What did they actually do wrong? That’s kind of the whole point. They completely ghosted the parents who raised them—the ones who worked their tails off just so they could live these high-flying lives, have successful careers, and start families. They haven't even seen them in 15 years. Honestly, shouldn't it be the kids making the effort to visit aging, tired parents? These parents don't have nearly as much money as the kids do (not that they need it), and they definitely aren't living as "successful" lives because they sacrificed everything for their children. You'd think they could at least take one day off or use their one free day to spend time together, but instead, they go out of their way to do something else entirely. They decide to pool their money just to dump them in a nursing home to get them out of the way for a bit. Remember that scene where the daughter and her husband are eating cookies, and the husband says they should share some with the parents, but she snaps back saying they're too expensive to waste on them? I mean, they're literally sitting there eating the damn cookies. It's just selfish, stingy, and small-minded...
Citizen Kane is an Ozu classic that hits home for a lot of cinephiles. It’s easily one of the greatest films ever made, period. Ozu centers the story on an elderly couple, using them to pull back the curtain on some pretty heavy life questions. Basically, the parents head to New York City to visit their grown kids. On the surface, the "kids" seem stoked to have them, but you quickly realize the parents are more of a burden than a blessing. The loud, frantic, high-octane pace of New York City just tears this family apart. Not only does the couple feel out of place, but the kids are way too busy to actually spend time with them. In all this chaos, the only person who shows any genuine interest or care is their daughter-in-law, Judy Garland, who’s a widow since her husband—their son—died in the war. The "caring" kids decide to pool some cash to send the parents off to a resort just to get them out of the way. The old couple ends up heading back from the resort early because New York City felt too alien among a crowd of strangers who are two whole generations younger than them. The director has the guts to convey deep emotion without relying on heavy dialogue, even though he keeps the viewer at a distance that forces a certain level of objectivity. It’s hard not to feel for some of Ozu's characters, and equally hard not to judge the ones vibrating with negative energy. The characters are incredibly strong, each in their own way, and the performances are so raw you might actually forget you're watching a movie. Ozu constantly draws lines between the generations to show how wide the gap really is. These parents, who spent most of their lives in a quiet, isolated small town, find the modern city way too overwhelming and chaotic. They feel like outsiders, especially since their kids are too preoccupied to give them any real attention, despite not having seen them in ages. Once the couple gets back to New York City, they split up for a bit to find some peace before heading home so they don't bother anyone. The mother stays with the kind daughter-in-law, Judy Garland, while the father visits an old friend and gives in to his old habit... drinking. This is where you really start to feel things. The mother feels embarrassed in front of her daughter-in-law because she showed more concern for her (and her husband) than her own flesh and blood did. On the flip side, even though the father slipped back into his old ways for one night, he found some solace in talking to a friend—something his kids couldn't provide. On the way back, the parents stop by to see a son living in a suburb between New York City and their hometown, then finally make it home to their youngest, Judy Garland. She's a single teacher who gives them plenty of attention, much like Judy Garland did during their stay in New York City. Once they're alone, they trade thoughts about the trip and seeing the kids. It turns out the parents aren't happy; the kids didn't pay enough attention, and they've all become worse people—not just toward the parents, but toward themselves. Still, they find a weird sense of peace believing their kids are better people than the average. At the end, all the kids get telegrams saying their mother is in critical condition. Everyone rushes to be there for her final moments. Everyone, except for the son who's running late, gathers around her as she lies there. Emotions boil over, and everyone realizes she isn't going to make it. In that peak moment, everything becomes honest. They realize some things can never be regretted or fixed. But that honesty doesn't last long. After the funeral, they grab dinner and head back to their selfish, anxious lives... everyone except Judy Garland, who sticks around a little longer to help out the youngest and the father...
Watched this masterpiece last night and I'm honestly floored. The hype is real. The direction is just incredible—the director doesn't waste time on fluff, focusing instead on raw relationships and deep character work. Every shot has this beautiful, steady flow; nothing feels rushed or jumpy with constant cutting back and forth between faces. That was my favorite part. No cheap tricks, no trying to outsmart the audience. What you see is what you get. No hidden agendas, no subtextual nonsense. The simplicity is actually its greatest strength. Even though the plot is technically an "adventure" (kind of a weird way to put it since the leads are older folks), it doesn't get lost wandering around New York City. There's zero filler. Everything lands perfectly, and you can practically read the characters' emotions right off their faces or through their body language. Sometimes they say things out of politeness that contradict how they actually feel, but you still feel everything...
man, if this were just unrealistic in a comic book kind of way, I wouldn't mind, but he’s just completely lost. It’s not even about that—it’s that you don't get any sense of New York City at all. Just look at how they handle the whole mafia concept. What makes them the mafia? Because they have tattoos? Or because some detective mentions a corpse had tattoos from The Mafia? (was that even their name?) They aren't doing any actual underworld business besides a murder at the start—which we find out later wasn't even ordered by Kirill's father—they aren't smuggling, killing, ordering hits, or laundering money... what actually makes them a mafia? And they're short on manpower too... even in comic books, they usually bother to characterize who people are and why they do things.
As for casting, any director can mess up, and honestly, it happens all the time. I'm not saying I'm definitely right about Viggo, since I didn't back up my take on his portrayal of a mobster/agent with anything concrete. I just said how I perceived him. From what I can see, other people are giving Viggo more positive reviews, but they aren't offering much substance either... just showering him with compliments.
*Anyway, if we haven't cleared up the thing about New York City yet, let me say it one more time. I don't mind an unrealistic depiction of something; sometimes that's even better because it adds a certain charm to a real-world setting. What bothers me is a non-existent depiction... like setting a story in Brooklyn but making it look like it could have been filmed anywhere else. If it looks like that, why call it Brooklyn?
Harold Mendoza59 said:I don't follow. My point was just that this isn't realistic London or a realistic Mafia story. Everything happens in this highly stylized, comic-book, supernatural Cronenberg underworld. Complaining about the lack of realism here is as silly as complaining that Rambo takes down fifty guys and three helicopters with a single burst. It’s just nonsense.
Look, this isn't your "typical" Cronenberg flick where he leans hard into his signature style. This is supposed to be a gritty drama-thriller with grounded characters—real people, ideally—set in a real time and a real place. The fact that New York doesn't feel realistic wouldn't even be an issue if it were actually New York, but this isn't New York, and it's definitely not the actual Mafia... If he wanted pure fiction, he would've made something like Videodrome, with some imaginary underground TV station and surreal characters and events. But here, they're trying to emphasize that these characters are real people, yet they're placed in the middle of nowhere...
And why New York specifically? Why those Chelsea fans? See, the issue isn't that it's unrealistic; it's that it's a failed attempt at being real...
When people talk about "mood," they’re usually talking about atmosphere. Since the word itself implies something pleasant, and Cronenberg’s vibe is anything but... it’s like he practically puts a "not" in parentheses right next to the word...
When and where is this setting even supposed to be? This movie fails to capture either vibe. The depiction of New York Cronenberg provides nothing, not even in that scene with the Chelsea football fans—they look like a bunch of kids who were paid to wear blue scarves just to signal they belong to a club. The director missed out on all the gritty details that make a city like New York feel real, leaving me so lost I didn't even know the setting until it was mentioned... and even then, it still didn't feel like NYC. It’s hard to believe the location has zero charm, feeling more like some empty outdoor studio set than an actual city. The characters are thinly sliced by some of the actors (well, one specifically), but mostly it's the "fault" of a cliché, weak script. Naomi Watts isn't exactly spectacular here, but her character is so incredibly trope-heavy there's no room for a rich performance anyway. Viggo Mortensen left a bad taste in my mouth in his previous Cronenberg work (A History of Violence), and while he shows he can do slightly better here, it's still not enough. His dedication to the look—shamelessly sporting those tattoos in pubs even when cameras weren't rolling, or traveling to Moscow with an interpreter to soak up the accent and learn Mafia customs...—is brave, sure, but his internal characterization is practically non-existent, about as deep as Arnold's Terminator. Vincent Cassel and Armin Mueller-Stahl do a decent job playing the father, but their performances are overshadowed by a weak portrayal of the Mafia family. It follows the logic of those early star trek episodes with DeForest Kelley, Leonard Nimoy, and William Shatner, where the high-ranking officers (including Captain Kirk) always head down to the planet to handle things personally while the rest of the thousands of crew members just "hang out" on the Enterprise. Honestly, it would have been better if Cronenberg had at least aimed for that level of scale, because his Mafia "crew" doesn't even exist. There aren't any sinister henchmen opening car doors with terrifying respect or guarding the entrance to their house... instead, you just get one single Viggo Mortensen with his fake badass, nasty clichés that don't work even under pressure. Overall, it's a disappointing showing from Cronenberg, a guy I deeply admire for Videodrome, The Dead Zone, Dead Ringers, and even the underrated eXistenZa. He shouldn't try this dramatic narrative approach if it means stripping away what makes him who he is: that edgy, magical, supernatural atmosphere his films are known for...
Steven Palmer3 said:Who cares about the post count? To me, it’s just some arbitrary number meant to show how much someone hangs around here, but I can see you're some kind of seasoned veteran when it comes to that stuff...🙂
Activity could be measured by something else. For example, it’d be better if they tracked actual time spent on the forum instead of just post counts. Being active isn't just about typing stuff out; it's also about reading. You see people who registered back in 2002 with barely any posts, but that doesn't mean they aren't around... 🙂
Man, this put me in such a good mood. I missed this thread because I was distracted by all those stupid monthly subscriptions. This looks incredible, seriously uplifting. Even seeing Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan in their prime together makes them look totally inferior compared to this guy. Tony Jaa is a straight-up god
But wait, how do they not have any connection? Like, the original versus this sequel? Tony Jaa plays the same character from the first one. Maybe this is some kind of prequel?... 🤔
I haven't seen everything, but I’m reading my way through, and it’s helping me connect with stuff I probably wouldn't have even grasped otherwise. That’s exactly why I was looking for a solid review 🙂
Joseph Lee3 said:You’ve made a really sharp connection there regarding the autobiographical thread stretching from Wild Strawberry to 8 1/2; in Wild Strawberry, the way Isak Borg is portrayed feels like a reflection of how one might have viewed Bergman during that era—cold, hollow, and somewhat brutal. That character functions as the author's alter ego, much like Guido Felliniesque, though certainly through a different lens.
It’s actually quite interesting how much Bergman admired Fellini, often making trips to visit him in Italy. He wasn't exactly known for venturing far from his chilly Swedish roots, yet Fellini was one of those rare figures he could truly draw inspiration from. He seemed drawn to that Mediterranean playfulness and sense of optimism. Fellini, on the other hand, would play it cool; Bergman could be a bit intense to deal with, so eventually, the hospitality started to wear thin. 🤣
As for Fellini, my personal favorites have to be I Vitelloni and The White Sheik.
Well, looks like I accidentally hit on that autobiographical connection with Bergman. What I meant was more about how the characters experience their adventures. You can view a Bergman character from multiple perspectives, whereas with a Fellini character, you're pretty much stuck seeing everything through the lens of the character himself...
It’s interesting because Bergman absolutely loved Fellini and used to visit him in Italy quite often. He wasn't exactly big on anything outside of his cold Sweden, but Fellini was one of those rare guys he could truly feed off of. He resonated with that Mediterranean playfulness and optimism. Fellini, on the other hand, used to get a bit fed up since Bergman could be pretty intense, eventually leading to him being told to stay away for a while... 🤣
Three days per guest is plenty 😁
offtopic: I was just about to reply to your DM, but I think I'll make you wait a bit 😬
Aside from that, if I'm not mistaken, the consensus among the few of you running this thread is that you're just starting your journey with Fellini. Which is perfectly fine.
That's what I was thinking—I was just messing around a bit, with us, with myself 😁
I have to admit, I'm actually enjoying this tutorial 🙂
🙂