If that was for me: I do like it! It's very well written and it's cool that almost the entire film is shot in the same small room.
But I've seen people claim that it's the best movie ever. I can't really fathom that.
Film "It was groundbreaking when it came out": so what?
- Thread starter OleBoiii
- Start date
But I've seen people claim that it's the best movie ever. I can't really fathom that.
The Beatles were great once they could afford good drugs.
The Room is objectively the best film ever made.
I think it's because it's incredibly important cinema/storytelling, a bit like "to kill a mockingbird". I can't really name a movie that had a message as important.
Maybe in terms of acting or cinematography you can claim it's not the best movie of all time (I would argue the acting is incredible but I can get behind an argument against it)
But I can't name another movie that has such a powerful message for the viewer that actually has the power to change people that watch the film. I'm trying right now though so please if there's one you can think of then I'm genuinely all ears. Especially from modern times.
Maybe "it's a wonderful life".
Fair enough.
To me, narrative(story, characters, dialogue, acting) is only half the movie. Cinematography, editing and sound is the other half. The importance of the message is not that relevant to my movie experience, as I feel that I've heard most of the arguments before. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a movie and thought: "shit, I didn't even consider that perspective!" .
To me, it's more interesting to see how they choose to present an old or obvious argument. Parasite does this really well in my opinion. Most people can agree that poverty is terrible and that it's probably not fair that wealthy people have so much more. It's how they present these issues, both through the narrative and the cinematography that makes it an interesting movie. In the case of Parasite, it's the cinematography and editing that makes it go from a good/decent movie to an excellent one.
The message of 12 Angry Men is relevant to this day, but the it's hardly mind-blowing anymore. The movie is a victim of its time period as there's not a lot of subtlety. Everything that happens is very straight-forward and easy to understand. There's not a lot of room for interpretation or creative shots that makes you think "what does the director want to tell us in this particular shot". Movies tended to be told in a much simpler fashion before, as directors/studios weren't sure if people would be able to follow the plot. And in their defense: they were kind of right. Also, a simple structure makes it harder to gloss over flaws and plot holes. I find that older movies have fewer of those, which can only be a good thing. On the flipside, it does often feel like you are watching a theater play that's just being filmed. Clumsy exposition is also very common, though not in 12 Angry Men(if I remember correctly).
Just saw Psycho for the first time. It was interesting to see the obvious influence it's had on the horror and mystery genres, but because it's so influential it doesn't really hold up.
After seeing Vertigo, North By Northwest and Psycho over last 2 months, I think I'm done with Hitchcock for while. I may give Rear Window a chance in the future, though.
After seeing Vertigo, North By Northwest and Psycho over last 2 months, I think I'm done with Hitchcock for while. I may give Rear Window a chance in the future, though.
Last edited:
That movie did more for thrillers as a genre than Michael Jackson did for Thriller.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Damn nice visuals and seems very ahead of its time.
Pretty "meh" to watch for the first time in 2020, though.
Damn nice visuals and seems very ahead of its time.
Pretty "meh" to watch for the first time in 2020, though.
I can't think of anything else in sci-fi that matches the cinematic drama of the HAL section. Open the pod bay doors please HAL. Nolan can't do that. It makes the interminable effects showcase and aimless meditation worth while.
Interstellar has heart and yet, compared to the 'heartless' 2001, it's totally forgettable.
This is blasphemy! Haha.
For me, just because some really good modern movies may have surpassed some classic older films in some aspects, it doesn't take anything away from the originals. When I first saw Citizen Kane, I thought it looked and sounded like it was decades ahead of its time. It was a weird experience to be honest, watching a movie that old which was very similarly shot and dialogue delivered like a modern movie. A few cool special effects too.
I honestly can't remember any modern horror film that is shot in as scary a way as Psycho, particularly the way it films people's faces, Norman's mum's voice. The way it shows the water coming out of the shower is really creepy. Tell me the name of a modern movie where these kind of shots are scarier.
North by northwest is still one of the most exciting, fast-paced action movies I've ever seen. Very funny too.
Rear Window is light, frothy fun, but an excellent film. Strangers on a train is pretty special. Dial M for murder, Rope. Man, these are great still.
I never claimed that.
I just don't buy into the idea that because someone else did something first and better than their "competitors" at the time, it doesn't mean that it automatically must be an enjoyable experience today. I also don't think "first" equals "better". And if you think so, then this must surely be the greatest film of all time seeing as it's the first(I think)?
There are many old films that I enjoy, but if you asked me to make a list over my 20 favorite movies of all time then I reckon 15 of them would be made after 1990. None before 1960.
Yeah, totally agree. Historical importance for older films is lost if you don't know that historical context. For example, M (Fritz Lang, 1931) was revolutionary in its use of sound and having something as a simple as a leitmotif (to identify a character), but if you watch the film without knowing any of that, it just all sounds pretty dated.
I would say, though, that really good films do have a little 'something' that makes them stand out regardless of whatever historical importance they have. For example, Orson Welles has a great visual style. It doesn't have to correspond to your taste, but if you watch films with an interest in the art form, you will notice that sort of thing and appreciate the effort.
I would say, though, that really good films do have a little 'something' that makes them stand out regardless of whatever historical importance they have. For example, Orson Welles has a great visual style. It doesn't have to correspond to your taste, but if you watch films with an interest in the art form, you will notice that sort of thing and appreciate the effort.
I often wonder if there's such a thing as true objectivity when it comes to our opinions on art. I find myself, frequently, defending books and films that I appreciate not only because I happen to admire them but, crucially, because I've indulged myself by perhaps reading too much into the maker's intent. No-doubt-boring-example-follows:
A few years back there was a mainstream hit, an historical novel that very fleetingly featured a woman's room. This bedroom captivated me because of what I assumed to be the author's intention: by 'showing' the reader the various items in the room (maps, shells, models of ships, souvenirs from abroad etc), I thought the writer was highlighting the fact that while this woman was fated to merely having a stay-at-home existence of mundane domestic activities, her explorer brother was free to travel the wide world and experience thrilling things first-hand. I assumed the writer was making a point about what one might call the sexism of the time. And yet, when I chatted to the writer on Twitter, she plainly thought I'd made far too much of this.
Similarly, I've bored everyone here to death by raving about Heart of Darkness, despite my being very aware of the book's controversial nature when it comes to racism. And despite my abhorrence of racism.
These are only two of numerous examples whereby the love of something led to a kind of obsession, and to special pleading for a work's meaning and excellence. In essence, I feel that we look for, and find, ourselves (or at least, our heartfelt opinions) in the art we love. How then, can we hope to be unbiased?
A few years back there was a mainstream hit, an historical novel that very fleetingly featured a woman's room. This bedroom captivated me because of what I assumed to be the author's intention: by 'showing' the reader the various items in the room (maps, shells, models of ships, souvenirs from abroad etc), I thought the writer was highlighting the fact that while this woman was fated to merely having a stay-at-home existence of mundane domestic activities, her explorer brother was free to travel the wide world and experience thrilling things first-hand. I assumed the writer was making a point about what one might call the sexism of the time. And yet, when I chatted to the writer on Twitter, she plainly thought I'd made far too much of this.
Similarly, I've bored everyone here to death by raving about Heart of Darkness, despite my being very aware of the book's controversial nature when it comes to racism. And despite my abhorrence of racism.
These are only two of numerous examples whereby the love of something led to a kind of obsession, and to special pleading for a work's meaning and excellence. In essence, I feel that we look for, and find, ourselves (or at least, our heartfelt opinions) in the art we love. How then, can we hope to be unbiased?
Last edited:
Art can quite legitimately means things to others that the writer didn't conciously intend.
A crap example would be the Bronski Beat song Smalltown Boy. Obviously it was written as a song about being gay in a small provincial town. However, I suspect it was such a big hit because it spoke to many people about growing up in somewhere that felt constricting irrespective of sexuality.
Yeah, that's a fine example.
Further to the point, mate: my defence of 2001: a Space Odyssey - I'm aware that your criticisms of the film are correct, yet my interest in what I assume to be its themes leads me to proclaim its excellence nonetheless. My position, then, is weaker than your own.
Further to the point, mate: my defence of 2001: a Space Odyssey - I'm aware that your criticisms of the film are correct, yet my interest in what I assume to be its themes leads me to proclaim its excellence nonetheless. My position, then, is weaker than your own.
The Thing
If a movie from 1982 is old enough to be considered a classic, then this is the most enjoyable classic I've seen since I started this thread in march(during these months I've seen: Vertigo, North By Northwest, Psycho, 2001: A Space Odyssey)
It's interesting that The Thing wasn't a big success when it was released. The story is interesting, the setting is great, the visuals are great, the writing is solid and the atmosphere is really tense.
If a movie from 1982 is old enough to be considered a classic, then this is the most enjoyable classic I've seen since I started this thread in march(during these months I've seen: Vertigo, North By Northwest, Psycho, 2001: A Space Odyssey)
It's interesting that The Thing wasn't a big success when it was released. The story is interesting, the setting is great, the visuals are great, the writing is solid and the atmosphere is really tense.
Last edited:
The Thing, for me is visually the most gruesome horror film i've seen. I think it put me off the genre.
If i were to pick my top ten best films, these three would be in it. With Psycho being number one.
Some directors say that North By Northwest is the best James Bond film of all time.
I rewatched North By Northwest the other month and it still holds up, great entertainment. It's hornier than most thrillers these days too, makes the modern Bond's with their car commercial aesthetics seem asexual.
Hitchcock has so many. He is for me the greatest director of all time. The 39 Steps and Notorious are also masterpieces. The second The Man Who Knew Too Much is also brilliant.
Many people would agree with you. I've been bombarded with Hitchcock recommendations over the last 10 years or so from fellow movie lovers.
I get that comparison. The thing is, I find most old Bond movies to be quite silly. They feel more like children's movies to me(maybe because I saw them as a kid). They can be entertaining(I still love The Spy Who Loved Me), but I don't really think that they are very good movies. In that sense, it's not so strange that North by Northwest is considered the best "Bond" movie.