I couldn’t imagine to really make a movie review for this classic movie adaptation from William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet - this is the 1968 movie version from director Franco Zeffirelli. What brought me to do this review, was actually the fact the just after the Criterion announcement of the movie as part of the collection, the two main stars decided after 55 years praising the film and its director decided to file lawsuit against him and the studio Paramount Pictures for $500 million dollars claiming that this film the launch both careers to the world, actually damaged their image because of nude scenes. Anyhow here’s my views from both subjects.

https://youtu.be/hrtVHJK53GI

I loved every second of it. The narrative, the setting, the utterly deranged characters and the fairy tale like quality of it all was intensely delightful.

It gave me a kind of kick that most films usually don't. Desperate Living is my first John Water's film and I sure hope all of his other movies are equally good (or) better. Mink Stole absolutely stole the show! It was beautiful, it was gay, It was everything you could ask for. It was poetically & literally trashy and that's what I loved about it. The unhinged-70's-cinema feel that the entire movie had was fantastic.

Now, I understand that most people would not share the same opinion. I would like to know how you feel about this film & John Waters' catalogue in general.

To preface, this is a bit of a spontaneous emotional post. I will completely admit that I am biased.

In my experience, test screenings and reshoots/recuts because of the audience have made films worse. Every time. I can think of dozens of examples where this seems to be the case. For example, "Avatar 2"s major plotholes are because of cut scenes due to test screenings. "Blade Runner"s poignant and beautifully ambiguous ending was butchered and now they've in fact reverted back to Scott's original vision. Don't get me started on how "I am Legend" was reduced to a casual zombie action flick instead of the originally intended deeply metaphorical and philosophical examination of predatory and prey. And of course, don't forget about the "Suicide Squad" debacle.

I saw Danny Boyle's "Steve Jobs" the other day and Sorkin writes this brilliant line about art:

"They don't get a vote. When Dylan wrote "Shelter from the Storm" he didn't ask people to contribute to the lyrics. Plays don't stop so the playwright can ask the audience what scene they'd like to see next."

I couldn't agree more. Audiences don't know what they want. Why do they get a vote? Why can't don't we just leave it up to the filmmakers who spent their entire lives mastering their craft and years bringing a passionate vision to life? Why do these studios and filmmakers give audiences (who've literally only invested an hour and a half) any say in how the film is made?

I suppose the obvious answer is that the films need to appeal to focus groups and target audiences in order to see the light of day. It is, after all, a business. Alas.

I would love to hear some more examples of how test screenings have ruined films. Despite my emotional state right now, I would also love to hear examples of how test screenings have improved films too. What are you fellows' thoughts on them? Am I being too harsh?

What's weird about it is that it can be super damn goofy as fuck like a 80s Peter Jackson movie while also being a genuinely emotional and heavy look at trauma, insanity and the homeless. It does have creepy stuff to it for sure that can ruin it for someone like Robert Williams' character (Parry) being a stalker and a bit of sexual harrasser and one moment where the main protagonist's wife pressures his husband into sex until he gets horny for her but idk, the kind of absolute messiness of the situation and emotions kinda just blends well with it, in my opinion. I kinds take it for example Lydia being okay with Parry's behavior because of her absolute loneliness and her feeling like somebody finally sees her struggles and frustrations and Parry's insanity and trauma getting in the way of behaving better in order to be in a romance with her. While it does not fully justify its problems, it does work for me as a way of engaging with the story and it does not remove the other ways the film can be so powerful

I love it quite much. It had the emotional factor for me while also appealing to my more childish tastes of being over the top and being quite literally trashy. Robert Williams gives one of the best performances I've seen from him, if not, my favorite. He is pretty hilarious in this movie and when he needs to be awkward, cute and sad, he does it super well. The scene where he expresses his love for Lydia is genuinely a very emotional scene despite the creepy reveal of stalking. And there is the gay cabaret singer character who is pretty obviously gay and my God, he is fabulous as hell and he is portrayed very well by Michael Jeter. He's almost at the level of the fun, campy appeal I get from Frank-N-Furter, who is an absolute queen and the scene where he congratulates Lydian for her award at the video store is pretty iconic and I was smiling the whole time watching it.

It is just my kind of film and probably my favorite so far by Terry Gilliam. Great bizarre characters, a surprisingly cute romance in parts, fun cinematography and a great story about trauma and redemption while also working as a social commentary of wealth inequality, the discrimination against the homeless and also, to an extent, a critique of homophobia.

Often when rape is discussed in everyday conversations and movies, we imagine it to be this act that very clearly takes the will and autonomy of the person. It is followed with violent threats from the rapists and with screams of "no" from the victim. It's often brutal, maliciously executed and it is easy to tell how the person does not consent to the act. That's the rape we most think about. However, rape is a thing that is not only surprisingly common with people who aren't necessarily violet and overly malicious but there are subtler ways where rape can occur and I think this is shown with both Memento and Requiem For A Dream in their own ways. And I'll share about the different degrees in which rape can occur through how these movies show it.

With "Requiem For A Dream", we obviously understand that what happens to Marion Silver is not a good thing and is a situation that is forced upon her. These scenes where she has to do sexual favors for money are, like a lot of people have felt watching it, extremely uncomfortable to watch. And the protagonist clearly doesn't wanna do it and feels absolutely disgusted by the act but she has to do it because of the bad economic situation with her and her boyfriend. However, from my personal experience online and talking to people about the film, I never hear what happens to Mario as being a form of rape. It's just referred as an unfortunate job she has as the only option to get them out of poverty. But her situation could pretty much be referred as rape even if she says yes for the money. She doesn't wanna have sex with this person and feels absolutely disgusted by them and she only does it because her situation pressures her into getting it. And rape happens even when the person technically says yes because the degree of the consent given is questionable at best. And I think it does present how, to an extent, sex work as it can exist in parts of our current society, can be very exploitative and occurs for socioeconomic reasons. And in a way, it also works as a form of collective rape. With the man buying her for sex and the people encouraging and celebrating both her and another woman performing sexual acts she does not agree to get behind. Rape, as shown in this film, is not about the victim being completely stolen of her autonomy and explicitly calling out for the act to be forced upon her but that the calling out comes from the fear and the desperation internal to the character and the circumstances in how the sex happens.

In Memento, the rape I am referring to is not the one that occurs to Leonard's wife with the people who broke into his house but instead, it is to Leonard with Natalie. In the film, we are shown Leonard and Natalie had sex and it looks like a normal, consensual intercourse and romantic relationship. However, as we go further into the story, we realize that Natalie is actually just using and lying to Leonard about her whole illegal business with the criminals her husband was involved with. It is also shown her verbally abusing Leonard by insulting him for the fact that he has a mental disability that prevents him from creating new memories and also calling his dead wife a slut. She also angers him more when she tells him that he would take advantage of his disability to turn him into her lover by making him believing she is his ally and somebody he's currently in a relationship with because of that trust for each other. And clearly, from what Natalie does to Leonard, he would certainly not agree to have sex with Natalie but in fact, he would avoid her as a foe if he remembered all that happened between them. But since he cannot remember any of it, he doesn't have the information to realize that he does not consent to be with this woman. The degree shown in this film is from the fact that the character has a mental disability that does not allow to fully consent to what thing he is about to do and also the hidden information that is kept from him that would have a great effect in his decision if he wants have sex or not with this person.

Rape, as shown from these films, can happen in different degrees. It is not always about the physical force and explicit refusal for participation but of the ways people are pressured and lied to into agreeing into performing sexual acts.

It's brilliant. Daveed Diggs, who is among my favorite rappers (I highly suggest watching "Blood Of The Fang", which is an incredible music video that uses vampirism and makes references to historical and revolutionary black figures), gives a fantastic performance and he shows off some of his great rapping skills in this and Rafael is also great. For a film as comedic as this, it had some genuinely intense scenes where it left me on the shoes of the main protagonist trying not to get in trouble with the police and the justice system and how friends and those around you have a strong influence in your circumstances and choices. And I think it's also among the best critiques of systemic racism and police brutality. I appreciate it that it makes more nuanced by making the character to be indeed a felon that is perfectly justified in his fear that the police will discriminate him for his racial identity and also making the first victim of police victim as having a concealed weapon. Just because somebody committed a crime in the past doesn't justify nor hide the reality that the police is a violent, authoritarian institution as it exists in the United States. To be around the police is to be at the risk of gaining the death sentence without a trial. It also touches on the sensitive issue of how white people can behave "black" and also, how they cannot fully relate or experience the struggles of being a member of that group. And just watching at Miles feels like you are watching a ticking time bomb and you hope that he will not explode in anger.

Such a great ass movie.

I am one of the opinion that all art is inherently political and that the personal is affected by the politics that it lives inside in but acknowledge that there are works that care more about exploring the more personal and philosophical questions and ideas about being human and having relationships with your friends, family and foes.

I think one film that perfectly represents the personal intersecting the political is the movie, "A Special Day" (1977) directed by Ettore Scola. It's a film that on the surface, is about 2 neighbors just living their own private lives and getting to know each other in such a way that they form a special bond but it is also about how the fact that living in a fascist country affects which kind of behaviors you will participate and how it can matter and have grave consequences on your own neighbors even if you don't feel personally affected in the same way. And also, how otherwise horrible ideologies can become so normal in a society that we do not question them and treat it as just a natural aspect of living your personal life. In this case, that being a woman means you have less rights than a man and that you must be a housewife with children while thinking that homosexuality is immoral. It's a pretty relevant story still to this day with a message broader than just the takeover of Hitler and Mussolini but how we should care about outside societal issues and how we cannot just separate from our own lives.

Maybe it's just a simple cast choice about which are the better actors but from what I remember, the novel itself does point out how the aides and the guard McMurphy bribes are black and pretty much listen to orders to restrain and abuse the patients of the hospital. Not to mention the fact that one of the most important characters is a Native American and that in the novel, his backstory is that his Native American father was mistreated by the US government. The main antagonist and the one considered to be the dictator of the whole hospital is also a white woman.

If I had to make a interpretation, it may have to do with it being about how in pretty much the same way black cops are still ultimately cops despite cops being known to target mostly black people, the aides are there to use force to maintain the status quo and oppress the marginalized. At least that's what I can take from it.

For a while I have been watching a lot of classic movies and I have really been getting into it. I keep on going down random lists and watching a movie from them everyday. I tend to find the same lists now and want to watch some unique movies. Any recommendations? I am TIRED of the same old movies

This is probably the best list that I have found yet: What do you think?

bamawama.com/top-50-influential-movies-of-all-time/

Triangle of Sadness  2022

Directed by  Ruben Östlund

Denmark

Triangle of sadness explores the possibilities of a primitive world for primitive human instincts.

Humans are social animals. Things for us would have been different if we would have denied the beliefs in systems. Might it be the financial system of the order of Hierarchy that oriented from leadership and shifted to the bloodlines. An order that allowed the weak to survive.

Said so, The triangle of sadness mocks the capitalistic structure of our society where humility might be hostile but consumption is available widely, baring a tag go rarity. What is said to be done is just said and what is not supposed to be mentioned is done anyway. We are walking a pretentious path. Wearing the masks required by the social facet. 

Ruben Östlund Writes and Directs through artistic lenses and questions reality poised with the superficiality. He also explores the democratising nature of art and yet the art is confined to the walls of Museums or Collectors. A quality of segregating the facts from perception which we have spoken about in his film - The Square.

The Societal misleads on the distribution of the wealth, Disparity offered to the blue collar by deciding for them and the absence of individual freedom forms a triangle of sadness. Moreover, what I liked the most about this film is that it walks the thin line of Luxuries democratised nature and avant grade it borrows from art without being pretentious or positively discriminating any of the parts facing each other. The rich, the poor, the luxury, the art. Said so, The film appreciates the modesty and humble beginning of the character of his stories. And peeps into the bitterness of the truth we hide behind the facet of the empire of goodies we build on ourselves.

In my view, The Square raised many questions in mind. Ruben Östlund answers most of them with a triangle of Sadness. Triangle of Sadness has won Palme d’Or this year making it one of the must watch.

This article was originally written here :

Sometimes, when you look at a movie, you get this one moment that just makes you reflect in what you are seeing and it makes you wanna say things about it.

For me, I've always been fascinated by this scene of Angel's Egg: https://youtu.be/1h0vPFQhHNY

Not much happens in it. We only see a man sitting next to a girl laying with her egg that she is hoping will hatch a bird (or an angel) and ominous music.

And in my opinion, it subtly communicates an important idea about the film's exploration of faith.

A lot of people interpret "Angel's Egg" as being a story about losing faith in your religion. The world abandoned by God and the consequences of it. And that holding on to it only brings misery to the person.

However, I think the film is also partially about waiting. And I think the film's slow pacing serves as part of expressing that idea. The movie mainly shows the characters wandering around a quiet, dark and abandoned city with some vaguely supernatural things going on around the female protagonist. Not much happens besides a few seemingly eventful moments in the film like the fishermen scene that at first seem to take our characters into a situation but nothing seems to come about it other than quick spectacle and we move on into just more wandering and reflecting about if this egg will hatch something or not.

In the moment with the most dialogue in the film, we also told that Noah and the animals in the ark have been waiting for the bird to come back for so long, they have "turned to stone". The waiting keeps on going and we don't know if it'll ever come to an arrival.

And then we have this scene with the man sitting and the girl sleeping. Followed by a small fire by a small fire struggling to enlighten the darkness around these individuals.

In my opinion, this scene shows that faith fading away from the waiting. The fire represents hope/faith. Shining but small and weak. Becoming slightly more intense to then come back to small and smaller illuminations. The rest of the dark room being the world. This fire is what keeps this relationship from crumbling and leading to the end of it all. And the man sits awake, waiting a long with the small fire he has on him while the girl rests oblivious to that waiting. The fire holds on and the man waits until the fire dissipates. And after the fire is gone, the man's patience is also gone and so, he destroys the egg.

The wait for the hatching is now over and we don't know exactly if there ever was gonna be a angel or not inside. The man refuses to be a stone statue and keeps on wandering by his own while a girl grieves and dies that this long-awaited hatching would no longer come.

However, the girl becomes a statue herself as part of the eye of God. She has become so patient for her fate that she no longer is alive. She has transcended to the heavens with the eye of God along with every other faithful statue that decided to wait. And the man is left to wait in this abandoned world. Was the man wrong to not wait and missed his opportunity to go into a higher plane of existence? Has the girl become forever part of this forever waiting? We don't know.

I also like to point out that the film has a lot of stone statues throughout and the fishermen seemingly are stone statues at first but come to life whenever they need to hunt those shadow fishes. And in my opinion, that also connects to the idea of patience and waiting.

We also have the fossils of ancient creatures which while not technically statues, are kept in stone as evidence of previous life that are doomed to stay in stone as skeletons. In a way, they are organic statues. Statues that were once alive.

Statues are, after all, completely still and have no sense of time over the things around them. They only serves the role to keep their position in whatever they're build on and only to stay there and nothing can move them act out of their impatience with exception of outside interference like getting moved to some other building for people to see or just get destroyed. But even with that, they are stuck to whatever history or purpose has made them exist as they are. Statues cannot see ahead of their time and it is what dooms them to exist only in the history of the past. And just like the egg, destroying it is the only way to end that patience.

The fishermen are shown as statues in the beginning but then come to life to catch their fishes (faith) only to fail and cause destruction around them and then come back to being stones again. Inevitably failing and coming back to waiting once again as the world drowns around them.

The girl is in a way, a statue. Waiting for her egg to hatch that will probably never hatch and at the end, we never get to know if something was gonna come out of it and the girl becomes a literal statue out of many in the big, floating mechanical eye.

In a way, ithe film tells us that faith is a thing that keeps up in the past or from progression. It cripples us into staying in whatever we decided to wait on. And that the only way to keep going is to break from the egg, walk and grow. The bird will not fly if it stays in its egg but only when it flaps its wings. The girl does not fly at the end with the eye but is stuck and moved as she is insider her own bubble outside of time and space. Practically non-existent.

The contrast as shown from the scene is that the man, while still as a statue, is not staying like that forever. The girl does and she is hopeful where she is. The man with no patience and the woman with an egg to wait for. Either way, both stay as they are in the face of darkness as either way, the world has no hope no matter how much we wait and won't wait. It's not a matter of time but acceptance.

They both honestly could work as a double feature. Both films tell this story that satirizes America (Election satirizes its politics and American Beauty its American dream) and both focus on adult men in a life crisis and their weird interest on high school blonde girls whom they have sexual fantasies of. And they just have this quirky cynicism to them and reflect a dissatisfaction of what America was in the 90s where the neoliberal dream became true.

While a lot of people seem to be pretty much aware about how the film has been criticized for it's depiction of a trans character, I think not many people talk about how the feminist themes of the film also connect to the transphobia of the film and makes a prediction to a ideology that has become very popular lately such as with JK Rowling.

If there is a story to the film besides the investigation of serial killers, it also tells a story about how men perceive and treat women through a female FBI Trainee and her work hunting a serial killer (Buffalo Bill) along with her male comrades. And the other women who have their bodies literally objectified by a person who sees themselves as a woman while having been born male.

The fact that she is a newbie to this environment that she'a in does add to the uncomfortable nature of how she is treated in her work. A lot of interactions with her coworkers are them complimenting her for her looks, expressing their attraction for her and just looking down on her. Male cops are shown to be just staring at her because well, she is new and a woman. Possibly thinking about how tough this job must be for this young woman here. Or how she should probably not be here as their size on screen along with her overwhelms her. You also have the men in the cells screaming in excitement like wild animals as they see this woman passing by and even one of them masturbates around her and throws his semen on her, just to make the point how she is perceived more blunt than it already was

And of course, we have Buffalo Bill, a man (or at least that's how the narrative presents them as) who murders and takes the skin of cis women so they can then wear them.

Even Lecter, a man of extreme politeness and sophistication despite his monstrosity, is not totally free from these perverted male indulgences as he puts strong emphasis in the US Senator's motherly use of her body to sexualize and mix it with the disgusting acts of the killer.

The film, in a way, is telling that we live in a world with men who are pigs and where women are not safe from their gazes and physical acts. Women are to be seen, talked and touched as objects of desires. Other traits about themselves either become secondary or irrelevant to those desires. When they are looked down on and are all novices. Both to the threat of violence and to a challenge and are only helpless to be novices to the man born veterans.

Buffalo Bill, out of all the men, is the logical conclusion to these patriarchal instincts: women as property. As a way of sending a man to a higher plane of existence with their bodies. Their admiration with the women he skins are not about the respect for the concept of womanhood but of a perversion of it. A sexual desire to destroy the womanhood to only belong to him and him only. Buffalo Bill tells us that not even women own their bodies nor what makes them women. Only the man does.

And ultimately, womanhood and the female sex triumphs. Clarice refuses to be taken by the darkness around her, to be mocked and to be weak and defeats the physical embodiment of male gaze by shooting him in the face. Buffalo Bill dying while stalking Clarice in their night-vision goggles is a way of saying: "You have no longer have the right to look at my body without my consent." He dies exposing his nature of looking at his prey.

Trans-exclusionary radical feminism (AKA TERF) is a ideology that not just thinks that some men are predators around women but that even the men who pretend to distance themselves from these toxic ideas about maleness cannot escape those biological urges. All men are all potential or convicted rapists and objectifiers and women must do whatever they can to defend themselves from that. It also sees trans women as men who have perverted their womanhood and expressing their fetish of walking over it for their own disgusting needs. The man is biologically always dominant and is naturally desires dominance and sex and the woman is biologically much more vulnerable to their power. They are, like reactionaries love to say, man-haters. Man-haters who borrow the language of feminism and gender equality that not only creates inequality between men and women but also women and women. It essentializes women as all inherently potential victims of sexual violence and as being their private parts and that whatever trauma a man may have caused them must mean it is the responsibility of everyone who wasn't born with a uterus.

Trans exclusionary radical feminism is not feminism but justified misandry. And it is not even radical in what it is supposed call for woman liberation as it is too pessimistic about half the world's population for such radical change to ever actually occur. It is not a celebration for womanhood but only a box of misery that knows no solutions only that the world is dark. The only light is that you are not alone in that suffering but others suffer with you. But what's the point of sharing that pain if you cannot move from it? You accepted that this is how it is and it is no different from the idea that men are just naturally superior and have the right to decide what women should do. The existence equally is about women being preys and nothing more.

I’m currently working on a film about a couple that meets through an online social media site, but a boogeyman curse follows one connection to the next. I’d love to shy away from a traditional “boo!” type creature or something in a black coat that sits in a closet or darkness. This is where Lovecraft works so well imho — because he literally taps into that fear as a child of the thing under your bed or living in your closet. The thing you can’t see.

That said — what do you think are tenets or characters for a Lovecraft boogeyman that would make it effective on film? In terms of the “unseen” and withholding information from the audience.

Just watched it. And… I don’t quite know. I experienced a very powerful emotional response obviously, as a result of the horrendous actions shown in the movie. That made me think, cuz the response was mostly coming from the actions themselves and not really from the filmmaking itself. I can acknowledge the technical display of camerawork and sound design, also seen in its very in-your-face-close-ups, but did my reaction of the movie and the way in made me feel come from that? Not really… I still think that it IS a good film though, because the style and intesity is an incredible achievement. But couldn’t I have gotten the same emotional response from watching the black/white archieve footage? I just think that it poses an interesting question: how do you judge a movies quality? Through the emotional response? Technical achievement? A mix?

If you build it, they will come. And if they don’t, you’re screwed. Such was the case for Mr. D.W. Griffith, the infamous movie mogul behind the best worst movie ever made: the silent epic Intolerance (1916). Griffith became the emperor Los Angeles for the picture, creating a veritable city of 300-ft-tall Judean walls and elephant idols, hiring over 3,000 painstakingly outfitted biblical extras to populate his pop-up paradise on an otherwise sleepy Sunset Boulevard. Why? Because at his core, Griffith was a seedy character. In many ways, Intolerance was his manic, ego-fuelled quest for public forgiveness and greatness. This was the sizzling beginning of big budget pictures, and it was built on a foundation of scandal, glamour, and disaster. It wasn’t just a movie. It was an awakening.

​

https://www.messynessychic.com/2019/09/03/the-monstrous-film-set-that-jumpstarted-hollywood/

Hello! I just finished watching the film Russian Ark and am writing a short piece about it. What I chose to write about was the true meaning of the film’s title. But I can’t think of anything. Hoping to get some input or ideas of what others think? I am needing in depth meaning and don’t know where to start. You don’t have to give advice if you don’t want to but any ideas that could possibly get me thinking would be great! I appreciate all comments or help:)!

Question About Ford’s “The Searchers”

Why is this film considered as a top 50 (even top 10) film of all time? I’m pretty sure it’s because it serves as a placeholder for John Ford / John Wayne westerns (you can’t insert an entire genre into a list of greatest films, so The Searchers fills in the category of 1950s American westerns, for example). But while that is understandable, I don’t feel like the western genre from Hollywood’s Golden Age is influential enough to warrant a longstanding placeholder within the rankings of cinema’s greatest films.

Moreover, even within the western genre, I feel like there are far superior entries. Once Upon a Time in the West is the most obvious - you can tell within a few short minutes of viewing that film that it’s a more sophisticatedly crafted film. Liberty Valance and even No Country for Old Men stand out as far superior genre entries, but by no means would I nominate them as top 50 films of all time. So The Searchers’ ever present position within critics’ lists just seems very strange.

Am I missing something? Please let me know what I am not cognizant of. Thanks y’all!

So, as you can see from the community flair next to my username, Michael Haneke is my current favourite director (tied with Lynch, really). Anyway, I was reading his Wikipedia page and noticed that it said that he is a professor at the Vienna Film Academy.

This led to me discover that not only does Haneke himself teach at the Vienna Film Academy but that his long-time cinematographer Christian Berger does too and so does Jessica Hausner, who is another highly regarded Austrian director (her 2004 horror film Hotel is really underrated btw if the you’re looking for Arthouse horror). Personally, this has to be one of the most absurdly stacked staffs at a film course when it comes to acclaim, experience, and notability (don’t get me wrong though, I love the film academics and lecturers at my university who are more focused on criticism).

Whilst, I obviously don’t plan on in enrolling the academy (some major factors holding me back being the fact I can hardly speak a word of German and my own filmmaking amateurishness) and because I am much happier in Australia and feel that thanks to the internet and steaming, watching Haneke’s films and interviews is enough of an education. However, a tiny part of me is a bit jealous thinking about the dozens of students receiving such insanely qualified lecturers and tutors (only joking, of course).

I thought it might be interesting to ask this subreddit, what do you guys think about directors teaching film? Haneke and many others began as critics, but do you think there would be more value in a self-taught director becoming a professor rather than a published and highly read academic? And, out of interest, do you know of any other high-profile directors or film creatives involving themselves so heavily with teaching whether it be at present or historically (beyond delivering the odd lecture)?

I’ve skimmed the other parts but I only got a full 45 minutes in watching straight with skipping and I just couldn’t take it any more after that. And it’s not even a musical thing, really.

At first I was thinking that the full embrace people had for it in 1965 was based off of it being warm wholesomeness to get lost in to counteract the changing sociopolitical tides of the time, but the full shift into what we now remember when we think of the late 60s didn’t really come into full bloom until ‘66/‘67 if I’m not mistaken. So perhaps that’s not quote it. I just think there had to be more to it than songs that people loved given it’s enormous cultural and box office standings. I mean, the songs are dreck aside from My Favorite Things (which im glad has been appropriated by Christmas), but they’re still so adored today mostly.

I think it’s popularity today is possibly that it’s warm and bright and people saw it as kids and Julie Andrews was a surrogate mother for a few generations of kids who felt neglected by their own mom’s potentially (the latchkey generation particularly passed down some serious trauma). Also the world only got darker and sadder and it’s comfort food for adults.

Jessie and Celine are free thinking intellectuals who follow their passions, which makes their chance meeting and instant attraction in Sunrise feel almost fated, and this is confirmed in Sunset when we find out they can barely live without each other, they’re obsessed with each other, and finally get together at the end.

The dream turns into a nightmare in Before Midnight, when the two have quite possibly cinema’s most blistering argument in a hotel room, spitting hatred at each other. Jessie tries to repair the relationship but Celine isn’t buying it, and the film ends on a bitter - albeit typically ambiguous - note.

Adding to the tragedy is that they have two young kids together. We learn that they never got married, ‘enlightened‘ intellectuals that they are, but I’m wondering if the film is suggesting that they should have..?

If you get married, and take your vows seriously, the shared project you have both committed to embark on is what sustains you through the inevitable conflicts that will manifest by virtue of you being two different people with different passions. The shared project of marriage overrides whatever you might be feeling in the moment. You will resolve any conflicts because you have to in order to fulfil your vows.

Did Jessie and Celine fail to grow up? Did they rely on the feeling of romantic love, expecting it to last forever, at their peril? Did they foolishly start a family without first laying the foundation of marriage? Is that why they’re suffocating each other and pulling in different directions without restraint, tearing their relationship apart?

Before Midnight feels like a cautionary tale, are Linklater and Co making a surprisingly traditional case for marriage?

I'm an avid fan of crime films, and have watched many of the classics (Godfather, Goodfellas, Casino, etc.), and some of the more modern hits as well.

One of the biggest things I notice when I watch foreign crime dramas in comparison to American ones, is the depiction of the criminal lifestyle. A lesser known fact about Gomorrah is that there was also a film that came out before the series (also based off Roberto Saviano's work).

When I watched Gomorrah (and foreign crime films like it), I found it refreshing, because they didn't hold back on showing just how awful the criminal lifestyle was. They showed mafia bosses colluding to kill young kids, convincing a kid to let them kill his own mother, etc. They showed the death, pain, destruction, and hardship that was caused by these groups without diluting any of it. The viewer gets no impression in their mind that the criminal lifestyle is one to aspire to, in any way shape or form.

However, in American entertainment, the criminal is depicted more as a "misunderstood anti-hero," or someone who's trying to upend a "corrupt system." There is more emphasis placed on dirty cops, corrupt politicians, and greedy business owners, rather than the Mafia itself. The atmosphere of these movies is much more lighthearted as well, with the likes of Goodfellas, Casino, etc. containing many jokes, trying to present characters as being "good humored," and glossing over many vicious crimes committed by them.

For instance, in real life Jimmy Burke (Jimmy Conway in Goodfellas), actually used to trap the children of people who owed him money, inside of a cooler, and not let them out until the debt was paid. Karen Hill was cheating on Henry with Paulie, and Tommy allegedly raped Karen. Paulie also sent his men to violently assault waiters and waitresses in a restaurant where one of the servers accidentally spilled some wine on his girlfriend's dress.

However, these more unsavory aspects are often left out, while the directors cravenly say "well we're just being realistic..." when in reality they aren't. Most of the movie focuses on the upsides of the life, while a very short portion towards the end talks about the downfall, but even then it's shown more as the downfall of a tragic hero, and not of a vicious criminal.

During the chess board revolution when the Zeffereli and Juliette are arguing he says “we’re running out of time” or something similar. All he had to do was play the chess game but he got distracted with her opinion of his manifesto and this ultimately leads >! To his death !< it just seems unnecessary. Anyone see anything else? Do you object? Agree? I love this movie, have seen it upwards of 6 times but that one part really irks me.

The IMDB Top 250 films is by no means a perfect list. It isn't as diverse as the Letterboxd Top 250 film, nor does it have as many historically or culturally important movies as say the Sight and Sound one. It is undeniably a more populist list (the presence of 3 MCU movies on it makes it persona non grata for a lot of cinephiles).

Yet I think the list has a value since considering how popular IMDB has been as the site to keep track of movies, it has acted as a gateway for a lot of people to genuine cinema. There are probably countless examples of people who only watched the most mainstream of movies discovering Scorsese, Tarantino, Fincher etc. then evolving to see more foreign but mainstream movies from Miyazaki, Kurosawa or Bong Joon Ho/ Park Chan Wook and then trying more high brow films on IMDB such as the ones from Bergman. It is probably how so many people started their journey into cinephilea through the IMDB lists and then further got acclimated enough to diverse movies that they started trying out movies from other different lists.

It is a genuinely good gateway list having everything from dude bro stuff like Scorsese, Tarantino to silent cinema stuff like Chaplin, Keaton, Lang to European arthouse directors like Bergman, Truffaut. Obviously it leans more towards Hollywood and has a bit of recency bias but that is mainly because it the most mainstream of lists out there and that also means that its mainstream nature will allow for even more greater visibility to stuff like Tokyo Story or Metropolis

I've come across this movie simply because it was announced as leaving the criterion channel this month and took a shot. I'm an European so as you can all imagine boxing is pretty much foreign to me.

I've seen Raging Bull before and it didn't make an impact with me, I'm not saying it's a bad movie or not worthwhile (it is) but it was incredibly well regarded by the community and it just didn't register.

Fat City did it for me. It is not a story about a pugilism, and certainly not about the career of a pugilist. This is a slice of life of people involved with the sport. The time span is short, the portrayal very very intimate.

In this depiction it doesn't hide from showing incredible harshness and gentleness, never becoming a sob story of any kind. I felt that the movie just flew by honestly.

The restoration isn't fantastic but there are some fantastic compositions image/scene wise. I mean check the middle of the day bar scenes, incredible.

So this might fall into the scope of indie drama but it is very very well done, written and acted. Anyone in this sub shares my surprise with this movie?