Posts by Joseph Lee3

If you ask me, that whole thing is going to fall apart faster than a cheap lawn chair in a hurricane...

🤣 It’s kind of like how an owl might mock a shadow just for having a thick skull; filmmaking is a massive team effort, and honestly, people get frustrated all the time. As Jean Renoir once pointed out, you can't just order a masterpiece off a menu. That’s why we really need to give these creators more credit. (Or at least, that's my two cents.) 😎

It’s funny hearing Anthony Davis6 go on about aggressive marketing for an indie theater like Tuškanac. Honestly, you don't see massive ad campaigns for those types of spots out in the real world; people just check the local city guides or follow their usual hauntings. Truth be told, we still don't have enough die-hard cinephiles in this country. That said, I think there's a valid point in suggesting that multiplexes could easily dedicate a single screen to non-mainstream screenings on a permanent basis—whether through curated cycles or independent runs.

And that brings us back to what Lala pun mentioned regarding how owners and editorial boards simply couldn't care less. But why? It’s not like their other specialty screenings are breaking any records either. Is sourcing an old classic actually such a monumental task? Is the licensing fee really that steep? Or is the root cause just pure laziness and a lack of interest? I truly believe this would be a way to pull in entirely new crowds. And ultimately: they'd sell more popcorn! There's your profit margin right there. Everyone wins.

By trying to convert the skeptics using high-tech Star Trek seats, bamboo organizers, and free parking right next to the elevator to convince them that Orson Welles could have directed a flick just as good as one by Bryan Singer, they might actually expand the circle of people who wouldn't normally bother trekking out to a tiny hilltop cinema.

For a major metropolis like Chicago, it’s an absolute disgrace that all non-mainstream programming is dumped into a single hall out in the suburbs. Period. It brings up a fundamental question about the audience: is this a failure of the system or a failure of the people? One inevitably feeds the other in a continuous loop. Capitalism, by its very design, peddles easy entertainment—distractions designed to get people into theaters to unwind so they don't spend too much time worrying about the actual state of the world. Democracy is essentially a kakistocracy—the rule of the corrupt over a clueless majority. The system works precisely because it suits everyone's convenience.

The difference elsewhere is that they actually nurture some semblance of alternative culture; the government steps up to curate the supply and funds it based on what taxpayers expect. That’s why you see far more multiplexes than niche independent venues in those places. I mean, even abroad, there aren't endless numbers of "off-stream" viewers, but there are certainly more than here in America, and they have their own dedicated cinemas. Every major city in Europe leaves room for screenings of classics, genre films, or ethnic cinema, and it’s the city or the state's duty to fund them.

When you step into one of those specialized theaters, you might hear something our provincial mindset hasn't quite grasped yet: film is the seventh art. Regardless of how hard Hollywood tries to strip that title away today. In those halls, you rarely hear the local vernacular; instead, you find people who were browsing a Frida Kahlo exhibit yesterday and might be at a world music concert or seeing William Shakespeare tomorrow, depending on the weather. They certainly aren't content staying shut within their own (mental) four walls.

Does America bother cultivating an image as a destination for cultural tourism? Even young backpackers looking for something fresh—who aren't exactly rolling in cash—would rather sit through a 1966 Tokyo nagaremono than the latest Brad Pitt flick that’s being shoved in their faces from every street corner.

And festivals? Good grief. This summer, downtown Vienna alone hosted five or six festivals and open-air stages. Meanwhile, Chicago acts like it's too sophisticated for that... as if we all just fly to Paris or London for shopping trips! It’s pathetic, really. Honestly, I wouldn't even mind a few commercials—I've realized they're everywhere anyway—but let them be! Someone has to fund a freaking Oriental film festival. If it means I have to sit through five minutes of ads for Falter or The New York Times, then fine, let them! As long as they show me a film I’d otherwise have to pay to watch on a screen that isn't worthy of it. If I even bothered making that investment in the first place.

God... I just get worked up over these things. 🙂

Anthony Davis6, that’s a pretty balanced take. I'm mostly on board, though I can't help feeling like there's way more chaff than wheat in the industry these days—at least in terms of what's being pumped out. It’s hard to pin down an exact timeline for when things shifted, but it feels like everything started unraveling once we lost that era of strong auteur vision and those classic studio formulas.

I don't know, every generation just brings its own crowd. Caine is probably just feeling nostalgic. Then again, I'm just as guilty, even if I'm young enough to be his granddaughter. Looking at it now, it all feels subjective, but the reality is that getting into classic cinema today is a massive hurdle. Most people rooting for modern blockbusters haven't even scratched the surface of the masterpieces made forty years ago.

Robert De Niro, a veteran actor whose craft was forged back when cinema actually felt "massive"—someone who clearly grew up on a steady diet of prestige filmmaking—has once again decided to be a bit of a rebel, taking aim at the assembly-line machinery that defines modern studio movies.

To quote an American news outlet:

The legendary Robert De Niro recently lashed out at the American film industry, calling Hollywood productions formulaic, shallow, and frankly, quite repulsive.

He argues that for anyone who actually appreciates sharp dialogue, movie theaters have become a wasteland. "Films made for those people go straight to streaming or home video because they aren't profitable enough for the Hollywood moguls."

While he’s clearly fed up with the current blockbusters topping the charts, his biggest grievance is how these mindless spectacles effectively lobotomize the audience.

Naturally, this has ignited a massive debate over IMDb regarding the past, present, and future of the medium. Does De Niro have a point? Are we really comfortable calling these cookie-cutter products "classics"? What has modern cinema actually contributed to the art form? In short... is De Niro just being a nostalgic curmudgeon, or is he acting as a mouthpiece for those of us who still demand more from a screen?

I'm pulling this thread because I'm genuinely itching to shake up my own perspectives on the matter...

I caught a quick screening of this a couple of months back. It feels like Pedro Almodóvar is trying to find his way back to his roots. I’m not entirely sure yet—to get a real sense of it, I’ll probably have to sit down and rewatch the whole thing from start to finish in English. While I feel like Jean-Luc Godard lost his spark a long time ago compared to other European directors, I don't think you can afford to skip over Almodóvar just yet.

A kid-friendly intermission?! Give me a break. Such intrusive little liars... they even forced a break during Superman. Seriously, just when I was about to slide off my seat from pure boredom, they slap a "15-MINUTE INTERMISSION" sign on the screen. In this instance, at least it provided a perfect window to make a discreet exit from a production that, quite frankly, felt like it was made for toddlers.

And that’s really the only angle they’ve got left to work with.

🤣 That’s exactly why Siskel walked away winning in that McDonald's segment!

And that bit at the start:

S: They only Review Two Movies in evening promo...
E: Why? Why those two films?
S: I dunno why. I didn't pick 'em. Ask the person that picked 'em.

😂

For quick access to information: Ebert's site for the Chicago Sun-Times.

As for that slower one: you might as well take a stroll down to the local Starbucks where, for about ten bucks, you can probably get a decent cup of coffee instead. What actually counts as a great movie? It’s a solid buy for the price. Honestly, calling it one of the top 100 isn't quite right anymore since they've released another hundred "best" titles in the meantime, which just bumps the list up to 200 if you're counting alphabetically. Anyway, it's light, informative reading—the kind of thing you pick up on a gloomy afternoon like this one to help digest lunch. Each little essay takes about five minutes, which is a perfect pace for anyone struggling to stay focused. Even if *Wings of Desire* speaks a different language to me than it does to him, it still broadens your perspective. At the end of the day, what matters is feeling the sheer enthusiasm and dedication behind his writing.

Oh, honey... 🙂

p.s. 😘

Why should we even bother worrying? Honestly, if anyone actually cares, they already know. I've been tracking his situation for a few weeks now, but man, instead of all those endless prayers being tossed around on the IMDb forums, they could have actually built something substantial, like some kind of American fortress...🙄

Roger Ebert is a master of his craft. Whether people agreed with his takes or not, I think he was a brilliant critic because of how his prose shifts to match the mood of whatever movie he's reviewing. That touch of literary flair in his writing is such a great seasoning for the whole experience. I guess that's why he earned a Pulitzer.

There’s nothing quite like washing down a heavy meal with a cold Cola—it feels like you’re jumpstarting your metabolism, as if everything just magically moves along.

In my view, the real nightmare with Cola and those similar sodas is benzene, which is easily one of the most toxic substances a human body can encounter. The FDA has actually known for about 15 years now that when you mix benzoate (a preservative) with ascorbic acid—both of which are staples in Cola—you end up creating benzene. This effect is even more pronounced in Diet Coke varieties where they start mixing in aspartame.

But let's be honest, there’s another depressing layer to this whole thing: it’s all about the bottom line. We old-timers might still think we're the smartest people in the room because we haven't received a terminal diagnosis yet, but it is truly staggering how little it costs to poison children. You have massive numbers of kids out there regularly gulping down, on average, half a liter every single day...

If you look at the top right corner of this IMDb page, there’s a little notification about whether the movie is available on DVD or even VHS through Amazon. Based on what it says there, it looks like the film hasn't actually hit the shelves on DVD yet. You'll probably have to hunt through some dusty corner of the internet to find nothing but old, used rental tapes.

Melodrama is basically just super-sweetened lemonade. I’ve been spending my Saturday mornings lately diving into a Douglas Sirk marathon... honestly, the guy owns the melodrama genre the way Woody Allen owns comedy. If you want a real benchmark for the style, check out "All That Heaven Allows" or his other takes on similar themes, ideally featuring Rock Hudson. 🙄

Look, it's obvious I'm not exactly a genre devotee, though I do have a soft spot for "Far from Heaven" from 2002—it’s like this neo-melodrama tribute to those classic 1950s Hollywood tropes. How does it differ from your standard drama? Probably just by the sheer amount of sugar involved. The whole point is to bypass your emotional defenses entirely.

I’m genuinely stunned that IMDb finally decided to give Orson Welles's Falstaff its due credit (whether you call it Chimes at Midnight or just Chimes). The man was a visionary. When you look back at how he pushed the boundaries of cinematography in The Magnificent Ambersons—his first major leap following Citizen Kane—or even that quirky choice to roll the credits over a shot of the cast and crew, you realize he was playing a completely different game than everyone else. He was always miles ahead of his contemporaries simply because he refused to be formulaic.

He took on Shakespeare in a way that feels incredibly raw and uniquely his own. Even though he was working with a shoestring budget on this one, his directorial touch is absolutely breathtaking. The energy is palpable, especially through his trademark style: those tight, wide-angle close-ups of facial expressions that inject such a sharp sense of satire into every moment. It’s those specific faces that really make the Shakespearean dialogue sing. It remains one of my absolute favorite films.

I just realized this thread would have been a much better fit for those thoughts I had about Apocalypse Now... but oh well, 🙄

crimsonmoose3 said:Seven Brides for Seven Brothers - honestly, that movie still manages to put a smile on my face today. 😍

😲 No way! 🤣

crimsonmoose3 really went out of his way to dig some interesting topics out of the archives; looks like things were pretty lively in years past.

this whole discussion reminds me of an intriguing IMDb thread titled "to see with fresh eyes." It’s about those movies that either completely floored us during our first viewing or felt totally mediocre, only for us to circle back years later and realize we were dead wrong. Personally, I find that kind of mental recalibration fascinating.

Here’s one instance where my perspective shifted entirely: Apocalypse Now. I probably watched it far too young; at the time, it just seemed tedious—just endless drifting on a river, which honestly felt like a slog similar to Aguirre: The Wrath of God, a film I still haven't quite wrapped my head around. Plus, I tended to dodge war movies altogether back then. Today, though, I see it through a completely different lens—it's a masterpiece of imagery and raw emotion, an incredibly intimate experience for anyone willing to dig deep enough. And from a filmmaking standpoint, the secret footage captured by Coppola's wife during production is absolute gold; it offers such a subtle, haunting look at the sheer agony Coppola endured while filming Apocalypse Now.

Anyway, that's just one little thought of mine...