All comments are copy and pasted replete with the original author's boo boos, if any. And yes, it's true that I've only included negative comments. I suppose I just find them more amusing. And just for the record, these are all movies that I adore. I hope you enjoy.
Chinatown (1974) I'll probably have a hoard of film lovers out to flame me for posting this, but I seriously just don't get the purpose of this movie. What does it suggest? What is the point? Is it just some sort of representation of police corruptness in those times?
La Dolce Vita (1960) I dont know why people like this ? I saw it for one hour and i couldnt finish it ,it shows that this movie isnt powerful. Im going to believe that some movies are in the list of tops because MEN like that.I dont like a very long and boring movie about the debaucheries of a man and i dont know whats in this is great. Chinatown (1974)
Persona (1966) I usually give a film around 30 minutes before I decide if I want to continue watching. Kubrick once said that you have around 20 minutes to draw the viewer into a film before they'll lose interest. This is the third Bergman film I've watched. I started with Winter Light, then watched The Seventh Seal and finally this one. Does Bergman at all try to entertain the audience? I really want to like his films, but he puts NO effort into making me care at all. The "golden rule" of film-making (and writing) is "show, don't tell". And all Bergman's films are talking. Talk, talk, talk. And then a shot of a tree or something.
I have really liked classics such as Apocalypse now, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, the Sting, Dr Strangelove etc. I have no Bias against old movies or movies where the special effects and sound quality aren't as good as modern movies.
Therefore, I decided to watch Aguirre de Zorn Gottes. I watched it in German with English subtitles.
Firstly, I found many scenes very flat and boring. For example the part where one of Aguirre's prisoners escaped from the cage is not shown. They simply wake up the next morning and find the guards dead body. There is little emotion, simply a couple of dull lines. You never see that character again, his fate becomes as unresolved issue.
Then you have a scene such as when Aguirre commands that the horse be chucked off the boat. Not only is the scene extremely unprofessional in video and audio but it is just stupid. The character of Aguirre as I understood at that part of the movie, would have been more likely to kill the horse and eat it.
Another thing, If Aguirre was so power hungry why did he appoint that fat, useless, nobleman as leader? In the reality of the jungle the title of nobleman would have meant nothing. I really couldn't envisage that.
And the whole thing of taking a cannon on rafts and through thick jungle seemed really dumb to me as well. Its like they were insane before they even started the trek.
No Country For Old Men (2007) I cant believe my boyfriend likes this movie! We watched it together last night at his place and OMG I was so bored. I mean, nothing's explained at all! This guy steals this satchel full of cash, chancing on it at random, then there's a truck shooting at him for no reason, then there's this nutjob that likes to do the coinflip gets in on the action and other randoms. And then you got the old town sheriff hanging around moaning and groaning. Huh??? In the end nothing is resolved. I just dont see what the praise is all about here. And my boyfriend going crazy over this and getting all into some of the silent stalking scenes is beyond me. UGGGHH!
The Searchers (1956) 8 out of 10 i was expecting to be blown away by this film. The story might have been interesting if it were not for the lame script, poor acting, annoying characters and general dullness of the film. It just seemed rather run of the mill, i can appreciate the scenery , yes its very nice but that doesnt make a great film.
Some people are saying this is the greatest western ever made - well it doesnt compare to any and i mean any of the Clint Eastwood westerns and Shane is far better. In fatc i can think of 20 westerns better than this straight away.
id welcome someone telling me why this is a great film as i have mentioned the 4 fatal flaws already, is there something ive missed ?.
Casablanca (1942) It has a few memorable lines and I really like both Bergman and Bogart; and after hearing all the hype about this movie, I couldn't wait to see it! But after I saw it, I was really dissapointed. To me it's just one of those average movies from the 40s with a good reputation. I don't want to start an argument, I'm just curious for your everybody's thoughts. I'm open to anything!
Annie Hall (1977) The writing reminds me of a 14-year-old dropping vocabulary words like "Freud" and "Kafka-esque experience" in his Gaia Online arguments in a failed attempt to sound intelligent, and I literally cannot imagine how anybody who isn't a New York intellectual in the 70's could even pretend to understand a lick of its conceited jokes. It is the least timeless movie I have ever seen, and it did not deserve to beat Star Wars at the Oscars.
Actually, it doesn't surprise me that the movie was apparently shot as a mystery first with the romance element as a subplot, but with the mystery angle ultimately edited out for the final feature, because that's what watching the movie feels like - a subplot padded into a feature-length production. Just a bunch of one-note scenes playing one after another with little flow or dynamic.
Don't get me wrong, it had its good moments, and i enjoyed some the good script and characters.
But this film DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE IN THE TOP 250. and yet it is ranked in the top 20!!!
I can't even start with the tons of films that are ranked lower and are better than this one.
I really like foriegn films and I usually give independant and foriegn films extra credit, but this film was just too long and too boring.
3 1/2 hours of what?? even at the end that guy that was showing his ass died in a really not clear way.
It was like "what the hell happened? where did that butt naked guy go? WHAT?!! HE DIED??!! WTF???!!!
so please be realistic when you vote for the films you've seen
His Girl Friday (1940) It seems to me that anything mediocre, decent, or even passably OK is revered in our society as something incredible and amazing.
His Girl Friday is a decent movie ... its entertaining. But lets be candid here: the dialogue trick of overlapping lines is used WAY too much, the banter between them is really the stuff of sitcoms. There are a couple of good lines, and some good set-ups and back and forth bickering, but mostly this is corny, undeveloped, one-dimensional characters.
What irks me more about this than anything is that the movie truly makes Cary Grant's character to be "GOOD" even though he is a total prick and *beep* and should have been imprisoned on several occasions. America roots for cads and scumballs based on our Greek / European heritage -- the myth of Ulysses (Odysseus) as told in The Oddessy. Ulysses was a jerk and lied and did whatever he could to survive so he could achieve his goals. In the end he is considered "good" and widely admired because he prevailed. Walter (Cary Grant) is just liket that character.
Cary Grant may have been trying to publish the truth, but all of his actions were personal and selfish (get the girl, sell newspapers, retain power and wealth). Unfortunately, he didn't follow any classicly good values or virtues: he lied, cheated, pushed people around on his own whim, he yelled and screamed and bullied others, he manipulated and had criminal associates. And we're supposed to cheer that "he got the girl?" I found Grant's character to be -- quite simply -- nasty.
His Girl Friday (1940) It seems to me that anything mediocre, decent, or even passably OK is revered in our society as something incredible and amazing.
His Girl Friday is a decent movie ... its entertaining. But lets be candid here: the dialogue trick of overlapping lines is used WAY too much, the banter between them is really the stuff of sitcoms. There are a couple of good lines, and some good set-ups and back and forth bickering, but mostly this is corny, undeveloped, one-dimensional characters.
What irks me more about this than anything is that the movie truly makes Cary Grant's character to be "GOOD" even though he is a total prick and *beep* and should have been imprisoned on several occasions. America roots for cads and scumballs based on our Greek / European heritage -- the myth of Ulysses (Odysseus) as told in The Oddessy. Ulysses was a jerk and lied and did whatever he could to survive so he could achieve his goals. In the end he is considered "good" and widely admired because he prevailed. Walter (Cary Grant) is just liket that character.
Cary Grant may have been trying to publish the truth, but all of his actions were personal and selfish (get the girl, sell newspapers, retain power and wealth). Unfortunately, he didn't follow any classicly good values or virtues: he lied, cheated, pushed people around on his own whim, he yelled and screamed and bullied others, he manipulated and had criminal associates. And we're supposed to cheer that "he got the girl?" I found Grant's character to be -- quite simply -- nasty.
Psycho (1960) just watched it. i didnt find anything so amazing or great about it. just a murder mystery with a twist. YEAH, THATS IT. just like those sleek serial killer movies of 90's.
nothing 'out of world' in it. i guess, even if the movies are old, they should stand the test of time. this movie might have changed they way of making movies or 'revolutionized' movies but watching today , it doesnt leave any expression on mind. but if u look at some movies like shawshank redemption or raiders of last ark , they have stood the test of time. even if they are old, they still great.
i cant say that about this movie. also godfather series still looks great, even watching today.
0 comments:
Post a Comment