Douglas Clark2 said:I caught Holly Hunter recently in that series >... she was just brilliant playing that seasoned feminist guru type. I’ve actually crossed paths with women exactly like her in real life, so it felt incredibly authentic—I bet Jane Campion knew exactly what she was doing there too.
William Hurt was such an absolute powerhouse as a leading man back in the '80s... I seem to remember his role in The Accidental Tourist being a big one, though honestly, looking back, I can't recall much about the plot itself, just this lingering sense of the atmosphere and the overall feeling that it was just a genuinely great movie. On the flip side, I think I could still replay Kiss of the Spider Woman in my head right now if I wanted to, even after nearly thirty years... some cinematic images just sort of etch themselves deep into your brain, I guess.
He swears he thought she was already in there when he walked into the bathroom—if he’s lying, though, that makes it even worse, since then it’s just straight-up harassment against some random woman. The real question is what he actually did once he realized his mistake.
So, my take is he went in thinking he was just having a quick little fling with a sex worker—left her cash like he always does. But then the neighbors hear screaming and sounds of a struggle, and the guy ends up hurting his foot stepping on some broken glass. Honestly, if she hadn't walked out on him and he’d just stuck to the bathroom, he probably would've been fine. Sounds like a total brawl broke out.
I totally agree that they kept things blurry on purpose, so everyone watching basically interprets it how they want. The IMDb synopsis explicitly calls it a 'rape,' and a few reviews I skimmed mentioned the sexual element too. I mean, having a stranger burst into your shower is traumatic enough, but maybe calling it 'rape' feels a bit like a leap here. Lawrence Edwards58, do you think the whole vibe changes if we take the sexual aspect out of the equation?
It’s funny how everyone seems to have a vendetta against the husband. 😁
Honestly, the movie just leaves me feeling frustrated—kind of like how Coetzee’s disgrace did. It’s all those gray areas in the moral compass. I can’t help but spoil it a little bit: a woman who has been repeatedly assaulted doesn't follow the "typical" victim script. She sweeps things under the rug, refuses to file any reports, and from her father's perspective (which eventually becomes ours), she stubbornly bypasses any righteous anger toward the perpetrator. She even refuses to terminate a pregnancy resulting from the crime. And then she tells her father something along the lines of: "I'm not just some side character in your book who shows up halfway through to drive the plot." 🙏(And honestly, that’s exactly what happens!) I find myself angry at her—mostly because I despise those predators and just want justice. Then again, I’m stepping into the shoes of her egocentric father, who isn't exactly a saint himself, and despite his best intentions and genuine outrage, he just can't wrap his head around his daughter. Everything becomes a coping mechanism for her—everything from colonial guilt to that frustrating hint of understanding toward her attackers. But really, can anyone ever truly grasp what’s going on inside someone's head? Can anyone tell them how they *should* behave? Especially when it involves someone close to you making a decision that feels completely irrational.
Now, back to the film... even though the subject of assault is never explicitly highlighted—the word is never even uttered, the husband never asks her directly (and she wouldn't say anything anyway)—it’s just there. We all know. No one expects her to act rationally when she says she won't report it or when she "forgives" her attacker toward the end. We understand the social pressure, the stigma, the trauma; sometimes it's just easier to move on. But he couldn't understand her, nor could he stomach what happened, so he went on this vengeful crusade because he felt it was his duty to "fix" things. As problematic as that is, the bigger issue is that the criminal isn't being reported after attacking someone in their own home, leaving the door open for them to do it again. I think it's unfair to call him a cold husband who is purely acting to protect his "property" (even if that's likely his main driver). It’s natural that he can't make sense of her choices, and he probably shows a lack of respect for her autonomy by treating her like a "character in his book"—much like we see her as a secondary character in a film centered on him. But shouldn't the attacker's family have a right to know what kind of person he is? Why is it so hard to empathize with the person who has to live with someone traumatized and clearly shaken, yet that person refuses to take any action? For reasons that are deeply private, sure, but totally incomprehensible. Her silence and his insistence on that silence aren't helping their marriage, or anyone else for that matter. The situation is tainted either way.
Ironically, keeping it all bottled up saved the old man from having to confess his sins. We'll never know what would have happened if he hadn't been so pathetic and helpless, or if the attacker had been a younger guy instead. Pretty clever, actually!
Korine directed Gummo, while Larry Clark did the Larry Clark Kids. Just a heads up—Korine actually wrote the script for Kids, but Clark didn't have anything to do with Gummo.
I actually really love Gummo—I ended up watching it twice back in 2009 when I was around 18. Just a little something I picked up during that phase! Honestly, this has to be the best trailer ever made—hands down! I remember seeing it for the first time back in high school and just being totally floored by it.A little masterpiece just for me—honestly, I'm loving this! I'm honestly a little worried that if I go back and watch it one more time, the spark might just fizzle out—so I think I'll leave it at this for now!
nimblesurfer30 said:Since none of the big names caught the movie last night (what were they even doing?), I couldn't make heads or tails of the plot.
The real Jack is back in Mexico City and gets blindsided near the end when Vera reaches out through mutual acquaintances.
So who actually is this unnamed guy (the fake Jack)?
Just some neighbor from the city who was also stuck in the war doing God knows what—but how does he connect to Vera?
According to the official synopsis: "Twenty years ago, Vera moved to the States with her kids, fleeing events that nearly destroyed their lives. But after an unexpected phone call, the secret she's spent years trying to bury finally resurfaces."
What exactly is she hiding? It's clear Jack was "on one side" during the conflict.
Personally, I don't think Vera is naive enough to fall for cheap tricks. He left them for geopolitical reasons, not emotional ones. If he had stayed with them in America, who knows how things would have played out? (Like in some small town in Ohio?). "War criminal" is a pretty elastic term. For a family, the best move is to bolt to a third country where there aren't any North America around.186 miles (Maybe Madagascar?)
Agreed, that bit about "Anthony" was total garbage.
Also, the movie could've been tighter, with more gritty street talk instead of all that theatrical dialogue. "He's not my father, he's nothing to me." That's how people actually talk.
Basically, her husband killed his wife and kids—meaning they were lost under his command. You see their photos on the walls of his apartment at the end of the movie, and during the film, he calls her pretending to be Jack while talking about them. Whether he's just a random neighbor or moved in specifically to stalk her—well, that's still a bit of a mystery.
I’m a fan of Hunt for The Wilderpeople—not exactly a masterpiece, but honestly, it has the best soundtrack from 2016. 🙂 I'll definitely remember it for that kid's incredible performance, too.
I’ll be honest—this movie didn't hit me quite as hard as it did everyone else here, and I'm not about to go calling it a masterpiece. But, given the headspace I was in when I watched it, it actually caught me totally off guard—that whole vibe of fake YOLO freedom, subtle tension, and just this laid-back energy mixed with how much those kids can genuinely irritate you. I ended up really enjoying the ride; it just "clicked" for me, which I think is everything—either you're sucked in from the jump or every little thing the characters do just grates on your nerves (which, let's face it, isn't exactly difficult here).
Even though I liked it overall—and man, the chemistry between the leads was top-tier—I still think her earlier stuff, Red Road and Fish Tank, feels a bit more solid and "complete" to me.
That dialogue—and that designer's monologue from the same scene—really sums up what this movie is all about. It’s just artificial, hyper-stylized beauty polished to a mirror shine (and let’s be real, if it wasn't visually stunning, half the audience wouldn't even bother showing up) that hits your senses but leaves you feeling totally empty underneath. There's zero authenticity or emotion here. Like the guy said, you can tell from an airplane whether beauty is manufactured or if it’s the real deal that draws you in from miles away. This film? It doesn't have it. No soul at all. 😁 The script is just awful. I honestly feel for Jenna Malone's partner having to deal with a tribute like this.
The only moment that felt truly raw, human, and visceral was when Jenna Malone lets her primal instincts take over.
It was a favorite of mine too. I’d definitely recommend it to my niece if she’s around that 14 to 19 age range 😁 It’s got just enough creepiness without being totally over-the-top brutal. Spoilers ahead! To me, it felt obvious the second we saw the grave—you could just tell he was still alive. You just don't know where he's hiding or how he's moving that doll... though it was weird, remember when they were in the kitchen and she turned around and the doll had just moved? No sound at all. He had to have been right there physically to move it. How did he even pull that off? 🤔
I can see the directing and acting being the main reasons for all the rave reviews. To be honest, the story doesn't feel like the kind of thing the Academy would go for—it just isn't "serious" enough or socially conscious enough, or whatever else they're obsessed with lately. For me, the story felt really intimate and deeply relatable—my brain is fried so I can't quite think of that specific phrase we used 🤦. Last year, I was actually pretty shocked when Whiplash got nominated (even though it was easily one of my favorite movies of the year).
That movie really hit home for me—it just struck a chord. The plot, the dialogue, everything... honestly, I could have happily watched the whole thing if they’d just stuck to that vibe from the first half. But then they decided to pivot into a crime thriller, which was probably my biggest gripe. When she decides to go with them—even though her reasons make sense—it felt like such a "make or break" moment, you know? Like a 50/50 split, and she chose "yes." In the end, though, I'm so glad it turned out the way it did. I loved every single minute! I got so attached to the characters and the story, and the chemistry between Seattle and the Sun is just lovely. I had this weird mix of wanting to root for the crew and wanting to slap them all after that heist—especially during that scene at the discotheque—but man, they were just so magnetic.
I do have some issues with a few "technical" details, though—stuff I still haven't quite wrapped my head around even a month later. That police chase kind of bugged me; it felt a little silly how they just killed those two guys right then and there. And that scene with the baby in the apartment is fantastic (Layla 😍), but I don't get how they just left the baby in that shop later on. What were they thinking? Same with that "story" she makes up at the hotel to snag a room. It wasn't exactly a high-end boutique hotel, so it didn't feel totally believable.
Look, I'm being realistic here—the movie definitely has its flaws 😁, but on a personal level, it totally won me over. I get that it's an "experience" movie, not necessarily something everyone will find universally perfect or beautiful... so I can see why some people might find it cliché, boring, or forced. To those of you who were never reckless young adults trying to start a life in a strange new American city ☕—just kidding! 😁 It's fair to say the film offers a romanticized look at today's disoriented American youth—with all that freedom to move around, meet different people, and soak up new cultures. There's this intense desire to fit in, often leading to feeling like an outsider and needing to fake it wherever you land, driven by all those yolo impulses because you feel like you have to live it up while you're young. I think for someone my age and with my background, the film feels much closer to home than it would for someone who hasn't lived through that, or isn't quite as young as the protagonists. 😬
I'm actually relieved it didn't get an Oscar nod (I didn't even realize anyone was expecting it to).
Honestly, the 3D felt pretty pointless to me—it didn't really add anything to the movie at all.
I actually thought the movie was pretty decent—it definitely pulled me in and kept things interesting! There were some seriously stunning audiovisual moments that totally made the experience for me, which is all I really ask for from a story like this. Gaspar Noé clearly has a sense of poetic flair, you can feel it in the filmmaking, but it feels like he’s starting to drift away from that style just to cater to some average kid—and then we get stuck with those endless, messy internal monologues. It felt miles away from something like *Seoul against all*, for instance. (Sure, the protagonist is basically an immature brat who doesn't know the first thing about real life, but if they had included more "slice of life" moments—like that one conversation about abortion—instead of all that heavy philosophy, it would have been great. That scene was actually quite solid!) The story really hooked me—it was sensual, dark, and felt incredibly authentic (I've definitely seen my fair share of messy, destructive relationships in real life!)—though it did get a bit intense at times. I absolutely loved the soundtrack, the atmosphere, and that whole Paris vibe. Just caught some underground stuff lately—really deep cuts! It’s funny how much better the hidden gems are than the mainstream hits—reminds me of that one indie theater I used to frequent back in Chicago. Always worth the hunt!The actress playing Electra is just incredibly charming—honestly, she’s got such a magnetic screen presence!
I'm so glad I caught his film in the theater—though I really regret missing out on *Enter the Void*... I actually ended up nodding off halfway through that one!
The movie title just doesn't make any sense to me—honestly, I really hope they stop making films called Love. Thanks!
I caught it last night, and wow—what a brilliant concept and such sharp directing! 👍 I’m starting to think Woody was actually at his absolute peak in his seventies—just so incredibly imaginative. Sure, he "evolved" later on and really perfected that signature style you see in all his work now, but those flicks from the late 60s and early 70s? They are just pure, unadulterated fun.
The movie pokes fun at pretty much everything. I’m a little bummed because I was nodding off a bit while watching, so I definitely missed some of the cleverer quotes and subtle bits. My only real gripe is that they had to force a romance at the end—kind of silly, right?—but hey, Woody has always been a bit of an old-school romantic at heart. 😬
Robert James2 said:It’s pretty much impossible for any band to sound identical in a studio compared to being live on stage.
I don't mean they sound literally the same—of course not! I just mean those little improvisations—you know, not sticking to the studio version like it's some holy script. I've been to so many shows where everything is played totally safe, just a carbon copy of the record. It can be a bit of a letdown—honestly, I felt that way at the MGMT show last year.
Robert James2 said:de Gustibus.... To me, it kind of feels like Morrissey—he'll throw in two or three things from The Smiths and then (obviously, since he's promoting his own stuff) move on to his solo tracks—which, let's face it, aren't even half as good as the old classics.
Well, I guess it really comes down to personal taste, and Placebo has so many hits—I think they picked a pretty solid setlist for this tour. I missed a few songs that I personally love, but maybe something like Nancy Boy or teenage angst didn't quite fit the vibe they were going for this time around. Personally, I definitely prefer The Smiths over the Mozov solo work, but hey—I'm not expecting someone to spend their entire solo tour playing The Smiths songs when that era is clearly behind them. He has some brilliant early solo stuff, though he doesn't play it much on tour lately. Luckily, the latest album he's touring is actually great!
It’s pretty standard stuff, but I actually really appreciated it—I love when they don't just play the studio versions word-for-word and throw in some different arrangements instead. The setlist was alright. I have to give the backing band credit for their energy—they always kill it, especially considering how young they are—but honestly, those songs aren't really my jam for a full ninety minutes (even though I’ll always go wild whenever they play "Born to Run," for example 😁).