|
Post by Vercetti on Jan 15, 2006 20:29:40 GMT
Casablanca The Adventures of Robin Hood Angels With Dirty Faces I recall giving The Adventures of Robin Hood four stars, but I'd have to see it again.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 15, 2006 21:04:12 GMT
1. Casablanca 1942 2. The Adventures of Robin Hood 1938 3. White Christmas 1954
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Jan 16, 2006 3:26:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Jan 16, 2006 4:02:55 GMT
Didn't you see Angels With Dirty Faces?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Jan 16, 2006 5:22:19 GMT
Christ, I knew I was forgeting something. On that note, rate it a three and a half stars.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Jan 20, 2006 2:55:30 GMT
1938: The Adventures of Robin Hood (co-directed with William Keighley)1942: Casablanca that plus Yankee Doodle Dandy
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Feb 23, 2006 0:24:01 GMT
Going through all these threads, I could've sworn I posted in this one. Oh well. Casablanca 5/10 Can you elbaorate on your score for, "Casablanca"? Just a tad intrested.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2006 0:51:17 GMT
I think it's extremely dated. A guy giving up love for a greater cause may have been earth-shattering at the time, but it's a simple concept these days. Also, I tought it was painfully corny, unambiguous, and much like Gone with the Wind, too passionate.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 23, 2006 18:00:49 GMT
What do you mean by "unambiguous"? In terms of spelling things out, like Hollywood always has, and always will? I'd probably have to agree, but would have to disagree with the film benig criticised because of that.
To me, Casablanca, in terms of witty, lip-smacking repartee, is only equalled by Out of the Past, The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep and The Adventures of Robin Hood. The chemistry between Rains and Bogart is one of the best ever filmed, I think. "Too passionate"? Well, it wouldn't have worked had it been cold and dispassionate...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2006 18:31:50 GMT
What do you mean by "unambiguous"? In terms of spelling things out, like Hollywood always has, and always will? I'd probably have to agree, but would have to disagree with the film benig criticised because of that. To me, Casablanca, in terms of witty, lip-smacking repartee, is only equalled by Out of the Past, The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep and The Adventures of Robin Hood. The chemistry between Rains and Bogart is one of the best ever filmed, I think. "Too passionate"? Well, it wouldn't have worked had it been cold and dispassionate... I'm just telling you why I personally don't like it. I don't like "surface" films (and I disagree that Breathless is a surface film), and I tend to prefer films that are more subtle, like Dead Man, which is an absolute masterpiece.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 23, 2006 18:47:12 GMT
A bout de souffle is a piece by a director interested only in playing with style, and the colours in his pallet. An interesting session at my French film noir cinema class I attended last year had the class, having not seen A bout de souffle before that particular session, in a heated debate as to what lay behind character purpose or motivation, who meant to do what and all that. A fellow cineaste lent over to me and remarked, quite regrettably, "If only Godard was with us" and a roll of his eyes. And, while we're on about Godard's film, it's about as unsubtle a film as you can get.
What of the French new New Wave of the 80's, then? A film like Beineix's Diva? That intentionally wants to be all about the surface, about appearance, and the aesthetic crust of the film, not the emotional or philosophical core? Is that automatically discardable, then, because of its philosophy of surface being more important than any possible "meaning"?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2006 19:14:23 GMT
And, while we're on about Godard's film, it's about as unsubtle a film as you can get. I said I tend to prefer films that are subtle, it's not a requirement. The fact that there was even a discussion about Breathless proves to me that it isn't a surface film. With Casablanca, no discussions are needed. The story is laid out in front of you, and all somebody has to do is watch it unfold. It would depend on the film.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Feb 23, 2006 19:17:05 GMT
With all due respect, I think your criticism is sort of weak on Casablanca. Why should it be criticized for movies made after it turning it's famous ending into a cliche? Otherwise, most old films would be bad in that logic.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 23, 2006 19:43:18 GMT
By my definition of "surface", I meant little as regards meaning or narrative or character: respectively, I find little meaning beyond Godard playing with cinematic conventions, the plot is borrowed from Hollywood classics, and the characters all recycled from them too, with Michel based on the whole iconic Bogart persona.
While A bout de souffle does merit discussion, I think, due to its importance and reinvention of Cinema (its influence is still felt today, and it's outlasted at least one remake), Casablanca too is still felt today, with endless pastiches, parodies and outright rip-offs. Instead of becoming dated in the process, though, the fact that all imitations pale in comparison pay testament to its durability, I think.
In terms of watching a film unfold, I can't think of a film that does this better, more dramatically, or more perfect than Citizen Kane.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 24, 2006 21:09:33 GMT
Further elaboration, of sorts, on this post. Rather than hear you attack Casablanca, DLdA, I'd be interested in why you gave it five out of ten. I mean, half marks isn't all that bad. Say, why didn't you give it six points, or, going by your thoughts on the film, even lower than five. What redeeming features merited half-marks?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2006 21:42:13 GMT
It was well-structured, it had good direction, and an average plot. Plus, Bogart had a good presence.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 24, 2006 21:47:38 GMT
Well-structured enough for you to just have to watch it unfold, you mean?
I love the scene where Laszlo rallies a choir to overpower the Nazis' singing. Really uplifting; that kind of stuff, where a crowd gets together, always gives me goosebumps. It especially works wonders in the cinema, with surround sound, like when I watched Walk the Line last week. It doesn't always work, and depends, I think, on how the director does it. So yeah, I think Curtiz does a great job in this scene.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Jan 31, 2007 10:38:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 24, 2008 8:20:06 GMT
1. Casablanca (1942) *
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Oct 24, 2008 10:29:32 GMT
1. Angels with Dirty Faces (1938) 6/10 2. Casblanca (1942) 5/10 3. Mildred Pierce (1945) 5/10
|
|