Wow, this is only 87 minutes but it really put me through the emotional wringer. I love the Dardenne brothers, and this is their best film since the The Son, in my opinion.
Big A2 - Sorry for the confusion - I was not stating my own opinion, but was responding to Pickman's statement that Coppola's version was the "first viewable version" of the story. My first comment was kind of pointless, but just a bit of unnecessary sarcasm in response to an opinion I very strongly disagree with.
To be clear: I really don't like Coppola's film, and I think there were several good or great versions of "Dracula" made before his film, including this one. Apparently Pickman disagrees (which is his right.)
I'm not usually one to rush to the defense of Empire, but I don't really see how this is a "terrible" list. Yeah, it has a few questionable inclusions - but overall, it's pretty decent.
Interesting. All those times that I've called people idiots for disliking what I like have finally come back to haunt me.
Wait... What?
That would be hypocritical of me, wouldn't it? If only it were something I actually did...
Well, nobody's perfect, of course - but I'm actually pretty confident that I've never called anyone an idiot for disliking a film that I like (or vise versa.) There have been cases where I've called people out for their rhetoric and for making objectively false statements (like "anyone who doesn't like this has no compassion for others" or "the only people who don't like this are those who don't get it" or interpretations that directly contradict multiple important elements of the film, among other examples of bad thinking - contrary to what some people suggest, such statements are NOT "just a matter of opinion"), but that's quite a bit different than calling someone an idiot for liking a film that I dislike or for having a different interpretation than me. And when I do get critical, I'm generally very careful to make clear the very important distinction between mocking someone for their opinion and mocking them for their demonstrably false statements and incorrect assumptions about other people's motivations. The general principle being that bad thinking should be called out and mocked, while opinions should not. Though it is possible I may have slipped up before.
But if it has happened before - if I have misspoken and blurred that line - that doesn't change the 99 other times when I go out of my way to include statements like "Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with disliking the film" before lambasting them for their stupid rhetoric. So it's kind of mystifying to have someone tell me that "I have no problem," when, in reality, I really do have a problem with it.
With that said, I do admit to being far too harsh at times - I do overuse personal insults (except of kunggi - one can't insult kunggi enough,) even if not in the context you suggest. As much as I loathe george's rhetoric (it touches on a certain pet peeve of mine,) I don't actually at all think that he's stupid (I know nothing about him, in fact.) But of course, it's hard to convey the full tone of what I'm thinking in an online comment, and I've tried to tone that kind of stuff way down in recent months (and over the past two months I've edited or deleted some of the meaner / gratuitously long comments I've made - though I know that none of them involved me calling someone an idiot for disliking a film.)
But hey, everybody's just going to think that my post is hopelessly arrogant - which only reminds me that one of my New Year's resolutions was to stop reading and commenting on web comments sections, as I only end up annoying myself and everyone else.
Anyways - did you have any specific examples in mind of me calling someone an idiot for disliking a movie? If so, I didn't mean it (I simply don't think like that, as I fully realize that there are a multiplicity of reasons for liking or disliking any given work of art, most of which have nothing to do with intelligence), and I'll be sure to apologize for it and give myself forty lashes as penance.
CrumbThumber - I asked myself the same question. I realize that different people will have different criteria for "disliking" something - but this is a very, very short film, and it contains absolutely nothing offensive. It's also very easy to find with a quick Google search, so it's not like anyone should have had to expend a lot of energy or time to find it (thus feeling disappointed when they get around to watching what is, in fact, a very simple film.) And, since it's so short, it never feels tedious or chore-like like some "history lessons." The mere fact that you're watching an iconic piece of film history should be enough to at least prevent someone from disliking it.
Not to get sidetracked, but there are many, many cases where the movie is better than the book (insofar as they can be compared.) In a lot of cases, in fact, a movie so overshadows its book version that most people don't even know that it was based on a book (see: "Rififi," "Vertigo," "Touch of Evil," "The Graduate," "Contempt," "The Manchurian Candidate," "Paths of Glory," "Nights of Cabiria," etc.) Most halfway objective viewers (ie, those who don't systematically prefer the novel form of storytelling over the cinematic form of storytelling) who have read the books and seen the films of those stories think that the film versions are significantly superior. Slightly more controversially, the films of "The Godfather," "The Shining," "Purple Noon," "The Postman Always Rings Twice," "The Silence of the Lambs," "Double Indemnity," "The Maltese Falcon," among others, are significantly better than their novel counterparts.
One of those rare movies that starts with a really creative premise and examines the implications of the world it has created, eventually bringing things to their logical and inevitable conclusion - and it does all that without ever stretching credulity or seeming that it's trying too hard. The creativity of the screenwriter and director is on full display through every twist and turn of the plot. Delightful, funny, disturbing, and never dull - this is one of the most imaginative films out there.
frbrown - I have to agree. In spite of what the anti-Russian comedy mafia (which is almost as annoying as the anti-Bollywood mafia) would have us believe, this was actually a pretty decent flick.
(Edit: So no one misunderstands, while I really didn't mind the film, the "mafia" comment is extremely tongue in cheek.)
One of the tensest films I've seen in a while, and also kind of horrifying at times. The ending is pretty breathtaking by itself, but I'm not sure how to interpret it in the context of the rest of the film. Jeff Nichols is definitely a very promising director.
I'm afraid I don't have the answer to your question. I haven't actually read most of the original columns - I merely pulled out the top tens without reading the accompanying comments. I do know that some of the other lists I've been adding from other critics specifically mention things like "Andy Warhol retrospective" as an item on the top 10. I'm guessing that, in many cases, most of the older films are in fact from retrospectives.
I also know that Rosenbaum has spent a lot of time writing about the vagaries of film distribution, and how distributors and publicists control our perception of what is available and what is good. Perhaps by including such films he simply hoped to make as many people as possible aware of the titles, and of the fact that there was more to great cinema than what was playing in most theaters. Even if they didn't get a chance to see them, he would at least try to remind readers to not limit their view to new films distributed by the major studios.
(But, as you might guess, I'm just throwing out ideas here - I don't really know the definite answer.)
"but did it really get a run that would allow more than a dozen of his readers to have attended?"
Well, some of these lists were published in the Chicago Reader, in which case a lot of his readers, especially in the days before the internet, probably lived in Chicago and so probably did have access to the same showings that he did. Presumably he also published reviews of the retrospectives as they were going on, so that interested readers could actually have a chance to attend them. I also imagine that, in the days before home video, retrospectives and special screenings were more common and popular than they are now (in the big cities, at least.)
Comments 26 - 50 of 237
Toplist comment on Artificial Eye
Timec
Fixed, plus updated with their most recent announcements.Movie comment on Le gamin au vélo
Timec
Wow, this is only 87 minutes but it really put me through the emotional wringer. I love the Dardenne brothers, and this is their best film since the The Son, in my opinion.Movie comment on Dracula
Timec
Big A2 - Sorry for the confusion - I was not stating my own opinion, but was responding to Pickman's statement that Coppola's version was the "first viewable version" of the story. My first comment was kind of pointless, but just a bit of unnecessary sarcasm in response to an opinion I very strongly disagree with.To be clear: I really don't like Coppola's film, and I think there were several good or great versions of "Dracula" made before his film, including this one. Apparently Pickman disagrees (which is his right.)
Movie comment on Neotpravlennoe pismo
Timec
This was pretty incredibleToplist comment on Jonathan Rosenbaum's 100 Favorite Films
Timec
I really like that list, and somebody has already posted it on the site:http://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/jonathan+rosenbaums+list-o-mania+or+how+i+stopped+worrying+and+learned+to+love+american+movies/mlamarre79/
Toplist comment on BFI's 100 Documentary Films
Timec
Yeah, I was confused about that myself. But that really is listed in the book.Movie comment on Went the Day Well?
Timec
dombrewer - Completely agreed. This is an incredible movie, and one that deserves far more attention.Toplist comment on The 100 Best British Films Ever (by Empire)
Timec
I'm not usually one to rush to the defense of Empire, but I don't really see how this is a "terrible" list. Yeah, it has a few questionable inclusions - but overall, it's pretty decent.Movie comment on Hapax Legomena I: Nostalgia
Timec
Interesting. All those times that I've called people idiots for disliking what I like have finally come back to haunt me.Wait... What?
That would be hypocritical of me, wouldn't it? If only it were something I actually did...
Well, nobody's perfect, of course - but I'm actually pretty confident that I've never called anyone an idiot for disliking a film that I like (or vise versa.) There have been cases where I've called people out for their rhetoric and for making objectively false statements (like "anyone who doesn't like this has no compassion for others" or "the only people who don't like this are those who don't get it" or interpretations that directly contradict multiple important elements of the film, among other examples of bad thinking - contrary to what some people suggest, such statements are NOT "just a matter of opinion"), but that's quite a bit different than calling someone an idiot for liking a film that I dislike or for having a different interpretation than me. And when I do get critical, I'm generally very careful to make clear the very important distinction between mocking someone for their opinion and mocking them for their demonstrably false statements and incorrect assumptions about other people's motivations. The general principle being that bad thinking should be called out and mocked, while opinions should not. Though it is possible I may have slipped up before.
But if it has happened before - if I have misspoken and blurred that line - that doesn't change the 99 other times when I go out of my way to include statements like "Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with disliking the film" before lambasting them for their stupid rhetoric. So it's kind of mystifying to have someone tell me that "I have no problem," when, in reality, I really do have a problem with it.
With that said, I do admit to being far too harsh at times - I do overuse personal insults (except of kunggi - one can't insult kunggi enough,) even if not in the context you suggest. As much as I loathe george's rhetoric (it touches on a certain pet peeve of mine,) I don't actually at all think that he's stupid (I know nothing about him, in fact.) But of course, it's hard to convey the full tone of what I'm thinking in an online comment, and I've tried to tone that kind of stuff way down in recent months (and over the past two months I've edited or deleted some of the meaner / gratuitously long comments I've made - though I know that none of them involved me calling someone an idiot for disliking a film.)
But hey, everybody's just going to think that my post is hopelessly arrogant - which only reminds me that one of my New Year's resolutions was to stop reading and commenting on web comments sections, as I only end up annoying myself and everyone else.
Anyways - did you have any specific examples in mind of me calling someone an idiot for disliking a movie? If so, I didn't mean it (I simply don't think like that, as I fully realize that there are a multiplicity of reasons for liking or disliking any given work of art, most of which have nothing to do with intelligence), and I'll be sure to apologize for it and give myself forty lashes as penance.
Toplist comment on Greatest Films of Art and Spirituality
Timec
TV shows and movies now added - though "Uncovering the Real Dickens" doesn't seem to be on IMDb.Toplist comment on Flicker Alley DVD Catalog
Timec
I don't think either of the correct entries is on IMDb, so I've just deleted the two incorrect ones.Movie comment on La sortie de l'usine Lumière à Lyon
Timec
CrumbThumber - I asked myself the same question. I realize that different people will have different criteria for "disliking" something - but this is a very, very short film, and it contains absolutely nothing offensive. It's also very easy to find with a quick Google search, so it's not like anyone should have had to expend a lot of energy or time to find it (thus feeling disappointed when they get around to watching what is, in fact, a very simple film.) And, since it's so short, it never feels tedious or chore-like like some "history lessons." The mere fact that you're watching an iconic piece of film history should be enough to at least prevent someone from disliking it.Toplist comment on iCM Forum's 1001 Favourite Movies
Timec
Awesome list!Movie comment on A Diary for Timothy
Timec
A work of great beauty, like most of Humphrey Jenning's films.Movie comment on The Virgin Suicides
Timec
"Good movie, but as always, book was way better."Not to get sidetracked, but there are many, many cases where the movie is better than the book (insofar as they can be compared.) In a lot of cases, in fact, a movie so overshadows its book version that most people don't even know that it was based on a book (see: "Rififi," "Vertigo," "Touch of Evil," "The Graduate," "Contempt," "The Manchurian Candidate," "Paths of Glory," "Nights of Cabiria," etc.) Most halfway objective viewers (ie, those who don't systematically prefer the novel form of storytelling over the cinematic form of storytelling) who have read the books and seen the films of those stories think that the film versions are significantly superior. Slightly more controversially, the films of "The Godfather," "The Shining," "Purple Noon," "The Postman Always Rings Twice," "The Silence of the Lambs," "Double Indemnity," "The Maltese Falcon," among others, are significantly better than their novel counterparts.
Movie comment on Being John Malkovich
Timec
And I must say that I don't understand people who use "strange" as a pejorative.Movie comment on Being John Malkovich
Timec
One of those rare movies that starts with a really creative premise and examines the implications of the world it has created, eventually bringing things to their logical and inevitable conclusion - and it does all that without ever stretching credulity or seeming that it's trying too hard. The creativity of the screenwriter and director is on full display through every twist and turn of the plot. Delightful, funny, disturbing, and never dull - this is one of the most imaginative films out there.Movie comment on Scarface
Timec
A lot of fun, and much better than the DePalma film.Movie comment on Tini zabutykh predkiv
Timec
Awfully incredible.Movie comment on Brilliantovaya ruka
Timec
frbrown - I have to agree. In spite of what the anti-Russian comedy mafia (which is almost as annoying as the anti-Bollywood mafia) would have us believe, this was actually a pretty decent flick.(Edit: So no one misunderstands, while I really didn't mind the film, the "mafia" comment is extremely tongue in cheek.)
Movie comment on The Private Life of a Cat
Timec
One of the most wonderful things ever.Movie comment on Take Shelter
Timec
One of the tensest films I've seen in a while, and also kind of horrifying at times. The ending is pretty breathtaking by itself, but I'm not sure how to interpret it in the context of the rest of the film. Jeff Nichols is definitely a very promising director.Toplist comment on Jonathan Rosenbaum's Annual Top Ten Lists
Timec
I'm afraid I don't have the answer to your question. I haven't actually read most of the original columns - I merely pulled out the top tens without reading the accompanying comments. I do know that some of the other lists I've been adding from other critics specifically mention things like "Andy Warhol retrospective" as an item on the top 10. I'm guessing that, in many cases, most of the older films are in fact from retrospectives.I also know that Rosenbaum has spent a lot of time writing about the vagaries of film distribution, and how distributors and publicists control our perception of what is available and what is good. Perhaps by including such films he simply hoped to make as many people as possible aware of the titles, and of the fact that there was more to great cinema than what was playing in most theaters. Even if they didn't get a chance to see them, he would at least try to remind readers to not limit their view to new films distributed by the major studios.
(But, as you might guess, I'm just throwing out ideas here - I don't really know the definite answer.)
"but did it really get a run that would allow more than a dozen of his readers to have attended?"
Well, some of these lists were published in the Chicago Reader, in which case a lot of his readers, especially in the days before the internet, probably lived in Chicago and so probably did have access to the same showings that he did. Presumably he also published reviews of the retrospectives as they were going on, so that interested readers could actually have a chance to attend them. I also imagine that, in the days before home video, retrospectives and special screenings were more common and popular than they are now (in the big cities, at least.)
Movie comment on Motion Painting No. 1
Timec
A work of beauty from one of the great (and underrated) film artists.Movie comment on Follies
Timec
Here's hoping this actually gets made, someday....Though preferably by a better director.
Showing items 26 – 50 of 237