[Show spoiler]The blend worked well for me. It began with the grieving for loss of life then went on to give us a perception of just what one life really means (in the context of the universe and in the context of a family), before coming to the mother's acceptance. From the grieving, I felt it transitioned smoothly into a 'general meaning of life/origins of the universe' meditation with the mother saying "Who are we to You?" just before the sequence. Afterwards, zooming in as close as possible for the viewer to experience the smallest details of one family's life (with symbolism throughout). And in the end, zooming back out to show the end of the universe and of course, Jack's resolution. It's a comprehensive view of life itself and a spiritual experience.
One problem I have is I think Brad Pitt's role should have been a bit harsher. I wasn't too convinced he was all that intimidating. Malick kind of left that up to our imagination I guess. It might have been so that the viewer can relate to his character as well and see him as a victim himself.
I suspect that to be the case, and for more reasons than just seeing him as a victim. Remember his line "I wanted to teach you to be your own boss". ? I think that shows that he was vulnerable like all of us. He may even have viewed himself on some small scale as a minor failure. I also believe that if his character were TOO rugged (physically violent) it would have made his sons ability to forgive feel unlikely. At least to me.
[Show spoiler]Have you ever read a list like this before?
Doesn't it seem a little arrogant to believe that if you like something it should be seen by everyone?
Think about it logically for a moment. Movies appeal to different people for different reasons. If you detest musicals, do you really want to watch The Sound of Music or The Wizard of Oz? If you don't like violence, will you enjoy Casino or Goodfellas? If you can't bear to watch a subtitled film, will you subject yourself to Das Boot or The Bicycle Thief?
Some people will never watch a black and white film. Others will avoid movies in which an animal dies or gets hurt.
Do you avoid movies with nudity, swearing, or extreme sadness? Can you sit down and watch something that runs for three or four hours, or will you only watch shorter movies?
Do you avoid certain genres or find yourself only watching comedy or action movies?
There is so much to consider when recommending a movie to other people. I regularly try to suggest titles to three or four different groups of friends. I want them to enjoy my selections, but I also want to wow them or broaden their horizons. It's enjoyable seeing friends react when they are watching a movie you have seen several times. Well, it's enjoyable if they end up liking it. It's not much fun knowing that you wasted two hours of someone's life. It doesn't matter how well you think you know a person, one tiny little scene can ruin the movie for them.
With all that in mind, it's clearly impossible to make a sweeping statement such as, "Here are 100 movies you must see before you die." That list differs depending on your audience.
How do you even judge which 100 should be on your list? Should you include movies that introduced ideas or techniques which changed the way movies were made? What about just listing your 100 favorites? Could you even determine your 100 favorites, or would your list have changed by the time you finished compiling it?
What is the purpose of such a list anyway? Are you trying to show people that you have a vast amount of film knowledge? Or are you brave enough to list personal favorites that you know will be ridiculed by some of your audience?
Is the list for you, or is it for your audience?
In my case, I have decided to include 100 movies which are important to me in some way. I admire everything on the list, but the reasons for choosing each title vary. I have also decided not to just list 100 movies I love. I'm a fan of certain directors and actors, but including everything they have produced serves very little purpose.
One of the aims of this exercise is to introduce you to new movies. The best way I can think of to do that is to suggest other titles you may like if you like one of the 100 on my list. So, for each movie, I will include suggestions for similar films.
You have probably noticed that if I do that I'll have considerably more films than 100. Not only that, you'll realize that if you don't like 50 of the films on my list, there's very little point in investigating suggestions related to those particular titles. That's the idea.
I hope that my ramblings so far make some kind of sense and that you see what I am trying for here. I'm not an authority on film like Roger Ebert. He's been around a long time and has been reviewing films for a living for over 40 years.
I'm passionate about film and have been around a while too, but I wasn't always the person I am now. The importance of film is still quite a new realization to me and exploring the medium has only been a big part of my life for the past five years.
If I omit one of your favorites, it may mean that I simply haven't seen it. Or it could mean that it's just not my kind of film. Many on the following list will be loved by some of you and despised by others. There probably aren't two people on earth who would list exactly the same 100 films on a list like this.
Now that you know my reasoning, intent and (lack of) qualifications, I'll start the list. It will be in alphabetical order and I'll add to it when I have the time and inspiration.
1. 12 Angry Men (1957)
Drama, 96 minutes
Directed by Sidney Lumet
Starring Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb and Martin Balsam
Sidney Lumet passed away in 2011, but he left us with 72 films, shorts or TV series. This was his first feature for the big screen and it's definitely among his best work.
For me, one of the signs of a good film is to take a subject in which I have no interest and hold my attention for the duration. The story takes place in one room, apart from a couple of minutes at the beginning and end of the film. It succeeds because of the strength of the dialogue and the acting ability of all involved.
After a very compact 96 minutes in which no scene is wasted, the credits roll. I'm left with the feeling that I have just seen something important. The film deals with racism and highlights the good and bad points of the American justice system. Henry Fonda leads a strong cast and every member has a significant role to play.
Lumet used a variety of camera angles to make the viewer feel like a member of the jury and it's easy to be drawn in. This is one of those rare stories where dialogue is actually exciting. It's really something that has the potential to be enjoyed by any audience.
Criterion's recent Blu-ray release offers a wonderful presentation and includes a good supplemental package.
If you like 12 Angry Men:
Consider Dog Day Afternoon for another great Lumet film. Al Pacino stars in the tale of how a bank robbery captured the attention of the media.
If you enjoyed the dialogue in 12 Angry Men, take a look at Glengarry Glen Ross, which is another film that succeeds on the strength of its script. Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon and Ed Harris speak David Mamet's words with utter conviction in a tale involving a group of salesmen.
Sidney Lumet passed away????
Liking the list. I'm following it on your Twitter.
And thats an issue for me when it comes to Malick. He convolutes/comingles himself with his characters and it doesnt work for me.
wow, very astute criticism of him. I've probably heard it before, but not worded that well. I felt that more during Thin Red Line, not Tree of Life. I was convinced the characters were in "fountain mode" here (dreaming/imagining the space/dream sequences), so I guess that's why it worked for me.
Quote:
Oh, and also because The Fountain is a vastly superior movie on every single level, thats why!!!! Seriously though, they could go toe-to-toe in a battle of cinematography and use of sound.
haha good point (about them going toe-to-toe). Why do you think I've got The Fountain on my Ipod and have listened to the soundtrack 1000+ times?
wow, very astute criticism of him. I've probably heard it before, but not worded that well.
Thanks. Being brilliant is fun.
Quote:
I was convinced the characters were in "fountain mode" here (dreaming/imagining the space/dream sequences),
Interesting. That completely explains why it worked for you. Can you describe a scene/edit/transition that helped you feel that way? Perhaps I missed something. I could clearly see that young Jack as well as old Jack both spent a LOT of time in serious contemplation mode, but I never saw him drift off into those thoughts. What did I miss? Help a brother out.
[Show spoiler]
AKA "Pondering The Meaning of Life and My Childhood"
Written and directed by Terrence Malick's Inner Child. Not meant as an insult.
The cinemetography and score were outstanding. Malicks editing style just doesnt work for me, too distracting.
Acting from the adults was good, and GREAT from the kids.
Malick really lost track of Pitt's here/gone/here again/gone again accent. Jarring for me because it was a potent accent one moment and then altogether missing at other times.
Themes? Serious stuff, sure, the things I have found myself wondering about numerous times in my adult life. I enjoyed the dreaming in wonderment about "what it all could mean", and I enjoyed the traditional "Family Story". I also believe that mixing the two in the same movie was a mistake.
I found almost every scene touching and beautiful, but the whole left me barely satisfied.
I never once looked at my watch, yet I'll never revisit it.
3/5
Blu-ray PQ and AQ were reference level.
Well, at least you aren't bashing the hell out of it. Good review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy
But does it have as good PQ and AQ?
...crap, I was looking at the wrong movie. I thought we were talking about "Life is Beautiful," didn't realize you linked it to "Kill List."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy
Also not really a holocaust marathon, just looking at the holocaust in one of my lessons at class, it's Life is Beautiful, Schindler's List and Night and Fog
My watch list for the next few weeks is:
Schindler's List
Night and Fog
The Skin I Live In
American Gangster (Started it but wasn't really digging it)
Public Enemies
Drive
Tinker Tailor Solider Spy
Kung Fu Panda 2
War Horse
and I need to squeeze in some Chaplin films before the end of the month for a short 400 word essay for one of my Universities.
Right on. Interesting list you got going.
"American Gangster" was recommended to me as one of the "quintessential" gangster films. I only kinda agree, but something about it is off.
Last edited by Al_The_Strange; 01-18-2012 at 08:25 PM.
I suspect that to be the case, and for more reasons than just seeing him as a victim. Remember his line "I wanted to teach you to be your own boss". ? I think that shows that he was vulnerable like all of us. He may even have viewed himself on some small scale as a minor failure. I also believe that if his character were TOO rugged (physically violent) it would have made his sons ability to forgive feel unlikely. At least to me.
Very good point. That's definitely true about his character. I personally would have preferred it to be a bit more raw nonetheless, to feel a bit more of his wrath/oppression on the family, but it still worked.
Yep, Lumet had a long career. It is sad, but I wouldn't mind living such a long, full life.
I may finally post my top films too so keep your eyes peeled! It's a list of all different types of films that made a big impression on me in one way or another, which is in the same vein as your list.
Also not really a holocaust marathon, just looking at the holocaust in one of my lessons at class, it's Life is Beautiful, Schindler's List and Night and Fog
My watch list for the next few weeks is:
Schindler's List
Night and Fog
The Skin I Live In
American Gangster (Started it but wasn't really digging it)
Public Enemies
Drive
Tinker Tailor Solider Spy
Kung Fu Panda 2
War Horse
That's quite a line up. The Skin I Live In and Drive made it into my Top 5 films of 2011.
Very good point. That's definitely true about his character. I personally would have preferred it to be a bit more raw nonetheless, to feel a bit more of his wrath/oppression on the family, but it still worked.
I can see that. Just Mr. Superdomineering. Hardcore rule freak. Something I liked was him voicing regret for his own criticism of the boy. We often forget to appreciate what we have until it's..........
I may finally post my top films too so keep your eyes peeled! It's a list of all different types of films that made a big impression on me in one way or another, which is in the same vein as your list.
I will definitely read it. It's good to have variety. It's also quite a challenge to be honest with yourself and identify films you keep going back to. Some on my list were unexpected even to me.
I can see that. Just Mr. Superdomineering. Hardcore rule freak. Something I liked was him voicing regret for his own criticism of the boy. We often forget to appreciate what we have until it's..........
Yep. Regret is a terrifying thing to live with...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve46
I will definitely read it. It's good to have variety. It's also quite a challenge to be honest with yourself and identify films you keep going back to. Some on my list were unexpected even to me.
Yes, and at the same time I try to keep favorites and top films separate, but they overlap a lot. A big part about what makes a great movie "great" is what it means personally to you. So the difference is that in my top list I factor that personal impact in, whereas that is the sole factor of what movies make up my favorites.
For example, Like Crazy (2011) resonated with me profoundly because I had a romance overseas that was doomed to perish. Not implying that that's how the movie ends at all, just pointing out the struggle highlighted in the film. She was someone that brought out my true self and helped me discover and explore my fun-loving character again, which is why the overly sentimental tone that reduces the film to a cliche didn't bother me. Rather, it was a plus in my book, because that's how it is.
Yes, and at the same time I try to keep favorites and top films separate, but they overlap a lot. A big part about what makes a great movie "great" is what it means personally to you. So the difference is that in my top list I factor that personal impact in, whereas that is the sole factor of what movies make up my favorites.
For example, Like Crazy (2011) resonated with me profoundly because I had a romance overseas that was doomed to perish. Not implying that that's how the movie ends at all, just pointing out the struggle highlighted in the film. She was someone that brought out my true self and helped me discover and explore my fun-loving character again, which is why the overly sentimental tone that reduces the film to a cliche didn't bother me. Rather, it was a plus in my book, because that's how it is.
Good point. There are certain films that I keep coming back to, even though they are full of cliche.
A brilliant piece of writing from Roger Ebert. It's hard to put this into words. I try often and it hurts to word something just perfectly.
The highlighted parts are my favorite.
Quote:
Every other week I visit a film classic from the past and write about it. My "Great Movies" series began in the autumn of 1996 and now reaches a landmark of 100 titles with today's review of Federico Fellini's "8 1/2," which is, appropriately, a film about a film director. I love my job, and this is the part I love the most.
We have completed the first century of film. Too many moviegoers are stuck in the present and recent past. When people tell me that "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" or "Total Recall" are their favorite films, I wonder: Have they tasted the joys of Welles, Bunuel, Ford, Murnau, Keaton, Hitchcock, Wilder or Kurosawa? If they like Ferris Bueller, what would they think of Jacques Tati's "Mr. Hulot's Holiday," also about a strange day of misadventures? If they like "Total Recall," have they seen Fritz Lang's "Metropolis," also about an artificial city ruled by fear?
I ask not because I am a film snob. I like to sit in the dark and enjoy movies. I think of old films as a resource of treasures. Movies have been made for 100 years, in color and black and white, in sound and silence, in wide-screen and the classic frame, in English and every other language. To limit yourself to popular hits and recent years is like being Ferris Bueller but staying home all day.
I believe we are born with our minds open to wonderful experiences, and only slowly learn to limit ourselves to narrow tastes. We are taught to lose our curiosity by the bludgeon-blows of mass marketing, which brainwash us to see "hits," and discourage exploration.
I know that many people dislike subtitled films, and that few people reading this article will have ever seen a film from Iran, for example. And yet a few weeks ago at my Overlooked Film Festival at the University of Illinois, the free kiddie matinee was "Children of Heaven," from Iran. It was a story about a boy who loses his sister's sneakers through no fault of his own, and is afraid to tell his parents. So he and his sister secretly share the same pair of shoes. Then he learns of a footrace where third prize is . . . a pair of sneakers.
"Anyone who can read at the third-grade level can read these subtitles," I told the audience of 1,000 kids and some parents. "If you can't, it's OK for your parents or older kids to read them aloud--just not too loudly."
The lights went down and the movie began. I expected a lot of reading aloud. There was none. Not all of the kids were old enough to read, but apparently they were picking up the story just by watching and using their intelligence. The audience was spellbound. No noise, restlessness, punching, kicking, running down the aisles. Just eyes lifted up to a fascinating story. Afterward, we asked kids up on the stage to ask questions or talk about the film. What they said indicated how involved they had become.
Kids. And yet most adults will not go to a movie from Iran, Japan, France or Brazil. They will, however, go to any movie that has been plugged with a $30 million ad campaign and sanctified as a "box-office winner." Yes, some of these big hits are good, and a few of them are great. But what happens between the time we are 8 and the time we are 20 that robs us of our curiosity? What turns movie lovers into consumers? What does it say about you if you only want to see what everybody else is seeing?
I don't know. What I do know is that if you love horror movies, your life as a filmgoer is not complete until you see "Nosferatu." I know that once you see Orson Welles appear in the doorway in "The Third Man," you will never forget his curious little smile. And that the life and death of the old man in "Ikiru" will be an inspiration every time you remember it.
I have not written any of the 100 Great Movies reviews from memory. Every film has been seen fresh, right before writing. When I'm at home, I often watch them on Sunday mornings. It's a form of prayer: The greatest films are meditations on why we are here. When I'm on the road, there's no telling where I'll see them. I saw "Written on the Wind" on a cold January night at the Everyman Cinema in Hampstead, north of London. I saw "Last Year at Marienbad" on a DVD on my PowerBook while at the Cannes Film Festival. I saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 70mm at Cyberfest, the celebration of HAL 9000's birthday, at the University of Illinois. I saw "Battleship Potemkin" projected on a sheet on the outside wall of the Vickers Theater in Three Oaks, Mich., while three young musicians played the score they had written for it. And Ozu's "Floating Weeds" at the Hawaii Film Festival, as part of a shot-by-shot seminar that took four days.
When people asked me where they should begin in looking at classic films, I never knew what to say. Now I can say, "Plunge into these Great Movies, and go where they lead you."
There's a next step. If you're really serious about the movies, get together with two or three friends who care as much as you do. Watch the film all the way through on video. Then start again at the top. Whenever anyone sees anything they want to comment on, freeze the frame. Talk about what you're looking at. The story, the performances, the sets, the locations. The camera movement, the lighting, the composition, the special effects. The color, the shadows, the sound, the music. The themes, the tone, the mood, the style.
There are no right answers. The questions are the point. They make you an active movie watcher, not a passive one. You should not be a witness at a movie, but a collaborator. Directors cannot make the film without you. Together, you can accomplish amazing things. The more you learn, the quicker you'll know when the director is not doing his share of the job. That's the whole key to being a great moviegoer. There's nothing else to it.
"To limit yourself to popular hits and recent years is like being Ferris Bueller but staying home all day."
I love this so much.
Yep. It all ties in with his not sufficiently evolved comments. I don't think he's trying to be mean.
I have barely scratched the surface, but my tastes have still evolved massively over the past five years (since I bought Mulholland Dr. by accident and ended up ranking it top of my favorites).
Now I have to re-watch Moneyball because a friend finally received the DVD that came with my copy and we'll be talking about it tomorrow.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Seriously though, they could go toe-to-toe in a battle of cinematography and use of sound.
)
Linear Mode
