MovieChat Forums > christomacin > Replies
christomacin's Replies
Is it possible that Hitchcock had something like that in mind, is the question. What I think he had or didn't had in mind doesn't matter. The question still stands, because I do think he was metaphorically talking about something, but I could be completely wrong about what. He was religious, did drop references to "the end of the world ", and did make a film about the Cuban Missile Crisis, so it's not completely out of left field to at least ponder though, is it? I do think The Birds is at least metaphorical in a general religious sense, maybe not the specific Cold War context.
I fear AI isn't saving cinema, or any art form. If AI truly does become sentient it will likely have an agenda of its own so non-human and divorced from reality that it will make the "woke period" seem like a golden age in comparison. I mean, aren't we basically acknowledging that humanity is no longer capable (for whatever reason) of producing its own art, something we've likely been doing before we even had language? What makes you think AI won't be even more woke, if it deems these trends inevitable for the "progress of mankind" as it understands it? Even before AI, we've been moving away from using humans, for instance deaging, completely CGI characters (even dead ones), and more. At some point (with the help of CGI) actors will not used at all and be completely unreal from start to finish. And that's just actors. ALL aspects of creativity will be ceded to AI, as we are too afraid of offending anyone and perhaps lose the ability or even the will to create. Art and culture of any depth has hardly been a huge priority of most average people even before. Sure, we'll get lots of new Bruce Lee and James Dean movies to "correct" the mistakes of history, more Mozart, more Shakespeare, etc, but it'll all be a lie, an even bigger, dehumanizing lie than anything humans are currently making.
Cinema may go the way of opera, theater, and poetry... into the dustbin of history (except for MAYBE an ever shrinking urban elite).
If "United Country" is what was meant, why not just say it in English? Only someone trying to make a connection with Nazi Germany would use German instead of English.
Color me a bit suspicious of these claims as well. As a matter of fact, the Victor Salva story got revived about the same time it became clear Megalopololis was actually going to happen. In any case, if all Coppola did was bestow some sloppy Italian show biz kisses in an overabundance of enthusiasm I'm not all that concerned. Maybe not a good idea in today's climate... but not "SA" either. The Marijuana smoking... honestly couldn't care less. There were some other claims he "forced" presumably female cast members to sit on his lap while filming a night club scene. I haven't seen the film yet (would like to), and can't state what state of dress (or undress) they might have been in during that scene, or how aggressive he might have been if it actually happened. That would be worse than a kiss, I reckon (depending on just how sloppy or toungey), but again, the source is one magazine article so far.
Perhaps, although the on-set stuff hasn't yet been corroborated by any on-set cast member accounts- the claims were actually made in a magazine article. It's unclear the frequency and severity, even if true. His support of Salva is uncomfortable and shows bad judgment, and Salva was convicted after all.
The story is based on an incident in Roman history called the Catalinarian Conspiracy. I guess they had conspiracy theories back then too.
Coppola himself has been in the hot seat recently for his (alleged) pot-smoking and (alleged) sexual harassment on the set of Megalopololis, plus his support for former associate Victor Salva, a convicted sex offender.
2 hours, 18 minutes...
Oh, I apologize. I misread your intent. You could either watch them in release order or not. If you watch them out of order start with Part Two, watch Part One as a prologue. Thrre and for are non-essential, in my view. The fourth one was better than three...but no Mel Gibson.
You have to remember the first Mad Max was a very low budget film with strong exploitation roots (the biker film, post-apocalyptic schlock, etc), so they started off small. The world of Mad Max wasn't fully fornmed yet. In fact, it originally wasn't supposed to be a sci-fi film at all. The original idea was that it would be "a documentary. One day George Miller had been hearing about a radio journalist that would follow around into places of car accidents to interview people about them." That's why the first one has a relatively realistic feel, and highway patrol officers are part of it.
He begins to become as feral as the prey he hunts, but part two shows there are lines he won't cross, and he often takes a good beating for his troubles. He's an antihero. I mean sure, he is ruthless in his pursuit of revenge for the deaths of his friend "the Goose" and his family, but he's doing it for understandable reasons against the ones that did him harm and has a certain code he still lives by.
Short answer: yes, you should a watch at least watch part two, one of the best genre films of the 80s.
Long answer: I mean, you could read the plot synopsis, but about being a highway patrolman - Max is a highway patrolman living in a post-apocalyptic Australia, so he and his fellow officers are tasked with doing battle- often to the death - with marauding road gangs which are becoming more and prevalent and out of control with each passing day as society gradually collapses. In part one, we see Max and his other coworkers responding to violent road accidents and assaults caused by these gangs. We don't see them writing out any tickets because things are so bad they have little time for minor offenses. By part two, society has already collapsed, so all Max has connecting him to his past life is V8 and some dim memories of his family and occupation.
For some reason you seem determined to dislike these films without having seen them..But you're missing out. The Road Warrior at the very least you should give a shot. Mad Max you can then watch to get the back story if you're so inclined.
Bad luck and typecasting. He was the star of the stage production of Amadeus. If he had starred in the film version of Amadeus (Best Picture winner) his whole career would've been very different. The director Milos Forman flat out refused to consider him, saying (according to Hamill) "How can you play Mozart, you're Luke Skywalker?".
He appears a bit mad (insane), but is "an honorable man" if you can win his respect. So, he's not really insane, more psychologically damaged for obvious reasons l.
The Road Warrior is a masterpiece of 80s action cinema, but also a very interesting updating of Western movie tropes to a post-apocalyptic of Australian future. Everything about the film is satisfying, and Miller reaches Sergio Leone level mastery of storytelling.
Mad Max is an above average Ozploitation biker/post-apocalyptic film. It is a lot cruder and less well-placed film than Road Warrior, but is also interesting in its use of Western tropes, in this case the Revenge Western. If you can get passed the exploitation aspects and moderate pace it's still an amazing film for a first time director.
Beyond Thunderdome starts off well, but veers off course with the Island of Lost Children, and the finale feels like a parody of the classic tanker chase (this time a train and lots of feral kids to protect instead of just one) from the Road Warrior. A disappointment with some good scenes, especially in the first half.
Fury Road brings back the austere, laconic tone of the Road Warrior (and an R rating), which is welcome, but somewhat misses the master storytelling of Road Warrior, relying exclusively on one long extended chase scene with not enough humor, or memorable dialog or characters.
In the first movie, Max is a highway patrolman with a reputation for being so aggressive in pursuit of suspects that it borders on being unhinged. His willingness to play chicken with a suspect in an oncoming car in the opening chase shows this. However, he still has a job and family to keep him from going off the deep end. In the second film, after losing his wife and son to a gang at the end of part one, he quits the police force and heads out into the outback in his V8 police cruiser. The car is the only thing still tying his former life. When we see him again in part two he is living a feral, nomadic existence as a scavenger. Now that he has nothing to lose he is even more unhinged than before. His gradual return to being a hero again is what makes the second Max film (The Road Warrior) the best in the series.
Trump: "I prefer bitten-in-half people who don't scream like little girls."
Would calling them "fish" be deemed a racial slur?
Seriously though, which one is the Connery of Flipper, and which the Lazenby?
"The biggest problem with the PT was that the rise and fall of Golden Boy Anakin Skywalker should have been far more affecting, moving, and artfully handled, and it was meandering and strange."
I agree with this. I feel the films failed on a basic character and story level. This is why I also feel each of the prequel films got successively worse, not better. Contrary to the popular wisdom, Phantom Menace I find the least bad of the three, mainly because I wasn't really all that interested in Anakin and his stupid whiny problems, I just liked the world and the Jedi battles. Once it was clear what shape the story was taking and the arc Lucas was putting Anakin on, the less interested and tiresome the films become... for me.
" this guy banging a Lolita in the 70s while they have the Big Nest of paedos in Hollywood right now"
These two things are related, surely.