It was a party political broadcast by the liberal democrats.
Film "It was groundbreaking when it came out": so what?
- Thread starter OleBoiii
- Start date
The Joker a better film than Taxi Driver 
The Joker is the biggest pile of shite I've seen in recent times.
The Joker is the biggest pile of shite I've seen in recent times.
The Beatles music is shit though.
12 Angry Men doesn't 'just fall short' though, and it's not an inevitable disappointment either. What the feck is wrong with people.
Pretty much this.
I didn't like Citizen Kane either. And I don't think one has to be forced into liking a song/film that hasn't aged well. However if a work of art has achieved greatness or excellence in its time, that should always stand, mean something and be respected. Being the first to do something well isn't irrelevant as the OP suggests. It's always easier to follow. And the suggestion that the original creators of anything only did it first (and not well) is silly too. For it's time, and compared to their peers that was excellence just like the current lot of best artists/creators would be.
Some burning hot takes in this thread
Woah, it feels like both "sides" misunderstand each other. I very much respect the movie examples in the topic and I also enjoy watching them. But they are not among my favorites.
I don't think it's true that whatever came first must be better by default. Everything is inspired by something, directly or indirectly. You can say it was better from an historic context etc, but that's about it. I envy the viewers who can trick themselves into forgetting that better things exist and essentially go back in time every time they turn on these films.
I don't think it's true that whatever came first must be better by default. Everything is inspired by something, directly or indirectly. You can say it was better from an historic context etc, but that's about it. I envy the viewers who can trick themselves into forgetting that better things exist and essentially go back in time every time they turn on these films.
My tolerance for old films is pretty low. Anything prior to the 70s generally looks and sounds bad to me, and even then, there's not that many films from the 70s that I like that much. It probably has to have Al Pacino in it for me to be interested. My grandad told me about how he saw The Exorcist in the cinema, and how people were screaming and crying in the theatre. It's baffling how anyone could have reacted to it like that, it's an inherently hilarious film, because it just looks so fecking terrible. I find it hard to believe it didn't look terrible in the 70s too.
I'm the opposite with music though. I find the roots of music fascinating, and how styles, sounds, musicianship and recording methods have all developed. Old delta blues sounds awful from a production perspective but that is crucial to its time and place in music history. Similarly the blueprint of heavy metal in the 60s and 70s, bands like Sabbath and Zeppelin sound rather tame in comparison to metal and rock from the 80s onwards, and they used a lot of goofy recording techniques back then too so some stuff sounds a bit weird, but it was all part of how music evolved. Hearing stuff about Link Wray stabbing holes in the cones in his amp cabinets to make them flap, creating a primitive distortion, I generally gravitate towards stuff like that.
Pre-20th Century literature can often be a bit of a chore to read too, due to how language has evolved since. I read Frankenstein recently, which is early 1800s. It was decent overall, I liked the story and the approach to it but I found myself having to re-read parts of it the writing style is so jarring comparative to modern lit.
I'm the opposite with music though. I find the roots of music fascinating, and how styles, sounds, musicianship and recording methods have all developed. Old delta blues sounds awful from a production perspective but that is crucial to its time and place in music history. Similarly the blueprint of heavy metal in the 60s and 70s, bands like Sabbath and Zeppelin sound rather tame in comparison to metal and rock from the 80s onwards, and they used a lot of goofy recording techniques back then too so some stuff sounds a bit weird, but it was all part of how music evolved. Hearing stuff about Link Wray stabbing holes in the cones in his amp cabinets to make them flap, creating a primitive distortion, I generally gravitate towards stuff like that.
Pre-20th Century literature can often be a bit of a chore to read too, due to how language has evolved since. I read Frankenstein recently, which is early 1800s. It was decent overall, I liked the story and the approach to it but I found myself having to re-read parts of it the writing style is so jarring comparative to modern lit.
I think once you get to the late 60's early 70's new wave in film they still hold up today.
This is like arguing which colour is the prettiest.
I don't think anyone here was arguing that old stuff is necessarily better. Or I've missed it.
Not really sure what the point of the OP is. The techniques that Vertigo pioneered were innovative and influential, and Hitchcock and the film are appreciated for that significant contribution to cinema. They were also quite poorly executed compared to the versions of it today, because the technology was incredibly primitive, which makes for a worse viewing experience.
I don't think people are saying it was groundbreaking at the time so you have to love watching it now. If you want to appreciate the development of cinema then you have to recognise what came before it and what moments of innovation drove it. Inevitably the people who are talking about something being groundbreaking are the people who care about that, and are looking at it from that perspective.
If you just want to enjoy a film you don't need to pay attention to any of that. There's lots of old films that you can enjoy without remotely caring about its place within cinematic history. What people like about stories hasn't changed in a long, long time.
I don't think people are saying it was groundbreaking at the time so you have to love watching it now. If you want to appreciate the development of cinema then you have to recognise what came before it and what moments of innovation drove it. Inevitably the people who are talking about something being groundbreaking are the people who care about that, and are looking at it from that perspective.
If you just want to enjoy a film you don't need to pay attention to any of that. There's lots of old films that you can enjoy without remotely caring about its place within cinematic history. What people like about stories hasn't changed in a long, long time.
It was more about me trying to explain my stance, as I was being accused of not respecting the directors of the past.
I've seen my fair share of people who genuinely think that there's hardly been a good movie in the last 20 years. The same people also seem to think that if your all-time favorites don't include Citizen Kane, 12 Angry Men and several Hitchcock, Kubrick and Kurosawa movies, then your tastes are poor and you don't understand film. Hence why I made this thread. Maybe some of these people frequent this forum?
Agree with this. Taxi Driver and before that A Clockwork Orange took criminalist people and turned them into anti- heroes and did the genre much better than the Joker.The Joker a better film than Taxi Driver
The Joker is the biggest pile of shite I've seen in recent times.
And yet, they're making a sequel to it, and possibly a string of them, depending how the first one goes
Joker isn't as good as You were never really here. Citizen Kane is boring. Hitchcock films have as much tension as a used condom. Kubrick is over rated. Spielberg is the greatest film maker of all.
Am I doing it right?
Am I doing it right?
Oh and Avatar was one of the greatest cinematic experiences I've ever had. Saw it in imax 3D. Amazing.
Snobism against new stuff is as much a thing as snobism against old stuff, that's for sure. To me, both is guided by prejudice. Not getting something for whatever reason, and deciding the only possible explanation is that it must be crap.
About the favourites list: If the question is how much you enjoy something, no one can tell you anything. If you like the last ten superhero movies the most, then that's the correct answer. But if the subject is a more objective discussion about particular movies/bands/art forms, then the approach needs to be different, imo. Not quite sure yet on which the focus lies here?
Its the height of pretentiousness to pretend to love classic films just because everyone else rates them highly. However, don't you think its also pretty arrogant to assume that people rates them just because they're the pioneers in filmmaking?
Everyone has their own "personal favourites" and I think its a list that should be kept separate if we are talking about "most critically acclaimed" or "most impact in film industry". Personally, I got as much enjoyment from watching something like the James Bond flicks as I did from something like North by Northwest, fun but not something I love. On the other hand it is also very easy to see why Citizen Kane can stand the test of time. It was so carefully edited that the story could move logically and cleanly, had a great character study of Kane's inevitable moral decline and the tragedy of his attachment to childhood. The film wasn't even boring by any standards and IMO better than The Irishman which was a major disappointment but had everyone raving over it.
Citizen Kane is definitely underwhelming as a cinematic experience. The techniques were revolutionary at the time but that won't mean much to the casual viewer.
Vertigo is a different matter entirely. There are levels to that film way beyond most modern films.
Vertigo is a different matter entirely. There are levels to that film way beyond most modern films.
I still think 12 Angry Men stands up as an example of a great ensemble cast acting at the top of their game. Haven't given it a great deal of thought but I'd struggle to name a more modern example that is better.
Are you talking about 2001: A Space Odyssey?
12 Angry Men is fantastic
Modern films are easier on the eye and I think that helps.
Star Wars Episode 1-3 are more pleasing on the eye with cinematics etc, but the story doesn't live up to the originals.
That said, Big Trouble in Little China is where it's at
Modern films are easier on the eye and I think that helps.
Star Wars Episode 1-3 are more pleasing on the eye with cinematics etc, but the story doesn't live up to the originals.
That said, Big Trouble in Little China is where it's at
That's arrogant, I agree.
12 Angry Men is as close as you can get to a perfect film. The screenplay is tight, the direction unfussy, excellent dialogue and a fine cast. It's almost beyond reproach, surely?
You won't catch me agreeing with someone who deliberately cycled over a cat!
If something can broaden your horizons , help you'd ee things Fromm a nee perspective then all good.
Got into world cinema at uni when my French gf at the time intoduced me to the film delicatessen. No i dont have pics.
Watching films later by Kieslowski for example, and many others opened my eyes as to what was possible in film (as well as Ulta fit actresses like Irene Jacob and Binoche. Sometimes it resonates sometimes it notes the shit out of me, but hey whatever floats your boat.
Got into world cinema at uni when my French gf at the time intoduced me to the film delicatessen. No i dont have pics.
Watching films later by Kieslowski for example, and many others opened my eyes as to what was possible in film (as well as Ulta fit actresses like Irene Jacob and Binoche. Sometimes it resonates sometimes it notes the shit out of me, but hey whatever floats your boat.
I run a film festival and we always do our research before putting on a screening of 'classics' so we don't end up with an empty house, because moderns tastes have changed so much; and that's not a sleight on modern audiences or the classics. Times change. Art changes. Literature, music. Shakespeare is a genius, doesn't mean everyone wants to read him, but plenty of people do and his impact has spread throughout not only literature but everyday life. Similarly there's a ripple effect from Citizen Kane. You can't watch a film, TV show, hell even kids shows without there being a direct thread to Citizen Kane. Does that mean you have to watch and like them, hell no.
We showed a screening of The Matrix last year as it was the anniversary and while that's not exactly Citizen Kane it makes a good comparison, because it was clear from the audience responses that exactly the same problems persist. For those who were around when it originally screened in 99, it was a great piece of nostalgia, but there were quite a few of the audience who hadn't seen it before (we always get people to fill out satisfaction surveys after our films) who were just a bit meh, and they were the ones who had not seen the original but had grown up on a diet of bullet time, so that sense of wonder and excitement when it originally came out and people were seeing this technology for the first time, that just wasn't there. Does that make it a bad movie? Does that make them dullards for not enjoying it? Of course not. It has just lost its relevance over time to some people. It will always be that way. The big question is always how things stay relevant to the conversation. In 50 years time people will still be talking about Citizen Kane (as I'm sure they will be the Beatles). Is there any single film made over the last 20 years or so that people will be talking about in 50 years? Who knows.
We showed a screening of The Matrix last year as it was the anniversary and while that's not exactly Citizen Kane it makes a good comparison, because it was clear from the audience responses that exactly the same problems persist. For those who were around when it originally screened in 99, it was a great piece of nostalgia, but there were quite a few of the audience who hadn't seen it before (we always get people to fill out satisfaction surveys after our films) who were just a bit meh, and they were the ones who had not seen the original but had grown up on a diet of bullet time, so that sense of wonder and excitement when it originally came out and people were seeing this technology for the first time, that just wasn't there. Does that make it a bad movie? Does that make them dullards for not enjoying it? Of course not. It has just lost its relevance over time to some people. It will always be that way. The big question is always how things stay relevant to the conversation. In 50 years time people will still be talking about Citizen Kane (as I'm sure they will be the Beatles). Is there any single film made over the last 20 years or so that people will be talking about in 50 years? Who knows.
The only thing more undeserving of it's huge cultural legacy than Star Wars, is that period of 80s American stadium rock music where everyone put on cat suits and grew mullets and decided they were edgy subversive demonic rock Gods whilst singing horrendously chintzy pop melodies in an obnoxiously high voice...
"We built this City (on Rock and Roll)" is a synth pop tune FFS!
"We built this City (on Rock and Roll)" is a synth pop tune FFS!
That's only @R.N7
The only reason people think it was a good film is because the last half of the decade was essentially the dark age of filmmaking.The Joker a better film than Taxi Driver
The Joker is the biggest pile of shite I've seen in recent times.
It depend on the context and types of movies.
Casablanca, and some other can still entertain us even today. Action movies tends to get old pretty fast.
At the end of the day, a movie is a movie, you can recreate the movie but you can't recreate the audience, nor the time in an era and everything at the movie's release has its own magic you can't replicate
Casablanca, and some other can still entertain us even today. Action movies tends to get old pretty fast.
At the end of the day, a movie is a movie, you can recreate the movie but you can't recreate the audience, nor the time in an era and everything at the movie's release has its own magic you can't replicate
Part of if we're guilty of.
Let's face it, between oscar movies like Fences / 3 billboards / fishman etc and Avengers we would choose to watch avengers and probably pirate the others.
It did. I expected to be scared but it wasn't scary at all.
Still doesn't change the fact that it's a shit movie
This discussion is pointless because we don't know what your favourite movies are, to which you compare these classics, and we don't know *why* you think they are behind.
It's a brilliant action movie.
Nah, there's been some brilliant films made in the last decade that hold up against any from the past. Just the movement of mainstream cinema to blockbuster event films and the distribution being controlled by a few. We're making more films than ever per year but have less variety in films being shown in cinemas
Citizen Kane is a brilliant work of art. It's literature on celluloid. If you watch it expecting a spectacle by modern cinematic standards, you'll be disappointed. But it's so much more than that, and so much different from that.
Ballet also tries to convey a narrative through physical performance. But you wouldn't put it in the same category as Paul Blart: Mall Cop.
In a lot of ways, Citizen Kane represents a lost art form. It's similar to cinema, but shares more in common with a novel.
Ballet also tries to convey a narrative through physical performance. But you wouldn't put it in the same category as Paul Blart: Mall Cop.
In a lot of ways, Citizen Kane represents a lost art form. It's similar to cinema, but shares more in common with a novel.
Last edited: