Attack-Free Unpopular Opinion Thread

[Skitch]

Discussion is welcome, questions may be politely inquired, but NO insults or attacking allowed.

Superman 3 is more logical than (Lester's) Superman 2.

[Peng]

Grave of the Fireflies makes me angry with the brother's actions instead of sad for them two kids, so its stress to make martyrs out of them as war's pure victims is borderline dramatic fraud for me. Not a fan. (I later came across Mike D'Angelo's review and he put it perfectly for me that it's more anti-idiocy rather than anti-war)

[Skitch]

I accept your opinion!

I havent seen it in forever.

[transmogrifier]

- Hot Rod is the funniest comedy made in the last 20 years

[Dukefrukem]

- Hot Rod is the funniest comedy made in the last 20 years

I share this opinion.

[Peng]

Add to watchlist, though I find Popstar to be only mildly pleasant. How does Hot Rod compare?

[Skitch]

- Hot Rod is the funniest comedy made in the last 20 years

I'm so on board with this. I'd put Observe and Report in this arena too.

[Philip J. Fry]

Logan and Batman: Under the Red Hood are the only great superhero movies that have come out since The Dark Knight (I still haven't seen Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, I hope that's number 3).

[Dukefrukem]

How about this one. Under the Red Hood is the third best DC movie ever behind the Dark Knight and Flashpoint.

[Pop Trash]

Discussion is welcome, questions may be politely inquired, but NO insults or attacking allowed.

Superman 3 is more logical than (Lester's) Superman 2.

Superman 3 is an excellent film and would have been better received in the post quippy MCU era. It's the Thor: Ragnarok of Superman movies.

[Pop Trash]

Superman 3 is an excellent film and would have been better received in the post quipy MCU era.

On the same riff, Howard the Duck is quite funny and weird and doesn't deserve the 'bomb' treatment it received.

[Pop Trash]

Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom is awesome, endlessly rewatchable, and the political incorrectness only makes the movie more dangerous and interesting. It's The Searchers of Indiana Jones movies.

[Pop Trash]

Forrest Gump might not be a great film, but I think the naysayers downplay how much of it is a satire of OH SO IMPORTANT touchstones in the baby boomer post-war years. It's mostly about a retarded guy taking the piss out of self-important boomers. Reminds me of that line in Walk Hard: "the 60s are a very important and exciting time!"

[Dead & Messed Up]

Black Panther is a fine film, and its nomination for a Best Picture Oscar is not a cause for anger or disappointment in view of previous absurd Best Picture nominees.

[Skitch]

How about this one. Under the Red Hood is the third best DC movie ever behind the Dark Knight and Flashpoint.

Most argument I can make here is I might rearrange the three but they would probably all be there.

I have yet to disagree with anything in this thread. Loving it all.

[Philip J. Fry]

How about this one. Under the Red Hood is the third best DC movie ever behind the Dark Knight and Flashpoint.
Shit, I gotta watch Flashpoint.

[Pop Trash]

Pee-wee's Big Adventure is Tim Burton's best movie.

[Spinal]

- Hot Rod is the funniest comedy made in the last 20 years

Cool beans.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Cool beans.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hilzRYECK24

[Dukefrukem]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4f30VM30YQ

[Dead & Messed Up]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKnr_9V0K48


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVjgY427qW8

Need to watch this movie again.

[Pop Trash]

The initial lukewarm critical response to The Big Lebowski and Fight Club were correct and both of those movies were perceived to be underrated, but are now vastly overrated.

[Irish]

PATS SUCK!

SKITCH SMELLS AND HIS MOTHER DRESSES HIM FUNNY!

SOMETIMES I JUST WANT TO BE HELD!

Oh, did you mean unpopular opinions about movies ...?

[Skitch]

PATS SUCK!

SKITCH SMELLS AND HIS MOTHER DRESSES HIM FUNNY!

SOMETIMES I JUST WANT TO BE HELD!

Oh, did you mean unpopular opinions about movies ...?

Those are all popular opinions. Get with the program.

[baby doll]

I still like R. Kelly's music.

[Irish]

Those are all popular opinions. Get with the program.

Right-o! How's this?

Tilda Swinton is a mediocre actress who hides behind superficial character work (elaborate costumes, make-up, prosthetics).

She's the new Johnny Depp.

[MadMan]

So basically Match-cut in general? Or the Corrie? Oh yey.

[Skitch]

Right-o! How's this?

Tilda Swinton is a mediocre actress who hides behind superficial character work (elaborate costumes, make-up, prosthetics).

She's the new Johnny Depp.

Interesting! Care to elaborate on her filmography?

[transmogrifier]

So my Hot Rod claim was not all that unpopular after all. So let's go with:

1. Batman Returns > Batman > The Dark Knight Rises > The Dark Knight > Batman Forever > Batman Begins > Batman and Robin

2. The Emperor's New Groove > Hercules > Beauty and the Beast > The Little Mermaid > The Lion King

3. This is the End > every Marvel movie ever made

[Skitch]

1. Batman Returns > Batman > The Dark Knight Rises
Only question here, when was last time you watched these? Only ask because my opinion on them has changed violently with rewatches.


[/B] 2. The Emperor's New Groove > Hercules >

I know I like these two movies way more than other listed so.....

[transmogrifier]

Only question here, when was last time you watched these? Only ask because my opinion on them has changed violently with rewatches.


Batman Returns is the most recent rewatch of all of those and it rose in my estimation. I've only seen The Dark Knight Rises/Batman Forever/Batman & Robin once. Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight dropped on second viewing. There won't be more.

[Irish]

Interesting! Care to elaborate on her filmography?

Look at any of the mainstream stuff she does. She almost never appears as a straight-up, workaday 58 year old woman. Instead, it's Tilda playing a kung-fu master, complete with bald cap; Tilda masquerading as an old man; Tilda as dystopic bureaucrat, sporting buck teeth and coke-bottle glasses; Tilda in a dual role as psychotic CEO and her sister. When she gets attached to a project, I try to imagine what sort of "look-at-me" kooky bullshit she'll get up to.

The only time I've seen her an authentic human being is in "I am Love" and "We Need to Talk about Kevin." Mostly she's being playing human cartoons.

Just like Depp.

And also like him, I'm starting to wonder if she can act.

[Philip J. Fry]

Maroon 5 dropped the ball this Super Bowl when they didn't sing I'm a Goofy Goober​.

[Pop Trash]

1. Batman Returns > Batman > The Dark Knight Rises > The Dark Knight > Batman Forever > Batman Begins > [B]Batman and Robin


This isn't that unpopular of an opinion. letterboxd in particular seems to love Batman Returns, esp. now that its been canonized as an idiosyncratic Christmas movie ala Die Hard.

[Ezee E]

Right-o! How's this?

Tilda Swinton is a mediocre actress who hides behind superficial character work (elaborate costumes, make-up, prosthetics).

She's the new Johnny Depp.

Check her out in A Bigger Splash, which I think is her best performance. No prosthetics, and has to do most of her performance without a full voice.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I think Jim Varney was a hell of an actor who could've done more varied work, and the best of the Ernest movies contain a delightful bargain-basement surreal ambition.

I will never resolve my feelings toward Kubrick's The Shining, which is an immaculately crafted suspense film, a disappointing adaptation of the novel that guts Wendy's character, and less likable as an artistic exercise now that I know how Kubrick basically terrorized his cast, especially Duvall, to get what he wanted. I can respect it distantly but find it exhausting to think about.

[Irish]

I think Jim Varney was a hell of an actor who could've done more varied work, and the best of the Ernest movies contain a delightful bargain-basement surreal ambition.

Can you expound on this? My knowledge of Varney begins and ends with soda commercials.

[MadMan]

Maroon 5 dropped the ball this Super Bowl when they didn't sing I'm a Goofy Goober​.

Well, yeah.

Batman Returns is ok. I don't get the love for it, at all.

[Skitch]

And also like him, I'm starting to wonder if she can act.
Valid points.

My first thought of her is always The Beach.

[Philip J. Fry]

Tilda Swinton was very good in Michael Clayton without being super extravagant.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Can you expound on this? My knowledge of Varney begins and ends with soda commercials.

I grew up watching Varney in Ernest movies, so note biases accordingly, but he could successfully jump in and out of "characters" in his films. He also could project a childlike innocence / wounded quality at the drop of a hat, to the point where I never think it weird, even as an adult, that teens and kids will hang out with a grown-ass janitor for long stretches of time, which is a hard balance to achieve. In Ernest Goes to Jail, he pulls double-duty, playing his traditional goofy self while playing a murderous criminal who's a foil to the universe and constantly pointing out how stupid the lead Ernest character is, and the alter-ego plausible in its own context. I'm not saying he was the next Olivier, but he could hit notes that other actors couldn't hit and could've put those notes to some different kinds of "music" if he wanted to. But maybe he was happy to make what he was making.

Also, in Goes to Jail and Scared Stupid, the filmmakers, within their limited means, made some interesting style choices, with Goes to Jail dressing up its jail in a bizarre neon-noir garish color scheme filmed at Dutch angles... whenever Ernest was in jail. And Scared Stupid managed some interesting shadow/light in its most "suspenseful" moments. (Skip to 2:15 for the troll backlit, the film making good use of depth of frame.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFm6NQBMEh0

[Dukefrukem]

I loved those movies so much. I think Scared Stupid actually scared me.

And my favorite part of Goes to Jail was the escape scene.

[Skitch]

I saw Scared Stupid in the theater, it definitely scared the shit out of me.

[Dead & Messed Up]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RaHFTGDifA

[Irish]

I grew up watching Varney in Ernest movies, so note biases accordingly, but he could successfully jump in and out of "characters" in his films.

Not gonna lie. This is a kooky opinion. But I liked how you backed it up with lots of detail. It made for a good read.

PS: I know you have a horror blog & maybe "Ernest Goes to Jail" wouldn't fit there, but I hope you post these mini-essays somewhere on the broader indie web.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Not gonna lie. This is a kooky opinion.

Match Cut.

[Irish]

Match Cut.

Heh!

(I wonder how long before Skitch uses this thread as an excuse to start ranting about "E.T."? ;))

[MadMan]

I have to revist the Ernest movies, but I recall liking most of them. The troll in Scared Stupid was really freaky.

[MadMan]

The Golden Child is my favorite Eddie Murphy movie. He is hilarious in that one, and I love how goofy the whole movie is. Charles Dance turns into a demon for crying out loud.

[Mysterious Dude]

2001: A Space Odyssey is boring.

[Dead & Messed Up]

2001: A Space Odyssey is boring.

I watched this for the first time in a long time last year, on the big-screen, and a few things became clear.

If the film is divisible into four stories (apes, moon, Hal, starchild), parts one and three are the best, part four is mostly great with a dull stretch in the middle with recolored American Southwest, and part two is just not that interesting, not until you actually get onto the moon with them, walking toward the monolith.

And the film is still a masterpiece anyway.

[Spinal]

This thread needs more attacks.

[StanleyK]

The Silence of the Lambs is a silly movie and Anthony Hopkins' performance is hammy and ridiculous (in fact I don't like Hopkins in anything I've seen except The Elephant Man). Manhunter is much better and so is Brian Cox as Hannibal.

[Skitch]

(I wonder how long before Skitch uses this thread as an excuse to start ranting about "E.T."? ;))

...don't take the bait...don't take the bait...you can do this...*heavy breathing*

[Spinal]

The Silence of the Lambs is a silly movie and Anthony Hopkins' performance is hammy and ridiculous (in fact I don't like Hopkins in anything I've seen except The Elephant Man).

Side note: Reading the memoir Room to Dream, David Lynch speaks in such glowing terms about virtually everyone he worked with in his career. Anthony Hopkins is a notable exception.

[Skitch]

95% of Jack Nicholson's performance was just an impression of Cesar Romero.

[Peng]

The Silence of the Lambs is a silly movie and Anthony Hopkins' performance is hammy and ridiculous (in fact I don't like Hopkins in anything I've seen except The Elephant Man). Manhunter is much better and so is Brian Cox as Hannibal.

What do you think of Hopkins in The Remains of the Day?

[Irish]

The Silence of the Lambs is a silly movie and Anthony Hopkins' performance is hammy and ridiculous (in fact I don't like Hopkins in anything I've seen except The Elephant Man). Manhunter is much better and so is Brian Cox as Hannibal.

You, sir, are in good company:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgX0hASKpBU



https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-archive-silence-of-the-lambs-siskel-review-20170426-story.html

I was always curious how Siskel felt the night this fucking movie won something like 9 Academy Awards, and both Foster and Hopkins walked away with trophies.

[StanleyK]

What do you think of Hopkins in The Remains of the Day?

Haven't seen it, but I've disliked him in Dracula, Amistad and Fracture (which, granted, I guess aren't his best showcase).


I was always curious how Siskel felt the night this fucking movie won something like 9 Academy Awards, and both Foster and Hopkins walked away with trophies.

Yeah, one of only three movies to win the Big Five, along with It Happened One Night and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I feel like these two definitely have more of a case for deserving it.

[Skitch]

I will say, while I do like Hopkins performance, I've always felt Cox's was woefully underappreciated.

[Pop Trash]

The Silence of the Lambs is a silly movie and Anthony Hopkins' performance is hammy and ridiculous (in fact I don't like Hopkins in anything I've seen except The Elephant Man). Manhunter is much better and so is Brian Cox as Hannibal.

This was a fairly common contrarian opinion back in the 90s. It's only recently that you rarely hear dissent about SotL. I know Mike D'Angelo still isn't a fan at all. In a totally boring opinion, I think it's a great film that merges twenty years of lowbrow horror tropes (graphic gore, slashers) with Jonathan Demme's humanism and craft in fascinating ways. I was also obsessed with the film in middle school because my parents wouldn't let me watch it for several years (I think they finally gave in around 8th grade), but they let me read the novel (which is also quite good).

[Pop Trash]

This thread needs more attacks.

Cold War is overrated.

*wink*

[Ezee E]

Brian Cox's Hannibal Lecter is pedestrian and not at all memorable, scary, or unique. Throw that performance in along with the serial killer movies of the 90's that were imitations of Seven.

Also, Silence of the Lambs is the only good Hannibal Lecter movie. The rest are terrible. (Not unpopular?)

[Skitch]

It took me a couple watches but I came around on Hannibal. Probably because its completely psychotic in an early 2000's way. Maybe its just my surprise at how many 2000's movies I thought I loved and upon rewatch are garbage.

Add this to the pile...there are a TON of early 2000's films that absolutely do not hold up. Its a damn thin decade.

[Dukefrukem]

Prometheus is the best Alien movie.

[transmogrifier]

Prometheus is the best Alien movie.

It's not even in the top 5.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I like how quickly this evolved from the "Attack-Free" thread to the "How Efficiently Can I Bait a Match Cutter" thread. :)

[Dead & Messed Up]

On that note, Alien 3 is a mess, and its modest re-appraisal in recent years continues to surprise me.

:D

[Skitch]

It's not even in the top 5.

Top 3, maybe 2.

[Irish]

I appreciated "Alien 3" more once I dived into its production history. From assembly cuts to discarded screenplays, there's a lot to chew on.

I think it's probably the most interesting failure of the 90s, and having seen "Alien" and "Aliens" countless times, I'd rather watch "Alien 3" than the obviously better entries in the series.

[transmogrifier]

Alien 3 is desolate and depressing. I love it!

[transmogrifier]

- the ape opening of 2001 is hilariously campy.
- Kubrick's direction of Pyle's descent into madness in Full Metal Jacket is pure hackwork.
- Kubrick made three genuinely great films - Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, and Barry Lyndon, and everything else ranges from eh to meh.
- There hasn't been a purely great 5-star film (90+ on my scale) released since 2004, when there were 2. (That I have seen - I'm sure there are great films out there, I just haven't seen them yet. And most 5 star films get that way on rewatch).

[Dead & Messed Up]

It's definitely the third-best of the Alien movies, I'll give it that much.

A+ ------- A -------- B- ----------- C+ ------------------ C+ ---------- C -------- C -------------------------F
Alien > Aliens > Alien 3 > Alien: Convent > Alien: Resurrection > AvP > Prometheus >>>>>>>> AvPR

[Watashi]

A lot of these unpopular opinions are ho-hum. I actually agree with trans on a few of them!

[Dead & Messed Up]

Ball's in your court then, Watashi, what do you got?

[Ezee E]

Salt Lake City is a great city.

[Irish]

Salt Lake City is a great city.

^ /thread

[Milky Joe]

what's the point of an unpopular opinion if you can't attack it? ;)

[Skitch]

what's the point of an unpopular opinion if you can't attack it? ;)

To make opposition work harder at their shade skills.

[Dead & Messed Up]

what's the point of an unpopular opinion if you can't attack it? ;)

To make us kinder to each other, dummy.

[Skitch]

Point, set, match

[Peng]

Haven't seen it, but I've disliked him in Dracula, Amistad and Fracture (which, granted, I guess aren't his best showcase).

It’s his most understated performance, so there’s a good chance you’d like it.

[Philip J. Fry]

Dragon Ball Z Abridged is better, MUCH better show than Dragon Ball Z in every conceivable way.

[StuSmallz]

Black Panther is a fine film, and its nomination for a Best Picture Oscar is not a cause for anger or disappointment in view of previous absurd Best Picture nominees.I don't have a big problem with it just being nom'd for BP either, but I don't think it deserved to be the first Superhero movie to recieve such an honor ahead of Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight, or Logan, and I also think its nomination does indicate how much industry politics (in light of the continued decline in the ceremony's ratings, among other things) still factor into the process, unfortunately.

[megladon8]

Michael Haneke is a boring, uninteresting director, and a pompous, pretentious speaker on film.

[Skitch]

Lost Highway is David Lynch's best movie.

(With the exception I havent seen a few of his older films.)

[transmogrifier]

Lost Highway is David Lynch's best movie.

(With the exception I havent seen a few of his older films.)

Second best, but close enough.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I don't have a big problem with it just being nom'd for BP either, but I don't think it deserved to be the first Superhero movie to recieve such an honor ahead of Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight, or Logan, and I also think its nomination does indicate how much industry politics (in light of the continued decline in the ceremony's ratings, among other things) still factor into the process, unfortunately.

Well, sure (I disagree on Logan but take your point), but "deserve" and "Oscars" go together like alcohol and steering. My approach is to be happy when something good is nominated, and roll your eyes and say "Oscars" when all the rest happens. Oliver! won the same year that The Producers and 2001 failed to earn BP nominations.

[Skitch]

Second best, but close enough.

What's your first?

[transmogrifier]

What's your first?

Mulholland Drive, of course, the best film of the 2000s. Lost Highway is like a trial run for that film. Protagonist is betrayed by a loved one, gets revenge, reimagines their past in a more sympathetic manner incorporating various shreds of pop culture detritus... it's just the two halves, fantasy and reality, are swapped.

[megladon8]

It’s been too long since the last time I watched Lost Higheay. I need to change that.

[Skitch]

Mulholland Drive, of course, the best film of the 2000s. Lost Highway is like a trial run for that film. Protagonist is betrayed by a loved one, gets revenge, reimagines their past in a more sympathetic manner incorporating various shreds of pop culture detritus... it's just the two halves, fantasy and reality, are swapped.

I would never argue against this. Mulholland would be my second. Only reason I give LH edge is it almost makes more sense :D. Plus I adore the circle that it is and the well balanced creepy factor. It's so damn creepy without quite spilling over to horror.

Also....the tailgating scene.

[Philip J. Fry]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Neutralspace.jpg
Titus is one of the best TV comedies ever made (and way ahead of it's time) and is an enormous shame it's been almost forgotten.

[Milky Joe]

Lost Highway is David Lynch's best movie.

(With the exception I havent seen a few of his older films.)

which ones haven't you seen?

[Watashi]

Ball's in your court then, Watashi, what do you got?

Martin Scorsese's best film in the last 30 years is Hugo.

This one has been boiling inside me, but lately I've grown tired as Martin Scorsese as a director and a lot of his films like Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Casino, The Departed, and Wolf on Wall Street have aged poorly in time. Scorsese really does not like women all that much. It's telling that he hasn't made a female-centric movie since 1974. The glorification of toxic male behavior isn't as biting as most people think because even when these characters are at their lowest and most pathetic, they are still labeled as misunderstood or even smarter than the average character given their rouge-like charm. It's a shame, because I still like a lot of his movies and find him a wonderful filmmaker, but while everyone's drooling over the potential The Irishman with the reunion of DeNiro, Pacino, and Pesci, I just do not care and rather see him make another kids movie or pulpy genre film.

[Ezee E]

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the best Indy movie.

[Irish]

Oof.

*bites tongue*

[Watashi]

Ha! To which post?

[transmogrifier]

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the best Indy movie.

The only thing that saves it from being the worst is Crystal Skull.

[Irish]

Ha! To which post?

Both of them :D

I think you made a good argument about Scorsese. I kinda sighed and groaned over "The Irishman," too. One of the things I like about him as a filmmaker is his versatility. I can't think of too many people who could adroitly go from "Cape Fear" to "The Age of Innocence" to "Kundun," for example.

So the last thing I want him to do is another freakin' Italian gangster movie.

[Irish]

Also, I kinda want Ezee to defend "Temple of Doom," just to see if his opinion and mine line up a little bit.

I think I can guess why he likes it, but I wanna hear him talk about it.

[Skitch]

which ones haven't you seen?

Havent seen: Wild At Heart, own but havent watched yet: Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Fire Walk With Me.

[Skitch]

I wouldn't argue that Indy opinion either. It may be favorite as well. At any rate, Last Crusade > Raiders, which makes it top two.

I wouldn't argue about Hugo either. Not because I agree about Wats' conclusions on Scorcese (exception woman hating, agree), Hugo is so so damn good.

[PURPLE]

Anyone who says they cannot give a new film full marks, but will give a film from 50 years ago that they just watched full marks, makes me want to cut myself. Actually, them, but that's illegal.

[transmogrifier]

Anyone who says they cannot give a new film full marks, but will give a film from 50 years ago that they just watched full marks, makes me want to cut myself. Actually, them, but that's illegal.

I very, very, very rarely give any film "full marks" (well, for me that would be 100/100, which is basically impossible, so think 90+, 5/5, or A+) on first watch because I'm of the opinion that rewatchability is an important component of a great film - the film should still work once all the narrative surprises are known. So it probably means I underrate a lot of films first time through, but so be it.

[Dukefrukem]

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the best Indy movie.

SECONDED!

[Dukefrukem]

I very, very, very rarely give any film "full marks" (well, for me that would be 100/100, which is basically impossible, so think 90+, 5/5, or A+) on first watch because I'm of the opinion that rewatchability is an important component of a great film - the film should still work once all the narrative surprises are known. So it probably means I underrate a lot of films first time through, but so be it.

I used to think like this too, kind of like when you're rating Pizza Places. You never want to give a place a 10/10 because what if the next place you eat is better than the 10/10 place?

But life is just less fun when you're thinking this way. Therefor, Inception 10/10, A+, 100/100, ★★★★★

[transmogrifier]

Slow cinema is, for the most part, a real fucking chore to sit through. And the rewards aren't worth it.

[Dukefrukem]

Slow cinema is, for the most part, a real fucking chore to sit through. And the rewards aren't worth it.

Hell yeh. Fuck Nicolas Winding Refn.

[StanleyK]

I don't care if Scorsese hates women or his movies are misogynistic as long as they're good, and his gangster movies are among his best.

[Lazlo]

I don't care if Scorsese hates women or his movies are misogynistic as long as they're good, and his gangster movies are among his best.

I guess the question would be whether the misogyny makes them not good. Seems like you may not factor that in; others may feel differently.

[Spinal]

Rustlers' Rhapsody is funnier than Blazing Saddles.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I liked Dr. Strangelove but didn't laugh once.

[Scar]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Neutralspace.jpg
Titus is one of the best TV comedies ever made (and way ahead of it's time) and is an enormous shame it's been almost forgotten.

Met him while he was touring a couple years back. Have always been a fan.

[PURPLE]

I very, very, very rarely give any film "full marks" (well, for me that would be 100/100, which is basically impossible, so think 90+, 5/5, or A+) on first watch because I'm of the opinion that rewatchability is an important component of a great film - the film should still work once all the narrative surprises are known. So it probably means I underrate a lot of films first time through, but so be it.I don't have an issue with that - you can make your own criteria as you see fit. There's no criteria that makes sense to treat films like wine, though. They're just moving pictures and sound, all of them. The idea that watching a film made today is any different from watching a film made in 1960 is silly, though. When they watched the film in 1960 they called it "today", and it was the exact same as the one you saw in the day you call "today".

[PURPLE]

Slow cinema is, for the most part, a real fucking chore to sit through. And the rewards aren't worth it.I agree with this - with the exception that I love slow cinema. It's just that cinema, for the most part, is a real fucking chore to sit through.

[PURPLE]

Hell yeh. Fuck Nicolas Winding Refn.He's not slow cinema at all, though. Here's a list, some of which are really not that "slow":

https://theartsofslowcinema.com/a-to-z/

[Dukefrukem]

He's not slow cinema at all, though. Here's a list, some of which are really not that "slow":

https://theartsofslowcinema.com/a-to-z/

That was more of a tongue and cheek jab at him.

[Spinal]

He's not slow cinema at all, though. Here's a list, some of which are really not that "slow":

https://theartsofslowcinema.com/a-to-z/

Andrei Rublev **1/2
Battle in Heaven *
Mirror **
Russian Ark **
The Red and the White ***1/2
The Sacrifice **
The Turin Horse **
The Wayward Cloud ***
Uncle Boonmee who can recall his past lives **1/2

Yeah, I don't like it much either.

[baby doll]

"Slow cinema" is a stupid label, since it implies that (a) slowness in itself is a virtue, (b) "slow" films are stylistically homogenous, and (c) there's an objective, transhistorical standard of slowness. (As Bordwell points out in his book on Dreyer, Day of Wrath looked a lot more extreme in the 1940s than it does today.)

Also, I'm not sure how Jancsó even remotely qualifies as "slow cinema"; he liked long takes in the 1960s and 1970s, before it became "too easy" to do that sort of thing, but his shots are so dense with activity that the perceptual challenge they present spectators is not the lack of stimulus but an overabundance of it.

[Spinal]

Also, I'm not sure how Jancsó even remotely qualifies as "slow cinema"; he liked long takes in the 1960s and 1970s, before it became "too easy" to do that sort of thing, but his shots are so dense with activity that the perceptual challenge they present spectators is not the lack of stimulus but an overabundance of it.

I've only seen two of his movies, but I was surprised to see him on that list. The Red and the White has very long takes, but I wouldn't call it slow.

[StanleyK]

I guess the question would be whether the misogyny makes them not good. Seems like you may not factor that in; others may feel differently.

No doubt, the question for me is whether or not that's an unpopular opinion. I'm guessing not too much at large, but maybe more so around here.

[Philip J. Fry]

Met him while he was touring a couple years back. Have always been a fan.His stand-up is really good.

[Skitch]

I very, very, very rarely give any film "full marks" (well, for me that would be 100/100, which is basically impossible, so think 90+, 5/5, or A+) on first watch because I'm of the opinion that rewatchability is an important component of a great film - the film should still work once all the narrative surprises are known. So it probably means I underrate a lot of films first time through, but so be it.

THIS.

[PURPLE]

That was more of a tongue and cheek jab at him.But is that an unpopular opinion!?!?!

[Ezee E]

It's been a few years, but I think The Last Crusade is the best of the four because of the wide range of action sequences we see with beginning, middle, and ends. The use of boats in Venice, an old medieval castle, planes, a desert, sewers... There isn't a repeat sequence, something that I think has really hurt the Marvel and Fast & Furious movies. They all seem like the same sequence.

Add to that, I think Indiana really hits the mark from beginning to end, the Sean Connery character is the best of all the sidekicks in the movie, and I think the use of the supernatural at the end is far scarier and more interesting than what we see in Raiders.

I actually REALLY enjoy all of the first three, but Last Crusade is always the one I'll return to.

[Skitch]

Connery slays in that film and the desert scene fighting nazis is just pure amazing cinema.

[PURPLE]

Andrei Rublev **1/2
Battle in Heaven *
Mirror **
Russian Ark **
The Red and the White ***1/2
The Sacrifice **
The Turin Horse **
The Wayward Cloud ***
Uncle Boonmee who can recall his past lives **1/2

Yeah, I don't like it much either.To be fair, I love many films that qualify as slow cinema, and I am not a fan of most of the slow films you listed (though I would not consider Andrei Rublev, Russian Ark, and The Red and the White to be slow). Basically, I'm not a fan of Joe either, lol. I prefer the term "Contemporary Contemplative Cinema" instead, anyway.

I don't recommend someone a CCC film if they don't like them already if they want something they're going to think is good. There are built-in preconceptions about how to interact with a film, what a film should present to the viewer, and what constitutes a good film that just don't make much sense when it comes to CCC. I find those aspects fascinating and liberating, especially because I find the American style of "central conflict theory" cinema to be most often manipulative and meaningless, diverting in the worst possible way. But CCC is certainly not going to fit the same "checkbox" as a "central conflict theory" type of film because typically the intent is to avoid conflict and avoid manipulation and free the viewer's mind to, well, contemplate. If you're not ready to not be constantly fed a stream of elements to pay attention to, then you're certainly not going to enjoy.

And then, of course, you're not going to enjoy some either way. Such is life.

[Milky Joe]

Havent seen: Wild At Heart, own but havent watched yet: Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Fire Walk With Me.

man you haven't even seen his three best movies. you should get on that ASAP. Wild at Heart is OK.

[Skitch]

man you haven't even seen his three best movies. you should get on that ASAP. Wild at Heart is OK.

I know! At least I blind bought them though, right?

It just occured to me all three are different formats: 1 VHS, 1 laserdisc, 1 dvd. :D

[Skitch]

Also...VHS is still a valid format.

And laserdisc is the only place to find legal unedited widescreen Star Wars. I know you may think that's not an unpopular opinion, but hot damn to people fight me about it.

[Irish]

Also...VHS is still a valid format.

Tangential pet peeve: People who fetishize aspect ratios, especially on different Blu-ray releases.

I watched hundreds of movies for the first time on shitty, pan-and-scan VHS. Many of them classics. I really don't care about the different between 1.77 and 1.85, or how the director originally envisioned the film.

Tangent to my tangent: Certain directors who get fussy about film over digital, or who are horrified when people watch movies on a phone. It's a new world, precious, and you no longer have complete control over your images and how they will be seen. Get used to it.

[Milky Joe]

Also...VHS is still a valid format.

one of the opinions I considered posting was that "some movies are best watched on VHS"

[Skitch]

one of the opinions I considered posting was that "some movies are best watched on VHS"

I stumbled across the original CBS fox vhs releases and nabbed em out of nostalgia. These were the versions I watched on TV and home video my entire childhood. Full screen, grainy, crap. Just for shits and giggles I popped it in. Watched entire trilogy. It was AWESOME.

[Dead & Messed Up]

It's been a few years, but I think The Last Crusade is the best of the four because of the wide range of action sequences we see with beginning, middle, and ends. The use of boats in Venice, an old medieval castle, planes, a desert, sewers... There isn't a repeat sequence, something that I think has really hurt the Marvel and Fast & Furious movies. They all seem like the same sequence.

Add to that, I think Indiana really hits the mark from beginning to end, the Sean Connery character is the best of all the sidekicks in the movie, and I think the use of the supernatural at the end is far scarier and more interesting than what we see in Raiders.

I actually REALLY enjoy all of the first three, but Last Crusade is always the one I'll return to.

It's definitely the one with the most heart in it, although I could see some viewers chiding it for that sentimentality after the comparative ruthlessness of Raiders and Temple. I think all three are excellent and worthy of the title "best of." Raiders is the original, the trendsetter, probably the tightest of the three on a story and craft level, with the best villain. Temple of Doom is the best evocation of its inspirations, with all the outrageousness that implies, from its treatment of women to its Kipling-esque endorsement of colonialism - it's a more uncomfortable watch than its bookends, but maybe it should be, you know? Anyway, the opening and closing sequences are high points of the series.Last Crusade is the heart, where it's got the most memorable dialogue, the best sidekick (Ezee E is right on with this), and closes out the series with a surprising amount of honor.

I don't hate Crystal Skull, but it's not in the conversation.

[baby doll]

I prefer the term "Contemporary Contemplative Cinema" instead, anyway.I'm not sure that's necessarily a less problematic label than "slow cinema."

[PURPLE]

I'm not sure that's necessarily a less problematic label than "slow cinema."If I were explaining the style to someone interested, it's more descriptive of the philosophy underpinning the method. If I were explaining it to someone not interested I would call it "slow" and change the subject.

[baby doll]

If I were explaining the style to someone interested, it's more descriptive of the philosophy underpinning the method. If I were explaining it to someone not interested I would call it "slow" and change the subject.Personally, I'm not convinced there's a coherent philosophy or method underpinning the work of all the directors listed on the site you provided a link to. If there were, we wouldn't need so many of them.

[MadMan]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Neutralspace.jpg
Titus is one of the best TV comedies ever made (and way ahead of it's time) and is an enormous shame it's been almost forgotten.

That show is hilarious.

I love Lost Highway. Best quasi horror movie remake of Detour, ever.

[MadMan]

Havent seen: Wild At Heart, own but havent watched yet: Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Fire Walk With Me.

I have seen all of those. I still need to see The Elephant Man, The Straight Story and Inland Empire. Dune sounds hilariously awful.

[MadMan]

I liked Dr. Strangelove but didn't laugh once.

Not even at the "You'll have to answer to the Coca Cola company" line? That part is pretty funny to me.

[MadMan]

I looked at that list and I realized I still don't get what the hell slow cinema even means.

Last Crusade is awesome and all, but Raiders is the best Indy outing imo. I liked Temple way more after a theater watch. Crystal is better than people think, but it's major problem is that it has a really silly third act. Aliens are lame compared to powerful, way more cool supernatural religious artifacts.

[MadMan]

As for giving out perfect ratings, do whatever. Love a movie, it's ok.

[Skitch]

I have seen all of those. I still need to see The Elephant Man, The Straight Story and Inland Empire. Dune sounds hilariously awful.

Dune is hilariously bonkers. Inland Empire would make a great david lynch short film, unfortunately it's around 137 hours too long full of
n o t h I n g.

[Dukefrukem]

It's been a few years, but I think The Last Crusade is the best of the four because of the wide range of action sequences we see with beginning, middle, and ends. The use of boats in Venice, an old medieval castle, planes, a desert, sewers... There isn't a repeat sequence, something that I think has really hurt the Marvel and Fast & Furious movies. They all seem like the same sequence.

Add to that, I think Indiana really hits the mark from beginning to end, the Sean Connery character is the best of all the sidekicks in the movie, and I think the use of the supernatural at the end is far scarier and more interesting than what we see in Raiders.

I actually REALLY enjoy all of the first three, but Last Crusade is always the one I'll return to.

You forget to mention the one thing that hurts RAIDERs and most people seem to ignore...

The Nazis would have been defeated without Indy's involvement anyway- deus ex machina to the literal sense

[Dukefrukem]

Tangential pet peeve: People who fetishize aspect ratios, especially on different Blu-ray releases.

I watched hundreds of movies for the first time on shitty, pan-and-scan VHS. Many of them classics. I really don't care about the different between 1.77 and 1.85, or how the director originally envisioned the film.

Tangent to my tangent: Certain directors who get fussy about film over digital, or who are horrified when people watch movies on a phone. It's a new world, precious, and you no longer have complete control over your images and how they will be seen. Get used to it.

Oof. definitely Unpopular opinion to the MAX. Hard disagree. The pan and scan COMPLETELY removes me from the immersion. It's so clunky and distracting.

[Irish]

Oof. definitely Unpopular opinion to the MAX. Hard disagree. The pan and scan COMPLETELY removes me from the immersion. It's so clunky and distracting.

What if it were the only version available? Would you skip it?

Watching VHS pan-and-scan didn't hurt my experience then, so why would I be overly concerned that a transfer might have the wrong aspect ratio now? That's what I'm talking about here.

[Dukefrukem]

What if it were the only version available? Would you skip it?

Watching VHS pan-and-scan didn't hurt my experience then, so why would I be overly concerned that a transfer might have the wrong aspect ratio now? That's what I'm talking about here.

Even before widescreen TVs existed, before I realized that the aspect ratio in theaters was different than home VHS, before I even knew what Pan and Scan was, I found it incredibly distracting and unnatural. I remember watching ET and being so annoyed by it.

Then there was this one store in the mall that sold incredibly expensive VHS tapes that were ALL widescreen. I purchased my first one: Goldeneye back in 1996 and felt like I was in heaven.

[Scar]

Irish, did you make an edit before I could comment that they would’ve been digging in the right place if Jr hadn’t shown up?

[Scar]

Even before widescreen TVs existed, before I realized that the aspect ratio in theaters was different than home VHS, before I even knew what Pan and Scan was, I found it incredibly distracting and unnatural. I remember watching ET and being so annoyed by it.

Then there was this one store in the mall that sold incredibly expensive VHS tapes that were ALL widescreen. I purchased my first one: Goldeneye back in 1996 and felt like I was in heaven.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Irish]

Irish, did you make an edit before I could comment that they would’ve been digging in the right place if Jr hadn’t shown up?

Yah. I didn't want to jump in the middle of the convo between Duke and Ezee and start waving my arms and shouting. I'm in waaaaaay too argumentative a mood this morning to discuss Indiana Jones on the internet. :P

[Irish]

Even before widescreen TVs existed, before I realized that the aspect ratio in theaters was different than home VHS, before I even knew what Pan and Scan was, I found it incredibly distracting and unnatural. I remember watching ET and being so annoyed by it.

Oh my God you were a weird kid ;D


Then there was this one store in the mall that sold incredibly expensive VHS tapes that were ALL widescreen. I purchased my first one: Goldeneye back in 1996 and felt like I was in heaven.

This explains a lot about your current home theater set-up

[transmogrifier]

Pan and scan is the worst. Hell, my Korean streaming site has a few 2.35 movies cropped to 1.85 for some stupid reason, and that shit gets turned off as soon as I realize.

[Dukefrukem]

Oh my God you were a weird kid ;D

This explains a lot about your current home theater set-up

I was lucky that Goldeneye was the ONLY one I ever purchased. Three years later, DVD hit mainstream and (almost) every movie came letterboxed. That's when I became collection obsessed.

I still remember buying the Phantom Menace on VHS, bringing it home and realizing it was 4:3. I may have cried. It took Lucas 10 years before he released that movie on DVD.

[Spinal]

My unpopular David Lynch opinion is that Inland Empire is every bit the masterpiece that Mulholland Dr. is.

[PURPLE]

Personally, I'm not convinced there's a coherent philosophy or method underpinning the work of all the directors listed on the site you provided a link to. If there were, we wouldn't need so many of them.That's true, to a point. It's also true to a point that the philosophy is of the viewer in the approach to the films, not of the director, and the viewer is the one selecting those films to categorize. It's also true that much of why this is a contemporary movement and not merely a continuation of something dominant in early film is that the style is in part a reaction to or an outgrowth from the dominant trends in cinema which are decidedly fast and mind-numbing. That nothing is definitive isn't necessarily a drawback to a categorization since it is in fact a necessity.
I looked at that list and I realized I still don't get what the hell slow cinema even means.Well, if you haven't seen the films labeled as such then it's not really possible to know. Here's a description:

http://unspokencinema.blogspot.com/2007/01/minimum-profile.html

For what it's worth, I disagree entirely with the alienation point. I'd say Mother and Son is the best example of such a film for me, both in terms of style and in terms of quality, and it's about the opposite of alienation. It also represents an example for me the variability of experience with a film like that: The first time I watched it I was bored and too slow, the second time I watched it I thought it was one of the best films ever made and would watch it again repeatedly for the rest of my life - but only in the right mood.

Once you love slow cinema, then it's time for Satantango!

[Ivan Drago]

So my Hot Rod claim was not all that unpopular after all. So let's go with:

1. Batman Returns > Batman > The Dark Knight Rises > The Dark Knight

While I disagree with the placement of The Dark Knight, I DO second that Batman Returns is the best Batman movie.

[Grouchy]

I think I already said this on this site, but once I realized about the difference in aspect ratios as a kid, I couldn't stop thinking about it and everytime I went to the theaters I pictured how it would look without the side information.

[Skitch]

Dont get me wrong, I don't like pan and scan. Full frame is less obnoxious. And I'm selective with my VHS purchases. If its some movie thats awesome it deserves to be viewed in best quality. But 80s Van Damme and Segal movies are just fine in VHS. Its a very nostalgia feeding kind of thing. So many movies I rented so many times from the video store...to return to the format is mostly a wonderful little taste of childhood. I even rewatched the original Star Wars trilogy because I found copies of the original releases. A buddy even sent me a factory sealed copy of Empire (no I didn't open it, I rewatched my trilogy set version). Its a funny thing to hold a copy of Empire on tape that has never been viewed by human eyes.

[baby doll]

That's true, to a point. It's also true to a point that the philosophy is of the viewer in the approach to the films, not of the director, and the viewer is the one selecting those films to categorize. It's also true that much of why this is a contemporary movement and not merely a continuation of something dominant in early film is that the style is in part a reaction to or an outgrowth from the dominant trends in cinema which are decidedly fast and mind-numbing. That nothing is definitive isn't necessarily a drawback to a categorization since it is in fact a necessity.Apart from fundamentally disagreeing with the premise that fast equals mind-numbing (is His Girl Friday a mind-numbing film?), I'm not sure how useful it is to think of slow/contemplative/long take films simply as a rejection of the dominant cinema, as this doesn't tell us anything useful about how these films work on the spectator, which varies considerably from film to film. In other words, it's a purely negative definition (plotlessness, wordlessness), and one that suggests any departure from mainstream practice is inherently a good thing (i.e., slower equals better). It also fails to take into account the international festival circuit as an alternative distribution network that finances, promotes, and exhibits certain kinds of films and fosters audiences to support them.


Well, if you haven't seen the films labeled as such then it's not really possible to know. Here's a description:

http://unspokencinema.blogspot.com/2007/01/minimum-profile.html

For what it's worth, I disagree entirely with the alienation point. I'd say Mother and Son is the best example of such a film for me, both in terms of style and in terms of quality, and it's about the opposite of alienation. It also represents an example for me the variability of experience with a film like that: The first time I watched it I was bored and too slow, the second time I watched it I thought it was one of the best films ever made and would watch it again repeatedly for the rest of my life - but only in the right mood.

Once you love slow cinema, then it's time for Satantango!Just FYI, I'm told Verfremdungseffekt doesn't mean "alienation" or "estrangement" (as it's often translated as), but something closer to defamiliarization. Also, Brecht was adamant that plays need to be entertaining.

[Skitch]

Some films are fast paced. Some are slow paced. Neither adjective is intrinsically a good or bad thing. In some cases either is a positive, in some cases either is a negative. This is a weird argument.

[PURPLE]

Apart from fundamentally disagreeing with the premise that fast equals mind-numbing (is His Girl Friday a mind-numbing film?), I'm not sure how useful it is to think of slow/contemplative/long take films simply as a rejection of the dominant cinema, as this doesn't tell us anything useful about how these films work on the spectator, which varies considerably from film to film. In other words, it's a purely negative definition (plotlessness, wordlessness), and one that suggests any departure from mainstream practice is inherently a good thing (i.e., slower equals better). It also fails to take into account the international festival circuit as an alternative distribution network that finances, promotes, and exhibits certain kinds of films and fosters audiences to support them.When I said "mind-numbing" I didn't say "all films that are not slow are inherently and always mind-numbing". I would certainly say that a film like His Girl Friday requires constant attention to the goings-on-of-the-film and does not allow space for contemplation, though.

As for the descriptive terms, I agree that they imply a moving-away-from the standard type of cinema. This is certainly what the author is trying to do with these terms, and this is certainly what I experienced as a viewer moving into these types of films - having to change the way my mind approached them. As such, the terms work, without regard to whether the filmmakers view their art in such terms. Many do, it must be said. I see no reason whatsoever to imply that this means that such things are inherently good. I certainly don't think they are, and I certainly don't think the terms do, either. I could certainly argue that some of the aspects better lend themselves to a more personal, rewarding experience, though that would be my opinion and not a statement of necessity. I don't think your other points are necessarily damaging to the way the films are spoken of, either - this "alternative distribution network" is an alternative both to the mainstream and to the mainstream youth and to the niche youth. There is no distribution network for getting the kids hooked on Satantango. It is simply a fact that most every person who is going to watch an arthouse film will have an extensive amount of experience with mainstream films in their earlier period of life. Moving away from this type of film is not merely something that we experience in a vacuum as adults, it is a fact of life guaranteed by upbringing and indeed even by the history of literary and art education. Nobody begins with the avant garde, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Just FYI, I'm told Verfremdungseffekt doesn't mean "alienation" or "estrangement" (as it's often translated as), but something closer to defamiliarization. Also, Brecht was adamant that plays need to be entertaining.I disagree with Brecht, and I certainly think there is more to the world than Brecthian epic theater, though I do love some epic theater.
Some films are fast paced. Some are slow paced. Neither adjective is intrinsically a good or bad thing. In some cases either is a positive, in some cases either is a negative. This is a weird argument.I guarantee that most people would agree that the degree to which slow films are slow is intrinsically a bad thing. Show them the opening shot of Satantango and ask them if the slowness is inherently a problem. They'll say yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXRxosazh6g

[Skitch]

"Most people" are not a legitimate barometer for anything.

[baby doll]

I would certainly say that a film like His Girl Friday requires constant attention to the goings-on-of-the-film and does not allow space for contemplation, though.Aren't all films, fast or slow, in the business of engaging our attention? If I want to mentally zone out for a while, I don't have to be watching a movie.


As for the descriptive terms, I agree that they imply a moving-away-from the standard type of cinema. This is certainly what the author is trying to do with these terms, and this is certainly what I experienced as a viewer moving into these types of films - having to change the way my mind approached them. As such, the terms work, without regard to whether the filmmakers view their art in such terms. Many do, it must be said. I see no reason whatsoever to imply that this means that such things are inherently good. I certainly don't think they are, and I certainly don't think the terms do, either. I could certainly argue that some of the aspects better lend themselves to a more personal, rewarding experience, though that would be my opinion and not a statement of necessity. I don't think your other points are necessarily damaging to the way the films are spoken of, either - this "alternative distribution network" is an alternative both to the mainstream and to the mainstream youth and to the niche youth. There is no distribution network for getting the kids hooked on Satantango. It is simply a fact that most every person who is going to watch an arthouse film will have an extensive amount of experience with mainstream films in their earlier period of life. Moving away from this type of film is not merely something that we experience in a vacuum as adults, it is a fact of life guaranteed by upbringing and indeed even by the history of literary and art education. Nobody begins with the avant garde, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.Putting aside the issue of whether classical narration is in fact some kind of universal standard, and not merely one mode of filmmaking among many whose historical pervasiveness is not necessary but contingent, the question for me is: "Moving away" from classical cinema to what exactly? As I see it, art cinema broadly and slow/contemplative/long take movies in particular are just another flexible set of conventions, which can be employed more or less imaginatively (as is the case with classical narration). My objection to terms like "slow" and "contemplative" cinema is that it implies a binary opposition between a "fast" commercial cinema and a "slow" art cinema.


I disagree with BrechtOn which point, that works of art need to be entertaining?

[PURPLE]

Aren't all films, fast or slow, in the business of engaging our attention? If I want to mentally zone out for a while, I don't have to be watching a movie.That's quite the point of Contemporary Contemplative Cinema: It is emphasized that you needn't pay strict attention to everything going on, because there often isn't anything going on. Joe is quoted as being perfectly content if people fall asleep watching his films. If you want to zone out for a while, you don't have to be watching a movie, that is certain. It may be the case that watching a CCC film will instigate you into zoning out into a particular headspace that you wouldn't otherwise, and that can be a good accomplishment. After all, Brecht's epic theater is intentionally attempting to force people into a certain headspace so that they have to be at all times aware of the artificiality of the production. There are many ways to skin a cat. It may be the case that you, personally, do not want a film that will encourage you to space out. But there are certainly people that are not opposed to such things. I can attest that I am one of those people. It's as simple as that.
Putting aside the issue of whether classical narration is in fact some kind of universal standard, and not merely one mode of filmmaking among many whose historical pervasiveness is not necessary but contingent, the question for me is: "Moving away" from classical cinema to what exactly? As I see it, art cinema broadly and slow/contemplative/long take movies in particular are just another flexible set of conventions, which can be employed more or less imaginatively (as is the case with classical narration). My objection to terms like "slow" and "contemplative" cinema is that it implies a binary opposition between a "fast" commercial cinema and a "slow" art cinema.I understand your objection, and I don't oppose you finding another set of terms that more accurately expresses your philosophy or point of view. I understand where the other terms are coming from and I don't have an issue and in fact find them helpful both for myself and for introducing others. To each his own, I guess.
On which point, that works of art need to be entertaining?Yes, certainly, even vehemently.

[PURPLE]

"Most people" are not a legitimate barometer for anything.They're not a barometer but a proof. As for your own barometer... you're free to see things as you like, it's fine by me.

[baby doll]

That's quite the point of Contemporary Contemplative Cinema: It is emphasized that you needn't pay strict attention to everything going on, because there often isn't anything going on. Joe is quoted as being perfectly content if people fall asleep watching his films. If you want to zone out for a while, you don't have to be watching a movie, that is certain. It may be the case that watching a CCC film will instigate you into zoning out into a particular headspace that you wouldn't otherwise, and that can be a good accomplishment. After all, Brecht's epic theater is intentionally attempting to force people into a certain headspace so that they have to be at all times aware of the artificiality of the production. There are many ways to skin a cat. It may be the case that you, personally, do not want a film that will encourage you to space out. But there are certainly people that are not opposed to such things. I can attest that I am one of those people. It's as simple as that.Being aware of the artificiality of the production doesn't necessarily mean not attending to it. Furthermore, even if we take Weerasethakul at his word that he's fine with people falling asleep during his movies (and as a rule I tend to be skeptical of anything a filmmaker says about his or her own work), the question then becomes: (1) how does a certain film, as you say, instigate a particular kind of zoning out that is different from ordinary zoning out (or to put it another way, what's the difference between a good boring movie and a bad boring movie?), and (2) how specifically is this special kind of zoning out productive for the spectator?

As to the idea that there isn't anything going on in such films, I can think of numerous examples of films where a sparse style, rather than alienating me, elicits a different, but equally intense, form of engagement. In Jeanne Dielman, for instance, the repetition of daily chores sensitizes the spectator to minor variations in the heroine's behaviour and Akerman's framing across the film. In other words, rather than zoning out and thinking about something else, the film's minimalism is an invitation to scrutinize just noticeable differences--that is, to look more closely at the film, not less. Consequently, I don't find the film slow or empty or boring in the slightest, but rather enormously entertaining.

[PURPLE]

Being aware of the artificiality of the production doesn't necessarily mean not attending to it. Furthermore, even if we take Weerasethakul at his word that he's fine with people falling asleep during his movies (and as a rule I tend to be skeptical of anything a filmmaker says about his or her own work), the question then becomes: (1) how does a certain film, as you say, instigate a particular kind of zoning out that is different from ordinary zoning out (or to put it another way, what's the difference between a good boring movie and a bad boring movie?), and (2) how specifically is this special kind of zoning out productive for the spectator?1.) I feel like you're not serious with this question. How does a certain film, that is not CCC, instigate a particular type of "paying attention" that is different from ordinary "paying attention"? Content. Of course, not all films that are strictly narrative and tied together so tightly that there's not a second of breathing room succeed in either preventing any and all contemplation in the viewer or in keeping the viewer's attention entirely tied up or in directing the viewer's attention to any one single line of thought. It is an arrangement of elements which may provoke a certain line of thought. It may provoke something else. It will, certainly, affect two different people entirely different. This is how art works. CCC is no different - it contains content, and that content will instigate some sort of reaction, and it may not instigate any reaction that would not have otherwise been instigated - but I can attest that it certainly does, to me, at least in some cases. Let's take Mother and Son: With the barest of details, it is a great conduit for pondering one's own relationship to family, to mortality, to tenderness, to generosity, etc. I don't think about that stuff all of the time - I am a cynical bastard. I also don't think about the same things each time I watch it - this might be a failure of a film that is trying to instigate a particular type of "paying attention", but I wouldn't put that to the discredit of a CCC film. If a CCC film works more like fertilizer than it does like a full grown tree, then that's completely fine by me. After all, many non CCC films don't bear new fruit on repeat watchings, so the fruit that you saw the first time is the fruit you get the next time, and often that fruit is rotten or has been eaten by worms in the meantime. With a CCC film you might find that your tree which was merely a sapling is now capable of holding a treehouse, or perhaps it is bearing a bountiful harvest of fruit.

(As for your parenthetical question, I would answer it this way: A good CCC is the fertilizer that I feel like is good for whatever reasons I personally like fertilizer. Now, sure, I know nothing about fertilizer, but if it grew good trees the first time then I will expect it to grow good or better trees the second time. I can't be sure. Sometimes fertilizer I thought wasn't good, like Mother and Son, turns out to be the best damn fertilizer there is. Is this a negative of the film, or of CCC films in general? I don't know, maybe, but life isn't perfect but Mother and Son sure is, now that I've figured out that it is the type of fertilizer I like. How do we know that we like anything, and how do we know that we'll like anything again a second time, and how do we know when our opinion will change from the first time to the second time without just trying it? Well, we know ourselves, to some degree, and we're wrong often, as well. It's the same process. You have some internal rubric with some vague ideas and it changes over time and you do whatever seems best at the time. This is the exact same process for all films, even if your rubric is different or has to expand from non-CCC films to CCC films, or to experimental films, or to musicals, or to silent films, etc. This process is always amorphous and ever-changing. CCC films are no exception - and they are also no exception, in that there's no one simple way for any person to differentiate between a good film and another. You make it up yourself, and it changes as you change.)

2. How is this type of zoning out productive? Well, contemplation is highly productive in terms of generating thoughts. I'm not sure that "productive" is the sole or even best way to judge it, though. How "productive" is watching His Girl Friday? It doesn't seem like a sensible question, to me, in this context. I've always found mere "diversionary entertainment" to be an "unproductive" waste of time, whereas any film that can, even if often indirectly and unintentionally, produce contemplation is far better than one that "produces" mere entertainment. That this is the goal of "finding films that fit into the CCC philosophy" (regardless of whether or not this is the intent of the author) seems to me a good thing, and this is why I seek them out. But, again, as in #1, that's a rule I made up myself, for myself.
As to the idea that there isn't anything going on in such films, I can think of numerous examples of films where a sparse style, rather than alienating me, elicits a different, but equally intense, form of engagement. In Jeanne Dielman, for instance, the repetition of daily chores sensitizes the spectator to minor variations in the heroine's behaviour and Akerman's framing across the film. In other words, rather than zoning out and thinking about something else, the film's minimalism is an invitation to scrutinize just noticeable differences--that is, to look more closely at the film, not less. Consequently, I don't find the film slow or empty or boring in the slightest, but rather enormously entertaining.Sure, but I can't even bear the thought of watching the film because that sounds hideously boring to me, but I'm fully aware that this "contemplative space" or this "slowness" or this "entirely apt pacing for the content some particular films film which just so happens to be substantially slower than almost every mainstream film in existence" (or whatever term we're calling it) has lots of ways of being viewed and engaged with and appreciated. It may very well be that, to you, Jeanne Dielman is slow but not contemplative, or contemplative but not slow, I don't know. Nobody can force you to fit something into a box you don't like. I can't imagine that there's no film that you wouldn't find space to contemplate while watching, though, and for the purpose of this conversation about contemplative cinema that would probably be a far better example.

[transmogrifier]

As to the idea that there isn't anything going on in such films, I can think of numerous examples of films where a sparse style, rather than alienating me, elicits a different, but equally intense, form of engagement. In Jeanne Dielman, for instance, the repetition of daily chores sensitizes the spectator to minor variations in the heroine's behaviour and Akerman's framing across the film. In other words, rather than zoning out and thinking about something else, the film's minimalism is an invitation to scrutinize just noticeable differences--that is, to look more closely at the film, not less. Consequently, I don't find the film slow or empty or boring in the slightest, but rather enormously entertaining.

See, to me, that sounds like absolute torture. It is a type of cinema of no interest to me whatsoever.

[Skitch]

They're not a barometer but a proof. As for your own barometer... you're free to see things as you like, it's fine by me.

"Most people" select Brittany Spears as "good music". Quantity does not equal quality. If we're doing that then Transformers are awesome movies. Proofed

[baby doll]

1.) I feel like you're not serious with this question. How does a certain film, that is not CCC, instigate a particular type of "paying attention" that is different from ordinary "paying attention"? Content. Of course, not all films that are strictly narrative and tied together so tightly that there's not a second of breathing room succeed in either preventing any and all contemplation in the viewer or in keeping the viewer's attention entirely tied up or in directing the viewer's attention to any one single line of thought. It is an arrangement of elements which may provoke a certain line of thought. It may provoke something else. It will, certainly, affect two different people entirely different. This is how art works. CCC is no different - it contains content, and that content will instigate some sort of reaction, and it may not instigate any reaction that would not have otherwise been instigated - but I can attest that it certainly does, to me, at least in some cases. Let's take Mother and Son: With the barest of details, it is a great conduit for pondering one's own relationship to family, to mortality, to tenderness, to generosity, etc. I don't think about that stuff all of the time - I am a cynical bastard. I also don't think about the same things each time I watch it - this might be a failure of a film that is trying to instigate a particular type of "paying attention", but I wouldn't put that to the discredit of a CCC film. If a CCC film works more like fertilizer than it does like a full grown tree, then that's completely fine by me. After all, many non CCC films don't bear new fruit on repeat watchings, so the fruit that you saw the first time is the fruit you get the next time, and often that fruit is rotten or has been eaten by worms in the meantime. With a CCC film you might find that your tree which was merely a sapling is now capable of holding a treehouse, or perhaps it is bearing a bountiful harvest of fruit.

(As for your parenthetical question, I would answer it this way: A good CCC is the fertilizer that I feel like is good for whatever reasons I personally like fertilizer. Now, sure, I know nothing about fertilizer, but if it grew good trees the first time then I will expect it to grow good or better trees the second time. I can't be sure. Sometimes fertilizer I thought wasn't good, like Mother and Son, turns out to be the best damn fertilizer there is. Is this a negative of the film, or of CCC films in general? I don't know, maybe, but life isn't perfect but Mother and Son sure is, now that I've figured out that it is the type of fertilizer I like. How do we know that we like anything, and how do we know that we'll like anything again a second time, and how do we know when our opinion will change from the first time to the second time without just trying it? Well, we know ourselves, to some degree, and we're wrong often, as well. It's the same process. You have some internal rubric with some vague ideas and it changes over time and you do whatever seems best at the time. This is the exact same process for all films, even if your rubric is different or has to expand from non-CCC films to CCC films, or to experimental films, or to musicals, or to silent films, etc. This process is always amorphous and ever-changing. CCC films are no exception - and they are also no exception, in that there's no one simple way for any person to differentiate between a good film and another. You make it up yourself, and it changes as you change.)

2. How is this type of zoning out productive? Well, contemplation is highly productive in terms of generating thoughts. I'm not sure that "productive" is the sole or even best way to judge it, though. How "productive" is watching His Girl Friday? It doesn't seem like a sensible question, to me, in this context. I've always found mere "diversionary entertainment" to be an "unproductive" waste of time, whereas any film that can, even if often indirectly and unintentionally, produce contemplation is far better than one that "produces" mere entertainment. That this is the goal of "finding films that fit into the CCC philosophy" (regardless of whether or not this is the intent of the author) seems to me a good thing, and this is why I seek them out. But, again, as in #1, that's a rule I made up myself, for myself.Sure, but I can't even bear the thought of watching the film because that sounds hideously boring to me, but I'm fully aware that this "contemplative space" or this "slowness" or this "entirely apt pacing for the content some particular films film which just so happens to be substantially slower than almost every mainstream film in existence" (or whatever term we're calling it) has lots of ways of being viewed and engaged with and appreciated. It may very well be that, to you, Jeanne Dielman is slow but not contemplative, or contemplative but not slow, I don't know. Nobody can force you to fit something into a box you don't like. I can't imagine that there's no film that you wouldn't find space to contemplate while watching, though, and for the purpose of this conversation about contemplative cinema that would probably be a far better example.By productive, I mean simply productive of pleasure, which has been the goal of art for thousands of years. If His Girl Friday is mere diversion, then so are La Règle du jeu, Cosi fan tutte, and Mother Courage and Her Children. Whatever else they are, all of these works are fundamentally entertaining in the sense that they unfold in time and use narrative to sustain the spectator's interest over a particular duration, which is not an easy or simple thing to do--hence all the lousy films, operas, and plays cluttering up the world. However, you seem to think entertainment is oppressive because it requires you to attend to a narrative rather than thinking about your own life (hardly a revolutionary project), as if attending to a narrative weren't also an active mental process.

As to your fertilizer metaphor (which sounds like something Chance the Gardener would say), I think it's a giant cop-out. Obviously everybody is going to think of different things while watching a given film and each viewing will be different. If you will not, or cannot, articulate what are the formal and stylistic attributes that, in your opinion, make Mother and Son particularly conducive to contemplation, beyond being slow and telling a story about family and death (which are not characteristics unique to Sokurov's film), then there is no reason to continue this discussion, and I best leave you to contemplate the inside of your own head while not paying attention to the films you're watching.

[baby doll]

See, to me, that sounds like absolute torture. It is a type of cinema of no interest to me whatsoever.

I've posted this quote elsewhere on this forum but it seems worth repeating:


Most moviegoers choose titles that will show them, they hope, exactly what they want to see. The willingness to accept a director's vision, even if it's not your own, is the sign of a moviegoer who has advanced from passive, childlike consumerism into a more advanced understanding of the cinema.

[Ezee E]

I'm bored enough doing my own chores. I don't need to watch people doing them.

[baby doll]

I'm bored enough doing my own chores. I don't need to watch people doing them.

Another good Ebert quote:


A film is not about what it is about, but how it is about it. A good film or a bad film can be made about anything. Therefore, to dismiss (or praise) a film solely because of its subject matter, it is not necessary to see it. That is why people who make statements beginning with the words "I don't like films about..." are idiots, or censors.

[PURPLE]

By productive, I mean simply productive of pleasure, which has been the goal of art for thousands of years.Is this the goal of all art for thousands of years? It's certainlly not the goal of the earliest art we have from roughly every culture on the planet - religious stories. Those are most often meant to be instructive. It's certainly not the goal of some of the earliest theater we have - Greek Tragedies. Those, too, are meant to be instructive, are meant to invoke pathos, are meant to evoke empathy, but "pleasure" is a strange way of putting the reenactment of an eagle feeding on a man's liver. Art has always had many intended purposes, and even more different actual results. I see no reason why "contemplation", or especially "inspired and productive contemplation" would not be equal to those. In fact, I personally find no reason why this would not be superior. This opinion need not be universally held by everyone, but neither is the opinion that "pleasure" is better than "contemplation".
If His Girl Friday is mere diversion, then so are La Règle du jeu, Cosi fan tutte, and Mother Courage and Her Children. Whatever else they are, all of these works are fundamentally entertaining in the sense that they unfold in time and use narrative to sustain the spectator's interest over a particular duration, which is not an easy or simple thing to do--hence all the lousy films, operas, and plays cluttering up the world. However, you seem to think entertainment is oppressive because it requires you to attend to a narrative rather than thinking about your own life (hardly a revolutionary project), as if attending to a narrative weren't also an active mental process.

As to your fertilizer metaphor (which sounds like something Chance the Gardener would say), I think it's a giant cop-out. Obviously everybody is going to think of different things while watching a given film and each viewing will be different. If you will not, or cannot, articulate what are the formal and stylistic attributes that, in your opinion, make Mother and Son particularly conducive to contemplation, beyond being slow and telling a story about family and death (which are not characteristics unique to Sokurov's film), then there is no reason to continue this discussion, and I best leave you to contemplate the inside of your own head while not paying attention to the films you're watching.I don't mind that someone else finds His Girl Friday to be better in whatever way and for whatever reason than Mother and Son. That's not what I'm talking about at all - merely the idea that some person might enjoy contemplative cinema. As for why, I mean, I agree with the site that I linked to, so I don't feel the need to restate. If you feel it's a cop-out, that's fine. I tried to explain myself in good faith. If that's not sufficient for you, then perhaps conversations aren't for you.

[transmogrifier]

I've posted this quote elsewhere on this forum but it seems worth repeating:

Yes, the quote that birthed thousands of pretentious film “lovers” all eager to subject themselves to the most punishing movies to prove their evolved understanding over us plebs. I mean... if you believe that quote, truly believe it, you should be just as keen to be watching Friedberg and Seltzer movies - all of them.

[baby doll]

Is this the goal of all art for thousands of years? It's certainlly not the goal of the earliest art we have from roughly every culture on the planet - religious stories. Those are most often meant to be instructive. It's certainly not the goal of some of the earliest theater we have - Greek Tragedies. Those, too, are meant to be instructive, are meant to invoke pathos, are meant to evoke empathy, but "pleasure" is a strange way of putting the reenactment of an eagle feeding on a man's liver. Art has always had many intended purposes, and even more different actual results. I see no reason why "contemplation", or especially "inspired and productive contemplation" would not be equal to those. In fact, I personally find no reason why this would not be superior. This opinion need not be universally held by everyone, but neither is the opinion that "pleasure" is better than "contemplation".

I don't mind that someone else finds His Girl Friday to be better in whatever way and for whatever reason than Mother and Son. That's not what I'm talking about at all - merely the idea that some person might enjoy contemplative cinema. As for why, I mean, I agree with the site that I linked to, so I don't feel the need to restate. If you feel it's a cop-out, that's fine. I tried to explain myself in good faith. If that's not sufficient for you, then perhaps conversations aren't for you.Regarding Greek Tragedy, here's what Aristotle writes in the Poetics:


It can be seen that poetry was broadly engendered by a pair of causes, both natural. For it is an instinct of human beings, from childhood, to engage in mimesis (indeed, this distinguishes them from other animals: man is the most mimetic of all, and it is through mimesis that he develops his earliest understanding); and equally natural that everyone enjoys mimetic objects. A common occurrence indicates this: we enjoy contemplating the most precise images of things whose actual sight is painful to us, such as the forms of the vilest animals and of corpses. The explanation of this too is that understanding gives great pleasure not only to philosophers but likewise to others too, though the latter have a smaller share in it. This is why people enjoy looking at images, because through contemplating them it comes about that they understand and infer what each element means, for instance that "this person is so-and-so."

In short, ancient Greek audiences derived pleasure from tragic plays (they were after all performed at festivals, not as punishments for naughty children), and for Aristotle, pleasure and instruction are inseparable.

Of course, it's possible that abstract contemplation is equal or superior to pleasure, instruction, etc., but you've yet to provide any compelling evidence that this is so, or that certain films are better suited for this purpose than others, or indeed why films are necessary for this activity to take place at all. Your argument, if I understand you correctly, is that in your experience Mother and Son is particularly fertile in terms of contemplation because it contains Quality X. What this Quality X is that differentiates Sokurov's film from numerous others treating similar themes at a comparably slow pace has not been established, and if I follow your logic, can't be established by examining the film closely because the whole point of contemplative cinema is that we aren't supposed to contemplate it in the sense of looking closely at something for a extended duration of time (which I take to be the purpose of all cinema, fast or slow).

[baby doll]

Yes, the quote that birthed thousands of pretentious film “lovers” all eager to subject themselves to the most punishing movies to prove their evolved understanding over us plebs. I mean... if you believe that quote, truly believe it, you should be just as keen to be watching Friedberg and Seltzer movies - all of them.Who exactly are those thousands of film "lovers"? In any case, the very next line in the article I quoted is, "But of course not every difficult film is worth the time; many directors have visions interesting only to themselves, and some films are just plain bad." The substance of my disagreement with Purple is the basis according to which it is possible to distinguish between a good "slow" film and a bad one, as opposed to praising or rejecting them indiscriminately, which is simple philistinism.

[transmogrifier]

Another good Ebert quote:

I do believe I am objecting to the “how” of it all. To simplify, planting the camera and observing minute details of everyday life or planting the camera and have your characters engage in mundane conversation is easy and boring, no matter what the subtext or subject is. In my opinion. If Ebert thinks I’m an idiot, so be it. I’ll get over it.

[baby doll]

I do believe I am objecting to the “how” of it all. To simplify, planting the camera and observing minute details of everyday life or planting the camera and have your characters engage in mundane conversation is easy and boring, no matter what the subtext or subject is. In my opinion. If Ebert thinks I’m an idiot, so be it. I’ll get over it.There are different ways of filming details of everyday life and mundane conversations. In the case of Jeanne Dielman, there's a lot more to the film than Akerman simply filming Delphine Seyrig doing household chores for 200 minutes. Rather, the film reveals the heroine's mental disintegration through subtle differences in the way she performs the same chores over the course of the film's duration, and the creepy emptiness of the conversations she has with her son and a female neighbour.

[megladon8]

Steven Spielberg really isn’t all that great.

[Milky Joe]

Steven Spielberg really isn’t all that great.

Temple of Doom is one of the worst movies I've ever seen

[Ezee E]

How I do my chores and how you do yours is no interest of mine.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Steven Spielberg really isn’t all that great.

Okay, now I feel baited, haha.

[Skitch]

Temple of Doom is one of the worst movies I've ever seen


Okay, now I feel baited, haha.

Yeah me too lol. How does Crystal Skull rate then? Hard to go down from that description of Temple.

[megladon8]

Okay, now I feel baited, haha.

He’s at his best doing sci fi and pulpy genre stuff.

He’s grown intolerably boring with old age.

[Dead & Messed Up]

James Cameron was a fantastic storyteller for quite a while; it was just that his stories didn't call too much attention to their efficiencies and strong core dynamics. The first two Terminator films, Aliens, and The Abyss (original cuts in all cases) are traditional kinds of storytelling, but achieved with remarkable precision. It wasn't until Titanic that he started to slip into the George Lucas trap of valuing storytelling as a foundation for world-building (instead of the opposite).

Also: I think Avatar is a decent film. It's basic as fuck, but it moves, features impressive production design, and at least one truly great performance in Stephen Lang's gruff emergent villain. There's a fantastic moment late in the film where he chases heroes out of a building, paying no attention to the toxic atmosphere until a grunt insists he put on a gas mask so he can resume breathing.

[Skitch]

Carried over from a derail in another thread...The Lion King sucks.

[Dead & Messed Up]

He’s at his best doing sci fi and pulpy genre stuff.

He’s grown intolerably boring with old age.

Honestly, I think he's better at his "dad movies" at this point than he is at pulp (excepting Tintin). Ready Player One, Crystal Skull, and War of the Worlds had great sequences but were inconsistent, while The Post and Bridge of Spies more consistently engaged me.

[megladon8]

Honestly, I think he's better at his "dad movies" at this point than he is at pulp (excepting Tintin). Ready Player One, Crystal Skull, and War of the Worlds had great sequences but were inconsistent, while The Post and Bridge of Spies more consistently engaged me.

Yeah, well, you’re wrong.

[Irish]

Spielberg seems desperately out of touch with audiences and just as desperate to deliver the kind of hits he had 40 years ago. Amblin just optioned a movie based on a series of Reddit threads, so that sorta tells you were his head is at.

Cameron was best when he had a strong producing partner / collaborator. Just about everything he made that fans loved --- and still talk about endlessly --- he made with Gale Anne Hurd. (See also: The respective careers and popularity of John Carpenter (Debra Hill) and George Lucas (Marcia Lucas) and maaaaybe Quentin Tarantino (Roger Avery)).

I feel like I should mention Christopher Nolan, for no other reason than to make the "over praised and over discussed director" hat trick.

Meanwhile, I've been thinking about this thread lately:

Anyone feel like r/movies only talks about the same ~50 movies in an endless cycle of quasi-hipster fandom? (https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/anbpcr/anyone_feel_like_rmovies_only_ talks_about_the/)

I don't think this is necessarily 100% true of Match Cut, but I do wonder sometimes why movie fandom seems stuck in a very particular rut, and even within the context of 80s movies and directors, and why nobody pops up to talk about James Brooks and "Broadcast News" or "Terms of Endearment, for example, or, really, any movie from the last 4 decades that doesn't have a massive amount of flash and celebrity.

Instead it's "Aliens," "Terminator, "Goodfellas," "Star Wars," and the relative value of Indiana Jones and Batman, over and over again.

[Skitch]

This is why I still hunt VHS, Irish. It has opened me up to hundreds of movies I've never even heard of. Its easy to take a chance on an unknown film when they cost 10 cents.

[Watashi]

Broadcast News is a Top 10 film of mine.

I would love to talk about it, but is there really anything to say about that will ruffle any feathers or uncover anything worth covering?

Blank Check did a really great series about James Brooks career including even reviewing the long lost musical version of I'll Do Anything.

[Peng]

FWIW, I get bored easily and I found Jeanne Dielman kind of mesmerizing.

[Spinal]

Carried over from a derail in another thread...The Lion King sucks.

Suck might be a stronger word than I'd use, but I basically agree.

[StanleyK]

I don't think this is necessarily 100% true of Match Cut, but I do wonder sometimes why movie fandom seems stuck in a very particular rut, and even within the context of 80s movies and directors, and why nobody pops up to talk about James Brooks and "Broadcast News" or "Terms of Endearment, for example, or, really, any movie from the last 4 decades that doesn't have a massive amount of flash and celebrity.

I watch all sorts of movies, well-known and relatively obscure, from all decades; however, I find that I usually have nothing worth saying about them beyond "I liked this" or "I didn't like this." Another issue is that mentioning a lesser known movie is less likely to generate discussion because fewer posters will have seen them, so some people probably just don't bother.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Cameron was best when he had a strong producing partner / collaborator. Just about everything he made that fans loved --- and still talk about endlessly --- he made with Gale Anne Hurd. (See also: The respective careers and popularity of John Carpenter (Debra Hill) and George Lucas (Marcia Lucas) and maaaaybe Quentin Tarantino (Roger Avery))...

Meanwhile, I've been thinking about this thread lately:

Anyone feel like r/movies only talks about the same ~50 movies in an endless cycle of quasi-hipster fandom? (https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/anbpcr/anyone_feel_like_rmovies_only_ talks_about_the/)

I don't think this is necessarily 100% true of Match Cut, but I do wonder sometimes why movie fandom seems stuck in a very particular rut, and even within the context of 80s movies and directors, and why nobody pops up to talk about James Brooks and "Broadcast News" or "Terms of Endearment, for example, or, really, any movie from the last 4 decades that doesn't have a massive amount of flash and celebrity.

Instead it's "Aliens," "Terminator, "Goodfellas," "Star Wars," and the relative value of Indiana Jones and Batman, over and over again.

Good call on the value of collaborators (Gary Kurtz was supposed to be another Lucas voice of reason).

I saw that thread too, and I agree that there is a depressing rut. I see it a lot with horror films too. The sort of narrowing vision of xenial/millennial internet users for whom filmmaking more or less stops prior to their birth. They know to genuflect at people like Akira Kurosawa and Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock, but I suspect a lot of them know to only because those filmmakers are undeniably influential on the filmmakers they do know and respect (Kurosawa = Lucas influencer, Hitchcock = Spielberg and Shyamalan influencer, etc.).

I got really cheesed off recently because the horror subreddit had a long-gestating vote on the best horror films of all time, and the lack of history was *chasmic*. It was a Top 100 Horror Films that didn't have a single film that involved Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, James Whale, Robert Wiene, Fritz Lang, Jack Pierce, Jack Arnold, Jacques Tourneur, Lon Chaney, Terrence Fisher, Vincent Price, Mario Bava, Christopher Lee, and so on. Tried to be charitable and recognize that a lot of the people who voted are probably drive-by redditors who aren't cinephiles or movie fans but know, "Ooh, I like 'It Follows.'" But even then, like you say, there's this very clear sense of the limited (self-selected) perspective of the average internet movie discusser person. White, male, 20s-30s, and broadly ignorant of films that are not directly targeted to their demo.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yeah, well, you’re wrong.

In my mind I'm right, and really, isn't that what matters most? Self-delusion? :)

[megladon8]

In my mind I'm right, and really, isn't that what matters most? Self-delusion? :)

I imagined this being said in Morgan Freeman’s voice.

In a movie directed by Steven Spielberg.

[Watashi]

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but Disney's 2010's renaissance > Disney's 90's renaissance.

[Skitch]

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but Disney's 2010's renaissance > Disney's 90's renaissance.
Interesting! Does this include Pixar?

[PURPLE]

Regarding Greek Tragedy, here's what Aristotle writes in the Poetics:



In short, ancient Greek audiences derived pleasure from tragic plays (they were after all performed at festivals, not as punishments for naughty children), and for Aristotle, pleasure and instruction are inseparable.

Of course, it's possible that abstract contemplation is equal or superior to pleasure, instruction, etc., but you've yet to provide any compelling evidence that this is so, or that certain films are better suited for this purpose than others, or indeed why films are necessary for this activity to take place at all. Your argument, if I understand you correctly, is that in your experience Mother and Son is particularly fertile in terms of contemplation because it contains Quality X. What this Quality X is that differentiates Sokurov's film from numerous others treating similar themes at a comparably slow pace has not been established, and if I follow your logic, can't be established by examining the film closely because the whole point of contemplative cinema is that we aren't supposed to contemplate it in the sense of looking closely at something for a extended duration of time (which I take to be the purpose of all cinema, fast or slow).lol evidence in a subjective conversation about art. Done with this conversation.

[Watashi]

Interesting! Does this include Pixar?

Nope.

90's Renaissance:
The Little Mermaid
Beauty and the Beast
Aladdin
The Lion King
Pocahontas
Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hercules
Mulan
Tarzan

2010's Renaissance:
Princess and the Frog
Tangled
Winnie the Pooh
Wreck-It Ralph
Frozen
Big Hero 6
Zootopia
Moana
Ralph Breaks the Internet

I really don't like the two Ralph movies, but I like/love the rest.

I do think Beauty and the Beast is the best of the entire bunch.

[baby doll]

lol evidence in a subjective conversation about art. Done with this conversation.lol using subjectivity as an escape clause because you're too intellectually lazy to support your claims

[Milky Joe]

does whiny passive aggressiveness count as an "attack" cuz I think you two might be breaking the rules

[Dead & Messed Up]

Nope.

90's Renaissance:
The Little Mermaid
Beauty and the Beast
Aladdin
The Lion King
Pocahontas
Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hercules
Mulan
Tarzan

2010's Renaissance:
Princess and the Frog
Tangled
Winnie the Pooh
Wreck-It Ralph
Frozen
Big Hero 6
Zootopia
Moana
Ralph Breaks the Internet

I really don't like the two Ralph movies, but I like/love the rest.

I do think Beauty and the Beast is the best of the entire bunch.

https://media.giphy.com/media/VcWnY3R6YWVtC/giphy.gif

I'll give props to Tangled, though, for sure.

[Peng]

Let's see..

90's Renaissance:
The Little Mermaid - 7.5
Beauty and the Beast - 8.5
Aladdin - 7
The Lion King - 8
Pocahontas - 7.5
Hunchback of Notre Dame - 6.5 (this needs a rewatch tho)
Hercules - 6.5
Mulan - 8
Tarzan - 6

Shouldn't this include up to Lilo & Stitch? If in that case:

The Emperor's New Groove - 9
Atlantis: The Lost Empire - 6.5
Treasure Planet - 7
Lilo & Stich - 7


2010's Renaissance:
Princess and the Frog - 7
Tangled - 8
Winnie the Pooh - n/s
Wreck-It Ralph - 8
Frozen - 7
Big Hero 6 - 7
Zootopia - 7
Moana - 7
Ralph Breaks the Internet - 7

So the first Renaissance has lower lows, but also higher highs. Have to say though that apart from maybe Moana, their films starting from Frozen forward have some glib, easy, and somewhat transparently engineered emotional cores that don't sit easy with me, like watered-down Pixar without the thornier nuances. Somehow I keep coming back to Zootopia and its supposedly "pivotal" moment of Judy pulling her weapon on Nick after he pretended to scare her, which I saw coming a mile way and felt vaguely rankled by it when it happened. Dunno why, maybe it's because I felt condescended to.

[transmogrifier]

Who exactly are those thousands of film "lovers"? In any case, the very next line in the article I quoted is, "But of course not every difficult film is worth the time; many directors have visions interesting only to themselves, and some films are just plain bad." The substance of my disagreement with Purple is the basis according to which it is possible to distinguish between a good "slow" film and a bad one, as opposed to praising or rejecting them indiscriminately, which is simple philistinism.

But surely there is a point at which you just have to accept that the defining elements of a certain type of film (whether it be a particular genre, or sensibility, or whatever) may be of no inherent interest to you, and thus the criteria used by those who like that certain type of film to define good and bad are of no consequence.

I mean, taking a narrow example, think of the defining features of a Transformers film. I have no interest in those features even if they are executed correctly according those who profess to like them. Broader view, I have no interest in mainstream romantic comedies - even those ones that people who like the genre claim are "good" (and even those that I do like, such as Down By Love are doing something outside the standard expectations of the form).

Unless you are arguing that there are some types of film that cannot rejected indiscriminately and others that can because of some objective idea of what constitutes "worth" in an artistic sense? Which I would disagree with entirely. I'm more of the belief that anyone at any time has the freedom to dismiss a type of film as not their thing for whatever reasons they want and not be labeled a philistine for it - that should be reserved for those who have no concept of art in and of itself, not for those who have a clear understanding of what type of art speaks to them and that they enjoy interacting with.

[Skitch]

I do think Beauty and the Beast is the best of the entire bunch.

I would probably say Aladdin, but I don't see enough score variation in those films to argue against your original point at all.

[Dukefrukem]

Hmmm. Head to head... I guess you're right. (Bolded = 90s)




90's Renaissance:
The Little Mermaid
Beauty and the Beast
Aladdin
The Lion King
Pocahontas
Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hercules
Mulan
Tarzan

2010's Renaissance:
Princess and the Frog
Tangled
Winnie the Pooh
Wreck-It Ralph
Frozen
Big Hero 6
Zootopia
Moana
Ralph Breaks the Internet

I really don't like the two Ralph movies, but I like/love the rest.

I do think Beauty and the Beast is the best of the entire bunch.

The Little Mermaid > Princess and the Frog
Beauty and the Beast > Winnie the Pooh
Tangled > Pocahontas
Aladdin > Moana
The Lion King > Frozen
Big Hero 6 > Hunchback of Notre Dame
Zootopia > Hercules
Wreck-It Ralph > Mulan
Ralph Breaks the Internet (the only one I haven't seen so I'm making a big assumption but really not) > Tarzan

[Philip J. Fry]

Hercules is kind of bad.

[Philip J. Fry]

By the way, if you wanna talk about 90's Disney renaissance, you must include A Goofy Movie.

[megladon8]

Beauty and the Beast is the definitive correct answer to the following questions:

Best 90s Disney movie?
Best Disney movie period?
Top five animated films of all time?

[PURPLE]

lol using subjectivity as an escape clause because you're too intellectually lazy to support your claimsWhatever the case, I think you'll agree that no reasonable person would ever continue a conversation with someone that made the posts you've made. If your goal was to end the conversation, you've won! Congratulations!

[baby doll]

But surely there is a point at which you just have to accept that the defining elements of a certain type of film (whether it be a particular genre, or sensibility, or whatever) may be of no inherent interest to you, and thus the criteria used by those who like that certain type of film to define good and bad are of no consequence.

I mean, taking a narrow example, think of the defining features of a Transformers film. I have no interest in those features even if they are executed correctly according those who profess to like them. Broader view, I have no interest in mainstream romantic comedies - even those ones that people who like the genre claim are "good" (and even those that I do like, such as Down By Love are doing something outside the standard expectations of the form).

Unless you are arguing that there are some types of film that cannot rejected indiscriminately and others that can because of some objective idea of what constitutes "worth" in an artistic sense? Which I would disagree with entirely. I'm more of the belief that anyone at any time has the freedom to dismiss a type of film as not their thing for whatever reasons they want and not be labeled a philistine for it - that should be reserved for those who have no concept of art in and of itself, not for those who have a clear understanding of what type of art speaks to them and that they enjoy interacting with.Not having seen any of the Transformers films, I can't speak to the strengths and limitations of the robot-cars from outer space sub-genre as a sub-genre, but I can say that mainstream romantic comedies vary pretty widely in quality, from classics like Trouble in Paradise and His Girl Friday to superior latter day examples (My Best Friend's Wedding, for instance) to films that are solidly entertaining (Trainwreck) to awful dreck (Crazy Rich Asians). Whether this is a genre in decline, and if so whether contemporary filmmakers are simply less imaginative than Lubitsch or Hawks, or whether after eighty-five years the genre has been exhausted and there's simply nothing left to be done with these conventions, is outside the parameters of this discussion. The issue I believe is whether it's permissible to look at a film like Trouble in Paradise and say, "I get what it's doing and it succeeds on that level, but witty, supremely entertaining films about the romantic problems of glamorous and sexy characters just aren't my cup of tea." That statement would I think pass muster as far as it goes (though it reveals more about the person making it than the films they're referring to), but if you were to go further and say, "Any film about the romantic problems of glamorous and sexy characters is inherently boring, no matter how well it's made," that would obviously be an idiotic comment to make.

Are some genres more resilient than others? I would agree with that. In fact, I think one of the strengths of art cinema as a mode of film production is that it incentivizes originality, so filmmakers are less likely to fall into the trap of doing the same thing over and over again (though God knows there are unimaginative art films, some of them very highly praised--e.g., "First Reformed").

[Skitch]

does whiny passive aggressiveness count as an "attack" cuz I think you two might be breaking the rules

Its really pushing the line.

[Philip J. Fry]

Skynet would annihilate the Death Eaters in an all-out war.

[MadMan]

Its really pushing the line.

When I see posters like that on this site, my response is literally:

https://i.imgur.com/pcdC8Br.gif

[Dukefrukem]

Its really pushing the line.

We all break the rules once in a while. Isn't that right MJ? http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?7023-Star-Wars-The-Last-Jedi-(Rian-Johnson)/page25&p=589542&viewfull=1#post589542

[Grouchy]

This thread is now filled with popular opinions and personal attacks.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This thread is now filled with popular opinions and personal attacks.

Grouchy, I don't care what your dumbass says, The Dark Knight is good.

Is that it? Can we officially close the thread?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Here's a few.

My favorite NolanBatman is The Dark Knight Rises.

I didn't get into The Seven Samurai and liked The Magnificent Seven more.

Solaris and Alphaville were worth watching but only intermittently engaging.

[StanleyK]

I didn't get into The Seven Samurai and liked The Magnificent Seven more.

Same. Kurosawa is like Nolan for me, good filmmaker but his characters won't stop explaining the movie and it's very off-putting.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Same. Kurosawa is like Nolan for me, good filmmaker but his characters won't stop explaining the movie and it's very off-putting.

What held me back was more the repetitive nature of the film and how, outside Mifune, few of the characters lingered in the memory. I'm a big fan of what I've seen of his work otherwise.

[megladon8]

Soderbergh’s Solaris is so much better than Tarkovsky’s it’s not even funny.

[StanleyK]

What held me back was more the repetitive nature of the film and how, outside Mifune, few of the characters lingered in the memory. I'm a big fan of what I've seen of his work otherwise.

I've seen his movies from Drunken Angel to The Seven Samurai and they all have the same problem for me. The worst offender is Ikiru, which is essentially two movies: one pretty great 90-minute one, and a really boring 60-minute one which laboriously explains the former. Still, despite this and their too slow pace, I enjoyed these films overall because Kurosawa was such an inspired visual storyteller, but they're far from what I'd consider being among the greatest movies ever as most people do.

[megladon8]

While I do think Kurosawa was a master and made some ridiculously incredible films, I’ve always thought Seven Samurai was one of his lesser efforts.

[Ezee E]

Kansas City BBQ is not very good.

[transmogrifier]

This thread is now filled with popular opinions and personal attacks.

It's like a Reddit thread on r/movies which asks something like "What is a popular movie that everyone likes that you don't?"; everyone who answers with a popular movie that everyone on Reddit likes gets downvoted. It's a trap, people!

[Dead & Messed Up]

It's like a Reddit thread on r/movies which asks something like "What is a popular movie that everyone likes that you don't?"; everyone who answers with a popular movie that everyone on Reddit likes gets downvoted. It's a trap, people!

Hah, I tried that once or twice. Then I got downvoted and realized it was a politician's game.

"What would you say is a flaw of yours?"
"I guess I just care so much about my constituents!"

"What's a popular movie that that everyone likes that you don't?"
"I don't care for the Transformers movies and I don't care who knows it."
"Wow so brave upvote."

[MadMan]

Here's a few.

My favorite NolanBatman is The Dark Knight Rises.

I didn't get into The Seven Samurai and liked The Magnificent Seven more.

Solaris and Alphaville were worth watching but only intermittently engaging.

I love Alphaville. It doesn't get enough credit for being an influential sci-fi movie.

[megladon8]

Fellowship is the best of the LOTR movies (and by a very wide margin).

Timothy Dalton was a great Bond.

Rob Zombie is a very strong director who needs someone else to write for/with him, and to stop casting his absolutely godawful wife.

The original Superman with Christopher Reeve is better than anything from Marvel.

Herzog’s Bad Lieutenant > Abel Ferrera’s Bad Lieutenant.

[Ezee E]

I believed in that Rob Zombie idea, until after Halloween. His movies have been outright terrible ever since. Not really sure what happened.

[transmogrifier]

Fellowship is the best of the LOTR movies (and by a very wide margin).

Timothy Dalton was a great Bond.

Rob Zombie is a very strong director who needs someone else to write for/with him, and to stop casting his absolutely godawful wife.

The original Superman with Christopher Reeve is better than anything from Marvel.

Herzog’s Bad Lieutenant > Abel Ferrera’s Bad Lieutenant.

# of opinions: 5
# of truly unpopular opinions: 0

:)

[Dead & Messed Up]

I believed in that Rob Zombie idea, until after Halloween. His movies have been outright terrible ever since. Not really sure what happened.

I stan Lords of Salem.

[MadMan]

Yeah Lords of Salem is great. I'll defend it, too.

ROTK is better than Fellowship imo. Dalton is my favorite Bond. I also prefer Herzog's BL over the original, although the Cage one wasn't really a remake.

[Yxklyx]

Tilda Swinton was very good in Michael Clayton without being super extravagant.

She was great in The War Zone too playing a normal mom - ugh what an ugly (but good) movie.

[Yxklyx]

What do you think of Hopkins in The Remains of the Day?

I was going to ask the same question - one of my favorite films and he's impeccable in that.

[Yxklyx]

Out of the Past is just a bad film. There's really nothing to recommend to it above hundreds of other movies. There are tons of B movie noirs that are much superior films.

[baby doll]

Out of the Past is just a bad film. There's really nothing to recommend to it above hundreds of other movies. There are tons of B movie noirs that are much superior films.What are the titles of those hundreds of other B-movie noirs? I'd like to see them.

[megladon8]

# of opinions: 5
# of truly unpopular opinions: 0

:)

Really? I thought ROTK was generally the favorite, people consider Dalton the worst Bond, generally dislike Zombie, Reeve Superman is considered outdated, and Herzog’s Bad Lieutenant was considered an interesting distraction but not much more.

[Dukefrukem]

ROTK is the worst of the three.

[baby doll]

None of them are all that great to begin with.

[Scar]

I thoroughly enjoy the Director’s cuts of Zombie’s Halloween and have probably seen them more than the original.

Am I doing this right? ;-)

[Scar]

Lord of the Rings trilogy bores me for the most part. Best part was the suicide bomber in the second one. I laughed heartily when he lets out that last ‘yelp’ or whatever when he dives into the tunnel / wall.

[Yxklyx]

What are the titles of those hundreds of other B-movie noirs? I'd like to see them.

The Narrow Margin was a recent rewatch.

[Dukefrukem]

Lord of the Rings trilogy bores me for the most part. Best part was the suicide bomber in the second one. I laughed heartily when he lets out that last ‘yelp’ or whatever when he dives into the tunnel / wall.

Had to look it up. And I laughed after your description and then watching it. I never remembered this scene...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrsC1Hm30ug

[megladon8]

The Narrow Margin was a recent rewatch.

Force of Evil is a great, lesser known noir as well!

[Irish]

Really? I thought ROTK was generally the favorite, people consider Dalton the worst Bond, generally dislike Zombie, Reeve Superman is considered outdated, and Herzog’s Bad Lieutenant was considered an interesting distraction but not much more.

This was my overall impression, too,.


Lord of the Rings trilogy bores me for the most part. Best part was the suicide bomber in the second one. I laughed heartily when he lets out that last ‘yelp’ or whatever when he dives into the tunnel / wall.

Not an opinion, but a confession: I disliked the first two movies enough that I never bothered to see "Return of the King."

[Dead & Messed Up]

I like how they have a bespoke torchboy and clear a very visible path. It's like, "Hey good guys, if you need a target, here ya go."