Reply to Topic
I'm pretty sure Rashomon was my first Kurosawa film. Unlike some of his other films, I've mostly fogotten about it for some reason, but I'm confident I'd still love it if I were to rewatch it.
Quint's Reviews and Ruminations on Film
→ in Movie Reviews
Thanks for all the comments - I caught a bug of some type (cold, flu?) yesterday and wound up sleeping most of the day and night, which is why I didn't reply quickly, but I've enjoyed reading them over (and the reaction of the teenager to P&P cracked me up).
First Kurosawa - I think it was the Seven Samurai?
First Kurosawa - I think it was the Seven Samurai?
X
Favorite Movies
Rashomon
Directed by Akira Kurosawa - Crime, Drama, Mystery - 88 minutes - 1950
It’s a mystery. Who are these men seeking shelter from the storm in the ruins of a temple? Why are their brows furrowed in knots of despair? 2 of the men (a Priest and a wood cutter) were witnesses in a trial and tell the third their account hoping he can add some illumination. The story concerns a triangle of husband, wife and interloper. Within this triangle there’s a rape and a murder. During the course of the film the truth of what happened will be told from different perspectives. None of them match up. Was there a rape? Was it even murder?
Every synopsis you read will tell you that this is a film that examines the nature of truth. But for Kurosawa, he felt Rashomon was an exploration on the nature of reality. And in that light Rashomon takes on new meaning, though it never provides complete clarity. Truth? Few are intentionally lying; they all believe their side as it’s told. They’ve bent reality to fit the truth they (need to?) believe.
What I find fascinating is that these tales are being told by a character, filtered through their perceptions… but are being relayed through another character, who is filtering it through their perceptions… which is ultimately being interpreted by the director Kurosawa himself. The picture is a knot. The tangled woods themselves, the setting for this tragedy, add to this ambiguity. Our own eyes are often not allowed a clear view.
As we see their stories unfold, the actors shift from natural performance to theatrical poses and extreme over acting. It’s as if during the telling of their side of it, they (or the person relaying it) are embellishing the tale with melodramatic flourishes – the people seen in flashbacks are like puppets in a play and we become aware that we are not seeing the thing as it is, but rather are being offered a choreographed performance, pulled from the storytellers mind.
Still, kernels of... (is "truth" the word I'm searching for here?) manage to pepper the screen.
One of the witnesses (the woodcutter) seems honest - but pay attention to his expression in the background as the medium tells the dead man’s side of the story. Later, he changes his account, but there’s something fishy, something he’s not telling. How trustworthy is he? Is he a thief… or worse?
Watch Rashomon with a casual eye and you’re wasting your time. It will not have any weight or meaning. Watch only on one level and you miss just how truly magnificent it is. Over think it and perhaps you start adding things that were never intended - the very film then involves you in your own personal contemplation on reality.
In Rashomon I delighted in Kurosawa, the great editor. I marveled at cinematographer Kazuo Miyagawa’s groundbreaking camera work and lighting techniques. The scene in which a casual breeze alters the course of everyone’s lives, is a small but memorable display of these gifts joined in genius. Kazuo’s shot tracking Takashi Shimura through the woods thrilled even his talented director.
The film made Kurosawa an international star, won prizes, including an Oscar. And it changed the way Japan viewed its own product. Though a hit at home, they perceived it as a purely Japanese film, the western world wouldn’t understand it. They were surprised when Italy requested it for entry into one of their film festivals – soon the world became enthralled. And filmmakers influenced by its powerful story.
Directed by Akira Kurosawa - Crime, Drama, Mystery - 88 minutes - 1950
It’s a mystery. Who are these men seeking shelter from the storm in the ruins of a temple? Why are their brows furrowed in knots of despair? 2 of the men (a Priest and a wood cutter) were witnesses in a trial and tell the third their account hoping he can add some illumination. The story concerns a triangle of husband, wife and interloper. Within this triangle there’s a rape and a murder. During the course of the film the truth of what happened will be told from different perspectives. None of them match up. Was there a rape? Was it even murder?
Every synopsis you read will tell you that this is a film that examines the nature of truth. But for Kurosawa, he felt Rashomon was an exploration on the nature of reality. And in that light Rashomon takes on new meaning, though it never provides complete clarity. Truth? Few are intentionally lying; they all believe their side as it’s told. They’ve bent reality to fit the truth they (need to?) believe.
What I find fascinating is that these tales are being told by a character, filtered through their perceptions… but are being relayed through another character, who is filtering it through their perceptions… which is ultimately being interpreted by the director Kurosawa himself. The picture is a knot. The tangled woods themselves, the setting for this tragedy, add to this ambiguity. Our own eyes are often not allowed a clear view.
As we see their stories unfold, the actors shift from natural performance to theatrical poses and extreme over acting. It’s as if during the telling of their side of it, they (or the person relaying it) are embellishing the tale with melodramatic flourishes – the people seen in flashbacks are like puppets in a play and we become aware that we are not seeing the thing as it is, but rather are being offered a choreographed performance, pulled from the storytellers mind.
Still, kernels of... (is "truth" the word I'm searching for here?) manage to pepper the screen.
One of the witnesses (the woodcutter) seems honest - but pay attention to his expression in the background as the medium tells the dead man’s side of the story. Later, he changes his account, but there’s something fishy, something he’s not telling. How trustworthy is he? Is he a thief… or worse?
Watch Rashomon with a casual eye and you’re wasting your time. It will not have any weight or meaning. Watch only on one level and you miss just how truly magnificent it is. Over think it and perhaps you start adding things that were never intended - the very film then involves you in your own personal contemplation on reality.
In Rashomon I delighted in Kurosawa, the great editor. I marveled at cinematographer Kazuo Miyagawa’s groundbreaking camera work and lighting techniques. The scene in which a casual breeze alters the course of everyone’s lives, is a small but memorable display of these gifts joined in genius. Kazuo’s shot tracking Takashi Shimura through the woods thrilled even his talented director.
The film made Kurosawa an international star, won prizes, including an Oscar. And it changed the way Japan viewed its own product. Though a hit at home, they perceived it as a purely Japanese film, the western world wouldn’t understand it. They were surprised when Italy requested it for entry into one of their film festivals – soon the world became enthralled. And filmmakers influenced by its powerful story.
I took it as a mediation on three versions of the same story and that one could not tell if anyone was lying or not. Certainly the characters all had a personal slant but whether or not they were telling the truth as they saw it never seemed totally clear to me. The idea that the actors in the re-tellings are like puppets is very compelling and I need to see that again. Also I need to see the editing again because I'm really focused on editing a lot of the time and I remember that I did not notice it that much in this film so I'll want to look at that.
And this was my second Kurosawa. The Hidden Fortress was my first. I think maybe I've only seen three.
Rashomon is one of those movies, like Marienbad, that's open to interpretation. It has layers, and you can come at it from many angles (there's a guy on YouTube who offered a theory that I'm not sure I buy, but it was interesting to hear his ideas (he found something on the screen -I can't remember what- that he felt signaled whenever someone was being untruthful).
So, I'm opening to hearing what others have to say, how they interpret it.
So, I'm opening to hearing what others have to say, how they interpret it.
X
Favorite Movies
The History of the Seattle Mariners
Directed by Jon Boise - Documentary - 220 minutes - 2020
No, you haven't accidentally stumbled into Yoda's excellent Baseball Movie Reviews thread - yesterday was opening day for the Mariners, and they got the win off some sweet pitching from Logan Gilbert, a 3 for 3 with a HR performance from Polanco, and a nice double play from J.P. to end the game. And next week, I have tickets to see the opening day game for our local minor league club. So, to celebrate, a review, for my "Best Miniseries" winner of 2020, expanded from the write-up at my film awards blog.
⚾
Perhaps more than any other sport, baseball loves its stats.
Bearing that in mind, this 6-part, SBNation miniseries doesn't go the traditional 'talking heads' interviewed route found in other docs. No, appropriately enough, numbers drive the story. This is Mariner's history as relayed through stats and graphs. And while that sounds like it would lend itself to a telling that's cold and remote, it actually generated a lot of warmth and intimacy. The data and charts were fascinating, the quirky oddball stories they chose to highlight, a hoot, the presentation of the legends who graced this team, from The Kid to The Big Unit to Ichiro and King Felix, were inspirational (seeing the King's Court put a wee tear in my eye). In addition, the production explores the nature of fandom and asks, are championships all that matter?
And that's a question I've pondered - how strange the idea that if you lose a championship match, the season was a waste. If you fail to even get into that final game, it was incomplete - that was certainly my feeling after the Mariners dominated 2001 but came away empty - there was no World Series celebration to cap off the season, and fans were left with this pennant shaped hole in their hearts. Writers and director Alex Rubenstein and Jon Bois would say 'so what', wasn't the journey enough? And they make a good case for that, but I can only meet them half-way on that point, because, as an NFL Seattle Seahawks nut, I can promise you, a championship does a world of good, it takes the edge off, you can now bask in the past and remember all the good, the bad or the flat out crazy - without that annoying bee flying inside your head, making a buzzing that sounds like the words, "almost, almost."
While there are a few spots where they skirt full disclosure for dramatic effect (yes Ken Griffey Jr. was beloved by HOF voters, but so too was Tom Seaver, it's not like Ken was the only one that garnered that level of respect, as they imply). Never-the-less, the film is magic, and I can't stop thinking about it, it really got to me, which is a little surprising. While the Seahawks have had my full devotion and attention over the decades, the Mariners were something I'd catch out of the corner of my eye. I didn't realize how much affection I had for the team, its players, announcers, the stats, and histories until I watched this piece.
And I want to watch it again, right now, all (near) 4 hours of it.
Directed by Jon Boise - Documentary - 220 minutes - 2020
No, you haven't accidentally stumbled into Yoda's excellent Baseball Movie Reviews thread - yesterday was opening day for the Mariners, and they got the win off some sweet pitching from Logan Gilbert, a 3 for 3 with a HR performance from Polanco, and a nice double play from J.P. to end the game. And next week, I have tickets to see the opening day game for our local minor league club. So, to celebrate, a review, for my "Best Miniseries" winner of 2020, expanded from the write-up at my film awards blog.
⚾
Perhaps more than any other sport, baseball loves its stats.
Bearing that in mind, this 6-part, SBNation miniseries doesn't go the traditional 'talking heads' interviewed route found in other docs. No, appropriately enough, numbers drive the story. This is Mariner's history as relayed through stats and graphs. And while that sounds like it would lend itself to a telling that's cold and remote, it actually generated a lot of warmth and intimacy. The data and charts were fascinating, the quirky oddball stories they chose to highlight, a hoot, the presentation of the legends who graced this team, from The Kid to The Big Unit to Ichiro and King Felix, were inspirational (seeing the King's Court put a wee tear in my eye). In addition, the production explores the nature of fandom and asks, are championships all that matter?
And that's a question I've pondered - how strange the idea that if you lose a championship match, the season was a waste. If you fail to even get into that final game, it was incomplete - that was certainly my feeling after the Mariners dominated 2001 but came away empty - there was no World Series celebration to cap off the season, and fans were left with this pennant shaped hole in their hearts. Writers and director Alex Rubenstein and Jon Bois would say 'so what', wasn't the journey enough? And they make a good case for that, but I can only meet them half-way on that point, because, as an NFL Seattle Seahawks nut, I can promise you, a championship does a world of good, it takes the edge off, you can now bask in the past and remember all the good, the bad or the flat out crazy - without that annoying bee flying inside your head, making a buzzing that sounds like the words, "almost, almost."
While there are a few spots where they skirt full disclosure for dramatic effect (yes Ken Griffey Jr. was beloved by HOF voters, but so too was Tom Seaver, it's not like Ken was the only one that garnered that level of respect, as they imply). Never-the-less, the film is magic, and I can't stop thinking about it, it really got to me, which is a little surprising. While the Seahawks have had my full devotion and attention over the decades, the Mariners were something I'd catch out of the corner of my eye. I didn't realize how much affection I had for the team, its players, announcers, the stats, and histories until I watched this piece.
And I want to watch it again, right now, all (near) 4 hours of it.
X
Favorite Movies
Porco Rosso
Directed by Hayao Miyazaki - Family, Adventure, Comedy, Animation - 93 minutes - PG -1992
Summary: Set in Italy, the picture hearkens back to classic 30s-40s era cinema, only with a flying pilot pig for a hero! Battling against dastardly sky pirates and aided by spunky girl mechanic Fio Piccolo and his longtime friend Madame Gina, can Porco save the day and regain his humanity?
Rosso might not get the attention of a Spirited Away or Totoro, but it’s just as good, just as joyous a viewing experience. Plus, it features one of cinemas great opening sequences: one that is packed with thrilling aerial acrobatics and planeloads of hilarity (those kids were so damn adorable and funny). It sets the stage nicely for the sparkling action/romance to come.
As with all of Miyazaki’s features the characters are well rendered. Porco (aka Marco) is laconic kin to certain John Ford protagonists, in that he’s a robust man’s man (or pig’s pig?) at a stage where everything’s changing in the world and this adventure will likely be his last hurrah.
In addition, I got a kick out of Porco’s youthful sidekick. I loved her enthusiasm and way she keeps these roughnecks in line. She’s also part of that changing world Porco has to adjust too.
The art is a dream. I admired the wonderfully appointed sets, the craft and costume designs. Gina’s clothing in particular was fashionably attractive, with neat line work and soft colors.
The action is skillfully choreographed, and I was entranced by the details in the animation - the way objects and people moved: ala the splash of water when planes slice across ocean surfaces, or in the clouds and rising aircraft pictured during Porco’s bedtime story. My eye always had something to savor, and I enjoy the story as well.
For some reason I missed it on its opening run, it came and left theaters without my notice, but now that I've found it, I consider it one of Miyazaki’s finest.
Directed by Hayao Miyazaki - Family, Adventure, Comedy, Animation - 93 minutes - PG -1992
Summary: Set in Italy, the picture hearkens back to classic 30s-40s era cinema, only with a flying pilot pig for a hero! Battling against dastardly sky pirates and aided by spunky girl mechanic Fio Piccolo and his longtime friend Madame Gina, can Porco save the day and regain his humanity?
Rosso might not get the attention of a Spirited Away or Totoro, but it’s just as good, just as joyous a viewing experience. Plus, it features one of cinemas great opening sequences: one that is packed with thrilling aerial acrobatics and planeloads of hilarity (those kids were so damn adorable and funny). It sets the stage nicely for the sparkling action/romance to come.
As with all of Miyazaki’s features the characters are well rendered. Porco (aka Marco) is laconic kin to certain John Ford protagonists, in that he’s a robust man’s man (or pig’s pig?) at a stage where everything’s changing in the world and this adventure will likely be his last hurrah.
In addition, I got a kick out of Porco’s youthful sidekick. I loved her enthusiasm and way she keeps these roughnecks in line. She’s also part of that changing world Porco has to adjust too.
The art is a dream. I admired the wonderfully appointed sets, the craft and costume designs. Gina’s clothing in particular was fashionably attractive, with neat line work and soft colors.
The action is skillfully choreographed, and I was entranced by the details in the animation - the way objects and people moved: ala the splash of water when planes slice across ocean surfaces, or in the clouds and rising aircraft pictured during Porco’s bedtime story. My eye always had something to savor, and I enjoy the story as well.
For some reason I missed it on its opening run, it came and left theaters without my notice, but now that I've found it, I consider it one of Miyazaki’s finest.
X
Favorite Movies
This can be a weird place for me sometimes - a movie forum where people don't want to watch movies. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but how many times have I read posts with the words "It's not my thing", or "I don't want to see this", "I was told to avoid it", "I'm not the target audience" - what the flying fudge, seriously? And we're not talking Kraven the Hunter here, but the giants. I guess it takes all kinds to make a forum, some might be coming at it like candy, we only feast on our favorites, while others are cinemaniacs who want to tackle it all. Maybe there's an 'in between' those types.
It made me wonder, when did I become a 'watch it all' person? Honestly, from the start - if there was a picture on, I'd watch it - but in the 80s for some reason, I kept pushing back against seeing certain movies, movies that wound up lifelong faves. Maybe I was in kind of an analogous rebellious teenage stage, film-wise ("What are you rebelling against Johnny?" - "What do you got!"). Here are a handful of examples that spring to mind.
Amadeus (1984)
"Tom Hulce, seriously? Tom Hulce was in Animal House, why would you cast him in a serious role like this, and the trailer, with that goofy laughter? Cheese and crackers, what is this nonsense. Is it a snobby movie for snobs, or a sendup?" Why I got a bee in my bonnet over the trailers I can't recall, but I think it circled around those thoughts. In the end, when I did relent and saw it I was floored, good gosh what a movie, what a powerhouse tapestry, and what a dumba--- I am. Why would I resist this amazing work. What I didn't know was that there was an even stronger version awaiting me in the future - a director's cut that added 20 minutes of footage. Most of that footage was seen in the first half of the film, but it speaks to and clarifies what happens in the second half. 1984 offered up several gems, Paris Texas, Once Upon a Time in America, Diary for My Children, This is Spinal Tap; but Amadeus (especially the director's cut) might very well be my favorite... and here I was bad mouthing it.
Revenge of the Living Dead (1985)
Categorize this under "totally not my thing" - I am remembering a packed car full of friends and siblings, we had dinner, now let's do a movie... let's see RotLD! No, no, I argued, zombies are played out (and this was 1985, think how played out they became) plus, how many of these living dead movies are there, a couple, with another on the way (Day of the Dead), it's going to be diminishing returns, this is a bad idea. But I was overruled, loudly. We're having fun, we're going to see a fun movie. I don't know if this is true, but I can picture myself with arms crossed, wearing a scowl... and then the movie played, and that scowl turned into a grin. While I'll see them, I'm not what you'd call a zombie movie freak, but this was indeed GREAT fun, intense, creepy, but also hilarious. I haven't seen it in decades, but that night, watching it with the people I loved - what a stand-out memory. "See, we told you so..."
RoboCop (1987)
Our girlfriends didn't want to see RoboCop, so we split off, they went to see, I don't know, what would have been playing in theaters around that time, Roxanne, maybe? Adventures in Babysitting, La Bamba... say, can we see La Bamba? Nope, us boys are going to -sigh- RoboCop. I didn't wanna, it looked like some insipid, violent, blood-soaked action flick for braindead audiences, plus, with that ridiculous title, how could it be anything but awful? But my brother had his heart set on it, and you have to have your brothers back, and it's nice just to hang out. So okay, says Mr. Cranky-pants, but be prepared to be given a hard time for dragging me into this thing afterwards. Well, cranky-pants was wrong, my brother was right, and I left the theater gob smacked, it not only was decidedly NOT dumb, it was a clever, sharp as a tack satire that also showed it's humanity - when Murphy returns home, and memories flash about his son and wife, when he talks about feeling them, but not remembering them, that cut to the bone, I got more than I was expecting.
The 80s taught me one thing, that every movie is my kind of movie, at least until I see it and I discover otherwise. Every genre is my genre - never judge a book by its cover... or a movie by its trailer, don't even fret much about those critical thumbs, how many thumbs down's have you enjoyed? How many of today's classics were yesterday's duds?
And that lesson continues to be reenforced to this day - I remember Les amants du Tage (an old, new to me movie) I came to the film for Françoise Arnoul, then saw the low grades at Letterboxd and thought, “That’s a bummer. Ah well, I’ve never seen an Arnoul movie, lets watch it anyway.” Glad I decided to think for myself because "Les amants du Tage" was a stunner. A bleak, psychological slow burn, a romance so despairing it hurts.
And Kneecap from 2024, for another example. It didn't appear to be my 'thing' on the surface, but I watched it anyway - "You might love it, me" (and I did). Drug fueled, foul mouthed, funny, crazed, with something to say about Irish history and culture.
Not all the time, but sometimes, getting out of your comfort zone can be wonderful. Not all the time but sometimes seeing things you don't want to see can be rewarding. You never know unless you chance it.
It made me wonder, when did I become a 'watch it all' person? Honestly, from the start - if there was a picture on, I'd watch it - but in the 80s for some reason, I kept pushing back against seeing certain movies, movies that wound up lifelong faves. Maybe I was in kind of an analogous rebellious teenage stage, film-wise ("What are you rebelling against Johnny?" - "What do you got!"). Here are a handful of examples that spring to mind.
Amadeus (1984)
"Tom Hulce, seriously? Tom Hulce was in Animal House, why would you cast him in a serious role like this, and the trailer, with that goofy laughter? Cheese and crackers, what is this nonsense. Is it a snobby movie for snobs, or a sendup?" Why I got a bee in my bonnet over the trailers I can't recall, but I think it circled around those thoughts. In the end, when I did relent and saw it I was floored, good gosh what a movie, what a powerhouse tapestry, and what a dumba--- I am. Why would I resist this amazing work. What I didn't know was that there was an even stronger version awaiting me in the future - a director's cut that added 20 minutes of footage. Most of that footage was seen in the first half of the film, but it speaks to and clarifies what happens in the second half. 1984 offered up several gems, Paris Texas, Once Upon a Time in America, Diary for My Children, This is Spinal Tap; but Amadeus (especially the director's cut) might very well be my favorite... and here I was bad mouthing it.
Revenge of the Living Dead (1985)
Categorize this under "totally not my thing" - I am remembering a packed car full of friends and siblings, we had dinner, now let's do a movie... let's see RotLD! No, no, I argued, zombies are played out (and this was 1985, think how played out they became) plus, how many of these living dead movies are there, a couple, with another on the way (Day of the Dead), it's going to be diminishing returns, this is a bad idea. But I was overruled, loudly. We're having fun, we're going to see a fun movie. I don't know if this is true, but I can picture myself with arms crossed, wearing a scowl... and then the movie played, and that scowl turned into a grin. While I'll see them, I'm not what you'd call a zombie movie freak, but this was indeed GREAT fun, intense, creepy, but also hilarious. I haven't seen it in decades, but that night, watching it with the people I loved - what a stand-out memory. "See, we told you so..."
RoboCop (1987)
Our girlfriends didn't want to see RoboCop, so we split off, they went to see, I don't know, what would have been playing in theaters around that time, Roxanne, maybe? Adventures in Babysitting, La Bamba... say, can we see La Bamba? Nope, us boys are going to -sigh- RoboCop. I didn't wanna, it looked like some insipid, violent, blood-soaked action flick for braindead audiences, plus, with that ridiculous title, how could it be anything but awful? But my brother had his heart set on it, and you have to have your brothers back, and it's nice just to hang out. So okay, says Mr. Cranky-pants, but be prepared to be given a hard time for dragging me into this thing afterwards. Well, cranky-pants was wrong, my brother was right, and I left the theater gob smacked, it not only was decidedly NOT dumb, it was a clever, sharp as a tack satire that also showed it's humanity - when Murphy returns home, and memories flash about his son and wife, when he talks about feeling them, but not remembering them, that cut to the bone, I got more than I was expecting.
The 80s taught me one thing, that every movie is my kind of movie, at least until I see it and I discover otherwise. Every genre is my genre - never judge a book by its cover... or a movie by its trailer, don't even fret much about those critical thumbs, how many thumbs down's have you enjoyed? How many of today's classics were yesterday's duds?
And that lesson continues to be reenforced to this day - I remember Les amants du Tage (an old, new to me movie) I came to the film for Françoise Arnoul, then saw the low grades at Letterboxd and thought, “That’s a bummer. Ah well, I’ve never seen an Arnoul movie, lets watch it anyway.” Glad I decided to think for myself because "Les amants du Tage" was a stunner. A bleak, psychological slow burn, a romance so despairing it hurts.
And Kneecap from 2024, for another example. It didn't appear to be my 'thing' on the surface, but I watched it anyway - "You might love it, me" (and I did). Drug fueled, foul mouthed, funny, crazed, with something to say about Irish history and culture.
Not all the time, but sometimes, getting out of your comfort zone can be wonderful. Not all the time but sometimes seeing things you don't want to see can be rewarding. You never know unless you chance it.
Last edited by Captain Quint; 2 days ago at 08:30 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
Yeah, I usually chafe at it as well. I mean, Gummo might not be the type of movie I’m typically interested in but I’ll eventually watch it.
I want to be able to talk about the various films from foreign directors or independent directors and the different countries they hail from.if someone brings up a wuxia, giallo, Poliziottesch, euro war, yakuza film and its sub sets of “borderless action”, “chivalry” and “actual record eras (look it up, it’s interesting!), heroic bloodshed or kaiju genres.*
Or maybe going through the various films from foreign movements like French poetic realism, French Impressionism, Taiwanese new wave, hong king new wave and the many others that came about.
I can’t imagine liking films but not wanting to at least delve into its history no matter how challenging it may be, or how uninteresting it may be.
I want to be able to talk about the various films from foreign directors or independent directors and the different countries they hail from.if someone brings up a wuxia, giallo, Poliziottesch, euro war, yakuza film and its sub sets of “borderless action”, “chivalry” and “actual record eras (look it up, it’s interesting!), heroic bloodshed or kaiju genres.*
Or maybe going through the various films from foreign movements like French poetic realism, French Impressionism, Taiwanese new wave, hong king new wave and the many others that came about.
I can’t imagine liking films but not wanting to at least delve into its history no matter how challenging it may be, or how uninteresting it may be.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'm of the mind that being willing to get out of your comfort zone is a good thing and, unless someone is trying to get you to watch straight up child porn or slaughterhouse footage or whatnot, you should welcome it when other people make genuine efforts at this. Not shy away from it. I've come across a handful of users here who've gone as far as to scoff at other users for nominating films either outside their wheelhouse or that they're normally not into and I don't understand that one bit. Your taste shouldn't remain stagnant at every point in your life and it's normal for your interests to shift as you age, even with movies you currently love or hate. A style of film you have an aversion to now may hit you differently several years from now. Give it another chance. Don't write it off forever.
X
Favorite Movies
X