The "student film" epithet has grown very old. As someone who, you know, has actually seen some student films, I can assure you that none of them contained anything that looked like the dream sequences in this film (and it's not just a matter of competency, but also a matter of visual imagination - something most student films lack and which this film contains in spades.)
It's also nowhere close to being "very long" - it is, in fact, just about the perfect length (though it could have used a little longer run-time.)
It is a truly extraordinary film, one with more creativity and beauty and warmth than just about anything else out there.
Well damn. I love this film, and I love "Somewhere Over the Rainbow," but never once have I shed a tear during it (and I'm the type of person who cries during a lot of films.)
Finally, those who would reject those artists of "realist" art are denying some of the best of what film, art, and human expression in general can offer to the world. For it is in such art that some of the greatest expressions of compassion and understanding of the human condition are to be found. Such art is one of the highest forms of human expression, for it reminds us of mankind's duty to help those in need. In the best cases (as with this film), it shakes us out of our apathy, it forces us to confront what we would otherwise choose to ignore.
No, simply watching a film does not fix the world - but it can lead to great things, for the feelings that it instills in you can, and have (in my case, and in the case of others I know) inspire us to create change, to help those around us. They (without glorifying or reveling in poverty or violence or other evils) show us the very human nature of those who have been shut out by society.
Those like aneic would like to deny art's ability to affect people, and to create hope (not the artificial, false hope of a "Slumdog Millionaire" or "Life Is Beautiful," but a more lasting and real hope of a brighter future) - by shining a light in some of the darkest places of our society, they help guide us toward something better.
Sorry for the essay, but the sentiments expressed in aneic's post are incredibly misguided, and I felt the need to correct them.
But I can understand your motivation, Aneic. You desperately want what you said to be true, because then you can avoid responsibility for failing to confront the reality you have been presented with ("Well, the filmmakers are, uh, enjoying it and stuff.") Unfortunately for you, the aforementioned films of Scorsese and Rossellini and de Sica are far more honest in their depictions and motivations than truly self-serving and dishonest films like "Life Is Beautiful" and "Slumdog Millionaire." Any strong "uplift" in films such as "Berlin Year Zero" or "Bicycle Thieves" would have been hugely damaging to the films' integrity. That is to say, the so-called "hysterics" and "sullenness" of this film are more than well-earned (anything else than a "sullen" tone would have been a very bad choice,) considering the nature of the story.
That's certainly not to suggest that all "depressing" films are inherently more honest than uplifting ones, but a "realist" style does not, in fact, come with the baggage that you would assign it. The choice to focus on such subject matter is not dishonest or hypocritical, as ones interest in a given subject does not have to be motivated by pleasure derived from that subject, but may just as well be motivated by genuine human interest and compassion. Yes, there are other great films that are much happier, even joyous (see: "Singin' in the Rain," "Kiki's Delivery Service," etc.) but it is necessary that some great filmmakers choose to focus on subjects that would fall outside of your range of interest (besides the fact that Rossellini and de Sica have proven themselves more than capable of making far less "sullen" films - see "Miracle in Milan" for one great example.)
Aneic - What an absolutely nonsensical "theory"! You would have it that those who depict the "irredeemables" and/or those left behind in the backwash and squalor of society (as with characters in everything from this to "Raging Bull" to "Lilya 4ever" to "Bicycle Thieves") would "soften" their portrayal so we would have it easier. Never mind that there's nothing to support that the filmmakers are "intoxicated with the misery" - you just don't want film to expose you to these things that you would rather ignore. You then project your own inadequacies onto the artist ("I don't like it, so they must be getting some sadistic pleasure out of it!")
Fortunately, there are people more courageous than you, ones who are willing to take us to places and show us people (people who do, in fact, exist) with little hope - people who are living lives of (often) quiet desperation.
These filmmakers (and other individuals who depict those otherwise ignored by society) are doing an essential service for society, and are forcing us to stare into an abyss that we can't afford to ignore. In the process, they also offer the tiniest bit of hope - by depicting such lives with compassion and empathy they ask us to look within ourselves, and to help minimize such suffering in the future, as best we can.
In short: Rossellini was a filmmaker of extraordinary compassion and empathy - the fact that you think that he was somehow "getting off" on the misery being depicted says a lot more about you than it does about the artist.
Ivn1945 - There is a live-action version, and it's apparently not as good as this version. To me, the animation is absolutely integral to the film. It universalizes the story, and makes it that much more powerful. This is one of the greatest and most devastating films ever made, animated or otherwise.
Mrsnoops - You may like the film or what it is doing, but this film's masterful animation and storytelling precludes it from being "spectacularly awful."
Because when I think "quirky" I think "Crimson Gold" and "There Will Be Blood" and "Grizzly Man" and "L'enfant" and "Time Out" and "Yi Yi" and "Lord of the Rings."
Really, only about five of the films on the list could legitimately be called "quirky."
Eric - There aren't any incredible actors in this film, but the set design and cinematography are indeed incredible and not in the least bit wasted.
dnalysis - Actually, the film becomes more and more distinguished and impressive as time goes on. Here in the 21st century its achievements are even more impressive, as no one since has done what it did, in spite of the improved technology. In other words, in spite of the huge technological advancements since then, this film beats just about every other CGI-fest to come out in the last 30 years. It looks better, sounds better, has a better script, and addresses its themes more intelligently than just about any other science fiction film out there.
Suggesting, even facetiously, that a movie should be destroyed is kind of idiotic. It's the epitome of selfishness to say "I hated this movie, therefore no one else should be able to see it." Remember, people, the fact that you don't like something doesn't mean that everyone else should be deprived of seeing it, especially with a film like this that has brought a lot of joy to a lot of people, and which has one of the best and most important musical scores of the twentieth century. It's absolutely fine that you don't like the film, but suggesting that it should be destroyed because of that is, once again, really stupid.
Not really - you just didn't like the score. That doesn't mean that everyone else who liked the score were wrong to rate it so highly.
I, personally, don't find the score in the least bit off-putting, and find it an absolutely perfect complement to the action of the film. If anything, both the film and the score are a tad underrated. This should be as universally acknowledged a classic as "Casablanca" and "Citizen Kane."
Forrester - The movie's not vague at all - it's quite clear in its intentions and meaning. But more importantly, the film is, quite simply, a joy to watch. There's not a dull moment, and it's one of the most endlessly enthralling films ever made (I've watched it about a dozen times over the past seven or eight years.)
In other words, this individual (who has, incidentally, never been under the influence) finds it the perfect commingling of art AND entertainment.
My attachment to the source material might affect my judgment a bit, but this is easily one of the two or three best things Burton has ever done. It's not an entirely successful adaptation - the staging of "A Little Priest," one of the best act one finales in musical theater history, falls completely flat, and the Anthony and Johanna storyline is truncated to the point of meaninglessness - but it's still very good. The non-professional singers do a good job bringing emotion to Sondheim's extraordinary music and lyrics, and, overall, the film maintains much of the emotional power of the stage production - which is still one of the greatest works of musical theater (though not quite among the best of Sondheim's shows.)
Absolutely the best, most consistently great thing Coppola has ever done. Resemblances to "Lost in Translation" are quite superficial - thematically and aesthetically it's a very different film. Absolutely enthralling.
And what was Shakespeare thinking, giving all his Italian and Danish (and so on) characters poetic English dialogue? Man, very few productions of "Hamlet" even have the actors speaking with a Danish accent.
But seriously - that's not a flaw. In fact, considering that the movie was made for an American audience, it was actually a very smart move to have them talk in English and without accents. Like it or not, foreign languages are a barrier to understanding and empathy for many people, and a decision to shoot this in German would have made the film less powerful than it is. By speaking English, audiences who might reject subtitled films were forced to empathize with a group that had been their enemy less than fifteen years earlier - by giving the characters everyday English dialogue it gave the impression that these people were, indeed, quite human, and that, in most cases, they weren't all that different than the average American in the audience. They had the same concerns, the same fears, the same hopes...
It does get more tricky when different characters would, in reality, be speaking different languages (that is to say, if we had an English soldier and a German soldier among the main characters) - but since that's not the case here, it's entirely reasonable that the characters speak English, as we the audience are given insight, are made witness of a world and experience that we may otherwise never have known.
In other words, having foreign characters speaking something other than their native language is an entirely acceptable stylistic device, one that had been established for a long, long time before film even came around. That device is used to brilliant effect here.
So a dogmatic "Oh no, they're speaking something other than their native language and that ruins the film" approach is entirely wrongheaded, and will lead you to reject some of the greatest films of all time (as well as some of the greatest works of theater, opera, and literature.) Those looking for that sort of verisimilitude are going to want to turn to something other than film, or literature, or theater, or pretty much any art form that contains the spoken word.
I don't understand people who criticize lists for their obscurity. For me, the main purpose of a list is not to validate my taste (I believe I have good reasons for liking what I like, and that's enough) - but rather to introduce me to films I might not otherwise have seen. For that reason, Rosenbaum's list is a breath of fresh air - it excludes some popular "canonical" films, and includes a lot of nearly forgotten gems. I've only seen a small percentage of the films on Rosenbaum's list (though a larger percentage than it says on this site, since I'm only checking movies I've watched since I replaced my 19" TV with inaccurate colors and tracking lines a quarter of the way down the screen with a much nicer 42" HDTV,) but most of those I have seen were quite excellent - and I'm very much looking forward to delving deeper into it after I finish off some of the other lists I'm working on.
Rosenbaum is an intelligent and mature critic (even if I sometimes disagree with his reviews) - I don't see any reason to suppose that he's deliberately choosing obscure movies to look "cool" or whatever. The other option is that he h legitimately likes the movies, even if some of them are on the fringes of the canon and have been forgotten by most critics/film buffs. That kind of personal list is the most valuable, rather than one that tries to aggregate the "Greatest Films." As Rosenbaum has talked about extensively, the "canon" isn't the definitive list of the greatest films that we'd like to believe that it is, and it's shaped extensively by politics and availability and so on and so forth.
Which is all to say: I value lists like this and TSPDT, but it seems entirely wrongheaded to condemn a list for being "obscure" - especially when there's absolutely nothing to indicate that those "obscure" films aren't actually the personal favorites of the person making the list.
A masterpiece. Definitely not too slow. And if someone thinks this is "too different" I'd hate to see what they thought of some of the truly strange films that are out there (some of them very good, and some of them definitely not.) This is pretty normal compared to a lot of other films.
When asked to name my favorite film, this is almost always the first title that comes to mind. An absolutely beautiful, transformative masterpiece of a film, and one that holds up incredibly well on repeat viewings. Few films travel so far and so deeply into the souls of their protagonists.
AtomicSquad - Don't watch "Rosetta" or "The Son." While I think all those repetitious scenes of transportation are integral to what the brothers are trying to do, and are an essential part of what makes me have such a (positive) visceral reaction to their films, I can understand why others would be frustrated with it. It's a delicate balance that most directors aren't able to handle, but I think they manage it extremely well.
A devastating masterpiece - there are few films that rival it in power. It doesn't so much go "way over the top" as provide an unflinching look at an unremittingly bleak environment. Moodysson is one of the most compassionate filmmakers working today, and that's what separates this and makes it better than just about any other movie on the subject.
Oh, how I'd love to live in a world where a genius like Norman McLaren could be considered "bland." In this world, however, he's one of the greatest artists the cinema has ever seen. His films contain more wit, imagination, and a sheer sense of the joy of filmmaking and viewing than about 99% of all other films combined.
Comments 201 - 225 of 237
Movie comment on Tonari no Totoro
Timec
Plain? That's not even true by Miyazaki's standards. This is one of the most imaginative, charming, and beautiful films out there.Movie comment on Le scaphandre et le papillon
Timec
The "student film" epithet has grown very old. As someone who, you know, has actually seen some student films, I can assure you that none of them contained anything that looked like the dream sequences in this film (and it's not just a matter of competency, but also a matter of visual imagination - something most student films lack and which this film contains in spades.)It's also nowhere close to being "very long" - it is, in fact, just about the perfect length (though it could have used a little longer run-time.)
It is a truly extraordinary film, one with more creativity and beauty and warmth than just about anything else out there.
Movie comment on The Wizard of Oz
Timec
Well damn. I love this film, and I love "Somewhere Over the Rainbow," but never once have I shed a tear during it (and I'm the type of person who cries during a lot of films.)I'm sad to learn that I have no soul. :(
Movie comment on Germania anno zero
Timec
Finally, those who would reject those artists of "realist" art are denying some of the best of what film, art, and human expression in general can offer to the world. For it is in such art that some of the greatest expressions of compassion and understanding of the human condition are to be found. Such art is one of the highest forms of human expression, for it reminds us of mankind's duty to help those in need. In the best cases (as with this film), it shakes us out of our apathy, it forces us to confront what we would otherwise choose to ignore.No, simply watching a film does not fix the world - but it can lead to great things, for the feelings that it instills in you can, and have (in my case, and in the case of others I know) inspire us to create change, to help those around us. They (without glorifying or reveling in poverty or violence or other evils) show us the very human nature of those who have been shut out by society.
Those like aneic would like to deny art's ability to affect people, and to create hope (not the artificial, false hope of a "Slumdog Millionaire" or "Life Is Beautiful," but a more lasting and real hope of a brighter future) - by shining a light in some of the darkest places of our society, they help guide us toward something better.
Sorry for the essay, but the sentiments expressed in aneic's post are incredibly misguided, and I felt the need to correct them.
Movie comment on Germania anno zero
Timec
But I can understand your motivation, Aneic. You desperately want what you said to be true, because then you can avoid responsibility for failing to confront the reality you have been presented with ("Well, the filmmakers are, uh, enjoying it and stuff.") Unfortunately for you, the aforementioned films of Scorsese and Rossellini and de Sica are far more honest in their depictions and motivations than truly self-serving and dishonest films like "Life Is Beautiful" and "Slumdog Millionaire." Any strong "uplift" in films such as "Berlin Year Zero" or "Bicycle Thieves" would have been hugely damaging to the films' integrity. That is to say, the so-called "hysterics" and "sullenness" of this film are more than well-earned (anything else than a "sullen" tone would have been a very bad choice,) considering the nature of the story.That's certainly not to suggest that all "depressing" films are inherently more honest than uplifting ones, but a "realist" style does not, in fact, come with the baggage that you would assign it. The choice to focus on such subject matter is not dishonest or hypocritical, as ones interest in a given subject does not have to be motivated by pleasure derived from that subject, but may just as well be motivated by genuine human interest and compassion. Yes, there are other great films that are much happier, even joyous (see: "Singin' in the Rain," "Kiki's Delivery Service," etc.) but it is necessary that some great filmmakers choose to focus on subjects that would fall outside of your range of interest (besides the fact that Rossellini and de Sica have proven themselves more than capable of making far less "sullen" films - see "Miracle in Milan" for one great example.)
Movie comment on Germania anno zero
Timec
Aneic - What an absolutely nonsensical "theory"! You would have it that those who depict the "irredeemables" and/or those left behind in the backwash and squalor of society (as with characters in everything from this to "Raging Bull" to "Lilya 4ever" to "Bicycle Thieves") would "soften" their portrayal so we would have it easier. Never mind that there's nothing to support that the filmmakers are "intoxicated with the misery" - you just don't want film to expose you to these things that you would rather ignore. You then project your own inadequacies onto the artist ("I don't like it, so they must be getting some sadistic pleasure out of it!")Fortunately, there are people more courageous than you, ones who are willing to take us to places and show us people (people who do, in fact, exist) with little hope - people who are living lives of (often) quiet desperation.
These filmmakers (and other individuals who depict those otherwise ignored by society) are doing an essential service for society, and are forcing us to stare into an abyss that we can't afford to ignore. In the process, they also offer the tiniest bit of hope - by depicting such lives with compassion and empathy they ask us to look within ourselves, and to help minimize such suffering in the future, as best we can.
In short: Rossellini was a filmmaker of extraordinary compassion and empathy - the fact that you think that he was somehow "getting off" on the misery being depicted says a lot more about you than it does about the artist.
Movie comment on Hotaru no haka
Timec
Oops - that should read: "You may 'not' like the film or what it is doing..."Movie comment on Hotaru no haka
Timec
Ivn1945 - There is a live-action version, and it's apparently not as good as this version. To me, the animation is absolutely integral to the film. It universalizes the story, and makes it that much more powerful. This is one of the greatest and most devastating films ever made, animated or otherwise.Mrsnoops - You may like the film or what it is doing, but this film's masterful animation and storytelling precludes it from being "spectacularly awful."
Toplist comment on A.V. Club's The Best Movies of the 2000s
Timec
Because when I think "quirky" I think "Crimson Gold" and "There Will Be Blood" and "Grizzly Man" and "L'enfant" and "Time Out" and "Yi Yi" and "Lord of the Rings."Really, only about five of the films on the list could legitimately be called "quirky."
Movie comment on Blade Runner
Timec
Eric - There aren't any incredible actors in this film, but the set design and cinematography are indeed incredible and not in the least bit wasted.dnalysis - Actually, the film becomes more and more distinguished and impressive as time goes on. Here in the 21st century its achievements are even more impressive, as no one since has done what it did, in spite of the improved technology. In other words, in spite of the huge technological advancements since then, this film beats just about every other CGI-fest to come out in the last 30 years. It looks better, sounds better, has a better script, and addresses its themes more intelligently than just about any other science fiction film out there.
Movie comment on West Side Story
Timec
Suggesting, even facetiously, that a movie should be destroyed is kind of idiotic. It's the epitome of selfishness to say "I hated this movie, therefore no one else should be able to see it." Remember, people, the fact that you don't like something doesn't mean that everyone else should be deprived of seeing it, especially with a film like this that has brought a lot of joy to a lot of people, and which has one of the best and most important musical scores of the twentieth century. It's absolutely fine that you don't like the film, but suggesting that it should be destroyed because of that is, once again, really stupid.Movie comment on The Third Man
Timec
"I think it's a bit overhyped though."Not really - you just didn't like the score. That doesn't mean that everyone else who liked the score were wrong to rate it so highly.
I, personally, don't find the score in the least bit off-putting, and find it an absolutely perfect complement to the action of the film. If anything, both the film and the score are a tad underrated. This should be as universally acknowledged a classic as "Casablanca" and "Citizen Kane."
Movie comment on Kaze no Tani no Nausicaä
Timec
mrsnoops - It's unfortunate that a great film (a great anime, yes, but also just plain great filmmaking) would make you hate anime.Movie comment on 2001: A Space Odyssey
Timec
Forrester - The movie's not vague at all - it's quite clear in its intentions and meaning. But more importantly, the film is, quite simply, a joy to watch. There's not a dull moment, and it's one of the most endlessly enthralling films ever made (I've watched it about a dozen times over the past seven or eight years.)In other words, this individual (who has, incidentally, never been under the influence) finds it the perfect commingling of art AND entertainment.
Movie comment on Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Timec
My attachment to the source material might affect my judgment a bit, but this is easily one of the two or three best things Burton has ever done. It's not an entirely successful adaptation - the staging of "A Little Priest," one of the best act one finales in musical theater history, falls completely flat, and the Anthony and Johanna storyline is truncated to the point of meaninglessness - but it's still very good. The non-professional singers do a good job bringing emotion to Sondheim's extraordinary music and lyrics, and, overall, the film maintains much of the emotional power of the stage production - which is still one of the greatest works of musical theater (though not quite among the best of Sondheim's shows.)Movie comment on Somewhere
Timec
Absolutely the best, most consistently great thing Coppola has ever done. Resemblances to "Lost in Translation" are quite superficial - thematically and aesthetically it's a very different film. Absolutely enthralling.Movie comment on All Quiet on the Western Front
Timec
niesl2-And what was Shakespeare thinking, giving all his Italian and Danish (and so on) characters poetic English dialogue? Man, very few productions of "Hamlet" even have the actors speaking with a Danish accent.
But seriously - that's not a flaw. In fact, considering that the movie was made for an American audience, it was actually a very smart move to have them talk in English and without accents. Like it or not, foreign languages are a barrier to understanding and empathy for many people, and a decision to shoot this in German would have made the film less powerful than it is. By speaking English, audiences who might reject subtitled films were forced to empathize with a group that had been their enemy less than fifteen years earlier - by giving the characters everyday English dialogue it gave the impression that these people were, indeed, quite human, and that, in most cases, they weren't all that different than the average American in the audience. They had the same concerns, the same fears, the same hopes...
It does get more tricky when different characters would, in reality, be speaking different languages (that is to say, if we had an English soldier and a German soldier among the main characters) - but since that's not the case here, it's entirely reasonable that the characters speak English, as we the audience are given insight, are made witness of a world and experience that we may otherwise never have known.
In other words, having foreign characters speaking something other than their native language is an entirely acceptable stylistic device, one that had been established for a long, long time before film even came around. That device is used to brilliant effect here.
So a dogmatic "Oh no, they're speaking something other than their native language and that ruins the film" approach is entirely wrongheaded, and will lead you to reject some of the greatest films of all time (as well as some of the greatest works of theater, opera, and literature.) Those looking for that sort of verisimilitude are going to want to turn to something other than film, or literature, or theater, or pretty much any art form that contains the spoken word.
Toplist comment on The New York Times's Book of Movies
Timec
I don't understand people who criticize lists for their obscurity. For me, the main purpose of a list is not to validate my taste (I believe I have good reasons for liking what I like, and that's enough) - but rather to introduce me to films I might not otherwise have seen. For that reason, Rosenbaum's list is a breath of fresh air - it excludes some popular "canonical" films, and includes a lot of nearly forgotten gems. I've only seen a small percentage of the films on Rosenbaum's list (though a larger percentage than it says on this site, since I'm only checking movies I've watched since I replaced my 19" TV with inaccurate colors and tracking lines a quarter of the way down the screen with a much nicer 42" HDTV,) but most of those I have seen were quite excellent - and I'm very much looking forward to delving deeper into it after I finish off some of the other lists I'm working on.Rosenbaum is an intelligent and mature critic (even if I sometimes disagree with his reviews) - I don't see any reason to suppose that he's deliberately choosing obscure movies to look "cool" or whatever. The other option is that he h legitimately likes the movies, even if some of them are on the fringes of the canon and have been forgotten by most critics/film buffs. That kind of personal list is the most valuable, rather than one that tries to aggregate the "Greatest Films." As Rosenbaum has talked about extensively, the "canon" isn't the definitive list of the greatest films that we'd like to believe that it is, and it's shaped extensively by politics and availability and so on and so forth.
Which is all to say: I value lists like this and TSPDT, but it seems entirely wrongheaded to condemn a list for being "obscure" - especially when there's absolutely nothing to indicate that those "obscure" films aren't actually the personal favorites of the person making the list.
Movie comment on Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes
Timec
A masterpiece. Definitely not too slow. And if someone thinks this is "too different" I'd hate to see what they thought of some of the truly strange films that are out there (some of them very good, and some of them definitely not.) This is pretty normal compared to a lot of other films.Movie comment on La promesse
Timec
When asked to name my favorite film, this is almost always the first title that comes to mind. An absolutely beautiful, transformative masterpiece of a film, and one that holds up incredibly well on repeat viewings. Few films travel so far and so deeply into the souls of their protagonists.Movie comment on L'enfant
Timec
AtomicSquad - Don't watch "Rosetta" or "The Son." While I think all those repetitious scenes of transportation are integral to what the brothers are trying to do, and are an essential part of what makes me have such a (positive) visceral reaction to their films, I can understand why others would be frustrated with it. It's a delicate balance that most directors aren't able to handle, but I think they manage it extremely well.Movie comment on Lilja 4-ever
Timec
A devastating masterpiece - there are few films that rival it in power. It doesn't so much go "way over the top" as provide an unflinching look at an unremittingly bleak environment. Moodysson is one of the most compassionate filmmakers working today, and that's what separates this and makes it better than just about any other movie on the subject.Movie comment on A Chairy Tale
Timec
Oh, how I'd love to live in a world where a genius like Norman McLaren could be considered "bland." In this world, however, he's one of the greatest artists the cinema has ever seen. His films contain more wit, imagination, and a sheer sense of the joy of filmmaking and viewing than about 99% of all other films combined.Movie comment on Cidade de Deus
Timec
An opinion so profound, so epiphanic ("OMG, it is overrated isn't it!!!11!") that you had to share it twiceMovie comment on Ip Man
Timec
"Saving Private Ryan" most definitely is propaganda.Of course, propaganda isn't always a bad thing. There are some Soviet and American WWII films that are propaganda, and still great films.
Showing items 201 – 225 of 237