"The Brown Bunny" is an awesome movie!
"The Brown Bunny" is an awesome movie!
JoeShmoe wrote:
I also think that the Academy is a little apprehensive of giving best movie of the year to something that can't appeal to everybody, ie The Kings Speech was great but it was hardly challenging, and if the art doesn't challenge us, is it really great?
Winter's Bone should have gotten best picture.
And what exactly does it mean for art to "challenge" someone?
Wise Guy wrote:
JoeShmoe wrote:I also think that the Academy is a little apprehensive of giving best movie of the year to something that can't appeal to everybody, ie The Kings Speech was great but it was hardly challenging, and if the art doesn't challenge us, is it really great?
Winter's Bone should have gotten best picture.
And what exactly does it mean for art to "challenge" someone?
Black Swan should have won best picture
Black Swan? No. Good acting, not a great movie.
joe9090 wrote:
Apocalypse Now would have been my favorite war film if it were not for the pretentious ending.
Perhaps i should tell you that Apocalypse Now is the film version of the classic novel "Heart of darkness" and that the "pretentious ending" is absolutely necessary to understand the novel and movie.
End of thread.
Actually the way Jules/Vincent really is how me and my friends talk to each other sober. If there is NO written social etiquette for something we'll try our damndest to figure it out.
No joke, don't even have to be high.
There is a difference between top 100 movies of all time and classic films. Classic films are those that actually stand up to the test of time and people still want to watch, or should watch decades and decades later (in the case of film as it's a relatively new art form compared to books, paintings, music, etc). Top movies can be subjective based on the criteria used to come up with a ranking. How much weight does box office success play into it? Acting, filming, special effects, how challenging was it, ground breaking, etc.
One person mentioned Casablanca. I once read an under 20 something fool post that they thought the movie was boring and very cliche. Then someone of understanding and experience corrected them, letting them know that so much of the "cliche's" we see in recent films originated with classics like this.
There is a bit of truth to the fast paced, action oriented, dialogue left in the trash on the editors computer related to modern film that hinders youth appreciation of the classics for their own beauty. Of course this is not just a problem with film, it is a problem with great literary works as well, where Dostoevsky and Tolkien are replaced with Meyers and Rowling. Maybe in time the latter mentioned might join the classics but as enjoyable as people tell me Harry Potter is, I doubt it will last the most judgmental, cruel arbiter of becoming a classic - time.
Requiem for a Dream is a fantastic flick and The Fountain is really good. Have you seen either of these? You really wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements if you have.
One acclaimed movie that hasn't worn well is "Rosemary's Baby." Now all I can think is "all of these old people are being really cruel and mean to Mia Farrow."
You sound like a pompous literature major. Am I right?
sub3over40 wrote:
No movies are made better by making them longer or adding scenes.
That is not true at all. Some movies are made a lot better by adding scenes. Good examples of that, while not great movies:
Daredevil. The original cut was savaged, and rightly so, it was a terrible movie, but the directors cut is actually decent. Still not by any means a classic of cinema, but clearly a better film.
Babylon A.D. was cut way way down, and the final product that Fox put out didn't make any sense. The extended cut only put in about 15 of the 30 minutes they cut out, but still made the movie make a lot more sense.
Another example is a recent foreign movie, Red Cliff. The american version is a really good movie, but it is still two movies pared down into one. The international version, with both part 1 and part 2 intact, is great. absolutely great.
Another great example is Brazil. you can get the DVD with the original heavily edited down version that the studio tried to pawn off (Terry Gilliam screwed the studio in a genius move, to force them to put out his version) The shortened studio version is awful in comparison, absolutely awful, with changed endings, weird edits that make no sense.
And Orson Welles' Mr Arkadin was rendered nearly unintelligible buy a studio cut that the director was left out of. Criterion finally released what was supposed to be Welles version before the studio locked him out and screwed around with the film
Now some directors cuts are awful, like the several time mentioned Apocalypse Now Redux, as well as the Donnie Darko director's cut.
Last Year at Marienbad was excellent but you had to appreciate it as a visual poem on memory. If you liked Jose Luis Borges or H.P. Lovecraft perhaps, then you would like Resnais' masterpiece.On the other hand, I couldn't get into Hiroshima Mon Amour or Night and Fog. It's a shame since the director is a great film artist.
well. wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDgn46pRPXUEnd of thread.
I agree that Black Swan was a horrible movie and Nat Portman was not and is not and will never be a good actress. The camera loves her, but she can't act. Note: I say this as a gay man who loves pretentious poop.
I feel fortunate that I'm old enough (40s) to appreciate the Classics and a lot of stuff before the 70s, but young enough (40s) to enjoy most of today's "best."
LOL
What I mean by art challenging someone, is that it makes them think. Either about themselves or their society. In other words, it is relevant. And good art is relevant to everyone because it gets at truth. Lots of art today, including that in theatres, is made to arouse emotion. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's bad, but I definitely wouldn't call it good, either, because it is not and does not aspire to be all that it can be.
Chariots of Fire.
The problem here is the thread title "utter rubbish". Most here are citing "overrated", which is not the same. If you take classic films in their time context I cannot think of any 'classics' that I would call utter rubbish. "Cult" movies are often utter rubbish (say Rocky Horror)but they go viral and so end up being called classics when in fact they are not.
sfsdsfdfsds wrote:
8 1/2 by Federico Fellini
La Dolce Vita, also by Federico Fellini
Absolutely awful, pretentious drivel in virtually every way imaginable. Two films that film "experts" love to pretend they enjoy.
you have no soul, sfs.
Those are two of my favorite movies
of all time. Smart, funny, wise, wistful, beautifully photographed. How can you not be moved by the mastroianni character in both? In 8 1/2 he is a man facing midlife crisis and in la dolce vita he is facing existential crises.
But through them all life percolates - no tired sadness anywhere.
Which brings me to the answer to your question - Ingmar Bergman's Fanny and Alexander. In fact, all of his movies. Lifeless, sad, pointless. Exceot for the photography.
The usual suspects sucked ass. If you go back and use the logic you know by the end of the movie, it still makes no sense and doesn't work.