Minio's Ramblings on Cinema

If people are focused on Fulcis gore, he has himself to blame. I would say nightmare like quality is more accurate, as his films invoke the helplessness one feels while in a nightmare. I like some of his films, don’t love them however. I’ve yet to see a masterpiece from him yet. He just doesn’t work for me.

I’d say Japan, Italy and France were all making far more interesting films than the US and Hong Kong. That’s not to say they didn’t make excellent films, but during that period on both industries were more concerned with Box Office numbers.

Heck, if we’re being honest, even Japan, France and Italy were caught in that trap. It just happened that they cared more about the art then others.

Yeah Fulci is an acquired taste. Took me two movies to get him. It'd take a normie 10 movies. Hihihi.

Meh. I prefer Bava and Argento.

I just watched a Japanese film which Minio hasn't seen nor watchlisted. I'm impressed.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

What were the Fulci films you watched by the way?

Poor bait, and yes, me not having watched/watchlisted a hentai film with midgets indulging in cub zoophilia is a good thing. Seriously, stop acting like I've seen every single film in existence. I'm not mark f.

Mario Bava, I presume? Thoughts on Lamberto Bava? His debut is pretty good.

Luca il contrabbandiere [The Smuggler] (1980)
Gatto nero [The Black Cat] (1981)
Voci dal profondo [Voices From Beyond] (1991)
Ænigma [Aenigma] (1987)
I guerrieri dell'anno 2072 [New Gladiators] (1984)
Demonia (1990)

For what it's worth, it's actually this:

https://letterboxd.com/film/yama-attack-to-attack/

Yes, Mario. I forgot about Lamberto. Not much of a fan of Lamberto, but I’ve only seen Demons and Demons 2 and both were ok. I need to see Macabre and A Blade in the Dark yet.
I prefer Lenzi (slightly) and Martino

The two first Demons films are just OK. Macabre is very good. It's more like a proper classy movie but full of exploitation touches and cool Italian horror themes. Sort of like De Palma doing an Italian psychological thriller. A Blade in the Dark is at the level of the second Demons film, which means okayish but far from good.

Is Now a Good Time? (2024) - 1/10 | 🚮 | Unacceptable



I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be a comedy because not only wasn't it funny but I also didn't even know it was supposed to be funny until I saw its genre tags long after watching it.

There are some lines that I'd rather call witty than funny, even though witty isn't the right word either. Deadpan, perhaps? Not really that either. Not that it matters much. Ultimately, this is pretty bad as a film.

Here's the thing: it's much harder to make a great short because you have less time to create an atmosphere and films need breathing. You can feel it in this film. It's so tightly packed that it gives no time for breathing, which is ironic given this is exactly how I'd describe Marvel movies.

In theory, I should at least respect it for criticizing Marvel/Disney as a company that is overly focused on money and includes LGBT characters only if it doesn't sabotage its gross. Still, these are such obvious and trite points that one doesn't need to make a film, not even a short film, about that. Companies care only about profit - wow, that's new. Marvel is the poison in the good well of cinema - no sh*t?! I've been evangelizing about it for close to 10 years now. This short falls within the category of films that can start a discussion but whose existence is not excused by anything. A forum post can start a discussion on this topic. I started it a few times myself! You can make a film about it, but I see no point. It won't be a good film.

But maybe if one thinks about Is Now a Good Time? more, deeper meaning will surface? The meaning behind the dying kid? Now that I think of it, the idea the last film you'll ever watch is a Marvel film is indeed worthy of Cummings' reaction. But the kid brought it on himself for being a fan of Marvel anyway, so it makes no sense. Also, why did the kid ask about gays in Marvel? Was the kid gay himself and wanted representation in the content he watches? That interpretation would be painfully trite.

In addition to all the above, the juxtaposition of this short's swearing and gay sex relative to Captain America 4 which is supposed not to have any is another failed piece of screenwriting where the screenwriter thinks this juxtaposition is amazing and deep while it's just hackneyed, banal, cliched, platitudinous, vapid, etc., etc..

To finish this off because I already dedicated much more time to this short than it deserves, there's a thing many people believe. They believe that to make a sublime film you must make it complicated and/or deep. But this isn't true. You can make it pretty simple. You only need to make it feel profound. You can do that by skillfully writing it in a way that escapes easy categorization or dismissal and by utilizing visuals and music that bring it to the higher echelons of artistic excellence. In other words, good screenwriting is making the viewer FEEL, NOT THINK. You don't need to think extraneously to tell if a film is good. It's self-evident from just experiencing it. Thinking sometimes makes the film even worse in your eyes. Case in point: Is Now a Good Time?. This film is bad because it made me think to try and find any good thing about it. But there's nothing, maybe save for Cunnings' performance. And the more I think about this short, the less I like it. Well, I didn't like it to begin with, so all the thinking was a waste of time. We should always go with our instincts when it comes to art.

I am watching Fellini's 8 1/2 and I feel a bit like I am at a buffet.

Im not really a huge fan of Fellini but 8 1/2 might be his best film, along with La Dolce Vita. Which is quite the boring opinion, to be honest, as it’s pretty much following the consensus

Back when mainstream hits were shot like fairy tales. Incredible colors and good blocking - the art that is now long forgotten in mainstream cinema. Memorable, moving scenes are long gone, too. Even American films from the 1970s seem so boring now, not to mention new ones. God, I hate digital.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

Hot take: If a film requires you to understand it to like it then it's a failure of a movie.

Freezing cold take however: if a film invites you to understand it then it's a success of a movie.

Films should be as hermetically closed as possible. You should work hard to get in. A film that leaves its door open is like a woman who opens her legs right away. The experience might seem amazing and fun at first, but it ends up pointless and worthless in hindsight.

Just to be clear, "invite" and "guide" are different words.

Lau Kar-leun,Yuen Woo-pin, Sammo Hung. Which do you feel is the better director? I’ve slowly been working my way through their films, but I’m curious how you feel about them.
Feel free to toss in another HK director that you feel doesn’t get much recognition.

You do realize how sexist and vulgar that sounds, right?

All three are good. No idea which one is the best.

Why?