The Pitters' Place

Once Upon a Time in America came out in 1984, not the 70's!!!!!!! You're going to cinephile hell for this!!!! Duck, You Sucker was the Leone that came out in the 70's, though there are some kind of neat things in there. Been a long time since I've seen it at this point.

Malick and McCabe are good counter-examples though. Scorsese does that specific 70's Hollywood thing I mentioned better than others (If only for his approach to character), though even he tried do weird projects like New York, New York to try and change things up by the end of the decade before he nearly killed himself and then made Raging Bull.

Interestinger and interestinger... what specific ending shots?

The main character and his love interest laying on together on a post-apocalyptic beach. In the Crybaby adaptation, its even colored exactly like EoE. Maybe in the morning I'll get some comparisons.

I actually think the silliness of Moonraker fits Moore's rather light-hearted, insouciant take on Bond. Do me a favor though; don't read anything on For Your Eyes Only before/after seeing, and come here and hazard a guess as to what director you think praised it (it's someone you'd never expect).

That's not the one Kubrick helped do the lighting for, is it?

Raxivace wrote:Once Upon a Time in America came out in 1984, not the 70's!!!!!!! You're going to cinephile hell for this!!!!

D'oh! What happened was I had my (ancient at this point) Favorite Films Excel list open and arranged by decade/country. I highlighted all the 70s/USA films and OUATIA was the first 80s films listed and I accidentally highlighted it too. Still no excuse for not remembering it wasn't 80s. :|

Raxivace wrote:Malick and McCabe are good counter-examples though. Scorsese does that specific 70's Hollywood thing I mentioned better than others (If only for his approach to character), though even he tried do weird projects like New York, New York to try and change things up by the end of the decade before he nearly killed himself and then made Raging Bull.

NYNY came to mind as a counter from a visual perspective, but I don't think there's much thematically there.

Raxivace wrote:

Interestinger and interestinger... what specific ending shots?

The main character and his love interest laying on together on a post-apocalyptic beach. In the Crybaby adaptation, its even colored exactly like EoE. Maybe in the morning I'll get some comparisons.

Some comparisons would be awesome.

Raxivace wrote:

I actually think the silliness of Moonraker fits Moore's rather light-hearted, insouciant take on Bond. Do me a favor though; don't read anything on For Your Eyes Only before/after seeing, and come here and hazard a guess as to what director you think praised it (it's someone you'd never expect).

That's not the one Kubrick helped do the lighting for, is it?

No, that was The Spy Who Loved Me when the production designer asked for Kubrick's help on lighting the huge Tanker set.

There's just so much here for me to catch up on! Where was all this movie talk when I was active?

For now, I'll just say that I liked Dances with Wolves too, Raxi, so you aren't alone there. It turned out to be quite poignant, despite the "didactic" message.

I've seen only three movies in the time I've been away. About Schmidt... at the end of which I teared up because only a robot wouldn't. And The Greatest Showman, which I shamelessly admit to enjoying, thanks to the cheesy feel-good pop songs (and choreography). Oh, and I saw Insidious 3, which was kind of hilarious.

I'm not the same man you used to know, maz. A lot has changed in the last 3-4 weeks...the world just isn't how it used to be.

Raxivace wrote:I'm not the same man you used to know, maz. A lot has changed in the last 3-4 weeks...the world just isn't how it used to be.

Oh, stop being dramatic. The Christmas pounds will come right off in a few weeks.

Ghost was great.

I always wondered, what makes Dances with Wolves a white savior film?

I think on the one hand its about a white guy that wants to help the Native American characters, join their culture etc. That understandably sets off alarm bells for some people. It's the kind of premise you do see in white savior narratives from what I understand.

OTOH Dunbar doesn't actually save them ultimately, he doesn't become the greatest member of the tribe immediately even though he's just some white guy etc. I can't say the same thing about, say, the main character of Avatar.

Yeah, I mean the only thing he really does for them is accidentally stumble across a herd of buffalo and then tip them off about it. They save his ass, and then he bails on them, saying some shit like he's put them in too much danger. I can see the point about it romanticizing the benevolent white man who wants to help the natives, though.

It is very unlike Avatar since Dunbar doesn't do anything special or ascend to any high rank or skill among the natives.

The Avatar comparison I always heard was simply that it's about 2 factions at war with one another, and the main character starts out in one faction, and ends up living with and joining the other faction.

Gendo wrote:The Avatar comparison I always heard was simply that it's about 2 factions at war with one another, and the main character starts out in one faction, and ends up living with and joining the other faction.

I mean Cameron straight up mounted a legal defense against plagiarism from someone else by arguing that he actually stole the premise from Dances With Wolves.

EDIT: Wait never mind that's a parody website lol.

25. Something Evil (1972) - A kind of dopey made-for-TV horror movie about a family that moves into a haunted house. It may have been entirely forgotten if it wasn't one of the directorial efforts of a young Steven Spielberg. He can't entirely make this story work but there are some decent sequences and it's nice to see Darren McGavin and Sandy Dennis here. Still, it's just not as solid a film as Duel was.

Spielberg did another made-for-TV movie after this in 1973 called Savage, but from what I can tell it isn't online or even on DVD anywhere.

26. The Atomic Café (1982) - A neat documentary that edits together American post-WWII archival propaganda footage about the nuclear bomb and Cold War to highlight the naiveté we had about it at the time. I suppose that kind of editorial voice makes it a lot like Trump Rally in a way.

I don't know that there's really a whole lot to say about it, though one particular sequence that stood out to me was when the sequence that pantomimed a “bomb" actually being dropped onto America, entirely through different clips (Some even animated) edited together and being set to music (I'm not sure what the song is off of the top of my head). It's strangely emotional, only to (Intentionally) undercut it through more archival propaganda footage afterwards of people having survived a nuclear attack and being a-ok.

27. Duck and Cover (1951) - One of the propaganda shorts that was featured in The Atomic Café. I thought it would be neat to check out after having seen the documentary, but it turns out that the gist of it was already given there.

28. Rain Man (1988) - The 1988 Best Picture Winner. Just seemed like another pretty straightforward drama, with not a lot to really say about it specifically. Good performances, basic competency in the production, ending that's a little bittersweet but not too challenging etc. First Hans Zimmer score in a Hollywood movie though, which is kind of interesting.

I haven't seen any of the other nominees this year. Looking at the Wikipedia page listing all of the nominees, I did think it was strange that Last Temptation of Christ got a Best Director nomination but not a Best Picture nomination though.

29. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) - A pretty solid drama with a very strong central performance from Frances McDormand and an unusual script for Oscar-y movies like this. McDormand plays a woman whose daughter is raped and killed before the plot begins, and months later after no leads to the perpetrator's identity turn up she pressures her local police department into continuing the investigation through paying for three transgressive billboards. This only causes tensions between her and the police to rise, and soon more of the town is dragged into it.

What I really liked about this film how the emphasis wasn't on solving the mystery of the murder (In fact, the murder is still unsolved by the end of the film) but instead more on how a lack of closure to traumatic events affects these characters and only causes trauma to linger and fester. While this film has an axe to grind, it also makes a genuine attempt at showing its most vile characters in a human light. It's also a darkly funny movie, which I didn't really expect going in.

Can't really say too much more without getting bogged down in spoilers.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Some comparisons would be awesome.

Almost forgot about this.

I had to link to the manga page because apparently the image itself was too big. For context, in Devilman humanity has just been completely killed off in an apocalyptic final battle between humanity and Satan. Satan (As in the, Satan of the Bible. This story, uh, goes places.) has been calmly talking to Akira/Devilman, whom he has just defeated in combat, about the nature of God and so on until he realizes he's killed him.

https://i.imgur.com/fEs6pTr.jpg
-Devilman (1972)


-The End of Evangelion (1997)

https://i.imgur.com/tbgTowW.jpg
-Devilman: Crybaby (2018)

The Crybaby shot here was in the middle of zooming out, but it was the closest I could immediately get to still sort of showing the characters while also demonstrating the similar color scheme as the manga page that really plays up the parallel to EoE.

It also kind of reminds me of that supposed original ending for EoE where Shinji is holding Rei's dismembered arm until he realizes there's no body attached to it.

Raxivace wrote:28. Rain Man (1988) - The 1988 Best Picture Winner. Just seemed like another pretty straightforward drama, with not a lot to really say about it specifically. Good performances, basic competency in the production, ending that's a little bittersweet but not too challenging etc.

You will notice this trend with most Oscar noms/winners. I pretty much agree here as well.

Raxivace wrote:

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Some comparisons would be awesome.

Almost forgot about this.

Interesting. I don't see the influence on NGE visually, but perhaps narratively. Definitely see the influence of EOE on the later Devilman, though; no mistaking that color scheme and location!

Eva Yojimbo wrote:

Raxivace wrote:You will notice this trend with most Oscar noms/winners. I pretty much agree here as well.

I think it would be less weird if they only did films like this, but they consistently enough (At least these days) do relatively strange winners like Silence of the Lambs or Unforgiven or No Country For Old Men or Birdman that it really does feel like sometimes the Academy wants to break from that cliche but then they go back to awarding stuff like The King's Speech or Spotlight again.

Raxivace wrote:

Eva Yojimbo wrote:

Raxivace wrote:You will notice this trend with most Oscar noms/winners. I pretty much agree here as well.

I think it would be less weird if they only did films like this, but they consistently enough (At least these days) do relatively strange winners like Silence of the Lambs or Unforgiven or No Country For Old Men or Birdman that it really does feel like sometimes the Academy wants to break from that cliche but then they go back to awarding stuff like The King's Speech or Spotlight again.

It is weird how every now and then they'll award the more out-there/daring films, but I'd say a good 75-80% of the noms/winners fall into the category you described. I also don't think it's accidental that those more daring films seem to have a better track record of holding up over time; perhaps due to their ability to appeal to both the artsy types AND the more middle-brow Academy.

30. Lady Bird (2017) - Do y'all remember those kind of obnoxiously twee coming-of-age indie dramedies that were around from like 2000 until like 2008ish? That's all that this is, and its kind of insufferable.

I feel kind of bad about disliking the only BP nominee directed by a woman but man I just didn't find anything very interesting here at all.

^ Colbert has been gushing about that one. Shame that it doesn't sound that interesting. Did you ever see Frances Ha that Gerwig starred in and co-wrote (and Noah Baumbach directed/co-wrote)? I loved that one.

I never got around to Frances Ha, no.

I loved Frances Ha. Bittersweet and energetic. At the time, I was watching Dunham's Girls so the playful lightness came as a welcome contrast to the Dunham's self-indulgent realism.

maz89 wrote:I loved Frances Ha. Bittersweet and energetic. At the time, I was watching Dunham's Girls so the playful lightness came as a welcome contrast to the Dunham's self-indulgent realism.

I haven't seen Girls either, though I'm not sure if I could watch unbiased now after hearing stories about Lena Dunham for a few years now.

Maz you should watch Lady Bird at some point and tell me if I'm just way off on it or something. "Bittersweet and energetic" also sounds like what LB was going for but the movie obviously didn't land for me. Like everyone else but me seems to like it- even Armond White of all people enjoyed the movie! Armond White!

you should make a negative review of Paddington 2 for the lulz

Derived Absurdity wrote:you should make a negative review of Paddington 2 for the lulz

I've actually been thinking about watching that and the first movie at some point. The few people who saw the first one that I knew of seemed to like it at least.

I enjoyed it. It didn't really stand out to me. It had a good vibe and some surprisingly funny moments. It's on Netflix if you don't know.

31. Diamonds Are Forever (1971) - Bond in the 70's! It seems like a lot of people hate this one, but I dunno I thought it was enjoyable. I liked Bond's rampage in the opening, the goofy identity swapping stuff, the Vegas setting etc. It may be a little campy for a film that's following On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but I think it works well enough.

The big elevator fight in the beginning also reminded me a lot of a similar scene in another movie I've seen in the last few years, but I can't think of what it was. It might have been a Hitchcock film… Any examples of films with similar scenes come to anyone's mind?

32. Darkest Hour (2017) - Winston Churchill biopic. Gary Oldman has a solid central performance, there's a fantastic make-up job on him, and pretty perfunctory directing with the occasional interesting bit (Like the shot that introduces Churchill in the film, where a black screen is brightened by Churchill striking a match, only to reveal him in bed barking orders at maids and so on). It's kind of Oscar baity, and I wasn't that surprised to learn that it was from the same writer as The Theory of Everything. Still, it's a decent enough watch.

33. Platoon (1986) - I know I was dunking on Oliver Stone in Gendo's thread a few days ago, but I actually think Platoon works pretty well. While Stone's views on the Vietnam war are obvious after only a few minutes of screentime, I think his usual didacticism is kept in check by his focus on the experiential aspect of war. I had wondered if the gorgeous cinematography was too gorgeous for a movie like this, but it does convey the all of the mud and rain and rivers and blood super well- much better than The Deer Hunter did at any rate.

I still don't think it quite holds up to Apocalypse Now (A comparison the film itself may be inviting through the casting of Charlie Sheen in a role somewhat similar to the one his father played in Coppola's film. There's also Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket from the year after Platoon to consider, which I think Platoon has an easier time standing up to.), but it's a good film.

Also it was kind of funny to see John C. McGinley here, basically playing a prototypical version of his character from Scrubs of all things.

In college I went on a Vietnam binge and watched Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, and The Deer Hunter all in a row.

I'm sorry to hear that you saved the worst for last.

Gendo wrote:In college I went on a Vietnam binge and watched Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, and The Deer Hunter all in a row.

Just reading this gave me a headache.

Raxivace wrote:I'm sorry to hear that you saved the worst for last.

That list wasn't in any particular order. I can't remember at all what order I watched them in.

Apocalypse Now is easily the worst movie on that list.

BruceSmith78 wrote:Apocalypse Now is easily the worst movie on that list.

There's no world where Apocalypse Now is easily the worst when Deer Hunter is on that list.

I like Deer Hunter. It's not as good as Platoon or Full Metal Jacket, but it's good. Apocalypse Now is unwatchable.

BruceSmith78 wrote:Apocalypse Now is unwatchable.

WTF am I reading?

Raxivace wrote:31. Diamonds Are Forever (1971) - Bond in the 70's! It seems like a lot of people hate this one, but I dunno I thought it was enjoyable. I liked Bond's rampage in the opening, the goofy identity swapping stuff, the Vegas setting etc. It may be a little campy for a film that's following On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but I think it works well enough.

The big elevator fight in the beginning also reminded me a lot of a similar scene in another movie I've seen in the last few years, but I can't think of what it was. It might have been a Hitchcock film… Any examples of films with similar scenes come to anyone's mind?

The problems with DAF are that Connery was too old and looks it, and its awkward attempt to pick up where OHMSS left off despite being so tonally different. Other than that, I think it was a pretty fun entry with some strong highlights. I'm drawing a blank on another elevator fight... TBH the only thing that came to mind was Drive and Captain America TWS.

Raxivace wrote:33. Platoon (1986) - I know I was dunking on Oliver Stone in Gendo's thread a few days ago, but I actually think Platoon works pretty well. While Stone's views on the Vietnam war are obvious after only a few minutes of screentime, I think his usual didacticism is kept in check by his focus on the experiential aspect of war. I had wondered if the gorgeous cinematography was too gorgeous for a movie like this, but it does convey the all of the mud and rain and rivers and blood super well- much better than The Deer Hunter did at any rate.

I still don't think it quite holds up to Apocalypse Now (A comparison the film itself may be inviting through the casting of Charlie Sheen in a role somewhat similar to the one his father played in Coppola's film. There's also Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket from the year after Platoon to consider, which I think Platoon has an easier time standing up to.), but it's a good film.

Also it was kind of funny to see John C. McGinley here, basically playing a prototypical version of his character from Scrubs of all things.

Yeah, Platoon is solid but not really anything special IMO. For capturing the experience it pales next to AN and it's an intellectual lightweight next to FMJ. It works well as a more standard war drama though.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:

BruceSmith78 wrote:Apocalypse Now is unwatchable.

WTF am I reading?

I think he means it in a good way... like, it's so fucking intense and terrifying that it's downright unwatchable. Right? Right?!?!?!

Eva Yojimbo wrote:The problems with DAF are that Connery was too old and looks it, and its awkward attempt to pick up where OHMSS left off despite being so tonally different. Other than that, I think it was a pretty fun entry with some strong highlights. I'm drawing a blank on another elevator fight... TBH the only thing that came to mind was Drive and Captain America TWS.

Yeah I could see finding Connery too old, but I dunno I find Bond so disconnected from reality in these early movies to begin with that it honestly didn't occur to me as I watching it. I've seen people online say its easily the worst one, when I think it probably is at least as good as You Only Live Twice.

It's not Drive or Winter Soldier that I was thinking of, looking at the clips on YouTube again. This is going to bug me for days.

Eva_Yojimbo wrote:Yeah, Platoon is solid but not really anything special IMO. For capturing the experience it pales next to AN and it's an intellectual lightweight next to FMJ. It works well as a more standard war drama though.

Yeah pretty much, though I do like it. I don't think its going to haunt my memory the way that AN does or the better scenes of FMJ do though.

maz89 wrote:I think he means it in a good way... like, it's so fucking intense and terrifying that it's downright unwatchable. Right? Right?!?!?!

We can only hope so...

maz89 wrote:

Eva Yojimbo wrote:

BruceSmith78 wrote:Apocalypse Now is unwatchable.

WTF am I reading?

I think he means it in a good way... like, it's so fucking intense and terrifying that it's downright unwatchable. Right? Right?!?!?!

I certainly hope so.

I think I had this discussion with Eva once before about Apocalypse Now. I tried watching it and never really got into it, but I turned it off when Marlon Brando finally got on screen. We had all this weird, disconnected shit going on (what the fuck was up with Robert Duvall on that beach, it was like a parody that wanted to be serious) that was supposed to build up to this ultimate bad ass or something, and then the guy shows up and I can't understand a single fucking word he says. Martin Sheen just stands there as this weird guy mumbles incoherently, and I was done.

Raxivace wrote:

Eva Yojimbo wrote:The problems with DAF are that Connery was too old and looks it, and its awkward attempt to pick up where OHMSS left off despite being so tonally different. Other than that, I think it was a pretty fun entry with some strong highlights. I'm drawing a blank on another elevator fight... TBH the only thing that came to mind was Drive and Captain America TWS.

Yeah I could see finding Connery too old, but I dunno I find Bond so disconnected from reality in these early movies to begin with that it honestly didn't occur to me as I watching it. I've seen people online say its easily the worst one, when I think it probably is at least as good as You Only Live Twice.

The thing that made OHMSS so good was that it was, for at least one film, more connected with reality than your typical Bond. I think it would've been better if DAF had just pretended like OHMSS hadn't happened, rather than trying to continue the story line while just producing another cartoonish entry.

Yeah, no way is DAF the worst Bond. It may be near the bottom of the Connery era, but Craig, Moore and Brosnan had too many duds to even think about it rating it that low. It's more mid-to-lower tier, IMO.

Just for fun, I think I'll do a quick/rough Bond ranking:

1. From Russia With Love 9/10
2. Goldfinger
3. The Spy Who Loved Me 8.5/10
4. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
5. Goldeneye 8/10
6. Skyfall
7. Thunderball
8. The Living Daylights 7.5/10
9. For Your Eyes Only
10. You Only Live Twice
11. Diamonds Are Forever 7/10
12. Spectre
13. Moonraker 6.5/10
14. The World Is Not Enough
15. Dr. No
16. Casino Royale
17. License to Kill 6/10
18. Tomorrow Never Dies
19. Octopussy
20. Quantum of Solace 5/10
21. The Man With the Golden Gun
22. Live and Let Die 4/10
23. Die Another Day
24. A View to a Kill 3/10

BruceSmith78 wrote:I think I had this discussion with Eva once before about Apocalypse Now. I tried watching it and never really got into it, but I turned it off when Marlon Brando finally got on screen. We had all this weird, disconnected shit going on (what the fuck was up with Robert Duvall on that beach, it was like a parody that wanted to be serious) that was supposed to build up to this ultimate bad ass or something, and then the guy shows up and I can't understand a single fucking word he says. Martin Sheen just stands there as this weird guy mumbles incoherently, and I was done.

People tend to complain about Brando not being what everyone expects, but in an odd way I think he serves as a kind of metaphor for the entire Vietnam War: it wasn't what anyone expected. Brando's character is, I think, intentionally anti-climactic; a way of saying that, no, this isn't some grand mythological monomyth narrative where the hero gets past the gatekeepers in order to encounter the big evil at the end; rather the real evil is the soul of man itself, the very thing that created and drives the war and all wars. Brando is just the kind of bogeyman villain that gets sold so that wars can be fought and people get to project the evil onto someone else. AN also works because it's presented more like an hallucinogenic nightmare than a typical war drama, closer to something like Herzog's Aguirre than Stone's Platoon. If you get into the atmosphere of it, it really does feel like you're living an unreal nightmare, yet one that feels real because of how textured it is visually and aurally. It's simply the most cinematic of all war films, the one that works best on a purely visual/aural/tonal level.

Raxi, maz, and Gendo might appreciate this, but it reminds me a bit of Evangelion, how throughout the series the characters are fighting the "villain" Angels, even though it turns out that humanity are the real villains, and the Angels just become a kind of abstract, villainous representation of the aspects of the characters' selves that they're trying to hide/bury... so much so that the last angel ends up being a "human."

Yeah, you said the same thing last time. Brando was definitely anti-climactic, but for me it wasn't in a good way. I guess it's because I have a very practical mind and symbolism is largely lost on me, or goes right over my head. I don't understand things like atmosphere in films and when people talk about a movie being visually impressive or whatever, I'm usually like, what? All I know is this movie felt disjointed and nonsensical, anti-climactic, Martin Sheen had the personality of a fence post, and I felt like Coppola at some point should have said, "Marlon, we get it, you're creepy and all, but maybe you should enunciate a little bit, because the audience might like to be able to decipher at least some of what you're saying."

Maybe I should give it another look though, since it was around 15 years ago when I tried to watch it, and in a lot of ways I'm a different person now than I was then.

BruceSmith78 wrote:All I know is this movie felt disjointed and nonsensical, anti-climactic, Martin Sheen had the personality of a fence post, and I felt like Coppola at some point should have said, "Marlon, we get it, you're creepy and all, but maybe you should enunciate a little bit, because the audience might like to be able to decipher at least some of what you're saying."

I like to use subtitles so it's possible this enunciation thing never bothered me back when I first saw it.

BruceSmith78 wrote:Maybe I should give it another look though, since it was around 15 years ago when I tried to watch it, and in a lot of ways I'm a different person now than I was then.

15 years? I saw it around 7 years ago and I can't even remember this 'Duvall on a beach' scene you earlier referenced. I need to see it again too. Soon. Once I'm done recuperating from the mental wounds left by Elem Klimov's Come and See, another very harrowing, immersive war film.

I had it on VHS with an old school tube TV, so subtitles weren't an option, but I'm sure that would have helped.

BruceSmith78 wrote:I felt like Coppola at some point should have said, "Marlon, we get it, you're creepy and all, but maybe you should enunciate a little bit, because the audience might like to be able to decipher at least some of what you're saying."

From the little bit I've read about what it took to work with Marlon Brando; I don't think that would have gone over well!

Do you really not get things like atmosphere in movies? I know you said before that you don't care much beyond story and whether a movie entertains you (I think), which I have no problem with, but really all atmosphere is is the mood the movie wants you to feel. Like, it's just the difference between a movie feeling gloomy and depressing and a movie feeling cheery and funny. I mean, the primary difference between a movie like The Ring and a movie like Ghostbusters besides story is just atmosphere/tone.

I fully get having a practical mind and not caring about or not getting symbolism and/or metaphor and all that crap, but... atmosphere is literally just "mood". Like, how you're feeling when you watch it.

34. Wings (1927) - The original Best Picture winner…sort of. There were two awards that were the equivalent to the modern Best Picture category we have today, one for populist films and one for what today we might consider more arthouse-y movies. The latter award went to F.W. Murnau's Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, a very good film that sadly is sometimes left off of Best Picture lists because people suck. The former award went to Wings, which is a very good film in its own right.

The story follows two American fighter pilots in World War I, who battle Germans and occasionally each other as they're both in love with the same woman. One of them even becomes an Ace Pilot known as “The Shooting Star", making it oddly familiar territory considering all of the mecha anime I've been watching the last few years. The story is standard but effective for delivering some absolutely amazing flight combat sequences that I don't see done even now.

Wings is a genuinely great film, and every bit as deserving of accolades as Sunrise was. Also it was a lost film at one point, and was thankfully rediscovered. Thank god.

35. The Blacksmith (1922) - Another Keaton short. This time Buster is a blacksmith is not very good at his job, getting oil and dirt all over cars and horses that he's supposed to be cleaning (It's kind of repetitive)- at one point he accidentally causes a fire even. There are multiple versions of this film apparently, though I think the one I saw was of an older print. Not a whole lot to say about this one otherwise.

36. The Broadway Melody (1929) - The first sound film to win Best Picture, and fittingly it's a musical to boot. Unfortunately I wasn't too into the story or music. Now a days the movie just feels kind of stiff to watch, a limitation of being an early talkie surely, though trying to place myself back in 1929 I can imagine being really wowed by the sound here. It's a really similar reaction I had to the Jazz Singer I guess, though there's a lot of weird stuff about Judaism in that movie that popular culture seemed to entirely forget, and Broadway Melody had nothing that out there. It did have a weird consistent jab at Jack Warner though, which is kind of funny.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Raxi, maz, and Gendo might appreciate this, but it reminds me a bit of Evangelion, how throughout the series the characters are fighting the "villain" Angels, even though it turns out that humanity are the real villains, and the Angels just become a kind of abstract, villainous representation of the aspects of the characters' selves that they're trying to hide/bury... so much so that the last angel ends up being a "human."

I 100% agree with this whole post. I'd never considered Kurtz being like the Angels before, but that's an interesting comparison.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:The thing that made OHMSS so good was that it was, for at least one film, more connected with reality than your typical Bond. I think it would've been better if DAF had just pretended like OHMSS hadn't happened, rather than trying to continue the story line while just producing another cartoonish entry.

I think that's a valid view, though I think DAF more or less ignores OHMSS after that intro. You even get a comedic sequence where Moneypenny tries to get Bond to bring her a diamond for a wedding ring or something, which would have been a horribly insensitive joke if we were still remembering that Bond was just widowed.

Yeah, no way is DAF the worst Bond. It may be near the bottom of the Connery era, but Craig, Moore and Brosnan had too many duds to even think about it rating it that low. It's more mid-to-lower tier, IMO.

I'm a little surprised to see you that hard on the Craig era. I liked Skyfall a lot and seemed to be one of the few that thought Spectre was fun, but I'm a little surprised at how low you have Casino Royale 2006 ranked. Then again I haven't seen that one since it was in theaters.

I remember not liking Quantum of Solace a whole lot, but I can barely remember anything about it. Haven't seen that one since it was in theaters either, and need to give both it and CR '06 a rewatch.

Raxivace wrote:but I'm a little surprised at how low you have Casino Royale 2006 ranked.

I haven't commented on the Bond discussion because I've only seen the Craig films (yeah, I've been told I need to jump on the bandwagon), but that also struck me as odd. I thought Casino Royale was considered to be one of the good ones? I bet Jimbo's low ranking has something to do with his view on how poker was handled in that game.

Derived Absurdity wrote:Do you really not get things like atmosphere in movies? I know you said before that you don't care much beyond story and whether a movie entertains you (I think), which I have no problem with, but really all atmosphere is is the mood the movie wants you to feel. Like, it's just the difference between a movie feeling gloomy and depressing and a movie feeling cheery and funny. I mean, the primary difference between a movie like The Ring and a movie like Ghostbusters besides story is just atmosphere/tone.

I fully get having a practical mind and not caring about or not getting symbolism and/or metaphor and all that crap, but... atmosphere is literally just "mood". Like, how you're feeling when you watch it.

You remember correctly. Atmosphere just strikes me as a fancy way of saying the movie was entertaining. Like if I got sucked into this world they were trying to create and I felt emotions, then it had good “atmosphere". If I was bored, it didn't. Apocalypse Now felt too ridiculous when it was trying to be serious, so I never got invested in anything it was doing, and I was mostly just bored and waiting for a pay off that never came, so in that sense, I guess I'd say it had poor atmosphere?

maz89 wrote:

Raxivace wrote:but I'm a little surprised at how low you have Casino Royale 2006 ranked.

I haven't commented on the Bond discussion because I've only seen the Craig films (yeah, I've been told I need to jump on the bandwagon), but that also struck me as odd. I thought Casino Royale was considered to be one of the good ones? I bet Jimbo's low ranking has something to do with his view on how poker was handled in that game.

Truthfully it was because that I enjoyed the Craig era more than I had expected that made me want to go through the Bonds from the beginning (Other than Dr. No which I remembered fairly well). I had seen a few others but I'm not even sure that they were in their entirety.

BruceSmith78 wrote:Yeah, you said the same thing last time. Brando was definitely anti-climactic, but for me it wasn't in a good way. I guess it's because I have a very practical mind and symbolism is largely lost on me, or goes right over my head. I don't understand things like atmosphere in films and when people talk about a movie being visually impressive or whatever, I'm usually like, what? All I know is this movie felt disjointed and nonsensical, anti-climactic, Martin Sheen had the personality of a fence post, and I felt like Coppola at some point should have said, "Marlon, we get it, you're creepy and all, but maybe you should enunciate a little bit, because the audience might like to be able to decipher at least some of what you're saying."

Maybe I should give it another look though, since it was around 15 years ago when I tried to watch it, and in a lot of ways I'm a different person now than I was then.

Yeah, you might give it another look, but I think given your personality it's just not the type of film that will connect with you. I essentially agree with your criticisms (disjointed, nonsensical, anti-climactic, Marlon mumbling, Sheen lacking personality), I just think those are features rather than flaws. Atmosphere is, like DA said, just another word for mood or tone; it's NOT just another way of saying a film was entertaining. If you think of painting or poetry or music, all of those things are primarily about mood/tone/atmosphere because they usually aren't telling a traditional story. So atmosphere is whatever feeling a film (or any art) is trying to evoke through its aesthetics (visuals, sound, etc.) rather than through its story/characters. I also think there are great films with poor atmosphere and poor films with great atmosphere, so I don't think it's just a synonym for "entertaining."

I guess some people are just more sensitive to it than others. Over the years I've become really disinterested in plot to the point that I love a lot of basically plot-less films that are all about evoking a certain, often very hard to describe, tone. The reason a filmmaker like Hou Hsiao-hsien is a favorite is because I think he does this better than anyone. Malick would be a slightly-more-mainstream director that is also more concerned with tone than stories.