Posts by Amanda Robinson4

Some people seriously still don't get what "pretentious" actually means ☕

fadedmason7 said:That’s honestly the beauty of it—just 130 minutes focused entirely on those two characters, their dynamic, and how they evolve... feels more like Bergman than Kubrick...

Well, sure, you can find influences everywhere if you look hard enough. But honestly, the whole vibe and the visual style feel way more like Kubrick to me, especially how he approaches everything...

That being said, this was definitely the toughest PTA flick for me to sit through. Doesn't mean it's his worst or even bad by any means, though...

Yeah, I really feel like everything about this movie was built with such insane precision. You can totally sense that Kubrick influence. The dialogue isn't trying too hard to be "intellectual" or anything—it actually reminded me of that one thing Kubrick said about making films that anyone could get, from academics down to just your average driver or housewife... kind of like how The Beatles worked with music. But even so, the lines feel so natural and alive, not forced at all. They just fit the vibe perfectly.

And man, the visual setting? Absolutely flawless. It’s not just easy on the eyes, though... it's incredibly symbolic.

The only real thing is, you have to stay locked in while watching. It’s not even about the plot as much as it is the slow burn of the relationship between Alma and him. Watching them both go through this massive transformation is everything. She shifts from this passive, lovestruck girl into this powerhouse of a woman, and he finally learns how to actually let go and step outside his comfort zone.

Just watched it. Honestly, no matter what you think of PTA, you have to see his stuff in a theater 😬 (even if I haven't caught every single one of them, still ☕ )... but, hmm, yeah... my final takeaway is... unsettling? 😁

I struggled a bit trying to figure out how to genre-label this thing, but honestly, who cares? Let's just call it a period romance drama. It’s slow-burn by nature, obsessed with the little details, and puts almost all its weight on the (romantic) relationships.

Man, if I had tried watching this at home on my laptop, I would've been totally lost. Even sitting here, I found myself waiting for the plot to actually kick into gear, but the end result was—well, surprising, to say the least. Mostly because of the pacing, which just slowly meanders through the complexity of Alma and Reynolds' relationship until it hits these sudden, intense dramatic peaks.

It's pretty clear that with Anderson, there's no such thing as a shallow theme. You can dig so much into it—everything from the director's obsession with high-end 1950s fashion and the overall vibe of that social circle, down to the uncompromising, almost neurodivergent traits of Day-Lewis's character.

I couldn't shake the feeling that some of the screen junkies were right when they said this is basically a movie about Day-Lewis himself, playing a guy who can't tell where his personal life ends and his craft begins. 😬 It feels even more symbolic considering it's his last big role.

In that same vein, PTA is just unapologetic. He doesn't disappoint, but he definitely leaves you with a bunch of questions spinning in your head. Which is great, because that's really the whole point. I get why a lot of people might not vibe with this, but for me? It gave me plenty of food for thought. 🙂

The only saving grace here has to be Hardy and how gorgeous everything looks on screen. But man, after those first 20 minutes, the whole thing just veers off into this weird direction and completely falls apart... I don't know, maybe if I’d caught this in a theater when it first dropped, I would've liked it more. Watching it now, the whole experience is just kind of meh ☕

It’s satire, so you totally expect some exaggeration 😁 but honestly, it’s kind of wild how much truth is actually tucked in there 😬 I mean, halfway through, my laughing fits start to taper off a bit, but it’s still such a blast to watch...

Since this movie isn't trying too hard or acting all high and mighty, it doesn't feel calculated at all. It’s not insulting anyone either—not your intelligence or any of those debatable themes you sometimes see ☕ . There's just this genuine warmth to it. The drama is perfectly paced and stays grounded, without wandering off into unnecessary tangents or whatever else... It’s just such a beautiful film. Whoever made this clearly put their heart and soul into it, and I honestly value that way more than big-name stars, messy scripts, random subplots, political correctness, or just aiming for hits...

I mean, I don't think it's necessarily an Oscar for Best Picture contender, but the performances are incredible and definitely deserve some nominations. 🙂

I really loved this one! It’s such a sweet coming-of-age drama with plenty of funny moments sprinkled in. Just super simple and smooth... you can really connect with the characters.

What’s cool is that it doesn't even go the typical route of bashing Catholic school environments—which seems to happen all the time with movies like this. Instead, it just tells a straightforward story about a teenage girl navigating that awkward phase of first loves, dealing with money struggles, and trying to rebel against everything around her.

But honestly, the most touching part is how she realizes she can't always get what she wants... and then, only after moving away, does she finally see that home wasn't actually that bad after all. 🙂

Pretty decent flick. I mean, you definitely have to power through nearly three hours for a story that probably could’ve been told perfectly well in ninety minutes, but hey, it’s worth it... I really dug that indie vibe. It’s got this modern hippie coming-of-age energy, super nostalgic and just a little bit playful and steamy... such a mood!

Honestly, LaBeouf still hasn't lost his touch. That role he just took on? It felt so incredibly natural... like he was actually meant to be there! 🙂

Just watched it. It's good! Now, if you're wondering if this is strictly how it went down in real life... well, they eventually justify it by saying it's just based on true events, and that certain characters were added just for the drama and stuff 😛

Still, it works really well as a blend of drama and thriller. Nothing feels over the top to me. The pacing is just right. It’s a bit textbook and predictable in spots, but that doesn't ruin the whole vibe.

Christopher Plummer is absolutely perfect for this role, though I can't help but wonder how Spacey would have handled it 😬 Honestly, all that hype surrounding this movie gives it a bit of a negative vibe for me. But it's undeserved—at the end of the day, it's a great story used really well.

I'm actually glad to see Ridley Scott stepping away from the sci-fi craziness for a bit. It's such a breath of fresh air in every sense.

Yeah, it’s basically that whole mindset where people act like they're too good for a blockbuster. Like, "Ugh, I could never enjoy a mainstream movie, I actually find those people repulsive."

But you don't even realize half the stuff you actually love is totally commercial 😬

"High culture," huh? Sounds fancy... If anyone asks, I'm definitely part of the elite 😛

briskhound2 said:Well, there you go—you basically just proved my point. Mainstream movies are almost always a bust, while true Art? That's always perfect... even when it's just someone being weird for the sake of it...

I mean, half the time I don't even get them myself, if I'm being honest, but man... I can't help but respect the sheer genius behind it.

What are you gonna tell me about The Room then? Some misunderstood masterpiece?

Honestly, you just have to watch this one 😬 To me, *The Room* is pure art because the director—due to his own lack of experience and all those other production hiccups—totally missed the mark on basically every technical aspect of filmmaking. And hey, that gave it enough of a buzz that everyone started watching it specifically as a "so bad it's good" example.

I mean, what really defines art if not the audience it connects with? In the case of *The Room*, everything that was supposed to make it a standard movie (like a drama centered on a super cliché love triangle) completely backfired... creating something that communicates something totally different than what was intended!

Basically, it turned a mediocre drama into an accidental comedy, which eventually earned it cult status. The sheer scale of how much this movie failed is an art form in its own right...

Jacob Cooper5 said:Looks like you were a total product of that era, Amanda Robinson4.

Let's just say I've seen a thing or two myself... 😛

OT: I think it really comes down to comparing typical Hollywood blockbusters versus international cinema. Movies from outside the States don't usually chase those big Hollywood trends, and they often can't even if they wanted to! They’re frequently co-productions involving national broadcasters or government departments rather than just one massive studio footing the entire bill for everything.

And you have to consider how "indie" is positioned against Hollywood these days. Basically, an indie film is an independent production—super obvious, right? They tend to have way more creative freedom, but man, the budgets are tight...

The most glaring difference is that Hollywood movies are almost always obsessed with being politically correct. They feel forced to push racial diversity and they basically demand a happy ending every single time.

I’ve been spiraling down this rabbit hole lately thinking about the whole "high art vs. commercialism" debate... It totally takes me back to my high school days when listening to anything on the Top 40 charts was basically social suicide! You had to be into indie stuff or some obscure garage band just to stay cool. I feel like that exact same tension is playing out in movies right now.

The thing with music, though, was that there was this massive push to find the next cult classic—you know, that underground sound or the rising artist that nobody else knew about yet.

But hey, obviously that’s such a narrow way to look at things, and honestly, we should probably steer clear of that mindset altogether. We’ve already talked about how you really can't separate the two... Every piece of "art" carries some level of commercial weight, and vice versa, whether they managed to hit the mainstream or stay tucked away in a niche category or not.

I'll definitely get to know him better over the next year...🙂
so thanks for all the suggestions.
I actually brought this thread back from the dead because I just finished watching La Strada the other day and man, what an impression it left.

As for American cinema in general—well, I just queued up some Antonioni, so my watchlist is growing fast!😉

After hesitating for a few months, I finally sat down and watched Citizen Kane. I wasn’t really familiar with his filmography before this, but after doing some deep dives online and clicking through endless random links filled with people raving about his genius, I figured it was time...

I wouldn't say I'm blown away, but I definitely get why he's considered such a legend. The theme is pretty straightforward, and the way the story unfolds is just as simple. I think that’s actually where the magic lies—just showing everyday life in this nostalgic, yet totally non-melodramatic way.

Honestly, though, I found myself focusing most on the technical side of things. The camera work and the editing style are just fascinating. From the static shots and specific motifs to the frequent framing—you know, those mid and close-ups—down to the clever ellipses and that subtle music that creeps out of the silence right at the end of a scene to transition into the next... 😬

In the end, it’s really easy to get swept up in the story. It felt like I was getting a genuine glimpse into an American family living out their typical daily lives...

Honestly, there's been way more letdowns than wins this year, so picking out any standout titles is a struggle. Plus, Oscar season hasn't even kicked off yet... 😬

If I really had to pick a few favorites, I'd definitely go with Logan, Dunkirk, and Blade Runner.

I mean, there were some smaller releases that technically count as last year's stuff since they showed up early this year, but they wouldn't be much more than just "honorable mentions" anyway...

I have to be honest... I’m just not a huge Fellini fan. I tried getting into his work years ago and it just didn't click for me at all. To be fair, I've always struggled with Italian cinema in general—well, except for Leone, though technically those aren't even really Italian films... So I told myself, maybe I just need more time.

Even Tarkovsky's Nostalghia felt like such a struggle at first. It wasn't until recently, after watching Nostalghia a few more times over the last couple of months, that things changed. Now, certain scenes just loop in my head constantly!

So, I watched La Strada yesterday. It felt like the perfect vibe for this holiday season, and honestly, it was the first time Fellini actually resonated with me properly.

Maybe the issue was that I jumped straight into the heavy hitters—the 8.5/10 stuff and those super abstract movies that were just way too much for me to handle right away...

It's finally clicking why he had such a massive impact on later directors who cite him as a major inspiration... you see it everywhere, from Lynch and Scorsese to Wes Anderson and the rest of them.

I feel encouraged now to tackle his filmography in order—starting with the ones that have more conventional storytelling and working my way up to those wild, later masterpieces. Besides what you watch, I guess it really matters *when* you watch it...

Honestly, we shouldn't get too caught up in drawing lines between "art" and "commercial stuff." It’s the exact same deal with music. You can compare Pink Floyd to, I don't know, some massive pop star who somehow manages to sell out stadiums every single night... which I still don't quite get! Sure, Pink Floyd made plenty of money from their records and tours, obviously, but the artistic weight behind their work is just on a whole different level compared to the other guy.

The real issue is thinking that because you're watching one specific thing, it belongs to some "superior" category compared to what everyone else is enjoying. That feels a little snobby to me...

Nowadays, when people say "art," they usually mean those indie arthouse movies—the ones made without worrying about the box office, where the director actually gets to follow their own vision and message. But just because a movie follows an auteur's dream doesn't automatically make it better than a big blockbuster designed by marketing teams to please the masses.

I mean, really, what's the actual metric for high artistic value if it isn't the ability to connect deeply with a huge number of people in such a powerful way?

Steven White7 said:I mean, what we call an "art film" nowadays is such a fuzzy, ill-defined term, and honestly, calling something that doesn't actually say anything about how good the movie is. You look at guys like Hitchcock, Leone, John Ford, De Palma, Fritz Lang, or even Coppola—they were making massive commercial hits, big-budget blockbusters, but those are still absolute masterpieces of cinema. On the flip side, if you actually direct the average audience toward the "art house" scene, you’ll quickly realize there’s just as much garbage there as there is in the mainstream stuff. If you head out to a serious film festival—I'm talking Sundance or SXSW, and I don't mean showing up on the final day when they're handing out awards or screening some untouchable classic, but actually sitting through the competitive selection—you'll find that maybe only one in three films is actually worth your time. But those mediocre ones get filtered out, leaving only the gems behind. That's why people fall into this trap of thinking art films are inherently superior to commercial movies (where, let's be real, they have to advertise the absolute trash just to get people in seats and turn a profit).
As for the hyped-up directors everyone won't shut up about, I was genuinely disappointed by this latest Lanthimos flick, and don't even get me started on Villeneuve; he’s got that whole pseudo-art aesthetic that everyone seems to be obsessed with lately, but frankly, it just makes me roll my eyes. At the end of the day, quality is about the film itself, not whatever pretentious little circle it crawled out of.

And honestly, that’s kind of where the whole debate hits a wall.

It’s actually pretty fascinating from a history perspective, though. If you talk to culture students, they’ll tell you that the era where big commercial movies were also considered "art" basically died with Raging Bull when the blockbuster craze took over. Most people point to Star Wars hitting the Oscars as that big turning point, where the industry shifted toward all that glitz, glamour, and massive marketing blitzes...

Nowadays, the term "art house" is mostly just reserved for a niche audience, which makes sense. But theater trends have definitely shifted because of it too. (Though, you have to admit, something like Tarkovsky's Solaris stayed on the schedule at theaters in New York for years because people just couldn't get enough of it!)...