MC Decade Consensus - 1980s

[Spinal]

Submit your ten favorite eligible films from this decade and in a week I will give you a top twenty.

The point system is as follows

1st Place-10 points
2nd Place- 8 points
3rd Place- 7 points
4th Place- 6 points
5th Place- 5 points
6th Place - 4 points
7th Place - 3.5 points
8th Place - 3 points
9th Place - 2.5 points
10th Place - 2 points

As you can see, the scale is weighted to give your top film a little bonus and to make sure that the difference between a 6th place and a 10th place is not too drastic.

Ten eligible films must be listed. Please make any edits by making a new post and telling me what changes have been made.

PLEASE READ:
In order to be eligible for this vote, a film must have placed in the top 10 for the Yearly Consensus Poll for the year it was released. Honorable mention films are not eligible. Since you only have ten slots to fill, I want you to focus on films that have a realistic chance of making the final list, so that we may achieve the most accurate results possible. My goal is to increase the influence of your vote. Please feel free to post an additional list that reflects your "true" top films of the decade. However, only lists with ten eligible films will be counted towards the final poll.

In order to add some suspense to the final results, you may (if you choose) PM your ballot to Raiders instead of posting it in the thread below. Either method of voting will be acceptable. (But please do not do both.) "Secret" ballots will be revealed after the final poll is posted.

You may begin now.

Eligible films
A Christmas Story (Clark)
A Fish Called Wanda (Crichton)
A Zed and Two Noughts (Greenaway)
After Hours (Scorsese)
Airplane! (Abrahams/Zucker/Zucker)
Akira (Ôtomo)
Aliens (Cameron)
Amadeus (Forman)
An American Werewolf in London (Landis)
Au revoir les enfants (Malle)
Back to the Future (Zemeckis)
Blade Runner (R. Scott)
Blood Simple (Coen)
Blow Out (De Palma)
Blue Velvet (Lynch)
Brazil (Gilliam)
Castle in the Sky (Miyazaki)
Cinema Paradiso (Tornatore)
Come and See (Klimov)
Crimes and Misdemeanors (Allen)
Das Boot (Petersen)
Dead Ringers (Cronenberg)
Dekalog (Kieslowski)
Die Hard (McTiernan)
Diva (Beineix)
Do the Right Thing (Lee)
Down by Law (Jarmusch)
Dressed to Kill (De Palma)
E.T. (Spielberg)
Empire of the Sun (Spielberg)
Escape from New York (Carpenter)
Evil Dead II (Raimi)
Fanny and Alexander (Bergman)
Field of Dreams (Robinson)
Fitzcarraldo (Herzog)
Full Metal Jacket (Kubrick)
Gallipoli (Weir)
Ghostbusters (Reitman)
Glory (Zwick)
Grave of the Fireflies (Takahata)
Hannah and Her Sisters (Allen)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Spielberg)
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (Spielberg)
Kagemusha (Kurosawa)
Koyaanisqatsi (Reggio)
L’Argent (Bresson)
Mona Lisa (Jordan)
My Neighbor Totoro (Miyazaki)
Nausicaä of the Valley of the Winds (Miyazaki)
Nostalghia (Tarkovsky)
Once Upon a Time in America (Leone)
Paris, Texas (Wenders)
Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure (Burton)
Planes, Trains and Automobiles (Hughes)
Platoon (Stone)
Poltergeist (Hooper)
Raging Bull (Scorsese)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg)
Raising Arizona (Coen)
Ran (Kurosawa)
Repo Man (Cox)
Return of the Jedi (Marquand)
Risky Business (Brickman)
Roger & Me (Moore)
Sans soleil (Marker)
Santa Sangre (Jodorowsky)
Sherman's March (McElwee)
Stardust Memories (Allen)
Stranger than Paradise (Jarmusch)
Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (Haynes)
Tampopo (Itami)
The Atomic Café (Loader/Rafferty/Rafferty)
The Big Red One (Fuller)
The Blues Brothers (Landis)
The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover (Greenaway)
The Elephant Man (Lynch)
The Empire Strikes Back (Kershner)
The Evil Dead (Raimi)
The Fly (Cronenberg)
The King of Comedy (Scorsese)
The Last Temptation of Christ (Scorsese)
The Man Who Planted Trees (Back)
The Meaning of Life (Jones/Gilliam)
The NeverEnding Story (Petersen)
The Purple Rose of Cairo (Allen)
The Right Stuff (Kaufman)
The Road Warrior (Miller)
The Sacrifice (Tarkovsky)
The Seventh Continent (Haneke)
The Shining (Kubrick)
The Thin Blue Line (Morris)
The Thing (Carpenter)
The Vanishing (Sluizer)
This is Spinal Tap (Reiner)
Time Bandits (Gilliam)
Vagabond (Varda)
Veronika Voss (Fassbinder)
Videodrome (Cronenberg)
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Zemeckis)
Wings of Desire (Wenders)
Withnail & I (Robinson)
Zelig (Allen)

[Spinal]

OK, Raiders, I am handing it over to you.

If you opt to PM your ballot for this one, send it to Raiders. Not me.

[Grouchy]

1. Raging Bull
2. Ran
3. Blue Velvet
4. Brazil
5. Paris, Texas
6. Once Upon a Time in America
7. Dead Ringers
8. Hanna and Her Sisters
9. Full Metal Jacket
10. Blade Runner

[Spinal]

1. Raging Bull
2. Ran
3. Blue Velvet
4. Brazil
5. Paris, Texas

Ten!

[Raiders]

Thanks for leaving the open spots 6-10 Grouchy... I'll take that to mean I can fill them in with my own choices.

And Spinal, I just PM'd you my ballot. Please confirm you received it. Thanks.

[Grouchy]

Hahah chill out fellas! I just erased 6-10 momentarily because I forgot to check the movies on the Master List. There are ten now.

[Spinal]

1. Amadeus
2. The Vanishing
3. A Zed and Two Noughts
4. This is Spinal Tap
5. The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover
6. Raising Arizona
7. Ran
8. The Elephant Man
9. Brazil
10. Blue Velvet

Possibly my favorite decade top 10. Just stacked.

Apologies to The Atomic Cafe, Poltergeist, The NeverEnding Story, The Last Temptation of Christ and Santa sangre.

[Adam]

1. Brazil
2. Down by Law
3. Stardust Memories
4. Do the Right Thing
5. Wings of Desire
6. Raising Arizona
7. Blow Out
8. Mona Lisa
9. The Vanishing
0. Sherman's March

best movie decade

[Spinal]

And Spinal, I just PM'd you my ballot. Please confirm you received it. Thanks.

Confirmed. I just PM'd you a deadpan smilie. Please confirm.

[Bosco B Thug]

1. Dekalog (a bit unfair to the other films, it's like 10 masterworks packed into 1!)
2. Full Metal Jacket
3. A Zed and Two Noughts
4. Brazil
5. The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover
6. Do the Right Thing
7. Blow Out
8. Empire of the Sun
9. Sans soleil
10. Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure

[Stay Puft]

I've got a few films I'd like to watch, probably won't get to all of them, but I'll hold off on posting a list for now. I haven't seen any of the eligible Greenaway films, for example, but based on what I have seen, I love Greenaway, so that would almost definitely shake up my list quite a bit.

[Yxklyx]

Hmm, did Dangerous Liasions accidentally get left off this list? Just checking...

[Eleven]

1. Brazil
2. The Fly
3. Tampopo
4. Do the Right Thing
5. Sans soleil
6. Blade Runner
7. Ran
8. Sherman's March
9. Ghostbusters
10. My Neighbor Totoro

HMs: Airplane!, Evil Dead II, The Shining, This is Spinal Tap, Wings of Desire.

Ineligible: Melvin and Howard, Stop Making Sense, Chan is Missing, The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On, 28 Up.

[Grouchy]

I actually think my #7 spot could be equally filled by Videodrome, The Fly or Dead Ringers. Cronenberg rocks the '80s.

[Spinal]

Hmm, did Dangerous Liasions accidentally get left off this list? Just checking...

Nope. Not eligible.

[Yxklyx]

1. Blue Velvet (David Lynch)
2. Blood Simple (Joel Coen & Ethan Coen)
3. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg)
4. The Shining (Stanley Kubrick) 10
5. Brazil (Terry Gilliam)
6. The Last Temptation of Christ (Martin Scorsese)
7. Ran (Akira Kurosawa)
8. Blade Runner (Ridley Scott)
9. The Empire Strikes Back (Irvin Kershner)
10. A Zed and Two Noughts (Peter Greenaway)

[Raiders]

1. Sans Soleil (Chris Marker, 1983)
2. Blow Out (Brian De Palma, 1981)
3. The Man Who Planted Trees (Frederic Back, 1987)
4. Dead Ringers (David Cronenberg, 1988)
5. Sherman's March (Ross McElwee, 1986)
6. My Neighbor Totoro (Hayao Miyazaki, 1988)
7. Empire of the Sun (Steven Spielberg, 1987)
8. The Purple Rose of Cairo (Woody Allen, 1985)
9. The Big Red One (Sam Fuller, 1980)
10. The Thing (John Carpenter, 1982)

HM: Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story, Come and See, Santa sangre, L'Argent, The Last Temptation of Christ

Notably ineligible: Something Wild, Distant Voices, Still Lives, White Dog, The Green Ray, Speaking Parts, Ms. 45, Southern Comfort, Housekeeping

[Eleven]

I actually think my #7 spot could be equally filled by Videodrome, The Fly or Dead Ringers. Cronenberg rocks the '80s.

Yeah, I'm afraid vote-splitting is going to be an issue. But if we summed the films' scores to rank directors, I'm sure he'd be up there with Spielberg, Wenders, Scorsese, Miyazaki, and Allen.

[Duncan]

1. Nostalghia (Tarkovsky)
2. Blue Velvet (Lynch)
3. Sans soleil (Marker)
4. Stranger than Paradise (Jarmusch)
5. Paris, Texas (Wenders)
6. Blade Runner (R. Scott)
7. Crimes and Misdemeanors (Allen)
8. Full Metal Jacket (Kubrick)
9. Fitzcarraldo (Herzog)
10. The Fly (Cronenberg)

A lot of pretty bad films on that master list, but my 6-10 slots could be replaced twice over with films I'd think deserving. Very strong top 20 films or so.

[Derek]

1. Dekalog (Kieslowski)
2. Once Upon a Time in America (Leone)
3. L’Argent (Bresson)
4. Nostalghia (Tarkovsky)
5. Raising Arizona (Coen)
6. Blue Velvet (Lynch)
7. The Road Warrior (Miller)
8. Do the Right Thing (Lee)
9. Blade Runner (R. Scott)
10. Airplane! (Abrahams/Zucker/Zucker)

[StanleyK]

1. My Neighbor Totoro (Hayao Miyazaki)
2. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg)
3. The Shining (Stanley Kubrick)
4. Koyaanisqatsi (Godfrey Reggio)
5. The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (Peter Greenaway)
6. Nostalghia (Andrei Tarkovsky)
7. Once Upon a Time in America (Sergio Leone)
8. Ran (Akira Kurosawa)
9. Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee)
10. The Empire Strikes Back (Irvin Kershner)

Most of the bottom 5 could probably stand to move higher or fall off.

Missed: Blood Simple (Ethan Coen, Joel Coen), Blue Velvet (David Lynch), E.T. (Steven Spielberg), Kiki's Delivery Service (Hayao Miyazaki), Raising Arizona (Ethan Coen, Joel Coen), Sans Soleil (Chris Marker), Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Robert Zemeckis)

[Mysterious Dude]

1. The Elephant Man
2. The Man Who Planted Trees
3. Come and See
4. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
5. The Sacrifice
6. Fanny and Alexander
7. Zelig
8. Paris, Texas
9. The Last Temptation of Christ
10. Akira

I'm kinda surprised The Terminator is not eligible.

[Russ]

1. The Man Who Planted Trees (Back)
2. Gallipoli (Weir)
3. Santa Sangre (Jodorowsky)
4. The Thin Blue Line (Morris)
5. Paris, Texas (Wenders)
6. Raging Bull (Scorsese)
7. Blade Runner (R. Scott)
8. Raising Arizona (Coen)
9. Blue Velvet (Lynch)
10. Do the Right Thing (Lee)

[Spinal]

6. Raging Bull (Scorsese)
7. Blade Runner (R. Scott)
6. Raising Arizona (Coen)
7. Blue Velvet (Lynch)


Uh ...

[Russ]

Uh ...

OOPS...in a hurry. :)

[Lazlo]

1. Raiders of the Lost Ark
2. The Empire Strikes Back
3. Amadeus
4. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
5. Return of the Jedi
6. The Shining
7. Sherman's March
8. Fitzcarraldo
9. Aliens
10. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

[Ezee E]

1. The Shining
2. Aliens
3. Amadeus
4. The Fly
5. Raging Bull
6. Once Upon A Time In America
7. The Thing
8. Do The Right Thing
9. The Empire Strikes Back
10. Ghostbusters

[origami_mustache]

1. Ran (Kurosawa)
2. The Sacrifice (Tarkovsky)
3. Nostalghia (Tarkovsky)
4. Dekalog (Kieslowski)
5. Fitzcarraldo (Herzog)
6. Koyaanisqatsi (Reggio)
7. Do the Right Thing (Lee)
8. Fanny and Alexander (Bergman)
9. Wings of Desire (Wenders)
10. Stranger than Paradise (Jarmusch)

[Killed_by_Smalls]

01. Amadeus
02. Raiders of the Lost Ark
03. Ran
04. The Thing
05. Aliens
06. The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover
07. Dekalog
08. Videodrome
09. Do the Right Thing
10. Fitzcarraldo

[kopello]

1. Once Upon a Time in America (Leone)
2. Fanny and Alexander (Bergman)
3. The Shining (Kubrick)
4. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg)
5. Brazil (Gilliam)
6. Hannah and Her Sisters (Allen)
7. Back to the Future (Zemeckis)
8. Wings of Desire (Wenders)
9. Blade Runner (R. Scott)
10. Amadeus (Forman)

I only have the last two episodes of The Decalogue left, I'll come back and edit them in if I finish it before next week.

[Weeping_Guitar]

01. The Empire Strikes Back
02. E.T.
03. Raiders of the Lost Ark
04. Field of Dreams
05. Stardust Memories
06. Wings of Desire
07. Return of the Jedi
08. Fanny and Alexander
09. Zelig
10. Dekalog

[endingcredits]

1. Nostalghia
2. Blue Velvet
3. Fanny And Alexander
4. Fitzcarraldo
5. The Sacrifice
6. L' Argent
7. Dead Ringers
8. Raging Bull
9. Once Upon A Time in America
10. A Zed and Two Noughts

[B-side]

1. Once Upon a Time in America (Leone)
2. Nostalghia (Tarkovsky)
3. Santa Sangre (Jodorowsky)
4. Dead Ringers (Cronenberg)
5. Fanny and Alexander (Bergman)
6. Fitzcarraldo (Herzog)
7. Hannah and Her Sisters (Allen)
8. Veronika Voss (Fassbinder)
9. Blade Runner (R. Scott)
10. Come and See (Klimov)

My best list so far, and the most difficult to order.

[EyesWideOpen]

The 80's are a weird decade for me because I have almost no nostalgia for most of the popular films of that time even though that was my childhood and when I watch them now I'm always baffled by how anyone could think films like Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, or A Christmas Story are some of the best films of an entire decade.

[EyesWideOpen]

1. My Neighbor Totoro
2. Do the Right Thing
3. The Last Temptation of Christ
4. The Shining
5. Blue Velvet
6. Grave of the Fireflies
7. Amadeus
8. The Elephant Man
9. Raging Bull
10. The Purple Rose of Cairo

[Boner M]

1. Paris, Texas (Wenders)
2. The Vanishing (Sluizer)
3. Sans soleil (Marker)
4. Stranger than Paradise (Jarmusch)
5. Do the Right Thing (Lee)
6. Once Upon a Time in America (Leone)
7. After Hours (Scorsese)
8. The Thing (Carpenter)
9. Dead Ringers (Cronenberg)
10. Nostalghia (Tarkovsky)

Bubblin' under: Airplane, The Shining, Withnail & I, This is Spinal Tap, L'argent

Full list'd've: Love Streams (Cassavetes), A nos amours (Pialat), Mauvais sang (Carax), Ms. 45 (Ferrara)

[Melville]

1. Blue Velvet (Lynch)
2. Fanny and Alexander (Bergman)
3. Dead Ringers (Cronenberg)
4. Fitzcarraldo (Herzog)
5. Stardust Memories (Allen)
6. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg)
7. Koyaanisqatsi (Reggio)
8. Hannah and Her Sisters (Allen)
9. Blade Runner (R. Scott)
10. A Zed and Two Noughts (Greenaway)

HMs: Raging Bull (Scorsese), The Man Who Planted Trees (Back)

My true list would have Possession at number 1.

[Spinal]

I think the only films on my list that I actually watched in the 80s are Amadeus and Raising Arizona. Maybe Spinal Tap too. Not sure.

[Boner M]

I think the only films on my list that I actually watched in the 80s are Amadeus and Raising Arizona. Maybe Spinal Tap too. Not sure.
The only film I watched on my list before the 00's was The Thing

[B-side]

1. Blue Velvet (Lynch)
2. Fanny and Alexander (Bergman)
3. Dead Ringers (Cronenberg)
4. Fitzcarraldo (Herzog)
5. Stardust Memories (Allen)
6. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg)
7. Koyaanisqatsi (Reggio)
8. Hannah and Her Sisters (Allen)
9. Blade Runner (R. Scott)
10. A Zed and Two Noughts (Greenaway)

HMs: Raging Bull (Scorsese), The Man Who Planted Trees (Back)

My true list would have Possession at number 1.

Color me surprised to not see Nostalghia on your list.

[baby doll]

Eligible:

1. Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989)
2. Paris, Texas (Wim Wenders, 1984)
3. A Zed and Two Noughts (Peter Greenaway, 1985)
4. Sans soleil (Chris Marker, 1983)
5. The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)
6. The Sacrifice (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1986)
7. Stranger Than Paradise (Jim Jarmusch, 1984)
8. Veronika Voss (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1982)
9. Videodrome (David Cronenberg, 1983)
10. After Hours (Martin Scorsese, 1985)

Ineligible:

La Bande des quatre (Jacques Rivette, 1988)
Boy Meets Girl (Leos Carax, 1984)
Distant Voices, Still Lives (Terence Davies, 1988)
Horse Thief (Tian Zhuangzhuang, 1986)
Modern Romance (Albert Brooks, 1981)
Passion (Jean-Luc Godard, 1982)
Shoah (Claude Lanzmann, 1985)
The State of Things (Wim Wenders, 1982)
Sweetie (Jane Campion, 1989)
Taipei Story (Edward Yang, 1985)

[Chac Mool]

01. Once Upon a Time in America (Leone)
02. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg)
03. Raging Bull (Scorsese)
04. Do the Right Thing (Lee)
05. Das Boot (Petersen)
06. The Elephant Man (Lynch)
07. Cinema Paradiso (Tornatore)
08. Platoon (Stone)
09. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Spielberg)
10. The Man Who Planted Trees (Back)

"America" is a no-brainer: Leone's film is majestic, intimate, beautiful, repellent, and all-around masterful. "Raiders" is, scene for scene, the most entertaining film I've ever seen (though it's hard to go wrong with Nazis, the supernatural, and monkeys!). "Raging Bull" is flawless, and certainly in my top 2-3 Scorsese. The only reason it's not higher is because the other two movies hit closer to the heart. "Do The Right Thing" is a rare mix of incendiary and intelligent. Spike Lee has been trying to replicate that particularly mixture since, but has never been able to repeat it. "Das Boot" is the ultimate submarine movie. I can still hear the rivets popping and the hull buckling. "The Elephant Man" will reduce most men to tears. "Cinema Paradiso" is that rare mix of genuine sentimentality that we see so little of nowadays. "Platoon" is Willem Dafoe set to Samuel Barber's Adagio. "Last Crusade" is a little bit of a guilty pleasure pick -- it's not as good as "Raiders", but I really do like it just as much. "The Man Who Planted Trees" is should be required viewing for the entire human race.

Sorry I couldn't include: "Down By Law", with its pitch-perfect grunginess, and "Blade Runner".

[Melville]

Color me surprised to not see Nostalghia on your list.
It contains two of my favorite scenes in any movies (the rant on the statue—a stunningly beautiful, densely ironic portrayal of spiritual failure and alienation and a desperate, pathetic, sublime attempt to overcome it—and the candle-carrying ending—a profound portrait of transcendence in faith and striving through the simple and absurd), but the movie as a whole didn't congeal into anything significant for me. I should probably watch it again.

[B-side]

It contains two of my favorite scenes in any movies (the rant on the statue—a stunningly beautiful, densely ironic portrayal of spiritual failure and alienation and a desperate, pathetic, sublime attempt to overcome it—and the candle-carrying ending—a profound portrait of transcendence in faith and striving through the simple and absurd), but the movie as a whole didn't congeal into anything significant for me. I should probably watch it again.

Mm, yes. I think a rewatch is in order for the both of us. I'll bring the popcorn with the hole conveniently cut in the bottom.

[Mr. Pink]

Shit.

[Grouchy]

Shit.
Same thing I bought last week.

[baby doll]

Just for fun, my top tens by year...

1989:
1. Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee)
2. The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (Peter Greenaway)
3. Monsieur Hire (Patrice Leconte)
4. Sweetie (Jane Campion)
5. The Seventh Continent (Michael Haneke)
6. Kiki's Delivery Service (Hayao Miyazaki)
7. City of Sadness (Hou Hsiao-hsien)
8. Mystery Train (Jim Jarmusch)
9. The Unbelievable Truth (Hal Hartley)
10. sex, lies & videotape (Steven Soderbergh)

1988:
1. Distant Voices, Still Lives (Terence Davies)
2. La Bande des quatre (Jacques Rivette)
3. Chocolat (Claire Denis)
4. Damnation (Béla Tarr)
5. Decalogue: Four (Krzyzstof Kieslowski)
6. Virile Games (Jan Å*vankmajer)
7. Track 29 (Nicolas Roeg)
8. My Neighbor Totoro (Hayao Miyazaki)
9. Ariel (Aki Kaurismäki)
10. Landscape in the Mist (Theo Angelopoulos)

1987:
1. Wings of Desire (Wim Wenders)
2. Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (Todd Haynes)
3. Full Metal Jacket (Stanley Kubrick)
4. The Belly of an Architect (Peter Greenaway)
5. House of Games (David Mamet)
6. King Lear (Jean-Luc Godard)
7. Family Viewing (Atom Egoyan)
8. The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On (Kazuo Hara)

1986:
1. The Sacrifice (Andrei Tarkovsky)
2. Horse Thief (Tian Zhuangzhuang)
3. Soft and Hard (Jean-Luc Godard and Anne-Marie Miéville) [video]
4. Blue Velvet (David Lynch)
5. The Terrorizers (Edward Yang)
6. Mauvais sang (Leos Carax)
7. Down by Law (Jim Jarmusch)
8. Hannah and Her Sisters (Woody Allen)
9. Caravaggio (Derek Jarman)
10. Shadows in Paradise (Aki Kaurismäki)

1985:
1. A Zed and Two Noughts (Peter Greenaway)
2. Shoah (Claude Lanzmann)
3. Je vous salue, Marie (Jean-Luc Godard)
4. After Hours (Martin Scorsese)
5. Tampopo (Juzo Itami)
6. Sans toi ni loi (Agnès Varda)
7. Taipei Story (Edward Yang)
8. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters (Paul Schrader)
9. Shut the Fuck Up (A.A. Bronson / Felix Partz / Jorge Zontal) [video]
10. Détective (Jean-Luc Godard)

1984:
1. Paris, Texas (Wim Wenders)
2. Stranger Than Paradise (Jim Jarmusch)
3. Next of Kin (Atom Egoyan)
4. Boy Meets Girl (Leos Carax)
5. Blood Simple (Ethan and Joel Coen)
6. Repo Man (Alex Cox)
7. Broadway Danny Rose (Woody Allen)
8. This Is Spinal Tap (Rob Reiner)
9. Dune (David Lynch)
10. Les Nuits de la pleine lune (Eric Rohmer)

1983:
1. Sans soleil (Chris Marker)
2. Videodrome (David Cronenberg)
3. L'Argent (Robert Bresson)
4. The 4th Man (Paul Verhoeven)
5. Nostalghia (Andrei Tarkovsky)

1982:
1. The Draughtsman's Contract (Peter Greenaway)
2. Passion (Jean-Luc Godard)
3. Veronika Voss (Rainer Werner Fassbinder)
4. The State of Things (Wim Wenders)
5. Querelle (Rainer Werner Fassbinder)
6. Blade Runner (Ridley Scott)
7. Pink Floyd—The Wall (Alan Parker)

1981:
1. Modern Romance (Albert Brooks)
2. Blind Chance (Krzyzstof Kieslowski)
3. Diva (Jean-Jacques Beineix)
4. Lola (Rainer Werner Fassbinder)
5. Ancient of Days (Bill Viola) [video]
6. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg)

1980:
1. The Shining (Stanley Kubrick)
2. The Falls (Peter Greenaway)
3. Mon oncle d'Amerique (Alain Resnais)
4. Loulou (Maurice Pialat)
5. Stardust Memories (Woody Allen)
6. Popeye (Robert Altman)
7. Bad Timing: A Sensual Obsession (Nicolas Roeg)
8. Radio On (Christopher Petit)
9. Dressed to Kill (Brian De Palma)
10. Kagemusha (Akira Kurosawa)

[baby doll]

"America" is a no-brainer: Leone's film is majestic, intimate, beautiful, repellent, and all-around masterful.Yeah, I saw this film a couple years ago, and I gotta say, ambition is not the same as achievement. Just to cite one obvious problem with the film, having different actors play the same people at different ages almost never works, and here it's particularly glaring when the hero goes into prison a young kid and comes out a few years later as Robert De Niro. There's a reason why plays and films generally have a more concentrated time frame than novels.

Also, you mention "repellent," and even speaking as a straight guy, I found that the sexism in the film was a real turn off. To be sure, character was never Leone's strong suit (aside from De Niro and Woods, the other members of the gang seem virtually interchangeable), but here, where going around with whores is part and parcel of the gangster lifestyle as the film depicts it, Leone's misogyny is so much more pervasive than in his westerns, where he typically just neglects women altogether. And some scenes are just stupid, like when De Niro rapes the girl in his car and the driver does nothing, but then afterward when it's too late to do anything, when De Niro offers him a tip, he takes a big moral stand by not accepting it. Couldn't he have pulled over and tried to help her?

As some one said to be about Inception, I think it's one of those movies that's too big for the filmmaker.

[Yum-Yum]

1. Repo Man
2. Blue Velvet
3. Videodrome
4. Blade Runner
5. The Thing
6. Santa Sangre
7. Raising Arizona
8. After Hours
9. Risky Business
10. Dressed to Kill

[Chac Mool]

Yeah, I saw this film a couple years ago, and I gotta say, ambition is not the same as achievement. Just to cite one obvious problem with the film, having different actors play the same people at different ages almost never works, and here it's particularly glaring when the hero goes into prison a young kid and comes out a few years later as Robert De Niro. There's a reason why plays and films generally have a more concentrated time frame than novels.

Didn't bother me in the least (though I do agree that switching actors often backfires).


Also, you mention "repellent," and even speaking as a straight guy, I found that the sexism in the film was a real turn off. To be sure, character was never Leone's strong suit (aside from De Niro and Woods, the other members of the gang seem virtually interchangeable), but here, where going around with whores is part and parcel of the gangster lifestyle as the film depicts it, Leone's misogyny is so much more pervasive than in his westerns, where he typically just neglects women altogether. And some scenes are just stupid, like when De Niro rapes the girl in his car and the driver does nothing, but then afterward when it's too late to do anything, when De Niro offers him a tip, he takes a big moral stand by not accepting it. Couldn't he have pulled over and tried to help her?

Not sure what being a straight guy has to do with finding sexism a turn-off... But sure, I agree, with the important caveat that I think it's intentional.

It's precisely what you said: that the sexism and misogyny is part and parcel of their lifestyle. These are not, for the most part, good people. They're gangsters. They do have redeeming and likeable traits, but the film doesn't shy away from their dark side.

As for the (in)famous car scene, I think that'e exactly the point. It's a sign of the times and of the driver's character that he takes his stand after having conveniently failed to stop the act.

[Spinal]

Why is switching actors a problem? Are you really unable to make that leap?

[baby doll]

Didn't bother me in the least (though I do agree that switching actors often backfires).Personally, I thought it was a little distracting, even though part of the reason for the flashback structure is obviously to set-up viewers for having the kid turn into a 40ish De Niro overnight. Maybe it would be less distracting for me if De Niro and Woods weren't so obviously not in their twenties. Also, it's a little unfortunate that Jennifer Connelly winds up upstaging the actor playing her character as an adult.


Not sure what being a straight guy has to do with finding sexism a turn-off...Well, like I said in the '90s thread, the film industry is set up to cater to men, and Leone makes movies for and about the boys. And when you do bring up how incredibly sexist certain movies are, especially canonical ones, the response is often that you're being too sensitive. But personally, it just bugged me.


But sure, I agree, with the important caveat that I think it's intentional.

It's precisely what you said: that the sexism and misogyny is part and parcel of their lifestyle. These are not, for the most part, good people. They're gangsters. They do have redeeming and likeable traits, but the film doesn't shy away from their dark side.It's not so much that the guys are sexists, but Leone portrays all the women in the film as idealized virgins or whores. It's one thing to say of The Godfather, for instance, that Don Corleone's racism is part of his character and the film doesn't endorse it, but then, it's not like there are any black people in that film. In a sense, you could say there are no women in this film either.


As for the (in)famous car scene, I think that'e exactly the point. It's a sign of the times and of the driver's character that he takes his stand after having conveniently failed to stop the act.I'm not very familiar with what things were like in '30s, since I wasn't alive then, but it seemed like a lapse in the film's logic. Probably a more likely explanation is that knowing the guy's a gangster, the driver was reluctant to get involved in case De Niro became violent with him. But if Leone wanted to show that he was (a) a hypocrite, or (b) a coward, he could've prepared the audience for his refusal of the money, and more firmly guided our interpretation of it, by simply cutting to a reaction shot of the driver while the rape was occurring.

[baby doll]

Why is switching actors a problem? Are you really unable to make that leap?Eventually I got over it, but I thought it was handled somewhat awkwardly, in part because of you have two sets of actors who look nothing alike, and none of these guys look like they're in their twenties (which is how old they're supposed to be when De Niro gets out of jail).

[baby doll]

Now I'm wondering which quote of mine Spinal will use when the film inevitably makes the final list.

[Spinal]

Now I'm wondering which quote of mine Spinal will use when the film inevitably makes the final list.

Heh. That's up to Raiders this time (if he in fact decides to stick to the same format), but I do appreciate the quotableness.

[Dillard]

1. Nostalghia (Tarkovsky)
2. Paris, Texas (Wenders)
3. Dekalog (Kieslowski)
4. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg)
5. My Neighbor Totoro (Miyazaki)
6. The Man Who Planted Trees (Back)
7. Back to the Future (Zemeckis)
8. Stranger than Paradise (Jarmusch)
9. Blue Velvet (Lynch)
10. The King of Comedy (Scorsese)

[MadMan]

Goddamnit people, watch The Long Good Friday if you haven't. Its probably the best British gangster movie ever made, and its my official #2 of the decade. I will excuse this slight because Repo Man, even though it doesn't crack my Top 10 for the decade, got votes.

1. Blade Runner(1982)
2. Raging Bull(1980)
3. Do the Right Thing(1989)
4. The Thing(1982)
5. Raiders of the Lost Ark(1981)
6. Crimes and Misdemeanors(1989)
7. Die Hard(1988)
8. A Christmas Story(1983)
9. Who Framed Roger Rabbit(1988)
10. Airplane! (1980)

This list probably contridicts some of my previous list, and there were a lot of movies I had to leave off. I could easily do a good Top 20 for this decade, and I feel that such a list would be more interesting than one I would do for the 2000s or the 90s.

[Spinal]

I think that The Long Good Friday was made in 1980. That's what Criticker and IMDB.com said, last time I checked...

Not eligible. Read the first post.

[Milky Joe]

1. Blue Velvet (Lynch)
2. Empire of the Sun (Spielberg)
3. The Elephant Man (Lynch)
4. The Thin Blue Line (Morris)
5. Do the Right Thing (Lee)
6. Full Metal Jacket (Kubrick)
7. Down by Law (Jarmusch)
8. Stardust Memories (Allen)
9. Airplane! (Abrahams/Zucker/Zucker)
10. Die Hard (McTiernan)

[jamaul]

Hello everyone. It's been a while, but I wanted to participate. :lol:

1. The Last Temptation of Christ
2. Blade Runner
3. Sans Soliel
4. The Shining
5. Do the Right Thing
6. Blue Velvet
7. Dead Ringers
8. Wings of Desire
9. Brazil
10. Ran

I'm uncomfortable putting Dekalog on this list without Berlin Alexanderplatz (which would very likely be close to the top) to accompany it, and probably for no better reason than that they're both episodic and made for TV. As far as world cinema in the 80s goes, for me, they seem to go hand-in-hand for 'Best of the Decade' status. Then again, I haven't watched Dekalog in ages, so I'm not sure where it would stand now. Films of its kind are so unwieldy in their length, and therefore very hard to measure against shorter, more conventional-length titles.

As much as I love my #1 pick (which I'll admit is something of a sentimental favorite), it's amazing to me how much more I love my favorite film of the 90s (The Thin Red Line) and my two favorites of the 00s (Mulholland Drive, There Will Be Blood), more. I don't know what that says about the 80s ... there were great films, but the 90s and the 00s stomped the 80s, far as I'm concerned. And if we were only referring to the 1982 version of Blade Runner, there's no way it would be #2 on my list. No version of the film strikes be as perfect, but taken as a whole, it remains one of the most fascinatingly imperfect, work-in-progress films I've ever seen.

Worthy of note: I think if I made this list a few years ago, Once Upon a Time in America would have been very close to the top of my list. At this point though, it's very hard for me to ignore its many flaws. There are times during the film where it's uncertain if everyone involved is aware they're making the same movie--tonally, it's all over the place. In some sections, it aims for prestige as an encompassment of the early-twentieth century American experience (a Godfather-on-peyote, if you will), and comes off slightly portentous and confused. In other places, it's crass, over-the-top, melodramatic, and ruins an otherwise visually breathtaking experience. Its celebrated score, which I loved once upon a time, is often mawkish, and at times repetitive. Finally, the theory made by its many supporters suggesting the film is merely the stream-of-consciousness pipe-dream of its protagonist is kind of a cop-out at best, and even so, doesn't make the overall film work any better. For me.

[Grouchy]

Personally, I thought it was a little distracting, even though part of the reason for the flashback structure is obviously to set-up viewers for having the kid turn into a 40ish De Niro overnight. Maybe it would be less distracting for me if De Niro and Woods weren't so obviously not in their twenties. Also, it's a little unfortunate that Jennifer Connelly winds up upstaging the actor playing her character as an adult.
Nah, it's perfectly clear. The child actors chosen suit the adult personas of De Niro and Woods - I don't think anyone ever doubted which is which. It's called movie language. I somewhat agree with you about Connelly.


It's not so much that the guys are sexists, but Leone portrays all the women in the film as idealized virgins or whores. It's one thing to say of The Godfather, for instance, that Don Corleone's racism is part of his character and the film doesn't endorse it, but then, it's not like there are any black people in that film. In a sense, you could say there are no women in this film either.
Like you yourself point out, the characters morals and thoughts are not the same as the director's. You don't seem to completely understand the concept, though. It is precisely because of Noodles's Maddona/whore complex and attitude towards women that he acts the way he does towards the girl he loves. To put it in a blunt example, it's the same thing as saying a film like The Pianist is anti-semitic because it shows Jews being harmed.

Your Godfather comment is also beyond ridiculous. Why should there be black people in a movie about top echelon Italian gangsters?


I'm not very familiar with what things were like in '30s, since I wasn't alive then, but it seemed like a lapse in the film's logic. Probably a more likely explanation is that knowing the guy's a gangster, the driver was reluctant to get involved in case De Niro became violent with him. But if Leone wanted to show that he was (a) a hypocrite, or (b) a coward, he could've prepared the audience for his refusal of the money, and more firmly guided our interpretation of it, by simply cutting to a reaction shot of the driver while the rape was occurring.
I think only you would be capable of wanting a gangster's driver in a fictional film to act like Batman in order to satisfy your own conscience.

[jamaul]

Your Godfather comment is also beyond ridiculous. Why should there be black people in a movie about top echelon Italian gangsters?

I have to agree with this. I've seen this critique come up lately in a lot of criticism, and for me, it feels like an afterthought ... a baseless gripe. As if, "hey, this film rubs me the wrong way, yet I can't pinpoint why; let's run down the list of things it's missing and go with that: oh, no women?--no racial minorities?--what a narrow perspective it has on _________."

I mean, couldn't I bypass the argument that Jeanne Dielman is a boring, repetitive experience by interjecting a more controversial argument that it's dubious viewpoint on men portrays them as nothing but brainless, self-righteous, uncaring, apelike, sex-hungry pigs ... ?

[Pop Trash]

1. Blue Velvet
2. The Shining
3. The NeverEnding Story
4. Platoon
5. Ghostbusters
6. Empire of the Sun
7. Raising Arizona
8. Sans Soleil
9. Crimes & Misdemeanors
10. Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story

I guess I'm happy with this list. I might edit later. Hmmm...

[Derek]

3. The NeverEnding Story

Love it!

[Pop Trash]

I would also like to point out that the elusive Yum-Yum made an appearance in this thread.

[dreamdead]

1. Come and See (Klimov)
2. Ran (Kurosawa)
3. Dekalog (Kieslowski)
4. Grave of the Fireflies (Takahata)
5. A Zed and Two Noughts (Greenaway)
6. Paris, Texas (Wenders)
7. Koyaanisqatsi (Reggio)
8. The Sacrifice (Tarkovsky)
9. The Last Temptation of Christ (Scorsese)
10. The Vanishing (Sluizer)

[Watashi]

1. The Empire Strikes Back
2. Paris, Texas
3. Blade Runner
4. Who Framed Roger Rabbit
5. The Last Temptation of Christ
6. Ran
7. Return of the Jedi
8. Once Upon a Time in America
9. Raiders of the Lost Ark
10. The Purple Rose of Cairo

Fun decade!

[Watashi]

I'm the only Return of the Jedi supporter.

So awesome.

[Lazlo]

I'm the only Return of the Jedi supporter.

So awesome.

Look again.

[jamaul]

I'm the only Return of the Jedi supporter.

So awesome.

I admire your bravery ;)

[MadMan]

Not eligible. Read the first post.Ah shit, I forgot about the rules. Maybe I'm finally getting tired of these types of threads. A little commentary would be nice....

PS: Posted before I actually went back into the 90s thread. Good job, Spinal.

[Irish]

I have to agree with this. I've seen this critique come up lately in a lot of criticism, and for me, it feels like an afterthought ... a baseless gripe. As if, "hey, this film rubs me the wrong way, yet I can't pinpoint why; let's run down the list of things it's missing and go with that: oh, no women?--no racial minorities?--what a narrow perspective it has on _________."
baby doll raises some interesting and valid points, especially about women in the Godfather (I kneejerked into thinking he was flat out wrong, because Kay is so pivotal ... but then I thought about it and hell, Kay and Connie are arguably more plot devices than fully wrought characters).

Period films aren't so much snapshots of an era as they are reflections of the time in which they were made (eg, think about the differences between The Ox Bow Incident or Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid).

This topic is a little bit of a chicken and egg problem -- is the artist capturing and reflecting what's already in world or are they espousing and legitimizing a viewpoint first and then putting it out there? The most obvious example is gangster rap, where critics say that it glorifies violence and misogyny but supporters say it merely reflects what's already on the street.

That's a tough call, and I think we can both throw around examples where one group is right and then another group is right.

People tend to draw this line where the director's intent is wholly removed from the intent of the film. But how is that possible? We're talking about a creative effort, and any creative effort is going to reek of individual worldviews and biases. That, in part, is what makes them valuable.

But ultimately, it's not so much about any specific film but the repetitiveness of the industry. The Godfather was a period piece made in the early 70s. I wouldn't expect it to have minority characters or modern women and social mores.

But here it's 2010 and what's on TV this Sunday? Boardwalk Empire. It's the same shit, different costumes and accents. Another sort of whitewash. No representation of anybody except white male immigrants. The women are all madonna/whores. And this is forty years later.

[baby doll]

Nah, it's perfectly clear. The child actors chosen suit the adult personas of De Niro and Woods - I don't think anyone ever doubted which is which. It's called movie language. I somewhat agree with you about Connelly.I didn't say it wasn't clear who was who, I just found it somewhat distracting that Noodles and his friends seemed to age about twenty years while he was in prison. It's one of those movies where you think to yourself, "This probably would've worked better as a book."


Like you yourself point out, the characters morals and thoughts are not the same as the director's. You don't seem to completely understand the concept, though. It is precisely because of Noodles's Maddona/whore complex and attitude towards women that he acts the way he does towards the girl he loves. To put it in a blunt example, it's the same thing as saying a film like The Pianist is anti-semitic because it shows Jews being harmed.

Your Godfather comment is also beyond ridiculous. Why should there be black people in a movie about top echelon Italian gangsters?I'm not saying their should necessarily be black characters in The Godfather, and my point was precisely the opposite: It's not a racist film even if there aren't any black characters to counter Don Corleone's characterization of black people as "animals." On the other hand, I was being fanciful when I said that, in a certain sense, there are likewise no women in Leone's film, because obviously there are a lot of them; they're just not very rounded as characters, and this I think points to a persistent sexism in Leone's work as a whole. You make a valid point that the film is, like Raging Bull, about a guy with a Madonna/whore complex, yet in both films the female characters only exist in order to illustrate the point that the protagonist can't relate to women, and neither Leone nor Scorsese seems very interested in their female characters beyond how the protagonist views/abuses them. It's a bit like how Lost in Translation trashes Japanese people in order to show that the characters can't relate to anyone except other rich Americans. Sure, it's not a film about Japan, any more than Raging Bull is about a boxer's wife, but it has Japanese characters in it, and the film's presentation of them serves to confirm and validate the characters' racism rather than challenging it, just as all the whores in Leone's film confirm and validate Noodles' negative view of women.


I think only you would be capable of wanting a gangster's driver in a fictional film to act like Batman in order to satisfy your own conscience.Look at what I said: I'm not saying the driver had to intervene (that said, I don't see how trying to stop a rape is acting like Batman), but the film seems to be saying that he's a pretty good guy for not taking Noodles' money; to me, it seems a little late for him to be taking a moral stand. Had Leone wanted to infer something else (perhaps that he was a coward, and that his big stand was too little, too late), he could've made the point more effectively simply by inserting a reaction shot of the driver while the rape was actually happening. As it is, Leone's intentions are unclear at best.

[baby doll]

I have to agree with this. I've seen this critique come up lately in a lot of criticism, and for me, it feels like an afterthought ... a baseless gripe. As if, "hey, this film rubs me the wrong way, yet I can't pinpoint why; let's run down the list of things it's missing and go with that: oh, no women?--no racial minorities?--what a narrow perspective it has on _________."

I mean, couldn't I bypass the argument that Jeanne Dielman is a boring, repetitive experience by interjecting a more controversial argument that it's dubious viewpoint on men portrays them as nothing but brainless, self-righteous, uncaring, apelike, sex-hungry pigs ... ?Jeanne Dielman is anything but boring and repetitive, but that's beside the point, as I don't think Once Upon a Time in America is either. In fact, it's as tightly structured and action-oriented as Akerman's film is painterly and meditative. I actually kind of like Leone's film (not as much as Jeanne Dielman, but that's a matter of personal preference); however, I find that it has a number of shortcomings--which perhaps isn't surprising given the film's out-sized ambitions. And among them is that the female characters are all stereotypes and cliches: the love interest, and whores. It's not as if women are missing from the film; they're ubiquitous, but in the same sense that chairs and rugs are: they're part of the scenery more than people.

Furthermore, I think you're creating a false equivalency in citing Jeanne Dielman as an example of reverse-sexism (which takes for granted that we live in a society where men and women are equal, and they're equally served by the dominant commercial cinema), but that's a whole other issue.

[Melville]

I find that it has a number of shortcomings--which perhaps isn't surprising given the film's out-sized ambitions. And among them is that the female characters are all stereotypes and cliches: the love interest, and whores. It's not as if women are missing from the film; they're ubiquitous, but in the same sense that chairs and rugs are: they're part of the scenery more than people.
I agree with your criticisms of the movie, though I, too, liked it. I think the transition from Connelly to McGovern was a big part of the problem. Connelly's young girl was mostly a romantic dream-character, but she was at least compellingly so, and there was the sense, as with all proper romantic characters, that she has an intense interior life, the intangibility of which was an essential part of her appeal. McGovern didn't give the character the same feeling of life. Given the character dynamics, the rape scene plays as a floundering attempt to conquer the woman's interiority, but the adult woman has so little character, so much less life than the child version, that the scene, and the whole love-interest story around it, fall flat, both in terms of the male characters' perception of the women and the woman herself.

[Chac Mool]

Why is switching actors a problem? Are you really unable to make that leap?

Well, for one, the casting has to work. But, more importantly, you get into a situation where to actors have to play the same character. They therefore not only have to nail the character as it's written, but also as it's played by the other actor. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.


I'm not very familiar with what things were like in '30s, since I wasn't alive then, but it seemed like a lapse in the film's logic. Probably a more likely explanation is that knowing the guy's a gangster, the driver was reluctant to get involved in case De Niro became violent with him. But if Leone wanted to show that he was (a) a hypocrite, or (b) a coward, he could've prepared the audience for his refusal of the money, and more firmly guided our interpretation of it, by simply cutting to a reaction shot of the driver while the rape was occurring.

I don't think omitting something is a lapse in logic. The film leaves the driver's motivation ambiguous, and it's up to us to interpret it. I see it as the driver's weakness/hypocrisy -- he did nothing to stop the assault, but tried make himself feel better by refusing money. By the same token, I don't think it's right to fault a film for not having made a specific interpretation clearer (though one can obviously fault it for being vague).

Another thought: every once in a while, we hear horrible stories about people being attacked in broad daylight, in full view of people who do nothing to help. If it happens now, why couldn't it have happened then, particularly in a society that was significantly more male-dominated?

[eternity]

1. Videodrome
2. Blue Velvet
3. The Purple Rose of Cairo
4. Cinema Paradiso
5. Koyaanisqatsi
6. The Shining
7. Blade Runner
8. Au revoir les enfants
9. Blood Simple
10. Brazil

[baby doll]

I don't think omitting something is a lapse in logic. The film leaves the driver's motivation ambiguous, and it's up to us to interpret it. I see it as the driver's weakness/hypocrisy -- he did nothing to stop the assault, but tried make himself feel better by refusing money. By the same token, I don't think it's right to fault a film for not having made a specific interpretation clearer (though one can obviously fault it for being vague).

Another thought: every once in a while, we hear horrible stories about people being attacked in broad daylight, in full view of people who do nothing to help. If it happens now, why couldn't it have happened then, particularly in a society that was significantly more male-dominated?Very good point--however, in such circumstances, usually the people don't make a point of taking a moral stand against the criminal immediately after the crime takes place.

More to the point, I suspect in this specific instance, it's likely that Leone felt he needed the driver to take a stand against Noodles in order to show that he, as the filmmaker, didn't endorse his actions uncritically, but still needed the rape to occur for dramatic purposes. Therefore, it's not in the interest of the larger point he wants to make to single out the driver for cowardice, lest he seem to be endorsing Noodles' honest brutality of women, as opposed to the driver's complicity in it. That's just my hypothesis, of course.

[soitgoes...]

Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg)
Dekalog (Kieslowski)
Grave of the Fireflies (Takahata)
The Man Who Planted Trees (Back)
The Seventh Continent (Haneke)
Aliens (Cameron)
Empire of the Sun (Spielberg)
Down by Law (Jarmusch)
The Atomic Café (Loader/Rafferty/Rafferty)
Once Upon a Time in America (Leone)


"Real" list:


Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg)
Dekalog (Kieslowski)
Landscape in the Mist (Angelopoulos)
Grave of the Fireflies (Takahata)
The Man Who Planted Trees (Back)
The Seventh Continent (Haneke)
Aliens (Cameron)
A Time to Live and a Time to Die (Hou)
Empire of the Sun (Spielberg)
Where Is the Friend's Home (Kiarostami)


#11-20 is very Asian.

[balmakboor]

1. Raging Bull (Scorsese)
2. The Thin Blue Line (Morris)
3. Blow Out (De Palma)
4. Sans soleil (Marker)
5. Full Metal Jacket (Kubrick)
6. The Right Stuff (Kaufman)
7. Zelig (Allen)
8. Au revoir les enfants (Malle)
9. Sherman's March (McElwee)
10. Paris, Texas (Wenders)

[Ivan Drago]

1. Amadeus
2. Raging Bull
3. The Fly
4. Koyaanisqatsi
5. Blade Runner
6. Blue Velvet
7. The Empire Strikes Back
8. The Thing
9. Full Metal Jacket
10. The Last Temptation of Christ

[balmakboor]

It does seem a shame that Berlin Alexanderplatz isn't eligible. It would've topped my list. It certainly counts for something that I've seen it five times and it's over 15 hours long.

[Derek]

It does seem a shame that Berlin Alexanderplatz isn't eligible. It would've topped my list. It certainly counts for something that I've seen it five times and it's over 15 hours long.

Well, it's not eligible because obviously it didn't make the top 10 of 1980. With the Criterion out, it would be nice if more MCers, at least the Fassbinder fans, took the plunge. It's amazing. What do you think of the final episode? I've only seen it once and while I liked it, it's such a drastic shift in style from the eipsodes before it that I wasn't quite sure what to make of it.

[Grouchy]

I didn't say it wasn't clear who was who, I just found it somewhat distracting that Noodles and his friends seemed to age about twenty years while he was in prison. It's one of those movies where you think to yourself, "This probably would've worked better as a book."
Well, I dunno. I was never bothered by this and I guess it's better to leave it at that. It's based on a novel, by the way.


I'm not saying their should necessarily be black characters in The Godfather, and my point was precisely the opposite: It's not a racist film even if there aren't any black characters to counter Don Corleone's characterization of black people as "animals." On the other hand, I was being fanciful when I said that, in a certain sense, there are likewise no women in Leone's film, because obviously there are a lot of them; they're just not very rounded as characters, and this I think points to a persistent sexism in Leone's work as a whole. You make a valid point that the film is, like Raging Bull, about a guy with a Madonna/whore complex, yet in both films the female characters only exist in order to illustrate the point that the protagonist can't relate to women, and neither Leone nor Scorsese seems very interested in their female characters beyond how the protagonist views/abuses them. It's a bit like how Lost in Translation trashes Japanese people in order to show that the characters can't relate to anyone except other rich Americans. Sure, it's not a film about Japan, any more than Raging Bull is about a boxer's wife, but it has Japanese characters in it, and the film's presentation of them serves to confirm and validate the characters' racism rather than challenging it, just as all the whores in Leone's film confirm and validate Noodles' negative view of women.
I don't think this is true of Scorsese's film at all. LaMotta's abusive behavior and possessive idea of sex is certainly challenged - it's shown as the main case of his downfall. But as for Leone, the fact that he didn't excel at women characters is a matter of public record. Regardless of who wrote it (Bertolucci and Argento) we got Once Upon a Time in the West which has a woman protagonist, and a quite strong, independent female at that. I'd like to see what you think of her.

And I actually agree with Lost in Translation. I won't say that Sofia Coppola is a xenophobe, because I don't pretend to know people I don't know all that well, but through the idiocy of her writing she made a xenophobic film.


Look at what I said: I'm not saying the driver had to intervene (that said, I don't see how trying to stop a rape is acting like Batman), but the film seems to be saying that he's a pretty good guy for not taking Noodles' money; to me, it seems a little late for him to be taking a moral stand. Had Leone wanted to infer something else (perhaps that he was a coward, and that his big stand was too little, too late), he could've made the point more effectively simply by inserting a reaction shot of the driver while the rape was actually happening. As it is, Leone's intentions are unclear at best.
I think you're reading too much into a very simple scene. The driver is a subordinate to Noodles - he can't do anything about the rape, even if he feels repulsed by it. The only thing he can do is reject the money.

[soitgoes...]

Dekalog qualified, so that tells me that given time Berlin Alexanderplatz will get seen enough to possibly qualify for future polls. Or are the 6 extra hours that much more daunting? Personally I have little interest, but that can change if I watch something by Fassbinder which blows me away.

[Fezzik]

This was surprisingly difficult:

Back to the Future (Zemeckis)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg)
The Empire Strikes Back (Kershner)
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (Spielberg)
Cinema Paradiso (Tornatore)
Grave of the Fireflies (Takahata)
Amadeus (Forman)
Glory (Zwick)
Die Hard (McTiernan)
Do the Right Thing (Lee)



Honorable Mention: Aliens (Cameron), The Shining (Kubrick), This is Spinal Tap (Reiner)

[Derek]

Dekalog qualified, so that tells me that given time Berlin Alexanderplatz will get seen enough to possibly qualify for future polls. Or are the 6 extra hours that much more daunting? Personally I have little interest, but that can change if I watch something by Fassbinder which blows me away.

Dekalog also has the advantage of essentially being 10 separate, yet thematically linked, short films, so it's easier to digest over a period of a week. Berlin Alexanderplatz, while divided into 15 chapters, is still one sustained narrative and, even by mini-series standards, is still really damn long. Still, with as many tv seasons as a lot of people watch on DVD on a regular basis, you'd think this would seem a lot less daunting than even 10 years ago.

[Dukefrukem]

1. Star Wars Return of the Jedi
2. John Carpenter's The Thing
3. Brazil
4. Blade Runner
5. Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back
6. Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark
7. Back to the Future
8. Videodrome
9. Full Metal Jacket
10. Die Hard

No Stand By Me or Abyss :(

[baby doll]

Well, I dunno. I was never bothered by this and I guess it's better to leave it at that. It's based on a novel, by the way.I guess that's what I get for being a detail-oriented pessimist.


I don't think this is true of Scorsese's film at all. LaMotta's abusive behavior and possessive idea of sex is certainly challenged - it's shown as the main case of his downfall. But as for Leone, the fact that he didn't excel at women characters is a matter of public record. Regardless of who wrote it (Bertolucci and Argento) we got Once Upon a Time in the West which has a woman protagonist, and a quite strong, independent female at that. I'd like to see what you think of her.Yeah, it's the main cause of LaMotta's downfall, but his wife is still portrayed as a femme fatale (Scorsese even has her dress up as Lana Turner in The Postman Always Rings Twice at one point), or at the very least, a woman of dubious morals.

[Yxklyx]

1. Star Wars Return of the Jedi

Teddy Bears = Downfall of Star Wars Universe

[Grouchy]

Yeah, it's the main cause of LaMotta's downfall, but his wife is still portrayed as a femme fatale (Scorsese even has her dress up as Lana Turner in The Postman Always Rings Twice at one point), or at the very least, a woman of dubious morals.
You sure? I think she's just dressed as a pretty woman in the '40s would dress, Lana Turner reference aside. By finding fault with her being sexy and dressing sexy, I think you're closer to LaMotta's viewpoint of the opposite sex than you'd feel comfortable with.

And I'm serious with my question - what do you think of Cardinale's Jill character in Once Upon a Time in the West?

[baby doll]

You sure? I think she's just dressed as a pretty woman in the '40s would dress, Lana Turner reference aside. By finding fault with her being sexy and dressing sexy, I think you're closer to LaMotta's viewpoint of the opposite sex than you'd feel comfortable with.

And I'm serious with my question - what do you think of Cardinale's Jill character in Once Upon a Time in the West?I haven't seen Once Upon a Time in the West, or Duck You Sucker, and the last time I saw For a Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More was about sixteen years ago (although I did recently watch Yojimbo and Sanjuro). Actually, I did catch a bit of the latter on TV recently (who knew Klaus Kinski was in this thing?), but I suppose that doesn't really count.

As for the chick in Raging Bull, her sole function in the movie is to arouse LaMotta's suspicions, in much the same way that Barbara Hershey's character in The Last Temptation of Christ is only around to tempt Jesus with her womanhood.

[Grouchy]

I haven't seen Once Upon a Time in the West, or Duck You Sucker, and the last time I saw For a Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More was about sixteen years ago (although I did recently watch Yojimbo and Sanjuro). Actually, I did catch a bit of the latter on TV recently (who knew Klaus Kinski was in this thing?), but I suppose that doesn't really count.
I did. Kinski is on a lot of spaguetti westerns and giallos from this period. Specially Sergio Corbucci ones.

Anyway, Once Upon a Time in the West is my second favorite movie of all time and Leone's masterpiece. You should see it inmediately.


As for the chick in Raging Bull, her sole function in the movie is to arouse LaMotta's suspicions, in much the same way that Barbara Hershey's character in The Last Temptation of Christ is only around to tempt Jesus with her womanhood.
But why? Where do you get this stuff from? I am honestly trying to understand what would you like to see being done differently in those two films. They're not the lead character, so of course, most of their screentime focuses on their relationship towards the lead.

[baby doll]

But why? Where do you get this stuff from? I am honestly trying to understand what would you like to see being done differently in those two films. They're not the lead character, so of course, most of their screentime focuses on their relationship towards the lead.Well, maybe I'm arguing it wrong by focusing so much on specific films when it's really a systematic problem. And in Raging Bull, Scorsese is consciously referencing the iconography of film noir. It may not be inherently sexist to make a film about a guy who thinks his wife is cheating on him (Jealousy is one of my favorite books), but it's indicative of the larger problem.

Furthermore, I don't think Scorsese would be as celebrated a director as he is if he didn't make macho-centric pictures. Sure, Goodfellas is as much about mob wives as mobsters (it's all part of the mob lifestyle, after all), but when was the last time you heard anyone quote a line from the movie that wasn't spoken by Joe Pesci?

[Grouchy]

Well, maybe I'm arguing it wrong by focusing so much on specific films when it's really a systematic problem. And in Raging Bull, Scorsese is consciously referencing the iconography of film noir. It may not be inherently sexist to make a film about a guy who thinks his wife is cheating on him (Jealousy is one of my favorite books), but it's indicative of the larger problem.

Furthermore, I don't think Scorsese would be as celebrated a director as he is if he didn't make macho-centric pictures. Sure, Goodfellas is as much about mob wives as mobsters (it's all part of the mob lifestyle, after all), but when was the last time you heard anyone quote a line from the movie that wasn't spoken by Joe Pesci?
Bah. So you got some kind of feminist flag to wave and you're trying to call attention to it by speaking shit about the classics. And throwing random comments that don't even qualify as strawmen. What does the film noir thing have to do with anything?

I also don't know if Scorsese would be as celebrated if he didn't make movies with male lead characters. I don't know if he would be as celebrated if he was a black man born in Uruguay, either. He would be called Washington Morgan and his movies wouldn't be as popular.

You're also forgetting about Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. And Boxcar Bertha.

[baby doll]

Bah. So you got some kind of feminist flag to wave and you're trying to call attention to it by speaking shit about the classics. And throwing random comments that don't even qualify as strawmen. What does the film noir thing have to do with anything?With the noir thing, I'm saying there are certain roles Hollywood typically assigns to women (the love interest, the femme fatale, the screwball heroine, etc.), and Raging Bull is one example of that. Like I said, Scorsese at one point explicitly references The Postman Always Rings Twice in the costume choice; he's a director who's very aware of film history and sees himself as part of the studio tradition, and making references to other movies is one way for him to situate his work in that lineage.


You're also forgetting about Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. And Boxcar Bertha.Which are not as widely celebrated as his other films (although the latter isn't supposed to be very good anyway).

[soitgoes...]

(although the latter isn't supposed to be very good anyway).It isn't good at all. It is by far the worst thing of his I've seen.

[Grouchy]

With the noir thing, I'm saying there are certain roles Hollywood typically assigns to women (the love interest, the femme fatale, the screwball heroine, etc.), and Raging Bull is one example of that. Like I said, Scorsese at one point explicitly references The Postman Always Rings Twice in the costume choice; he's a director who's very aware of film history and sees himself as part of the studio tradition, and making references to other movies is one way for him to situate his work in that lineage.
So what? Scorsese is referencing Lana Turner (in a movie that, unfortunately, I haven't seen) because he has a very vivid childhood memory of her screen beauty. Once again, so what? Your sentences don't relate to each other or have anything to do with your initial argument, which seems to be that Scorsese's female characters are bad or always relegated behind the males. I guess my main question is -what kind of other movie would you like Raging Bull to be to get over your problem? I'm just trying really hard to see where you're coming from.


Which are not as widely celebrated as his other films (although the latter isn't supposed to be very good anyway).
For a variety of reasons that have very little to do with their quality - well, in the case of Alice, anyway. Boxcar Bertha is pulpy trash, sure. But have you seen Alice? It adresses many gender issues from the viewpoint of a female and a mother. Your cause is pretty lost with that one.

[baby doll]

So what? Scorsese is referencing Lana Turner (in a movie that, unfortunately, I haven't seen) because he has a very vivid childhood memory of her screen beauty. Once again, so what? Your sentences don't relate to each other or have anything to do with your initial argument, which seems to be that Scorsese's female characters are bad or always relegated behind the males. I guess my main question is -what kind of other movie would you like Raging Bull to be to get over your problem? I'm just trying really hard to see where you're coming from.The thing about Scorsese generally (at least in the films where the protagonist has a Madonna/whore complex) is that he's too much of a believer to see any alternative to Catholicism. I mean, if you have it drilled into your head from the time that you're a kid that sex is a sin and women are a source of temptation, of course that's gonna fuck you up. Scorsese seems to recognize that having a Madonna/whore complex is a sickness, but at the same time, he still believes in all this jazz about sin and temptation and the fires of hell. Hence, Barbara Hershey's character in The Last Temptation of Christ, who isn't much of a character at all--she's just a vagina dangling in front of Jesus as a source of temptation. It's like Scorsese wants to have his cake and eat it too.

And in Raging Bull, although there aren't many explicit references to Catholicism except insofar as it's part of the milieu, Scorsese falls back on another set of myths that he's had drilled into his head since childhood--namely, Hollywood film noir, which amounts to the same thing: a form of stereotyping.


For a variety of reasons that have very little to do with their quality - well, in the case of Alice, anyway. Boxcar Bertha is pulpy trash, sure. But have you seen Alice? It adresses many gender issues from the viewpoint of a female and a mother. Your cause is pretty lost with that one.I actually haven't seen it, but I've been meaning to for ages.

[Dukefrukem]

Teddy Bears = Downfall of Star Wars Universe

Totally disagree. The third movie has the best action, the best humor, the best technology and the best damn space battle in the history of cinema.

[DavidSeven]

01. Paris, Texas (Wenders)
02. The Last Temptation of Christ (Scorsese)
03. Hannah and Her Sisters (Allen)
04. Brazil (Gilliam)
05. The Empire Strikes Back (Kershner)
06. Blue Velvet (Lynch)
07. Do the Right Thing (Lee)
08. After Hours (Scorsese)
09. The Vanishing (Sluizer)
10. Crimes and Misdemeanors (Allen)

Not my favorite decade.

[Mr. Pink]

1) The Vanishing
2) The Elephant Man
3) After Hours
4) Down By Law
5) Do the Right Thing
6) The Empire Strikes Back
7) Blow Out
8) The Thing
9) The Road Warrior
10) Planes, Trains and Automobiles

[Grouchy]

The thing about Scorsese generally (at least in the films where the protagonist has a Madonna/whore complex) is that he's too much of a believer to see any alternative to Catholicism. I mean, if you have it drilled into your head from the time that you're a kid that sex is a sin and women are a source of temptation, of course that's gonna fuck you up. Scorsese seems to recognize that having a Madonna/whore complex is a sickness, but at the same time, he still believes in all this jazz about sin and temptation and the fires of hell. Hence, Barbara Hershey's character in The Last Temptation of Christ, who isn't much of a character at all--she's just a vagina dangling in front of Jesus as a source of temptation. It's like Scorsese wants to have his cake and eat it too.
I disagree. I think Scorsese's (Christian) worldview is way above your feeble mind. The way you're describing him would be more apt for the lead character of Who's That Knocking at My Door or Mean Streets, who can't overcome his religious upbringing even though the reality of the world shown to him is a different one.

Again, I don't pretend to know people I don't know, but I'd venture that Scorsese's faith comes from a place of thinking and that, even though much of his inspiration and themes come from the fucked up education you describe, he's most likely no longer a kid victimized by a priest. I had a Catholic education too, you know. I'm not saying it's not fucked up but you're just assuming that, because he's still a believer, he must understand less about the world than you. That's just arrogance and bullshit.


And in Raging Bull, although there aren't many explicit references to Catholicism except insofar as it's part of the milieu, Scorsese falls back on another set of myths that he's had drilled into his head since childhood--namely, Hollywood film noir, which amounts to the same thing: a form of stereotyping.
You're wrong, Catholic upbringing is once again crucial to the conflict in Raging Bull. As for the comparison between religion and film noir, you're not thinking what you type anymore.

[baby doll]

I disagree. I think Scorsese's (Christian) worldview is way above your feeble mind. The way you're describing him would be more apt for the lead character of Who's That Knocking at My Door or Mean Streets, who can't overcome his religious upbringing even though the reality of the world shown to him is a different one.

Again, I don't pretend to know people I don't know, but I'd venture that Scorsese's faith comes from a place of thinking and that, even though much of his inspiration and themes come from the fucked up education you describe, he's most likely no longer a kid victimized by a priest. I had a Catholic education too, you know. I'm not saying it's not fucked up but you're just assuming that, because he's still a believer, he must understand less about the world than you. That's just arrogance and bullshit.I'm not saying that he understands less about the world. And like you say, Mean Streets is specifically about a guy who can't overcome certain aspects of his religious upbringing, but it seems to me that if you want to make the point that his Catholic upbringing is the cause of his inability to deal with women, it would be in the interest of the film to have female characters who are a little more nuanced. (I don't remember the girlfriend character in Mean Streets very well, but I have a more fundamental problem with that movie: It seems to consist almost entirely of scenes of guys in bars arguing about debts over Phil Spector records.)


You're wrong, Catholic upbringing is once again crucial to the conflict in Raging Bull. As for the comparison between religion and film noir, you're not thinking what you type anymore.Maybe I need to see the film again, but I don't remember Catholicism being as central to it as some of Scorsese's other films. As for the Catholicism-Hollywood comparison, I'm just saying they're both mythologies.

[Stay Puft]

1. Ghostbusters (Reitman)
2. Sans soleil (Marker)
3. Akira (Ôtomo)
4. The Thin Blue Line (Morris)
5. Fitzcarraldo (Herzog)
6. Koyaanisqatsi (Reggio)
7. Stranger than Paradise (Jarmusch)
8. The Atomic Café (Loader/Rafferty/Rafferty)
9. Castle in the Sky (Miyazaki)
10. Die Hard (McTiernan)

[Raiders]

My initial tally shows all of a whopping 13 films received no votes. Of the 100 choices, you all have managed to cast at least one vote for 87 of them.

EDIT: It appears it was this way for the '90s also.

You guys are so unique! Just like everyone else.

[MacGuffin]

Stay Puft do you have a legitmate defense for Ghostbusters or is it just nostalgically pleasing to you? Genuinely curious.

[Pop Trash]

Stay Puft do you have a legitmate defense for Ghostbusters or is it just nostalgically pleasing to you? Genuinely curious.

Maybe he just thinks it's fucking awesome and is more quotable than Lebowski? Because it is.

[balmakboor]

Well, it's not eligible because obviously it didn't make the top 10 of 1980. With the Criterion out, it would be nice if more MCers, at least the Fassbinder fans, took the plunge. It's amazing. What do you think of the final episode? I've only seen it once and while I liked it, it's such a drastic shift in style from the eipsodes before it that I wasn't quite sure what to make of it.

For me, BA is very good up until Reinhold and Mieze come in starting in episode 4. Then it is sheer genius up until that final episode. Then it becomes a crazy, interesting indulgence that Fassbinder needed to make and had well-earned the right to make during the 14 hours that preceeded it.

[balmakboor]

Teddy Bears = Downfall of Star Wars Universe

I like it and all, I guess, but even the parts of Return of the Jedi that don't involve Teddy Bears feel like they were made with a Teddy Bear toting audience in mind.

[Grouchy]

Well, I'm not Stay Puft, but Ghostbusters doesn't really need to be defended, does it? I didn't put it on number one or even in the top10, but it's great.

[MacGuffin]

Well, I'm not Stay Puft, but Ghostbusters doesn't really need to be defended, does it? I didn't put it on number one or even in the top10, but it's great.

It doesn't necessarily need to be defended, and I'm sure it's a fine film, I was just curious as to why he likes it so much in particular, as it doesn't often top a lot of decade best lists for eighties.

[Stay Puft]

Yeah, not really sure it's a film I could defend. I'm not even sure what I could say about it, because I'd just say whatever you'd hear from other posters, that it's great and funny and entertaining and so on.

As for why I put it at number one, well... I don't want to say it's a nostalgic pick, because I don't consider myself a nostalgic person. I don't generally like the things I liked when I was younger, because when I was younger I liked stupid things. I mean, I don't even miss being a kid or anything. Kids are stupid.

But I suppose there's something to that effect in my appreciation of it, I'll admit. I did love it as a kid, and I still love it today, so I suppose I cling to it as a rare constant in my life. I do recognize it as a deeply personal choice, going with the movie that never fails to entertain and make me laugh, that I find endlessly watchable. I'm also convinced it's a great film, though, because like Die Hard, it has something of a "lightning in a bottle" kind of success. If it was purely nostalgia, I'd think there'd be a fondness for the franchise more in general, but my love for the sequel or the cartoon was demolished over time (I've been accused by RTers of being unfairly harsh on the sequel). I don't have any fondness for that stuff today.

But, okay, best of the decade or all time? Yeah, I suppose I'm elevating it arbitrarily for my own personal reasons, nostalgic or whatever. I'm sure that constancy I described only serves to amplify my appreciation of this particular film. I mean, it's a great film, but better than Chris Marker's? I don't know, it doesn't matter.

[Yxklyx]

I like it and all, I guess, but even the parts of Return of the Jedi that don't involve Teddy Bears feel like they were made with a Teddy Bear toting audience in mind.

I actually love the rest of of the film - and the Ewoks concept is fine (think Hobbits vs Sauron) - it's just the execution - the cutesiness factor. I love the intercutting between the three simultaneous storylines.

[Raiders]

Last call. I'll post the results tonight.

[Raiders]

#20

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2009/12/9/1260375969551/The-Elephant-Man-001.jpg

THE ELEPHANT MAN
1980
Directed by: David Lynch

Tidbit: The film was produced by Mel Brooks, who had been impressed by Lynch's earlier film Eraserhead at a private screening. Brooks made sure that his name was not used in the marketing and promotion of the film because he did not want fans to expect that the film would be a comedy.

A nice balsamic reduction: “I kept asking myself what the film was really trying to say about the human condition as reflected by John Merrick, and I kept drawing blanks. The film’s philosophy is this shallow: (1)Wow, the Elephant Man sure looked hideous, and (2) gosh, isn’t it wonderful how he kept on in spite of everything?� - Roger Ebert

Who said it? "The Elephant Man was pretty meh, though, I thought. All its themes seem pretty undeveloped (especially Treaves' personal struggle), its commentary on upper class society and industrial age imagery just sort of sits there, its circus sideshow sequence is kind of baity considering Lynch, and while the final moments of the film are pretty heartwarming, why should that very final, voice-overed line mean much to me?"

Bosco B Thug

[Raiders]

#19


http://gallery.awn.com/data/522/Back11.gif

THE MAN WHO PLANTED TREES
1987
Directed by: Frederic Back

Tidbit: Based on the 1953 story by French author Jean Giono. The story itself is so touching that many readers have believed that Elzéard Bouffier was a genuine historical figure and that the narrator of the story was a young Jean Giono himself, and that the tale is part autobiographical. Certainly, Giono lived during this time. While he was alive, Giono enjoyed allowing people to believe that the story was real, and considered it as a tribute to his skill. His daughter, Aline Giono, described it as "a family story for a long time". However, Giono himself explained in a 1957 letter to an official of the city of Digne:

Sorry to disappoint you, but Elzéard Bouffier is a fictional person. The goal was to make trees likeable, or more specifically, make planting trees likeable.

Who’s laughing now? This lost the Short Palme d’Or at the 1987 Cannes Film Festival to Palisade, directed by Laurie McInnes. In a recent online poll of film enthusiasts who love The Man Who Planted Trees asking what people thought of McInnes’ film...

2% - Never seen it
24% - Never heard of it
74% - Prefer Gatorade

Who said it? “I saw this film earlier this year. I don't think it rekindled my love for cinema, but it did rekindle my love for trees, for about 5 minutes until I realised I never really cared about trees.�

Winston*

[Raiders]

#18

http://forestrowfilmsociety.org/images/fanny-alexander.jpg

FANNY AND ALEXANDER
1982
Directed by: Ingmar Bergman

Not to be confused with the Fanny & Alexander Restaurant & Bar that was located in Palo Alto, CA. The charming little hotspot for Stanford students is now closed after seemingly a string of bad service. Ray R. from Newark, CA writes:



BITCH STOLE MY MONEY!
yeah i paid for my drink with a ten, expected four back in change but got nothing. didn't realize a poor drink and funky service was deserving of a four dollar tip.


Filmmaker quote: “Everything is worth precisely as much as a belch, the difference being that a belch is more satisfying.� – Ingmar Bergman reflecting upon the worth of most of his own films

Who said it? “Fanny and Alexander (1982) - 8.5 (I saw the 5-hour version in the early 00's and the 3 hr last year, I remember absolutely adoring the former and really liking the latter, so I've assigned an arbitrary average rating)�

Boner M

[Raiders]

#17

http://jtcummins.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/thing1.jpg

THE THING
1982
Directed by: John Carpenter

Tidbit: After its cinema run, the film was released on video and laserdisc, and a re-edited version was created for television by TBS and Universal Studios. The edited version was heavily cut to reduce gore, violence and profanity; additionally it featured a narrator during the opening sequence (in the same manner as the original 1951 film), a voiceover during Blair's computer-assisted study, and an alternate ending. In the alternate ending, a "Thing" which has mimicked one of the sled dogs looks back at the burning camp at dawn before continuing on into the Antarctic wilderness.

Filmmaker quote: “I take every failure hard. The one I took the hardest was The Thing. My career would have been different if that had been a big hit...The movie was hated. Even by science-fiction fans. They thought that I had betrayed some kind of trust, and the piling on was insane. Even the original movie’s director, Christian Nyby, was dissing me.� – John Carpenter

Quintessential moron: “...a foolish, depressing, overproduced movie that mixes horror with science fiction to make something that is fun as neither one thing or the other. Sometimes it looks as if it aspired to be the quintessential moron movie of the 80's.� – Vincent Canby

Who said it? “Gotta hand it to Brimley. He was convincing as a non-diabetic character. Didn't think he had it in him.�

Spinal

[Raiders]

#16

http://daringrocket.com/images/lasttemptation.jpg

THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST
1988
Directed by: Martin Scorsese

Tidbit: On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater while it was showing the film. This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned. The Saint Michel Theater was burnt to the ground.

Interesting fact: Despite evidence in the film courtesy of Harvey Keitel, Judas Iscariot was not from the Bronx, but was likely born in Kerioth, Moab in the modern-day country of Jordan.

Who said it? “The thing about Scorsese generally... is that he's too much of a believer to see any alternative to Catholicism. I mean, if you have it drilled into your head from the time that you're a kid that sex is a sin and women are a source of temptation, of course that's gonna fuck you up.”

baby doll

[Dukefrukem]

Thing is too low. I quit.

[Dillard]

Love that The Man Who Planted Trees made the list.

RE: did The Thing really get panned when it was released such that we get that Carpenter quote calling it a failure? Did he mean a failure in the box office or a failure in light of critical assessment?

[Spinal]

No objections so far. That Bergman quote is great.

[Irish]

RE: did The Thing really get panned when it was released such that we get that Carpenter quote calling it a failure? Did he mean a failure in the box office or a failure in light of critical assessment?

Both. It was released during the summer of 1982, within a couple of weeks as Blade Runner, Tron, and E.T.

Of those, only ET was well reviewed and commercial success. The others were varying degrees of failure.

The Thing is a vastly different movie on the big screen than it is on TV. In the theater, the f/x totally overwhelm the story. It plays like a splatter film more interested in gore than anything else.

On TV, the effects don't pop as much and the paranoid Invasion-of-the-Body-Snatchers whodunnit Carpenter was going for is much more apparent.

[Raiders]

#15

http://jclarkmedia.com/film/images/ran02.jpg

RAN
1985
Directed by: Akira Kurosawa

Tidbit: At the time of its release, it was the most expensive Japanese movie ever made at $12 million (approx. 134 gazillion yen).This was Kurosawa’s final grand epic film. He would follow it with only three smaller films before his death in 1998, including one that starred Richard Gere.

Posthumously, Kurosawa was named "Asian of the Century" in the "Arts, Literature, and Culture" category by AsianWeek magazine.

Filmmaker nugget: George Lucas was heavily influenced by Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress in his making of Star Wars. Apparently he used the idea of telling the tale from the POV of peasants (Lucas made them droids) and was fond of Kurosawa’s horizontal wipe transitions.

Despite many opportunities however, Kurosawa never issued a formal apology.

Who said it? “Ran contains one of my all-time favorite performances: Tatsuya Nakadai as Lord Hidetora. Outstanding performance. Sometimes intense, sometimes absurd, sometimes funny, always tragic. That's not even to speak of the gorgeously devastating final sequence.�

Brightside

[Raiders]

#14

http://www.blogwaybaby.com/uploaded_images/amadeus-752457.jpg

AMADEUS
1984
Directed by: Milos Forman

Tidbit #1: Kenneth Branagh, per his autobiography Beginning, was originally considered for the role of Mozart in the film, but was bypassed in favor of Hulce when Forman decided to make the film with an American cast, so that US audiences would not be "distracted" by the British accents.

Tidbit #2: In an inspired choice, all original music save for one track was performed by Mozart.

You CANNOT be serious! Hulce reportedly used John McEnroe's mood swings as a source of inspiration for his portrayal of Mozart's unpredictable genius.

Who said it? “I love Amadeus so much.

It's just about perfect. I adore it.�

Spin—Nope! Megladon8

[Bosco B Thug]

Filmmaker quote: “I take every failure hard. The one I took the hardest was The Thing. My career would have been different if that had been a big hit...The movie was hated. Even by science-fiction fans. They thought that I had betrayed some kind of trust, and the piling on was insane. Even the original movie’s director, Christian Nyby, was dissing me.” – John Carpenter :sad: Aww.

Nyby, huh. Jerk. (Haha.)

[Spinal]

Who said it? “I love Amadeus so much.

It's just about perfect. I adore it.�

Spin—Nope! Megladon8

Even I thought that might have been me.

[MadMan]

The Thing is a vastly different movie on the big screen than it is on TV. In the theater, the f/x totally overwhelm the story. It plays like a splatter film more interested in gore than anything else. I'm starting to wonder if we agree on anything regarding movies :lol:

Maybe if I had actually posted my review of The Thing I would have been quoted. Probably not. I like this quote a lot, though:
“Gotta hand it to Brimley. He was convincing as a non-diabetic character. Didn't think he had it in him.� :D

[Raiders]

#13

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/images/noel/dekalog5.jpg

DEKALOG
1988
Directed by: Krzysztof Kieslowski

Tidbit: Stanley Kubrick considered this the only masterpiece he could name during his lifetime.

Imdb offers us a succinct retort: Author: simuland from San Francisco
Familiarity breeds contempt. By the end of this very long ride the puppet strings and grease paint, the repertoire of tricks at K.'s command, are all too evident. There isn't enough depth, variety, and richness to sustain such a long, ambitious oeuvre. K. tried, but failed, to add to the Bible.

Who said it? "... the beauty of the Dekalog isn't how the episodes work on their own, rather how the interact on the whole. Each entry has its own look, feel, even different variations on the score, but they are all very familiar. We see some of the same faces, hear of stories we've already been told, all because of this wonderful world presented to us by Kieslowski and his co-writer Piesiewicz."


soitgoes

[DavidSeven]

Tidbit: Stanley Kubrick considered this the only masterpiece he could name during his lifetime.

Hm. I'd read that Kubrick thought that The Godfather was the greatest film ever made and his personal favorite. I don't know, however, if he ever stated that publicly before his death.

[soitgoes...]

Hm. I'd read that Kubrick thought that The Godfather was the greatest film ever made and his personal favorite. I don't know, however, if he ever stated that publicly before his death.
The Godfather is great (a top 100 film), but Dekalog sucks balls.

I'm confused now on the correct meaning of the phrase "suck balls."

[Raiders]

#12

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01190/arts-graphics-2008_1190593a.jpg

NOSTALGHIA
1983
Directed by: Andrei Tarkovsky

Tidbit: Tarkovsky filmed this film in Italy, in exile from the Soviet Union and never to return. He went with his wife and they both left behind their son in the Soviet Union.

Filmmaker quote: "How could I have imagined as I was making Nostalghia that the stifling sense of longing that fills the screen space of that film was to become my lot for the rest of my life; that from now until the end of my days I would bear the painful malady within myself?" - Andrei Tarkovsky

Ingmar Bergman on Tarkovsky: "Tarkovsky for me is the greatest [director], the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream." Bergman later added that Tarkosvky was akin to a belch following a cold Guinness and that Orson Welles was the belch after cold Taco Bell.

Who said it? "[Nostalghia] contains two of my favorite scenes in any movies (the rant on the statue—a stunningly beautiful, densely ironic portrayal of spiritual failure and alienation and a desperate, pathetic, sublime attempt to overcome it—and the candle-carrying ending—a profound portrait of transcendence in faith and striving through the simple and absurd), but the movie as a whole didn't congeal into anything significant for me."

Melville

[soitgoes...]

Bergman later added that Tarkosvky was akin to a belch following a cold Guinness and that Orson Welles was the belch after cold Taco Bell.
:lol:

[Raiders]

#10 (tie)

http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/images/brazil46.jpg

BRAZIL
1985
Directed by: Terry Gilliam

Tidbit: Gilliam sometimes refers to this film as the second in his "Trilogy of Imagination" movies, starting with Time Bandits (1981) and ending with The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1989). All are about the "craziness of our awkwardly ordered society and the desire to escape it through whatever means possible." All three movies focus on these struggles and attempts to escape them through imagination—Time Bandits, through the eyes of a child, Brazil, through the eyes of a man in his thirties, and Munchausen, through the eyes of an elderly man.

Personal story: My dad and I created a short version of this in our back yard when I was 14. It was a Monty Python version (the idea came from Gilliam's involvement). I remember it being pretty awful.

Who said it? "I'm about to watch [Brazil] for the fourth time. My prediction: ... I will remain confused about the power it apparently has on many people who are not me."

Sven

[Raiders]

#10 (tie)

http://webomatica.com/wordpress/images/movies/raging-bull.jpg

RAGING BULL
1980
Directed by: Martin Scorsese

Tidbit: Preparation for the film began with Scorsese shooting some 8mm color footage featuring De Niro boxing in a ring. One night when the footage was being shown to De Niro, Michael Chapman, and his friend and mentor, the English director Michael Powell, Powell pointed out that color of the gloves at the time would have only been maroon, oxblood, or even black. Scorsese decided to use this as one of the reasons to film Raging Bull in black and white. Other reasons would be to distinguish the film from other color films around the time and to acknowledge the problem of fading color film stock - an issue Scorsese recognized.

Legacy: Raging Bull has made the Sight & Sound Directors' Top Ten in both 1992 (#3) and 2002 (#6) (the only years the directors have made a list).

Who said it? "Scorsese is one of the few that can get away with blonde-intro in slow motion. Raging Bull is probably the best use of it."

Ezee E

[Raiders]

#9

http://www.longpauses.com/blog/02_06_08a.jpg

SANS SOLEIL
1983
Directed by: Chris Marker

Tidbit: The original French version of Sans Soleil opens with the following quotation by Jean Racine from his tragedy Bazajet (1672):

"L'Éloignement des pays répare en quelque sorte la trop grande proximité des temps." (The distance between countries compensates somewhat for the excessive closeness of time.)

Marker replaced this quote with the following one by T. S. Eliot from Ash Wednesday (1930) for the English version of the film:

"Because I know that time is always time
And place is always and only place
And what is actual is actual only for one time
And only for one place"

Chris Marker is Thomas Pynchon: Marker gives almost no interviews and when asked for a picture always gives the requester a picture of a cat instead. After scouring the internet, there appears to be only four legitimate images of Marker.

Who said it? "I didn't understand this movie, either (it's smarter than me, which is a good thing)..."

StanleyK

[MadMan]

One of these days I'll get a quote featured.

[Raiders]

#8

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media/images/1748.jpg

ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA
1984
Directed by: Sergio Leone

Tidbit: The film begins and ends in 1933, with Noodles hiding out in an opium den from Syndicate hitmen. Since the last shot of the movie is of Noodles in a smiling, opium-soaked high, the film can be interpreted to have been a drug-induced fantasy or dream, with Noodles remembering his past and envisioning the future. In an interview by Noël Simsolo published in 1987, Leone himself confirms the validity of this interpretation, saying that the scenes set in the 1960s could be seen as an opium dream of Noodles. In his commentary for a DVD of the movie, film historian and critic Richard Schickel states that opium users often report vivid dreams and that these visions have a tendency to explore the user's past and future.

No word given on why Noodles' possible opium-inspired future is so dull.

Who said it? "It has a hallucinatory, Proustian-reverie quality that clashes interestingly with Leone's proclivity toward the crass/crude..."

Boner M

[Ezee E]

I have no idea what Boner said there.

[Raiders]

#7

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050124/191521__shining_l.jpg

THE SHINING
1980
Directed by: Stanley Kubrick

Tidbit: In the opening sequence, a flying camera tracks a car along a mountain road. At one instance, the shadow of the helicopter is visible. This gaff has been routinely discussed since the advent of home video and has caused numerous suicides amongst die-hard Kubrick enthusiasts who refuse to believe such a perfectionist could allow it.

Master of Horror: Stephen King was dissatisfied with Kubrick's great horror film, so he hired his TV/film lackey Mick Garris to cinematically rape his own novel with a 3-part miniseries in 1997. King and Garris also managed to drag down the awesome Steven Weber in their errant quest.

Who said it? "I love The Shining. Its bizarre, completely out there brand of horror is remarkable. Blood pouring out of the elevator, the creepy ghost twins, the long dead bartender, the eerie garden maze, Jack going completely batshit insane (see my sig for the movie's best line), "Redrum!"...the list goes on and on."

MadMan

[Raiders]

Sorry guys, but the last six will have to wait 'til tomorrow.

[Derek]

I have no idea what Boner said there.

Not sure what's unclear about it. He's saying the film's dreamlike qualities clash interestingly with Leone's typical crassness.

[Derek]

Sorry guys, but the last six will have to wait 'til tomorrow.

Fine work so far, Raiders.

[MadMan]

Master of Horror: Stephen King was dissatisfied with Kubrick's great horror film, so he hired his TV/film lackey Mick Garris to cinematically rape his own novel with a 3-part miniseries in 1997. King and Garris also managed to drag down the awesome Steven Weber in their errant quest.This is one of the funniest things I've read.

And wahoo my sad, desperate plea for a quote to get included was noticed. Hurray! :lol: (I have no shame)

[Pop Trash]

Good job M.C. for getting Sans Soleil so high. I didn't know you had it in you!

[Boner M]

FWIW, I've never read a page of Proust.

[Derek]

FWIW, I've never read a page of Proust.

Neither have I. But I'm rather well-read in Boner, so I felt qualified to translate.

[Derek]

Good job M.C. for getting Sans Soleil so high. I didn't know you had it in you!

I didn't even vote for it, but I'm glad to see it so high.

[Boner M]

Neither have I. But I'm rather well-read in Boner, so I felt qualified to translate.
Glad you speak fluent Boner. It shouldn't remain a nascent language for long.

[Derek]

Glad you speak fluent Boner. It shouldn't remain a nascent language for long.

Yeah, before you know it, Boner will be popping up all over the place.

[Mr. Pink]

Yeah, before you know it, Boner will be popping up all over the place.

http://chicagoist.com/attachments/chicagoist_kevinr/2009_9_thats_what_she_said.gif

[Raiders]

#6

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/empire-strikes-back_sraymond0607.jpg

STAR WARS EPISODE V: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
1980
Directed by: Irvin Kershner

Tidbit: During production, great secrecy surrounded the fact that Darth Vader was Luke's father. Like the rest of the crew, Prowse—who spoke all of Vader's lines during filming—was given a false page that contained dialogue with the revelatory line being "Obi-Wan killed your father." Hamill did not learn of the plot point until just before the scene was filmed, astounding the actor; Kershner advised him to ignore Prowse's dialogue and "use your own rhythm". Until the film premiered, only George Lucas, Irvin Kershner, Hamill, and James Earl Jones knew what would really be said; Jones' initial reaction to the line was, "He's lying!"

Interesting fact: This is the last Star Wars film to not feature teddy bears or Natalie Portman.

Who said it? "That's one of the reasons I prefer Empire Strikes Back to A New Hope because we don't spend an inordinate amount of time in a fairly boring locale..."

Qrazy

[Mysterious Dude]

Like the rest of the crew, Prowse—who spoke all of Vader's lines during filming—was given a false page that contained dialogue with the revelatory line being "Obi-Wan killed your father." Hamill did not learn of the plot point until just before the scene was filmed, astounding the actor; Kershner advised him to ignore Prowse's dialogue and "use your own rhythm".
Seems like it would have made more sense to tell Prowse, but not Hamill. Then he would be genuinely surprised. But then, I guess the rest of the crew could have overheard it.

[Raiders]

#5

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZKMMkXZNEJo/TMkTOM0aVwI/AAAAAAAAATE/XwirBTombOU/s1600/rachael-blade-runner.jpg

BLADE RUNNER
1982
Directed by: Ridley Scott

Tidbit: Philip K. Dick became concerned that no one had informed him about the film's production, which added to his distrust of Hollywood. After Dick criticized an early version of Hampton Fancher's script in an article written for the Los Angeles Select TV Guide, the studio sent Dick the David Peoples rewrite. Although Dick died shortly before the film's release, he was pleased with the rewritten script, and with a twenty-minute special effects test reel that was screened for him when he was invited to the studio. Dick enthused after the screening to Ridley Scott that the world created for the film looked exactly as he had imagined it.

The end: Unsubstantiated reports indicate that after completion of this film, Ridley Scott was so satisfied with himself that he locked himself in the bathroom, stared in the mirror and congratulated himself that now with three successful and ambitious films under his belt, he could take the rest of his career off.

Who said it? "The human characters are nothing, and Deckard is the ultimate "is he?" because ultimately he could be either and his character wouldn't be viewed any differently for me. There is no human interest imbedded into the film, nothing that makes the replicators' "humanity" anything special because the film doesn't define any form of human emotion."

Me

[baby doll]

FWIW, I've never read a page of Proust.I'm on volume five at the moment, and I mean this purely as an observation which should in no way be construed of a criticism of anything, but there is nothing, repeat nothing, even remotely Proust-like about Once Upon a Time in America. Okay, they're both very long, but that's it.

Also, I wouldn't use the terms "hallucinatory" or "reverie" to describe his style, but that seems more defensible. I'd go with "epic neurosis" myself, but that's just me (the first volume contains a twenty-page stretch where the narrator is worried about whether or not his mother will give him a good night kiss).

[Raiders]

#4

http://vonsamuel.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/new-9-1.jpg?w=538&h=303

PARIS, TEXAS
1984
Directed by: Wim Wenders

Tidbit: This film represented the last of Wenders' American "road films." In an interview with the Dominion Post Wenders said America "offered the great alternatives: comic strips, movies, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, chewing gum, rock 'n' roll. America seemed to offer one joyful adventure after another, and already as a little boy I collected pictures of skyscrapers and big cars and beautiful women with beautiful houses behind them and children that had the greatest toys."

Best.Music.Ever: Ry Cooder based this soundtrack and title song "Paris, Texas" on Blind Willie Johnson's "Dark Was the Night (Cold Was the Ground)", which he described as "The most soulful, transcendent piece in all American music."

Who said it? "I think the long monologues that conclude [Paris, Texas] are brilliant though and feel like an honest release after the film that came before them."

balmakboor

[Spinal]

This list is going downhill.

[balmakboor]

This list is going downhill.

Yeah, once he starts quoting me, the end is near.

No, I didn't realize the multitude of possible interpretations of that statement until after it appeared on my screen.

[Irish]

Something wrong with Raging Bull being further down the list than Empire or Blade Runner.

What's going to be #1? The Goonies?

[Raiders]

#3

http://www.touchingfromadistance.co.u k/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/radio-raheem-do-the-right-thing-490x302.jpg

DO THE RIGHT THING
1989
Directed by: Spike Lee

Tidbit: Spike Lee has remarked that he himself has only ever been asked by white viewers whether Mookie did the right thing; black viewers do not ask the question. Lee believes the key point is that Mookie was angry at the death of Radio Raheem, and that viewers who question the riot's justification are implicitly valuing white property over the life of a black man.

No right or wrong: The film famously ends with two very different quotes from two very different people, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X.

King: "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind."
X: "I don't even call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence."

Who said it? "... Do the Right Thing, which happened to be a great film. In my opinion it’s the film he was put on the planet to do. Everything else is more like School Daze: Wack."

Armond White

[baby doll]

Something wrong with Raging Bull being further down the list than Empire or Blade Runner.

What's going to be #1? The Goonies?I dunno, dude, Blade Runner's pretty awesome. Raging Bull... Okay, Scorsese's doing some interesting things stylistically in the boxing sequences, but as storytelling, it seems to move in fits and starts; for instance, I find when I remember the movie, I tend to mentally edit out most of the stuff involving the local mafia and La Motta wanting a title shot; it's a big part of the film, yet it feels like this subplot and the personal drama are on separate tracks. It doesn't all hang together, so it feels like scenes from two or three different Scorsese movies have been awkwardly thrown together. The movie doesn't have the narrative fluidity of a really great Scorsese film, like After Hours or Goodfellas.

[Dillard]

I'm just thrilled that a couple of these films made the final list. Nostalghia at number 12! It really is a soulful and meditative tour de force (for those of you who haven't seen it).


The movie doesn't have the narrative fluidity of a really great Scorsese film, like After Hours or Goodfellas.
Or The King of Comedy. I thought I was doomed to the outside-looking-in on the Scorcese lovefest until I saw this film.

[baby doll]

I'm just thrilled that a couple of these films made the final list. Nostalghia at number 12! It really is a soulful and meditative tour de force (for those of you who haven't seen it).I prefer The Sacrifice because it's funnier, though Nostalghia has its moments.

[Dillard]

I prefer The Sacrifice because it's funnier, though Nostalghia has its moments.Unintentionally funny? Which moments? Hmm, I don't watch Tarkovsky's films to laugh.

[baby doll]

Unintentionally funny? Which moments? Hmm, I don't watch Tarkovsky's films to laugh.In particular, the house-burning sequence with his family chasing him around in extreme long shot, which plays like a cosmic Keystone Cops routine. Also, Stalker has some obviously intentional funny business (the hat on the woman's car; "This is not the clinic!").

[Raiders]

#2

http://www.geekshow.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/image/Raiders_01.jpg

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
1981
Directed by: Steven Spielberg

Tidbit: The famous truck chase scene was directed entirely by the second unit using only storyboards Spielberg had created with a group of illustrators. The second unit also came up on their own with the idea of Jones being dragged by the truck.

No she didn't!: Pauline Kael, who once contended that she only got "really rough" on large films that were destined to be hits but were nonetheless "atrocious," found the film to be a "machine-tooled adventure" from a pair of creators who "think just like the marketing division."

Who said it? "However, let me stir up the pot by asking a question to the people who get so worked up over the 'resurrection' in War of the Worlds ...

Do you have a similar beef with the way Marion is 'resurrected' in Raiders of the Lost Ark? I think it's the film's biggest flaw. I watched it carefully to see if any information is given to us to key us into the fact that there might have been a switch in baskets. There isn't. As an audience, we are basically lied to. We are given every reason to believe that Marion is in that truck when it explodes. And then her return is explained away with a single line.

If you object to War of the Worlds, but not this, I label you a hypocrite."

Spinal

[Dillard]

re: babydoll

Yeah I can see what you mean with the house-burning sequence in The Sacrifice. I certainly did appreciate that lighter stamp at the end of the film, which I found to be harrowing for portions, particularly the intense reactions of the members of Alexander's household to impending apocalypse earlier on in the film.

[Pop Trash]

Tidbit: Spike Lee has remarked that he himself has only ever been asked by white viewers whether Mookie did the right thing; black viewers do not ask the question. Lee believes the key point is that Mookie was angry at the death of Radio Raheem, and that viewers who question the riot's justification are implicitly valuing white property over the life of a black man.


I've always had issues with this point, since the Raheem character is kind of an asshole and goes around harassing Korean people and blasting his music wherever.

I feel like the film itself is more complex than what Lee wants people to believe.

[Eleven]

Also, Stalker has some obviously intentional funny business (the hat on the woman's car; "This is not the clinic!").

Holy shit do I laugh out loud when this happens, since whenever I rewatch Stalker I always forget that this moment even exists.

[Dillard]

And #1 is:

She wore _____ ______, wah wah wah.

[Mysterious Dude]

Lee believes the key point is that Mookie was angry at the death of Radio Raheem, and that viewers who question the riot's justification are implicitly valuing white property over the life of a black man.
"White property"? Goddammit.

[Raiders]

#1

http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/books/blog/Stockwell_Blue_Velvet.jpg

BLUE VELVET
1986
Directed by: David Lynch

Tidbit: The scene with a raped and battered Dorothy proved to be particularly challenging. Several townspeople arrived to watch the filming with picnic baskets and rugs, against the wishes of Rossellini and Lynch. However, they continued filming as normal, and when Lynch yelled cut, the townspeople had left. As a result, police told Lynch they were no longer permitted to shoot in any public areas of Wilmington.

We showed him!: Roger Ebert criticized how [Rossellini] was depicted in the film, even accusing David Lynch of misogyny: "degraded, slapped around, humiliated and undressed in front of the camera. And when you ask an actress to endure those experiences, you should keep your side of the bargain by putting her in an important film."

In a Tweet honoring David Lynch's birthday, Ebert later revealed though he views Lynch as a great director, his feelings remain unchanged about Blue Velvet.

Who said it? "I can't imagine Blue Velvet playing better in the theater; it's kind of a dull film to look at, especially when compared to Lynch's other, better films.

...

I also dislike the film on an entirely superficial level:

I hate that it popularized PBR. I don't understand the celebration of shitty beer; if you're going to drink beer, drink something good. It's like if a movie made McDonald's a go-to place for ironic eating. I know it's a silly thing to dislike a movie for, but, well..."

D Davis

[Spinal]

The Blue Velvet review is one of Ebert's silliest moments. His desire to rush to the aid of a beautiful actress, as if the events on-screen were real life and Isabella just needed Film Nerd Boy to rush in and save her, is utterly ridiculous.

[Pop Trash]

Absolutely no objections to that being #1.

[Raiders]

Complete List receiving votes:

A Christmas Story 3
A Fish Called Wanda 2.5
A Zed & Two Noughts 32
After Hours 18.5
Airplane! 6.5
Akira 15
Aliens 19.5
Amadeus 53
Au revoir, les enfants 6
Back to the Future 20.5
Blade Runner 72
Blood Simple. 10.5
Blow Out 25.5
Blue Velvet 107
Brazil 61
Cinema Paradiso 14.5
Come and See 19
Crimes and Misdemeanors 12
Das Boot 5
Dead Ringers 33
Dekalog 53.5
Die Hard 12
Do the Right Thing 89
Down by Law 20.5
Dressed to Kill 2
E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial 26
Empire of the Sun 22
Fanny and Alexander 38
Field of Dreams 6
Fitzcarraldo 33.5
Full Metal Jacket 27.5
Gallipoli 8
Ghostbusters 29.5
Glory 3
Grave of the Fireflies 21
Hannah and Her Sisters 21
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 4.5
Koyaanisqatsi 34
Laputa: Castle in the Sky 2.5
L'Argent 11
Mona Lisa 3
My Neighbor Totoro 31
Nostalghia 57
Once Upon a Time in America 62
Paris, Texas 73
Pee-Wee's Big Adventure 2
Planes, Trains and Automobiles 2
Platoon 9
Raging Bull 61
Raiders of the Lost Ark 93.5
Raising Arizona 23
Ran 52.5
Repo Man 10
Return of the Jedi 22
Riskey Business 2.5
Sans soleil 61.5
Santa sangre 18
Sherman's March 16
Stardust Memories 20
Stranger Than Paradise 24
Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story 2
Tampopo 7
The Atomic Café 9.5
The Big Red One 2.5
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover 19
The Elephant Man 35
The Empire Strikes Back 66.5
The Fly 23
The King of Comedy 2
The Last Temptation of Christ 41
The Man Who Planted Trees 37
The NeverEnding Story 7
The Purple Rose of Cairo 14
The Right Stuff 4
The Road Warrior 11
The Sacrifice 25
The Seventh Continent 5
The Shining 63
The Thin Blue Line 26
The Thing 39.5
The Vanishing 33
This is Spinal Tap 6
Veronika Voss 6
Videodrome 25.5
Who Framed Roger Rabbit 10.5
Wings of Desire 17.5
Zelig 9.5

[Pop Trash]

The Blue Velvet review is one of Ebert's silliest moments. His desire to rush to the aid of a beautiful actress, as if the events on-screen were real life and Isabella just needed Film Nerd Boy to rush in and save her, is utterly ridiculous.

Not to mention, she never said she felt exploited by Lynch in any way. I think she attends rerelease screenings of it to this day.

[Raiders]

Top 20 for easy rating:

1 Blue Velvet
2 Raiders of the Lost Ark
3 Do the Right Thing
4 Paris, Texas
5 Blade Runner
6 The Empire Strikes Back
7 The Shining
8 Once Upon a Time in America
9 Sans soleil
10t Raging Bull
10t Brazil
12 Nostalghia
13 Dekalog
14 Amadeus
15 Ran
16 The Last Temptation of Christ
17 The Thing
18 Fanny and Alexander
19 The Man Who Planted Trees
20 The Elephant Man

[Spinal]

This is Spinal Tap 6


Seriously, screw you guys.

[StanleyK]

1. Blue Velvet - ****
2. Raiders of the Lost Ark - ****
3. Do the Right Thing - ****
5. Blade Runner - Need to rewatch.
6. The Empire Strikes Back - ****
7. The Shining - ****
9. Sans Soleil - ****
10t. Raging Bull - ****
10t. Brazil - Need to rewatch.
14. Amadeus - Need to rewatch.
17. The Thing - Need to rewatch.
20. The Elephant Man - ***

Nostalghia, Once Upon a Time in America and Ran are films I voted for even though I should rewatch them; what can I say, not the best film decade.



Great movie as it is, I wish Blue Velvet hadn't been #1; Lynch already has, quite deservedly, the 00's.

[Dillard]

The Blue Velvet review is one of Ebert's silliest moments. His desire to rush to the aid of a beautiful actress, as if the events on-screen were real life and Isabella just needed Film Nerd Boy to rush in and save her, is utterly ridiculous.Not to mention that Ebert seems to think that the whole thing is a satire, of Lynch spoofing '50s sitcoms. I don't think he trusts Lynch's sincerity and love for his characters. Certainly there is comedy here, but not at the expense of the characters. Ebert seems put off by the playful tone that helps comprise the surface underneath which the darker side of reality bubbles.

[Dillard]

1 Blue Velvet - 8.5
2 Raiders of the Lost Ark - 9
3 Do the Right Thing - 7 (needs rewatch)
4 Paris, Texas - 10
5 Blade Runner - 8
6 The Empire Strikes Back - 6.5
7 The Shining - 7
8 Once Upon a Time in America - n/a
9 Sans soleil - n/a
10t Raging Bull - 5.5 (rewatch)
10t Brazil - 8
12 Nostalghia - 10
13 Dekalog - 9.5
14 Amadeus - 5
15 Ran - n/a
16 The Last Temptation of Christ - n/a
17 The Thing - 7.5
18 Fanny and Alexander - rewatch
19 The Man Who Planted Trees - 9
20 The Elephant Man - rewatch

[Irish]

The Blue Velvet review is one of Ebert's silliest moments. His desire to rush to the aid of a beautiful actress, as if the events on-screen were real life and Isabella just needed Film Nerd Boy to rush in and save her, is utterly ridiculous.

I think you're right to criticize Ebert's motives in most cases -- watching some of his reviews, he seems to get overly worked up over pretty faces -- but not in this case.

Lynch is a prankster who always wants to have his cake and eat it too. I think to Ebert's point it's not so much about "being in an important film" as earning your emotional moments. And Blue Velvet doesn't. It crosses that line to being about exploitation and degradation to becoming exploitative and degrading itself.

I liked its carny-sideshow appeal a lot more when I was younger, but now I'm tired of Lynch's cleverer-than-thou freakish-for-freaks sake antics.

[Bosco B Thug]

1 Blue Velvet - ***
2 Raiders of the Lost Ark - ***1/2
3 Do the Right Thing - ****
4 Paris, Texas - ***1/2
5 Blade Runner - n/a
6 The Empire Strikes Back - needs a re-watch
7 The Shining - ***1/2
8 Once Upon a Time in America - n/a
9 Sans soleil - ****
10t Raging Bull - n/a
10t Brazil - ****
12 Nostalghia - n/a
13 Dekalog - ****
14 Amadeus - needs a re-watch
15 Ran - n/a
16 The Last Temptation of Christ - n/a
17 The Thing - ***
18 Fanny and Alexander - n/a
19 The Man Who Planted Trees - n/a
20 The Elephant Man - **1/2

[Irish]

No she didn't!: Pauline Kael, who once contended that she only got "really rough" on large films that were destined to be hits but were nonetheless "atrocious," found the film to be a "machine-tooled adventure" from a pair of creators who "think just like the marketing division."

The more I read of Kael, the more she impresses me. Calling Lucas and Spielberg "the marketing division" isn't just insightful, it's damn near prescient.

[Pop Trash]

1 Blue Velvet - 10
2 Raiders of the Lost Ark - 10
3 Do the Right Thing - 8
4 Paris, Texas - n/s
5 Blade Runner - n/s
6 The Empire Strikes Back - 9
7 The Shining - 10
8 Once Upon a Time in America - n/s
9 Sans soleil - 9
10t Raging Bull - 8
10t Brazil - 7
12 Nostalghia - n/s
13 Dekalog - n/s
14 Amadeus - n/s
15 Ran - n/s
16 The Last Temptation of Christ - 9
17 The Thing - needs a rewatch
18 Fanny and Alexander - needs a rewatch
19 The Man Who Planted Trees - n/s
20 The Elephant Man - 8 but could use a rewatch

Guess I should park my ass down and finally watch Paris, Texas, Blade Runner, and Once Upon a Time in America. Hope they are better than Naked.

[Pop Trash]

The more I read of Kael, the more she impresses me. Calling Lucas and Spielberg "the marketing division" isn't just insightful, it's damn near prescient.

Dude, you do realize she praised Temple of Doom right? That was one confused lady.

[Raiders]

1 Blue Velvet [***½]
2 Raiders of the Lost Ark [****]
3 Do the Right Thing [***½]
4 Paris, Texas [****]
5 Blade Runner [***]
6 The Empire Strikes Back [***]
7 The Shining [***½]
8 Once Upon a Time in America [**½]
9 Sans soleil [****]
10t Raging Bull [****]
10t Brazil [**½]
12 Nostalghia [***½]
13 Dekalog [****]
14 Amadeus [***]
15 Ran [***]
16 The Last Temptation of Christ [****]
17 The Thing [****]
18 Fanny and Alexander n/a
19 The Man Who Planted Trees [****]
20 The Elephant Man [**½]

[Watashi]

1 Blue Velvet ***
2 Raiders of the Lost Ark ****
3 Do the Right Thing ***½
4 Paris, Texas ****
5 Blade Runner ****
6 The Empire Strikes Back ****
7 The Shining n/a
8 Once Upon a Time in America ****
9 Sans soleil n/a
10t Raging Bull ****
10t Brazil ***½
12 Nostalghia n/a
13 Dekalog n/a
14 Amadeus ****
15 Ran ****
16 The Last Temptation of Christ ****
17 The Thing ***½
18 Fanny and Alexander n/a
19 The Man Who Planted Trees ***½
20 The Elephant Man ****

[Russ]

Wats, you've never seen The Shining?

[Spinal]

I think you're right to criticize Ebert's motives in most cases -- watching some of his reviews, he seems to get overly worked up over pretty faces -- but not in this case.

Lynch is a prankster who always wants to have his cake and eat it too. I think to Ebert's point it's not so much about "being in an important film" as earning your emotional moments. And Blue Velvet doesn't. It crosses that line to being about exploitation and degradation to becoming exploitative and degrading itself.

I liked its carny-sideshow appeal a lot more when I was younger, but now I'm tired of Lynch's cleverer-than-thou freakish-for-freaks sake antics.

You're missing the point. Your view of the film's exploitative nature is irrelavent. The point is that Rossellini is being viewed as a helpless tool, when, in fact, she was a collaborator in an artistic venture that she believed in.

[Ivan Drago]

1 Blue Velvet 9
2 Raiders of the Lost Ark 9
3 Do the Right Thing 9.5
5 Blade Runner 9
6 The Empire Strikes Back 9
7 The Shining 8.5
8 Once Upon a Time in America 8
10t Raging Bull 9.5
10t Brazil 8
14 Amadeus 10
16 The Last Temptation of Christ 8.5
17 The Thing 9

[Watashi]

Wats, you've never seen The Shining?
Nope. I'm behind on my Kubrick. Haven't seen Barry Lyndon or Lolita either.

[Irish]

You're missing the point. Your view of the film's exploitative nature is irrelavent. The point is that Rossellini is being viewed as a helpless tool, when, in fact, she was a collaborator in an artistic venture that she believed in.

Hm. I think you or I -- or both of us -- are getting confused between the actress and the performance.

Let me try again: The point is, if you're going to put somebody through the wringer like that on screen, ask somebody to do all that crazy, effed up stuff, then it's got to be for a meaningful reason.

Blue Velvet doesn't deliver that meaning, because -- to Ebert's point -- Lynch keeps pulling his punches and putting distance between the audience and the onscreen events.

[Spinal]

Hm. I think you or I -- or both of us -- are getting confused between the actress and the performance.

Let me try again: The point is, if you're going to put somebody through the wringer like that on screen, ask somebody to do all that crazy, effed up stuff, then it's got to be for a meaningful reason.

Blue Velvet doesn't deliver that meaning, because -- to Ebert's point -- Lynch keeps pulling his punches and putting distance between the audience and the onscreen events.

But that's your opinion. That's Ebert's opinion. Who cares? It's one of the most critically lauded films of that era. Clearly, any discomfort Rossellini experienced was for "a meaningful reason". I think this criticism reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how an actor operates. We do know she's not really being beaten and sexually abused, right? We do know that this kind of demanding role is something most actors dream about, right?

[Spinal]

All you need to know is that an actress as intelligent and seasoned as Helen Mirren saw Blue Velvet and immediately regretted not pursuing the role. That's why she agreed to do Cook, Thief.

[Stay Puft]

1 Blue Velvet (**½)
2 Raiders of the Lost Ark (***)
5 Blade Runner (***)
6 The Empire Strikes Back (***)
7 The Shining (**½)
8 Once Upon a Time in America (**)
9 Sans soleil (****)
10t Raging Bull (***½)
14 Amadeus (***½)
15 Ran (**½)
16 The Last Temptation of Christ (***½)
17 The Thing (***½)
20 The Elephant Man (***)

[Irish]

But that's your opinion. That's Ebert's opinion. Who cares?
Too reductive. I mean, we're on a forum dedicated to movie discussion and you're asking 'who cares'? Seriously?


It's one of the most critically lauded films of that era.
Now you're taking a shot at having/eating your cake. You can't dismiss criticism in one sentence and then use it to support your argument the next.


Clearly, any discomfort Rossellini experienced was for "a meaningful reason". I think this criticism reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how an actor operates. We do know she's not really being beaten and sexually abused, right? We do know that this kind of demanding role is something most actors dream about, right?
Yeah, but that's the point -- like any creative resource, a performance can be squandered through misuse.

Lynch squandered the bravery of Rosselini's performance by pulling his punches.

[Irish]

All you need to know is that an actress as intelligent and seasoned as Helen Mirren saw Blue Velvet and immediately regretted not pursuing the role. That's why she agreed to do Cook, Thief.

Look at Mirren's filmography in the 10 years prior to Blue Velvet. She was virtually unknown in the US at that time, doing schlock like Excalibur or sex kitten roles like Hussy.

Starring in Lynch's movie would have meant major exposure (*cough*) and an enormous boost to her career.

[Spinal]

Too reductive. I mean, we're on a forum dedicated to movie discussion and you're asking 'who cares'? Seriously?



What I'm saying is that your minority opinion is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not Lynch betrayed Rossellini by putting her in this movie. That is a silly argument in light of the fact that it imagines feelings that an actress might have had that have not been put forward by the actress herself. You're imagining trauma, humiliation and degradation that you have no evidence to support. What Lynch did was to put her in one of the most critically acclaimed films of that era. It's not that your opinion of the film itself doesn't matter. It's that it doesn't matter in this discussion.

[Raiders]

Look at Mirren's filmography in the 10 years prior to Blue Velvet. She was virtually unknown in the US at that time, doing schlock like Excalibur or sex kitten roles like Hussy.

Starring in Lynch's movie would have meant major exposure (*cough*) and an enormous boost to her career.

Also true of Rossellini who was mainly known for Lancome ads at the time of this film.

[Melville]

Blue Velvet doesn't deliver that meaning, because -- to Ebert's point -- Lynch keeps pulling his punches and putting distance between the audience and the onscreen events.
Say what? Blue Velvet is one of the most meaningful films I've seen. What punches are pulled? The layer of irony and artificiality are essential to the film's points, and as such, they got me more involved, not less, in the onscreen events and made me think more about their very human meaning.

[Spinal]

I can't imagine that you agree to do a Greenaway film because you're aching to increase your marketability in the United States. The point is, that Mirren, a veteran film actress at that point, saw Blue Velvet and thought, not "oh dear, how appalling, something is wrong with this", but rather "I wish that role had been mine, let me find something similar."

[MadMan]

Look at Mirren's filmography in the 10 years prior to Blue Velvet. She was virtually unknown in the US at that time, doing schlock like Excalibur or sex kitten roles like Hussy.

Starring in Lynch's movie would have meant major exposure (*cough*) and an enormous boost to her career.Um, you overlooked the fact that prior to Blue Velvet she also did The Long Good Friday, and she was great in it. More people need to see that movie, damnit.


Seriously, screw you guys.Its a great film, but it didn't crack my list. There's a lot of great films that were among the ones I could have voted for, but they didn't make the list. *Shrug*

1 Blue Velvet-95
2 Raiders of the Lost Ark-100
3 Do the Right Thing-100
5 Blade Runner-100
6 The Empire Strikes Back-100
7 The Shining-currently an 88, but probably will go up on a second or third viewing
10t Raging Bull-100
17 The Thing-100

[Dillard]

I liked its carny-sideshow appeal a lot more when I was younger, but now I'm tired of Lynch's cleverer-than-thou freakish-for-freaks sake antics.I just don't read Lynch this way. Lynch isn't a trickster, trying to pull one over on his audiences. In Blue Velvet, as in many of his films, he is very sincerely trying to draw us into a world where innocence covers up evil, and pursuing the mystery of the evil leads one into morally ambiguous situations. The mystery is almost always preserved in Lynch's films at the expense of neatly tying up narratives, and this is where some critics would be inclined to call Lynch a trickster. And yes, Lynch's worlds are often dotted with odd, freakish characters, but these characters aren't odd for oddness sake. That's the "weird on top" part of how Lynch views the world (ala Lula in Wild at Heart: "This whole world is wild at heart and weird on top.") Lynch heightens the weirdness to contrast with the naivete and innocence of Jeffrey in Blue Velvet or Betty of Mulholland Drive that are in play on the surface level of the narratives. Intrigued by the weirdness, of something that is perceived to be of the "real world", at least, something outside of what these naive characters know, they are led deeper into the mystery. Another sticking point for many are the wildly varying tones of the films which may be jarring for the viewer. However, this mirrors the experience of the seeker protagonist. And Lynch invites the viewer into that seeking, voyeuristic experience of the morally ambiguous. This is not pulling punches at all, not freakishness for freaks' sake at all. These are strange filmic worlds of heightened emotion which are vividly drawn by Lynch's mastery of image and sound design. Although at this point I realize I've been painting in very broad of strokes about Lynch's oeuvre. Certainly for me anyway, what I have been describing is my experience of Blue Velvet.

[soitgoes...]

1 Blue Velvet ***½
2 Raiders of the Lost Ark ****
3 Do the Right Thing ****
4 Paris, Texas ***
5 Blade Runner ***
6 The Empire Strikes Back ***½
7 The Shining ***
8 Once Upon a Time in America ****
9 Sans soleil **½
10t Raging Bull ***½
10t Brazil ***
12 Nostalghia n/a
13 Dekalog ****
14 Amadeus **½
15 Ran ***½
16 The Last Temptation of Christ ***½
17 The Thing ***
18 Fanny and Alexander ***½
19 The Man Who Planted Trees ****
20 The Elephant Man ***

[Dillard]

Sorry, I've been continuously editing my last post. I'll let it rest as it is for anyone to respond if they want.

[endingcredits]

Too reductive. I mean, we're on a forum dedicated to movie discussion and you're asking 'who cares'? Seriously?


I do not care one iota about Ebert's criticism regarding Lynch. Ebert is a tool.



Lynch squandered the bravery of Rosselini's performance by pulling his punches.


You're outta your element man.

http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz192/endingcredits1/big_lebowski_007.jpg?t=1289600 976

[Russ]

At least Ebert has been consistently contentious with what he perceives to be over-the-top or extreme content that is (by his perception) portrayed lightly (ie, not taken seriously) in art films and/or ambitious mainstream fare. It's interesting to google Ebert + oh, say Salo (which, amazingly, I don't think he's ever reviewed) and read the text/comments found in some of the links on Ebert's rather consistent stance. While he admires such controversial and extreme Jodorowsky fare as El Topo and Santa Sangre, he reviles Blue Velvet and Lost Highway. Of course, he always backs up his critiques with reasoning, with which many of us, myself included, do not alway agree. I mean, this is the guy who admires the original Last House on the Left, let us not forget.

He is predictable to the degree that he sees "not serious" as gratuitous, and "serious in context" as profound. Which is why I'm waiting with baited breath on A Serbian Film working its way to his vicinity and (hopefully) his reaction to it.

[Melville]

I just don't read Lynch this way. Lynch isn't a trickster, trying to pull one over on his audiences. In Blue Velvet, as in many of his films, he is very sincere
Yeah, Lynch is nothing if not sincere. The worlds he creates are ingenuous, steeped in the emotions and meanings of the human experiences he explores.

[DavidSeven]

Who said it? "That's one of the reasons I prefer Empire Strikes Back to A New Hope because we don't spend an inordinate amount of time in a fairly boring locale..."

This.



Who said it? "The human characters are nothing, and Deckard is the ultimate "is he?" because ultimately he could be either and his character wouldn't be viewed any differently for me. There is no human interest imbedded into the film, nothing that makes the replicators' "humanity" anything special because the film doesn't define any form of human emotion."

This too.


Who Said It? Do you have a similar beef with the way Marion is 'resurrected' in Raiders of the Lost Ark? I think it's the film's biggest flaw. I watched it carefully to see if any information is given to us to key us into the fact that there might have been a switch in baskets. There isn't. As an audience, we are basically lied to. We are given every reason to believe that Marion is in that truck when it explodes. And then her return is explained away with a single line.

If you object to War of the Worlds, but not this, I label you a hypocrite.

And this. Only because I do have a problem with both! And also their respective use of deus ex machina to resolve the larger conflicts of both films as well. Hurray for crappy Spielberg endings! :pritch:

[endingcredits]

At least Ebert has been consistently contentious with what he perceives to be over-the-top or extreme content that is (by his perception) portrayed lightly (ie, not taken seriously) in art films and/or ambitious mainstream fare. It's interesting to google Ebert + oh, say Salo (which, amazingly, I don't think he's ever reviewed) and read the text/comments found in some of the links on Ebert's rather consistent stance. While he admires such controversial and extreme Jodorowsky fare as El Topo and Santa Sangre, he reviles Blue Velvet and Lost Highway. Of course, he always backs up his critiques with reasoning, with which many of us, myself included, do not alway agree. I mean, this is the guy who admires the original Last House on the Left, let us not forget.

He is predictable to the degree that he sees "not serious" as gratuitous, and "serious in context" as profound. Which is why I'm waiting with baited breath on A Serbian Film working its way to his vicinity and (hopefully) his reaction to it.

Yeah, but anyone who praises El Topo and lambastes Blue Velvet deserves to be filed under tool.

[Melville]

He is predictable to the degree that he sees "not serious" as gratuitous, and "serious in context" as profound.
He's ridiculous to the degree that he thinks Lynch is not serious and Jodorowsky is serious in context.

[endingcredits]

He's ridiculous to the degree that he thinks Lynch is not serious and Jodorowsky is serious in context.

Indeed. With regards to Lynch his reasoning is nonsense. Otherwise, I don't have much of a problem with him.

[Melville]

Indeed. With regards to Lynch his reasoning is nonsense. Otherwise, I don't have much of a problem with him.
Yeah, I like his occasional witticisms. In terms of making good points, he's much better at praising movies he loves than criticizing those he hates.

[Irish]

What I'm saying is that your minority opinion is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not Lynch betrayed Rossellini by putting her in this movie. That is a silly argument in light of the fact that it imagines feelings that an actress might have had that have not been put forward by the actress herself. You're imagining trauma, humiliation and degradation that you have no evidence to support. What Lynch did was to put her in one of the most critically acclaimed films of that era. It's not that your opinion of the film itself doesn't matter. It's that it doesn't matter in this discussion.

Yeah. We're talking about two different things. I'm not second guessing what Rossellini-the-actress was thinking or feeling when she did Blue Velvet, or imagining that she had to be rescued from her own judgement in choosing to participate in the project.

I'm saying that she knocked it out of the park and Lynch undermined her performance by chopping it up into an emotional facile movie. That's pretty much the extent of it.

(For what it's worth, although I can't speak for him, I don't think Ebert meant what you're suggesting either).

[Irish]

I just don't read Lynch this way. Lynch isn't a trickster, trying to pull one over on his audiences. In Blue Velvet, as in many of his films, he is very sincerely trying to draw us into a world where innocence covers up evil, and pursuing the mystery of the evil leads one into morally ambiguous situations. The mystery is almost always preserved in Lynch's films at the expense of neatly tying up narratives, and this is where some critics would be inclined to call Lynch a trickster. And yes, Lynch's worlds are often dotted with odd, freakish characters, but these characters aren't odd for oddness sake. That's the "weird on top" part of how Lynch views the world (ala Lula in Wild at Heart: "This whole world is wild at heart and weird on top.") Lynch heightens the weirdness to contrast with the naivete and innocence of Jeffrey in Blue Velvet or Betty of Mulholland Drive that are in play on the surface level of the narratives. Intrigued by the weirdness, of something that is perceived to be of the "real world", at least, something outside of what these naive characters know, they are led deeper into the mystery. Another sticking point for many are the wildly varying tones of the films which may be jarring for the viewer. However, this mirrors the experience of the seeker protagonist. And Lynch invites the viewer into that seeking, voyeuristic experience of the morally ambiguous. This is not pulling punches at all, not freakishness for freaks' sake at all. These are strange filmic worlds of heightened emotion which are vividly drawn by Lynch's mastery of image and sound design. Although at this point I realize I've been painting in very broad of strokes about Lynch's oeuvre. Certainly for me anyway, what I have been describing is my experience of Blue Velvet.

Great, well thought out post. I don't agree, but I owe you +rep in a big way.

Edit to add: There's an intellectual smugness about Lynch I find dishonest, especially when he tries to tackle real subject matter. He doesn't have the spine to come at something straight on, so he always has to be all-to-clever about it, play around with puzzle pieces, keep key information to himself, and never fully engage the audience. Especially in his later work, it becomes a game of keeping the audience clueless and guessing what the hell is going on, rather than what they're feeling in any particular moment. That's not drama, it's just bad sleight of hand work.

[Melville]

Edit to add: There's an intellectual smugness about Lynch I find dishonest, especially when he tries to tackle real subject matter. He doesn't have the spine to come at something straight on, so he always has to be all-to-clever about it, play around with puzzle pieces, keep key information to himself, and never fully engage the audience. Especially in his later work, it becomes a game of keeping the audience clueless and guessing what the hell is going on, rather than what they're feeling in any particular moment. That's not drama, it's just bad sleight of hand work.
Lynch's movies are the most engaging around. Cleverness seems anti-Lynchian: he creates a feeling of mystery to draw you in, to make you more engaged with the atmosphere and emotion of the scene, not to keep you guessing at some puzzle pieces he's obscuring. I never feel clueless when watching one of his films, because they explore their themes in such a powerfully emotional way. Why should he come at something straight on, when he can explore the core of fundamental human issues and feelings in a singular fashion that illuminates them and captures their essence in ways that would be otherwise impossible? In a sense, he does come at something straight on, by crafting the structure and reality of his films around his subject, while more typical films are beholden to norms of objective reality and narrative.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The list I pm-ed Raiders:


01. Ghostbusters (Reitman)
02. Evil Dead II (Raimi)
03. The Empire Strikes Back (Kershner)
04. Akira (Ôtomo)
05. The Road Warrior (Miller)
06. The Atomic Café (Loader/Rafferty/Rafferty)
07. Raging Bull (Scorsese)
08. Koyaanisqatsi (Reggio)
09. A Fish Called Wanda (Crichton)
10. Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Zemeckis)

I feel silly for not including Spinal Tap. The list as it stands:

Raiders of the Lost Ark - A
Blade Runner - A-
The Empire Strikes Back - A
The Shining - B
Raging Bull - A
Brazil - B
Amadeus - A-
The Last Temptation of Christ - B+
The Thing - A-
Fanny and Alexander - B

[Melville]

1 Blue Velvet - 10
2 Raiders of the Lost Ark - 9
3 Do the Right Thing - 7.5
4 Paris, Texas - 9 (just for the monologue)
5 Blade Runner - 9
6 The Empire Strikes Back - 6
7 The Shining - 4
8 Once Upon a Time in America - 7
9 Sans soleil - 6.5
10t Raging Bull - 8.5
10t Brazil - 6
12 Nostalghia - 8 (should watch again)
13 Dekalog - NA
14 Amadeus - 8.5
15 Ran - 5
16 The Last Temptation of Christ - 5.5
17 The Thing - 4
18 Fanny and Alexander - 10
19 The Man Who Planted Trees - 9
20 The Elephant Man - 5

[Russ]

There's an intellectual smugness about Lynch I find dishonest, especially when he tries to tackle real subject matter. He doesn't have the spine to come at something straight on
Why should he? Because everyone else does? Or because that's the way you prefer it?


..so he always has to be all-to-clever about it, play around with puzzle pieces, keep key information to himself, and never fully engage the audience. Especially in his later work, it becomes a game of keeping the audience clueless and guessing what the hell is going on, rather than what they're feeling in any particular moment. That's not drama, it's just bad sleight of hand work.
Oh absolutely. I need to be spoon-fed every single detail to let me know what the hell is going on. That's the only way I can engage with a film.

http://209.85.48.10/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Grouchy]

So I run the '70s, right? When do I start?

Empire Strikes Back higher than Raging Bull sucks my dick, by the way.

[Derek]

I'm on volume five at the moment, and I mean this purely as an observation which should in no way be construed of a criticism of anything, but there is nothing, repeat nothing, even remotely Proust-like about Once Upon a Time in America. Okay, they're both very long, but that's it.

Also, I wouldn't use the terms "hallucinatory" or "reverie" to describe his style, but that seems more defensible. I'd go with "epic neurosis" myself, but that's just me (the first volume contains a twenty-page stretch where the narrator is worried about whether or not his mother will give him a good night kiss).

To be fair, I've heard the Proust comparisons several times before, so I have a feeling there are more similarities than you're giving it credit for.

[balmakboor]

Dude, you do realize she praised Temple of Doom right? That was one confused lady.

I love Temple of Doom. I thought her review nailed it. Same with her review of Raiders.

You know a critic who hated Blue Velvet with a well-reasoned passion? Robin Wood.

[balmakboor]

I mean, this is the guy [Roger Ebert] who admires the original Last House on the Left, let us not forget.

With plot descriptions so riddled with holes that one wonders if he actually watched it -- as was pointed out by Robin Wood.

[baby doll]

To be fair, I've heard the Proust comparisons several times before, so I have a feeling there are more similarities than you're giving it credit for.I'd be very interested to hear what those similarities are supposed to be.

[baby doll]

Because I don't have time to bitch...

Blue Velvet (David Lynch, 1986) / ***1/2
Raiders of the Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg, 1981) / ***1/2
Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989) / ****
Paris, Texas (Wim Wenders, 1984) / ****
Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982) / ****
The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980) / ****
Once Upon a Time in America (Sergio Leone, 1984) / ***
Sans soleil (Chris Marker, 1983) / ****
Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980) / ***
Brazil (Terry Gilliam, 1985) / ***
Nostalghia (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1983) / ***1/2
Ran (Akira Kurosawa, 1985) / ***1/2
The Last Temptation of Christ (Martin Scorsese, 1988) / ***1/2
The Elephant Man (David Lynch, 1980) / **1/2

I need to rewatch The Decalogue and Fanny and Alexander (although I'm not generally a fan of Bergman anyway). Likewise, it's been too long since I've seen The Empire Strikes Back for me to rate it, but unlike those films, I'm probably never going to watch it again.

P.S.: Blue Velvet + Ebert = Fast track to nowhere.

[Spinal]

So I run the '70s, right? When do I start?



I'll put up the first post. You can take over after that. Might not be until Sunday though.

[Derek]

I'd be very interested to hear what those similarities are supposed to be.

Feel free to search the internet. I'll be interested to hear what kind of porn you end up at starting with a "Once Upon a Time in America" & "Proust" search.

[baby doll]

Feel free to search the internet. I'll be interested to hear what kind of porn you end up at starting with a "Once Upon a Time in America" & "Proust" search.From the first site (http://thegayrecluse.com/2008/12/02/on-once-upon-a-time-in-america-there-is-only-one-marcel-proust-and-he-did-not-make-movies/) that came up:


Several times in the movie, Lione attempts to draw us into Proustian episodes of the "memoire involuntaire," triggered by a range of objects and settings familiar but long lost to the De Niro character

But then, that's true of a lot of movies with flashback structures, where dialogue hooks and graphic matches are used to jump from one period to another.

[Derek]

From the first site (http://thegayrecluse.com/2008/12/02/on-once-upon-a-time-in-america-there-is-only-one-marcel-proust-and-he-did-not-make-movies/) that came up:

But then, that's true of a lot of movies with flashback structures, where dialogue hooks and graphic matches are used to jump from one period to another.

And I have trouble trusting someone who misspells Leone. I'm not saying there are any deep connections between the two, only that it's not an uncommon connection being made.

[B-side]

I'd go with "epic neurosis" myself, but that's just me (the first volume contains a twenty-page stretch where the narrator is worried about whether or not his mother will give him a good night kiss).

That sounds amazing.

[baby doll]

That sounds amazing.It is.

[soitgoes...]

13 Dekalog - NAI'm kinda surprised. Are you generally a fan of Kieslowski?

[Melville]

I'm kinda surprised. Are you generally a fan of Kieslowski?
Yeah, I'm a fan.

The Double Life of Veronique - 9.5
Three Colours: Red - 8.5
A Short Film About Killing - 8.5
Three Colours: White - 8
Three Colours: Blue - 7

I've seen four episodes of Dekalog, but I haven't gotten around to watching the whole thing.

[soitgoes...]

Yeah, I'm a fan.

The Double Life of Veronique - 9.5
Three Colours: Red - 8.5
A Short Film About Killing - 8.5
Three Colours: White - 8
Three Colours: Blue - 7

I've seen four episodes of Dekalog, but I haven't gotten around to watching the whole thing.Do I need to tell you to watch the rest Melville? Do I?

Also, rewatch Blue while you're at it. ;)

[Pop Trash]

I love Temple of Doom. I thought her review nailed it. Same with her review of Raiders.

You know a critic who hated Blue Velvet with a well-reasoned passion? Robin Wood.

Oh don't get me wrong, I love Temple of Doom too. I must have watched it a hundred times on VHS as a kid. But I do think it's absurd to dislike Raiders and like Temple of Doom. Unless you have a problem with the Judeo-Christian religious aspects of Raiders or something?

[Irish]

Why should he? Because everyone else does? Or because that's the way you prefer it?

He should do it because that's the way you approach real, adult drama. Admittedly, it's insanely difficult to do well, which is why you see so much on-the-nose dialogue and characters spouting off lines direct from their inner-psyche (see also: any movie scene ever made with a main character and their shrink). That's why writers fall back on detached irony and meta-context (see also movies like Scott Pilgrim and Kick Ass). Because in a lot of ways it's easier, and far less risky.

So I look at Lynch and I look at television writers like Joss Whedon and Matthew Weiner and I get confused. Those guys can do subtext and compelling drama without obfuscating their meaning or spoon feeding the audience. So why can't Lynch even try?


Oh absolutely. I need to be spoon-fed every single detail to let me know what the hell is going on. That's the only way I can engage with a film.

Not at all what I meant, but hey, good on you for going right for sarcasm instead of forming an actual counter argument. /golfclap.

[Duncan]

So...wait. You want Lynch to be more like Joss Whedon? But, but why? Surely you're aesthetic preferences aren't so narrow that you actually believe, without exception, that "that's the way you approach real, adult drama."

[Russ]

Not at all what I meant, but hey, good on you for going right for sarcasm instead of forming an actual counter argument. /golfclap.
If you're going to toss off ignorant statements like, "That's not drama, it's just bad sleight of hand work." as a blanket critique of Lynch's "later work" then you should probably get used to the occasional bit of sarcasm.

[Spinal]

Good god, what nonsense.

[Milky Joe]

I'm saying that she knocked it out of the park and Lynch undermined her performance by chopping it up into an emotional facile movie. That's pretty much the extent of it.

BV is about as far from 'emotionally facile' as a film can possibly get. No offense, but I think this comment says more about the depth of your own emotional waters than those of Lynch or his film.

[Irish]

So...wait. You want Lynch to be more like Joss Whedon? But, but why? Surely you're aesthetic preferences aren't so narrow that you actually believe, without exception, that "that's the way you approach real, adult drama."
Well .. I don't want Lynch to be anybody but Lynch. But then I also want him to stop taking cheap shortcuts. (To put it another way: Where's the guy who made The Elephant Man? It seems like that part of him just died after his experience with Dune).

I think you can introduce a certain amount of chaos and surrealism into a picture, but there's got to be boundries, there's got to be a sense of limits or else you're not playing fair with the audience and your story becomes just nonsense.

Luis Bunel was great at that sort of thing -- neither spoon feeding his meaning nor going on the nose -- continually injecting his movies with surrealism and a sense of the absurb.

Parts of Blue Velvet, on the other hand, play like a You Tube mash up of Irreversible and Pleasantville.


If you're going to toss off ignorant statements like, "That's not drama, it's just bad sleight of hand work." as a blanket critique of Lynch's "later work" then you should probably get used to the occasional bit of sarcasm.
Get back to me if & when you manage to move from ad hominems to an actual, critical argument.

[Raiders]

Let's just move on to the 70s shall we? That way we can do this all over again when Eraserhead makes the list. Yay.

[Irish]

Let's just move on to the 70s shall we? That way we can do this all over again when Eraserhead makes the list. Yay.

:lol:

[Milky Joe]

(To put it another way: Where's the guy who made The Elephant Man? It seems like that part of him just died after his experience with Dune).

Ever see The Straight Story?


Parts of Blue Velvet, on the other hand, play like a You Tube mash up of Irreversible and Pleasantville.

OK, seriously. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Irish]

Ever see The Straight Story?

Holy shite! Good point. Totally forgot about that one.

[Melville]

Where's the guy who made The Elephant Man?
The guy who made better movies bludgeoned him to death in his sleep.


there's got to be a sense of limits or else you're not playing fair with the audience and your story becomes just nonsense.
I don't understand at all why you think he's not playing fair with his audience. None of his films is nonsense as far as I can tell: they're all very pointed and emotional, and he makes them that via his atmosphere of the odd and dreamlike. (Here are my thoughts on what they point at, in the case of Blue Velvet (http://melvillian.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/blue-velvet-lynch-1986/) and Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr., and Inland Empire (http://melvillian.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/a-lynchian-trilogy-lost-highway-mulholland-dr-and-inland-empire/).) Do you dismiss all avant garde films as nonsense, or do you dislike Lynch's films because they use an unusual form while focusing on traditional elements of story and characters, rather than being outright non-narrative?

[Boner M]

The way David Lynch makes David Lynch movies is both better than and different to the way Irish watches David Lynch movies.

[Sxottlan]

Great. Another thread I completely missed. Where the hell have I been?