Blue Eyes said:Nah, you were just picking on White just so you wouldn't have to agree with Mickey... don't tell me the same person who went after Vuce for being "tacky" when it comes to movies... is suddenly out here defending that exact kind of TACKINESS...
That’s just not how it went down. I wasn't pushing back against Mickey because of him personally; it's more that when people adopt that "know-it-all" attitude, they basically kill any chance of an actual conversation. Who’s ever going to feel comfortable sharing a different take if the "authorities" around here just shut them down instantly? As for my run-in with Vuce, I stepped in because he was acting pretty much like Mickey does on this board—being way too aggressive, forcing his views on everyone, and getting insulting toward anyone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with him. Let's look past what the movie actually is or whose side we're on based on whether we agree with a specific critique. The real issue here is the way people talk to one another. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion—even if that opinion is totally stupid—but nobody has the right to be a jerk about it and insult others, even when they think they're 100% right. So, it's not that I'm trying to defend or attack some specific aesthetic rule; I'm just trying to defend the basic principle of having a decent discussion. That's why I got involved in both situations, even though I haven't actually seen either 🙂 and especially since I'm dealing with fellow moderators here.
Blue Eyes said:I mean, I get it—Mickey probably did leave that kind of impression in that other thread... but now you’re dragging him into this one... and honestly, you're just hitting me with ad hominems without even having seen the movie itself...
Yeah, fair point. 😢 My whole defense was basically trying to stand up for Innocence on principle, but let's be real—look, White, when Blue Eyes speaks, there's really no arguing with her. She's just always right. It's frustrating, but it's the truth. 🙏
And if I can jump in as an outsider here, I’d say this has actually been a great, deep dive of a discussion. 👍 And honestly, without White stirring the pot, it wouldn't have gotten nearly this interesting. 🙂
Man, we’re basically acting like moderators ourselves here. But seriously, who's gonna moderate us!? Liberatore is probably already catching a flight back to the States right about now. (We were grabbing coffee yesterday and had such a killer conversation about cinema.) Mickey, I’ve got this nagging feeling you aren't actually this much of a chatterbox in real life. Please tell me I'm wrong.
Just a quick heads-up, we're keeping this thread focused on "All or Nothing"
Mickey, seriously, don't go digging yourself an even deeper hole here. Look, it’s just that on this specific thread, you really came across as totally clueless—just shallow, dense, and acting like some bigshot when you clearly aren't. It was like watching someone try to read a map upside down; you need everything spelled out twice just to grasp the basics, and honestly, you're still missing the point...
Mickey, honestly, with the way you dissect movies and how much you actually know about cinema, I don't even need to watch the damn thing to get the gist. And even if I did sit through it, I’d still be totally outclassed by you.
driftingowl27 said:Look, let me give you a little friendly advice—Michelle Howard2 actually has some unread books lying around that might be right up your alley, and once you've chewed through them, you could give us the rundown so the three of us can get together for one killer discussion. What do you think?
Count me out. Honestly, discussions with you, driftingowl27, tend to be nothing short of lethally boring. 👋
driftingowl27, man, just chill out for a second. There’s no need to go around insulting people just because you disagree, and please, stop acting like you're the professor in the room all the time. Honestly, it's exhausting to watch.
Look, I haven't even seen the movie yet; I'm just lurking in this thread as a completely neutral observer. redowl90 actually gave a really solid breakdown of why he doesn't think the film is a masterpiece—he pointed out plenty of great things, but he just wasn't totally blown away by it, which is fair. But what you wrote, man, feels a little fanatical; look, having an intense opinion is fine, but aggressively forcing it down everyone's throats isn't. This is a space where people should feel free to talk about cinema, and thank God there are folks here who see movies differently than I do, and redowl90 definitely isn't some idiot you can talk down to like that. Plus, since you're a moderator here, don't discourage people by acting all high and mighty; instead, try something like, "Hey Mr. redowl90, I think you missed the mark, let me explain why this is actually a masterpiece." Share what you know, show us what you saw, teach us something, and actually add value to the conversation. What you've posted so far is basically nothing. At least redowl90 actually discussed the film, while you just dropped two empty phrases that don't mean a thing. To anyone watching from the outside, you just look like someone throwing shade without any actual arguments to back it up.
Honestly, when I first kicked this thread off, my whole vision was that we’d be starting fresh discussions about whatever movies we’ve been watching lately, just so we could actually dig into them together. As it stands now, there’s such a massive pile of titles dumped in here that trying to comment on everything feels totally pointless. I think it’d be way better if we just focused on one movie at a time—throw out some initial impressions, share some deep thoughts, and let the rest of the conversation flow from there... It shouldn't even matter if it’s some brand-new blockbuster you saw at the AMC, an old classic on Netflix, or just something you picked up on Blu-ray...
I was actually at the theater just yesterday thinking about starting a thread here, but then I see this whole discussion is already heating up. Unlike Memento, which my buddy completely ruined for me by hyping it up way too much, Taylor Cruz7 told me this one was a dud and that I should only bother if I’m a die-hard Al Pacino fan.
So, I head in there with basically zero expectations, and man, what a ride. It was seriously great. I was hooked from the very first minute. Finally, we get a smart crime thriller that actually treats the audience like they have a functioning brain. It’s almost Hitchcockian in its precision, plus you’ve got this heavy moral dilemma playing out against the surreal backdrop of Alaska, where that eternal daylight just hangs there. It’s a totally different vibe of life in the North. What I really got out of it—which is something I rarely find when I hit the cinema these days—was that feeling of being completely gripped by a movie, knowing I'm in competent hands and being able to just sit back and let the story take over.
I have to admit, though, my movie buddy drifted off, and I actually had to nudge him awake during the best parts. And hey, like the G. B. show says, sleeping through a movie is a form of criticism, but in this case, I'm pretty sure he was just exhausted.
I actually went back and watched the sequel while I was staying in Canada, just to see if I’d react differently without all that massive hype clouding my judgment, and honestly, I can't help but agree with what driftingowl27 said—the sheer level of marketing required to get such a huge crowd to fall for that stuff is wild. And yet, here we are, with people still insisting the movie holds up today. 😕
In my opinion, the core concept of the film is nothing short of brilliant, even if the commercial success was totally out of proportion. If I recall, it cost maybe $50,000 to make and pulled in $150 million, mostly riding the wave of its viral internet buzz and some other non-cinematic factors. Still, you have to give credit where it's due 🙏 to the folks who spearheaded the whole project. Plus, thanks to that massive windfall, we got ourselves a fantastic new production house—Artisan.
I was really holding out hope that this kind of success would pave the way for more low-budget flicks that could compensate for cheap production values with killer ideas. Personally? I’d love to see a temporary ban on big-budget blockbusters. Just for a little while. Because honestly, the more expensive they get, the stupider they seem to be.
driftingeagle27, you’re definitely going to be the first one to jump on this the second you see him, aren't you?
So how old is Žika actually? (... quick jump over to imdb ...) He was born on April 15, 1933. (Aries are the best, let's be real) So he's practically still a kid... Luis Buñuel was still working on Tristan at that age, and then went on to do the discrete charm of the bourgeoisie and all that good stuff...
Jesus, wait—he passed away! November 29, 1998, in New York City, USA. (heart attack). Oh man, what an absolute ignoramus I am. So who actually made it then? Ah, okay, Directed by Zivojin Pavlovic and Dinko Tucakovic. Language : English. See?
Just wanted to point out that today's edition of the New York Times has this pretty slick cinematic guide running, featuring short blurbs on the "Top 100 Movies of the Year" picked by their resident critics—J. Pavlich, S. Petrov, and Z. Tomic. Honestly, though, calling Tomic a critic feels like a stretch since he basically declared 17 different movies as absolute masterpieces with five stars, despite having only reviewed about a third of them. It’s still a decent little trip down memory lane looking back at everything we caught or missed over the last year, though.
Ha, so it really is Jane Birkin. Honestly, she’s easily the best avatar on this whole forum, even if she's looking a little bit oversized here. 😉 I haven't actually sat down with the story yet, so what do you think—is it worth my time?
Personally, I’m always most drawn to the movie threads. You know, discussions about new releases where I can figure out if a flick is worth my time or if I should just skip it, or even deep dives into stuff I’ve already seen—I love hearing what everyone else caught in them, because there's always some tiny detail or subtext that totally flies over my head.
But honestly, you guys definitely watch the classics too. I really enjoy seeing how people reinterpret those old gems. Like the other day, I was flipping through HBO and caught a rerun of Badlands or Alice in Wonderland. Or I might see something like Reflections in the Golden Eye playing on NBC. To be real, those kinds of movies usually have way more soul than most of the new stuff coming out lately.
This one is a lock for my personal Billboard Top 100. Has anyone actually sat down with this one, and are you feeling up for a deep dive? I also want to get into how much time can actually be an enemy to a movie. It’s pure arthouse gold wrapped in a crime plot, leaving you plenty of room to just wander through your own interpretations.
Take that scene where the photographer shows his album shots to his editor, and they both agree to wrap up a collection of pretty gritty images with something soothing from a park. But if you look closely at that "soothing" shot, hidden in the grain, there's actually a nasty murder lurking there. What you think you're seeing isn't necessarily the whole truth; there’s always something deeper beneath the surface. And even the stuff you *don't* see can start to feel real, like that mime playing tennis at the end of the film. If you really lean into the game, you might actually hear the ball hitting the racket...
Timothy Cox2 basically just laid it all out there for me. Like, word for word. I’m not even trying to parrot him, I just genuinely feel exactly the same way about this.
Look, it actually works... Let me give it another shot... Anyway, I’m about to crash and put on Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Then maybe Snatch later.