OMG i could hardly watch. Its sooo crazy that only one person had the since enough to call corporate and ask questions. Not one adult said no stop, this isn't right, much less how does preforming oral sex have anything to do with stealing money. I just cant understand that. She sued for 100 million she should have received much more only getting 6.1 million. I think Van aka Walter Nix, Jr should have been given 10 years not 5. BUT THE CRAZIEST IS THAT HE David Richard Stewart WAS AQUITTED THATS THE 2ND TRAGEDY!

I just watched Rise Above: The Carl Jackson Story—and it’s so much more than a sports documentary. If you're a fan of golf or just love a good story about resilience and mentorship, this is a must-see.

Carl Jackson’s journey is nothing short of incredible. In a world of golf that was predominantly white, he didn’t just break through the barriers—he took it upon himself to lift others up along the way. What stands out to me the most is how his mission wasn’t just about personal success. He was determined to pave the way for others and make golf more inclusive for future generations.

The film dives deep into race, identity, and the real power of mentorship. Carl's story really drives home the idea that success isn’t just about individual victories—it’s about using your position to help others rise with you. It made me reflect on how we can all do a little more to guide and support those coming up behind us.

The storytelling in this documentary is raw, real, and deeply moving. It's so refreshing to see a film that highlights not just the highs, but the true journey of a mentor. This film left me thinking about how I can be a better mentor in my own life—and how important it is to keep pushing to break down those barriers for others.

Shoutout to director Maryilene Blondell—she did an amazing job capturing the essence of Carl’s story and bringing his powerful journey to life in such an authentic and impactful way.

If you're into golf, history, or powerful life stories, I can’t recommend Rise Above enough. It's available for rent on various platforms now, and it’s definitely worth the watch.

I have a few questions of interpretation on the ending.

Firstly, during the fingering scene, are we supposed to take the intercutting of the scene of Samuel playing with the dog in the hotel room to mean that she is actually thinking of Samuel while having sex with her husband?

And secondly, did you take it to be a happy ending or an unhappy one? My interpretation was (and tell me if you think I'm misreading it) that the inserts of Samuel were supposed to tell us that she's really thinking of him while having sex with her husband and that, while she has now managed to achieve orgasm with her husband, she will forever be doing it while thinking of this other guy and that it is therefore not much of a victory or a happy ending.

But when I thought more about it, I thought it could be seen as a happy ending as well. She's managed to find a way to find sexual fulfillment in her marriage and she will be able to keep her family together and maintain the good family life she has without having to accept sexual dissatisfaction as a price for it.

Did you see the intercutting of the scene of Samuel with the dog as meaning that she is thinking of him during sex with her husband?

How did you interpret the ending?

What an amazing movie. I think it should get all the awards. Here are my questions for discussion:

Is this the first film about the Jewish experience that's been written and directed by non-Jewish people? It's unexpected but they seem to have done it incredibly well. What do you think is the significance of this, if any, especially considering the way it raises questions about Zionism and the purpose of Israel?

What did you think of all the ambiguous off-screen events? Zofia was seemingly assaulted off-screen by Harry. Harrison may have committed suicide after the shaming from Erzsebet. Laszlo and Erzsebet presumably moved to Israel. I felt satisfied with how confident I was in knowing what had happened and I also appreciated the ambiguity.

Why did Laszlo piss in the bathtub at his cousins place? Didn't they have toilets in Budapest? Is that supposed to indicate how drunk he was?

Do you think that Harrison Van Buren penetrated Laszlo in that disturbing rape scene? This doesn't seem plausible to me without lubrication and a willing participant. Maybe it was more of a dry humping situation.

Question, What are your thoughts on The Touch (1971) and do you think it is a good film?

To explain, The film is directed by Ingmar Bergman and it stars Elliot Gould & Bibi Anderson it is about a affair between a married woman and a foreigner. The film is also notable for being Ingmar's first English Language Film.

I have seen some Bergman films before, and I know of his reputation. (The Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries, Persona), and I like what I saw. I was particularly impressed with The Seventh Seal. but I haven't seen this film. Everywhere I read, Many considered this one of his worst films, along with The Serpent's Egg, his other English film. So I wonder what went wrong with this one.

So, Do you think The Touch (1971) is a good film?

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2025/01/blink-twice-2024-movie-review.html

The satirical psychological thriller "Blink Twice" marks the directorial debut of actress Zoe Kravitz ("The Batman", "Mad Max: Fury Road"). Naomi Ackie and Alia Shawkat star as two cocktail waitresses who find themselves whisked away to a private island by tech billionaire Slater King (Channing Tatum) and his high life friends. At first it feels like a dream come true, a paradise where the party never ends. Unfortunately, beneath the seductive fantasy lies a sinister reality.

Inspired by the #MeToo movement in Hollywood and the Harvey Weinstein scandal, the movie stems from a place of frustration and examines the balance of power between genders, with a touch of class warfare, through a genre lens. Unfortunately, the movie's uneven tone, satirical approach to sexism and abuse of power, and outbursts of brutal violence are all tossed into the equivalent of a cinematic blender, and the end result feels more like "Bodies Bodies Bodies" than "Get Out".

Kravitz at least nails the suspenseful, uneasy vibe of dark secrets lurking underneath the bright colors of the dream-like paradise island. It's all beautifully shot and efficiently put together to create a surreal and deeply unsettling atmosphere. That's where the movie excells. However, the third act is where it all implodes, sacrificing its themes for the sake of a cheap ultra violent cathartic payoff that is satisfyingly bloody, but intellectually void. To add assault to injury, the terrible final scene further undermines the movie's efforts to say something meaningful.

All in all, "Blink Twice" is a perfectly decent first-time horror effort, but its loftier ambitions don't materialize. It's got a solid cast, and Channing Tatum delivers an against type performance that proves he has more range than people give him credit for. Slater King, however, is a wasted opportunity to create a truly memorable villain, not because of Channing, but because the script fails him as a character. I'm not sure it's a movie I can recommend, but I think it's at least worth a watch to judge for yourself.

I recently wanted banshees of inisherin. It's amazingly acted. A sharp storytelling. And it's a allegory for war right? It's a metaphor for civil war happening off screen? So i want to know what colm represents and what padraic represents? Who is free State and who is IRA?

What's the meaning of animals in the movie? There are many shots on horse, dog and donkey. What does it mean?

What does Padraic's sister mean in the movie? Why did she leave? Does it also have something to do with irish civil war?

I know that colm cutting his fingers ingers is to showcase the stupidity and absurdity of Irish civil war, ( is there more to it? ) i also think civil war is not only the driving force of the movie. If we leave the war allegory outside then why does his character cut this fingers if all he wanted was to make a good music and to be remembered?

Why did Padraic burn his house? Was it revenge?

What's the point of the ending? What does it mean? Will they be friends? Why did colm let Padraic burn his house and what colm meant when he Said " war will end soon but Padraic replies that " they will start it soon and something there is no moving on from and that's the godo thing" what did he mean here?

I watched this last week and I still can't move past how the film depicted Bob Dylan.

Talented and flawed, sure.

But for a guy that was so pivotal in the civil rights movement, and whose music was the voice of the restless political youth at the time, the film sure made him seem like a simpleton.

He showed almost no interest in anything political, barely rubbing shoulders with the politically active (beyond a token scene early on), and certainly didn't discuss anything with people.

For those that know his story, is this accurate?

Surely he was more in tune than the way the film depicted him.

I've been really getting into Western lit/film recently, but am struggling to find the more nuanced, modern feeling, psychological films from the 20th century, ones which are more impactful, and focus more on the emotional journeys of the characters involved rather than adhering to tropes of the genre from back then. Does anyone know of any hidden gems which fall into this category?

Recently I've watched The Searchers, The Great Silence, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid, The Shooting, Winchester '73, Unforgiven, and High Plains Drifter.

It's a shame, I can appreciate how at the time, the trends in cinema dictated what was written and produced, but I feel like the time and setting of the Western held and still does hold, so much scope and potential for more personal feeling films. I expected that more films would've been made that tapped more heavily into the existential struggle of the Old West's inhabitants.

Inspired by the recent thread on One from the Heart, I thought I should start a more general discussion about the concept of interesting cinematic failures.

Many, perhaps most big budget failures fail in uninteresting ways, by offering rote storytelling, visual styles that ape recent hits, uncommitted performances. In a word, cliches.

But what are the big budget films that, in your opinion, fail in interesting ways?
A few examples that come to mind:

* Dick Tracy (1990) and Hulk (2003): two ambitious comic book adaptations, following in the footsteps of other, more successful comic book movies, directed by big-name filmmakers with no previous interest or experience in the world of comics. To me, these films' extensive efforts to translate the visual look of comics into cinematic terms.

* Peter Bogdanovich seems like a relevant name to bring up here. I'd point to Nickelodeon (1976) as an interesting film that just doesn't work for me.

* A possibly controversial opinion, considering that this film's stock seems to be rising, but I'd point to Bringing Out the Dead (1999) as an interesting film with compelling moments that doesn't quite come together as a great film.

* Any filmmaker as prolific and as willing to take risks as Steven Spielberg will have a few films like this in their discography. My mind goes to Hook (1991), which has some incredible production design but also seems to be stuck in a no man's land -- trying to be both a film for children and a film for nostalgic adults. (I also think of it in contrast to A.I., a Spielberg film that might get brought up in this thread. To me, it's a film where the tonal shifts from child-friendly to darker, adult material actually work well.)

* Ryan's Daughter (1970) and Ludwig (1973) are overly long but well-made epics.

Anybody else has this pet peeve that your film-watching experience can be completely ruined by badly animated graphics? Maybe it has to do with losing the suspension of disbelief, but films I otherwise would've liked or even lovdx, I suddenly just feel grossed out about (maybe there's something uncanny about it too...) Films such as 'Annihilation', 'The Endless', or 'Lamb' (this one in particular had so much going for it at the start, maybe because she was a student of Tarr, but it quickly turned into the one of the worst things I'd ever watched).

Even just recently, I watched 'The Tree of Life' for the first time since seeing it in the cinemas. I thought it was actually quite exceptional and at times even Godardian. But then came the dinosaurs 🦕, and although the rest of the film made up for it, I still couldn't help but feel as if the film would've been perfect without them.

I've always loved this movie. It's well-cast, well directed. The acting is great. The writing hits the mark. It does everything you want with an adaptation; takes the framework of the story and transcribes it into a modern story that still keeps the point intact while exploring new themes as well.

I would go so far as to say that if this was a foreign language film, like if Cuarón had directed the same movie with a Mexican cast in Mexico, it would be held up as one of those must see foreign films. Or maybe that's just perception. Anyway, if you haven't seen it, take the time to give it a watch.

I was a film student (and TA) in the late 2000s and used to read a bunch of academic film journals pretty constantly.

I'm interested in catching up with what's current. Film students (or instructors) of today, which journals are important and/or interesting?

Not really looking for big books or video essays. I'm looking for short-form written essays by academics.

side note: what the shit are the various flair acronyms supposed to stand for? God this sub is weird.

I am busy playing with this idea of categorizing characters in film and TV in three levels:

Level 1: Strength, Bravery, Courage, Fearlessness, Grit, Resilience. Examples include: Luke Skywalker, Frodo, Harry Potter, Jon Snow, Mulan, Katniss Everdeen.

Level 2: Stoicism, Morality, Integrity, Humility, Sacrifice, Leadership, Dedication, Ego-death - Balian (Kingdom of Heaven), Maximus (Gladiator), Aragorn, Obi-Wan, Ned Stark, Éowyn (LotR).

Now, level three encapsulates levels 1 and 2 but adds only one trait: True Wisdom:

Level 3: Wisdom - Dumbledore, Gandalf, Yoda, Charles Xavier, Aslan (Narnia), Qui-Gon Jinn.

But I cannot for the life of me think of any female "level 3" (or even solid level 2) characters except maybe Galadriel in LotR?

Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Thanks.

I attended a free screening of this film and I found it absolutely bizarre.

None of the threats of violence or crime aspects of the film carry any significance or weight whatsoever, as the characters burst out into song and dance immediately after something like a threatening phone call occurs. The film is trying to be so many things at once, but I think it fails at all of them.

The musical numbers are strange. The songs sound like a Spanish dub of a white European musical (like when they translate songs from CATS into Chinese, Italian, etc). The composer tries to add in some hispanic flair from time to time, but the musical numbers sound distinctly like they come from white musicals. And no, that's not racist to say, and yes, it is weird. European/White American musicals (many of which were composed by European Jewish people) have a VERY distinct sound. If you have watched "South Park the movie" then you'll know what I'm talking about. It's so distinct and well known that it's mocked and parodied through out many forms of media.

They took that style (Broadway show tunes style), and slapped on Spanish lyrics, and are trying to pass this off as some kind of triumph in ethnic filmmaking.... huh?? It'd be like if you took the musical "Moulin Rouge!" and turned the setting into a Japanese Opera house set in the Edo period with a story about Geisha who perform and sing... but kept the music the same as Moulin Rouge. Wouldn't that be weird as hell? Surely some people might see it as "ground breaking cinema" but really you're just putting an odd and mismatched exterior shell onto a white European musical.

Zoe Saldaña performance is terrible, she does not belong in musicals. The only interesting part of the film for me was Karla Gascon, as she's the only one who performs with gravitas. I was constantly annoyed every time they cut to Selena Gomez who, like Zoe, just sucks all the energy out of the scenes that they are in.

The director is a somewhat famous French director, but he's in his 70s now and clearly past his prime. Clearly playing a "paint by numbers" game to try to stay relevant when he has nothing artistically valuable to share anymore. This film is running the award circuits on one thing- it's bizarre as hell and everyone is afraid to call it what it is for fear of being labeled as unsophisticated or "not getting it", but it's trash. This film is nonsense.

If they had focused more on Gascon and given her more time, things might be different, but this film is so stupid and if you examine it with any objectivity I am sure you'll come to the same conclusion.

If this wins best picture, it will be a real life example of the emperor has no clothes, except everyone remained silent and allowed this buffoonery to continue winning.

I saw poor things recently and I'm not sure what's the message or meaning of this movie. It's about self discovery and autonomy and is coming of age film. It carries the theme of freedom and liberation I think? But I don't get what it's trying to say. Does it glorify sex and prostitution? What does male characters around bella mean? Are they taking advantage of her? What has to do with most of the movie having her grow up and experience life through sex? I just don't get it.

I recently watched September 5 and was struck by how it completely sidesteps the political turmoil we’re living through. It’s a film with all the ingredients to say something meaningful about today's world concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict, yet it deliberately avoids engaging with it. It instead spends more time on journalistic ethics which are no doubt relevant, but there's clearly a bigger elephant in the room the film's afraid to explore. Commerciality is the go-to for avoiding hot-button issues but when you still manage to spark controversy, why not swing big? This got me thinking—why do so many films today feel devoid of topical substance? Where are the films that grapple with the complexities of the moment with nuance and courage?

It’s not that I believe every film needs to be overtly political, but the complete aversion to contemporary engagement is concerning. In past decades, filmmakers weren’t afraid to use cinema to interrogate their times. The paranoia thrillers of the ‘70s (e.g., The Parallax View, All the President’s Men) reflected the anxieties of Watergate and Vietnam. Even post-9/11 cinema had many films like The Lives of Others, for example, tackle that era. However that was also the birth of the mega-commercial blockbusters that nowadays more or less pacify the audience. Despite living in an era filled with ideological clashes, economic instability, and rapid cultural shifts, mainstream films seem more hesitant than ever to embrace real-world complexity in favor of safe, palatable narratives.

A big part of this could be Hollywood’s fear of alienating audiences. In the streaming era, where global appeal is king, anything that risks being too specific—especially politically—gets sanded down for mass consumption. Studios and financiers prioritize marketability over artistic risk, which explains why so many films feel oddly apolitical despite existing in an increasingly politicized world. Even films that do engage with current events are mostly too on-the-nose, partisan, or avoidant. This is why September 5 frustrated me, dancing around the very themes it seems to be setting up but ultimately refusing to take a stance.

At the same time, I wonder if audiences themselves have grown wary of art that confronts contemporary struggles too directly. We live in an age of constant information overload—news cycles that never stop, social media outrage, and algorithm-driven content that reinforces existing beliefs. Perhaps the internet has turned audiences away from compelling cinema in favor of rollercoasters. That said, I don’t believe that truly great, thought-provoking cinema is incapable of coexisting with entertainment. Some of the best films in history challenged audiences precisely because they dared to address uncomfortable truths.

So why don’t we see more films willing to engage with the now? Is it an industry-wide issue, an audience issue, or a creative one? Have filmmakers grown more risk-averse, or are they struggling to find ways to discuss contemporary issues without feeling overly didactic? Would love to hear others’ thoughts—what are some recent films that have successfully tackled modern issues in a meaningful, nuanced way?

If you want to read more of my thoughts on September 5 and the general avoidance of political issues, check out my review: https://abhinavyerramreddy.substack.com/p/september-5-the-dawn-of-news-as-entertainment?r=38m95e

My take on who won the match? Life itself.

The movie is just one big metaphor. Art and Patrick are two sides of an athlete. The rigid, disciplined, focused side, and the wild, reckless, free willed side. And Tash is tennis itself.

The entire movie shows us the athlete struggling with their love for tennis, and competition. It starts as two friends playing, and it’s just pure joy. They don’t care who wins, they just love hitting balls with rackets.

But as they get older, that competitive spirit grows. And with it comes the need for discipline, structure and purpose. They struggle with their childish ways, just wanting to play for fun and boyish competition, but eventually they focus on tennis and winning, and ultimately that boyish side sort of fades away. Maybe it shows up on a random weekend in Atlanta, but mostly….winning is all that matters.

So you give tennis everything it wants. You are nothing without tennis. If you don’t win the next match, you’re done, tennis will be done. You have no goals, no life outside of tennis. You have no joy outside of tennis. You are defined by tennis. You don’t even know if you like it anymore, but it’s all you know. It’s all tennis.

And then you reach a turning point. Your athletic career is at a junction. You can maybe hang onto tennis for a bit longer, but it’s tough, and honestly not that fun anymore. You’re thinking about retiring. This could be one of your last matches in fact.

It’s not an easy thought. You struggle to let go of tennis. Its claws are deep. But as you wrestle with these thoughts, you catch a glimpse of your old boyish memories, playing the game for pure fun, who cares if you win or lose. It’s just fun!

So you push all that competitive BS aside and just go hit balls with rackets - and it’s the most alive you’ve felt in what feels like an eternity.

And that’s when we see Patrick and Art hug at center court, and Tash screams out. She’s lost her stranglehold on the boys - the athlete. After all these years, they’ve rekindled the joy of the game. Winning no longer matters. Let’s just hit balls with racquets.

Overall quite enjoyed the movie, although it did feel a bit drawn out at times. The audio/visuals either drove me nuts or, particularly in the last act, were pretty dope.

So for me this film is maybe one of the greatest comedies if not films of all time. Hal Ashby and Peter Sellers together crafted a staggeringly beautiful painful and absurd portrait of human existence.

On rewatch it only affirms it more how well this film works on so many levels.

Most recently though something new comes to light. We the audience watch the film laughing as we know Chance or "Chauncey Gardner" is speaking with and rubbing elbows with powerful elites and we know he has no idea what the hell he is talking about. He was a shut in gardener who never left his home in his whole life.

But the complex beauty of the film kind of challenges you to wonder if despite this he IS indeed speaking absolute truth.

Like, if everyone actually followed Chauncey's advice it might damn well be a better place.

I think many comedies would have aimed to make Chauncey be a dolt who cautions the audience not to be listened to- like we would know it's funny because it's bad advice. But actually it's not.

The president asks Chauncey about the economy to which he provides an analogy as only he knows how to answer.

"If the roots are unsevered they will remain strong in the spring."

It could he argued that it's incredible advice Becuase it speaks to universal truths about reality itself.

That is one of the reasons I love this film oh so dearly.

Share your thoughts as well for this magnificent film.

A beautiful movie about the downfall of a drug addict after one of the members in his gang dies.

Bob Hughes was the leader of a gang of drug addicts consisting of 4 members, including himself. Him, Dianne (his wife), Rick (his best buddy), and Nadine (Rick’s lady). They all preform heist operations in drugstores and pharmacies, robbing the places to get the dope.

This post is only interesting if you have the movie in original language and can speak French

I have watched the Anatomy of a Fall about a half year ago, and it has stayed with me ever since. I truly think it is a great film. Here’s why. The way we are guided into thinking Sandra could have never done it is done in a refreshing way. First, is the ridiculously loud music from the attic. Then, the way the murder scene is investigated feels like the prosecution feels childish. You feel as though the prosecution is prying at every detail, and insisting on fully discussing every detail. It feels rude and we are all on Sandra and Daniel’s side. The next way is through the language difference in the court scenes.

The language: the fact that the main character is German, does her job in English and learned some French for her partner is a setup that was excellently used. In the court scenes, she is interrogated in French by a prying and mocking procureur. She sometimes understands the questions but most of the time she gets them translated into English. As she replies in English, the procureur understands her completely, yet replies in French (sometimes even using her words in English within a sentence). At this point in the film we are still on her side. But then, when the kid is interrogated, and speaks in French, this belief is twisted. Here, she also cannot fully understand what the kid is saying as it is in French.

The setup here feels like a clever safeguard from Sandra’s guiltiness. Every prying effort from the prosecution is seen as ridiculous. For some, the safeguard is strong and they will never switch sides. For me, there were moments were I was doubting myself. I think using language difference as part of this setup was delicious. “Un film fin” as we say in French.

General Discussion threads threads are meant for more casual chat; a place to break most of the frontpage rules. Feel free to ask for recommendations, lists, homework help; plug your site or video essay; discuss tv here, or any such thing.

There is no 180-character minimum for top-level comments in this thread.

Follow us on:

• Letterboxd
• Twitter

The sidebar has a wealth of information, including the subreddit rules, our killer wiki, all of our projects... If you're on a mobile app, click the "(i)" button on our frontpage.

Sincerely,

David

I watched the movie recently and it immediately caught my eye how this movie has some heavy Jungian* themes and undertones. I saw a post about this earlier but thought to share my own views and feelings about the movie and especially the depiction of felines in it.

*Carl Jung was a Swiss Psychologist who delved on ideas about the human nature and one of his most well known inventions was the Jungian "Shadow" which the movie seems to take heavy inspiration from.

The movie opens up, and If my mind serves me right, in the very first scene we see a cat on Ellen's bedside. To me this sets the theme for the movie very cunningly. Why? You may ask. I think cats in the movie serve as representation to the integration of the Jungian Shadow. "In order to fight evil, we must acknowledge it first within us.", states the Swiss doctor that seems to also be a nod to Jung. To integrate the Shadow is to become conscious of our darker nature. Think about it - cats are an household animal that to us serves as a pet, but unlike dogs, are not tamed, but also vicious killers by their very nature - and yet we accept and love them precisely for what they are. They, for us, represent an acknowledgement of our nature as a whole.

Cats also have a place in our culture history as companions for witches. Incidentally the Occultistic Doctor also owns a cat in the movie as seen in his study. When the plague spread it was spread by rats and mice. What household animal that comes to mind kills such pests? I don't think it as far fetched to say that ones who owned cats and were more likely unbothered by the illness, were most likely shunned as being "magically" unaffected and therefore a witch, an occultist.

Think of the Plague, as the Shadow, Nosferatu - the evil that creeps up from our hearts, our subconscious nature that we'd rather keep secret but the more its kept unconscious the more power it has over you. Like the townsfolk who can't accept the horrors as the works of a demon. Or the younger doctor who administers Ellen Ether to calm, silence her during the night - which the occultist Doctor states against for she must face her demons.

And in the end, it was not destroying the shadow that ended it, but loving it. Nosferatu and Ellen, beauty and the beast, laid there bare as one, morning sun rose and with it brought to light - to consciousness - their unity. And as Nosferatu was no more, what did the Doctor raise to the light shining through the window? Ellen's cat, Greta, who "has no master or mistress" which I interpreted as not being consumed by a master you cannot see - your shadow.

As a fan of the Sonic The Hedgehog franchise, Sonic 3 captured many things of what made the games good (aside from leaving out the master emerald shattering accident and hunt, shadow being created as a cure, bio-lizard, etc). One of them it got right is how the Sonic games (and the best cartoons and comics) are meant to be fast-paced action pack, entertaining adventures; there is also a deeper substance to them with themes like nature vs. technology and the tales of prophecies, corruption, and fallen heroes.

But removing my bias, Sonic 3 may be one of the best action films or blockbusters of all time, but one of the best movies of all time despite objectively being an 8/10. Watching this movie felt like how Ebert felt in regards to Avatar and how it was like "watching star wars when it was new." Although I hope to see more transcendental style in films and independent "stand alone films," I am so happy to see the blockbusters of the 2020s improve. Sonic 3, along with Dune Part II and Top Gun Maverick, are not only really fun and entertaining popcorn flicks (especially in the theaters), but have well-crafted stories, characters, and worlds and are rich with themes where they are not just fun "roller coaster rides" as Scorsese described Marvel Movies.

This is a quality the great famous iconic blockbuster films like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws, Jurrasic Park, Back to the Future, The Matrix, you name it have. I hope we see more blockbuster entertainment films like that in the future. Making a quality film with a substance that is entertaining, and will go on as a monolithic piece of entertainment, as well as respecting the fans and its lore by giving them what they want while crafting the films, it's no wonder why Sonic 3 outperformed Mufasa. I REALLY hope the new Superman film follows the same path.

Among these are veterans like the Coens, Spike Lee, Richard Linklater, Claire Denis, Leos Carax , the eternally interesting Coen Bros, and Kiyoshi Kurosawa…I know it’s basically a portfolio of directors you can see on the criterion channel. So, to be inclusive I shouldn’t forget Cronenberg or the elder statesman De Palma. Generally all these directors qualify as artists, have definite visual and thematic strategies and trademarks and have proven over many years that even their lesser works carry greater weight and relevance than the best work of…whom to cite here?….Edgar Wright, anyone still on the marvel or dc payroll, Tim Burton, Shyamalan, etc. Basically the list includes competent craftsman whose filmographies qualifies as a reflection of the better, more radical work of those in the preceding list. Apologies to those who appreciate the ones I just did regarded. Perhaps the only sin they commit is the unpaid debt they owe to the masters to whom they aspire

I realize this might not be a very accurate analysis of Dogville (2002) by Lars von Trier, but after i saw it i started to think about immigration. Nicole Kidman's character comes into town fleeing (apparently) from a crime context, she seeks refuge in Dogville and Paul Bettany (the enlightened, well-read, thoughtful character) helps her get the support of the town.

Now, she has to earn her keep by doing all kinds of menial jobs for the townspeople (already a red flag but one the viewer can let go at first), but as the film goes, she turns into a slave, in all but name (she does most of the work, she's raped endlessly, she's chained and discriminated against). Finally, the Bettany character shows his lack of spine and finally malice (basically saying "i wanna be able to exploit you but feel good about it"). He's the most disgusting character in the film.

I think this might align somewhat with the immigrant experience, for example mexicans or other latin-americans in the United States (and i believe it IS about the United States, just look at the credits). They're expected to do the jobs no one wants to do, they are viewed with distrust especially if they are illegal aliens, and the ostensibly well-meaning, enlightened progressives (like Paul Bettany's character) ultimately betray them or at least tolerate their exploitation passively.

In the end, Kidman destroys the town, reasoning that people have to be accountable for their actions. Could this be seen as some form of payback or reparations? In which case the film is saying that the whole edifice of exploitation has to be torn down (here the immigration metaphor can dovetail with oppressed minorities like african-americans, and such).

I don't know, am i making any sense? I still don't account for the Depression pictures at the end credits.

Apparently, the movie never got a proper wide release because it was so poorly received in its limited release so the studio canned it and Coppola was left with a catastrophical flop which nearly ruined his career.

I got the DVD and in the Audio Commentary, he said the Home Video release was its first proper release.

Watching the movie, it's actually a pretty decent film. You can see where the movie got spent. The production design is incredible, they built an entire town on a studio. The use of neon colors, the staging of the musical numbers, Raul Julia has a pretty big number at one point. But then you have the Nastassja Kinski scenes which are so dreamlike and otherworldly, Kinski is so uncannily beautiful in this that one wonders if she exists.

The main coupling, Teri Garr and Frederic Forrest, build a nice rapport. Coppola took a huge risk with those two because they are more character actors than leads yet they are so good onscreen and it actually makes it easier to be invested in their relationship. Two big names would have distracted us. And the songs by Tom Waits and Crystal Gayle are perfect.

I can see why it flopped. It's not for everybody and Coppola spent way too much money on a niche project.

Originally posted here: https://short-and-sweet-movie-reviews.blogspot.com/2025/01/king-of-gypsies-1978-movie-review.html

Based on the 1975 book "King of the Gypsies" by "Serpico" author Peter Maas, the 1978 crime drama of the same name is a cinematic curiosity that is all but forgotten now. Written and directed by Frank Pierson, best known as the author of the screenplays for "Dog Day Afternoon" and "Cool Hand Luke", the film explores the contrasts between Romani culture and the modern life of 1970s New York City.

Torn between the two worlds is Dave Stepanowicz, played by Eric Roberts in his big screen debut, the grandson of Gypsy King Zharko Stepanowicz (Sterling Hayden). Dave's father Groffo (Judd Hirsch) is the rightful heir to the throne, but Zharko would rather see his grandson assume the leadrship of the clans. Dave, however, rejects the Gypsy way of life and tries to adopt the gadje (non-Romani) lifestyle. Unfortunately, one can only run so far from the unbreakable bonds of blood and family until they violently catch up.

Maas made his career writing in the true crime genre, and "King of the Gypsies" is supposedly a well researched book, relying on police records for inspiration. Take that with a grain of salt, though. Pierson's adaptation stays true to the source material by providing a vivid account of gypsy culture as portrayed by Maas, chock-full of violence, petty criminal deeds, hot tempers, and fiery passions. The accuracy of the stereotypes on display, however, is definitely up for debate.

The overall story, which carries overtones of "The Godfather", is basic and uncomplicated. It offers no real surprises, but still manages to be fairly entertaining. It's more family drama than crime drama, which might disappoint those expecting more criminal underworld action. Visually, Pierson goes for a raw, natural, realistic and gritty aesthetic that was par for the course in the 1970s, especially for low budget films like this. It's well shot by cinematographer Sven Nykvist ("The Sacrifice", "Agnes of God", "Sleepless in Seattle", "What's Eating Gilbert Grape") and features a great soundtrack by David Grisman.

The movie's real asset, however, is its cast. Roberts makes one hell of an impressive debut, and the supporting cast is an eclectic mix of experienced actors like Hayden, Hirsch, Shelley Winters and Michael V. Gazzo, as well as (at the time) young up-and-comers like Susan Sarandon, Annie Potts, Annette O'Toole and Brooke Shields. They all form an incredible ensemble that elevates the barebones plot and shallow characterizations.

"King of the Gypsies" is hardly iconic material, but it at least deserves cult-classic status. Stereotypes aside, it's a different kind of crime drama, and offers an intriguing look into the American Gypsy lifestyle that few films, if any, have attempted. Even if you're not interested in its unique angle, it's well worth watching for the cast alone.

I've been reading good, bad and ugly reviews of this movie and it's fair to say that not everyone agrees with each other. Which is mostly great, that's how good art works i guess.

What struck me at the beginning is how well known is that story. I've seen movies, tv shows, parodies and i got the basic structure memorized. But it's almost weird to complain because i somewhat knew that this is a classic retelling. Still, it's not like there are surprises coming.

Early it becomes clear that eggers can prepare a pretty great shot, reminiscent of a eery painting, full of contrast and composition. Sadly there are few of these throughout the movie and rest of the movie looks kind of bland and boring. It's not exactly bad, it just feels like something you would see in a mike flanagan show, not some nosferatu epic. Tons of close ups, people holding yellow leds, contrast lighting, central composition. While watching it, it struck me that i would love to see what del toro would do with a movie like this. How many sets he would built, how experimental he would be with colors and prosthetics.

Acting felt super weird and uneven. You had characters like defoe who were grounded in reality and gave mostly believable performance. But then you get Depp being so weirdly melodramatic, living her life like its a theater play. Everyone had questionable dialogue and everyone seemed to get different direction. Aaron's character was such a bland knucklehead dead set on playing suave gentlemen. So much of the acting and dialogue just felt offbeat and out of place. Wasn't a fan of casting at all but that's a different story.

I don't know, i guess i just wanted to vent a little. Tons of people on reddit start their reviews with a generic: "Acting, music and visuals were all on highest level" and then just jump to some esoterical commentary about pain of addiction and loneliness.

I get what they are doing and i get what eggers was going for. It just feels like a movie has to be a masterpiece and everything has to work perfectly for it to be spoken with such admiration and acclaim.

I've seen a lot of different movies, insane amount of horrors. Modern and old. This honestly didn't felt like the masterpiece people are hyping it up to be.

Watched the first episode of Shogun recently and while it had a fantastic array of actors, a great sweeping story and some punchy dialogue, I was left feeling a bit underwhelmed by the whole thing - as per my usual reaction to prestige TV.  

Shogun feeling ‘cinematic’ is something im hearing a helluva lot…I really dont think it does - what it looks and feels like is well produced Television. And thats not a criticism per se, im just saying they are diametrically opposed as viewing experiences in some ways. 

The very nature of TV production means that writers and show runners invariably determine the show with the director often being a hired hand brought in last in a production 

This results in most TV superficially looking great (according to the current conventions of TV) but totally lacking the presence of a directors personal vision or style.  

What films have is that visual tension between the content of the material, ie the plot/story itself, and the form of the material, ie how the story is being told or presented to the audience via a directors particular visual style and approach to the aesthetic components of film as a visual medium 

TV as far as im concerned (with a few obvious examples) is content minus form or style - aka all story and same same style. Or if it has form, its likely the form of any given TV show out right now.

Am I right? Does Shogun ‘feel’ any different as a viewing experience when compared to the likes of  Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad?  Do you guys think it has the same or comparable qualities as say, a Nolan film or a Kurosawa or a Fincher or a Coen brothers film etc etc etc just to name a few random filmmakers. Let me know what you think!