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?
Uh, bossy -
You asked for opinions. Fair enough. Seemed to me from your original thread you wanted to have a nice, mature discussion about movies. It seemed that you genuinely were interested in other's opinions about what make a movie a damn fine flick.
But further postings of yours show that your actual intent was to ram your opinions down everyone's throats, and belittle those that don't agree with you. You don't seem too interested in hearing what anyone else has to say. Which would explain why most of this thread is made of posts that only you have the patience to read.
The fact that Im responding so profusely proves that I am listening to what people say. You're right maybe others don't have as much patience than me but thats a risk I'm willing to take. Not trying to ram anything down people's throat. People can read at their leisure. I respond according to what comes my way first and if its too much too read, if the info seems forced dont read it but if I have to resort to writing half-assed answers to very specific questions than I'd just as soon not write at all.
there are some good movies being mentioned here. The problem is when people misread each other which is inevitable in boards like these. Check out other boards and see how offtrack the conversations run cuz of bullshit pride and prejudice.they're all the same.
He's just asking for your advice on what films to watch, because he is so afraid that he may have missed a good movie and he values your opinions so. He would never think of attacking anything you or anyone else says.
Ahhhh, I think he's dreamy.... And so clever, too, in case you didn't notice....
Noone loves me here but f-foxy.
Were it not for f-foxy, I would have given up on this friggin post long ago. But his support keeps me going strong. We should all of us be grateful towards f-foxy for that. A round of applause please for my bitch f-foxy.
I asked about movies that might have struck you as perfect not just likeable so your list would not apply to my original question. As for your fear of being attacked, the pendulum swings both ways, and I only give as good as I get. Thats not a threat just a simple fact.
This will be my last post in this thread. The only time I post I use my screen name. Obviously you are set in your opinions and the rest of us "scrubs" are just morons. If every responce isn't an essay it doesn't make the grade to you. Fine, here's an essay.
In responce to your comments about the Matrix, this is from my original post: ("to name a few. In addition to those already mentioned, I could watch these again and again. ") Translation: I didn't feel like typing the names of the already mentioned movies. And as for your cousin not liking the movie, good for him. ("I challenge you to find 1 person who doesn't like this film. ") was a blanket statement. Honestly, everyboby in the world won't ever like one thing. The odds are against it. You missed the point. It's a groundbreaking film. Back to the Future was not.
Deerhunter didn't need all the wedding stuff, and they could have sped up the hunting trip. It was 3 hrs long. It dragged. I watched it less than a month ago. Great film, but it's flawed none the less.
From what you said about Aliens, Ripley could just have easily been Rambo. And that fits better than your DH analogy. As I said, you can draw parralels so anything, and the last time I checked, DH and Rambo were both fictitious stories using the Vietnam confilict as a backdrop. Get over it. When I first saw Alien, my reaction was "they should just send in the marines and the aliens wouldn't last". Cameron had similar thoughts, but with a different outcome. Almost all sucessful films borrow from other genres. You are looking for a deeper meaning that just isn't there. It's an action/horror movie without an underlying moral. This movie wasn't a statement for or against anything. And I don't think the US government wanted to capture the NVA to further their weapons program (remember Paul Reiser's character? That was the real reason for the Marines going in the first place. Bioweapons). And yes, they are invading their own land. The aliens got there via shipwreck (remember Alien?) Ripley and her crew were a part of a mining firm. They didn't take over the alien's land, they settled in a different area and the aliens eventually found it and invaded. The buildings didn't build themselves. The colonist were there for 25 years before the federation lost contact. And Deerhunter was a movie. Not all VC or NVA forced americans to play russian roulette. That's like saying all US soldiers were baby killers. The aliens are more like wasps than VC. Certain species of wasp will capture spiders, paralize them, and lay their eggs inside of them (sound familiar?) while the spiders are kept alive. And anyways, the VC weren't the major fighting force Vietnam. They were effectively wiped out after the Tet Offensive. The NVA were the hardened troops that ultimately defeated us. The VC were a splinter group that lacked the leadership and the orginization of the NVA.
Thanks for reminding me of Unforgiven. That film was brilliant. As a fan of spagetti westerns, it was a harsh and more realistic look at what could happen if gunfighters and outlaws reached their golden years, and how the past is never as good or bad as one remembers. Eastwood at his finest.
Post back if you like, but your name speaks volumes about your opinions (MEbossyouNOT). You won't agree with anything else but your own opinions, so it's obvious that you have made up your mind (narrow that it is) and have dug in for a fight. I'm sorry that everyone else is wrong. There, I said it, feel better now? Reread my first post. A closed mind is a sign of old age. The only Nam films you like are from the 70's. I guess later ones can't capture the mood that far removed from the war. You have problems with actor driven films? What do you think Indiana Jones and the Godfather were? Ford was riding high from Star Wars, and Brando and Duval were both big names. Pacino was a relative unknown, but James Caan was already a heavy weight. Look at Goodfellows. Similar casting formula. Liota was the relative unknown, Deniro and Pesci weren't. But I guess I shouldn't even mention Goodfellows (based on a true story, btw) in reference to the Godfather. Don't those 2 movies then break you own rules? You sound like the buisness professor in Cocktails, or the teacher in Finding Forrester. Just because you're educated doesn't make you right. And don't assume that everyone else is a "scrub with hlaf-assed answers" because we don't agree with you. There is a difference between education and intelligence. You are the only one defending your original post. So we will agree to disagree. By the way, do you still you movies on betamax, or have you moved up to vhs yet? I here they're working on this new thing called DVD!
At this point I'm not going to even bother about "refuting your opinions" because you seem to equate that with "narrow-mindedness" even though two seperate minds can't help but have seperate opinions that occasionally refute each other. I could pretend to agree with all your opinions to risk offending you but I could also pretend that 2 + 2 = 5.
Another "sign of old age" is bitterness and over-senstivity which you seem to have a lot of. Had your reading not been so bogged down with anger you might have noticed that the term "scrubs" was in reference to someones login name and the term "half-assed answers" was in reference to a hypothetical case. In reference to "you won't agree with anyone elses opinions," I actually did single out movies I was in agreement with "requiem for a dream" and "fight club" and singled out movies I wasn't in agreement with, giving my best explanations for why. Don't know why you have such a problem with that. I see evidence of you committing all the offenses you accuse me of in your own post. I dont take a lot of stock in people's insults because everyone has a different point of view(you implied I was educated but not intelligent while others on this board have alluded that I was intelligent but not educated)but I do respond to misinformation and back-tracking bullshit like your failed challenge about the Matrix being undisputed and you have no right to be mad at me for catching that when what you wrote is clear as day. I may write a lot in my posts but unlike some people here I also read very carefully.
As for that "new thing called DVDs", had YOU bothered to check out the Aliens DVD , you would find an interview with James Cameron (who knows a little something about that move Aliens) speaking at great length on "Aliens" functioning as a Vietnam War piece of his.
You said this is your last post here
is so, best of luck and happy movie watching
but I have a feeling that, like Schwartzeneggar, you'll be back.
(p.s.- since you mentioned MY login name I thought you should know its derivative of a Luc Besson movie. If you dont know which one, though you probably do, go watch his movies and find out cuz he's great.)
I couldn't have picked a better list if I had to, and I like your reasons. The Aliens trilogy is probably my all time favorite though. I'd rank it Number 1 because I remember the first time seing each movie was breath takingly frightening. Then the next countless times were pure joy.
Phenomenal choices.
You will find the perfect movie the same day you find the perfect song or the perfect book, which is never. Any form of art is never perfect: it is subjective. It's personal whether or not you like something or think it's perfect. What you may like I may not, what you think is perfect I may not. Just because you like something a lot and can talk about it, and give reasons you like it don't make it a great or perfect movie. I think the real question here is the timing of when you saw these movies, Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, etc. I was also young at this time and remember walking out of the theater going "whoa what the f*** was that". But what's more important I think now is the use of marketing. We see previews and trailers of movies far in advance of the release date, we know what the movie is about. I don't remember this when I was younger. The information age definetely effects the movie going experience. Finally, movies change over time and effect you differently as you go through in life. For example: I can watch "Field of Dreams" when I am 16 and not really understand it and kinda like it. But when something goes bad with my dad and I see this movie ten years later, and think about us playing catch the movie effects me stronger. Does this make the movie more "perfect" now then when it was before? It's the same movie. Thats why movies are totally subjective and this debate is a exercise in the wrong paramaters being setup.
I think you may be right. It s the best point I've seen posted here so far.
I certainly have had that suspicion for BAck tot he Future and Indiana Jones; if they came out now and were marketed the way hollywood blockbusters and summer event movies are in such an information age I might have lost something from watching them.
But Amadeus and Godfather I find to be harder to fit into that category because they arent action or special effects movies and werent meant to be blockbusters. Plus I watched Godfather for the first time long after it was first released and had heard all about it as far as its reputation and marketing in the past but it still rose above anything I could have imagined.
I went to see the Matrix reloaded last night with a friend of mine who is so afraid of this , so much so that he refuses to watch trailers to any of the movies he wants to go see. (And by the way if you go to see the Matrix reloaded, don't leave during the end credits because there is a trailer for Matrix Revolutions at the end of them/or like my friend you can leave early if your afraid it will spoil the movie for you. This trailer for part three didn't look like a spoiler trailer to me so I wouldnt worry about it. The trailer for this Matrix REloaded I think was more dangerous because during the film, I was too aware of the really cool scenes and shots that I saw on the trailer which used almost all the best ones so I wasn't as wowed as I wouldve been going in fresh. However there was this one INCREDIBLE scene; it was the last climactic moment of a long exciting chase scene in the film that was unbelievable and they didnt put it in the trailers thank God.)
I think you may be right. It s the best point I've seen posted here so far.
I certainly have had that suspicion for BAck tot he Future and Indiana Jones; if they came out now and were marketed the way hollywood blockbusters and summer event movies are in such an information age I might have lost something from watching them.
But Amadeus and Godfather I find to be harder to fit into that category because they arent action or special effects movies and werent meant to be blockbusters. Plus I watched Godfather for the first time long after it was first released and had heard all about it as far as its reputation and marketing in the past but it still rose above anything I could have imagined.
I went to see the Matrix reloaded last night with a friend of mine who is so afraid of this , so much so that he refuses to watch trailers to any of the movies he wants to go see. (And by the way if you go to see the Matrix reloaded, don't leave during the end credits because there is a trailer for Matrix Revolutions at the end of them/or like my friend you can leave early if your afraid it will spoil the movie for you. This trailer for part three didn't look like a spoiler trailer to me so I wouldnt worry about it. The trailer for this Matrix REloaded I think was more dangerous because during the film, I was too aware of the really cool scenes and shots that I saw on the trailer which used almost all the best ones so I wasn't as wowed as I wouldve been going in fresh. However there was this one INCREDIBLE scene; it was the last climactic moment of a long exciting chase scene in the film that was unbelievable and they didnt put it in the trailers thank God.)
That movie was (In the words of OddTodd) "Coolio"
It took me through a man's life without getting boring. In fact, it was as funny as hell and at the same time, very dramatic. And I loved the Vietnam part of the story...Damn, I miss Bubba. He sure did love his shrimp.
I dunno...there has been one movie in the last 10 years that didn't resort to casting or digital effects...Called "bowling for columbine" by Michael Moore, really moved me and if you aren't too narrow minded to sit down and watch it I think it brings something for anyone watching it, not just anti-gun left-wingers.
So if you're looking for "perfect movies" that don't rely on special effects:
Punch-Drunk Love. So good!
Search and Destroy.
(Which is really hard to find for whatever reason. All I can say is Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, John Turturo and Roseanna Arquette)
And for documentaries, this new flick "Winged Migration" is supposed to be fantastic. It's in alterna-theaters now. I haven't seen it yet, but I am one hundred percent positive I will like it more than the Matrix Reloaded.
Thanks somegirl
I was wonderin about that movie.
Im a HUGE fan of PT Anderson.
Was punchdrunk love better or worse than Boogie NIghts, Magnolia or Hard Eight?
I wasn't such a big fan of Magnolia. Too long and a mushy contrived ending. And I never saw Hard Eight. I should check it out.
I loved Boogie Nights, so I would say Punchdrunk love is as good, maybe even better. It was more original, and seeing Adam Sandler actually act was coolio.
Ok ummm so here is my list of top ten movies?
p.s i didnt have the patience to read all the threads so umm assuming we are on the original topic..here goes!!
OH and btw these are in random order...im just listing them here not rating them...ok
1-Amelie(cutest girl in the world..in the cutest town living the cutest life ever!!)
2-Life is beautiful(So uplifting.robert beginini really deserved that oscar..however after pinochio im begging to wonder if he can stretch a lil..u know not be so cutesy..)
3-Dangerous liasons(John Malkovich is awesome..anytime u hate a character with every fibre of ur being (and that was the intend of the character) u know the actor has done his job.)
4-Momento(at the end of he movie i was speechless..)
5-Usual suspect(if u havent seen this one..run out and get it tomorrow no scratch that NOW)
6-LOTR 1 AND 2(For the same reason everyone else liked them ..especially 2 because of smeagul)
7-Queen Margot(French movie with subtitles..a work of art..rent it now)
8-Snatch(blah..blah everyone who has seen it loved it)
9-Cyrano de Bergerac(also a french movie...based on the novel of the same title forgot who the author was..a great movie)
10-Karakter(dutch movie..beautifully writen..beautifully acted)
so ummm these are movies that i saw and clearly left their imprint in my mind..
NOTABLE MENTIONS GO TO:Braveheart,of mice and men,matrix(1 more so then 2), X2,Quills,Indochine,Horseman on the roof(good without even trying..i like that),Brotherhood of the wolves,Unforgiven,amores peros, etc..I COULD GO ON FOR DAYZ..
Highly overrated=gladiator..lame acting and an equally lame screenplay..seriously did they think we would not make the connection with braveheart..boooooooo
ok peace and here is some love..spread it!
Oh wait we're looking for good movies without special effects.released in the past ten years? sorry ma bad..ok ummm how about La Haine-french movie..watch and u'll know what i mean..seriously worth a try check it out..Also usual suspect was good..i dont recall any special effects:)
Ok peace here some more love ..spread it plz:)
it came out late 2001 early 2002..it beat out Amelie for the 2002 oscar for best foreign film....I havent seen it but think its about the war in Bosnia..and the central characters are these two soldiers..one is from bosnia and one is serbian(i saw a long trailer for it:)...sounds interesting ..it seemed like a downer but i think ill give it a chance..thanx.
here's some love..spread it plz..
I'm not a huge movie buff; and I don't think I've ever seen a movie I could honestly call perfect (especially not in the past ten yers). Be that as it may, here are some films I thought stood above the pack in the past ten. Some of these may cut pretty close to the ten-year mark.
12 Monkeys
Pi (for its budget)
Tombstone
Pulp Fiction (this genre quickly tired itself out, however)
Being John Malkovich
Waking Life (not sure if it makes the ten-year mark)
Momento
LA Confidential
Boogie Nights
Castaway (I didn't like it, but it was still well-made)
AI might have made the list if Kubrick had finished it; but, considering Eyes Wide Shut, I'm not so sure.
I left out the obvious LOTR, Matrix, Star Wars, X-Men because, to me, they feel like a different animal. They have a formula that goes beyond simply making a film and falls more into the realm of making a product for mass consumption. That's not to say they weren't good, although some were terrible.
I'm sure there are some great movies I'm forgetting, but most of the movies I've seen in the past ten years have either been giant product endorsements made by clowns with big egos, or junk filler to placate the masses.
I havent seen DAzed and Confused yet but I'll look into Waking Life which I have never heard of.
I'm glad that Tombstone, Pi, Boogie Nights and Castaway were finally recognized. I think Cosmatos got lucky with Tombstone because I dont think hes made another film that is even close to being as good. Aronofsky's great and so was Pi, I just wish his movies weren't as headache-inducingly visceral as they are ingenious. I leave the film with nothing but respect for it but also have the feeling I just sustained a mild form of torture. Boogie
Night's a masterpiece no doubt. I loved Castaway. I think BOb Zemeckis is better at making feel good movies that are convincing than his contemporary, Mr. Speilberg and this one, his non-feel good movie shows hes better at that too.
I'm beginning to think I'm the only one on earth who liked Eyes Wide Shut. oh well.
BTW has anyone seen that film Equilibrium?
Is it worth the time?
I heard it was supposed to outdo the Matrix but I saw some clips from it that looked really dumb. Wondering what people's opinions were on this film before I see it.
...but I'm something of a Christian Bale fan, so I was looking forward to this. It has spectacular fight scenes, and they have developed a special martial art based using two pistols and avoiding bullets based on statistical probablility of bullet trajectory in a gunfight. Lots of great details, but the story and plot can be summed up like this: The Matrix + 1984 + Farenheit 451 = Equilibrium. Overall I liked it, but I admit to liking a lot of dumb movies. Hope this helps.
I've passed Equilibrium by several times in the video store, but now I may rent it.
A low-budget futuristic film I really enjoyed was New Rose Hotel. Starred Willem Dafoe and Christopher Walken -- and based on a story by William Gibson.
The movie you are talking about is indeed a wonderful movie. Having served with the US in Bosnia, I can tell you it is realistic. It was written and directed by a Bosnian, and all the locals who I talked to said it was the best representation of the emotion of the war that they had seen, even when compared to documentaries.
Re: Re: Re: can anyone name a truly perfect movie made in the last 10 years?
May 26 2003, 2:15 PM
I can't be an impartial judge of Fight Club; I'm too big of a fan of the book. I loved the movie, but that may be just because of my love of the book.
Snatch was good, but I can't help but lump it in with the myriad of films that rode the wave of Pulp Fiction's success. I grew quickly tired of the slick, quirky ganster film.
Fear and Loathing was great (Gilliam again?), but I felt like the strait guy watching my friends trip on acid. Also, it was another pale comparison of the book to me. Johnny Depp impressed me for the first time since Edward ScissorHands, though.
I liked Dagon. It was low-budget Lovecraftian horror/gore, but it was creepy in an old-school way that modern horror directors have lost.
Another horror film that stood out in my mind was Cube.
For pure cinematography, check out Heaven & Earth. It's a Japanese film about Samurai. Some of the shots were breathtaking.
I'd just like to say that I can't believe nobody's mentioned Mullholland Dr. Great movie, one that not only CAN be watched multiple times, but NEEDS to be watched multiple times. Happy Viewing.
Wow, I can't believe it took that long to see a David Lynch film in this string!
Couple of things:
- first, not caring what other think of my movie choices is all about not being a novie snob. I don't care what you think of my list. I'm not trying to impress anyone. Isn't the point hey, I like what I like. If I mention a flick and you see it, and like it, good for you. Not me.
- second, Mulholland Dr is typical David Lynch fare. It seems all understandable at first, then goes so far over the top at the end you just look around going WTF? rewind, watch over, do it all over again. no answers. I personally don't like that.
A movie that no-one mentioned was Apollo 13. I know, I know. But in defense, how many movies have been made where we all know what is going to happen, and the director does such a masterful story that we still are kept in suspense? Ron Howard is a terrific story teller.
I just thought of another movie besides Mullholland Dr. "About Shmidt" is a great movie as well. I highly recommend it and if anyone is interested in more movie choices Maxim magazine just put out a special movie edition issue that has some great titles in it.
Man, a life! Why didn't I think of that? I really thought that I had one, but your post really opened my eyes. I'm glad you stopped screwing your sister long enough to join our discussion. When your inbred children and brother/dad stop making a drunken racket, why don't you join us again and tell us what it's like to shove a rat up your ass. You are the expert, Biff.
Ok, I am kinda lazy and skimmed through the list. I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect movie. Whether you like it or not, a movies is gonna have some caveats. But there are a lot of movies out there worth watching; some you have to find on your own, and others might be recommend by yer pals. My picks in no particular order: Clerks, Being J. Malcovich (Starring tOdd), Ran, Battle for Algiers (released more than 10 yrs ago), The Matrix, Memento, Forget Paris and Goldmember. My point being that – many of you will think my choices suck and they probably do in your eyes at least. But what matters most is what you think is a good movie and what others think (especially the critics).
Signs (I know plenty of people hated this but I can watch this over and over and always enjoy it)
Kung-Pow: Enter the Fist (lots of great tricks and you catch something new every time you watch it--if you like this type of movie)
Of course, movie (or "film" for the cool kids) quality is in the "eye of the beholder" so everyone will have a different list. There's some really passionate people out there, too much to read! Oh, and I didn't care for The Matrix, guess that makes me weird in this channel.
American History X
O Brother Where art Thou (afore-mentioned, but it rocks!!!)
Run Lola Run
Finding Nemo
Monsters Inc.
Pirates of the Caribbean
Memento
Moulin Rouge
Death to Smoochy(ie? - I dunno)
High Fidelity
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Lord of the Rings
28 Days Later
The Ring
12 Monkeys
Forrest Gump
A Beautiful Mind
Gladiator
Reservoir Dogs
What do you think? (sorry if some/most have already been mentioned - I haven't read the whole thread..)
lol - sorry, I forgot the original thread asked for movies I think are perfect.
Well - American History X, and Life is Beautiful (!!! I almost forgot that!) umm I loved Moulin Rouge and thought it was perfect for what it was. Well I guess you can say all the movies I listed are perfect in my opinion... I'm sure there are a lot more I missed too...
trainspotting...theres an excellent film that never gets old to me...its just a story of a druggies life and how he tries to change his life and betray his friends...its got a quality where you can pick it up and watch at any time...especially the scene where hes tripping and sees the baby crawling on the ceiling...sweet
c'mon it's pretty easy and obvious that even hollywood is now undertaken by brand new brilliantindependant directors. Independant doesn't always mean poor isn't it. I'll start with those: "Americain psycho" (A pure candy!!!), "Mullholland Drive" ( a proof of ingeniosity), I don't know for the next one, but i'm pretty sure it's niot older than twelve years old...Again with master Lynch "Lost Highway!!!!!" and the unforgetable and delicious "FIGHT CLUB"(wich I consider to be one of the few Really PERFECT and ....Well JUST SO PERFECT movie of all time) Icould get along with much more..,Lock Stock And 2 smocking barrel, PI(y'know the maths stuff!)and from teh same one, Requiem for a dream. those might not all be Truly Perfect but since the king is dead in '99(Stanley!) we have no other choices than catch up with the new comers(they aren't that bad at all).
P.S. I'm aware that some real movies addict might want to crucify me after looking at my "Holywood" choices but I'm the kind of guy that looks at the good points inside the bad points. Since Hollywood stuff is the more diffused on the planet, I'nm pretty amased to see that "quality" is now able to bring enough money to be interesting to hollywood.
P.P.S.S. Sorry for my broken english, I'm a french Guy(from Montreal) Cheers!
I know a few of these were mentioned earlier in the thread, but:
The Goonies
The Breakfast Club
Memento
Boondock Saints
Spiderman 2
The Princess Bride
Empire Records
The 'Burbs
A Christmas Story
The Abyss
There are definitely more than that but that's what I can think of off the top of my head. I agree, there is no such thing as a perfect movie, it all depends on your own taste and personal experiences. I've no doubt many people think at least some of the movies I listed suck totally.
You are two for two for having short comments that crack me up. I still thought the perfect storm was decent I wouldn't say perfect but I enjoyed it, but I guess you are right they did have some "creative freedom" when it comes to the movie. The whole situation does kinda freak me out though.... *splash*
Hey, i havent read all the posts..as soon as i hit the bosses essays i just went straight to the end...
Boss: im not sure if this fits your quota or if it has been mentioned to you before but i found The Boondock Saints to be one of the greatest films ive ever seen...not just the plot, dialogue etc. but Willem Dafoes performance was pure genius. And the apperance of Billy Connely in an un comic role was certainly refreshing.
Also Amelie is up there with the greats..also going back a few decades Gas Light (the one with Angela Lansbury in it, not the other) has to be a firm favorite of mine.
Re: can anyone name a truly perfect movie made in the last 10 years?
November 19 2005, 9:55 PM
Pretty much any action film isn't going to fit the definition of perfection especially "The Matrix". All that shooting going on in Reloaded (on the freeway) and nobody gets a scratch. That kind of thing just gets my goat. Anyway Hollywood has went to the dogs and if anyone wants to find perfection there in my opinion will have a very difficult time. Steven Speilbergs "AI" comes mighty close to perfection if you ask me, but i'm sure that most people aren't going to agree because there wasn't a lot of fake shooting and blood in it. It was outstanding for "Reality" according to the time frame it was set in and how we may imagine the future to be and the acting was great along with a good and imaginative script.
Anyway since hardly any of you Hollywood fans won't go there I will...Foreign movies!!! That's right, if you want to see perfection take it overseas. A couple films that come to mind that, in my opinion, fit perfection:
Ma Vie en Rose (My Life in Pink)
Dear Frankie
You're my Hero (subtitled but a fantastic movie) Sorry no fake shootem up in this one either
Oh and i almost want to say "The Butterfly Effect" was close to perfection too.(was that within the last 10 years?)
What disappoints me is that America's SF movies have fell off. No one can make a SF like we can and I hope we get back on track. "The Alien" series was the best.
