Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:12 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Films ranked 101-1000 
Author Message
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
calvero wrote:
Not a fan of It Happened One Night. But I'm a big fan of screwball comedies. All the Preston Sturges films I listed are much funnier. As is Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, Midnight, My Man Godfrey, Twentieth Century(which came out the same year as It Happened One Night)

I guess I really don't feel its as funny or fast paced as a true screwball comedy should be.


I don't agree, but I can respect those criticisms. I'd agree that it's a bit slower paced than a traditional screwball comedy, but I don't think that takes away from the film. In fact, I think it adds more to the characters because the slower pace allows the audience to care more about them. How funny it is, well, that's completely subjective, so I can't really defend the film's humor. The humor did seem more clever to me than slapstick though. I'm a little surprised you aren't a fan, it just seems like it's a hard movie to have strong dislike towards.

Last night I watched, for the first time, No. 485 - This Is Spinal Tap

It's something I'd always wanted to see, but for whatever reason(s), I hadn't. Absolutely hilarious. I'm a big fan of Christopher Guest mockumentaries, and this has to be the funniest one. It's at turns insightful and laugh out loud hilarious. If you have even a cursory knowledge of rock history, you can pick out direct references to many bands. If you don't like the film, well, you can Lick my Love Pump.

ed_metal_head wrote:
I'm not a huge Rob Reiner fan, so I think he never topped This is Spinal Tap.


Ok, he's absolute shit now. I mean, complete and utter garbage. But for 6-7 years in the late 80s, the guy was cranking out great movies. Beginning with the aforementioned This Is Spinal Tap through 1990's Misery, he had quite the filmography. Stand By Me might be a little over nostalgic, but I love it because it embraces that nostalgia, which really makes you (or me, at least) feel it. The Princess Bride is just plain cool. When Harry Met Sally might be a Woody Allen rip off, but I think it's one of the better examples of a romantic comedy. That's 5 high quality films in 7 years. That's a pretty good run. I even sort of liked A Few Good Men after that (1992). It's a corny, formulaic courtroom drama, but I think all the actors do fairly well - except Demi Moore, she's terrible. Actually, now that I think about it, A Few Good Men is pretty shitty. Scratch that. Let's hear your case against the man, Ed.


Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:57 am
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
PeachyPete wrote:
ed_metal_head wrote:
I'm not a huge Rob Reiner fan, so I think he never topped This is Spinal Tap.


Ok, he's absolute shit now. I mean, complete and utter garbage. But for 6-7 years in the late 80s, the guy was cranking out great movies. Beginning with the aforementioned This Is Spinal Tap through 1990's Misery, he had quite the filmography. Stand By Me might be a little over nostalgic, but I love it because it embraces that nostalgia, which really makes you (or me, at least) feel it. The Princess Bride is just plain cool. When Harry Met Sally might be a Woody Allen rip off, but I think it's one of the better examples of a romantic comedy. That's 5 high quality films in 7 years. That's a pretty good run. I even sort of liked A Few Good Men after that (1992). It's a corny, formulaic courtroom drama, but I think all the actors do fairly well - except Demi Moore, she's terrible. Actually, now that I think about it, A Few Good Men is pretty shitty. Scratch that. Let's hear your case against the man, Ed.


Confusion attack! I spent minutes figuring out where I said this before I realised it was in another thread.

To begin, that thread was about directors who peaked creatively with their first film. It's important to emphasize this, since I also mentioned one of my favourite directors in that thread, Orson Welles.

As for your attempt to engage me in discussion, I am sorry to say that I don't have a great case to make. You see, of the five movies you cited, I've seen two. A Few Good Men was decent. I like it for what it is. The Princess Bride I like a lot more. It's one of the better fairy tale films made. If it wasn't for the bookends (and occasional interjections) I'd like it even more. However, I don't love the film nearly as much as This is Spinal Tap which is close to perfection.

Misery, Stand by Me and When Harry Met Sally are all on my "to see" list. I doubt I'll catch any of them anytime soon though. None of them sound good enough for me to rent now. I think there's better stuff I haven't seen out there. The other way I see films is via TCM. Unfortunately, most of these are probably too new for that channel. At least, they are for the version I have.

So basically, I love two films from the man. That's why I said I wasn't a huge fan and that he never topped Spinal Tap.


Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:52 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
ed_metal_head wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
ed_metal_head wrote:
I'm not a huge Rob Reiner fan, so I think he never topped This is Spinal Tap.


Ok, he's absolute shit now. I mean, complete and utter garbage. But for 6-7 years in the late 80s, the guy was cranking out great movies. Beginning with the aforementioned This Is Spinal Tap through 1990's Misery, he had quite the filmography. Stand By Me might be a little over nostalgic, but I love it because it embraces that nostalgia, which really makes you (or me, at least) feel it. The Princess Bride is just plain cool. When Harry Met Sally might be a Woody Allen rip off, but I think it's one of the better examples of a romantic comedy. That's 5 high quality films in 7 years. That's a pretty good run. I even sort of liked A Few Good Men after that (1992). It's a corny, formulaic courtroom drama, but I think all the actors do fairly well - except Demi Moore, she's terrible. Actually, now that I think about it, A Few Good Men is pretty shitty. Scratch that. Let's hear your case against the man, Ed.


Confusion attack! I spent minutes figuring out where I said this before I realised it was in another thread.

To begin, that thread was about directors who peaked creatively with their first film. It's important to emphasize this, since I also mentioned one of my favourite directors in that thread, Orson Welles.

As for your attempt to engage me in discussion, I am sorry to say that I don't have a great case to make. You see, of the five movies you cited, I've seen two. A Few Good Men was decent. I like it for what it is. The Princess Bride I like a lot more. It's one of the better fairy tale films made. If it wasn't for the bookends (and occasional interjections) I'd like it even more. However, I don't love the film nearly as much as This is Spinal Tap which is close to perfection.

Misery, Stand by Me and When Harry Met Sally are all on my "to see" list. I doubt I'll catch any of them anytime soon though. None of them sound good enough for me to rent now. I think there's better stuff I haven't seen out there. The other way I see films is via TCM. Unfortunately, most of these are probably too new for that channel. At least, they are for the version I have.

So basically, I love two films from the man. That's why I said I wasn't a huge fan and that he never topped Spinal Tap.


That's right, I'm thread hopping.

I'd probably agree that he peaked "creatively" with his first film, I just wanted to hear why you didn't like him. Of course, you did say you weren't a huge fan, not that you didn't like him. Anyway, of the three you haven't seen, they're all worthy. I like When Harry Met Sally quite a bit, actually. It's very much an Annie Hall type movie, just not as good, or smart, and much more "Hollywood". It's a completely dialouge driven film, even more so than Annie Hall. Reiner doesn't have the directorial flourishes Allen uses in his film. Stand By Me is certainly flawed, but I loved it as a kid, and I love it now. It's one of those movies for me, although, I do still think it's a very good overall film.

Keeping the 3 on your "to see" list is probably the way to go. There's certainly better stuff out there, and the TCM I have wouldn't show them either. Where are you again, Trinidad & Tobago? If that's off, I apologize and have no idea where I got it, I just know it's not the US. The real question is, do they have Netflix in whatever part of the world in which you reside?


Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:02 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
ed_metal_head wrote:
Preston Sturges has to be the most underrated classic director. His Lady Eve was fantastic and Sullivan's Travels (#171), the last film I've seen, might even be better. Sturges' dialogue needs to be heard. The best comparison I can think of is Billy Wilder. Sullivan's Travels is not only very funny, but also deep. The film is a satire about a popular director who grows fed up of making lightweight films and decided to make something socially relevant. However, he feels that the only way to do so is to first live a life of hardship as a tramp. Doing so, is apparently harder than it seems.

Apart from the hilarious script, the scene that most stayed in my mind occurs in a church towards the end. The way the prisoners shuffle into the church in tune with the song has a certain hypnotic quality that I wasn't quite prepared for. That scene, and a few others, convinced me that Sturges is not only a fine writer, but a great director too.

All in all, this is one of the great movies about Hollywood and the movie industry and should not be missed. 9/10.

P.S. Coen Bros fans take note: the socially relevant film the director wants to make is called O Brother, Where Art Thou.


Just watched this for the first time last night based on all the glowing recommendations. I've had it in my DVR for a while, but just never got around to it. I wasn't disappointed. Ed sums up my thoughts pretty well. The church scene is absolutely fantastic. I especially loved how the preacher "parted" the prisoners at the end of the sequence. That shot was terrific. The one take opening scene was hilarious and delivered perfectly by all 3 actors involved, and the long montage-like silent scene was remniscent of some of Chaplin's work. This is a movie that's very easy to love. Great, great movie.

I found the Criterion essay on the film if anyone is interested. It's nothing spectacular, but it's a fairly interesting read:
http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/134


Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:03 am
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
PeachyPete wrote:
Where are you again, Trinidad & Tobago? If that's off, I apologize and have no idea where I got it, I just know it's not the US. The real question is, do they have Netflix in whatever part of the world in which you reside?


I'll try to keep this short since this isn't really the place and I've discussed some of it before. You're right about the country, but no we don't have any Netflix or anything remotely close. The sad situation is that all rental stores here work with downloaded/burned discs. I've heard of one place in the capital that has originals (and Criterions!) but I don't know where it is and even if I did it's a total PITA to reach the capital. Since I don't like paying the pirates who deal in burned discs I've started downloading movies myself. I don't feel great about it, and my justification is messed up but I prefer the slightly guilty conscience (you feel less bad each time) to the alternative (not seeing some movies at all). I still go to the theater for things I really want to see and I get some stuff from cable, but as it stands piracy is playing an ever increasing part in my movie watching habits.

PeachyPete wrote:
Just watched this for the first time last night based on all the glowing recommendations. I've had it in my DVR for a while, but just never got around to it. I wasn't disappointed. Ed sums up my thoughts pretty well. The church scene is absolutely fantastic. I especially loved how the preacher "parted" the prisoners at the end of the sequence. That shot was terrific. The one take opening scene was hilarious and delivered perfectly by all 3 actors involved, and the long montage-like silent scene was remniscent of some of Chaplin's work. This is a movie that's very easy to love. Great, great movie.

I found the Criterion essay on the film if anyone is interested. It's nothing spectacular, but it's a fairly interesting read:
http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/134


You're right about the opening. Brilliant stuff. Somehow I totally forgot to mention it in my post. Thanks for the link.


Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:24 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
ed_metal_head wrote:
Next was No. 111 The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Supposedly, Paul Thomas Anderson looked at this one every night while writing There Will Be Blood. It shows. This is a fantastic picture that isn't about the treasure (gold), but what it does to people. It may look and sound like a Western, but I'm reluctant to call it one. This is mostly a character driven drama. Humphrey Bogart was a real revelation for me here. I've always liked the actor, but I thought he basically played the same character all his life. Not here. I wonder if any A list studio star from that period ever got so dirty for a role. Walter Huston, the director's father deservedly won an Oscar for playing a supporting character. The man steals every scene he is in. This one is highly recommended, especially if you liked the aforementioned There Will Be Blood. 9/10.


The film actually fell 9 spots to No. 120. Shame. I watched this last night, and don't have a whole lot to add. One thing I did notice that I never had was an amazing transition used by Huston. After Dobbs and Curtin first meet Howard and listen to him tell tales about gold, there is a dissolve used to move time into the next day. The scene begins with Dobbs talking about what the old man said. The previous scene ends with a close-up on Howard's face as he's talking. During the dissolve the image of Howard's face lingers a second longer than the rest of the scene, and Howard's head is placed within Dobbs' head for just a moment. It's a small touch used to show that Dobbs has been thinking about the words Howard spoke all night. It's just a quick, subtle shot that I thought was pretty clever.

I also watched No. 386 - Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. Apparently Warren Oates was playing his version of Peckinpah in this film, unbeknownst to the director until after shooting wrapped. This was an oddly poignant story about a man who actually becomes a better, more moral person by doing awful, dirty things. There's also a lot in there about not selling out and staying true to yourself. The film is completely insane, and no where near perfect or a masterpiece, but I enjoyed the hell out of it. There are some Peckinpah staples, most notably his condemnation of violence through it's stylization and the almost misogynistic treatment of women, but the story is so absurdist and almost surreal that the violence portion works. I still have issues with how he treats females though. I guess if I had to rate the film it would be a 3/4, but I enjoyed it more than that.

Speaking of how Peckinpah treats women, my girlfriend (who hates him aside from The Wild Bunch) and I had a discussion. We ended up agreeing on something like: Peckinpah is trying to do something similar with rape and women as he does with violence. He throws violence in your face to disturb you and condemn our obsession with it. He tries to do the same thing with rape and women, but it doesn't work and it just plain offensive. It's offensive because we aren't obsessed with, or drawn to, rape, so there's no need to put it in an audience's face for them to be uncomfortable. People are understandably horrified by rape in every form. They don't enjoy it. The statement works with violence because that can be enjoyed, or glorified, in films. Rape can't.

EDIT: Interestingly, there is a character in Garcia that goes by the name of Fred C. Dobbs, Bogart's character in Madre. An homage from Peckinpah that nods towards the theme of the greedy world.


Last edited by PeachyPete on Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:40 am
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
PeachyPete wrote:
I also watched No. 386 - Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. Apparently Warren Oates was playing his version of Peckinpah in this film, unbeknownst to the director until after shooting wrapped. This was an oddly poignant story about a man who actually becomes a better, more moral person by doing awful, dirty things. There's also a lot in there about not selling out and staying true to yourself. The film is completely insane, and no where near perfect or a masterpiece, but I enjoyed the hell out of it. There are some Peckinpah staples, most notably his condemnation of violence through it's stylization and the almost misogynistic treatment of women, but the story is so absurdist and almost surreal that the violence portion works. I still have issues with how he treats females though. I guess if I had to rate the film it would be a 3/4, but I enjoyed it more than that.

Speaking of how Peckinpah treats women, my girlfriend (who hates him aside from The Wild Bunch) and I had a discussion. We ended up agreeing on something like: Peckinpah is trying to do something similar with rape and women as he does with violence. He throws violence in your face to disturb you and condemn our obsession with it. He tries to do the same thing with rape and women, but it doesn't work and it just plain offensive. It's offensive because we aren't obsessed with, or drawn to, rape, so there's no need to put it in an audience's face for them to be uncomfortable. People are understandably horrified by rape in every form. They don't enjoy it. The statement works with violence because that can be enjoyed, or glorified, in films. Rape can't.


Oh, I consider Bring me the Head of Alfredo Garcia a masterpiece, albeit a gloriously deranged one. Concerning the misogynism: I suppose you're referring to the rape scene. I think Pekinpah intended this scene to show how the female character is actually stronger or wiser than Warren Oates' character in a twisted way. When the two bikers intend to rape her, Warren Oates' character wants to fight them without a hope of succeeding. If memory serves right, she then says something like "leave it, I've been here before and you don't know the way". By this, Warren Oates actions are made to look like immature macho posturing, whereas she'll suffer through the ordeal knowing that she'll survive. She's actually the stronger of the two characters.

That being said, of course I was taken aback by this scene (and a few others) as well, but I think that this was a deliberate choice by the filmmaker.


Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:13 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
Unke wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
I also watched No. 386 - Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. Apparently Warren Oates was playing his version of Peckinpah in this film, unbeknownst to the director until after shooting wrapped. This was an oddly poignant story about a man who actually becomes a better, more moral person by doing awful, dirty things. There's also a lot in there about not selling out and staying true to yourself. The film is completely insane, and no where near perfect or a masterpiece, but I enjoyed the hell out of it. There are some Peckinpah staples, most notably his condemnation of violence through it's stylization and the almost misogynistic treatment of women, but the story is so absurdist and almost surreal that the violence portion works. I still have issues with how he treats females though. I guess if I had to rate the film it would be a 3/4, but I enjoyed it more than that.

Speaking of how Peckinpah treats women, my girlfriend (who hates him aside from The Wild Bunch) and I had a discussion. We ended up agreeing on something like: Peckinpah is trying to do something similar with rape and women as he does with violence. He throws violence in your face to disturb you and condemn our obsession with it. He tries to do the same thing with rape and women, but it doesn't work and it just plain offensive. It's offensive because we aren't obsessed with, or drawn to, rape, so there's no need to put it in an audience's face for them to be uncomfortable. People are understandably horrified by rape in every form. They don't enjoy it. The statement works with violence because that can be enjoyed, or glorified, in films. Rape can't.


Oh, I consider Bring me the Head of Alfredo Garcia a masterpiece, albeit a gloriously deranged one. Concerning the misogynism: I suppose you're referring to the rape scene. I think Pekinpah intended this scene to show how the female character is actually stronger or wiser than Warren Oates' character in a twisted way. When the two bikers intend to rape her, Warren Oates' character wants to fight them without a hope of succeeding. If memory serves right, she then says something like "leave it, I've been here before and you don't know the way". By this, Warren Oates actions are made to look like immature macho posturing, whereas she'll suffer through the ordeal knowing that she'll survive. She's actually the stronger of the two characters.

That being said, of course I was taken aback by this scene (and a few others) as well, but I think that this was a deliberate choice by the filmmaker.


I was referring to Peckinpah's general taste for having rape scenes in his films, and his general misogynisitc attitude towards all women in all his films. I don't doubt that he has other motives behind using rape or awful treatment of women, I just don't think they work because they are nothing more than purely offensive.


Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:27 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
Johnny Guitar is the most unusual western I've seen. It's starts with the title. "Johnny Guitar" sounds different, but cool. And it is. There's Johnny who plays...wait for it...the guitar. He also doesn't carry a gun, which in a western is never a good sign for those who plan to oppose him. The title is also misleading though. This is less about Johnny than it is about the two feuding female characters. Both are strong women who essentially play the "man" role. There's nothing subtle about their acting though (that's especially true for Joan Crawford). In any other movie they'd be ridiculously over the top, but here the acting simply fits the picture.

The movie is almost impossible to not enjoy simply because it's so offbeat. The real question is whether this film is great. History shows that it was critically panned, only to see its stock rise considerably after the Cahiers crowd, most notably Francois Truffaut, spoke about it in glowing terms. I'd argue that the film actually lies somewhere in between. It's a good movie, but its only claim to greatness is its atypically strong (for a western) female leads as well as its general strangeness.

I was torn between rating this one a 7 or an 8. Eventually I settled on 7, but this may very well change in the future. Despite the saggy middle section I liked it enough that I'd rewatch it if I came across it again.

Johnny Guitar is ranked #221 in the 2010 edition of the list.


Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:11 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
(NOTE for all concerned: In regards to this topic, I'm still going to work off of last year's list. I don't know of all of you moved over, but I would be too much of a pain for me to at this point. Sorry if this is considered a problem)

I don't feel like forming complex thoughts today, but this forum needs more discussion. And I have to leave in less than half an hour. So, I think it's time for...

The Great Movies - The Speed Round! (8 Movies in Under 20 Minutes!)

The Spirit of the Beehive (No. 194) - OH MY GOD SO BEAUTIFUL UUUUUUUUHHHHHHHH. ALSO: The direction/blocking/scene-setting is wonderful, the atmosphere is completely absorbing, the acting (especially the main girl's who's name escapes me) is great and it's methods and insights are intelligent and thought-enducing. Oh, and the camera work IS SO PRETTY. 10/10

A Taste of Cherry (No. 611) - Now that I've come to terms with the fact that I adore movies where nothing happens, I can say for sure that A Taste of Cherry is pretty phenomenal. I'll ignore all that plot stuff here for time (read about it elsewhere), but I was incredibly impressed by the way Kiarostami used the camera, his characters, and his beautiful camera work to suggest the millions of conflicts, personalities and distances that are happening beyond the camera's gaze. It's one of the only movies I can think of (The only other is also Kiarostami's) that feels like it really understands the inter-connectivity of live. Also, it's SO DAMN RELAXING without being boring at all. That's quite a feat. 9/10

Easy Rider (No. 331) - Talk about aging badly. What was once a bold statement of rebellion is now a heavy-handed (Drink every time a character states the theme out right or acts it out; you'll have alcohol poisoning after about half an hour), dull, frequently obnoxious movie that's been copied so much that all of its positive qualities are severely dulled. Still, I can see how the bad acid trip could have been revolutionary in how bad drug highs are portrayed on screen (the editing is still genius, but as I said severely copied) and Nicholson's performance is amazing; probably one of his only as "Jack" that actually works, turning a dull movie into an incredibly entertaining sleaze-fest for about 20 or 30 minutes. Still over all average though. 5/10

Ninotchka (No. 282) - I think I "get" the supposed Lubitsch touch; light and frothy entertainment mixed with intelligent deconstructions of gender politics. Oh, and clever dialogue. Anyway, this one is good. Not as funny or as structurally fun as To Be or Not to Be, but still highly entertaining, and much better at touching one's other emotions. The last half hour is about 20 minutes too long though. Otherwise, it's quite fun. 7/10.

The Year of Living Dangerously (No. 876) - More like "The Year of Being Somewhat Close to Danger But Not Really Being in Danger," Am I right? But seriously, whoever thought up that title (and hired Mel Gibson) is a marketing genius, because this movie is bland. Nice, and an interesting enough way to use 2 hours, but bland. I mean, I'm sure it had wonderful things to say but indo-chinese politics, but I couldn't really see any of it underneath the aesthetically UH exterior. Oh, and Linda Hunt, a woman, plays a man. I never noticed, so I guess she did good. 6/10

Juliet of the Spirits (No. 574) - I adore Fellini, and this is the second-best of his I've seen. The images, and colors, and performances, and atmosphere, and psychology, and every other damn thing is perfect. Amazing stuff 10/10 (Can you tell I wrote this one last.

Blood of a Poet (No. 494) - In terms of surrealism, I liked this one more than L'Age D'or because it's much more playful and less heavy-handed than that. While Blood does cover some fairly blunt themes/images, it seems much more content to just throw out random images and feelings than the snarkiness of L'age D'or. Very cool stuff. 8/10

Diary of a Country Priest (No. 235) - Damn do I love thinking about spirituality, and Diary is one of the best films I've seen that covers that area. The priest is a fascinating character, played to perfection, and the way Bresson uses him to connect mortal torment and spiritual transcendence (and you know, other stuff) are very insightful. Also, I like slow old foreign movies. This is a slow old foreign movie. Score. 9/10

Things I learned about me today: I couldn't write a short summary of my feelings on something if I was paid.

P.S. This post actually took about 25 minutes. The things I do for you Reelviews.


Last edited by Zeppelin on Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:16 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
Zeppelin wrote:
A Taste of Cherry (No. 611) - Now that I've come to terms with the fact that I adore movies where nothing happens, I can say for sure that A Taste of Cherry is pretty phenomenal. I'll ignore all that plot stuff here for time (read about it elsewhere), but I was incredibly impressed by the way Kiarostami used the camera, his characters, and his beautiful camera work to suggest the millions of conflicts, personalities and distances that are happening beyond the camera's gaze. It's one of the only movies I can think of (The only other is also Kiarostami's) that feels like it really understands the inter-connectivity of live. Also, it's SO DAMN RELAXING without being boring at all. That's quite a feat. 9/10


First of all: EPIC POST! You've been knocking out the classics like a serial killer knocks out nurses with a chloroform-soaked rag. Well done.

Second: I'm a fan of Taste of Cherry as well. It seems to have been forgotten for reasons I don't know or even pretend to understand -- reasons beyond the scope of my understanding of our vast universe. Plus: it's kind of an obscure title. Big hit at Cannes, though. My favorite shot in the entire (slow moving) movie is the last one... I won't spoil it but I remember it fondly and wished Wes Craven's Scream had ended the same way. True story.

It was a slam-bang on the festival circuit before disappearing into the archives. Criterion picked it up, I think. Either way, Roger Ebert really hated it. Checking his review after finishing up the movie was most surprising -- it looked and felt like a beautiful piece of poetry to me, looked and felt like a big piece of crap to him.

My feelings about this difference of opinion are best expressed by Kurt Russel in a clip lifted (care of mailedbypostman) from a different thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yfr_Zj1iU4


Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:47 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
Glad to see Ed enjoyed Johnny Guitar. It's such an oddly wonderful Western. I think I like it a bit more than Ed, but that's a minor squabble.

Zeppelin, my friend, hell of a post. I've seen a grand total of zero of the films you listed. I say continue using whatever list your heart desires. Hopefully, it remains the one you're using so you can contribute to this thread.

As for me, I forgot to post my most recent Great Movies conquest yesterday. So, I'm doing it today:

No. 283 The Last Picture Show

Peter Bogdanovich's 1971 coming of age story centering around a group of teenagers in a dying Texas town. To me, the film was really about children rushing to become adults, and adults longing for their youths. The film's claims to fame are its acting and use of black and white photography. The cinematography is fantastic. The choice to shoot in black and white was perfect for the tone of the movie, and the slow camera movements reflect the general state of the town.

4 different actors were nominated for Academy Awards for the film, with 2 winning the supporting statues (Ben Johnson and Cloris Leachman). I've read that Bogdanovich's conscious decision to use a largely unknown cast was helped along by his good pal Orson Welles. Welles notably did the same thing with Citizen Kane. The film introduced Jeff Bridges, Cybil Shepherd, Randy Quaid and Timothy Bottoms to audiences. Cloris Leachman and Ellen Burstyn were also brought wide acclaim and recognition for their roles in the movie. Ben Johnson was really the only name in the film at the time of it's release. Johnson, Leachman, and Burstyn are all excellent as supporting adult characters, but the heavy lifting is done mostly by Bottoms and Bridges. Bottoms in particular has to carry a great deal of the second half of the film. He does it very well. Shepherd doesn't have much to do other than look pretty, curious, and confused, but she pulls it off.

This is certainly a Great Movie. It's a moving story that's told, acted, and shot damn near perfectly. I'd seen this before, but it didn't really resonate with me much. After a second viewing, I can definitely say this is something I'd like to own and revisit somewhat frequently. It's a pleasure to admire the craftsmanship of the film, and to be engaged by an interesting, rewarding story.


Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:32 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
Damn Zep. I've seen Easy Rider and Ninotchka (liked both more than you). Forget seeing them though, I've never even heard of five of those!

Pete, I concur on that The Last Picture Show is a "great" movie. I'm due for a re-watch but there's so much stuff out there, man. Anyone ever bother to watch the sequel, Texasville? It was widely panned, but I'm curious as to whether the film has any redeeming qualities ala the 2001 sequel.


Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:39 pm
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1440
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
Quote:
Ninotchka (No. 282) - I think I "get" the supposed Lubitsch touch; light and frothy entertainment mixed with intelligent deconstructions of gender politics


Trouble In Paradise is the definitive Lubitsch film(at least it is according to all the Lubitsch biographers. really surprised it isn't the highest ranked film of his on the list)

Quote:
Diary of a Country Priest (No. 235


have you seen Balthazar yet?

Quote:
Anyone ever bother to watch the sequel, Texasville?


Its watchable I guess. I think its meant to be a comedy. Pretty sad that he turned some of the original characters into cartoonish Southern folk(poor Chloris Leachman)

I think Last Picture Show may be in my personal top 20(if I was into making lists)


Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:49 pm
Profile
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
This thread is making me want to watch The Last Picture Show. v__v So much to seeeeeeeee.


Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:06 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
Last evening I took a gander at No. 154, Days of Heaven. The film is (rightfully) seen as one of the best examples of cinematography ever filmed. I'd go so far as to say that the entire film revolves around the cinematography. There's much more meaning conveyed through the beauty, symbolism, and metaphors of individual shots and scenes than there is from the narrative or the acting. It's definitely an atypical film.

I searched the forum for anything I could find on the film and it doesn't seem to come up very often. This could be because not many people have seen it, those that have seen it don't like it, or there just isn't a whole lot to say about the film. After a bit of pondering, I'm settling on the latter. It's a tough movie to break down and discuss because so much is shown in the cinematography. A breakdown would consist of a plot summary and an interpretation, and that's about it. That doesn't really do this film justice. Sure, I could go on and on about the cinematography, but that's something better seen for yourself than described.

The terms poetic and lyrical are often applied to Malick, and those words definitely apply to this movie. Days of Heaven is so tough to describe because its a movie very much concerned with making you feel. While watching it the emotion of the film kind of washed over me. It wasn't a cerebral experience. That isn't to say that the movie isn't worth thinking about (it is), just that when I thought about it emotion was the first, and most lasting, thing to come to mind.

This is definitely a film better suited to experience than to write about. Or maybe I'm just terrible at articulating my thoughts.


Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:14 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
Have you seen The New World? I really like it, but it's sloooow. He's supposed to have a new film, called Tree of Life, coming out this year. Critics should start looking for "elegiac" synonyms.


Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:43 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
calvero wrote:

Quote:
Diary of a Country Priest (No. 235


have you seen Balthazar yet?


Yeah, I saw it awhile ago actually. While I think Balthazar was a "better" film, I think I might prefer County Priest as a film. Both excellent though.

Oh, and thanks for the compliments guys. I keep meaning to contribute to this forum more, but laziness often gets the best of me. We'll see what happens.


Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:34 pm
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
Hello all.

Watching #152 on the list, Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles was an experience that grew so deeply unsettling that the only way to alleviate the nerve-wracking struggle that was Jeanne Dielman's simple existence was to either switch off the movie and pop a tranquilizer or pray she breaks out of her struggle... which, brutally, she does.

I love movies that disregard the heart in favor, complete favor, of the mind. This is such a film. Like L' Avventura, Chantal Akerman's Jeanne Dielman is a patient study of a relatively ordinary existence.

It's an in-spirit retelling of The Myth of Sisyphus with a single mother/prostitute filling in for Sisyphus, simple routine filling in for the stone. Jeanne cooks potatoes, turns on lights, checks the mail, cooks some more, sleeps with a john, checks the mail, does some light knitting... Akerman focuses on Jeanne without any break for action. Every single small thing (putting money in a jar, preparing meatloaf) is filmed in real time -- this includes Jeanne sitting and staring for stretches greater than five minutes.

When I tell you that the film (running an impressive 200 minutes) isn't the slightest bit boring... it's not. There is a dread surrealism that creeps in around the 90-minute mark: we're watching the most ordinary, rote actions without any commentary and no more than 3 minutes of dialogue for the entire 200 minute feature. Why is Jeanne bothering? When she settles on an adventure of sorts (finding a replacement button for her son's sweater) the film almost feels like a thriller: this struggle to find a button becomes the most important thing, arbitrary as it may be, in her day.

Akerman doesn't once move the camera -- there are maybe ten different shots in the entire film and cutting is kept to a bare minimum. We watch and wait for something to happen -- is this a film about modern life? Feminism? Existential dilemma? More?

It ends with a sharp pair of scissors and a near-smile from Jeanne... watching someone sit and stare has never felt like such a relief.

I'm slowly warming up to the X/10 ratings that people give. This is to say I'm beginning to understand what people mean when they use them. For what it's worth, Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles was an 8/10 to me. What I'm more certain is that, as time passes, the more unsettled I become over what I've seen. This one will stay with me for a long time -- there are things in this one that I'd never seen before even for all the times they've been in front of me. Scary stuff. Highly recommended for adventurous film buffs.

Edit: fixed bold tags.


Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:41 am
Post Re: Films ranked 101-1000
We watched Make Way For Tomorrow, currently at #286 on the list. I'll try to add something more after I get some reading done on the production. For now, it was a good film that suffered in part by my having watched Tokyo Story fairly recently. Ozu's film is the same story, perfected. I was romanced by Ebert's inclusion of the picture in his Great Movies list (right before Pink Floyd's The Wall, no less) and Criterion's recent acquisition. Until later: a good rental, brisk and very poignant. Very funny, too. Not quite as profoundly emotional, raw as Tokyo Story. It felt a bit confined by the medium -- it was written for the stage and it shows.


Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:18 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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