Posts by Drew White

Of this entire list, the only one actually worth watching is A Beautiful Mind. An Academy Award for Best Picture is never a reliable metric for quality. The only time those awards might carry weight is for a foreign film.

Has anyone else sat through Synecdoche, New York? So far, I’ve only seen two films: rumba and Synecdoche, New York. To be blunt, rumba was a complete letdown, whereas Charlie Kaufman’s work was genuinely brilliant. He truly stands out as one of the premier screenwriters working today. He consistently crafts such an intriguing spectrum of characters, and there's always a fresh perspective in his work. Did people struggle with the themes here? Specifically those overlapping parallels woven throughout the story?

I missed the film repeats at the AMC theater, so does anyone know if there will be more screenings scheduled elsewhere? Perhaps somewhere in Europe or maybe over in Brooklyn?

Does anyone know exactly how long the animation—specifically the rotoscoping—took for this film? Or can anyone point me toward a reliable source?
I’m trying to pin down a number, but I keep running into wildly inconsistent claims. Some sources suggest 15 months, while others claim as much as 70 months. I’m inclined to dismiss the latter 🙂

Kimberly Gomez28 said:I also heard this might just be the first installment, and they're planning sequels (or more)?

Correct. There should be three parts total. For those who felt this one lacked action, expect much more in the next two chapters.

Thanks for the kind wishes. Honestly, I’m just relieved I won't have to spend much more time reading your posts. Cheers.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:I am, sure, but that honestly has zero to do with my previous post to you.

I never claimed the tension was fading for you, and frankly, I don't care what opinion you or "the crowd" happens to share.

Not much to chill out about here, considering I responded to your post with a perfectly normal tone.

Oh yeah? Imagine that—the same guy twice in one thread. You don't see that every day, right?

Slow down there, buddy. You learn something new every single day...

Nah, but hey, slow down there—you live and you learn...

Take it easy...

Why wouldn't I? Good grief, I watch movies and read about them! It's all for you and the ladies.

I wasn't explaining anything to you. Honestly, there's no need since you clearly get it yourself; I was just stating my take on the ending you mentioned.

...like I said...

Of course I am. Blasphemy and insinuations are my secret weapons against all the Drew Whites out there.

so there could definitely be something to that...

Heh, you're a real comedian. What are you even doing on this forum then? It’s clear you aren't interested in actual discussion—do you honestly think people are just sitting around waiting for your input? Or do you think we should rename this entire site to a dedicated space for people who share the exact same views as a "respectable pacifist"?
I won't even dignify the rest of what you wrote...
Look, fine. Go ahead and carry on however you like; that's all I have to say. There is zero point in continuing such an unconstructive dialogue, which certainly isn't the purpose of this platform. If it were up to me, I’d remove you from here entirely, as you provide more friction than value. Instead, I'll just leave you with a brief summary of the rules:

Short version
All our guidelines essentially boil down to this: Do not do to others what you wouldn't want done to you. Avoid arguments and insults, and contribute to the constructive side of the Forum.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:I was actually talking about that specific sequence myself, and I wasn't even saying (and honestly, nobody else used that word either) that it was overplayed. The scene itself is brilliantly directed—it's sharp, direct, and totally unapologetic. But when you look at the movie as a whole, that moment kind of kills the dramatic tension that was building up.
Don't spread misinformation.

Look, Pui uses abrupt cuts like that in "Lazarescu," and I bet Nemescu would have done the exact same thing. It’s really the only right way to end a film with this kind of tone. You do it specifically to show that the ending doesn't actually matter, because in (this kind of, or any) reality, there is no such thing as an "ending." In an art form like film, you just have to mark the spot where it stops.

Heh, you're certainly stubborn. For me, the tension isn't lost at all, and I'm certainly not alone in that opinion. That said, I won't say you're flat-out wrong; if that's how you experienced that segment, that's your prerogative. But take it down a notch; there's no need for that kind of attitude.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:I was actually talking about that specific sequence myself, and I wasn't even saying (and honestly, nobody else used that word either) that it was overplayed. The scene itself is brilliantly directed—it's sharp, direct, and totally unapologetic. But when you look at the movie as a whole, that moment kind of kills the dramatic tension that was building up.
Don't spread misinformation.

Look, Pui uses abrupt cuts like that in "Lazarescu," and I bet Nemescu would have done the exact same thing. It’s really the only right way to end a film with this kind of tone. You do it specifically to show that the ending doesn't actually matter, because in (this kind of, or any) reality, there is no such thing as an "ending." In an art form like film, you just have to mark the spot where it stops.

Heh, here we go again. Your take is pretty weak, trying to lecture me on why a film's ending *must* happen a certain way. 🙂
I don't see why you even brought up that other movie. Do you think because filmmakers from the same country work similarly, they all have to end their films the same way? Or maybe you're just trying to impress me with your film school trivia. 🙂
Regarding the famous ending, you don't need to explain it to me. As I stated in my original post, I understand perfectly why the ending is what it is, but you're taking my words out of context. The ending caught me off guard because I don't sit there during a movie calculating when it will finish. Beyond that, I suspect that is exactly what the director intended, and that's precisely the function of a jump cut in editing.

redowl90 said:Rubeša is easily the most pretentious critic out there. Every time I read his stuff, I honestly can't stop laughing. The guy is a joke. A total clown with his writing.

I can't even wrap my head around the pieces in HFLJ. Even Matija Kluković couldn't top that level of pretentiousness.

On the flip side, I think Šoša and Radić are great over at National. Personally, one of my favorites is Njegić at Slobodna, thanks to those "free-thinking" and irreverent columns of his. Most of the time, I find myself agreeing with his critiques.

I second this. The crew at National is top-tier, and I’d also throw in Zeljko Luketica from 101ic. Whenever I’m about to watch something, I check what he’s written first. He has some brilliant pieces that really shape my expectations.

Getting back to the movie itself—I watched it yesterday with my girlfriend. Just like some people on this forum argued, she felt the scene where the blonde girl shows up at her boyfriend's mother's birthday party was overblown. And believe it or not, we didn't even fight about it.
Personally, I didn't see it that way. It perfectly captures her sense of agony, from the ringing phone that nobody answers to the blowout fight with her boyfriend. It's tense and masterfully done. Not to mention the ending, where she tries to ditch her bag and runs through those dark streets while the handheld camera follows her. She almost falls out of the frame, reaches the rooftop, drops the bag, and just lets out this deep sigh. It’s brilliant. I will admit, though, that sudden cut at the very end caught me off guard, even if it makes perfect sense. As the blonde said: let's just never speak of this again.
The end

Look, you've been given all the information you need. Go to the lecture, check in with the professor, and just get it over with.

I’ve never actually sat in on lectures at an engineering school, but I don't see why I couldn't. A friend of mine attended a small liberal arts college where everyone was on a first-name basis. Even back then, there was a sense of genuine community. Ultimately, I think professors should welcome the interest.
I'll follow up with that same friend—she studied philosophy, but I doubt it would pose any real issue.

Go down to a local video rental shop and permanently borrow some VHS tapes for $1.75. I’ve been watching Straight Story on my own collection for a while now, but looking at the mountain of DVDs in my drawer, I simply can't find any more room for extra tapes or VHS cassettes.

Here is another review from Jerry Luketic, a critic whose perspective I hold in high regard.

Eric Jackson68 said:Oh, please. So you're telling me you can't even finish a movie because there was a tiny little genre shift in the second half? God forbid the film deviates from its initial premise for a moment! Apparently, a slight change in tone is enough to make it unwatchable for everyone else, right? Give me a break.

Exactly. It’s absolutely infuriating. 🙄

Eric Jackson68 said:Right, and you conveniently neglected to mention that the movie currently holds a perfect five-star rating on the site. Out of the four people who bothered to vote, every single one of them gave it a five.

Heh, I didn't bother bringing up how it's rated elsewhere. Personally, I’d much rather read an actual review with a rationale behind the score. A string of fives on a niche site doesn't carry much weight for me.🙂

Here is the link from IMDb; it includes a decent trailer and two links toward the end that lead to various reviews. The main criticism seems to be the genre whiplash—the first two-thirds play out as a comedy with subpar humor, while the final third shifts into a tense thriller involving car chases and such. Overall, it feels unconvincing and poorly executed. Given that the reviews I’ve been reading are consistently negative, and since there seems to be a consensus on this, I think I’ll just wait until it hits the streaming services.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:Alright, let's get serious for a second:

👍

🙏 🙏 🙏 👍 👍 👍
Damn, let me think about that for a second.

But seriously, for real though:

Honestly, this thread has been hands down the funniest thing I’ve ever read on this entire forum. Seriously, thanks for the laughs, everyone!
Human stupidity is brilliant in its own way, but honestly, northerncrane4's sarcastic remarks are even more brilliant—even if they’re painfully true.
He shakes it just enough so they don't get too used to it. 👍

Look, it's obvious this thread is all about Lynch's latest film, so let's just lean into it and talk about that:

My expectations were pretty standard, but honestly, the movie just didn't blow me away.
I’ve only ever seen Mulholland Drive from Lynch's filmography, and man, he jumped straight to my favorite directors and that movie became one of my absolute favorites. The first time I watched it, I didn't really get it, but I loved it anyway. The second time around, things started clicking, and I was still loving every second. By the third time? I finally realized I was making a huge mistake by trying to "figure it out." Now, I just sit back and soak in the brilliance.
I'm a bit conflicted about Inland Empire. To be honest, I didn't really vibe with it on my first watch, and I don't think I even fully grasped what was happening. I’m definitely going to revisit it—I have a feeling it’ll land much better the second time around—but for now, it just missed the mark for me.
I don't want this to just turn into a bunch of likes and dislikes. I’m actually going to try and put some effort into explaining things for once:

First off, the movie is way too long. Lynch's fantasies—if you want to call those weird fever dreams that—could easily be squeezed into a tight 30 or 45 minutes. I honestly felt like I lost about half an hour near the end. Sure, the finale lands well enough, but once a Lynch film starts dragging, you're already losing the battle. If it gets boring, it's not working.
Anyway, I don't know what his deal is, but those close-ups irritated me almost as much as Boorman's long takes in "liberation." I guess when it comes to pacing, I’m just a classic guy who prefers a moderate dose of everything. Those shots really bugged me during UC.
The long takes don't really sit right with me either. Like, okay, one lady says this, the other lady says that, and the camera should just cut back to the first lady instead of lingering for an extra second or two every single time. Maybe some people dig it, but not me.
And the camerawork? Man, it just looks so off. When I think back to "silencia" and that gorgeous, crystal-clear imagery—that magical vibe still gives me chills. UC was full of these "dirty" shots (probably caused by that camera we were talking about earlier; look, I'm no expert on technical specs /not that I'm an expert on the stuff I *am* talking about, but I feel qualified enough to have an opinion here/), and that just doesn't work for me with Lynch. I get that the atmosphere is miles away from MD (even though some parts are actually almost identical), but it still feels wrong.
I won't even touch the plot because I didn't understand a damn thing, and I'm not going to rave about the acting; nothing really clicked for me.

All in all, the "Zodiac" I watched yesterday left a much, much stronger impression on me.
And I'm guessing tomorrow's "Satyricon" will be the same story.

Also, one more thing: northerncrane4's posts are absolutely brilliant, but he doles them out so sparingly. It would be awesome if we got more. That whole idea about the actress didn't make sense to me at all initially, but now suddenly everything looks much better.
Just so other users can enjoy some high-quality posts too, I'm adding a quote from ruggedjackal4 above, hoping he's found his focus again and has plenty of time to finish explaining his theory.

So, yeah, that's about it for now. Thanks again for this hilarious thread.
Later

Look, the director is intentionally placing us right in the lead actress's shoes. Those shots are, strictly speaking, a second too long specifically so we can better feel her discomfort and confusion—though I'm not sure if you actually felt it. She's dealing with an older woman telling her things she doesn't understand, which is clearly reflected in her performance. Honestly, the actress was brilliant in this film.

Jessica Nguyen85 said:Emperor Joseph II: My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.
Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?

Amadeus 👍 🤣 This gave me a good laugh; excellent use of the reference here..

Emperor Joseph II: My dear fellow, there are in fact only so many notes one can hear in an evening.

northerncrane4 said:He didn't mean it literally; otherwise, it would be a stretch to use the adjective Tarantino's to describe a Lynch film.

Fair enough, I agree, but if it makes sense in his own head, let him write it...

I have to say, I really appreciate Jason Gonzalez7's take on the film. Hopefully, you’ll get around to a rewatch soon. 😁

By the way, since we're talking about Zizek, you should head over to the local library on June 24th.

EDIT: It's either Pasquol or Paquol.

EDIT2: Just checked—Don Juan's Midnight Mirror is available at NSB (or maybe NSK); I doubt you'll find it anywhere else unless you hit up an antique shop. You might be able to pick it up in 🙂New Orleans, naturally...