys made of it... By the way, it was directed by the legend himself, William Friedkin (The Exorcist, The French Connection, To Live and Die in L.A.)
Honestly, Scary Movie 3 is my absolute favorite—it just hits different for me, probably because the legendary David Zucker was behind the camera (you know, the guy who did Top Secret!, pistol goal, and Airplane!). He directed the fourth one too, but for me, the third one is still the winner—well, as much as a ridiculous parody can actually be "good," if you catch my drift.
The guy was basically an American icon for martial arts—seriously, he used his movies, interviews, and all those books he wrote to bring that whole culture to the forefront. Honestly, if it weren't for him, I don't think the West would have ever gotten this obsessed with fighting styles, or even certain spiritual philosophies... He’s just become such a staple of pop culture at this point. If you haven't seen it yet, you really should check out that biopic about Bruce Lee from '93 directed by Rob Cohen.
Honestly, if you ask me, Shrek The Third is easily my favorite out of the whole trilogy. It just feels way more complete—like, it actually has a cohesive soul—but the biggest thing for me is definitely the comedy. The humor feels so much fresher, and I’d even go as far as to say it’s the most mature one of the bunch. It’s got those layers that really land with adults rather than just being some loud, mindless stuff meant for little kids. Seriously, give it a shot! 👍
Honestly, this movie is a total bust. It’s predictable—like, you can see the whole thing coming from a mile away. I mean, okay, it’s got a tiny bit of hook at the very start, but man, what kills it is the main cast. They’re just these incredibly grating, annoying teenagers, and all their little high school romance drama? It feels completely forced. It doesn't move the plot forward at all—it's just filler that gets in the way. Such a massive letdown.