What are /r/TrueFilm's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

This is from mubi.com

What sets Kane apart:
>It was produced, co-written, directed, and starred a man who was all of 25 years old.
>Nobody in the film had ever been in a film before.
>It has more effects shots than Star Wars-see the Ebert commentary on that.
>Great performances by actors playing characters twice their own age.
>Welles plays a man in his 20s, 40s, and 60s.
>The movement of the camera was radical and rarely seen in any film, especially Hollywood.
>Deep focus photography-everything in the the frame is in focus-this requires massive amounts of lighting.
>You can see the ceilings in Citizen Kane. Before, and usually after, Kane, you never see a ceiling in a movie, because there are no ceilings on sets-that is where the lights and microphones go. Welles hid the microphones with false ceilings made of cloth.
>Welles’ camera angles- obtuse or ‘dutch’ angles, camera in the floor, check and check.
>The star of the film is not seen for almost the first 20 minutes of the film.
>The movie begins with faux newsreel footage.
>No credits before the movies starts.
>Just a simple title “Citizen Kane, by Orson Welles”
>Possibly the first film in which its story is pieced together out of order-something that Pulp Fiction was lauded for some 5 decades later.

I think Kane is one of the films that needs to be watched again with commentary after the initial viewing.

As far as related films. I would check out the Scarlet Empress (1934). The visuals are quite unique for the time period and the style is somewhat similar to Kane. They both deal with power politics and the complexity of character in their own way.

The historical importance of cinema is difficult to summarize. I can point you to the writings of Kracauer, Bazin, and others. But if you wanted to start in a logical place and branch out, I would highly recommend beginning with Pauline Kael's 5001 Nights at the Movies and Roger Ebert's Great Movies.

First, expose yourself to these films, then re-read the discussions—reviews and essays—which will in turn lead you to other resources—academic and critical. That may at first seem like a tops-down approach, but unless you plan to audit an entire academic curriculum of film studies, this is a more accessible route that first exposes you to the work and then progresses you into deeper layers of analysis. It might be the preferable route for a filmgoer rather than, say, a student filmmaker who constructs their understanding of the process from the bottom up.

First and foremost, Eden Lake.

Then Martyrs, Under the Skin, Annihilation, Teorema, Cache, Funny Games, Amour, The Holy Mountain, Enter the Void, Love, I Stand Alone, Angst, It Comes at Night, Requiem for a Dream, Blue Velvet, We Need to Talk About Kevin, You Were Never Really Here, Dancer in the Dark, Dogville, Nymphomaniac, The Sacrifice (Tarkovsky), The Virgin Spring, Through a Glass Darkly, Shame (both McQueen and Bergman), Cries and Whispers, A Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut, Only God Forgives, The Neon Demon, The Eyes of My Mother, Kids, Happiness, The Vanishing, Satyricon, The Night Porter, A Tale of Two Sisters, Goodnight Mommy, W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism, Felt, Anomalisa, Queen of Earth, ... I'm missing a ton, but those are the first that come to mind.

See also this Letterboxd list.

I’m not a filmmaker or knowledgable by any means in analyzing film, i’m trying to get better myself. Saw this post on r/movies not too long ago linking to a set of MIT open courseware film lectures: http://www.openculture.com/2016/04/free-mit-course-teaches-you-to-watch-movies-like-a-critic-watch-lectures-from-the-film-experience.html

I’ve only given the first lecture a listen-through, but I found it insightful and it lays a good foundation down (hell, if anything, I think it’s a cool perspective). They might help.

I really like using Letterboxd, but I agree that finding good reviewers is tough, since so many users seem to treat the platform like an extension of Tumblr. Here are some suggestions:

I listen to the Filmspotting podcast, so I follow both hosts Adam Kempenaar and Josh Larson. I also follow Peter Labuza, a film critic and scholar who often watches and writes about more obscure films, which I appreciate. I also follow some of the more popular reviewers. David Ehrlich is a film critic at Indiewire and his reviews (often taken from full reviews on Indiewire) are very good. I also follow users SilentDawn and Josh Lewis, both of whom review a lot of films and write thoughtful reviews.

I'm not opposed to some shameless self-promotion, so if you'd like to follow me, here's my account: https://letterboxd.com/PeterGavaris/

There was a real no wave film scene, it's just decidedly punk in its distribution and production methods so you'll have to scramble a bit to find and watch these - actually it looks like a lot of these are on youtube. I think this list is a pretty good sampler:

https://mubi.com/lists/cinema-of-transgression

You Killed Me First, Death Valley 69, and Submit to Me I remember as all being emblematic of the style. Raw Nerves is a little different in tone but also worth watching. Interestingly enough, Kathryn Bigelow, director of some arguably very non punk movies, started out tangential to this scene. If you want to go deeper the book 'Deathtripping: Cinema of Transgression' is pretty good.

Read “Narration in the Fiction Film”, by David Bordwell, and maybe “The Way Hollywood Tells It” if you’re in the mood. That’s it.

The Automoderator does not allow me to be concise, so I'll add some stuff.

The first book uses cognitive psychology principles to explain how movies work and how we interact with them. It's one of the best books I've ever read about film — and I'm a film major. David Bordwell is so much better than everyone else it's ridiculous. IT MAKES SENSE, it is accessible and will make you understand film in no time.

The second, by the same author, is a historical view of how American cinema evolved, from the very start to Matrix (I think). It's awesome, straightforward and precise.

Film Art: An Introduction is, in my opinion, a bit too basic for you, but you may use it if you feel overwhelmed.

Neal Gabler wrote a very good but critical biography of Disney (Disney’s daughter hated it). After years of interviews and research, he believes Disney was not anti-Semitic or a Nazi sympathizer. Here is an article describing a panel which addressed the topic. For more information, read the book.

Haha damn it man I'm really disappointed that this isn't a discussion of Peter Jackson's Bad Taste but yes, just try to be patient with your friends. Try to remember what some of your 'gateway' films were and recommend them to your friends. At some point, something will probably click. I think there is more or less a movie out there for everyone that will make them go 'oh wow movies can be more than I thought.' Unfortunately plenty of people don't end up ever seeing 'their' movie.

I highly recommend Film Theory & Criticism edited by Braudy & Cohen. It compiles a lot of fundamental texts on film theory and is broken up in a way that makes it easier for someone just jumping in.

Bruce Block teaches this at USC and on various weekends at the Production Designer's Guild.

Highly recommend reading his stuff for the science of how to express visual progression through converging lines from shot to shot vs. within the shot or how depth cues of flat and deep is the most basic visual separation but most often used, and much much more on shape, rhythm, and color.

ET is the best I can think of off the top of my head how this whole thing actually works. The scene where Elliot and ET are trying to escape the police. Watch how each frame dances between flat space and deep. It becomes rhythmic. In conjunction with that, Spielberg also has the "lines" of the boys on the bikes in the upper frame while the police cars remain in the lower, creating visual division. The police stay on a rigid singular line that speeds up and slows down while the boys remain small but fluid. It's visually showing the agility vs power of the two. After the boys are almost caught, right after the scary surprise your not safe arm grab, watch how the bike stays center frame in deep space whole police cars intersect the path of left and right frame in a horizontal vs vertical line. That's not even close to describing all the elements going on here. Color, tone and shape have a huge discussion in this moment as well but it's difficult to discuss without visual aids.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, this is something I actually have a strong understanding on and it's not too often that we talk about the visual narration happening to express the films emotional layer. Too bad the medium is only seen with a narrative intent, but if may I recommend films by Stan Brakhage, Maya Deren, Kenneth Anger, and Bruce Conner. Might help to see images/light/sound used holistically in this manner.

Cinematography: Theory and Practice is great textbook.

Lots of people here are probably gonna recommend you Youtube video essays, but I'd recommend not wasting much time with them. They mostly bullshit and/or extremely superficial. Instead of those just watch great classic films.

And of course it's always great if you can shoot your own stuff and apply that theory to practice.

After watching the trippy 70's Japanese horror film House, this review on Letterboxd really stuck with me. It's sincere and contemplative, inviting you to enjoy the magic that is House. The author draws on interviews with the director to explain the film's place in Japan's history and talks about how this film exemplifies the magic of cinema.

> At the root, House, like the best movies I know -- even and especially, low cinema, b-movies, horror -- seems to me an overflowing love for movies or an obsession with film. The rest of the magic -- the joy and struggle -- flows from that source. > > To me, cinema is falling in love. And there is such joy here.

Liking art and entertainment is about taste not popularity. That's why everyone will always find issues with rating systems like IMDb's.

For example i find it reprehensible that...

• The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
• The Dark Knight (2008)
• The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
• Fight Club (1999)

are in the current IMDb Top 10. In my opinion no way are these movies 4 of the 10 best movies ever made. Hence, I really can't use the IMDb rating as a predictor of the types of movies that I will like.

However, Criticker, does an excellent job of predicting the types of films I will like. Because if takes taste and personal preferences into account.

I have a letterboxd, but I don't follow too many people. When I first got it, I just looked up movies that I liked, then looked for thoughtful reviews. If someone seemed to know their shit, I'd check out their profile, and if we had similar tastes, then I started following them, in case they logged or reviewed something I had never seen or heard of. I've discovered a few pretty good movies that way, but the biggest resource, I think, are the user-generated lists.

https://letterboxd.com/jaschrecker/

Aren't you guys contradicting yourselves here?

The film itself is in the public domain. The copy you request from the Library would be in your possession and you would decide what happens with it, if you're going to release it or not. And you said you won't.

The version of the film you're going to release will be copyrighted, by you, because you will add something to the public domain film, for example music. You won't release this version of yours to the public domain either, so if you say the film is in the public domain that is true, but it would be as inaccessible to us at it is now, in that regard.

I understand the reasoning behind your decision, but as others have pointed out the obvious solution would be to release your version under this license. Everyone would be allowed to share the version as they like and transform it in whatever way they would like, but it could not be sold (eliminating the big reseller problem) and adapted versions would have to be released under the same licence. Even your efforts would be honored through the Attribution.

If you'd promise to release the final version of the film under this licence or one similar to it, I'd very happily help to fund it.

I'd like to be a mod. I already post 3 times a week for the Netflix Club, and I post regularly on Letterboxd (Example Review ), so, while I haven't written anything professional, I am experienced in writing about film. I think that being a mod here would be fun, and it'd be cool to write about movies i love and what makes them so great.

Wait, is "I spit on your grave" critically maligned? I feel like it's always being cited as groundbreaking classic.

This probably says more about the film critics I read than about your analysis though :-) Thanks for the post.

I highly recommend Carol Clover's book Men Women and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film (amazon link)

It's out of print so the only options are used, but any unversity library that has a film department should have a copy or be able to get one for you.

Travis Bickle wasn't a destitute vietnam vet without reason. His estrangement and detachment from society, as well as his eccentric behaviours, likely stem from what he endured during his tour. Alternatively, it is what caused him to want to go to war in the first place. Both work as Vietnam criticisms, and in both cases it is his surface, not the nature of 'dual being', that changes. Look into the duality of man theory from Jung, used in pretty much every big Vietnam movie, to learn more.

Edit: an interesting, underrecognized read on the character of Bickle:

https://www.academia.edu/12687485/Travis_Bickle_Ladys_Man_1998_

I love this movie to death, but I don't know if you watched the right version. You say the length is 2 hours and 29 minutes, but the final cut is 3 hours and 49 minutes.

Here's my review of the movie btw: letterboxd

Basically my all time favorite film - with practically the greatest film score I've ever heard in my film watching life.

Also what do you think happened in the end? I refuse to think that the entire film was a dream (a serious cop out imo), but instead, a flashback to an earlier time in his life where he was happy, after seeing the last vestige of his adulthood vanish into a garbage truck (whether he killed himself or drove away, it does not matter), where he just imagines himself high on opiates enjoying his life.

I would also suggest Steven Schneider's "1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die", and of course the /r/truefilm's 100 movies list :)

Steven Schneider's list might be intimidating, but the fact that it is listed by chronological order can be very helpful for people who want to deepen their love of cinema, since older movies, I think, are harder to appreciate when you begin. My suggestion would be to start by exploring some of the movies made after 1970 for a while, and then dive into older ones. (That's what I did, and it went very well!)

To somewhat further your point it should be noted that Bonnie and Clyde was offered to Francois Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard before Warren Beatty came on and convinced Penn (who had already turned it down) to direct.

Pretty good read on what Bonnie and Clyde means for film history is Pictures at a Revolution by Mark Harris (Link).

Great collection. Thanks!

Also if anyone wants a good breakdown of the critic's top ten lists, check out this feature on Metacritic. Seems like Zero Dark Thirty and The Master are the two most popular choices for film of the year.

Man I could not get into Annihilation. I loved the subtlety of Ex Machina's emotions and the philosophical nature of it's conflicts when contrasted with the sci fi base. It did everything I think sci fi movies should aim for, and it did it perfectly. So I was pretty hopeful about Annihilation.
Having never been a fan of Natalie Portman I went into it a bit reticent, and for all the thematic richness (I think it's there?) I just couldn't get into it. The dialogue was so expository and the characters so light, that the world never seemed real or plausible. Every decision the characters made just seemed silly and clashed really badly against with the overall tone.
Wrote a bit more in depth here, and while the general reception and consensus seems positive, I hope Garland turns it around with his next project and writes a decent script.

Well Un Chien Andalou was actually constructed specifically to piss off the Parisian bourgeoisie, but I guess in an effort to appear high-brow they all applauded the film after its initial screening and it went on to be a major success. It's almost an 'emperor's new clothes' type scenario. Here's a quote from co-director Bunuel:

>What can I do about the people who adore all that is new, even when it goes against their deepest convictions, or about the insincere, corrupt press, and the inane herd that saw beauty or poetry in something which was basically no more than a desperate impassioned call for murder?

See also:

>The audience's positive reception of the film amazed Buñuel, who was relieved that no violence ensued. Dalí, on the contrary, was reportedly disappointed, feeling the audience's reaction made the evening "less exciting." Buñuel since claimed that prior to the show, he had put stones in his pockets "to throw at the audience in case of disaster"

> the film really has some of the most beautiful and amazing scenery and environments I've ever seen, but the story was a bit of a clusterfuck

With you 100%. The story was my biggest gripe and I could hardly look past it especially after hearing so many good things about it. Plot conveniences and sequelitis hurt the most.

Speaking of sequelitis, what was the point to going back and rewriting Blade Runner 'canon'? Rachel was designed to fall in love with Deckard what!? That love scene in the original was disgusting and now it's A-OK? The whole plot of the new one hinges on some of the biggest issues of the first. There are more things jumbled around in there that made it absolutely painful to consider but I'd rather not turn this into a rant.

This is another review on letterboxd that captured a lot of what I felt after watching the movie and it aligns with some of your points as well.

If you just want to go over film theory, I think the standard text for an Intro to Film course is Braudy & Cohen's Film Theory & Criticism.

If you want a compelling history of film, I recommend the 11-episode The Story of Film, directed and narrated by Mark Cousins. It's a great starting point for getting into top tier cinema, and Cousins' passion for film becomes contagious as he narrates key moments in its history, and how these movies connect and respond to each other. It should give you many samples of some important touchstones, and you can pull out a lot of movie recommendations from it. It's currently streaming on Hulu, and is available for rent or purchase on most the usual services (though oddly enough, not on itunes).

I went in expecting to like it, but not for it to overthrow Good Time as my favourite of the year. Here is what I wrote for my Letterboxd review

.

Wow. I went into this seeing only the trailer, which made me feel like this was going to be a feel-good film. This is not a feel-good film.

There was a line that my buddy Chris pointed out to me, spoken by one of the children:

>"Do you know why this is my favourite tree? Because it's tipped over, and its still growing."

This works as a wonderful metaphor for the film itself, and the situation the characters are living in. Each day they're simply trying to get by, trying to improve themselves and get out of a bad situation. Much like slapping a new coat of bright purple paint on a bed bug infested motel.

Sean Baker invites us into the world of children growing up in less than ideal conditions around less than ideal role models. The images are uncomfortable, unflinching, and at times heartbreaking. What makes it so real to me are the small glimmers of hope that we are able to see through the cracks in the foundation, the sense of community that's developed, and the caring of individuals like Bobby showing through in a difficult world.

In the end its that hopeful outlook of a child that prevails, wrapping up a somewhat devastating film in one of the most beautiful endings I've ever seen.

The performances here are absolutely outstanding, none of the actors are given over the top scenes which would allow them to appear as "characters" so what we're left with is profoundly human.

My new favourite of the year.

KOYAANISQATSI (1982)

My biggest complaint typically with films is that they don't capture reality properly. It feels scripted and like it belongs to another world. That's why I like films that are ridiculous in their reality because they acknowledge they won't portray it totally accurate. But on the other side of the spectrum there's this masterpiece. This is beautiful symmetrical raw footage arranged in a way that has you constantly comparing. Mountains to factories. The beauty of a city from its outside to its poverty stricken areas. People walking up an escalator to hot dogs being packaged. There as several metaphors that can be derived and makes it a perfect film for mediation on the human condition. This is much deeper than a YouTube compilation of beautiful camera shots, this is meant to evoke a reaction. Five Stars.

My profile on Letterboxd https://letterboxd.com/Cowboycookie

It's letterboxd. This generation's imdb. If it cared more about quality reviews, it wouldn't be formatted in such a way as to bury everything beneath David Ehrlich and homogenous piles of text. Actively finding good reviews on letterboxd is so difficult as to be almost not worth attempting. If anything, it's more important to block people than it is to follow people, given the ratio of involuntary populism to voluntary subscription.

So instead of hunting down reviews, I just look at a user's favorites and 5-star ratings and decide to follow them based on whether I think what they watch will expose me to new ideas. An indirect consequence of playing more to broad taste I've noticed is that the "reviews by my friends" sections tend to naturally be populated by more informed and interesting reviews. It's slow growing, but it's generally better than leaving things to algorithms.

Check out my follow list, which is still pretty small but doesn't have many popular reviews on it. See if you find anyone that piques your fancy.

EDIT: After going through them, I think I'll be picking up some of the users recommended here. Thanks to everyone else for posting. :)

I'd recommend Mubi. It's $5.99/month. They have 30 films available at a time, each on a 30 day timer, one arriving, one leaving each day. It's a good mix of current/past masters and more obscure independent/international films.

Currently they have films of Godard & Miike mixed with films from NYFF and Winding Refn's new service. Last month they had Argentinian & German new wave films mixed with political documentaries/docudramas, the horror films of Ferrara & Carpenter and a few surrealist films.

It's a solid alternative to Filmstruck or Fandor especially if you're looking to save a few bucks.

The script writer originally wrote it in his youth and altered it throughout the years, which explains how it became the utter Karloff it is now. But why Trevorrow was compelled to take on the project that maimed his career is beyond mortal comprehension.

The silver lining is that it has produced my favourite page by far on letterboxd, where the user reviews are always a joy to read.

https://letterboxd.com/film/the-book-of-henry/reviews/by/activity/

This film needs to have midnight screenings [if it doesn't already], and people need to attend dressed as Marcus Fenix.

for those who don't know mubi is free if you have a university student email

https://mubi.com/filmstudent

you can sign up to 4 years free of charge! my account is vaild until 2024

unfortunately the 30 films/day thing gets very limiting and it's region locked so most of the movies you listed aren't available in my country.

The best list I have found that doesn't overrate based on historical significance or on the other hand overrates based on popularity or hype is an unknown one compiled through averaging the rankings of cinephiles: http://www.criticker.com/?fl&view=oth&user=avgcrtckr&filter=p5x4mainstream

The fact that Harakiri isn't even on the Sight & Sound top 250 movies ever invalidates the list for me.

I use it as an excuse to 1)watch film and 2) write.

And I agree, the popular reviewers there are very toxic and immature. I just stay away.

Here's mine if anyone cares though

I'm still not clear exactly what you mean, but at least now we have a better idea.

Given everything you mention, have you been trying non-Western films? The most obvious go-to's would be South Korea and Japan. Try something like <em>A Tale of Two Sisters</em>. There's some beautiful camera-work here, lingering shots, and the horror at the heart of it is both emotional and relateable.

Though you'll find gems all over. For example, I recently watched Phobia, which owes a heavy debt to Polanski (specifically Repulsion), and is far from empty, being built around a strong, campaigning message conveyed subtly through a wonderful performance by Radhika Apte.

I keep track of all the films I watched on rateyourmusic.com. I'm 25, and if you're only count feature length films, then I've seen 1500. I would also keep track of them on an excel file, and organize them based on year. Then I would try to fill in gaps of years I hadn't seen a film for. For example, have you seen a film for the year 1944? What about 1970? What about 1910? After a while I had watched at least 3 films for each year.

Back a few years I ago I was with you at 700-800 films, but then I decided to watch at least one movie a day for an entire year. Most days I easily watched two. I would watch about an hour of a 90 minute turning my lunch break at work, then another half an hour during some random point before I left. Then I would watch another film before I went to sleep.

On the weekends, I would try to watch a film in the theater and I had AFI that played classic/foreign films to make it more interesting.

Get a Letterboxd account and get started by finding some of the lists other posters have mentioned in this thread like the Sight and Sound top 250, Letterboxd’s own top 250, 1001 Films to see before you die and so on. When you rate and flag a film as watched, the site tracks the your progress through any list you view. You can add any film to your own watchlist to get an idea of what you want to see. It’s also a bit of a social network so you can see what people who you choose to follow have watched recently and what is popular among the people you follow. The reviews are declining in quality of late, but they’re still better than IMDB.

On top of that, check out The Story or Film by Mark Cousins. It is available as both a 15 part documentary and also a book which covers film history with clips from thousands of films that he deems noteworthy. Not everyone is a fan, but watching this series was certainly was a turning point in my cinematic journey.

I recommend the community on Letterboxd

Just looked up the movie you mentioned and it appears that there are 400+ user reviews. Some are short but many members write professionally as well!

I completely agree with this. Watching films that inspired other filmmakers is probably one of the best way to appreciate the classics. For example, Scorsese has a list of about eighty-five films that he says inspired him/are good watch a few of those and you'll start to see different shots, character motifs and themes that are prevalent in his work, just without the watered-downness of trying to replicate those themes. It's fun to see where the real 'origins' of that cool shot or story idea originates and you'll also end up watching a bunch of great classics and discovering some on your own. Another great example of this is an article on Sight and Sound that lists directors top ten favorite movies. You can discover a lot that way.

Links:

• Martin Scorsese Makes a List of 85 Films Every Aspiring Filmmaker Needs to See
• Check Out the Sight &amp; Sound Top 10 Lists from Quentin Tarantino, Edgar Wright, Martin Scorsese, Guillermo del Toro, Woody Allen and More

The ending of Sneakers (1992) gets me every time. When Cosmo (Ben Kingsley) cries out to Marty (Robert Redford), "I don't expect other people to understand this, but I do expect you to understand this!" it just hits something deep within me. All the other conflicts of the film melt away when Cosmo lays bare his true motivations. For three acts we've seen Marty maneuver through a world of shifting allegiances, of ex-KGB spies turned allies, of ex-loves rekindled. Even Cosmo recognizes it in his diatribe on the changing nature of conflict ("It's all about the information!"). But for all his talk about change, Cosmo's downfall is his inability to grow. That's what kills me. For decades, Cosmo has imagined this reunion, anticipated winning Marty's respect and loyalty once more. But Cosmo's hopes (indeed, his entire ideology) are predicated on a world which no longer exists. In that moment, Cosmo, choking back tears, is basically telling Marty, "I love you." Marty is telling him, "You loved the person I was then." It's devastating. Every time.

CHECK IT.

I wrote a 15 page paper on this movie as a final critical analysis for a film studies class, you might find it interesting. My paper is titled "The Suburban Prison". One of my favorite movies ever. My thesis:

"American beauty presents a progressive and darkly cynical view of American Suburban Culture, suggesting that the cultural norms present within our society encourage loneliness, depression, and fanatical materialism. In essence a “Suburban Prison”. "

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d6jp619lfp8dgom/The%20Suburban%20Prision%20-%20Final%20Draft.docx

A small note about many of the earlier space scenes: these aren't merely exploring what a future world would look like. It's showing humanity trying to adapt to a new environment and not being completely successful at it. With velcro shoes in zero-G, people have to relearn how to walk. They "eat" by drinking out of straws. All the docking has to be done in very careful ways according to orbital mechanics, instead of the intuitive movements that humans do all the time on Earth (try playing Orbiter sometime for an idea of how tricky this can be).

Humanity in space has essentially reverted to a baby-like state. In some ways, they're less capable than the apes that first met the monolith. Humanity would have to be reborn for this environment, and that's where Dave went.

George Miller has stated in interviews that Immortan Joe was a colonel during pre-apocalypse times so it's likely that those medals are actually his.

Big fan of Criticker here which by far provides the most accurate recommendations of anything I have tried out so far. If you care about style and not so much about function, then it wont be your site and I'd instead recommend Letterboxd (which is what most here use anyway). Also, if you have them, then you can import your IMDB rankings for free. If you want to try it out and don't have IMDB rankings, then I suggest to start with batch editing here: http://www.criticker.com/?fl&amp;view=all&amp;filter=or . You should get somewhat accurate PSI's (Probable Scores) after ranking 80-100 films.

Also note that Age of Sail is viewable using Google cardboard/vr using Google Spotlight Stories :

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.spotlightstories

Bao was created by a Toronto-born director of Chinese descent, and much of the story relates to that. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pixar-bao-short-showcases-toronto-1.4706568

François Truffaut championed auteurism, so you might want to listen to his interviews with Alfred Hitchcock; you can stream the files or download them.

There are dozens of them. The best thing you can do is visit Rate Your Music, and browse films under Essay Film genre. Sorry, I can't provide a direct link, because the site is blocked at my work. Some of my favourites off the top of my head: Sans soleil, Level Five, The Koumiko Mystery, Si j'avais quatre dromadaires, The House is Black, Histoire(s) du cinéma, Goodbye to Language.

Have you seen Eye in the Sky? I thought that it was a tense and necessary look at drone warfare. It handled the subject a thousand times better than London Has Fallen and is strengthened by strong central performances.

In fact, Gavin Hood (who directed Eye) said "Fuck London Has Fallen. How can you put out such a piece of racist garbage and think it isn’t strategically detrimental to the fight against extremism? It is a beautiful film for recruiting people to extremism. [The west] comes across as racist assholes. With all due respect to Gerard Butler, he should be ashamed of making it." His quote is from this article which is probably best read after watching the movie.

Just because you have a decent monitor doesn't mean it is showing anything in the correct colors, saturation, or anything else. If you want it right, you need to calibrate your monitor. People constantly buy these expensive monitors and leave the settings at default, or worse fiddle without knowing what they are doing.

You can use one of these or hire someone.

This isnt regarding the score, but I think these a some quick storyboard sketches he made for the film https://mubi.com/notebook/posts/dziga-vertovs-storyboard-for-man-with-a-movie-camera

I think you will find this piece on NPR insightful: The Sad, Beautiful Face That We're All Going to Miss Almost Everything

I made a list of the top 50 directors of all time based on the average rating of their films on Letterboxd.

https://letterboxd.com/ramirof1/list/the-top-50-directors-by-average-rating-on/

Come check it out and tell me if I missed anyone!

This is a suggested viewing list of narrative films for Harvard Film PhD Program.

I just think that this is one of the more interesting lists around so, I though to share it here. What do you all think about their choices?

There are competing definitions of mise-en-scene. David Bordwell uses the theatrical definition, which is pretty much what you describe - everything within a particular shot.

I subscribe to the definition intended by Godard, Truffaut, Sarris, et. al, which (in oversimplified terms) refers to a director's way of combining space, framing, performance, and camera movement into a unique expressive style. Here's a more exhaustive article that I feel does a good job explaining it.

https://letterboxd.com/KJones77/

Love Letterboxd. There is a great community once you find the right people to follow who do not just make joke reviews (though they have their place too, and often are quite funny). The best part is the amount of films I've been able to find either because someone gave it a good review or by finding it through their database only to discover it has a lot of love from the users. Definitely the best site I've found for (largely) educated user reviews.

Yes, I watched Strange Days earlier this year and loved it (my thoughts). It's a fascinating, often brilliant movie that, as you said, is quite prescient.

I got into Bigelow for the first time this year—in addition to Strange Days I watched Point Break and Blue Steel—and was blown away. At least in the 90s, she's an excellent artist who not only makes well-crafted, thoughtful movies with highly compelling premises.

Yeah I could probably give a pass for the kilts alone, but it gets worse. I'll just link the wikipedia article because there's a lot of points to list: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Braveheart#/Historical_inaccuracy. One of the most grievous inaccuracies is that the real-life William Wallace wasn't an oppressed peasant farmer, but rather a relatively wealthy noble.

Don't get me wrong Braveheart is a pretty fun romp, but there are so many blatant inaccuracies it might as well just be set in an alternative universe. It's like The Last Samurai for Scotland.

I use trakt and automatically scrobble everything I watch using Plex. I started using it about 2-3 years ago and manually marked everything I had seen. I've seen about 900 movies and 9500 episodes (in total; not since I started using trakt).

These figures should be fairly accurate.

The Stunt Man (1980) is on Amazon Prime, and also on HBO Max. Great movie.

https://www.amazon.com/Stunt-Man-Peter-OToole/dp/B073SGC2BL/ref=sr\_1\_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=the+stunt+man&amp;qid=1623303934&amp;s=instant-video&amp;sr=1-1

Rather than try to truncate it, I will just repost the original review I did for it on Letterboxd. The top portion is an actual review of the film, the latter half is an analysis of what I believe actually happens, including Ford’s assistant role.

Spoilers, obviously :)

https://letterboxd.com/tectactoe/film/the-conversation/1/

https://rateyourmusic.com/list/mrminio/movies-that-deserve-a-cookie/1/

I put a lot of effort into discovering all corners of cinema (still have a lot to discover, obviously), and picking films I loved. This list is the result.

>"Salvation" in quotes because no religious person is so arrogant as to claim that he is saving society.

Actually, Orthodox Christianity has an emphasis on collective salvation. That is part of why there is a Greek Orthodox Church and a Russian Orthodox Church. It is used to give legitimacy to the state. Only Protestants are so concerned with individual salvation.

I would compare Tarkovsky's spirituality to that of Dostoevsky, especially The Brothers Karamazov. I have no idea how this kind of spirituality was funded under the Soviet system, but Tarkovsky's work seems to have more in common with pre-Soviet authors than with toeing the Party line on religion.

For the extreme amount of time dilation required the surface of the planet facing the black hole would be mere hundreds of kilometres from the event horizon, you can fill in the rest of what that would mean.

Edit: I can't be bothered to do the general relativity calculations for gravity, but to give you an idea, the gamma factor is (1-v^2 /c^2 )^-0.5 so for time to run at half speed the relative velocity between reference frames has to be 1/root(2) times c which is more that two thirds the speed of light. For speed to run one hundred times slower, you have to be moving at 99.5% the speed of light. Time dilation remains a very small effect until you get to some pretty extreme situations, it is certainly of a similar order in GR so you would need to get very close to the event horizon for time dilation to reach the thousands of times slower required for the films narrative. If the black hole is massive enough, this point may even lie within the event horizon!

Edit2: further discussion can be found on smart people reddit. https://www.quora.com/Interstellar-2014-movie/Why-did-every-hour-on-the-first-planet-take-7-years-on-Earth

Not available digitally anywhere from what I can see (e.g. JustWatch searches many digital distributors), so buying it on Amazon is unfortunately your only legitimate option to watch it.

My favourite is Hart of London by Jack Chambers, it's really something else. Other than that I'd check out more Maya Deren and all of Brakhage (check out the criterions of them, they're very good collections). Beyond that take this for shorts; https://letterboxd.com/astoehr/list/recommended-avant-garde-shorts/.

I'm kind of fascinated with this user on letterboxd:
https://letterboxd.com/punq/
He has watched over 2000 films from the 1910s alone and over 7000 films from the 1930s.
He seems to be going hardcore chronologically, meanwhile he has only seen like 30 films of the IMDb Top 250.
Would be great to have a reddit AMA with him some time.

In australia are you able to do rentals on places like amazon or vudu for movies that aren't free? In the US for example if I wanted to watch scorsese's Boxcar Bertha I would just go to amazon and pay 4 dollars to rent it. Similar prices to what it used to be at video stores.

https://www.amazon.com/Boxcar-Bertha-Martin-Scorsese/dp/B001MKM226/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=Martin+Scorsese+boxcar+bertha&amp;qid=1620359531&amp;s=movies-tv&amp;sr=1-1

Thanks for the write up. I just watched the film a few nights ago, but was so tired I didn’t get to end. I missed the crossover from casual exploitation to denigration. I’m rewatching it now!

It’s a famous book I recommend to anyone, amazon link

I don't know if it's right to make a whole post for this, so I'm gonna ask here first cause this is killing me:

There is a movie, recent (maybe 2017 or even 2018) which I've seen recommended to me, many times, on Letterboxd. I cannot remember any words from the title, and I think it was horror but I'm not positive. But what I do know for sure is that it was very dark. Visually, not thematically (afaik). The poster was also very dark, and the brief description I glimpsed at talked about how dark it was.

That's all I remember, and I have no clue why I didn't add it to my watchlist, cause I intended to watch it for sure, and now I can't find it.

EDIT I found it! I don't know how accurate my memory of vague impressions was, but this is the film: https://letterboxd.com/film/sleep-has-her-house/

I had to carefully go through my entire Firefox history containing letterboxd

Letterboxd

A Summer at Grandpa's (1984), Hou Hsiao-hsien

Decided to go through Hou Hsiao-hsien's filmography. Partly because of putting of Edward Yang's due to how dreadful the prospect of watching a couple of his movies is, but also because of how much I love A City of Sadness, the only film of Hou Hsiao-hsien I had seen before.
Watched this and The Boys from Fengkuei and liked this one better. The mixing of narratives, creating a coming of age story woven together with broader social issues is something else. It's very much visible this evolution between these two films and A City of Sadness. The visual style also grips me like little else does, Hou Hsiao-hsien's framing is top notch, most of his indoors shots feel almost voyeuristic.

Nobody's Daughter Haewon (2013), Hong Sang-soo

Quickly becoming one of my favorite screenwriters, every script of Hong Sang-soo is deceptively simple on the surface with a bunch of complexities and little details you pick up as the narratives moves on. I'm still not convinced with his camera work, but the earlier the films I see of his are, the less noticeable and bothersome this is.
The film boils down to another piece about infidelity and honesty mainly, infused with great insight on social pressures and personal confidence. You might be tempted to say he keeps making the same movie, there's a character who's a director in this one also, but he finds a new way to approach the same subjects in every film and they never feel similar in the slightest.

Saw a couple others and wrote on most in Letterboxd.

The recs from the week before weren't that great as 95% of them had nothing to do with indigenous representation outside of white imaginaries. Luckily, CBC and a group of other Canadian First Nation groups have comp'ed an online resource with over a hundred films you can view online made by indigenous filmmakers.. I strongly recommend the work of Michelle Latimer in particular.

I think you would be better off ignoring awards and finding a critic who has the same taste as you.

You could also take the average of every critic, which is what Metacritic does.

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/top-ten-lists-best-movies-of-2012

For me, there are three factors:

One is the aesthetic factor. I need the film to be pretty, I need good frames and nice compositions, but I also want a good score and a solid cast. If a film is eye-candy, it has good chances of being a favourite of mine, although it will need to accomplish the other two factors!

The second one is a good plot that has a great message (sociopolitical or philosophical) behind. Only images don't make a movie, and the film needs to be able to develop and catch my interest with good dialogue and a script.

But the most important is the emotional factor. If a film is both stunning and impressive script-wise, but doesn't make me /feel/, it will surely not score more than an 8. I need to be able to feel the essence, empathize with the story or the characters, and I need a good film to be stuck in my head for days. I made a list of films that convey emotions in amazing ways (but not all of them are my all time faves). I call those "films from ether", because they feel like sensations and feelings made into a film.

So, if has none of those, it will surely have a 0-4. If it only has one, a 5-6, if it has two, 7-8, and if it has all three, either a 9 or even a 10, becoming an all-time favourite (which I keep around 5&#37; of all films I've seen)

Obviously, I don't restrict the status to one film per author.

>So, there are only 2 days left and I have barely heard anything about it this year.

>I feel like the media coverage has been gradually decreasing in recent years and that was even more the case (for me at least) with this edition. Is it because the selection simply wasn't very good? (If so, what might explain this?) Or is it because the critics aren't focusing on the good 'hidden gems'?

I don't want to sound rude, but there are certainly ways to follow the festival. I highly recommend looking up the movies on letterboxd. Many users, do review the new movies and share their reactions. Some of these are even professional film critics.

https://letterboxd.com/juoliveiras/list/cannes-2018/by/rating/

There is also the official Cannes YouTube channel, which uploads interviews and press conferences.

>So, which films presented in Cannes this year were the most critically acclaimed?

Burning, Shoplifters, Cold War and Capernaum do seem to be the frontrunners, when it comes to the Palme d'Or. But many movies do have received pretty good reviews. Really exciting.

I'm also looking forward to Long Day's Journey into Night, Dogman, Ash Is the Purest White and Birds of Passage all based on the director's previous movies.

Then I'm very excited for the reactions to the new Nuri Bilge Ceylan movie. And Ayka may seem a bit out of place, but I'm very curious about this one as well. The director's previous movie Tulpan was excellent, more people should watch it.

And Gasper Noé's new movie Climax is getting very good reviews as well.

I am an IMBd refugee so the conversion to the site is only natural. Here's mine: https://letterboxd.com/gis7thletter/

As you can see I like to write quite a bit and am active in commenting on other's reviews. I used to do the whole "follow for follow" thing but I didn't like reading reviews that were just throwaway one-liners.

(P.S.: Join us in r/Criterion tomorrow for our film club! The featured film "Picnic at Hanging Rock" by Peter Wier)

https://letterboxd.com/aaronberry/

I've become addicted to it in the sense of writing on a film and finding new films brought to my attention from other people I follow, as well as the general community it has among the handful of users who are filmmakers in their own right. Believe me: it's much more fun when you find the one niche to follow and turn away from the more popular ones. The latter tend to have the worst attitudes that come with their opinions.

I agree 100%, I find the casting alone of Kenji Sawada and Bunta Sugawara to hilarious. The combination of the two is so strange given the older Bunta and the younger Kenji. Just but looking at the actors in relation to the film you can draw clear conclusions about the youth being so removed from the war by 1979 and not understanding the impact of the bomb. The whole film could be a critic on the youth and with the few glimpses we get of what I assume to be referential of ANPO protests it adds to that angle.

And yes it is kind of foolish to think because Leonard Schrader wrote the film that is why there is this Taxi Driver feel (like you have to be related to someone to reference their film), but either way I find it very interest.

Also I gave that letterboxd a follow, with Eros + and Pastoral in the favorites how could I not?

https://letterboxd.com/Wazow/

Like /u/awesomeness0232 and /u/KJones77, I also review for Cineccentric. I haven't put out a full review in a while, but my latest contribution was to our David Lynch Retrospective which came out earlier this week. In it, we talk about several of the famous director's most prominent films, including Eraserhead, The Elephant Man, Blue Velvet, and Mulholland Drive.

I also have a Letterboxd account that I maintain regularly with every film I watch. I try to put out some kind of review for everything I watch, with longer reviews for films I find particularly interesting.

Hey everyone, I just want to ask how you would recommend that someone get into film. I don't mean as in start watching movies more critically but start watching movies in general.

It may sound weird but I really haven't seen anything. Growing up I had a short attention span and a few bad experiences with panic attacks in the cinema so I kind of hated movies. Only as I am now going to university I'm getting weird looks when I say I haven't watched star wars, or Indiana Jones, or that I only really saw Lord of the Rings once at a friend's house and don't remember much. But as I watch these I realised that (also) want to watch something more interesting, and to get to know more about the medium/artwork I'm general.

First I started looking at lists of greatest movies of all time (on rateyourmusic, letterboxd, etc.) but some of them seemed to go a bit over my head. Then I found this list of "accessibility levels" and I've made a general watching order based on that. I've also picked up a textbook recommended on the wiki and I'm about 1/3 through that.

So my question is: am I overthinking this? Should I just start watching films that sounds interesting to me regardless of how "difficult" they are? Does anyone have a similar experience of going straight into foreign/classic cinema without having a background in "mainstream" films first?

(Also maybe I should mention that since I'm "foreign" myself I'm used to films with subtitles so that's not really a hold-up for me)

Regarding the current independent animation scene in Italy you might find this read interesting: https://mubi.com/notebook/posts/wonder-and-displacement-a-look-at-contemporary-italian-animation

Virgilio Villoresi, which is mentioned in the article above, used to do interesting works in stop motion. I think you can find some of his works on Vimeo.

About Anime in Italy: it's related to the problem that every form of animation in the country is perceived as childish. In Japan, Anime targets all ages. There are Anime for kids, Anime for teenagers, Anime for adults... This important fact was completely ignored in Italy and some problems started to surface. One of the first Anime to receive a huge success was Grendizer in 1978. It became so popular (that year the music album of the Anime was one of the most sold) that it started a trend called anime boom (roughly from 1978 to 1984) that was combined with a lot of merchandising which sold really well. Broadcasting networks started to buy a lot of licences from Japan because it was cheap and people were really receptive to it. And they bought every kind of licence because they would just censor the product once it arrived in Italy. But for certain Anime, the censorship was still not enough precisely because some products were made for an adult audience. After the anime fever calmed down a bit, toward the end of the 80s, media started to demonize Anime as too much violent for kids and definitely too childish for adults, portraying it as sub genre of no cultural importance or relevance.

One of the most interesting greatest film lists I ever came upon was this one, which was the result of a user poll in the old mubi forum:

https://mubi.com/lists/the-mubi-forum-users-top-20-poll-2012

I’m still trying to make my way through its entries, but the ones that I already had the pleasure to watch were all complete gems

To not be quite so overwhelming, here's five I'd recommend starting with:

• The Rules of the Game (1939)

• Duck Soup (1933)

• L'Age d'Or (1930)

• Nothing Sacred (1937)

• The Thin Man (1934)

Of the ones you have listen above, I can't recommend Trouble In Paradise and the two Hawks films enough. Those are some of my all time favorites.

If you're looking for more, this list is a pretty good, large, reference point.

Primarily Dave Kehr, Andrew Sarris, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Richard Brody, Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, Mike D'Angelo, and sometimes the Dissolve guys and gals.

Then people on LB, Jake Cole in particular is my current favorite.

My Letterboxd profile, don't often go too in depth but I can be pithy at times. I mostly watch Hong Kong movies but try to be somewhat diversified. I have a blog as well, but I have not been keeping it up much lately.

> "No One cared who I was until I put on the mask" - Bane

> Bane is my all-time favorite villain. Why? because he is A POWER HOUSE

> A great ending to an amazing trilogy. It's not quite on the same level as the original Star Wars or Lord of The Rings. However, the Batman Trilogy is still epic in my eyes.

> Let's not forget how Sexy Anne Hathaway is in this!

You can't make this stuff up haha.

Plus if you want generic, look at CinemaClown's reviews. Guy basically inputs words into a ready made scaffold.

The Man Who Knew Infinity (2015) directed by Matt Brown
"Growing up poor in Madras, India, Srinivasa Ramanujan Iyengar earns admittance to Cambridge University during WWI, where he becomes a pioneer in mathematical theories with the guidance of his professor, G.H. Hardy." An interesting biopic about a mathematician who really should be more widely known. Looking forward to more films Directed by Mr. Brown.

Gallipoli (1981) directed by Peter Weir

Another film that takes place around WW1. I've seen many other Weir films and this was just as great as his other works. Interesting, young men going to war story.

2012 (2009) directed by Roland Emmerich
Utter shit.

I'm glad it was helpful. To be honest, I'm self-taught through osmosis over time, mostly because my lifelong dream is filmmaking, but if I could recommend a general writing book, I'd say Stephen King's On Writing. King gets a bad rap from a lot of folks, but he knows character and story progression better than just about any living writer. Also he truly loves and is dedicated to the craft, which is so important.

Then you might consider these types of things in the films you love. What about them works successfully? And be precise, go into the minute details of each scene and line of dialogue and how they play off one another. Read screenplays of films you find brilliant and see how they changed from script to screen. Then read interviews with screenwriters and directors and writer/directors to get insight into how they approach the work.

Like anything, the more you make a study of it, the more you'll be able to pick out naturally. This route will take years to hone, but if it's genuinely meaningful to you, it'll be worth it.

I admit I haven't seen it yet but there's a BBC documentary about surrealist cinema hosted by Lynch (!!!) and he's apparently talking about Bunuel http://www.openculture.com/2013/10/david-lynch-presents-the-history-of-surrealist-film-1987.html I need to watch it at last.

Great list. Huge fan of Rififi, and Sweet Smell of Success in particular.

If you're interested, I wrote a review for the latter here.

I really love movie musicals. There are do many fun ones out there.

Not sure, if I would call all of these movies necessarily experimental, but they are certainly unusual.

Anna and the Apocalypse, Shock Treatment, Cannibal! The Musical, Lisztomania, The Happiness of the Katakuris, Head, Meet the Feebles, Forbidden Zone, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Wiz, Help! Help! The Globolinks, Fangs, Tokyo Tribe, Princess Raccoon, Hipsters, The Wayward Cloud (and other Tsai Ming-liang movies)

Also make sure to check out this fantastic list on letterboxd:

https://letterboxd.com/12pt9/list/tone-deaf-the-musical/by/release-earliest/

My letterboxed!

Zoe (2018): If the synopsis of this film sparks any interest to you, don’t get your hopes up. This film is littered with cliches, including a “getting to know you better” montage and a pretty strange love triangle. Zoe attempts to tackle some big issues like the humanity of artificial intelligence, the consequences of playing god, and the organic ability—or disability—to love in a modern age. Yet, all of these themes are completely underdeveloped as the film's main intent is to focus on Zoe’s incessant need to discern what’s “real” and find what it feels like to love—which doesn’t make for a very compelling story. Overall, the writing is a big pot of boring mumbo-jumbo; the plot is scattered, and the characters are empty romantic archetypes.

Cabaret (1972): Liza Minelli is electric in this film, makes me wonder how well Emma Stone did with the same role on Broadway. I was really impressed with the editing. There were a lot of interesting cuts; they were quite jarring, but it worked. The story wasn't really for me, I found myself zoning out a lot and fiddling with my phone.

My Letterboxd

Cries and Whispers - Super disappointed in this one, especially after loving Wild Strawberries and The Seventh Seal and expecting this to fall in line. To me, this played like a philistine's worst nightmare of what an "art film" is and took things to such extremes that it bordered on silly. For most of my life, this is what I thought Bergman movies were like, but I've been pleasantly surprised by most of what I've seen so far as part of the Bergman100. But maybe I'm the philistine.

Tourist Trap - a silly slasher movie that makes little sense. There are still some genuinely creepy aspects to it, and I enjoyed the mannequins.

Koyaanisqatsi - I've been meaning to see this movie for something like 20 years but have always shied away from it. I like art-y movies, but I rarely like full on ART! movies (see above my disappointment in Cries and Whispers), but this was entrancing. I've been avoiding the urge to go pick up the Qatsi trilogy set at Barnes and Noble's criterion sale and just putting it on repeat at my house.

To echo some of the other posters, I think you're doing fine. You like some films from the 60s, others you don't, that's to be expected. I don't think you need to "change your mindset" at all!

And you're hardly alone in disliking some of the films you do. The legendary critic Pauline Kael – one of the figures most responsible for championing major New Hollywood dirs like Scorsese – absolutely despised some of the European art films you mention. Her withering takedowns of Marienbad and Blow-Up are insanely funny (even though I happen to disagree with most of her points!).

If you're not too burned out on the 60s, tho, may I make a few more suggestions, based on the films you seem to like? [Edit: Adding a few]

Harakiri (aka Seppuku, Kobayashi)

Divorce Italian Style (Germi)

8 1/2 (Felini)

High and Low (Kurosawa)

Fists in the Pocket (Bellocchio)

Branded to Kill (Suzuki)

El Topo (Jodorowsky)

Fun fact: Kinema Junpo (in 1984 at least) ranked Hara the 3rd greatest Japanese actress of all time, behind Tanaka Kinuyo and Yamada Isuzu. Takamine came in a shocking 6th.

Interested parties can find the full list here (interspersed with the top 10 male actors).

There was a Sight & Sound poll of the greatest documentaries ever made a few years ago.

https://letterboxd.com/michaelj/list/sight-sound-the-critics-best-documentaries/

A few movies from that list, which would fit: Man with a Movie Camera, Night and Fog, The Gleaners & I, F for Fake, Tie Xi Qu: West of the Tracks (basically anything by Wang Bing), The Act of Killing (make sure to watch The Look of Silence as well), Titicut Follies, Lessons of Darkness, The Quince Tree Sun, Close-Up, Blood of the Beasts, Seasons of the Year

Others I would recommend: The Great White Silence, Lake of Fire, This Is Not a Film, Senna, Samsara, the works of Ulrich Seidl

Some of these are more docufiction/a bit hard to categorize, but they alll would fit, I guess.

Letterboxd

Days of Being Wild 1990, Wong Kar-wai

This is now my favorite green film of all time (Sorry Alfred). Wong Kar-Wai's unique visual style keeps surprising me no matter how many movies of his I watch. The depth of his shots, the actors positions in his frames, everything oozes feeling and intimacy, or lack of, so much so that while some moments may come dangerously close to highschool level drama, it never becomes overly dramatic or cliche.

Capturing emotion and character traits with his camera alone is what Wong Kar-Wai does best without a doubt. Every actor and actress being extremely attractive and incredibly competent at their jobs also helps towards this I'm sure. The only thing that kept me from loving this movie with no reservation is the action scene which resembles too much a hollywood b movie to be enjoyable. Wong Kar-Wai later in his carreer makes due on his promises of exciting super stylized action, but not on this one sadly.

I go a bit more in depth in letterboxd, gave this a 4 1/2.

Love the community once you find good people to follow! And it’s easy enough to ignore or block those who are more concerned with making jokes. I’ve discovered a lot of great movies and made some good friends!

https://letterboxd.com/tectactoe/

I thank Letterboxd for rekindling and completely igniting my passion for movies.
I used to always love making lists and reading lists of stuff, but never thought there actually was a site with that simple feature for movies, for some reason.
Then I looked up on google, and found Letterboxd.

Yeah the community is pretty circlejerk-like, but I enjoy some snarky and quippy reviews from time to time.
The best part as I've said are lists, the diary and the whole watchlist system: just adding movies, and being able to like lists and go through them, with filters, fading watched movies and everything else...is pretty neat.
I dont follow many people, just a couple youtubers and a critic, might start following some more folks.
It's just so nice to know I can think of a sub genre I might be interested in, go on letterboxd and find several lists with all the best that genre has to offer.

I'm currently on a sort of "365 movie challenge": I started it in March so I have a lot of catching up to do, but it's one of the best decisions of my life.
While I used to always be paralyzed when picking a movie, not knowing what to watch and ending up watching nothing, now that I've "forced" myself to just watch something everyday, I've unstuck myself and been able to watch all the movies I always wanted to watch, and many more.
I use the TSPDT top1000 as my main list (among others), but I also have a lot of random movies in my backlog.
https://letterboxd.com/leosky/
Now that I think of it, I think I'll become a PRO member, 19$-16€ a year is nothing really, and the added features might be really neat....not to mention I really want to support this great site.

I'm a big fan. It exposes me to films that were not on my radar and only adds to my ever expanding watch list. Also how the audience reacts to a certain film is a really good gauge for if it is worth my time to see it. Also there is not a niche type of review and you can really write whatever your reaction is. Wether it be in-depth or shallow. Here is mine my profile on Letterboxd https://letterboxd.com/Cowboycookie