For me it is Jodorowsky’s Santa Sangre, when Fenix is forced by his mother to kill the stripper who loves him. There is a far more brutal and graphic murder earlier on in the film. As comically disgusting as the final frame is with that murder, it is justified for the victim is a monster. In this scene, Fenix kills someone innocent who is in love with him. I simply cannot watch that scene. It is too brutal, emotionally.
“The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade” is one of the most astonishing translations of a stage piece to film I have seen. It is fascinating and unnerving. Peter Brook deserves more recognition on this site as do his brilliant films.
The Oscars have most always been a popularity contest and a series of nasty campaigns. I just recently saw The French Connection, which is an OK film but I’m mad that it beat out The Last Picture Show. Avatar is a visual achievement, and for a Cameron film – pretty good. I would be more surprised if it doesn’t win than be mad if it does. What I find sad is that there are ten films competing and only five directors. How do you have ten best picture nods without giving nods to those who directed them? Just another Hollywood anomaly.
Salo, being one of the most controversial films to this day probably generates greater interest and sales than his “more accessible” pieces. I agree that Edipe Re, Teorema, Porcile, and Medea as well as Il Fiore delle Mille e Una Notte deserve far greater attention than they receive.
A Zed and Two Noughts and The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover at the very least should be distributed by Criterion.
I must say I have never been a fan of Brian De Palma. As far as I’m
concerned the closest he has ever come to a masterpiece was Dressed to
Kill, and as with all his films, it eventually drowns in its style.
I picked The Black Dahlia up as a five dollar DVD thinking it might be
of interest. I was unaware De Palma had been at the helm but what a
hoot. I rate this film higher than it deserves for its pure comic
value. This is a film that is so off that it’s good. More opera than
noir this would make a great stage musical. The characters are so over
the top. Brian De Palma should not have translated the book into a noir
film if he meant this to be taken seriously. But this was the time of
noir revivals and I guess he felt obliged.
If one considers L.A. Confidential to be a masterpiece and a great
interpretation of its source material as well as liking their film noir
to be serious and dark; don’t bother with this movie. Curtis Hanson did
create a great film with L.A. Confidential, though the one thing I
object to with many of the critiques I have read of De Palma’s film is
its confusing plot. L.A. Confidential has to be the most convoluted,
confusing film I have ever seen. Any confusion in Dahlia’s plot pales
in comparison.
On the other hand, with a little imagination a viewer can transcend the
film’s intentions and amuse themselves with the comic-book grandeur of
this piece. All that is missing is Batman and a few musical numbers. 3
1/2 out of 5.
Amen to Den’s comment. QT is a master at “live action cartoons” and elevating trashy movies to an art. He is not much of a dramatist. I am one of the few detractors of IB which I felt was both a waste as a WWII film and (for the Basterds portion of the film) a sluggish, unfunny snooze. I dread the idea of what he might do with slavery as a topic if IB’s take on Nazism is to be considered.
The Last Station. Overall, very enjoyable but don’t expect any great insight into Tolstoy. The film does a good job of laying out the stirrings of social unease that would eventually lead to revolution. The latter quarter of the film’s tone changes and is not as good. Christopher Plummer. James McAvoy, and Helen Mirren are wonderful. 8 out of 10.
Thumbs up on The Conformist, The Spider’s Strategem, and The Dreamers (which I did struggle with in that its pretense caused me to watch it in 15 min increments over a period of 2 years – but I finally liked it by the end). The Last Emperor was very good but overly lauded. 1900 has some breathtaking cinematography and some good moments, but by the end (6 or 7 hours later, I don’t recall) I felt as much as a buffoon as Depardieu and DeNiro were portraying in the last shot. I still wonder if they didn’t feel like buffoons for having acted in the film in the first place.
Now, for the piece de la resistance (Note: severe sarcasm) … the most overly praised film of all time … Last Tango …. I have watched this excremental farce twice totally in dismay as to how critics could even sit through it without becoming severely sick at the awful performances. Pasolini, Bertolucci’s mentor, dismissed the film. I can still picture Brando holding a dead rat and speaking of mayonnaise (or something) in a deadpan-awful delivery. Such a scene being what I find most memorable about Last Tango in Paris. A crass film about crass characters acted in a crass manner. If this were to have been Bertolucci’s only film I would dismiss him without hesitation.
Amazing how juvenile and temperemental these people seem to be. I love QT but he needs to shut up. Here are some good and not so good quotes from Bergman.
on Godard:
In this profession, I always admire people who are going on, who have a sort of idea and, however crazy it is, are putting it through; they are putting people and things together, and they make something. I always admire this. But I can’t see his pictures. I sit for perhaps twenty-five or thirty or fifty minutes and then I have to leave, because his pictures make me so nervous. I have the feeling the whole time that he wants to tell me things, but I don’t understand what it is, and sometimes I have the feeling that he’s bluffing, double-crossing me.
On Jean-Luc Godard in an interview with John Simon (1971)
I’ve never gotten anything out of his movies. They have felt constructed, faux intellectual and completely dead. Cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring. Godard is a fucking bore. He’s made his films for the critics. One of the movies, Masculin, féminin, was shot here in Sweden. It was mindnumbingly boring.
on Hitchcock:
I think he’s a very good technician. And he has something in Psycho, he had some moments. Psycho is one of his most interesting pictures because he had to make the picture very fast, with very primitive means. He had little money, and this picture tells very much about him. Not very good things. He is completely infantile, and I would like to know more — no, I don’t want to know — about his behaviour with, or, rather, against women. But this picture is very interesting.
On Alfred Hitchcock in an interview with John Simon (1971)
on Tarkovsky:
When film is not a document, it is dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn’t explain. What should he explain anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media. All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally. Only a few times have I managed to creep inside. Most of my conscious efforts have ended in embarrassing failure…
On Andrei Tarkovsky in Laterna Magica (1987);
on Fellini:
We were supposed to collaborate once, and along with Kurosawa make one love story each for a movie produced by Dino de Laurentiis. I flew down to Rome with my script and spent a lot of time with Fellini while we waited for Kurosawa, who finally couldn’t leave Japan because of his health, so the project went belly-up. Fellini was about to finish Satyricon. I spent a lot of time in the studio and saw him work. I loved him both as a director and as a person, and I still watch his movies, like La Strada and that childhood rememberance…
There are many reasons to present a tribute to an artist, whether they have the stature of a Bergman or Fellini, or not. Hughes made a social impact with his films in the mid-eighties. He helped introduce a number of actors, particularly Matthew Broderick, to a wider audience. Since when is simple entertainment some sort of a cinematic sin? While I am not a great fan of Hughes, neither am I a detractor. He successfully shared his personal vision of film with the world. He died prematurely. He was honored by his colleagues for his contributions. Enough said.
I tend towards stout such as Guinness and Murphy’s and like a dark ale such as Negra Modelo. Though I have never considered what is best to drink while watching great film. Coming from “Coors Country” I can attest that it is the most putrid excuse for beer on the planet as well a company whose business practices are despicable.
Funny, I recall a lot of tv shows when I was really young but not movies. I recall being scared of Jerry Lewis so I would say it might have been Cinderfella (Lewis gave me nightmares). My favorite movies when I was 4 or 5 were The Time Machine with Rod Taylor, The Birds (I was fascinated by the scene where Jessica Tandy finds her neighbor in his bedroom, eyes pecked out), and The Wizard of Oz. I also recall seeing Billy the Kid v.s. Dracula and A Shot in the Dark. So it could also have been any one of those.
Mamma Roma – Pasolini
The Garden of The Finzi-Continis – de Sica
The Conformist – Bertolucci
Ossessione – Visconti
The Flower of A Thousand and One Nights – Pasolini
The Leopard – Visconti
Tenebre – Argento
Rome, Open City – Rossellini
Bicycle Thieves – de Sica
Castle of Blood – Margheriti
I agree with Jon Kennard. Films that lack universal qualities that a viewer can relate to as time passes. If something is made to appeal to a passing fad, or to showcase a popular star of the time, it may have a ‘time capsule’ quality to it but future generations may not be able to relate.
These would be the films on the AFI list I would consider essential. I think most of the films are noteworthy, even if I don’t care for them but not necessarily essential:
1. Citizen Kane, 1941.
5. Singin’ in the Rain, 1952.
6. Gone With the Wind, 1939.
7. Lawrence of Arabia, 1962.
8. Schindler’s List, 1993.
9. Vertigo, 1958.
10. The Wizard of Oz, 1939.
11. City Lights, 1931.
12. The Searchers, 1956
14. Psycho, 1960.
15. 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968.
16. Sunset Blvd., 1950.
17. The Graduate, 1967 .
19. On the Waterfront, 1954.
21. Chinatown, 1974.
22. Some Like It Hot, 1959
23. The Grapes of Wrath, 1940.
25. To Kill a Mockingbird, 1962.
29. Double Indemnity, 1944.
34. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937.
36. The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957.
37. The Best Years of Our Lives, 1946.
38. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948.
41. King Kong, 1933.
42. Bonnie and Clyde, 1967.
43. Midnight Cowboy, 1969.
44. The Philadelphia Story, 1940.
47. A Streetcar Named Desire, 1951.
49. Intolerance, 1916.
55. North by Northwest, 1959.
58. The Gold Rush, 1925 .
64. Network, 1976.
65. The African Queen, 1951
70. A Clockwork Orange, 1971.
73. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969.
75. In the Heat of the Night, 1967.
77. All the President’s Men, 1976 .
78. Modern Times, 1936.
80. The Apartment, 1960.
82. Sunrise, 1927.
87. 12 Angry Men, 1957.
88. Bringing Up Baby, 1938.
91. Sophie’s Choice, 1982.
94. Pulp Fiction, 1994.
95. The Last Picture Show, 1971.
Rating films is so subjective. I used to try to have several categories of criteria to go by and rate a film by averaging those categories. That became tedious. Sometimes I am probably too lenient in giving a film the highest rating, and other times I am probably too severe in giving it the lowest. I think being as fair in rating and critiquing any form of art is important but I’ve come to the point that I feel rating a film is an expression of how much I enjoyed or did not enjoy it.
So, if I am thoroughly engaged and transported to some other realm during the runtime of a film I must consider that film to be a 10. That does not mean the film is “perfect” necessarily or above having its flaws examined. If a film has me checking my watch every five minutes, which I found myself doing with Drag Me To Hell, then that film may have something redeemable about it but not enough to get anything higher than a 2/5 or 4/10.
Most of the older auteurs grew up on Hollywood cinema. That was often their inspiration. The Oscars are part of the glamour (facade) and mystique of Hollywood. And that has often been the aspiration of not just movie star wannabes or just Americans.
Yes, WAY TOO MUCH is made of the Oscars. The awards are too often a popularity contest and brutally competitive. I’ve heard few Oscar winners debunk them. Woody Allen and Richard Dreyfuss do come to mind. As for Fellini, he was the consummate showman and as grandiose as they come. The fable that is the Oscars fit him perfectly. As an aside, he certainly did a great bit on awards ceremonies in Toby Dammit.
As for honoring world cinema, the academy too often overlooks great talent. In some cases they get it right as they did with Fellini’s four Oscar wins and lifetime achievement award.
Last Tango in Paris – Have sat through it twice and find it highly pretentious, underacted. Bertolucci and Brando have done far greater things. The sex scenes, which were controversial and shocking at the time, are the only item that earns the film a footnote in cinematic history.
Napoleon Dynamite – What nauseatingly, boring, unfunny tripe. Maybe if the scenes were separate skits with an ongoing character on SNL, they’d be funny; but strung together with absolutely no comic timing it is an abysmal excuse of a movie.
Inglorious Basterds – I like the Shoshana portion of this film but the other half is just plodding and dull. Brad Pitt’s Aldo Ray imitation grates on my nerves. The attempt at farce and slapstick comedy fail. More of a terrible disappointment than a film I dislike, QT can do so much better.
There Will Be Blood – Again, I do not dislike the film. I just don’t think it is as great as some proclaim. It has many elements of greatness to it but they don’t seem to work together. Day’s performance teeters on bombast and is too self conscious in contrast with the other performances. The film’s score is interesting but overwrought in parts. The cinematography, alone, stands on its own as some of the finest work ever done.
Casablanca – A good film that both Bogart and Bergman detested working on *(they thought it was cheesy). Just does not impress me as being as great as some seem to think.
Kill Bill (1 & 2) is QT at the top of his game. The action is simultaneously hilarious, and exhilarating. The editing is great. The use of anime is genius to tell the back story of O-Ren Ishii. The whole work is an audacious, thrill ride of a sendup to many a genre of cinema.
There have been rumours about Bay remaking Rosemary’s Baby since 2008. The original rumour was that he had his eyes on A Nightmare on Elm Street (which is coming out this year), The Birds (which according to IMDB is currently in development), and RB. Hopefully the latter two will fall through. The joke on Twitter this past week was that Polanski was doing a remake of Bad Boys II :)
I’m glad this thread has some more supporters. I think Beneezy’s original point is totally valid. Some of these threads get so off topic it’s crazy, and I have seen other threads that have no relation to film at all as well.
As to the subject, I have been a vegetarian twice. Had to go back to eatring meat because of severe anemia and it was the only thing that helped. I doubt I would ever go back fully but am trying to incorporate more meatless meals into my diet.
This is the last film Zemeckis will be making for Disney since they are closing down his studio after this project is done. Disney is on a roll right now with a bunch of rubbish, including several remakes, that is sure to make a quick profit. So, for one thing I would blame Disney more than Zemeckis.
Hollywood is afraid of new ideas and probably consider the pre-production cost of anything new to be prohibitive. They want the tried and true. The Beatles are still a selling point and far more so than any musical act today. Just as you say Nick, we don’t have an equivalent to Yellow Submarine in this generation. I think that’s because people have changed radically since the sixties. That generation explored and questioned. This generation, with exceptions of course, just want to be mindlessly entertained. And Hollywood is more than happy to oblige.
I volunteered at a local film festival last fall. I met many students from the local film school and was amazed that they didn’t know the likes of Pasolini, Kurosawa, Bergman, etc.. I engaged one person about some of the great auteurs and films. She was fascinated and I think will pursue some of the films I advised her to see. But, she’s not even learning about these people in a film school!
I think great literature/writers, art/artists have always had a struggle getting the limelight. It’s worse today due to our video-game mentality. We are becoming an aliterate, rather than illiterate, society overall and that world view trickles over to cinema as well. Kind of hard to compete with the mind-numbing, intoxicating effects of the celebrity du jour and how much scandal and wealth they are stacking up this week.
@Dequinix – I thought about that after my post. Nonetheless, if film schools are churning out directors/writers without some theory/appreciation as a foundation it’s no wonder the average Hollywood flick has deteriorated so much over the last decade or so.
Most traumatizing scene in a film....... almost 3 years ago
For me it is Jodorowsky’s Santa Sangre, when Fenix is forced by his mother to kill the stripper who loves him. There is a far more brutal and graphic murder earlier on in the film. As comically disgusting as the final frame is with that murder, it is justified for the victim is a monster. In this scene, Fenix kills someone innocent who is in love with him. I simply cannot watch that scene. It is too brutal, emotionally.
Go to Comment
Marat/Sade and the Films of Peter Brook over 2 years ago
“The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade” is one of the most astonishing translations of a stage piece to film I have seen. It is fascinating and unnerving. Peter Brook deserves more recognition on this site as do his brilliant films.
Go to Comment
How mad will you be if Avatar wins Best Picture? over 2 years ago
The Oscars have most always been a popularity contest and a series of nasty campaigns. I just recently saw The French Connection, which is an OK film but I’m mad that it beat out The Last Picture Show. Avatar is a visual achievement, and for a Cameron film – pretty good. I would be more surprised if it doesn’t win than be mad if it does. What I find sad is that there are ten films competing and only five directors. How do you have ten best picture nods without giving nods to those who directed them? Just another Hollywood anomaly.
Go to Comment
Pasolini needs more Criterion Love! over 2 years ago
Salo, being one of the most controversial films to this day probably generates greater interest and sales than his “more accessible” pieces. I agree that Edipe Re, Teorema, Porcile, and Medea as well as Il Fiore delle Mille e Una Notte deserve far greater attention than they receive.
A Zed and Two Noughts and The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover at the very least should be distributed by Criterion.
Go to Comment
The Black Dahlia over 2 years ago
I must say I have never been a fan of Brian De Palma. As far as I’m
concerned the closest he has ever come to a masterpiece was Dressed to
Kill, and as with all his films, it eventually drowns in its style.
I picked The Black Dahlia up as a five dollar DVD thinking it might be
of interest. I was unaware De Palma had been at the helm but what a
hoot. I rate this film higher than it deserves for its pure comic
value. This is a film that is so off that it’s good. More opera than
noir this would make a great stage musical. The characters are so over
the top. Brian De Palma should not have translated the book into a noir
film if he meant this to be taken seriously. But this was the time of
noir revivals and I guess he felt obliged.
If one considers L.A. Confidential to be a masterpiece and a great
interpretation of its source material as well as liking their film noir
to be serious and dark; don’t bother with this movie. Curtis Hanson did
create a great film with L.A. Confidential, though the one thing I
object to with many of the critiques I have read of De Palma’s film is
its confusing plot. L.A. Confidential has to be the most convoluted,
confusing film I have ever seen. Any confusion in Dahlia’s plot pales
in comparison.
On the other hand, with a little imagination a viewer can transcend the
film’s intentions and amuse themselves with the comic-book grandeur of
this piece. All that is missing is Batman and a few musical numbers. 3
1/2 out of 5.
Go to Comment
Race in Films over 2 years ago
Amen to Den’s comment. QT is a master at “live action cartoons” and elevating trashy movies to an art. He is not much of a dramatist. I am one of the few detractors of IB which I felt was both a waste as a WWII film and (for the Basterds portion of the film) a sluggish, unfunny snooze. I dread the idea of what he might do with slavery as a topic if IB’s take on Nazism is to be considered.
Go to Comment
Last movie you saw and rate it over 2 years ago
The Last Station. Overall, very enjoyable but don’t expect any great insight into Tolstoy. The film does a good job of laying out the stirrings of social unease that would eventually lead to revolution. The latter quarter of the film’s tone changes and is not as good. Christopher Plummer. James McAvoy, and Helen Mirren are wonderful. 8 out of 10.
Go to Comment
Bernardo Bertolucci--Love Him or Hate Him? over 2 years ago
Thumbs up on The Conformist, The Spider’s Strategem, and The Dreamers (which I did struggle with in that its pretense caused me to watch it in 15 min increments over a period of 2 years – but I finally liked it by the end). The Last Emperor was very good but overly lauded. 1900 has some breathtaking cinematography and some good moments, but by the end (6 or 7 hours later, I don’t recall) I felt as much as a buffoon as Depardieu and DeNiro were portraying in the last shot. I still wonder if they didn’t feel like buffoons for having acted in the film in the first place.
Now, for the piece de la resistance (Note: severe sarcasm) … the most overly praised film of all time … Last Tango …. I have watched this excremental farce twice totally in dismay as to how critics could even sit through it without becoming severely sick at the awful performances. Pasolini, Bertolucci’s mentor, dismissed the film. I can still picture Brando holding a dead rat and speaking of mayonnaise (or something) in a deadpan-awful delivery. Such a scene being what I find most memorable about Last Tango in Paris. A crass film about crass characters acted in a crass manner. If this were to have been Bertolucci’s only film I would dismiss him without hesitation.
Go to Comment
When Directors talk Sh%t about other Directors over 2 years ago
Amazing how juvenile and temperemental these people seem to be. I love QT but he needs to shut up. Here are some good and not so good quotes from Bergman.
on Godard:
In this profession, I always admire people who are going on, who have a sort of idea and, however crazy it is, are putting it through; they are putting people and things together, and they make something. I always admire this. But I can’t see his pictures. I sit for perhaps twenty-five or thirty or fifty minutes and then I have to leave, because his pictures make me so nervous. I have the feeling the whole time that he wants to tell me things, but I don’t understand what it is, and sometimes I have the feeling that he’s bluffing, double-crossing me.
On Jean-Luc Godard in an interview with John Simon (1971)
I’ve never gotten anything out of his movies. They have felt constructed, faux intellectual and completely dead. Cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring. Godard is a fucking bore. He’s made his films for the critics. One of the movies, Masculin, féminin, was shot here in Sweden. It was mindnumbingly boring.
on Hitchcock:
I think he’s a very good technician. And he has something in Psycho, he had some moments. Psycho is one of his most interesting pictures because he had to make the picture very fast, with very primitive means. He had little money, and this picture tells very much about him. Not very good things. He is completely infantile, and I would like to know more — no, I don’t want to know — about his behaviour with, or, rather, against women. But this picture is very interesting.
On Alfred Hitchcock in an interview with John Simon (1971)
on Tarkovsky:
When film is not a document, it is dream. That is why Tarkovsky is the greatest of them all. He moves with such naturalness in the room of dreams. He doesn’t explain. What should he explain anyhow? He is a spectator, capable of staging his visions in the most unwieldy but, in a way, the most willing of media. All my life I have hammered on the doors of the rooms in which he moves so naturally. Only a few times have I managed to creep inside. Most of my conscious efforts have ended in embarrassing failure…
On Andrei Tarkovsky in Laterna Magica (1987);
on Fellini:
We were supposed to collaborate once, and along with Kurosawa make one love story each for a movie produced by Dino de Laurentiis. I flew down to Rome with my script and spent a lot of time with Fellini while we waited for Kurosawa, who finally couldn’t leave Japan because of his health, so the project went belly-up. Fellini was about to finish Satyricon. I spent a lot of time in the studio and saw him work. I loved him both as a director and as a person, and I still watch his movies, like La Strada and that childhood rememberance…
Go to Comment
When Directors talk Sh%t about other Directors over 2 years ago
@SEXWASCOMEDY
Bergman.
Go to Comment
John Hughes Oscar Tribute about 2 years ago
There are many reasons to present a tribute to an artist, whether they have the stature of a Bergman or Fellini, or not. Hughes made a social impact with his films in the mid-eighties. He helped introduce a number of actors, particularly Matthew Broderick, to a wider audience. Since when is simple entertainment some sort of a cinematic sin? While I am not a great fan of Hughes, neither am I a detractor. He successfully shared his personal vision of film with the world. He died prematurely. He was honored by his colleagues for his contributions. Enough said.
Go to Comment
Alcohol and Film about 2 years ago
I tend towards stout such as Guinness and Murphy’s and like a dark ale such as Negra Modelo. Though I have never considered what is best to drink while watching great film. Coming from “Coors Country” I can attest that it is the most putrid excuse for beer on the planet as well a company whose business practices are despicable.
Go to Comment
WHAT'S THE FIRST FILM YOU REMEMBER SEEING AS A CHILD? about 2 years ago
Funny, I recall a lot of tv shows when I was really young but not movies. I recall being scared of Jerry Lewis so I would say it might have been Cinderfella (Lewis gave me nightmares). My favorite movies when I was 4 or 5 were The Time Machine with Rod Taylor, The Birds (I was fascinated by the scene where Jessica Tandy finds her neighbor in his bedroom, eyes pecked out), and The Wizard of Oz. I also recall seeing Billy the Kid v.s. Dracula and A Shot in the Dark. So it could also have been any one of those.
Go to Comment
10 italian films about 2 years ago
Mamma Roma – Pasolini
The Garden of The Finzi-Continis – de Sica
The Conformist – Bertolucci
Ossessione – Visconti
The Flower of A Thousand and One Nights – Pasolini
The Leopard – Visconti
Tenebre – Argento
Rome, Open City – Rossellini
Bicycle Thieves – de Sica
Castle of Blood – Margheriti
Go to Comment
Alcohol and Film about 2 years ago
@Alex K – Hmmm. Another interesting thought. Ice cream in brew?? Will have to try that. :)
Go to Comment
URGENT!!! PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION TO FREE IRANIAN FILMMAKER JAFAR PANAHI BEING HELD BY IRANIAN SECURITY FORCES about 2 years ago
Just signed.
Go to Comment
Dreadful Cinema about 2 years ago
A great screwball comedy.
Go to Comment
What types of films age badly after say, 30 years? about 2 years ago
I agree with Jon Kennard. Films that lack universal qualities that a viewer can relate to as time passes. If something is made to appeal to a passing fad, or to showcase a popular star of the time, it may have a ‘time capsule’ quality to it but future generations may not be able to relate.
Go to Comment
how many films on the AFI's top 100 list do people believe are truly essential... about 2 years ago
These would be the films on the AFI list I would consider essential. I think most of the films are noteworthy, even if I don’t care for them but not necessarily essential:
1. Citizen Kane, 1941.
5. Singin’ in the Rain, 1952.
6. Gone With the Wind, 1939.
7. Lawrence of Arabia, 1962.
8. Schindler’s List, 1993.
9. Vertigo, 1958.
10. The Wizard of Oz, 1939.
11. City Lights, 1931.
12. The Searchers, 1956
14. Psycho, 1960.
15. 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968.
16. Sunset Blvd., 1950.
17. The Graduate, 1967 .
19. On the Waterfront, 1954.
21. Chinatown, 1974.
22. Some Like It Hot, 1959
23. The Grapes of Wrath, 1940.
25. To Kill a Mockingbird, 1962.
29. Double Indemnity, 1944.
34. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937.
36. The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957.
37. The Best Years of Our Lives, 1946.
38. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948.
41. King Kong, 1933.
42. Bonnie and Clyde, 1967.
43. Midnight Cowboy, 1969.
44. The Philadelphia Story, 1940.
47. A Streetcar Named Desire, 1951.
49. Intolerance, 1916.
55. North by Northwest, 1959.
58. The Gold Rush, 1925 .
64. Network, 1976.
65. The African Queen, 1951
70. A Clockwork Orange, 1971.
73. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969.
75. In the Heat of the Night, 1967.
77. All the President’s Men, 1976 .
78. Modern Times, 1936.
80. The Apartment, 1960.
82. Sunrise, 1927.
87. 12 Angry Men, 1957.
88. Bringing Up Baby, 1938.
91. Sophie’s Choice, 1982.
94. Pulp Fiction, 1994.
95. The Last Picture Show, 1971.
Go to Comment
Should a movie EVER be rated 10/10? about 2 years ago
Rating films is so subjective. I used to try to have several categories of criteria to go by and rate a film by averaging those categories. That became tedious. Sometimes I am probably too lenient in giving a film the highest rating, and other times I am probably too severe in giving it the lowest. I think being as fair in rating and critiquing any form of art is important but I’ve come to the point that I feel rating a film is an expression of how much I enjoyed or did not enjoy it.
So, if I am thoroughly engaged and transported to some other realm during the runtime of a film I must consider that film to be a 10. That does not mean the film is “perfect” necessarily or above having its flaws examined. If a film has me checking my watch every five minutes, which I found myself doing with Drag Me To Hell, then that film may have something redeemable about it but not enough to get anything higher than a 2/5 or 4/10.
Go to Comment
"In the myth of the cinema, Oscar is the supreme prize." -Federico Fellini about 2 years ago
Most of the older auteurs grew up on Hollywood cinema. That was often their inspiration. The Oscars are part of the glamour (facade) and mystique of Hollywood. And that has often been the aspiration of not just movie star wannabes or just Americans.
Yes, WAY TOO MUCH is made of the Oscars. The awards are too often a popularity contest and brutally competitive. I’ve heard few Oscar winners debunk them. Woody Allen and Richard Dreyfuss do come to mind. As for Fellini, he was the consummate showman and as grandiose as they come. The fable that is the Oscars fit him perfectly. As an aside, he certainly did a great bit on awards ceremonies in Toby Dammit.
As for honoring world cinema, the academy too often overlooks great talent. In some cases they get it right as they did with Fellini’s four Oscar wins and lifetime achievement award.
Go to Comment
What films do you always catch shit for for not liking? about 2 years ago
Last Tango in Paris – Have sat through it twice and find it highly pretentious, underacted. Bertolucci and Brando have done far greater things. The sex scenes, which were controversial and shocking at the time, are the only item that earns the film a footnote in cinematic history.
Napoleon Dynamite – What nauseatingly, boring, unfunny tripe. Maybe if the scenes were separate skits with an ongoing character on SNL, they’d be funny; but strung together with absolutely no comic timing it is an abysmal excuse of a movie.
Inglorious Basterds – I like the Shoshana portion of this film but the other half is just plodding and dull. Brad Pitt’s Aldo Ray imitation grates on my nerves. The attempt at farce and slapstick comedy fail. More of a terrible disappointment than a film I dislike, QT can do so much better.
There Will Be Blood – Again, I do not dislike the film. I just don’t think it is as great as some proclaim. It has many elements of greatness to it but they don’t seem to work together. Day’s performance teeters on bombast and is too self conscious in contrast with the other performances. The film’s score is interesting but overwrought in parts. The cinematography, alone, stands on its own as some of the finest work ever done.
Casablanca – A good film that both Bogart and Bergman detested working on *(they thought it was cheesy). Just does not impress me as being as great as some seem to think.
Go to Comment
Do you guys like this movie? about 2 years ago
Kill Bill (1 & 2) is QT at the top of his game. The action is simultaneously hilarious, and exhilarating. The editing is great. The use of anime is genius to tell the back story of O-Ren Ishii. The whole work is an audacious, thrill ride of a sendup to many a genre of cinema.
Go to Comment
Rosemary's Baby (Roman Polanski, 1968) about 2 years ago
There have been rumours about Bay remaking Rosemary’s Baby since 2008. The original rumour was that he had his eyes on A Nightmare on Elm Street (which is coming out this year), The Birds (which according to IMDB is currently in development), and RB. Hopefully the latter two will fall through. The joke on Twitter this past week was that Polanski was doing a remake of Bad Boys II :)
Go to Comment
Vegetarians? about 2 years ago
I’m glad this thread has some more supporters. I think Beneezy’s original point is totally valid. Some of these threads get so off topic it’s crazy, and I have seen other threads that have no relation to film at all as well.
As to the subject, I have been a vegetarian twice. Had to go back to eatring meat because of severe anemia and it was the only thing that helped. I doubt I would ever go back fully but am trying to incorporate more meatless meals into my diet.
Go to Comment
What the hell is the purpose of Robert Zemeckis' remake? about 2 years ago
This is the last film Zemeckis will be making for Disney since they are closing down his studio after this project is done. Disney is on a roll right now with a bunch of rubbish, including several remakes, that is sure to make a quick profit. So, for one thing I would blame Disney more than Zemeckis.
Hollywood is afraid of new ideas and probably consider the pre-production cost of anything new to be prohibitive. They want the tried and true. The Beatles are still a selling point and far more so than any musical act today. Just as you say Nick, we don’t have an equivalent to Yellow Submarine in this generation. I think that’s because people have changed radically since the sixties. That generation explored and questioned. This generation, with exceptions of course, just want to be mindlessly entertained. And Hollywood is more than happy to oblige.
Go to Comment
You Say You Love This Site? PROVE IT! about 2 years ago
Voted.
Go to Comment
people don't know directors about 2 years ago
I volunteered at a local film festival last fall. I met many students from the local film school and was amazed that they didn’t know the likes of Pasolini, Kurosawa, Bergman, etc.. I engaged one person about some of the great auteurs and films. She was fascinated and I think will pursue some of the films I advised her to see. But, she’s not even learning about these people in a film school!
I think great literature/writers, art/artists have always had a struggle getting the limelight. It’s worse today due to our video-game mentality. We are becoming an aliterate, rather than illiterate, society overall and that world view trickles over to cinema as well. Kind of hard to compete with the mind-numbing, intoxicating effects of the celebrity du jour and how much scandal and wealth they are stacking up this week.Go to Comment
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) about 2 years ago
1-2-3-4, Michael Bay’s Freddie Krueger is quite a bore.
Go to Comment
people don't know directors about 2 years ago
@Dequinix – I thought about that after my post. Nonetheless, if film schools are churning out directors/writers without some theory/appreciation as a foundation it’s no wonder the average Hollywood flick has deteriorated so much over the last decade or so.
Go to Comment