SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 22, 2016 22:36:52 GMT -5
I eventually started to be bugged by the fact that half of the films in the critics list don't have enough votes (25,000) to qualify for the IMDB one, so being in the top 250 in their list was way too tough a criterion. And when I filtered the critics list to include just films with 25K+ votes, I couldn't help notice that there were only an insane 4 films from 2004 and onward. Whereas the IMDB list had an equally insane 61! A proper number, given that the rate of great films hasn't changed over time, would be 32. At the same time, I identified a general bias in the critics list: the older the film, the higher the ranking. So I tweaked both lists to fix all that, doing a big analysis to try to find the 29 older films that just missed the IMDB Top 250. That produces this revised list of 133 films that are all-time favorites of both critics and film fans. (The placement of The Lord of the Rings is a guess, because the critics' votes for the three parts are counted separately, but it's all one film, and there are lots of other long films that were released in multiple parts that are recognized as one film by critics.) 1. The Godfather 2. The Godfather Part II 3. Seven Samurai 4. Psycho 5. Apocalypse Now 6. City Lights 7. Pulp Fiction 8. GoodFellas 9. Casablanca 10. Citizen Kane 11. Rear Window 12. Modern Times 13. Vertigo 14. Once Upon a Time in the West 15. Sunset Blvd. 16. Star Wars 17. It's a Wonderful Life 18. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb 19. Taxi Driver 20. 2001: A Space Odyssey 21. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly 22. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest 23. Bicycle Thieves 24. Singin' in the Rain 25. Lawrence of Arabia 26. M 27. Rashomon 28. North by Northwest 29. The Shining 30. Schindler's List 31. Spirited Away 32. Alien 33. Sunrise 34. Raging Bull 35. A Clockwork Orange 36. Some Like it Hot 37. Once Upon a Time in America 38. Metropolis 39. The Apartment 40. Raiders of the Lost Ark 41. The Empire Strikes Back 42. The Third Man 43. Chinatown 44. Blade Runner 45. The Matrix 46. The Great Dictator 47. The General 48. The Shawshank Redemption 49. Double Indemnity 50. All About Eve 51. The Gold Rush 52. Wild Strawberries 53. Paths of Glory 54. The 400 Blows 55. Back to the Future 56. Persona 57. 8 1/2 58. The Seventh Seal 59. Cinema Paradiso 60. Fight Club 61. Touch of Evil 62. City of God 63. Ikiru 64. Reservoir Dogs 65. Stalker 66. The Lord of the Rings 67. Gone with the Wind 68. The Silence of the Lambs 69. On the Waterfront 70. Forrest Gump 71. Ran 72. To Kill a Mockingbird 73. Annie Hall 74. The Dark Knight 75. Barry Lyndon 76. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 77. Aliens 78. La Grande illusion 79. Fanny and Alexander 80. The Deer Hunter 81. La Dolce Vita 82. The Battle of Algiers 83. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre 84. Unforgiven 85. My Neighbour Totoro 86. The Big Lebowski 87. The Night of the Hunter 88. Fargo 89. The Wizard of Oz 90. Jaws 91. Terminator 2: Judgment Day 92. WALL-E 93. Amadeus 94. Mulholland Dr. 95. Heat 96. Toy Story 97. The Kid 98. In the Mood for Love 99. The Lives of Others 100. The Grapes of Wrath 101. Notorious 102. Amélie 103. The Bridge on the River Kwai 104. The Best Years of Our Lives 105. Yojimbo 106. Groundhog Day 107. Manhattan 108. Nosferatu 109. The Maltese Falcon 110. It Happened One Night 111. The Wages of Fear 112. A Separation 113. Rosemary's Baby 114. Brazil 115. Underground 116. Casino 117. The Thing (1982) 118. Network 119. Die Hard 120. Trainspotting 121. The Exorcist 122. Pan's Labyrinth 123. Monty Python's Life of Brian 124. Magnolia 125. The Graduate 126. Throne of Blood 127. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid 128. Dog Day Afternoon 129. The Terminator 130. This is Spinal Tap 131. Strangers on a Train 132. The Big Sleep 133. The Sound of Music |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 4, 2016 13:29:47 GMT -5
Eh, might as well have one of these threads. For anyone who's slightly into the comic book movie thing, this dropping this week has me salivating (NOTE: NOT REMOTELY SAFE FOR WORK): Here's the clean one: Finally saw this Wednesday and adored it. I'm a sucker for meta, but what surprised me was that it was a fully satisfying flick even without the hilarious running self-commentary / critique. The action scenes in particular were really well directed, and it even had some heart. And Morena Baccarin! |
|
|
|
Movies
Mar 4, 2016 14:49:36 GMT -5
Post by telson13 on Mar 4, 2016 14:49:36 GMT -5
I could take or leave "Gladiator," but I'll always have a soft spot for "C.H.U.D." Personal psychology does have a lot to do with perception of how "great" a film is, though. Like Eric said, I can appreciate a well-made, well-acted film without finding it particularly compelling. And by the same token, my affinity for dark humor and the profoundly disturbing nature of human relationships makes me a much bigger fan of, say, "Kickass" and "Let Me In" than most.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Movies
Mar 4, 2016 22:50:21 GMT -5
Post by ericmvan on Mar 4, 2016 22:50:21 GMT -5
I could take or leave "Gladiator," but I'll always have a soft spot for "C.H.U.D." Personal psychology does have a lot to do with perception of how "great" a film is, though. Like Eric said, I can appreciate a well-made, well-acted film without finding it particularly compelling. And by the same token, my affinity for dark humor and the profoundly disturbing nature of human relationships makes me a much bigger fan of, say, "Kickass" and "Let Me In" than most. Did you see Let the Right One In? I thought the remake was quite good, but not close to the original. Not close to close. Given your fondness for those two flicks, I'm wondering if you saw Super, which I thought kicked Kick-Ass's ass (and I liked the later). |
|
|
|
Movies
Mar 5, 2016 7:49:17 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Mar 5, 2016 7:49:17 GMT -5
I could take or leave "Gladiator," but I'll always have a soft spot for "C.H.U.D." Personal psychology does have a lot to do with perception of how "great" a film is, though. Like Eric said, I can appreciate a well-made, well-acted film without finding it particularly compelling. And by the same token, my affinity for dark humor and the profoundly disturbing nature of human relationships makes me a much bigger fan of, say, "Kickass" and "Let Me In" than most. Did you see Let the Right One In? I thought the remake was quite good, but not close to the original. Not close to close. Given your fondness for those two flicks, I'm wondering if you saw Super, which I thought kicked Kick-Ass's ass (and I liked the later). Yeah, I liked the Swedish original, and I did have some issues with the "Hollywoodization" of the remake. But I much preferred the cinematography of the American version, and I thought Chloe Moretz was ridiculously good...I found her portrayal far more ambiguous and dark than Leandersson (who was still very good). There's much less surety in their "love" in the remake...Moretz is *really* likable, but the horror lies in the persistent, gnawing sense that it is all just a ruse. She remains very ambiguous in a way the original misses. I just found the commentary on relationships very disturbing. I have not seen "Super." I will definitely check it out. |
|
|
|
Movies
Mar 5, 2016 11:06:36 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Mar 5, 2016 11:06:36 GMT -5
I don't waste my entire life making Top Ten or even Top Five lists - Unlike a certain lovelorn record store owner with two losers as pseudo employees. For me, either a film is worth watching again or it's not. The Lord of the Rings films put me to sleep the first time around. There's no way in hell I would subject myself to that again. High Fidelity, on the other hand, I could watch on an endless loop. This may get taken down (warning for profanity?), but it's one of my all-time favorite scenes, and it oddly reminds me of this thread...especially Barry's reaction to "a preference." |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Movies
Mar 6, 2016 4:15:34 GMT -5
Post by ericmvan on Mar 6, 2016 4:15:34 GMT -5
Did you see Let the Right One In? I thought the remake was quite good, but not close to the original. Not close to close. Given your fondness for those two flicks, I'm wondering if you saw Super, which I thought kicked Kick-Ass's ass (and I liked the later). Yeah, I liked the Swedish original, and I did have some issues with the "Hollywoodization" of the remake. But I much preferred the cinematography of the American version, and I thought Chloe Moretz was ridiculously good...I found her portrayal far more ambiguous and dark than Leandersson (who was still very good). There's much less surety in their "love" in the remake...Moretz is *really* likable, but the horror lies in the persistent, gnawing sense that it is all just a ruse. She remains very ambiguous in a way the original misses. I just found the commentary on relationships very disturbing. I have not seen "Super." I will definitely check it out. You may well be right about Chloe versus the original. But the big difference for me is that you get a hugely better sense of Oskar's dysfunction in the original. It seems the remake toned that down a lot. So the dynamic is very different -- in the original, a very messed up kid falls for someone who seems to genuinely connect to them, even though we understand there is a selfish reason for it; whereas in the remake, the boy is less troubled and hence you do get more of a sense that perhaps he's just being played. I actually think the strength of their emotional connection in the original is, in fact, the great strength that the remake misses, because it is after all a really sick relationship. The remake is more conventionally horrific (and some of the horror sequences are indeed improved on as well), but the former was also much more of a legitimate teenage love story. I agree that that makes it less horrific in the sense that, if we can see ourselves as the boy, there's the fear that we may have been manipulated as well. In the original, I find the boy himself disturbing. I don't find any horror in his plight; rather, the horror lies in what he will help her do, and vice versa. For me, the climactic pool scene is much more effective when we do see the girl as the boy's righteous and dedicated and emotionally connected defender. The closer they are linked as a couple emotionally, the more dangerous they are to others. I like being touched by their bond (which only happens if the relationship is unambiguous) while realizing at the same time how sick the relationship is. The short version is that I think the original is both a very good horror movie and a superb arthouse coming-of-age film. The remake is almost certainly a better horror movie, and it is very artfully done, but it barely registers as a coming-of-age flick. Lots of non-horror fans who had, say, The Tree of Life in their top 10 films of its year adored the original (I've got my hand up). The remake seemed good but unnecessary. Of course, this whole discussion wants to segue into a general one about the "arthouse horror" genre that the original essentially invented (which is not to say that there were no arthouse horror films previously, but in the sense that punk as a movement and hence genre was invented at CBGB in 1975 even though the Stooges had invented it as a musical style in 1969. It's not a genre until you can point at a bunch of things using the same approach). Let's see, you have The Babadook, A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (best title for a horror movie ever?) , The Witch: A New England Folktale, Only Lovers Left Alive, It Follows, and Maggie, basically in that order of quality, I think, and all within the last 2 years (all but Lovers within the last 16 months). And I know there are some I missed (all of those played at the Coolidge Corner Theater in Brookline, where I see 90 movies a year for a $200 membership). |
|
|
|
Movies
Mar 7, 2016 12:59:27 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 7, 2016 12:59:27 GMT -5
Second-best off-topic thread ever?
Best, obviously, being "Securing a Girlfriend."
|
|
|
|
Movies
Mar 7, 2016 18:34:47 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedroelgrande on Mar 7, 2016 18:34:47 GMT -5
That was the best thread ever, doesn't matter if it was off or on topic.  |
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Mar 15, 2016 13:13:21 GMT -5
I saw 10 Cloverfield Lane this past weekend and holy crap it was so much better than I expected. Gf and I got to the theater and had to choose between it and Deadpool (still plan on seeing soon) but the showing of Cloverfield was about 10 mins later which gave us some extra time to settle in so we opted for what we expected to be a solid thriller. I absolutely underestimated how good this film would be. Great acting and a real good story. One of the best all-around movies I've seen in a while.
|
|
|
|
Movies
Mar 15, 2016 13:32:23 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on Mar 15, 2016 13:32:23 GMT -5
Eric, I've been making my way through your Sci-Fi list and it's awesome. One point I'd like to make - I'd have to put The Frame 4th, maybe 1/100th of a point off of Primer. I plan on watching it a few more times. I think I could write a book on it when I'm done.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Movies
Mar 16, 2016 13:53:26 GMT -5
Post by ericmvan on Mar 16, 2016 13:53:26 GMT -5
Eric, I've been making my way through your Sci-Fi list and it's awesome. One point I'd like to make - I'd have to put The Frame 4th, maybe 1/100th of a point off of Primer. I plan on watching it a few more times. I think I could write a book on it when I'm done. I showed The Frame to my friends and they didn't dig it nearly as much as I did, while I thought it completely held up. I began to think maybe I loved it so much because it happened to fit my brain (I love self-reference), so it's great to hear someone else who thought it was as great as I did. I still think it's brilliant, in that the premise works both as a metaphor for human psychological isolation, and as a way to explore the notion of free will. And in doing so, it creates a connection between them. Our early experiences create a script that we follow unknowingly, one that, if the early experiences were damaging, prevents us from connecting to others. Free will happens (according to my theory -- that's the book I should be writing at this moment!) when we reduce, by efforts of will power, inappropriate desires or damaging negative feelings like anger and fear. In doing so, we change the determined future -- we rewrite the script. But the first step is to realize that you are in fact acting out a script, and that you have the will to change it. This film literalizes that beautifully. That's why I classify it as a form of sci-fi, even though it's technically a fantasy. Making a metaphor literal is strictly a sci-fi device, e.g., "When he did that awful thing, he was not himself" becomes Jekyll and Hyde. All of the way the movie deals with psychology and free will is clear on a first viewing. The meaning of The Mechanic (the mysterious man in black) I'm still working on. But he seems to embody the forces opposed to free will (since he also dispenses the ink that is used to write the scripts). The actor also plays two other characters, one the shrink who gives bad advice -- the IMDB page needs to be edited to include his other roles. |
|
|
|
Movies
Mar 16, 2016 14:14:40 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on Mar 16, 2016 14:14:40 GMT -5
Eric, I've been making my way through your Sci-Fi list and it's awesome. One point I'd like to make - I'd have to put The Frame 4th, maybe 1/100th of a point off of Primer. I plan on watching it a few more times. I think I could write a book on it when I'm done. I showed The Frame to my friends and they didn't dig it nearly as much as I did, while I thought it completely held up. I began to think maybe I loved it so much because it happened to fit my brain (I love self-reference), so it's great to hear someone else who thought it was as great as I did. I still think it's brilliant, in that the premise works both as a metaphor for human psychological isolation, and as a way to explore the notion of free will. And in doing so, it creates a connection between them. Our early experiences create a script that we follow unknowingly, one that, if the early experiences were damaging, prevents us from connecting to others. Free will happens (according to my theory -- that's the book I should be writing at this moment!) when we reduce, by efforts of will power, inappropriate desires or damaging negative feelings like anger and fear. In doing so, we change the determined future -- we rewrite the script. But the first step is to realize that you are in fact acting out a script, and that you have the will to change it. This film literalizes that beautifully. That's why I classify it as a form of sci-fi, even though it's technically a fantasy. Making a metaphor literal is strictly a sci-fi device, e.g., "When he did that awful thing, he was not himself" becomes Jekyll and Hyde. All of the way the movie deals with psychology and free will is clear on a first viewing. The meaning of The Mechanic (the mysterious man in black) I'm still working on. But he seems to embody the forces opposed to free will (since he also dispenses the ink that is used to write the scripts). The actor also plays two other characters, one the shrink who gives bad advice -- the IMDB page needs to be edited to include his other roles. Don't have time for a long post, but I think it's about what everyone can do in creating your own reality as long as you can break free of the reality imposed on all of us through the media (probably what the tv represents) and enforced by stifling creativity and imagination. I think that's where the music playing comes in, as that is one of the biggest tools in which this literally happens when creating a real song with your imagination. It can be done with any form of art (and why the arts are so important in education). And then towards the end of the movie, they were literally changing all reality by changing the script (writing is also art). I think the message is that this can be done by anyone, though obviously not that literally and instantaneously. I think I just wrote almost the same thing you did. I still need to watch it a few more times. I was on the edge of my seat for the first half of the movie because I totally got it. Free will and reality are my philosophical interests. If this is interesting to you, look up Jon Rappoport and read his Matrix work or thousands of blog posts. My only criticism for the movie is that it went on a bit too long, same as many others say. This movie really spoke to me, thanks for suggesting it! |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Movies
Mar 16, 2016 21:04:04 GMT -5
Post by ericmvan on Mar 16, 2016 21:04:04 GMT -5
I showed The Frame to my friends and they didn't dig it nearly as much as I did, while I thought it completely held up. I began to think maybe I loved it so much because it happened to fit my brain (I love self-reference), so it's great to hear someone else who thought it was as great as I did. I still think it's brilliant, in that the premise works both as a metaphor for human psychological isolation, and as a way to explore the notion of free will. And in doing so, it creates a connection between them. Our early experiences create a script that we follow unknowingly, one that, if the early experiences were damaging, prevents us from connecting to others. Free will happens (according to my theory -- that's the book I should be writing at this moment!) when we reduce, by efforts of will power, inappropriate desires or damaging negative feelings like anger and fear. In doing so, we change the determined future -- we rewrite the script. But the first step is to realize that you are in fact acting out a script, and that you have the will to change it. This film literalizes that beautifully. That's why I classify it as a form of sci-fi, even though it's technically a fantasy. Making a metaphor literal is strictly a sci-fi device, e.g., "When he did that awful thing, he was not himself" becomes Jekyll and Hyde. All of the way the movie deals with psychology and free will is clear on a first viewing. The meaning of The Mechanic (the mysterious man in black) I'm still working on. But he seems to embody the forces opposed to free will (since he also dispenses the ink that is used to write the scripts). The actor also plays two other characters, one the shrink who gives bad advice -- the IMDB page needs to be edited to include his other roles. Don't have time for a long post, but I think it's about what everyone can do in creating your own reality as long as you can break free of the reality imposed on all of us through the media (probably what the tv represents) and enforced by stifling creativity and imagination. I think that's where the music playing comes in, as that is one of the biggest tools in which this literally happens when creating a real song with your imagination. It can be done with any form of art (and why the arts are so important in education). And then towards the end of the movie, they were literally changing all reality by changing the script (writing is also art). I think the message is that this can be done by anyone, though obviously not that literally and instantaneously. I think I just wrote almost the same thing you did. I still need to watch it a few more times. I was on the edge of my seat for the first half of the movie because I totally got it. Free will and reality are my philosophical interests. If this is interesting to you, look up Jon Rappoport and read his Matrix work or thousands of blog posts. My only criticism for the movie is that it went on a bit too long, same as many others say. This movie really spoke to me, thanks for suggesting it! I don't think you said the same thing as me at all; I hadn't really thought of the role of art and the media in the movie's take on psychology and free will. I think that's spot-on. (I did notice that the violin had a special relationship to the "frame," in the final scenes; IOW, music is one of the things that can help you rewrite the script.) Re the going on too long, I felt that intensely the first time, and the second time, almost not at all. The first time I got that the filmmakers were trying to make us feel as trapped as our hero; I just thought they overdid it. The second time, much less so. Have you see Frequencies yet? Same themes, and at least as good a film. |
|
|
|
Movies
Mar 17, 2016 6:43:20 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on Mar 17, 2016 6:43:20 GMT -5
I did see Frequencies. I thought it was pretty good, but it didn't hook me quite as much. It was a little more simplistic, but got much better towards the end. There wasn't as much symbolism that made me think and see it in different ways. Maybe I should watch it again.
|
|
|
|
Movies
Mar 21, 2016 6:39:40 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on Mar 21, 2016 6:39:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Movies
Mar 21, 2016 11:07:11 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Mar 21, 2016 11:07:11 GMT -5
Yeah, I liked the Swedish original, and I did have some issues with the "Hollywoodization" of the remake. But I much preferred the cinematography of the American version, and I thought Chloe Moretz was ridiculously good...I found her portrayal far more ambiguous and dark than Leandersson (who was still very good). There's much less surety in their "love" in the remake...Moretz is *really* likable, but the horror lies in the persistent, gnawing sense that it is all just a ruse. She remains very ambiguous in a way the original misses. I just found the commentary on relationships very disturbing. I have not seen "Super." I will definitely check it out. You may well be right about Chloe versus the original. But the big difference for me is that you get a hugely better sense of Oskar's dysfunction in the original. It seems the remake toned that down a lot. So the dynamic is very different -- in the original, a very messed up kid falls for someone who seems to genuinely connect to them, even though we understand there is a selfish reason for it; whereas in the remake, the boy is less troubled and hence you do get more of a sense that perhaps he's just being played. I actually think the strength of their emotional connection in the original is, in fact, the great strength that the remake misses, because it is after all a really sick relationship. The remake is more conventionally horrific (and some of the horror sequences are indeed improved on as well), but the former was also much more of a legitimate teenage love story. I agree that that makes it less horrific in the sense that, if we can see ourselves as the boy, there's the fear that we may have been manipulated as well. In the original, I find the boy himself disturbing. I don't find any horror in his plight; rather, the horror lies in what he will help her do, and vice versa. For me, the climactic pool scene is much more effective when we do see the girl as the boy's righteous and dedicated and emotionally connected defender. The closer they are linked as a couple emotionally, the more dangerous they are to others. I like being touched by their bond (which only happens if the relationship is unambiguous) while realizing at the same time how sick the relationship is. The short version is that I think the original is both a very good horror movie and a superb arthouse coming-of-age film. The remake is almost certainly a better horror movie, and it is very artfully done, but it barely registers as a coming-of-age flick. Lots of non-horror fans who had, say, The Tree of Life in their top 10 films of its year adored the original (I've got my hand up). The remake seemed good but unnecessary. Of course, this whole discussion wants to segue into a general one about the "arthouse horror" genre that the original essentially invented (which is not to say that there were no arthouse horror films previously, but in the sense that punk as a movement and hence genre was invented at CBGB in 1975 even though the Stooges had invented it as a musical style in 1969. It's not a genre until you can point at a bunch of things using the same approach). Let's see, you have The Babadook, A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (best title for a horror movie ever?) , The Witch: A New England Folktale, Only Lovers Left Alive, It Follows, and Maggie, basically in that order of quality, I think, and all within the last 2 years (all but Lovers within the last 16 months). And I know there are some I missed (all of those played at the Coolidge Corner Theater in Brookline, where I see 90 movies a year for a $200 membership). Watched "A Girl Walks Home..." last night. Very good. Nicely nuanced, creepy, but softhearted in a way. I'll have to see "The Witch:---" I liked "It Follows" for originality, but it really didn't fill out the mythology nearly enough for me. Horror flicks need clear "rules" if you're going to suspend disbelief and step into that world. "Maggie" was pretty good, but not really "horror" per se. I like your picks, though, so I'll take that list under advisement! |
|
|
|
Movies
Apr 21, 2016 13:06:02 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on Apr 21, 2016 13:06:02 GMT -5
Didn't want this to get lost in the game day thread. They're making a movie about Bill Lee. Spaceman |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Movies
Apr 28, 2016 14:11:58 GMT -5
Post by ericmvan on Apr 28, 2016 14:11:58 GMT -5
The must-see movie of the year so far is Green Room. Full of extreme violence and horrific bodily injury, two things I have either no special taste for or even a little aversion to, and I thought it was amazing. Here's my most-useful review at Netflix (I also have the most useful review of Room -- both flicks were sneak-previewed by the same distributor at the Coolidge Corner Theater ... for this one, I got to see a Q&A and talk to the film's director.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Movies
Apr 28, 2016 14:22:05 GMT -5
Post by ericmvan on Apr 28, 2016 14:22:05 GMT -5
You may well be right about Chloe versus the original. But the big difference for me is that you get a hugely better sense of Oskar's dysfunction in the original. It seems the remake toned that down a lot. So the dynamic is very different -- in the original, a very messed up kid falls for someone who seems to genuinely connect to them, even though we understand there is a selfish reason for it; whereas in the remake, the boy is less troubled and hence you do get more of a sense that perhaps he's just being played. I actually think the strength of their emotional connection in the original is, in fact, the great strength that the remake misses, because it is after all a really sick relationship. The remake is more conventionally horrific (and some of the horror sequences are indeed improved on as well), but the former was also much more of a legitimate teenage love story. I agree that that makes it less horrific in the sense that, if we can see ourselves as the boy, there's the fear that we may have been manipulated as well. In the original, I find the boy himself disturbing. I don't find any horror in his plight; rather, the horror lies in what he will help her do, and vice versa. For me, the climactic pool scene is much more effective when we do see the girl as the boy's righteous and dedicated and emotionally connected defender. The closer they are linked as a couple emotionally, the more dangerous they are to others. I like being touched by their bond (which only happens if the relationship is unambiguous) while realizing at the same time how sick the relationship is. The short version is that I think the original is both a very good horror movie and a superb arthouse coming-of-age film. The remake is almost certainly a better horror movie, and it is very artfully done, but it barely registers as a coming-of-age flick. Lots of non-horror fans who had, say, The Tree of Life in their top 10 films of its year adored the original (I've got my hand up). The remake seemed good but unnecessary. Of course, this whole discussion wants to segue into a general one about the "arthouse horror" genre that the original essentially invented (which is not to say that there were no arthouse horror films previously, but in the sense that punk as a movement and hence genre was invented at CBGB in 1975 even though the Stooges had invented it as a musical style in 1969. It's not a genre until you can point at a bunch of things using the same approach). Let's see, you have The Babadook, A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (best title for a horror movie ever?) , The Witch: A New England Folktale, Only Lovers Left Alive, It Follows, and Maggie, basically in that order of quality, I think, and all within the last 2 years (all but Lovers within the last 16 months). And I know there are some I missed (all of those played at the Coolidge Corner Theater in Brookline, where I see 90 movies a year for a $200 membership). Watched "A Girl Walks Home..." last night. Very good. Nicely nuanced, creepy, but softhearted in a way. I'll have to see "The Witch:---" I liked "It Follows" for originality, but it really didn't fill out the mythology nearly enough for me. Horror flicks need clear "rules" if you're going to suspend disbelief and step into that world. "Maggie" was pretty good, but not really "horror" per se. I like your picks, though, so I'll take that list under advisement! I couldn't quite put my finger on why It Follows worked less well for me than most others, but I think I'm with you. It almost stood up and said, "hey, parable for STD anxieties!" More meat on the story bones would have made the parable more subtle and hence more effective. Re A Girl Walks Home ..., any film that conceives the burka as a totem of terror is already halfway to an 8/10 rating before shooting a frame. And, yes, that it has its own vibe is very much its strength. Having re-seen The Babadook and talked about it for a couple of hours with a bunch of cinephiles, I now think it's closer in quality to Let the Right One In than it is to the rest of these flicks, as good as they are. It is open to several competing interpretations, all of which are entirely coherent and defensible. That's hard to pull off. |
|
|
|
Movies
May 27, 2016 15:43:35 GMT -5
Post by chrisfromnc on May 27, 2016 15:43:35 GMT -5
For those who like Sci-Fi, do yourself a favor and watch Interstellar, which Eric had at number 18 of his all time favorites. What a great movie that doesn't get a ton of credit. My teen-aged and I watched in the theater and walked out amazed. It is one of those movies that just makes you think and think and think about it long after you've watched it. Amazingly, I've only seen it that one time and I am certain I would pick up a ton of great stuff on additional viewing.
Sorry I am way late to this thread.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Post by ericmvan on May 28, 2016 0:23:23 GMT -5
For those who like Sci-Fi, do yourself a favor and watch Interstellar, which Eric had at number 18 of his all time favorites. What a great movie that doesn't get a ton of credit. My teen-aged and I watched in the theater and walked out amazed. It is one of those movies that just makes you think and think and think about it long after you've watched it. Amazingly, I've only seen it that one time and I am certain I would pick up a ton of great stuff on additional viewing.
Sorry I am way late to this thread.
Welcome to the thread, Chris! I saw it three times in three different IMAX formats. I've got the Blu-Ray and will watch it again at some point. Many critics missed the fact that it's about an actual possible future, with actual science -- they're just resistant to the whole idea of sci-fi being actually about the science, as opposed to just telling a great story ( Star Wars) or being a metaphor about the human condition ( Metropolis, Blade Runner). The other great sci-fi film that's about a possible future -- probable, in fact -- and takes the science totally seriously got such mixed reviews that I didn't bother seeing it in the theater. It's since become an all-time fave. And that's Gattaca. I'm guest-presenting it to the cinephile screening group I go to once or twice a week, a week from next Thursday, and I'm very eager to see what they make of it. |
|
|
|
Movies
May 28, 2016 18:13:29 GMT -5
Post by chrisfromnc on May 28, 2016 18:13:29 GMT -5
Eric,
I very much enjoyed Gattaca but wouldn't call it one of my all time favorites. By the way, I'm in complete agreement with you on LOTR. My wife hated the whole genre until I made her go with me to see "Fellowship..." She walked out of the movie completely upset that we'd have to wait a year to see "Two Towers"! We've watched it uncounted times since.
Pretty random but I'm interested in what you think of "Cosmos" starring Jody Foster. The opening sequence showing the spectacular view of Earh, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe is one of my all time favorite pieces of film. Your thoughts on that movie?
More randomness, we've got "Deadpool" teed up for viewing in about an hour. Haven't seen it before.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Movies
Jun 1, 2016 1:23:58 GMT -5
Post by ericmvan on Jun 1, 2016 1:23:58 GMT -5
Eric, I very much enjoyed Gattaca but wouldn't call it one of my all time favorites. By the way, I'm in complete agreement with you on LOTR. My wife hated the whole genre until I made her go with me to see "Fellowship..." She walked out of the movie completely upset that we'd have to wait a year to see "Two Towers"! We've watched it uncounted times since. Pretty random but I'm interested in what you think of "Cosmos" starring Jody Foster. The opening sequence showing the spectacular view of Earh, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe is one of my all time favorite pieces of film. Your thoughts on that movie? More randomness, we've got "Deadpool" teed up for viewing in about an hour. Haven't seen it before. You mean Contact, of course. Loved it until the end -- after she returns -- which I despise with the hatred of a thousand suns going nova. Spoilers follow, of course.They had her go utterly out of character in order to be victimized, presumably because having her cease to be a strong woman and become a victim was what they felt audiences would accept. I'm talking about the congressional interrogation where she admits that there's no proof of her experiences. But [insert blasphemous expletives of your choice], science doesn't work by proof. Not one thing in science is proven the way math is. There is simply evidence and best hypotheses. When challenged about the lack of corroborating evidence to her report, her in-character reply would have been a withering putdown of the demand for proof, an explanation of the way science works, and a comparison of the two available hypotheses: that what she experienced was real, or that she, previously of perfect mental health, had nevertheless experienced a psychotic episode unlike that experienced by any other human. So the available evidence is still strongly in favor of the reality of what she experienced. What did you think of Deadpool? |
|
|
|
Movies
Jun 1, 2016 6:59:11 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on Jun 1, 2016 6:59:11 GMT -5
I have another time travel sci-fi movie coming up soon to watch - Synchronicity. Have you seen it Eric?
|
|
|
