I think I've always had a weak spot for movies that follow their characters for several decades.
off of top of my head, I like cinema paradiso and To Live. And all the truffaut films on antoine doinel.
Adaptation. Or better, 2001.
Either way, I win.
how about....Citizen Kane?
i'm trying to think of films that go from childhood on......right now my left foot.is a great one b/c it focus on the early years as much as later years
GoodFellas
The Godfather
The Last Emperor
boogie nights
Shawshank
Worst: Bicentennial Man.
haha, I remember my then-14 year old sister coming home from the movie. I asked her how it was, she said "20 minutes into the film, all of a sudden I realized what the word 'Bicentannial' meant, and then I started crying."
speaking of another bad robot movie--A.I.
best - A.I., being john malkovich, the red violin, forrest gump, raging bull.
Quote from: MacGuffinThe Last Emperor
Mac wins
...for now. Just wait until I make my 8 hour epic version of David Copperfield.
Quote from: SoNowThenQuote from: MacGuffinThe Last Emperor
...for now. Just wait until I make my 8 hour epic version of David Copperfield.
"The harrowing story of an orphan in the Nineteenth Century who magically teleports to the Twentieth and becomes an illusionist."
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaAdaptation.
huh?
oooh, the whole beginning of life montage... i don't know.... i guess it counts.
I don't think Adaptation counts, but it doesn't make a difference for Ono because he covered his grounds with 2001...
sunshine was pretty good
I guess the Star Wars Saga, if you squint your way through the prequels. Does Doctor Zhivago count? Not exactly decades, but it does seem like quite some time goes by. Indiana Jones' story would count, if you consider the Young Indy series. Once Upon a time in America may be my favorite example, though.
it's a wonderful life
kundun
Forrest Gump, American Splendor
Quote from: CinephileI don't think Adaptation counts, but it doesn't make a difference for Ono because he covered his grounds with 2001...
yeah didn't 2001 have the longest flash-forward in film history?
Little Big Man with Dustin Hoffman and Faye Dunaway is pretty good. I think at the end he is about 130 or so.
the deer hunter -- hands down
how about High Fidelity?
the color purple
Enough of the best have already been mentioned so I'm going to have to mention one of the absolute worst: The English Patient! I hate that movie so fucking much. I think it's the second worst movie I've ever seen next to Pay It Forward. God, that kind of shit should be banned from cinema, I swear.
Quote from: ebeamanEnough of the best have already been mentioned so I'm going to have to mention one of the absolute worst: The English Patient! I hate that movie so fucking much. I think it's the second worst movie I've ever seen next to Pay It Forward.
whats wrong with it? the storytelling is atleast competent, and the acting is good. you may hate it, but i'm sure its not
the worst movie you've ever seen.
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: ebeamanEnough of the best have already been mentioned so I'm going to have to mention one of the absolute worst: The English Patient! I hate that movie so fucking much. I think it's the second worst movie I've ever seen next to Pay It Forward.
whats wrong with it? the storytelling is atleast competent, and the acting is good. i'm sure its not the worst movie you've ever seen.
It's just so tedious and worst of all - self important. Any kind of smugness is the kind of vibe that just gnaws at my fucking brain and makes me want to shoot myself in the head, seriously. That's why I have to call it one of the worst ever. See, I'll never mind a film that doesn't take itself seriously, no matter how bad it is. When a movie thinks it's really good though and it's not, that's when it qualifies as one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is such a potential for it to bother me if it's like that. Like I'll always hate something like The Usual Suspects 500 times more than something like Freddy Got Fingered. Cause see, even though it is almost inarguable that Suspects is better constructed than Freddy in the filmic language and all that shit, Freddy lacks the smugness of Suspects and therefore, in my eyes, it is redeemed. Same thing with English Patient.
Also, on a side note, I just hate movies that are constructed like plays. I guess it happened naturally since Minghella used to be a playwright so it subconciously affects his work as a filmmaker but it still bothers the hell out of me. I look at film as a seperate medium than plays. I fucking hate plays except for musicals which are like a whole different thing. The only trait cinema and theatre share is the visual aspect which is almost canceled out cause plays are so based in literature. And there is an absolute inability to capture anything remotely believable or truthful in theatre as well so there's that on top of it all. The only exception to this rule of mine that I can think of is You Can Count On Me which just won me over with great acting and non of that snappy, unrealistic, Whit Stilmman-like fucking dialogue that makes me suicidal.
i dont think movies can be 'smug'. can they? and if they could, i dont think usual suspects or english patient would be examples. what about the storytelling comes off to you as smug? and how is that movie more self important or tedious than other ones?
Quote from: themodernage02i dont think movies can be 'smug'. can they? and if they could, i dont think usual suspects or english patient would be examples. what about the storytelling comes off to you as smug? and how is that movie more self important or tedious than other ones?
Oh hell yea movies can be smug man. Probably the most prominent thing I could think of that can make a movie smug would be manipulation of the audience....any sense of manipulation in a film is always smug to me. Cause it's like the filmmaker is looking down on the audience and just playing fucking chess. Like in EP, your being introduced to this character with this horrible skin disease and your being made to care for him through nothing else but this disease. It's just bullshit, I see right through it. The actor doesn't even have to act and he's got the Oscar. The filmmaker doesn't even have to work! All that it's all accompanied by is this "beautiful" scenery that Minghella is smart enough to know will bag him that Oscar. He is a very smart filmmaker, I will say that. He knows what he wants and he knows how to get it. I hate him but he does know how to get that Oscar. That kind of style is just so overbearing to me. There is no subtlety there. It's all over-the-top sappy shit combined with empty ("deep") messages. It doesn't affect me, I don't have any use for that kind of stuff. Not every film is like that to me, that's what makes these two films more smug than many. The way they were made.
Talking about Suspects - it's probably an even worse offender of this whole thing than EP cause all of the manipulation in it is leading to this big, blow-you-away (!!!) ending. You can just see the filmmaker smiling wryly at the end when that fucking mug shatters. Well, I definitely can anyway, I'll speak for myself.
I don't know, I could be just wrong on different levels but I doubt I'm the only one that feels this way on the board. But I won't seek agreement to find strength in numbers. I'm not going to back down from anything this time.
American Beauty was a smug movie pretending to be deep and revealing.
Quote from: SoNowThenAmerican Beauty was a smug movie pretending to be deep and revealing.
finally
You agree?!!
Oh man, I've been holding that one in ever since I walked out of the theatre sickened, and everyone else was raving about it.
It doesn't really pass over a long period of time though, so, uh... I should probably not get too tangental...
Quote from: SoNowThenAmerican Beauty was a smug movie pretending to be deep and revealing.
I'm not going to disagree with you there but at the same time, I can't say I didn't like it. Actually, it's more that I can forgive my issues with it if I'm having a really crappy day because I can say to myself, "At least I'm not quite at rock-bottom yet." But in a good mood, I see everything that makes it feel like it's pretending to be a deep movie, like you said.
Getting back to the subject of films that take place over a long period of time, no one's mentioned The House of the Spirits, which I think was a misfire. It would have definitely benefitted from a South American cast. Jeremy Irons, Meryl Streep, Winona Ryder, and Vincent Gallo (!) just didn't sell it for me. The acting was fine but the authenticity just wasn't there. It would be like if Like Water For Chocolate starred Julia Roberts and Michelle Pfeiffer.
Quote from: SoNowThenAmerican Beauty was a smug movie pretending to be deep and revealing.
Ha, oh my god, that's dead on man...."look closer"...lol, give me a break.
Quote from: ebeamanQuote from: themodernage02i dont think movies can be 'smug'. can they? and if they could, i dont think usual suspects or english patient would be examples. what about the storytelling comes off to you as smug? and how is that movie more self important or tedious than other ones?
Oh hell yea movies can be smug man. Probably the most prominent thing I could think of that can make a movie smug would be manipulation of the audience....any sense of manipulation in a film is always smug to me. Cause it's like the filmmaker is looking down on the audience and just playing fucking chess. Like in EP, your being introduced to this character with this horrible skin disease and your being made to care for him through nothing else but this disease. It's just bullshit, I see right through it. The actor doesn't even have to act and he's got the Oscar. The filmmaker doesn't even have to work! All that it's all accompanied by is this "beautiful" scenery that Minghella is smart enough to know will bag him that Oscar. He is a very smart filmmaker, I will say that. He knows what he wants and he knows how to get it. I hate him but he does know how to get that Oscar. That kind of style is just so overbearing to me. There is no subtlety there. It's all over-the-top sappy shit combined with empty ("deep") messages. It doesn't affect me, I don't have any use for that kind of stuff. Not every film is like that to me, that's what makes these two films more smug than many. The way they were made.
Talking about Suspects - it's probably an even worse offender of this whole thing than EP cause all of the manipulation in it is leading to this big, blow-you-away (!!!) ending. You can just see the filmmaker smiling wryly at the end when that fucking mug shatters. Well, I definitely can anyway, I'll speak for myself.
I don't know, I could be just wrong on different levels but I doubt I'm the only one that feels this way on the board. But I won't seek agreement to find strength in numbers. I'm not going to back down from anything this time.
i dont see how usual suspects does anything other than engage the audience for the entire length of the film and deliver a twist ending which does blow you away. (does it not blow you away?) its not like the movie is just waiting around for the end to happen. how is a twist bad? isnt manipulating the audience/playing with their expectations an interesting technique. i dont understand how its cheap. whats wrong with a filmmaker who is playing 'chess' with you. someone who has complete control and will take into account your expectations and subvert them. quentin tarantino does it all the time. you think english patient and usual suspects are more manipulative than say, Philadelphia or Remember the Titans? rallying behind the underdog sports team and 'hey lets feel sorry for this dude with aids cause hes dying'?
Quote from: themodernage02i dont see how usual suspects does anything other than engage the audience for the entire length of the film and deliver a twist ending which does blow you away. (does it not blow you away?)
I certainly didn't expect it but that's not to say it absolutely BLEW ME AWAY, you know what I mean? I mean, it's not that it was bad twist or anything, that's just normally how I react to something like that. Like that kind of feeling doesn't resonate with me. It's just kind of cheap in my eyes. I mean, there's a nice set up to it that I definitely fell for and it is pretty impressive that it's pulled off without any holes or anything but it just doesn't totally do it for me when all is said and done. I'm just kinda like "ha, who would have thought?" when I see a twist like that and then I forget about all of it after a night's sleep, you know? Same thing happened with "The Sixth Sense". That kind of shit just doesn't affect me I guess, I don't know. I guess I'd rather see a film with a more emotional value or something that's really going to have a long lasting affect on me. I guess I can't very well say all the twists are all bad but they just often leave me cold, that's all.
Quoteits not like the movie is just waiting around for the end to happen. how is a twist bad?
In the case of Suspects (and the Sixth Sense for the matter of further exemplification) - the movie becomes all about the ending and nothing else when any sort of twist or other manipulative ploy is applied. It does make the movie seem to rush to that ending, at least to me. Cause it makes it so hard for the audience to denounce a movie that has a slap in the face for an ending, it's a great mechanism for big budget filmmaking. But like I said, it's cheap. It's just lazy filmmaking in my eyes. There's no urgency to it. It's the same idea as a one-joke comedy. Everything points to the support of one single aspect.
Quoteisnt manipulating the audience/playing with their expectations an interesting technique. i dont understand how its cheap. whats wrong with a filmmaker who is playing 'chess' with you.
It just seems to me that the filmmaker doesn't have to do anything in the way of character building in the majority of cases concerning manipulation of the audience, like there's nothing to be explored. Like it becomes all about the plot and the crying scenes. To me, the characters matter the most, above all else, for better or for worse. But when films are made like this, as long as the filmmaker is moving the plot along, all is well, they don't have to do shit other than that. I don't know, it's just pure Robert McKee style filmmaking to me. Formulaic, manipulative, lazy, boring stuff. It makes me gag.
Quotequentin tarantino does it all the time.
I guess it's just the way he does it that I admire, I don't know. There's a passion for cinema in his films and the way he tells his stories out of order is interesting, yet not overdone or gimmicky to me, you know? Like the way it is applied redeems it in a way? I don't know, he's surely not the first to do it but I think he does it well. Cause he certainly does do it, your absolutely right. And I will say that the twist at the end of "Kill Bill" was fucking awesome, I will admit, that is an exception to all that I've said here, lol. I completely flipped for that fucker.
Quoteyou think english patient and usual suspects are more manipulative than say, Philadelphia or Remember the Titans? rallying behind the underdog sports team and 'hey lets feel sorry for this dude with aids cause hes dying'?
You know what, you got me there man. You totally got me there. Your absolutely right. I guess all I can say for "Remember the Titans" is that I've always sort of considered it a gulity pleasure cause I do see it's sappy tendencies and everything but I don't even know how to begin to respond to what you said about "Philadelphia" cause your absolutely right about it. That's a great challenge you have there. I would respond to it if I could. I'm going to have to think about this.
Nice talking to you by the way modernage. I don't normally enjoy debates like I said but this is kinda nice, I gotta say. I admire your respect with this whole thing.
Quote from: ebeamanThat kind of shit just doesn't affect me I guess, I don't know. I guess I'd rather see a film with a more emotional value or something that's really going to have a long lasting affect on me.
you like godard adn thats about as far away from emotion as you can get most of the time. plus you like all kinds of movies so i dont know why usual suspects is some sort of scapegoat for whats wrong with movies. i'm not saying you have to like it, i'm just inquiring as to your reasoning. just so you know, this is not an attack.
Quote from: ebeamanIn the case of Suspects (and the Sixth Sense for the matter of further exemplification) - the movie becomes all about the ending and nothing else. It pretty much rushes to that ending. It makes it so hard for the audience to denounce a movie that has a slap in the face for an ending, it's a great mechanism for big budget filmmaking. But like I said, it's cheap. It's just lazy filmmaking in my eyes. It's the same idea as a one-joke comedy. Everything points to the support of one single aspect.
no, the movie isnt all about the ending, the movie is what happens during the running time. the ending is what happens at the end. the movie isnt like this terrible mess just waiting for that twist ending for it to be worthwhile. its good all the way through, the ending however elevates it to be something else even. but the film works on its own as a mystery without a 'gimmick'. whats lazy about a tightly crafted mystery/crime story?
Quote from: ebeamanFormulaic, manipulative, lazy, boring stuff. It makes me gag. [but] I guess it's just the way [Tarantino] does it that I admire, I don't know.
well your tastes/views on movies seem very erratic to me. like, i'm not really sure why you would like one movie for doing something you despise another one for. but i guess thats why we're having this conversation.
Quote from: ebeamanYou know what, you got me there man. You totally got me there. Your absolutely right. I guess all I can say for "Remember the Titans" is that I've always sort of considered it a gulity pleasure cause I do see it's sappy tendencies and everything but I don't even know how to begin to respond to what you said about "Philadelphia" cause your absolutely right about it. That's a great challenge you have there. I would respond to it if I could. I'm going to have to think about this.
Nice talking to you by the way modernage. I don't normally enjoy debates but this is kinda nice, I gotta say. I admire your respect with this whole thing.
haha, yeah okay. (i was reading and replying through one paragraph at a time, so i didnt get to the end till just now after i'd already made replies to the eariler stuff), but yeah. haha, yeah like i said i'm not trying to attack you, and its really not whether or not you care for a movie i might like that makes me question this stuff, its your reasons why that interest me is all. nice talking to you too ebes. :wink:
I believe City of God spanned over a long time and that was great. Sunshine with Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz spanned a couple hundred years and was really good. Another kind of sappy sentimental movie but was pretty good, Mr. Holland's Opus.
Just to join this whole debate:
I think manipulation of the audience isn't at all lazy film-making, because sometimes that's what the entire film is supposed to do, and it's a hard thing to accomplish without over-doing it or making the audience feel raped. Usual Suspects employed the technique nicely. Look at any mystery, really; there has to be manipulation of some type otherwise it no longer becomes a mystery. Gosfard Park was wonderful murder mystery that also emplyoed audience manipulation to a nice level. And let's not forget almost all of Lynch's films: he is for all practical purposes the master of manipulation. It's just those movies that manipulate me to feel sympathy or hatred that bug me, like the skin-disease thing in EP. I don't like Anthony Minghella in general. But anyway, all I mean to say is I'm fine with manipulation if it's done well.
And what twist in Kill Bill?
the very last line....
Quote from: ewardthe very last line....
Oh yea...forgot about that for a second.