Movie History Thread

[Mrs. Iceburg]

I do hope there hasn’t been a thread like this before, but I searched a bit and didn’t find anything.

This thread will be about movies throughout history, from the early days until this very moment. To compare and discuss eras, trends, changes and influences. Any aspect can be relevant (content, style, actors, social context, decors, visuals…).

A few questions to get the talk going: What is your favourite movie era? What’s your least favourite? Which things do you like/dislike about this era? Which one would you like to learn more about?

Discuss!

[wolfwood]

Oh this is a fun idea for a thread. Right now i've been watching alot of old Charlie Chaplin movies. Watched City Lights just a few hours ago, and it just amazes me how clearly you can follow the story even with no spoken dialogue, especialy so since i'm usualy a sucker for two dudes just talking for an hour or two films like Clerks.

[Tokoro Ataru]

I've been wandering around and was more looking into maybe making an old movies thread, but unfortunately this will have to do for the moment.

Saw a couple older films this weekend (well I see a lot personally) of note: "Black Orpheus" (a Brazillian take on the Orpheus/Eurydice legend of some note) and "The Lost Weekend" (good film but then again I'm already a fan of a lot of Billy Wilder's works…though somehow Ray Milland really never gets that much respect outside this movie)

As for the best period...well the problem with that is each notable period seems to have something that makes it unique and interesting. Though I do admit that I like a lot of good classic Hollywood films, New Hollywood and particularly find the whole period from about the mid-70s to the early-mid 80s (the period where New Hollywood was still notable but we start getting some good and interesting more "studio-driven films" that still have New Hollywood's touches) as the most interesting.

[wolfwood]

So what defines new and classic hollywood movies?

[Tokoro Ataru]

@wolfwood:

So what defines new and classic hollywood movies?

"New Hollywood" is essentially a movement that emerged from from the mid-60s to the early 80s involving films that were more director and creator driven than driven by the needs of the studios. The "New" is sort of taken from "New Wave" akin to what came out of France and Italy in the late 50s and early 60s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hollywood (a bit more about it, though it probably doesn't explain everything obviously being just a Wiki article)

[SympathyX]

Ohhh! What a fantastic idea for a thread.

I don't think I have a particularly favourite era. I like bits and pieces from everywhere. If anything, I hated this period from around about 2000 til just recently where movies were using too much of what I call 'obnoxious cgi'. Effects that obviously look fake and spoil the immersion of the film. The Matrix sequels, the Spider-Man films, Superman Returns - all just full of it. Over reliance on cg really started to make me care less and less about big budget movies, particularly sci-fi stuff as it never looked convincing. Look at movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Planet of the Apes. Both of them made in 1968 and the special effects sequences in those films trounce most things made in the last 10 years! If theres anything I particularly liked about older sci-fi movies' effects which carred through until probably about the early nineties - it's models. How do you make a special effect of a space ship look real? How about actually build one. Give me the Terminator puppet from the start of T2 to anything from T3 or Salvation. I've always liked models and puppets. They always looked a billion times more real and believable than the cg guff you see in movies like fucking Skyline.

Look at that shit! NINETEEN SIXTY EIGHT. I can't think of a single space film made in the last 15 years with effects that look as good as that. The space battles in the Star Wars prequels look like shite compared to some of the stuff done in 1977 for christ sake. At least Moon had the right idea by having models primarily and using cg to brighten it up.

When did terrible special effects become so acceptable? When did creativity start taking a back seat? It's literally been over 40 years since 2001 so with how much technology has improved since then, why doesn't anything look as good as it? Whats with the hard-on Hollywood has for remakes of properties that dont need remakes and aren't nearly as good as their decades old predecessors?

[Mrs. Iceburg]

@Tokoro:

I've been wandering around and was more looking into maybe making an old movies thread, but unfortunately this will have to do for the moment.

We can turn the discussion to "old movies" for a while, sure I just think it's always interesting to see what they did to recent movies because those comparisons are inevitable. Also, what do you guys qualify as an "old movie"?

@Tokoro:

As for the best period…well the problem with that is each notable period seems to have something that makes it unique and interesting. Though I do admit that I like a lot of good classic Hollywood films, New Hollywood and particularly find the whole period from about the mid-70s to the early-mid 80s (the period where New Hollywood was still notable but we start getting some good and interesting more "studio-driven films" that still have New Hollywood's touches) as the most interesting.

That's true, as a matter of fact I don't really have a favourite period, just like I don't have a favourite genre, because each one is interesting in it's own way.
And you're very right about the 70s-80s Hollywood films. That certainly was the most interesting era for the big Hollywood studios.

@SympathyX:

Ohhh! What a fantastic idea for a thread.

Thank you, I hope it'll be just as interesting as I intended it to be :happy:

@SympathyX:

I don't think I have a particularly favourite era. I like bits and pieces from everywhere. If anything, I hated this period from around about 2000 til just recently where movies were using too much of what I call 'obnoxious cgi'. Effects that obviously look fake and spoil the immersion of the film. The Matrix sequels, the Spider-Man films, Superman Returns - all just full of it.

Do you include the first Matrix in that too? Because I like to think the original Matrix part of the spirit of the nineties. And it was quite innovative when it comes to special effects, I think.

@SympathyX:

Over reliance on cg really started to make me care less and less about big budget movies, particularly sci-fi stuff as it never looked convincing. Look at movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Planet of the Apes. Both of them made in 1968 and the special effects sequences in those films trounce most things made in the last 10 years! If theres anything I particularly liked about older sci-fi movies' effects which carred through until probably about the early nineties - it's models. How do you make a special effect of a space ship look real? How about actually build one. Give me the Terminator puppet from the start of T2 to anything from T3 or Salvation. I've always liked models and puppets. They always looked a billion times more real and believable than the cg guff you see in movies like fucking Skyline.

Look at that shit! NINETEEN SIXTY EIGHT. I can't think of a single space film made in the last 15 years with effects that look as good as that. The space battles in the Star Wars prequels look like shite compared to some of the stuff done in 1977 for christ sake. At least Moon had the right idea by having models primarily and using cg to brighten it up.

When did terrible special effects become so acceptable? When did creativity start taking a back seat? It's literally been over 40 years since 2001 so with how much technology has improved since then, why doesn't anything look as good as it? Whats with the hard-on Hollywood has for remakes of properties that dont need remakes and aren't nearly as good as their decades old predecessors?

I don't think the problem lies with the CGI itself. What matters more to me is the use of it. I just went to the movies and saw a bunch of trailers, and they all had these slow-motion-shooting and explosions and whatnot, and I thought, so what's this film going to be about? Will it bring anything new to the table?
I actually think the prequel-SW-movies' effects look better, the old ones look a bit shabby, but that doesn't matter because the original movies are just far superior.
And, if a film is going to be about special effects, like if that's going to be the thing of the movie, then they have to be worth it. And on that I agree with you, they should put more heart in special effects movies.
I definitely agree with you on unnecessary remakes. But that's a giant discussion point and I'd like to hear some other people's opinions on it first.
So, another question (to all): What justifies a remake? When do you deem a remake good?

[Flux]

Oh I'm a huge movie buff - this thread will be fun indeed!

I was just saying how I'm currently watching the Planet of the Apes franchise.

[SympathyX]

@Mrs.:

Do you include the first Matrix in that too? Because I like to think the original Matrix part of the spirit of the nineties. And it was quite innovative when it comes to special effects, I think.

Oh no not at all. The first one holds up incredibly well. You can remember all those great, iconic shots. The spin around Trinity at the start, the famous Neo bullet dodge, the Morpheus leg shot. All great effects shots. I can't think of a single effect which was as memorable in the sequels.

I don't think the problem lies with the CGI itself. What matters more to me is the use of it. I just went to the movies and saw a bunch of trailers, and they all had these slow-motion-shooting and explosions and whatnot, and I thought, so what's this film going to be about? Will it bring anything new to the table?

I'd definitely say that the problem was in the CGI. A lot of times films seemed to want to do way more than they actually could. Again, compare the car chase near the start of Terminator 2. The only effect shot in the entire scene is the liquid metal part at the end when T-1000 regenerates. A car chase a similar way in to Terminator 3 is littered with CGI effects that look neither convincing or realistic. CGI is definitely a problem if it's in no way believable.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think that CGI has gotten a lot better in the past few years. It's just that horrible period from about 2000 - 2007 which has some of the absolute worst.

I actually think the prequel-SW-movies' effects look better, the old ones look a bit shabby, but that doesn't matter because the original movies are just far superior.
And, if a film is going to be about special effects, like if that's going to be the thing of the movie, then they have to be worth it. And on that I agree with you, they should put more heart in special effects movies.

Again I'd have to disagree. The effects in the prequels look so cold, sterile and lifeless. The models in the original trilogy look so real and they've got real character to them. Nothing in the prequels, particularly that huge space battle at the start of ep 3 compares to seeing the Millennium Falcon intricately maneuver in TESB or ROTJ.

I definitely agree with you on unnecessary remakes. But that's a giant discussion point and I'd like to hear some other people's opinions on it first.
So, another question: What justifies a remake? When do you deem a remake good?

Fantastic question. I'd honestly only justify a remake if it could be better than the original and excel where its predecessor failed. Dawn of the Dead is probably the only truly great remake I've ever seen and aside from there being a zombie outbreak and a mall - it's only really connected by the name. Most remakes tend to leave out more information than their original versions had which can hardly add to the mythos. Theres no point in remaking a film which did everything completely right the first time around. Why would you even consider remaking films considered as masterpieces such as Planet of the Apes, The Italian Job or The Omen when there was never a chance that any of them could have hoped to been as memorable as their originals?

I understand why a lot of movies are remade for other countries like for example, remakes of asian horror movies but even they are rarely as good as their counterparts. It's slightly more acceptable but by no means any more necessary.

The worst of the lot is when they keep threatening to remake more modern classics like Back To The Future. There is nothing that could make that film any better than it was and if there was no way that it could be any better than it's existence would be totally redundant. Some properties should forever be left alone.

I'm not nearly as negative when it comes to the subject of reboots but that is an entirely different point.

[Flux]

Personally I believe reboots and remakes should only been done after either a considerable number of decades (it's interesting how Wizard of oz hasn't had one, yet I understand they're doing a prequel etc and there are pipeline rumours about wanting to)

(EDIT: I just realised I forgot about the wonderful and surprisingly Disney made Return To Oz in the 80s if I recall correctly.)

OR if the franchise has proved it can sustain itself through them. Two major examples would be Superhero Films, and the James Bond franchise. They plan to reboot Batman after Nolan's films finish - and I think that's great, because Batman, Spiderman etc - they've become more than films. They're massively spread household names, they're icons. They can't be put away, or cast aside - I personally want to see as many interpretations, visions of them as I can.

[Bill]

Again I'd have to disagree. The effects in the prequels look so cold, sterile and lifeless. The models in the original trilogy look so real and they've got real character to them. Nothing in the prequels, particularly that huge space battle at the start of ep 3 compares to seeing the Millennium Falcon intricately maneuver in TESB or ROTJ.

Gotta agree here, especially in EP 3 Lucas throws so much shit in the screen because he is using a story to tell special effects instead of the other way around.

In fact…

Look at 5:48

[SympathyX]

@Flux:

Personally I believe reboots and remakes should only been done after either a considerable number of decades (it's interesting how Wizard of oz hasn't had one, yet I understand they're doing a prequel etc and there are pipeline rumours about wanting to)

Wizard of Oz did get a reboot in the eighties with a weird as fuck sequel.

[Flux]

Yeah I edited the post a few minutes after writing. I loved Return to Oz, it showed a totally different side of Oz, equally as valid. Infact It could well be that that makes me so open to reboots, or re-imaginations as it were. A completely different take from the 1939 film, and yet still able to be good. One is classic, and jovial and movie-history, and one is dark and scary and still an equally valid representation. To this day it still creeps me out.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

@SympathyX:

Oh no not at all. The first one holds up incredibly well. You can remember all those great, iconic shots. The spin around Trinity at the start, the famous Neo bullet dodge, the Morpheus leg shot. All great effects shots. I can't think of a single effect which was as memorable in the sequels.

Absolutely, glad you think so. The Matrix is classic.

@SympathyX:

Again I'd have to disagree. The effects in the prequels look so cold, sterile and lifeless. The models in the original trilogy look so real and they've got real character to them. Nothing in the prequels, particularly that huge space battle at the start of ep 3 compares to seeing the Millennium Falcon intricately maneuver in TESB or ROTJ.

You know what I'm going to flip here and admit that actually you are right. I still think the fights look better in the later movies, more spectacular. But for everything else, the older movies are better. Just comparing CGI Yoda to puppet Yoda or Jabba. Cold, sterile and lifeless would be correct terms

@SympathyX:

Fantastic question. I'd honestly only justify a remake if it could be better than the original and excel where its predecessor failed. Dawn of the Dead is probably the only truly great remake I've ever seen and aside from there being a zombie outbreak and a mall - it's only really connected by the name. Most remakes tend to leave out more information than their original versions had which can hardly add to the mythos. Theres no point in remaking a film which did everything completely right the first time around. Why would you even consider remaking films considered as masterpieces such as Planet of the Apes, The Italian Job or The Omen when there was never a chance that any of them could have hoped to been as memorable as their originals?

Agreed. The one thing that that kind of remake can be good for, is that it will bring the original movies back under public attention, so that people will watch them again.

@SympathyX:

I understand why a lot of movies are remade for other countries like for example, remakes of asian horror movies but even they are rarely as good as their counterparts. It's slightly more acceptable but by no means any more necessary.

Well, sometimes countries that have less big studios bring forth really great ideas and concepts for a movie. And then it's a shame when the budget isn't big enough to do the film right, so a remake can be beneficial to give the film the materials it needs, so that the concept can be fully explored. However, this only works when the remakers actually do it out of interest for the film, and not for profit. Which sadly is often what happens.

@SympathyX:

The worst of the lot is when they keep threatening to remake more modern classics like Back To The Future. There is nothing that could make that film any better than it was and if there was no way that it could be any better than it's existence would be totally redundant. Some properties should forever be left alone.

I'm not nearly as negative when it comes to the subject of reboots but that is an entirely different point.

Yes. And you just know they do that for nothing else but profit. Which is to me the most depressing thing about the whole movie industry.

Not to sound like a total idiot, but.. what is a reboot?

[Kaiolino]

@SympathyX:

Oh no not at all. The first one holds up incredibly well. You can remember all those great, iconic shots. The spin around Trinity at the start, the famous Neo bullet dodge, the Morpheus leg shot. All great effects shots. I can't think of a single effect which was as memorable in the sequels.

I loathe the sequels, but the two trucks riding into each other during the car chase and parts of Neo vs. 100 Smiths were pretty awesome and memorable.

[Bill]

Yeah I edited the post a few minutes after writing. I loved Return to Oz, it showed a totally different side of Oz, equally as valid. Infact It could well be that that makes me so open to reboots, or re-imaginations as it were. A completely different take from the 1939 film, and yet still able to be good. One is classic, and jovial and movie-history, and one is dark and scary and still an equally valid representation. To this day it still creeps me out.

Yeah I feel about the same way, the reason that its so critically panned is because people expected the same lighthearted fantasy like 1939 film was.

Still a great movie.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

@Kaiolino:

I loathe the sequels, but the two trucks riding into each other during the car chase and parts of Neo vs. 100 Smiths were pretty awesome and memorable.

I liked the final fight between Neo and Mr. Smith.

[SympathyX]

@Mrs.:

Agreed. The one thing that that kind of remake can be good for, is that it will bring the original movies back under public attention, so that people will watch them again.

I only wish that happened but from what I've seen, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that a remake is just a glossier, better looking version of the original seeing it's source as redundant if they even do realise that theres an original.

Well, sometimes countries that have less big studios bring forth really great ideas and concepts for a movie. And then it's a shame when the budget isn't big enough to do the film right, so a remake can be beneficial to give the film the materials it needs, so that the concept can be fully explored. However, this only works when the remakers actually do it out of interest for the film, and not for profit. Which sadly is often what happens.

I've never seen a remake of an asian horror film where any concept was "fully explored" more than it's original in any way. They usually have a shit-load less.

Not to sound like a total idiot, but.. what is a reboot?

A remake more often than not a retelling of the original set in an alternate universe with new rules. A reboot would be a long awaited sequel. The Star Trek movies were a reboot to the original series for example. The Star Wars prequels were a reboot to the series. A lot of the time it just involves digging up old franchises and up giving them a new polish, updating the format for current standards like Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica or Star Trek… which are TV series, sure but you get the idea.

Superhero/Comic book movies are generally seen as reboots rather than remakes but I suppose thats more down to your interpretation.

@Mrs.:

I liked the final fight between Neo and Mr. Smith.

Being 15 and seeing that in the cinema I should have thought it was the coolest thing ever but I honestly thought that the entire fight was the most ridiculous thing in the entire trilogy. I came to watch a movie with genuinely interesting effects that was groundbreaking like the original. Instead I got Dragon Ball Z in a business suit.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

@SympathyX:

I only wish that happened but from what I've seen, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that a remake is just a glossier, better looking version of the original seeing it's source as redundant if they even do realise that theres an original.

Sad but true, but don't you think a movie would be forgotten by all except big movie freaks if it didn't get a remake in say, fourty years? And then I'm talking about those that are really good but not iconic.

@SympathyX:

I've never seen a remake of an asian horror film where any concept was "fully explored" more than it's original in any way. They usually have a shit-load less.

Actually I liked The Ring better than Ringu. I think it was subtler and had better acting, which allowed me to get into the story more.
And often I just watch a movie from some country somewhere and think, this would be so much better if it had a bigger budget and better materials to work with.

@SympathyX:

A remake more often than not a retelling of the original set in an alternate universe with new rules. A reboot would be a long awaited sequel. The Star Trek movies were a reboot to the original series for example. The Star Wars prequels were a reboot to the series. A lot of the time it just involves digging up old franchises and up giving them a new polish, updating the format for current standards like Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica or Star Trek… which are TV series, sure but you get the idea.

Superhero/Comic book movies are generally seen as reboots rather than remakes but I suppose thats more down to your interpretation.

Oh, I get it, thanks.

@SympathyX:

Being 15 and seeing that in the cinema I should have thought it was the coolest thing ever but I honestly thought that the entire fight was the most ridiculous thing in the entire trilogy. I came to watch a movie with genuinely interesting effects that was groundbreaking like the original. Instead I got Dragon Ball Z in a business suit.

In a way that's true I guess. But if you'd forget all you know about the first Matrix, and see it now, wouldn't you think it's terribly cheesy? The Matrix is one of those films you have to see in its time context to see how good it actually is. And when the first one came out it was so influential so fast that by the time the sequels came out, the style was already outdated and clichéd. Of course the first movie in itself is way better than the other two, I just think this made the gap even bigger.

[SympathyX]

@Mrs.:

Sad but true, but don't you think a movie would be forgotten by all except big movie freaks if it didn't get a remake in say, fourty years? And then I'm talking about those that are really good but not iconic.

Works for books so I don't see why not. If the movie had a timeless quality (ie didnt have special effects that looked heavily dated six months after release) then it could be remembered for a looooong long time.

Actually I liked The Ring better than Ringu. I think it was subtler and had better acting, which allowed me to get into the story more.
And often I just watch a movie from some country somewhere and think, this would be so much better if it had a bigger budget and better materials to work with.

The Ring is definitely one of the better remakes but it lacks the feeling and atmosphere that the original had. The video tape looks like a terrible college art project rather than a disturbing collection of thoughts. I can't help but cringe every time I hear that awful one liner at the end, "I'M NOT YOUR FUCKIN' MOMMY". The Ring Two was abysmal. I think it's unfair to bash the acting in the original though. They play to the films atmosphere perfectly.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

@SympathyX:

Works for books so I don't see why not. If the movie had a timeless quality (ie didnt have special effects that looked heavily dated six months after release) then it could be remembered for a looooong long time.

I think it's different for books. They're mostly timeless, while a movie has a lot of factors to betray its age. In other words books survive more easily, I think.

@SympathyX:

The Ring is definitely one of the better remakes but it lacks the feeling and atmosphere that the original had. The video tape looks like a terrible college art project rather than a disturbing collection of thoughts. I can't help but cringe every time I hear that awful one liner at the end, "I'M NOT YOUR FUCKIN' MOMMY". The Ring Two was abysmal. I think it's unfair to bash the acting in the original though. They play to the films atmosphere perfectly.

True, the tape is better in the original. But I didin't think anything wrong with the atmosphere in the American version, on the contrary even. All in all it's a very deserving remake.

[SympathyX]

@Mrs.:

I think it's different for books. They're mostly timeless, while a movie has a lot of factors to betray its age. In other words books survive more easily, I think.

No more or less than the language that can be used in books. Older science fiction particularly uses some very out dated terms. HG Wells doesn't translate very well into this age but his stuff is still considered timeless.

True, the tape is better in the original. But I didin't think anything wrong with the atmosphere in the American version, on the contrary even. All in all it's a very deserving remake.

Different strokes then I guess! As I say, it's definitely one of the better ones but for me it's lacking a lot of what made the original great.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

@SympathyX:

No more or less than the language that can be used in books. Older science fiction particularly uses some very out dated terms. HG Wells doesn't translate very well into this age but his stuff is still considered timeless.

That's true, but the same goes for film language, the way people talk in movies gets outdated too. And then there's the colours, the set, the quality of the film, in SF the way they portray the future… A book leaves a lot to the imagination which makes it a whole lot more timeless than a movie in my opinion.

@SympathyX:

Different strokes then I guess! As I say, it's definitely one of the better ones but for me it's lacking a lot of what made the original great.

Well, it is a discussion, different opinions make it interesting

From what I get from your posts, you're a science fiction fan?

[SympathyX]

@Mrs.:

From what I get from your posts, you're a science fiction fan?

Yeah, I love the stuff. I'm really into a bit of everything but I can literally only think of sci-fi examples that prove the points I'm making haha. You talk what you know I guess.

[city_lights31]

@wolfwood:

Oh this is a fun idea for a thread. Right now i've been watching alot of old Charlie Chaplin movies. Watched City Lights just a few hours ago, and it just amazes me how clearly you can follow the story even with no spoken dialogue, especialy so since i'm usualy a sucker for two dudes just talking for an hour or two films like Clerks.

~##~ smiles widely ~##~

[wolfwood]

@city_lights31:

~##~ smiles widely ~##~

You sir are a man with impecable taste. Such simple movie really, the plot could be summarized in a few words. And that's what i love about the oldies.

Nowadays the trend makers seem to have decided that every movie has to have this "smart" and/or "complex" plot, and some unpredictable plot twist thrown in. No more room for the simple stories i guess.

Well now i'm off to watch some Abbott & Costello.

[Tokoro Ataru]

The biggest problem with Hollywood these days is that it all is about getting people to spend ten bucks than it is about telling a decent story that will make you remembered and possibly even iconic. Good movies can come from anywhere, even studio-made stuff, but the problem is that a lot of times they tend for forget that and just decide to throw any old thing and call it a movie.

Probably one of the reasons why a lot of the good movies as of late are the good animated features from Pixar/Disney, Dreamworks and such: with the even greater control that animators hold regarding direction and in controlling what the characters do, the best ones can shine because of such tight demands for control. Sure there are still clunkers but it prevents too much "intervention" that could ruin things.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

@Tokoro:

The biggest problem with Hollywood these days is that it all is about getting people to spend ten bucks than it is about telling a decent story that will make you remembered and possibly even iconic. Good movies can come from anywhere, even studio-made stuff, but the problem is that a lot of times they tend for forget that and just decide to throw any old thing and call it a movie.

Probably one of the reasons why a lot of the good movies as of late are the good animated features from Pixar/Disney, Dreamworks and such: with the even greater control that animators hold regarding direction and in controlling what the characters do, the best ones can shine because of such tight demands for control. Sure there are still clunkers but it prevents too much "intervention" that could ruin things.

Very true. A lot of movies these days are made the wrong way: a studio sees a concept they can make money out of and then they hire some people to make it happen. There's no original thought or creativity in the creation of the movie.
But sure there still are good (big) studio movies as well.

[Apprentice]

Fast Five shall go down in movie history for being the 1st time the 5TH movie in a franchise is hands down the best one. Seriously this movie was everything movies you guys just described in the 2 posts above mine are NOT.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

@Apprentice:

Fast Five shall go down in movie history for being the 1st time the 5TH movie in a franchise is hands down the best one. Seriously this movie was everything movies you guys just described in the 2 posts above mine are NOT.

That's interesting, I see it gets a really high rating on IMDb (7.9). Haven't seen it though, and I've never thought much of the Fast & Furious franchise.

[Apprentice]

Don't get me wrong, it's a big dumb action movie. But it's a big dumb action movie done very well and it treats the franchise like a legitamate story and actually ties plot points from all the other movies together nicely. If you like action movies and don't have anything against cars racing for the sake of racing go for it. I wish i could tell you this was one of those movies you don't need to see the prequels of it to enjoy but you really do. Findthe 1st one somewhere for a couple bucks and see how you feel about it.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

@Apprentice:

Don't get me wrong, it's a big dumb action movie. But it's a big dumb action movie done very well and it treats the franchise like a legitamate story and actually ties plot points from all the other movies together nicely. If you like action movies and don't have anything against cars racing for the sake of racing go for it. I wish i could tell you this was one of those movies you don't need to see the prequels of it to enjoy but you really do. Findthe 1st one somewhere for a couple bucks and see how you feel about it.

I might do just that. I like when a movie exceeds expectations of the kind of movie it is.
That brings me to the Scream series, I saw the fourth one recently. It wasn't as good as I thought it would be, after reading and hearing much praise. And despite all their effort, the ending was very clichéd.

[Tokoro Ataru]

@Apprentice:

Don't get me wrong, it's a big dumb action movie. But it's a big dumb action movie done very well and it treats the franchise like a legitamate story and actually ties plot points from all the other movies together nicely. If you like action movies and don't have anything against cars racing for the sake of racing go for it. I wish i could tell you this was one of those movies you don't need to see the prequels of it to enjoy but you really do. Findthe 1st one somewhere for a couple bucks and see how you feel about it.

I sort of have bad memories of doing racing movies. I remember seeing the remake of "Gone in 60 Seconds" in theaters and it didn't impress me. May need to see at least the first "Fast and the Furious" though I heard not so good about the others prior to this one.

On the "old movie" front, I sort of hope to finally see "All About Eve" on TCM this weekend. Debating on whether or not to see the Essentials because I own "An American in Paris" (and love it…but that's because Gene Kelly is the man) but may at least sneak in the intro before finally watching "Mulan" which I borrowed from Amazon.

[Flux]

So I was thinking yesterday, my favourite movie period is probably late 50s to late 70s.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

@Flux:

So I was thinking yesterday, my favourite movie period is probably late 50s to late 70s.

A lot has changed from the 50s to the 70s What exactly do you like about it?

[Flux]

@Mrs.:

A lot has changed from the 50s to the 70s What exactly do you like about it?

I don't know the technical name, but I like the style of cinematography a lot of them had, as opposed to recent stuff. I think they may not have had technical clarity today's films have but they had their own in a way, and I liked it.

Also a lot of my favourite films were made then :

Singin' in the Rain, 1952
The Producers, 1968
Planet of the Apes, 1968-1973
True Grit, 1969
Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory, 1971
The Godfather, 1972

Probably more I'm forgetting, and of course we had the James Bond franchise start up there.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

@Flux:

I don't know the technical name, but I like the style of cinematography a lot of them had, as opposed to recent stuff. I think they may not have had technical clarity today's films have but they had their own in a way, and I liked it.

Also a lot of my favourite films were made then :

Singin' in the Rain, 1952
The Producers, 1968
Planet of the Apes, 1968-1973
True Grit, 1969
Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory, 1971
The Godfather, 1972

Probably more I'm forgetting, and of course we had the James Bond franchise start up there.

Oh, I see what you mean. I often prefer that style too, where the films are technically perfect in order to bring the attention to the content more. And I love the seventies version of The Chocolate Factory, practically grew up with that. The Godfather goes without saying.

I really like when there's actual quality in the technical side of a movie. I never got the hype to make dark, unclear shots or, even worse, hand-held shooting to "add to the realism". It only annoys me, really. I think it gets in the way of a movie, as opposed to the technical finesse used in the movies above.

[Toastboy]

@SympathyX:

Being 15 and seeing that in the cinema I should have thought it was the coolest thing ever but I honestly thought that the entire fight was the most ridiculous thing in the entire trilogy. I came to watch a movie with genuinely interesting effects that was groundbreaking like the original. Instead I got Dragon Ball Z in a business suit.

It was not only the most ridiculous thing in the trilogy, the final fight in Matrix 3 is to this day still, one of the most awful things I've ever seen in a movie. Even Steven Seagal movies I've randomly watched at 1am had more value than that. It was basically some awful live action DBZ rip off with these two middle age men, wearing suits and doing spastic movements, while the movie takes itself so fucking serious, omg…

[lelandlancaster]

This post is deleted!

[lelandlancaster]

@Mrs.:

I really like when there's actual quality in the technical side of a movie. I never got the hype to make dark, unclear shots or, even worse, hand-held shooting to "add to the realism". It only annoys me, really. I think it gets in the way of a movie, as opposed to the technical finesse used in the movies above.

Ugh I hate hand-held shooting. The shakiness just distracts me.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

Bumping for peace!

Let's talk about someone who deserves to be talked about. Stanley Kubrick.
What are your favourite movies of his? Your least favourite? Favourite scenes? Rant away!

Here, have an obligatory compilation video.

[Tsukishima]

@Mrs.:

Bumping for peace!

Let's talk about someone who deserves to be talked about. Stanley Kubrick.
What are your favourite movies of his? Your least favourite? Favourite scenes? Rant away!

It's very close, the guy made so many classic, but among them, my favorite must be Barry Lyndon. Whenever I watch it, I feel "serene". The beautiful cinematography and the great soundtrack that totally fits the general mood of the movie always drew me in. It also has a really strong narrative and the life of Barry Lyndon is really amazing. I owe a lot to this movie, because it's after watching it that my interest for cinema sharply increases. I've seen lots of great movies thanks to it.

My favourite scene is definitely the ending of Full Metal Jacket: the combination of the "Shoot me" and the "Mickey Mouse" scene (Those who have seen the movie will understand…lol).

[city_lights31]

I think Paths of Glory is one of the best war films ever and probably the most overlooked master work of Kubrick's. 2001 Is his best film IMO. A Clockwork Orange, I have always felt is a touch overrated. The Shining is also a favorite and I would have to say that Lolita is probably my least favorite Kubrick film that if have seen thus far…though I still need to see a couple.

[SympathyX]

I've actually been having a Kubrick session recently.

My favourite of his is 2001: A Space Odyssey without a doubt. I really don't think that theres been a single space movie as good as it in the 43 years since it's release. Speaks on so many different levels and the imagery is just masterful.

Even if the authors weren't too impressed, I love his adaptations of A Clockwork Orange and The Shining.

Never seen Dr Strangelove but I've heard great things. Worth it guys?

[city_lights31]

Dr Strangelove is a must see for Kubrick fans. Comedy is incredibly subjective so i can't guarantee that you will love it…i can tell u that most do, including me, even if it took me two viewings.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

@Tsukishima:

It's very close, the guy made so many classic, but among them, my favorite must be Barry Lyndon. Whenever I watch it, I feel "serene". The beautiful cinematography and the great soundtrack that totally fits the general mood of the movie always drew me in. It also has a really strong narrative and the life of Barry Lyndon is really amazing. I owe a lot to this movie, because it's after watching it that my interest for cinema sharply increases. I've seen lots of great movies thanks to it.

I absolutely understand what you mean - even though, to my regret, I haven't seen Barry Lyndon yet. But I get that feeling too when watching a really good movie. When I have a bad day there's nothing that lifts my spirit better than watching a movie that's just.. really well-made.

As for my favourite, I'm not really sure. I haven't seen all of his movies though, I should work on that. The thing is, the cinematography is beyond brilliant in every single film, that's without a doubt. So it kind of comes to personal taste when deciding which one you like most. For me, I'd say my personal favourite is The Shining, but it's a close call.

But there are many scenes in several of his movies I really admire. I think I'll browse YouTube later to find some examples :p.
What I really like about him is that his movies are so complete. I haven't seen any director that knows how to combine fantastic, extraordinary scenes with a good story and with everything tied together so well. He does these groundbreaking things when it comes to cinematography yet he has no trouble making a good dialogue. Sometimes it almost seems like there were several people directing.

[SympathyX]

@city_lights31:

Dr Strangelove is a must see for Kubrick fans. Comedy is incredibly subjective so i can't guarantee that you will love it…i can tell u that most do, including me, even if it took me two viewings.

Thats pretty much exactly what I wanted to hear. I'll get right on it.

[Tokoro Ataru]

I love Dr. Strangelove, it's one of the must owns that I have in my collection. (also have 2001 but that is on a compilation set with Forbidden Planet, The Time Machine and Soylent Green…I mostly got that BTW for "Forbidden Planet" and Soylent Green but I'm happy to have 2001 regardless)

Been watching quite a few classics the last week or so: last weekend I ended up seeing "Godspell" (probably one of the most WTF of "WTF musicals"...and this is coming from the weirdo who loves "Xanadu"), "Around the World in 80 Days" (a lot of fun, though a tad weird seeing Shirley McLaine as an Indian female...even if I liked Peter Lorre's obviously racist Asian cameo) and "The Frisco Kid" (really fun but underrated neo-western with Gene Wilder more subdued than his other famous comedy western...and with Harrison Ford along for the ride) Already got "East of Eden" scheduled for this weekend on TCM and may also try to catch "The Champ" tonight. (since I really am getting into some of the stuff with Wallace Beery...he was a tad infamous I read but he was great in the movies I've seen with him, almost forgotten)

[city_lights31]

^^this guy's director tribute videos are so awesome. He has made some for Wes Anderson, The Coen's, Paul Thomas Anderson, Scorsese and a few others. They are all great.

[Mrs. Iceburg]

Bump~

So, tonight they gave Jarhead on television and I watched it for like the fifth time, it's still one of my favourites actually. Any other Sam Mendes fans (he did American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Revolutionary Road and apparently he's directing the next Bond movie)?

I really like his style, he makes beautiful images without getting too artsy or the imagery getting in the way of the story. Also the way he uses black humor and irony but still keeps things serious enough, and just the right amount of pathos - ymmv; maybe a tad too much from time to time. But hey, Hollywood. And I love Thomas Newman, the composer with whom he usually works.
For old times' sake, the plastic bag scene from American Beauty:
[HIDE]

Hah, it looks really cliché now.[/HIDE]

Unrelated, I saw The Tree of Life about three weeks ago. I was completely clueless at the end - though I must say the story of the family and the father-son relationship was really touching. Great acting by the kid, too. I'm curious to other people's thoughts about it.