Posts by Jose Miller17

Just stumbled upon this quiz...

Art or Porn??!

Here’s my result:

'You scored 8 out of a possible 10
There are two explanations for how you've done so well. 1: You're a devotee of great cinematic art, and recognise key moments in film history when you see them. 2: You have a huge stash of vintage porn. '

😁😁😁

slyrider16, here's a starting point for you (though you can find lists like this all over the web or in books... I checked out that '1001 Movies' thing, it’s got decent reviews, but man, it's pricey... :-)... some directors are just too legendary to be pinned down to a single masterpiece, but if you're looking for a director-based deep dive, I'll help you out.

1895 Lumière brothers' arrival of a train
1902 Georges Méliès' A Trip to the Moon
1925 D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation
1919 Robert Wiene's The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
1921 Chaplin's The Kid
1922 Murnau's Nosferatu—still the best Dracula there is😁
1925 Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin
1926 Lang's Metropolis
1928 Buñuel's Un Chien Andalou
1929 Vertov's Man with a Movie Camera😍 ...

slyrider16 said:Counting directors would be overkill. You’d end up with a thousand movies easily if you tallied everything from the silent era to now. Plus, even the greats have their flops, or they make one masterpiece and spend the rest of their lives coasting on it.
I wasn't trying to pin down an exact number... but if we aren't doing counts, let's aim for 100 essential films (again, ignoring anything made after the 90s) just to get a real grasp of cinema as both art and craft.
Anyone want to throw some more suggestions for the pre-1940 era onto the list before we move on to the 1941–1950 stretch? 😛

The concept is fine, but isn't this just going to turn into a list of stuff everyone already knows? Most of these entries are pretty much set in stone anyway. :-)

goldenhound32 said:Why wouldn't that matter? I mean, why couldn't the main character just shoot them and have them clutch their hearts and fall over with a dramatic expression—like in movies from fifty years ago? Even if the movie isn't about violence and the shooting is just some random side thing, it would still matter to me.
So, if something is poorly done, unrealistic, or naive, we just shrug and say "it doesn't matter" and call it a day...

Oh, here we go with the classic false dilemma... read that part about the Titanic again. Maybe the font was ugly, but who actually cares? That’s not going to explain why the ship sank (or didn't, if we're asking Jessica Nguyen85)... get it? ;-)
...

goldenhound32 said:You're exaggerating.
The movie is alright, but nothing to write home about. Honestly? The lead actor—and I’m talking about David here, not Viggo Mortensen—is totally unconvincing. He’s supposed to be this killer, yet he acts like he’s just handing out cookies. Remember that scene where three guys show up at his house? One guy pulls a gun, the lead disarms him, punches him in the nose three times, grabs the weapon, and kills one of them. Only then does Ed Harris—a guy who’s basically been a career criminal for twenty years and probably has a body count higher than most action stars—decide to react by shooting him. Come on.

Like I said before... it's completely irrelevant to the movie. This sounds like someone trying to explain why the Titanic sank just because they didn't like the font used in the credits.

Jessica Nguyen85 said:Uh... maybe we should talk about this instead 😁

I get where you're coming from, but honestly, all that "what if" stuff just makes the movie feel like a missed opportunity to me. It’s got way more untapped potential than actual execution. Like I said, it could have been a masterpiece, but as it stands? Not quite. I can see you're really feeling it though (and clearly not just you, given what the American critics are saying). Regarding the virus subplot—I really think they should have leaned into that instead of tossing it aside. Without it, even the opening feels a bit pointless, doesn't it? You're working overtime to defend David here, stretching things pretty thin, so I'm not sure how many more posts this thread can take before it snaps. ;-)

copperpuma96 said:Sports is a job—a straight-up profession. People make a living at it. While you’re sitting in an office grinding through your 9-to-5, he’s doing the exact same thing, just without the desk. He’s out riding a bike or drilling sword techniques instead. Get it? You work for a paycheck, he works for a paycheck. It's the same thing. Period.

Not really... we're talking about playing for the national team here... that's the whole point.🙂
You still didn't answer my question. :-)

copperpuma96 said:Look, it’s not like you’d get it anyway... actually, scratch that, I'm just wasting my breath here.
Where do you even work?

Hold on, what's your issue here? You're acting like you're somehow above us "unrefined" people who can't see the noble, hidden motives behind why this guy gave up his citizenship. For your information, the "virtue" you're treating like some high moral standard is just—CASH. That's all there is to it. The guy sold himself out for money... basically a total sellout. It’s not like he’s broke or has no prospects; he’s got plenty of money, he just wants more.
I get that he doesn't care about the country, but then don't complain to me about it. Just say "I did it for the paycheck" and leave it at that.
Maybe take a breather between all that mindless typing... are you really saying every athlete should just chase the biggest paycheck from now on? Who are you going to cheer for then? Whoever happens to have the fanciest jerseys?
....
Oh, and if you really want to show off, maybe try looking in a mirror first.I'll pay you 🙂 🙂

copperpuma96 said:Look, he doesn't care who he swims for. At the end of the day, he’s swimming for the paycheck.

You might as well just say he sold his soul for a check... both his integrity and his citizenship. If his loyalty means nothing to him, it doesn't mean much to me either. So basically, 🙂 it 👋 is

Jessica Nguyen85 said:Just a potentially random thought, but since the title starts with "A," it translates to "A History of Violence." After watching it, that title actually makes a lot of sense.

That’s not just a random thought; it’s a sharp one. Honestly, it's so good it gave me a better idea than Cronenberg's (humble as I am 😁). Seriously... why? Because I think a more compelling angle would have been if the movie was actually a "History of a Single Act of Violence." If David had gone that route, it would have been incredible. It touches on it slightly—this violence spreading like a virus from start to finish, infecting characters regardless of how much they try to resist—but he mostly veered off into character studies, modern excess, and the whole "who are we really?" trope. It didn't quite hit that mark. It wasn't bad in that arena, but it wasn't brilliant, and it could have been. There are great moments, sure—like when Ed Harris asks the lead something along the lines of, "Who are you when you dream? The old you or the new you?" That was genius. To me, the film felt like a collection of great sequences poorly stitched together. I don't know why, honestly. Viggo Mortensen wasn't the right choice for the lead; it felt off. And one detail bothered me—did anyone else notice the music? Those heavy-handed "this is a pivotal moment" swells were totally misplaced. Cut the Phantom of the Opera crap and let me hear the characters. Let me hear the floorboards creaking or a door slamming. I don't need a score to tell me someone is terrified. Someone mentioned some clichés in the narration... yeah, there are some, but I think they were secondary and shouldn't tank the rating.

bluntman said:Our tastes are so different I’m starting to wonder if you’re my ex.😁

First it was pantyhose, now we're here 😲...told you I'm not really into that kind of thing 🙂 😁😁 ....
....anyway, enough off-topic chatter 🙂 :-)

brightscout63 said:A Hulahup is one thing, but wearing them is another. I've got a thing for both. 😬
Personally, I think Blood Simple is solid. If it didn't make my top 5, the Coen brothers just have to live with that. 😁

It's not a top 5, it's more like 7... plus, looking at your list, you skipped 'The Man Who Wasn't There' but included 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?'.
Lucky for you the Coens aren't reading this, otherwise they'd tell you your whole list is garbage—they don't mess around. 😁😁 ....

Richard Hernandez13 said:Honestly, they've been in a slump since Intolerable Cruelty. They just managed to mask it pretty well until now.

And that 'the man...' bit was clearly just some 😁Lucid Interval
nonsense.

brightscout63 said:I don't take lessons. Hulahup is more my style... What else? 🙂 😁

Look, if you're obsessed with hulahops, that's your business. 😁 😁
...
Go rewatch some Barry Sonnenfeld. You might actually be surprised. ;-)

I’m going to quote myself from a previous post about Ladykillers:

...I'm trying to dig up a specific memory from the movie but it's just not happening. With Intolerable Cruelty, at least I remember feeling totally let down. But with Ladykillers? Nothing. The Coen brothers were living their best cinematic lives, and then Intolerable Cruelty hit them like a ton of bricks—not some glamorous or revolutionary exit under a spotlight, either. It felt more like an old guy telling a stale joke and groaning. To me, Ladykillers feels like that weird sensation of people who claim they've seen the afterlife. Is there one? What's it like? The answer is: I have no clue. I don't remember. All I recall is some bright light cutting through the dark (the theater screen)...

....
Honestly, I think brightscout63 is being unforgivable by lecturing everyone on the Coen brothers' filmography while leaving Blood Simple off the list and putting mr. Hullahopp instead ttttt ;-) ..
...
And as for what's next, looks like they handed the directing duties for 'Suburbicon' over to a clown. 😁😁

Do you have a pilot in the plane, Brother? This new one feels like a spiritual successor to 'Getting Any'... it’s basically just making fun of everyone, especially himself. I caught a scene where he's driving around with those Dolls from the movie in his car...😁 😁
Anyway, Tarantino says after this film, he's moving into a whole new phase of his creative life...😁

Watched it and honestly, I think it’s all killer... Takashi Miike absolutely crushed it 🙏. It’s a masterpiece... easily one of his best-looking films visually. Fruit Chan was great too... solid story and top-tier acting... the cinematography is straight out of a Deakins movie. The biggest surprise, though? He filmed a full version afterward that people are saying is just as good.
Park Chan-wook worked for me too... classic him... that twisted logic he does better than anyone else. 👍
All in all, a little treat... I’ve got my 90s vintage collection from New York 😍

I love Kitana... honestly, he's easily one of my favorite Directors... I hate picking just one movie, feels unfair to the rest of them 😁... every single one hits different. His style in 'Sonatina' was pure genius from that early era (before the accident)... 'Hana-bi' is a masterpiece, plain and simple... 'Dolls' is great too, though it gets stuck being compared to 'Hana-bi' since they came out around the same time... 'Brother' is unfairly overlooked regardless. If I had to pick one of his lesser-known gems, I'd go with 'Kikujira'... 😍 ...nothing but praise for this guy. People love to lump him in with Miike's cinematic indulgence, but the man is a straight-up poet. It’s actually pretty funny—whenever I see a 360-degree camera shot, I immediately think of that interview where he said how much he hates that trope in movies. Now, whenever I see it, I just think of Kitana 😁😁... he was solid in 'Battle Royale' even if he was just acting 👍...

stormycyclist13 said:I’ve seen plenty of his movies. The guy is a cult legend. Honestly, I can't picture anyone making a movie bloodier than what Takeshi does.😁
ichi..😁

You missed the mark completely.😬 😁 😁

brightridge19 said:Yeah, because someone slipping on icy stairs is just peak comedy. 😁
Wow.
There’s already a thread for movies people are embarrassed by, so here’s your contribution. Why don't you go grab Joe Pesci and head somewhere else? You'll be much happier there. 😉 For sure.

First off, don't tell me where to go. Second, Home Alone is a Christmas movie, so it fits perfectly. Third, if you can't find it funny when Pesci's hair catches fire or he slips on ice, maybe you just didn't have a normal childhood. 😬 Besides, that movie launched his career right before he hit it big in 'The Super' and 'Jimmy Hollywood.' Even Michael Jackson was working with Jack Nicholson around then, getting credited as 'the blond kid' on hits like 'Black or White,' while things were starting to spiral. So, take your feathers and your mud somewhere else, maybe www.clueless.com and stop reading.
;-)