Posts by Kate Torres

They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

I was doing some digging online and stumbled upon a list from back in 2002 where Empire Magazine ranked their top 10 films.

Here it is.

And here are a few other directors worth mentioning:

Miloš Forman
Jim Jarmusch
Michael Mann

It’s weird how *Chungking Express* isn't mentioned, especially since he swears by it. When he started his own distribution company, that was the first film he picked—he even included a ten-minute intro about it on the DVD release. Maybe the guy is just messing with us 😕

briskhound2 said:Actually, "Con Air" was directed by Simon West. Look, let's be real—Bay makes movies for the American market, not for Europe or anywhere else... he's making them for the USA. And when one of his films pulls in 250 million bucks, you know a massive amount of people showed up to see it. I remember reading some reviews on Rotten Tomatoes a long time ago (surprisingly, they were slightly positive) where some critic basically said he had to actually go watch the movie just so he could have something to trash. I mean, where's the logic in that? For instance, I couldn't care less about Harry Potter or Twilight, so I didn't go see them and I definitely don't plan to—not that I'd bother writing anything bad about them either. If it's a marketing thing, even the trailers don't explicitly say you *have* to see his movies, which means there's clearly something there. Another thing I read back during the Armageddon era is that he plays on the audience's emotions (which feels a bit forced, but okay) and we end up right back at what bugs everyone about his work. The pathos, the extreme Americanization, the heroism, the "God and Country" stuff... it's all pretty manipulative because none of that is in the trailers. It's all tucked away in the final package, unlike some other directors who lead with that stuff to bait you. Bay knows how to sell his product—just look at the trailer for Transformers 2. That thing is a total trip, a logistical nightmare to film—I'll give him credit for that even over James Cameron—and it all boils down to the effects, the explosions, the flashy visuals... but you already know it's going to be big and epic (even if you don't know what it's actually about). Bay knows that's what people expect. You sit down, watch the movie, the plot drags you toward some climax, and suddenly Bruce Willis, Mirko Cro Cop, and Slavko jump in, strike a pose—you know, arms wide, dropping to their knees—and I'm practically thrilled because he delivered exactly what I wanted to see and hit me right in the feels with that scene. Pathetic, sure. But "bad"... well, that's just a matter of taste. By that metric, he's a good director (he'd probably kill it in a smaller production too, just look at the horror remakes he produces) because he knows how to please the crowd without doing anything particularly special. Of course, that's just my take, since he's the kind of director you either love or hate. Just like his movies.

Care to explain that? Just because someone makes crowd-pleasers that rake in massive profits doesn't make them a good director. Let's actually establish some criteria before we start praising every random movie as a masterpiece. 🙄

briskhound2 said:Actually, "Con Air" was directed by Simon West. Look, let's be real—Bay makes movies for the American market, not for Europe or anywhere else... he's making them for the USA. And when one of his films pulls in 250 million bucks, you know a massive amount of people showed up to see it. I remember reading some reviews on Rotten Tomatoes a long time ago (surprisingly, they were slightly positive) where some critic basically said he had to actually go watch the movie just so he could have something to trash. I mean, where's the logic in that? For instance, I couldn't care less about Harry Potter or Twilight, so I didn't go see them and I definitely don't plan to—not that I'd bother writing anything bad about them either. If it's a marketing thing, even the trailers don't explicitly say you *have* to see his movies, which means there's clearly something there. Another thing I read back during the Armageddon era is that he plays on the audience's emotions (which feels a bit forced, but okay) and we end up right back at what bugs everyone about his work. The pathos, the extreme Americanization, the heroism, the "God and Country" stuff... it's all pretty manipulative because none of that is in the trailers. It's all tucked away in the final package, unlike some other directors who lead with that stuff to bait you. Bay knows how to sell his product—just look at the trailer for Transformers 2. That thing is a total trip, a logistical nightmare to film—I'll give him credit for that even over James Cameron—and it all boils down to the effects, the explosions, the flashy visuals... but you already know it's going to be big and epic (even if you don't know what it's actually about). Bay knows that's what people expect. You sit down, watch the movie, the plot drags you toward some climax, and suddenly Bruce Willis, Mirko Cro Cop, and Slavko jump in, strike a pose—you know, arms wide, dropping to their knees—and I'm practically thrilled because he delivered exactly what I wanted to see and hit me right in the feels with that scene. Pathetic, sure. But "bad"... well, that's just a matter of taste. By that metric, he's a good director (he'd probably kill it in a smaller production too, just look at the horror remakes he produces) because he knows how to please the crowd without doing anything particularly special. Of course, that's just my take, since he's the kind of director you either love or hate. Just like his movies.

That's exactly the point—people aren't even looking for anything special.

David Price5 said:It seems some people forget that masterpieces aren't limited to specific genres. If a film sets a high bar for its category and earns genuine respect and appreciation, then it truly deserves to be called a masterpiece.

You missed my point. I said his movies are good, but they aren't masterpieces. Like Nicholas Walker3 said, you can't call those mindless blockbusters masterpieces—the best you can call them is "good" movies.

Alex Long8 said:Look, here’s my take. If you’re looking for an action flick, something like this is actually great. Compared to the garbage they pump out these days, it's solid. And I loved Armageddon just because I'm a sucker for sci-fi.

Look, I love sci-fi too, so that's why I liked it, but that isn't really an argument. I get your point, though. You should have just said his movies are good within their specific genre. People on this forum throw the term masterpiece around way too often for just any random movie.

Alex Long8 said:To each their own. For me, The Rock and Armageddon are masterpieces.

Of what? 😕

Most of them are just mediocre, but I’d say American Beauty stands out.

Elizabeth Garcia2 said:Honestly, the most brainless, totally pointless remake ever made has to be Psycho Gus by David Van Sant.
I mean, David Van Sant is such an incredibly talented and powerful director... I just can't wrap my head around what he was thinking or what he was going through to even decide to do this...

Wasn't his goal just to introduce the movie to younger generations who would otherwise never watch it because it's black and white?🤷

I’m voting for Once Upon a Time in the West because of its epic scale. On the other hand, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a lot more fun 😁

goldenhound32 said:even Ozu doesn't count🙂

The fact that at least three major directors dedicated films to him says nothing about the quality of his work; it just shows how much those three specific people liked him.

Here's an example. Some people on this forum absolutely worship David Lynch, and Lynch happens to like Rammstein. So what? Does that mean every Lynch fan suddenly has to think Rammstein is good?

That wasn't even my main point; I was just making a side observation while writing in this thread. To be honest, I'm not a fan either. As for Rammstein, everyone knows they're total garbage.😁

goldenhound32 said:Thanks for the heads-up. 🙂

Even Kairos shot a tribute to Yasujiro Ozu. I watched it and actually enjoyed it. If anyone is interested, there’s more available on IMDb.

It just crossed my mind that he actually was. Hou Hsiao-hsien The film was dedicated to him. Café LumièreIt’s honestly pretty sad when you think about it—this marks three different dedications already. I can't remember anyone ever being able to claim that for themselves.

goldenhound32 said:I know he’s an inspiration to some directors, but I can't think of any specific names. Can anyone give me a few examples?

He was actually the biggest influence on Wim Wenders; he even filmed a tribute documentary for him, Tokyo Story.

Brenda Lee50, thanks for the recommendation. It’s been ages since I watched The Barber of Siberia, but I remember being absolutely mesmerized by it.

Alexander Cruz32 said:LOL, based on the title, I honestly thought we were talking about a top 5 list of Oliver Stone films. 😉.

Definitely Pineapple Express.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Trainspotting isn't some stoner movie; it's a film about heroin.

I’d throw Dazed and Confused into the mix—definitely one of those movies that just hits right. 😍

Did you catch how he films using a static camera positioned just above ground level? I noticed that technique in the Wim Wenders documentary Citizen Kane, which serves as a tribute to Ozu. I watched that about two years ago, but I still haven't gotten around to watching Citizen Kane 😢. Apparently, Wim Wenders considers Ozu his mentor.

Joseph Lee3 said:If you look closely, Autumn Sonata feels like it was practically drafted using the same blueprints as Interiors. It’s not quite a case of Woody Allen simply ripping off Bergman, especially considering both films hit theaters around the same time—actually, Interiors managed to make its debut about two months before Autumn Sonata even premiered. Still, the parallels are impossible to ignore, particularly in how both movies dissect that deep, unsettling sense of alienation between mothers and their daughters.

The fundamental divide really comes down to realism; you get this profound, layered depth in the work of Ingmar Bergman, whereas Woody Allen's version feels almost entirely hollow by comparison. It’s as if Woody Allen took that heavy, brooding atmosphere characteristic of Bergman's style and simply grafted it onto his own universe, yet he failed to capture that vital spark of humanity found in Bergman's films—that underlying sense of equilibrium that persists even when things turn bleak. You just don't see that kind of balance in Interiors. Colin Jacobson

Finally got around to watching it. And yeah, the tone is incredibly dark—it's almost identical to Autumn Sonata. Good catch there. He basically stripped away elements from two different films here. Autumn Sonata i Scream and SaputanjeHonestly, I’m just wondering why it was such a massive disappointment. 🤷

redowl90 said:...and Daria Lorenc did an amazing job, too.

Personally, I think she’s absolutely terrible.

I’m not going to sit here and claim that the visual style in American films is inherently better than what you see in Europe. Honestly, certain European and Asian films have much more stunning cinematography than mainstream American movies, where the camera work feels uninspired and looks exactly the same in every single production. It's nothing special. ☕

Maybe then it would have been satire on par with Strange's. Such a shame 😢