RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot?

RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings

Message

elab49 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 8:17:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dpp1978 quote: ORIGINAL: adambatman82 quote: ORIGINAL: elab49 In fairness, conjecture and recall are qualitatively different? Within the context of this situation (an anonymous online debate) conjecture feels like the more appropriate term. With all due respect, for all we know GB could be making it all up. That's why evidence helps, otherwise I could have just sat back and typed "I remember it being this way, so that's how it was. Good night". But I didn't: I found evidence to back up my point. A lawyer'd call it hearsay and it would be inadmissible in a court case. This isn't a court case and strict rules of evidence do not apply. But whenever one engages in informed debate (rather than your usual online back and forth arguments) it is reasonable to expect a de minimis amount of evidence if one raises a controversial fact and justifies it based on hearsay. That isn't to say Badir is wrong in his claims. It is possible everything he says is exactly so. But without corroboration from a contemporary source it is entirely reasonable to reject them if you choose to. Which would make it an assertion which can't be backed up, still - rather than conjecture. Since as far as GB is concerned he isn't guessing, he's remembering [:)]

garvielloken -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 9:32:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle Seven Samurai . [image]http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/z354/richiemayhem9/1245227615_colin_farrel.gif[/image] I would agree with you on the old Universal Dracula. Terrible film. Not Frankenstein or Bride though, they're awesome. My own major blindspot would be Hitchcock. I've only seen a small amount of his work and although I thought Rear Window was excellent, the rest I watched didn't impress me at all.

great_badir -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 11:06:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adambatman82 Surely I can be forgiven for not taking the word of somebody who's trying to dispel my own argument, albeit without citing anything but their own opinions? Oh, absolutely - just take a look in the UFO and Cryptozoology threads and nearly every single post from me is of the "bollocks - evidence please" variety. So, with that in mind, and after a couple of hours scouring, I've found one of the two online articles I mentioned earlier, which contains quotes from 90s journals (and is only specific about the City on Fire plagiarism accusation) - http://www.impossiblefunky.com/qt/RD_2.html. Unfortunately, aside from the sourced quotes, the writer sounds like a bit a of a twat and it's not that good reading generally. But there are also mentions of the old Film Threat zine (now a website), which, when it was in print form, apparently ran several articles. I couldn't find the other (which I'm pretty sure was from a national US newspaper review or interview), but I did find this - http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue03/features/tarantino1.htm. It contains this quote "other stories have chronicled Tarantino's alleged plagiarism as well as his reluctance to share credit" (although it does then go on to say he's latterly been happy to share his influences, and the article is largely pro-QT). There's also this quote from the man himself, from a QT interview in Empire in 1994 (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Quentin_Tarantino) - "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." (note dodgy last sentence so early on in his career) - this is NOT the same Empire interview I recalled in an earlier post, which was done in tandem with Dogs' release. I also found numerous discussions on various archived pages from the old group forums, which have plenty of references to both online and mainstream print media where QT (then) remained reasonably tight lipped about his ideas but, obviously, because of the very nature of those discussions and the time they took place, they are not linked to any hard sources. Again, many sources suggest that Empire's then US correspondent Jeff Dawson (who, it should be noted, is a fan of both QT and Dogs, released a book in the mid 90s which was basically an extended QT interview on the page - plagiarism apparently discussed - and they subsequently became mates) broke the City on Fire story in late 1993, but I'm sure Bob Mills' "attack" (which contained comparison scenes from the main films "borrowed" from) was in the first series of In Bed With Me Dinner, which was aired late in 1992 (before Dogs' UK release, but at the time Mills was also a film, music and theatre reviewer for several publications, so it would have been acceptable for him to have seen the film on the circuit in '92). Unfortunately the episode synopses on Wiki of some of the episodes and series don't go into enough detail, and, besides, I'm fairly certain that IBWMD wasn't the first time QT had been accused of ripping off. So, I haven't come up completely empty handed, although it still might look flimsy in a court of law. But I hope I look less of a dick now than I did a couple of hours ago...[sm=whistle.gif]

MonsterCat -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 11:12:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Platter At last, some people I can show my negative Blue Velvet review to and not risk being completely despised! "Badly made film rife with squandered potential I'm not a David Lynch fan. I've seen most of his films but I've only been enthused about two of them. Mulholland Drive is a great movie until they go to Club Silencio, and then it cops-out with a load of random nonsense in place of a real ending. Blue Velvet also wasn't terrible, although I've never thought highly of it. I felt the story was great but the film was too slow and ran out of plot and momentum after the first hour. I probably first saw Blue Velvet about ten years ago. For my third viewing I wasn't expecting miracles. And I didn't get one. The story is sensational stuff full of great, very compelling ideas. Sadly the script isn't anywhere near the equal to the potential that the story has. Lynch has dreamed up these great ideas but hasn't got enough material to cover the two hour running time. If ever there was a movie that could do with losing half an hour, this is it. The pace is also too slow. After MacLachlan has entered into a relationship with Rossellini at about the half way point I find the film runs out of things to do. What we see of their S&M relationship is surface level. The characters don't have much in the way of dimensions to their personalities, and Lynch doesn't know what to do with them, so nothing really happens or develops. The film doesn't take it to the next level. The dialogue is fairly bad. Lynch hides behind irony and has made much of what comes out of his actors mouths deliberately clichéd or twee. Being ironic doesn't stop it from being bad dialogue. Everything about the movie feels like a big underachievement. I just don't like anything about how the film was made. List it (the writing, the costumes, the sets, the locations, the makeup, the visuals, most of the acting (aside from Dennis Hopper and Kyle MacLachlan), the music etc) and I probably don't care for it. Nothing satisfies. Somehow Lynch has a reputation for making visually beautiful movies. I don't know why as I find his visuals to be prosaic and unremarkable at best, and sometimes outright ugly. Blue Velvet looks like crap. There is nothing pretty on screen and his camera placements, framing and editing is poor to average. Also it's got a horrible whiff of the 80s to some of it. Even the film-stock looks ugly as it's harsh and grey with all the vibrant colours bled out (I've got the first edition DVD, a later remaster might improve upon the bad film-stock issue?). Generally poor acting, a weak threadbare script, poor dialogue, a bloated running time, unpleasant visuals, a slow pace and a mediocre director (yeah, I said it) work wonders at underwhelming a few great ideas. This is a true triumph of underachievement. The only redeeming things about Blue Velvet are that Frank Booth is a very memorable screen psycho. And a few scenes in Rossellini's apartment work well enough to at least hint at what a powerful, fascinating film it could have been. There's lots of potential for a great movie here. They didn't even come close. A remake could seriously improve upon it. 2 out of 5 stars" Even though I don't agree with what you just said, I have to say that this is a really smart and interesting breakdown of the film. Good stuff. Why can't we have more posts like this instead of: "DANIEL CRAIG IS A THUG AND BLONDE LOL"?

adambatman82 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 11:29:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: great_badir I couldn't find the other (which I'm pretty sure was from a national US newspaper review or interview), but I did find this - http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue03/features/tarantino1.htm. It contains this quote "other stories have chronicled Tarantino's alleged plagiarism as well as his reluctance to share credit" (although it does then go on to say he's latterly been happy to share his influences, and the article is largely pro-QT). There's also this quote from the man himself, from a QT interview in Empire in 1994 (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Quentin_Tarantino) - "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." (note dodgy last sentence so early on in his career) - this is NOT the same Empire interview I recalled in an earlier post, which was done in tandem with Dogs' release. I admire the effort! But this is just reiterating what I've been saying along! The initial point made was that he's attempted to disguise the fact that he takes from others, when pretty much every thing he's ever said on the matter has been quite the opposite. Saying that tho, I have the complete Film Threat back catalogue on my iPad, I'm gonna have a look through the relevant pre-ResDogs success issues and see if there's anything of note. Rebels On The Backlot is a favourite book of mine on the mid-90's indie explosion, and while it doesn't perform accusations of Tarantino lifting from other films, it does delve in to the idea that he fucked a lot of his friends over when it came to coming up with ideas, which, while a different area to the one initially raised in this thread might actually have something to do with this reputation he seems to have in some quarters for being a pilferer. Part of me suspects that it might be a case of the two things actually being melded together in to one mammoth claim of stealing all 'round.

great_badir -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 11:52:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adambatman82 Saying that tho, I have the complete Film Threat back catalogue on my iPad, I'm gonna have a look through the relevant pre-ResDogs success issues and see if there's anything of note. Although I have always been aware of Film Threat (and it even used to be sold in the WHSmith in Bath, albeit at a silly price a la other specialist and imported mags), I've never read it, so I cannot confirm or deny those claims, merely report that they have been made. quote: Rebels On The Backlot is a favourite book of mine on the mid-90's indie explosion, and while it doesn't perform accusations of Tarantino lifting from other films, it does delve in to the idea that he fucked a lot of his friends over when it came to coming up with ideas, which, while a different area to the one initially raised in this thread might actually have something to do with this reputation he seems to have in some quarters for being a pilferer. Part of me suspects that it might be a case of the two things actually being melded together in to one mammoth claim of stealing all 'round. Again, aware of it but never read it. But you could well be right and, interestingly, I've never heard of this fucking over of friends, so that's a complete bombshell (over egging it significantly, but you understand what I mean) for me. I think one thing we can all agree on (and something which has ample documentary evidence to back it up) is that, probably right up to (and including) Jackie Brown, he was very full of himself and something of an egotistical prick, even by movie-brat standards. Obviously, following (and perhaps because of) those mid to late 90s misfires and disappointments, he's mellowed and has become a bit more humble. My mate interviewed him when he stepped away from directing, acting and writing and moved more into producing (so it would've been '98 or '99 and for God Said "Ha", or one of the From Dusk Till Dawn sequels). Plagiarism/homage was never discussed (nor brought up by my mate), instead the interview apparently (it was a one-off freelance article for a US website, so I've never read it) concentrated mainly on whatever he was working on at the time and what he was planning to do next. My mate said that there was nothing really earth shattering and, when the questions were done and dusted, they both talked about films in general for a good couple of hours (two geeks with shared interests - you know what happens), to the point where my mate was the one making excuses to leave.

rambof07 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (12/9/2012 4:16:40 PM)
quote: ram Titanic is my classic and all time romantic movie. It's really a great love story. We can't forget this movie. Still thousands or more then it fans exist and they like to watch this unforgettable movie. I have seen it lot of time because i like romance. Beautiful picturisation with realistic story make it different from others. I like to watch online at my home because it make it easier and anytime available for me.

pauljthomas -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (13/9/2012 1:02:23 PM)
I was severely underwhelmed by Blade Runner & Apocalypse Now when I saw them a few years ago. They were 2 films I'd been looking forward to seeing for years, when I watched them, I found them quite boring.

TheWhorer -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (19/9/2012 6:02:19 PM)
I had always heard of Powell and Pressburger, but had never seen any of their films. Well a month or two ago i caught The Red Shoes on TCM (i'm an American) and I was blown away with how amazing it was!!! Since then I've been filling the gaps ith Black Narcissus, A Matter of Life and Death, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp....etc I don't understand how the Archers aren't on every list if the greatest filmmakers of all time!

horribleives -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (19/9/2012 9:14:20 PM)
I missed this thread first time round so sorry to bring up an old debate but I was 15 when Reservoir Dogs came out and an avid reader of the music and film press and remember reviews and interviews with/articles about Tarantino appearing in Empire, Premiere, Select, NME and Melody Maker on the eve of the film's release and he was quite open about stealing from other films (and as someone who was - and still is - notorious for repeating himself in interviews I'd wager he even used a variation on the previously repeated 'I steal from every movie ever made' quote). Also, as well as Film 93 there were features on Moviewatch, The Word and whatever that film show on in the middlle of the night presented by Mariella Frostrup was called which mentioned Tarantino's homages. Now I'm not saying City On Fire specifically was definitely mentioned in all of these mags/tv shows but the fact that ...Dogs was heavily indebted to Hong Kong cinema certainly was - I remember an Empire feature not long after the film's release saying as much (and directly referencing COF) and both Graham Linehen in Select, whoever wrote the NME feature and Tarantino himself quite openly discussed it. So I'm not denying the 'homages' are there or trying to convince Great Badir of the film's awesomeness but the idea that this was some big secret which Tarantino tried to keep from everyone until he was rumbled doesn't really wash with me at all.

Coyleone -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (27/9/2012 9:37:59 PM)
More recently, There Will Be Blood was one that I really didn't get the monumental praise for. I thought it was good, really good in fact, but from 2007, I thought The Assassination Of Jesse James (blah blah), Into The Wild and No Country were all far, far superior. I adore literally everything else PTA has ever done though, hence my avatar (Can't wait to see The Master [:)]), so it's weird I wasn't that taken by it. I have only seen it the once though when it first came out. Just didn't feel any connection to any of the people or the story. Citizen Kane is a good film, but imo it's nothing more than that, just good. I didn't really 'enjoy' it that much like a lot of people in this thread seem to have, actually thought it dragged quite badly in places, I just thought that technically and thematically it was impressive, especially for it's time, and it did feel modern too. Definitely don't see how it's anywhere near 'the best film of all time' at all, and I certainly didn't find it an easy going or enjoyable 2 hours, it felt a lot longer to me. The only reason I saw for it to be called the best ever, was because of it's influence and because it was so innovative at the time if I'm being honest. I did go out and buy it on DVD after I saw it though, because I do want to watch it again to see if it was just the mood I was in at the time. Another one that comes to mind is Once Upon A Time In The West. Now this, I actually just didn't like at all. I loved some of the camera work, tracking shots and the amazing score, but apart from that I didn't find anything of merit in it. I get the long shots of nothing happening are obviously to build up tension and to create an atmosphere, but it just bored me to tears. I really wanted to love it, but it just didn't happen. I was actually really relieved when it finished. I found the dialogue to be terribly cringe worthy, and the characters had nothing to make me care what the hell happened to them in the slightest. Well, I hope you don't all hate me now [:D]

MuckyMuckMan -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (28/9/2012 3:38:21 PM)
2001 : A Space Odessey. I have tried on numerous occassions to watch it but on every, and I do mean every, occassion I have fallen asleep. I don't know what it is about the film. Is it the music accompanied by the imagery that sends me into a trance that sends me to sleep? I even bought the Kubrick Bluray boxset and attempted to watch it again........15 mins in......Zzzzzzzzzzzz. I also don't see what all the fuss is about with Citizen Kane. Overhyped and boring.

squeezyrider -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (4/10/2012 1:05:43 PM)
Fargo, without a doubt. God knows I've tried to like it. I've accepted that it's probably just me. I've watched it four times at different times in my life to see if it's an age thing but nope still can't see the point. I say this as a massive Coen Bros fan and with the exception of Fargo and Ladykillers I've liked everything I've seen by them. I can't see that it's funny, it's not exciting, Marge Gundersson's character which could have been a way in and created the necessary engagement seems to be reduced to a funny? accent. That's it. There's also a whole load of classic's that I just don't seem to be able to get round to watching too much Toy Story and Shrek on the telly in our house.

Vitamin F -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (4/10/2012 1:52:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: squeezyrider Fargo, without a doubt. God knows I've tried to like it. I've accepted that it's probably just me. I've watched it four times at different times in my life to see if it's an age thing but nope still can't see the point. I say this as a massive Coen Bros fan and with the exception of Fargo and Ladykillers I've liked everything I've seen by them. I can't see that it's funny, it's not exciting, Marge Gundersson's character which could have been a way in and created the necessary engagement seems to be reduced to a funny? accent. That's it. There's also a whole load of classic's that I just don't seem to be able to get round to watching too much Toy Story and Shrek on the telly in our house. I've posted this somewhere before, but I also never got this film and I don't really know why, considering it's the sort of film I love! Just found it annoying, pointless, trying-too-hard...?...not sure, just can't put my finger on it. I'd originally put it down to a 'the Coens are just jumping on the Tarantino bandwagon!!!' reaction, as I'd been blown away by Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction prior to this coming out, but now know that was clutching at straws for justification.

squeezyrider -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (4/10/2012 3:19:17 PM)
You've used the term pointless there and I think that might be it... There's no real point to anything that happens, no narrative journey, things just happen.

siegfried -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (14/10/2012 3:18:01 AM)
I can think of many, but for now I'll just say pretty much everything Stanley Kubrick ever made, apart from Spartacus.

galvatron -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (14/10/2012 3:40:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vitamin F quote: ORIGINAL: squeezyrider Fargo, without a doubt. God knows I've tried to like it. I've accepted that it's probably just me. I've watched it four times at different times in my life to see if it's an age thing but nope still can't see the point. I say this as a massive Coen Bros fan and with the exception of Fargo and Ladykillers I've liked everything I've seen by them. I can't see that it's funny, it's not exciting, Marge Gundersson's character which could have been a way in and created the necessary engagement seems to be reduced to a funny? accent. That's it. There's also a whole load of classic's that I just don't seem to be able to get round to watching too much Toy Story and Shrek on the telly in our house. I've posted this somewhere before, but I also never got this film and I don't really know why, considering it's the sort of film I love! Just found it annoying, pointless, trying-too-hard...?...not sure, just can't put my finger on it. I'd originally put it down to a 'the Coens are just jumping on the Tarantino bandwagon!!!' reaction, as I'd been blown away by Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction prior to this coming out, but now know that was clutching at straws for justification. Me too, I watched Fargo and just didn't get it at all. I love the Coens but this was something I didn't enjoy at all!

great_badir -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (15/10/2012 1:55:03 PM)
Another confused Fargo victim here. I have the same "problem" (albeit to a lesser extent) with Blood Simple and (to a much lesser extent again) Miller's Crossing. But I think, maybe, I off-set all three of those by whole heartedly embracing Barton Fink. Otherwise I love the Coens.

chris kilby -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (15/10/2012 8:20:00 PM)
I remember being more than a tad underwhelmed by Fargo and The Big Lebowski the first time I saw them. Unrealistically sky-high expectations perhaps. And while I still think Fargo is the Coens' The Departed (good but far from their best so inevitably the one that was showered with Oscars, thus demonstrating the inherent worthlessness of awards) both are definitely "growers." Lebowski especially, which is one of my all-time faves and probably the only comedy I can think of which gets funnier each time I see it. I love the Coen Brothers, but I appreciate that they are the ultimate Marmite filmmakers who leave a lot of people cold. I've always wondered why, though. Too smug? Too aloof? Too deliberately vague (and therefore empty)? Too clever by half? Nobody likes a smartarse? What? Anyone care to enlighten me? Cos I'd genuinely love to know...

Mr Gittes -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (24/3/2013 11:16:55 PM)
That was how my first viewing of Fargo went. But I must say I've grown to adore it and it"s now my second favourite Coen film. I love the honesty in this thread. Very refreshing. It's a shame that there's not been a post for a while but anyway, my movie blind spot would be The Seventh Seal. I've explained this in more detail in another thread, but the gist is that beforehand I thought the whole movie would be about that chess game...and not just five minutes of it. Man, I was disappointed. Painfully boring but I sat through it to the very end. Visually gorgeous for sure but you need more than that to make a good movie (see most of Ridley Scott's recent output). I do blame myself for this one, due to my expectations, but I really don't see it as a movie that I'll ever fall in love with.

directorscut -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (24/3/2013 11:27:07 PM)
Fargo is terrific, if a tad overrated by the "[one of the] best film of the '90s" accolades.. The Big Lebowski is utter crap. The biggest drop in quality from one film to the next by a creative team?

Mr Gittes -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (25/3/2013 11:07:02 AM)
Well, I disagree (with the latter half of your post, that is) but, again, I love the honesty here. Funnily enough, The Big Lebowski is one of the only Coen flicks (along with Blood Simple and No Country) that I loved on first viewing; all the others took a rewatch or two to warm up to me.

MattTheBadger -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (25/3/2013 11:18:02 AM)
No Country For Old Men is my specific Coens blind-spot - couldn't get on with it at all, and I've loved most of what they've done (even Hudsucker Proxy and Intolerable Cruelty which don't get much love). Otherwise Blade Runner and Taxi Driver - two films I was expecting to be blown away by but never really took to my heart like so many others have.

Mr Gittes -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (25/3/2013 12:24:37 PM)
Uuuuunderstaaaaandable! Uuuuunderstaaaaandable! Yes, it's per-fect-ly Uuuuunderstaaaaandable! Which brings me right along to Chicago. Not really considered a classic, I admit, but many people do love it...and I am NOT one of them. It's really hard for me to think of my classic movie blind spots, but one that does come to mind is Pan's Labyrinth. It's a matter of opinion, certainly, but personally I just don't understand how so many people consider it a serious challenge to The Lives Of Others. Oh, another one! Local Hero. Perhaps a repeat viewing will change my mind though. It has been years.

Timon -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (25/3/2013 4:21:08 PM)
Three Colours Trilogy Sunset Boluevard Most Chaplin films Most Miyazaki (apart from Princess Mononoke) Life is Beautiful Just haven't seen them. Oh and De Palma's Scarface.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.015625