"Great" Movies that Suck

John_Hudson said:
GASP!
Click to expand...
What'you mean? That was one of the dullest, most melodramatic P.O.S I've ever had to endure through. There was a freakin "heartfelt" encouragement/inspirational speech by Broderick every 3 minutes.

EDIT: freaking (sorry for that typo)
 
Just did. Look up, or

What'you mean? That was one of the dullest, most melodramatic P.O.S I've ever had to endure through. There was a freakin "heartfelt" encouragement/inspirational speech by Broderick every 3 minutes.
Click to expand...
 
John_Hudson said:
What, are you 14?
Click to expand...
Sigh.

Look, I think you know I have a pretty good interest in all the good movies, and no interest in modern movies that the young people my age like. I just didnt think that Glory was worth it's word. Maybe that day I just had one foot off the merry-go-round, but I thought it was a worthless war movie. After the 6th melodramatic speech, the axe fell, and I was doomed to not like it.

Blaine said:
He must have seen the edited PG version, the original was rated R...:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Click to expand...
The original- I dont do censored movies. And ha-ha on the age joke. You know how much I adore those.

And how does the rating affect the movie anyway?
 
chromeboy007 said:
most ppl here would have no idea what you are talking about...
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised amigo :)

I think the only two of Kurosawa's that I've seen, that I found a little disappointing was "Dreams" and "Stray Dog". While "dreams" was an interesting visual experiment, I felt it wasn't cohesive enough to hold my interest, beyond the cinematography. "Stray Dog" was a'aight, but didn't approach his best.

I think you'll find a lot of people on this board are well versed in films. They just have more popular tastes, which is neither good nor bad, just different. Athough, Visconti's "The Leopard" did suck. (kidding)
 
I think the majority of fans of the avante garde cinema, abstract, euro, italian, asian, french new wave (and on and on) are kind of misguided or being cheated.

They've seen a handful of the films of theose eras and style; but couldnt possibly have seen an entire generations worth of films

Think of the body of work of Bava, Antonioni, Bergman, Brakhage, Fellini, Kurasawa, Truffaut, Wenders, Tarkovsky .........

It would take a lifetime and then some to see the work of just these filmmakers alone. And it would take ten lifetimes to become intimate with the entire spectrum of international cinema

These eras came and went. Cinema has taken what it wanted and evolved into something else. It is somehow hip to spout Kubrick, Godard, Tarr and so forth; but the reality is that they have seen perhaps 1 or 2 of their best works.

They see what the textbooks tell them too see or some professor in film school claims as gospel

50 Years from now, todays leading filmmakers will be at the forefront of influence and names like Scorsese, Spielberg and Tarantino will be the T-Shirts of the day for the film theory student.

(This is a generalization of course.)

It is a pleasure and privledge to see films that have infleunced todays masters but it doesnt make them better or superior.
 
D_and_G said:
You'd be surprised amigo :)

I think the only two of Kurosawa's that I've seen, that I found a little disappointing was "Dreams" and "Stray Dog". While "dreams" was an interesting visual experiment, I felt it wasn't cohesive enough to hold my interest, beyond the cinematography. "Stray Dog" was a'aight, but didn't approach his best.
Click to expand...

yeah i would like to be surprised here... those two aren't very good representations of Kurosawa. Stray Dog maybe... the morale of that is that it is an individual's choice to be either good or bad. many of his films are social statements. I heard Dreams suck. I haven't seen it.

Rsshomon, Seven Samurai and Ran are his best IMO....
 
chromeboy007 said:
yeah i would like to be surprised here... those two aren't very good representations of Kurosawa. Stray Dog maybe... the morale of that is that it is an individual's choice to be either good or bad. many of his films are social statements. I heard Dreams suck. I haven't seen it.

Rsshomon, Seven Samurai and Ran are his best IMO....
Click to expand...

Ha. i could talk all day about Kurosawa, but may i suggest "Drunken Angel", and "The Lower Depths" (a double disc with Renoir), if you haven't seen them. I would say Kurosawa falls more into the humanist category, then social activism, IMHO. It helps to know a bit about Japanese cultutre etc.. when you watch his films, if only so you know the lines that characters are crossing and the import of them, but he was a master story teller first, so he crosses generational and cultural lines. In fact, he didn't care where a good story came from, as long as it touched him - Ed Mcbain American pulp novelist adaptation - for example. Maybe that's a lesson we all could learn...

:beer:
 
John,

You certainly have a point, and of course, you are making generalizations. Aspiring filmmakers like us certainly would not fall into this trap, but the flip side of your argument is that the general public has a bad tendency to believe that "new = good". It's a fallacy that new movies have always taken the best of the past and have evolved into something new and better. The truth is it doesn't always happen that way. Even the Oscar best picture last year (Crash) sucks - it did not evolve at all... most characters are 2 dimensional caricatures and plot advances on coincidences and gimmicks and flashy transitions. These things awe the general public but do not fool us for a second.

Good cinema are the ones that, in addition to being innovative, have absorbed/learned from the old masters. Fortunately for us, in this fastfood/Paris Hilton era, film is an art where quality still means something. Definition of what good is varies but there is some true consensus. And good films are still being sort after. Look at pop music, it has descented to the lowerest depth ever with Paris Hilton's new CD. Old but good music is forgotten, for no other reason then because it is not new. There are talented musicians who will never get signed and noticed because of filthy social decadents like her. and that makes me very sad.

My point is, I would rather watch Seven Samurai for the nth time, or pick out a Fellini /Polanski/whatever that I haven't seen from the store, then to watch Superman Returns...

You said so yourself, the only modern filmmaker whos' work you truly can't wait to see is QT. what does that say about the general modern filmmakers?

For me it's Wong Kar Wai... I can't wait for My Blueberry Nights. the rest can wait....

My booze is wearing down....
 
D_and_G said:
Ha. i could talk all day about Kurosawa, but may i suggest "Drunken Angel", and "The Lower Depths" (a double disc with Renoir), if you haven't
Click to expand...


i haven't seen neither... I have never seen Drunken anywhere in my city so I'll take your advice and check out Lower Depth.

These are the Kurosawas I have seen:

Rashomon, Seven Samurai, Ikiru, Stray Dog, High and Low, Throne of Blood, Red Beard, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Hidden Fortress, Kagemusha, Ran.

I own the 4 samurai set, and Ran.
 
John_Hudson said:
It is a pleasure and privledge to see films that have infleunced todays masters but it doesnt make them better or superior.
Click to expand...

Interesting take John. I agree with the above quote for sure. Just like a renaissance painting isn't better than a modern one. Just different.

EDIT : omitted 'cause I sounded like a wanker.

Tarantino or Truffault. They both face the same challenge.


Just me 3 pence. :beer: :beer: :beer:
 
Last edited:
John_Hudson said:
I think the majority of fans of the avante garde cinema, abstract, euro, italian, asian, french new wave (and on and on) are kind of misguided or being cheated.

They've seen a handful of the films of theose eras and style; but couldnt possibly have seen an entire generations worth of films

Think of the body of work of Bava, Antonioni, Bergman, Brakhage, Fellini, Kurasawa, Truffaut, Wenders, Tarkovsky .........

It would take a lifetime and then some to see the work of just these filmmakers alone. And it would take ten lifetimes to become intimate with the entire spectrum of international cinema

These eras came and went. Cinema has taken what it wanted and evolved into something else. It is somehow hip to spout Kubrick, Godard, Tarr and so forth; but the reality is that they have seen perhaps 1 or 2 of their best works.

They see what the textbooks tell them too see or some professor in film school claims as gospel

50 Years from now, todays leading filmmakers will be at the forefront of influence and names like Scorsese, Spielberg and Tarantino will be the T-Shirts of the day for the film theory student.

(This is a generalization of course.)

It is a pleasure and privledge to see films that have infleunced todays masters but it doesnt make them better or superior.
Click to expand...

mefipallina_clap.gif
John


You're right on in saying that it would be damn near impossible for these cats to have access to even half of the films of avant garde/abstract/euro/new wave directors (other than those "some professor in film school claims as gospel" that you mentioned.)


On the other hand, I can vouch for the directors on my best of list...especially after spending my lifetime so far screening the entirety of their respective body of works (or 90% in the cases of a few who have had prints tragically lost to time.)
oregonian_popcorn.gif



Spielberg (100%)
Hitch (100%)
Capra (90%)
Curtiz (100% since 1926)
Huston (100%)
Ford (90%)
Welles (100%)
Wilder (100%)
Hawks (90%)
Coppola (100%)
 
CallaghanFilms said:
You're right on in saying that it would be damn near impossible for these cats to have access to even half of the films of avant garde/abstract/euro/new wave directors (other than those "some professor in film school claims as gospel" that you mentioned.)
Click to expand...

LOL! All of Godard's work from Breathless to Weekend, before he went crazy, and almost all of Kurosawa's work from Stray Dog in 1949 aaalllllllllll the way to Rhapsody in August in 1991 can be easily found from within walking distance from where I live in Toronto.

I haven't studied their stocks for others on John's list but I have no reason to think that these places are prejudice towards them.

BTW, so that you know, just incase you didn't, almost all of Kubrick work can be found at your local Blockbuster...
 
John_Hudson said:
I think the majority of fans of the avante garde cinema, abstract, euro, italian, asian, french new wave (and on and on) are kind of misguided or being cheated.

They've seen a handful of the films of theose eras and style; but couldnt possibly have seen an entire generations worth of films

Think of the body of work of Bava, Antonioni, Bergman, Brakhage, Fellini, Kurasawa, Truffaut, Wenders, Tarkovsky .........

It would take a lifetime and then some to see the work of just these filmmakers alone. And it would take ten lifetimes to become intimate with the entire spectrum of international cinema

These eras came and went. Cinema has taken what it wanted and evolved into something else. It is somehow hip to spout Kubrick, Godard, Tarr and so forth; but the reality is that they have seen perhaps 1 or 2 of their best works.

They see what the textbooks tell them too see or some professor in film school claims as gospel

50 Years from now, todays leading filmmakers will be at the forefront of influence and names like Scorsese, Spielberg and Tarantino will be the T-Shirts of the day for the film theory student.

(This is a generalization of course.)

It is a pleasure and privledge to see films that have infleunced todays masters but it doesnt make them better or superior.
Click to expand...


Wow- you are completely right. I guess I fall partially under that category, though I have to disagree with one part. I have people tell me what the "great" movies are, and I always end up wanting to bludgeon them. There is no defenition of Great Movie, because not everyone can like it, ever. I choose to see the movies that have piqued my interest- for example, Scotland, PA. That movie got my hopes up high for a wonderful indie dramedy. It turned out to be churned up indie junk, despite Sundance's rave review.
 
A BEAUTIFUL MIND. I would like to know what Polanski would have done with this story instead of Howard. Opie just can't do dark.

BRAZIL. I've tried this movie 3 times now and I still don't understand the hype. And I like Terry Gilliam!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top