Xixax Film Forum

I mean "I" as in you, but I posted it, so whatever...

-Seven Samurai - I wasn't a huge fan of this...although a lot of "movie buffs" were...just too slow for me.  I have no problem with subtitles, just didn't really enjoy this one.

-Ben Hur - Very often while watching it I asked myself "Why?"  It was pretty slow and sometimes appeared to be crawling.  The ending was pretty cheasy, too.  And not even Charleton Heston could save this... if anything.

OK, so I can only think of 2 right now... any classics you guys didn't paticularly care for?  I know movie preference is discussed in many other places, but here is where I'm asking is there a "Must See Classic!" that just didn't live up to expectations at all?

Gone with the Wind

Saving Private Ryan

Quote from: godardianSaving Private Ryan

A classic? Ah well... :)


For me, it's Taxi Driver. Had huge expectations when I sat down to see this. Felt like a mediocre 80s film.

Will give it a second viewing though. Might imporove.

Don't cry, this will only hurt a bit:
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1334

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - just didn't get into it.

Blade Runner - besides the special effects, what was the big deal? Not enough of Ford's character.

Apocalypse Now - still haven't been able to sit all the way through it, saw Redux until the end, goddamn, just too slow and not enough for me to get involved with.

Chinatown - egh. Nope.

These movies just tend to not sit right with me at all. Dunno why, just one of those things.

Quote from: MacGuffinDon't cry, this will only hurt a bit:
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1334

I'm getting used to this mistreatment... I feel like a dirty, dirty whore.  Now we can relate, eh kotte?

Well, where to start? Naw, it'd really take too long to go through my grievances of all the classics, but I'd like to mention this one:

The Godfather Part II The entire series is Gone With the Wind for men. Stories of little to no truth, but romanticism of a subject endlessly enjoyable and identifiable for people everywhere. I could count one to two scenes in the first two movies were perspective of the violent nature of the mob is shown, but they are regulated to small scenes so carrying little validity. Thing is, the first one is still enjoyable for me because the myth of the world is alluring and and three of the best actors ever are in it (Brando, Pacino and Duvall).
The problem with the second one is that it really adds nothing to what is in the first, thus just exploitation of the myth. Pacino's killing of his brother can be seen as equal to him killing his brother n law in the first. De Niro's rise to prominence as the violent, but fair mob boss is what Brando conveyed with just a line of dialogue in the first. Pacino's own problems with greed of power in the ending of the second was the same exact ending in the first. Godfather Part II is a sequel just for the physical extension of the story that everyone already loved.

I'll just list em for now, don't really feel like elaborating unless I'm provoked, it's much revised from my "not so classics" post, much much much revised....

-All Quiet on the Western Front
-American Beauty
-Arsenic and Old Lace
-Apollo 13
-Braveheart
-Chinatown
-Dances With Wolves
-The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeisie
-Dr. Strangelove (saw it a looong time ago though, I do love Sellers)
-Forrest Gump (I honestly don't dislike Tom Hanks)
-Gladiator
-The Grapes of Wrath (didn't hate it, there were some pretty moving parts)
-Happiness
-The Killing Fields
-The Last of the Mohicans
-The Matrix
-Saving Private Ryan
-Schindler's List
-Se7en
-Sling Blade
-Spartacus
-Stand By Me (River Phoenix is like my favorite actor though, RIP)
-Titanic
-The Usual Suspects (hate this film)
-The Wild Bunch

For some reason, I feel strangely comfortable. I actually don't think I'll get too many arguements.

Good thread by the way.

Quote from: ebeamanI'll just list for now, don't feel like elaborating unless I'm provoked....

-All Quiet on the Western Front

The book is great.

Quote from: ebeaman-American Beauty

I love this film.

Quote from: ebeaman-Arsenic and Old Lace

Funny, but hardly brilliant.

Quote from: ebeaman-Apollo 13

Feh.  Agreed.  Decent flick, but hardly earth-shattering.

Quote from: ebeaman-Braveheart

*snickers* ... You won't hear any argument here, I don't think.

Quote from: ebeaman-Chinatown

Boring film by an overrated director.  The only two things memorable are the nose thing and the fish thing.

Quote from: ebeaman-Forrest Gump (I honestly don't dislike Tom Hanks)

I love this film.

Quote from: ebeaman-Gladiator

One of the worst films I've ever seen.

Quote from: ebeaman-The Matrix

Great when I first saw it.  Diminishing returns now.  The second one sucked.  Haven't seen the third yet.

Quote from: ebeaman-Saving Private Ryan

Another one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Quote from: ebeaman-Schindler's List

Yeah, I don't get the praise for this either.  Yeah, we get it, we get it.  Jews died, human spirit is great.  Get.  Over.  It.  Already.

Quote from: ebeaman-Se7en

Hardly a classic, but more of a mainstream film people call on as arty fare.

Quote from: ebeaman-The Grapes of Wrath (didn't hate it, there were some pretty moving parts)
-The Killing Fields
-The Last of the Mohicans
...
-Sling Blade

Haven't seen them.

Quote from: ebeaman-Stand By Me (River Phoenix is like my favorite actor though, RIP)
-The Usual Suspects (hate this film)

Stand By Me is a crap shoot.  I like The Usual Suspects for one reason: in Keyser Soze, it's created a great, great character that transcends archetypes and sets the standards for thrillers for years to come.  I do think a lot of the movie is sloppy, and it could've been a little bit more cerebral and thought out.  In fact, I'd like to try to write a more intelligent version of a Usual Suspects-style crime/thriller someday.  The whole premise has me that intrigued.  What it all boils down to is this film itself was one that wrote a check its ass couldn't cash.

So many classics I really don't think are that great.  Lynch's work bugs me, though admittedly he has talent.  Polanski, OTOH, simply doesn't.  Spielberg is way overrated, as is Lucas.  Those two have bastardized an artform.  It's such a shame Coppola was ever even associated with Lucas.  I was reading David Breskin's Inner Views (thanks ... ©brad ... I think it was ... for recommending it), and all of what Coppola says is so brilliant.  In fact, all of what everyone, especially Cronenberg, says is brilliant.  I'm on Altman's section now; can't wait to finish.  But I digress.

dr. strangelove
gosford park....................................................................

It took me two viewings to like Dr. Strangelove.  But yeah, Gosford Park was just boring.  Perhaps, though, that was 'cause I watched it early in the morning.  Somehow, though, I doubt it.

I really didn't enjoy "Vertigo" as much as I thought I would.  It probably was built up so much, having been listed many times as one of the top three American films of all time.  It was definitely good though.  I think a lot of classic films suffer, in my eyes, because I wasn't around when they came out to notice how much of a breakthrough they were.

Quote from: classical gasI really didn't enjoy "Vertigo" as much as I thought I would.  It probably was built up so much, having been listed many times as one of the top three American films of all time.  It was definitely good though.  I think a lot of classic films suffer, in my eyes, because I wasn't around when they came out to notice how much of a breakthrough they were.

I've never been able to honestly give a film that benefit of the doubt type respect, where you don't particulary like it but you talk about how great it must have been in its time, how it must have been a big breakthrough...like you were describing...I've never been able to figure that out. To me, if a film is truly classic, its almost essential that it has a sense of timelessness to it....cinema is too young of a medium for the age of a film to be an excuse for a lack of quality. Buster Keaton and The Marx Brothers are as entertaining as can be in our time, and a lot that came out damn near the beginning of cinema in the 20's and 30's....if they're still great than why can't films like All Quiet on the Western Front be? It's too old? No, it just sucks. It's boring. Not because it's old, it's just a bad film. Say what you will about the book, I haven't read it. But it doesn't DESERVE respect because it's old, that's bullshit I think. I understand the significance of early innovations in cinema but I don't agree with liking or dislikng a film based on those innovations, that's not right.

Footnote: If it's younger than Keaton's stuff, this excuse is scrapped for me.

a few that came to me...
-american beauty, and all the other movies that have won best picture in the last few years (a beautiful mind, gladiator)
-2001
-usual suspects

....why do you guys hate the usual suspects?????

a)because i knnow its actually a good film btu i just don't like it to be different
b)i gotta uphold movie elitist snob persona
c)its really no tthat good....
d)i have never seen it but based on the title it cann't be good

c.

Y?

Quote from: xerxes-2001

ty.  shit. i like it, but it's no bible.

first one that comes to mind.  Citizen Kane!!!!

Rosebud my ass!!!!... it was a good film.  the best?...fuck no.  

The thing is...realize I first saw this in probably 1998.  And though I can respect the influence it had in a positive manner towards film from that point forth (i will even compare it to the Beatles....it's not that amazing of a movie.  It was mildly entertaining to me.  The story was good, the shots were good.  but does it even come close to some things i see today?  no.  That's why i don't like "Top movie lists", they don't think about technology.  The hold onto these relics without realizing that technology has in fact...created a more enjoyable cinematic experience.  Citizen Kane is only a "good movie" in my book....not the best, no way, never.

the cinematography in citizen kane is among some of the best ive ever seen.

but that doesn't necessarily mean it's an amazing movie.  but i love it nonetheless...

hating classic movies makes me feel like a real man.

I can also say 'Vertigo'. I don't find it to be the classic it is said to be, either. The problem with it is that much of it feels like a drama in pace, but the film is still thriller in plot and so lacks the tightness, wit and energy in better Hitchcock thrillers. It isn't really dramatic because it is tied down by its neck in a plot that does not take the subject serious at all.

Live a little, buddy!

I saw "Citizen Kane" only once a few years ago, because i'd heard so much about it,  and thought it was boring.. (probably my fault, guess i missed something).  I'm sure i'll get motivated to watch it again someday.

This thread depresses me. :(

I always feel bad as a film buff when a fellow film buff dislikes a classic picture. I'm generally dumbfounded. Exceptions to the rule include Gladiator and the Usual Suspects.

there is nothing wrong w/the usual suspects....but i can see the deal w/gladiator.....

I'm saying that in terms of the topic here, the Usual Suspects is not even close to qualified as a "Classic" that we're discussing.

Quote from: CinephileI'm saying that in terms of the topic here, the Usual Suspects is not even close to qualified as a "Classic" that we're discussing.

i see ...... 8)

Quote from: NEON MERCURY.but i can see the deal w/gladiator.....

that is not a classic either.  fuck that movie too.  crowe is good, joaquin is mad crazy unreal...but ridley scott.

he ruined demme's good deal with the silence.

I'm going to get bitched slapped here but I like the Gladiator (not a classic). I particularly like the cinematography and the direction of the arena fight scenes in particular.....they look great on widescreen and surround sound. The story wasn't boring and I particularly liked Joaquin Phoenix's performance as Commodus.

Yes, I do own it and my DVD library only consists of about 30 movies right now. I now hang my head in shame amongst the group...... :oops:

Quote from: freakerdudeI now hang my head in shame amongst the group...... :oops:

pick it back up.  as i said...good movie. I just wouldn't consider it a "classic".

but....the zimmer/gerrard score....might be classic.

Every single Kubrick film.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI can also say 'Vertigo'. I don't find it to be the classic it is said to be, either. The problem with it is that much of it feels like a drama in pace, but the film is still thriller in plot and so lacks the tightness, wit and energy in better Hitchcock thrillers. It isn't really dramatic because it is tied down by its neck in a plot that does not take the subject serious at all.

What The Fuck???!!! "Vertigo" is not a thriller, it's more of a mystery/character study. And what "subject" are you talking about?

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI can also say 'Vertigo'. I don't find it to be the classic it is said to be, either. The problem with it is that much of it feels like a drama in pace, but the film is still thriller in plot and so lacks the tightness, wit and energy in better Hitchcock thrillers. It isn't really dramatic because it is tied down by its neck in a plot that does not take the subject serious at all.

What The Fuck???!!! "Vertigo" is not a thriller, it's more of a mystery/character study. And what "subject" are you talking about?

I really like Vertigo.  I just bought it a few days ago and after my 2nd viewing of it I am even more of a fan.  I think the reason it is considered Hitchcock's masterpiece is because it really rises above the thriller genre and becomes something much more.  His other films do this to a degree but not at the same peak that Vertigo does.  It's probably his darkest film and comments the best on humanity or lack there of.

I've never cared much for Dr. Strangelove, even though I'm a big fan of Kubrick.

I've always felt Chinatown is overrated.  I liked it, but I wouldn't even put it on my top ten for 1974.

I'm underwhelmed by Eraserhead, Midnight Express, Alien, Stranger Than Paradise, Blade Runner, Brazil, Do The Right Thing, Silence of the Lambs and Thelma and Louise.

Quote from: Walrus, Kookookajoob

Quote from: MacGuffinDon't cry, this will only hurt a bit:
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1334

I'm getting used to this mistreatment... I feel like a dirty, dirty whore.  Now we can relate, eh kotte?

I'm a clean sleep-around...that's different.


Don't know if The Cotton Club is a classic but I hate that one. Boring.

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI can also say 'Vertigo'. I don't find it to be the classic it is said to be, either. The problem with it is that much of it feels like a drama in pace, but the film is still thriller in plot and so lacks the tightness, wit and energy in better Hitchcock thrillers. It isn't really dramatic because it is tied down by its neck in a plot that does not take the subject serious at all.

What The Fuck???!!! "Vertigo" is not a thriller, it's more of a mystery/character study. And what "subject" are you talking about?

Well, you use mystery in place of thriller. That's not really saying it is anything that different, because both resolve the situation upon an action sequence. You note the pace of the film and give it a nicer term like "mystery", which is fine.

Well, the subject and idea that Hithcock was making a personal comment in this film in following Stewart's obcession to loving this woman that he would try to control another woman in recreating her. The subject is worthy of a serious situation, but I don't take Hitchcock that seriously at all to think he can come through on an exploration of the subject. Graham Green said it nicely when he gave his reasons for disliking Hitchcock because "his films consist of a serious of small 'amusing' melodramatic situations...Very perfunctorily he builds up to these tricky situations...and then drops them; they mean nothing; they lead to nothing." Hitchcock's exploration of the subject just leads to an extended chase scene that gives the great situation of the woman pretending to kill herself and thus sending the character, audience into a head spin. All of Hitchcock's films end in terms of putting his grip hold to the genre above the story. He's been doing the same genre his entire career and even as he made Vertigo later in his career and is said to carry the most drama, but it still resolves itself on the same platter as any of his other films.

I agree with Ebs on these:

Quote from: ebeaman
-American Beauty
-Braveheart
-Forrest Gump (I honestly don't dislike Tom Hanks)
-Gladiator
-The Last of the Mohicans
-Saving Private Ryan
-Spartacus
-Stand By Me
-Titanic

I'll add my own:

Blue Velvet
Rashomon (didn't dislike, but didn't exactly like either...)
Naked Kiss
E.T.

QuoteBlue Velvet

Agreed.  Although I'm not a huge Lynch fan anyway, so...

Oh, how could I forget? 2001: A Space Odyssey...blech

-Roman Polanski is hardly overrated. Chinatown is a really wonderful film. It's hard to imagine finding it boring...

-Blue Velvet is great.

-Happiness is great.

-Vertigo.... my god, who could fail to see the flat-out brilliance of Vertigo?!?! Certainly not a film to be picked at for petty details of "subject," etc... this movie has much bigger fish to fry!

Okay, I think those are the main things I really strongly disagreed with. Glad to see so many others see through Spielberg's b.s.

Quote from: godardian

-Vertigo.... my god, who could fail to see the flat-out brilliance of Vertigo?!?! Certainly not a film to be picked at for petty details of "subject," etc... this movie has much bigger fish to fry!

Him  ----------------->  (https://xixax.com/images/avatars/23.jpg)

Just kidding GT

Quote from: godardian-Roman Polanski is hardly overrated. Chinatown is a really wonderful film. It's hard to imagine finding it boring...

Chinatown is hardly a Polanski film. It has none of his personality in the film. He was director-for-hire to Robert Evan's production. Chinatown is, in my eyes, in the same vein of nostalgia as The Godfather.

Quote-Vertigo.... my god, who could fail to see the flat-out brilliance of Vertigo?!?! Certainly not a film to be picked at for petty details of "subject," etc... this movie has much bigger fish to fry!.

Of course, with subject and Hitchcock, you're getting the same treatment in almost all his movies. Many enthusiasts of Hitchcock do consider Vertigo to be his dramatic achievement, his personal statement as a director. I simply find none of that but just the hallmarks of the Hitchcock plot and in comparing to his other works, this film is minor in quality.

Chinatown is VERY MUCH a Polanski film. Without him the ending would be totally different, giving the rest of the film a resonance that would make all the meaning totally different.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: godardian-Roman Polanski is hardly overrated. Chinatown is a really wonderful film. It's hard to imagine finding it boring...

Chinatown is hardly a Polanski film. It has none of his personality in the film. He was director-for-hire to Robert Evan's production. Chinatown is, in my eyes, in the same vein of nostalgia as The Godfather.

Quote-Vertigo.... my god, who could fail to see the flat-out brilliance of Vertigo?!?! Certainly not a film to be picked at for petty details of "subject," etc... this movie has much bigger fish to fry!.

Of course, with subject and Hitchcock, you're getting the same treatment in almost all his movies. Many enthusiasts of Hitchcock do consider Vertigo to be his dramatic achievement, his personal statement as a director. I simply find none of that but just the hallmarks of the Hitchcock plot and in comparing to his other works, this film is minor in quality.

On Polanski, I can draw lines from the style in Knife on the Water to the style in Rosemary's Baby to the style in Chinatown. The latter is probably equally Robert Towne's baby, I'll admit. But the mis-en-scene is identifiably Polanski's.

As for The Godfather, Part II, well... in my opinion, fuck Nashville, that's the next Great American Movie after Citizen Kane. Both Evans and Coppolla will assure you that Coppolla was not a director for hire, though Evans may have been hoping for that.

If by "nostalgia" you mean that the films themselves are nostalgic, that's not the case. Their stories may be period, but the way they're told feels very fresh and immediate as you watch them. If you mean a preference for these films indicates a nostalgia for the seventies golden-age of filmmaking, where even a big-budget studio film could have the marks of style and aspiration to quality, well it would be foolish to apologize for that.

I still think you're missing what's great about Vertigo. To me, it belongs in the same psychosexual lineage as Persona and Mulholland Dr.. I just feel there are so many more dimensions to it than you're seeing or willing to discuss, GT. I enjoy your very careful analyses of films, but in cases like these, it can feel as though your way of analyzing films is like someone eating dry Rice-A-Roni out of the box and then complaining about how subpar it was, when what's actually going on is they're completely overlooking some key ingredients. I do appreciate your aspirations to intellectual rigor, but to not to see how Vertigo can be a huge cinematic achievement without necessarily being a "dramatic" achievement signifies to me that you're scrutinizing things about it that are fairly irrelevant to its greatness.

GT u should review books. u don't seem to notice colour at all.

actually this hypothesis would explain ur b&w Perfume adaptation idea.

Adding more...

I came away thoroughly unimpressed with Chinatown.  I don't hate it, but I just didn't see what others must see.  Part of the problem might be I have seen very few Polanski films.  Interesting that there is so much hate for Michael Jackson right now.  Perhaps he'll come out with an album in 20 years and win a grammy for Best Album as he is exiled in France.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who didn't like Dr Strangelove.

Spielberg is either overpraised or overly criticized.

Godfather and Godfather II are simply amazing.  I really cannot understand any criticism levied against those filsm.

I have to add Blue Velvet to the list as well.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetWell, you use mystery in place of thriller. That's not really saying it is anything that different, because both resolve the situation upon an action sequence. You note the pace of the film and give it a nicer term like "mystery", which is fine.

No. It's NOT a thiller. It's not chase movie. It's not like "North By Northwest". The mystery is, as with Scottie, you wonder what she is up to. Why she throws herself into the water. Why she is visiting the museum. And so so. Then a twist comes as the mid-point that furthers the mystery. Conventionality would have said to not let the audience in on the twist and become surprised. But Hitchcock breaks that by saying she's not dead and, thus creates the suspense in finding out when and if Scottie will find out. I associate thriller with more action based films, and "Vertigo" does not have that.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetWell, the subject and idea that Hithcock was making a personal comment in this film in following Stewart's obcession to loving this woman that he would try to control another woman in recreating her. The subject is worthy of a serious situation, but I don't take Hitchcock that seriously at all to think he can come through on an exploration of the subject. Graham Green said it nicely when he gave his reasons for disliking Hitchcock because "his films consist of a serious of small 'amusing' melodramatic situations...Very perfunctorily he builds up to these tricky situations...and then drops them; they mean nothing; they lead to nothing." Hitchcock's exploration of the subject just leads to an extended chase scene that gives the great situation of the woman pretending to kill herself and thus sending the character, audience into a head spin. All of Hitchcock's films end in terms of putting his grip hold to the genre above the story. He's been doing the same genre his entire career and even as he made Vertigo later in his career and is said to carry the most drama, but it still resolves itself on the same platter as any of his other films.

I don't understand what you're saying in the part I bolded, and is it related to your next sentence? Because that scene is not the ending. That scene starts the exploration of the subject, doesn't lead to it. The irony with the ending is now the Scottie character is cured of his vertigo. He was shown another tramatic situation and is able to climb and look down the tower, and that falls in line with the story.

Quote from: godardianI still think you're missing what's great about Vertigo. To me, it belongs in the same psychosexual lineage as Persona and Mulholland Dr..

Quote...how Vertigo can be a huge cinematic achievement without necessarily being a "dramatic" achievement signifies to me that you're scrutinizing things about it that are fairly irrelevant to its greatness.

This should cover Mac's grievances as well:

But, to put Vertigo alongside Persona, it would have to excell to the same level of Persona. Persona is a very objective film that seems to know no bounds of where it will take the subject. To give Vertigo the same place, you would have to rationalize with a filmmaker whose cinema really is quite limited to Bergman's. Of course, its nice to give each filmmaker the benefit of the doubt and say, "Well, for his approach, I think it does well." I disagree. Some filmmakers have an expression that is limited with exploring certain subjects and their limitations should be noted. Bergman couldn't go Hollywood, nor could Hitchcock go indepedent really. Both are tied to their filmmaking approach and must aim to achieve what their filmmaking is best suited for.

To see Vertigo as being more than the typical Hitchcock, it has the trappings of Hitchcock in attempt to thrill, but a melodramatic plot that only scratches below the surface. In its attempt be objective about the obcession of this man to control the woman, it has the same controlling nature in filmmaking that limits Hitchcock himself in exploring subjects. As usual, the woman of desire from the start couldn't be dolled up to a percise image. The sex scenes are as clinical as ever and Stewart seems to be a wandering actor making a variety of facial reactions instead of being allowed to act.

As a Hitchcock film, the film starts randomly with a roof to roof chase like is it just old hat for Hitchcock and quickly goes into a police officer falling and Stewart beginning his 'vertigo' problems that will plague him the entire way through. What I don't see here is just execution of what Hitchcock is known for, but a disbelief in it being effective because the scene is trying to be thrilling, but yet so casual. Little in the rest of the film really does little to excite at all. The meladramatic pacing is mostly there with, as I said before, a story that hardly delves or really is effective.

Quote from: coffeebeetle

QuoteBlue Velvet

Agreed.  Although I'm not a huge Lynch fan anyway, so...

Oh, how could I forget? 2001: A Space Odyssey...blech

Oh! Blasphemer! It's hard to think of 2 films (American ones, at least) that were as a) important to their day and b) revelatory as far as what can be done, whether in content or in form, with the medium.

i propose we change the name of this thread to "Who Hates The Best Movies?"

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

But, to put Vertigo alongside Persona, it would have to excell to the same level of Persona. Persona is a very objective film that seems to know no bounds of where it will take the subject.

Bergman couldn't go Hollywood, nor could Hitchcock go indepedent really. Both are tied to their filmmaking approach and must aim to achieve what their filmmaking is best suited for.

I would call Persona subjective.

I don't believe Bergman was ever "independent."  As far as I know he worked well within the studios in Sweden.  So the difference between the two would lie in their national cinema.  I think it's fair to say that they fit the art cinema market more so than their national cinemas, meaning they are pretty much working in the same realm of filmmaking.

Quote from: SHAFTR

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

But, to put Vertigo alongside Persona, it would have to excell to the same level of Persona. Persona is a very objective film that seems to know no bounds of where it will take the subject.

Bergman couldn't go Hollywood, nor could Hitchcock go indepedent really. Both are tied to their filmmaking approach and must aim to achieve what their filmmaking is best suited for.

I would call Persona subjective.

I don't believe Bergman was ever "independent."  As far as I know he worked well within the studios in Sweden.  So the difference between the two would lie in their national cinema.  I think it's fair to say that they fit the art cinema market more so than their national cinemas, meaning they are pretty much working in the same realm of filmmaking.

So, since Hitchcock veers from Hollywood and Bergman from the studios in Sweden, they are thus in the same realm of filmmaking? Their work may be outside their respective communities but it hardly makes them the same or anywhere near it. Yes, the difference is in their national cinema.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: SHAFTR

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

But, to put Vertigo alongside Persona, it would have to excell to the same level of Persona. Persona is a very objective film that seems to know no bounds of where it will take the subject.

Bergman couldn't go Hollywood, nor could Hitchcock go indepedent really. Both are tied to their filmmaking approach and must aim to achieve what their filmmaking is best suited for.

I would call Persona subjective.

I don't believe Bergman was ever "independent."  As far as I know he worked well within the studios in Sweden.  So the difference between the two would lie in their national cinema.  I think it's fair to say that they fit the art cinema market more so than their national cinemas, meaning they are pretty much working in the same realm of filmmaking.

So, since Hitchcock veers from Hollywood and Bergman from the studios in Sweden, they are thus in the same realm of filmmaking? Their work may be outside their respective communities but it hardly makes them the same or anywhere near it. Yes, the difference is in their national cinema.

so is Hitchcock's National Cinema the US or the UK?

Hitchcock and Bergman are very poor examples of national cinema.  I would argue that they have more similarities with each other than with their national cinemas.

Quote from: Pi propose we change the name of this thread to "Who Hates The Best Movies?"

Oh, yes... I see plenty of people around here with some 'splaining to do. "All Kubrick films" had to have been a joke... had to have. Even notorious Kubrick detractor Pauline Kael loved Lolita!

Quote from: SHAFTRso is Hitchcock's National Cinema the US or the UK?

Hitchcock and Bergman are very poor examples of national cinema.  I would argue that they have more similarities with each other than with their national cinemas.

I definitely disagree they more in common than with their respective cinemas. For all I know, Sweden followed suit like most of Europe in realizing that it couldn't compete with USA in production value so focused on much smaller, personal films. Bergman strays from that, but has foundations in it. Hitchcock, to say USA for him, found freedom to make his films, but they were closely tied to the entertainment vehicles that many other American films were. You could say he strayed with some of his films, but he also has foundations in USA. I haven't seen enough of his UK work to comment on that.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: godardianI still think you're missing what's great about Vertigo. To me, it belongs in the same psychosexual lineage as Persona and Mulholland Dr..

Quote...how Vertigo can be a huge cinematic achievement without necessarily being a "dramatic" achievement signifies to me that you're scrutinizing things about it that are fairly irrelevant to its greatness.

This should cover Mac's grievances as well:

But, to put Vertigo alongside Persona, it would have to excell to the same level of Persona. Persona is a very objective film that seems to know no bounds of where it will take the subject. To give Vertigo the same place, you would have to rationalize with a filmmaker whose cinema really is quite limited to Bergman's. Of course, its nice to give each filmmaker the benefit of the doubt and say, "Well, for his approach, I think it does well." I disagree. Some filmmakers have an expression that is limited with exploring certain subjects and their limitations should be noted. Bergman couldn't go Hollywood, nor could Hitchcock go indepedent really. Both are tied to their filmmaking approach and must aim to achieve what their filmmaking is best suited for.

To see Vertigo as being more than the typical Hitchcock, it has the trappings of Hitchcock in attempt to thrill, but a melodramatic plot that only scratches below the surface. In its attempt be objective about the obcession of this man to control the woman, it has the same controlling nature in filmmaking that limits Hitchcock himself in exploring subjects. As usual, the woman of desire from the start couldn't be dolled up to a percise image. The sex scenes are as clinical as ever and Stewart seems to be a wandering actor making a variety of facial reactions instead of being allowed to act.

As a Hitchcock film, the film starts randomly with a roof to roof chase like is it just old hat for Hitchcock and quickly goes into a police officer falling and Stewart beginning his 'vertigo' problems that will plague him the entire way through. What I don't see here is just execution of what Hitchcock is known for, but a disbelief in it being effective because the scene is trying to be thrilling, but yet so casual. Little in the rest of the film really does little to excite at all. The meladramatic pacing is mostly there with, as I said before, a story that hardly delves or really is effective.

It still seems to me that you're judging the film on "dramatic" terms of plot and storyline. Maybe this is where you and I differ in our response to films: I see those things- and even, in the case of a film like Vertigo, the characters themselves, with their personalities and attributes- as quite secondary, a very bare, skeletal, mere blueprint for what any film will actually be.

What matters more, and what tells us more about the filmmaker's intentions, is what we actually see. I'm talking about the execution- the framing, the camera movements, the colors, the lighting, the editing patterns- which are always equally important, and in this case I believe much more important, than a list of the events that occur in the film. And to me, in execution, in the way in which it uses its raw materials of "plot" and "character," the film bears a strong resemblance to films like Persona and Mulholland Dr.. The story/plot itself are either disrupted or a red herring; the artifice is apparent to us, cluing us in that there is something else, something more disturbing and elemental, going on beneath the "dramatic" surface.

There is a nebulous, nefarious psychosexual element in Hitchcock's work that reaches its peak in Vertigo. A riveting articulation and exploration of the sexual archetypal (particularly the female archetype) through a mastery of cinematic language is what the three films I mentioned have in common, which is not based in any arbitrary "independent/Hollywood" distinction. You could add many of Bunuel's films to this group, as well. There is a certain dream-logic at work that overrides  literal-minded narrative circumscription; there is no better place for dream-logic than a medium that is first and foremost about images.

I believe Hitchcock's intention was to "thrill," but not through the conventional means of suspense, routine identification with the characters, and "plot." I think it was much more unique and much more forceful, even primal, than that, and supremely, irrevocably effective.

::thorws water ballons at SHAFTR and coffeebeetle annd speaks in thick italian/New York Accent::

"whats da matta wit ya?   Blue Velvet is a mastapiece. "

Vertigo left me cold, but I only saw it once, 20 years ago.  I should give it another chance.  I've seen Chinatown 3 times, and read the script, and even though I like it, I just don't think it's the shit like so many others (in every screenwriting class the script is regarded as the best of the past 40 years).

It is amusing that De Palma's Scarface has become a classic of sorts, as it is basically a B-movie.

cbrad reading this thread
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmakeminemagic.com%2Fimages%2Ffrustration.jpg&hash=48bb41e20bda642f952b6cf875fd5748f4be8293)

raise ur hand if u want me to lock it!

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: Pi propose we change the name of this thread to "Who Hates The Best Movies?"

Oh, yes... I see plenty of people around here with some 'splaining to do. "All Kubrick films" had to have been a joke... had to have. Even notorious Kubrick detractor Pauline Kael loved Lolita!

I have seen Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, Dr Strangelove, Eyes Wide Shut, A Clockwork Orange and parts of 2001.

I'll admit that Kubrick chooses excellent source material and I think his films have more to owe to that than anything else.

Quote from: ©bradcbrad reading this thread
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmakeminemagic.com%2Fimages%2Ffrustration.jpg&hash=48bb41e20bda642f952b6cf875fd5748f4be8293)

raise ur hand if u want me to lock it!

you better be joking.

Quote from: SHAFTRyou better be joking.

or else what?

Godardian,
I'm stretched for time right now to really respond to your last post, but let me address the obvious strain between us. Yea, I do think we look at films differently. I see content and structure very high on my list, instead of execution as first and foremost. It isn't that I omit execution at all; I just see it as something for the benefit of content and structure more so. This difference has definitely been showings its head in some of our last discussions on movies that have led to a stiff disagreeance instead of a mutual one. I can safely say I definitely appreciate your posts, but I'm ever changing and as I attempt to actually get into a good school for film next year (my grades suck, so who knows) it will allow me to get different perspectives on films. Doesn't mean I'm saying my opinion is still amateur, but I can learn a lot with going to film school.

Quote from: ©brad

Quote from: SHAFTRyou better be joking.

or else what?

I taunt you a second time.

Quote from: ©brad

Quote from: SHAFTRyou better be joking.

or else what?

Or else you personally deal with the next thread addressing the locking of this thread in Idle Chatter.

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: ©brad

Quote from: SHAFTRyou better be joking.

or else what?

Or else you personally deal with the next thread addressing the locking of this thread in Idle Chatter.

Seriously though, I see no reason this thread should be locked.

no one is locking anything.

I think this thread is upsetting some people because people are denouncing a lot of accepted films, but hey, its movie discussion. These are the kind of threads most people complain should be here.

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: Pi propose we change the name of this thread to "Who Hates The Best Movies?"

Oh, yes... I see plenty of people around here with some 'splaining to do. "All Kubrick films" had to have been a joke... had to have. Even notorious Kubrick detractor Pauline Kael loved Lolita!

"Everybody pretty much agrees Stanley is the man, and I think that still underrates him." Jack Nicholson

P What about: "Who Hates The Best Movies?: or how GT started to hate and loath classical cinema."

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: Pi propose we change the name of this thread to "Who Hates The Best Movies?"

Oh, yes... I see plenty of people around here with some 'splaining to do. "All Kubrick films" had to have been a joke... had to have. Even notorious Kubrick detractor Pauline Kael loved Lolita!

funny i hated (that may be a little too strong) lolita and liked all the others that i've seen... except 2001... although i do think the first 20 mins of 2001 is some great stuff.

2001
I saw it a long time ago... maybe I just need to give it another chance.

Double Indemnity
Before the flaming begins, let me just say that I love Wilder and I love film noir, but I don't know where Woody Allen was coming from when he said this was the best film ever made.

Lord of the Rings (FOTR & TTT)
These are generally considered classics already, right? I can appreciate the outstanding craftsmanship that went into these movies, they just didn't do anything for me.

Casablanca (i never knew why, why?)
Ben Hur (too Hollywood for me)
E.T. (the movie is nice but nothing more, well for me)
Star Wars (i liked it, but never was a fan)

Quote from: ebeaman

Quote from: classical gasI really didn't enjoy "Vertigo" as much as I thought I would.  It probably was built up so much, having been listed many times as one of the top three American films of all time.  It was definitely good though.  I think a lot of classic films suffer, in my eyes, because I wasn't around when they came out to notice how much of a breakthrough they were.

I've never been able to honestly give a film that benefit of the doubt type respect, where you don't particulary like it but you talk about how great it must have been in its time, how it must have been a big breakthrough...like you were describing...I've never been able to figure that out. To me, if a film is truly classic, its almost essential that it has a sense of timelessness to it....cinema is too young of a medium for the age of a film to be an excuse for a lack of quality. Buster Keaton and The Marx Brothers are as entertaining as can be in our time, and a lot that came out damn near the beginning of cinema in the 20's and 30's....if they're still great than why can't films like All Quiet on the Western Front be? It's too old? No, it just sucks. It's boring. Not because it's old, it's just a bad film. Say what you will about the book, I haven't read it. But it doesn't DESERVE respect because it's old, that's bullshit I think. I understand the significance of early innovations in cinema but I don't agree with liking or dislikng a film based on those innovations, that's not right.

Footnote: If it's younger than Keaton's stuff, this excuse is scrapped for me.

okay, i'm a little late in replying, i forgot about this post.  i in no way dislike movies because they're older.  i enjoy older films more than newer films for the most part.  i own more films prior to the 70's.  
i was just using vertigo as an example where it could be that it's considered so great because it was new and exciting, etc.  it is still a great film, but in no way do i consider it in the top three of american cinema.  sorry if i came off wrong in my post.  i can still find older films exciting and new and fresh, just not this particular film.

Quote from: Pi propose we change the name of this thread to "Who Hates The Best Movies?"

Yea, but then there's those damn things called opinions.

I have a question, were you referring to me in with this....

Quotehating classic movies makes me feel like a real man.

Just in case you were - I only really HATE The Usual Suspects, Aresenic and Old Lace, Dances With Wolves, Last of the Mohicans and Braveheart out of all the ones I listed..the rest just didn't click with me as CLASSICS....just to clarify...I don't even dislike some of them. American Beauty should never be called a bad film. Nor should Chinatown or The Grapes of Wrath or Spartcus or even Titanic, it's not a bad film at all. Then there's stuff like Sling Blade which is a bad film imo but not something that I really hate. I refuse to pretend to like a film just because it's classic, like I said, that's retarded, I'll never ever do that.

It really saddens me to see Citizen Kane getting the kind of treatment it's getting, I gotta say. I can't believe less people have defended CK than the Usual fucking Suspects, that film wants to fuck itself, it's the absolute most SMUG piece of shit I've ever seen, no lie. I hate it so much. I don't care who argues. I'll never get past it's arrogance, it can be seen in EVERY single aspect of the film...writing, directing, acting...EVERYTHING...i never want to see it again. I'm not even normally like this with films I don't like. 90% of the time, I'm more than ready to give a film a second chance or try and look at another way or find the good in it but that's one of those films that's just EVIL in my eyes....like Pay It Forward and Armageddon...stuff that I flat out refuse to even watch for two seconds. It's definitely not healthy and definitely not good for cinema...those are the kind of bad films that aren't harmless like Kangaroo Jack and Good Burger and stuff like that...those are films that should really be banned from the universe.

Quote from: ebeaman

Quote from: Pi propose we change the name of this thread to "Who Hates The Best Movies?"

Yea, but then there's those damn things called opinions.

I have a question, were you referring to me in with this....


Just in case you were - I only really HATE The Usual Suspects, Aresenic and Old Lace, Dances With Wolves, Last of the Mohicans and Braveheart out of all the ones I listed..the rest just didn't click with me as CLASSICS....just to clarify...I don't even dislike some of them. American Beauty should never be called a bad film. Nor should Chinatown or The Grapes of Wrath or Spartcus or even Titanic, it's not a bad film at all. Then there's stuff like Sling Blade which is a bad film imo but not something that I really hate.

It really saddens me to see Citizen Kane getting the kind of treatment it's getting, I gotta say.

But Arsenic and Old Lace is one of the funniest movies ever made. Cary Grant is like a fucking cartoon, how can you not love that?

Quote from: Gamblor the ManwhoreBut Arsenic and Old Lace is one of the funniest movies ever made. Cary Grant is like a fucking cartoon, how can you not love that?

Grant isn't as good as he usually is imo but he's not really part of my gripe...it's those two fucking old ladies that got me, they were absolutely HORRIBLE. WORST actresses ever. Most annoying I mean! Most annoying of all I've ever seen! And therefore, they suck. Their dialogue sucked cock as it was, they didn't even make any attempt to improve upon it.

Quote from: ebeaman

Quote from: Gamblor the ManwhoreBut Arsenic and Old Lace is one of the funniest movies ever made. Cary Grant is like a fucking cartoon, how can you not love that?

Grant isn't as good as he usually is imo but he's not really part of my gripe...it's those two fucking old ladies that got me, they were absolutely HORRIBLE. WORST actresses ever. Most annoying I mean! Most annoying of all I've ever seen! And therefore, they suck.

i love cary grant, but didnt like this movie too much either.  (didnt HATE it, but dont want to rush out to buy it.)  the tone was just a little strange for me, but maybe itll grow on me.

Perhaps I haven't seen enough Grant, but I just loved him in this. I don't even remember the old ladies as being very annoying, I don't remember paying much attention to them. I just loved Cary Grant in this so much, especially when amidst all the craziness, he just sits there and smokes cigarette...fucking awesome.

some of my favorite Grant is probably Bringing Up Baby and The Philadelphia Story.  he's good in His Girl Friday (although i'm not in love with the film), and i like Charade as well as his Hitchcock films, but i'm sure the real MacGuffin can give you a few choice selections to check out better than i can.

Quote from: themodernage02some of my favorite Grant is Bringing Up Baby and The Philadelphia Story.  he's good in His Girl Friday (although i'm not in love with the film), but i'm sure the Real MacGuffin can give you a few choice selections to check out better than i can.

There we go, there is some Cary Grant that I like...Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday...that is the Cary Grant I like to reference and think about. I haven't seen Philadelphia Story yet, I've heard of it of course, just haven't seen it yet.

Quote from: ebeamanI have a question, were you referring to me in with this....

Quotehating classic movies makes me feel like a real man.

no, it was a general comment.

my problem with vertigo is the final jump... i dont know, i know its a very minor thing as compared to the whole but it seemed so... cheap

someone help me out.

Quote from: Pi propose we change the name of this thread to "Who Hates The Best Movies?"

little late, but i agree.  so many wonderful movies are being denounced.  i know everyone has their own opinions but some of what i am reading is very surprising.

The only classic I can think of that I was underimpressed with was Jules et Jim. I much preferred the Last Metro.

Godardian,
For Vertigo, when I read your last responce, I thought there was an obvious difference between us in viewing films, but that I also could really reply to your responce still. Now that I read it again and feel breathing room to respond, I find there is actually quite little for me to respond to. Your responce circles our differences in how we look at movies.

I still would like to elaborate on my side. I don't think I've done that very well yet for Vertigo and even if it me just pointing out the difference again, I want to do it. A lot of my problems with Hitchcock and more so with Vertigo more are the increasing problems I have with Kubrick (just an example) from 2001 on. Hitchcock feels like a formalist with Vertigo. For the definition, as supplied by Rudolf Arnheim, "The formalist emancipates the medium from the content is supposed to serve...Rather than submerging in the content, from steps between the beholder and the theme of the work." I don't believe in this and it leads me into my complaints of the story and not really bringing the effect of the themes it is trying to convey, things also pivotal to the filmmaking of Hitchcock.

My points will go into the weakness of the story as little more than the trivial and yours will go into how the execution of filmmaking transforms the cheap material. Examples will be given and such, but its me disagreeing with you and calling it empty exhibitionism still. Its not that I don't believe in the art of filmmaking. There are many films superficial in story and high in filmmaking I consider some of the very best made, but those films I see more as great just for effect of watching them. I don't believe they reveal very much at all within the film. For that depth to be felt, its in the story for me.

Maybe you knew all these ideas of mine anyways. Maybe you knew most of it, but understood a little more. Whatever the case, I feel I stated my case better. And if MacGuffin wants to discuss why I think the story is trivial and believes something other than Godardian, I'm up for it.

Five Easy Pieces
Short Cuts
most Woody Allen movies

Quote from: SydneyFive Easy Pieces
Short Cuts
most Woody Allen movies

i be speechless