Film "It was groundbreaking when it came out": so what?

Personally anything before the 70s is a no-go for me. I've seen some of the classics from the first half of the 20th century, but in the end I'm too much of a millennial to enjoy 'em. I appreciate them as art, but not in the sense that I just sit down and have a good time. Or am I? When does the Millennial generation start anyway.

My wife's worse though, she even refuses to watch movies from the 80s.
 
strongwalker said:
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.
Click to expand...


The way I see it, it's impossible to judge a movie without adding some subjectivity. At the same time, I find it weird when self-proclaimed movie buffs will admit that some of their favorites are "objectively bad". In my opinion, a favorite should be a movie you find objectively good and have a particular soft-spot for.

For instance: I find The Good, the Bad and the Ugly to be objectively good and it's also one of my personal favorites. But I wouldn't claim that it's better than The Godfather, even though the latter isn't among my favorites at all. I enjoy watching Rocky IV for nostalgic reasons, but I also think that it's a terrible movie. Because of this, I wouldn't count it as one of my favorites. I get warm and fuzzy inside when I turn it on, but I also cringe while watching it. I believe the right term for this is "guilty pleasure".

But back to your original question. Here are some of my "newer" favorites(I have excluded my favorite movies made before 1990):

In The Mood For Love
Kikujiro
Spirited Away
Millennium Actress
Paprika
The Shawshank Redemption
The Fellowship of the Ring
Oldboy
Lost in Translation
Perfect Blue
Office Space
Reservoir Dogs
Django Unchained
 
Gambit said:
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
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I'm not doubting some good films are being made in the background. But it's so hard to find them amongst the piles of endless drivel that these production studios are spewing out. One of the better films I've seen in the last decade was Blue Ruin; I only heard of it because some random person mentioned it on reddit.
 
OleBoiii said:
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?
Click to expand...

A couple of news papers I read have these sections where "professional movie critics" review movies that are going to be shown on tv during the day/week. No matter who does the review, young or old, they always give very high ratings to older movies (50's and 60's films are 5 stars by default) and the modern stuff with very few exceptions always get a snide dig as to why they're crap, and this is a pattern I noticed as a kid 20+ years ago. You get the sense as if they feel like it's almost undignified to like and praise a popular modern blockbuster movie.

Inglorious Basterds gets a 2.5/5 and a petty comment about how Brad Pitt can't pretend to pretend to be Italian while Rear Window gets an 8/5 for it's plethora of nuances, captivating acting, intruiging camera work and thrilling finale...
 
Dante said:
Musically and artistically it's simplistic tosh that wouldn't stand up to the standards of the eras that followed.
Click to expand...
You're trolling, I mean you must be. OR you've only listened to their most bait singles.
 
OleBoiii said:
For instance: I find The Good, the Bad and the Ugly to be objectively good and it's also one of my personal favorites. But I wouldn't claim that it's better than The Godfather, even though the latter isn't among my favorites at all. I enjoy watching Rocky IV for nostalgic reasons, but I also think that it's a terrible movie. Because of this, I wouldn't count it as one of my favorites. I get warm and fuzzy inside when I turn it on, but I also cringe while watching it. I believe the right term for this is "guilty pleasure".

But back to your original question. Here are some of my "newer" favorites(I have excluded my favorite movies made before 1990):


Kikujiro
Click to expand...
Kikujiro is one of my favourite films of all time. I love all the Sergio Leone westerns as well. I don't consider them in the greatest films of all, but I do love them.
 
Gambit said:
Kikujiro is one of my favourite films of all time.
Click to expand...

Out of the movies I listed this was probably the last I expected to get a reaction from!

Probably one of my top 3 all-time favorites. Definitely top 5.
 
OleBoiii said:
Out of the movies I listed this was probably the last I expected to get a reaction from!

Probably one of my top 3 all-time favorites. Definitely top 5.
Click to expand...
I love it, such a simple innocent story.
 
The 'influence' of a classic film and how it's often (perhaps too often) highlighted seems like a common thing that often sticks to detractors. Usually there's an inferiority complex involved.
 
If you've never seen it, I'd highly recommend Monseur Verdoux starring and directed by Charlie Chaplin.

Absolutely love that movie and it's a talkie as well
 
R.N7 said:
The 'influence' of a classic film and how it's often (perhaps too often) highlighted seems like a common thing that often sticks to detractors. Usually there's an inferiority complex involved.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?
 
OleBoiii said:
The way I see it, it's impossible to judge a movie without adding some subjectivity. At the same time, I find it weird when self-proclaimed movie buffs will admit that some of their favorites are "objectively bad". In my opinion, a favorite should be a movie you find objectively good and have a particular soft-spot for.

For instance: I find The Good, the Bad and the Ugly to be objectively good and it's also one of my personal favorites. But I wouldn't claim that it's better than The Godfather, even though the latter isn't among my favorites at all. I enjoy watching Rocky IV for nostalgic reasons, but I also think that it's a terrible movie. Because of this, I wouldn't count it as one of my favorites. I get warm and fuzzy inside when I turn it on, but I also cringe while watching it. I believe the right term for this is "guilty pleasure".

But back to your original question. Here are some of my "newer" favorites(I have excluded my favorite movies made before 1990):

In The Mood For Love
Kikujiro
Spirited Away
Millennium Actress
Paprika
The Shawshank Redemption
The Fellowship of the Ring
Oldboy
Lost in Translation
Perfect Blue
Office Space
Reservoir Dogs
Django Unchained
Click to expand...

ok, i would like to mentioned that some of those films are actually quite "old fashioned" - Lost in translation for example, or Shawshank, which is more or less a feelgood jail movie much in the spirit of "birdman from Alcatraz"

May i ask another question? How many of those "modern" movies have you seen on the big screen, in a real cinema, and how many of those old classics?
I'M asking this because some of the greatest movie experiences i've had were in a big hall, some even with live music. I saw Keatons "the General" that way, also Niblos 1925 Ben Hur, and i've seen no modern movie that can come close to these, because its not about the perfection of colour or CGI or steadicam. It is about the story telling, the acting.

There's a brilliant few episodes on youtube covering variuos aspects of "what makes this movie/this director/this actor grat, it is called "Every Frame a Painting".
Start with the bits about Kurosawa and Keaton, then continue at will :)



 
Dante said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm fascinated by Welles and his work but - taken simply as a story - I just couldn't get interested in the tale of a newspaper baron. 'Trouble is, I'm not knowledgeable enough about film to fully appreciate its cinematic brilliance either. What a gonk...
 
i would agree that Citizen Kane is possibly not as much of a nailbiter nowadays as it must have been when everyone and his cat knew who Hearst was. Other films that frequently show up on the "best oat" lists have aged even worse (saw Lawrence of Arabia around christmas and it was hilariously bad)
Doesn't mean CK isn't still a groundbreaking movie but i understand people who aren't fascinated. Modern movies can be visually spectacular because technology that is not super expensive can be used to produce results that in the classic hollywood was restricted to a handful of superexpensive productions. Movies today are geared not only for the big screen but for todays viewing habits, 2nd markets like blue Ray or streaming on a tv screen, the audiences attention must be raised and maintained at all times.
I like movies and read a lot about them, still i never got into the overly artsy stuff like Ingemar Bergman, i don't mind being entertained by a movie but that's just me :)
The Searchers, Lorres haunted mass murderer in Langs "M", the laconic anti heroes of Mitchum or Lancaster in certain film noirs, La Strada, Le Samourai, RAN, Cockoos Nest, Zorba the greek - i don't mind technology, i don't mind CGI, i don't mind dolby stereo, i don't even mind colour. There are films 100 years old that will blow my mind every time i watch them.
 
Must... NOT.... rise.... to.... Beatles.... dissing.....


All I can say is that anybody who listens to the last 20 mins of Abbey Road and not think it's one of the best bits of pop music ever made doesn't know what they are talking about.
 
Just saw North By Northwest for the first time.

Again, as with most of these classics: enjoyable, but hardly a mind-blowing experience.
 
Some genres taking changes way better than the other I guess, but Good, Bad and the Ugly & Once Upon a Time in the West are still better than 100% of today's westerns and it's not even close, plus the music in these two movies were quite mindblowing to be honest.
 
Van Piorsing said:
Some genres taking changes way better than the other I guess, but Good, Bad and the Ugly & Once Upon a Time in the West are still better than 100% of today's westerns and it's not even close, plus the music in these two movies were quite mindblowing to be honest.
Click to expand...

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is one of my all-time favorites. The music may be the best part.
 
I watched Casablanca & On The Waterfront a while ago. There were moments when I was a bit bored but I was mainly interested in the dialogue of 40s and 50s movies and could still appreciate them, realising that I'm watching from a modern perspective 80 years later.

The fact that Casablanca came out during WW2 gave it another dimension. This was a line in the movie: "Even Nazi's can't kill that fast". Surreal to realise that's a quote from a movie made during WW2.
 
OleBoiii said:
Just saw North By Northwest for the first time.

Again, as with most of these classics: enjoyable, but hardly a mind-blowing experience.
Click to expand...

It isn't supposed to be mind blowing. Most films don't aim to be that. North by Northwest is good fun and has broad appeal. That's what it set out to do. Hitchcock made films for mainstream audiences. The fact cynical audiences half a century later still find it entertaining is why it's a classic.
 
Brwned said:
It isn't supposed to be mind blowing. Most films don't aim to be that. North by Northwest is good fun and has broad appeal. That's what it set out to do. Hitchcock made films for mainstream audiences.
Click to expand...

It has 99% from movie critics on RT and is in the top 100 movies of all time on IMDB. I don't think this is justified, even if it probably was the first movie to do certain things. These metrics can often be flawed, but I expected better. Hitchcock is considered to be one of the best directors ever and North By Northwest is considered one of his best movies.
 
balaks said:
Must... NOT.... rise.... to.... Beatles.... dissing.....


All I can say is that anybody who listens to the last 20 mins of Abbey Road and not think it's one of the best bits of pop music ever made doesn't know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
I know right, just ignore the plebs, man.
 
OleBoiii said:
It has 99% from movie critics on RT and is in the top 100 movies of all time on IMDB. I don't think this is justified, even if it probably was the first movie to do certain things. These metrics can often be flawed, but I expected better. Hitchcock is considered to be one of the best directors ever and North By Northwest is considered one of his best movies.
Click to expand...

Braveheart is in the top 100 movies of all time too. It wasn't mind blowing either, it was good fun. Hitchcock made films that people enjoyed, using the best technology, new techniques and great casts. No more, no less. He wasn't making high art.

The fact you found it enjoyable despite the fact the technology is comparatively primitive and clunky, the scenes have been recreated in various guises in films you've grown up on, and you have no connection to the people in the screen...that is why it's a classic 60 years later.

If you watch Dial M For Murder, Rope, etc. you'll find the same thing. They're designed to be entertaining, not mind blowing. No point criticising something for not being what it never aimed to be.
 
Brwned said:
The fact you found it enjoyable despite the fact the technology is comparatively primitive and clunky, the scenes have been recreated in various guises in films you've grown up on, and you have no connection to the people in the screen...that is why it's a classic
Click to expand...

If I'm being honest with myself: I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie with better effects and current actors. I enjoyed it because it's charming, in a way. It's like jumping into a time machine. I cut these movies a lot of slack precisely because they are old.

As far as narrative and cinematography goes, this movie did very little for me.
 
We get too hung up on Kane and similar I reckon. It is brilliant - much of it ostentatiously so - though some of the critical prostrations seem as much about the precocious brilliance of Orson himself as of the film as a satisfying whole.

I personally find it at times overstuffed and fussy. When Welles' later described Rosebud as "dollar store Freud", I think he put his finger on something about the construction of the film. It's a film of bits and parts and ideas and techniques that are put together to form a elaborate, wonderous machine. It's why you can so easily cut it all up and examine individual scenes so thoroughly.

And part of that is down to it being Welles' first film; coming to the cinematic medium with a fine grasp of writing and performance in other media. He hit cinema at full speed and gets a little ahead of himself for my tastes.

Shanghai and Ambersons are altogether more rewarding film watching experiences for me, if less demonstrably brilliant.

I file it with Ulysses or Vermeer's Art of a Painting: great works of skill and technical prowess, of artistry that leave me a little cold.

Kane is not a litmus test for taste.
 
balaks said:
Must... NOT.... rise.... to.... Beatles.... dissing.....


All I can say is that anybody who listens to the last 20 mins of Abbey Road and not think it's one of the best bits of pop music ever made doesn't know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
I love these kinds of posts. "If you don't like the same thing as me you're.......(insert putdown here)." The irony is kind of lost on these types of people.
 
RedPed said:
I love these kinds of posts. "If you don't like the same thing as me you're.......(insert putdown here)." The irony is kind of lost on these types of people.
Click to expand...

That is because it is objectively (and subjectively) a superb piece of music that I can't see how anybody can not admire. Honestly if you don't like that bit of music you can't like music in my view. You can hate the Beatles and think they are shite - no problem with that but that particular 20 mins - no way not having it.
 
balaks said:
That is because it is objectively (and subjectively) a superb piece of music that I can't see how anybody can not admire. Honestly if you don't like that bit of music you can't like music in my view. You can hate the Beatles and think they are shite - no problem with that but that particular 20 mins - no way not having it.
Click to expand...

That’s an impressive level of bullshit you’re talking.
 
I agree with OP. Whilst I can appreciate films like Taxi Driver, my favourite films are more likely to include The Matrix or Terminator 2, films that have passed the test of time.

But with music, I just can't get into Beatles. Yes, they've made classic songs but I just can't enjoy it. At all.

I heard their version of Come Together... It's so minimal and boring.
 
In fairness there’s a reason The Beatles music is studied as part of school and college curriculums, although they couldn’t read music themselves. Even as a 17 year old initially wondering why the hell I was studying their music learned to appreciate Sgt. Peppers genius from a theory and stylistic perspective. Still not a huge fan of them but definitely appreciate their influence on music.
 
Dirty Schwein said:
I agree with OP. Whilst I can appreciate films like Taxi Driver, my favourite films are more likely to include The Matrix or Terminator 2, films that have passed the test of time.

But with music, I just can't get into Beatles. Yes, they've made classic songs but I just can't enjoy it. At all.

I heard their version of Come Together... It's so minimal and boring.
Click to expand...
Maybe if you were a fan when it first came out. If you watched it years later I’d say that’s much less likely.
 
balaks said:
Honestly if you don't like that bit of music you can't like music in my view.
Click to expand...

That is not at all how liking and appreciating music works. I like The Beatles, particularly Side B of Abbey Road and especially Revolver and Rubber Soul, but this is a terrible take.

Whether "it is an objectively and subjectively superb piece of music" isn't relevant, and doesn't directly correlate to literally every person enjoying it. To then tack on "you can't like any music" as a consequence of not liking a segment of a pop record is just absurd.

The vast majority of classical music pieces are objectively still some of the finest and most complex musical compositions ever created, but to a lot of people it is just not enjoyable, understandably so.


Music, and peoples taste in it, is much more vast than you are giving it credit for.
 
OnlyTwoDaSilvas said:
That is not at all how liking and appreciating music works. I like The Beatles, particularly Side B of Abbey Road and especially Revolver and Rubber Soul, but this is a terrible take.

Whether "it is an objectively and subjectively superb piece of music" isn't relevant, and doesn't directly correlate to literally every person enjoying it. To then tack on "you can't like any music" as a consequence of not liking a segment of a pop record is just absurd.

The vast majority of classical music pieces are objectively still some of the finest and most complex musical compositions ever created, but to a lot of people it is just not enjoyable, understandably so.


Music, and peoples taste in it, is much more vast than you are giving it credit for.
Click to expand...

I'M NOT LISTENING YOU MUST LIKE IT OR I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU. That's basically how I feel. It makes no sense and is very stupid but being honest if I meet somebody and get chatting about music and they say they don't like that bit of music, I will judge you and I will think 'this aint gonna work'.

I realise this makes me a terrible person and probably very stupid but I don't care.
 
esmufc07 said:
Beatles are shit. The go to band for people who want to try and show they 'get' music.
Click to expand...

Beatles are great. The go to band for people who want to try and show how edgy and cool they are by not 'getting' their music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.