The Popular Movie Blindspot Thread [Archive]

Idioteque Stalker

04-30-2022, 02:47 PM

Here is my personal plan for this thread (feel free to play along if you want, or do anything else related to your popular movie blindspots):

It's sort of a companion to the Criterion Challenge. There I watch arthouse movies, here I watch popular movies. How do I determine what is popular? I'm glad you asked. It's systematic, of course!

_____________________

Log into your Letterboxd account on a computer. Click "Films." Browse by year. Here you can see LB's most popular movie of each year (the one with the most views). Start with 2019. The most popular movie of that year is Parasite, currently at 1.7m views. If you have not seen Parasite, watch it. If you have already seen it then move to 2018: Into the Spider-Verse. Seen it already? Move to 2017: Get Out. Repeat the process as far back in time as you want. THEN start over with the second-most popular movie of 2019: Joker. Already seen it? The second-most popular movie of 2018 is Infinity War. Etc. Etc. Etc. For as long as you like.

_____________________

I'm going way, way back. Like 100 years at least. But you can start over at the year 2000 if you want. Or 1975, 1960, 1927, whatever.

You will most likely be confronted with a movie you've been avoiding. That's the beauty of this system. There's no wiggle room. Like me, maybe you never got around to Dead Poets Society (the most popular movie of 1989, surprisingly). Now you have to watch it.

What I've seen so far using this method:

First pass (#1 most popular movies, 2019-1895)
2018: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse ****
1989: Dead Poets Society ***
1918: A Dog's Life ***
1914: Cabiria **
1913: Suspense
1911: Dante's Inferno ****
1910: Frankenstein
1909: A Corner in Wheat
1908: Fantasmagorie
1907: The Dancing Pig
1906: The Consequences of Feminism
1905: The Black Imp
1904: The Impossible Voyage
1901: The Man with the Rubber Head
1900: Joan of Arc
1899: Cinderella
1898: The Astronomer's Dream
1896: The Haunted Castle

Second pass (#2 most popular movies, 2019-1915)
2011: Captain America: The First Avenger **
1996: Scream ****
1983: Scarface **
1953: Roman Holiday ****
1947: The Lady from Shanghai ***
1944: Laura ***
1943: Bambi ***
1933: The Invisible Man ***
1926: A Page of Madness ***

Third pass (#3 most popular movies, 2019-1920)
2013: Prisoners ***
2012: The Perks of Being a Wallflower **
1990: Edward Scissorhands ***
1987: Dirty Dancing **
1976: Rocky ****

Skitch

04-30-2022, 02:48 PM

I like this.

Philip J. Fry

04-30-2022, 03:02 PM

I, indeed, have not seen The Goonies, nor Stand By Me nor Footloose.

Nor Animal House, Airplane and The Blues Brothers.

Skitch

04-30-2022, 03:03 PM

I, indeed, have not seen The Goonies, nor Stand By Me nor Footloose.

Nor Animal House, Airplane and The Blues Brothers.

...and you call yourself a movie person. Huff and puff

Idioteque Stalker

04-30-2022, 03:33 PM

I, indeed, have not seen The Goonies, nor Stand By Me nor Footloose.

Nor Animal House, Airplane and The Blues Brothers.

Airplane and Stand By Me are great. Goonies, Animal House, and Blues Brothers I too have not seen. I've definitely resisted them for whatever reason. They appear to be products of their time, likely untranslatable to the current day.

...and you call yourself a movie person. Huff and puff

banned

Skitch

04-30-2022, 04:19 PM

We should probably give our thoughts on the ones people haven't seen (in a not ass way) to help others make decisions of what to pick.

The Goonies - I'm the exact age for this demo, but for some reason, I completely missed the boat on it. I think my first viewing was around 2000. I enjoy the film, its got some real fun moments and some adventure, but it is lined up for kids at that age group.

Stand By Me - Unlike The Goonies (set in the 80s), because SBM is set in an era I did not grow up in (50s), its easier for me to vanish into the story. In my experience, boys seem to have a stronger reaction to this film than girls, which makes sense. Its timeless, wonderful, hilarious, sad, poignant, and receives the rare rating of me of 10/10. I do not give those out lightly, but it meets my criteria of I would not change a frame.

Animal House - Really funny the first time I watched it, really really rapey the 2nd time I watched it. Probably won't watch again.

Airplane - Hysterical.

Blues Brothers - Fun and silly, and if you love blues like I do, its a treat. Could use a trim though.

Peng

04-30-2022, 04:36 PM

Going by Letterboxd's most popular, not-too-recent ones, my top five would be:

1. Donnie Darko
2. Dead Poets Society
3. The Rocky Horror Picture Show
4. Almost Famous
5. Amadeus

Skitch

04-30-2022, 05:20 PM

I'm gonna start my list:

spoiler for length

2021: The French Dispatch
2020: A Quiet Place 2
2019: Parasite
2018: Isle of Dogs
2017: I, Tonya
2016: Hidden Figures
2015: The Big Short
2014: Nightcrawler
2013: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
2012: Moonrise Kingdom (I own the damn blu-ray ffs)
2011: Shame
2010: Blue Valentine
2009: mother

this is officially getting difficult

2008: Milk (how have I not got to this yet??)
2007: 5 Centimeters per Second
2006: Volver
2005: The 40 Year Old Virgin
2004: Bad Education
2003: Memories of Murder
2002: Secretary
2001: Y Tu Mama Tambien
2000: Ameros Perros

Thats enough for now.

I picked movies the way Stalker suggested, but I went down the line of each year to the first movie I hadn't seen but that I am interested in seeing, just didn't get around to it yet.

Idioteque Stalker

04-30-2022, 06:12 PM

Going by Letterboxd's most popular, not-too-recent ones, my top five would be:

Have you avoided Amadeus for any particular reason? It's a personal fave. Acting, editing, music, humor... I can't imagine you not getting something out of it.

I also haven't seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I almost saw it at one of those midnight singalongs but it was sold out, and I've never been able to pull the trigger at home. Seems like a chore.

Idioteque Stalker

04-30-2022, 06:16 PM

I'm gonna start my list:

Let me know when you plan to watch 5 Centimeters Per Second and I'll join you.

If you do a Shame/Blue Valentine double feature and make it through intact then you win a $20 Adam and Eve gift card.

Skitch

04-30-2022, 07:24 PM

Philip J. Fry

04-30-2022, 10:16 PM

I haven't heard of that 5 Centimeters Per Second (before making that list), but I'm always down for anime movie. I usually mostly into the more sci-fi/actiony anime, but a couple years ago I blind bought Your Name because the blu was only labeled for a buck, so why not, and hoooooly shit what a film.5 cms is probably my least favorite Shinkai, but it isn't bad. Worth checking out.

I've been for the most part keeping up with anime films from the last 10 or so years, so if anyone wants a recommendation, I'm here.

Peng

05-01-2022, 02:53 AM

Have you avoided Amadeus for any particular reason? It's a personal fave. Acting, editing, music, humor... I can't imagine you not getting something out of it.

Just not getting around to it yet (partly because I need to find the time for a film of that length).

Idioteque Stalker

05-01-2022, 03:08 PM

Just not getting around to it yet (partly because I need to find the time for a film of that length).

Oh right. I forget the movie is long as hell.

Idioteque Stalker

05-01-2022, 04:38 PM

First pass at watching the #1 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).

2018: Into the Spider-Verse. I was worried early on this would be overwhelming. But the characters really came through, and my brain didn't have to struggle to make sense of the wild-to-the-point-of-abstract action scenes. I loved it. My new favorite comic book movie. Four stars.

1989: Dead Poets Society. For a movie about poetry, I wish there was more poetry. Bright Star and Paterson this is not. But it's charming to watch people get excited about literature, and it's a decently satisfying drama overall. I wouldn't blame anyone for turning it off when the students hoist the English teacher upon their shoulders. Three stars, but juuuuuust barely.

Next up: Bunch of old ass movies, starting with Charlie Chaplin's "A Dog's Life," the #1 most popular movie of 1918.

DFA1979

05-01-2022, 05:12 PM

I know I've never seen Schindler's List or The Green Mile.

Idioteque Stalker

05-01-2022, 06:43 PM

Oh yeah, Green Mile. Good one. I haven't see it either.

Skitch

05-01-2022, 08:04 PM

Schindlers List is brilliant filmmaking, but a tough watch.

I enjoyed Green Mile enough, but I haven't seen it in years.

megladon8

05-01-2022, 09:00 PM

I haven't seen any of the old biblical epics that "most" people have - Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, etc.

Never seen Gone With the Wind.

The only movie with Laurence Olivier I have seen is Rebecca.

Never seen the original Planet of the Apes, or any of the new trilogy.

StuSmallz

05-01-2022, 09:28 PM

I know I've never seen Schindler's ListDude...

Idioteque Stalker

05-01-2022, 10:33 PM

Dude...

This is a shame free zone for talking blindspots. I bet you have some of your own. Share them!

Skitch

05-02-2022, 03:28 PM

I haven't seen any of the old biblical epics that "most" people have - Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, etc. I own most of those on vhs. Grew up watching them (religious family). Theres tons of them.

Never seen Gone With the Wind. Me either. Don't intend to.

Never seen the original Planet of the Apes, or any of the new trilogy.

*deep breath*....Burton's > original, and its embarrassing to sit through. I have just never got into that series.

The new trilogy is good.

Ivan Drago

05-02-2022, 05:42 PM

Gladiator
The Color Purple
Conan The Barbarian
Gone With The Wind
The Graduate
Some Like It Hot
Ben-Hur (1959)
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
A LOT of John Ford Westerns
The Maltese Falcon
The Bridge on the River Kwai
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Bonnie and Clyde
The French Connection
Bringing Up Baby
Spartacus
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Tootsie
Unforgiven
Tombstone
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
A Brighter Summer Day
The African Queen
Cabaret
All That Jazz
American Graffiti
North By Northwest

DFA1979

05-02-2022, 06:01 PM

Skitch

05-02-2022, 06:32 PM

Gladiator - Excellent
Conan The Barbarian - 10/10
The Graduate - Do not like it.
Ben-Hur (1959) - epic
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang - good
The Bridge on the River Kwai - excellent
Bonnie and Clyde - an interesting road movie of sorts, sign of the times imo could use a trim
Spartacus - good
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - real good. one of the best explosions in cinema, struther martin steals the show
Unforgiven - a little overrated, but I dig it
Tombstone - I've been told its historically inaccurate, but its entertaining
The African Queen - good movie, but kinda simplistic. two people in a boat argue
American Graffiti - saw it for first time last year. not for me
North By Northwest - my favorite Hitchcock

Ivan Drago

05-02-2022, 06:59 PM

Seven Samurai (or hell, a LOT of Kurosawa)
The Green Mile
The Usual Suspects
A Fistful of Dollars
For A Few Dollars More
Everything by Yasujiro Ozu
Everything by Rainer Werner Fassbinder
The Apartment (Billy Wilder)
Groundhog Day
A LOT of Ingmar Bergman

Idioteque Stalker

05-02-2022, 10:20 PM

The only movie with Laurence Olivier I have seen is Rebecca.

Same, plus Sleuth which I remember liking in high school. He's a legend who I ought to watch more of. Marathon Man seems like a solid choice, as does Bunny Lake Is Missing. And then there are the Shakespeare adaptations he also directed.

This also has me thinking about James Cagney. I have never seen even one movie with him.

Everything by Yasujiro Ozu

Yeah... It's been a long time since I watched Tokyo Story and Late Spring, and that's all I've seen. Ozu deserves better. I will watch some Ozu this week. (Side note: I was going to tongue-in-cheek reprimand you for including Ozu as a blindspot in the Popular Movie Blindspot Thread. Then I thought about it for two seconds, did some research, and discovered that Tokyo Story is the #1 most popular movie of 1953 and Late Spring is the #2 most popular movie of 1949. So yeah. I'm dumb.)

And you're the third person to mention Green Mile. Maybe it's one of those "you had to be there" movies.

EDIT: Finally, out of all the movies you named, my main rec would be Seven Samurai. That's the only specific title that gets five stars from me.

The African Queen - good movie, but kinda simplistic. two people in a boat argue

I agree with this so hard. Except for the "good movie" part. In fact, I've never been impressed by John Huston.

Skitch

05-03-2022, 12:39 AM

I respect the difficulty of the filming dragging the boat through the weeds and stuff. I also, have not been a big fan of Houston or Ford. Somewhere baby doll is sending a hit team for me lol

Skitch

05-03-2022, 12:41 AM

I haven't seen a bad kurasawa yet. Seven Samurai, 10. Hidden fortress 9 maybe 9.5. Ikiru, throne of blood, Roshomon, all amazing.

baby doll

05-03-2022, 01:46 AM

Here are the most popular films I haven't seen for every year since 1984:

2022: The Batman (I could happily live the rest of my life without another seeing Batman movie)
2021: Spider Man: No Way Home (I'm not watching this)
2020: Soul (I haven't heard much about this; no real desire to check it out)

2019: Joker (I'm so sick of Joaquin Pheonix being depressed and mopey)
2018: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (another Spider-Man movie? Are all this site's users six year old boys?)
2017: Baby Driver (I'm not a huge Edgar Wright fan; not a priority for me)
2016: Deadpool (you know what I'm gonna say)
2015: Mad Max: Fury Road (I haven't seen the first three Mad Max films either)
2014: Interstellar (I'm so done with Christopher Nolan movies)
2013: Prisoners (I prefer Villeneuve's early, funny movies and Polytechnique, which is decidedly unfunny; still, I might check this one out, one day)
2012: The Avengers (I'm not a six year old boy, alright? Nor am I the parent of one. This isn't for me)
2011: Captain America: The First Avenger (oh jeez)
2010: Toy Story 3 (see 1999)

2009: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (I checked out of this series after the third movie)
2008: Twilight (I'm not a thirteen year old Mormon girl)
2007: Ratatouille (I'm sure it's fine, I just have very little desire to see this)
2006: I've only seen parts of The Devil Wears Prada (which, from what I can glean, is no better or worse than most of the movies my wife makes me watch); if that doesn't count, Drive (if I'm not watching reputedly major Pixar [see 2007], I'm sure as shit not watching their minor efforts)
2005: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (see 2009)
2004: The Incredibles (see 2007)
2003: I've not seen all of The Room (I checked out after an hour due to boredom); if that doesn't count, Freaky Friday (given the choice, I'd rather watch the Jodie Foster original, not that I'm expecting it to be a great movie)
2002: Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones (I checked out of this series after The Phantom Menace)
2001: Ocean's Eleven (I generally enjoy Soderbergh's movies, even when they're half-baked, but this seems like too much of a blatant cash-grab for me to prioritize it while a single work by Godard, Kiarostami, or Straub/Huillet still eludes me)
2000: The Emperor's New Groove (I'm realizing kids' movies are a bit of a blind spot for me; this looks like it could be fun)

1999: Toy Story 2 (I liked Toy Story when it came out, but I've never had much curiosity about the sequels)
1998: A Bug's Life (see 2000)
1997: Perfect Blue (I think I might've started watching this back in the day but I might be thinking of another anime)
1996: I've only seen parts of From Dusk Till Dawn (unfortunately the hyper-gory stuff); if that doesn't count, The Craft (which I think my sister liked at the time)
1995: Clueless (for reasons I'm at a loss to explain, I've never been able to get more than twenty minutes into this, but then, Emma is my least favourite Jane Austen novel)
1994: LÃ©on (or any film Luc Besson directed, unless you count the first twenty minutes of Taken; I'm more interested to check out Subway, La Femme Nikita, The Fifth Element, Angel-A, and Lucy)
1993: I can't remember how much I saw of Hocus Pocus as a kid, but it may have only been a few minutes; if that doesn't count, Philadelphia (I don't need to be convinced that discriminating against gay AIDS patients is bad)
1992: Porco Rosso (I should check this out, if only for Miyazaki completism; I've never heard much about it)
1991: I don't remember how much I've seen of Beauty and the Beast (I was reflexively against it at the time because my sister wanted to watch it); if that doesn't count, Thelma and Louise (probably the only post-1982 Ridley Scott movie I actually want to see)
1990: Back to the Future III (I seem to recall seeing a few minutes of it on TV in the '90s, enough to know that Michael J. Fox wears a cowboy suit and steps in horse shit)

1989: Dead Poets Society (if I were going to watch a Robin Williams film I haven't seen, it'd probably be Moscow on the Hudson, World's Greatest Dad, or Seize the Day, assuming Williams' management didn't burn every copy of the latter)
1988: Cinema Paradiso (there are real Fellini movies I could be watching)
1987: The Princess Bride (I think I'd like this; at least I haven't heard anything bad about it)
1986: Stand by Me (I've seen The Simpsons parody)
1985: I've only seen parts of The Breakfast Club; if that doesn't count, Come and See (which I think I want to see, although apparently it's pretty depressing)
1984: A Nightmare on Elm Street (I saw the fourth one on TV back in the day, which largely satisfied my curiosity about the series)

StuSmallz

05-03-2022, 02:29 AM

2018: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (another Spider-Man movie? Are all this site's users six year old boys?)Are you being for real right now?

DFA1979

05-03-2022, 04:44 AM

Nah I'm at least 12 or 13 depending on my shoe size. Also the biggest MCU fan doesn't even post here anymore so baby doll's insults aren't going to reach him LOL.

Skitch

05-03-2022, 05:05 AM

Ah, old dependable lol

As for the Luc Besson, Leon would be my bet for the only one with a chance for you to like.

StuSmallz

05-03-2022, 06:32 AM

Skitch

05-03-2022, 09:52 AM

You should see it stu. While I'm not the biggest fan of it, family wants to watch it every couple years, and I'm surprised how with each viewing it becomes more of a horror film.

Idioteque Stalker

05-03-2022, 10:03 AM

Don't y'all see the irony of what just happened? By getting up in arms over Spiderman you have proven BD right, in real time, right before our eyes. Is it really so hard to believe someone would have no interest in superheroes? I know it may be hard to imagine in this day and age, but twenty years ago those people were called "adults."

Anyhow, the most offensive (i.e. hilarious) burn in his post is about Twilight, which of course nobody noticed because it didn't target their nuts.

Skitch

05-03-2022, 10:08 AM

Hmmm...my comment wasn't specific, I'm generally annoyed by any review (whether I like the movie or not) that insults the audience that does like whatever movie. It's the cheapest form of criticism. Target the movie. Who cares who enjoys it

Idioteque Stalker

05-03-2022, 10:19 AM

99% of the time I agree with you, and I would normally keep my mouth shut. But I feel it being a thread about popular movies opens the door a little to discuss the population. There also may be some personal bias on my part since I view BD as an intellectual wizard and find it fun when he lets loose, like seeing Gandalf laugh at his own fart.

baby doll

05-03-2022, 02:19 PM

Are you being for real right now?I'm a grown man. It's to be expected that I don't have the same taste in movies as the children for whom these films are made. It would be rather sad if I did. Even in the case of the children's movies that I do enjoy (e.g., The Wizard of Oz, My Neighbour Totoro, the Wallace and Gromit films), I don't necessarily enjoy them for the same reasons as their target audience. I like What's Opera, Doc? even more as an adult than I did as a child in part because I get the references to Wagnerian opera. On the other hand, having seen a number of contemporary, live-action comic book films (including the first two Sam Raimi Spider-Man films), I've found there's very little in these films to appeal to an adult--even those that are rated R, such as Sin City--as they consistently privilege movement and noise over style and spectacle (to say nothing of story).

Skitch

05-03-2022, 02:29 PM

I'm a grown man. It's to be expected i don't have the same taste in movies as people who grew up in the 1900s, 10s, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, Europe....

it would be rather sad if I did

Yes, if it doesn't relate to me, I think anyone it does relate to is sad

Idioteque Stalker

05-03-2022, 03:22 PM

Responses in bold.

2021: Spider Man: No Way Home (I'm not watching this) I'll probably end up watching this one day, but avoiding it is the main reason I'm going backward from 2019 instead of current day. I thought maybe I was Spidermand out, but after watching and loving Into the Spiderverse I suppose it's more accurate to say I'm Tom Hollanded/MCUd out. Plus there's that nagging feeling I'd have to watch the second movie before getting to the third. There's a good chance it loses the #1 spot to Dune in the coming years anyway.

2015: Mad Max: Fury Road (I haven't seen the first three Mad Max films either) I'm not into Mad Max on the whole, but this movie is special. Still might not be your jam.

2013: Prisoners (I prefer Villeneuve's early, funny movies and Polytechnique, which is decidedly unfunny; still, I might check this one out, one day) I'll be getting to this soon enough. Had no idea it was so popular.

2008: Twilight (I'm not a thirteen year old Mormon girl) Now that the leads have gone on to do respectable work, I'm waiting for the re-appraisal to occur.

2001: Ocean's Eleven (I generally enjoy Soderbergh's movies, even when they're half-baked, but this seems like too much of a blatant cash-grab for me to prioritize it while a single work by Godard, Kiarostami, or Straub/Huillet still eludes me) Can't get behind this line of thinking, but I can comprehend it. Thanks for introducing me to Straub/Huillet -- Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach watchlisted.

1997: Perfect Blue (I think I might've started watching this back in the day but I might be thinking of another anime) I'm a superfan. There's a pretty decent chance you like this.

1992: Porco Rosso (I should check this out, if only for Miyazaki completism; I've never heard much about it) Many people dearly love this movie. It's a smaller, more unassuming release from him. If that sounds good to you, go for it. Lesser Miyazaki imo, but in no ways bad.

1991: Thelma and Louise (probably the only post-1982 Ridley Scott movie I actually want to see) Blindspot for me too. Looks... Sundance-y?

1987: The Princess Bride (I think I'd like this; at least I haven't heard anything bad about it) Date night.

Spun Lepton

05-03-2022, 03:49 PM

Spun Lepton

05-03-2022, 03:56 PM

From the IMDb's Top 100, my blind spots.

The Shawshank Redemption
The Godfather: Part II
Everything Everywhere All At Once (already on the top 100?)
Interstellar
City of God
The Green Mile
Hara-Kiri
Parasite
Whiplash
The Intouchables
The Pianist
Gladiator
American History X
Grave of the Fireflies
Apocalypse Now
Casablanca
Modern Times
City Lights
Capernaum
Your Name.
Coco
Django Unchained
3 Idiots
The Lives of Others
Das Boot
High and Low
Witness for the Prosecution
Paths of Glory
Sunset Blvd.
The Great Dictator
The Hunt
Inglorious Basterds
Once Upon a Time in America
North by Northwest
Singin' in the Rain
M

I have no plans to watch many of these movies.

Skitch

05-03-2022, 05:09 PM

Dammit I can't rep anyone

Idioteque Stalker

05-03-2022, 05:14 PM

Dammit I can't rep anyone

Was gonna rep you to rub it in, but I can't!

Idioteque Stalker

05-03-2022, 05:18 PM

The Intouchables
Capernaum
3 Idiots

I have literally never heard of these movies. And I've looked at that list. The brain is an amazing thing.

Hara-Kiri
Parasite
Apocalypse Now
Casablanca
The Great Dictator
Inglorious Basterds
Once Upon a Time in America
Singin' in the Rain

All of these get five stars from me. The fun ones are bolded.

DFA1979

05-03-2022, 06:22 PM

Um my post was in complete jest.. I don't care if people don't like Marvel movies or whatever.

DFA1979

05-03-2022, 06:23 PM

DFA1979

05-03-2022, 06:24 PM

Spun Lepton

05-03-2022, 06:35 PM

All of these get five stars from me. The fun ones are bolded.

Parasite
Apocalypse Now
The Great Dictator
Inglorious Basterds
Once Upon a Time in America

All of these are on my "to watch" list. If I can ever overcome my obsession with cheap horror movies, I may someday get around to watching them.

baby doll

05-03-2022, 06:50 PM

If I'm a six-year-old for enjoying Spider-man, then Baby Doll is a 98-year-old man sitting alone and unshowered in a dark room in front of an old CRT television, eating Nutritional Sludge(TM) with a wooden bowl and spoon, watching The Symbol of the Unconquered for the 176th time and mumbling to himself, "Fun is for kids."The thing is the first two Spider-Man movies aren't actually fun, unless by "fun" you mean films that don't make any serious demands on the spectator, lulling them into a coma rather than shaking them up. The puzzling thing about their failure as entertainment is that Raimi clearly knows how to tell a story (A Simple Plan may not be a great movie but at the very least it's a gripping thriller) and he can do pure spectacle (Evil Dead 2), but you would never know that from his Spider-Man films, which would seem to indicate that the restraints imposed by the films' massive budgets ultimately got the better of him. (I can't speak to the quality of subsequent Spider-Man movies, but given that they cost as much or more to produce and advertise, I can't imagine them being significantly better.) It's almost universally accepted that blockbuster movies, as the descendants of turn-of-the-century blood and thunder melodramas, are by their nature disjointed as storytelling, which would be fine if the commercial necessity of getting a PG-13 rating didn't preclude coherent action sequences Ã* la Jackie Chan's Police Story. Thus, instead of delivering the maximum amount of pleasure to the maximum number of people (as Richard Maltby phrases it in Hollywood Cinema, or words to that effect), Raimi's Spider-Man films--and contemporary super-hero movies more generally--provide no pleasure at all, as they lack the very things Hollywood filmmakers typically pride themselves on: compelling narratives and visual razzle-dazzle. In their place, we get a lot of clichÃ©d visual rhetoric designed to give the impression of fun (bright colours and kinetic movement in Raimi's Spider-Man films) or capital-S Seriousness (noirish lighting and a portentous score in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy) rather than the genuine article. There's lots of money on the screen but nothing to buy.

baby doll

05-03-2022, 07:00 PM

From the IMDb's Top 100, my blind spots.

The Shawshank Redemption mild
The Godfather: Part II warm
Everything Everywhere All At Once
Interstellar
City of God mild
The Green Mile frozen
Seppuku spicy
Parasite warm
Whiplash
Les Intouchables
The Pianist mild
Gladiator cold
American History X mild
Grave of the Fireflies warm
Apocalypse Now warm
Casablanca spicy
Modern Times spicy
City Lights: A Comedy Romance in Pantomime spicy
Capernaum
Your Name. mild
Coco
Django Unchained warm
3 Idiots cold
The Lives of Others cold
Das Boot
High and Low spicy
Witness for the Prosecution warm
Paths of Glory warm
Sunset Blvd. spicy
The Great Dictator spicy
The Hunt mild
Inglorious Basterds warm
Once Upon a Time in America cold
North by Northwest spicy
Singin' in the Rain spicy
M spicy

DFA1979

05-03-2022, 07:54 PM

Oh shit you unleashed the paragraphs long reply Spun. Run!

PS: Well there should have been some paragraph breaks in there somewhere. I'm not really one to talk I can always use an editor.

StuSmallz

05-04-2022, 08:00 AM

Skitch

05-04-2022, 09:26 AM

Permission to treat the witness as hostile, your honor?

The thing is the first two Spider-Man movies aren't actually fun

Unusual opinion, but yours to have

The puzzling thing about their failure as entertainment

False, according to majority audience

(as Richard Maltby phrases it in Hollywood Cinema, or words to that effect),

Hearsay

Raimi's Spider-Man films--and contemporary super-hero movies more generally--provide no pleasure at all

So if I don't like 2 cowboy movies then all cowboy movies suck, got it

visual razzle-dazzle.

False. The webswinging was groundbreaking. If it didn't jerk your chain that's fine to have that opinion, but on the FX crew side and the audience side, everyone was blown away.

In their place, we get a lot of clichÃ©d visual rhetoric

False. Yeah all those movies Spiderman copied with their FX, swinging around NYC

baby doll

05-04-2022, 02:48 PM

Permission to treat the witness as hostile, your honor?

Unusual opinion, but yours to have

False, according to majority audienceObjection! Majority opinion is irrelevant. In order to persuasively counter the claim that Raimi's Spider-Man films aren't fun, one would need to demonstrate that the films possess some intrinsic virtues that make them fun to watch rather than citing box office numbers or audience surveys. The majority of the audience consists of people who aren't deeply interested in cinema and aren't particularly choosy, discerning, or adventurous in what they watch for entertainment. There's no reason to privilege the opinion of the majority as being in any way indicative of a film's intrinsic worth. Michael Bay's movies are popular but it would be absurd to claim on that basis that he's a better director than Hou Hsiao-hsien.

HearsayIt's neither hearsay nor an appeal to authority to bring up what other people have said about a topic in order to counter it with a different argument. Maltby's claim is that Hollywood movies--and he uses Titantic as a particular example--are disjointed because they have to appeal to a wide audience, and he calls this giving the maximum pleasure to the maximum number of people: e.g., Cameron's film has romance and spectacle, and each of these things is intended to appeal to different parts of a heterogeneous audience. I agree that some, perhaps most, contemporary Hollywood blockbusters are disjointed as narrative (which is not to say that the majority of Hollywood films overall are disjointed, since Hollywood doesn't only produce blockbusters, and Kristin Thompson has argued that the films that industry discourse holds up as exemplary--e.g., Back to the Future, Groundhog Day, Alien--are tightly constructed), but I disagree that this disjointedness necessarily increases anyone's pleasure, since in the case of Raimi's Spider-Man films, and in contemporary super-hero movies more broadly, nothing very interesting replaces narrative coherence.

So if I don't like 2 cowboy movies then all cowboy movies suck, got itI'm not making the argument that contemporary super-hero movies are bad because they're about super-heroes (as as I've mentioned elsewhere on this forum, I'm a big fan of Louis Feuillade's Judex, and to a lesser but still significant extent, Georges Franju's 1960s remake). Rather, I'm making the argument they suck because they're bad movies--or at least the ones I've seen (and I've seen what I consider to be a representative sample) don't do anything very interesting on the levels of form and style, certainly nothing that would put them on par with the best Hollywood westerns of the studio era. The Searchers may not be a perfect film, in part because when Ford goes broad, he goes very broad indeed, but he was also capable of incredible subtlety, revealing character through small gestures and glances that are easy to miss on first viewing because Ford doesn't insist on them, for instance, by inserting a close-up. On the other hand, there are no small gestures in Raimi's Spider-Man films, or any other contemporary super-hero movie I've seen, and every important point is placed in the centre of the frame in close-up or medium shot where the spectator can't help but notice it. In other words, Ford knew that you had to balance small and broad moments, whereas contemporary Hollywood films generally--not just super-hero films--lack dynamic range, resulting in visual and emotional monotony.

False. The webswinging was groundbreaking. If it didn't jerk your chain that's fine to have that opinion, but on the FX crew side and the audience side, everyone was blown away.Technology isn't the same thing as spectacle. A technique might be groundbreaking and still be used in a boring way (e.g., the sound of early talkies). In this specific case, however exciting any individual shot of Spider-Man's web-slinging is for its kinesthetic movement, Raimi is unable to effectively integrate those shots into larger sequences of spectacular action (as, for instance, Jackie Chan did with his stunts in his films of the 1970s and '80s).

False. Yeah all those movies Spiderman copied with their FX, swinging around NYCWhen I mentioned clichÃ©d visual rhetoric, I was referring more to the film's use of colour and movement to signify "lightness" and "fun," while actually being heavy-handed and boring, rather than its special effects.

DFA1979

05-04-2022, 05:59 PM

I don't care that much about Spider-Man at all but let's be honest here: superhero movies have been popular and widely discussed for decades. Long before message boards. People like talking about them and will like discussing em long after message boards have gone the way of in person meetings and flip phones. Oh wait they still have flip phones I guess.

Skitch

05-04-2022, 06:14 PM

I was joking about the hearsay lol.

As for the rest, I will *polite curtsy*, thank you, but no, and I pray for Duke to come back

Irish

05-04-2022, 06:20 PM

False, according to majority audience

There's no real way for you to know this. You can only assume, and to do that you'd need to take a cue from like r/movies or social media or boxofficemojo.com, none of which are really instructive of broader sentiments.

They can't be, because they'll never admit most superhero movies are as more or less popular as the loud, dumb action movies ("Twister") or the loud, dumb comedies ("The Waterboy") of the 1990s, because that might make them feel, somehow, less special.

Majority opinion is irrelevant.

Sir, this is a "popular movies" thread.

The majority of the audience consists of people who aren't deeply interested in cinema and aren't particularly choosy, discerning, or adventurous in what they watch for entertainment.

There's no way for you to know this, either --- and even though I may be tempted to agree, thinking so makes cult films and surprise hits impossible. Movies such as "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "Get Out" were well reviewed moneymakers in the U.S. If the audience were really so dull, both would have been rejected at face value.

I think people are as curious as the movies allow them to be. But the problem with franchise filmmaking is that it can only deliver franchise-like results --- nobody wanders into a McDonald's hungry for steak tartar, bok choy, or fresh seafood. The menu is limited by design, and the customers learn to expect it that way.

The Searchers may not be a perfect film, in part because when Ford goes broad, he goes very broad indeed, but he was also capable of incredible subtlety, revealing character through small gestures and glances that are easy to miss on first viewing because Ford doesn't insist on them, for instance, by inserting a close-up.

Curious what you see as Ford going "very broad indeed" in this film. (It's one of my favorites, and I'm always interested in reading a strong criticism of it.)

DFA1979

05-04-2022, 06:21 PM

Duke is not coming back, that much I'm gonna say on the whole matter.

DFA1979

05-04-2022, 06:22 PM

Hi Irish. How's it going? Also I like this thread and honestly as much as I love cult movies, popular and more well known films will always be discussed more. It is what it is.

Idioteque Stalker

05-04-2022, 06:43 PM

nobody wanders into a McDonald's hungry for [...] fresh seafood.

Pusha T over here like, "My man!"

Everybody knows you go to Arby's for that!

"How dare you sell a square fish asking us to trust it. A half slice of cheese -- Mickey D's on a budget?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn0LjF4_5r4

Idioteque Stalker

05-04-2022, 07:48 PM

Continuing to watch the #1 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).

1918: A Dog's Life. Short and sweet. The Tramp finds funny ways to steal food. He rescues a cute dog and a cute girl, they live happily ever after, and there are plenty of gags along the way. What's not to like? Three stars.

1914: Cabiria. A long, mostly boring spectacle movie. Feels to me like the Avatar of its day. You spend way, way too long reading intertitles. There's this one really cool shot where 30-40 Roman Centurions make a human pyramid-type thing to scale a castle wall. There's also a scene early on where children are tossed one after another into a furnace as a sacrifice to the gods. Doesn't hold up. Two stars.

1913: Suspense. 11 mins. Lois Weber is probably the first major female director. This home invasion short has some nifty suspense-building split screen moments and features a shot that we've all seen a thousand times: the menacing figure slowly climbing the stairs. Pretty cool. I don't rate shorts.

1911: Dante's Inferno. The earliest remaining feature-length film is a horror movie. Countless naked bodies writhe in anguish as they are crucified, tortured by demons, and burnt in lakes of fire. Some spend eternity crawling with the snakes, while others merge with reptiles and become abominations. The dismembered and beheaded wander aimlessly, some with their asses in the front. One man gnaws on the skull of his friend, while nearby Lucifer himself feasts on the most treacherous of men -- chewing ceaselessly, as if on living jerky. People leaving the theater in 1911: "This movie stuff is overrated. I think I'll go to church next Sunday instead!" This was my favorite of the bunch. Four stars.

Next up: More early shorts. Some of these look weird!

baby doll

05-04-2022, 09:55 PM

Curious what you see as Ford going "very broad indeed" in this film. (It's one of my favorites, and I'm always interested in reading a strong criticism of it.)I was thinking of everything with Mose Harper, "Look," and cutting directly from John Wayne saying "Let's go home Debbie" to Ward Bond getting thorns pulled out of his butt.

Philip J. Fry

05-05-2022, 12:13 AM

Wait, what happened to Duke?

Idioteque Stalker

05-05-2022, 01:03 AM

Wait, what happened to Duke?

Duke mainly hangs out in the MC discord he started. I don't think anything "happened." The link has been shared here before, but randos started popping up so we deleted them. If you're interested in checking it out, I'll PM you the link. :)

StuSmallz

05-05-2022, 02:43 AM

I was thinking of everything with Mose Harper, "Look," and cutting directly from John Wayne saying "Let's go home Debbie" to Ward Bond getting thorns pulled out of his butt.That's all true, although I'd say the bigger issue with the movie is the way that it spends so much time setting itself up for a final confrontation with Ethan's hatred and bloodlust for Native Americans... only to essentially "wuss out" from that at the climax.

https://i.ibb.co/0VgpzQM/theyareontome.gif (https://imgbb.com/)

Irish

05-05-2022, 03:33 AM

I was thinking of everything with Mose Harper, "Look," and cutting directly from John Wayne saying "Let's go home Debbie" to Ward Bond getting thorns pulled out of his butt.

Can't say I agree. Roger Ebert made a similar point about tone (citing John Qualen's "yumpin' yimmini" routine as immigrant rancher Lars). I think the movie needs that level of comic relief because otherwise it would be unbelievably grim, and the audience would have too much time to think about exactly what happened to Lucy Edwards and her sister.

You mentioned Ford's ability to shift between large and small gestures, and I think this is sorta the same thing. Except in this instance, he can't afford subtlety. The violence in the film is so excessive that only broad humor can counter its effect.

StuSmallz

05-05-2022, 03:53 AM

There's no way for you to know this, either --- and even though I may be tempted to agree, thinking so makes cult films and surprise hits impossible. Movies such as "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "Get Out" were well reviewed moneymakers in the U.S. If the audience were really so dull, both would have been rejected at face value.

I think people are as curious as the movies allow them to be. But the problem with franchise filmmaking is that it can only deliver franchise-like results --- nobody wanders into a McDonald's hungry for steak tartar, bok choy, or fresh seafood. The menu is limited by design, and the customers learn to expect it that way.Yeah, I think this is true to a certain extent; after all, there was an era (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?7234-Stu-Presents-1967-1980-A-History-Of-New-Hollywood!) in American film where movies like The Graduate, 2001, and The Godfather were the top grossers of their respective years, all of which make the "audience-challenging" conclusion of something like Infinity War look like child's play by comparison (and I liked Infinity War). It's kind of a chicken-or-the-egg sort of dilemma, though; how much of what Hollywood puts out is just a response to what general audiences genuinely want, and how much of it is the industry pushing a lowest common denominator product? That question alone could merit its own thread, IMO.

DFA1979

05-05-2022, 08:51 AM

I think The Searchers is one of the best movies of all time. Western, also, although that's a well shared opinion. Old Marty has probably seen it more times than anyone else here though.

Idioteque Stalker

05-05-2022, 02:56 PM

Is this discussion of The Searchers on topic? Drumroll.......... Yes, it is!

LB's most popular movies of 1956:

1. The Killing 85k views
2. The Searchers 82k
3. A Man Escaped 44k
4. The Man Who Knew Too Much 60k
5. Invasion of the Body Snatchers 54k

Seems to me 44k is fewer views than 60k/54k, but hey I'm no mathematician. Regardless, The Killing posting some sweet numbers!

Idioteque Stalker

05-05-2022, 03:11 PM

Is the discussion of Raimi's Spiderman on topic? Drumroll.......... Yes, it is!

LB's most popular movies of 2002:

1. Spiderman 1m views
2. LOTR: The Two Towers 930k
3. Catch Me If You Can 788k
4. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 1m
5. Attack of the Clones 761k

Looks like popularity isn't strictly tied to number of views. I learned something new.

Peng

05-05-2022, 03:40 PM

I think it ties to number of recent activities (watches/reviews/etc.) the films receive as well.

Idioteque Stalker

05-05-2022, 04:00 PM

That would make sense. I also thought it might measure the number of times the movie has been LOGGED, not just rated/marked as viewed.

Like, more people have SEEN Harry Potter, but more people are WATCHING (logging) Catch Me If You Can. Likewise, more people have SEEN The Man Who Knew Too Much, but more people are WATCHING A Man Escaped. Kinda checks out.

DFA1979

05-05-2022, 05:57 PM

DFA1979

05-05-2022, 05:58 PM

baby doll

05-05-2022, 11:07 PM

Can't say I agree. Roger Ebert made a similar point about tone (citing John Qualen's "yumpin' yimmini" routine as immigrant rancher Lars). I think the movie needs that level of comic relief because otherwise it would be unbelievably grim, and the audience would have too much time to think about exactly what happened to Lucy Edwards and her sister.

You mentioned Ford's ability to shift between large and small gestures, and I think this is sorta the same thing. Except in this instance, he can't afford subtlety. The violence in the film is so excessive that only broad humor can counter its effect.I think there are a couple issues here that are being conflated. First, I think we both agree that it's generally a good thing for filmmakers to counter-point big moments (comic or otherwise) with moments of understatement, and this is something that studio-era directors knew and that contemporary Hollywood filmmakers have either forgotten or never learned in the first place. The second issue is why this contrast is necessary. I would argue that variation is a good thing in itself, irrespective of a film's subject matter, as it keeps films from lapsing into monotony. With regard to The Searchers in particular, I think the film is fairly clear on what happened to Lucy and her sister (and Martha), even if it's not explicitly stated (remember Wayne's line, "What do you want me to do? Draw you a picture? Spell it out? Don't ever ask me. As long as you live, don't ever ask me"). Rape is a major theme in the film as it provides the motivation for Wayne's wanting to kill Natalie Wood, and I don't think the presence of comic relief in the film in any way obscures this or diminishes its gravity. The third issue, and where I think we disagree mostly strongly, is the question of how broad is too broad. In this particular case, the problem I have with the film's comic relief is that I don't find it funny, and the scenes with Look especially strike me as cruel in their humiliation and dehumanization of indigenous women, making them painful to watch.

Irish

05-06-2022, 02:14 AM

I think there are a couple issues here that are being conflated. First, I think we both agree that it's generally a good thing for filmmakers to counter-point big moments (comic or otherwise) with moments of understatement, and this is something that studio-era directors knew and that contemporary Hollywood filmmakers have either forgotten or never learned in the first place. The second issue is why this contrast is necessary. I would argue that variation is a good thing in itself, irrespective of a film's subject matter, as it keeps films from lapsing into monotony. With regard to The Searchers in particular, I think the film is fairly clear on what happened to Lucy and her sister (and Martha), even if it's not explicitly stated (remember Wayne's line, "What do you want me to do? Draw you a picture? Spell it out? Don't ever ask me. As long as you live, don't ever ask me"). Rape is a major theme in the film as it provides the motivation for Wayne's wanting to kill Natalie Wood, and I don't think the presence of comic relief in the film in any way obscures this or diminishes its gravity. The third issue, and where I think we disagree mostly strongly, is the question of how broad is too broad. In this particular case, the problem I have with the film's comic relief is that I don't find it funny, and the scenes with Look especially strike me as cruel in their humiliation and dehumanization of indigenous women, making them painful to watch.

I'm saying Ford's ability to shift from small and large moments goes hand in hand with his ability to juggle tone. He's uses humor as a narrative shortcut, a way to downshift from high tension to low in a near instant.

This is absolutely necessary because the runtime is so constrained. "The Searchers" covers 10 years in a shade under 2 hours, with an action climax that starts with less than 10 minutes of screen time left. (But who notices? The movie is so narratively dense that it feels longer than it is.) With so little time, Ford can't bullshit around with extraneous material or ponderous, obvious transitions between sequences. This is what you and Roger (heh) don't seem to want to acknowledge. You remove the humor or quiet it, and the picture doesn't work as well.

You could say that Ford lets his audience off the hook, by giving them an out, a way to avoid dwelling on story's harsher aspects, but then I think he walks a very fine line between honoring a a certain legacy while condemning aspects of it. He does something similar in "Fort Apache," with Wayne and Fonda, a movie that has an almost thematically ambiguous ending. His films might have had a clear message on the surface, but they also contain a subversive layer underneath, making it possible to view the character's choices in different ways. I like this a bit better than the alternative. It's more skillful, for one.

By contrast, look at some of Anthony Man's westerns from the same period. "Man from Laramie" and "Man of the West" are both more tonally singular, never letting the audience off, and both are seriously grim, bordering on nihilistic. Well made, sure, but ugh, just nasty experiences. You don't walk out of those movies feeling good about the world. I mean, I think that was Mann's intent, and good for him for making his audience feel terrible, but Ford was trying to deliver a mainstream crowd pleaser that also had an entirely fucked up level of violence in it.

Or look at George Steven's "Shane," with its prairie home cruelty. His world is blunter and dumber than Ford's, and the film's early violence is mostly a justification for the hero's actions later on. The ending is unsophisticated and almost juvenile, because we're meant to view the story through the eyes of the little boy at its center, and that story can only have one possible outcome. I mean, it works, because when the inevitable happens, the audience is both thrilled and relieved. But it's a tent show compared to Ford's opera.

PS: I hear you about Look, but I also think she exists at the thematic center of the movie, and the fact you feel like shit watching what happens to her happen to her is entirely part of the point Ford was trying to make. I think both he and the movie are on her side, because of the way Martin finds her, and the regret he expresses over her fate, and the ebb and flow of tension and resolution around the scenes including her.

Idioteque Stalker

05-06-2022, 03:10 AM

Anyway, I guess my biggest cinematic blindspot right now would be The Wizard Of Oz, which is partially due to general knowledge of it from "cultural osmosis", and the way that parodies like this make me feel like I've basically seen it already:

Meant to bring up earlier that I totally relate to this idea of cultural osmosis keeping me away from a movie. I've never seen De Palma's Scarface... I mean, why the hell would I need to? I'm almost certain I know what that movie is. Likewise for many Bond movies, Dirty Dancing, Sixteen Candles, Rocky, classic Universal monster movies like Dracula and The Mummy, etc. It may even be related to why I am no longer compelled to seek out the MCU. I do not expect to be surprised, and that is one of the main reasons I watch movies or engage with art of any kind.

Idioteque Stalker

05-06-2022, 04:10 AM

Continuing to watch the #1 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).

1910: Frankenstein. 14 mins. Not in great condition. The monster's creation is easily the highlight. It looks as if they melted a cadaver and then played it in reverse. The monster tries to strangle a few people and then is horrified by its own reflection with some light mirror trickery. It was okay. Here's what I watched:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-fM9meqfQ4

1909: A Corner in Wheat. 14 mins. Not subtle, even by D.W. Griffith's standards. But hey, he was busy inventing the language of cinema. Most notable are the editing tactics used to juxtapose the Wall Street tycoon (who corners the wheat market) and his luxurious lifestyle with the farmers who can barely afford to buy the food they harvest themselves. In this way it is a precursor to Eisenstein. The evil tycoon man literally drowns in wheat. Oddly enough, I watched it on Tubi.

1908: Fantasmagorie. 85 seconds. The first animated film? Apparently it's associated with the Incoherent movement, which I'd never heard of but is a precursor to Dada. So yeah, it makes no sense. You could spend the next 85 seconds doing worse things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuDBwBwVZcc

1907: The Dancing Pig. 4 mins. Barney the Dinosaur, but creepy. Humans are into weird shit and always have been. The tongue reminds me of when Leia kills Jabba the Hutt. Video below.

1906: The Consequences of Feminism. 7 mins. The men sew, iron clothes, primp, gossip, and provide childcare. The women smoke, drink, and aggressively come onto the men. To this day, many people think it's brilliant satire. I thought it was stupid. I have no idea what the music is from, or if/how it's associated with the film, but it is absolutely delightful. Video below.

Next up: Georges MÃ©liÃ¨s.

Idioteque Stalker

05-06-2022, 04:13 AM

Videos continued from above (only two are allowed per post):

The Dancing Pig:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY69-S7O9Mo

The Consequences of Feminism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIPMbkHQO3w

StuSmallz

05-06-2022, 07:31 AM

The third issue, and where I think we disagree mostly strongly, is the question of how broad is too broad. In this particular case, the problem I have with the film's comic relief is that I don't find it funny, and the scenes with Look especially strike me as cruel in their humiliation and dehumanization of indigenous women, making them painful to watch.Yeah, plus, you have that moment when they find her body in the ruins of the Native camp, and Martin baselessly speculates that she might have been helping to set up a trap for them there, which seems like a counter-productive muddying up of things on the film's part.

Idioteque Stalker

05-06-2022, 08:32 PM

Continuing to watch the #1 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already). After this I will reset back to 2019 and watch the #2 most popular movie of each year.

All this MÃ©liÃ¨s makes me a little curious to revisit Hugo. Watched everything on youtube except for The Impossible Voyage, which is on HBO Max (and probably also youtube). That is the one I would recommend the most, but the others are also really fun.

1905: The Black Imp. 4 mins. Not even close to the most popular of his movies, but I guess 1905 was a down year for cinema lol. A mischievous devil goes invisible and rearranges the furniture in this dude's room so that chairs disappear when he tries to sit in them, etc. The editing is very impressive.

1904: The Impossible Voyage. 20 mins. This was awesome. A Trip to the Sun, basically. Starts kinda meh, with Melies pitching his idea to a board and then touring the factory where the machine is being built, but even in these moments the hand coloring really pops. Once things are set into motion, however, it's just one magical moment after another. The piano score with the HBO Max version is fantastic, reminiscent of Rachmaninoff.

1901: The Man with the Rubber Head. 3 mins. One funny idea is enough.

1900: Joan of Arc. 11 mins. More impressive hand painting, particularly during Joan's execution. As you would imagine, far less humorous than most Melies. Would've benefited from a couple intertitles explaining the drama onscreen.

1899: Cinderella. 6 mins. As far as narratives go, fairy tales naturally suit this guy.

1898: The Astronomer’s Dream. 3 mins. My favorite of the really short ones. The fact that it's a dream enables Melies to go all out with the cool effects.

1896: The Haunted Castle. 3 mins. Maybe the first horror movie? It's not scary or anything, but a bat turns into a vampire and someone chases off a devil with a crucifix. A much different vibe than, say, people leaving a factory.

Next up: Starting over at 2019 and counting back the #2 most popular movie of each year. First will be Captain America: The First Avenger.

baby doll

05-06-2022, 08:59 PM

I'm saying Ford's ability to shift from small and large moments goes hand in hand with his ability to juggle tone. He's uses humor as a narrative shortcut, a way to downshift from high tension to low in a near instant.

This is absolutely necessary because the runtime is so constrained. "The Searchers" covers 10 years in a shade under 2 hours, with an action climax that starts with less than 10 minutes of screen time left. (But who notices? The movie is so narratively dense that it feels longer than it is.) With so little time, Ford can't bullshit around with extraneous material or ponderous, obvious transitions between sequences. This is what you and Roger (heh) don't seem to want to acknowledge. You remove the humor or quiet it, and the picture doesn't work as well.Just to clarify, I'm not saying Ford should have removed the humour from the film; I just wish the jokes were better.

PS: I hear you about Look, but I also think she exists at the thematic center of the movie, and the fact you feel like shit watching what happens to her happen to her is entirely part of the point Ford was trying to make. I think both he and the movie are on her side, because of the way Martin finds her, and the regret he expresses over her fate, and the ebb and flow of tension and resolution around the scenes including her.I would find this argument more convincing if Beulah Archuletta gave a better performance instead of grinning stupidly in every scene in which she appears. That her character never expresses any sense of hurt at her various humiliations, or indeed any awareness that's she's been humiliated, gives the audience license to laugh at her mistreatment. At the same time, although the film clearly condemns her murder, as a spectator I don't feel very affected by it because the character never registers as fully human.

StuSmallz

05-07-2022, 08:02 AM

I would find this argument more convincing if Beulah Archuletta gave a better performance instead of grinning stupidly in every scene in which she appears. That her character never expresses any sense of hurt at her various humiliations, or indeed any awareness that's she's been humiliated, gives the audience license to laugh at her mistreatment. At the same time, although the film clearly condemns her murderThat's the thing, though; the film should've clearly condemned her murder, but it oddly muddies that aspect by having Martin speculate that she might've been setting a trap for them for some reason (an implausible assumption that isn't reasonably supported by anything in the movie), when a better alternative was present right there; just have Ethan be the one who makes that odd leap in logic, born out of his well-established hatred for Natives, and then the scene works out much better as a result. As it is though, it's just a weird, counter-productive creative choice that shouldn't have been done.

Yxklyx

05-07-2022, 09:42 AM

Continuing to watch the #1 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already). After this I will reset back to 2019 and watch the #2 most popular movie of each year.

All this MÃ©liÃ¨s makes me a little curious to revisit Hugo. ....

I could not stand Hugo. I thought I had seen more Melies - where are you watching these? Youtube?

transmogrifier

05-07-2022, 10:42 AM

What I haven't seen from the IMDB Top 250. But given some of the ones that I have seen on that list, I'm in no rush to fill some of these gaps (Whiplash? Pirates of the Caribbean? V for Vendetta? A Beautiful Mind?):

44. The Intouchables (2011) 8.5
45. Modern Times (1936) 8.5
51. City Lights (1931) 8.4
55. Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) 8.4
63. The Great Dictator (1940) 8.4
88. 3 Idiots (2009) 8.3
94. Capernaum (2018) 8.3
102. Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) 8.2
112. Hamilton (2020) 8.2
124. Like Stars on Earth (2007) 8.2
125. Downfall (2004) 8.2
128. Dangal (2016) 8.2
129. The Kid (1921) 8.2
131. The Father (2020) 8.2
133. Green Book (2018) 8.2
135. Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) 8.2
157. Gone with the Wind (1939) 8.1
162. Dial M for Murder (1954) 8.1
169. Warrior (2011) 8.1
174. The Gold Rush (1925) 8.1
179. Children of Heaven (1997) 8.1
180. Ben-Hur (1959) 8.1
181. The General (1926) 8.1
183. Wild Strawberries (1957) 8.1
187. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)
192. Sherlock Jr. (1924) 8.1
193. Room (2015) 8.1
199. Wild Tales (2014) 8.1
203. Mary and Max (2009) 8.1
204. Pather Panchali (1955) 8.1
207. The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) 8.1
208. Hotel Rwanda (2004) 8.1
209. Tokyo Story (1953) 8.1
210. Dead Poets Society (1989) 8.1
216. Rush (2013) 8.0
226. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) 8.0
228. To Be or Not to Be (1942) 8.0
229. The Battle of Algiers (1966) 8.0
231. The Grapes of Wrath (1940) 8.0
232. Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009) 8.0
237. My Father and My Son (2005) 8.0
238. Persona (1966) 8.0
245. Gandhi (1982) 8.0
247. The Help (2011) 8.0
250. Rififi (1955)

Skitch

05-07-2022, 12:53 PM

I will never stop pushing Mary & Max. Must see.

Idioteque Stalker

05-07-2022, 01:26 PM

What I haven't seen from the IMDB Top 250. But given some of the ones that I have seen on that list, I'm in no rush to fill some of these gaps (Whiplash? Pirates of the Caribbean? V for Vendetta? A Beautiful Mind?):

The Good
All those silents, plus Persona

The Bad
Mary and Max (sorry Skitch)

and the WTF?
Hachi

where are you watching these? Youtube?

For the most part, yes.

Skitch

05-07-2022, 01:35 PM

The Bad
Mary and Max (sorry Skitch)

Well now trans will have to judge between our opinions.

Idioteque Stalker

05-07-2022, 01:37 PM

Well now trans will have to judge between our opinions.

If he doesn't log it on LB within 48 hours then that means I win.

Skitch

05-07-2022, 01:38 PM

What kind of barometer is that?? lol

trans almost never sides with me, you got this in the bag. Usual bet?

Idioteque Stalker

05-07-2022, 03:17 PM

Usual bet?

I really can't afford to take any more of your children. Let's just go back to doll hairs.

DFA1979

05-07-2022, 05:24 PM

The Help is an awful movie.

Skitch

05-07-2022, 05:46 PM

I really can't afford to take any more of your children. Let's just go back to doll hairs.

Fine but you're not getting any brunettes

Idioteque Stalker

05-07-2022, 07:04 PM

Is this argument over Mary and Max on topic? Drumroll.......... No, not really!

LB's most popular movies of 2009:

1. Inglourious Basterds 1.3m views
2. Up 1.3m
3. Fantastic Mr. Fox 730k
4. 500 Days of Summer 717k
5. Avatar 1m
.
.
.
37. Drag Me to Hell 154k
38. Adventureland 170k
39. Mary and Max 104k
40. A Single Man 99k
41. Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs 264k

Still, Mary and Max has over 100k views and is on the IMDB Top 250. It is on the outskirts of what I would call a "popular movie."

Irish

05-07-2022, 08:21 PM

In this particular case, the problem I have with the film's comic relief is that I don't find it funny, and the scenes with Look especially strike me as cruel in their humiliation and dehumanization of indigenous women, making them painful to watch.

At the same time, although the film clearly condemns her murder, as a spectator I don't feel very affected by it because the character never registers as fully human.

Small contradiction there, yeah?

Look is crudely drawn, sure, but I dunno if giving her more depth would have necessarily helped, as she serves a specific purpose to the story. Most of the other supporting characters exist on more or less on the same level (Lars, his son, Laurie, Futterman, etc).

transmogrifier

05-07-2022, 10:32 PM

If he doesn't log it on LB within 48 hours then that means I win.

I've seen like three movies in two months. I won't be logging any movie in the next 48 hours :)

Idioteque Stalker

05-07-2022, 10:49 PM

I've seen like three movies in two months. I won't be logging any movie in the next 48 hours :)

Yay, I win!

baby doll

05-07-2022, 10:53 PM

Small contradiction there, yeah?

Look is crudely drawn, sure, but I dunno if giving her more depth would have necessarily helped, as she serves a specific purpose to the story. Most of the other supporting characters exist on more or less on the same level (Lars, his son, Laurie, Futterman, etc).What makes the comic scenes uncomfortable (painful may have been too strong a word) isn't that I feel bad for Look as a character but rather for Archuletta as an actress and a woman who's been given such an insulting role to play.

Idioteque Stalker

05-11-2022, 12:03 AM

I thought it would take me a while to get to Captain America because I'm not typically a fan of insipid, friction-less, ultra-processed Hollywood Product. And Captain America is clearly the least cool Avenger.

But I just now had about the worst cinema-related experience of my life watching Caligula, so insipid and friction-less sounds fabulous right now.

Skitch

05-11-2022, 12:52 AM

He's the best Avenger. His arc is pure.

StuSmallz

05-11-2022, 06:40 AM

He's the best Avenger. His arc is pure.Yup, plus Civil War is still one of the best movies in the entire MCU, if you ask me.

Skitch

05-11-2022, 09:37 AM

Yup, plus Civil War is still one of the best movies in the entire MCU, if you ask me.

I have issues with that movie, but they're with Tony.

Idioteque Stalker

05-11-2022, 02:24 PM

Watching the #2 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).
___________

2011: Captain America: The First Avenger.

"We can't just knock on the front door of their secret underground lair."

Cap: "Why not? That's EXACTLY what we're going to do."

Cap is a dumb fuck. And Red Skull might be the worst MCU villain. I liked the taxi chase, the bond-selling montage, and the part where he Indiana Jones'd that guy through the propeller. The "I had a date" ending was surprisingly sweet as well. But yeah. No. Two stars.

____________

Up next: GUESS THAT POPULAR MOVIE! Hint: https://i.scdn.co/image/b55bef1b5b69603732302c50627483 ef72bc5550

Idioteque Stalker

05-12-2022, 01:54 PM

Up next: GUESS THAT POPULAR MOVIE! Hint: https://i.scdn.co/image/b55bef1b5b69603732302c50627483 ef72bc5550

Hint #2: 90s genre movie

Skitch

05-12-2022, 02:36 PM

hmmm...Dead Presidents?

Idioteque Stalker

05-12-2022, 02:51 PM

Nope, guess again. More popular! Like 30-40x more LB views.

Hint #3: the franchise is relevant to this day

Peng

05-12-2022, 04:03 PM

Scream?

Idioteque Stalker

05-12-2022, 04:28 PM

Scream?

Correct!

First hint image is of Wu-Tang Clan member GHOSTFACE Killah.

DFA1979

05-13-2022, 05:53 AM

Heh I love the Cap trilogy and he's my favorite Avenger. I'll admit the first one isn't as good as the others however.

Idioteque Stalker

05-14-2022, 06:08 PM

Continuing to watch the #2 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).
___________

1996: Scream. I've always been a little confused as to why Drew Barrymore was such a big deal, and now I understand: everyone had seen this except for me. Between her performance, Wes Craven's direction, and the idea of using horror trivia as torture, the opening is in the running for best horror sequence ever. It's really no one's fault the rest of the movie doesn't reach the same heights. Neve Campbell is tasked with playing the boring, straight-laced final girl and does a fine job. Courteney Cox has more to sink her teeth into as the manipulative reporter, while Matthew Lillard doesn't so much sink his teeth as bite everyone's heads off. Skeet Ulrich and Rose McGowan are the ultimate 90s eye candy. I do wish David Arquette was a tad less dopey -- one of surprisingly few ways the movie shows its age. But overall it's scary, funny, sexy, and clever, with plenty of twists and enough meta-commentary to please the movie store nerd in us all. Four stars.

Side note: I watched this on Friday the 13th, with what looked like a full moon. Halfway through my power went out. After it came back on, I courageously finished the movie with a Louisville Slugger by my side.

___________

Up next: GUESS THAT POPULAR MOVIE! Hint: Although this remake had its fair share of ratings woes, the original is considered one of the most heavily censored films in the history of Hollywood, to the point even the title was changed.

baby doll

05-15-2022, 12:12 AM

Scarface?

Idioteque Stalker

05-15-2022, 12:33 AM

Scarface?

Correct!

Due to pressure under the Hays Code, the title of the original film was changed to Scarface: The Shame of a Nation so that everyone would know it wasn't cool to be a gangster. The 1983 remake -- which I'm not at all pumped to watch for the first time -- had to be edited down to avoid an X rating, but supposedly De Palma made fewer edits than he promised.

DFA1979

05-15-2022, 01:27 AM

Scream is great fun. I like the whole series although 3 is the weakest link to me.

I have seen the 1983 Scarface at least a couple times or more. I like it a lot however I doubt it's aged very well. 100% 1980s for better or worse. I do need to see the original.

Skitch

05-15-2022, 06:51 AM

I've never been a fan of Scarface.

Idioteque Stalker

05-15-2022, 04:17 PM

Idioteque Stalker

05-16-2022, 03:05 PM

Up next: GUESS THAT POPULAR MOVIE! Hint: The opening credits say "Introducing [person]," and that person went on to win the Best Actress Oscar for the role.

Hint #2: https://gretastravels.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Rome-2-Day-Walking-Itinerary--1024x742.png

Peng

05-16-2022, 03:13 PM

Roman Holiday

Idioteque Stalker

05-16-2022, 03:36 PM

Roman Holiday

Correct!

Originally, the film was to have had only Gregory Peck's name above its title, with "Introducing Audrey Hepburn" beneath in smaller font. However, Peck suggested to William Wyler that he elevate her to equal billing so that her name appeared before the title, and in type as large as his: "You've got to change that because she'll be a big star, and I'll look like a big jerk." The "introducing..." remained.

StuSmallz

05-17-2022, 06:47 AM

Continuing to watch the #2 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).
___________

1983: Scarface. You will like it as much as you like hearing Al Pacino say "Fuck you" with a Cuban accent. That's what most of the movie is.

I was ready to enjoy it as camp, but the 170min runtime wouldn't allow it. Shave off an hour of Pacino talking shit and it could be stupid fun, but the length alone signals it as a movie to be taken seriously. Can't do it. Two stars.Well, I get why some people don't care for Scarface (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/scarface-1983/); it is very long, over-the-top, and has attracted a very annoying fanbase over the years, to the point that I even made this meme about it...

https://i.ibb.co/kxbSc2Q/5p34uj.jpg (https://ibb.co/HVwHgTn)

...but I still enjoy it despite (or maybe even because of?) some of those points against it, since I still find Tony's arc to be quite propulsive, it's fascinating as a snapshot of its particular time and place, and the overall craft of the production can't be denied. I mean, that moment when we go from a handheld camera inside the motel room to the cut to the crame cam, which goes all the way across the street, and then back inside again? (Homer Simpson drool)

Skitch

05-17-2022, 01:06 PM

Its an okaaaay film, but I feel its so wildly overrated that its hard for me not to dislike it more. Its fine! Its nowhere near a gangster masterpiece. Its nowhere near a Scorsese mob movie. Its not even better than Donnie Brasco, American Gangster, Carlitos Way, Eastern Promises...imo

Idioteque Stalker

05-17-2022, 04:22 PM

I still find Tony's arc to be quite propulsive, it's fascinating as a snapshot of its particular time and place, and the overall craft of the production can't be denied.

I can agree with the second two points here, but I can't get behind the word "propulsive" coming anywhere near a movie that's basically a long string of loosely-tied set pieces featuring Pacino mouthing off.

Idioteque Stalker

05-17-2022, 05:52 PM

5 cms is probably my least favorite Shinkai, but it isn't bad. Worth checking out.

25mins and it looks really nice but wow... what a cheese-fest!

DFA1979

05-18-2022, 04:24 AM

I really need to see Roman Holiday.

baby doll

05-18-2022, 05:04 AM

I really need to see Roman Holiday.No, you don't. Check out Dodsworth, Jezebel, The Letter, The Little Foxes, or The Best Years of Our Lives instead.

Irish

05-18-2022, 10:21 PM

No, you don't. Check out Dodsworth, Jezebel, The Letter, The Little Foxes, or The Best Years of Our Lives instead.

Good recs, but what's your beef with "Roman Holiday"?

Idioteque Stalker

05-18-2022, 10:37 PM

Dodsworth is my favorite Wyler movie so far. It is his 15th-most popular movie, which seems very low.

Wyler's #1 most popular: Roman Holiday, the 2nd-most popular film of 1953
#2: Ben-Hur, 6th-most of 1959
#3: The Best Years of Our Lives, 5th-most of 1946
#4: Funny Girl, 8th-most of 1968
#5: The Children's Hour, 13th-most of 1961

Other movies in the top ten of their year:
The Heiress
Wuthering Heights
Jezebel
Mrs. Miniver
Dodsworth

Dude was a hit-maker for over three decades.

baby doll

05-18-2022, 10:52 PM

Good recs, but what's your beef with "Roman Holiday"?I just found it bland and unappealing. Then again, I've never been much of an Audrey Hepburn fan.

DFA1979

05-18-2022, 11:53 PM

No, you don't. Check out Dodsworth, Jezebel, The Letter, The Little Foxes, or The Best Years of Our Lives instead.

Well I can watch all of those too ha ha.

DFA1979

05-18-2022, 11:54 PM

I'm trying to view A Beautiful Mind since it's on Hulu. I'm 20 some minutes in so far and I'm bored out of my skull.

DFA1979

05-18-2022, 11:55 PM

I've seen and still own Ben-Hur. That's a great flick-I was surprised at how the run time was not an issue.

Irish

05-19-2022, 02:42 AM

It is his 15th-most popular movie, which seems very low.

According to ... Letterboxd?

Son, this is a terrible way to rank movies. Stop now before it becomes a habit. No good can come of this.

Dude was a hit-maker for over three decades.

And a prime example as to why the auteur theory is broken.

DFA1979

05-19-2022, 03:51 AM

I might be the biggest detractor/loather of auteur theory here. Then again I don't really care who's responsible for the movie as long as it's good sooo...

DFA1979

05-19-2022, 03:54 AM

One more note about A Beautiful Mind: that movie grossed 300 million at the box office. In 2001. With a 58 million dollar budget. Was it the movie's star power or did people go to see it because it was up for Oscars? Maybe folks always like biopic movies? Just...huh.

Idioteque Stalker

05-19-2022, 04:11 AM

According to ... Letterboxd?

Son, this is a terrible way to rank movies. Stop now before it becomes a habit. No good can come of this.

Yes, Letterboxd. It's not a habit, but it is the primary conceit of this thread, and I have found it to be quite fun and useful so far. In fact, I've been introduced to the same number of films I love in here (Into the Spiderverse, Scream) as I have in the Criterion Challenge thread (Written on the Wind, Where Is the Friend's House). So plenty good has come of it.

And a prime example as to why the auteur theory is broken.

I might be the biggest detractor/loather of auteur theory here. Then again I don't really care who's responsible for the movie as long as it's good sooo...

I would be interested in hearing y'all expand on this. I've personally never cared much about auteur theory, but I very much care who the director is and if I'm familiar or not with their work/style.

Irish

05-19-2022, 04:40 AM

Yes, Letterboxd. It's not a habit, but it is the primary conceit of this thread, and I have found it to be quite fun and useful so far. In fact, I've been introduced to the same number of films I love in here (Into the Spiderverse, Scream) as I have in the Criterion Challenge thread (Written on the Wind, Where Is the Friend's House). So plenty good has come of it.

Did you just throw the patented Stalker rulebook at me? My post was meant to be lighthearted and jokey ... but I hear ya. I'll stop bustin on you (and posting in this thread)

StuSmallz

05-19-2022, 04:48 AM

I can agree with the second two points here, but I can't get behind the word "propulsive" coming anywhere near a movie that's basically a long string of loosely-tied set pieces featuring Pacino mouthing off.I didn't mean that in the sense that it's fast-paced, or even that it's not bloated at all (since it probably could've been trimmed down to about 2 & 1/2 hours even, and I'm honestly not even sure if I've ever watched all of it without splitting it up into two sittings); rather, I meant it's "propulsive" in the sense that it feels like Tony's arc is always progressing somewhere in each and every moment, whether it be his early rise from being just a jailhouse scumbag fresh off the "banana boat", to his peak during the "Push It To Limit" montage, to his inevitable fall that starts immediately after that point, due to his own personal character flaws, you know? It's all quite compelling stuff, IMO.

DFA1979

05-19-2022, 05:02 AM

I thought Irish's joke was funny and a commentary on Letterboxd. Also I'll admit I do check to see who the director of a movie is but to me a good movie is a good movie. Case in point I recently liked the new Sonic flick a lot and I have no idea who the director is, where as I eagerly went to see Robert Eggers' new film because it looked great and he has a proven track record.

Skitch

05-19-2022, 08:45 AM

I usually check a director if a flick looks unique. You know who has a habit of sneaking up on me though? Martin Campbell. I can't tell you how many times I finish a movie and I'm like "damn that was better than expected!" then "directed by Martin Campbell" pops up and I'm "ahh well no shit".

That flick he made with Pierce Brosnon and Jackie Chan was damn good.

Idioteque Stalker

05-19-2022, 02:16 PM

I meant it's "propulsive" in the sense that it feels like Tony's arc is always progressing somewhere in each and every moment, whether it be his early rise from being just a jailhouse scumbag fresh off the "banana boat", to his peak during the "Push It To Limit" montage, to his inevitable fall that starts immediately after that point, due to his own personal character flaws, you know?

But you're leaving out the lengthy shit-talking scenes. To me this is the flow of the movie: Pacino mouths off for a while > something moves the narrative along > Pacino mouths off again > narrative moment > Pacino > narrative. It starts and stops, repeatedly, like putting bad miles on a car. As long as you enjoy Pacino mouthing off, it's no problem. But I would disagree it's always progressing somewhere.

Idioteque Stalker

05-19-2022, 03:01 PM

Trying to find movies I've given five-star ratings to that aren't associated with "auteur" directors. There's not a lot.

Maybe Rob Reiner? He's made plenty of good/great movies, but I haven't picked up on an artistic signature per se. George Stevens may or may not be the same type of deal.

Is Andrew Stanton an auteur? Sheesh, I dunno. That career went downhill fast after Wall-E.

You know who has a habit of sneaking up on me though? Martin Campbell.

Let's get ahead of the Green Lantern reappraisal.

Skitch

05-19-2022, 03:12 PM

Let's get ahead of the Green Lantern reappraisal.
Nope, I've always semi-defended it. Its not great, but its not nearly as bad as its reputation. People mention it along with Barb Wire, Catwoman, Jonah Hex...and thats not accurate imo.

DFA1979

05-19-2022, 06:17 PM

Martin Campbell is a pretty good action director though he made two of the best Bonds ever and a good Zorro movie.

DFA1979

05-19-2022, 06:19 PM

Unfortunately from what I've heard Reiner hasn't really made a good movie since the 90s or whatever.

Andrew Stanton wise Finding Dory was pretty good at least. I really liked that one.

baby doll

05-20-2022, 12:50 AM

Trying to find movies I've given five-star ratings to that aren't associated with "auteur" directors. There's not a lot.Steamboat Bill, Jr.? Swing Time? Gone with the Wind? The Wizard of Oz? Casablanca? Les Enfants du Paradis? Bicycle Thieves? The Red Shoes? The Third Man? Pandora and the Flying Dutchman?

Idioteque Stalker

05-20-2022, 02:28 AM

Steamboat Bill, Jr.? Swing Time? Gone with the Wind? The Wizard of Oz? Casablanca? Les Enfants du Paradis? Bicycle Thieves? The Red Shoes? The Third Man? Pandora and the Flying Dutchman?

Steamboat Bill, Jr. -- Haven't seen it. Is Buster Keaton not an auteur? I submit Sherlock Jr and everything else as my evidence.

Swing Time -- Total masterpiece. I already brought up George Stevens as a possible Rob Reiner type.

Gone with the Wind -- Not close to a five-star movie for me, and I agree Victor Fleming is probably not an auteur. Selznick probably more so.

Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, Children of Paradise, Bicycle Thieves, Red Shoes, Third Man -- All incredible movies. At the very least, Vittorio De Sica and The Archers should be considered auteurs.

Pandora and the Flying Dutchman -- Never seen it or heard of Albert Lewin. If this is a five-star movie, it is a prime candidate for this discussion.

baby doll

05-20-2022, 02:41 AM

Steamboat Bill, Jr. -- Haven't seen it. Is Buster Keaton not an auteur? I submit Sherlock Jr and everything else as my evidence.

Swing Time -- Total masterpiece. I already brought up George Stevens as a possible Rob Reiner type.

Gone with the Wind -- Not close to a five-star movie for me, and I agree Victor Fleming is probably not an auteur. Selznick probably more so.

Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, Children of Paradise, Bicycle Thieves, Red Shoes, Third Man -- All incredible movies. At the very least, Vittorio De Sica and The Archers should be considered auteurs.

Pandora and the Flying Dutchman -- Never seen it or heard of Albert Lewin. If this is a five-star movie, it is a prime candidate for this discussion.The credited director on Steamboat Bill, Jr. is Charles Reisner, not Keaton (though he likely had a hand in the directing). De Sica and Powell aren't generally considered auteurs in the classic sense of the term because of their close collaborations with Zavattini and Pressburger and because their self-effacing visual styles don't lend themselves don't lend themselves auteurist readings.

Idioteque Stalker

05-20-2022, 12:35 PM

baby doll

05-20-2022, 02:28 PM

I would argue there's much more than mere visual style that makes someone an auteur, particularly in the case of the Neo-realists. Still, style is style -- even when it's "self-effacing." An "x" and ornate cursive are both acceptable signatures. And the fact that Powell and Pressburger were a team and not a single auteur seems to me a technicality (and based on the films I've seen, most notably The Red Shoes, I wouldn't describe their visual style to be at all self-effacing.)At the risk of being pedantic, I think it's worthwhile to distinguish historical auteurism of the 1950s and '60s, as practiced by Cahiers du cinÃ©ma, Movie, and Andrew Sarris from the habitual assumption of most reviewers and cinephiles today that the director is the author of a given film, whether it's Max OphÃ¼ls or Judd Apatow, which stretches the concept of auteurism so thin that it becomes not just ahistorical but functionally useless and was often already taken for granted by reviewers hostile to the Auteur Theory, such as Pauline Kael (who, to judge by her reviews, evidently took Altman, Antonioni, and Satyajit Ray to be the authors of their films in the sense of being the dominant artistic personality shaping the work, often at the expense of their collaborators). Historical auteurism was essentially a critical activity (rather than a theory) that produced auteurs by subjecting films to art movie readings, interpreting unusual camera set-ups (Nicholas Ray's upside-down point of view shots) and other stylistic techniques as authorial expressiveness: e.g., Renoir's group stagings in long shot manifest the director's democratic, non-hierarchical worldview in which each character is given equal weight. It would be possible to make an auteurist case for Powell and Pressburger, interpreting specific techniques as manifesting an anti-collectivist, Tory worldview (De Sica is arguably the harder case because the violations of classical norms in his films are clearly motivated as realistic, rather than expressive, touches), but what would be the point? It's not the 1950s anymore.

DFA1979

05-20-2022, 03:11 PM

I rather like 1950s cinema even more as I view more of it that I haven't seen. I forgot that Pauline Kael was the one who was really hostile to the author theory. And huh maybe baby doll makes a good point here that has me thinking that streaming hurts the theory a lot since Netflix and Disney have projects that arguably have multiple collaborators. I still think Orson Welles is largely responsible for Citizen Kane, though.

Idioteque Stalker

05-20-2022, 09:28 PM

... the habitual assumption of most reviewers and cinephiles today that the director is the author of a given film, whether it's Max OphÃ¼ls or Judd Apatow, which stretches the concept of auteurism so thin that it becomes not just ahistorical but functionally useless ...

This is more or less the reason I've never really given auteur theory much thought. I care about the director of any given film, and if I'm familiar with their work/style. That's the extent of it. Never seemed worthy of academic pursuit to me personally. As for the historical mid-century auteurism -- I'm happy to now know of the differentiation. (I don't mind a little pedantry at all, so long as I'm learning something interesting, as I am here. Always appreciate a little historical context.)

And huh maybe baby doll makes a good point here that has me thinking that streaming hurts the theory a lot since Netflix and Disney have projects that arguably have multiple collaborators.

On the other hand, Netflix have occasionally used their resources to gift certain directors their "dream projects," like Scorsese and The Irishman for instance.

Idioteque Stalker

05-20-2022, 09:43 PM

Is this discussion of The Auteur Theory (https://letterboxd.com/film/the-auteur-theory/) on topic? Drumroll.......... No, definitely not!

LB's most popular movies of 1999:

1. Fight Club 1.5m views
2. The Matrix 1.2m
3. 10 Things I Hate About You 761k
4. American Beauty 728k
5. The Phantom Menace 831k (c'mon Irish, I know you want to say something)

With 121 views total, The Auteur Theory is likely outside the top two- to three-thousand movies of 1999 in terms of popularity. It does star Natasha Lyonne, however, in her fifth credited film from that year alone. The other four are American Pie, Detroit Rock City, But I'm a Cheerleader, and Freeway II: Confessions of a Trickbaby.

DFA1979

05-21-2022, 07:45 PM

This is more or less the reason I've never really given auteur theory much thought. I care about the director of any given film, and if I'm familiar with their work/style. That's the extent of it. Never seemed worthy of academic pursuit to me personally. As for the historical mid-century auteurism -- I'm happy to now know of the differentiation. (I don't mind a little pedantry at all, so long as I'm learning something interesting, as I am here. Always appreciate a little historical context.)

On the other hand, Netflix have occasionally used their resources to gift certain directors their "dream projects," like Scorsese and The Irishman for instance.

That's also very true. I doubt The Irishman would have existed without Netflix. Also a lot of other directors have benefitted from streaming immensely.

DFA1979

05-21-2022, 07:46 PM

I still haven't seen American Beauty. I just haven't been interested in seeing it mostly due to my gut feeling that the film is probably dated like a lot of 90s movies.

StuSmallz

05-22-2022, 08:28 AM

But you're leaving out the lengthy shit-talking scenes. To me this is the flow of the movie: Pacino mouths off for a while > something moves the narrative along > Pacino mouths off again > narrative moment > Pacino > narrative. It starts and stops, repeatedly, like putting bad miles on a car. As long as you enjoy Pacino mouthing off, it's no problem. But I would disagree it's always progressing somewhere.Sure, but that's part of the appeal of the experience, IMO; I mean, nothing truly important happes in the scene where Tony's in the bubble bath, and pissing off Elvira/Manny with his attitude, but it's still neccessary to get a sense of where his relationships to them is at in that particular point, you know? Then again, I've always had a weakness for movies that focus on character development, so I get why others would feel different.

Idioteque Stalker

05-22-2022, 04:37 PM

Continuing to watch the #2 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).
___________

1953: Roman Holiday. I don't have much to say except it has a delightful tone throughout, the final scene is absolutely perfect, and watching Audrey Hepburn is like staring into the sun. Love and dignity can sometimes be opposing forces, but that isn't the case here. One of the best romcoms ever. Four stars.

___________

Up next: Three from the 40s. One lady drove Chuck crazy. You know a few people like another lady. And yet another brought us all to tears. Bonus points for guessing multiple in the same unedited post.

Idioteque Stalker

05-23-2022, 06:04 PM

Up next: Three from the 40s. One lady drove Chuck crazy. You know a few people like another lady. And yet another brought us all to tears. Bonus points for guessing multiple in the same unedited post.

Hint #2: The lady who drove Chuck crazy may or may not be of non-Western origin. The lady who is like a few people you know may or may not be similar to them in name only. The lady who brought us all to tears may or may not fit the literal definition of a human lady.

DFA1979

05-24-2022, 04:11 AM

The Lady from Shanghai?

DFA1979

05-24-2022, 04:11 AM

Or Double Indemnity I donno

Idioteque Stalker

05-24-2022, 01:56 PM

The Lady from Shanghai?

Correct! The lady who drove Chuck (Charles Foster Kane) crazy and may or may not be of non-Western origin is The Lady from Shanghai. I say she may or may not be of non-Western origin because I haven't seen the movie and don't know if Rita Hayworth's character is actually supposed to be from Shanghai.

Any guesses for the other two movies? Hint #3: The lady who is like a few people you know may or may not be similar to them in name only -- it's a very popular name in Europe and North America.

The lady who brought us all to tears may or may not fit the literal definition of a human lady -- you'd more likely find her in a grove than a grocery store.

DFA1979

05-25-2022, 08:43 AM

Lady From Shanghai is a pretty good one. Endless movies have ripped off the finale.

DFA1979

05-25-2022, 08:44 AM

I'd have to think about the other ones. This is like me trying to guess what's going to be shown on The Last Drive-In every weekend.

DFA1979

05-25-2022, 08:50 AM

I forgot to mention that I watched Steamboat Bill, Jr. back in 2020 when I was stuck inside because of the pandemic. Excellent movie, very entertaining, one of Keaton's best.

Plus I also viewed Cat Ballou on some free Plex service Sunday night. That's one of the last major 1960s westerns I had not seen before and it was a marvelous picture. Now I know where There's Something About Mary got the singing band gag from.

DFA1979

05-29-2022, 08:22 AM

I finally viewed The English Patient. This movie made over 200 million at the box office and won Best Picture so I think it counts for this thread. Great flick, very engaging despite its length-actually it should have been a mini-series and there is such an adaptation coming out in the form of a TV series. Fargo definitely should have beaten it out for Best Picture however I'm sure the Academy would have chosen something like Jerry Maguire had neither film won so it's all a moot point.

Idioteque Stalker

06-01-2022, 06:46 PM

Idioteque Stalker

06-01-2022, 07:13 PM

Continuing to watch the #2 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).
___________

1947: The Lady from Shanghai. Bottom tier Welles still has its moments. How important was it that he have that accent? Lots of uncomfortable, sweaty close-ups and sleazy performances. I think I used to like noir more than I do now. So much talking, plotting, scheming -- I find it hard to care after a while. The zany funhouse showdown leaves a fantastic aftertaste. Three stars.

1944: Laura. I liked this more. The dialogue was quite clever in an Oscar Wilde type of way, particularly when the aging writer was onscreen. I didn't love where the story went after a big halftime reveal. Dana Andrews played a great detective, but he couldn't fully pull off what was required later in the film. Three stars.

1942: Bambi. Always thought Bambi was a girl. As you might imagine, watching this for the first time as an adult was odd. The entire first half is Bambi being clumsy. Then the thing happens. Then everyone gets super horny for a while before the big scary climax. Pretty incredible animation, and the music is nice throughout. I did not cry. Three stars.

___________

Up next: The Invisible Man (1933) and A Page of Madness (1926).

DFA1979

06-02-2022, 02:38 AM

I've seen parts, never the whole thing. Seinfeld ruined it for me.

I know the joke but she was wrong I mean the nurse was keeping him alive haha.

DFA1979

06-02-2022, 02:39 AM

Lady-8 or 7.5 from me. Good solid film noir.

Laura-9.5, maybe a 10? Not sure. It rocks though and is one of my favorite film noirs.

Bambi-9 probably it's been a long time. Definitely one of the best early Disney movies.

Idioteque Stalker

08-08-2022, 05:29 PM

Continuing to watch the #2 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).
___________

1933: The Invisible Man. A tight little thriller featuring some neat sfx and a killer performance from Claude Rains. There's not much to say. Solid entertainment that won't change anyone's life. Three stars.

1926: A Page of Madness. Now here's a movie that could change someone's life. The intro alone is worth a rental, with superimpositions, quick cuts, extreme close-ups and more channeling a horror version of Vertov's Man with the Movie Camera (which wouldn't come out for another three years). The ending -- in which everyone puts on a creepy porcelain masks -- is also a highlight. The story, as it were, takes place largely within an asylum and is somewhat reminiscent of Shutter Island: what is madness, who is really mad, etc. Without any intertitles one basically has to guess what's going on (apparently there was narration during its original theatrical run? Seem borderline essential). It's very impressive how many unique and striking shots they manage to squeeze out of what is basically a single set. Mad props for being so far ahead of its time, but it lacks the narrative and thematic cohesion to catapult it into the top tier of silents. Three stars.

___________

Next up: Starting over at 2019 and counting back the #3 most popular movie of each year. First will be Villeneuve's Prisoners.

baby doll

08-08-2022, 10:42 PM

Without any intertitles one basically has to guess what's going on (apparently there was narration during its original theatrical run? Seem borderline essential).I've yet to read Aaron Gerow's book on the film (his Visions of Japanese Modernity is brilliant, by the way), but my understanding is that Kinugasa did find a benshi to do the in-theatre commentary, though it's not clear to me how much they explained. Japanese films from the period are typically self-sufficient without benshi commentary so one has to assume that the film's obscurity is intentional. (Sampling Gerow's book on Google Books, I find that a pre-release version of the film had inter-titles but Kinugasa was persuaded by friends to eliminate them in order to bring the film in line with "contemporary ideals of cinema"--which I take to be an allusion to the Pure Film Drama Movement.)

DFA1979

08-10-2022, 04:49 AM

The Invisible Man is pretty cool.

No idea if Jason and the Argonauts counts in this thread since it didn't do well at the box office. I liked it a lot, haven't seen the mini series it inspired all the way in the 2000s.

Idioteque Stalker

08-14-2022, 04:01 PM

Japanese films from the period are typically self-sufficient without benshi commentary so one has to assume that the film's obscurity is intentional.

Oh, definitely. A degree of obscurity is welcome in a story like this, but just a tiny bit of context would go a long way (who is this man, who is this woman, how are they related, etc.). The classic bare-minimum intertitle stuff: "The janitor." "His wife." "His daughter, soon to marry."

Idioteque Stalker

08-14-2022, 04:14 PM

No idea if Jason and the Argonauts counts in this thread since it didn't do well at the box office. I liked it a lot, haven't seen the mini series it inspired all the way in the 2000s.

Is Jason and the Argonauts on topic? Drumroll.......... Yes, it is!

LB's most popular movies of 1963:

1. The Birds 291k views
2. 8 1/2 165k
3. High and Low 68k
4. Charade 87k
5. The Great Escape 96k
.
.
.
16. Black Sabbath 22k
17. Shock Corridor 20k
18. Jason and the Argonauts 31k
19. Scorpio Rising 20k
20. The Pink Panther 38k

I didn't know Black Sabbath was an anthology film. Watchlisted.

Idioteque Stalker

08-14-2022, 06:02 PM

Watching the #3 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).
___________

2013: Prisoners. Like Bong Joon-ho's Mother, I can't point to any aspect of this and call it "bad." The question I keep asking myself is "why?" Did I get more out of it than I had to give? A good movie I'll never watch again. Gyllenhaal > Jackman. Three stars.

___________

Next up: Boy did I groooooaaannn when I discovered what's next. From the director of Dear Evan Hansen and Wonder. How is this more popular than The Dark Knight Rises, Moonrise Kingdom, and The Hunger Games? Blegh. The Perks of Being a Wallflower

DFA1979

08-16-2022, 06:25 PM

Is Jason and the Argonauts on topic? Drumroll.......... Yes, it is!

LB's most popular movies of 1963:

1. The Birds 291k views
2. 8 1/2 165k
3. High and Low 68k
4. Charade 87k
5. The Great Escape 96k
.
.
.
16. Black Sabbath 22k
17. Shock Corridor 20k
18. Jason and the Argonauts 31k
19. Scorpio Rising 20k
20. The Pink Panther 38k

I didn't know Black Sabbath was an anthology film. Watchlisted.

Huh, neat.

Idioteque Stalker

08-23-2022, 12:23 AM

Watching the #3 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).
___________

2012: The Perks of Being a Wallflower. I had a strong suspicion I wouldn't like this, and I was right. Normally, that would be the extent of it, but I had to dig deeper because my friend calls it one of his favorites and we watched it together. This time, "It's cheesy, what's next?" just wouldn't cut it. A flailing attempt was made (and the edibles didn't help) to express in exact language something I would normally assume is too obvious for words: "I am not the target demographic for this mass-market coming-of-age YA adaptation."

It should've been obvious once the first montage appeared not even five minutes into the movie that, with Perks, Stephen Chbosky has assembled a highlight reel of every monumental teenage moment -- first day of school, first kiss, first hipster friends ("Welcome to the isle of misfit toys"), homecoming, first party, Sadie Hawkins, first time getting high, prom, opening college acceptance letters, last day of school -- all expertly manufactured to maximize the highest amount of emotional response with the lowest amount of effort. Remember on graduation day when you and all your friends posed for a picture and everyone was happy and life was sweet and we were young and beautiful and the class clown did that funny thing? Remember your English teacher who recommended you read The Great Gatsby on the side? The man practically spoke in life lessons! Oh, you didn't have the perfect friend group, or the perfect English teacher? Well now you can imagine what it would've been like. Either way, doesn't that make you feel something? (Side note: discovering David Bowie and The Smiths as a teen is no doubt a monumental moment, but there needs to be more significance beyond simply name-dropping cool bands. In and of itself, watching someone's musical preferences mature is about as enlightening as following along with their potty training regimen. And we're supposed to believe they know The Shaggs but not "Heroes"? Someone didn't think this through.)

Highly recommended to people who regularly spend time flipping through their senior yearbook. I'll stay here, jaded and imperfect, along with the other adults. Two stars.

___________

Next up: Edward Scissorhands

Idioteque Stalker

09-03-2022, 04:56 PM

Watching the #3 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).
___________

1990: Edward Scissorhands. I would've unabashedly loved this if not for some wonky third-act shenanigans (everyone sees Edward on top of Kevin but nobody sees him save him from the drunk driver, cop should probably monitor the vengeful mob situation, false rape accusation is blegh, Kim has never met a nice guy and therefore falls in love too quickly). Otherwise a total oddball delight, with a prototypical 90s color palette, an excellent Danny Elfman score, and fairy tale morality I can stand behind: kindness, acceptance, celebrating our differences. How many Gen Xers fell in love with Ryder dancing in the snow? It's weird to think about nowadays, but Burton's early run was borderline miraculous. Three stars.

___________

Next up: fuck me, Dirty Dancing

Idioteque Stalker

10-01-2022, 01:51 PM

Watching the #3 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).
___________

1987: Dirty Dancing.
Why do people hate Johnny Castle?

a) He's a Gentile.
b) He didn't go to Princeton, Harvard, or Yale.
c) He's so hot he must be responsible for all pregnancies. Also he might be an escort.
d) It doesn't matter why people hate him. All you need to know is he wears all black, with sunglasses indoors, and doesn't bother to correct people's unfavorable assumptions about him. He's above all that. He's kind of like a monk in that way. In fact, he's actually a very caring, sensitive individual once you get to know him -- but only she has the intuition to do so. Curse these perfect pecs! Damn this sculpted physique! Is she the only one who can free this heart of gold from beauty's oppression?

Two stars.

1976: Rocky. Never judge a book by its cover, or an unexpected box office hit by its cavalcade of mediocre sequels. I avoided Rocky my whole life due to a cynical predisposition against "crowd-pleasers." (How dare someone exploit the pleasure centers of my brain! I'll show you, movie. I refuse to be pleased!) But Rocky is different. Despite its -- and this is true -- eleven-thousand percent box office return, it didn't bubble up from some rotted cesspool of Hollywood greed and opportunism. Instead, it was conceived, nurtured, and fervently protected by a struggling young actor with a partially-paralyzed face. When Rocky chugs a half-dozen eggs, we know it's really Sylvester Stallone (actor/screenwriter) who put in the work. And it's always satisfying to witness a great victory -- real-life or fiction -- born of a great determination. Four stars. Added to my list of favorite Best Picture winners. (https://letterboxd.com/idiotequestalkr/list/favorite-best-picture-winners/)

___________

Next up: Two odd ducks from the 70s. The Rocky Horror Picture Show and El Topo.

Skitch

10-01-2022, 05:26 PM

I still havent seen rocky horror or el topo.

Idioteque Stalker

10-01-2022, 05:45 PM

I still havent seen rocky horror or el topo.

I've avoided a lot of these movies on purpose. But I'm looking forward to El Topo.

baby doll

10-02-2022, 11:47 PM

Why the hell wouldn't you want to see a movie that has a young Susan Sarandon in various states of undress?

DFA1979

10-08-2022, 05:13 AM

I still havent seen rocky horror or el topo.

Rocky Horror is good fun. El Topo is a great western that is truly something else.

Idioteque Stalker

07-04-2023, 09:57 PM

Watching the #3 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).
___________

1975: The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Tim Curry owns this and Susan Sarandon is a total fox (Baby Doll makes a good point as usual). Some good songs despite rock opera being maybe my least favorite musical genre. Favorite: "Touch-A-Touch." Least Favorite: Sorry... but it's "Time Warp." Undoubtedly a landmark in the mainstream-ification of queerness. Three stars.

1970: El Topo. So many questions... (TW)

Are the clouds real? They look incredible.

What would they have done if AJ flubbed his lines during the dead rabbit bonfire shot? Go out and procure a couple dozen more dead rabbits?

Is it lawful for that boy to be buck naked all the time? I'm not sure what exactly is allowed, but I would've assumed this crossed the line. Is it only admissible because he is AJ's son? Are God and the FBI monitoring me right now? (Sidenote: kid was cast as Paul Atreides in AJ's failed Dune.)

Which do you think AJ feared more: being killed by his lover, or watching her turn lesbian?

Would The Holy Mountain exist if not for the support given by John Lennon and Yoko Ono after they saw this?

Which AJ do we believe: the one who said he "really raped her," or the one who later said the original comment was a "surrealist publicity" stunt? I can't find Mara Lorenzio's account of the events. I've seen some use the word "unsimulated;" people may have varying definitions of that word, so allow me to point out the intercourse in this scene is implied. (How it's implied -- through associative editing of water shooting from a barren desert rock, Moses-style -- is its own disturbing can of worms. But what is this movie aside from a disturbing can of worms?) Three stars.
_______

Next up: Two from the 50s. Dial M for Murder and High Noon.

MadMan

07-05-2023, 11:38 PM

Rocky Horror is good fun, I much prefer Phantom of the Paradise when it comes to 1970s horror rock musicals.

El Topo is probably what people think of when they hear midnight movie or obviously weird, kind of pretentious 70s cult movie. As noted I thought it was great despite some of the questionable elements, I'm not sure I understood the ending.

MadMan

07-05-2023, 11:46 PM

Idioteque Stalker

07-10-2023, 03:12 PM

Also seems to me that it is a Last Tango In Paris situation as well. Still not good, I'm not sure how to respond to either one in terms of movie making. Seems to me upon some thought that a director should ensure people feel safe on set and not go through with something dangerous or harmful.

Yeah, the Last Tango stuff... I wasn't aware of it back in the day during my first couple views. That situation seems worse than El Topo since Maria Schneider has spoken about it while Mara Lorenzio hasn't.

Idioteque Stalker

07-28-2023, 08:47 PM

Watching the #3 most popular movie of each year according to LB (if I haven't seen it already).
___________

1954: Dial M for Murder. This was a lot of fun. Ray Milland was great -- I should really get around to Lost Weekend at some point. I think I actually saw this once before but forgot? Checks out... it's an enjoyable, intricately plotted lark that lost me a little by the end. Three stars.

1952: High Noon. When Gary Cooper gets the news early on that his nemesis will be arriving on the 12:00 train, then looks up at the clock to see it's already 10:41 -- indicating the entire movie will be taking place in real time -- I knew I was gonna like this. Gotta admire a movie that makes most other movies seem like they're full of nonsense. But the stark morality it postulates (roughly "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, damn everyone else's desires and/or safety") is one I simply can't subscribe to, which makes the whole thing feel like a moot point and brings to mind a different, not-so-revered Gary Cooper movie (The Fountainhead shudder). Foolhardiness is just as shameful as cowardice, yet here the emotional climax is a montage of the townsfolk looking like puppies who pissed the rug because they refuse to join an unnecessary conflict. Shout out to Katy Jurado, who is astounding. Three stars.

Didn't realize this was a Grace Kelly double feature. She is distractingly beautiful.

________

Next up: 4 from the 40s. Big Sleep, Spellbound, Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, and Cat People.

StuSmallz

07-29-2023, 07:27 AM

1952: High Noon. When Gary Cooper gets the news early on that his nemesis will be arriving on the 12:00 train, then looks up at the clock to see it's already 10:41 -- indicating the entire movie will be taking place in real time -- I knew I was gonna like this. Gotta admire a movie that makes most other movies seem like they're full of nonsense. But the stark morality it postulates (roughly "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, damn everyone else's desires and/or safety") is one I simply can't subscribe to, which makes the whole thing feel like a moot point and brings to mind a different, not-so-revered Gary Cooper movie (The Fountainhead shudder). Foolhardiness is just as shameful as cowardice, yet here the emotional climax is a montage of the townsfolk looking like puppies who pissed the rug because they refuse to join an unnecessary conflict. Shout out to Katy Jurado, who is astounding. Three stars.Well, I liked it better than that, but I do feel that the movie showed its age somewhat in its take on the genre; something like the sight of Grace Kelly shooting a baddie in the back definitely isn't as shocking/rousing as it would've been back in '52, and the main antagonist was essentially just there to be the token bad guy, so it would've been nice if he had been given literally any dimension or development at all, I feel. Still good, though!