What movies make you emotional or cry by their craftmanship?

[Quintus 5,399]

there are few moments in the history of film that evoked such great joy as the first sight of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. I remember getting chills down my spine. The whole sequence featured great effects, great acting, GREAT MUSIC, great direction, storytelling etc. The whole chorus, the perfect blend...

OMG, yes! I forgot about that!

I disagree. I thought the moment was ruined because they didn't let the music play full blast. They noticeably lowered the music every time one of the actors went "ooh" and "ahhh" like someone fumbling with the volume knob. That impression has clung to me since I first saw the film

I hope you're joking, because that's complete bullshit; I remember the music there blaring all around the theater like it was yesterday. The score in that scene was so memorable and incredible that for the first time in my life, I asked myself, who wrote THIS?

So you could hear the moans of the Brachiosaurs' and the awestruck reactions of Grant and Satler? Boo hoo. It's a fucking movie you anti-social fool; not a soundtrack presentation. You were sat in the cinema with other patrons.

You're a monumental plank where film and its music is concerned, KM. You make Sheldon Cooper seem like Jack Nicholson. "Ruined" my arse.

Pfft.

/annoyed

[Ren 75]

Also I 'd like to add a personal favourite, the main title sequence of Terminator 2!

that music, with the fire, and the kids playground (the irony!), gets me every time!

(and of course the whole movie.)

(meanwhile I'm thinking of others....)

YES, completely agreed

[KK 3,307]

Editing mistake, ignore this....

[King Mark 3,631]

I'm not sure how commenting on the mix of a movie scene makes me an "anti-social fool". I don't really appreciate random insults thrown into movie discussions and opinions.

If you look at the great Williams scores of the late 70's and early 80's, the music was never dialed down in key moments so we can "hear" the dialogue better. Imagine in the middle of the TESB Yoda Lifts the X-Wing sequence, the music being turned down so we can hear Luke's sigh of awe. In early Spelberg films the character just stared silently in scenes like that

The music mixes in the Star Wars OT, Indy OT , Superman are 100% perfect.

From JP onwards , Williams scores had worse and worse mixes, except for Potter 1 and Memoirs of a Geisha

[chuck 154]

Calling birds dinosaurs is like calling people monkeys. You can get shot for that in some parts of town.

But it's not the same. Aves and Dinosauria are scientifically meaningful clades. "People" and "monkeys" are not, and they're defined according to the common name for these in each language, which isn't based on their phylogeny. Aves are Dinosauria, "people" aren't "monkeys".

A better term would be "ape".

Late to the party... IDGAF...

[Brónach 1,302]

Calling birds dinosaurs is like calling people monkeys. You can get shot for that in some parts of town.

But it's not the same. Aves and Dinosauria are scientifically meaningful clades. "People" and "monkeys" are not, and they're defined according to the common name for these in each language, which isn't based on their phylogeny. Aves are Dinosauria, "people" aren't "monkeys".

A better term would be "ape".

Late to the party... IDGAF...

Right, there are these different connotations in English. Still, ape is a common name. Surely by that word's definition we are more like an ape than a monkey. Our more inmediate ancestors would have looked like apes to us, and I guess like monkeys before that.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

On TV two years ago Prince Poppycock brought sheer and utter joy

[A24 4,333]

-Crucifixion scene from The Passion of Christ

Isn't that like half the movie?

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm not sure how commenting on the mix of a movie scene makes me an "anti-social fool". I don't really appreciate random insults thrown into movie discussions and opinions.

If you look at the great Williams scores of the late 70's and early 80's, the music was never dialed down in key moments so we can "hear" the dialogue better. Imagine in the middle of the TESB Yoda Lifts the X-Wing sequence, the music being turned down so we can hear Luke's sigh of awe. In early Spelberg films the character just stared silently in scenes like that

The music mixes in the Star Wars OT, Indy OT , Superman are 100% perfect.

From JP onwards , Williams scores had worse and worse mixes, except for Potter 1 and Memoirs of a Geisha

I'm sorry for your trouble during that magnificent scene in JP, it must have been awfully difficult. But just for you I hope every other JW scored movie from here onward is mixed so low that you can barely hear it over the performers breathing patterns.

[publicist 4,643]

From JP onwards , Williams scores had worse and worse mixes, except for Potter 1

Where it was mixed so obnoxiously loud that it actively sabotaged the picture at key points. It's a whole movie, not the JOHN WILLIAMS SHOW.

[TownerFan 4,983]

This is for me a prime example of a director's pretentiousness. Kubrick's 2001 (with which someone made comparisons) still beats this to a pulp.

Care to elaborate?

Sorry, I didn't mean to slash the movie with harsh words, it was just a quick comment. Well, for me this film is the ultimate mixed bag: it's surely a powerful, non-conventional movie. I liked a lot several parts, while others were annoying to the point of being intolerable. Malick is a too programmatic director for my tastes, he builds the movie around several philosophic pillars and then works around them with a narrative that sometimes takes too much time to be really appreciated (at the umpteenth shot of trees shaken by the wind I was almost leaving the theater). The creation sequence is an example of his extreme self-complacency. I can understand where Malick was coming from (linking the story of a family to the huge mystery of the universe as to depict the extremely frail nature of the human kind), but in the end it's just a show-off. Ok, he takes the stylistic road of the "visual poem", but sometimes I had more the feeling of a Discovery Channel documentary.

The comparisons with Kubrick's 2001 (esp. the stargate sequence) were inevitable, but the movies couldn't be more different. Malick is doing a Philosophy treatise through the language of the visual poem, while Kubrick tells the story of the ultimate Mythical Journey.

[A24 4,333]

Believe it or not, Maurizio, it's the Discovery Channel aspect of Tree Of Life that I found the most mesmerizing and that I loved the most. I wished the whole movie was more like that. I admit, I had a problem with the dialogue of the family scenes. Because the score was mixed so loud and because of the dialect, I couldn't hear or understand what they were saying, I kid you not.

[KK 3,307]

I had the same issue Alex. The music is loud and the dialogue is terribly quiet. I get it, you're trying to poetic by having everyone whisper their lines, but I can't hear a damn thing! It took me a while to understand what was being said. The dialogue seriously should have been mixed louder.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[A24 4,333]

I'm glad I'm not alone.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

you guys think you are such mixing specialists perhaps you should be working in the movies...

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Perhaps they are...

[JoeinAR 1,949]

No, they are not. Wannabee's yes, actual no.

[A24 4,333]

Joey championing a Malick film ... has hell frozen over?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

no I'm not champion a malick film. I like Badlands, but I don't see the love this director gets. He's like some obscure author who thinks of himself as some literary existentialist who produces a work every 12 years or so.

What I was referring to is mostly KM's but other posters criticizing the mix in the films as if they know better. for once Alex I was not criticizing you.

[crocodile 8,012]

Oh btw The Tree of Life would be that kind of film for me. It's absolutely stunning technically. I was in awe when I first saw it. More of an experience than a film.

Karol

[KK 3,307]

I never said I was a mixing expert, it's just the dialogue was super quiet and I saw the film with a friend who felt the same way

[Brónach 1,302]

you guys think you are such mixing specialists perhaps you should be working in the movies...

I don't see why one would have to be a specialist in the field to be able to dislike something.

[Wojo 2,453]

It's to the point that my hearing sucks so bad in theaters that I end up waiting to see movies at home so I can either turn on the CC or use headphones.

[Quintus 5,399]

you guys think you are such mixing specialists perhaps you should be working in the movies...

I don't see why one would have to be a specialist in the field to be able to dislike something.

There's disliking something for valid, thoughtful reasons and there's disliking something for selfish, anal reasons.

[Wojo 2,453]

you guys think you are such mixing specialists perhaps you should be working in the movies...

I don't see why one would have to be a specialist in the field to be able to dislike something.

There's disliking something for valid, thoughtful reasons and there's disliking something for selfish, anal reasons.

What about liking something for selfish, anal reasons?

[Jay 37,364]

What about liking anal for selfish reasons?

[Quintus 5,399]

LOL

[TownerFan 4,983]

Believe it or not, Maurizio, it's the Discovery Channel aspect of Tree Of Life that I found the most mesmerizing and that I loved the most. I wished the whole movie was more like that.

Then you MUST see Baraka, Alex (if you haven't already), possibly on a big screen.

I'm all for non-narrative, unconventional film experiences (I love Koyaanisqatsi), but Malick's attempt is too much artificial and programmatic for my taste, also because it's submerged by all the other heavy stuff the film deals with. I admit that I got goosebumps during the "Lachrymosa" segment, but that was mainly because of the power of the music itself associated with astronomy stock footage. For me, nothing will probably never beat the truly mesmerizing experience of seeing Baraka in 70mm. That is a great example of an unusual, powerful film experience (http://www.spiritofbaraka.com/baraka)

[Quintus 5,399]

And only 96mins in length? I'm gonna watch it tonight. Cheers for the tip.

[mrbellamy 6,287]

This is for me a prime example of a director's pretentiousness. Kubrick's 2001 (with which someone made comparisons) still beats this to a pulp.

Care to elaborate?

Sorry, I didn't mean to slash the movie with harsh words, it was just a quick comment. Well, for me this film is the ultimate mixed bag: it's surely a powerful, non-conventional movie. I liked a lot several parts, while others were annoying to the point of being intolerable. Malick is a too programmatic director for my tastes, he builds the movie around several philosophic pillars and then works around them with a narrative that sometimes takes too much time to be really appreciated (at the umpteenth shot of trees shaken by the wind I was almost leaving the theater). The creation sequence is an example of his extreme self-complacency. I can understand where Malick was coming from (linking the story of a family to the huge mystery of the universe as to depict the extremely frail nature of the human kind), but in the end it's just a show-off. Ok, he takes the stylistic road of the "visual poem", but sometimes I had more the feeling of a Discovery Channel documentary.

The comparisons with Kubrick's 2001 (esp. the stargate sequence) were inevitable, but the movies couldn't be more different. Malick is doing a Philosophy treatise through the language of the visual poem, while Kubrick tells the story of the ultimate Mythical Journey.

I'm with you, Maurizio. I appreciate great beauty and poetry in film, but I found the creation aspects to be too abstract, heavy-handed, and loosely tied to what was going on with the O'Briens to really be moved by it. Granted, I've only seen the film once, almost a year ago, but my impression was that somewhere in there was a simple, sweet 90-minute impressionistic film about a Texas family that would have been a more powerful experience for me. I found the sequence showing the birth and growth of the children to be incredibly beautiful and far more mesmerizing, for example. I just don't think Malick is very profound or interesting as a metaphysician, and since The Thin Red Line, I've found that he lets that stuff get in the way of the human component, rather than enhance it.

[Brónach 1,302]

I have to see Baraka. And the others by Fricke. Also Samsara from last year!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

This is for me a prime example of a director's pretentiousness. Kubrick's 2001 (with which someone made comparisons) still beats this to a pulp.

Care to elaborate?

Sorry, I didn't mean to slash the movie with harsh words, it was just a quick comment. Well, for me this film is the ultimate mixed bag: it's surely a powerful, non-conventional movie. I liked a lot several parts, while others were annoying to the point of being intolerable. Malick is a too programmatic director for my tastes, he builds the movie around several philosophic pillars and then works around them with a narrative that sometimes takes too much time to be really appreciated (at the umpteenth shot of trees shaken by the wind I was almost leaving the theater). The creation sequence is an example of his extreme self-complacency. I can understand where Malick was coming from (linking the story of a family to the huge mystery of the universe as to depict the extremely frail nature of the human kind), but in the end it's just a show-off. Ok, he takes the stylistic road of the "visual poem", but sometimes I had more the feeling of a Discovery Channel documentary.

The comparisons with Kubrick's 2001 (esp. the stargate sequence) were inevitable, but the movies couldn't be more different. Malick is doing a Philosophy treatise through the language of the visual poem, while Kubrick tells the story of the ultimate Mythical Journey.

I agree with your comparison to 2001, they're both very different films. However, I feel that The Tree Of Life is the 2001 of the current generation in how it's so radically different and challenging, and not solely because it deals with creation.

But back to the main body of your reply, I still don't see how Malick's method of storytelling is complacent. You say the creation scene is an example, but how is it a show off? Malick's films delve deep into human consciousness and philosophy, no question, but he also lets his films breathe like no one else. Leone and Kubrick did it, albeit in a much different fashion that defined their styles.

I'm with you, Maurizio. I appreciate great beauty and poetry in film, but I found the creation aspects to be too abstract, heavy-handed, and loosely tied to what was going on with the O'Briens to really be moved by it. Granted, I've only seen the film once, almost a year ago, but my impression was that somewhere in there was a simple, sweet 90-minute impressionistic film about a Texas family that would have been a more powerful experience for me. I found the sequence showing the birth and growth of the children to be incredibly beautiful and far more mesmerizing, for example. I just don't think Malick is very profound or interesting as a metaphysician, and since The Thin Red Line, I've found that he lets that stuff get in the way of the human component, rather than enhance it.

There's your problem. The creation and universe scenes are anything but loosely tied. They are a part of the fabric of Malick's story, which is far from simple. This film cannot be properly judged on a single viewing. Look at how many people that hated 2001 only to change their minds after seeing it again. When I saw this film in the theater, I was enthralled but confused. I didn't understand everything that I was seeing, because we as an audience naturally try to grasp on to a cohesive narrative, which The Tree Of Life does not have. At first I didn't understand the ending or how the creation scenes directly related to the family scenes. When you watch it again, or rather if, give in to Malick's demands. He's a very demanding director that is most certainly not for everyone. Turn it up loud as the Blu will instruct you to (I honestly have no problem comprehending Malick's dialogue or his actors' performances), and give in. There is a wealth of visual parallel structure between the universe and this Texas family; and a reason why there's dialogue during the creation, but it seems like a lot of you didn't even hear it.

[KK 3,307]

I'm with you, Maurizio. I appreciate great beauty and poetry in film, but I found the creation aspects to be too abstract, heavy-handed, and loosely tied to what was going on with the O'Briens to really be moved by it. Granted, I've only seen the film once, almost a year ago, but my impression was that somewhere in there was a simple, sweet 90-minute impressionistic film about a Texas family that would have been a more powerful experience for me. I found the sequence showing the birth and growth of the children to be incredibly beautiful and far more mesmerizing, for example. I just don't think Malick is very profound or interesting as a metaphysician, and since The Thin Red Line, I've found that he lets that stuff get in the way of the human component, rather than enhance it.

There's your problem. The creation and universe scenes are anything but loosely tied. They are a part of the fabric of Malick's story, which is far from simple. This film cannot be properly judged on a single viewing. Look at how many people that hated 2001 only to change their minds after seeing it again. When I saw this film in the theater, I was enthralled but confused. I didn't understand everything that I was seeing, because we as an audience naturally try to grasp on to a cohesive narrative, which The Tree Of Life does not have. At first I didn't understand the ending or how the creation scenes directly related to the family scenes. When you watch it again, or rather if, give in to Malick's demands. He's a very demanding director that is most certainly not for everyone. Turn it up loud as the Blu will instruct you to (I honestly have no problem comprehending Malick's dialogue or his actors' performances), and give in. There is a wealth of visual parallel structure between the universe and this Texas family; and a reason why there's dialogue during the creation, but it seems like a lot of you didn't even hear it.

Its barely audible Koray, its why the film was rather confusing when I first watched it. Later, I amped up the volume on my computer at home and I had an easier time putting the pieces together. But as you said, The Tree of Life is a film that deserves multiple viewings to fully grasp.

[Brónach 1,302]

There were moments when the film had me really tired, completely unlike Malick's previous two films.

And I found Sean Penn's part to be quite uninteresting. I liked the universe part, the montages, the part with the stairs at the end, maybe something else.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

So pretty much everything without dialogue?

Here's a nice short featurette about Malick with Nolan and Fincher. I particularly agree with what Nolan says.

[mrbellamy 6,287]

I'm with you, Maurizio. I appreciate great beauty and poetry in film, but I found the creation aspects to be too abstract, heavy-handed, and loosely tied to what was going on with the O'Briens to really be moved by it. Granted, I've only seen the film once, almost a year ago, but my impression was that somewhere in there was a simple, sweet 90-minute impressionistic film about a Texas family that would have been a more powerful experience for me. I found the sequence showing the birth and growth of the children to be incredibly beautiful and far more mesmerizing, for example. I just don't think Malick is very profound or interesting as a metaphysician, and since The Thin Red Line, I've found that he lets that stuff get in the way of the human component, rather than enhance it.

There's your problem. The creation and universe scenes are anything but loosely tied. They are a part of the fabric of Malick's story, which is far from simple. This film cannot be properly judged on a single viewing. Look at how many people that hated 2001 only to change their minds after seeing it again. When I saw this film in the theater, I was enthralled but confused. I didn't understand everything that I was seeing, because we as an audience naturally try to grasp on to a cohesive narrative, which The Tree Of Life does not have. At first I didn't understand the ending or how the creation scenes directly related to the family scenes. When you watch it again, or rather if, give in to Malick's demands. He's a very demanding director that is most certainly not for everyone. Turn it up loud as the Blu will instruct you to (I honestly have no problem comprehending Malick's dialogue or his actors' performances), and give in. There is a wealth of visual parallel structure between the universe and this Texas family; and a reason why there's dialogue during the creation, but it seems like a lot of you didn't even hear it.

It's definitely a film I'd like to revisit eventually. Don't misunderstand, it's not that I felt the movie needed a narrative. I just felt like most of what I was hearing were little more than vague truisms. "The only way to be happy is love" or "Nature pleases itself, love smiles through all things". I can't recall anything that really caused me to reflect like the great cinematic explorers of spirituality, the Dreyers and Bergmans and Bressons. When I say I would have preferred a 90-minute film about the O'Briens, I just mean that I felt Malick did a much better job raising questions about the "down here", rather than the "out there", and there's a fine line between demanding and muddled. I'd love for another viewing to change my mind about that, though.

[Brónach 1,302]

If the 90 minute film about the O'Briens meant having Voyage of Time done and released I'd be all for it.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

Schindler's List

E.T

Star Wars

[A24 4,333]

I agree with your comparison to 2001, they're both very different films. However, I feel that The Tree Of Life is the 2001 of the current generation in how it's so radically different and challenging, and not solely because it deals with creation.

No, no, the new generation thinks that Enter The Void is the new 2001: ASO!

If the 90 minute film about the O'Briens meant having Voyage of Time done and released I'd be all for it.

I don't get it. As it was, the family drama in Tree Of Life was nothing new nor that special. Like Koray says, putting it up against creation and its creator (!) is what differentiates this film with other family dramas.

Turn it up loud as the Blu will instruct you to (I honestly have no problem comprehending Malick's dialogue or his actors' performances), and give in. There is a wealth of visual parallel structure between the universe and this Texas family; and a reason why there's dialogue during the creation, but it seems like a lot of you didn't even hear it.

How loud is that?! How shall we measure it, oh Lord? No, really, could it be that the stereo channel mix is different to the 5.1 surround mix? It watched it loud but in hi-fi stereo.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

I was honoured (and I do mean honoured) to see a 70mm print of "2001" in London, a few years ago. The last shot of the Starchild had me shedding a few tears, I can tell you. It's pure, unadulterated cinema.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I would kill a kitten to have an opportunity to see that film on the big screen.

[Brónach 1,302]

If the 90 minute film about the O'Briens meant having Voyage of Time done and released I'd be all for it.

I don't get it. As it was, the family drama in Tree Of Life was nothing new nor that special. Like Koray says, putting it up against creation and its creator (!) is what differentiates this film with other family dramas.

You don't get it. I just want Voyage of Time to exist. The Tree of Life could have some of it, or not, I don't care.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It's in post-production according to IMDb.

I'm not sure if I want Malick to be going into commercial Hollywood mode. He's got 4 films going on at the same time. None of which have original composers, looks like he's done with them completely.

[Brónach 1,302]

I guess he had already written them and they're small films.

I want to go back to New Worlds and Thin Red Lines.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Two of them virtually have the same cast. This is a man that took a decade to edit one film. Shooting four films back-to-back doesn't sound right lol

[Brónach 1,302]

I don't think we'll understand what's going on until we see them. At first I thought Malick had these scripts around and had a moment of "oh god I have to make more films".

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Perhaps.

[wanner251 17]

I'm a sucker for little Carol Anne in Poltergeist as well. Loads of teary moments in it, but one beautifully delicate standout is during the scene where her mother calls out for her over and over, and she finally says "Hi daddy," as he turns on the lamp. Craig T. Nelson's "hello sweetpea" response is just so subtly observed and Goldsmith handles the high emotion right there with the most gentle musical touch of his career, it's shivers down my spine stuff. That movie has done me in since I was a very young child and it hasn't lost any of its power thirty years later. One of the most honest portrayals of a young family's life ever filmed.

WORD!

Dark Crystal... Kira comes back to life... Trevor Jones.... Bombity bomb!

[Neimoidian 14]

Oh btw The Tree of Life would be that kind of film for me. It's absolutely stunning technically. I was in awe when I first saw it. More of an experience than a film.

Karol

I have never slept so good in a cinema.