Besides many other great films mentioned, I’d throw Bertolucci’s Novecento/1900 in. In purely visual terms, I’d say it’s even more operatic and ecstatic than The Conformist, or the Coppola/Storarro collaborations.
My personal canon-within-the-canon in Kubrick has long settled on Barry Lyndon, The Shining and 2001. All three can stand in, as far as I’m concerned, as expressions of cinema at its very peak of achievement. My nominal pick would be Barry Lyndon, but it’s something of a toss-up and certainly The Shining might oversway it in my affections.
As much as “Titanic” and “Avatar” are not my cup of tea, I have to give Cameron credit for staking his reputation twice on such rather improbable blockbusters. These may be febrile, adolescent epics more to the tune of Lucas than Griffith, yet I can’t deny there’s a certain mad conviction he brings to these visions. For all their obvious commercial aspirations, one senses that Cameron doesn’t give a damn as long as he gets to play with his toys to the maximum extent imaginable; that his punishing exercises in blockbuster excess have paid off so handsomely continues to puzzle, yet I grant it a certain awed, if begrudging, respect.
And then he always has “Aliens”, and his Terminators, and even the crazed “True Lies”, which is a sort of uber-Renny Harlin caper that achieves a kind of visionary genius. He’s not the director I turn to the most, god knows, but until Coppola pulls off a “Megalopolis” that’s as good as Apocalypse Now and grosses a billion dollars, I’m content to leave Cameron as the ‘King of Hollywood’ he so wants to be. To paraphrase Dubya: it’s his money, he’s paid for it . . .
Agnieszka Holland— her “The Secret Garden” was splendid, though of course that’s not a sort of verbal-play feast as the Alice books are.
But yes, it’s largely unadaptable, in the sense of really getting at the joy of what’s on the page. Sofia Coppola, I think, would render it pretty but joyless.
I have no intention of venturing out to see Burton’s film, though I’m staggered by the box office receipts— is this what “Avatar” hath wrought?
And is Burton’s Alice actually dressed like a Hot Topic goth?! or is that just the tie-in merch? In any event, this sounds like a rather joyless affair. Johnny Depp needs to take care he not become a sort of Robin Williams man-child stuck in shrilly mannered roles for the rest of his life. But perhaps it’s already too late? . . .
What do you believe is the most visually impressive film of all time? almost 3 years ago
Besides many other great films mentioned, I’d throw Bertolucci’s Novecento/1900 in. In purely visual terms, I’d say it’s even more operatic and ecstatic than The Conformist, or the Coppola/Storarro collaborations.
Go to Comment
Kubrick's Best Film... over 2 years ago
My personal canon-within-the-canon in Kubrick has long settled on Barry Lyndon, The Shining and 2001. All three can stand in, as far as I’m concerned, as expressions of cinema at its very peak of achievement. My nominal pick would be Barry Lyndon, but it’s something of a toss-up and certainly The Shining might oversway it in my affections.Go to Comment
James Cameron love/hate over 2 years ago
As much as “Titanic” and “Avatar” are not my cup of tea, I have to give Cameron credit for staking his reputation twice on such rather improbable blockbusters. These may be febrile, adolescent epics more to the tune of Lucas than Griffith, yet I can’t deny there’s a certain mad conviction he brings to these visions. For all their obvious commercial aspirations, one senses that Cameron doesn’t give a damn as long as he gets to play with his toys to the maximum extent imaginable; that his punishing exercises in blockbuster excess have paid off so handsomely continues to puzzle, yet I grant it a certain awed, if begrudging, respect. And then he always has “Aliens”, and his Terminators, and even the crazed “True Lies”, which is a sort of uber-Renny Harlin caper that achieves a kind of visionary genius. He’s not the director I turn to the most, god knows, but until Coppola pulls off a “Megalopolis” that’s as good as Apocalypse Now and grosses a billion dollars, I’m content to leave Cameron as the ‘King of Hollywood’ he so wants to be. To paraphrase Dubya: it’s his money, he’s paid for it . . .Go to Comment
Who should have directed Alice in Wonderland? about 2 years ago
Agnieszka Holland— her “The Secret Garden” was splendid, though of course that’s not a sort of verbal-play feast as the Alice books are. But yes, it’s largely unadaptable, in the sense of really getting at the joy of what’s on the page. Sofia Coppola, I think, would render it pretty but joyless. I have no intention of venturing out to see Burton’s film, though I’m staggered by the box office receipts— is this what “Avatar” hath wrought? And is Burton’s Alice actually dressed like a Hot Topic goth?! or is that just the tie-in merch? In any event, this sounds like a rather joyless affair. Johnny Depp needs to take care he not become a sort of Robin Williams man-child stuck in shrilly mannered roles for the rest of his life. But perhaps it’s already too late? . . .Go to Comment