Jack Nicholson was hands down the greatest actor of his generation, right up until they completely botched it by handing him that long-awaited Oscar for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (which basically turned the guy into the most nominated actor ever, but also kind of a permanent underdog). He never quite recaptured that lightning in a bottle he had in Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, The Last Task, Chinatown, or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Back then, you could just feel he was the real deal—this guy had an actual presence, this electric energy radiating off him. But after One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, he just became a caricature of himself, looking totally self-satisfied, like he was stuck in this "I'm finally a big-fucking-movie-star" headspace. That signature smirk, the way he looked at you, those eyebrows... it all just turned into this repetitive, routine gimmick he leaned on until it wore thin. Don't get me wrong, the roles were decent, but they lacked soul. Nicholson is the textbook definition of how an Oscar can actually wreck a person's raw talent and potential (yeah, that’s a conversation worth having!).
It wasn't until recently, though, that I caught a glimpse of that old-school Nicholson in The Pledge. And from what I've gathered, About Schmidt is sniffing around that same territory too.
If you ask me, the absolute peak Nicholson ever reached was in Five Easy Pieces.
Lately, thanks in large part to this community, I’ve been on this incredible run of watching some truly solid, even brilliant, movies. I'm talking about stuff like Lantana, All or Nothing, Amelia, Dog Love, The Princess and the Warrior, and even The Others... If you look closely, there's a pattern emerging here—not a single one of them is an American production (well, except for the US dollars used in The Others). Every single one of these films feels like I'm sitting down for a real conversation with them; they just keep talking, and once the credits roll, it's like they've spent two hours decoding life for me, offering answers, setting moral benchmarks, or even inspiring me to take actions I'd normally never dream of considering...
I rarely get that kind of connection from American cinema, and honestly, never from anything coming out of Hollywood. There was a time when I actually enjoyed American movies, but nowadays, I can barely recall a single one worth mentioning.
So, what about you guys? How does your watchlist look?
It feels like "Amélie" is one of those movies specifically engineered just to make sure everyone walks away smiling.
Honestly, I'm right there with you—it feels like the biggest issue with this flick is how hard it’s clearly trying to win us over.
That’s total nonsense! Of course a movie tries to appeal to people. Every single film out there is aiming for an audience, but great movies just put a little more heart into making that connection happen.
driftingeagle27 said:Every single time I turn on the TV and see some bottom-tier Spanish soap opera where the main girl's brother is stuck in a wheelchair and her sister just lost her baby...
Rabbit, I totally get it now. Your sensors aren't just jammed; they’re completely fried. And honestly, it’s probably from binge-watching way too many of those dramatic overseas soaps where, judging by your "expert discourse," you’ve clearly become a scholar. Look, we're out here actually talking about cinema, and TV is a whole different beast. Try to wrap your head around the fact that there's a massive distinction there.
driftingeagle27 said:I think Amélie is a terrible movie because it treats the audience like idiots, trying way too hard to manipulate our most superficial, cheesy emotions, which means it totally missed me "by a mile."
Zac, man, you still haven't actually said anything about the movie itself. Look, when I head to the theater, I’m going there specifically to let myself be manipulated. Honestly, isn't that how everyone watches movies? I surrender to the director; if they're any good, I'll let them lead me wherever they want. And wouldn't you know it, even being that "foolish" allows me to get an actual artistic experience out of a film—to feel something, to pick up a few themes, maybe even stumble upon some wisdom. On the flip side, you're basically admitting the movie failed to move you at all based on what you wrote above. I certainly don't claim to be perfectly objective, and I'd hope you don't either. So, who actually *saw* the movie better here? You, with your sensors completely jammed (probably thanks to that cynical worldview of yours), or the rest of us who were naive and open enough to let the film hit us full force, letting it mess with our heads and leave an actual impression? Since the movie "missed you by a mile," I'd say you don't even have the right to talk about it. Because you didn't see it. You're blind! A total Technician!
(That whole second part of your reply regarding the film's aesthetic is just a prime example of empty, "pseudo-intellectual" fluff where you fail to say anything remotely relevant about Amélie.)
Zac, seriously, walk me through why you think Amélie is such a flop. You’re just out here trolling without actually dropping any real arguments. Everyone else in this thread has weighed in, but your whole "eloquent" contribution was basically just a vomiting emoji. I’m actually looking for some different perspectives here. While you're at it, maybe throw out a few actual classics that you don't absolutely hate? Don't worry, I'm not like you—I don't just wake up with a default setting to trash everything I see. I'm genuinely just curious.
driftingeagle27 said:If you honestly thought that my announcement about leaving meant I’d just sit back and let you guys dump all your pseudo-intellectual garbage on me without a fight, then you’ve got another thing coming. I have zero intention of letting any of you smoke-and-mirrors types mess with my dignity just because I'm stepping away or turning my back. Seriously, keep dragging my name through the mud like this, and you can bet I’ll be right here to give you exactly what you deserve, even if I usually prefer not to grace this forum with my presence.
So, basically, nothing has changed. It's still the same old "Oh, what a shame" routine.
I finally sat down to watch it yesterday, mostly thanks to the hype going around this forum, and man, what a stunning, mind-bending piece of cinema. It’s one of those movies that just gets under your skin—all about those sudden pivots in life, how we crash into one another, and those weird little coincidences that change everything. It really makes you think about how much we actually impact the people around us, whether we realize it or not; we're all just constantly nudging each other's paths through this massive web of influence and chance. But honestly, if you ask me, the absolute hardest part isn't steering someone else's course—it's trying to get a grip on your own damn life.
Man, this thing is shot so beautifully that I can't help myself—every time I pop the DVD in, I find myself hitting that grab screenshot button just to snag a few stills for the collection. This time around, though, I didn't just grab a handful; I ended up with nearly two hundred shots!
I’m starting to realize that Amelia actually has this weirdly intense power to mess with real life even after the credits roll. Like, the Rabbit was asking me how exactly that works, so here’s the breakdown: you go on a forum and absolutely tear a movie to shreds—clearly just trying to poison the well so everyone else hates it too—and then, less than two weeks later, you vanish from the community entirely because you finally realized you don't actually fit in there. Is that Amelia getting her revenge? Or maybe it's some kind of twisted act of charity?
I honestly believe movies have this incredible power to actually do some good in the world—I mean, when they’re done right, they really can. You might see something on screen that sticks in your brain and suddenly you’re inspired to go out and start doing these random, totally unprompted acts of kindness just to make someone else's day a little brighter or maybe even shift their entire trajectory for the better. And even if it doesn't end up changing anyone's life? Well, man, it would be a damn shame if it didn't.
Has anyone else actually sat down to watch anything else by this guy? Jean-Pierre JeunetI’ve gotta say, I’m actually pretty blown away here. You were talking about Delicatessen earlier, weren't you?
I finally sat down yesterday to watch Gosford Park on DVD, and the bonus features include this fascinating little statement from Altman where he basically says—if you look at any of my movies, you can pick out five or six standout scenes, and none of them actually came from the script or were even the result of his directing; instead, those moments just happened because of some happy accident or a stroke of luck. That’s classic Altman for you, where his whole style boils down to creating this massive, chaotic energy on set and then just capturing the best bits that happen to fly his way. It’s a high-stakes gamble that can either land you something brilliant or a total disaster. Even Žika Pavlović used to say that coincidence is often the most powerful force on a film set.
It immediately makes me think of poor Kubrick, whose films leave absolutely zero room for errors or improvisation. That guy would spend entire days obsessing over a single frame or one tiny, microscopic detail. But honestly, perfectionists tend to burn out early and leave behind far fewer movies.
With Altman, he’d let a butler spit in a fork, and if the character wipes it off with a rag, he won't care even if an authenticity consultant tells him it's historically impossible. He doesn't give a damn about that stuff; in fact, he wants that exact kind of raw reality.
I was actually caught off guard by how the movie opens with rain falling from a perfectly clear sky. Those kinds of minor details don't seem to bother him one bit. It’s almost like he’s showing off, saying, "Look how relaxed I am about this stuff," while knowing that with a little bit of luck, this loose approach allows him to capture magic that nobody else ever could.
What really stuck with me about Gosford Park was exactly that directorial vibe—that sense of ease, playfulness, and effortless flow. And yet, he still manages to guide a super precise "who-done-it" mystery through all that spontaneity.
He finally snagged an Oscar for directing for that one, didn't he?
I honestly think the venue makes or breaks the whole movie experience. It’s probably similar to how people feel about wine—I don't know much about vintages myself, though I'm definitely an enthusiast when it comes to the films.
(Speaking specifically about Washington, D.C.) Right now, my happy place is that little independent theater downtown showing a revival of a flick I intentionally skipped when it was playing at the big multiplexes. I used to frequent the local Cinema house back in the day because the crowd was always top-tier, but lately, I just haven't had much reason to swing by.
As for the AMC Theatres, I can only stomach those during press screenings. Sure, the tech is flawless, but it kind of strips the soul out of the movie. And since atmosphere is such a huge part of the tradition, I usually go in expecting nothing but some mindless Hollywood blockbuster.
Out of all the spots, the worst by far is Europa. I spent years avoiding it, but lately, I've found myself giving in just because of other circumstances. It’s easily the most small-town feeling theater in Washington, D.C., and the audience always seems to laugh at all the wrong parts. They renovated the place once, but they did it so greedily that they crammed the rows together until only five-year-olds could sit comfortably. When they finally added more legroom by removing every other row, the whole place ended up looking hideous. To make matters worse, the seat numbers are tucked behind the chairs, so you have to lean over like you're on a Greyhound bus just to find where to sit—and even then, the front row doesn't help. Plus, they just slapped paper stickers over the old numbers, half of which are missing, leaving you to play detective. It can be kind of funny to watch if you show up early; you can either help the staff or mess with them just to see them scrambling later. 😁
The absolute worst thing they've done to theaters recently is allowing popcorn inside. There is nothing quite like a theater smelling like old grease while a crowd of people crunches through a jumbo-sized bucket for two hours straight. Now, even the classic, traditional houses have succumbed to it. 😢
In my neighborhood, they shut down three theaters in just a few months (the one near the Appalachian Mountains, the local Studio, and the one near the Uranium plant). I absolutely loved the first two, especially when they were mostly empty—which happened more often than you'd think. There’s nothing better than a half-empty theater where you can just lose yourself in the silver screen. 🙂
So, which theaters do you guys love (or absolutely hate) and what's the story there?
driftingowl27, are you seriously stalking me now?! 🙂 Look, I can see you’re just itching for a fight—honestly, I’d probably join in if I had anyone worth arguing with, but there’s just no reason to here. After that solid comment from Gerald Barrett25, yours honestly feels pretty bottom-tier. I don't get why you singled him out just to drag him down. Are you trying to insult him? Or are you just fishing for people to jump in and back up your obnoxious attitude?
When it comes to movies, I’ll take someone who actually knows how to enjoy a film over someone who just spits on it any day. To truly appreciate cinema, you need a bit of actual insight and a healthy state of mind. Being a hater? That doesn't require anything at all.
Louis de Funès (pronounced De Funès—that’s how I heard the locals say it). Spot on. He’s a personal favorite of mine, and honestly, the Oscars are to blame for everything (they always ruin things for us back home). I’d definitely record that one onto a gold cassette.
Sure, this could just be a carbon copy of those "Best Movies of All Time" lists you see everywhere, but honestly, it doesn't have to be. Who knows? Maybe some big-shot network executive stops by here—which wouldn't even be that crazy—and picks up a few ideas for their next programming slate.
Man, I am dying to do a deep dive and rewatch Stalker and Solaris by Tarkovsky. I'm also craving Lester's Help!, that whole François Truffaut cycle, Afternoon Love, and maybe even some of that Eric Rohmer charm like Clairin. Oh, and throw in some Ingmar Bergman classics like Woman Waiting...
Just walked out of the theater. While I was sitting there watching, I kept wondering why anyone would even call this thing a masterpiece, but the longer it sits in my gut, the more I realize it’s one of those rare gems that sticks with you forever—one of those movies that actually shifts your perspective and builds a better version of your whole worldview.
It wasn't until I stepped out into the fresh air that I really processed the title, and man, it hit me how perfect and punchy it is. It’s that razor-thin line between having everything and having absolutely nothing. There’s this weird magic where you can spin nothing into everything, or take everything and watch it turn into zero. You see it clearly in Phil's wife; she spends the whole movie looking like she’s been washed out like a dirty rag, only to come out shining at the end, and then there's Phil, showing up with his hair finally cleaned up, looking almost decent for once. The magic that turns this film into a modern fairy tale is totally real—it's all about love and family. I’ve always had a soft spot for positive movies, especially those heavy character builders. And the big takeaway? Hold onto that magic! Let it breathe. It's All or Nothing.
And you, redowl90, you absolute blind fool, you're the reason I've been over here bickering with people on your behalf—people who, honestly, seem incredibly patient with you now that I think about it. That ending, though... it's just so damn good in every single way that you'd have to be a complete moron not to feel it. Even my daughter, who usually isn't into this kind of stuff, was totally glowing by the credits and told me, "That was amazing, it was so beautiful... why don't they make more movies like this? How am I supposed to go back to the stuff I used to watch?"
I was just weighing whether this movie is actually more digestible for a 14-year-old than >. Looking at >, it seems like > carries an 11 or 12 rating in most places, but the US ratings have me totally thrown off since it's listed as >! It’s kind of wild because > usually lands in that 15 or 16 range over in >. I was chatting with my kid about the whole film and the debate surrounding it, and she's actually pretty hyped to watch it.
driftingowl27 said:So, did you finally get around to watching All or Nothing? Honestly, I feel like it’s easily one of the two best movies of the year. 😉 🙂
I'm honestly just trying to figure out if this movie is actually okay for a fourteen-year-old to watch. Like, is it safe? Kids in Mind It’s not officially rated yet. If it ends up being like Naked, then I'm passing. But if it’s anything else, I’m hitting the theater tonight at 9:45.
Blue Eyes said:> I feel like White just arrogantly forces his opinion on everyone as if it’s the absolute truth... but honestly, if I had to choose between someone being arrogant or actually knowing their stuff about movies... I'd take Mickey any day 🙂)))
Honestly, there's nothing worse than arrogant ignorance, but maybe even worse is arrogant knowledge. Just look at how Professor Mickey talks down to people when the topic of Bergman comes up:
Your reasons are totally valid, Mary (since you don't enjoy Bergman as much as you used to)...
or better yet It's great that you have such a layman's approach to Bergman
If that isn't the most revolting, condescending, "ex cathedra" patronizing attitude, I don't know what is. And this is coming from a guy who is actually being kind to her! In that whole "professor lecturing a student" vibe, Mickey starts throwing out completely off-topic exam questions like, "What to think about Tarkovsky?" and "What movies do you like these days (keep it brief)?" Pay attention to that "brief" part. You can practically feel the tone. You're just sitting there waiting for her to beg him for a passing grade.
I mean, if someone tells me my reasons for liking or hating a director are legitimate or that the God of Cinema is blessing me because I'm just an uneducated layman, I feel like I'd want to grab them by the throat until I see their eyes roll back in their head 🙄
I'll give Mickey credit for his knowledge, but acting like that is just straight-up uncool and total nerd behavior.
Blue Eyes said:> Look, I'm not saying Mickey's performance was some kind of masterpiece either... but you're being totally one-sided here. You completely ignored how much White used words like idiotic and stupid in his posts. And yeah, sure, everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but I’m also entitled to say that I don't think White actually gets the movie—provided, of course, that I back it up with actual reasoning... which is exactly what I'm doing 🙂
My take was "one-sided" only because everyone jumped on White the second he didn't bow down and call the movie a masterpiece, opting instead to just call it a good film. Honestly, I don't think it's that big of a deal to suggest someone doesn't "get" a movie, especially if you're actually laying out an argument (which is a good thing!), but it's a whole different story when a forum moderator snaps and says:
White, it is honestly mind-blowing how little you know about cinema, yet you try so hard to show everyone off as some kind of total amateur... Did you get bullied as a kid or something, or are you just naturally drawn to this kind of masochism?
No, you genuinely have no clue what makes a movie work.
you look pretty clueless after throwing those kinds of baseless outbursts