Posts by driftingowl27

Jack Harris3 said:E. v. Stroheim

All you’re missing now is >.

And what's wrong with that movie? 😕
It was one of the first films (as far as I know) to lean so heavily into the leading lady's sex appeal. It's a concept that's been ripped off a million times since.

(Back when grandma J-Lo was still playing in the sand 😁 )

The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) - Carl Th. Dreyer

Greed (1925) - Erich von Stroheim

M (1931) - Fritz Lang

feralgardener502 said:driftingowl27!

You can totally see it starting to pick up... 🙂

Once that retro explosion of heavy metal hits... man, I seriously can't believe you called this one... 😁 🙏

It just goes to show that the crowd that fell for all the hype surrounding that idiot isn't any smarter than the group sitting there munching popcorn, just waiting for "the good guy to finally get his revenge on the villain"—even if they're also rooting for some cheap thrills in tight outfits (not that I have anything against the concept)...🙂 :2up:

Pale Blue Eyes said:I was reading an interview with Lars recently where he mentions she took some symbolic amount... something like ten times less than her usual per-film rate... apparently, working with Lars had always been a dream of hers ever since she saw Lomeci val.... so she agreed to the huge pay cut jedva

Man, what a total liar. Even his budget for Dancer in the Dark was like 12 million dollars 😲.

Like, what? Was he filming with 100 cameras? 500? Give me a break. A triple-sized crew would spend the whole day just doing white balance on all those rigs.🙄
The guy could probably hang out with our local directors just fine—Hey, sedlar, you seeing this? 🙂

Robert Cooper41 said:And when I brought up "Dogville"

By the way, word is that for Nicole Kidman's $10 million payday back then, the bulk of it was supposedly covered by the Danish Ministry of Culture. What a freaking scandal. They could have used that cash to fund those Dogma 95 movies of theirs—maybe one of them actually would've been decent for once...🙄

(P.S. Just realized how I quoted you there... 😁 )

Here’s one 🙏 for you to chew on. Ever since that big shot bought out Palmetina to chase after Bjork, this whole festival has been a complete joke. It probably was a mess before too, I just didn't catch it 🙂

Let’s just say I absolutely loved the message of this movie, especially with a 😁last third of the film
like that.

Robert Cooper41 said:(von Trier + Nicole = 0)

Is it really any surprise they finally figured out just how shallow his whole approach to filmmaking actually is? I mean, honestly... it only took them a little while to catch on. 🙄

slyrider16 said:Could you give me some specific examples of those jokes from the last third of the film along with how you'd interpret them?
Also, please explain how the crappy parts of the script stop being crappy just because they admit they're crappy.

Kaufman explicitly emphasizes that he’s trying to dodge those classic Hollywood screenwriting clichés used to manufacture romance—you know, sex, drugs, and violence—yet he ends up leaning on all of them in the last third of the film. As the movie winds down, it becomes increasingly obvious to him that he won't be able to pull off the script he originally envisioned. That encounter with McKee is the absolute pivot point for that final act, especially when the guy tells him, "The last third of the film is what matters most; that's what people remember."
Basically, it boils down to the protagonist losing his internal conflict (just remember their chat after the seminar: "A film cannot exist without conflict"). Because he loses that internal struggle, you end up with that messy last third of the film.

Another little meta thing is that the entire movie actually follows the screenwriting principles laid out in detail in McKee's book, even while it's making fun of them.
So, the film is incredibly self-reflective and full of itself, but they aren't even trying to hide it, which is exactly why it's so much fun to watch. 🙂

Hands down one of the best American films I’ve seen in a while🙂.

Cage finally delivers a performance without all that macho posturing that's been cluttering up his roles lately.
The script is brilliant, the direction stays consistent, and even the supporting cast hits their marks perfectly.

Sure, the movie is incredibly self-indulgent, but the crew actually earned the right to be. You can see it most clearly in the last third of the film, which—as weird as it sounds—is actually a very logical conclusion to everything we just watched. (That is, if you account for the endless pile of tropes Hollywood has been leaning on to compensate for lazy writing lately).
If you ask me, it’s actually a tighter, more cohesive film than "Being John Malkovich".🙂

(And yeah, I’m a "proud" owner of Robert McKee's "Story", even though everyone seems to love making fun of both the book and the author... 😳 )

Michelle Gonzalez said:It just hit me—I forgot about Ron Fricke too. He’s the one behind the cinematography on "Koyaanisqatsi" and "Baraka"...

Check out the AC issue (if you haven't already 😉) where Ron explains how he shot "Baraka" on 70mm while simultaneously building this portable, computer-controlled Dolly. 🙂

And don't even get me started on Darius Khondji—that guy is dangerous. Honestly, I can't believe you guys glossed over Janusz Kaminski either (not that we even need to talk about the sheer quality of the films they worked on 😉).

Then there's Asakazu Nakai, who shot "Seven Samurai," and Takashi Fujimoto, who worked on "Badlands"... the list goes on and on.

driftingowl27 said:The absolute worst part about living where I am is that nobody gives a damn about cinema. I literally have to round up my own group of friends and pray they actually show up just to get some momentum going.

Just keep pushing, man. Don't let the apathy get to you. 👍

(Honestly, just take a look at Peter Jackson's earliest projects... that should give you a much-needed reality check. 😉)

driftingowl27 said:I’m gonna sit here and watch that little kid put his hands on his slimy little wrists, and let me tell you, there is zero chance that was some CGI effect. You should take a look yourself, N/A—I bet you'll see exactly what I mean.

driftingowl27 has seen that movie a dozen times already... 😳

It all comes down to the direction. It's the work of a true legend... which is exactly why he's who he is...😎>

blueranger12 said:?! How? How did she act that out?
And you know what my biggest mystery is? That little girl—the young lead actress—at the beginning? The faces she was making... she looked terrified. She wasn't acting, period! How did they pull that off? Like, how was that guy actually hitting her mom and she didn't even realize they were filming? How?! Or was it some kind of CGI?! I just don't get it, it was 100% pure, raw terror... and it lasted at least 25 seconds. Go ahead, explain that to me if you can, oh mysterious stranger!

1. How she acted that out? Only God knows... if there is one. It's just one more reason why this movie is such a masterpiece. (And they didn't even give her the Oscar she clearly deserved either... 🆙 )

2. Ken Loach is a trained actor who just happened to start directing. His methods for working with actors (especially when it comes to getting natural performances) are pretty unorthodox. I can go into the weeds on that if anyone actually wants to hear it. 🙂

3. Ken Loach doesn't mess around with computer animation. 😎

4. 4th Karaoke is a huge deal in England. 🙂

By the way, the lead actress had NEVER actually acted in a movie before this... at most, her entire career in show business consisted of singing karaoke in some dive bar (!!!)... 😢

Richard Howard2 said:So, I'm watching this movie.

It’s not terrible, per se, but it is incredibly depressing, tedious, and just constant screaming...

I don't really see the point in watching it... maybe for women who enjoy reading true crime stories at Madison Square Garden...

Look, man, you thought the last Star Wars was some masterpiece. As for Ladybird, honestly, in your case, it's like casting pearls before swine. I'd be shocked if you actually "got" it.🙄

driftingowl27 said:I'm looking to rent some film gear—specifically a 16mm camera. What else am I going to need to actually make this work?

Honestly, just forget about film entirely before you even start trying to learn the ropes. 😉
Unless, of course, you have a serious masochistic streak—you know, dealing with all the developing, color correction, and the endless headaches that come with it—and a massive pile of cash just sitting around waiting to be burned.

Richard Hernandez13 said:I mean, weren't tropes and clichés basically the favorite playground for those postmodern 90s filmmakers?

It’s a minor point, sure... but it's the exact reason we got Quentin Tarantino and that endless parade of clones... (fine, I guess Kevin Smith counts too...)

Richard Howard2 said:Templates are absolute perfection.

Like I said before: 2+2=5