Posts by redowl90

driftingowl27 said:Honestly, I think it’d be more entertaining to just watch Julia Roberts running around half-naked for 174 minutes...

Well, this would certainly be a more interesting watch regardless... 🙂

driftingowl27 said:

The point (redowl90, if that’s not clear enough, feel free to ask 😉), is that it's incredibly easy to sell people snake oil. People end up gravitating toward the same favorite movies and the same actors; when you bundle all that together with an excellent technician behind the camera, it's almost guaranteed to be labeled a masterpiece! (just my take on the dramatic irony 🙂 )

Some new Aki Kaurismäki fan who still hangs out at the Film Archive is basically the queen of this kind of nonsense...🙏

There’s another side to that coin (as Robert De Niro might say in that tense scene with Al Pacino in Heat), which is this: there are people (like Blue Eyes, Mickey Legend, and so on) who refuse to acknowledge anything other than Kaurismäki, Luis Buñuel, François Truffaut, Bunuel, Andrei Tarkovsky, Pedro Almodóvar, Fritz Lang, or Rainer Werner Fassbinder. They essentially claim, "Everything else is garbage; these guys are GODS!" Look, I get it, I really do—but that just means you're all chasing the exact same films and the exact same directors... You see what I mean?

Personally, I think Heat is an excellent film in terms of direction and screenplay. Someone mentioned that the character relationships are too thin, but I don't agree. Every single character gets at least one scene where they appear with their wife or girlfriend (think back to that dinner scene with Robert De Niro and his crew and their families)... If Alfred Hitchcock wanted to fully develop every single character's relationship, he would have needed seven hours instead of 160 minutes...

And Mickey, tell me, why on earth was the movie boring to you? I could wrap my head around most of your other points, but I truly don't get this part... 😉

By the way, if you want to know who my favorite actors are, just ask... I promise you neither Robert De Niro nor Al Pacino are even in my top five... 😉

The reason why De Niro stopped doing "standard" movies is pretty obvious: Hollywood just doesn't make them anymore. Most modern films are total garbage compared to the classics. We don't see movies like Taxi Driver, Flight over the Coward's Nest, or Dog Afternoon much anymore. You might stumble upon an indie project or a small blockbuster that actually feels substantial, but unfortunately, Hollywood has pivoted toward things like Armageddon, Daredevil, and Spider-Man—projects that clearly just smell like Novac. Actors like De Niro refuse to touch those, which leaves them stuck in mid-budget flicks where they can mostly rely on their names to pull in a paycheck.

That’s why I say: "Go, De Niro... You might not be the powerhouse you once were, and you've definitely started picking up some mediocre roles, but you're still better than most!"

"...the only thing I can't wrap my head around is why you, for God's sake, turned down Gangs of New York?..."

driftingowl27 said:
Regarding Heat, it’s just overhyped garbage. You get those baroque, try-hard shots where they show off everything they can do, paired with "look how big a star I am" acting from both of them throughout the whole movie...
Mann really found his footing with Insider... I guess he learned from his own mistakes. 🙂

BTW, do you think nobody ever thought of putting them together in a movie after their peak in The Godfather? 😉
Body doubles, clever camera angles, and makeup work wonders. 🙂

Wow... I mean, kudos to your "expertise" on most films, but I honestly didn't expect you to be the one calling Heat trash... That's exactly my point: "Most people love this film, so I'll just bash it to look cool..." But anyway, moving on... (the only thing I hope is that you aren't actually claiming they didn't act in that shared scene in Heat)...

And saying their peak was in The Godfather is just nonsensical... Both had incredible (if not better) roles after that: De Niro in Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and The Hunter, while Pacino had Scent of Women, Glengarry Glen Ross, and Dog Afternoon (I'd even venture to say Face with Scar, though that might not beat The Godfather)...

Personally, I don't mind De Niro doing comedies... The guy showed us his absolute best already, and now he's just working in different types of movies, likely for the paycheck and to stay relevant. In my opinion, out of all his recent work, Men of Honor really wasn't necessary, but everything else has been decent or even above average...

driftingowl27 said:
It’s interesting how the same director briefly managed to revive Al Pacino's career after he hit a bit of a low point with "The Devil's Advocate."
Except on the other side of that was Russell Crowe. 🙂

Wait, isn't it Keanu Reeves in "The Devil's Advocate," rather than Russell Crowe? Or am I just getting things mixed up again (as per usual)? 🙂

driftingowl27 said:Heat is garbage

Honestly, this one speaks for itself...

So, I caught that Goddard movie on TV this past Tuesday—one of those specialty channels. What can I say? It’s a solid film. It doesn't exactly burst with tension, but there are some truly brilliant moments... It's a shame they don't air more films from European directors (like Tarkovsky, Malle, and the rest) on US television, but I'll take it when they do.

For anyone interested, next Tuesday they're showing one of the greatest films ever made (at least according to the official rankings)... It's Jean Renoir's "pravilo igra".

Has anyone seen it? What's the verdict? Does it actually deserve to be ranked that high on all those lists?

Taylor Swift, I know exactly how you feel... I lived in Boise for a while (about three years ago) and when it came to movies, it was a total disaster... Honestly, even a magazine like Paramount Pictures wouldn't arrive on time, let alone actual films... And don't even get me started on the theater quality... 😲

Thank God my friends and I managed to hit it off with the guy selling tickets, so we at least got to catch movies for free (though they were mostly just stuff I'd already seen back in Washington, D.C.)...

David Martin16 said:P.S. Does anyone happen to have "Plan 9 from Outer Space"?

Yeah, I actually do... I've got both "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and "Bride of Frankenstein" on the same tape (though I still haven't gotten around to watching the latter). To be honest, I barely made it through "Plan 9" myself—it's about 70 minutes of pure struggle...

blueranger12 said:When I talk about a great scene, I’m not really talking about the plot. To me, the action itself isn't what makes a scene work.

Look, when it comes to specific scenes, the plot isn't really the point. If one particular scene hits the mark, you're going to talk about that moment itself, rather than rehashing the entire movie's history leading up to it.

I have to disagree with you there—you can't just ignore the script, even when a specific scene is carrying the weight. Take *Goodfellas*, for example. There’s that one iconic moment—one of my absolute favorites, personally—“What the fuck is so funny about me?” Sure, you’ve got brilliant performances from Joe Pesci and a great supporting turn from Ray Liotta, and their energy in that moment is incredible. But it’s also the dialogue—if you can even call it that—that really elevates the whole thing. It adds such layers to the tension. Between the writing and Joe Pesci's delivery, that scene stays one of the best for me.

Of course, some scenes really do just speak for themselves: like that tango sequence in Scent of Women, or those final moments in The Godfather III...

blueranger12 said:If I actually cared about the plot, I’d just read a book. To me, the story itself isn't the main thing—it's how that story is presented. Even if the plot is pure kitsch, it doesn't matter. Film is its own medium where visuals and sound are everything. Words are secondary; that's what books are for.

Look, from what you're saying, it sounds like the actual story in a movie doesn't matter to you at all... So, someone could write the worst dialogue in history, but if the cinematography is stunning, you'd call it a good movie...

For example: Armageddon has fascinating special effects, and if nobody said a single word and the action just flowed alongside an epic score, it would be a great film visually and auditorily... Unfortunately, though, the script is a disaster and the direction is just as bad, which immediately drags it into trash territory... But if the plot doesn't matter to you, then this movie is a winner too... Basically, any movie is good to you as long as it looks nice, right? 😉 (Man, what am I supposed to say about the thin red line, then? It's beautifully shot, but it also happens to have an excellent script and direction.)$$

ruggedjackal46 said:I don't know about you, but I felt every single minute of that movie differently because I "predicted" the ending two hours before it actually happened (and I'm no psychic)

Okay, that doesn't really hold up, considering you knew the gist of it before the movie even hit theaters here in the States. You already knew the synopsis: a young Frank was the biggest con artist in the USA and, once caught, started working for the FBI. That's the whole premise—it’s basically poking fun at Americans being so incompetent they had to hire a criminal to solve fraud cases...

The choice to have Spielberg start the film with Frank already caught was purely a directorial decision. He likely thought it would make a stronger impact on the audience and help bolster what is otherwise a fairly mediocre directing job throughout the rest of the film. Still, despite its flaws, this remains Spielberg's best work since Amistad...

I definitely agree with this: if you don't enjoy at least one genre, you aren't really a movie lover... Though there are exceptions. For instance, I can't stand comedies. To me, they are the worst, most boring genre out there; most of them don't make me laugh, they just make me sad (just look at the junk available on streaming services: "completely abandon", "Ant in his underwear," and all that other garbage)... That said, it doesn't mean I've given up on them entirely, because occasionally you find a decent one ("My Big Fat Greek Wedding", "About a Boy") or even a great one ("There's Something About Mary", "Notting Hill")...

So, don't look for something that isn't there? That's basically admitting the movie has NO script! I'm not demanding every film be written with the depth of "thin red line" or "Godfather," but the writing in "Moulin Rouge" is just terrible... You've got a pauper in love with a prostitute, then a wicked, wealthy duke who wants her for himself and does everything to keep her away from the poor guy (and then people actually complain about the plot in "Titanic"—aside from the fact that Kate Winslet wasn't a prostitute).... Honestly, why watch something where we've already chewed through the exact same story in hundreds of previous films? I get what Baz Luhrmann was aiming for, but that doesn't excuse a weak narrative... On top of that, I'm somewhat used to musicals ending with a happy ending, so the fact that this one ends so tragically was another downside for me... I mean, why bother with all that kitsch and those upbeat songs if they aren't going to end up together?

I highly recommend "Chicago," as it might be the best thing you see all year (if you liked "Moulin Rouge," there's no way you won't like this one)... [/B] [/B]

I honestly don't get what people found boring about this movie. For me, the pacing felt pretty quick, especially compared to something like Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, which felt way too drawn out...

And can we talk about the soundtrack and that opening sequence?? Man, that was absolutely incredible (in the best way possible)...

Overall, the movie is solid and definitely worth a watch. As for the cynics who just refuse to like Spielberg, maybe you should just stop watching his films altogether...

Ed Wood said:There's also the argument that Americans in Hollywood would never actually make a movie like that.

Here’s a perfect example of what I was getting at in my last post: that typical assumption that Americans wouldn't ever KNOW how to make a film like *Dancer in the Dark*. It completely ignores the fact that people like Billy Wilder or Alfred Hitchcock—both true Hollywood stars—have made films hundreds of times better than that one. (And please, spare me the "you can't compare those movies" argument. You absolutely can, because they're the same medium, and you can compare anything within the same medium. When you sit down to make a top ten list, you're naturally comparing every movie you've ever seen... but let's not get bogged down in philosophy here)

redowl90 said:Lately, it feels like American movies are just flooding every theater and TV channel. Honestly, that whole Hollywood style gets on my nerves a bit, regardless of whether the movie is actually good or bad. I’m craving different styles—I want to see what a Swedish director or a Ukrainian filmmaker can bring to the table. I don't want some guy named John constantly selling me the same old Hollywood formula.
So, in my view, saying "I'm sick of American movies" doesn't have to be an automatic insult.

Look, the thing is, people tend to bash American blockbusters (think Armageddon, The Core, Pearl Harbor, Hannibal, and plenty of others like them) simply because they make a ton of money and everyone flocks to the theaters to see them... Okay, maybe that isn't the only reason, but there's definitely something to it. For instance, when films like The Hours or in The Bedroom come out, nobody says a word. Everyone stays quiet and respectful, and you might just hear some faint whispers in the background like, "That was a great film..." and so on. Then, suddenly, everyone attacks the Oscar (or the Academy) because they nominate their own kind most of the time... But the French nominate their own, the British do too, and the Spaniards do as well, yet no one complains about them. It’s just that the Oscar is the most famous award out there (and it's an AMERICAN one at that—so how dare they?!) and naturally, people are going to criticize it. Besides, you can't deny that the Academy usually nominates some of the best films of the year: thin red line, in The Bedroom, The Hours, Chicago (though that's a bad example since it's a musical and people aren't big fans of those here), Talk to Her, whirlpool life (well, I wonder what redowl90 would say about that 🙂)... Sure, they miss things—I'm not saying they don't (Memento was definitely one of the biggest misses lately, along with Se7en, Heat, and countless others)—but that's just how it is. We have to accept it and move on (of course, anyone who doesn't accept it just hates the Oscars, but that's beside the point now)...

But then, when a film like All About My Mother, or Your Mother Too, or Talk to Her hits the theaters, everyone immediately treats it like a masterpiece. Why? Because... Americans would never make a movie like that. Maybe they wouldn't, but my point is (and this is just my opinion) that Europeans (and the rest of the world along with them) want to make something different from the Hollywood style, and that resonates with our audience. We find ourselves craving something else—something that isn't American, but is still high quality. However, what bothers me is this total lack of objectivity regarding European versus American cinema among this same audience. As soon as it's European, it's automatically brilliant; as soon as it's American, it's put under a microscope to see if there's a fatal flaw in a scene or if the director didn't explicitly explain the entire point of the movie... You know? 😉

If you're upset that we don't see enough European films in our theaters, blame the distributors, not all of Hollywood—whose only job is to make money for the Novice and nothing else...

My roommate borrowed this movie from a local rental shop and passed it over to me just to kill a couple of hours... And honestly, I killed the time, and it wasn't half bad. It’s definitely a weak film, but there were some decent moments here and there. Looking back, considering his pretty disastrous track record, it might actually be the best thing Steven Spielberg ever did after Face / Off...

Elizabeth Garcia2: Looking back at what I wrote, I realized it might have come across like I was insulting you—as if I were calling you an idiot for liking European cinema—but that honestly wasn't my intention at all. It’s just that I don't quite get the logic of automatically dismissing movies just because they come from across the Atlantic (I mean, you didn't outright reject them, but remember your own thread where you mentioned how there was a whole lineup of films without a single American one?). We're good, right? 😉

Elizabeth Garcia2 said:Sure, there are some singing and dancing numbers, but in my book, there isn't enough of that to actually call this a musical.

Oh, come on... Just admit you only dig this movie because you're obsessed with Europeans and Lars von Trier (like most people), and because it doesn't feel Hollywood-style... That has nothing to do with whether or not the film actually has songs...

If someone made a European musical, all of you who worship Europeans like they're Gods of the film industry would instantly start obsessing over it and declaring it a masterpiece...

As for me... I found Dance in the dark fascinating right up until the moment Björk (who is great throughout the whole thing) kills that guy trying to steal her money... From that point on, the movie just turns into a heavy mess and goes downhill fast...

And I wouldn't call that film a musical simply because it isn't trying to be one... What was the point of the songs? Who knows: Lars probably wanted to try something new, so he thought, "Hey, let's make a movie with a singer who acts and sings at the same time"... blueranger12 will probably disagree with me here, but people claim that in the opening dialogue of The Godfather, the writers (Coppola and Puzo) were actually commenting on social status and how America views itself and the rest of the world... That’s the biggest nonsense I’ve ever heard...

But back to musicals... I honestly can't wrap my head around how anyone thinks Moulin Rouge is good (some might even say great!)... I mean, that movie has the worst script of the last decade (basically, the worst story)... Sure, the dance scenes are visually stunning and the covers are well-arranged, but that doesn't earn it the title of "great," because the story is the heart of any film, and without it, you don't have a movie (though there are exceptions, but that's a conversation for another time)... Moulin Rouge is a decent enough film, mostly embraced by critics because it was the first big musical in ages, and loved by audiences because it uses famous songs that kids today go crazy for...

Well, we're seeing history repeat itself. Musicals are currently following the exact same trajectory that Westerns took about a decade ago, with hits like Dance with Wolves and Unstoppable leading the charge before the genre shifted...

My prediction? Chicago will be the absolute peak. After that, we'll probably see a string of musical films that completely flop. The genre won't disappear entirely, but it'll likely settle into producing lower-budget, B-movie style productions—pretty much what happened to the Western genre after Unstoppable lost its momentum...

So, I'm curious: where do you all stand? Are you still rooting for the future of musicals, or have you seen enough?