|
Post by Vercetti on Dec 29, 2005 16:35:29 GMT
This isn't a debate, it's simply me trying to explain to Wet Dog how I rate films, and it's not easy to put into words. My opinions on films have nothing to do with outside opinions. I graded Lawrence of Arabia based on my viewing.
And if I based greatness on a shallow feeling like entertainment, then Le Samourai, Taxi Driver, and Collateral would be the best films of all time.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 29, 2005 16:40:28 GMT
Okay. I saw it as a worthy debate from which we could all learn. I find putting my thoughts into words helps me understand them more. Forgive my drivel.
To help differentiate when completing the list, then, what do you want me to include as your vote, your best list, or your favourites?
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Dec 29, 2005 16:41:39 GMT
If you're making a best list, give me a little more time. I have yet to solidify a best list.
If you are making this from favorites, then go ahead.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 29, 2005 16:59:55 GMT
I'm making a top films list. I'll go with your favourites.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Dec 29, 2005 19:42:28 GMT
Films, and all art for that matter, can strike an emotional chord that's totally not based on artistic merits at all. Why something stikes you as such pertains to your memories and tradtion. Perhaps a favorite film of yours is one your family would all watch together around Christmas time. Therefore, it's personal to you, it's emotional, and the artistic qualities, which we use to judge "bests" are sometimes thrown out the window...
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 29, 2005 21:32:41 GMT
That's no more subjective than deciding that an image or a sound is beautiful. Your taste is informed by all your experiences. There's no mathematical formula for evaluating art, thankfully. It's only 'good' or 'bad' as long as we're interacting with it. If all the people in the world vanished, films would just be inert reels of exposed celluloid in steel cans, they wouldn't retain the values we've attributed to them.
What are 'artistic merits', too? The art is just the expression and the creative impulse, it's above merits or demerits. The only thing we have to evaluate is the product of that process, and the only faculties we have to examine it are our own. So we have to take into account the fact that everything we have experienced has contributed to the construction of our identity, and then find how we and the art can interact. That's all it's for. For that reason I could not disagree more with the critical practice of avoiding the first person. It's fake.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2005 21:35:43 GMT
Wetdog, I'm interested in seeing your list.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2005 3:36:46 GMT
FCM Top Ten FilmsThe Conversation Francis Ford Coppola 1974 USAThe Godfather Francis Ford Coppola 1972 USAThe Godfather Part II Francis Ford Coppola 1974 USARaging Bull Martin Scorsese 1980 USASchindler's List Steven Spielberg 1993 USATaxi Driver Martin Scorsese 1976 USAVertigo Alfred Hitchcock 1958 USA
Looks like narrowing it down to 10 movies is impossible, unless we get more members.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Dec 31, 2005 4:45:21 GMT
I think it would be smarter to compile a top 100 list, like the MFA did. Hell, we can restart and improve our work.
|
|
jake
Writer's block
Posts: 215
|
Post by jake on Jan 3, 2006 15:19:47 GMT
Could everyone perhaps write a few sentences or more on why they have chosen a particular film for their list?
I don't mean the token "great drama/thriller film" or anything along those lines. The personal reasons as to why that film is part of your Top 10. Has the film changed your outlook on life or the world? Do any of the themes resonate deeply within you? Is it on your list for purely cinematic or thematic reasons?
It would make these lists much more interesting to other posters instead of the robotic posting of 10 titles with no explanation whatsoever as to why these are your Top 10 films.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Jan 3, 2006 16:04:51 GMT
The Godfather Francis Ford Coppola 1972 USAVertigo Alfred Hitchcock 1958 USAThe Third Man Carol Reed 1949 UKTaxi Driver Martin Scorsese 1976 USAPulp Fiction Quentin Tarantino 1994 USASchindler's List Steven Spielberg 1993 USAThe Godfather Part II Francis Ford Coppola 1974 USAThe Conversation Francis Ford Coppola 1974 USAOnce Upon A Time in the West Sergio Leone 1968 Italy/USAGoodfellas Martin Scorsese 1990 USA substitute The Conversation with Lost in Translation Sofia Coppola 2003 USA
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 3, 2006 20:11:32 GMT
Could everyone perhaps write a few sentences or more on why they have chosen a particular film for their list? It would make these lists much more interesting to other posters instead of the robotic posting of 10 titles with no explanation whatsoever as to why these are your Top 10 films. Jake, haven't seen you around in a while. Always good to hear thoughts from you, and your suggestion is a sound one. I'll post my thoughts later...
|
|
|
Post by thug on Jan 3, 2006 21:37:34 GMT
Greed is a classic tragedy; story-wise, it easily surpasses any other film on my top ten list. I was blown away the first time I saw it (and even more the second), from the mere power it possesses and the way it depicts a rather cliched and old message.
Duck Soup is the funniest film I've ever seen. No scenes are in the film for the purpose of pushing a plot which few care about along, which is the downfall of many potentially great comedies. The film is a rather accidental satire against fascism (Mussolini had the film banned in Italy), with hilarious sketches strung together that just happen to make sense by the end.
Despite being imitated to death, Breathless still seems fresh today, due mostly to the audacity of then first-time director Jean-Luc Godard. The story is insignificant and predictable, as are, to a degree, the characters. Godard's controversial presentation is what makes or breaks this film; I hated it the first time. Its enormous reputation made me rewatch it, though with a negative bias (having hated it earlier I did not really feel I would have a change of heart). Still, everything about the movie evokes inspiration within me and merely seeing this would make me want to go out and make a movie.
In 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her Godard breaks all the rules he re-established in Breathless, taking us one huge step closer to the "end of cinema" he'd later proclaim in Weekend. This is essentially a movie about nothing except making movies, and a guide book to how to make them. I don't think the theory about "Her" being Paris is true; rather, as I've said before, "Her" is the cinema, and this film is a cry for others to build upon the 2 or 3 things Godard shared with us.
A Woman Under the Influence demonstrates, to put it bluntly, how crazy life is. It is an extremely personal film of raw power and anger, but with hope (unlike the much bleaker Faces). Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk deliver unbelievably dynamic performances and the idea that a movie is being watched is ditched; we are looking inside the heart and mind of Mr. Cassavetes.
Annie Hall is a close contender to Duck Soup's title for "funniest film (I have) ever (watched)." Interweaved between the constant comedy is perhaps the truest depiction of a relationship on film and how feeble it is. But "we all need the eggs." Manhattan may be better shot and more dramatic, but Annie Hall is more radical (the structure of this movie is amazing and somewhat akin to a stand-up comedy act), memorable, and to me, enjoyable (not that Manhattan isn't one of the greatest movies of all time). For better or for worse, Alvy Singer has had a huge effect on my personality (hopefully this doesn't make me sound like a weirdo ;D). Plus, it was a huge influence on Seinfeld.
What Days of Heaven so perfectly evokes is a feeling of emptiness and loss. It depicts the short perfect period in the life of a man, his sister, and his lover, and the subsequent struggle to bring back those times. Everybody has a period in their life which they truly miss and will never get back, and that's the film in a nutshell. And if not, your days of heaven won't last forever. The beautiful cinematography, which may be the best of all time, only helps the film to linger in my mind.
A theme that can be found in quite a few of my favorite movies is memory, and Alain Resnais made a career of studying it, culminating with his best film, Mon Oncle d'Amerique. In it he theorizes that humans are merely walking memories, and uses the rest of the film to prove this. One of the most original films ever made, in its fusion of documentary footage, scientific theory, and fiction. Truly made me change the way I look at the world.
Love Streams is, essentially (though unofficially), A Woman Under the Influence Part II. Once again, another fascinating journey into the life of John Cassavetes, who this time co-stars. Scenes such as the one where Rowlands goes to a farm to buy a pet and instead of picking one individually brings them all home, and Cassavetes reflecting on how he loves the innocence of the young and the old stand out.
The most controversial, or rather non-Orthodox, of my choices was obviously the newest of them: Tim Burton's Batman Returns. It is essential to note the "Tim Burton" part, as this isn't just another summer Blockbuster, comic book movie, or sequel but rather an extremely dark nightmare from the imagination of the director. I saw this movie during its original theatrical release when I was a small child and watched it numerous times on VHS, before re-discovering it recently. The score may be the best ever made (it is certainly among them), the perfomances are all disturbinginly spot-on, and Burton's famous art direction has never been better. Not to mention this is full of memorable and entertaining scenes. But what stands out is the real human drama. The film is sad and bleak, as the three leads fail to overcome the harsh blows the world dealt upon them. It may be a superhero movie, but much is going on underneath. One look into Keaton's tortured face says so.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 3, 2006 22:13:14 GMT
What Days of Heaven so perfectly evokes is a feeling of emptiness and loss. It depicts the short perfect period in the life of a man, his sister, and his lover, and the subsequent struggle to bring back those times. Everybody has a period in their life which they truly miss and will never get back, and that's the film in a nutshell. And if not, your days of heaven won't last forever. Thug, I was interested in Days of Heaven previously, without really giving it much attention other than passing observation in shops, and interest only through Malick's reputation. Now, reading your summation of the film's thematic values, I want to see it desperately. And, as I have done in general in the past, I now make particular reference to my favourite novel, John Fowles' The Magus. I'm currently re-reading it, and find it just as extraordinary as when I first read it last summer. I'd really like to hear your thoughts on it. It was inspired by four novels, one of them being Alain-Fournier's The Lost Domain, or The Wanderer (the original title, in French, is Le Grand Meaulnes, with no actual translation). This novel, a fairly short one, has been recommended to me by my English teacher, who had originally recommended to me the Fowles novel. Without having seen he Malick film or read the Alain-Fournier novel, it seems both share the same thematic interests. I'll be catching up on both, soon, I hope. Thanks, Mick
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Jan 3, 2006 22:28:04 GMT
I agree with you on A Woman Under the Influence. It's the most humane film I've ever seen, and probably the closest cinema has ever come to depicting a family to the point where it seems like a documentary.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 3, 2006 22:55:08 GMT
It is difficult for me to give justice to any of my top ten with words. I've said in the past, though I don't think ever on this board, that words mean very little, but yet we communicate primarily with nothing but them. I think this is why I want to make films, because, to me, Cinema is a visual and aural medium which needn't (but, most of the time, does) rely on words to convey its meaning.
These are, then, in short, the films that make me want to make films the most. I could have had, of course, many other films from the same directors (I've already said I lament the exclusion of Godard's Le mépris and À bout de souffle), but as already stated, I wanted to make a diverse list to give justice to my diverse taste in films.
Aguirre, Wrath of God is, I think, the most unsettling depiction of human tragedy I've seen. Kinski is the brooding onscreen presence and, as the title character, slowly ascends into the foreground after a fairly secondary role in the earlier scenes. Herzog's decision to film on location, on such a tight budget, and how he manages to convey his vision in such harsh conditions, dumbfounds me. It is, therefore, one of the few films just as worthy with its director's commentary as without it.
At first, I hesitated about Citizen Kane. I initially discarded it as too obvious a choice for a top ten. I knew before watching it of its reputation, and, I think, as reputations always do in some way or another, that informed my opinion of it on first viewing. When revisiting the piece, however, it really does take you by storm; ahead of its years by a long shot, it wasn't really until Godard came along that Cinema re-invented itself after Welles' debut.
I've always held The Conversation above The Godafther trilogy as Coppola's best work. It's a more personal, intimate project, in which style perfectly compliments content. The same can be said for The Godfather, of course, but while that film is "illustrated text", as Wet Dog or Greenaway might say, The Conversation is a filmic film. The use of sound, Shire's lonely piano riffs, the static, voyeuristic camera, and Hackman's performance always unsettle me.
Lately, I've been thinking of certain films--those which wouldn't translate well into other mediums--not as pieces of solvable, penetrable narratives, but as visual and thematic textures, almost intangible in their shape and endless in their meaning. Don't Look Now is the most powerful example of this. True, it was originally a short story; but without having read that, and knowing Roeg, I suspect the film is a far vaster piece of work in its exploration of time, memory and human tragedy and acceptance of fate. There are things in this film which I cannot begin to fully understand, only fleetingly grasp as they come and go, such as the playing with time and references to the future. That final montage, where all the red comes into context, is beautiful, haunting, genuinely frightening, and as deep or empty as you make of it. I tend not to think of it in terms of deep meaning; it's just a blanket, or an abstract canvas with many paint strokes. Not quite random, but inviting in their abstraction.
Eraserhead is Lynch's first feature, his best feature, his most timeless feature. When I think of a film in which every bit of creative energy has gone towards culminating its intended overall effect, I think of this film, a woven texture of nightmares, masculinity and the fears of fatherhood.
The French Connection is, I think, the one film which got me into serious filmwatching. It is a raw, gritty film famous for, I dare say, the wrong reasons. A cult following and Oscars galore thanks to a famous train sequence, but it is the use of sound, and beautiful imagery which gets me going. One example which comes to me easy is when Doyle and Russo are in the nightclub, with the Three Degrees on stage. Friedkin slowly drowns out their singing and replaces it with Don Ellis' haunting strings, allowing the detectives to talk to each other and be heard by the audience. When their conversation is over, the on-stage singing resumes.
Manhattan has inspired me in many ways, and the first on the list to, as far as I'm consciously aware, directly influence me beyond Cinema. To me, as a teenager in exploration of an elusive cliché such as love, this is the film which depicts it just right for me. That one look, when Ike is on the phone to his best friend and asks him about Mary, only to get the one answer he didn't really want, says it all, really.
When I posted my 2005 film list the other day, I was surprised not to see Le samouraï on my list. I can't believe it was over a year ago when I last watched this film, a cool, existential, meticulous film about professionalism and Fate. One moment gets me thinking, "By, this is fantastic stuff," everytime: when Jef, on the run from the police, gets into a random car, places his set of keys on the seat next to him, and calmly goes through them, trying until he gets the right one. The music, Delon's screen presence, the sombre cinematography, it's all happening in that one moment.
Before I discarded the idea of having one favourite film (I couldn't possibly rank this list of top ten), the top spot was filled by, whenever I revisited it, Scorsese's masterpiece, Taxi Driver. Has influenced me immeasurably in filmmaking. The tag line for Shane Meadows' Dead Man's Shoes was, in reference to main character Richard, "He's in all of us." The same can easily be said of Travis Bickle.
And finally, the end of the list, the End of Cinema. Weekend, a film which frustrates, delights, bores and rivets me more than any other. The frustration is a sort of envy, that I will never meet this man or make films like him, or, if I did meet him, I'd be surely disappointed; the delight is in knowing there are others out there thinking or were once thinking) just like me, and it gives me a sort of confidence in life whenever I watch it; the boredom comes from Godard's willingness to throw away ideas as quick as he invents them, meaning some work, others don't; and I am riveted by that, by how interesting he can make boredom, by how effortless he is when he moves a camera in one long take over the course of one conversation. A film clearly made by a man disgusted with life, and in love with film.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Jan 3, 2006 23:44:17 GMT
My ten favorite films. I do not consider these the ten best of all time, as I've said.
Le Samourai, if I may be shallow, is the coolest film to my entertainment I can think of. Jef Costello is the type of character I love in films, loner criminals. Only here we get a sense of his isolation, and it has a gritty yet beautiful mysteriousness to it. A lot of grays and blues, his decrepit apartment, and in the midst of it, a bird he keeps for reasons not explained. He's completely anti-social, even when talking to his girlfriend. He limits his words as much as he can, and always has a serious look on his face, which he probably doesn't notice himself. There's very little violence, but it may be the most tense film I've seen, fascination burning through every moment. Hell, watching this makes me wanna wear a fedora/raincoat. An excellent Neo-Noir and partial inspiration from American gangster films.
Taxi Driver, I can't remember how many times I've seen this. It's in my opinion the greatest character study ever along with Citizen Kane, and it gets better every time I see it. It's also Scorsese's best work. I think a large part of my admiration has to do with several aspects I heavily relate to on a smaller non-psychopathic scale. Herrmann's score was a wonderful end for his career. DeNiro's performance is top-notch, and it makes the film even more engrossing. A very gritty depiction of loneliness.
Collateral is Michael Mann's third best film, and a perfect example of his visuals. Tom Cruise gives us one of his best performances, competing only with Magnolia. Mann went the extra yards to fully develop his characters even if some of it doesn't reach the screen. Vincent is somewhat of an opposite to Jef Costello, in his sociopathic ability to charm and socialize, such as the Jazz club scene. The music, digital photography, acting, and wonderful realistic action scenes turn this into a crime drama more powerful than most are these days, especially on the emotional level. It's shy of being a masterpiece, mostly due to it's cat/mouse rising action, although the actual ending on the Subway was a very good ending. It's also one of Jamie Foxx's performances that proved he can act, from Any Given Sunday to this, and eventually his excellent Ray Charles portrayal. Antonio Pinto's "Requiem" is also a beautiful score. Scorsese and Mann are huge inspirations to me as an aspiring filmmaker. It's unfortunate Mann is usually overlooked many times, and usually doesn't make as much money as other people do like Spielberg, even though he's an excellent storyteller.
Memento was a milestone during my cinematic maturing. It introduced me to elaborate writing and ambiguous mysteries. I watched it over and over in the days and weeks following my first viewing, fascinated by the more I learned about it. That also allows you to care for the protagonist a lot. I usually pace out my viewings of this very spread out now, which enriches the film when I rewatch it. The music by David Julyan is very depressing and fits the film perfectly. It's probably the best or one of the best mystery/suspense films to come out in the last 25-30 years.
Pulp Fiction never gets old. You can listen to just the audio on this film on a CD and be entertained. Tarantino takes homages and brilliantly turns them into creative material. This is his best film by far, excellent writing, soundtrack, humor, and it even works on a dramatic level. One of the most iconic of the 90's and in cinema generally.
Mean Streets originally I only admired as one of Scorsese's best, but after repeated viewings I grew to love it on an entertainment level. I consider it his third best behind Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. It's definitely his most personal film, but it's one of those films you can just sit back and relax to. It exhibits a presence through characters and setting that just pull you into it. My favorite scene is definitely the pool hall fight, which is boosted by the music, which is another thing all together. This contains one of the best soundtracks ever, mostly from Scorsese's personal record collection. Keitel and DeNiro light up the screen, and Scorsese's visual style creates a wonderful atmosphere.
Dead Man is unlike any western I've seen, and trust me, I love the genre. Jarmusch is quickly fascinating me to see his other material. I think this film can compare to Apocalypse Now in how the entire film is a journey. It's a journey in losing fear in death. It feels like it was adapted from a novel of the American Romanticism period. The nature seen through the black and white photography is a beautiful example of cinematography, which is among the best of the 90's. Johnny Depp's acting is very good as usual and Jarmusch's perfectly paced direction is taut. However a huge emotional impact comes from Neil Young's excellent score. Young's music flows wonderfully through the film, especially during the final scenes.
Heat is possibly Michael Mann's best. It's longer than The Insider but feels ironically shorter. I admit it's a tad overlong but I loved every minute of it. Mann not only gives us the cop as the hero, but he makes the villain someone we can sympathize with, and in the end is a victim of impulse, which is against his nature, kind of the opposite of Max in Collateral, where impulse works for him. The music is great as usual, and even though I am not a Moby fan, I love his second song in the film used in the final scene. The final image itself is a perfect ending to this crime epic. This also stars two of my favorite actors, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. Many brush this off as a gimmick film to put them together, but I think it couldn't be more wrong. Hell, that one diner scene proves it. And let's not forget one of the best shootout scenes I've seen in cinema, the bank heist scene. The sound makes you feel right in the middle of the chaotic action, even on a TV speaker. As usual Mann brings beautiful visuals and a sense of realism to the film, especially in training the cast. Hell, Pacino said he didn't even know how to use to a gun that well up until this film.
Citizen Kane is one of THE best films ever made, and I never really loved it entertainment-wise like Mean Streets until repeated viewings. I loved watching how great an actor Welles was, and especially as the director, considering this film was decades ahead of it's time. The visuals are as great as they come and for their time were very innovative. Hell, you probably won't be able to spot what was created in post-production unless you're told. The story is simply about a man who wanted love, but had none to give to others, and it's painful to watch the second half, especially towards the end. The scene where he destroys the room is one of the greatest in all of cinema, and the mirror shot right after is one of my favorite still shots in history.
Raging Bull is Scorsese's second best, and the best sports film ever made. The fight scenes are simply brilliant, every shot conceived by Scorsese. Movies like Rocky make you feel like an audience member much of the time. This film puts you in there and makes you feel like the fighter. Even with black and white it's a brutal film, water and blood everywhere. Of course it's not all blood and sweat. It's primarily a character study about a man who is considered by many unlikable. He's a sinner and at times a scumbag, but it doesn't stop us from sympathizing with him, because we see him and realize he's flawed. He's sexually insecure and paranoid, which causes a rocky relationship with his wife. He's a great fighter, but that doesn't stop him from saying he has girl hands. He's one of the great tragic heroes of cinema, and DeNiro's performance is mind-blowing. He mainly wanted to make the movie and his dedication is evident, including his weight gain to play the burnt-out Jake LaMotta. The classical music used as the score is beautiful, but what I love is the visuals. The size of the ring changing through the film, the smoke, tracking shot. By the second half the boxing ring is a pit in hell rather than a ring.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 4, 2006 21:46:53 GMT
My ten favorite films. I do not consider these the ten best of all time, as I've said. Le Samourai, if I may be shallow, is the coolest film to my entertainment I can think of. Vercetti, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I want to comment on these brief sentences, and in a way compliment them. Firstly, I think the shallowest thing you could have wrote was to tell us all why Lawrence of Arabia is the best film ever made but how, personally, it never really strikes a chord with you. I found nothing shallow in your justification of your top ten. It's a personal, honest response to the films you love the most. I once (and until very recently, really) held myself at a distance from films I watched, beating myself into thinking that filmwatching isn't about enjoyment, it's about analysis. As if art critics can't have fun. As if film has to be serious, almost a chore, if you like. This self-contradictory way of thinking tends to backfire on itself. Really, we're not enjoying the films we're rating as great, just because everybody else says so. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're jumping on the bandwagon in saying Lawrence of Arabia deserves a place on the best list but not on your favourites. What I'm saying is that, in your current way of thinking, you may as well call your favourites list a "Guilty pleasures" list, because, after all, that's what they are. Respecting a film and not necessarily liking it is totally allowed (not that I'm forbidding any other philosophies here). Take my opinion on Dead Man, for instance, a film we both love. Say I make two lists, one for favourite films, one for best films. I put Dead Man on my "Best" list, but say Jarmusch's direction is marvellous, the cinematography and music are all great, but the film just bores me. I'd be more or less disrespecting my favourite films, in a way, in admitting they were guilty pleasures of mine, almost: "Yeah, good enough for a quick fuck, but never a relationship." To me, it's the other way round. The films which strike the strongest resonance in me are the ones I want to sleep with every night when I go to bed. Without having seen it yet, let me use Lawrence of Arabia as an example only. I watch it, I appreciate its technicalities, but the film fails to hit a more personal chord with me. It doesn't even have to be a tangible feeling that can be summed up in words; it can be purely a gut reaction thing. So I rate it three stars on a purely artistic level. Is it the best film ever made? No, certainly not. I'm not trying to make you feel uncomfortable in the way you rate films on here. (Though, in a way, I'm challenging you only to strengthen my own opinions on the matter, as if to justify why I don't have two lists.) I guess I'm trying to say it's okay to allow personal tastes to override what the arty-farty demons are shouting out at the back of your head whenever you watch a shallowly cool film. Or, another way of looking at it may be, keep the two lists by all means, but know that I'll value your favourites list far more. Jesus, reading that back, I sum my whole post up in that last sentence. Forgive my verbosity. Thanks, Mick
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2006 22:02:35 GMT
The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with Capo. For as long as I've had separate lists, I've always justified my "best" list selections with "Oh well, this movie has such great cinematography, and the dialogue is spectacular, etc..." But when I step back and really think about it, who the hell am I to say what constitutes good or bad cinematography, dialogue, visuals, etc...
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Jan 4, 2006 22:16:06 GMT
Well, first off, I don't think Lawrence of Arabia of Arabia is the best film ever, just one of the best.
As for my favorites, I don't consider them guilty pleasures. A guilty pleasure for me would Old School for instance. A poor comedy, although I enjoy it in the popcorn way. I don't base my opinions at all on other sources, although I guess having two lists might give that impression. When I saw Lawrence of Arabia, I thought it was one of the most ambitious epics I'd seen. It's cinematography was breathtaking and the cast was great, as well as it's other aspects. It's a grand example of an epic. However I didn't have a huge interest in that particular piece of history, which affected it entertainment-wise I guess. And it varies from film-to-film.
For instance, Last Days would definitely make my top 50 favorites or possibly even 25, but nothing much happens during it. My entertainment came through my fascination with it. Both Last Days and Dead Man seem to be American Romanticism-esque films in their connection with nature, which I oddly get entranced in. Perhaps I have some sort of attraction towards loneliness being depicted in cinema, which is evident in other movies I like, such as Taxi Driver or Open Your Eyes.
I can't just say this is strictly entertainment and this is the best and entertainment lacks appreciation of art, because some aspects of art strike me more than others, and lead to entertainment. Some aspects of art I respect, but lack being entertained, and some I don't respect, though it can be considered art. You can say that Clint Eastwood makes art. He believes America's original pieces of art are Jazz and Westerns. Pale Rider was a poor remake of Shane. It's poor art, however I find entertainment in it through Eastwood's presence and the fact that I have an attraction towards westerns. Bringing Out the Dead is art to me, but I didn't think it was a good film.
It's difficult to describe, because entertainment can come from anything, even things that bring a film down, like predictable jokes that still cause laughs. It could come from a setting, mood, acting, whatever.
|
|