Love At First Sight?

Started by modage, June 19, 2003, 03:36:20 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

modage

June 19, 2003, 03:36:20 PM
okay, with the TOP 25 ever thread looming nearer, i was mentally going over what i would consider being "my favorite movies ever", which brought me to the question Is it possible for something so recent to be one of the best movies that i've ever seen?  
meaning, Punch-Drunk Love, which (with the exception of everybody who got their dvds early), most of us have only seen a few times.  is it possible for initial impact of that to edge out the love of a childhood movie seen 100s of times like Back To The Future or ET?  and if not, it seems like a bulk of my movies are going to be ones i grew up loving because those have stayed with me.  whereas after skimming a lot of the top 5 lists, it seems that a bulk of the favorite films are from the 90s or more recently.  
so the REAL question is, whether it be renting an old classic for the first time, or seeing something in the theatre that blows you away "Is it possible for a movie you've only seen once or twice, to be your favorite movie ever?"  (or should it be?)  or should these be reserved for the films that have stayed with you for years and stood the test of time and you've watched over and over again.  thats my question.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

SoNowThen

#1
June 19, 2003, 03:51:37 PM
This was my first concern, as I don't know where to place All The Real Girls. My attitude for this is that even though I would put it in my top ten, I must watch it at least one more time to be sure. So I will rank it lower than my gut feeling.

It's barely an exact process, but one does the best one can.

I'm thinking the rule should be minimum 2 watchings to call something your Favorite.
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.

Alethia

#2
June 19, 2003, 09:08:17 PM
minimum 5
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions