rustyseal40 said:I find it somewhat laughable that after everything we have witnessed, you are suddenly invoking copyright laws. Where exactly was this "respect for intellectual property" visible, other than perhaps in the titles listed for the main program? The entire supporting lineup was screened illegally! Since you want to discuss regulations, don't you realize how complex this is? There are distinct rights for television broadcast versus festival screenings, commercial vs. non-commercial festival rights, single-use licenses versus multi-screening rights, and journalistic screenings, etc. These rights are incredibly sophisticated, yet here in America, there seems to be a pervasive desire to bypass them whenever possible just to divert funds toward other things. Look no further than the budget mismanagement in Beverly Hills for a perfect example! And as for the violation of my rights—or rather, the viewer's right to a quality image—honestly, John couldn't care less about that! But let us take this copyright argument to its logical conclusion: where did Maya Deren come from? Was it a 16mm print or a DVD? Of course, it was a DVD. So, were those rights properly regulated or not? I could go on all day listing rental fees and distribution costs. Furthermore, was the distributor even credited in the catalog or on the website? If the excuse being tossed around is that it was difficult to source films for the women's program, then claiming it was impossible to secure this specific title is a blatant lie; there isn't just one distributor, but several available! To say a title is unreachable is simply nonsense! Furthermore: I saw Orlando in a standard theatrical release a few years ago, complete with American subtitles and a proper film print. So, where is that print now? And Chantal Akerman’s work is readily available in the film archives (not her actual physical self, 😉). Unfortunately, in this charade, neither CBS, nor the incompetent organizers, nor the financiers who refuse to demand accountability will suffer any consequences. The only ones left to pay the price are the audience and all the other festivals that actually perform their duties professionally. If we insist on boasting about having a growing and robust festival culture, then that should logically necessitate an equally robust culture of viewership.
Could you unpack that part for me? Lawrence is still a young guy, so I'm not exactly losing sleep over him—he'll pick up the necessary nuances and learn the ropes eventually. But if there's a systemic issue within the Human Rights Film Festival, or if they're missing some fundamental DNA, then those kinds of problems need to be shouted from the rooftops in the media. Take this, for example.
Where are all the comments? Come on, people—I can't even make up my own mind about Tracker 2.0. 😁
Bobby — disappointed. Given everything there was to say about the younger John F. Kennedy and how people actually perceived him, it’s such a shame that Martin Sheen leaned so hard into those tired, bland clichés.
Where on earth did you see that? It hasn't even hit US theaters yet.
I actually tried reading the book a few years back, but I ended up tossing it after maybe 50 pages. Honestly? The main character just drove me absolutely insane.
This is some hardcore post-feminist chick flick territory. It’s actually a bit of a shame how much the protagonists remind me of Thelma and Louise: you've got one who's totally naive and spacey, paired with another who's experienced, selfless, and fully aware—within the context of the movie, of course, just so the guys in the room don't feel too insulted by the blatant fact that a woman can really only count on another woman.
Brad Pitt. He was basically the ultimate heartthrob of the '90s—the kind of guy who could pick any script he wanted. He knocked out a few absolute classics early on, but then things shifted toward movies like Mexican, Ocean's 11, and Ocean's 13 (directed by a guy who lately seems way more interested in hanging out with his buddies than actually making movies)—and then, of course, the peak: Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
Jude Law. Back in the day? One of the best supporting actors you could ask for—think Gattaca or Mr. Ripley. That was until he decided he absolutely had to be Hollywood's next big leading man. Fast forward to today, and what do we have? Someone who overacts, feels incredibly artificial, and is just... completely uninteresting.
Firefly—both the film and the series—feels disturbingly realistic when you consider what’s heading our way in the near future. From the sheer scale of how people are controlled right now, to the inevitable experiments down the road, and eventually planetary colonization where they'll just find new ways to keep us from getting too comfortable.
And let's not forget Chinese becoming the lingua franca for making the rounds. 👍
So, is anything actually going to change with the audiovisual council/center/law? On paper, the whole thing looks solid enough, but I’ve never been one to trust the soap opera politics and family ties that run the domestic film industry.
Wait, isn't there that one scene where Bale is literally sucking up worms and then passing them off to another guy in the camp? I think it was mostly for the visceral impact, but man—those leeches weren't any easier on the eyes either.
Regardless, it’s a really solid film. Honestly, it feels almost textbook in its execution, especially considering who directed it and the subject matter involved.
^ I’m circling back to this whole idea of people equating an intellectual superiority complex with just demanding basic standards. Since this thread took such a nonsensical turn halfway through... 😛
Saw IV - $32,110,000 - rotten 15% Dan in Real Life - $12,081,000 - fresh 63% 30 Days of Night - $6,700,000 - rotten 50% The Game Plan - $6,257,000 - rotten 28% Tyler Perry’s Why Did I Get Married? - $5,740,000 - rotten 48% Michael Clayton - $5,030,000 - fresh 91% Gone Baby Gone - $3,900,000 - fresh 92% The Comebacks - $3,450,000 - rotten 8% We Own the Night - $3,400,000 - rotten 52% Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas - $3,347,000 - N/A
^ Here are the top 10 hits from the American box office this past weekend, along with their critical scores over at RT.
Predictable answer, but I’m going with The Matrix. Beyond just having a killer vision of the future, it offers this whole alternative take on our current reality and history—it feels like it did for the Internet age what Metropolis did for the industrial era, or what Blade Runner did for the post-industrial age. Even if the sequels aren't all that great.
As for the older classics, I'd say La Jetée.
I try to force myself to get into Kubrick because, let's be honest, the guy basically elevated the genre from cheap thrills to actual philosophy, but I just can't make it work. His cynicism is just too much for me to stomach. ☕
velvetotter10 said:I think this Film is absolutely brilliant. Garland wrote a script that isn't exactly easy to grasp on the first pass—it’s dense—but everything clicks perfectly into place once you start analyzing the visual and auditory cues woven throughout the entire story.
SPOILER
The reason the first Icarus veered off course is because the captain—Pinbacker, the guy we see at the end—murdered his entire crew. Why? The answer is actually quite simple: he wanted to reach God. That captain is essentially a personification of humanity's drive toward perfection, just... taken to a terrifying, warped extreme. He was given a mission to save mankind, but in his flawed, very human reasoning, he drifted too far from the concept of humanism. He realized that by *not* saving Earth, he would remain the last living human ever. The systems onboard Icarus I allowed him to pull this off, so he did it. It was all part of his plan to reach Godly perfection as the final man in Space. He didn't care about the welfare of the species; he wanted to sacrifice humanity for his own sake. He shut down the computers, killed his crew, and began living in isolation, just waiting. Time and the cooling Sun, which is effectively killing off humanity, were working in his favor.
Since he clearly expected a follow-up mission to arrive, he set a beacon, calculating that human nature would inevitably draw that next mission off its intended path. And that’s exactly what happened. When Icarus II attempted to rendezvous with Icarus I, it was Pinbacker who forced them apart. He murdered Trey and carried his madness over to Icarus II.
The psychologist on Icarus II serves as the perfect foil to Pinbacker. Searle is a man who has stared into the greatness of the Sun and realized the insignificance of an individual, yet he managed to hold onto his humanism. He understands the vital importance of the individual when faced with the vastness of Space, infinite energy, and the necessity of saving everyone. He and the captain are two sides of the same coin. This is why he chooses to sacrifice himself for humanity and surrender himself to God.
Then there's the young physicist, Capa—the most crucial character in the whole thing. He is a truly Jesus-like figure. The tropes are laid out from the beginning, though they don't fully coalesce until the end—the blue eyes, the stubble, the hair. His courage is constantly being questioned, yet there's no doubt that his role in the mission is the most significant. Even if there are more dominant or visible personalities around him, it's clear from the start that Captain Kane is the only one who truly recognizes his importance. By the end of the Film, everyone else finally catches up.
In the final moments, it’s just him, Cassie, and Pinbacker left on the module. After space and time warp during the acceleration into the core of the Sun—which explains the shifting dimensions and the axis flip on the module itself—Capa initiates fission. This is where the internal logic of the Film reaches its peak: it shows that the conscious sacrifice of a pure soul is the only path to Godly providence. When you have the God-created energy of the solar flare flooding the module meeting the man-made power of atoms ready to split, Capa stands right between those two forces, momentarily transcending existence itself. In that instant, he realizes that God is with him, rewarding his willingness to open his heart and sacrifice everything to save humanity. He reaches toward God, steps into the light, and that's it.
For me, the Film is genuinely great, specifically because of the storytelling. It’s just a shame that certain parts felt rushed; I honestly think a Director's Cut would have fixed quite a lot of that. And yeah, it's a pity a story this good wasn't handled by a different director.
I don't know what the original script looked like, but the captain of that first ship reminded me quite a bit of how zombies were originally conceived—as this subversion of resurrection. That concept fits perfectly into a "coherent allegory," right? The real issue here is that the Film gives absolutely zero hints about the existence of a zombie obsessed with the idea of God until the moment he actually shows up. Usually, you'd see subtle breadcrumbs dropped at least two acts prior, but this movie fails that; instead, it takes this sudden, jarring pivot from a sci-fi drama straight into a zombie flick in the final act. It’s just a shame they didn't give the buildup the development it deserved.
The movie is alright, I guess—but honestly? It doesn't hold a candle to... History of ViolenceThe characters—especially the villains—could have used a bit more depth. At certain points, I felt like I was watching a rerun of that caricature William Hurt played in History of Violence. It was also a bit jarring to see such an intense dose of social commentary suddenly dropped in; it felt somewhat forced when you consider how much the movie focuses on just pure, unadulterated carnage. That said, the acting is top-tier. Vincent Cassel really stands out because his character is easily the most animated, but honestly, the entire cast did a fantastic job. It doesn't surprise me at all that the Canadians handed Cronenberg the top prize in Toronto, but I’ll be honest—I highly doubt this one makes the Oscar shortlist this year. Unless, of course, we get a repeat of a year as unpredictable as this one. CrashHaggis Crash.🙂 )
Oh, and by the way—you can actually pick this one up through the local distributors here in the States. 😁
My personal rule for what counts as a foreign film is based on the selection at the Academy Awards, not just whatever wins an Oscar. Basically, if it’s shot in any language other than English, it qualifies. That doesn't mean I'm accounting for every single missed masterpiece—I'll gladly throw in Amenábar and maybe some Andrei Tarkovsky to that list—but it does cover the more high-profile stuff from von Trier and even some Roman Polanski or Miloš Forman. 😉
Both City of God and Dogs are on there, and honestly, it'll probably be just as much of a struggle for them to track down a subtitled Kaurismäki film. 😈
This list wasn't put together by some high-brow institution or official academy, but honestly? It’s packed with nothing but killer recommendations. We're looking at films from outside the English-speaking world here.
Top 10:
1. The Rules of the Game, Orson Welles, 1939
2. The Magnificent Seven, John Ford, 1954
3. M, Alfred Hitchcock, 1931
4. 8 1/2, Francis Ford Coppola, 1963
5. Bicycle Thieves, Martin Scorsese, 1948
6. 6th Person, Woody Allen, 1966
7. The Great Illusion, Orson Welles, 1937
8. Aguirre, the Wrath of God, Francis Ford Coppola, 1972
Alright, after finally hitting DivX, it’s making its way to theaters these days, so here’s a thread for it.
I can barely remember the first two installments, but this one? Honestly, it was pretty decent—just a solid, old-school action flick without all that modern overblown nonsense. My only gripe is the math behind the writing: why on earth did they need five screenwriters—including Tom Stoppard and Paul Attanasi—for a movie where the dialogue mostly just serves to bridge the gap between action sequences? It’s not exactly a deep, ambitious drama, so you have to wonder what they were actually doing in those writers' rooms.