I'm definitely on board with Fincher's directorial vision by now (I'll have to rewatch The Social Network to compare which one I like better). This was really compelling, and I loved how it was more of a human drama about obsession than it was about the killings themselves. Plus it's always great when Robert Downey Jr. locks in to being a paranoid sleazebag.

Furiosa. Criminally overlooked. How the fuck was this a box-office bomb? This film is brilliant, and the best of the Max Mad series. Miller gets better and better with age.

And? Imho this gets better and better chronologically. Fury Road was brilliant. Furiosa tops it!!

hell no, dont apologize! of course it's superfun, that is the point

i'd love to answer in detail, but i can't right now. the politics thing has used up my internet forum writing budget and now i have work

but just wanted to say cronenberg is one of my superfavorites. only i am not crazy about crimes of the future but whatever. from that era i prefer stereo, a predecessor to scanners. shivers, rabid, the brood, all amazing. i have not seen fast company. he has some good early shorts too. his 80s 90s work is better known and no need to mention. you seen m. butterfly though? thoughts?

i have not seen maps to the stars

OH WAIT, a new crimes of the future? i have only seen the original hahahhaha. i need to see this one now!!!

anyway please keep up the excellent work watching/writing. it's refreshing and much welcome

For a change in quality, I watched Deck the Halls (2006) today - it's been on TV basically every year, but this was the first time I actually sat down and watched it. Wish I hadn't - the nicest thing I can say about it is that it's the second best film where Matthew Broderick's character hangs out with a guy wearing a Detroit Red Wings jersey.

I watched "the fourth man" when I was a child (wish I could remember how old I was), and the image of someone getting decapitated in a car has stuck with me ever since. Except that after seeing the fragment, I thought it was glass plates, perhaps that was in a different movie? Would like to see it again, but only if it was shown on TV, which it never is. His best or at least most famous Dutch movies are Turkish Fruit and Soldier Of Orange. Both star Rutger Hauer but the content is entirely different. Lots of nakedness in the first, Second World War in the other.
Actually don't think I've ever seen either of them, because I dislike watching Dutch language movies in general.



Instead i watched this one yesterday:

ew. why? :D




ah! here it's called turkish delight. yes that's like a long erotic movie with a sad ending, i cant remember completely but yeah it's hm well, like a movie made by a hippie kinda, hahaha. not the same spirit as his other films. i have not seen soldier of orange


i think the decapitated glass plate is the exorcist? or the omen? the omen maybe in the excavation site or something?

ok i found it hahaha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLlSjyZupzU

Ah, yes. The classic "Let's just air movies that are cheap for the network to show"-spiel. Every country seems to have their own mainstays of varying (mostly shitty) quality. Austrian channels really loved to shove the Sister Act movies down our throats for some time, apparently. Same goes for the gazillion Police Academy movies. German channels loved to show The Last Unicorn during Christmas all the time - that's at least something I could get down with. Don't know if it's still the case - haven't watched TV in ages.

Watched in a cinema with a friend (he'd seen it before, I hadn't). Not quite as good as Mulholland, as far as I'm concerned, but still a fun watch. Despite the weird shifting, the basic theming behind this seemed more straightforward to me - it's about paranoia, Fred/Pete as a possessive and jealous partner who fears losing what he has; my interpretation of the transformation was that it was a metaphorical way for him to try and renew himself as a less villainous self, but that he succumbs back to his own issues again. A fun watch, but unfortunately having a Marilyn Manson cameo in your film about sexual violence is pretty poorly aged. (And I was ripped off, The Perfect Drug is barely in the movie!)

American Psycho.

while reading about the insurance murdering kid i saw a link to john waters' favorite movies of 2024

https://baltimorefishbowl.com/storie...made-his-list/

8/10

Good movie that. After years of deliberation I finally got round to reading the book but I was not prepared for the Donald Trump reverence and violent depravity, I felt nauseous, good stuff lel.

I heard there's a pointless remake on the way.

Getting in the Christmas spirit with:

Christmas Evil

y

Silent Night Deadly Night

Some Lacey Chabert Hallmark Christmas movie where everyone’s in winter coats but it’s clearly 70° outside and they’re probably in western Utah in July.

Not the only thing that aged poorly about it. The prominent feature of a Rammstein song (as well as Manson of course) on the soundtrack is also really unfortunate given current developments (though I'm not sure how much of the info really made the rounds in non-German-speaking countries) - it's also unfortunate because Rammstein suck and should have never gotten that platform imo. Also: Robert Blake as the Mystery Man - dude was incarcerated for allegedly shooting and killing his wife a couple of years after the movie came out. To be fair, he was acquitted later - I'll leave it at that.



I do enjoy the atmosphere of the movie though. And apart from Manson and Rammstein, I do have a soft spot for the soundtrack.

Thought the movie sucked when I first watched it. The book - as unrecommendable as it is due to its graphic descriptions and unrelenting nihilism - at least had a really creative narrative structure that completely played into the main character's fractured mind. And it did drive the satirical aspects home quite well. Wouldn't read it again though.

i love you peoples, *and for that reason* i must tell you: that school of art criticism is super tiresome, and frankly adds nothing :D

Buddy - this is commentary (especially the Robert Blake part, which was meant as a piece of trivia), not actual criticism. And re-evaluating films after a while is a pretty common thing, always has been. A short couple of sentences can NEVER fully convey how one fully feels about a movie. I still really like Lost Highway and those cameos/spotlights were a product of their time - no real fault on part of the movie in general. But I think it is important to consume media consciously. I can like something and still comment on how some of its aspects have aged poorly given further context over time. We go into this as human beings with strong feelings and opinions about something, not some perma-neutral entity. If we were the latter, watching movies would be an anhedonic quest rather than joy/inspiration/escapism/food for thought. Plus, this is a dinosaur of a forum where people blurt out their opinions like there's no tomorrow. It comes with the territory. Deal with it :D


That said: Love ya too.

yeah, i'm okay with that--blurting out my opinion in this dino forum is exactly how i deal with the territory. and so it goes

anyway just like consumption of media needs to be conscious, so it is with media commentary. commentary is not above commentary, right? commentary goes on and on

so anyway, the reason i felt moved to comment was to warn against certain unconscious reflexes bred by social trends. they are no longer a form of consciousness, but a kind of required checklist. trends, like media, also change with time

and digging for worms was a hot trend for a while, yes. it was initially practiced by americans, who due to their puritanical tendencies generally prefer moralizing to art. this is why america needed john waters. and still does!

but the moralizing disease spread everywhere, carried by modern academic practices and the internet. and in the end it did nothing except create a circular firing squad. and now we're here, where the trend has exhausted and the intent backfired. the culture has moved on from the worm digging

and yet! go to the (stereogum?) instagram page showing the thurston-lee-steve reunion. a glorious noise! but what do some people comment? kim this, kim that, i read kim's book, team. sure sure, i love kim and what she's doing, im team kim too, but a lot of people commenting there are not listening with their ears. they just want to dig for worms and show everyone their moral stance about someone else's life (not their own)

it's like nietzsche said, long after god was dead his shadow would continue (or something like that)

am i conflating those behaviors with yours? no, i am conscious enough to know the difference. i know the two of you, you're gifted, well read, aesthetically inclined, and good writers. but do i see your commentaries lured by the habit of that tired trend? yes, that i definitely do. i'm sorry! i believe my lying eyes :o

so anyway i'm hoping i don't lose your good aesthetic instincts to that particular variety of the holy inquisition. i don't say this to impinge on your freedom. it's just commentary for people i like and respect. maybe it's useful, and if not just discard

anyway, i like this here link, and i hope you do too, as my offering. happy holidays!

https://youtu.be/iCurxt0ULzk