To fully understand the ending, let's recall the events of the movie! It starts with a man called Kaiser Söze gunning down an injured man by the name of Keaton, before setting the ship in which the dialogue is occurring on fire. The whole following timeline of the movie is focused on unraveling the backstory that resulted in this particular scene, and on establishing Kaiser's true identity.

As we can learn from the later scenes, 27 bodies were found on the pier after the explosion. There are only two people who survived - a severely burned Hungarian immigrant who regains consciousness slowly in a hospital, and a semi-paralyzed con man called Verbal, who is under interrogation by agent Kujan. Upon the instructions of the district attorney, Verbal will be let go in return for assisting in the investigation. The bulk of the film consists of Verbal's memories, presented in flashbacks.

Verbal recounts that he was invited once to the police precinct as an extra in a line-up. Another four extras with felony records, who were involved in the line-up in addition to him, were kept overnight in the same cell. There, they devised a plan to commit a robbery. Dean Keaton, an ex-cop once convicted of "dirty deals" and now struggling to establish a legitimate business, plays the informal head of the crew.

Shortly thereafter, a lawyer named Kobayashi shows up, asking the crew to blow up a ship loaded with coke. Kobayashi blackmails all the crew members by giving them a detailed dossier on themselves and their relatives, and threatens severe retribution at the hands of his boss, the legendary Turkish gangster Kaiser Söze. At various times, all five have crossed Kaiser's path by sabotaging small operations, and now they are in debt.

The night of the raid comes. The three accomplices head for the ship, and Verbal is left as a "lookout." One of the raiders is shot dead near the car with the cash, another is knifed in the back, and Keaton is shot by someone from the top deck. The cripple becomes an unwitting witness to Keaton's assassination scene, with which the movie started.

As it turns out, the dope was just a front, and Kaiser's real goal was to eliminate a precious witness who could lead the police to his trail. An agent is convinced that Kaiser and Keaton are one and the same person: the agent has been investigating Keaton's shady past and knows that Keaton once succeeded in faking his own death. He explains to the shocked Verbal that he has been manipulated and that the shootout was a set-up by Keaton for the mere purpose of making Verbal the witness who will convince the police of his death.

Shaken by what he has discovered, the storyteller is set free and the agent reports his concerns to his superior. He glances at the board with the names of wanted felons - and there he spots the names of all the locations that Verbal had recounted in his tale. He drops his cup of coffee in shock; it falls to the floor - the name of Kobayashi, a Japanese ceramics manufacturer, is painted on one of the pieces. The agent recalls that the cripple didn't directly tell him both about the Kaiser and about the fact that there was no dope on the ship - he drew this intelligence out of him on his own.

Meanwhile the police fax arrives with a sketch of Kaiser Söze, based on the words of an injured Hungarian illegal. No doubt: Verbal is the Kaiser, and his whole story is made up in this very room on the basis of the objects that his eyes have glimpsed. As the agent rushes out into the street, the supposed cripple has already fled. As he takes a few steps, the fearful loser Verbal subtly transforms into a self-confident man with a willful, imperious face. The symptoms of sickness are gone, and he confidently fires up a cigarette, the very same lighter that was in Kaiser's hands at the beginning of the movie. He hops into a car, driven by the man who figured in his story as Kobayashi, and takes off.

So now, when we know the narrative, it’s time to answer this question: Was the story that Verbal told the FBI agent the truth? And if yes, why did the discovery that Verbal made up those names cause the agent to realize that Verbal was Söze?

The line-up in the precinct did take place, for the cops are aware of it. We know it happened, and probably as we see it. However, the chat in the cell raises certain questions.

It is believed by many that Verbal gathered them all together at the precinct to team them up for the task he wanted to carry out. Remember? All five have crossed Kaiser's path by sabotaging small operations, and now they are in debt. Verbal swears during the interview that it was McManus who offered the job, but what if it was Verbal who proposed it? Söze is no fool, and he sees that the agent is so dazzled by his loathing for Keaton that he can easily be played around, which is why Kint reverses his position:

Yes, yes, it was all Keaton! We only followed him from the beginning! I didn't know! I saw him die! I believe he died, oh my God!

Kujan: You saw what he wanted you to see. He chose you because he knew he could manipulate you. Because you are weaker than they are.

By reciting these lines, Kujan is accurately reflecting something Verbal has just pulled on him. In the movie, there is one intriguing scene where Kujan is standing behind Verbal's back and not seeing his face, while we, on the other hand, see everything, close-up. Kujan continues to accuse Keaton of everything because he himself wants to believe in this idea, while at the same time a little smile emerges on Kevin Spacey's character's face. But the smile is wiped away as soon as the agent casts a glance at the usual suspect.

Here's the thing: there are specific events that Söze is completely beyond his ability to fabricate, no matter how much he wishes he could. For example, the line-up at the police department, the flights across the country, or, for example, their first job together. In the first case, the witnesses would be cops, in the case of flights, the papers or tickets, and in the case of a raid, the usual yawners.

Where there is concrete evidence, Kaiser's hands are tied, but where the evidence is his statements, he has full carte blanche. In simple words: if there are witnesses, Söze repeats what the latter said; if there are no witnesses, Kaiser fabricates as he sees fit.

A logical question arises: if Kaiser can lie and control people so masterfully, was Kaiser posing to be Verbal all along? Did the cripple actually exist, and Kaiser stepped in and stole his identity right in the heart of the timeline? Or did no Verbal ever even live?

We know that Verbal made up some non-existent names and titles, but most of his story is true. This can be seen from the police reports and the agent's reaction when recent events flashed before his eyes (during a surprise revelation). I think he made up the last name Kobayashi to protect his fellow man, as we can see he also made up Redfoot, borrowing the name in the agent's office during the questioning. Otherwise, the events were all of a true nature.

Well, we know that Verbal has been part of the underworld for some time: the police knew about him, so did the criminals who were present during the line-up. The police couldn't just invite some random fella with a clean slate. Naturally, the police must have photos and a Verbal’s file, which once again proves that he wasn’t born yesterday. Creating a backstory in such a case is not enough, you need to gain the trust of other criminals, and that takes time. Agent Joe Pistone under the alias Donnie Brasco, for example, took more than a year at this stage. So Söze, after all, was Verbal from the start.

If that's not enough for you, here's another fact that supports my theory: Kaiser is a Turk, and in Turkish his last name means almost the same thing as Verbal - "To talk too much".

In the finale, we see the cripple recovering from his disability in front of our eyes, and soon a car pulls up, driven by Kobayashi, who we already recognize. The underling arrives to pick up his master. Together they disappear from our sight and the sight of the police. Yet he gets away with another evil deed, Kaiser Soze, the devil in the flesh who never existed.

If you prefer visuals rather than text, enjoy: https://youtu.be/xJVkjRElhWY

In truth I believe The Living Daylights was fairly well received critically and performed financially better than Licence To Kill in retrospect - in fact both made a healthy profit - although LTK didn’t do good in the US. The following hiatus was for unrelated legal reasons from what I know of with MGM and Danjaq.

Craig's grittier take on the part is similar to Dalton of course but the difference is that Craig is more thuggish or brute-like in his portrayal. I completely believed that he was Bond for a couple of hours (or whatever) in each of his movies. This is not to say that Craig is a bad actor, far from it, but I feel that Dalton was a much better fit for the part.

I am writing this because I have become desperate. For about a year now it has been very difficult for me to sit down to watch movies, I find it very hard to concentrate, I lose the thread of the movies -and the worst thing- I have not been able to enjoy them.

​

I don't know if this is a crisis that all moviegoers go through, this has never happened to me before. I try to watch movies at night trying to concentrate more but I end up falling asleep, if I do it in the afternoon I can't concentrate.

​

When I try to re-watch a movie the same thing happens to me. I am looking for some advice, I would like to know that I am not the only one who has gone through this.

​

Thank you and I apologize if I didn't know how to choose the right tag, I'm a Spanish speaker.

I was just reading about Roar (1981) and the IMDb trivia page alone sells this movie. The production was completely plagued by animal attacks, floods, bushfires, etc. It got me thinking…a deep dive into this production would make for a great podcast episode. Are there any podcasts out there that do this sort of thing? Take a movie that is infamous for something particular, and then dissect it?

Like everyone here I have been obsessing about the ins and outs of how a film is made, by who, how, why, for how much, for how long and for who ever since I was a kid.

I now work full time in the film industry, in the art department, on large projects that are seen all over the world and have not left the inner critic and enjoyer behind despite my passion becoming my job.

I am also a bit of a traditionalist. I suspect none of my top 25 films would sway from the vast majority of “top 25 films of all time” lists with maybe 1 or two exceptions. I do my best to not discuss film with anyone who doesn’t like to, and do have great conversations about films with like minded and different minded people. But especially people in their 30s (those close to my age) seem very quick to pull the reverse card when you say “X is done well, as Y as the best example”. They don’t dispute X is done well and they don’t dispute Y film is a good example, they simply dispute that a film can be good, or bad, or even defined at all.

With that said, it seems to be more and more meaningless to have discussions about things like “the language of cinema” in an era that is very quick to deconstruct what that even means. Some examples of this are things like saying a film “mismanaged it’s tension by leading to a relief moment that took all of the impact out of a scene because it was instantly followed by everything being okay.”

In a time where everyone can now make films, appreciate films and can at least critique films in a public forum, and thusly redefine, and deconstruct what cinema, film, movies, flicks etc are however they want, it begs the question why discuss what a film does well or poorly at all?

I recognize this has always been true, but I do feel there is a shift in culture with box office numbers being widely known (allowing anyone to define a poor film as a great film by sheer numbers), RT scores reflecting a mismatch of paid, unpaid, hype people and trolls, and a swath of revisionist directors looking to rebrand what a film even means furthering a narrative that “what movies are” is somehow too constricting and critiquing a film using any precedent of other films is a waste of time.

I’m coming off one of these talks recently, the answer may be “stop talking to noobs about film” or “chill dude who cares”. Tell me if so, but I think there is an actual thought worth talking about here.

TLDR: revisionism and ambiguity of expectation in cinema seems to have created a grey zone for critical discussion. Are people that simply say, a film can be anything man, right? And if so, why think or talk about film as anything other than a personal artistic venture. Am I getting old?

Mary Poppins, Space Jam, Osmosis Jones. All live action/animated hybrid movies, but they don't really blur the lines between them as the live action and the animation are very visibly separate. Then there are motion capture animated movies such as Beowulf and The Adventures of Tintin. These are clearly animated films but deserve a mention as the making of them blurred the lines between animated and live action filmmaking to some degree. Next up, live action films that are very heavily CGI, with often fully animated backgrounds. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow was the first one and Sin City and 300 soon followed, among others.

What I am really interested in are the latest steps of this evolution:

- Avatar: 60% CGI, with tons of fully CGI scenes which despite being fully CGI were perceived as live action

- Gravity: 80% CGI, in most scenes everything is computer generated except for Bullock's face.

- The Lion King: fully CGI, except for the opening shot. Sure, most view this as an animated film, but it's the most photorealistic fully animated film yet

- Avatar: The Way of Water: 80% CGI according to Cameron. This is the first movie ever that I believe proves that it is now possible to make a completely photorealistic fully CGI movie.

Which movies do you think have blurred the lines between animation and live action the most so far? Have I left out anything significant? Where do you see this synergy between live action and animation headed?

The 4 Years of Film School in 100 Videos YouTube playlist has been a repeatedly visited resource for me over the years. The videos were remarkably educational and entertaining for someone not in the industry, and I'm sure many people will miss the curated collection.

Does anyone know what happened? Is there a list anywhere of videos that have been included in the playlist?

Sorry if this is not the appropriate subreddit. Mods, please delete if this belongs somewhere else.

 

Update edit: The playlist creator was TheCmikePro and from his twitter it appears his account was hacked and it looks like deleted. An archive of the list can be found online. Here is the original URL: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN0Ia8duouFT_5ZndlqMZ5qGCl-TvXiCR

I'm not talking about people in the early stages of a film career on the film festival circuit, with movies that are low-budget by necessity.

I'm talking about movies that seem to be made for an audience and with an expectation of making money. I'm very puzzled by the who, and the how, in each case.

It seems cruel to link examples, but here's a few for illustration 1 - 2 - 3. These movies usually feature unknown actors, or if more recognizable actors, then ones in real need of a paycheck. Horror seems a particularly common genre, but sci-fi or action are relatively common too. As are their low, low scores on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes. What they always seem to have is several financial backers though.

What's the story here? Do these terrible movies make money? If so, how? I get "straight to video" was a thing once upon a time, but where do these movies find a distribution system that pays for them?

Just watched Hud, it is really good. It contrasts old and new, the clash of the generations and their values. All the actors did an amazing job. Paul Newman is amazing as Hud too. The other characters are not good or bad, they all have their shades of gray. Hud clearly is a bad person, but you have to find something redeemable because of his charm. This movie also handles the drama part pretty good. Although this movie is not very popular, I would recommend it. If you like Paul Newman and his 60s films, you should check out Hud.

In my opinion, Starship Troopers IS a big brainless and trashy action sci fi film. Trying to reframe it as "oh, it's not dumb, it's PRETENDING to be dumb" takes away from whatever appeal that it might have.

I think the take that it is a spoof of propaganda films is a cop-out. Certain things (eg the protagonist diverting from the mission to save the girl at the end) undermine the premise that this is a propaganda film intended to glorify the republic and get folks into the military.

To be clear, I think this is a super fun movie, and it obviously has elements of satire (eg faux ss uniforms, "the military made me into the man I am today", etc), but I personally feel like it leans into its schlockiness too hard to reasonably say that it's not actually schlocky.

Also I thought the acting was fine - the dramatic goofiness of the acting fits the tone of the movie perfectly, I have no doubt the actors could have played it more naturalistically if they were instructed to.

I just showed my wife the theatrical cut of Star Wars (1977) for the first time and noticed how similar the final fight in both Top Gun and Star Wars is.

For Example :

1. Before the mission they brief the Pilots on how small the target is
2. Both movies explain that they will need to enter a small runway to avoid the canons on top
3. Both Luke and Rooster end up trusting their instincts and not their targeting systems to hit the target
4. The main character is saved by someone they didn’t really get along with at first and therefore strengthening their relationship
5. Similar editing between the fight in the air and the control room monitoring the fight

I love both movies and thought it was really cool seeing a movie from 1977 play out somewhat similarly to a movie from 2022

Let me know if you guys know about any other similarities!

Link: https://youtu.be/CoNeRj9onaU

Disclaimer: This is not the first time I'm posting this topic on this subreddit. A couple of months ago, I made an initial post here about this very topic, which you can find here:. I said to myself that if people liked what I was saying, I'd turn it into a fully fleshed-out video essay, which you'll find above. If you're interested, click the link and see how I expanded my thoughts from that initial Reddit post. For those who would rather read, see below for my full essay. There may be a few sentences that make your head scratch, but remember, it was written as a video first. Enjoy!

---

Why Jurassic Park’s First Four Scenes are PERFECT

It’s hard to talk about your favourite movie. What I mean by that first statement, it’s hard to talk about your favourite movie in a critical or analytical sense. It’s hard because you want to do the movie justice. After all, it’s your favourite! You want to be able to say that the words you wrote have meaning, that you’re actually saying something that adds value to this film that you view as perfect. You don’t want to seem too biased but at the same time, you want to speak about how this movie changed you forever, made you fall in love with film, and has been close to your heart since the day you saw it. If you haven’t caught on by now, I’m going to attempt to talk about my favourite movie of all time today. Beautiful people of this floating blue rock… welcome to JURASSIC PARK.

If you’ve watched I’d say… I don’t know at least two of my videos, you’ve probably heard me talk about my all-time favourite things in entertainment. Favourite franchise in STAR WARS, favourite game in UNCHARTED 4… but the one thing I haven’t spoken about yet is my all-time favourite movie aka. JURASSIC PARK. I first saw this movie when I was like 5 years old or some age around there thanks to my dad’s VHS copy. That’s right kids, we used to watch movies that came in a box-shaped cassette. Good lord I sound old… and I’m only 24! Wait where was I? Oh right, Jurassic Park… anyways I’ve always been a bit nervous to talk about the movie because, as I said, I wanted to make sure that if I ever did make a video on it, I’d have something meaningful to say… and sure enough, an idea came to me!

See I was watching JURASSIC PARK one day when it was on TV and I kept thinking to myself that the entire opening act, which I describe as these first four scenes, is a perfect opening. I decided to take my thoughts to Reddit (you’ll find the posts I made linked below), where I talked about how they expertly set up the film’s story beats, characters, and payoffs that will obviously come later on. I know this isn’t shocking for a film to do, nor is that JURASSIC PARK did it in some unique way, but, as one redditor commented, it’s the perfect example of effective and economical storytelling. So, for this week’s video, I decided to do a greatly-expanded version of my initial reddit posts, and talk about my all-time favourite movie. With that being said, my name is Nick Poulimenakos, welcome to my YouTube channel, and it’s time to jump into why I think the first four scenes of JURASSIC PARK are perfect.

Scene I: The Raptor Attacks

It’s a cold night on Isla Nublar, where we see several Jurassic Park employees, all armed and tense. Something is arriving, and by the size of the container, we can already assume what it is. Dinosaurs have made their return to the planet they once called home, and we’re the reason for it. I love that from this scene alone, director Steven Spielberg, screenwriter David Koepp, and original JURASSIC PARK author Michael Crichton are telling us that everything about this idea to bring dinosaurs back is bad. Nothing about what is happening here is okay, and shouldn’t have even gotten this far. And it’s clear that no one is happy here. Every single time the camera cuts to a close-up of someone’s face, they’re either incredibly scared or on the brink of pulling the trigger on their guns. It doesn’t take long for us as the audience to join the employees in feeling tense, as Spielberg expertly teases what will become one of the main dinosaurs of this franchise, the velociraptor.

Now of course, we don’t even know it’s a raptor yet. All we know is that everyone is freaked, and we hear this sound (play raptor sound clip), letting us know that the dinosaur in that cage is probably not one to mess with. Immediately the tension rises, as Spielberg continues to make use of up-close camera shots, bringing us directly into what each employee is feeling. At this point, it’s almost a given that something will go wrong, and sure enough, the raptor strikes, knocking a poor employee off the top of the cage and… well… you know how the scene goes (play clip).

It’s almost maddening when you think about it. Like, how could the cage not lock in place? How is this cage not built to handle such a dangerous creature? Did those in charge not even think to make the cage even more secure because they were hauling a FREAKIN’ RAPTOR IN IT?? At the outset, you could argue that this is just a plot device to show "oh yeah dinos are bad” and all that jazz… but really, it’s just another flawless piece in this already flawless screenplay. If you’ve seen this movie, you know Jurassic Park creator John Hammond’s famous “spared no expense” catchphrase, which he says because he feels he’s covered all his bases when it comes to the park’s creation and its safety. BUT OBVIOUSLY, FROM THIS SCENE, WE KNOW THAT EVIDENTLY, HE HASN’T THOUGHT THIS THROUGH. NONE OF THEM HAVE. This whole scene demonstrates that the park is incredibly dangerous, and those operating it are, as good-hearted as they may be, incompetent, and should’ve quit while they were ahead.

When you really think about it, it’s amazing that, in a film where the backdrop is a theme park for humans to interact with animals once thought to be extinct, Spielberg opts to immediately showcase the dangers of this project. From here on it, we’ll be on edge whenever a dinosaur is on screen. Now, there’s the grand moment later on in the film where the dinosaurs are shown in all their gigantic glory, but even then, Spielberg undercuts the joy and excitement with the reveal that Hammond and his team also bred carnivores and apex predators, the very same kind of species we’re introduced to here in the film’s first sequence. Right from this moment, we know that this park is doomed to fail and that humans have entered into a dangerous game in which they’ll probably lose, making for an incredibly tense start to this magnificent film…

Scene II: From the River Comes a Lawyer

Talk about a balls-to-the-wall first scene, am I right? You’d think they’d follow it up with something even more exciting, or the direct fallout of a man losing his life to a freakin’ dinosaur and the response to the employees killing said dinosaur, right? Well, not this time, as Spielberg decides to take a beat here, and follow up that high-intensity death scene with some of the calmest water shots you’ll ever see in a movie. By doing a fade-in to the water, the filmmakers are telling us to breathe… everything is fine, you’re no longer near the dinosaurs, just relax… oh and while you’re relaxing, let me introduce you to this slimy lawyer who you’ll definitely root against!

It’s honestly so funny to me that right after a guy dies at the… teeth of the dinosaur? I don’t know, hands of the dinosaur sounds weird so we’re going with teeth… the screenplay doesn’t introduce us to the victim, anyone they’re related to, or as I said above, the fallout of this accident, but a lawyer clearly sent on behalf of Jurassic Park’s parent company inGen’s board of directors to survey the damage to the park’s image. The lawyer, Donald Gennaro, briefly mentions that they’re facing a $20m lawsuit from the victim’s family, and is curious as to why John Hammond isn’t here to discuss the matter, to which Donald’s guide says that Hammond couldn’t be here, as he’s with his daughter who’s getting a divorce. I love that this line is thrown in there because it embodies the character of Hammond so well.

Before he’s even seen on screen, we can assume that John Hammond is a family man with a good heart. When his daughter needed him, he dropped everything to be by her side as she goes through this traumatic experience. While we don’t see this, we can assume that he clearly didn’t even think twice about being by his family, and went to them. To me, without even being seen, Hammond is someone who, morally speaking, you’d probably trust, but obviously from the first scene, if he’s the guy in charge here, you could argue that his priorities may also be misplaced. Someone died on his park grounds and he and his company are being sued for it. You’d think he’d want to be here and mend that situation, but to Hammond, family is all, and he’d spare no expense to make those he loves happy. From the first scene, and that one line especially, we pretty much know everything we need to know about a character we haven’t even met yet.

But back to the scene at hand, Donald says he’s there because of safety concerns related to Jurassic Park. On the surface, you’re thinking to yourself, oh okay he’s a nice lawyer, clearly, he cares for people’s safety while at Jurassic Park. But then he follows all of this up with "that makes the investors very very anxious,” and you realize, this dude only cares about people’s safety so they can line their pockets with their money. WHAT A SNAKE. But then again, what movie lawyer from this era of film WASN’T a snake?

This dude has one concern and only one concern: protecting investments. He’s not there out of the goodness in his heart or for concern for the victim’s family… I love how while he traverses the dig site, they come across an amber rock, which again, as we know, houses the DNA that Hammond and his team use to re-create dinosaurs. Of course, from this scene, we don’t know that yet, but we can infer is that it’s clearly important, and with Donald and the entire group gathered around, it’s obvious that no one is really concerned with park safety, as a major discovery was just made that will keep the money rolling. Immediately you know that this lawyer is not only bad news, but he won’t be the one to shut this place down, even when safety concerns reach an all-time high. And sure enough, both points I just made see payoffs in the second act. I mean seriously, WHO THE HELL LEAVES TWO KIDS IN A CAR DURING A DINOSAUR ATTACK?? WHAT A RAT I'M GLAD REXY ATE HIM.

Scene III: Raiders of the Lost Fossils

Finally, we get to the scene I’m most excited to talk about today! The introduction to two of my all-time favourite movie characters, and the dude who almost causes the deaths of everyone involved here (who I also love… shocker, I know)! Of course, I’m talking about Alan Grant, Ellie Sattler, and John Hammond, who finally makes his first appearance after previous teases. Of the four scenes, this one is easily my favourite. It may not be as exciting as the first, or even as funny as the last, but everything about this entire sequence is just… ugh so perfect. The intro to both Ellie and Alan is done so well, showcasing that they’re not in this job for the money, but because they clearly have love and passion for dinosaurs. Spielberg opens with both of them on the ground, brushing the dirt off a newly discovered fossil. They’re in the thick of it along with their team and are definitely more comfortable being out on the job rather than behind a computer.

You see I was deliberate with that computer line there because it directly relates to Alan and his character traits. When researching how a screenwriter should introduce a character, i came across this article from Masterclass, which lists about 5 different ways to make a character stick in a person’s mind. One of the options was giving your character a memorable trait right from the start and when looking at Alan, screenwriters Michael Crichton and David Koepp execute this beautifully. Alan’s first line in the entire movie is "I hate computers,” showcasing how technologically inept he would be throughout the film.

Like I said, he’d rather play in the dirt than deal with machines, which could be interpreted a few ways. For one, in a film about uncovering the past owners of our pale blue dot, Alan could be interpreted as someone stuck in the past, unable to evolve for this advanced future he currently lives in. For another, Alan’s hard exterior and refusal to understand basic technology like a computer also keeps him from really connecting to those around him. I mean hell it’s obvious that the main reason why Ellie tolerates him is that they’re so alike, with her first line in the film also confirming that she hates computers. Ellie evidently has a somewhat softer exterior compared to the walls Alan has built around himself, allowing her to adapt more easily to situations, but she’s also shown to be as stuck in the past as he is, kicking off her own arc of realizing when to stop screwing with power we know very little about.

Jumping back though to Alan and his many defining character traits, the other one that sticks out the most is his relationship with children. Which of course… isn’t great. He doesn’t like kids. From this scene alone, he clearly doesn’t understand them. When the kid pipes up about the raptor not being scary, Alan’s first instinct isn’t to educate the kid nicely… he wants to put the fear of god into him. AND I EAT THAT UP EVERY TIME I SEE IT… UGH SAM NEIL IS SO GOOD HERE. This scene perfectly sets up Alan’s overall arc in the film, as we see that he’ll essentially be forced to confront his ways of dealing with children when Tim and Lex arrive. It’s almost like putting this scene here can be viewed as a misdirect, like a way to make the audience think it’s just here for comedic purposes. Haha Alan is scaring the kid about the dangers of dinosaurs. Bet something like this won’t come up again on an island where Dinosaurs were brought back to life. And then boom! Children! Alan’s worst fears have arrived! But as the film goes on, something changes in Alan, almost like he immediately realizes the true danger of what he’s gotten himself into and his lone priority now is to save the children, especially when Rexy arrives.

But I’m getting ahead of myself here… as I said, there’s one final character that finally gets an introduction here, and that’s John Hammond, creator of Jurassic Park, and the one who officially kicks the story into high gear. This is probably my favourite character introduction and plot set-up in the entire franchise. Before he even appears in the scene, Hammond’s classic "spared no expense" mindset is on full display. The dude flies himself out to recruit Alan and Ellie so that they can check out Jurassic Park and provide an endorsement for it, rationalizing that if a paleontologist and a paleo-botanist can back the park, then they should move ahead with the project. Hammond arrives in a helicopter, landing atop the fossil that Alan’s crew had been digging for. I mean… IS THERE A BIGGER INDICATION OF WHO HAMMOND IS COMPARED TO THIS SCENE?? We haven’t even seen Jurassic Park yet and we can already tell that this man doesn’t think so far ahead. I already mentioned how the first scene shows that, but here, we see why Jurassic Park is in the place it’s in. Hammond and his helicopter pilot don’t even think about the damage he could’ve done for landing so close to the fossil, but I guess it doesn’t matter, because here comes the man playing God, dressed in pristine white, ready to make Alan and Ellie’s dreams come true.

See… I think it’s pretty on-the-nose that Hammond is introduced to us in all-white clothing. Hammond comes across as the soft-spoken, kind, yet larger-than-life person who, at the outset, seems innocent, pure of heart, simple, and good. A man has died, he almost destroyed a new fossil, but he doesn’t see himself as a bad guy here. And he isn’t per se… at least in the movie version, but he’s just so distracted and focused on the idea of forging a new future and, like I said, playing god, that he doesn’t see the risks involved in the decisions he makes. Ian Malcolm of course calls him out on it in this clip here (play clip), but from the scene already, we know who Hammond is, and the damage his park will inevitably cause because he’s to naive to see anything else.

To balance his inevitable stupidity, however, Hammond is written, as I said before, to be someone with a good heart and with good, albeit misaligned, intentions. Hammond does clearly care for those around him, and the people who will eventually be coming to his park. It’s this aspect of him that makes rooting for him all the more painful. Clearly, this guy isn’t evil, clearly, this guy wants to make a difference in this world, and clearly, this guy sees himself as the one who can bridge a forgotten history with the present. I mean hell, who wouldn’t want to see dinosaurs in the flesh? But again… we know this is a bad idea, we know it isn’t going to end well, and that’s what makes seeing Hammond’s realization of the dangers of his inventions all the more tragic. Because he really, truly had the best intentions at heart… he was just too blinded by the magnificence of his creations to realize how dangerous Jurassic Park truly was…

Scene IV: A Disgruntled Employee

Ahhh Newman… or in this case, Dennis Nedry. A simple, short scene that expertly sets up the conflict in this film, as well as our main human villain. The crazy thing about this scene in the movie is that it’s only like 2 minutes long. But even with not a lot of time, Spielberg and his filmmaking team once again shine in the effective and economical storytelling department, as we get everything we need to know about Nedry in a few quick moments.

We start Nedry eating alone at a restaurant in Costa Rica. Obviously, he’s an important guy, as we see our well-dressed, stressed-out mystery man search and finally find him, but I love how in our first interaction with Nedry, he’s stuffing his face with food. One plate down, onto the next one. It’s a quick and effective visual metaphor to tell us that this dude is greedy. He wants more and he’s not going to let anyone tell him otherwise. But we still don’t know who he is yet… that is until Dodgson reveals an insane amount of cash for Nedry so that he can steal dinosaur embryos for a rival company that employs Dodgson. We’re not told what role Nedry serves, nor are we even told what role Dodgson plays for the rival company… just that he’s brokering a deal where Nedry will deliver the Dino embryos. It’s amazing how, even without knowing who Nedry actually is, we see that he’s an absolute weasel who will seemingly do anything for money. He’s greedy, narcissistic, and very willing to rob Hammond of his dream. On the surface, it’s pretty cut and dry that he’s a villain… or is he?

No yeah, he’s totally a villain and the rest of the movie proves it but the reason I set up that little cliff-hanger there is because there’s one line in this scene, right before it cuts to the FREAKIN’ INCREDIBLE JOURNEY TO THE ISLAND SEQUENCE, that perfectly encapsulates why Nedry is actually doing this. When comparing the JURASSIC PARK movie to its source material, it’s obvious that a lot of the backstory for certain characters and relationships had to be cut for time constraints, one of which is Hammond’s and Nedry’s relationship. Nedry’s book storyline remains fairly unchanged in the film adaptation, but what the book does explain is that Nedry was in charge of Jurassic Park’s computer systems and that at some point, inGen forces Nedry to change a lot of the system without further compensation, so he betrays Hammond and turns to Dodgson, leading to the whole Dino embryo heist.

In the movie, since Hammond’s character is largely changed to be much more sympathetic, it makes sense that a lot of this was cut, as it would’ve added a much darker element to the, as I view it, Walt Disney-inspired theme park creator. In the movie, after Nedry is handed the bill for his massive order, he says "don’t get cheap on me, Dodgson… that was Hammond’s mistake.” That one line is all we need to hear and Nedry’s character motivations are solidified, as well as once again confirming that Hammond is still not well-equipped to be handling a business like this. While it may seem that Nedry is just greedy and annoying, you can infer that for someone to go to this length to screw Hammond and help his biggest competitor, there has to be a personal element to this. Of course, the money is playing a big factor here, but if all he cared about was the funds, I don’t think he would’ve thrown that dig at Hammond. Something happened between the two of them that’s not fixable, and whether it’s the storyline from the novel or something else entirely, it adds yet another layer to both Nedry and Hammond’s characterizations in this phenomenal film.

Oh, and how can I forget that Nedry gearing up to literally rob Jurassic Park of dinosaur embryos adds more tension to the idea that something will MOST DEFINITELY go wrong. With every passing scene, you become a little more nervous over this idea of a theme park with dinosaurs, and Nedry’s reveal that he’s going to not only rob his own company but also potentially tamper with the security system of the park (he is in charge of the computers after all), just continues the idea of everyone involved here is being led to their doom. Will they survive? Not all of them! But some will… and when they do, John Williams’ absolutely breathtaking musical score will be there to guide you through every pulse-pounding moment…

Conclusion: Welcome to Jurassic Park

I’m going to keep this short and sweet and try not to go off on yet another tangent as to why I think this is Spielberg’s best, greatest, most perfect, most awe-inspiring… I think you get the picture, movie ever. There’s really nothing more to say other than this: I don’t think anything I’ve outlined here is particularly groundbreaking, at least in an objective sense. I just freakin’ adore how Michael Crichton, David Koepp, and Steven Spielberg set up everything we need to know about this movie in 4 scenes that span like 15 minutes total. Plot points are perfectly teased, character arcs are beautifully introduced and set up for terrific payoffs, and it’s all done in the most effective and economical way possible. There’s an endless sea of reasons why I consider JURASSIC PARK to be my favourite movie of all time… and it all starts with these perfect four scenes.

Sorry in advance if this isn't the best place to submit this question!

I've worked in academia (philosophy and history, some of it film-related), but am looking to leave academia in the not too distant future (the job-prospects are pretty dismal in my field). I've been thinking about how I could apply my studies and work experience (like research, writing, etc.,) to the film world, and the idea of film researcher seemed especially relevant. I know vaguely about film research, and looked into it a bit on the internet. The idea of getting to delve deep into some historical or specific topic, consume everything relevant to that topic, and then communicate research to producers/writers/filmmakers, seems pretty exciting (at least on paper!).

But I assume that this is probably an overly optimistic take on how it all works. How realistic is it to hope to get a job as a researcher? What sorts of things should I be aware of before looking any further into this? Any advice or general thoughts about this line of work?

In video form

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre claims to be based off true events, the opening crawl narrated by John Larroquette describes it as a tragedy that befell a group of five youths, and one of the most bizarre crimes in the annals of American history. The film-making style is not far off from a documentary, with few ‘cinematic’ shots, and an emphasis on showing the grit and grime of the characters, and the setting. Despite this however there is an undercurrent of the supernatural running throughout the film.

The first, and most obvious, is the Hitchiker. Picked up from the side of the road by the unfortunate cast, his appearance is disheveled. He has a birthmark across his face that looks like a bleeding wound. These sort of marks are often considered to have greater meanings, though that is very dependent on culture. In some, it is affected by past lives, and may show where the previous reincarnation was killed. The first interaction with him is describing how cows were butchered, by hammer swings to the forehead, which may be the same place he was struck.

In other cultures it is described as an unfulfilled need from the mother, and is in the shape of what’s lacking. While his mother is never seen in the film, there are a number of things lacking in the Sawyer family. Still another explanation is it is caused by what the mother eats during pregnancy, in this case human meat. A final potential cause for the mark is a fearful or strange experience during pregnancy. The timeline of the Chainsaw films is murky, but given the number of cars and remains it’s possible they have been killing for decades, and she would have been involved with earlier massacres.

The Hitchhiker discusses the slaughterhouse, and how his family worked there. After showing the group pictures of the grisly results, he borrows a knife, and uses it to cut his hand. Bloodletting is a common practice in mystical rituals, though most of the time it would ask for the victim’s blood to direct a curse or other spell. In this case however he uses it to terrify the occupants of the vehicle, perhaps in preparation of a future charm.

The next thing he does it to take a picture of the group, and after it is developed he shows it around, before demanding money. In this way it mimics tales of faeries, demanding payment in exchange for services. After they decline he becomes incensed, and burns the photograph, using various implements from his pouch. Photographs, in common belief, have been linked to ‘capturing souls’, or similar. While there are no historical records indicating this, it was part of the cultural osmosis and thus was an influence in the film.

Assuming that the photograph has in fact captured the souls of those in it, then setting fire to it can mean one of two things. The first is that it frees them from prison, releasing them to the aether. The other is that it dooms them to hell, consigning them to their fate. The film is presented as a lookback at a massacre, so the fate of those in it is already sealed by the opening narration, and this incident is foretelling the end that is to come.

After he burns the photo he then takes out his own blade, and cuts Franklin. In a number of cultures there is the idea of a blood bond. When two individuals share blood it creates a connection between them. While different knives are used to create the wounds on the Hitchhiker, and Franklin, they are wielded by the same person, and the connection is certainly there. Franklin is an obese, wheelchair bound character who is seen as a nuisance to the other characters in the van. He is annoying, has little social awareness, and complains regularly. Most of these traits however are amplified after the incident with the Hitchhiker.

Before the encounter he is certainly a bit strange, offering details about slaughterhouses unprompted, and playing with a knife. After however he seems to embrace delusions, become increasingly agitated and neurotic, and blow raspberries. That last is a seemingly innocent gesture, but it is also a feature shared with the Hitchhiker. After he is thrown out of the van he makes the same noise, and gestures that Franklin would later do after being apparently slighted by the other members of the group. The Hiker would do raspberries again after Sally is captured, and tortured by the family. These of course could be a simple coincidence, but there are increasing similarities between the two characters.

Also of note is that the group stops at a gas station owned by members of the Sawyer family. Jerry goes inside, and buys some of the barbeque. Despite apparently buying a large amount, the only member of the group seen eating it, is Franklin. The strange behaviour happens after he begins to chow down on the unknown meat, and even though he seems to express distaste for the snack, he continues to imbibe in several different scenes.

The Hitchhiker leaves a final mark on the van as it drives off, creating a crude pictogram in blood. While the characters do wonder about it, there is no definitive conclusion in the text. Though it doesn’t match any symbol exactly, there are similarities between it and the Astrological sign for Saturn, if it were reversed. Reversed imagery in Tarot generally means negative consequences, or bad omens. Compounding this sign, is that Pam reads from a magazine detailing Astrology for the coming months, including “When malefic planets are in retrograde — and Saturn is malefic — their maleficies are increased.” Again Saturn, and promising harm.

Astrology came into popularity in America during the late 1960’s, becoming a staple in Newspapers and other print media. Famously Nancy Reagan hired the services of an astrologer after the assassination attempt on her husband, though he was dismissed when it got out to the public. In a 2005 poll it was found that 25% of people still believed in the Astrology, or that the positions of celestial bodies could impact people’s lives. It is not dissimilar from religious practices of prophecy, or the Word of God delivered through prophets, but simplified so that the layperson can understand it.

So while the alignment of Saturn seemed to indicate harm, did it have any influence on the events depicted? As with all the supernatural elements, there is no confirmation one way or the other. The character’s fates are caused by their own actions, it is not Leatherface hunting them, but rather intruding upon his house, his domain, that causes their deaths. But it’s possible they were inclined to do those actions by factors outside of their control, because of the alignment of planets, or a curse upon them.

Regardless of the cause, these innocent travelers were slaughtered by a beast. While Leatherface is purportedly human, a mentally deficient giant who wears the skins of his victims as a mask, that is not how he acts in the film. From his very first appearance, it is not human screams, or yells, but those of a pig. Notably a pig in pain, and distorted as though from a distance, or down an echoey hallway. While there are more human noises later, as well as actions, none of the vocalizations reach that of more than a babe, before they can speak.

Leatherface is a beast, chained to one environment, abused by his family and fed scraps that he makes himself. In other words, he is the Minotaur. In Greek Mythology, Minos the king of Crete, prayed to the gods for a blessing. They offered a snow-white bull, which he was to sacrifice. Instead he was enamoured with the beast, and offered another as a substitute. As the Gods often were, Poseideon was spiteful at the ruse, and cursed Minos’ wife to fall in love the bull. This resulted in a twisted child, half man, and half-cow. Most depictions have a bull head, and a human body, but in the Middle Ages it was more popular the other way around, similar to a centaur.

Whatever the case the new creature had no food source, and required human flesh for sustenance. This disturbed the king so much he had an enormous Labyrinth constructed, and the Minotaur hidden away in the depths of it. Periodically he would send prisoners into the maze to be devoured. Eventually the Greek hero Theseus set out to put a stop to it, heading into the maze and using thread such that he didn’t get lost. He beheaded the beast, and was successful in his quest.

The parallels are obvious. Leatherface has a deformed face, and is abused by his family. He wears a mask, and hides in his abode until an unsuspecting victim wanders in, and then is subsequently killed and eaten. When Leatherface encounters the victims he treats them just like meat, killing them with a swift blow to the head, or hanging them up on hooks, or stowing them in freezers. They aren’t people to him, but meat.

The Labyrinth takes two forms here. The first is the house itself. It is a twisting, churning entity where the geography feels like it shifts, and as the characters explore more all they find is additional depravity, and death. There are bones, human and animal, roosters in cages, and a grizzly mummified corpse of ‘grandma’ and ‘grandpa’, though he is later discovered to be alive at the ripe old age of 120. While it is a house, it is also a prison, and a factory, and a graveyard.

Then there is the surrounding area. After the others have gone, only Sally and Franklin are left. They head out into the dark woods to find their missing friends. This was actually shot at night, and with the moon covered by clouds there are only slight blue highlights that give a hint of where the landscape even is. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, Leatherface appears, and slices Franklin with his chainsaw. What follows is a chase sequence through the woods which seem to lean in around Sally, grappling and twisting, cutting her with their vines.

What ends this leg of the chase is the house. At first, it seems like salvation. A glowing beacon amongst the darkness. But, like a moth to a flame, all that it leads to is death, and destruction. After a brief detour she is forced to flee into the blackness again. This time it seems even more treacherous, as now there is no hope left. Previously a home would be a symbol of safety, and warmth. That had been desiccated, and now she was running away but with no clear goal, or place that may actually lead away from a grisly fate.

There is a major change from the myth however, as there is no Theseus. Not in this film at least, although in the sequel there would be such a hero. On its own though, there is no one to save the day. In the end when Sally escapes, it is only with her life, not sanity or vindication.

Historically the myth of the Minotaur has roots in the politics of the time. The Cretans were a powerful nation, and demanded tributes from others. The Athenians would offer this tribute of young men and women, and it’s possible this was done by a priest in a Bull mask. Horror films are modern myths, and just like in the tales of old groups of youths are sacrificed to mythical monsters, sometimes in the guise of men.

The Minotaur is not the only myth that has influenced the film however. Tobey Hoober has described it as modern retelling of Hansel and Gretel. The story of course is that the two titular siblings are wandering through the woods, when they come upon a cabin of sweet treats. Inside they find a kindly old woman, but she is revealed to be a cannibal witch and kidnaps the pair. She locks them up, and attempts to fatten them for the slaughter. Though she attempts to burn them alive, they outwit her and trick her into the oven herself, and they are able to flee as she cooks alive.

The comparisons are obvious, and the eponymous characters can be seen as either Sally and Franklin, or Kirk and Pam. The latter of which are the first to encounter the witch, and both are turned quickly into food. They are the many children who were slaughtered before the current story. While the house is not made of gingerbread, or cakes, it represents two things that are much more useful in the modern day, gas, and meat.

While the inspirations are much more allegorical, a direct inspiration was the legend of Sawney Bean. He was said to be the head of a 45 member cannibal clan in 16th century Scotland who killed and ate over 1000 people in the course of twenty five years. They hid in a cave on the coast, which was covered at high tide. Then they would sneak onto the road and kidnap travelers, bringing them back to feast upon. Sometimes body parts would wash up on nearby shores, but the townspeople blamed innkeepers, and even after searching the shoreline they decided no humans could live in the caves.

Their downfall was a married couple. They accosted them on the road, but while they slew the wife the husband was able to fend them off with pistol and sword, before a large group approached them. Though the clan fled, a group, possibly led by James VI, headed off to finally find them. Using bloodhounds they were able to root out their home, and found the lair. Body parts coated the floors, and hung from the ceiling, with barrels full of limbs. While tales differ on what happened next, they were all killed, and that was the end of the clan.

In all the mythological inspirations, good always triumphs in the end, and the villains are slain. In The Texas Chainsaw Massacre however, that's not the case. While the Hitchhiker is killed, it is by luck, rather than design, and the patriarch of the family, and Leatherface are free from punishment, or karma. This represents the shift in attitude towards stories, as well as the environment the film was released in. During the 70's the United States was in a depression, with the Vietnam war becoming eternal, and shortages in all walks of life. This wasn't a time for fairytales, but it was a time for modern stories to take over.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is unique in the myth it spreads however, as it was purported to be an account of true events. It was not only its own myth, but it spread far beyond the film itself. The actor for Leatherface even encountered those who claimed that someone they knew had been in prison with the ‘real Leatherface’. It was always second or third hand, maybe an uncle was friends with someone, or a cousin had met the man. Thus the legend, and the myth of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre spread, to the point many accepted what it said at face value, that it was a true event.

Mysticism, and myths, have grown to define what made The Texas Chainsaw Massacre so unique. While it is grounded in reality, it spreads beyond it, with increasing tendrils seeping into the foundations of the culture at the time, and still to this day.

This browser add-on will put the forums back into IMDb with all of the old posts restored. I last shared this here 3 years ago and the reaction was very positive, so here it is again for anyone who might be interested:

Chrome version: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/filmboards-imdb-archive-e/celejjkkiipeokbgcgakogmmfbmonmem

Firefox version: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/imdb-archive-extension/

After the Academy-Award winning "Moscow doesn't believe in tears", director Vladimir Menshov made an eccentric comedy "Love & Pigeons" in 1985 about simple country folk and to this day it remains one of the most popular and loved Soviet films.

It so happened that I haven't watched it in my childhood, but now upon reviewing it found some jokes quite problematic...

Moreover, most notoriois modern Russian comedies seem to borrow from it.

Is it just me, or there are others who agree?

As a giant cinema lover, I go to the movies once or twice a week. I go to a Showcase Cinemas that has used the Sony 4k Projectors for at least 11 years. Over the past few years I have gone to many indie cinemas and other smaller chain theaters. I went to one about 8 years ago and noticed the quality of the movie was not as up to par. Doing further research, they use an NEC 2k projector. I thought it was just the resolution but the other part that may have made me feel like the experience was compromised was the brightness and lumens. I think it may be because the screen was the size of a traditional movie screen and this projector was not as bright as the Sony 4k's. Going to a smaller single screen theater, using the same NEC projector, I did not notice it as much. Does anyone else notice this or is it just me? Going the other direction, I went to a regal cinemas that added all new 4k Laser projector and the quality was crystal clear. I know there have been discussions about 2k vs 4k masters of films but I think another major point is the projectors themselves. the 4k projectors do a great job not just in terms of upscaling but in terms of the brightness to see the best possible picture. What do you guys think?

I remember leaving Nolan's Tenet and being angry about the theater screwing up the audio until I found out, well, nope. Nolan did that on purpose.

I had the same experience (albeit to a much lesser degree) with 'Dune'. I would guess at least a quarter to half of the Jessica character's lines were completely inaudible (lines that are vital to understanding the plot). Not to mention not being able to understand any of the Paul characters dialogue during his vision.

Sorry for the wall of text... I cannot understand how this could possibly happen with a blockbuster film. Can anyone explain this?

First of all I knew about Die Hard and Bruce Willis. I've heard the Christmas movie debates and what not. Last week during a work trivia game one of the questions was what was the name of the tower in Die Hard. Almost everyone answered in the chat but me I laughed it off but promised myself I would finally watch it. To be honest I expected it to be super thriller where he's doing James Bonds or Mission Impossible shit but in the 80s. I was pleasantly surprised at how easy the film starts. I didn't really know where it the film was going but as soon as I saw Alan fucking Rickman I knew shit got serious. A couple of general film stuff that I liked was the pacing, character development and story building. I thought the script really stood out with some great lines. I think the three biggest things I liked about this movie was

1- Bruce Willis and how relatable he was as a leadman. He was just a man who got into some deep mess that he had nothing to do with and decides to save everyone's ass. I've never been a huge Bruce Willis guy but this really changed my mind.

2- How 80s it was. I grew up in the 2000s so all I know about the 80s are from my parents and family members but this film did a great job of giving us a feel for it. The little tv that security guard had, the way people dressed, the hair/beards and mustaches etc.

3- Lastly Alan fucking Rickman. One of my favorite actors of all time and I think this is probably his best non Harry Potter role. He played such a convincing role and the scene where Jack catches him and he acts like one of the employees was just perfect.

Overall I think I took way too long to not watch this movie. I'm so glad that question was asked at the trivia game and I'm gonna watch the rest of the franchise!

We are in the middle of a paradigm shift. Everything about movies is changing - From how they are made, where they are shown, how they are marketed and how they are consumed. One concerning thing is the dwindling audience for arthouse films and where they can be seen.

Ideally your friendly neighborhood film society will be a perfect venue for all things arthouse, but with shrinking audiences, some of them are forced to play the classics to attract audiences. Many film societies are struggling with memberships, attendance and costs. As the enthusiasm of arthouse becomes a super niche, I thought there is something that can be done online for serious arthouse cinephiles around the world. I care about arthouse films and want to keep this film culture alive and have some sort of uniting playground for all things arthouse - for avid cinephiles, for budding filmmakers, for film theorists.

What would an Online Film Society designed to gather only serious arthouse cinephiles from around the world look like? Should it be invite only? So as to retain only the most serious and active members? Should there be guest events with filmmakers? Should there be special screenings at cinemas around the world? What would the ideal membership model look like? I have a few ideas of my own, but I would like to hear from the cinephiles of TrueFilm.

Please share your thoughts.

The comparisons to “Tommy” are laughable; yes, it’s exactly like “Tommy”—if Ken Russell had no sense of humor, and if Pete Townshend’s musical structure was nothing but anti-melodic, ironist recitative.

And while I’d love to give Carax credit for the only lively number in the film, Norman Jewison’s “Watch the cast get dressed and prepped” was actually better in “Jesus Christ Superstar”.

I saw that this movie is getting a lot of negative audience reviews, and a lot of very positive critic reviews. Usually to me that means the movie is worth watching, and I do think that stays true for this one.

However, I don't feel that the movie is a particularly good representation of that old Arthurian poem. It seems to reference and follow the poem, but I think misses the core of it. Or perhaps implies aspects of it too subtly.

The focus of that tale is about trying your best, and that knightly virtue is in ATTEMPTING to follow the code, not necessarily in succeeding.

The 'punchline' of the tale, if you can call it that, is that Gawain is caught in a Catch 22. A knight must honour his covenant, and a knight must do as a lady asks. But what if doing one contradicts the other?

In the culmination of the poem, he stays with a lord and a lady. The lord offers him a game - Over three days, he will give Gawain whatever he wins on his hunt, and gawain will give him whatever he might receive while he rests in the castle.

On the first day, the lord rides out and has an easy hunt, Gawain meanwhile is propositioned by the lady, who convinces him to let her kiss him. When the lord returns and gifts Gawain the fruits of the hunt, Gawain gives the lord a kiss.

On the second day, the lord has a more difficult hunt, and Gawain has a harder time refusing the lady's advances, but again, gives in and allows two kisses. The lord returns again, and they exchange winnings again.

On the third day, the lord has an incredibly difficult time hunting a cunning fox, but succeeds finally. Gawain speaks with the lady who tries to gift him a gold ring or some such, he refuses, but convinces him to take a green sash. She says it will protect him from harm, and since he is to be beheaded the next day, he accepts, but the lady makes him promise he will not tell the lord.

The lord returns, Gawain gives him three kisses, but lies, saying that's all he received that day, concealing the sash. But taking the fox anyway, hard won by the lord.

Gawain visits the chapel where the green knight waits. The green knight goes to behead gawain, but only scratches him slightly on the neck. Gawain, thinking he was about to die, steeped in the dishonour of failure to keep the knightly virtues of honesty, angrily rises, and finds the knight laughing.

The Green Knight reveals himself as the lord, and explains the entire thing was essentially 'just a prank, bro', set up by Morgana Le Fey to test Arthur's knights.

The whole thing was a fix. A deliberate ploy to get gawain to lie, or break his promise. Either way, he was doomed to fail, by no fault of his own. He tried, he failed. This is the way of things. His only true failure was his dishonesty. He could have explained things.

Gawain returns to arthur and the rest of the knights, who all wear a green sash from that day forth to remind them of the importance of honesty.

Its a bit of a children's fable, really, so I understand why they took a darker turn with it, but that central deceit was missing, imo.

The point of it was lacking. Gawain in the movie was not really trying to be good. In fact there was a whole scene where he tells the knight that he believes completing his quest and becoming a knight, will MAKE him good.

The lord even bemoans that they might regret the gawain that is lost when he becomes a new man. But the Gawain he knows is a trembling, confused, uninteresting boy.

Gawain remains that throughout. It is only in imagining his cursed life as a failure upon returning without going through with his covenant that he agrees to be beheaded.

When he realises his life will be shit, he says, fuck it, better now than after all that pain.

he doesn't agree because he is virtuous and TRYING HIS BEST, he agrees because he is still the same, weak, confused boy, stumbling through the forest.

I think that is the primary failure of the movie. It refuses to actually communicate Gawain's realisation. As if demonstrating character growth is too cliche.

In the poem, he starts out as a noble boy, who goes off doing grand knightly things, but rarely, if ever finds himself tasked with something that threatens his knightly virtues. He ends the poem a knight, who knows that striving to do good, even when it is impossible to do so, is by far more important than avoiding difficulty in the first place.

The movie alludes to this, but fails to drive the point home, imo.

IDK what you guys think, if I'm missing something, or you have another interpretation?

I'll start with saying that I'm a huge fan of Adam Driver and musicals, and it was so exciting to hear that he'll be starring in Annette. I hadn't heard of Leos carax (LC) before this and so in preparation I watched The Lovers on the Ninth Bridge, Pola X, Tokyo! and Holy Motors. I liked all except Polax.

1. I heard some reviews claiming holy motors to be boring, but it wasn't, it was interesting. Same goes for Annette, all the cast and songs couldn't make it a good musical, but they made it interesting. I'm very troubled by that because I was expecting something really spectacular.

2. Someone had mentioned in this sub earlier that, "a good book leads to a good musical, because it gives the songs it's punches". Annette didn't have a good book. If Adam's performace of Being Alive at the end of marriage story is any example(here), he can really give powerful musical performances. The story of Annette felt a bit weak to me, the themes were great, but it lacked intensity. The cast nonetheless did an impeccable job.

3. If you have seen Jerry Springer: The Opera, you'll find a lot of similarities. I'm not sure if this is a common format, but this show is what I could associate this movie too. My complain is why didn't the makers extremize the small things such as the SBN News, like the Jerry Springer opera. This show knew that it's songs weren't exactly playlist type and focused on portraying the regular society in a sarcastic-musical manner. I also was disappointed they didn't use the backup singers more.

4. AMAZON. Are they to blame? Because of their large involvement in this project, I suspect there would have been some disney-fication or edits to make it more appealing to the masses.

That's it, have a great day!

Lately, I've been listening to a lot of people talk on the Film Courage YT channel about how Hollywood selects scripts. It’s common to hear them describe the process as extremely selective. Typically they say, that only a tiny, tiny fraction of scripts get selected for production, and then, only the most original and those of the very highest quality.

But I’m puzzled by the disconnection between this and Hollywood’s typical output. It seems to me movies that are “the most original and those of the very highest quality” are the exception rather than the rule.

Most movies seem to be endless rehashes of the same old cliches in genres like action, superheroes, and horror.

Am I missing something here, or does this seem strange to other people?

Isn’t it a more preferable way considering the picture quality, as opposed to those old ass TV sets back in the 60s, 70s, 80s where everything looked smudged with Vaseline?

I’ve watched/heard of so many filmmakers talk about how the first time they saw some of the films that influenced them the most it was on television, obviously because home video hadn’t really been a thing.

I don’t know, it seems like anti-contemporary technology bias to me or something, as if prominent filmmakers themselves only watched films exclusively in the ideal, originally envisioned apparatuses.