Top 10 Films of All Time

I started watching Citizen Kane (Had to crash at 11:30 pm last night and only about 00:00:40 some odd minutes into it

WOW

What have I been missing by putting off watching this film ? Wow. What starts out with a mocku news story (in grand 1940's fashion) turns into serious visual langauge

I am not familiar with the work of the era (sans a handful of films; mostly Universal Horror), but the influence of todays modern masters (Scorsese, De Palma, et al) is evident

The framing on every shot is perfect. The lighting is stunning.

The movement of the camera itself is awe-inspiring. The dolly's, the pushes, the pulls, the cranes that blend into windows (De Palma uses this extensively), ramping effects, lighting using light and dark ...

The entire sequence of the reporters, in the screening room. We never see their faces; brilliant ...

I'm being enlightened

Whomever said it was crap I bet has NEVER seen it; otherwiase, they have no taste. How can one like todays master's but not this film ?

It is already evident inside 45 Mintues where our greats have been schooled.

Wow

I am thinking due to the extensive use of crane and movement that the deep focus lenses they created were a neccesity and not a stylistic choice ? I'd bet on it.
 
John_Hudson said:
I am not familiar with the work of the era (sans a handful of films; mostly Universal Horror), but the influence of todays modern masters (Scorsese, De Palma, et al) is evident
...
It is already evident inside 45 Mintues where our greats have been schooled.
Click to expand...

Thelma Schoonmaker said in an interview that when she and Scorsese are working on something, they always have TCM on in the background and Marty will stop every now and then to say: "Oh my god, look at that shot," or "What a great performance."

It's true, Spielberg too worships filmmakers of that time.
 
1. Cinema Paradiso
2. Leon: The professional
3. Lord Of the Rings (consider it all one movie)
4. Momento
5. Fight Club
6. City of God
7. Talk to Her
8. Amorres Perros
9. Passion of the Christ
10. Legends of the Falls

I didnt mention Casablanca or Citizen Kane or Gone with the wind only because I'm not that old and for there time those movies were great but now they wouldnt be all that.
 
John_Hudson said:
I am not familiar with the work of the era (sans a handful of films; mostly Universal Horror), but the influence of todays modern masters (Scorsese, De Palma, et al) is evident
Click to expand...

And Welles made it when he was twenty-four.

You know what I did when I was twenty-four?

Exactly.
 
"GLITTER". lol, Just kidding.

Note: Not in order from favorite to least, just a general list of my favorite movies.

1.Snatch
2.Training Day
3.Brave Heart
4.Cat on the hot tin roof
5.Shawshank Redemption
6.Blackboard Jungle
7.300
8.X
9.Sin City
10.Sexy Beast



If I had an 11th pick it would be The Breakfast Club. I don't know why it just would be.


And if there were a thread on music themed movies I would have to go with Purple Rain as #1. The soundtrack was incredible and the performances were mind blowing.
 
John_Hudson said:
I started watching Citizen Kane (Had to crash at 11:30 pm last night and only about 00:00:40 some odd minutes into it

WOW

What have I been missing by putting off watching this film ? Wow. What starts out with a mocku news story (in grand 1940's fashion) turns into serious visual langauge

I am not familiar with the work of the era (sans a handful of films; mostly Universal Horror), but the influence of todays modern masters (Scorsese, De Palma, et al) is evident

The framing on every shot is perfect. The lighting is stunning.

The movement of the camera itself is awe-inspiring. The dolly's, the pushes, the pulls, the cranes that blend into windows (De Palma uses this extensively), ramping effects, lighting using light and dark ...

The entire sequence of the reporters, in the screening room. We never see their faces; brilliant ...

I'm being enlightened

Whomever said it was crap I bet has NEVER seen it; otherwiase, they have no taste. How can one like todays master's but not this film ?

It is already evident inside 45 Mintues where our greats have been schooled.

Wow

I am thinking due to the extensive use of crane and movement that the deep focus lenses they created were a neccesity and not a stylistic choice ? I'd bet on it.
Click to expand...

I saw it when I was too young to appreciate it. I recently found a copy in a video trader store. I am planning to revisit it. I look forward to viewing what you mentioned.
 
John_Hudson said:
I started watching Citizen Kane (Had to crash at 11:30 pm last night and only about 00:00:40 some odd minutes into it

WOW

What have I been missing by putting off watching this film ? Wow. What starts out with a mocku news story (in grand 1940's fashion) turns into serious visual langauge

I am not familiar with the work of the era (sans a handful of films; mostly Universal Horror), but the influence of todays modern masters (Scorsese, De Palma, et al) is evident

The framing on every shot is perfect. The lighting is stunning.

The movement of the camera itself is awe-inspiring. The dolly's, the pushes, the pulls, the cranes that blend into windows (De Palma uses this extensively), ramping effects, lighting using light and dark ...

The entire sequence of the reporters, in the screening room. We never see their faces; brilliant ...

I'm being enlightened

Whomever said it was crap I bet has NEVER seen it; otherwiase, they have no taste. How can one like todays master's but not this film ?

It is already evident inside 45 Mintues where our greats have been schooled.

Wow

I am thinking due to the extensive use of crane and movement that the deep focus lenses they created were a neccesity and not a stylistic choice ? I'd bet on it.
Click to expand...

The really amazing thing about the film is that most agree Welles was lampooning William Randolph Hearst in the film (something welles denied later in life). Welles hated Hearst (yellow journalism, Nazi supporter.) so much so that the last words out of Kane's mouth "rosebud' was the actual word Hearst would crudely use amongst friends to describe his lover, Marion Davies, certain, eh hem, body part. Think about doing something like this back then. Incredible.

Hearst got wind of what Wells was making and began a campaign to destroy him. If you every want to see a brilliant documentary on the subject it's called "The American Experience: The Battle Over Citizen Kane" IMDB http://imdb.com/title/tt0115634/.
 
That story about Marion Davies body part is apocryphal though, and considering the source is Gore Vidal WAY after the fact, I take it with a grain of salt.

Fortunately for Hearst, Welles was pretty good at destroyinig himself :)
 
John_Hudson said:
I am thinking due to the extensive use of crane and movement that the deep focus lenses they created were a neccesity and not a stylistic choice ? I'd bet on it.
Click to expand...
Here's is a short excerpt from 'This is Orson Welles' by Orson Welles & Peter Bogdanovich on this subject.
PB: An elementary question: why did you want so much depth-of-focus?
OW: Well, in life you see everything in focus at the same time, so why not in the movies? We used split-screen sometimes, but mostly a wide angle lens, lots of juice, and stopped way the hell down. We called it "pan focus" in some idiot interview - just for the fun of it-
PB: Didn't mean anything?
OW: Of course not...
 
I can think of many worse words Hearst could have used. Welles covered himself in the closing seconds of the film anyway.

e
 
One film that advanced the cinematic language tremendously was Abel Gance's 1927 silent 5 hr+ 'Napoleon'. It's an amazing accomplishment.
 
yeah, that whole marion davies thing came out of a review he wrote in 1989, I think. But around that time. He was a friend of Hearst, but still...:)
 
Tragic, I've been boring people at parties for years now with that one and I'll have to footnote it now. Still the parallels between Kane's house Xanadu and Hearst castle are undeniable.
 
oh yeah, it;s all about Hearst, without a doubt. But from what I've read Hearst was nothing like the way Welles portrayed him. Not a sad and mopey guy, but actually quite fun loving and lively. He had his faults, to be sure, but Welles was out on a crusade to get him. Or more likely to make himself famous. :)

Peter Bogdonovitch just made a Hearst movie too, called the "Cat's Meow." few years back.

There was a great story about Welles when he was back in NYC with the Merc, and doing radio at the same time. He would duck out at intermission of a play to rush to the radio studio and do a part. But in order to get there fast, he hired an ambulance to run through the city, lights ablaze. :)

Also, when they were doing War of the Worlds, he would time the scary parts with the commercial breaks of OTHER stations. becauase they knew people flipped the dial. he was a very good marketer and entertainer...
 
Yeah, a total self promoter. when I was a kid, maybe 10, my parents took me on a trip to LA. We got tickets to the Merv Griffith show and Orsen Wells was the guest. I remember being disappointed and not understanding why the Paul mason wine guy was such a big deal. My Dad said, "some day you will understand." Quite literally the understatement of the century. It was a fun interview. To tell you how long ago it was, later that week, we had tickets to the show "Gloria" starring Sally Struthers in the "all in the Family" spin off. What a strange trip it was.

We need to see Bogdonovich direct more, he is an okay actor but ...

I recently caught Henry Rollins interview Vidal on his show. I have never seen an interviewer be so effusive over his subject. Lets just say Rollins is a fan.
 
Mark Harris said:
Peter Bogdonovitch just made a Hearst movie too, called the "Cat's Meow." few years back.
Click to expand...

Was that the one about the murder scandal on the boat...with Chaplin somehow involved? I keep meaning to see it. Was it any good?

That event might actually be part of the reason Welles had it in for Hearst. The dude had so much power to sway opinion and ruin people in print, and he could wield the same force to keep certain things out of the spotlight. Wasn't he kind of the Rupert Murdoch of that era?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top