driftingowl27 said:Try tracking down M. A. S. H., Nashville, or Short Cuts.
Out of everything you mentioned (including The Player), I haven't seen anything except Nashville, which I've been trying to find for ages, but no luck so far...
For what it's worth, Short Cuts and M. A. S. H. are absolute masterpieces, while The Player feels more like a step below them...
One thing I am curious about, though: did this guy have a specific film from the 80s that really made waves? Since M. A. S. H. and Nashville are 70s films, and most of the stuff people talk about him for seems to be from the 90s, I'm wondering what kind of movies he was making between 1980 and 1991.
Look, I wrote that, but you completely missed the most important part. This happens with most of my posts—people just zero in on whatever they can label as "negative" and completely ignore the rest of what I actually said. My point was that, in a strange way, the movie... Everything. You know what? I actually like it. It’s good. And you were right about one thing—I realized later that acting like being obsessed with Bergman is some kind of essential personality trait just isn't a thing anymore. I mean, if I watch a movie and like it, I just say I like it. I don't need to make a whole production out of it the next day.
ruggedjackal46: Look, I know Blue Eyes and I are acting like total idiots right now. Honestly, just ignore us—we’re just settling some old scores. She actually had the nerve to act all high and mighty in one of her earlier posts here, directed at Taylor Cruz7, saying something along the lines of, "Who would I have lost that to, anyway?" So, now I'm going to prove she can't talk nonsense like that. If you actually care about the movie, just read the first page, because that’s the only part that actually deals with it. To make a long story short: everyone hailed this film as a masterpiece, except for me. I gave it a three. I think someone else felt the same way—I can't recall their name off the top of my head—but as soon as they voiced their opinion, Blue Eyes immediately jumped down their throat, claiming, "That wasn't a critique, it was just a plot summary," right after the guy had specifically asked for feedback on his review. Okay?
Haha, I actually went to an AMC Theatres out in Boise recently, and honestly, nothing compares to that experience... If for any other reason, it’s because of the PEOPLE. It’s clear they don't go to the theater to watch movies; they go to run through the aisles, throw food and drinks at each other, and just scream. Jesus, it was awful... Luckily I was watching The Matrix (which I’d already seen three times in Washington, D.C.), so I didn't mind the movie too much, but the girls I went with were acting absolutely insane...
As for the theaters in Washington, D.C., I wouldn't recommend Broadway, because... it's just not our scene. Besides, a ticket costs $33 for a single show, so I'd rather just go somewhere else. Where? I'm not sure... Ticket prices are pretty much the same everywhere (which matters quite a bit to me), but the theater I actually respect is Beacon Hill. They show films that aren't just massive blockbusters, so you don't go in knowing beforehand that they're going to be SHIT (unlike most of the stuff playing at Broadway - Spider-Man, Men in Black II, and things like that)...
The seating and comfort don't bother me all that much, because once a movie starts, the time flies by incredibly fast for me—unless, of course, the movie is seriously booooooooring...
Blue Eyes said:I never wrote what you just said above!!!! I think you're confusing me with IL...
And besides, that was back during the Stealing Beauty topic...
No, honey, you've got it wrong... I don't lie, especially not on this forum. I mean, why would I? You were the one who attacked me first, and then I just pushed back. Don't try to play innocent now like you don't remember... Dozens of people here can testify that YOU are always the one starting things, so let's not talk nonsense, dear...
And I didn't get that part wrong either. I'm not sure why you're trying to blame IL when it isn't true... Besides, I know a few people who could easily prove it since they've been following all your posts...
I'm not sure if you realize this, but people are WATCHING you on this forum...
Michelle Howard2 said:He finally picked up an Oscar for directing for that one, right?
Actually, he won the Golden Globe for directing... Ron Howard (completely undeservedly) took home the Oscar for A Beautiful Mind...
I agree with everything you said, except for that "bolt from the blue" comment... I didn't really notice any clear skies in the movie...
In any case, Gosford Park is definitely one of the top five films of the year, and both Helen Mirren and especially Robert Altman were totally robbed of an Oscar... But we've pretty much covered the Oscars already, so let's move on...
For me personally, the pheasant hunt is one of the most impactful parts of the film. It’s beautifully shot, and even though it's brief, it sticks with you long after the credits roll... it feels special...
Oh, and the character work is just perfected here—every single person has their own backstory, their own history, their own distinct personality... It wouldn't be nearly as impressive if there weren't at least 20 equally important characters... Truly great stuff!
Gosford Park actually inspired me to check out some of Altman's 90s films that aren't quite as critically acclaimed (and that I haven't seen yet)... I'm looking at: ready-to-wear, Dr. T and the Women, and Kansas City... Is there anything worth watching there, or would it just be a waste of time?
Blue Eyes said:redowl90, you're being completely dishonest here...
So, you're actually claiming I attacked you in my "Why We Love Movies" thread??
And as for calling you a bitch... Well, just think back to one of your own threads where you wrote something along the lines of: "...Your mother totally wrecked the entire US Navy..." I can't recall specifically who you were aiming at, but I know those were your words. Based solely on that statement, if nothing else, you earned the "bitch" label.
The truth is, I did call you out because of the Balkanism (honestly, you can't really escape it—all your posts practically scream, "I'm from the North America!!!"), but that happened AFTER you came after me in that movie thread. I mean, why would I be the one to start something? I don't go looking for fights; in fact, I try to avoid that kind of behavior entirely, which is exactly what I define as "Balkanism."
Mickey, you're really coming at me for not getting All or Nothing? 😲 😲
The Thin Red Line is honestly one of the most beautiful and greatest films ever made. It actually sucks to me that someone with your level of insight—and I mean that sincerely, not as a joke or to flatter you—can't view this film through a broader lens instead of just looking at it like an "average" viewer who finds it "boring" or "pretentious."
I’m not sure what you're basing this idea on that there are too many characters. Let’s break it down...
Jim Caviezel (private Witt) - essentially the lead Sean Penn - the second lead - the entire dynamic between him and Witt is brilliantly written and structured; I honestly don't see why anyone would complain about their backstories...
Nick Nolte & Elias Koetas (I might have the spelling wrong, but he plays the character Staros) - their relationship is also masterfully directed and explained (especially that part—which I think is the best part of the movie—where Nolte urges Elias to charge the hill with everything he's got). That arc concludes with Staros resolving his command issues and finally leaving that whole hellscape to go home...
Ben Chaplin - his storyline is my favorite because the guy spends the whole time thinking about his wife and can't wait to get back to her, only for her to leave him for some pilot at the end (I'm not sure what el duderino claims, but my first impression was that she was just written that way)...
And who else is there? Just the people who pop up briefly to deliver a monologue or a sentence or two (even George Clooney only shows up for about three minutes at the end, despite being a major star). That's it. There aren't really that many characters...
Besides, once you read the book, you realize Terrence Malick didn't just "copy" it; he added so much more (he shot nine hours of footage, after all). Based on some things I've read, he likely drew from his own personal experiences...
When you add in the stunning cinematography (I'll never understand why it didn't win an Oscar) and the locations where it was filmed, you have something truly gorgeous—a total feast for the eyes.
Pretentious? I don't know, personally I don't think so, though I get why people attack it for that. Boring? Again, not for me. In fact, after watching it, I was actually mourning the other six and a half hours of footage left on the cutting room floor—while my friend was busy cursing out the movie for having such a "fucking stupid ending."
Michelle Howard2 said:And you, redowl90, you blind fool, you're the one who dragged me into arguing with people on your behalf—people who actually seem incredibly patient with you right now. That ending to the movie is just so well-executed in every single way that you’d have to be an idiot not to feel it.
Hmm, from what I recall, you were defending me because people were attacking me relentlessly and without cause, not because of some supposed failure to "get" the movie... And now, coming from you, I'm suddenly the blind one because I supposedly didn't interpret the film exactly how you all want it interpreted... In other words, if anyone happens to say this film isn't a masterpiece, they clearly know nothing about cinema... Give me a break; even my ten-year-old cousin doesn't think like that.
Regarding Blue Eyes: The thing is, I wasn't the FIRST one to attack you last year... You were the one who started picking fights (which seems to be a recurring theme in your posts toward other members), specifically during my thread about "why we love movies." I wrote one of the best pieces I could muster, and then you started nitpicking, throwing out provocative replies claiming I had terrible taste based on the examples I used (those were just the first ones that came to mind; I wasn't overthinking it or trying to curate a perfect list for the sake of an example)... But YOU always feel the need to find fault in every tiny detail, clinging to every single word like your life depends on it...
Instead of acting as a model for great film knowledge, you just end up being the forum's resident troublemaker... Well, if that's what you're going for, fine... It doesn't bother me...
As for when I called Mickey an idiot... the actual sentence was: "I could probably call you (Mickey) pretty idiotic right now...", but I didn't actually call him that, because I refuse to stoop to your level of insults and toxicity... I wrote the word "idiotic," but not in the context you're claiming—much like how he wrote something along the lines of "you probably hit your head as a kid"... I would never say something like that to someone unless I actually knew them in person, rather than just through text on a screen...
One of the things I hate most is when someone says, "You just didn't get the movie..." or "You missed the point..."
When will people finally realize that everyone interprets a film differently? You saw a bright message at the end, and now you think I missed it... That’s not true. I understood that the film actually has an optimistic ending; my issue is that it was poorly executed. That long scene felt tedious to me, and because of its length, it just didn't fit the flow of the rest of the film, where everything else had, if nothing else, a normal runtime. It clearly bugs you enough that you're immediately getting defensive...
And now I could tell you that you're being pretty dense if you didn't realize this movie depicts the absolute worst poverty in New York City, because it really does... For crying out loud, the guy is begging his daughter and wife for spare change just to pay for the radio, and even then, it's not enough. Everyone lives in those kinds of housing projects. One of the characters is such a massive alcoholic cliché—it’s tired, especially when that guy has a heart attack and says the dumbest line in the whole movie: "Are you crying?" and then some idiots in the theater around me start laughing... Give me a break, you think that's a good ending?... Every single character is struggling, and no matter how you look at it, those problems are all tied to financial hardship, which is why I say it's pure misery. Honestly, compared to the people in this movie, I'm living like a king...
Heh, as for my take on 8 1/2, that was a mistake and I admitted it right away. Everyone makes mistakes occasionally... But apparently, when I mess up, people take it way more seriously than when anyone else does...
Besides, Mickey, you should be acting like a moderator here and making sure people stay on topic. Look at what you're doing: getting sucked into trivial arguments and insulting people, and then somehow you're the one coming off as the bad guy instead of anyone else... To be honest, you seemed like a normal person in some of your other posts, not like this. I guess first impressions can be deceiving...
And what's wrong with my writing style? It's perfectly straightforward, without using all these ambiguous words. You know exactly what I think about a film, its flaws, and its strengths right from the start. Seriously, just look at some of the other posts on here; some people are so pretentious when they "criticize" movies that it makes me sick to read them...
driftingowl27 said:redowl90, let's just stick to replying here instead of via email. I don't want our moderator accusing us of trying to derail the discussion.
Haha, fair enough. Whatever works for you... I don't mind at all.
Michelle Howard2 said:Look, I haven't actually seen the movie yet; I’m just reading this thread as a completely neutral observer. redowl90 gave some really solid reasons for why he doesn't think it's a masterpiece—he actually had plenty of nice things to say, but he just didn't fall head over heels for it, which is fair. What you wrote, driftingowl27, comes off a bit fanatical. That's fine, but it isn't okay to aggressively force your opinion on everyone else. This is a space where people should feel free to talk about cinema, and thank God people see movies differently than I do. redowl90 certainly isn't an idiot, so there's no need to treat him that way. Besides, since you're a moderator, please don't discourage people by talking down to them. Instead of being condescending, try something like, "Mr. redowl90, I respectfully disagree, and here is why I believe this film is a masterpiece." Share what you know, show us what you saw, and actually enrich the conversation. Everything you've posted so far has been empty. At least redowl90 offered some actual insight, whereas you've just thrown out two meaningless phrases.
Huh... It’s actually pretty fantastic to read something like this from someone I don't even know... Thank you... 😉
What did I say today that made it sound like I have no clue what I'm talking about? I said *All or Nothing* is a good movie, right up until about twenty minutes before the end... Look, that's just my take on it. I also mentioned that the acting in *Y Tu Mama Tambien* wasn't anything special... And it WASN'T! People who obsess over European films don't watch them objectively; they just care that they're different from the usual Hollywood trash and propaganda garbage...
We shouldn't be looking at movies that way. Every film deserves the same scrutiny, regardless of who directed it or what language they're speaking...
God knows what would happen if I shared my thoughts on something like *Amélie*... I'd probably be banned from the Forum for life.
Taylor Cruz7 said:I honestly don't get why this bothers you so much at the end, redowl90.
It’s the sudden shift where Leigh makes those two characters the center of attention when they weren't really leading anything until then. It bugs me because the scene drags on forever and the acting feels off—which is a huge departure from the rest of the movie. Plus, that one scene basically wraps up the whole film while sidelining the other characters who actually had decent screen time earlier on. Is that enough of an explanation?
Apparently, some people just see "Directed by: Mike Leigh" and immediately start calling it a masterpiece without thinking twice.
Ugh, seriously? It feels like you can't say anything on this forum without someone jumping down your throat to take offense...
Look, the movie is GOOD. How many times do I have to type that before it actually sinks in? It’s frustrating how many people here don't even bother reading a full post properly. They just see that someone offered a critique of their "masterpiece" and immediately go on the attack...
So, because I thought the ending was total garbage, apparently my entire opinion on the film is invalid? Grow up, people...
Jesus, I can't believe what I'm reading here... A masterpiece???? Are you kidding me? This movie isn't even close to being a masterpiece...
I’ll give credit where it's due—the way Mike Leigh builds everything up over the first ninety minutes is genuinely impressive. But those last twenty minutes? Absolute garbage. That looooong scene between the two leads completely ruins the whole vibe. Honestly, it gave me a headache.
I don't get why he cluttered the script with all these different characters just to ignore everyone except the main two at the end. It felt totally wasted.
The film tries to depict the absolute grit and misery of New York City while throwing in all this humor... Give me a break. People need to realize that if you're trying to make a psychedelic, depressing film, you shouldn't be tossing in jokes (or if you do, they should be incredibly minimal).
Look, let's be fair—it's a decent enough movie. While I was watching it, I actually thought it might be one of my favorites of the year. But that ending just kills everything that worked before it: the acting, the script, and especially the direction. Sadly, it's a 3/10 from me.
[ graniteangler10 said:"]But honestly, that scene right before—where the lights go out and the saber duel kicks off? That part is solid.
If you’re talking about the moment where Dooku and Vader clash, that’s tough to call great. Honestly, what kind of fight was that? All the camera really does is show their faces lit up by the sabers, and that's basically it. If you compare that to the masterpiece fight from Duel of the Fates, the difference is night and day.
Now, if you mean the duel between Kenobi and Dooku, that's a different story... though personally, I don't care which one is the best in the trilogy.
Jessica Nguyen85 says: the movie is just basic, snobby garbage that tries way too hard to dwell on the whole "American male" trope. It’s a total maze of references and a perfect blend of tastelessness and pseudo-trashiness.
Not exactly literal, but I could certainly get behind that sentiment...