Checked out the sci-fi masterpiece that is Inception?

[moozooh]

The Exorcist
Saving Private Ryan

Mind explaining these two?

[GaijinPunch]

King Kong
2001: A Space Odyssey
Apocalypse Now
Star Wars IV & V
The Exorcist
Jaws
Das Boot
Alien
Aliens
Die Hard
Predator
Back to the Future 1 & 2

Gladiator

I never quite got the hype. It's a good movie, but I don't think Crowe deserved to even be nominated for this. I'm not his biggest fan, but he's done better. Scott has definitely done better. I liked it... I didn't love it.

Saving Private Ryan

The scenery in this was unreal. I couldn't get over some of the goofiness though. I still liked it, and it shows that Spielberg can make something that's not a gay piece of shit when he wants. Schindler's List was better though.

I'll give you Die Hard & Apocolypse Now... easily on my list. But, it's funny you diss Nolan as a director saying his incapable of making a classic... yet the movies you've listed don't have a single power house director other than Spielberg and The Director Formerly Known as Coppola (he sucks balls now).

[CMoon]

The Exorcist
Saving Private Ryan

Mind explaining these two?

I don't agree with all of Skykid's list, but Exorcist is an amazing film. Seeing it in the theatre definitely changes everything. There are people who say this film is not scary. Hell, I'm not even religious, but it is an effective and often terrifying film seen in the right way.

Regarding some of the other things on the list:
Saving Private Ryan--the first 15 minutes or so are amazing.
King Kong--the Peter Jackson one???!!!!
Gladiator--same problem GP has.
Back to the Future 2--Everybody gets this except for me. Then again, part 1 isn't perfect. Great idea though.

I think we need to do an AFI top 100 hurt or heal.

[Skykid]

The Exorcist
Saving Private Ryan

Mind explaining these two?

Sure, they're both great.

(Gladiator) I never quite got the hype. It's a good movie, but I don't think Crowe deserved to even be nominated for this. I'm not his biggest fan, but he's done better. Scott has definitely done better. I liked it... I didn't love it.

I think its a terrific film, probably the best of its kind, and a film directed very consciously by Scott (which can't be said of anything he made post Gladiator). It's got a very well written script and it has the grandeur of a blockbuster in terms of scale. It's violent, vengeful and compelling.
Crowe was well cast and did a decent job, but wasn't the strongest performance in it (he's not a great actor or anything), that honor probably goes to Jaquin Phoenix who surprised the hell out of me.

There's an interesting thing with blockbusters. They seem to come accompanied with a finite time for appreciation, thereafter comes an almost automatic backlash.
I reckon this happens because of the oversaturation of the movie in the minds of the public. You hear the name too many times, the star in it is in everything now, it wins all the oscars, there's 50 versions of DVD release, it's on TV a million times - in the end people turn on them. They're fucking sick of hearing about it, so there becomes a kind of apathy, like they weren't that good in the first place.

The amount of times I hear people say how shit Titanic is, well, that didn't stop them from going to see it in theatres several times did it? It's shit now, but it wasn't then, hm?

Frankly, I can understand why people get media sick of blockbusters and the value of the film is overcast. This is true of Lord of the Rings (freaking bought the boxset five years ago and it's still sealed on my shelf) Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan and probably many others.

The truth is, if it's a good film, it's a good film, regardless of how sick of hearing about it people get. Private Ryan is a superb war film, real impressive blockbuster material. In fact, if Spielberg had had enough brains to cut the opening and closing five minutes of the movie, it would have been pedestal material.
I think Schindlers List is a very good film too, but whether it's better than Ryan on the whole is a tough call. It's not the best movie about the Holocaust I've seen - I thought The Pianist was better.

Then again I sometimes wonder if Spielberg doesn't totally have his head up his ass. The amount of times that guy badmouths Temple of Doom like it's the worst film he ever made and needs to be forgotten, jeez...
He needs to go back and watch that film again man. In fact, if I could speak to him I'd probably be like,

"Yo Stevie! Wtf man? Why do you keep badmouthing Temple of Doom like it ain't all that, when it's clearly the best of the three? Have you got your head totally up your ass or what? Sure Raiders was good and it's a close second, but it ain't no Temple of Doom. That film was an exercise - nay, a masterclass - in how to craft an action blockbuster. It's a riot from beginning to end, non-stop, no brakes, full throttle - and you held it together throughout. Sure, everyone remembers it like it's that stupid one, that ridiculous unbelievable one, but so fucking what? Fuck people Stevie, they don't know jack. All the Indy films are ridiculous, no one believes shit about Holy Grails and spirits in boxes, so why not turn up the gas?
You had imagination back then, real imagination. The Shanghai opening in club Obi Wan: brilliant. Next thing they're jumping out of a motherfucking plane on a dinghy, getting deep into Indian jungles to save some random villagers, getting crushed in spiked rooms and stringing guys up on rotating fans. Sure, owing to it's OTT nature it feels a bit like a spin-off Indy film, like the 1st and 3rd are more canon and this is like the non-Nazi, Samurai Shodown RPG equivalent or some shit - but that's fresh man, it's cool, and it works. No one wants to see Indy fighting Nazi's every time anyway, he's meant to have lots of adventures and you showed us one.
And you iced it with the best (and probably only) mine cart chase ever committed to celluloid. That mine cart chase is good Stevie, real good. Stands up well compared to the CG shit you use today to make that crap Crystal Skull movie. In fact, it's electric, barrels of breakneck fun. And just when you think it's all over, Indy's getting chased by water down tunnels and cutting rope bridges in half on top of chasms with loads of people on it. Why is it back then you didn't have fancy CG effects, yet if you could think it, you could still make it happen - and convincingly so. But now, now you can make anything you want, you can't think of anything except fucking spaceships. Durr. Try to keep to the theme man.
Yeah, yeah, so Raiders was the original and *slightly* more down to earth. That doesn't make it better asshole, it still had a some dull moments and the ending was wack. Karen Allen had no chemistry with Ford, there was a lot more going on on screen with him and your wife in Temple of Doom (who was much hotter than Karen Allen btw). And TOD had that little Chinese kid from Goonies in it, and everyone likes that little Chinese kid because he adds some variety to the proceedings. He's better than Sean Connery playing an old buffoon dad in Last Crusade, and besides, Last Crusade is clearly the weakest of the three, and you know it so it's not worth talking about.
As for that Crystal Skull shit. Well, you've fallen from grace eh? Just because that David Koepp wrote Spider Man and it made good money and he was suddenly fashionable, doesn't mean he's anything except average. In-fact, you failed with that guy Stevie, big time. Wasn't there something knocking on your brain saying "Yo, fuckface, don't you think 'aliens' might not quite work as an Indy concept?". Poor skills Steve, not impressed.
So yeah, stop badmouthing one of your best. Deal with the fact Harrison Ford got some with your wife - we've all seen it, it happened - and look past it. Look past the idiocy, the annoying little indian kids and the accusations of racism. It's not racist, it's just takes a bit of licence. Your last president was more racist than Temple of Doom.
The point is, it was a ride. A real, non-stop ride. A big, summer action adventure for kids that was so much fun it hurts. It's not hip to say Raiders is the best, it's not cool and it doesn't put you in the 'smart' coffee club, so just drop it.
Next time you're thinking of making some shmaltzy shit, or god-forbid, Indy 5, go and actually watch some of your old stuff (the good ones like Duel, Jaws and TOD) before you assume you know what makes the movie good or bad.
And call me if you need some advice. I'll set you straight.
Now get out of here, punk."

Or something.

King Kong--the Peter Jackson one???!!!!

Are you on crack, I'm talking about the original!

[CMoon]

King Kong--the Peter Jackson one???!!!!

Are you on crack, I'm talking about the original!

*Whew!* That was a close one.

[moozooh]

Dunno, I thought Exorcist was good for its time only thanks to pitting the shock value against then-current morals. It looks very tame nowadays, and some Asian movies (The Grudge, for one) made similar things a lot more convincing with basically the same technology. Oh yeah, the ending kinda sucked btw.

As for SPR, it felt like Spielberg wanted to make a dragged-out, picturesque, and predictably pretentious movie about WW2, and succeeded at that. The landing scene looks gruesome to an extent, but if you take recommendations for WW2 movies that are at least partially representative of the primordial terror that took place, give this one a shot. May be not as pleasant to the senses, but psychologically the effect is much, much stronger. (Also, there's a subtitled release on Torrentreactor.)

[Skykid]

Dunno, I thought Exorcist was good for its time only thanks to pitting the shock value against then-current morals. It looks very tame nowadays, and some Asian movies (The Grudge, for one) made similar things a lot more convincing with basically the same technology. Oh yeah, the ending kinda sucked btw.

The Exorcist is an incredibly powerful film, massively mis-interpreted as a horror movie instead of a spiritual one. It's about forces of good and evil present in everyday life, in regular individuals - only here's its manifested in an exaggerated form for effect. The less obvious but more important subtleties are strung into the narrative through father Carras, the dishevelled and downtrodden follower of faith who is on the brink of losing it. When the devil says "spare some change father" in the same voice and accent as the tramp he encounters in the subway, it suggests omnipresence of evil in all people, which is true.

But it's a film about the power of good, triumphing, not the power of evil or cheap 'horror' kicks. That's completely the wrong way to watch it.

For me it remains seminally brilliant and scary in its suggestions rather than its visual effects, and the ending is poignant and superb, completing a journey that's more about Carras than it is about the possessed girl. That's a blockbuster for the ages.

As for SPR, it felt like Spielberg wanted to make a dragged-out, picturesque, and predictably pretentious movie about WW2, and succeeded at that.

It's not perfect, but it's none of the above. Bar the opening and closing waffle that Spielberg just can't help, it's a very good war movie.

[Strider77]

Gladiator


I never quite got the hype. It's a good movie, but I don't think Crowe deserved to even be nominated for this. I'm not his biggest fan, but he's done better. Scott has definitely done better. I liked it... I didn't love it.

I am COMPLETELY with Gaijin Punch on this one.... I was about to post my own view on this until I scrolled down. Skykid if you can get behind Gladiator as something more than a decent flick I really don't get your issue with Nolan. Ridley Scott has done some great movies and he's also done some "ok" movies.



Blade Runner
Alien

then

Hannibal
Robin Hood
Kingdom of Heaven
Legend

I don't even hate his lesser movies (I'm fond of Legend in a cheesy way), I'm just saying if you think Gladiator is a blockbuster for the ages.... Dark Knight and Inception are nothing you have a right to snub your nose at... not without having a few folks cocking an eyebrow to that statement.

On the Exorcist... 2 thumbs up to that movie. Got it on Blu ray. I hadn't seen it in years and watching it at 33 years old I got more out of it now then I had back in the day. Not saying it was bad or anything back then, it's just nice to have a film get better after the fact.

Poltergeist is another flick that did well and I still enjoy to this day. It's not grade A food for the mind but I always wind up getting sucked into it when it's on cable ect. I "get" a little bit more from it now also then when I was a kid. It's all small things but Spielberg's older flicks always had these blue collar, average or working class families that I could relate to growing up... or believe a bit more, plus those characters/families always had moments that made me chuckle or crack a smile b/c those moments were so true.

Like in Close Encounters when Richard Dreyfuss's character is throwing all this dirt and shit into his kitchen window to make that sculpture of the mountain... his kid is being told to come with her (the mom) inside for some reason or another (probably due to the fact dad is throwing dirt in the house threw the kitchen window). As he's being dragged away by the mom he says "after this can we throw dirt into my room?!". It's silly but you could just hear that coming out of a 6 year old's mouth.

Also in Poltergeist when the little girl's pet bird dies and as SOON as it's buried the tears dry up and she asks "can I have a pet goldfish now?!". I know Spielberg didn't "direct" Poltergeist officially, but when you watch it it's clear as day he had the heavier hand in making that movie, it just feels like one through and through.

Plus there is the parents smoking pot in the bedroom once the kid's are in bed.... today everyone would be up in arms over that and giving Spielberg a shit storm over it. That is even if he had the guts or nerve to do that now.

[Acid King]

I don't get the Gladiator love either. It left me flat.

Acid King said I have bad taste, but I'd just say my tastes are restricted--I really don't care much for the direction of cinema since the mid 80's.

That was a joke. I was just busting on you for ranking Citizen Kane as one of the greatest movies ever, a stereotypically safe choice. Just because it's technically well done does not make it a great movie, just as a song that's played and performed well does not make a great song. That film geeks hold it up based largely on technical aspects I think is absurd.

[Skykid]

Citzen Kane is a great movie (throw the 'safe bet' line right out of the window on that one.)

Gladiator is one of Ridley Scott's great movies, and it deserves all the praise it gets. Its better than the Dark Knight by a fair margin. I've seen both several times and won't be shaken from my convictions on that.

Poltergeist is mint, although it's directed by Tobe Hooper of Texas Chainsaw Massacre fame (also an awesome flick) with Speilberg producing.

Close Encounters is pretty wack.

Temple of Doom is the best Indy.

[CMoon]

Citizen Kane is character study--an amazing grand character with typical shakespearian tragic fall. Do you like Moby Dick (the book)?

I can totally understand the dislike for people who think citizen kane is only a great film on technical level, and I hate the idea of shoving it down peoples' throats, but Welles was a great director, story teller and actor, and unfortunately short of Touch of Evil, Kane is his great surviving film. Unfortunately, some 80 years later, it is hard to relate to Kane in the immediate way people would of back then. At this point in time, those of us who feel what Welles is drawing at, do so through literary allusion. You can't expect to relate to Kane the same way you do to Avatar. This is why I ask about Moby Dick. I feel Welles always found interest in these Ahab like characters, and Kane is certainly one of them. If film goers would open their minds they could feel the how greatness corrupts into a cancer thoughout that film, and that as both biography and myth, ever level of the film is executed masterfully.

That said, maybe there's a bunch of people who just put the film up at the top of their list because they feel they are supposed to. Personally I don't get that. If a film is good, it will leave an indelible mark upon me. It will completely engross me in another reality--even if it is a reality I don't agree with or generally sympathize with. I can't say there is any part of me that sympathizes with a rich old man who never really accomplished his dreams, but Welles creates a fabric within which the archetypal every-man has become lost and destroyed within those riches, and he does it in a way that I truly do feel for the character at the end.

So yeah, the posers can get fucked, but Kane (for me) is still one of my favorite films. Whatchagonnado?

[Skykid]

That said, maybe there's a bunch of people who just put the film up at the top of their list because they feel they are supposed to. Personally I don't get that.

Me either, although you can usually figure out such people in a snap. Just ask why they like the movie and wait for the first line out of their mouth.

I didn't watch Citizen Kane until last year, and Touch of Evil only a few months ago. I had no preconceptions, I knew its status but that didn't mean anything.
I took it as it was, a little movie masterpiece from a master of classical theatre. Kane impressed me by how little it had aged and how technically superb it was, but I didn't have to work to imagine how I would have taken the film in its original period, it had me from its wonderfully creative opening right through to the end.
As a psychological examination, it's as current today as ever. A man searching his soul for happiness that money can't buy.

Cracking stuff.

Touch of Evil was something else. Welles was so good in that it took me about thirty minutes before I realised which character he was!
That film really impressed me with its pace. It took some getting used to, but the way Welles had all the characters talking over each other made it quite unique. Again, it was a twisting character study that I've rarely seen delivered so well.

[CMoon]

Touch of Evil is clearly not quite as well crafted as Kane, but I like it more (I don't get why the restored version isn't on the top AFI 100.) Once again Welles creates a great, tragic, fallen character. Obsessed, somehow to undo the murder of his wife, he becomes the ultimate detective, but must ultimately violate the law he is supposed to uphold. This is contrasted with a world of filth that dominates everything. Heston's character is almost absurd, trying to be virtuous in this impoverished landscape. Irony is deafening in your ear as Heston influences Welles best friend to help take Welles down, and yet, it is Welles who is ultimately adapted to this hellish world, and Heston's agelic hero-type who has the projecte life-span of a flea. All the girl can say is Welles was 'some kind of a man' as his body floats away in a pool of sewage. Pretty much the ultimately commentary on what is.

[Strider77]

Close Encounters is pretty wack.

Wack is a little harsh I think...

Temple of Doom is the best Indy.

Raiders... enough said.

[Skykid]

Touch of Evil is clearly not quite as well crafted as Kane, but I like it more (I don't get why the restored version isn't on the top AFI 100.) Once again Welles creates a great, tragic, fallen character. Obsessed, somehow to undo the murder of his wife, he becomes the ultimate detective, but must ultimately violate the law he is supposed to uphold. This is contrasted with a world of filth that dominates everything. Heston's character is almost absurd, trying to be virtuous in this impoverished landscape. Irony is deafening in your ear as Heston influences Welles best friend to help take Welles down, and yet, it is Welles who is ultimately adapted to this hellish world, and Heston's agelic hero-type who has the projecte life-span of a flea. All the girl can say is Welles was 'some kind of a man' as his body floats away in a pool of sewage. Pretty much the ultimately commentary on what is.

Yeah, Welles knew exactly what he was doing. The restored version is the one I watched, I've never seen the original cut but I found out Hollywood producers were being the ultimate bastards they've always aspired to be, even back then.

Close Encounters is pretty wack.

Wack is a little harsh I think...

Duff, fluffy, weak, shmaltzy, average?
Jaws and Duel are real movies, Close Encounters is about half a movie. Worth a watch, not worth a conversation.

Temple of Doom is the best Indy.

Raiders... enough said.

That's what everyone says. Everyone is wrong.

[CMoon]

but I found out Hollywood producers were being the ultimate bastards they've always aspired to be, even back then.

I hate to say it, but the more you watch movies and the more you learn about the history of cinema the more this ends up being true. The whole business with Night of the Hunter has really struck me, but it must pertain to hundreds of films. Ultimately, the movie making business is a money making business, and the trend runs all the way back into the silent era.

Regarding Indiana Jones, I think all in all, Raiders is the best film (and my favorite), but Temple of Doom's first half is even better. Unfortunately I don't like the second half, and people ended up writing off the whole affair. The others don't merit consideration.

[Strider77]

That's what everyone says. Everyone is wrong.

If you say so, but you do have to realize you movie opinions aren't cold hard facts. I like Gladiator, Temple of Doom and others you mentioned. But then you'll slander something like Close Encounters and say the Duel is better and Raiders is weaker than Temple of Doom like it's an obvious fact.

Alot hate on temple of doom, but it's my second favorite next to raiders. Just b/c I like raiders more doesn't mean I have to slander it like a know it all. I really don't see how you can't like raiders or see how it could be liked more by others if your a temple of doom fan. I wouldn't say Temple of Doom is "worth" a "conversation" either. But it's a load of fun.

It's like folks who argue over Alien vs Aliens... how can you like one and not the other.

All this movie bitching is kinda fun in a way.... surprisingly one of the more entertaining threads despite and partially due to all the light flaming.

[GaijinPunch]

I think its a terrific film, probably the best of its kind, and a film directed very consciously by Scott (which can't be said of anything he made post Gladiator). It's got a very well written script and it has the grandeur of a blockbuster in terms of scale. It's violent, vengeful and compelling.

I'm not saying it was bad. Graphically it was awesome, and the film worked (although quite predictable). I assume everyone that rates it also is in love w/ the soundtrack, which is good, but as quite a big Dead Can Dance fan, it's nothing I hadn't heard Lisa Gerard do before. Still good, but didn't wooo me. There's not a lot of movies about the Roman Empire. So, I found it intriguing, but not as intriguing as Alien and definitely not Blade Runner.

Saving Private Ryan

I actually like a lot of the cast, specifically Barry Pepper and I think he was awesome as the sniper. Again, the battle scenes were pretty fucking amazing, and the Omaha Beach Invasion scene is about the most intense war scene I can think of. What a way to start the movie. But, alas, there are better WWII movies. There's a great (but depressing as fuck) movie called A Midnight Clear from the 90's which has Gary Sinise, I think Kevin Dillon, Brett that eats at Big Kahuna Burger from Pulp Fiction, and a slew of other guys. Good flick.

Citizen Kane

I know I'm a total homo for not seeing this. One day...

Exorcist

Yeah, I don't think I can watch this now. I assume if you're not spiritual or religious it's going to have little effect on you. But, this kind of stuff generally sits with me for a while. I watched Paranormal Activity recently and a few of the scenes creeped me out. One day I might watch it again as I remember very little (other than the really fucked up shit) but not now.

Indy Jones

The fact that Raiders is based off of a biblical artifact I think wins out after going after a bald guy. But, ToD's mine cart chase was dope.

[cools]

Man, you lot have some heavily developed opinions about movies... Not that there's anything wrong with that, just seems a lot of effort to expend on what is (to me) fiction and entertainment.

GP: yes, the Weird Al one. I've watched it more times than I can remember and still laugh at it, even though I know exactly what's going to happen. It's a perfect movie.

Crusade > Temple > Raiders > Skull

As a child I was quite sensitive to stuff, and there were three films that stand out as having scenes that literally terrified me. Crusade (the ageing/decomposition) and Temple (the human sacrifice) were two of the Raiders had none. Innerspace's "hooks" scene did untold damage. Might explain my current disappointment with everything held up as challenging, disturbing, horrific or downright sick... Not thought about it until now.

[charlie chong]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CRAZY
THE SACRIFICE AND DECOMPOSITION DIDN'T SCAER ME.

THE MELTING NAZIS FROM RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK DID THO,
I WAS ONLY 4.
ALSO LOLZ@AMATUER FILM CRITICS

OPINION VARIES THAT'S LIFE
I HAVEN'T SEEN TITANIC OR GLADIATOR COS I KNOW I WOULDN'T LIKE THEM BECAUSE THE INITIAL STORY DOESN'T APPEAL TO ME IN THE FIRST PLACE.SAME WITH CRAP LIKE AVATAR

[GaijinPunch]

THE MELTING NAZIS FROM RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK DID THO,

Same here, except w/o the annoying caps.

[Skykid]

That's what everyone says. Everyone is wrong.

Alot hate on temple of doom, but it's my second favorite next to raiders. Just b/c I like raiders more doesn't mean I have to slander it like a know it all. I really don't see how you can't like raiders or see how it could be liked more by others if your a temple of doom fan. I wouldn't say Temple of Doom is "worth" a "conversation" either. But it's a load of fun.

It's like folks who argue over Alien vs Aliens... how can you like one and not the other.

All this movie bitching is kinda fun in a way.... surprisingly one of the more entertaining threads despite and partially due to all the light flaming.

Don't get me wrong, there's no flaming! I've enjoyed this thread too, movie debate is always a great way to chew the fat, I'm just kind of abrupt on things because I know I could, if I had to, find good reason to back up my opinions. What I can't be bothered to do is reel off a list for every film mentioned, so I just drop a statement instead.

Also, I love Raiders! As I mentioned in my rant at Spielberg, it's a close second for me. It's the most down to earth of the three and has some superb, memorable moments. It's great.
But Indy is best remembered by people I'd wager, for high adventure. The first thing that always comes to mind when anyone thinks of Indiana Jones is a guy running away from massive boulders and avoiding traps, rather than the part where he's an archaeologist unravelling mysteries.
TOD is by far the most nutty of the three, but it's also the film with the most scale, an enormous event movie hearkening back to the early Sinbad adventures. In terms of adventure, it so eclipses Crusade it's a joke.
But while it's my number one purely because it's the most fun of the three (there is no four) I still love Raiders.

A Midnight Clear

Never heard of that one. Very suspicious casting for a WW2 movie, you sure it's better than SPR?

Paranormal Activity

I liked this. Amateur actors aside, they did their best and the director did a great job with a nothing but a simple concept alone. The 'plot' got a little stupid toward the end, but whatever, it was just a horror flick and one that was genuinely spooky. I like it when a low budget forces invention out of people.

If you say so, but you do have to realize you movie opinions aren't cold hard facts. I like Gladiator, Temple of Doom and others you mentioned. But then you'll slander something like Close Encounters and say the Duel is better and Raiders is weaker than Temple of Doom like it's an obvious fact.

Certain opinions are fact in my mind, but I'm always interested to hear people back up movie opinions to the contrary. It helps me to understand how it is Hollywood keep turning out 90% worth of sub-par drivel and folk keep on handing over their hard earned cash.

Close Encounters is an average movie. It has some of the hallmarks that made Spielberg's better films of the era great, but it also has a lot of the traits that ruined a lot of his work.
I don't do well with forced sentimentality. Simply, there are some films where sentimentality is necessary and some where you just need to leave it out. After Jaws, I would have thought Spielberg was so masterful in his art that he would have known when to can the schmaltz, yet it's been his number one weakness in so many of his films its pathetic.
Has anyone seen the Twilight Zone movie? Utter garbage I know and an offense to the wonderful work of Rod Serling, but it's noteworthy for having Spielberg's worst ever movie in it. Yeah, that one in the middle with the old people becoming kids for a night. It's so dire, I cringed from start to finish and was actually embarrassed among the company I was with (as I suggested we watch the movie.) It's like a large dose of the crap he ends up ruining a lot of his movies with.

Schindler was much better, it had no forced sentimentality because the final scene was poignantly moving in its own right. SPR at times risks that sentimental bullcrap bubbling to the surface, but Tom Hank's character is a good one, so it slips by (don't mention the opening and closing minutes - there's a fan edit in my head where they don't exist.)
Films like The Terminal are wasted, and even ET pisses me off, especially as it has so many accolades dumped on it. It's a really good kids film, but that's as far as it goes.

Returning to the point then, Close Encounters is silly. It didn't need to be, but it is. It has moments of great stuff and a really good concept going for it. But all that garbage with the kids and Dreyfuss getting into the ship. I groan just thinking about it how downhill it went.

Compared to a film like Duel, which is a veeery close second to Jaws in my book, CE is just a stain on the wall. Duel is a masterclass in tension from start to finish at the expense of dialogue. Classic stuff.

[emphatic]

OTT of the Exorcist: Did anyone watch that third Exorcist movie? That one (crawling in the ceiling, or chopping off living heads with autopsy equipment anyone?) really got me scared for a long time. The third film is also based on the book sequel to The Exorcist, called "Legion". I can recommend both books, as they're very compelling.

"Badgers? We don't need not stinkin' badgers!"

[Acid King]

Citzen Kane is a great movie (throw the 'safe bet' line right out of the window on that one.)

I don't think there's a more safe statement than saying Kane is one of one of the greatest of all time. It's been continually at or around the top of probably every major film list compiled over the past 20+ years. That's pretty much the definition of a safe choice.

Citizen Kane is character study--an amazing grand character with typical shakespearian tragic fall.

A character study that bored me to tears. It's been some years since I've watched it, but I had a hard time getting through it when I did. It completely failed to capture my attention and so while I appreciate the artistry in its execution, it fails at the most basic level a movie can. The Trial and Touch of Evil are better movies because though most would say they aren't as well made as Kane, neither of them bored the piss out of me and not being a chore to sit through is a vital part of what makes a movie great.

Do you like Moby Dick (the book)?

Liked the concept, disliked the execution. I thought it far too wordy and meandering and it failed to provide a compelling reason to finish it outside of Melville's technical prowess as a wordsmith. I could put up with it if it were 200 pages, but 500+ is just self indulgent. I understand why my undergrad advisor blew his load all over it, but its always seemed to me as another piece of work whose greatness is largely explained by literary critics love affair with technical aspects.

[Skykid]

I think 'greatest movie ever' is a cop out for anyone, yes. That accolade is almost impossible to pin down. But 'great movie', or 'one of the greats', sure, Kane belongs there.

My favourite movie is 2001: A Space Odyssey. I think it's the pinnacle of cinematic artistry and I love everything about it, and have done since I saw it when I was sixteen. Although I think it transcends any genre, I am also a big sci-fi fan, so I can accept that I'll probably get more from it than others in that respect.
But I like going into space and back, and by the end of its 3 hours I've done just that, every single time. Still the ultimate trip.

[CMoon]

Re: Acid King & Citizen Kane--

Obviously I can't argue with you because every person's opinion is different. Is it Kane's fault that it bored you? Is it Moby Dick's fault that you thought it was too wordy? I bullshit around a lot about how peoples' opinions are garbage, but there's a point--once we're past production values and the quality of the acting, etc.--that everything becomes entirely subjective. I can tell you, for myself, I genuinely think Citizen Kane is a great film on all levels, including pacing, keeping my attention, etc. So which of our opinions is right? I think the more typical response people have to the film is that it is boring; but that popular opinion is coming from a modern audience that is pretty much divorced from the subject material AND is used to a very different "movie vocabulary".

The problem with Kane is that most people come to it because it is always listed as one of the best films ever made. I know the first time I saw it, I didn't get it and thought it was boring. But if your movie vocabulary has been defined by movies from the last 30 years--a vocabulary that IMO is pretty impoverished compared to what had come before--then there is a lot that I don't think will make much sense or lead to much enjoyment. As an example, I loaned my blu ray of Yojimbo to a friend with no experience with older films, and he felt it was stilted, and the action not well done enough to hold his interest. I can say safely Yojimbo will always be a 10/10 for me, but I think I am reading a significantly different 'film vocabularly' than my modern-movie-going friend. I could pretty much level this at any peice of art. We appreciate art in a context, and I think to the modern movie goer, Kane is simply going to go unappreciated.

I would like to say that with more investment in older film you might appreciate Kane more, but that might not be true at all, especially since I think you probably know a fair amount of older film. I still don't, and probably never will like Gone With the Wind. I'm rather embarressed to admit that I don't understand the greatness of The Godfather (but am willing to revisit it.) Apocalypse now was merely 'good' and not a the great film everyone says it is. Ebert still doesn't get Blade Runner. *shrugs*

[PC Engine Fan X!]

I recall watching a closed captioned version of 2001: A Space Odyssey back in the early 1980s -- impressive sci-fi film to watch in 35mm print version indeed.

2001:ASO film Factoid: Those lights featured beneath the floor during the ending scene with an elder Bowman character were super hot during filming -- massive cooling fans were needed to make sure that lavish set piece didn't catch on fire. Even the Tron Legacy sequel has a key scene that pays tribute to the classic 2001 film.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[GaijinPunch]

A Midnight Clear

Never heard of that one. Very suspicious casting for a WW2 movie, you sure it's better than SPR?

It didn't do that well. It's less about WWII and more of a story set during the end of WWII (In rural, occupied France). It's more about the commeradery amongst the soldiers. It's good, but very little action. The story is far more original than SPR.

IMDB
Ethan Hawke is the main character I believe. How could I forget that? Don't read the summary though... I think it gives away a bit too much (but not all) of the story.

[Skykid]

but there's a point--once we're past production values and the quality of the acting, etc.--that everything becomes entirely subjective.

Not my conversation to jump in on, but I just wanted to note that quality of acting can't be got past if its poor. For me, a poor or annoying actor can hurt (or ruin) a film big time because I can't ignore how useless they are. My folks were/are actors and I had an upbringing in the theatre, so now I'm cursed with being able to notice shitty actors in films (a problem I never had as a young kid.)
Most people can't see the acting (or lack thereof) beyond the beautiful lens and dazzling production, which is one of the reasons so many high profile Hollywood actors get away with blue fucking murder.

[CMoon]

Skykid, I think you've misread that quote. I was arguing that the quality of acting, among other things, IS NOT entirely subjective, and I'll be happy to argue over good versus bad acting.