"I love how the message transcends the general war-film "war is bad" message."
Actually, I wish more war films had this message - generally they're either have a rather jingoistic "yeah, some sad stuff happens but this war is good because we're in it" message or the equivocating "war is bad but it's also kind of glorious and manly" type of message.
This film is more complex than that, so I wouldn't criticize it on those grounds - but I do think it is false to suggest that most war films have a simple "war is bad" message. (And even if it were true, I think it would be completely wrongheaded and shortsighted for someone to criticize them for that trend.)
I've always felt that statements like "anyone who likes this is an idiot" or "you'd have to be mentally ill to enjoy [film]" are very misguided. In reality, people of equal competence and sanity can (and often do) come away from the same work of art with drastically different opinions. In fact, every individual person approaches film from a slightly different angle than every other person, and ones reactions to a film are generally a result of things like personal experience and worldview and aesthetic preferences and so on. Intelligence or sanity rarely have anything to do with it.
Duke of Omnium - I'd have a hard time accepting an argument that "All Quiet on the Western Front" doesn't hold up today. Yes, it has some dated elements that are endemic to most films from the very early sound era (the use of sound, not surprisingly, is one of the more particularly dated elements) - but the script and direction are still fantastic, and it still manages to pack an incredible emotional wallop more than 80 years later.
"It Happened One Night" is a great film, but "All Quiet on the Western Front" would easily get my vote for the first great Best Picture winner, as it's one of the best films ever made, period.
Because we all know that depicting abusive fathers and husbands is equivalent to man-hating (even if at least one of the other male characters in the film is very sympathetic.)
I wouldn't say it's mediocre. The production values are very high, and the direction and mise-en-scene (acknowledging the slight vagueness of the term) are very impressive. It's a good film, one elevated by the extraordinary talents of its director and other collaborators - but you're right that it's a very strange inclusion on the Cahiers list.
So you have a completely inexplicable, arbitrary definition of "foreigner" and then proceed to condemn any movie that falls under that definition. Interesting.
Though I'm glad you don't think ALL "foreigners" are bad (just most of them, apparently,) because otherwise that might be a tad xenophobic or something.
In fact, I'm rather astonished that someone could give even a cursory glance at the list and conclude that there are no "arthouse films" on it.
"Yeah, well, it may contain two films by Tarkovksy (including a 3 1/2 hour black-and-white one), it may contain a bleak 10-hour Japanese drama about World War II (so no samurai), it may contain a film from an unjustly obscure Indian filmmaker like Satyajit Ray - but those are all mainstream compared to Fellini or Truffaut."
ltarex - You're making up completely subjective criteria and then condemning the list for not meeting them. No, there aren't any films by Godard, Antonioni, Bresson, Truffaut, or Jancso on the list (there are, however, multiple films by Fellini, Bergman, and Bunuel.) On the other hand, the list does include films from such masters as Ozu, Ford, Kurosawa, Peckinpah, Naruse, Satyajit Ray (that itself is even more impressive than including a Truffaut or Godard film), Kobayashi (more than one), Becker, Wilder, Costa-Gavras, Visconti, Melville, Watkins, Tarkovsky (more than one), Teshigahara, etc. All of those are great filmmakers - and most are at least as obscure and unknown to "stupid young Americans" (or even "stupid young French" or "stupid young Japanese") as Jancso or Antonioni.
It's a list of 50 well-liked titles from 1960s, a majority of which are foreign arthouse films. A rational person wouldn't look at the list and say "there's no Godard on it - this is made by a bunch of philistines!!!1!!!1"
Yeah, my own list of the best films of the 60s would certainly include stuff like "The Round-up" and "Pierrot le fou" and "Red Desert" and "The 400 Blows" - but the fact that a list voted on by the "general" movie-watching public is so diverse (in terms of nationality and in terms of style) is actually pretty darn impressive.
Not only is it rather decidedly not "long and boring," it is, in fact, one of the greatest, most beautiful and haunting and enthralling films ever made.
"What's wrong" with us is that we're mature enough to realize that the fact that a list of slightly over 100 titles doesn't include certain favorites doesn't mean that the list "blows." The list is great, regardless of the fact that each of us could think of other titles that deserve to place on the list.
I would only complain about the exclusion of certain films if some of those that were included didn't seem at all deserving - there are, of course, some I don't like very much, but overall what's on here deserves to be on here.
Most of the film was a bit bland, but I have to admit that the scenes at the Saltair pavilion were great and creepy, and a brilliant use of the location. It helps that the site of the original (now destroyed) pavilion is about half an hour from my house, and I drive by it (and its new, rather underwhelming music hall replacement) on a fairly frequent basis.
The final scene, though completely predictable, was also memorable.
The editing is as masterful as the cinematography. I must say though that the conclusion to the mystery is a bit, uh, unsatisfying to me (also, ridiculous and silly.)
"Written on the Wind" might qualify as camp (not that "camp" is really a pejorative) - this film does not. Though it is definitely strongly stylized (though not excessively so), it's not marked by any particular irony or kitschy elements - it gently, intelligently undermines some of the social conventions of the time. It's also incredibly, surprisingly emotionally involving.
Wow - this was one of the most involving, moving experiences I've had watching a movie in a long time. Its compassionate depiction of a man with some severe mood disorder (perhaps manic depression?) is both heartbreaking and harrowing. An instant favorite.
I enjoyed this a lot more than I was expecting - there's a bit of a drought in the middle, but the beginning (from the two old ladies at the mailbox) and the last thirty minutes or so had me laughing quite a lot.
I'm also glad to see that monty hated it, otherwise I'd have to reconsider my position.
To be clear: I'm not criticizing anyone for disliking/hating the film. It's just that, as I stated, disliking something doesn't justify every negative word you can throw at it, since not all of those terms of denigration are going to make sense in context.
Comments 101 - 125 of 237
Movie comment on Alamar
Timec
Sorry, the "R" in "rocked" should have been capitalized.It Rocked!!!
Movie comment on Alamar
Timec
It rocked!!!Movie comment on Saving Private Ryan
Timec
"I love how the message transcends the general war-film "war is bad" message."Actually, I wish more war films had this message - generally they're either have a rather jingoistic "yeah, some sad stuff happens but this war is good because we're in it" message or the equivocating "war is bad but it's also kind of glorious and manly" type of message.
This film is more complex than that, so I wouldn't criticize it on those grounds - but I do think it is false to suggest that most war films have a simple "war is bad" message. (And even if it were true, I think it would be completely wrongheaded and shortsighted for someone to criticize them for that trend.)
Movie comment on Aladdin
Timec
kunggi - I know, man - the word "beheading" just makes me lose my head every time I hear it.Movie comment on Hapax Legomena I: Nostalgia
Timec
I've always felt that statements like "anyone who likes this is an idiot" or "you'd have to be mentally ill to enjoy [film]" are very misguided. In reality, people of equal competence and sanity can (and often do) come away from the same work of art with drastically different opinions. In fact, every individual person approaches film from a slightly different angle than every other person, and ones reactions to a film are generally a result of things like personal experience and worldview and aesthetic preferences and so on. Intelligence or sanity rarely have anything to do with it.Edited - to reduce meanness.
Movie comment on It Happened One Night
Timec
Duke of Omnium - I'd have a hard time accepting an argument that "All Quiet on the Western Front" doesn't hold up today. Yes, it has some dated elements that are endemic to most films from the very early sound era (the use of sound, not surprisingly, is one of the more particularly dated elements) - but the script and direction are still fantastic, and it still manages to pack an incredible emotional wallop more than 80 years later."It Happened One Night" is a great film, but "All Quiet on the Western Front" would easily get my vote for the first great Best Picture winner, as it's one of the best films ever made, period.
Movie comment on The Color Purple
Timec
Because we all know that depicting abusive fathers and husbands is equivalent to man-hating (even if at least one of the other male characters in the film is very sympathetic.)Movie comment on E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Timec
Why, outside of conditioning from Hollywood and sci-fi authors, would someone expect all aliens to be scary?Movie comment on The Miracle of Morgan's Creek
Timec
When watched with the right audience this is one of the funniest movies ever made.Movie comment on Moonfleet
Timec
I wouldn't say it's mediocre. The production values are very high, and the direction and mise-en-scene (acknowledging the slight vagueness of the term) are very impressive. It's a good film, one elevated by the extraordinary talents of its director and other collaborators - but you're right that it's a very strange inclusion on the Cahiers list.Toplist comment on IMDb's 2000s Top 50
Timec
So you have a completely inexplicable, arbitrary definition of "foreigner" and then proceed to condemn any movie that falls under that definition. Interesting.Though I'm glad you don't think ALL "foreigners" are bad (just most of them, apparently,) because otherwise that might be a tad xenophobic or something.
Toplist comment on IMDb's 1960s Top 50
Timec
In fact, I'm rather astonished that someone could give even a cursory glance at the list and conclude that there are no "arthouse films" on it."Yeah, well, it may contain two films by Tarkovksy (including a 3 1/2 hour black-and-white one), it may contain a bleak 10-hour Japanese drama about World War II (so no samurai), it may contain a film from an unjustly obscure Indian filmmaker like Satyajit Ray - but those are all mainstream compared to Fellini or Truffaut."
Toplist comment on IMDb's 1960s Top 50
Timec
ltarex - You're making up completely subjective criteria and then condemning the list for not meeting them. No, there aren't any films by Godard, Antonioni, Bresson, Truffaut, or Jancso on the list (there are, however, multiple films by Fellini, Bergman, and Bunuel.) On the other hand, the list does include films from such masters as Ozu, Ford, Kurosawa, Peckinpah, Naruse, Satyajit Ray (that itself is even more impressive than including a Truffaut or Godard film), Kobayashi (more than one), Becker, Wilder, Costa-Gavras, Visconti, Melville, Watkins, Tarkovsky (more than one), Teshigahara, etc. All of those are great filmmakers - and most are at least as obscure and unknown to "stupid young Americans" (or even "stupid young French" or "stupid young Japanese") as Jancso or Antonioni.It's a list of 50 well-liked titles from 1960s, a majority of which are foreign arthouse films. A rational person wouldn't look at the list and say "there's no Godard on it - this is made by a bunch of philistines!!!1!!!1"
Yeah, my own list of the best films of the 60s would certainly include stuff like "The Round-up" and "Pierrot le fou" and "Red Desert" and "The 400 Blows" - but the fact that a list voted on by the "general" movie-watching public is so diverse (in terms of nationality and in terms of style) is actually pretty darn impressive.
Movie comment on McCabe & Mrs. Miller
Timec
Not only is it rather decidedly not "long and boring," it is, in fact, one of the greatest, most beautiful and haunting and enthralling films ever made.Movie comment on Possession
Timec
Pretty fucking brilliant.Toplist comment on Arts & Faith's Top 100 Films
Timec
"What is wrong with you people?""What's wrong" with us is that we're mature enough to realize that the fact that a list of slightly over 100 titles doesn't include certain favorites doesn't mean that the list "blows." The list is great, regardless of the fact that each of us could think of other titles that deserve to place on the list.
I would only complain about the exclusion of certain films if some of those that were included didn't seem at all deserving - there are, of course, some I don't like very much, but overall what's on here deserves to be on here.
Movie comment on Carnival of Souls
Timec
Most of the film was a bit bland, but I have to admit that the scenes at the Saltair pavilion were great and creepy, and a brilliant use of the location. It helps that the site of the original (now destroyed) pavilion is about half an hour from my house, and I drive by it (and its new, rather underwhelming music hall replacement) on a fairly frequent basis.The final scene, though completely predictable, was also memorable.
Movie comment on Don't Look Now
Timec
The editing is as masterful as the cinematography. I must say though that the conclusion to the mystery is a bit, uh, unsatisfying to me (also, ridiculous and silly.)Movie comment on Driving Miss Daisy
Timec
It had no business winning Best Picture, but it's a decent, fairly entertaining movie.On an unrelated note, there's something disturbing about the phrase "heartworming."
Movie comment on All That Heaven Allows
Timec
"Written on the Wind" might qualify as camp (not that "camp" is really a pejorative) - this film does not. Though it is definitely strongly stylized (though not excessively so), it's not marked by any particular irony or kitschy elements - it gently, intelligently undermines some of the social conventions of the time. It's also incredibly, surprisingly emotionally involving.Movie comment on The Old Mill
Timec
Appropriately rated and delightful.Movie comment on L'emploi du temps
Timec
Wow - this was one of the most involving, moving experiences I've had watching a movie in a long time. Its compassionate depiction of a man with some severe mood disorder (perhaps manic depression?) is both heartbreaking and harrowing. An instant favorite.Movie comment on The Bank Dick
Timec
I enjoyed this a lot more than I was expecting - there's a bit of a drought in the middle, but the beginning (from the two old ladies at the mailbox) and the last thirty minutes or so had me laughing quite a lot.I'm also glad to see that monty hated it, otherwise I'd have to reconsider my position.
Movie comment on Bringing Up Baby
Timec
roobin_22 - It's hilarious that you think it's hilarious that others would like a great movie.Movie comment on Another Earth
Timec
To be clear: I'm not criticizing anyone for disliking/hating the film. It's just that, as I stated, disliking something doesn't justify every negative word you can throw at it, since not all of those terms of denigration are going to make sense in context.Showing items 101 – 125 of 237