Aight, Jekkie. So now that we have that covered, I have some followup questions. I feel that those movies you listed which I have seen are at least somewhat open to interpretation (except for Psycho, which hits you over the head with explanation at the end - the only major flaw in the film imo). If you can do so without having to write extensive essays, I'd be interested in hearing your take on them. Specifically Mulholland Dr and 2001. Btw, I'm not putting Mulholland Dr totally on the Darko level - it's a much more complete, mature and interesting movie and made by a much more competent filmmaker. I'd agree it harkens back to those classic noirs and is itself something of neo-noir. It intrigued me but also left me dry in some ways. What do you make of the movie, if indeed you think it means anything? I don't know if you get asked this a lot. For a while it seems like I spent quality time with every other person explaining why I liked No Country for Old Men and why the ending was brilliant instead of stupid. Also, do you see similarities between that movie and Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut? I'd think as a fan of those movies you'd have maybe seen this one as well. [quote]Anyway, I like your top 10, Reed, and it fits your definition of entertainment being the highest form of cinema. From what I can tell, you seem to like flashy movies that have some substance (I don't mean that in a bad way, either).[/quote] Well, it's primarily that I view movies as escapism. I don't want to spend two hours watching a movie only to end up seeing something I could see walking down the street. This is why, though I like plenty of dramas, they don't appeal to me as much as high-concept stuff. I value special effects because they show me those things that are only possible on a movie screen. [quote]I will say, however, that Jeff Goldblum is a man's man.[/quote] Why yes. Yes he is. :p