Potential... but no...

Started by SoNowThen, January 08, 2004, 04:27:19 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions

SoNowThen

January 08, 2004, 04:27:19 PM
I'd like to discuss some movies that should've been really good, but for some reason or another, just couldn't make it into that "great" category. And before this gets off into a Classics I Hated thing, let me make it clear that I'm not talking about something that was built up by everyone else and completely underwhelmed you. So please don't say Citizen Kane, or Godfather. What I mean is those movies that even time hasn't saved, movies by a master director, or with a seemingly perfect cast, that just didn't quite add up. They're not bad, but they will never get mentioned in the "his best work" sections.

I guess mine would be Broadway Danny Rose. Regarded by some critics as being possibly among Woody Allen's better movies, by others possibly among his weaker films. Neither really hated or particularily loved. Solid beginning, sublime ending, colorful characters, and some super Gordie Willis lighting, but still, just so blah, no matter how many chances I give it.

So is this definition too cryptic, or do you get what I'm on about???
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

pookiethecat

#1
January 08, 2004, 04:36:07 PM
punchdrunklove.
i wanna lick 'em.

ono

#2
January 08, 2004, 04:39:25 PM
Quote from: pookiethecatpunchdrunklove.
Can open.  Worms everywhere.

Gold Trumpet

#3
January 08, 2004, 04:39:34 PM
Quote from: pookiethecatpunchdrunklove.

Why?

SoNowThen

#4
January 08, 2004, 04:40:51 PM
Quote from: pookiethecatpunchdrunklove.

Yes, I agree with that but didn't wanna mention it.

Actually, y'know why: it's not old enough. I shoulda said this before, let's not pick anything less than at least 5 years old, so the film's had enough time to have a critical reevaluation.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

kotte

#5
January 08, 2004, 04:47:02 PM
Taxi Driver...but you know what I think about it.


Silence of the Lambs.
Great performances, great story...it just didn't go where I wanted it to. Went into the field of ordinary thriller too much.



Quote from: Chandler in FriendsCan open.  Worms everywhere.
:)

Gold Trumpet

#6
January 08, 2004, 04:47:45 PM
Any film should be open to be named here. Just make everyone at least explain why. That's all.

Slick Shoes

#7
January 08, 2004, 05:13:11 PM
Sorry, I know you wanted films that weren't made too recently, but the only one I can think of for the moment is The Royal Tenenbaums.

MacGuffin

#8
January 08, 2004, 05:27:37 PM
"Ali" - It could have been a great bio-pic, but the opening is too similar to Spike Lee's "Malcolm X" and even feels like it is Malcolm's film. The fight scenes, although shot and edited superbly, go on too long. I liked Will Smith's performance, but Ali the man/character isn't shown in depth to really learn more about him. The film is good, but could have been so much better, especially with Michael Mann behind it.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Alethia

#9
January 08, 2004, 05:32:03 PM
fellini satyricon - just completely off the wall, but not in a good way. i'd like to give it another go based on things others have said, maybe i missed something, but fuck it, theres too many other movies to see.

the general - buster keaton is good, but this just didn't overwhelm me at all.  it was amusing but eh - i'm more of a chaplin fan.  it's kinda like that pulp fiction beatles/elvis argument, i think you can love keaton and chaplin, but you like one more thn the other...

hedwig and the angry inch - i had a headache when i saw this and i liked it but i think i expected a little TOO much from it, so my experience was doomed from the start....

pi - made me tired and i really couldnt wait for it to end......

scarface (depalma) - a little too overboard in almost every way....

modage

#10
January 08, 2004, 05:35:46 PM
old ones that come to mind.  had great ingredients but didnt add up to a satisfying experience for me.  

Key Largo (John Huston)
Bogart, Bacall, Edward G. Robinson, Lionel Barrymore
great cast, great director.  just didnt add up to enough for me.

Arsenic And Old Lace (Frank Capra)
Cary Grant and Peter Lorre in a wacky black comedy about a corpse and some criminals even sounds like a great idea when i'm typing it but it was just not entertaining enough for me.  too long, didnt ever feel like it was a film instead of the play it was based on.  probably made a great play though.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (John Ford)
John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Lee Marvin sounds like the greatest movie ever made.  stewart is the straight arrow and wayne is the peacemaker and i really wanted to love this movie but it fell short somehow.

i dont think any of these three fall into the 'classics' catagory like godfather or casablanca or something.  i think they all had great ideas/directors/casts but somehow (and i cant describe how) just didnt add up to the sum of their parts (in my opinion).

also agree about Broadway Danny Rose.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Gamblour.

#11
January 08, 2004, 05:36:41 PM
I was gonna put Satryicon, I fucking hated that movie.

Ali is a great example, at times, I felt it was showing us things and expecting us to know what was going on, by the historical context some of the time, but I just remember not caring that he was running with a bunch of kids, or that he was boxing Foreman (was it Foreman?) in Africa, or any of it. Really underdeveloped.

A lot of recent movies fit this category: Master and Commander, Last Samurai, even In America and the Barbarian Invasions were only ok for me, not outstanding. They just didn't capture my interest much, though In America is the best of the bunch.
WWPTAD?

cron

#12
January 08, 2004, 05:45:19 PM
Man on the Moon.
context, context, context.

Jeremy Blackman

#13
January 08, 2004, 07:16:24 PM
Big Fish

...just because it could have been much greater than it is.

godardian

#14
January 08, 2004, 07:21:46 PM
I'll agree with Broadway Danny Rose and throw in Nashville, though I'll give Nashville another chance soon (I've only seen it twice).
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions