Film Confessions

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

- I love the Star Wars prequels and prefer them to the originals

- Always is one of my favorite movies

- The Lost World: Jurassic Park is one of my favorite movies and I prefer it to the first one

[John 2,032]

The only Star Trek film I have ever seen is The Wrath of Khan. I didn't like it. Come to think of it, I barely remember any of it, besides Shatner's embarrassingly over-the-top "KHAAAAAAAAN!"

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

Jay, is talking about stuff that's in trailers a "spoiler"?

 

 

 

 

[Jay 37,249]

Good god no

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

3 minutes ago, Jay said:

Good god no

 

Well, I agree, but you never know. Some people avoid trailers b/c they don't want to be spoiled.

 

19 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Oh shit!  I didn't know that!

 

So say we all.

[Chen G. 3,940]

2 hours ago, El Jefe said:

2001 - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 

 

Oh, lots of people (by which I mean people who view film critically) share that view, myself included. It's visual splendor is beyond belief, but it's so lethargic that I'd watch An Unexpected Journey on loop.

 

My confession is that I, a man who loves examining films critically, cannot for the life of me watch "art cinema" - a movie based around an allegory or a statement. To me, film is just not the right medium for that kind of intellectual exploration: that's what books are for. Films are about taking themes, basic themes of humanity, and exploring them in a visceral, emotional way. Not about making a cerebral statement.

 

Because this is my criteria, I judge film by the emotional impact. As such, a lot of famous films mentioned in this thread - Godfather, Citizen Kane, etc - aren't anywhere near what I'd consider "the best films" (which is different to "favorite films") because they're not aiming to evoke a strong emotional response in the viewer to begin with.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Godfather is hardly antiseptic.  It’s a visceral and emotional film.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Even Citizen Kane, "not aiming to evoke a strong emotional response in the viewer"? What's the point of the whole Rosebud mystery, if not that?

[James 119]

I have never watched The Lion King, Mulan, Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings trilogy  or any Star Wars prequels. 

 

I did not care about Batman Begins or TDKR, but TDK is one of the best movies i've seen.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Anyone who thinks 2001 is boring or lethargic or sterile is stupid and should feel bad, very bad.

[publicist 4,643]

18 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Because this is my criteria, I judge film by the emotional impact. As such, a lot of famous films mentioned in this thread - Godfather, Citizen Kane, etc - aren't anywhere near what I'd consider "the best films" (which is different to "favorite films") because they're not aiming to evoke a strong emotional response in the viewer to begin with.

 

 

Why am i now dreading your 'Best films' list?

[Thor 7,451]

2001 is a Michael Bay action blockbuster compared to some of the things I sometimes see.There is good 'slow cinema' and there is bad 'slow cinema'. 2001 isn't even 'slow cinema', it's just masterpiece cinema!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Preach!

[Chen G. 3,940]

4 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

 

Why am i now dreading your 'Best films' list?

 

I'm not sure that I have a list.  What I meant is that, if there isn't a moment in the film that just assaults the audience with overbearing emotion, it isn't really deserving of being counted among the "best."

 

Take Citizen Kane: on the level of non-linearity, cinematography and clever transitions - brillliant. But when that's the main claim that a film has to greatness, it just becomes more of an academic exercise, for me.

[Glóin the Dark 1,218]

There are lots of non-English language films that I feel I probably should have seen but haven't. A few that spring to mind are Ugetsu Monogotari, the last two films in the Apu trilogy, The Passion of Joan of Arc, 8¹/₂, La dolce vita, Les Quatres cents coups, Throne of Blood, Solaris...

 

That similar thread that was linked to above was brought up in a discussion a couple of years ago, and I started to make a list but never finished it. These aren't exactly films that I feel I should see; just things that have been rather popular or prominent but that I haven't seen:

• Any Star Wars film made in this millennium
• Any Star Trek film not directed by J.J. Abrams
• The final two Harry Potter films
• Any film in the following series / franchises: Spider Man, Iron Man, Hulk, Mission Impossible, Rocky, Rambo, Transformers, Marvel Cinematic Universe, The Hunger Games, Twilight, Narnia, Taken, The Fast and the Furious, Underworld, Blade, Saw, Scary Movie, American Pie, Austin Powers, National Treasure, Toy Story, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
• Any film after the first in the following series / franchises: The Matrix, X-Men, Jurassic Park, The Hangover, Scream, Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek
• Any James Bond film from Pierce Brosnan onwards (I'm not too familiar with the earlier ones either)
• Any film written or directed by Zack Snyder, Kevin Smith, Michael Bay (except for The Rock), Guy Ritchie (except Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels), Ben Stiller (except Tropic Thunder), the Farrelly Brothers
• Any Pixar film other than Finding Nemo
• Any film featuring Ryan Reynolds or (with the exception of Punch Drunk Love) Adam Sandler
• Miscellaneous recent films not included above: Wonder Woman, World War Z, Mad Max: Fury Road, Fifty Shades of Grey, Arrival, Jason Bourne, La La Land, Ghostbusters...

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

God I love Throne of Blood.  My pick for greatest “Shakespeare on screen” film.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Thor 7,451]

4 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

There are lots of non-English language films that I feel I probably should have seen but haven't. A few that spring to mind are Ugetsu Monogotari, the last two films in the Apu trilogy, The Passion of Joan of Arc, 8¹/₂, La dolce vita, Les Quatres cents coups, Throne of Blood, Solaris...

 

Nice to see non-Hollywood movies mentioned! I haven't seen 8 1/2 or LA DOLCE VITA either (I've seen some Fellini, but his style doesn't really appeal to me, so I've just let these embarassing "holes" stick around forever), but I've seen the others you mentioned, and love 'em all. In fact, the APU trilogy (but especially PANTHER PANCHALI) is one/three of my alltime favourite films!

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

I have no strong feelings either way about Titanic.  

[Simon McBride 113]

I agree with many that 2001 is a snooze fest. I did eventually accept the fact that it's an incredibly well made film, I just don't see much value in it personally.

[Jay 37,249]

Gloin, you gotta see more Pixar films.

[publicist 4,643]

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I'm not sure that I have a list.  What I meant is that, if there isn't a moment in the film that just assaults the audience with overbearing emotion, it isn't really deserving of being counted among the "best."

 

Take Citizen Kane: on the level of non-linearity, cinematography and clever transitions - brillliant. But when that's the main claim that a film has to greatness, it just becomes more of an academic exercise, for me.

 

The problem with these kind of theorems - and i have read hundreds of variations on them since rec.movies first reared its chaotic head - is that there is no 'audience', only lots of people with wildly differing life experiences and intellectual capacities. It stands to reason that there are indeed people that feel emotionally overwhelmed by Orson Welles or Kubrick movies,and they may intersect with those that find 'overbearing emotion' of the E.T. variety wholly indigestible. Now what will end up on a best-of list says more about those who write it then it says about the relative merits of what's on their list. And i guarantee you i find you a thousand guys on the internet that will vomit over your overbearing moments-choices in a NY minute.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I just remembered that I actually think Kurosawa’s Ran is even better than Throne of Blood, so actually Ran is my pick for best Shakespeare movie.

[Bilbo 3,709]

I really need to get around to watching that Kurosawa boxset I bought!

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

5 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

Oh GOD I fucking hated Scarface.  De Palma's worst film.  I guess that's an unpopular opinion?

 

Not among film school cognoscenti. I think it partially stems from pure resentment on their part--it's one of the few of De Palma's films that managed to percolate into popular culture at any significant level, where a lot of his better films haven't, for whatever reason. Regardless, I enjoy it as a porn horror opera. The venal excesses of the Hollywood movie brats and the failed hopes of the Baby Boomer left projected into a hall of mirrors. A flawed but audacious work, and for that I prefer it to the mediocrity of something like Redacted.

 

I guess that's my first film confession. I like Scarface.

 

 

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

I just remembered that I actually think Kurosawa’s Ran is even better than Throne of Blood, so actually Ran is my pick for best Shakespeare movie.

 

Mine too, along with Whedon's Much Ado.

[Seth 67]

9 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

Mine too, along with Whedon's Much Ado.

Finally! Someone else who likes that one. I would rather Whedon and his pals do more Shakespeare than have him waste his time on comic book adaptations (yes, I think his Avengers films are mostly garbage; some of the Marvel films I have enjoyed for what they are, but the first Avengers is much overpraised and the sequel is just a waste of time.)

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

I just remembered that I actually think Kurosawa’s Ran is even better than Throne of Blood, so actually Ran is my pick for best Shakespeare movie.

 

I think mine would be Welles's Chimes at Midnight.

[Ollie 1,059]

I’ve never seen Godfather III.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The only Kubrick movie I really like is Eyes Wide Shut.

[Wojo 2,453]

1 hour ago, El Jefe said:

I’ve never seen Godfather III.

 

It came with my blu-ray set. I suppose someday I'll watch it. 

[Alex 2,833]

I've never seen:

- The Lion King

- Avatar

- The Lord of the Rings trilogy

- The Dark Knight trilogy 

- The Rocky films 

 

I also never really got the appeal of The Godfather. Carrie is another film that kinda bored me to death.

 

Oh, and The Great Muppet Caper is one of my favourite ever films.

 

 

[Wojo 2,453]

Quote

The Age of Innocence (1993; Martin Scorsese)

Almost Famous (2000; Cameron Crowe)

Amadeus (1984; Milos Forman)

Au revoir les enfants (1987; Louis Malle)

Double Indemnity (1944; Billy Wilder)

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004; Michel Gondry)

Hannah and Her Sisters (1986; Woody Allen)

Howards End (1992; Merchant-Ivory)

It's a Wonderful Life (1946; Frank Capra)

Moonrise Kingdom (2012; Wes Anderson)

Ran (1985; Akira Kurosawa)

The Rules of the Game (1939; Jean Renoir)

The Shining (1980; Stanley Kubrick)

The Shop Around the Corner (1941; Ernst Lubitsch)

Short Cuts (1993; Robert Altman)

Vertigo (1958; Alfred Hitchcock)

Winter Light (1963; Ingmar Bergman)

 

I've never seen any of these. 

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

They’re alright

[A24 4,323]

8 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

 

 

WTF!!

 

7 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

Even Citizen Kane, "not aiming to evoke a strong emotional response in the viewer"? What's the point of the whole Rosebud mystery, if not that?

 

Good point! 

 

6 hours ago, publicist said:

 

The problem with these kind of theorems - and i have read hundreds of variations on them since rec.movies first reared its chaotic head - is that there is no 'audience', only lots of people with wildly differing life experiences and intellectual capacities. It stands to reason that there are indeed people that feel emotionally overwhelmed by Orson Welles or Kubrick movies,and they may intersect with those that find 'overbearing emotion' of the E.T. variety wholly indigestible. Now what will end up on a best-of list says more about those who write it then it says about the relative merits of what's on their list. And i guarantee you i find you a thousand guys on the internet that will vomit over your overbearing moments-choices in a NY minute.

 

Harsh but true.

 

3 hours ago, The Doctor said:

The only Kubrick movie I really like is Eyes Wide Shut.

 

If it is any consolation, it's his best movie after 2001: ASO. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,488]

I guess I'm going the other way. As I get older I'm turning off all this stumm und drang, and embracing films that are quieter, and more contemplative; films that nourish my heart, mind, and soul, rather than just my eyes and ears.

[A24 4,323]

6 minutes ago, Richard said:

I guess I'm going the other way. As I get older I'm turning off all this stumm und drang, and embracing films that are quieter, and more contemplative; films that nourish my heart, mind, and soul, rather than just my eyes and ears.

 

I use my eyes and ears to nourish my heart and soul.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,488]

Anything truly worth understanding has to enter through another orifice.

[A24 4,323]

I'm not gay.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

 

If it is any consolation, it's his best movie after 2001: ASO. 

 

Better than Barry Lyndon, Alex?

[A24 4,323]

It's the strangest thing, TGP. The last time I watched Barry Lyndon, I somehow no longer connected with it. I stood in front of the door but the movie didn't let me in. I didn't understand the change and so I blamed the Blu-ray's new aspect ratio. 

 

It was a whole other story with the last time I watched Eyes Wide Shut: Totally engrossing and connection galore! It was as if I was watching the movie while wearing Christopher Walken's Brainstorm helmet because everything turned into 3D, a transcendental experience, just like it does with 2001: ASO. 

 

 

 

Alex

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

It's the strangest thing, TGP. The last time I watched Barry Lyndon, I somehow no longer connected with it. I stood in front of the door but the movie didn't let me in. I didn't understand the change and so I blamed the Blu-ray's new aspect ratio. 

Alex

 

It has nothing to do with the aspect ratio.  Or transfer, or colour correction or sound mix. It has everything to do with the fact that you're a different person watching it. When we connect to a film, it's via the version current of ourselves. That version goes away, but the film remains the same.

 

Look at yourself in an old mirror.  The mirror remains the same....it's the reflection that's changed a bit. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Alex is really pedantic about the shape of the films he watches. He considers films photographed with spherical lenses and framed at 1.85:1 to be inherently inferior to their 2.35:1 counterparts (or other wider variants).

[A24 4,323]

9 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

It has nothing to do with the aspect ratio.  Or transfer, or colour correction or sound mix. It has everything to do with the fact that you're a different person watching it. When we connect to a film, it's via the version current of ourselves. That version goes away, but the film remains the same.

 

Look at yourself in an old mirror.  The mirror remains the same....it's the reflection that's changed a bit. 

 

That is certainly possible too, but I certainly not going exclude the effect of aspect ratio just yet. If film communicates through images then changing the images could change the communication. Maybe I just got old ...

[Bilbo 3,709]

Is Avengers the cheapest looking big budget movie of all time? 

 

It actually looks like it was made for TV!

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

There's a lot of films I grew up watching on TV that were cropped/P&S. Totally butchered aspect ratio.That doesn't stop me from watching and loving them in all their OAR glory today. A whole generation (though not me) fell in love with Star Wars that way.  The aspect ratio shouldn't change your feelings for a film if you'd otherwise connect to it.

 

That said, of course everyone is different. YMMV.

 

And we're all getting older Alex.

 

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

E.T., BTTF, Jurassic Park, The Terminator, Aliens, The Godfather, Schindler's List... all cheap looking made-for-tele movies.

[A24 4,323]

28 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

There's a lot of films I grew up watching on TV that were cropped/P&S. Totally butchered aspect ratio.That doesn't stop me from watching and loving them in all their OAR glory today. A whole generation (though not me) fell in love with Star Wars that way.  The aspect ratio shouldn't change your feelings for a film if you'd otherwise connect to it.

 

That said, of course everyone is different. YMMV.

 

And we're all getting older Alex.

 

 

 

I think it makes a big difference. When the image is cropped to fit your screen, you loose a bit of the upper lower portions of the frame. I am not alone on this, I've heard of people who refuse to watch certain movies because they are presented in the wrong format. I saw Excalibur in the theatre and I didn't really like it. Years later I saw it on TV and it was letterboxed which seems odd because there is no official version with black bars that I know of in Europe, but, wow, I loved it. The movie looks and FEELS so much better that way. I bought the Blu-ray and was greatly disappointed that is was 1.85:1. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Most 1.85:1 films if they were artificially cropped to 2.35:1 would look cramped and claustrophobic. All depends on how the image was composed, not some arbitrary fetish for black bars. I don't love anamorphic for the byproduct of black bars, I love it for its dreamy aesthetic, oval shaped bokeh, natural flaring and other interesting distortions.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

Of course, watching a film in it's OAR is always preferable. P&S/cropped films are, generally speaking, an abomination to people who truly care about film.