Movies are fun, clever, entertaining, visually and aurally stimulating and obviously have the blessing (or curse?)of modern technological advancement on their side now that digital can make virtually anything happen on screen and sound. So why aren't movies reaching a level of perfection? I've seen more perfect movies (or the closest things to) decades ago. Were the people working in movies smarter, more talented and more inspired back then than they are today? Or is it just my imagination? dont think so cuz I'm naive and if I watch a very well stylized movie with enough bells and whistles on it I can be hustled into thinking Ive seen a close to perfect movie. But then the feeling dies after time and the movie means nothing to me. Remember Back to the future? Indian Jones trilogy? Amadeus? Shawshank Redemption? The Godfather? why dont these kind of movies happen anymore? Sure movies like this come out once in a blue moon but I think a blue moon is due by now.
...and that is not an insult, I think of Shawshank Redemption as a modern perfect movie. If you want to see a perfect movie that broke new ground on special effects without any CG, see Stanley Kubrik's 2001. By your criteria I think that Saving Private Ryan and The Matrix (as well as Shaw. Red.) are perfect recent films. I think that with all the hype around it we tend to forget that The Matrix was just another quirky interesting sci-fi flick in the "Phantom Menace waiting room" before it was released. Now they are breaking new ground all over the place and will probably be considered this generation's Star Wars Trilogy.
...and that is not an insult. I was just pointing out about movies in the last "10" years. So in a strange way I think you agreed with me? So can you name a movie from the last TEN = 10 = X YEARS?????
....and I do agree with you, and I answered your question...3 movies that by your loose criteria were perfect in the last 10 years - Shawshank Redemption, The Matrix, and Saving Private Ryan. I suggested Kubrik's 2001 because you seem to be looking for movies that broke new ground using talent and sweat rather than talent and computers. I said that I thought you were young because you seem to think of Shawshank Redemption as an old movie, but it was only made 9 years ago.
first of all my question was not movies that triumphed without 21st century technology; that was my ANSWER. My question was why there are not movies made recently in 10 years or so (shawshank was 9 years ago so it was long ago enough)that are reaching levels of perfection. My concern is the evolution of films that are trying to come up with "new" ways to grab an audience whether through new technological effects, clever "gotcha didnt I?" plot twists or pop cultural keenness or whatever else is higly overestimated by movie makers to be responsible for a films greatness to the eyes of the highly underestimated general viewer. The fact remains that those movies that I feel reached perfection, not just by craft and vision like Kubrick's(who himself tipped his hat towards The Godfather and the simpsons; works that are so different but ring so true of perfection)but by very basic principles: an inspired filmmaker with a script and cast to match; a movie where everything was not only perfect but perfectly fine-tuned, a Royal-Straight-Flush. And,like in poker, that requires more than a little luck. I'm wondering why filmmakers are so unlucky these days even though we have little things like 21 century technology to make things easier to some extent.
Example: Spiderman, X-men: great digital imagery, fine directors and cast but does not hold a candle to Tim Burton's Batman a movie preceding them by several years.
Its hard for me to explain what I mean by a perfect movie because the ones that seem the most perfect to me are the ones that withstand both the test of time and repeated viewings for reasons rather unknown to me. Even a great film (great because of the actors or the directing or the writing or whatever) will eventually wear thin from prolonged viewing; there are only so many times I can stand watching a film for the parts of the whole rather than the sum, only so long that I can remain dazzled by "that great camera shot" or "that wonderful performance by so and so" or that "witty dialogue" before I go into a "waiting-for-the-next-good-part-of-the-movie" mode and suddenly realizing I'm sitting there "watching a movie"(which is the worst thing a movie can do to you). Great script, great acting and great direction is....great but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing when it is not balanced and supported by the rest of the movie's elements. Sometimes the "good" elements of a movie come across too well trying to coax the viewer into admitting how great the film is in this respect and that respect rather than letting him just watch and enjoy and experience this film. Even cleverness (like a character in one of J.D. Salinger's books said) can be an achilles heel or the wooden leg to the creative process and it is the worse thing to draw attention to it. Basically my rambling point is that very few people can be sure what makes a movie succeed when it does, even the movie makers themselves, because usually the best stuff is the stuff that comes across without being noticed; an actors best work is when you forget he's acting, a score works best when it's felt more than heard, the greatest moments in movies are moments of invisibility. Besides that there needs to be passion as well as a certain level of single mindedness in the films construct, theme and focus(M. Night Shyamalan has this) so that if the tiniest part is removed the whole structure falls. And on top of all THAT a movie needs an unlimited supply of luck. I honestly believe that the magical result of a movie that remains vital and alive in people's minds is the result of the right filmmakers working with the right people on the right material in the right place at the right time regardless of what their credentials have been or will be. Kubrick remarked that when Coppola made the Godfather, he really "hit the nail on the head." I think that's what happens. Every once in a while a filmmaker hits the nail on the head. I don't know why. I'm salieri to that particular mozart, dont know how it works just very aware of it when it does. Can anyone explain why we love the Shawshank redemption so much when we're probably aware of greater actors than Tim Robbins, greater directors than Frank Darabont(though he is great no doubt) and greater literary men than Stephen King(ditto)? It was the circumstance of collaberation. The particular kind of talent that King has for characters and plot meets the particular talent Darabont has for letting a storyteller effectively tell the story no more no less, and the balanced tones of the cast make for the ideal blend or chord of a movie. Take away any number of said elements and you take away the movie. I 'm a huge fan of Tarantino. I loved reservoir dogs and pulp fiction. But I REALLY loved True Romance which is ironic because its one he didnt direct. I believe that director Tony Scott and composer Hans Zimmer, whatever they had to offer Quentin in terms of making this movie better than it might have been otherwise, came through in spades perhaps not through the intention of any of the indiviual party members but by the mere happenstance of the collaberation. That and the fact that it was in its center a romance movie and a fairy tale, lent it a quality that I often felt the absence of in Tarantino's other films but without taking away the slightest edge, substance and taste of Tarantino's super-distinctive script writing(in all likelihood the films different approach probably even enhanced the script's effectiveness to some degree). I prefer movies that get better with each viewing(who doesn't?) but I also want a movie that moves me and if possible mystically affects me otherwise whats a storyteller for? They've always been very rare of course but are they finally extinct? They're sure not as lucky as they used to be.
Oh, sorry. I forgot, using any cinematic device immediately rules a film out...must remember. No clever plots, not a skerric of a recognisable face...hmmm...well, I guess not then.
I dont mind if you smoke a cigarette so long as you don't blow it in my face. Likewise I dont mind clever plot devices so long as they're not JUST for the sake of being clever or a recognisable cast so long as its not JUST for the sake of recognition. Balance is key daniel-san, all good things to those who wait Clarice, and I'm still not satisfied till the spoon stands straight up.
By the way, cleverness was my friend when I saw Men in Black, Memento, Signs, Unbreakable, Rear Window, Sneakers and Run lola Run.
I like recognisable casts too especially in movies made before they were recognisable: The Godfather("whos this Al Pacino guy? kinda short for a mafioso isn't he?"), Boogie Nights(John C. Reilly who? Phillip Seymour Hoffman who? and isnt Mark Wahlberg a rapper?) and the best cast and cameos movie ever, True Romance(So tell me, Brad Pitt, Samuel L. Jackson, James Gandolfini, Tom Sizemore, Chris Penn, Michael Rappaport, and you yeah you the guy who played Balky; what will y'all do if this acting thing dont work out?)
Maybe I'm not catching on....
So, you're talking about a movie that gets bettr every time you watch it, one that doesn't JUST rely on clever plot twists, one that doesn't totally rely on special effects, and one that doesn't over use famous cameos?
What about Bottle Rocket?
Tha Big Lebowski?
Being John Malcovitch?
And I don't think sticking in the general public's mind is really a good judge of greatness--True Romance is one of the best recent movies, but it's not publicly acclaimed by any means.
Some of the best comedies of recent years have to be some of the worst--as far as public attention goes, anyway. Two of the best have to be the Man Who Knew Too Little and Dirty Work. Neither were box office sucesses, neither are showcases of too clever material, neither are too laden with cameos, neither are really THAT good, but damn, they're two of the best comedies I've ever seen.
All good things take time. Its like Tommy LEe Jones said to Will Smith in MIB: "A person is smart, people are dumb." Just because a great movie doesnt generate the numbers opening night doesnt mean the movie won't be convincing to the next lucky bastard that ends up watching it. Give em time and even the "general public" will come to maybe not all at once but its a great thing to see that a movie(better still a financially unsuccessful movie) after 10 years still has the power to win a new audience. True Romance is a relatively big title in video stores today and is staying high on the radar even though theres been practically no new promotion for it since its first release on video(DVDs came out but the film doesnt really need DVD.) Shawshank Redemption did terrible at the box office but flies off the shelves now in video stores. Maybe winning an audience is like breaking out of prison,"all it takes is pressure and time. That and a big goddamn poster."
Ok, I'm just stating an opinion here, not disagreeing with anyone.
I think the reason that the movie the Shawshank Redemption is so good is that the screen writer took an excellent novella by Stephen King and actually improved upon it. I have read that story probably 12 times, mimimum, and i never tire of it. Ditto with the movie.
Someone said that it was a great combination of script, acting, directing, etc. I agree 100% with that, because some of my favorite literature has been destroyed when presented as a film.
What about "Office Space"? I mean, sure its not an Oscar winner or anything... but it truly hits the nail on the head. Same with "This is Spinal Tap". I've been in a band for 4 or 5 years now... and I'm telling ya, watchin that movie is just how it is. Other movies I dig:
The Breakfast Club
Ferris Buellers Day Off
The Crow
Just about anything with Tom Hanks
Sure, maybe they're not "the best".... but even tho I've seen em all 1000 times... I'll still find myself watchin' em again.
I agree with you on your choices. I mean, it's all well and good to point out deep, meaningful movies, but some of the best movies I've seen to date are movies that are low-budget, reality-based films. "Office Space" hits the nail on the head, as does the movie "Clockwatchers" (Lisa Kudrow is the only recognizable face in it) for peole who have suffered the slings and arrows of temp work. "Mallrats" is another of my favorites, because I'm a firm believer in MOST Kevin Smith movies. The casual, real and most of the time humorous approaches are refreshing in today's scene of big-budget actions and deep, meaningful, artsy works.
The audience does not the movie make. Look at how many "classics" are actually unwatchable crap--Gone with the Wind, for example. It's got a huge following, but that doesn't make it a good movie. Most people are morons, so accepting the public's opinion is not the best route to take. (Titanic is a great example of that.)
I didnt say that the general public's view is supreme authority point blank. I meant that over a GOOD deal of sobering time, the general public comes to their senses and change their opinions once in a while lots of times for the worse but sometimes for the better. Sometimes a movie's reputation precedes it. And dont we all realize a movie succeeds not from people's honest opinions of a film but from the amount of tickets they sell before they create the uber preceding reputation that bullies the general public "Watch this movie!!EVeryone ELSE is!!ANd your 13 year old daughter's went for seconds and thirds."
the hell with Titanic and gone with the wind. Who do you know that even talks about those overrated films anymore?
Se7en
Requiem for a dream
The Usual Suspects
Black Hawk Down
Braveheart
Swingers
Fight Club
Dogma
Copland
O Brother Where Art Thou
Go
Snatch
Grosse Point Blank
LOTR
to name a few. In addition to those already mentioned, I could watch these again and again. I don't think film needs to be happy to be "perfect", and that it doesn't have to be serious all the time either. These were of the top of my head. Saying that movies have stopped nearing "perfection" is a loaded statement. It's all in the eye of the beholder. The only one who has to believe it's perfect is yourself. Kinda like saying the last time music was good was in the 70's, or that hip hop isn't music. People have made these claims before, and it tells me that they like what they like, and have given up on music. Nothing wrong with that, but understand that it's a sign of old age. Same holds true for film.
"Were the people working in movies smarter, more talented and more inspired back then than they are today? Or is it just my imagination? dont think so cuz I'm naive and if I watch a very well stylized movie with enough bells and whistles on it I can be hustled into thinking Ive seen a close to perfect movie."
Also note that alot of movies remain near and dear to certain people, but to others look dated (Star Wars comes to mind). Working in the past is good way to add a timelessness to a film. All of the ones you mentioned were recreations of the past when they were made. A few of the ones I mentioned are too.
all excellent films(except Grosse point blank, swingers, and Copland which I havent seen; I'll get back to you on those after Ive seen em)
But I'm not sure those films linger in my mind as perfect rather than really great. I think Fight Club comes closer than Seven not necessarily cuz its a better film technically and structurally but because it balanced the darkness of David Fincher with the satire of the book. I felt that Seven was great but took its darkness too seriously, too real. For that I could go see one of those live footage WWII German Nazi documentaries.
Requiem for a dream was even closer and even more dark but the reason it got away with it was because of its form(which I've never quite seen begore in films); it was an actual requiem, an actual mass for the dead pipe dreams of the characters. In this respect it was actually a horror film of a new breed. The monster is addiction, and like a serial killer slowly but surely and methodically brings the characters one step closer to their doom moment by moment in the film. Great, great film, enhanced the medium like no other, most effective score Ive heard in a while(Kronos quartet rules) acting is up the wazoo(ellen Burstyn was magic) and scared and moved my jaded ass not an ounce less than it had intended. I just wish I was masochistic enough to actually bear to watch the thing over and over again. Braveheart I admire but it doesnt stick to me for some reason other than a perfunctory "great epic freedom war movie". A lot of war movies feel like that to me. Same thing with Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan and most of those vietnam movies that came out in the seventies and eighties. Ever since that first battle scene in Ryan every war movie has focused a bit too much I think on real for real's sake war scenes. The reality of war is not always just the carnage. The ones I really loved were Deer Hunter, Glory, and even Aliens(yes this WAS a vietnam war movie actually).
Dogma I loved cuz of all the clever theological irony/twists and stuff. (what could be more fun that thwarting a nun's beliefs wiht a reference to Alice through the looking glass?) But the Movie had too many scenes and the director doesnt know how to shoot scenes, hence all the humor was in the script not the shots.
Go was cool but is obviously outdone by its model, pulp fiction.
By the way that thing with dated movies. I think it depends on how directors decide to use effects in their films. One of the greatest utilizers of special effects today is Robert Zemeckis because he makes the special effects virtually disappear in the film. Thats why Back to the Future even with its Huey Lewis and skateboards and DeLoreans doesn't feel dated because the effects are balanced by the storyteling not replacing it like "heres the special effects scene" or something. Cast Away (great film btw) is riddled with special effects even digital and very few people noticed which is what makes it so real. Movies like phantomm menace and clone wars need to take a hint cuz like the original star wars these will be outdated soon if not already. The Matrix did a better job fine tuning the special effects with outstanding choreography to have lasting resonance. The puppetry of r2d2 and cthreepio is even to ghetto for halloween(and now even digital JAR JAr falls into that category)but check out 1986's The Fly with Jeff Goldblum. Now there's some special effects puppetry (all non digital) that will never be dated or fail to freak the hell out of me. Dont know if films in the past always makes a film timelessly good. Remember Wild, Wild West, and Man in the Iron Mask?
I dont think a film needs to be happy or serious, I dont even think they can be named that simply, Id call GOdfather tragic rather than serious and Back to gthe future imaginative and adventurous rather than happy. Sure Zemeckis is know for happy stuff, Forrest Gump, Roger Rabbit but so is spielberg and I didnt mention him yet.
I guess I misinterpreted your simple plea for quality veiwing suggestions as a chance for some friendly debate.
I do think that the movies I listed are as perfect as they come, or I would not have mentioned them.
As I said before, taken a little further, if a peice of crap is shoved down my throat, but I refuse to swallow, I can still call it a peice of crap, even if my interpretation is based solely on appearance and aroma.
If you're up for documentaries, American Movie is one of the best things I've ever seen.
What ARE you saying? Sometimes you can judge a movie on people's opinions, and sometimes you can't? Sounds like someone's covering their own ass to me.
So success is monetary success...but success is also a movie holding up over time.... What are you talking about?
And you must not only be naive but also not very well self educated as far as movies go. Any history of movies, be it written or filmed, will mention Gone with the Wind.
Yes, to hell with Titanic, and to hell with uneducated bozos who pretend to know what they're talking about.
...and to hell with illiterate, knee-jerk cynics who need everything spelled out for them. I asked how many people YOU KNOW who even TALK about that movie anymore and you throw me a friggin history book. DO you have like a best friend who's on the board of AFI calling you every weekend to tell you how great gone with the wind and citizen kane and vertigo all were? NO? then shut the hell up cuz a movie getting "critically acclaimed" and a movie dark horse that people take notice of long after its initial box office failure are two very different things. You're saying that a movie shouldnt be judged by the general public view. YOu have it backwards. I'm saying that the general public view is sometimes judged and changed by the movie, a great movie has the power to reform the wayward box-office mentality of people given enough time. Perhaps that won't get it on the AFI list but one look at oscar winners and nominees over the years tells us that the movie geek living next door to you is probably more reliable than the "critical acclaimer". My point wasnt go look up the history books for the most acclaimed movies but take notice of that phenomenon of great underrated, financially unsuccessful movies that never stop growing in their following and be hopeful that "if you build it they will come." Some movies belong in a museum and some of them belong in our recent memory not to mention our vcr or dvd player. People are talking about True Romance like you me and the other saps around here. People are talking about shawshank redemption. If I walk into a movie conversation and mention that title the whole room of faces lights up. People dont talk about Gone with the wind or Titanic other than the faint reminder of their perfunctory status as the "greatest film ever made thats too sophisticated for me" and "The greatest money making machine of movies." Pay attention to movies that reach into people's hearts and minds not just their wallets (or their adolescent teenybopper obsession with LEonardo DiCaprio). So, no you can't judge a movie by the general public and I never even SAID that, but what I AM saying is that when a movie DOES grab people without that initial franchise, without that initial box office craze without that initial oscar-hoopla "see this again cuz it won best picture" bullshit, if sans these things the movie still has an aura of convincing power, thats when you know its for real. Duh. move on. next question. This whole debate is a tangential issue and has little to do with my original question about perfect movies which was are there or arent there ones out there anymore? I dont give a damn if they are or were successful with the general audience or if they did or didnt use special effects. If the whole movie was CGI I dont care so long as its perfect. And do I really have to explain what "perfect" is? ITs something that escapes analysis in the end; but I hope we've all at some point seen a film where the magic of it was so enthralling that we didnt even want to know how it all worked cuz it would ruin it, a movie that left us feeling that we just sat through two hours or so of pure perfection, a miraculous moment that doesnt take any one particular thing but everything plus fine-tuning. If any of us has ever encountered anything perfect in art or music or even in media; a simpsons epiode, an SNL episode, a twilight zone episode or even a perfect commercial on tv, compare it to THAT. AS for you f-foxy, dont even bother trying to analyze my points because you're growing increasingly imperceptive with each response and diminutive("sometimes you can judge a movie by people's opinions and sometimes you can't?sounds like someone covering their own ass to me"-such powers of reasoning). If you're going to call people "uneducated" you should learn how to read. And if you dont have any perfect movies in response to my original QUESTION then go visit a message board that doensnt leave you so confused. I'm beginning to think thats a typo in your login name.
Yeah, rant on.... If you're going to judge a movie by your own criteria, and jump on someone else's back because they made a statement, you'd better be pretty goddamn concise with your definitions.
As I said before, I don't rely on the general populace's opinions for movies--I don't talk to my friends about movies because, unfortunately, most of them are movie idiots.
I guess it was my mistake to think you could carry on an intelligent, educated discussion about films. You obviously are just another of the idiot masses that make films like Titanic such blockbusters, even if you do happen to stumble upon the odd good rental.
Sounde to me like you posted this looking for an argument.
No shouting. If my messages are running a little long its because I'm getting back more questions posted to my question than answers. Answer my question, list your perfect movies (or if there are none say so) and I can rest in peace. Its not that complicated.
don't be hypocritical.
It doesn't look good next to your huge ego.
The only idiot in this mass here is you.
You're so up on your high horse you don't even remember what my orginal question was.
A perfect movie, are they any left? And as I've stated since there's no such thing as a "perfect" judge(that we know of)then it obviously can't be "judged" at all. True perfection convinces without argument. Its empirical. The only criterion I'm offering for the movies I'm looking for is perfection itself and if that definition seems poor or unsatisfying to you thats not my problem because its kind of like a a zen riddle; if I have to tell you the answer, you're not gonna know what I mean anyway.
I already explained how many times the fallacy of Titanic being so successful when its such a bad movie and you're still bothering to bring that up. I wasn't looking for an argument but thanks for wasting my time. For someone who's supposed to be, unlike his friends, so intelligent and educated about films (and you have yet to show evidence of it) you had very little to offer about my main point and decided instead to nitpick my one theory of the duality of general views,then conveniently labelled me your inferior when you couldnt understand it. Too bad. For the record Titanic sucks and so do you cuz obviously you went to see it too. If you're too afraid to reveal what intrinsically strikes you as a perfect movie, like I asked, then go somewhere else to wave around your indignance cuz you're of no use on this board.
My bad.
And I doubt my not understanding has much to do with the fact that few of the ideas presented are readable or understandable, much less identifiable.
I also have a hard time understanding why anyone should post anything they see as perfect, or ask about perfection, if there's no perfect to be had.
Most of my friends are movie idiots, whether due to lack of taste or due to not knowing much about movies, but rather intellegent in other areas. That's why I seek out opinions on movies in other venues.
There are many non-idiots here, but there are also a few idiots. I labeled you an inferior because of your apparant need to attack the personal qualities of others instead of their ideas. If you weren't looking for an argument, you sure had me and my edumacated self fooled.
I did reveal some of what I consider perfect movies, as well as some of the criteria I considered.
I did not see Titanic, but I saw enough of the commercials and read enough about it to make a few statements about it.
Please, don't make your posts crazy long to "answer questions". Just think through what you want to say before you post it, and clean up your format a little. And try not to contradict yourself so much; you negate your own valid points that way. Zen, and only Zen, you may prove your point.
IF you check this board again you'll notice the attack of personal qualities exist in your choice of words:"uneducated bozos", "you obviously are just another of the idiot masses".
Contrary to what you keep insisting upon, I 'm not out to prove a point I'm out to rid myself of this unshakeable fear that perfect movies are becoming extinct. You can agree or disagree or list some movies but what you cant do is indict me if I seem confused when I'm the one who asked the first question.
As for Titanic, you have no business making reference(especially a negative one) on a film you haven't seen. See it for yourself and then say if its unwatchable crap.
I'm asking people to post perfect movies so that I can go see them or consider their reflections on ones I've seen and maybe rid myself of my original, discouraging hypothesis.
Yup, I bite when provoked. I do not attack first.
All I was asking for was clarification (and I wasn't the only one).
You are out to prove a point, otherwise you would have simply asked for "perfect movies". You asked a purposfully provoking question, and an unclear one at that, and you raised people's hackles. Good job.
If a movie is shoved down my throat, and it looks like a peice of crap, I have every right to say it's a piece of crap. I'll give dubious movies a chance, but not obvious peices of crap.
On a more positive note, that last post was much more readable and concise. And (I think) you finally got to the point of what you were trying to say.
First blood as far as I can tell within our exchange here came from you. If you think it came from me, pray tell where.
If I sounded provokingly frustrated in later responses its because you kept inserting arguments to defend points I was already in agreement with. You got really impatient and scornful really fast while I was trying to get you to realize then that your argumentative attitude was not only insignificant but inapplicable because you were firing at a non-existent threat.
Yes you asked for clarification. And then you branded me an "uneducated bozo." I was trying to be clear but its hard when you're sidetracked from your original issue by one offhanded argument to another. But you took it so personally. As if by confusing you I had committed a mortal sin.
No, I'm not out to prove a point, never really was but you'll still deny me that left and right even though I know my own intentions so whatever, you can lead a horse to water but you can't whatever.
And I still don't know where you think you get your balls big enough to say a movie you've never seen is still a piece of crap. That's the most pharisitic comment from a movie watcher I've ever heard of though I'd expect it from your apparent "holier than thou" attitude.
I'm glad I'm finally getting brownie points from you for dotting all my i's and crossing all my t's. Now maybe you'll finally drop that irrelevant dead horse and admit that you were being a tad anal, and that a lot of my ideas, tidy or not, are not moronic but valid and that sometimes the appearance of contradictions is a fundamental obstacle in learning about the truth of things, otherwise, for example, who in their right mind would put any stock in that book called the bible?(and thats just a thought so leave it at that cuz I dont have the time to go into a new theological section here so forget it.)
And are you ever going to name some more movies in the near future? The ones you mentioned before were not your own but somehow a derived prescription of what you felt my criteria was so I'm not counting them unless they are your perfect movies too in which case never mind.
Don't push the generation limit here. I don't think you are of Gone with the wind generation, so it was not made to appeal to your tastes. Don't harass the clasics. If you are of that generation, I appologize.
Being John Malkovich was the best thing out that year I think. The originality of the script would have been a gimmick if it wasn't so damn good. The only problem(not really a problem I guess, but) I had with the film was at some point I lost any and all sympathy I had for the characters(its funny that John Malkovich seemed the most normal one of them in this movie). Except Charlie Sheen who was hysterical. I think they should do a sequel of it with him like "Being Charlie Sheen"
Other great screenplays that come to mind:
Election
Boogie Nights
Glengarry Glen Ross
Heat
Hated it. Great idea, poor execution. Didn't care about the characters. Storyline was very gimmicky. Gave my copy to a friend. So once again, this is only my opinion, but for someone talking about perfect films, this one shouldn't have even come up in the thread. Again, my opinion.
I loved it. I cant stand gimmicky if it doesnt measure up past anything besides the gimmick but I felt the movie was good enough to avoid that even though that insane storyline can't help but draw attention to itself.
Actually this was in reference to someone else's earlier response about BMJ to perfect movies, not mine.
But like I said I loved it very much mostly for its screenplay even if its not on my perfect list.
Re: Re: can anyone name a truly perfect movie made in the last 10 years?
May 13 2003, 9:16 PM
Saw it when it came now but can't remember what happened for some reason in the movie.
I might need to see it again.
I do remember it being a lot better than it's rival, Saving Private Ryan.
1) The point of my post was to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. None of the movies I mentioned are flawed to me. You missed that point. I was able to rattle that list of the top of my head. I could name several other movies for you to dissect, but what would be the point. Are you trying to find movies you may have overlooked or are you just defending your original statement?
Snatch - By no means a cookie cutter gangster flick. Incredibly fun.
The Usual Suspects - Spacy was brilliant, Pollack had the best humor, the story was tight.
Braveheart - {Braveheart I admire but it doesnt stick to me for some reason other than a perfunctory "great epic freedom war movie".} No, that would be the Patriot (Braveheart II) I had tears well up at the ending because I got swept up in the film. Gladiator borrows liberally from it. Beautiful movie, moving story. One of my top 5 all time.
The Lord of the Rings - Tolken started the fantasy gere, and these 2 films delivered. True to the books, visually stunning, escapism at it's finest.
3)Platoon blows Deerhunter out of the water. Don't believe me? Watch them both again. DH could stand to lose about an hour, especially from the beginning. Platoon moves on several levels (Elias and Barnes representing christ and devil figures in Taylors personal hell) and never bogs down needlessly. Tigerland is also a better movie. Aliens was not a Vietnam movie. Explain Ripley's character in reference to that confict. Who is she indicitive of? A hippy? Soldier? VC? NVA? Our govt? Ho Chi Mahn's? Or the fact the Marines "invade" their own land (the colony). Sure there are parallels, but you can draw those from a lot of films. Black Hawk Down should be required viewing in HS history classes (say on the last few days of the semester, when all you do is watch movies and goof off anyways). A true story, very moving.
Aliens is top 100 alltime for me, Back to the Future and Temple of Doom don't even make the list. Neither does Amadeus, but I haven't seen it in about 15 years. See point 1.
My take on some great films:
Fight Club - The first time we seen multiple personality disorder from the perspective of the psycho.
Memento - Chronological genius
Being Malkovich - Most original sceenplay in years.
Fargo - Excellent storytelling, neat and tidy. (don'cha know?)
Sixth Sense - First scary movie in forever.
X2 - you paid for the entire seat, but only used the front edge.
LOTR - masterpiece!!
You all can rail on each other about all this, but who cares what you think? Perfect films don't exist, just some really good ones, and occasionally some genuinely new ideas.
'kay here we go:
1)I didn't miss your point that you listed what you felt were flawless films because obviously that was what I requested in the first place. And yes I AM looking for films I may have overlooked. Fight Club and Requiem for a Dream I agreed were awesome films and they are on your list too so obviously I'm not mistaken. As for the films I disagreed on like Go and Seven, I never said they should be taken off YOUR list, just giving some reasons why they might not be on mine. Would it piss you off less if I just left you hanging by just saying "Nah I just didnt like that stinkin movie."?
2)Don't know why you mention the Matrix not making my list when you didn't list it in yours either. But it doesnt matter. Your challenge has been accepted, your bluff called, you lose. I've found more than one person in the past that have either outright confessed hatred and contempt for that film or simply didn't like it. One of them happens to be my cousin who is one of the best and most reliable resources of mine to finding out good films. He is the silver lining among the cloud of insufferably hollow amateur movie critics that I've known over the years and I've never doubted his pics. SO I was shocked to hear he didnt like the Matrix because it seems like something he would like(I actually loved it and love it still and if I had to guess on a perfect film from this Century that might be my best guess along with three or four others). But who knows? Someone once said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, even if some eyes are better than others.
Snatch I told you I havent seen yet so I cant comment on it and I never did. When I see it I will let you know.
The Usual Suspects I only saw once and am afraid to watch again because I think knowing who Kaiser Soze is might take something away from the first viewing. But since you mention it I just might. I also remember feeling the cleverness of the film was too much for some of the other aspects of the film to measure up to (with the exception of Spacey's performance) but again thats just my feeling from watching it once.
A lot of people have issues with certain genres of film like Romantic comedies or fantasy films or Spielberg movies. I happen to have one with war films, that is to say I feel that a few of them have been able to float for me but for the most part it just feels like a a film that uses the heroics and social realities of war and war ideas to puff itself up. That's just MY opinion and I can understand how Braveheart becomes a favorite(it WAS a great epic war film as I said and I was moved by the ending too) but to me it still felt great in a perfunctory way, an oscar-contender way. (Also I have to confess theres something about actor instigated movies that distance me from them, partly cuz they win a lot of oscars and partly because they seem, in my vague opinion to obey the letter of the law of great movie making if not the spirit; Unforgiven, Dances of Wolves, even though I thought they were great too and was moved by them).
4) I'm getting abuse left and right for saying this but I didn't really like Lord of the Rings. someone once said to me that if you're not into the Tolkien books it wont have as much significance. I havent read the books yet so Im not sure. I DO know that I thought Two Towers was way better. The battles, the pacing, and Smeegel(sp). But I also have qualms about mythological legend-fantasy world that I will post on a seperate board later.
Watch deer hunter again from the beginning. Everything has significance, the relationship between Christopher Walken and Robert De Niro is entirely set up in that first hour to set the significance of that relationship throughout the rest of the film when war is involved. The hunting of the deer scenes incapsulate the theme of the movie and the true damage of war; it taught Christopher Walken to give up hope and innocence(when asked by De Niro's no nonsense character why he wants to go to vietnam, Walken poetically responds "I wanna see where the trees are", De niro at the end repeats those words to him right before he you-know-what to try to bring him back to a sense of who he was at the beginning of the movie. Thats what the vietnam war did, it made them lose not just their lives but their sense of place and identity. Apocalypse now had similar ideas.) De niro's character on the other hand learns more about hope and innocence because of the war and is evident in the second deer hunting scene, where he no longer wants to hunt but to save, in particular his friend Walken, so he goes back to Vietnam(a fantasy of most veterans to go back and save the ones they left behind) only to find that the same russian roulette table in which De Niro pushed Walken over the edge in order to save him now was keeping him from coming back from the edge at the end to save him again. I didnt explain that very well but if you watch the three major Russian roulette scenes in the movie again you'll know what I mean and there are just as many layers in just those scenes as there are in the whole of Platoon. I like Platoon but I thought Deer Hunter surpassed by a few notches because it dealt with the before and after of war which is when war does the most damage to people individually. But to say that that Platoon blew deer hunter out of the water is a bit much. Make sure you watch the movie and see whats really there before you make such exclamatory comments and comparisons.
Speaking of missing whats there, watch Aliens again and you will see it is a vietnam war movie. Ripley represents De Niro's character in Deer Hunter. The mentality of many vietnam war veterans who after going through that kind of trauma is that they never really left. Ripley goes back into the fray where she just came from, back into the hell of her first experience in Alien to feed the notion that somehow she can resolve the trauma by destroying the aliens once and for all and be able to dream good dreams, the bond that she shares with Newt. The Aliens represent the VCs. The director James Cameron mentioned that Aliens like Vietnam was a case of Americans dealing with a faceless enemy not knowing why they were really fighting them or what they really were and even with superior weapons and strategy finding themselves outdone by what they considered a primitive opponent and asking themselves "why are we losing?"
And btw, they were not invading their own land, the colonists originally invaded the Alien's land not knowing they were there. When the colonists were killed and captured the Marines were sent as a rescue party. The VC's kept hostages alive long enough for Russian ROulette and the Aliens kept the colonists alive long enough to use them as hosts for their offspring.
I apologize again for the length of this response but some of these questions require extremely long answers.
As for Amadeus, I implore you to watch it again. This movie is everything I know to be perfect and the closest thing to the heart of Mozart's music as a film can get.
Thanks for apologizing about the length of your post. I know you feel that your answers NEED to be that long, and I know you think that what you have to say is important, but is there just any way you can shorten them? When I see the length, I mentally "switch off," and I don't think I'm the only one. Isn't it better to concisely say what you want and have people READ what you have to say than to write novellas and have NOBODY read them?
