The Movie (and TV show) Watching Thread

[tmthforu94]

I watched "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" last week and really enjoyed it. It was nominated for a couple Oscars last year and I think it won a few, that is when it first came on my radar. Finally bought it off Amazon - good storyline, was very intense.

[John Dule]

I watched "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" last week and really enjoyed it. It was nominated for a couple Oscars last year and I think it won a few, that is when it first came on my radar. Finally bought it off Amazon - good storyline, was very intense.

Have you seen In Bruges? Same director, and I'd say it's definitely his best film.

[President Johnson]

The Social Network is just as good as I remember it. Sorkin's dialogue is extremely fast, and I think with a lesser director the movie might not have worked-- but David Fincher truly is a master of his craft.

- Das Leben der Anderen ("The lives of the others", German film)

One of my favorite films. F**k commies.

Yeah, it's a great film. Surprised it's much known outside Europe. I remember watching it the first time in school, shortly after release in 2006.

[tmthforu94]

I watched "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" last week and really enjoyed it. It was nominated for a couple Oscars last year and I think it won a few, that is when it first came on my radar. Finally bought it off Amazon - good storyline, was very intense.

Have you seen In Bruges? Same director, and I'd say it's definitely his best film.

No I haven’t, but I’ll look it up. Thanks for the recommendation!

[Santander]

I watched "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" last week and really enjoyed it. It was nominated for a couple Oscars last year and I think it won a few, that is when it first came on my radar. Finally bought it off Amazon - good storyline, was very intense.

Have you seen In Bruges? Same director, and I'd say it's definitely his best film.

Great movie. Gets better the second time. Girl is cute, too.

[John Dule]

When I take a break from my thesis I'll probably rewatch The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, which became my actual favorite movie a few years ago.

This is my favorite movie as well! I'm rewatching it right now (in installments; the rest of the family was too tired to finish it in one sitting tonight). I swear, I could watch this thing every day and it wouldn't get old. Every time a new scene starts, I get excited for it. We stopped it right after Tuco meets his brother, which I think is one of the best parts of the film.

I just hope that someday someone figures out how to deepfake the Italian actors' lips so it looks like they're actually saying their dialogue. If they manage to do that it'll be perfect.

[brucejoel99]

Gran Torino (2008)
National Treasure (2004)
National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets (2007)
The Big Short (2015)
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Die Hard (1988)
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
The Judge (2014)
Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990)

EDIT: forgot Rise of Skywalker re-watch

[John Dule]

Gran Torino (2008)
National Treasure (2004)
National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets (2007)
The Big Short (2015)
Die Hard (1988)
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
The Judge (2014)
Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990)

This is a perfect balance of five films I love, five I hate, and one I'm indifferent to.

[brucejoel99]

Gran Torino (2008)
National Treasure (2004)
National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets (2007)
The Big Short (2015)
Die Hard (1988)
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
The Judge (2014)
Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990)

This is a perfect balance of five films I love, five I hate, and one I'm indifferent to.

[Lumine]

When I take a break from my thesis I'll probably rewatch The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, which became my actual favorite movie a few years ago.

This is my favorite movie as well! I'm rewatching it right now (in installments; the rest of the family was too tired to finish it in one sitting tonight). I swear, I could watch this thing every day and it wouldn't get old. Every time a new scene starts, I get excited for it. We stopped it right after Tuco meets his brother, which I think is one of the best parts of the film.

I just hope that someday someone figures out how to deepfake the Italian actors' lips so it looks like they're actually saying their dialogue. If they manage to do that it'll be perfect.

Nice! Yeah, there's just something about certain movies which, despite being long, seem to go incredibly fast (not a comparison, but I've noticed this too in other 70's films like The Godfather or even The Towering Inferno). It just doesn't drag at all, which is very impressive, and I've pretty much lost track of how many times I've rewatched it with it still being a meaningful experience.

That one is certainly one of the best moments, probably one of the most emotional. Tuco is just amazing to watch in pretty much every sense, he completely steals the film. Oddly enough I don't mind the terrible dubbing that much, even though it should bother the hell out of me.

[Progressive Pessimist]

'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' is my absolute favorite Western and one of my favorite movies ever. Westerns are actually probably my least favorite genre, so that says a lot!

Anyway, as for what I actually wanted to post about, I finally watched 'Joker' yesterday night. I'm not going to please many people by saying this but it left me feeling very conflicted. I am somewhere in between those who love it and those who despise it.

I guess I'm going to start putting my notoriously long-winded film thoughts here now by the way.

I'm not sure where to even begin. I guess I'll have to start with Joaquin Phoenix. He really was as fantastic as he has been praised as being, I think he deserved his Oscar. I was always worried that he would be channeling Heath Ledger too much, but it's a much different kind of Joker. That makes it an impossible comparison though. I find it hard to compare any of the Jokers we've had on film since they are all so different, let alone be able to rank them (with the obvious exception of Jared Leto, of course, who is easily the worst and probably will always be the worst Joker). Phoenix carries a lot of this movie, and even though I've seen him play many eccentric characters, this one stands out.

As for the story, it does very obviously borrow from 'Taxi Driver' and 'The King of Comedy' but I was fine with it. It actually worked for me, and the elements that resembled those films were what worked the best in my view. Meanwhile though, I think the film was actually overstuffed. The subplot with Arthur's imaginary relationship with his neighbor felt completely unnecessary to me, we already had moments that displayed his delusional tendencies, what was the point of it? Was it just something else for life to dump on him with? Was it just a way to cast another woman in this mostly male populated film? Speaking of which, there were way too many things adding up to push him over the edge and make him sympathetic, it got pretty ridiculous at a certain point and also felt slightly manipulative. Everything within a short amount of time goes wrong for him, when a few of those things could have been removed and still make his turn to insanity understandable. Furthermore, the fact that everything that happens to him is beyond his control felt really contrived to me. I think that's the real aspect that made critics who screened it early fear how it might influence internet edge-lords. The mentality of people being turned to extreme means due to feeling helpless in the face of adverse effects beyond their control is the type of thing that appeals to alt-righters and other pockets of the stereotypical white twenty-something demographics who commit a mass shooting. Thankfully though, it doesn't appear that any were influenced by this move, so perhaps the point is moot. I'm just saying that it wasn't so irrational for early perceptions to come away with that concern.

Delving further into something else that bothered me, as far as the character and story is concerned, I also thought the Thomas Wayne subplot was unnecessary. I think a reference to the Waynes' influence in Gotham City at the time was unavoidable, but I don't think it was necessary to make him such a large part of the story and yet another event to lead to Arthur snapping. Arthur could still have learned that he was adopted and abused as a child, and feel betrayed by his mother, without it being so closely linked to Thomas Wayne. This may be just one of a nearly infinite array of interpretations that can be done with the Joker, but we've already the Joker being directly linked to Bruce Wayne in the original Tim Burton 1989 'Batman,' it didn't feel very unique to have Arthur have some involvement in the death of Bruce's parents. Bruce Wayne, at the simplest, can simply oppose the Joker due to ideological reasons, that's always been the real bedrock of their rivalry. Can I also say that I have seen the Waynes' deaths enough, I know what happens! You don't have to keep doing it! Also the age disparity between Arthur and Bruce doesn't make it seem like they would ever become archenemies. Joaquin Phoenix is 43, and Bruce Wayne was eight, I think. But even if I were to buy that Arthur is slightly younger Phoenix, he wouldn't pass for anything younger than 38 maybe. So a thirty year difference still doesn't seem right. A vengeful Bruce Wayne in peak physical condition and with all the attributes he has (physicality, knowledge, wealth, etc.) would make mincemeat of this Joker pretty easily. I don't think Bruce Wayne or the death of Bruce's parents needed to be in the movie at all. Maybe throw in a reference on a news  paper or something, or already make this film take place with an adult Bruce Wayne, and I would have bought it more. I wish I could separate this Joker from Batman, but the movie included the Dark Knight in some form, so I just couldn't let it go.

I also didn't see the link between Arthur's traumas and him becoming a criminal mastermind. I know that this an interpretation of a Joker origin story, but one thing that is universal to every Joker adaptation is that he is a criminal genius. If he isn't, why is he an equal to Bruce Wayne in terms of influence, and his adversary? He certainly became a sociopath in this movie, but how did anything he did in the movie lead to him becoming so powerful in the Gotham underworld? Additionally, how can he become an infamous criminal if he becomes a martyr for the numerous numbers of Gotham's disillusioned underclass as this movie portrayed? And yet again, that's another subplot of the film that felt unnecessary to me. It just felt like a convoluted way just to lead to the death of the Waynes. I didn't even buy that the death of a bunch of rando yuppies on a subway would even lead to a major revolution like it did in Gotham City, even in spite of the massive inequalities that were present. In real-life most people would probably say "that's terrible" or "oh well" and move on with their lives. I know that this is a comic book movie, but it seems to pride itself on its realism, so I couldn't help but be bothered by that too.

Of course, there is the interpretation of the film that I stumbled upon after watching it where some believe that Arthur was an unreliable narrator and that the entire movie was one of his delusions being presented to his doctor at the end of the movie. That immediately negated any of my problems with the film..until I thought about it more, and the death of the Waynes came back to mind. How would Arthur have known about that as it was presented in the film? And why would he want to include it in his delusional fantasy? Wouldn't he be the one killing them if this was his id creating a fantasy for him? There is no other way to look at it as Arthur was present in just about every scene of the film, I think, other than that moment. So, you know what? I don't buy that interpretation. I'm sorry, my criticisms still remain.

Oh also, small nitpick, there was a real missed opportunity for them not to use 'Tears of a Clown' by Smokey Robinson and The Miracles in the film. They used just about every other clown related song. I don't see why they couldn't have licensed it. I did like the score though, those licensed songs almost weren't even necessary.

So overall I think I would have liked this movie more if 1. it wasn't so over-hyped for me. and 2. if it was just a tad bit simpler and not as long. If it wasn't for Phoenix and his commanding, compelling performance it's possible that I would have hated this movie, as some do. I definitely won't be watching it ever again, though I don't regretting seeing it at all either. Part of that over-hype was also how "smart" people thought this film was in commenting on mental illness and society's inequities. I personally don't think the movie was making an effort to provide commentary on those issue, they were just used as a backdrop to Arthur's transformation into the Joker, as I saw it. And if it was attempting a message in actuality I think it failed somewhat because it portrays the mentally ill as prone to violence and having a vengeful nature. It does a disservice to the mentally ill who in reality are more likely to be victims of violence and hurt themselves before others. And the income inequality message didn't say anything better or newer than any other property. Need I remind you that 'Parasite' came out around the same time and discussed the issues of economic disparity in a far more sophisticated way.

Despite saying that, I should probably praise the direction, it was pretty good, especially when it's from a director who is mostly known for broad comedies. Visually though, Gotham just looked like 1980's New York City to me, I would have preferred just a bit more visual flair with how the city looks. I already saw a conventional looking Gotham City in the Nolan films. I should also say that, I didn't even find how "dark" it was that appealing either. Sure, there's some swearing and violent deaths, but it's still few and far between. It really wasn't as hard to watch as it was built up to be by some. I actually think they could have pushed their R-rating more. As it is though, I do like it more than the actual Scorcese film from last year. It was at least an interesting and unique interpretation of a classic villain. I welcome more character-driven comic book films like this that follow an antagonist and why they went bad, especially if they are R-rated, and even if they ape off of classic movies done in a more unconventional way. I'm fine with that. So this film being made was an overall good thing for that reason alone. I am also interested in seeing Phoenix reprise his role here in a sequel (which they will make at some point, let's face it. This film is the most profitable comic book movie, and R-rated movie, ever) that maybe examines his rise to power in Gotham's criminal underground more. In regards to my criticisms of them not showing much of that in this film, it could be that this is the plan maybe? Hell, they can still take inspiration from Scorcese movies like 'Goodfellas' or 'The Departed.' Even if we never get to see him face Batman in this standalone series, that still actually sounds awesome to me! Villains are often the most interesting aspects of stories to me anyway. Can we finally get that solo Magneto movie in this vein?

Next time I will probably be talking about 'Uncut Gems' when it comes out on Netflix later this week. So look forward to that...if you care.

[T'Chenka]

The subplot with Arthur's imaginary relationship with his neighbor felt completely unnecessary to me, we already had moments that displayed his delusional tendencies, what was the point of it? Was it just something else for life to dump on him with?

Yes but also I think that one is more about making the audience realize what's really going on with Arthur, with plot and character considerations secondary to that.

Delving further into something else that bothered me, as far as the character and story is concerned, I also thought the Thomas Wayne subplot was unnecessary. I think a reference to the Waynes' influence in Gotham City at the time was unavoidable, but I don't think it was necessary to make him such a large part of the story and yet another event to lead to Arthur snapping. Arthur could still have learned that he was adopted and abused as a child, and feel betrayed by his mother, without it being so closely linked to Thomas Wayne.

Arthur clearly needs a father figure, see the first hallucination scene with Murray / DeNiro. The film gives him a second more real father, only for that father to totally reject him, and then at the end Murray rejects him too ("call the police"). Arthur loves his mom, but his love for Franklin and Thomas as fathers is idealized and romanticized. Not only was he being rejected / dumped by HIS fathers, he was being dumped by really good loving caring fathers (in Arthur's mind), which is a much bigger loss. It's the same as what happened with the neighbour. If she rejected him, okay sure it hurts. If she was in love with him and they were happy and then suddenly it never existed, he feels lile he lost a lot more, whether or not he ever REALLY had it being irrelevant.

Can I also say that I have seen the Waynes' deaths enough, I know what happens! You don't have to keep doing it!

If there's one thing comic book movie fans love, it's when the more grounded serious films find ways to connect to the larger Marvel / DC universe without negatively affecting the film itself or negatively affecting the film as a stand-alone film. This was a rather nice youch and many of the fan-boys LOVE that they added this in.

Next time I will probably be talking about 'Uncut Gems' when it comes out on Netflix later this week. So look forward to that...if you care.

Please do. I thought it was a very good film and I'd love to hear your thoughts, especially on the directing and cinematography in particular.

[T'Chenka]

Prisoners (2013)
Directed by Denis Villeneuve

Getting John Dule vibes from Hugh Jackman. What a great underrated under-seen film. The Academy should be disgusted with themselves for not nominating Jackman for actor / supporting actor here. There's NO way he doesn't get that nomination in a just world. Jake Gyllenhaal is great, Paul Dano is overshadowed but also incredible.

I just can't recommend this film enough. 9/10 easily, I'd have to think but maybe 9.5/10 or 10/10.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The subplot with Arthur's imaginary relationship with his neighbor felt completely unnecessary to me, we already had moments that displayed his delusional tendencies, what was the point of it? Was it just something else for life to dump on him with?

Yes but also I think that one is more about making the audience realize what's really going on with Arthur, with plot and character considerations secondary to that.

Delving further into something else that bothered me, as far as the character and story is concerned, I also thought the Thomas Wayne subplot was unnecessary. I think a reference to the Waynes' influence in Gotham City at the time was unavoidable, but I don't think it was necessary to make him such a large part of the story and yet another event to lead to Arthur snapping. Arthur could still have learned that he was adopted and abused as a child, and feel betrayed by his mother, without it being so closely linked to Thomas Wayne.

Arthur clearly needs a father figure, see the first hallucination scene with Murray / DeNiro. The film gives him a second more real father, only for that father to totally reject him, and then at the end Murray rejects him too ("call the police"). Arthur loves his mom, but his love for Franklin and Thomas as fathers is idealized and romanticized. Not only was he being rejected / dumped by HIS fathers, he was being dumped by really good loving caring fathers (in Arthur's mind), which is a much bigger loss. It's the same as what happened with the neighbour. If she rejected him, okay sure it hurts. If she was in love with him and they were happy and then suddenly it never existed, he feels lile he lost a lot more, whether or not he ever REALLY had it being irrelevant.

Can I also say that I have seen the Waynes' deaths enough, I know what happens! You don't have to keep doing it!

If there's one thing comic book movie fans love, it's when the more grounded serious films find ways to connect to the larger Marvel / DC universe without negatively affecting the film itself or negatively affecting the film as a stand-alone film. This was a rather nice youch and many of the fan-boys LOVE that they added this in.

Next time I will probably be talking about 'Uncut Gems' when it comes out on Netflix later this week. So look forward to that...if you care.

Please do. I thought it was a very good film and I'd love to hear your thoughts, especially on the directing and cinematography in particular.

I see your point with Thomas Wayne, I got what they were going for. I just think it was way too close of a connection to Batman, especially when we may never see this Joker ever get involved with opposing Batman (as far as I know, this film is still standalone even in spite of the Batman film franchise being rebooted with Robert Pattinson). That same story-line could have occurred with anyone else in the place of Wayne as that father figure and still had the same effect and purpose. That first fantasy of Arthur with Murray was enough for me to make the point of his want for a healthy father-son relationship and to detail his delusions. That goes for the death of the Waynes too. Like I said, it could have occurred on the news or in a newspaper or something. I have nothing against them addressing it, but it's kind of a pet peeve of mine to have seen it so much. I get that the fans love to see it, it's subjective. But with my subjectivity, I didn't like it.

Prisoners (2013)
Directed by Denis Villeneuve

Getting John Dule vibes from Hugh Jackman. What a great underrated under-seen film. The Academy should be disgusted with themselves for not nominating Jackman for actor / supporting actor here. There's NO way he doesn't get that nomination in a just world. Jake Gyllenhaal is great, Paul Dano is overshadowed but also incredible.

I just can't recommend this film enough. 9/10 easily, I'd have to think but maybe 9.5/10 or 10/10.

I really liked this movie too, but I just wanted a better motivation out of the antagonist when they are revealed. I just couldn't get past how vague it is.

[Lumine]

Gave Reign of Terror/The Black Book (1949) a rewatch last night. What a brilliant film, particularly in light of the limited budget. The political undertones are a bit too obvious and it's not very accurate (characterizing Barras and Tallien as "honest men" still has me laughing), but a fun and brilliantly filmed French Revolution thriller nonetheless.

It also contains a magnificent depiction of Fouché (Arnold Moss), which is a joy to watch:

[Meclazine for Israel]

Some of the films I have watched over the last fortnight. My girlfriend and I watched a couple, but she would not stomach Hagazussa, so I wont put that in front of her eyes.

A Cure for Wellness (2016)

This is a story of a finance executive who goes to Switzerland to track down the owner of a company who his corporate board needs back in the USA in order to complete the merger of two companies.

Hagazussa (2017)



This is an in-depth and intense film concerning the exploits of a 15th century mother and daughter living in a German forest. Needs subtitles.

In Fabric (2018)



This is a truly classic film about a 1980's department story selling women's clothing including dresses, shoes and the like.

The Other Lamb (2019)



A film about a young woman living in a cult.

[T'Chenka]

The Prince Of Egypt - good not great
Only You - good not great
The Greatest Showman - mediocre but entertaining
Anaconda - bad not terrible but entertaining

[John Dule]

Some more films I've been watching:

Charade: Great mystery/thriller with Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant. The plot twists are genuinely unpredictable, and even when you think you've gotten the story straightened out at the end it presents you with one last genius reversal of your expectations. This movie is a masterclass on how to write witty, funny dialogue without resorting to cheap pop culture references or self-congratulatory humor. As a result, it has aged like a fine wine. I think it might belong on my 100 favorite films list. I do wish I could find a copy with decent sound and video quality, though.

The Mule: Clint Eastwood's latest vehicle, and sadly far from his best (his best, incidentally, was The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, which I also watched last week). This film's premise-- an elderly man becoming a driver for the Mexican drug cartel-- is loaded with potential, so it was a real shame to see how poor the execution was. Too much time is devoted to Eastwood's family, and their treacly, sloppily written dialogue is saturated with Hollywood cliches. The movie has a few great scenes, all of which are accessible on YouTube. I would not recommend it.

Patton: A fantastic character study, in a way that war films seldom are. I watched this for Memorial Day, and despite a handful of overlong battle sequences (I suppose they had to get the bang for their budget on this one), it is as entertaining as the first time I watched it. George C Scott gives a tremendously layered performance, portraying a man forced to confine his enormous personality to an intolerably small role in history. His ramblings on honor, military history, and reincarnation are poetic (in a brutal, uncomfortable sort of way). The film is just critical enough of Patton to make the audience wonder about the value of such men in the modern world-- do we still need Alexanders, Caesars, or William the Conquerors today? If not, are we free to judge them based on the morality of today, or do we have no right to criticize those who lived in much harsher times than we do? This movie always makes me think, and for that, I think it ranks among the greatest war films of all time.

Rear Window: One of Hitchcock's best films. I daresay, however, that after seeing Charade this movie feels a tad short on plot. After a certain point, you come to realize that there will be no twists or turns in this one, and it loses something for it. The set also looks like Sesame Street. Still, Jimmy Stewart is one of my all-time favorite actors and he sells this role completely. The other neighbors are also interesting little side characters, and even if they don't figure into the plot they're still fun to watch. Altogether I still like the film, but this rewatch has me a little let down (probably because I remembered loving it so much). Perhaps Dial M for Murder is Hitchcock's true best.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

So far, i have seen in the last five days:
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Captain America: Winter Solider
Captain America: Civil War
Ant-man
Dr. Strange
Thirteen

5 marvel movies, and Thirteen which has excellent acting performances, and I knew I was going to like it because of the cutting scenes, which I suffer from as well.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

- Das Leben der Anderen ("The lives of the others", German film)

One of my favorite films. F**k commies.

I like Das Leben der Anderen as well. And while I despise the East-German regime, i would call myself a communist, although a democratic or libertarian one. F**k commies is just too general. Communism is a broad ideology with many sub-ideologies. You can tell to  off marxist-leninists, but f**k commies is too general.

FWIW the Romanian movie 4 Luni, 3 Saptamâni si 2 Zile is a good film, critical of pro-lifers and Ceaucescu. I truly like or appreciate those movies, despite being a communist. Maybe i'm technically not a communist, but a democratic socialist, but i'm not that concerned about labels.

[John Dule]

- Das Leben der Anderen ("The lives of the others", German film)

One of my favorite films. F**k commies.

I like Das Leben der Anderen as well. And while I despise the East-German regime, i would call myself a communist, although a democratic or libertarian one. F**k commies is just too general. Communism is a broad ideology with many sub-ideologies. You can tell to  off marxist-leninists, but f**k commies is too general.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Some more films I've been watching:

Charade: Great mystery/thriller with Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant. The plot twists are genuinely unpredictable, and even when you think you've gotten the story straightened out at the end it presents you with one last genius reversal of your expectations. This movie is a masterclass on how to write witty, funny dialogue without resorting to cheap pop culture references or self-congratulatory humor. As a result, it has aged like a fine wine. I think it might belong on my 100 favorite films list. I do wish I could find a copy with decent sound and video quality, though.

"Charade" is absolutely charming, and I watched it relatively recently (within the last year). Although it seems to be listed as a "romantic comedy", I remembered it from my childhood as a straight-up "spy" film with, as you said, some ingenious twists.

Patton: A fantastic character study, in a way that war films seldom are. I watched this for Memorial Day, and despite a handful of overlong battle sequences (I suppose they had to get the bang for their budget on this one), it is as entertaining as the first time I watched it. George C Scott gives a tremendously layered performance, portraying a man forced to confine his enormous personality to an intolerably small role in history. His ramblings on honor, military history, and reincarnation are poetic (in a brutal, uncomfortable sort of way). The film is just critical enough of Patton to make the audience wonder about the value of such men in the modern world-- do we still need Alexanders, Caesars, or William the Conquerors today? If not, are we free to judge them based on the morality of today, or do we have no right to criticize those who lived in much harsher times than we do? This movie always makes me think, and for that, I think it ranks among the greatest war films of all time.

This definitely should go on my rewatch list, haven't seen it in years. My family got it on that classic two-VHS set you find at flea markets.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Rear Window: One of Hitchcock's best films. I daresay, however, that after seeing Charade this movie feels a tad short on plot. After a certain point, you come to realize that there will be no twists or turns in this one, and it loses something for it. The set also looks like Sesame Street. Still, Jimmy Stewart is one of my all-time favorite actors and he sells this role completely. The other neighbors are also interesting little side characters, and even if they don't figure into the plot they're still fun to watch. Altogether I still like the film, but this rewatch has me a little let down (probably because I remembered loving it so much). Perhaps Dial M for Murder is Hitchcock's true best.

This is one of my favorite Hitchcocks.  A trivia item about this movie: the songwriter who lived across the courtyard was played by Ross Bagdasarian, who was better known as a singer/songwriter under the name David Seville.  He did the novelty hit "Witch Doctor" and the various Chipmunks songs.

Reading your posts in this thread makes me think you'd like Hopscotch, with Walter Matthau and Glenda Jackson.  Have you ever seen it?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

- Das Leben der Anderen ("The lives of the others", German film)

One of my favorite films. F**k commies.

I like Das Leben der Anderen as well. And while I despise the East-German regime, i would call myself a communist, although a democratic or libertarian one. F**k commies is just too general. Communism is a broad ideology with many sub-ideologies. You can tell to  off marxist-leninists, but f**k commies is too general.

I know i'm complex but

democratic socialism / libertarian socialism is an ideology that exists
I don't like Joe Biden at all, but I prefer him over Trump. Priority is getting Trump out of office. Supporting Trump in 2016 was a mistake.

But good to see that i clearly triggered you. Communism as an ideology is as broad as capitalism is. It has many sub-ideologies, and not all of them are bad. And clearly you think so as well, because you preferred Bernie Sanders in the primary who defended the Castro regime in Cuba, and has a history of defending communism in the past. I'm a Bernie Sanders-style democratic socialist who was misguided in 2016 and led by feelings of wrath in 2016, and the Democratic Party is entirely at fault there.

Also... the political compass is way too simplified, so I like not having a decent position on it, because the political compass makes no sense.

I'm a democratic socialist who can genuinely like a movie like Das Leben der Anderen, showing that i'm able to criticize my own side as well. Maybe you should respect that, instead of going full attack.

[John Dule]

I know i'm complex but

democratic socialism / libertarian socialism is an ideology that exists
I don't like Joe Biden at all, but I prefer him over Trump. Priority is getting Trump out of office. Supporting Trump in 2016 was a mistake.

But good to see that i clearly triggered you. Communism as an ideology is as broad as capitalism is. It has many sub-ideologies, and not all of them are bad. And clearly you think so as well, because you preferred Bernie Sanders in the primary who defended the Castro regime in Cuba, and has a history of defending communism in the past. I'm a Bernie Sanders-style democratic socialist who was misguided in 2016 and led by feelings of wrath in 2016, and the Democratic Party is entirely at fault there.

Also... the political compass is way too simplified, so I like not having a decent position on it, because the political compass makes no sense.

I'm a democratic socialist who can genuinely like a movie like Das Leben der Anderen, showing that i'm able to criticize my own side as well. Maybe you should respect that, instead of going full attack.

Please understand, I'm not attacking you. I just cannot pass up a memeable moment.