What is your TOP 10 Movies of all time?
- Thread starter PurpleMonkey
- Start date
I'm not a Tom Cruise fan but there are other reasons why a person might like the movie. Like MI actually had a prominent director whose name escapes me right now and I don't care enough to google it.TQM said:
Some movies could be great because of the director of photography, others for script, soundtrack or whatever..... perhaps there is a quality that is so well done that person X felt it warranted to be on their list.
If you like Brazil and 12 monkeys check out city of lost children it's a french movie with a dickension type setting with orphans and cobblestones etc with a slight sci fi twist a la the previous 2 movies...... definitely a bit different.
1. You've got Mail
2. Ghost
3. Good Will Hunting
4. Gladiator
5. Scarface
6. Shawshank Redemption
7. Good Fellas
8. Fight Club
9. Saving Private Ryan
10. The Matrix
2. Ghost
3. Good Will Hunting
4. Gladiator
5. Scarface
6. Shawshank Redemption
7. Good Fellas
8. Fight Club
9. Saving Private Ryan
10. The Matrix
TQM,
You actually had praise for saving private ryan? After the battlescene at the beginning of the movie there's really no point in watching this movie. Tom Hanks is like Deniro or Pacino or Cruise.... you pretty much get the same delivery no matter what movie they are in. Unlike say Gary Oldman who is like a chameleon where I sometimes don't even realize it's him till part way through a movie.
Suspension of disbelief? Yeah we're in the middle of a war and we want to risk resources on a potential wild goose chase for some poor mom? At that point in the war deaths were expected and soldiers were expendable. So the story would never happen.
Sorry but your points would only hold water if you choose to use the criteria on the movies you talk about as well. I'm not going to bother arguing plot holes in LOTR (as I said the story was written by a father for his son as entertainment).
As for educated people spending more money actually means something? You're foolishly avoiding the whole concept of status and many educated people waste money on expensive things for primarily status (e.g. Mercedes..... nice german cars but they need to be tuned and when they go to shit look out for the costs).
Sorry but being educated and rich doesn't mean the person has a clue about quality. Take a rich well educated person who wants a good stereo..... he walks into a store and starts buying up expensive equipment..... if he doesn't know what he's doing he can easily have a system that will have audiophiles snickering behind their backs and faking interest in the stereo they are so proudly displaying.
My point is that education and intelligence are not transferable. Im very well educated and good at science and math but I won't pretend that my aptitudes and training will make me any better at making decisions outside of those realms.
Other interesting points.....
You actually had praise for saving private ryan? After the battlescene at the beginning of the movie there's really no point in watching this movie. Tom Hanks is like Deniro or Pacino or Cruise.... you pretty much get the same delivery no matter what movie they are in. Unlike say Gary Oldman who is like a chameleon where I sometimes don't even realize it's him till part way through a movie.
Suspension of disbelief? Yeah we're in the middle of a war and we want to risk resources on a potential wild goose chase for some poor mom? At that point in the war deaths were expected and soldiers were expendable. So the story would never happen.
Sorry but your points would only hold water if you choose to use the criteria on the movies you talk about as well. I'm not going to bother arguing plot holes in LOTR (as I said the story was written by a father for his son as entertainment).
As for educated people spending more money actually means something? You're foolishly avoiding the whole concept of status and many educated people waste money on expensive things for primarily status (e.g. Mercedes..... nice german cars but they need to be tuned and when they go to shit look out for the costs).
Sorry but being educated and rich doesn't mean the person has a clue about quality. Take a rich well educated person who wants a good stereo..... he walks into a store and starts buying up expensive equipment..... if he doesn't know what he's doing he can easily have a system that will have audiophiles snickering behind their backs and faking interest in the stereo they are so proudly displaying.
My point is that education and intelligence are not transferable. Im very well educated and good at science and math but I won't pretend that my aptitudes and training will make me any better at making decisions outside of those realms.
Other interesting points.....
The best films prior to 1970:
1 A Lion in Winter
2 The Hustler
3 Roma Cita Aperta
4 The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
5 North by Northwest
6 The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)
7 The Sweet Smell of Success
8 The Odd Couple
9 Nosferatu
10 On the Beach
1 A Lion in Winter
2 The Hustler
3 Roma Cita Aperta
4 The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
5 North by Northwest
6 The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)
7 The Sweet Smell of Success
8 The Odd Couple
9 Nosferatu
10 On the Beach
I just got off the phone with a survivor and she told me that the real camps were so bad they never could possibly replicate it, we just have no idea. If you think you will ever see a movie of the exact atrocities that happened on this part of history, it will never happen, but she further said Schindler's List is as good as it gets and they are very much appreciative of Spielberg's efforts to tell the story to the world so we will never forget. I will take that lady's word about the movie over yours anyday. If it's not immoral to her, who are you to claim the film is immoral? Besides as I said, it is in my top 10 and frankly your views from someone who has no idea of the reality of the holocaust is meaningless compared to a survivor.TQM said:
That is your opinion and you're entitled to it no matter how wrong, misguided or misinformed you are.TQM said:
TQM's credibility as a film critic is pretty low for the following reasons
1) he selects movies based on criteria that are irrelevant (like getting laid), well why don't we just crack out Dirty Dancing or Point Break for a lot of women who were teens in the 80s these two movies were big for them.
2) he infers information that is either incorrect or not even there on films. See the excellent responses Mia Culpa made with regards to TQM's opinions on Schindler's list.
3) His arguements against movies also apply to movies that he has mentioned (see my response re: saving private ryan)
4) His logic is flawed. Educated people are better at discrening quality even with things they may not be familiar with like say Architecture. See my comments re: education and intelligence in one field is not automatically trasferrable to another unrelated field.
Save yourself the insults and just read whatever book on films that he read at least it won't be pompous.
1) he selects movies based on criteria that are irrelevant (like getting laid), well why don't we just crack out Dirty Dancing or Point Break for a lot of women who were teens in the 80s these two movies were big for them.
2) he infers information that is either incorrect or not even there on films. See the excellent responses Mia Culpa made with regards to TQM's opinions on Schindler's list.
3) His arguements against movies also apply to movies that he has mentioned (see my response re: saving private ryan)
4) His logic is flawed. Educated people are better at discrening quality even with things they may not be familiar with like say Architecture. See my comments re: education and intelligence in one field is not automatically trasferrable to another unrelated field.
Save yourself the insults and just read whatever book on films that he read at least it won't be pompous.
continuing: (sigh)
Schindler's list: for heaven's sake - just google "criticism of Schindler's list".
Short version:
two main criticisms:
a) from Stanley Kubrik - it focuses on the few who survived.
b) from others (including some prominent jews) - it fictionalized something that ought not to be fictionalized.
Film criticism - it failed to show the transition from immoral/amoral Schindler into moral hero. (unlike - say Casablanca). Anyway - the criticism, actually, was much stronger than what I'm stating here. Find it for yourself.
Gehry
Frankcastle - your position is silly - my point was merely that the group of people making such judgments are different - and you fail to take this into account. Gehry's clients tend to be better educated on architecture. How do I know this? Because Gehry insists on it.
Private Ryan
I don't think it a great film. I thought I made that clear. But just in case - let me repeat - I don't think it a great film. But not for the reasons you cite. There were, in fact, many ludicrous missions carried out in the war - some, far more ludicrous than that of SPR. The mission itself was very believeable. Nothing to suspend there.
I disagree a little on Hanks too. Gump showed depth. You could argue that Ryan was the same character as Apollo 13 - but not the Gump flick. Harrison Ford is far more one dimensional. Hanks ability is far greater.
On the Beach
Great choice. Too melodramatic - but the scene where Peck calls his "girlfriend" with his actual (likely deceased) wife's name, is absolutely shattering.
Defending my choices
Tell me which ones you want to hear about.
Getting Laid
You've got to figure I wasn't (fully) serious.
----
As for my credibility - nice try.
Schindler's list: for heaven's sake - just google "criticism of Schindler's list".
Short version:
two main criticisms:
a) from Stanley Kubrik - it focuses on the few who survived.
b) from others (including some prominent jews) - it fictionalized something that ought not to be fictionalized.
Film criticism - it failed to show the transition from immoral/amoral Schindler into moral hero. (unlike - say Casablanca). Anyway - the criticism, actually, was much stronger than what I'm stating here. Find it for yourself.
Gehry
Frankcastle - your position is silly - my point was merely that the group of people making such judgments are different - and you fail to take this into account. Gehry's clients tend to be better educated on architecture. How do I know this? Because Gehry insists on it.
Private Ryan
I don't think it a great film. I thought I made that clear. But just in case - let me repeat - I don't think it a great film. But not for the reasons you cite. There were, in fact, many ludicrous missions carried out in the war - some, far more ludicrous than that of SPR. The mission itself was very believeable. Nothing to suspend there.
I disagree a little on Hanks too. Gump showed depth. You could argue that Ryan was the same character as Apollo 13 - but not the Gump flick. Harrison Ford is far more one dimensional. Hanks ability is far greater.
On the Beach
Great choice. Too melodramatic - but the scene where Peck calls his "girlfriend" with his actual (likely deceased) wife's name, is absolutely shattering.
Defending my choices
Tell me which ones you want to hear about.
Getting Laid
You've got to figure I wasn't (fully) serious.
----
As for my credibility - nice try.
Gump is a blip..... and playing a simpleton is easy K Reeves has made a career of it. 
As for GEhry.... i don't know enough about they guy. But while it's a "wonderful example" I see daily yuppie types wearing, driving, using something overpriced and stupid so plenty of examples of educated people doing stupid stuff or displaying bad taste (e.g. suv's and mini vans).
As for your retort.... nice try.
As for GEhry.... i don't know enough about they guy. But while it's a "wonderful example" I see daily yuppie types wearing, driving, using something overpriced and stupid so plenty of examples of educated people doing stupid stuff or displaying bad taste (e.g. suv's and mini vans).
As for your retort.... nice try.
bases for judgment
There are many bases.
It's that terrible mix of hundreds of possible attributes.
Here's an example: Truffaut's exquisite Story of Adele H.
The acting is brilliant, but that's not what makes this film great. The story is based on truth and is very poignant - but that doesn't make it great. For me - it's the marriage of story with cinematography. Giving away the film, Adele is moving toward literal madness - and as the film progresses the camera angles get increasingly claustrophobic as her madness increases - close up after close up. I can't be certain - but I suspect it was the first complete attempt at such a relationship.
Just an example - better people could say much more than I.
There are many bases.
It's that terrible mix of hundreds of possible attributes.
Here's an example: Truffaut's exquisite Story of Adele H.
The acting is brilliant, but that's not what makes this film great. The story is based on truth and is very poignant - but that doesn't make it great. For me - it's the marriage of story with cinematography. Giving away the film, Adele is moving toward literal madness - and as the film progresses the camera angles get increasingly claustrophobic as her madness increases - close up after close up. I can't be certain - but I suspect it was the first complete attempt at such a relationship.
Just an example - better people could say much more than I.
I'd say Ford is my fav of those mainstream leading men you gave me to choose from. The Fugitive was pretty good, the one where he's running around france in the early 80s was okay might involve a switched briefcase anda race to save his wife or something like that(slips my mind the title), Witness is okay, Raiders (but not the other two), his stint as Jack Ryan, American Graffiti, Han Solo.
I don't particularly like Tom Hanks and although he has been in many very well made films, none of them are my cup of tea.
However, I think he is a good actor more for the space he gives other actors - he's better when he's more subtle.
Sometimes, it's what you don't say rather than what you do.
Isabelle Adjani does the madness thing well, as she also did years later in Camille Claudel. Plus, she's just so frickin' sexy.
However, I think he is a good actor more for the space he gives other actors - he's better when he's more subtle.
Sometimes, it's what you don't say rather than what you do.
Isabelle Adjani does the madness thing well, as she also did years later in Camille Claudel. Plus, she's just so frickin' sexy.
Frantic!!!!!!!!! That's it!!!!! It was a one word title but I didn't want to imdb it. Thanks Pool!
