Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:36 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Films ranked 101-1000 
Author Message
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
I took in another Lubitsch the other day, this one No. 196 - The Shop Around the Corner. The film was loosely remade in the 90s as You've Got Mail (Meg Ryan's book store in the remake is the title of the original). As is (almost)always the case, the premise is similar, but the details set the original apart.

Aside from the surface similarities of starring Jimmy Stewart and being set during the Christmas holiday, the film covers some of the same themes as It's A Wonderful Life. It's a lesser film, but it's certainly a worthy competitor for the Best Christmas Movie title. The story centers around Stewart's Alfred Kralik and his job as a salemen in Matuschek's, a department store in Budapest. The owner of the store, Mr. Matuschek (played by The Great and Powerful Oz, Frank Morgan) is a father-like figure to Alfred, and Alfred is the store's best and hardest working employee. Kralik's a bit straight-edged, and when bubbly, free-spirited Klara Novak (Margaret Sullavan) is hired against Alfred's wishes, the story really kicks into gear. As you most likely know, these two are unknowingly writing love letters to each other and leaving them in a post office box for the other to read. The film is really a look at how little people know about one another, and how rare it is for 2 people to really know each other. This theme is ham-fistedly drummed into the audience through various lines of dialogue, but I forgave the movie for that because it's so rare for a romantic comedy to be played not completely for laughs and to have goals loftier than "these 2 people fall in love".

The heavy-handedness is also forgiven for a few other reasons. For one, the movie literally put a huge smile on my face by the end, even though you know exactly how it will turn out. I can't remember the last movie that did that. I even thought to myself how silly I must look smiling all goofily, but I couldn't make myself stop. It just has a lot of charm that seems to be only in old, black and white movies.

Secondly, aside from some of the dialogue, the story is well told. The movie is essentially two plotlines, one dealing with Matuschek, his employees and store, and his personal life, and the other the romance between Kralik and Novak. The romance storyline is ultimately the reward for people taking the time to really know each other, while the other storyline shows, while ultimately giving in to hope, shows what life is like when you're a slave to all things superfluous.

I think I'm starting to see what this "Lubitsch Touch" is all about. I've seen 3 of his movies now and either loved or really liked all 3. He brings a sophitication and classiness to quite a bit of sillyness. I'm hooked. I'm seeking out everything I can from the guy.


Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:14 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
I liked your description Pete. That was a title I wasn't too familiar with but I'll look out for that one too. I've actually never seen You've Got Mail so I may end up liking this one even more than you.


Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:15 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
I wish I'd seen some Lubitsch. I saw some Herzog. That must count for something.

#524 is called The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser.

I don't have to parse my words because I don't really have that much to say about the movie. Good movie about a "foundling" that has never met but one person, has lived alone in a Babel box for most of his life, and finds himself evicted by this unnamed person and in the streets of Nuremberg circa 1828 (thanks, IMDB). He's taken in by officials, exploited by these officials as a Curiosity and then taken in by kindly people that, over the span of several years, teach him how to live.

And that's what the movie's about: how do we know how to live? And not in the "pay the check, leave a tip" way but in the more philosophically interesting "why do we call a cup a cup, exactly?" way. Herzog touches upon the origins of language and meaning, the thin veil of society and several other Big Questions. Because the movie is so obviously a metaphor (didn't we just talk about The Truman Show somewhere), and Hauser is such a good device for asking said Big Questions, I couldn't love it. It was good though forced. Kaspar as a stand in for man's development/socialization (the first 20 minutes are dedicated to Kaspar learning how to walk, write, speak) is something that's interesting, even engaging, but never any more affecting than City of Glass or equivalent philosophy.

I mentioned in the Last Movie thread that I was reminded of some Three Stooges shorts. You know the ones, where the Stooges are taken in by a wealthy benefactor to settle a bet over what makes the man: society or genetics. In this way the movie reminded me of Close Encounters of the Third Kind; it was made with the same adolescent (but good adolescent) sense of wonder and energy. Herzog's documentaries were superior and this is to say nothing of Aguirre or his other notable fictions. Hauser is an interesting but surprisingly short-sighted and unimpressive look at how we all get by. Recommended for those who like a little philosophy.

In addition: thd film stars street performer Bruno S. as Kaspar. He'd never acted in a film before (he's good... very fitting performance) and, after his death last year, Herzog claimed he was the best actor he'd ever worked with.


Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:01 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
^ sounds watchable, but I'd rather see a good movie about "fondling".


Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:08 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
#463 An Affair to Remember (Leo McCarey, 1957) is ranked as the 5th Most Romantic Movie of all-time by the AFI. I believe this is the 5th Stupidest Decision the AFI has ever made. There's a lot to like in the picture, but there's also an unbelievable amount of padding. Cary Grant was never a great actor but he was always fun to watch. Here he was just kind of bland. After watching the film I was annoyed to find out that the movie is a remake (I prefer to see remakes after the original) of Love Affair (1939, same director). On the other hand, I'm excited to see the original now. My chief problem with the remake is that it's much too long (a full 2 hours) whereas the original is only supposed to be 86 minutes. That sounds like the perfect length for the amount of story presented. The original was also one of 10 pictures nominated for Best Picture in that great year of 1939 which makes me wonder if the AFI isn't praising the wrong version of the picture. I hope to find out soon. 6/10 for the remake.


Last edited by ed_metal_head on Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:31 pm
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1443
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
its "Love Affair" not Love Story. much better than Affair to Remember, which probably got some renewed popularity because of Sleepless in Seattle.


Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:45 pm
Profile
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
There are very few straight romances that I find to be all that compelling. Even stuff like Brief Encounter leaves me underwhelmed.


Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:55 am
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
calvero wrote:
its "Love Affair" not Love Story. much better than Affair to Remember, which probably got some renewed popularity because of Sleepless in Seattle.


Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. I did read about the original but it seems I forgot the title by the time I posted.

MGamesCook wrote:
There are very few straight romances that I find to be all that compelling. Even stuff like Brief Encounter leaves me underwhelmed.


Brief Encounter was a little stagey and blandly filmed for my liking. Still, I liked it a lot.

How do you feel about a modern romance like the Before Sunrise/Sunset movies?


Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:29 pm
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1443
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
do you consider Letter From An Unknown Woman or The Earrings of Madame de to be straight romances?


Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:35 pm
Profile
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
calvero wrote:
do you consider Letter From An Unknown Woman or The Earrings of Madame de to be straight romances?

Letter From an Unknown Woman certainly is. I don't remember enough about the latter to say definitely.


Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:16 am
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
No. 336 - The 39 Steps

Criterion essays (I like them in case you didn't notice):

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/75-the-39-steps

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/844-the-39-steps

The first essay approaches the film from an angle of self-awareness. It posits that Hitch was attempting to comment on the nature of film and what it means to be a character in a Hitchcock film. Since this was his first "wrong man" movie, I have a hard time buying in to that notion. It makes little sense for such a self-aware comment to be at the beginning of a "series". The essay also compares the film, and the subtext of Director-As-God, to what Hitchcock did in his other films. Again, I don't really agree with any of that, as I don't see where any of this is inherent to Hitchcock films. It's mostly an essay I disagree with, but still an interesting read. About the only thing I agree with the essay on is the insinuation that the film deals with human identity.

The second essay is much more in line with my reading of the film. Which is as follows:

If you've read the second essay, you've come to realize that Hitchcock was aiming to juxtapose and contrast just about every emotion shown in the film. Everything has it's polar opposite, and Hitch makes a point of showing each emotion at the other end of the spectrum. Clever, sure, but what does it mean? What's he after?

The title of the film, and the driving force behind the narrative, is eventually told to the audience, but is done so quickly and in an off-handed, unimportant way. It's a classic case of the Macguffin. The movie, similar to a slew of other Hitchcock films, is about everything it isn't about. Meaning, the plot or storyline isn't where meaning is conveyed. It's in the details and interactions between the characters where meaning can be grapsed.

The world created in the film, is one of constant flux where we don't know who or what to trust, or even who or what we are. Sure, this begins because Hannay is thrown into this version of the "wrong man" scenario, but it continues to it's end because of the actions and emotions of the characters involved. Hell, even one's own memory and internal logic is shown as untrustworthy on multiple occasions. Who are we? I think that's partially what Hitch is after in this one. Human identity and what it means to be human. Often that sort of existential crisis is left for sci-fi or the French, but Hitch, working on his 11th sound film, was confident and ambitious enough to tackle that question.

The "wrong man" concept works perfectly for such a film because it lends itself to questioning. The world created is untrustworthy right from the beginning of the film because the audience knows Hannay did nothing wrong. Hannay is uncomfortable and unsure of this new world he's been thrown into initially. He progressivley becomes more comfortable in the world, which coincides with many of the polar opposite emotions shown in the film as points of contrast.

And that's really what the movie is. An argument that we are our emotions. Anything, from the mundane to the insane, can be going on around you and your emotions will take over. They guide you. It's why that final shot of the couple holding hands has an exorbitant amount of heft.


Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:07 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
PeachyPete wrote:
No. 336 - The 39 Steps

Criterion essays (I like them in case you didn't notice):

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/75-the-39-steps

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/844-the-39-steps

The first essay approaches the film from an angle of self-awareness. It posits that Hitch was attempting to comment on the nature of film and what it means to be a character in a Hitchcock film. Since this was his first "wrong man" movie, I have a hard time buying in to that notion. It makes little sense for such a self-aware comment to be at the beginning of a "series". The essay also compares the film, and the subtext of Director-As-God, to what Hitchcock did in his other films. Again, I don't really agree with any of that, as I don't see where any of this is inherent to Hitchcock films. It's mostly an essay I disagree with, but still an interesting read. About the only thing I agree with the essay on is the insinuation that the film deals with human identity.

The second essay is much more in line with my reading of the film. Which is as follows:

If you've read the second essay, you've come to realize that Hitchcock was aiming to juxtapose and contrast just about every emotion shown in the film. Everything has it's polar opposite, and Hitch makes a point of showing each emotion at the other end of the spectrum. Clever, sure, but what does it mean? What's he after?

The title of the film, and the driving force behind the narrative, is eventually told to the audience, but is done so quickly and in an off-handed, unimportant way. It's a classic case of the Macguffin. The movie, similar to a slew of other Hitchcock films, is about everything it isn't about. Meaning, the plot or storyline isn't where meaning is conveyed. It's in the details and interactions between the characters where meaning can be grapsed.

The world created in the film, is one of constant flux where we don't know who or what to trust, or even who or what we are. Sure, this begins because Hannay is thrown into this version of the "wrong man" scenario, but it continues to it's end because of the actions and emotions of the characters involved. Hell, even one's own memory and internal logic is shown as untrustworthy on multiple occasions. Who are we? I think that's partially what Hitch is after in this one. Human identity and what it means to be human. Often that sort of existential crisis is left for sci-fi or the French, but Hitch, working on his 11th sound film, was confident and ambitious enough to tackle that question.

The "wrong man" concept works perfectly for such a film because it lends itself to questioning. The world created is untrustworthy right from the beginning of the film because the audience knows Hannay did nothing wrong. Hannay is uncomfortable and unsure of this new world he's been thrown into initially. He progressivley becomes more comfortable in the world, which coincides with many of the polar opposite emotions shown in the film as points of contrast.

And that's really what the movie is. An argument that we are our emotions. Anything, from the mundane to the insane, can be going on around you and your emotions will take over. They guide you. It's why that final shot of the couple holding hands has an exorbitant amount of heft.


I have to say that I got a really good laugh from the first user comment that follows the first essay. I might not use the same language, but I agree in spirit. The writer of that piece is overthinking the movie. That's not always a bad thing, because you're still thinking. I enjoyed reading the analysis, but it just comes across as plain wrong.

I don't have a whole lot to offer otherwise. Imho, this is one of the director's more underrated efforts and is certainly the best of his "early" movies that I've seen. All in all, you've done the film justice.


Thu Mar 03, 2011 7:34 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
ed_metal_head wrote:
I have to say that I got a really good laugh from the first user comment that follows the first essay. I might not use the same language, but I agree in spirit. The writer of that piece is overthinking the movie. That's not always a bad thing, because you're still thinking. I enjoyed reading the analysis, but it just comes across as plain wrong.

I don't have a whole lot to offer otherwise. Imho, this is one of the director's more underrated efforts and is certainly the best of his "early" movies that I've seen. All in all, you've done the film justice.


Yes, that guy's comment is pretty hilarious. I meant to mention it in my post, I'm glad you noticed. I agree with you (and that dude), she's reading much too far into the film. It just seems like she's basing her thoughts on stretch after stretch.

The Lady Vanishes is up next for me (not til the end of the month), and I've heard it's the only one that comes close to being as good as The 39 Steps. You prefer this one, and that's cool. I enjoyed it a great deal and would recommend it without reservations to anyone interested in the director (and if you aren't, then I don't really know what else to tell you).


Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:02 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
The more I see from Josef von Sternberg, that pre-code director most famous for making Marlene Dietrich look like one of the most desirable women in the world, the more suspicious I become of him. I'm not saying von Sternberg is a hack, just that he's one of that rare breed of director that doesn't really seem to care at all how every image connects to every other image. There's nothing difficult about his films; rather, they're very, almost insidiously easy to grasp, but they put off the atmosphere of much more challenging works. Von Sternberg may not be a hack, but he is a liar; the question is just how good of one he is.

Maybe all of the above is a little bit presumptuous of me to say, having only seen six of the man's movies. Still, I'm very willing to say all of it applies to The Scarlet Empress, No. 295 on the TSPDT top 1000. I won't say the film is bad, but it's kind of mediocre in very unique way. For starters, we have the plot, essentially an origin story for Russian Empress Catherine the Great (the film ends (and this isn't a spoiler) with Catherine arranging a coup d'etat and ascending to the throne). Ignore the fact that history tells us Catherine will ascend to the throne and be a great leader; the film tells us it too, in a title card a couple minutes in. No, there's nothing in the rules of cinema (or at least my rules) that says a plot has to be engaging, but The Scarlet Empress seems to go out of its way to be deliberately non-engaging. This is a 105 minute long film, but there's about half an hour of important plot stuff here. The rest is all mindless political intrigue and Gothic romanticism.

But ah, one would say, even if those things don't add to the plot, don't they add to the character development and atmosphere? My answer: Absolutely not, and yes, but only in the most shallow sense. Let's start with the characters: They're horribly developed. There's really no other way around it; von Sternberg can craft interesting characters, but they're almost always played by Marlene Dietrich, and here he takes out that trick card by giving her an origin then switching, half way through, to her regular sex-pot persona. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to know why Dietrich is such a fatalistic female; it's much funner to see her as an enigma, the avenging female that toys with men then throws them away. Yes, she is the later here, but it's very clearly because she loses her innocence, watches her "true love" cohort with another woman. It's an interesting twist on Dietrich's persona, but it commits the cardinal sin of putting the power back into male hands from the very beginning, taking most of the poison from every seductive twist of Marlene's tongue. Yes, von Sternberg (or at least the screenwriter) did a similar thing in Shanghai Express, but that film benefits from the fact that we never see the actual downfall. Dietrich at least gets to keep that little bit of mystery, which in The Scarlet Empress she does not.

None of the other characters even attempt to come close to Catherine's three-dimensionality. In fact, with the acting all so deliberately expressionistic it would make most silent film stars blush, it actually does the opposite. Every character (this includes Catherine too) portrays every motivation, desire, and action all over the faces from the very beginning. Sternberg highlights this by bumping the lighting way up to, to match; Marlene looks as demendedly angelic as ever, John Lodge (Catherine's first lover) looks like the bastard he is from minute one, with his lower neck/face and eyes almost completely in shadows all the time, and Sam Jaffe, with his upper teeth spilling over his lower lip and his eyes always fully open, looks too-fully the part of the crazed, retarded, man-child he is. It's easy to see why von Sternberg would do this (it heightens the acting to match the sets, which I'll get to in a minute), but just as easy to admit it doesn't work at all. (One more quick note on the acting: It's most likely where the film has gotten its reputation as a camp classic, but let me go ahead and say I found nothing campy here. The film is too ironically bitter for that, bad acting be damned).

This leaves us with the almighty set/costume/everything else design, the primary element on which the film's reputation has rested on all these years. I'm defenseless here: it's pretty monumentally Gothic, and pretty fun to look at, too. Sternberg is wont to accentuate it at every turn, too, his camera often roving here and there, filling every inch of every frame with candles and clothes and giant, grotesque statues. It's an undeniably claustrophobic piece of filmmaking, and on that count at least I'm willing to tip my hat to von Sternberg. If all you're looking for in a movie is a cacophony of Gothic excess, The Scarlet Empress is exactly what you want.

Most of us, me included, want more from our films, though, which leads to the one thing many would call The Scarlet Empress' greatest characteristic; the atmosphere. I don't agree, because, yes, there is atmosphere, but it's a very fragile one, reliant on tone and look too much and ignoring almost entirely mood and intelligence. I'm inclined to believe that the makers of every film (assuming they're serious about their work, anyway) usually have some dominant feeling they want the audience to have, even if it's just "enjoyment." von Sternberg, though, I don't think gives a shit. One would assume it's dread or some cousin of that, but the score is way too jangly, the acting too bad. If it was something involving political intrigue, the sets are too moody and the plot too underdeveloped for that. Honestly, I think it's supposed to be something along the lines of "ironic sadness," but there's not a whole lot to support that, because everything that happens is so easy, so obvious. If irony is supposed to be accomplished with a knife, The Scarlet Empress does it with a hammer.

So I guess what I've been trying to say for the last 6 paragraphs is that The Scarlet Empress completely lacks subtlety of any kind. That's not always a bad thing, but in this case the film thinks it has subtlety, and that might be what ruins it. It's an arrogant film made by arrogant people without much consideration for the effect it has on its audience. There might be plenty to look into here, but frankly I don't care. It's probably worth at least one viewing just for the images (many of which are fucking spectacular looking), but other than that there's not much to recommend. 6/10.


Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:54 pm
Post Vivre sa Vie
The cognoscenti loves Godard. I've been in turmoil.

I have struggled with Godard over recent years. Both Contempt and Pierrot Le Fou left me underwhelmed. I've also liked but not loved Alphaville.

Of course, Breathless in a cinema in San Francisco was a wonderful experience.

Now we have Vivre Sa Vie and at last i've had my first major Godard surprise. A short film of about 80 minutes constructed into 12 separate scenes. it tells the tale of prostitute in 1960's Paris.

I approached with caution and within minutes I was captivated. the film has not been out my head for the past two days. Why?

The feel is so fresh and alive. There is so much energy it simply busts from the screen.
The camerawork both in terms of the delicious black and white, shooting style and composition.
That damned musical theme, that hooks under your skin

9/10 and at last I am intrigued by Godard. Desperate to see bande apart and Two or Three Things i know About Her. i have just added 8 Godard movies in to my queue.

Rob


Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:47 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
Wow, thanks to both gentlemen for giving this thread a much needed kick in the ass.

I must admit that I've never seen a picture from Josef von Sternberg so I can't comment too much on what Zep wrote. I'll feebly offer some Kunzian cinematic heresy and ask what the big deal was with Marlene Dietrich? I've seen 2-3 of her late pictures and was rather unimpressed. Perhaps I need to see her at her peak in a 30s/40s film but so far I find that she is a hilarious over-actor.

Rob, I've seen less Godard than you have but I'm working on a theory that his pretentious phase doesn't start until a little later in his career. I saw his Hail Mary (1985) and found it difficult to sit through. Breathless, on the other hand, has no such problems (as you've rightly pointed out).


Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:24 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
ed_metal_head wrote:
Wow, thanks to both gentlemen for giving this thread a much needed kick in the ass.

I must admit that I've never seen a picture from Josef von Sternberg so I can't comment too much on what Zep wrote. I'll feebly offer some Kunzian cinematic heresy and ask what the big deal was with Marlene Dietrich? I've seen 2-3 of her late pictures and was rather unimpressed. Perhaps I need to see her at her peak in a 30s/40s film but so far I find that she is a hilarious over-actor.

Rob, I've seen less Godard than you have but I'm working on a theory that his pretentious phase doesn't start until a little later in his career. I saw his Hail Mary (1985) and found it difficult to sit through. Breathless, on the other hand, has no such problems (as you've rightly pointed out).

You should see The Docks of New York because I've been reading about it all semester.


Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:03 am
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
ed_metal_head wrote:
Wow, thanks to both gentlemen for giving this thread a much needed kick in the ass.

I must admit that I've never seen a picture from Josef von Sternberg so I can't comment too much on what Zep wrote. I'll feebly offer some Kunzian cinematic heresy and ask what the big deal was with Marlene Dietrich? I've seen 2-3 of her late pictures and was rather unimpressed. Perhaps I need to see her at her peak in a 30s/40s film but so far I find that she is a hilarious over-actor.

Rob, I've seen less Godard than you have but I'm working on a theory that his pretentious phase doesn't start until a little later in his career. I saw his Hail Mary (1985) and found it difficult to sit through. Breathless, on the other hand, has no such problems (as you've rightly pointed out).


Hi Ed

I convinced my girlfriend to watch Vivre Sa vie. She loved it as well. her major comment was that ist was such an uplifting experience. I'll probably buy the Criterion blu Ray here

My guess is that the young Godard had heaps of praise showered upon him as the new wunderkind. He may have lurched into ever more self absorbed movies through his career.

I'll be able to answer that more completely after seeing a few more movies.

The good news for me is suddenly i understand. i could not say that 2 weeks ago.
Rob


Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:54 am
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
Pedro wrote:
ed_metal_head wrote:
Wow, thanks to both gentlemen for giving this thread a much needed kick in the ass.

I must admit that I've never seen a picture from Josef von Sternberg so I can't comment too much on what Zep wrote. I'll feebly offer some Kunzian cinematic heresy and ask what the big deal was with Marlene Dietrich? I've seen 2-3 of her late pictures and was rather unimpressed. Perhaps I need to see her at her peak in a 30s/40s film but so far I find that she is a hilarious over-actor.

Rob, I've seen less Godard than you have but I'm working on a theory that his pretentious phase doesn't start until a little later in his career. I saw his Hail Mary (1985) and found it difficult to sit through. Breathless, on the other hand, has no such problems (as you've rightly pointed out).

You should see The Docks of New York because I've been reading about it all semester.


Woo hoo Pedro

No.840 on the list and available as a Criterion at Netflix - I'll get there

But before then, quite a few others. No less than 7 Von Sternberg's on the list and I've not seen any f them.

Maybe we need a Von Sternberg marathon?

Rob


Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:57 am
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
I just had a thought.

The problem with this thread is that it essentially lumps 900 movies into one group.

I do think it's more fun when we have threads running on different movies. it might tempt more people to jump in when they see a title come up in recent posts that they have seen. i just don't think a title called Great films 101-1000 is anything other than daunting or uninteresting for most members.

If it's Ok with our regulars i'll start posting comments as individual movies.

I have no idea why, but three weeks ago I suddenly found the fire again to start watching the great movies. And i'm back into 2-3 a week. That said it's still a huge task ahead.

When I started out I'd seen about 390 of the top 1000 or 39%. I've now reached 541 or 54%

I have a personality trait of being a tracker and a completist. however, there's something more in here. The reality is that the top 1000 movies are simply more fun to watch than most of the crap that comes out each week. The last few months of 2011 releases has been simply awful.

Rob


Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:07 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr