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

Ain't nothing required about that. You're disregarding agency here (Both Claire's and mine). Is there a trend towards putting older productions into focus regarding current developments in society? Yeah. Can it from time to time go way too far? Also, yeah. But is every mention of how the view of a piece of media can change over time instantly blindly coloured and dictated by this? Not necessarily. An influx of new knowledge can certainly change the way one views a certain production. That's nothing new. How would people regard The Terminator for instance, if it wasn't Arnie but OJ Simpson - who was one of the initial contenders? That goes many ways. John Carpenter's The Thing didn't fare too well back in 1982 when the other popular depiction of Aliens was either very friendly (E.T.) or part of a beloved franchise (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) - time, social developments ALWAYS have a large impact on how people view things. The Thing went on to become a cult classic later on.



I watched Lost Highway in my late teens - back then I was a lot more apathetic towards such things. I enjoyed it then and I can still appreciate it for a lot of its aspects. However, I can see how new eyes - knowing more than I did back then - can be put off by some of it. The whole "separating the art from the artist"-thing is a very subjective and a deeply personal thing. Having been someone who listened to Manson in his teens and who's bought into the whole "Oh, he's just being very theatrical, it's just an act"-spiel - and who just couldn't anymore after a lot of the revelations (the lyrical content is awfully close to the terrible bullshit he "allegedly" did), I also have my own thoughts on this. That's how we consume media - with our own experiences and opinions.


I've seen and read many thoughtful pieces on (ugh, hate that term, but here we go...) "Cancel Culture" - some of the more critical pieces of course pointing out that if you dig far enough, there's dirt on everyone and that merely pointing fingers leaves no room for redemption or betterment. All valid - and, mostly coming from people who still advocate for a more conscious treatment of media. Cause you know what? It's fucking nuanced. You can enjoy - or even LOVE something and still acknowledge the faults. These trends - as you refer to them - if taken in healthy doses, can inform nuanced takes on pieces of media. There's no indoctrination and no crusade. Wouldn't subscribe to any of this.


This, however, is a band fan forum and I wasn't expecting to write a thesis today. Here we are though. For levity's sake, I'll end on something shorter and more befitting of the format:



What I wanted to say is: Fuck Rammstein. They've always sucked.

The compliments have not eluded me, of course. Many thanks.



I don't see how putting a bit more thought into how certain things are made and what the social implications are would threaten my aesthetic instincts. I know no one is perfect and I am aware many eggs had to be cracked to create an omelette. No excuse for it, just knowledge - and context. And I still ferociously love what I love. Warts and all, most of the time. I just adress the warts a bit more these days. That's all.


Of course I do. John Waters is always appreciated. And though I'm an atheistic grump: Lovely holidays to you too :D

And to not let the tangents win:


Maybe not the last movies I've watched, but the last two I've watched at a theater.


The Crow (1994)


Attended a 30th anniversary screening with my girlfriend this Summer. She hadn't seen it up until that point and I was like "Sure, I'll give it another go". There's still a lot of homemade charm to it, great atmosphere considering the budget and the chemistry between Brandon Lee and Ernie Hudson was legitimately splendid. Let's also not forget about the iconic soundtrack. I did think it was a bit too cartoonish for its own good though - especially considering the heavy-handed romantic beats it also wanted to push. And the flashback-narrative seemed rushed. It was hard to fully develop a feeling for who Eric Draven was before he turned into the Crow.



Blade Runner (1982)


Attended a Summer open air retro-screening with my girlfriend. What can I say? It's Blade Runner. Still one of my favorite Sci-Fi movies. The sound system at the place we saw it at really pushed it to another level. We were able to hear details that I may not have been aware of before. Wonderful experience.

Have you read the Crow comic the film was based on? Imagine all the sappy, melodramatic, overwrought aspects of the film converted into a comic book.

Gotta admit, I haven't read the OG graphic novel. I've bought some later addition that came out in the late 90s, a couple of years after the first movie was released. I thought it was rather unremarkable. It did depict a different Crow and different circumstances though.

The Crow is the worst snuff movie I have ever seen.

The movie is a bit dated, the plot, especially their relationship is a bit weird (perhaps also dated, I just didn't understand what it was supposed to mean).
Also, both Gene Hackman and Gene Wilder co-star, but are a bit miscast.

But the final scene is epic, and a big inspiration for the Tarantino's et all of today.






very nice movie, both suspenseful and funny at times. Great cast as well
and not so dated as the above.
imdb quotes it as "the best Hitchcock film Hitchcock never made."

Mixed bag. Jackman acts the shit out of this and his arc is genuinely moving. I just can't with the constant self-congratulatory meta-humor. A few jokes here and there landed with me, though. And it was nice to see it pay tribute to some of protagonists of yore. The problem with the abundance of 4th wall breaking is at some point it becomes exhausting and it seems less like its own story and more a pitch from Marvel/Disney to its potential fans. "This is what you really want to see, isn't it? Isn't it awesome how ironic and self-deprecating we are?". Feels very circle-jerky at times. I don't know, Deadpool never really did it for me. This third installment has its perks though. And it certainly looks much better than the first one - a bump in the budget section will do that for you.

hahaha! that's a form of expression i can understand clearly

anyway right now i'm just passing by, so i wanted to say quickly, without getting back into thesis mode: so you don't buy žižek's argument here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kHN8_Zbf3g

I think he is way up his own ass-essment here (Hey, even the big ones get it wrong from time to time). They've been flirting with cheap controversy for the big bucks for decades now. Not worth waxing poetically over. Also just passing-by, so I'm not gonna go into the many other reasons they suck, but there are plenty and some quite severe.

haaaahaaahaaa! chomsky hates him and says he just plays word games basically. i find the word games entertaining though. just yeah not super relevant. it does put a certain kind of cosplay under a better light though

ive never cared much about rammstein but the comedy aspect of it is okay. the only thing i know is "du hast" which is um funny?

A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE (JOHN CASSAVETES, 1974)



i love this movie so much. it's only the second or third time i've seen it. actually third. gena rowlands is so amazing in it! and the story gets better with every rewatch

i love you criterion

The Ladykillers (1955)

Go (1999)

Today I learned that I wasn't getting a job that I'd interviewed a couple times for and feel like I could have been great at. So I cooed by getting drunk and watching Kill Bill - I love that Tarantino operates purely on wish fulfilment for his teenage self, he's an obnoxious little freak and it's so great.

That he certainly is. A bit too obnoxious for my liking, but that's a tangent. Hey, whatever helps you cope - movies do it for me too. It's nice to just get lost in a piece of entertainment that has nothing to do with the bullshit out there. I'd wager Tarantino really scratches that escapist wish-fulfillment itch for a lot of people. I can see that.


PS: They often don't necessarily take people who'd be great at the job. It's all a connection/appearance/circumstantial thing. It's on how well you can bullshit your way through a couple of bullshit questions. Many places are looking for someone who can be as dishonest as it gets whilst giving off the appearance of being perfectly honest. Wanting to say: Don't take it too personal/too hard.

Deck the Halls from 2006, purely for a movie podcast I subscribe to.

unreal footage of volcano eruptions and flowing streams of lava. Shot by the French couple Krafft, that lived a life as volcano hunters, until they passed away because they stood too close to a huge eruption of steam.
the voice-over (huge German accent) and the music are sometimes distracting. But the images are incredible, watch the trailer here.

A Christmas Carol 1938