Favorite Movies

[Lissa]

Hi,

Then how come no posts in this thread since 2004 until the bot's contribution?

Just guessing, here, but people probably gave their input when the thread first opened. Then they didn't have much to say until they'd seen some more movies. By then the thread was well off the first page, and nobody thought to resurrect it until the bot did it, sorta, by accident.

It was just another case of "out of sight, out of mind".

EDIT: There have been a few film threads since this one went dark. Some of them do mention more recent films, I think.

--Pete

Hi,

I'm the bot, I did a search for 'Netflix'.

I try not to duplicate a topic and found this thread dated 2004 I thought it would be more fun to extend this thread than start my own.

Fragbait 10-22-2004, 02:37 AM Post: #15
King Jim 06-06-2010, 03:32 PM Post: #16

No, you're a necromancer...almost as bad...

[kandrathe]

I try not to duplicate a topic and found this thread dated 2004 I thought it would be more fun to extend this thread than start my own.

My list of the greatest films would include, but not be limited by;

12 Angry Men
The Maltese Falcon
Casablanca
The African Queen
Lawrence of Arabia
Atame'
The Seven Samarai
and then watch The Magnificent Seven
Citizen Kane
LOTR
Howl's Moving Castle
Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo.
Mr. Smith goes to Washington
Apocalypse Now
2001: A Space Odyssey
Patton
Ran
Life Is Beautiful
It's a Wonderful Life
Once Upon a Time in the West
The Longest Day
The Grapes of Wrath
Dressed to Kill
All Quiet on the Western Front
Bringing Up Baby
Kung Fu Hustle
Unforgiven
The Godfather
Smila's Sense of Snow
Escape From New York
The Warriors
Rebecca
The Quiet Man
It Happened One Night
Captain Blood
Like Water for Chocolate
The Wild Bunch
Enter The Dragon
Yojimbo
The Importance of Being Earnest
Gone with the Wind
The Big Red One
Jet Li s Fearless
North by Northwest
Rear Window
Psycho
Vertigo
Gigi
Saving Private Ryan
The Shawshank Redemption
Easy Rider
Blade Runner
Ben-Hur
The Princess Bride
The Ten Commandments
Big Trouble in Little China
Pulp Fiction
Scarface
Requiem for a Dream
Arsenic and Old Lace

And, there is a bunch of other ones that I can't remember the titles of, but I remember parts of the films...

[Jim]

Hi kandrathe,

Very nice list. Gigi, is this the 1958 movie musical?

I'm a BIG Broadway/Movie Musical fan!!!

How about TORA TORA TORA & Midway, since I see you like combat movies ?

[kandrathe]

Gigi, is this the 1958 movie musical?

I'm a BIG Broadway/Movie Musical fan!!!

I like some musicals. They tend to try to support themselves on the musical performance, rather than the other talents required to make a great movie. This one is sweet, but not syrupy. I think this one is great, acting, singing, and directing are all superb. I adore Leslie Caron, and also Audrey Hepburn who played Gigi in the Broadway musical version (my favorite Hepburn film would be Breakfast at Tiffany's). Oklahoma, and White Christmas are other ones I like.

How about TORA TORA TORA & Midway, since I see you like combat movies

They are ok. I like Midway better than Tora, Tora, Tora. I find them both a bit tedious for the same reasons. The subplot in Midway of the pilot's interred Japanese girlfriend was stilted, and jammed into an otherwise mostly documentary film. I think they over did the cluelessness and bungling on the Japanese side.

[Jim]

Gigi, is this the 1958 movie musical?

I'm a BIG Broadway/Movie Musical fan!!!

I like some musicals. They tend to try to support themselves on the musical performance, rather than the other talents required to make a great movie. This one is sweet, but not syrupy. I think this one is great, acting, singing, and directing are all superb. I adore Leslie Caron, and also Audrey Hepburn who played Gigi in the Broadway musical version (my favorite Hepburn film would be Breakfast at Tiffany's). Oklahoma, and White Christmas are other ones I like.

Hi,

I lived on Staten Island NY in the daytime, then Broadway NYC at night.

Oklahoma is one of the Greatest musicals ever. I wanted to play Jud Fry all my life. oh well it's too late now unless they do a 65+ senior version, then I can play Jud Fry.
Hugh Jackson did Curly the TV version, it was Great !!!

Rumor has it that when I was a young man many years ago I looked like George Peppard's twin, maybe that's why I too love Breakfast at Tiffany's.

Mini Biography
Handsome and elegant George Peppard occasionally displayed considerable talent through his career.
......

How about TORA TORA TORA & Midway, since I see you like combat movies

They are ok. I like Midway better than Tora, Tora, Tora. I find them both a bit tedious for the same reasons. The subplot in Midway of the pilot's interred Japanese girlfriend was stilted, and jammed into an otherwise mostly documentary film. I think they over did the cluelessness and bungling on the Japanese side.

I agree the love story in both Midway & Pearl Harbor (2001) ruined these movies.

[Sabra]

I like Swedish film!

Define Swedish!

I'm thinking Bergman of course. How can one not? Smiles of a Summer's Night! Yum! Wild Strawberries? Cries and Whispers? Wow! But I'm also thinking of Lasse Haalstrom's My Life as a Dog; The Emigrants, The New Land and other films by Jan Troell.

There are some exquisite Swedish actors whom I adore, Liv Ullman and Max von Sydow being two favorites of mine, and the contribution to cinematography as a whole by Sven Nyquist is remarkable as well.

Should I continue?

Nah!

[kandrathe]

Should I continue?

You had me at Ingrid Bergman!

[Jim]

King Jim said: Shutter Island, was a very good movie with one of the best surprise endings I've seen in awhile.

Could you please tell me what surprise-ending movies you've seen lately so that I can avoid them. I accurately predicted the ending of Shutter Island from just the preview. I kept waiting for the movie to get interesting and twisted, but it just didn't.

Hi,

I don't believe anyone could accurately predicted the ending of Shutter Island from just the preview/trailer.


For those who did not see this movie, Beware the link below is a Spoiler.
See the Poll at the bottom of the page, "What's the best surprise ending in movie history?"

'Shutter Island': Can a surprise ending eventually hurt a film at the box office?
February 23, 2010 | 6:02 pm

The big reveal has been a staple of the Hollywood film pretty much since Charlton Heston found out, to his great shock, that the apes lived on his own planet.

When the maneuver is handled well, the surprise finale can provide more viewing pleasure than almost any other device. But it's also trickier to pull off than the Double McTwist 1260. Offer too many clues along the way and it's hardly a surprise; point the arrows too far in the other direction and the audience will feel cheated.

M. Night Shyamalan executed the reveal to perfection in "The Sixth Sense" -- in which the conclusion was both an utter surprise and impeccably logical -- before botching it with the left-field contrivances of "Unbreakable." Alejandro Amenabar offered a similar, and similarly pleasurable, twist to "Sixth Sense" in "The Others" (a particular feat since it came just two years after the M. Night film came out, when the audience was primed for a maybe-they're-dead-the-whole time surprise).

And the list continues: "The Usual Suspects," "No Way Out," "The Crying Game" (and, as horror fans may remember, the gender-bending twist of kitsch-horror classic "Sleepaway Camp" -- see our poll below to weigh in with your favorite).

Martin Scorsese tries a version of the trick in his just released "Shutter Island"

(warning: major spoiler alert ahead -- skip to the next paragraph if you've yet to see the film).

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2...twist.html

IMDb user reviews for Shutter Island
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1130884/user...ercomments

All it Takes is One Line of Dialogue to Make an Impact.

There is one line of dialogue, right at the end of Shutter Island before the credits roll, that elevates the emotion of the film and makes it much more powerful. For those of you, like me, who read and enjoyed the novel before seeing the film and felt that the trailers and advertisements for this film were leading you to believe there wouldn't be any narrative surprises in store, think again!

Scorsese's film features that one brief piece of dialogue at the films conclusion that results in an entirely different perception of the final act.

Of all the movies in theatres to see, this is worth your time.

I just saw Shutter Island this evening, just prior to its American release. I have to say this film was full of intrigue. Prior to viewing this film I had built a preconceived notion of what this thriller was going to be like because I was fooled yet again by good marketing when watching the trailer. This is probably not the movie for your average film-goer who wants an easy plot line to follow and little thought required. This movie does challenge the viewer physchologically and definitely holds your attention all the way through.

[LennyLen]

I don't believe anyone could accurately predicted the ending of Shutter Island from just the preview/trailer.

I think it's because I read a lot of Philip K Dick. His novels make Shutter Island seem straight and pedestrian. Shutter Island's *twist* appears in more than one of his works.

P.S. It also only took me about 10-15 minutes to predict the ending of The Sixth Sense as well. Of all the movies listed in the poll on that page (and I've seen all of them), only The Crying Game actually surprised me.

I think if people were to actually read more, they'd realize how poor most major movie storylines are. Blade Runner is a great case in point. They actually had to remove the twist from that movie in the original theatrical release, as they didn't think theatre audiences would understand or accept it. It wasn't until the Director's Cut got released that one of the most important ideas in the movie (and book) was introduced. And the Director's Cut was only a mere shadow of Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep.

SPOILER BELOW!!!!!

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

And besides, having the guy who is sent to investigate the delusional people be delusional himself isn't that much of a twist. It's a shame they didn't keep the ending from the book, but they no doubt had to dumb things down for movie viewers.

[LavCat]

Hi,

I'm still watching Sauna/Filth, once even in slow motion. Unfortunately I can't convince anyone else to see it.

Actually, I did get it from NetFlix a few weeks ago. And, IIRC, at your recommendation. Magi and I watched it for about 20 minutes, but could not really get interested in it. The behavior of the characters seemed somehow wrong, as if they had motives or driving forces that were not brought out in the narrative. They appeared to overreact to some things and to react in strange, almost inappropriate ways to others. Perhaps (probably) we lacked the necessary background to understand the film, but for us, it didn't work.

But I do appreciate the reference. So many films, so little time. Suggestions help.

--Pete

So sorry that Sauna didn't work for you, Pete. Since I can't log onto Stormrage, and am missing Wintergrasp, I went back to see if I could analyze the characters' motives for what was going on. For some reason I don't usually approach movies quite that way, at least on first viewing.

Sauna opens at the conclusion of the Russo-Swedish War. The entire span of action takes place within about a fortnight. The war is said to have been a twenty five year war. Technically the historical Russo-Swedish war was only from 1590 to 1595, but since Russia and Sweden had been fighting most of the time since 1558, a twenty five year war is not far off. The Treaty of Teusina or the Eternal Peace with Sweden, as the Russians call it, was concluded in 1595 and lasted fifteen years -- pretty good for those days -- though neither monarch, Sigismund nor Boris Godunov, ever signed it.

Events at the beginning of the movie stick closely to the description in the treaty. Captain Erik Antinpoika Spore (which I think means son of Antin), leader of the Swedish half of the joint Border Commission, hacks an Orthodox peasant in a border village newly liberated from the Russians. Erik can't quite get used to peace. "Seventy three," he tells his younger brother, Knut. That's the number Erik has killed, men, women, children. Erik obsessively keeps track. The treaty term for the men of the Border Commission is "voivodes", which literally means warlords.

The characters are fictional, but it was a real, historical commission, in a real place and time. Some of the survey marks still stand.

If it helps, imagine the setting were closer to home (i.e. for this purpose, the U.S.), say, in 1783. The geography between the U.S. and Canada was not well known, and the Treaty of Paris created anomalies such as the Northwest Angle of Minnesota. Before the war recall Ohio and some of Minnesota had been part of Quebec. Further imagine there had been a joint Border Commission made up of U.S. and British officers, who were to survey and mark this border.

After the murder Erik realizes they have to leave fast. He is a person of some importance, but in the words of the treaty:

If some rogues on either side have committed a crime or inflicted damage by murdering, robbery, arson or by other crookery, the prevailing peace should not be violated, or war be undertaken, but high commanders and orderlies of both sides should assemble to the boundary at the site of the incident, for investigation and to set a punishment and correction on their sides.

Erik tells Knut to get the people ready. Knut, in some distress, tells his brother he has locked the peasant's daughter in the cellar. Erik says not to worry, that he will let her out. We learn later in a flashback why it was the peaceable and out-of-place Knut had shut her in. While Erik took the peasant's supplies, Knut had thought to rape the daughter. Not sure what motive. Maybe it's a guy thing?

Erik has a pretty clear motive for wanting to get away. Erik and Knut and their men ride to the encampment of their Russian counterparts, led by Vassily Yermolaevich Semenski. Knut see a like spirit in Semenski, who is studying native plants and insects, and who hopes to have a discovery named for him. Knut is hoping for a geography professorship in Stockholm, and is on the Commission only because they are surveying the only unexplored territory of Sweden. What Erik wants is land for his family, and he is rather disappointed with his little brother, whom he dearly loves.

North of their location lies a large swamp. Finland, I am told by a Finnish friend, means literally the land of swamps. Semenski suggests they simply stipulate that the border run straight through the center of the swamp, and just ride around. Erik, wanting to avoid pursuit for the little matter of the dead peasant, says that unless Semenski wants to cede the swamp to Sweden, they must survey and mark the border. Semenski gives in, and they send the horses and most of the team of peasants around the swamp, planning to meet them on the other side.

Erik, Knut and his compass, and three Russians start off through the swamp on foot. Erik is afraid of water because he sees bodies of his victims. Knut is terribly afraid they are being followed by the girl he had almost raped. Of the other two Russians besides Semenski, Captain Musko is in love with Knut. So far all the motives are straightforward and quite clear. Ivan Rogosin is a nice guy, but we don't yet know why he's there. Rogosin is sort of a Greek chorus in a way, speculating about hell. Later Semenski tells Musko: "Ivan mostly cared about the state business." Why this is would be too much of a spoiler.

Then there is Poika. But if you only watched for twenty minutes you probably never met Poika.

Admittedly the plot is dense and hard to follow, though it might help to speak Fininsh and Russian. Not all of the Russian dialog gets subtitles. Plus the people speaking are not always the characters on screen.

In any event, the film won awards for its costumes and sets, not necessarily for its screenplay.

[Sabra]

Should I continue?

You had me at Ingrid Bergman!

!!!

[--Pete]

Hi,

So sorry that Sauna didn't work for you, Pete.

Thank you for the summary and analysis. To some extent it helps to fill in some of the holes that made Sauna inaccessible to us.

Captain Erik Antinpoika Spore (which I think means son of Antin), leader of the Swedish half of the joint Border Commission, hacks an Orthodox peasant in a border village newly liberated from the Russians. Erik can't quite get used to peace. "Seventy three," he tells his younger brother, Knut. That's the number Erik has killed, men, women, children. Erik obsessively keeps track.

This is one of the major stumbling blocks for me, and one of the reasons I gave the movie 20 minutes. Erik's behavior does not seem realistic. Either he had a motive for killing that peasant and, since he didn't rape the daughter, I'm at a loss for what that motive might be. Or he is insane, which might be the case, but did not come across to me. In any case, one of what I would presume is a defining moment of the movie is not developed to my understanding.

Erik has a pretty clear motive for wanting to get away.

But not, IMO, a motive for his motive.

Then there is Poika. But if you only watched for twenty minutes you probably never met Poika.

Indeed, I did not.

In any event, the film won awards for its costumes and sets, not necessarily for its screenplay.

Although I've only see it done a few times, one of my favorite forms of theater is when there are no props, no costumes, no effects. (Jim, help me out here, what's it called?). The actors just speak their lines and act. If done well, it is excellent -- the play becomes a guide for the story unfolding in your mind. Plot, character development, and acting. That's the tripod that supports my concept of good theater. Replace 'acting' with 'writing' and you've got my standard for literature. To further mix metaphors: costumes and sets are like lettuce and tomato. They can make a good hamburger better, but they can't save a bad burger.

Not that I think Sauna is a bad burger -- it's just not one to my taste.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Although I've only see it done a few times, one of my favorite forms of theater is when there are no props, no costumes, no effects. (Jim, help me out here, what's it called?). The actors just speak their lines and act. If done well, it is excellent -- the play becomes a guide for the story unfolding in your mind. Plot, character development, and acting. That's the tripod that supports my concept of good theater. Replace 'acting' with 'writing' and you've got my standard for literature. To further mix metaphors: costumes and sets are like lettuce and tomato. They can make a good hamburger better, but they can't save a bad burger.

I'm not Jim, but I play one in a minimalist theater.

I wish Heaven's Gate had some meat. But, alas. It is all tomato.

[Jim]

(Jim, help me out here, what's it called?). The actors just speak their lines and act. If done well, it is excellent -- the play becomes a guide for the story unfolding in your mind. Plot, character development, and acting. That's the tripod that supports my concept of good theater. Replace 'acting' with 'writing' and you've got my standard for literature. To further mix metaphors: costumes and sets are like lettuce and tomato. They can make a good hamburger better, but they can't save a bad burger.

--Pete

Hi,

RADIO ?

j/k, a little humor for my dear friend Pete.

Reading or Staged Readings, is the best I can come up with after googling.

James Earl Jones plays Paul Robeson:

James Earl Jones is outstanding, with only a few props and a bare stage, in portraying Robeson's life and truly heroic spirit, with a magnificent performance that matches the remarkable subject.

I had the pleasure of seeing this show on broadway with James Earl Jones, best part is I got to meet Darth Vader in his dressing room after the show. A very fond memory.

Another play done well without Sets, Props & Costumes is a Musical, Your a Good Man Charlie Brown. It's minimalist theatre as kandrathe suggested...aka 'Readers Theatre'
[Readers Theatre is a form of minimalist theatre. Students read from prepared scripts either adapted from stories or they create their own scripts. They use limited actions and the setting does not require complex organisation or arrangements of props.]

kandrathe said, but I play one in a minimalist theater.

You played a Tomato?

[--Pete]

Hi,

'm not Jim, but I play one in a minimalist theater.

Good phrase, but not familiar. I think I'll use it until something better comes along.

Reading or Staged Readings, is the best I can come up with after googling.

Neither of those two phrases rings a bell.

I remember three such performances. One was a presentation of The Tempest which was good except for the actors delivering their lines too quickly -- a common fault in amateur and even professional Shakespearian performances. Another was an excellent presentation of Miller's The Crucible, probably my favorite ( ) of his plays. The third, I remember little of. It might have been one of Ibsen's works, which I usually find too introverted to keep my interest. It was, as I recall, a well performed, tedious, story of a man unsure of his worth. Could have been The Master Builder, or I could have read that and it was something entirely different.

--Pete

[LavCat]

Hi,

[quote='LavCat' pid='176139' dateline='1276083552']

Captain Erik Antinpoika Spore (which I think means son of Antin), leader of the Swedish half of the joint Border Commission, hacks an Orthodox peasant in a border village newly liberated from the Russians. Erik can't quite get used to peace. "Seventy three," he tells his younger brother, Knut. That's the number Erik has killed, men, women, children. Erik obsessively keeps track.

This is one of the major stumbling blocks for me, and one of the reasons I gave the movie 20 minutes. Erik's behavior does not seem realistic. Either he had a motive for killing that peasant and, since he didn't rape the daughter, I'm at a loss for what that motive might be. Or he is insane, which might be the case, but did not come across to me. In any case, one of what I would presume is a defining moment of the movie is not developed to my understanding.

Erik has a pretty clear motive for wanting to get away.

But not, IMO, a motive for his motive.

A good point, and one which Knut brings up to Erik in the middle of the movie, in the middle of the swamp:

Erik: "I've done worse than left a little girl in the cellar."
Knut: "Not everyone has." "You killed the girl's father."
Erik: "I was defending my life and yours." "Did you see that ax?"
Knut: [Looking his brother in the eye.] "No I didn't."

And later:
Erik: "Why did you lock her in there?"
Knut: "To protect her from you."
Erik: "So it was me who lusted after that skinny, breastless stick figure. Whoop-de-do. You thought about how it would feel to rape the hell out of a young girl like that. That is the dirty truth, which the honored professor wanted to lock up in there. Is it ever worth letting such a thought out of there?"

The following day, left alone and working on his documents, Knut sees sheets of paper on the ground and follows them to the Russians' quarters, where he finds the body of Rogosin. There is a cut to Captain Musko speaking. Semenski translates: "Musko said that Rogosin used his wrist for an ink bottle."

Semenski collects the papers and reads: "Rogosin seems to think that he's been locked in a cellar. Like a small child. There is food and maybe drink in the cellar. Rogosin drinks his own blood because he's afraid.

Erik: "What is he afraid of?"

Semenski: "There is someone else in the cellar. Rogosin fears that they will notice him."

In Finnish, I am told, pronouns have no gender reference. What did happen in that house and cellar? Sauna does not give answers easily, if ever. Did you stop reading Conan Doyle when the dog did nothing in the night?

And, no, Semenski did not read everything.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Did you stop reading Conan Doyle when the dog did nothing in the night?

Why was this necessary? The two are nowhere near comparable. I have, very often, set a book aside after a chapter. You're born, you will die. All you will ever have is the time between those two events. Why waste any of it on something that you find boring on the chance that eventually it will become interesting?

You enjoy Sauna, I didn't. It's that simple, really. Discussing our reasons for our feelings broadens our understanding of the movie, of ourselves, and of each other. Implying that the other is wrong in a matter of opinion goes beyond discussion. It borders on proselytizing, something I find distasteful.

--Pete

[LavCat]

Hi,

Did you stop reading Conan Doyle when the dog did nothing in the night?

Why was this necessary? The two are nowhere near comparable.

Agreed, not comparable except incongruous events.

I'll stop proselytizing.

[NuurAbSaal]

I have, very often, set a book aside after a chapter.

I almost lost faith in The Road, by Cormack McCarthy. I'm glad I read on. No point in watching the movie now. It can never be as gripping.
Gripping, as in: I bought the book around midday today, then read it in one sitting this afternoon. I'm still "resonating".

Can't wait for Blood Meridian to arrive, it should be here next friday.

take care
Tarabulus

P.S.: Oh yeah, great movies

Bram Stoker's Dracula, by F.F. Coppola
Visuals are breathtaking, even after 10+ viewings.

[LavCat]

P.S.: Oh yeah, great movies

Bram Stoker's Dracula, by F.F. Coppola
Visuals are breathtaking, even after 10+ viewings.

Dracula was a book that after reading I could not want to watch the movie!