That movie True Grit really does suck.

[Riddler]

I mean... it doesn't suck, but what the f*ck is all the hype about.

That is the most average film I've ever seen.

should of listened to the poster that made a thread warning me not to see it... who was that anyway?

And what the f*ck man... such false advertising with the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUiCu-zuAgM

don't get me wrong... the movie is worth seeing, but I'm sorry... Not that impressive.







once again Young Guns 2 still holds the crown.

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/100730/ill-make-you-famous_320.jpg

[BigRonStud]

once again Young Guns 2 still holds the crown.

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/100730/ill-make-you-famous_320.jpg

http://hwcdn.themoviedb.org/backdrops/f4c/4bc91c43017a3c57fe00af4c/3-10-to-yuma-original.jpg

My personal favorite western

[Riddler]

Oh and here's a little conspiracy joke for all you haters... When everybody is laughing about Matt Damon's little line which is in the trailer:

"I thought you were gonna say the SUN was in your eyes... that is to say, your EYE."

I was the only one that noticed the Illuminati reference... (Cohen Brothers are big on the symbolism)

[Jackass18]

What crown does Young Guns 2 hold?

[Riddler]

My personal favorite western


That flick was better than True Grit.

[jasonresno]

I loved the movie until the final 20 minutes. The climax and the downhill ending were just awful. Otherwise I loved the pacing, dialog, acting, and direction.

[Immortal Bum]

I've yet to see it, but I wouldn't be surprised. This decade has been all about overrating things in order to give this entire decade some identity the way the preivous decades had.

[Hotlantadude81]

I mean... it doesn't suck, but what the f*ck is all the hype about.

That is the most average film I've ever seen.

should of listened to the poster that made a thread warning me not to see it... who was that anyway?

And what the f*ck man... such false advertising with the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUiCu-zuAgM

don't get me wrong... the movie is worth seeing, but I'm sorry... Not that impressive.







once again Young Guns 2 still holds the crown.

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/100730/ill-make-you-famous_320.jpg


Who the hell would watch Young Guns II over Tombstone, Unforgiven or 3:10 to Yuma?

[Riddler]

What crown does Young Guns 2 hold?


Greatest Western of all time.

and a true story... somewhat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wH28Hg5eX0

check out the trailer to Young Guns 2.^

[LilBTheBasedGod]

I heard it sucked. Not going to see it now.

[Hotlantadude81]

Greatest Western of all time.

and a true story... somewhat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wH28Hg5eX0


Yikes.

[Gundress]

Any Clint Eastwood Western movies>>>>>Remade True Grit and even Young Guns 2.

If you like about the true story then go watch The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

Young Guns 2 was okay and the cast was so weak.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is one of the best true story movie ever.

[Riddler]

Who the hell would watch Young Guns II over Tombstone, Unforgiven or 3:10 to Yuma?


all very good films, but Young Guns 2 is better than all of them.

better score, better action, better comedy, better drama, better cast, just overall better than the three you listed.

Unforgiven did win Best Picture, I do realize this, but I never really gave one $hit about any of the characters in that movie... I'm sorry, I just didn't care what happened.

I was more emotionally tied to the characters in True Grit then I was in Unforgiven... that's one thing good I can say about that movie.


I'll give you an underrated Western Flick:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VcyT-Z1nDcU/SHzS88Z_l0I/AAAAAAAAAEA/kuYS6eno4p4/s400/The_Last_Outlaw.JPG

[Jackass18]

Greatest Western of all time.

You're going to have trouble with anyone taking your opinion of Westerns seriously with a comment like that. Go watch these:

Once Upon a Time in the West
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Tombstone
Unforgiven
The Wild Bunch
Rio Bravo
High Noon
Shane
The Outlaw Josey Wales
The Searchers
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
My Darling Clementine
High Plains Drifter
For a Few Dollars More
Jeremiah Johnson
Winchester '73
Little Big Man
Destry Rides Again
Open Range
Rio Grande

and then tell me that YG2 is anywhere close to being the greatest Western of all time.

[Gundress]

all very good films, but Young Guns 2 is better than all of them.

better score, better action, better comedy, better drama, better cast, just overall better than the three you listed.

Unforgiven did win Best Picture, I do realize this, but I never really gave one $hit about any of the characters in that movie... I'm sorry, I just didn't care what happened.

I was more emotionally tied to the characters in True Grit then I was in Unforgiven... that's one thing good I can say about that movie.


I'll give you an underrated Western Flick:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VcyT-Z1nDcU/SHzS88Z_l0I/AAAAAAAAAEA/kuYS6eno4p4/s400/The_Last_Outlaw.JPG


:facepalm :facepalm

I think you better stick to conspiracy theory

[Hotlantadude81]

all very good films, but Young Guns 2 is better than all of them.

better score, better action, better comedy, better drama, better cast, just overall better than the three you listed.[/quyote]

Better score? It has Bon Jovi shit and Bon Jovi sucks ass.

[quote]Unforgiven did win Best Picture, I do realize this, but I never really gave one $hit about any of the characters in that movie... I'm sorry, I just didn't care what happened.

Unforgiven won best picture because of a great cast, a plot and subtext.

Young Guns has Christian Slater, Emilio Estevez and about weakest plot that you'll find in a movie.

[Riddler]

You're going to have trouble with anyone taking your opinion of Westerns seriously with a comment like that. Go watch these:

Once Upon a Time in the West
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Tombstone
Unforgiven
The Wild Bunch
Rio Bravo
High Noon
Shane
The Outlaw Josey Wales
The Searchers
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
My Darling Clementine
High Plains Drifter
For a Few Dollars More
Jeremiah Johnson
Winchester '73
Little Big Man
Destry Rides Again
Open Range
Rio Grande

and then tell me that YG2 is anywhere close to being the greatest Western of all time.


YG2 = Greatest Western Flick that I've seen... and let's try to stay somewhat in modern times.

Wasn't Shane filmed in Black & White?


OPen Range? I haven't seen it but is it really that great?



The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly was made in 1966... is it really still entertaining to this day?

[Riddler]

Better score? It has Bon Jovi shit and Bon Jovi sucks ass.... did you here the score during the movie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMFXjQr345Y&feature=related

listen to some of that^.... Sh!t is Epic.



Unforgiven won best picture because of a great cast, a plot and subtext.

Young Guns has Christian Slater, Emilio Estevez and about weakest plot that you'll find in a movie.



Young Guns 2 has a week plot??? are you kidding me?

It's based on a true story... and the possibility that Billy faked his death... Not to mention how Billy the Kid escaped jail twice.

The story of Billy the Kid and Pat Garret is greatest western legend of all time... far better than Tombstone and Jessie James.



I will say that I did enjoy the Assassination of Jessie James... that was pretty decent.

[Jailblazers7]

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly was made in 1966... is it really still entertaining to this day?

Absolutely.

[brandonislegend]

I love Open Range, great movie.

[Riddler]

http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/48/l_a5e192ece30baf340c258114c43aad5c.jpg


who didn't enjoy watching Doc go out in the Blaze of Glory?... what the f*ck is wrong with you people?

[RedBlackAttack]

True Grit (remake) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Young Guns II

[Riddler]

http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt216/Doomsday2036/All-Time-Greats.jpg




Young Guns 2 will forever be cemented in my movie Hall of Fame.

I'm going to expand this piece of art in the near future.

[Riddler]

True Grit (remake) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Young Guns II



You see you obviously don't know the meaning of "Pals".

[Hotlantadude81]

Young Guns 2 has a week plot??? are you kidding me?

It's based on a true story... and the possibility that Billy faked his death... Not to mention how Billy the Kid escaped jail twice.

The story of Billy the Kid and Pat Garret is greatest western legend of all time... far better than Tombstone and Jessie James.



I will say that I did enjoy the Assassination of Jessie James... that was pretty decent.


:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[RedBlackAttack]

This thread is comedy.

[Gundress]

http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/48/l_a5e192ece30baf340c258114c43aad5c.jpg


who didn't enjoy watching Doc go out in the Blaze of Glory?... what the f*ck is wrong with you people?


I think you love it because of the " based on a true story" not the movie itself. I don't think Young Guns I or II come anywhere close to the 'greatest western of all time'... ...Young Guns 1 and 2 films ....any film where the actors' armon flop up and down and you can see daylight bettwen their asses and the saddles while they're riding is not good Western. And even picture come withing a mlie of the real story of Billy the Kid...

Young 1 and Young 2 are garbage but they are fun movies... which is all I think they were ever meant to be.

[RedBlackAttack]

I think you love it because of the " based on a true story" not the movie itself.
That movie is about as true as ET.

[-playmaker-]

I haven't seen True Grit yet but I can definately see a situation were this movie is overhyped cause it was made by the Coen brothers...

I can even see reviewers scared to give it low ratings for that reason...they would be scared it makes them look like they have poor simple taste in cinema or something...

AGAIN I have not seen this, I am not saying that is the truth, but I can see myself not enjoying this film as much as all the hype would have me think I will...



YG2 is a lot of fun no doubt but obviously the story isn't much, it just a good old fashoined action shootem up flick...I am thinking that just because they both take place in the West they shouldn't be compared to each other, they weren't ment to viewed the same way...(maybe, just a guess, not hearing that Grit has a ton of fun action)

[Jailblazers7]

I can see the movie getting hyped up because of the Coen Bros/star cast but I still doubt it will be any lower than a 7.5/8 on a scale of 10. People will probably expect a 9 or 10 and might be disappointed because of the hype.

[Riddler]

I think you love it because of the " based on a true story" not the movie itself. I don't think Young Guns I or II come anywhere close to the 'greatest western of all time'... ...Young Guns 1 and 2 films ....any film where the actors' armon flop up and down and you can see daylight bettwen their asses and the saddles while they're riding is not good Western. And even picture come withing a mlie of the real story of Billy the Kid...

Young 1 and Young 2 are garbage but they are fun movies... which is all I think they were ever meant to be.


No... I love it because Emilio Esteves does a great job playing his character... there are numerous classic lines from the film.


You remember the stories John use to tell us about the the three chinamen playing Fantan? This guy runs up to them and says, "Hey, the world's coming to an end!" and the first one says, "Well, I best go to the mission and pray," and the second one says, "Well, hell, I'm gonna go and buy me a case of Mezcal and six whores," and the third one says "Well, I'm gonna finish the game." I shall finish the game, Doc.

... I shall finish the game too Gundress.

But most importantly is that this movie came out during my childhood.... (1990)... and it was always my personal favorite.




Tom O'Folliard: What's scum?
William H. Bonney: Well Tom, that's bad types. Politicians, bankers, cattle-kings... Scum...


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100994/quotes

more quotes^

[RedBlackAttack]

I don't feel sorry for anyone that knows anything about the Coen Bros. and has ever seen a Coen Bros movie before being disappointed because it wasn't some fun shoot-em-up style western. You pretty much know what you are getting with the Coen's... Or you should before you spend $8 for a ticket.

I thought the movie was great and I had high expectations.

[InspiredLebowski]

Pete would be going ape shit right now

[PHX_Phan]

You pretty much ruined your credibility for reviewing Western movies with all this talk about Young Guns 2.

Hell, you may have just ruined it for movies in general with that. It's almost a crime to not give recognition to the films you are overlooking.

[Gundress]

No... I love it because Emilio Esteves does a great job playing his character... there are numerous classic lines from the film.



... I shall finish the game too Gundress.

But most importantly is that this movie came out during my childhood.... (1990)... and it was always my personal favorite.






http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100994/quotes

more quotes^

Like I said they are fun movies....which is all I think they were ever meant to be but that movie still garbage.....however I think Part 1 is much better than part 2.....and they're not close to any to the 'greatest western of all time'....so f#ck the young guns 1 and 2 = cowboys.

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/170/2nkianrumad.gif (http://img828.imageshack.us/i/2nkianrumad.gif/)

[-playmaker-]

I don't feel sorry for anyone that knows anything about the Coen Bros. and has ever seen a Coen Bros movie before being disappointed because it wasn't some fun shoot-em-up style western. You pretty much know what you are getting with the Coen's... Or you should before you spend $8 for a ticket.

I thought the movie was great and I had high expectations.
when I saw the preview I was thinking it would have intense action along the same lines of No Country...

[RedBlackAttack]

I do think the studios made a bit of a mistake with how they marketed this film. It was an extremely aggressive ad campaign all over television and the Internet with prime spots on the most populated websites and televisions stations, regardless of demographic. Coen Bros movies are not for everyone.

For instance, if The Riddler had said prior to attending True Grit that his favorite western of all-time was Young Guns II, I would have pleaded with him not to go... And I would have done so before I even saw the film.

The Coen's don't make mainstream movies and they never will. Yeah... Fargo, The Big Lebowski and NCFOM had some cross-over success with mainstream moviegoers, but they weren't marketed that way and most people understood when they were walking into theatres that they weren't seeing your average movie with your average plot featuring your average dialogue/action sequences.

True Grit was marketed almost as though it was a mainstream, big budget, average action flick, even though it should have been obvious that it wasn't.

[Gundress]

Hey RedBlackAttack?

Have you seen the original True Grit movie? I had seen it but haven't seen remade.


Which one is better for overrall: Original True Grit or Remade True Grit?

[Mr. Grieves]

YG2 = Greatest Western Flick that I've seen... and let's try to stay somewhat in modern times.

Wasn't Shane filmed in Black & White?


OPen Range? I haven't seen it but is it really that great?



The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly was made in 1966... is it really still entertaining to this day?

Are you f*cking serious bro? Yes it is entertaining. ALL of the old Western greats are still great today.

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral
The Magnificent Seven
The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
...and a million other greats kick the sh*t out of Young Guns as a western movie.

Are you the type of person that lists Hollywood's newest blockbuster as their favourite, even sh*t movies like Transformers 2, because it's new and shiny? If so, :facepalm.

[RedBlackAttack]

Hey RedBlackAttack?

Have you seen the original True Grit movie? I had seen it but haven't seen remade.


Which one is better for overrall: Original True Grit or Remade True Grit?
I have to be honest... I thought the original True Grit was a bit cheesy. Now, I often have this reaction when watching old mainstream films and it usually has more to do with a generational thing than anything the movie did correctly or incorrectly.

But, I found the original True Grit to be almost a comedy in the way that the characters interacted... And I didn't laugh... Once.

The remake was better in every possible facet, imo. The Coen's are possibly my favorite directors to ever live, though, so I may be a bit biased (along with Kubrick).

You should also know that this isn't a remake in a traditional sense... The Coen's version is based on the book, not the original movie... And they are almost nothing alike.

[Riddler]

I don't feel sorry for anyone that knows anything about the Coen Bros. and has ever seen a Coen Bros movie before being disappointed because it wasn't some fun shoot-em-up style western. You pretty much know what you are getting with the Coen's... Or you should before you spend $8 for a ticket.

I thought the movie was great and I had high expectations.


Why was it so great? It had good acting.... I liked all the character development... but again, why is it so great?

No Country for Old Men was so much better than this movie.

[-playmaker-]

I would like to know what makes this movie so fantastic also...

everyone just kind of gives a generic "it was a great film, I loved it" kind of answer without any description of what makes it great...

I know it has very little action...it isn't a comedy like Raising Arisona...so just really bad ass dialog or what?

[Riddler]

You pretty much ruined your credibility for reviewing Western movies with all this talk about Young Guns 2.

Hell, you may have just ruined it for movies in general with that. It's almost a crime to not give recognition to the films you are overlooking.


I'll admit... I'm not big Western Buff... haven't seen that many... but I've seen a few.

Just give me Cowboys and Aliens and I'll STFU.:oldlol:


http://www.pajiba.com/assets_c/2010/11/Cowboys-and-Aliens-movie-poster-thumb-480x711-16007.jpg


Daniel Craig - Harrison Ford - Should be good.

[RedBlackAttack]

It would be difficult to explain in specifics why I liked the movie without completely ruining it for those who haven't seen it (likely the majority of the board), which is why most people stick to generic observations when discussing it on here.

The dialogue was superb. That alone made it well-worth the price of admission. I don't need action... Got over that prerequisite for a good movie some time ago.

You could literally run down the list of things that make great movies 'great' and this film stacks up...

Acting - check
Character Development - check
Plot - check
Dialogue - check
Screenplay - check
Cinematography - check
Recreation of the period - check
Building of tension - check
Score - check

I guess the real question would be what did you dislike about it? You haven't gotten overtly specific in that area.

[-playmaker-]

They definately sell it as a thriller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUiCu-zuAgM

just watch that...full of guns cocking and shooting...

I personally expected something very similiar to No Country when I saw that...I was super hyped...

I am not as hyped now, not because of what Dooms is saying, but just because I know it isn't what they sold it as, or what I was expecting it to be...

maybe that is a good thing though...

[JustinJDW]

I heard all the crap about True Grit after it released and I was just like "no way". Jeff Bridges? Matt Damon? Josh Brolin? The Coen Brothers? No way this movie is bad.

Well I saw the movie a couple of nights ago and I honestly thought it was really good. I don't understand where the hate is coming from. Just like what someone said in this thread, that because the ad campaign was really aggressive and in your face, that people thought this was going to be some shoot-em-up gun fight total action western movie, and when it turned out that the movie was more character driven then people thought it would be, it disappointed people.

First of all, the characters in True Girt were freaking awesome. The dialogue was awesome and the conversations in the movie were pretty good and I think that's where the joy is coming from, and even though I'm sure people expected more action, when the action did happen, it was good.

Were some conversations drawn out a bit, sure. But I think the comedy that people didn't expect from the movie helped negate that, and the overall pacing was good. Story was good. Characters were great. Action was good.

My biggest minus on the movie was that Josh Brolin was barley in the freaking movie. I'm sorry if people think that is a spoiler, but that was a big disappointed. But thats pretty much it.

Overall, 8.3/10.

[Riddler]

They definately sell it as a thriller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUiCu-zuAgM

just watch that...full of guns cocking and shooting...

I personally expected something very similiar to No Country when I saw that...I was super hyped...

I am not as hyped now, not because of what Dooms is saying, but just because I know it isn't what they sold it as, or what I was expecting it to be...

maybe that is a good thing though...



That's exactly what I'm saying... a bit of false advertising if you ask me.

[RedBlackAttack]

That's exactly what I'm saying... a bit of false advertising if you ask me.

Once again...

I do think the studios made a bit of a mistake with how they marketed this film. It was an extremely aggressive ad campaign all over television and the Internet with prime spots on the most populated websites and televisions stations, regardless of demographic. Coen Bros movies are not for everyone.

For instance, if The Riddler had said prior to attending True Grit that his favorite western of all-time was Young Guns II, I would have pleaded with him not to go... And I would have done so before I even saw the film.

The Coen's don't make mainstream movies and they never will. Yeah... Fargo, The Big Lebowski and NCFOM had some cross-over success with mainstream moviegoers, but they weren't marketed that way and most people understood when they were walking into theatres that they weren't seeing your average movie with your average plot featuring your average dialogue/action sequences.

True Grit was marketed almost as though it was a mainstream, big budget, average action flick, even though it should have been obvious that it wasn't.

**POSSIBLE SPOILER**

Justin,
I can sort of agree with your thing about Brolin, but when he did show up, his character was hilarious in a pathetic sort of way and he wouldn't have had the impact that he did at the end if he had been a feature character throughout.

He is such a great actor, you wish he would have had bigger part, but his impact was no less substantial even with limited screen-time.

[Riddler]

I heard all the crap about True Grit after it released and I was just like "no way". Jeff Bridges? Matt Damon? Josh Brolin? The Coen Brothers? No way this movie is bad.

Well I saw the movie a couple of nights ago and I honestly thought it was really good. I don't understand where the hate is coming from. Just like what someone said in this thread, that because the ad campaign was really aggressive and in your face, that people thought this was going to be some shoot-em-up gun fight total action western movie, and when it turned out that the movie was more character driven then people thought it would be, it disappointed people.

First of all, the characters in True Girt were freaking awesome. The dialogue was awesome and the conversations in the movie were pretty good and I think that's where the joy is coming from, and even though I'm sure people expected more action, when the action did happen, it was good.

Were some conversations drawn out a bit, sure. But I think the comedy that people didn't expect from the movie helped negate that, and the overall pacing was good. Story was good. Characters were great. Action was good.

My biggest minus on the movie was that Josh Brolin was barley in the freaking movie. I'm sorry if people think that is a spoiler, but that was a big disappointed. But thats pretty much it.

Overall, 8.3/10.



As I clarified in my OP... the movie didn't exactly suck, but it just wasn't that great... and you give it a 8.3/10... I give it about a 7.5/10

7.5 does not mean I should go see it in the theater.... I want at least 8.5 and better.



and is it me but are the Cohen Brothers just a tad bit overrated?

[RedBlackAttack]

As I clarified in my OP... the movie didn't exactly suck, but it just wasn't that great... and you give it a 8.3/10... I give it about a 7.5/10

7.5 does not mean I should go see it in the theater.... I want at least 8.5 and better.



and is it me but are the Cohen Brothers just a tad bit overrated?
They are no Geoff Murphy, but they are pretty good.

[Riddler]

Once again...

I do think the studios made a bit of a mistake with how they marketed this film. It was an extremely aggressive ad campaign all over television and the Internet with prime spots on the most populated websites and televisions stations, regardless of demographic. Coen Bros movies are not for everyone.

For instance, if The Riddler had said prior to attending True Grit that his favorite western of all-time was Young Guns II, I would have pleaded with him not to go... And I would have done so before I even saw the film.

The Coen's don't make mainstream movies and they never will. Yeah... Fargo, The Big Lebowski and NCFOM had some cross-over success with mainstream moviegoers, but they weren't marketed that way and most people understood when they were walking into theatres that they weren't seeing your average movie with your average plot featuring your average dialogue/action sequences.

True Grit was marketed almost as though it was a mainstream, big budget, average action flick, even though it should have been obvious that it wasn't.


Yea I guess... after I saw this bad@ss...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RDy4kSnMWmA/TIuuq5raTiI/AAAAAAAACXM/BX0LmxSsnAo/s1600/No-Country-For-Old-Men-thumb-555xauto-24978.jpg

I was just kinda hoping that this dude would be as cool:

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20101222/400_cp2_jeff_bridges_101222.jpg


They sure the f*ck did advertise it that way.

[RedBlackAttack]

If you are going to compare every movie to NCFOM, you are going to be severely disappointed 99.99999% of the time. I don't think it is a fair criticism to say that you didn't like it as much as NCFOM.

You are talking about a modern classic that will go down in the annals of film history and it is a hell of a lot to have to live up to every time out.

All of that said, I didn't think this was far off.

[Riddler]

If you are going to compare every movie to NCFOM, you are going to be severely disappointed 99.99999% of the time. I don't think it is a fair criticism to say that you didn't like it as much as NCFOM.

You are talking about a modern classic that will go down in the annals of film history and it is a hell of a lot to have to live up to every time out.



I keep forgetting that NCFOM won a few Oscars.

your right.



I'll just have to watch True Grit again,... but uhm... as of now it's just not that good.

[El Kabong]

Coen Brothers always get people who absolutely dislike their movies, even if they get rave reviews everywhere else. Just a part of life. Like A Serious Man for example. I thought it was pretty average, other people had it on their best movie of 2009 list.

[RedBlackAttack]

I keep forgetting that NCFOM won a few Oscars.

It didn't just win a few Oscars... it won Best Picture and Best Director in the same year that saw another modern classic, There Will Be Blood. Usually, the AAs totally f#ck up the selections, but those two movies were so superb, not even they could mess it up.

[-playmaker-]

Coen Brothers always get people who absolutely dislike their movies, even if they get rave reviews everywhere else. Just a part of life. Like A Serious Man for example. I thought it was pretty average, other people had it on their best movie of 2009 list.
I hated O Brother...others think it is fantastic...

There are people I work with that LOVE Big Lebowski, and those that just don't care for it at all...

yeah, they do have films that either hit you or miss you I think...

No Country hit everyone though...


maybe that was like their "Pulp Fiction" and from here on out everyone will expect a masterpeice but they will never be able to provide the same thing again...

[RedBlackAttack]

I hated O Brother...others think it is fantastic...

There are people I work with that LOVE Big Lebowski, and those that just don't care for it at all...

yeah, they do have films that either hit you or miss you I think...

No Country hit everyone though...


maybe that was like their "Pulp Fiction" and from here on out everyone will expect a masterpeice but they will never be able to provide the same thing again...
Funny... I love NCFOM, but Fargo is my favorite. :confusedshrug:

Also, Pulp Fiction is not my favorite Tarantino film, the way that DSOTM isn't my favorite Pink Floyd album... And Stairway isn't my favorite Zeppelin tune.

:confusedshrug:

Different strokes.

There is no denying the Coen's catalog, though...

Blood Simple
Raising Arizona
Miller's Crossing
Barton Fink
The Hudsucker Proxy
Fargo
The Big Lebowski
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
No Country for Old Men
A Serious Man
True Grit

That is some run, regardless of whether or not you think that a one or two of their movies were 'overrated' or didn't stack up to their best. Quite a run...

[Riddler]

Funny... I love NCFOM, but Fargo is my favorite. :confusedshrug:



http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk154/Caternang/implied-facepalm.jpg

[RedBlackAttack]

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6582/425fargo101707.jpg

[Riddler]

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6582/425fargo101707.jpg


So while we are on the subject of the Cohen Brothers... you care to give me your opinion on the use of Masonic Imagery in their movies?

specifically the Big Lebowsky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7ywMDaUACI&feature=related

[pete's montreux]

Pete would be going ape shit right now
Not really. If anyone's opinion on movies is invalid, It's dooms. He's the definition of 'consumer'. He has the worst taste in movies I've ever seen. If there isn't an explosion every other scene, It's boring to him. Sad, really.

And how can he say YGII is the best western of all time if he's only seen like...two westerns?

[Lakers Legend#32]

I can see where someone who thinks Young Guns 2 is a great western would not like True Grit:facepalm

The new True Grit is great and I give it 4 out of 5 stars.

[pete's montreux]

I'll admit... I'm not big Western Buff... haven't seen that many... but I've seen a few.

Just give me Cowboys and Aliens and I'll STFU.:oldlol:


http://www.pajiba.com/assets_c/2010/11/Cowboys-and-Aliens-movie-poster-thumb-480x711-16007.jpg


Daniel Craig - Harrison Ford - Should be good.

Have you ever seen a movie you didn't think 'should be good'?

[-playmaker-]

Not really. If anyone's opinion on movies is invalid, It's dooms. He's the definition of 'consumer'. He has the worst taste in movies I've ever seen. If there isn't an explosion every other scene, It's boring to him. Sad, really.

And how can he say YGII is the best western of all time if he's only seen like...two westerns?
I don't think his taste is like that, it is more right up the alley of Inception...or Shutter Island...or anything that "maybe this could have really been like this"...lol

Dooms DOES hype every movie ever though...lol

but he goes to see almost everything too...except like chick flicks...feels like you labeled him as someone that just loves Transformers...that isn't true though

[Jackass18]

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly was made in 1966... is it really still entertaining to this day?

If you haven't seen it, then punch yourself in the nuts and then go watch it. It's probably my 2nd most favorite Western. TGTBATU is probably the movie I'd recommend most to someone if they were looking to get into Westerns.

[Riddler]

If you haven't seen it, then punch yourself in the nuts and then go watch it. It's probably my 2nd most favorite Western. TGTBATU is probably the movie I'd recommend most to someone if they were looking to get into Westerns.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXldafIl5DQ

nope... just watched most of this 8 minute clip... and it just doesn't hold up.

it's about to be 2011... movies from the 60's are getting out dated.

Damn movie is 45 years old... I'm sorry it's just not gonna be that entertaining.

[Lebowsky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXldafIl5DQ

nope... just watched most of this 8 minute clip... and it just doesn't hold up.

it's about to be 2011... movies from the 60's are getting out dated.

Damn movie is 45 years old... I'm sorry it's just not gonna be that entertaining.

I'm sorry but you're out of your ****ing mind. It's arguably the most entertaining western ever, and probably top 10 most entertaining movie I've ever seen. Never gets old.

[Riddler]

I'm sorry but you're out of your ****ing mind. It's arguably the most entertaining western ever, and probably top 10 most entertaining movie I've ever seen. Never gets old.


sorry... but the 70's are about as low as I can go. I just can't get into old films.

80's kicked as... 90's were okay... 2000's was a giant mix of garbage and greatness.

next decade should be the same... but some $hit keeps getting better.

[vapid]

Dooms saying old movies aren't entertaining makes him sound like a 5 year old. I can't believe he's a grown man.

[Riddler]

Dooms saying old movies aren't entertaining makes him sound like a 5 year old. I can't believe he's a grown man.



Hey you can shut the f*ck up... that's what I would do If I were you.

I'm not in the minority when thinking old films aren't that entertaining anymore.



Again... this is the kind of $hit that I like to watch:

http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt216/Doomsday2036/All-Time-Greats.jpg

[jasonresno]

http://titulky.icr.cz/mini/TheProposition.jpg

Has anyone seen this? I guess it isn't technically a Western since it's set in Australia but it has all of the elements. Guy Pearce, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston, and John Hurt are incredible in it.

[bagelred]

Saw it last night.....it was average at best........I forgot it was the Coen brothers until i saw the closing credits....then it made more sense.

Needless to say, it's a little "quirky". Also, I couldn't understand half the words Jeff Bridges said.....

Some scenes were relentlessly and needlessly long and pointless.....like the scene where the girl negotiates with the horse tradesman, and the scene where Bridges is being questioned in the courtroom.....omg, what was that? :facepalm

And why is Matt Damon in this movie? I thought he was miscast and what does he need to this movie for? The role did nothing for him.

BUT, it still kept my interest......average at best though.

[rufuspaul]

should of listened

For the umpteenth time Dooms, it's should have, as in I should have known Dooms would post something dumb in a movie thread.:mad:

And we all know the real reason you like Young Guns II is because Kiefer wears aqua contact lenses.

[Gundress]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXldafIl5DQ

nope... just watched most of this 8 minute clip... and it just doesn't hold up.

it's about to be 2011... movies from the 60's are getting out dated.

Damn movie is 45 years old... I'm sorry it's just not gonna be that entertaining.

:facepalm

I bet your ass you gonna say The Godfather suck.

[Crown&Coke]

I loved the "sun in your eyes" joke in the early previews.

My kid was laughing his arse off, which got me laughing my arse off too. I gotta see it just to catch that line.

[Riddler]

You dumb ass, that's not a f*cking conspiracy or reference. Cogburn had one f*cking eye.


No $hit he had one eye... but it's still an illuminati reference.

[Randy]

No, it's not. He has one eye. That's it, there's no other meaning.

You really think the author of a book from 42 years ago was giggling to himself while leaving a retarded clue to a retarded 'secret society' that everyone knows about?

The 1969 version also has John Wayne in an eye-patch. A possible allegory to future events like the Watergate scandal and oil crisis perhaps? And now, a new version of True Grit is released while our nation is still suffering from an economic crisis? Hardly a coincidence. Let's not forget that the Coen brothers are JEWS...

[sunsfan1357]

Dooms fooled us all. Thread was made just to talk about Illuminati.

[-playmaker-]

yeah I agree that constantly trying to work in secret society talk is perhaps the biggest f*cking eye roller on this web site...

and you know what, the Coen brothers DO use an ass load of symbolism in that way and maybe that stuff is there, but no one in here gives a shit...who gives a f*ck if they used a checkered floor to symbolize something?...NO ONE DOES

[-playmaker-]

Dooms saying old movies aren't entertaining makes him sound like a 5 year old. I can't believe he's a grown man.
RBA just said the original is corny but it was likely due to the time period it was made...obviously most older movies do "suck" in comparison to modern films...stop being a movie snob


hey dude you want to do another comic book draft???...I GOT SUPERMAN!!!!

[RedBlackAttack]

obviously most older movies do "suck" in comparison to modern films...
Hey now... I never said that (nor did I imply it). In fact, I would say that most modern films suck... At least stuff coming out of Hollywood.

[Jailblazers7]

RBA just said the original is corny but it was likely due to the time period it was made...obviously most older movies do "suck" in comparison to modern films...stop being a movie snob


hey dude you want to do another comic book draft???...I GOT SUPERMAN!!!!

Saying older films suck is just as false and wrong as being a movie snob like you are accusing vapid of being.

[-playmaker-]

I put suck in quotes " " to mean that you shouldn't take the word in the same sense...

suck - poorer quality


and YES I understand that there are plenty of old films that hold up toiday but in this thread we are comparing John Wayne westerns to a F*CKING COEN BROTHERS MOVIE!!!...lol

sorry but they aren't as good as today's movies....only in a nostalgic way could you think so



and sorry if it looked like I put words in your mouth RBA, I didn't mean to...

[bagelred]

Jesus... Have you ever heard the word characterization? Mattie verbally abuses and outwits a business man, when she's 14. She's strong, smart, and determined. The courtroom scene introduces Cogburn and how he doesn't give a f*ck about killing people to get the job done. How is that not important? Those two scenes imply a common wavelength between the two characters, resulting in their odd relationship.

Each of those scenes could have been 2/3 shorter and achieved the same result. They went on and on and on......yes, we get the point. She's witty and he's a guy doesn't give a sh-t. We get it. Close scene.

[pete's montreux]

You don't watch movies made before the 1970's? I hope you f*cking die.

I hope your New Years Eve cocktails have anthrax in them as well.

[-playmaker-]

You don't watch movies made before the 1970's? I hope you f*cking die.

I hope your New Years Eve cocktails have anthrax in them as well.
there are like maybe 2 or 3 black and whites I like...

and I can only think of one off the top of my head right now..."The Hustler"...that movie is good

in general older movies are not as good as modern movies though, I really don't see how anyone could argue that...

things have progressed...it is okay to think that Charlie Chaplin films aren't as funny as modern comedies...

[pete's montreux]

there are like maybe 2 or 3 black and whites I like...

and I can only think of one off the top of my head right now..."The Hustler"...that movie is good

in general older movies are not as good as modern movies though, I really don't see how anyone could argue that...

things have progressed...it is okay to think that Charlie Chaplin films aren't as funny as modern comedies...

Is this a joke?

[-playmaker-]

Is this a joke?
no I really do think modern films aer better quality than older films (in general)...that is not a joke

If I could only watch movies from either 1960-1970 or the 2000-2010 the rest of my life...that one is a no brainer...

[kentatm]

if Young Guns 2 is your favorite Western then....

yea.

can't trust your opinion on True Grit.

[Lebowsky]

RBA just said the original is corny but it was likely due to the time period it was made...obviously most older movies do "suck" in comparison to modern films...stop being a movie snob


hey dude you want to do another comic book draft???...I GOT SUPERMAN!!!!

I'm sorry, but I totally disagree. Older movies do not suck in comparison to modern films, if anything it's the other way around.

[Lebowsky]

there are like maybe 2 or 3 black and whites I like...

and I can only think of one off the top of my head right now..."The Hustler"...that movie is good

in general older movies are not as good as modern movies though, I really don't see how anyone could argue that...

things have progressed...it is okay to think that Charlie Chaplin films aren't as funny as modern comedies...

I must be a weirdo then, because I don't even remember the last "modern" comedy that actually made me laugh. On the other hand, I recall laughing my ass off to movies like "duck soup", "a night at the opera", "the party" or "the great dictator". Comedy is probably the genre that's declined the most in comparison to the old times.

[-playmaker-]

again I put the word "suck" in quotes for a reason, I don't think all old movies really suck or anything, I have appreciation for all arts...

that was my way of saying that film has progressed...and it has


if HBO just showed 60s movies all day they would lose all thier customers...

[-playmaker-]

I must be a weirdo then, because I don't even remember the last "modern" comedy that actually made me laugh. On the other hand, I recall laughing my ass off to movies like "duck soup", "a night at the opera", "the party" or "the great dictator". Comedy is probably the genre that's declined the most in comparison to the old times.
what is "modern" like anything post 1990?...you haven't laughed at a movie made in the last 20 years?

I definately think you are in the minority yes...

if a Marx Brothers film is on one channel and The Hangover is on another channel I think most people are picking Hangover...

[Lebowsky]

what is "modern" like anything post 1990?...you haven't laughed at a movie made in the last 20 years?

I definately think you are in the minority yes...

if a Marx Brothers film is on one channel and The Hangover is on another channel I think most people are picking Hangover...

Fair enough. Different strokes, I guess.

[Lebowsky]

Duck Soup >>>>>> The Hangover

Couldn't agree more.

[-playmaker-]

I think it's mainly an issue of relatability, more so than the quality of filmmaking improving or something. Don't forget that movies are an art form, and outside of special effects improving there isn't a whole lot of impact technology is going to have on a great character, an intricate, intelligent plot, and beautiful photography. Most creative aspects of filmmaking haven't improved at all. Yeah, we have movies like Saw now, but that's more a reflection of a changing society than anything.

Most people around our age probably would choose The Hangover over Duck Soup, not because it's a better film necessarily but simply because the latter is less relateable to them.

I mean, in 50 years will people like PT be like "Pfft, Matrix sucks. It's old. Not as enjoyable as modern movies. It sucks, brah"? Makes no sense to me.
I think that it is possible the Matrix could be viewed as outdated in the future...for sure, a given I think...like the same way the Terminator original is...still good (a classic) but clearly not on par with more modern movies...

I actually watched 8 minutes of Duck Soup on YouTube cause of this thread...yeah Groucho Marks is funny and all but I'm sorry, I just don't see how simplistic jokes of that nature such can be viewed on par with modern comedies...I don't get it

yeah, Chaplin and Marx were groundbreaking, should get credit for being the firsts of their kind and all that...but I can't be the only one that isn't dieing laughing over those old flicks today...

I fully believe that all art gets better over time (although it is realy hard to argue it for music, lol)...I make a living as an artist even, Super Mario Bros is a classic game, but I am not going to pretend it is on par with games of today...if it was released new today it wouldn't be good enough for a hand held...

I think you can break down every single facet of a movie from the acting to the writing to the FX to EVERYTHING and it has been improved upon over time...that is JMO

[-playmaker-]

Lebowski is your username not related to the movie?

I would classify that as a modern comedy...

[Jackass18]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXldafIl5DQ

nope... just watched most of this 8 minute clip... and it just doesn't hold up.

it's about to be 2011... movies from the 60's are getting out dated.

Damn movie is 45 years old... I'm sorry it's just not gonna be that entertaining.

So, basically you're confirming that you have no credibility when it comes to movies, and why would you choose to watch the end of a movie if you haven't seen it? Old movies aren't outdated, you just have a rather narrow scope when it comes to movies. Open your mind and maybe your brain will follow.

[Jackass18]

in general older movies are not as good as modern movies though, I really don't see how anyone could argue that...

In general, modern movies suck much more compared to old movies. The quality has lessened a good deal with Hollywood cranking out a shitload of crappy films. So many uncreative, unoriginal and unnecessary movies get made and yet you think the quality has improved?


things have progressed...it is okay to think that Charlie Chaplin films aren't as funny as modern comedies...

Chaplin's films had a lot of creativity and ingenuity that most modern comedies completely lack. A lot of modern comedies are just the same ol' formulaic tripe over and over again.


yeah, Chaplin and Marx were groundbreaking, should get credit for being the firsts of their kind and all that...but I can't be the only one that isn't dieing laughing over those old flicks today...

Sorry, but they were more worried about being clever and witty than making some poop and fart jokes that appeal to people like you.


I fully believe that all art gets better over time (although it is realy hard to argue it for music, lol)...

No, all art does not get better over time. Some forms of art were done at such a high level that there's not really much you can do to improve upon it and everything else that comes after just pales in comparison and copies from it. The problem is many people just go for what makes the most money instead of going for quality.


I make a living as an artist even, Super Mario Bros is a classic game, but I am not going to pretend it is on par with games of today...if it was released new today it wouldn't be good enough for a hand held...

That's a terrible attempt at a comparison.


I think you can break down every single facet of a movie from the acting to the writing to the FX to EVERYTHING and it has been improved upon over time...that is JMO

Your opinion is stupid. Obviously, things like special effects, picture quality (like shooting in HD and in color, though many movies worked really, really well in B&W), set design and such will improve, but acting and writing? Those things have been around a long, long time. Would you say that the best books have been written recently?

[jasonresno]

I don't agree that modern films are perfect or classic films are perfect or shit or anything specifically. But it's all up to perception and there were as many shitty films back in the 40s 50s 60s and 70s as there are now. Both of you guys are looking through tinted glasses.

There are good and bad films throughout the history of cinema and Jackass is as wrong in saying all modern films suck as the other retard is as saying all old films suck.

[DonDadda59]

PT is making some very broad, generic statements here. Saying 'new films are superior to older films in terms of acting, directing, writing, etc' is just plain ignorant. My viewpoint is that quality is quality and is not confined to time, unless you're looking at films in terms of effects like CGI and such. And even then, the overall quality can be lacking in more modern films (see Star Wars old vs new trilogy). There are great movies now, just like there were great movies made in the past.

IMO, the Golden era of film was the mid 60s-70s. That's when studios actually put out higher quality films, legendary actors like DeNiro, Pacino, and all the other Brando wannabes (I mean that as a term of endearment) were at the height of their powers as well as their directors like Coppola, Scorsese, Leone, Kubrick and even George Lucas before he sold out. I mean honestly, you had Deniro and Pacino BOTH playing Don Corleone in the same movie, while being directed by Coppola.

I think the film industry today is more watered down as a whole. You have a new generic chick flick/date movie that comes out every week that has the same generic actors with the same generic script and corny one-liners. Also, seems like every big studio release is just a remake of an 80s movie or TV show, it's almost like the well has run dry on creativity. But then again, you have smaller productions that are well-crafted from top to bottom with excellent writing, acting, and auteurs at the helm. Even the occasional big studio release comes along that is both well-made and financially successful.

So to say one era/generation/etc is better than another is misguided. You have to look at it on a film by film basis.

[jasonresno]

PT is making some very broad, generic statements here. Saying 'new films are superior to older films in terms of acting, directing, writing, etc' is just plain ignorant. My viewpoint is that quality is quality and is not confined to time, unless you're looking at films in terms of effects like CGI and such. And even then, the overall quality can be lacking in more modern films (see Star Wars old vs new trilogy). There are great movies now, just like there were great movies made in the past.

IMO, the Golden era of film was the mid 60s-70s. That's when studios actually put out higher quality films, legendary actors like DeNiro, Pacino, and all the other Brando wannabes (I mean that as a term of endearment) were at the height of their powers as well as their directors like Coppola, Scorsese, Leone, Kubrick and even George Lucas before he sold out. I mean honestly, you had Deniro and Pacino BOTH playing Don Corleone in the same movie, while being directed by Coppola.

I think the film industry today is more watered down as a whole. You have a new generic chick flick/date movie that comes out every week that has the same generic actors with the same generic script and corny one-liners. Also, seems like every big studio release is just a remake of an 80s movie or TV show, it's almost like the well has run dry on creativity. But then again, you have smaller productions that are well-crafted from top to bottom with excellent writing, acting, and auteurs at the helm. Even the occasional big studio release comes along that is both well-made and financially successful.

So to say one era/generation/etc is better than another is misguided. You have to look at it on a film by film basis.
+1

You've still got amazing directors and actors putting out excellent films. And back in the 70s you still had your dumb as hell movies. It's beyond retarded to try and say that an entire era released only good films.

[Jackass18]

But it's all up to perception and there were as many shitty films back in the 40s 50s 60s and 70s as there are now. Both of you guys are looking through tinted glasses.

Umm, no. A lot more movies are being made in modern times, and a lot of them are lackluster. Quality has gone down. It's more about making money than making quality movies.

[-playmaker-]

hmmmm...really guys???...so nothing has advanced in Hollywood except CG and I am the ignorant one?...that's a f*ckin laugh

make 100 people watch the top 10 movies from each decade and I GUATENTEE you they will like the movies of later better than the ones of earlier...

I am not going to break down both those posts, alot of stuff there, yes Don I am making broad statements that don't go into detail, but I do think it is unargueable that everything has gotten better "IN GENERAL"....that isn't ignorant it is truth...YES there are plenty of old movies that stand the test of time but that doesn't mean the entire time period was better...

just cause Pacino and Deniro got together in Godfather doesn't mean the 60s > 2000s


acting is better today than yesterday, doesn't mean there weren't LEGENDS back then though

directing too...there have been brillinat directors in the past, but there are much more today...

writing...I am sure the script for True Grit is more impressive than the original...

EVERTHING...HAS PROGRESSED

[-playmaker-]

"they don't make them like they used to"

^^^ can also be seen as very ignorant

not everything was better in the past

[DonDadda59]

hmmmm...really guys???...so nothing has advanced in Hollywood except CG and I am the ignorant one?...that's a f*ckin laugh

make 100 people watch the top 10 movies from each decade and I GUATENTEE you they will like the movies of later better than the ones of earlier...

I am not going to break down both those posts, alot of stuff there, yes Don I am making broad statements that don't go into detail, but I do think it is unargueable that everything has gotten better "IN GENERAL"....that isn't ignorant it is truth...YES there are plenty of old movies that stand the test of time but that doesn't mean the entire time period was better...

just cause Pacino and Deniro got together in Godfather doesn't mean the 60s > 2000s


acting is better today than yesterday, doesn't mean there weren't LEGENDS back then though

directing too...there have been brillinat directors in the past, but there are much more today...

writing...I am sure the script for True Grit is more impressive than the original...

EVERTHING...HAS PROGRESSED

As dense as ever I see, don't care how GUATENTEES you make :oldlol:

Have a happy new year :cheers:

[-playmaker-]

1. 9.2 The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 546,524
2. 9.1 The Godfather (1972) 428,176
3. 9.0 The Godfather: Part II (1974) 257,794
4. 8.9 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) 170,183
5. 8.9 Pulp Fiction (1994) 436,715
6. 8.9 Inception (2010) 266,440
7. 8.9 Schindler's List (1993) 289,350
8. 8.9 12 Angry Men (1957) 127,079
9. 8.8 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) 225,571
10. 8.8 The Dark Knight (2008) 488,142
11. 8.8 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) 289,471
12. 8.8 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) 380,739
13. 8.8 Seven Samurai (1954) 100,981
14. 8.7 Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) 332,627
15. 8.7 Fight Club (1999) 401,991
16. 8.7 Goodfellas (1990) 240,184
17. 8.7 Casablanca (1942) 174,058
18. 8.7 City of God (2002) 176,153
19. 8.7 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) 403,867
20. 8.7 Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) 78,370
21. 8.7 Rear Window (1954) 123,879
22. 8.7 Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) 252,068
23. 8.7 Psycho (1960) 150,345
24. 8.7 The Usual Suspects (1995) 277,658
25. 8.7 The Matrix (1999) 398,740
26. 8.7 Toy Story 3 (2010) 94,719
27. 8.6 The Silence of the Lambs (1991) 257,839
28. 8.6 Se7en (1995) 294,203
29. 8.6 It's a Wonderful Life (1946) 106,782
30. 8.6 Memento (2000) 288,377
31. 8.6 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) 341,398
32. 8.6 Sunset Blvd. (1950) 57,343
33. 8.6 Forrest Gump (1994) 317,664
34. 8.6 Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) 161,301
35. 8.6 The Professional (1994) 210,876
36. 8.6 Citizen Kane (1941) 142,900
37. 8.6 Apocalypse Now (1979) 180,146
38. 8.6 North by Northwest (1959) 97,090
39. 8.6 American Beauty (1999) 304,848
40. 8.5 American History X (1998) 236,687
41. 8.5 Taxi Driver (1976) 163,803
42. 8.5 Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) 249,112
43. 8.5 Saving Private Ryan (1998) 281,821
44. 8.5 Vertigo (1958) 95,664
45. 8.5 Am

[-playmaker-]

As dense as ever I see, don't care how GUATENTEES you make :oldlol:

Have a happy new year :cheers:
I spelled it wrong and you left out out "many"...:cheers:

[DonDadda59]

^^^ 26 of those movies were made post 1990

top 50 on IMDB

I would do the entire top 250 but I am too lazy for that, I am sure modern times dominate the whole thing....

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top

So IMDB is the lone barometer for film quality... and Shawshank Redemption is the best movie ever made, and Inception is in the top 10 (for now)?

And like I said, great film is not confined to era/time/generation/etc, it should be looked at on a film-by-film basis. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that 'Little Fockers' is better than 'Citizen Kane' because the former came out recently and the latter was made in the 40s?

[-playmaker-]

So IMDB is the lone barometer for film quality... and Shawshank Redemption is the best movie ever made, and Inception is in the top 10 (for now)?

And like I said, great film is not confined to era/time/generation/etc, it should be looked at on a film-by-film basis. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that 'Little Fockers' is better than 'Citizen Kane' because the former came out recently and the latter was made in the 40s?
No it isn't the barometer, but it represents what people think though...

I don't see Little Fockers on there but it wouldn't shock me if people would rather watch that today than Citizen Kane...


where is the barometer on movies?...this is all opinion, but how about you explain how acting and writing and EVERYTHING OTHER THAN CG has actually regressed???

yes there is a ton of crap, but looking at that list it is also clear there is a ton of shit that is amazing...you can't deny that

[DonDadda59]

No it isn't the barometer, but it represents what people think though...

Really look at the list. Look how many people voted for certain movies. Inception came out last year, 260K have voted on it while Seven Samurai (1954) has less than half... that's common with most of the more modern films compared to older ones. IMDB viewers may or may not be well versed in film, may or may not have ever even seen a film made before 5 years ago. It's not at all scientific and it's clearly skewed as many of the older films haven't been voted on as frequently, meaning they haven't been viewed as much. Has no bearing on questioning quality.

I remember when the Dark Knight was the #1 movie for a while and that was due to 'fanboys' of that movie constantly voting it a 10 while voting down other films to move it up the list. Godfather 1 used to be the top movie before that.


I don't see Little Fockers on there but it wouldn't shock me if people would rather watch that today than Citizen Kane...

We're not arguing what the masses would rather watch. I'm asking if little fockers, which is a recent release so obviously it's superior to everything that came before it, is a better film than Citizen Kane. Watch both, test your theory, and then get back to me.



where is the barometer on movies?...this is all opinion, but how about you explain how acting and writing and EVERYTHING OTHER THAN CG has actually regressed???

When did I say acting and writing regressed? YOU'RE the one making blanket statements like 'everything has gotten better, acting, writing' etc. So the onus of proof is on you. Explain to me how the writing, directing, etc of 'Superhero Movie' is superior to that of The Godfather Part, II.


yes there is a ton of crap, but looking at that list it is also clear there is a ton of shit that is amazing...you can't deny that

I never denied that, I'm the one saying quality is not confined by time and that a great film is a great film regardless of when it was made. You are the one making a fool of yourself with illogical blanket statements.

[-playmaker-]

Really look at the list. Look how many people voted for certain movies. Inception came out last year, 260K have voted on it while Seven Samurai (1954) has less than half... that's common with most of the more modern films compared to older ones. IMDB viewers may or may not be well versed in film, may or may not have ever even seen a film made before 5 years ago. It's not at all scientific and it's clearly skewed as many of the older films haven't been voted on as frequently, meaning they haven't been viewed as much. Has no bearing on questioning quality.



We're not arguing what the masses would rather watch. I'm asking if little fockers, which is a recent release so obviously it's superior to everything that came before it, is a better film than Citizen Kane. Watch both, test your theory, and then get back to me.




When did I say acting and writing regressed. YOU'RE the one making blanket statements like 'everything has gotten better, acting, writing' etc. So the onus of proof is on you. Explain to me how the writing, directing, etc of 'Superhero Movie' is superior to that of The Godfather Part, II.



I never denied that, I'm the one saying quality is not confined by time and that a great film is a great film regardless of when it was made. You are the one making a fool of yourself with illogical blanket statements.
1. I am not claiming that the IMDB list is anything definate...I was just using it to say "hey look at all these great movies that have been made post 1990, there are a lot of them"

2. Why are you talking about Little Fockers? I had to watch Kane in film school...I know it well...I am not comparinng those two movies, why are you?...Kane > Fockers...ALL OF THEM...what does that mean?...that the 40s are better than the 2000s or something?

3. Super Hero movie?...I have said "in general" 100 times in here...are you trying to make it out as though I am claiming EVERY single movie made today is better than Godfather?...Maybe you should go back and read my posts then....YOU SAID that the 60s-70s were the best, (that insinuates that things have gone down since then)

4. I am not saying quality is confined to a time either, I have said MULTIPLE times that there are great movies/actors/directors/ect in the past...I am just claiming they have all gotten better WITH TIME!!!...(I bet most of them would agree with me too)

[mrpuente]

:oldlol: so does dooms really believe every movie based on a true story?

btw young guns>>>young guns 2

[-playmaker-]

It is clear you're a big Godfather fan...no one is saying that movie isn't good anymore...


It is just that things get better over time...not worse

we learn from the past and grow from it...we are inspired by our peers and we pick up where they left off...

[DonDadda59]

I am not saying quality is confined to a time either, I have said MULTIPLE times that there are great movies/actors/directors/ect in the past...

I am just claiming they have all gotten better WITH TIME!!!...(I bet most of them would agree with me too)

How someone can make such contradictory statements, one after the other, is beyond me :oldlol:

[-playmaker-]

How someone can make such contradictory statements, one after the other, is beyond me :oldlol:
those don't contradict each other at all...:confusedshrug:

you're not reading them right

[DonDadda59]

It is clear you're a big Godfather fan...no one is saying that movie isn't good anymore...


It is just that things get better over time...not worse

we learn from the past and grow from it...we are inspired by our peers and we pick up where they left off...

Just more generic, blanket statements. You're saying that all films now are better than films in the past. That's clearly bullshit and you tried to pass off IMDB ratings as some sort of evidence of this. OK, look at the American Film Institute's rankings:

http://www.afi.com/100years/movies10.aspx

Notice how compared to the general public, more discerning tastes rank older films higher with more frequency than many newer ones (post '90). Is this 'proof' that all older films are superior to newer ones?

Obviously not. It's just ridiculous that you can look at anything through such dense lenses.

[-playmaker-]

Just more generic, blanket statements. You're saying that all films now are better than films in the past. That's clearly bullshit and you tried to pass off IMDB ratings as some sort of evidence of this. OK, look at the American Film Institute's rankings:

http://www.afi.com/100years/movies10.aspx

Notice how compared to the general public, more discerning tastes rank older films higher with more frequency than many newer ones (post '90). Is this 'proof' that all older films are superior to newer ones?

Obviously not. It's just ridiculous that you can look at anything through such dense lenses.
NO I'M NOT...dude if you are going to try to call me out then at least take the time to read my posts...f*ck

seriously it is clear to me now that you juts have no idea at all what the f*ck I am saying...

NOT ALL MOVIES TODAY ARE BETTER THAN THOSE YESTERDAY...I'm not saying Little Fockers is better than Godfather...or that "Super Hero Movie" is better than Kane...

take the time to read and comprehend first please...

that list is a good source but it is from 1900-1999...nothing this century included

[-playmaker-]

there are great movies from yesterday, but there are better movies today, and I am sure they will be even better tomorrow...

put it like that...that is what I believe for sure

with just about every art form too...

there was brilliant architecture in the past, but even more today

culinary arts have grown...people trying new things...Iron Chef in this b*tch, lol

painting is crazy now, a real life study can be projected onto a canvas so that the final product is almost photo-real...abstract art has shot off in a million different directions...

I just think just about everything has grown for the better...that doesn't mean there weren't brilliant minds in the past though...

[-playmaker-]

that list is ranking them in relation to their time period anyway...not how well they hold up today I don't think...

like SINGIN' IN THE RAIN was big for 1952...even though it can still be fully enjoyed today it would still flop at a theater if it was just released for the first time today...that is because cinema has progressed...

Kane would probably flop in modern times too...

[Jackass18]

I am not going to break down both those posts, alot of stuff there, yes Don I am making broad statements that don't go into detail, but I do think it is unargueable that everything has gotten better "IN GENERAL"....that isn't ignorant it is truth...

How in the hell is it inarguable when you can't even attempt to make a halfway decent argument for it? If it's inarguable, then it should be simple for you to make an argument and support it and yet, the only thing you've done is make sweeping generalizations with absolutely nothing behind them.


acting is better today than yesterday, doesn't mean there weren't LEGENDS back then though

Based on what? I doubt you've even seen many old movies and yet you're making all these generalizations. You're just biased a lot towards modern movies.

Since he already posted the AFI link, I'll give the breakdown by decade:

'10s: 1
'20s: 1
'30s: 7
'40s: 9
'50s: 12
'60s: 9
'70s: 7
'80s: 2
'90s: 1
'00s: 1

Yeah, the 2000s weren't complete when this was made, but I don't think many recent movies would have a chance at making the list. The new list was made in 2007, so many 2000s movies were considered, but only 1 made the list. My own personal top 50 has 11 post-1990 movies in it, which is almost in the middle of the AFI and IMDB lists (of course, I haven't seen every movie so my list isn't as complete).


It is just that things get better over time...not worse

we learn from the past and grow from it...we are inspired by our peers and we pick up where they left off...

BS. How come most remakes are worse than the original?

[DonDadda59]

there are great movies from yesterday, but there are better movies today, and I am sure they will be even better tomorrow...

How are there better movies today exactly? For the most part it's just stale romantic comedies with the same recycled talking heads and predictable played out scripts and non-stop remakes of 80s movies and tv shows. There are quality films being made but usually by smaller independent production companies, the big studios for the most part are constantly churning out what I described as opposed to the studio system in the past which propagated more artistic films. There are good and bad films, just like in the past, to say films are better now, in general or otherwise, is pure ignorance... no other way around it.

And that AFI list did have movies from this century, it was done in '07... only one film made it and it was LOTR at #50. The only film post '07 which could make the list is 'There Will Be Blood' IMO (don't know if the film was out when voting began). So film artists, critics, and historians resoundingly disagree with your generalizations.

[-playmaker-]

okay I don't have the energy for another long rant...

Jackass...I just counted 12 movies in the 1990s in that link...I just did it real quick so maybe it is off a few, but what are you looking at?

Don, yeah there are a lot of "crap" romantic comedies today, guess what, if "Little Fockers" came out the same year "Duck Soup" did it would be labeled the greatest comedy of all time...you know why? cinema has progressed passed Goucho Marx...



sorry I can't reply more right now guys, maybe I will break it down in more depth later

the general statement I am trying to make here though is that society is growing artistically for the better, not worse...

[-playmaker-]

You went to film school? What do you do for a living? What did you study? What school?
I am a 3D Artist, I make video game art (video games and video game art has progressed also lol), I went to art school I should have said "film class" rather than "film school" but a 3D artist can do CG for movies (obviously) or games so they make people take a lot of film classes because a lot end up being artists for film...

I had to get in groups and make my own short movies...watch old classics...learn all the basics of making a film...ect...

if you went to film school then I would think you would agree with what I am saying here...

I know you said Duck Soup was better than the Hangover but you can't deny that if Duck Soup came out today that it would flop...right?

[Jackass18]

okay I don't have the energy for another long rant...

Jackass...I just counted 12 movies in the 1990s in that link...I just did it real quick so maybe it is off a few, but what are you looking at?

The breakdown was for the top 50.

For your next rant, try to stay away from the blanket generalizations and try to support your arguments.

[-playmaker-]

The breakdown was for the top 50.

For your next rant, try to stay away from the blanket generalizations and try to support your arguments.
movies today are higher quality "IN GENERAL"...dude that just is a blanket generalization...it always will be, doesn't mean it is wrong...

that ATI list is based ON THE IMPACT THE FILM HAD AT THE TIME IT WAS RELEASED!!!


if any of those 1940 films were released today they would not do well against modern cinema...I mean it really doesn't take a f*ckin film schoolar to understand that shit...

what you would rather watch tonight the True Grit origianal or this one?


remakes are worse today?...that is just cause THEY CAME OUT TODAY!!!....if the f*ckin remake version of films came out instead of the original it would be viewed COMPLETELY DIFFERENT...(not in all situations but most)

I thought the Friday the 13th remake was utter garbage (and it is BY TODAY'S STANDARDS) but if the remake came out first instead of the original it would be viewed as a f*ckin masterpeice...

[-playmaker-]

Maybe in regards to effects or something, and being in HD, yeah. In regards to plot, acting, cinematography, score, pacing, etc. it's just as mediocre if not more so than the original.
Friday the 13th?

okay I don't remember either that well but the origianal was just camp counselers getting killed by an old woman...that was the plot

the score I believe was the exact same...although I am sure the remake touched up on it and made it better...

the cinematography in the remake was better...

the pacing?...been to long for me say, I haven't seen the original in like 15 years...IT ISN'T GOOD THOUGH...lol

the acting might come off cheezy in the remake but I am quite sure the acting in the original is not oscar material...



the BIGGEST thing that the remake would have over the original is just being scarier since that is the purpose of a horror film...

if someone that had seen neither watched both today I would bet he says the remake is better...

[-playmaker-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ3QFAxTjzQ

^^^ original Friday the 13th trailor...dude it looks like a home movie I made with buddies as a kid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKfE5NrE7K8&feature=related

^^^ the remake trailor....CLEARY superior in every facet...if it had come out in 1980 it would be labeled a masterpeice


THE TRAILERS MIMIC EACH OTHER COOL!!!

[-playmaker-]

obviously, BECAUSE IT WAS MADE IN 200 ****ING 9 NOT 1980. it wouldn't be labeled as a masterpiece because of the quality of the story, the acting, the cinematography etc. the technology is better. just say that instead of all this bullshit. ****.
THAT ^^^^


THAT RIGHT THERE...THAT IS MY POINT!!!

:applause:

if I just say that though "instead of all this other bullshit" they complain that I am making blanket statements...

[InspiredLebowski]

I can't be the first one to throw out a Warren G - Regulate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1plPyJdXKIY) reference can I?

[-playmaker-]

You haven't seen the original in "like 15 years" yet you're so sure of this? That just seems biased, no offense.

I do agree with your point about people just preferring modern movies though, and think it plays into what I said earlier about people from our generation just more easily relating to them. But I do NOT agree that that is any sort of barometer of a film's quality. Sometimes popular opinion ain't worth shit. Britney Spears is one of the all-time best selling artists.

Off topic but you know the poster JerrySteakhouse? He had never heard of Gone With the Wind or The Twilight Zone until some us were talking about old movies/TV shows in the BTE. It's not that he hadn't seen them, he had never heard of them. He hadn't heard of many of the old classics as well, such as Citizen Kane and 12 Angry Men. I guess that might somehow play into the whole "modern vs. retro" thing.
okay if Jerry where to watch those movies oday do you think he would rank them as the all time greatest movies ever made like others do? He doesn't understand the impact that those movies had back then (which is WHY they are ranked high) but he can get an idea of how much he personaly enjoyed them compared to what he is used to seeing today...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCeD_6Y3GQc

^^^ that is Rolling Stone's #6 song OF ALL TIME...and who am I to say it sucks, maybe it is your favorite song ever and you listen to it 24/7....some music is TIMELESS, just like some movies....HOWEVER I think most all of us can agree it would fall flat today, it wouldn't go anywhere...it isn't on par with today's standards in music and those are really low even (Britney like you said)...lol

[-playmaker-]

I can't be the first one to throw out a Warren G - Regulate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1plPyJdXKIY) reference can I?
ah man...ads...a 30 second ad too...had to close that window...lol

[InspiredLebowski]

ah man...ads...a 30 second ad too...had to close that window...lolYoutube has ads?:confusedshrug:

[RidonKs]

The 1969 version also has John Wayne in an eye-patch. A possible allegory to future events like the Watergate scandal and oil crisis perhaps? And now, a new version of True Grit is released while our nation is still suffering from an economic crisis? Hardly a coincidence. Let's not forget that the Coen brothers are JEWS...
:oldlol:


Sorry prime, but you deserve to be laughed at when you start backing up your arguments for modern art with examples of graphical and logistical improvements in video games. Sheesh.

[-playmaker-]

Youtube has ads?:confusedshrug:
mine does...:(

REGULATORS!!!

[-playmaker-]

wtf?
yeah idk man...:confusedshrug:

[-playmaker-]

:oldlol:


Sorry prime, but you deserve to be laughed at when you start backing up your arguments for modern art with examples of graphical and logistical improvements in video games. Sheesh.
video games are modern art imo...but that was far from the only example i gave in here

pages...

I need to go now though...see you tomorrow!

[RidonKs]

Do you believe in the same advancement in literature? Painting? Architecture? Music? Photography? Sculpting? Are all of these mediums covered by your blanket statement that "all art gets better over time", or do they each fail to qualify in their own individual way?

You're just talking out of your ass again.


video games are modern art imo...but that was far from the only example i gave in here

pages...
Oh, they certainly are. But using scientific advancement-backed graphics improvements, among others, slices the pie into a sliver of a piece and tries to sell it as the big picture. And I know that wasn't your only example, I was just nitpicking because it was a stupid example.

[-playmaker-]

i thought you stopped drinking??????? that statement i bolded is nothing like the one i made and you agreed with.
wait what?

you are saying that the remake is worse in all those areas?

[-playmaker-]

Do you believe in the same advancement in literature? Painting? Architecture? Music? Photography? Sculpting? Are all of these mediums covered by your blanket statement that "all art gets better over time", or do they each fail to qualify in their own individual way?

You're just talking out of your ass again.
BS...F*CK OFF

yes I think we have made progressions in all those areas, I'm not talking out my ass on this, I did go to art school, I do make a living as an artist an even work with many other artists...

[-playmaker-]

He misread your post, I'm guessing the "...etc. technology is better"(he took the "is better" part to apply to everything you had just said previously) part. Thought that at the time but didn't want to say anything in case I was wrong.:lol
I did...lol...that is what happened

bu how can you watch those 2 trailers and disagree with that Al f*ck?

[-playmaker-]

ummmm

yea
you worded that strange, but yeah I misunderstood you...

[RoseCity07]

Lol I created the other thread about this. This one has blown up.

I just wanted to say, that's good if you liked this movie. I'm glad. I really did want to like it, I just have different tastes.

I really liked Tombstone, and mostly all Clint Eastwood westerns that I've seen. This movie to me doesn't hold a candle to any of those classics.

[Jackass18]

that ATI list is based ON THE IMPACT THE FILM HAD AT THE TIME IT WAS RELEASED!!!

It's "AFI", and it was 1,500 people from the film industry voting on what they felt were the greatest American movies of all time.


if any of those 1940 films were released today they would not do well against modern cinema...I mean it really doesn't take a f*ckin film schoolar to understand that shit...

Who can say how a movie would be viewed if it came out much later? A movie like Citizen Kane coming out later would change film history a great deal. Anyway, it actually flopped at the box office when it was first released. Are you trying to take 'influence' completely out of the picture or something?


what you would rather watch tonight the True Grit origianal or this one?

What's the point of this question? I'd go with the original. Always watch the original first.


remakes are worse today?...that is just cause THEY CAME OUT TODAY!!!....if the f*ckin remake version of films came out instead of the original it would be viewed COMPLETELY DIFFERENT...(not in all situations but most)

Your argument was that the original is improved upon in art. Everything is always improving in art or some blah blah blah like that. Why don't most remakes improve upon the original and instead are usually much worse?


I thought the Friday the 13th remake was utter garbage (and it is BY TODAY'S STANDARDS) but if the remake came out first instead of the original it would be viewed as a f*ckin masterpeice...

The original movie isn't viewed as being anywhere near being in the ballpark of a masterpiece, so why would the remake if it's utter garbage?

[Lebowsky]

Lebowski is your username not related to the movie?

I would classify that as a modern comedy...

It is, and I love the big lebowsky.
I don't see how the humor in Chaplin's or Marx's movies may appear simplistic to you. Of course they aren't blessed with the sophistication of a good fart joke or some timeless puking, but they tried their best.

[pete's montreux]

I don't really know why anyone is arguing with prime on this one. He's obviously very ignorant on the subject, even after going to 'film school'.

I saw a ridiculous statement by him, asked if he was joking, he said no, and I mentally and physically punched out. Walked away. Why argue in circles? Who really cares what he has to say? Ignorance is bliss. He can think whatever he wants, it doesn't change the opinions of anyone else here.

[-playmaker-]

okay this is the last post I am going to make in this thread, at this point it almost feels as though some of you PMed each other and decided to keep to see how long you could egg me on or something, some of your arguements aren't even arguements now and the simple fact that you can't even acknowledge that you understand my angle is puzzling at this point...I don't think I have ever even seen Ridonks this aggressive lol, it feels like he just came in here to call me stupid and on rip video games out of the blue, wtf.


simply put:

If you truely believe that there have been NO advancements or progressions made over the years in anything other than special effects then I truely believe you are wrong.

Don't ask me how cinematography has advanced, look it up yourself!..the internet is huge!

Don't ask me how writing or acting has progessed, compare common scripts and roles played over the years...call an actor's studio and ask them how teaching now is different than in the 1940's...and yes I am fully aware there were complex scripts and amazingly talented actors in the past, no one is saying there weren't.

do it with every art form imaginable if you like...all the ones you named Ridonks...look at how painting and sculpting techniques have changed, I shouldn't need to explain to you how photography has advanced over the years...Architecture FOR SURE Ridonks! There have been absolutely brilliant architectes in the past but have you seen the new stadium in Dallas dude?...lol

just look at how art schools themselves have progressed over the years...the number of artists today that are being given the opportunity to share and inspire others is much greater than the past...the internet itself is a great tool for people today to learn.

Maybe artists themselves haven't gotten any better, but the techniquies we use have gotten better, and the sheer number of artists have increased a great deal, that combined with a dramitc increase in technology results in a better product in most cases, although obvioulsy not all cases.

anyway, I'm done in here...We didn't have to agree on anything but it would have at least been nice if a couple of you could have just simply started a post by saying "I can understand -pt-'s point here but blah blah blah..."......and maybe I was making blanket statements but that is what I intended them to be, I didn't intend for this to be a long detailed arguement about how film has progressed over the years...oh well, maybe another time guys!...Happy New Year to all of you, except you Ridonks you are a meany!

[pete's montreux]

Why would anyone say good point if you haven't made one yet?

[Jailblazers7]

The gist of what im getting from you posts (especially that last one) is that you're stating art has become easier and more artists have sprouted from this use of technology. Many people would actually consider a detriment to art because it dilutes the talent pool and stunts creativity, such as the music industry.

[SCY]

Just because improvements have been made in a certain area of film doesn't mean movies are "better" than they used to be. I'm far from an expert, but I'd say the improvements are mostly in the a way a film looks. There at least should be the potential for a movie today to have better effects, clearer picture, etc. (Of course plenty of movies coming out today still look like garbage in comparison to older films)

The thing is, the way a film looks is secondary (if it's at least acceptable) to the direction, acting, and screenplay. These things are SKILLS. While they may be easier to hone as I supposee easier to get acting lessons, get into film school, etc. It still requires talent, and I fail to see how that's something that magically improves over time.

[CelticsDraftee]

That is the most average film I've ever seen.


This bear is riding a horse. Your argument is invalid.

http://cdn.fd.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/True-Grit-Bear-on-a-horse.jpg

[vinsane01]

This bear is riding a horse. Your argument is invalid.

http://cdn.fd.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/True-Grit-Bear-on-a-horse.jpg

:lol

Now i gotta see this movie.

Repped.

[jasonresno]

This Has to be the dumbest argument in the history of ISH. There are as many good films released nowadays as there were pre 1990. It just so happens there's a bigger pool of films to pick from.

For every Citizens Kane there was a Swamp Monsters from Mars and for every modern rom com there's an Inception, Departed, or Dark Knight.

Jesus, I didn't realize ISH would be full of cinema snobs.

[Jackass18]

at this point it almost feels as though some of you PMed each other and decided to keep to see how long you could egg me on or something, some of your arguements aren't even arguements now and the simple fact that you can't even acknowledge that you understand my angle is puzzling at this point...

Part of the reason I'm responding is your paranoia, but mainly the fact that you sound so sure of yourself even though you haven't really put forth any kind of valid point.


okay this is the last post I am going to make in this thread

I can see why you would want to run away from this thread. Let's take a look at one of your comments:


directing too...there have been brillinat directors in the past, but there are much more today...

Really? The 1950s had:

William Wyler
Frank Capra
Cecil B. DeMille
Alfred Hitchcock
George Cukor
John Ford
Howard Hawks
Stanley Kubrick
Michael Curtiz
John Huston
Elia Kazan
Vincente Minnelli
Otto Preminger
George Stevens
Orson Welles
Francois Truffaut
Charlie Chaplin
Fritz Lang
Federico Fellini
Luis Bunuel
Akira Kurosawa
Ingmar Bergman
Billy Wilder
Jean Renoir
Stanley Kramer
David Lean
Sidney Lumet
Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Henri-Georges Clouzot
Fred Zinnemann
Robert Aldrich
Robert Wise
Jules Dassin
Satyajit Ray
Yasujiro Ozu
Nicholas Ray
Max Ophuls

You think the past decade is coming anywhere close to touching that?

[jasonresno]

Really? The 1950s had:

William Wyler
Frank Capra
Cecil B. DeMille
Alfred Hitchcock
George Cukor
John Ford
Howard Hawks
Stanley Kubrick
Michael Curtiz
John Huston
Elia Kazan
Vincente Minnelli
Otto Preminger
Robert Zemeckis
George Stevens
Orson Welles
Francois Truffaut
Charlie Chaplin
Fritz Lang
Federico Fellini
Luis Bunuel
Akira Kurosawa
Ingmar Bergman
Billy Wilder
Jean Renoir
Stanley Kramer
David Lean
Sidney Lumet
Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Henri-Georges Clouzot
Fred Zinnemann
Robert Aldrich
Robert Wise
Jules Dassin
Satyajit Ray
Yasujiro Ozu
Nicholas Ray
Max Ophuls

You think the past decade is coming anywhere close to touching that?

These are all great directors that have put out great films in the past decade.

Hayao Miyazaki
Wes Anderson
Michael Mann
Pedro Almodovar
Ang Lee
Peter Jackson
Spike Jonze
Baz Luhrmann
Joel Coen
Clint Eastwood
Roman Polanski
Chris Nolan
David Lynch
Todd Haynes
Jean-Luc Godard
Tonya Kaye
Peter Weir
Spike Lee
Quentin Tarantino
Martin Scorcese
Steven Soderbergh
Darren Aronofsky
Lars Von Trier
P.T. Anderson
Francois Ozon
David Finchner
Frank Darabon
Guy Richie
Ridley Scott
Oliver Stone
Michel Gondry
Bryan Singer
Guillermo Del Toro
Alex Proyas
John Frankenheime
Clive Barker
Edward Zwick (personal favorite)
Ron Howard

....I can keep going. But I'm not going to because I think you get the point. The point you're trying to make (that there are no good modern films/that modern films cannot begin to touch classics) is an impossible one but you're attacking it with the tenacity of a child with downs and an ice cream cone.

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/000/052/812/original/Deal_with_it_dog_gif.gif

[KeylessEntry]

True Grit is one of the few good movies that has come out recently. That someone could say True Grit sucks while Young Guns 2 "has the crown" absolutely blows my mind. It is basically deliberate trolling.

[jasonresno]

True Grit is one of the few good movies that has come out recently. That someone could say True Grit sucks while Young Guns 2 "has the crown" absolutely blows my mind. It is basically deliberate trolling.
It really is. What did you think about the climax and ending, the pacing and payoff?

[SCY]

This Has to be the dumbest argument in the history of ISH. There are as many good films released nowadays as there were pre 1990. It just so happens there's a bigger pool of films to pick from.

For every Citizens Kane there was a Swamp Monsters from Mars and for every modern rom com there's an Inception, Departed, or Dark Knight.

Jesus, I didn't realize ISH would be full of cinema snobs.

No one (or very few) have said that, and even so, someone who claims every film made before 1970 is outdated is equally snobbish.

[jasonresno]

No one (or very few) have said that, and even so, someone who claims every film made before 1970 is outdated is equally snobbish.
I haven't seen a single person call every film pre 1970 outdated. Certainly not myself. It's the "very few" I'm pointing at, right now. I.e: Jackass.

[hayden695]

I haven't seen a single person call every film pre 1970 outdated. Certainly not myself. It's the "very few" I'm pointing at, right now. I.e: Jackass.
That is exactly what Dooms or Prime was doing:oldlol:

[SCY]

Riddler's flat out said it, PT is pussyfooting around it a bit but said as much.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXldafIl5DQ

nope... just watched most of this 8 minute clip... and it just doesn't hold up.

it's about to be 2011... movies from the 60's are getting out dated.

Damn movie is 45 years old... I'm sorry it's just not gonna be that entertaining.



and YES I understand that there are plenty of old films that hold up toiday but in this thread we are comparing John Wayne westerns to a F*CKING COEN BROTHERS MOVIE!!!...lol

sorry but they aren't as good as today's movies....only in a nostalgic way could you think so

[-playmaker-]

Jesus Mary Mother of F*CK...no I never said "everything pre-1970 is outdate" where the f*ck did that even come from???...please someone show me that!!!

BOTH those quotes there SCY are in relation to old westerns like the original True Grit


this is why I can't debate this shit with you guys cause I can say "IN GENERAL" 800 f*cking times yet someone will still step in a act as though I said "Little Fockers > Kane"...:oldlol:

Not only that but you would think I killed your dogs or something, why are some of you so offended at the idea that film has progressed?...Why does it bother you?...it DOES come off very snobbish.


and thanks Jason but how you gonna leave out Spielberg and Cameron?...lol...huge names there

[-playmaker-]

Just because improvements have been made in a certain area of film doesn't mean movies are "better" than they used to be. I'm far from an expert, but I'd say the improvements are mostly in the a way a film looks. There at least should be the potential for a movie today to have better effects, clearer picture, etc. (Of course plenty of movies coming out today still look like garbage in comparison to older films)

The thing is, the way a film looks is secondary (if it's at least acceptable) to the direction, acting, and screenplay. These things are SKILLS. While they may be easier to hone as I supposee easier to get acting lessons, get into film school, etc. It still requires talent, and I fail to see how that's something that magically improves over time.
the level of talent hasn't increased but the "SKILLS" have...we become more skilled over time...that might be true with damn near everything a human can do period...lol

the number of talented individuals that are involved in film has increased a great deal though compared to the past...which is a huge benifit IMO however it looks like Jail is making an arguement that more talent actually makes things worse by deluting things...I don't buy it though

[jasonresno]

Riddler's flat out said it, PT is pussyfooting around it a bit but said as much.
The first guys ignorant but what PT said wasn't wrong because it's an opinion that isn't blatantly stupid.

Blanket Statements are issued by retarded people.

I guess that's all I got.

[Jailblazers7]

the level of talent hasn't increased but the "SKILLS" have...we become more skilled over time...that might be true with damn near everything a human can do period...lol

the number of talented individuals that are involved in film has increased a great deal though compared to the past...which is a huge benifit IMO however it looks like Jail is making an arguement that more talent actually makes things worse by deluting things...I don't buy it though

Im saying less talented individuals are able to make a decent looking/sounding product because of these technological advancements. Its not the case of artists being more talented in general, its the case of art becoming easier to make and being diluted because of a bunch of mediocre talents being able to whip something up on a computer.

[Hotlantadude81]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXldafIl5DQ

nope... just watched most of this 8 minute clip... and it just doesn't hold up.

it's about to be 2011... movies from the 60's are getting out dated.

Damn movie is 45 years old... I'm sorry it's just not gonna be that entertaining.

I'm sure all the teens girls out there agree with you. They got your back.:facepalm

[Hotlantadude81]

Hey you can shut the f*ck up... that's what I would do If I were you.

I'm not in the minority when thinking old films aren't that entertaining anymore.



Again... this is the kind of $hit that I like to watch:

http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt216/Doomsday2036/All-Time-Greats.jpg


Young Guns is shit dude. It doesn't even belong on that poster with some of those other movies. If you want to know the truth, not many people give a shit about Young Guns anymore. Shit... The younger crowd could most likely tell you more about Tombstone than they would Young Guns.

Young Guns is some outdated shit. Does Emilio even act anymore? Christian Slater has done hit direct to DVD land. Shit's old.

Die Hard 2 sucks ass and PF is overrated.

[SCY]

the level of talent hasn't increased but the "SKILLS" have...we become more skilled over time...that might be true with damn near everything a human can do period...lol

the number of talented individuals that are involved in film has increased a great deal though compared to the past...which is a huge benifit IMO however it looks like Jail is making an arguement that more talent actually makes things worse by deluting things...I don't buy it though

That's just foolish optimism to think everything magically gets better. Has our economy improved? Our food/diets? We sure as hell haven't made much progress in the search for new sources of energy. These are discussions for another thread, but the problem with this line of thinking is that people in general are more concerned with turning a profit then increasing quality of life.

As far as the skill of acting increasing, you're going to need to do a better job of explaining that. As far as I can see, the qualifications for being a great actor haven't changed. Styles change, but a great performance is still a great performance. Take something like chess. The rules of chess haven't changed, there's no reason to believe 1939's best chess player is worse than 2010's best chess player. To me acting, screenwriting, directing falls into the same category.

And I've never said that movies are worse today than they were in the past. You're the one that's being a snob by trying to say one era is better than the other because of your personal preference. IMO a well made movie in 1939 is as good as a well made movie in 2010, and a poorly made movie in 2020 will be worse than both. It's that simple.

[-playmaker-]

well I did make blatent statements though Jason...I didn't understand half of ISH is related to Siskle and Ebert though...didn't think it would blow up like that...it was supposed to be a quick blanket statement...that is what I ment it to be...not something to be taken into great depth...



and I think Young Guns is great btw!!!...BOTH of them...they are fun!!!...:D

[-playmaker-]

That's just foolish optimism to think everything magically gets better. Has our economy improved? Our food/diets? We sure as hell haven't made much progress in the search for new sources of energy. These are discussions for another thread, but the problem with this line of thinking is that people in general are more concerned with turning a profit then increasing quality of life.

As far as the skill of acting increasing, you're going to need to do a better job of explaining that. As far as I can see, the qualifications for being a great actor haven't changed. Styles change, but a great performance is still a great performance. Take something like chess. The rules of chess haven't changed, there's no reason to believe 1939's best chess player is worse than 2010's best chess player. To me acting, screenwriting, directing falls into the same category.

And I've never said that movies are worse today than they were in the past. You're the one that's being a snob by trying to say one era is better than the other because of your personal preference. IMO a well made movie in 1939 is as good as a well made movie in 2010, and a poorly made movie in 2020 will be worse than both. It's that simple.
it's NOT foolish optimism to say that our skills have improved over the years...we have new tools, what HASN"T been helped out by computers???...stop bringing diets and McDonalds into this...we have learned from those in the past...YES, a great preformance is still a great proformance...no doubt...but Christian Bale couldn't do what he is doing today in the 40s...I am sure he has learned a great deal from those before him...(just an example)...same with all the great directors of today, you think they weren't inspired by those before them?

______________


okay, I have to go...just please stop putting words in my mouth...

[heyhey]

Im saying less talented individuals are able to make a decent looking/sounding product because of these technological advancements. Its not the case of artists being more talented in general, its the case of art becoming easier to make and being diluted because of a bunch of mediocre talents being able to whip something up on a computer.

but isn't that balanced out by the fact now days more talented individuals have access to film making. In the golden age of hollywood, filmmaking was controlled by production companies. There was a certain level of artistic censorship/discrimination that could have disallowed certain individuals from obtaining the funds to make films.

Now days indie films are much more prevalent and this induces much greater plurality in auteurship since it's cheaper to make movies. Also there are just more people in teh world now. so if there's one talented filmmaker in every 100000 people, that would mean there should be more talented filmmakers now than before.

On a percentage basis, the number of good films have probably decreased, but on a raw number basis I would say it has increased.

also I think what people forget is that it was easier to be original when film was a new artistic medium. Now days it's more difficult for people to get recognition for novel cinematography or such.

[Hotlantadude81]

RBA just said the original is corny but it was likely due to the time period it was made...obviously most older movies do "suck" in comparison to modern films...stop being a movie snob


hey dude you want to do another comic book draft???...I GOT SUPERMAN!!!!

I'll agree that the original True Grit is CORNY. Hell, the best part is when Mattie is arguing with the horse trader. Strother Martin is a trip.... You know, the warden from Cool Hand Luke.

The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and The Shootist are Wayne's best movies. Not True Grit.

That said, most today's movies are shit and most never hold a candle to a lot of the classics.

[-playmaker-]

Im saying less talented individuals are able to make a decent looking/sounding product because of these technological advancements. Its not the case of artists being more talented in general, its the case of art becoming easier to make and being diluted because of a bunch of mediocre talents being able to whip something up on a computer.
that makes sense but there are still A TON of people that are clearly talented today...everyone involved in True Grit!

good point though...easily seen in the music industry which is near impossible to defend today...lol

STILL one could say that Trent Reznor has more talent than Elvis who might is probably ranked top-10 all time (and should be)

[Hotlantadude81]

I think you can break down every single facet of a movie from the acting to the writing to the FX to EVERYTHING and it has been improved upon over time...that is JMO

How unlucky for people back then that they didn't have Mark Wahlberg, Paris Hilton, Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider to star in movies. They really had it rough back then.

[Hotlantadude81]

that list is ranking them in relation to their time period anyway...not how well they hold up today I don't think...

like SINGIN' IN THE RAIN was big for 1952...even though it can still be fully enjoyed today it would still flop at a theater if it was just released for the first time today...that is because cinema has progressed...

Kane would probably flop in modern times too...


Were in times where Transformers movies with "niggabots" makes 400 million.


Niggabots.... Yeah, things clearly are advancing.

Almost anything of any substance flops now. This is the age where we put shows about 16 year old pregrant girls on TV. We have shows like "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader".

It's like... What kind of ****ed up shit is this?
I hope you never make it over to rottentomatoes with these opinions. You'd get destroyed.

[Jailblazers7]

but isn't that balanced out by the fact now days more talented individuals have access to film making. In the golden age of hollywood, filmmaking was controlled by production companies. There was a certain level of artistic censorship/discrimination that could have disallowed certain individuals from obtaining the funds to make films.

Now days indie films are much more prevalent and this induces much greater plurality in auteurship since it's cheaper to make movies. Also there are just more people in teh world now. so if there's one talented filmmaker in every 100000 people, that would mean there should be more talented filmmakers now than before.

On a percentage basis, the number of good films have probably decreased, but on a raw number basis I would say it has increased.

also I think what people forget is that it was easier to be original when film was a new artistic medium. Now days it's more difficult for people to get recognition for novel cinematography or such.

Yeah, I think the indie film market is a good example of how technology has helped increase the artistic freedom of directors because good movies can be made more efficiently and cheaper than in the past. The production companies still hold control in the making and marketing of major movies tho.

The dilution on a percentage bases is the type of thing I was referring to earlier. The raw number of movies have dramatically increased over the years/decades but there is so much Michael Bay-type shit made by marginally talented individuals.

[Hotlantadude81]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ3QFAxTjzQ

^^^ original Friday the 13th trailor...dude it looks like a home movie I made with buddies as a kid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKfE5NrE7K8&feature=related

^^^ the remake trailor....CLEARY superior in every facet...if it had come out in 1980 it would be labeled a masterpeice


THE TRAILERS MIMIC EACH OTHER COOL!!!

Who ever thought the original was a masterpiece? Where do you get these terrible idea's from? None of these movies are actually "good".

[SCY]

it's NOT foolish optimism to say that our skills have improved over the years...we have new tools, what HASN"T been helped out by computers???...stop bringing diets and McDonalds into this...we have learned from those in the past...YES, a great preformance is still a great proformance...no doubt...but Christian Bale couldn't do what he is doing today in the 40s...I am sure he has learned a great deal from those before him...(just an example)...same with all the great directors of today, you think they weren't inspired by those before them?

okay, I have to go...just please stop putting words in my mouth...

You know you're wrong here, everything doesn't magically become better over the years. Lots has, lots hasn't. And sorry, you just aren't coming up with any compelling reasons why acting or directing is better today. I mean, can you objectively argue that Bale is a better actor than a Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart, or Kirk Douglas? Now there's actors from this decade that can hang with those names, but that's on their own merits, not some magical quality of being better due to "learning from the past."

[-playmaker-]

:lol
:oldlol: I failed so hard...there was nothing I could do...the urge was just too strong...

________________________


not some magical quality of being better due to "learning from the past."

SCY, being inspired and learning from those before you isn't f*cking magic...:oldlol:

________________________


Hotlanta, that was in response to "every remake is worse than the original" I was trying to show that even shitty remakes are better than the originals, the only reason they are deemed shit is because they AREN'T THE ORIGINAL!!!

also your arguements are down right awful...

________________________

Okay I am really done this time NO MATTER WHAT...okay probably not but I am going to say it anyway damn it!!!

[SCY]

SCY, being inspired and learning from those before you isn't f*cking magic...:oldlol:


There's no reason to assume that something will be better because it was inspired by something before it. It's not inherently logical like you seem to think it is.

[Hotlantadude81]

These are all great directors that have put out great films in the past decade.

Hayao Miyazaki
Wes Anderson
Michael Mann
Pedro Almodovar
Ang Lee
Peter Jackson
Spike Jonze
Baz Luhrmann
Joel Coen
Clint Eastwood
Roman Polanski
Chris Nolan
David Lynch
Todd Haynes
Jean-Luc Godard
Tonya Kaye
Peter Weir
Spike Lee
Quentin Tarantino
Martin Scorcese
Steven Soderbergh
Darren Aronofsky
Lars Von Trier
P.T. Anderson
Francois Ozon
David Finchner
Frank Darabon
Guy Richie
Ridley Scott
Oliver Stone
Michel Gondry
Bryan Singer
Guillermo Del Toro
Alex Proyas
John Frankenheime
Clive Barker
Edward Zwick (personal favorite)
Ron Howard

....I can keep going. But I'm not going to because I think you get the point. The point you're trying to make (that there are no good modern films/that modern films cannot begin to touch classics) is an impossible one but you're attacking it with the tenacity of a child with downs and an ice cream cone.

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/000/052/812/original/Deal_with_it_dog_gif.gif


How many great directors have debut since 1998?

Spike Jonze
Todd Field-Potential
Andrew Dominik-Maybe
Chris Nolan-Tech he made The Following in 1998, but we'll add him.
Michel Gondry-Potential
Sam Mendes
Jason Reitman
Duncan Jones-Potential
Darren Aronofsky
John Hillcoat-Potential
Edgar Wright
J.J. Abrams-Potential
Paul Thomas Anderson
Wes Anderson
Ben Affleck-Potential

Guys like PT Anderson, Domink, Field and Hillcoat don't really work a lot though.

To me, these guys started becoming a factor in very late 90's or later.

[Hotlantadude81]

Hotlanta, that was in response to "every remake is worse than the original" I was trying to show that even shitty remakes are better than the originals, the only reason they are deemed shit is because they AREN'T THE ORIGINAL!!!




Originally should count for something. There are remakes that are good/better than the original. But I'll address this later tonight.

[jasonresno]

How unlucky for people back then that they didn't have Mark Wahlberg, Paris Hilton, Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider to star in movies. They really had it rough back then.

Because those are the only actors in modern filmmaking. Just like I'm sure every actor in the pre 1990 was a lock for some sort of acting award.

Oh wait, there were shitty actors back then too.

Get the **** outta here.

[Jackass18]

....I can keep going. But I'm not going to because I think you get the point. The point you're trying to make (that there are no good modern films/that modern films cannot begin to touch classics) is an impossible one but you're attacking it with the tenacity of a child with downs and an ice cream cone.

It seems like your feelings are getting hurt in here or something. I'm arguing against PT saying that everything is better - quality of movies, directing, acting, writing and such, but you seem to be catching feelings whining and calling people film snobs and boohooing that people don't get the same erection over modern films like you do. Those directors you listed overall just don't touch the quality of the ones I listed. A number of the directors you listed barely made any movies (some only 1) the past decade. That wasn't a really good decade for Oliver Stone. John Frankenheimer? Really, you're going to list someone who put out just one movie in theaters and that being Reindeer Games? Clive Barker's only directed 3 movies in his career including 0 this past decade and yet you're listing him? You can keep going? It seems you struggled to put that list together.

[enayes]

I thought the movie was great, jeff bridges was unbelievable.

[jasonresno]

It seems like your feelings are getting hurt in here or something. I'm arguing against PT saying that everything is better - quality of movies, directing, acting, writing and such, but you seem to be catching feelings whining and calling people film snobs and boohooing that people don't get the same erection over modern films like you do. Those directors you listed overall just don't touch the quality of the ones I listed. A number of the directors you listed barely made any movies (some only 1) the past decade. That wasn't a really good decade for Oliver Stone. John Frankenheimer? Really, you're going to list someone who put out just one movie in theaters and that being Reindeer Games? Clive Barker's only directed 3 movies in his career including 0 this past decade and yet you're listing him? You can keep going? It seems you struggled to put that list together.
:roll:

Haha, wait. Wait.

/Jackass18

All of the directors you listed don't touch the ones I listed. Therefore I am right. No, I don't have any substance to back up this statement. Why do you ask?

/Jackass18

You're a clown. I love classic films. I just hate snobs that try to say there are no good films still being made. Every director I listed deserved its spot on the list and every director I listed has a film that can stand toe to toe with the "classics" (which I'm also a fan of). Negged and blocked. You truly live up to your awful name.

[Jackass18]

Who in the hell said that there are no good films being made? I just explained it to you in simple terms and yet you're still whining with that kind of nonsense? Wow, you really are catching feelings here. I'm the clown? Look at the retarded post you just made. It's dripping with stupidity and emo angst. Every director you listed deserves his spot even though one of them hasn't even directed a movie since 1995? Every director has a film that is one of the best of all time? Wow, just wow. I'm glad you're blocking me with that amount of bullshit and bitterness in your posts. I don't have any substance to back up my statement? The names I listed speak for themselves. A number of them are amongst the greatest directors of all time. Sigh, run along little kid.

[Stuckey]

why does this movie suck?

[jasonresno]

Who in the hell said that there are no good films being made? I just explained it to you in simple terms and yet you're still whining with that kind of nonsense? Wow, you really are catching feelings here. I'm the clown? Look at the retarded post you just made. It's dripping with stupidity and emo angst. Every director you listed deserves his spot even though one of them hasn't even directed a movie since 1995? Every director has a film that is one of the best of all time? Wow, just wow. I'm glad you're blocking me with that amount of bullshit and bitterness in your posts. I don't have any substance to back up my statement? The names I listed speak for themselves. A number of them are amongst the greatest directors of all time. Sigh, run along little kid.
Bahahaha. What a joke. You say one thing then say another and then say yet another and none of your points agree with eachother.

Alright, I let you have your last post and you prove yet again you are a moron. You're a movie snob with a misunderstanding of cinema. It's truly a gorgeous display of idiocy.

[Jackass18]

Hurry up and block me so I don't have to see your asinine and irrelevant whining.


Every director I listed deserved its spot on the list and every director I listed has a film that can stand toe to toe with the "classics" (which I'm also a fan of).

One of the dumbest things I've ever read. Is there some sort of point anywhere or do you post just to whine about nonsense?

[Jackass18]

Jackass is as wrong in saying all modern films suck

I like how you have to be completely dishonest when trying to argue with someone and have resort to calling people film snobs because you lack a point.

[Hotlantadude81]

Because those are the only actors in modern filmmaking. Just like I'm sure every actor in the pre 1990 was a lock for some sort of acting award.

Oh wait, there were shitty actors back then too.

Get the **** outta here.

Give me a list of great current actors.

[Hotlantadude81]

It seems like your feelings are getting hurt in here or something. I'm arguing against PT saying that everything is better - quality of movies, directing, acting, writing and such, but you seem to be catching feelings whining and calling people film snobs and boohooing that people don't get the same erection over modern films like you do. Those directors you listed overall just don't touch the quality of the ones I listed. A number of the directors you listed barely made any movies (some only 1) the past decade. That wasn't a really good decade for Oliver Stone. John Frankenheimer? Really, you're going to list someone who put out just one movie in theaters and that being Reindeer Games? Clive Barker's only directed 3 movies in his career including 0 this past decade and yet you're listing him? You can keep going? It seems you struggled to put that list together.

Guys like Eastwood, Lee, Stone, Scott and possibly Mann are past their primes. Clive Barker and Ron Howard don't deserve to be on such a list. Neither does Guy Ritchie. Bryan Singer was a one hit wonder and even The Usual Suspects is an overrated movie.

Eastwood is basically the same director as Ron Howard. He really started going downhill after Unforgiven. It's like he buried his balls along with his western movie persona.

[jasonresno]

Guys like Eastwood, Lee, Stone, Scott and possibly Mann are past their primes. Clive Barker and Ron Howard don't deserve to be on such a list. Neither does Guy Ritchie. Bryan Singer was a one hit wonder and even The Usual Suspects is an overrated movie.

Eastwood is basically the same director as Ron Howard. He really started going downhill after Unforgiven. It's like he buried his balls along with his western movie persona.
My post had nothing to do with "primes". The point was these were all considered modern directors and they've all put out consistent incredible movies.

Clint Eastwood:Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Invictus, Gran Torino, Letters from Iwo Jima, Unforgiven.:facepalm

Ridley Scott: Blackhawk Down, Gladiator, The Assassination Of Jesse James, Body of Lies, Matchstick Men, Hannibal.:facepalm

Oliver Stone: Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon, JFK, Wall Street (original).:facepalm

Guy Ritchie: Snatch, Revolver, Lock Stock, and RocknRolla are all amazing movies. Have you seen Revolver? That'll change your opinion on Ritchie.

Ron Howard speaks for himself. I probably missed a ton of great movies these guys put out but it's early, so forgive me.


Give me a list of great current actors.
Jesus. That's a big question. You want me to list ALL great current actors in film? I'll do something more manageable, I'll list my favorites.

Leonardo DiCaprio (post Titanic), Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Johnny Depp, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Sean Penn, Daniel Day Lewis, Josh Brolin, Jeff Bridges, Russel Crowe, Barry Pepper, Tom Hanks, Ed Harris, Willem Defoe, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Caine, Benicio Del Toro, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Robert Duvall, Don Cheadle, Harvey Keitel, Joaqin Phoenix, Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Guy Pearce, Javier Bardem, Heath Ledger, John Malkovich, Robert Downey Jr, Kevin Bacon, Steve Buscemi, Viggo Mortensen.

Any one of those guys'll make a movie worth watching.

[InspiredLebowski]

There are many, many great old films and actors. There are also many, many great modern films and actors.

I win.

[Jailblazers7]

I would post a photo of an angry Dr. Cox if I wasn't on my phone for Hugh Jackman being listed.

[heyhey]

I disagree with whoever said that modern films suck because that's just not true. But I will say that in the 50s, 60s, when godard was in vogue, a conflation of social factors abroad and domestic combined to absolve acinephelia of its escapist tendencies. and elevated it to an act of the uttermost cerebral/academic importance. The broad appeal of film societies and magazines demonstrated this palpable excitement.

I think this interest in film gave away because mainstream films are more and more expensive to produce yet the number of theater attendance has not risen proportionally. Producers are now more concerned with the profitablility of films rather than their artisitc merit. Hence a lot great modern films are made on smaller budget independently or by smaller production companies. Thus there's an appearance of ennui among big budget mainstream movies.

[FatComputerNerd]

My post had nothing to do with "primes". The point was these were all considered modern directors and they've all put out consistent incredible movies.

Clint Eastwood:Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Invictus, Gran Torino, Letters from Iwo Jima, Unforgiven.:facepalm

Ridley Scott: Blackhawk Down, Gladiator, The Assassination Of Jesse James, Body of Lies, Matchstick Men, Hannibal.:facepalm

Oliver Stone: Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon, JFK, Wall Street (original).:facepalm

Guy Ritchie: Snatch, Revolver, Lock Stock, and RocknRolla are all amazing movies. Have you seen Revolver? That'll change your opinion on Ritchie.

Ron Howard speaks for himself. I probably missed a ton of great movies these guys put out but it's early, so forgive me.


Jesus. That's a big question. You want me to list ALL great current actors in film? I'll do something more manageable, I'll list my favorites.

Leonardo DiCaprio (post Titanic), Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Johnny Depp, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Sean Penn, Daniel Day Lewis, Josh Brolin, Jeff Bridges, Russel Crowe, Barry Pepper, Tom Hanks, Ed Harris, Willem Defoe, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Caine, Benicio Del Toro, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Robert Duvall, Don Cheadle, Harvey Keitel, Joaqin Phoenix, Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Guy Pearce, Javier Bardem, Heath Ledger, John Malkovich, Robert Downey Jr, Kevin Bacon, Steve Buscemi, Viggo Mortensen.

Any one of those guys'll make a movie worth watching.

Roberto Benigni, Ben Kingsley, Will Smith, Anthony Hopkins, Morgan Freeman, Jack Nicholson, Denzel, Mark Wahlberg, Ian McKellen Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson, Christopher Walken, Kevin Spacey, hmm...I'm sure I'm forgetting a few more too...

[Hotlantadude81]

My post had nothing to do with "primes". The point was these were all considered modern directors and they've all put out consistent incredible movies.

Stone has been putting out crap for over a decade. He doesn't matter anymore.


Clint Eastwood:Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Invictus, Gran Torino, Letters from Iwo Jima, Unforgiven.:facepalm

Million Dollar Baby is a manipulative overrated film with Clint trying to do a Mickey impersonation. It's a shame it hard to turn into a cheap tearjerker type of movie. Gran Torino was terrible from the cast, to the script.


Ridley Scott: Blackhawk Down, Gladiator, The Assassination Of Jesse James, Body of Lies, Matchstick Men, Hannibal.:facepalm

Andrew Domink directed Jesse James. Hannibal was by far the worst film of that series. Matchstick Men is amusing, but it's only worth watching once.


Oliver Stone: Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon, JFK, Wall Street (original).:facepalm

Notice none of these movies are inside the last 20 years. If you're going to throw Stone into the list of directors you would think that maybe he should actually have some quality work in 20 years. If not, listing him doesn't mean anything at this point. Born on the Fourth of July was heavy handed crap anyway.


Guy Ritchie: Snatch, Revolver, Lock Stock, and RocknRolla are all amazing movies. Have you seen Revolver? That'll change your opinion on Ritchie.

None of these are great movies. Dude is a QT wannabe. Sorry, I want the real thing and not some imitation

Lot's of these guys have made entertaining and passable movies. But none of these guys are making masterpiece type of films. Maybe Jima is for Eastwood. I haven't see it, but outside of that, I've seen a bulk of these movies you have listed and none of them are masterpieces or 10/10 type of movies.

I'll give you Duvall because he still does really good work. Ledger is dead, so I don't see how you can list him now. Keitel is all but finished.

The only ones in the league of the Cary Grant's, Sterling Hayden, Gary Cooper, Jimmy Stewart, Paul Newman, Jackie Gleason (He has limited film work, but he's still great in whatever he is in), Glenn Ford, Jack Lemmon, Maron Brando, Edward G. Robinson, James Cagney, William Holden, Buster Keaton, Charles Chaplin, Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Kirk Douglas, James Earl Jones, James Mason, Martin Landau, Peter O'Toole, Lee Marvin, Anthony Quinn, Earnest Borgnine, Orson Welles, Tony Curtis, Warren Beatty, Humphrey Bogart, Karl Malden, Lee J. Cobb, Steve McQueen, Max von Sydow and John Carradine.

The only ones you listed that are really in that class is: Sean Penn, DDL, Hoffman, Oldman, Caine, Duvall, Jackman, Malkovich, Depp, Hanks, Keitel (We'll include him) and maybe Mortensen.

Sorry, but I just don't see it in Leo. But even if we throw him in due to his popularity it's still not even close. But I like almost all of those guys. Most of them just aren't in the same league even if they're really good.

[Hotlantadude81]

Roberto Benigni, Ben Kingsley, Will Smith, Anthony Hopkins, Morgan Freeman, Jack Nicholson, Denzel, Mark Wahlberg, Ian McKellen Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson, Christopher Walken, Kevin Spacey, hmm...I'm sure I'm forgetting a few more too...

Will Smith is not a good actor. Mark Wahlberg is not a good actor. Jack Nicholson is all but officially retired. He's been in like 1 film in 5 years. You can include guys like Walken and Spacey but they've been doing subpar films for several years. The same with Deniro and Pacino. They're around, but they've become non factors. It's almost like Spacey quit trying to be in good films after 1999.

[Jailblazers7]

I was looking over Colin Firth's resume because he deserves a mention after his performance in A Single Man, and I noticed he was in a movie adaption of Dorian Gray in 2009. I doubt I'll see it because I loved the book so much but I'm tempted to after seeing that he played Lord Henry.

[Hotlantadude81]

I disagree with whoever said that modern films suck because that's just not true. But I will say that in the 50s, 60s, when godard was in vogue, a conflation of social factors abroad and domestic combined to absolve acinephelia of its escapist tendencies. and elevated it to an act of the uttermost cerebral/academic importance. The broad appeal of film societies and magazines demonstrated this palpable excitement.

I think this interest in film gave away because mainstream films are more and more expensive to produce yet the number of theater attendance has not risen proportionally. Producers are now more concerned with the profitablility of films rather than their artisitc merit. Hence a lot great modern films are made on smaller budget independently or by smaller production companies. Thus there's an appearance of ennui among big budget mainstream movies.

Nobody is saying all modern films suck. 2007 is actually my favorite year in movies, but even the good movies these days are closer to just good entertainment rather than movies with historic impact.

[jasonresno]

Sorry, but I just don't see it in Leo. But even if we throw him in due to his popularity it's still not even close. But I like almost all of those guys. Most of them just aren't in the same league even if they're really good.
I love DiCaprios work. The Departed, Blood Diamond, Shutter Island, Inception are all really great films where he pulled off really awesome roles. I donno man I think those guys I listed are awesome but I don't think we're going to agree on anything completely.

[FatComputerNerd]

Will Smith is not a good actor. Mark Wahlberg is not a good actor. Jack Nicholson is all but officially retired. He's been in like 1 film in 5 years. You can include guys like Walken and Spacey but they've been doing subpar films for several years. The same with Deniro and Pacino. They're around, but they've become non factors. It's almost like Spacey quit trying to be in good films after 1999.

I disagree. Will Smith has done some Cheesy movies but there can be no denying his talent. As for Wahlberg, I know it's probably still hard for some people to take him seriously as an actor, given his past endeavors. He really does deserve some recognition though. I thought he was pretty good in most of the movies I've seen him in. I loved Three Kings, The Departed, Boogie Nights, Four Brothers, and The Shooter. Even the horribly reviewed Planet of the Apes, whether you liked the movie or not, HE was not bad in it. I haven't seen a few of his others, including The Fighter (plan to see it soon). Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I think the guy takes a lot of flak from people who simply can't get over the whole Marky Mark thing. The guy really is a talented actor.

[jasonresno]

I disagree. Will Smith has done some Cheesy movies but there can be no denying his talent. As for Wahlberg, I know it's probably still hard for some people to take him seriously as an actor, given his past endeavors. He really does deserve some recognition though. I thought he was pretty good in most of the movies I've seen him in. I loved Three Kings, The Departed, Boogie Nights, Four Brothers, and The Shooter. Even the horribly reviewed Planet of the Apes, whether you liked the movie or not, HE was not bad in it. I haven't seen a few of his others, including The Fighter (plan to see it soon). Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I think the guy takes a lot of flak from people who can't get over the whole Marky Mark thing. The guy is a talented actor.
Pursuit of Happiness, I am Legend, Ali, 7 Lbs.

I just don't think Atlanta can/wants/or honestly respects modern films the same way for whatever reason. That's totally his choice but I've seen many amazing (IMO) films that weren't made until the late 80s 90s and 00s.

[heyhey]

I was looking over Colin Firth's resume because he deserves a mention after his performance in A Single Man, and I noticed he was in a movie adaption of Dorian Gray in 2009. I doubt I'll see it because I loved the book so much but I'm tempted to after seeing that he played Lord Henry.

I didn't know about the dorian film but he was excellent as Darcy in BBC's tv adapation of Pride and Prejudice, which is the canonical screen version imo. Also he was in an adaptation of Importance of being earnest so I guess he's the kenneth branagh of 19th century english novels. lol

[Jackass18]

I disagree with whoever said that modern films suck because that's just not true.

Who said that modern films suck? The argument has been whether or not modern films are of higher quality than old movies. Only some butthurt guy with no point wanted to lie and say that someone said that all modern movies suck.

[Hotlantadude81]

I disagree. Will Smith has done some Cheesy movies but there can be no denying his talent. As for Wahlberg, I know it's probably still hard for some people to take him seriously as an actor, given his past endeavors. He really does deserve some recognition though. I thought he was pretty good in most of the movies I've seen him in. I loved Three Kings, The Departed, Boogie Nights, Four Brothers, and The Shooter. Even the horribly reviewed Planet of the Apes, whether you liked the movie or not, HE was not bad in it. I haven't seen a few of his others, including The Fighter (plan to see it soon). Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I think the guy takes a lot of flak from people who simply can't get over the whole Marky Mark thing. The guy really is a talented actor.

Smith is basically the same safe PG-13 guy every time. He rarely plays characters that have any edge and he rarely changes up his "performance". His career has always been about money. That's why he'll continue to do one terrible Bad Boy/Men In Black movie after another one. I mean, he's rumored to be in Bad Boys III, Men In Black III and Independence Day II all within the next few years. Yeah, he really has some creative juices flowing.

I can accept that all actors want to be paid. But please, have SOME integrity. While he could give a better performance, I throw Will right down there with Adam Sandler as guys in the business that I have no respect for. I think Hancock gave some hints to him taking a slightly different approach. I'd like to see him really take on a douchebag type of character.

MW is a take it or leave it guy IMO. His performance in The Departed was just one cuss word after another. Nothing really more to his performance in that. I don't avoid any movie because he is in it, but he just wouldn't make my list of good actors.

[Hotlantadude81]

I love DiCaprios work. The Departed, Blood Diamond, Shutter Island, Inception are all really great films where he pulled off really awesome roles. I donno man I think those guys I listed are awesome but I don't think we're going to agree on anything completely.

I liked Leo more before Gangs of New York. Early in his career he was a guy that had charisma with the potential to be a serious actor. But what he has turned into is a serious actor with no charisma, wit or humor. He's always trying so hard, but great actors generally make it look easy.

The guy's obviously not talentless or anything, but I think he missed the boat on what he could have been.

[loot]

I just watched this last night, and it was great.

[Immortal Bum]

Thought it was ok. The young girl was the best part about it, I liked her fast tongue and adventurous ways. Good actress. Thought it was funny how everyone called her ugly too.

[ukplayer4]

True grit was a masterpiece on so many levels, i think you have to have absoloutly no appreciation for cinema whatsoever not to see how accomplished it is. From many technical standpoints im not sure i could argue that there has been another film this well made- im not declaring it the best film ever made(because it would need to have greater ambitions for that) but it was flawless film making. Im pretty sure i consider this the greatest example of cinematography in any mainstream film ever- that is very hard for me to say and i also know a little about these things. ive long considered deakins the master and this is his finest work ever- the look of this film is possibly unparalleled- the extra "speilberg" money may have given us a more accesible/less daring coen film(and this is their most mainstream film by a long way) but it has also allowed for lighting/art direction that has helped produced cinematography that is so good i am actually at a loss to describe it.
10/10

[ukplayer4]

I disagree with whoever said that modern films suck because that's just not true. But I will say that in the 50s, 60s, when godard was in vogue, a conflation of social factors abroad and domestic combined to absolve acinephelia of its escapist tendencies. and elevated it to an act of the uttermost cerebral/academic importance. The broad appeal of film societies and magazines demonstrated this palpable excitement.

I think this interest in film gave away because mainstream films are more and more expensive to produce yet the number of theater attendance has not risen proportionally. Producers are now more concerned with the profitablility of films rather than their artisitc merit. Hence a lot great modern films are made on smaller budget independently or by smaller production companies. Thus there's an appearance of ennui among big budget mainstream movies.


whoa and informed individual that actually knows a bit about film history :applause:

[oh the horror]

It was okay for me. Beautifully shot, but the fact that it was just about the same exact movie as the original True Grit with John Wayne was kind of a put off.

[ukplayer4]

yeah there wasnt anything ambitious about it, and certainly i could see why (i dont mean this in a snobbish way but) most people wouldnt be amazed by it.




this thread is some good comedy- basically playmaker is just retarded.

[oh the horror]

yeah there wasnt anything ambitious about it, and certainly i could see why (i dont mean this in a snobbish way but) most people wouldnt be amazed by it.




this thread is some good comedy- basically playmaker is just retarded.



I liked it. I mean the acting performances were superb to me. EVERYONE did great in their roles. The movie's atmosphere is perfectly set, the scenes come off great. Its a damn well put together movie....I felt like the ending was a bit sudden, flat, and the fact that it IS a remake, kind of turns me off as well, but to say that I didnt enjoy it, or like others, that it flat out "sucked?" Yeah.....I cant agree there. It was a good movie for what it was, and I loved Jeff Bridges.

[johndeeregreen]

Young Guns 2 the GOAT Western?:oldlol: I can understand why it would be a favorite film for a simp like Dooms, but in terms of the caliber of the film it is, it is absolutely blasphemous, outlandish, etc. to even suggest that it's the best.

[~primetime~]

yeah there wasnt anything ambitious about it, and certainly i could see why (i dont mean this in a snobbish way but) most people wouldnt be amazed by it.




this thread is some good comedy- basically playmaker is just retarded.
I have never seen it...:confusedshrug:

I was arguing that art progresses over time in here, (like 2010 True Grit > 1969 True Grit for example)

if anything my posts in here lean toward what you are saying...maybe you should read them again.

[Gundress]

I have never seen it...:confusedshrug:

I was arguing that art progresses over time in here, (like 2010 True Grit > 1969 True Grit for example)

if anything my posts in here lean toward what you are saying...maybe you should read them again.


Why did you get banned?

[~primetime~]

Why did you get banned?
in the fake tits thread I posted some before and afters found on the web sites of doctors...I thought it would be alright, but someone reprted me...oh well

[johndeeregreen]

Dooms will never ever be able to get away from the Young Guns comment in the OP...:oldlol:
I think you made a good point about the progression of film, specifically. That said, you also need to take into account societal norms, expectations, and customs - this is the reason people would rather watch the Proposal than Casablanca, not the fact that film has evolved.

[~primetime~]

I think you made a good point about the progression of film, specifically. That said, you also need to take into account societal norms, expectations, and customs - this is the reason people would rather watch the Proposal than Casablanca, not the fact that film has evolved.
yeah, I should have mentioned taboos...

Pulp Fiction couldn't be made in the 'old days"...cause society wouldn't allow it

seeing a big black man getting ass raped with a ball gag would of given people heart attacks...


today film makers are much more free...

[johndeeregreen]

yeah, I should have mentioned taboos...

Pulp Fiction couldn't be made in the 'old days"...cause society wouldn't allow it

seeing a big black man getting ass raped with a ball gag would of given people heart attacks...
Not exactly where I was going, but it does play into the fact that people's perceptions have been changed. It's that simple. And it's why your average person thinks nothing of a film such as "The Searchers," because the violence isn't realistic (by today's standards), it's strewn with cliches from the time period, etc. People can't take it seriously. Which is too bad because it's an all-time great film, as good as any Western ever made.

[3ptShooter]

True grit was a masterpiece on so many levels, i think you have to have absoloutly no appreciation for cinema whatsoever not to see how accomplished it is. From many technical standpoints im not sure i could argue that there has been another film this well made- im not declaring it the best film ever made(because it would need to have greater ambitions for that) but it was flawless film making. Im pretty sure i consider this the greatest example of cinematography in any mainstream film ever- that is very hard for me to say and i also know a little about these things. ive long considered deakins the master and this is his finest work ever- the look of this film is possibly unparalleled- the extra "speilberg" money may have given us a more accesible/less daring coen film(and this is their most mainstream film by a long way) but it has also allowed for lighting/art direction that has helped produced cinematography that is so good i am actually at a loss to describe it.
10/10

yikes. i was about to post that i finally saw and really liked it, but i must say this is overrating it as much as some here have underrated it.

it was a beautifully shot film in many ways. the opening scene it thought was really well done. an interesting departure from the original with literally shows the murder but is much less compelling. buuuuut, it's far from the finest cinematography in film. i think your reaction speaks more to the sad state of cinematography today. i will give you major props though for recognizing it. you're the first i've heard talk about the look, which is the first thing that struck me.

since we're speaking of westerns, the opening scene of the searchers comes to mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy2-abqR8B4

the end of the film is also iconic...
http://img.listal.com/image/1444091/600full-the-searchers-screenshot.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woahas_W35A

most of that film was beautiful.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/The_searchers_Ford_Trailer_screenshot_(25).jpg



i liked the pace and mood of true grit, but i also had to struggle to understand 1/3 of what bridges said. was nice to see an expertly shot film. there is some very nice stuff there - true grit cinematography:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urfq1WJ8fcI


btw - one interesting aspect is how much of that film is word-for-word from the original.


on a related note, there wasn't one wasted frame in goodfellas...

http://www.barrywetcher.com/images/gallery%202/goodfellas/GoodFellas2.jpg

[~primetime~]

Not exactly where I was going, but it does play into the fact that people's perceptions have been changed. It's that simple. And it's why your average person thinks nothing of a film such as "The Searchers," because the violence isn't realistic (by today's standards), it's strewn with cliches from the time period, etc. People can't take it seriously. Which is too bad because it's an all-time great film, as good as any Western ever made.
No I got where you were going, when you said "societal norms" it made me think of that though.

never seen "The Searchers" but I can relate what you are saying to other old films...

[~primetime~]

on a related note, there wasn't one wasted frame in goodfellas...

http://www.barrywetcher.com/images/gallery%202/goodfellas/GoodFellas2.jpg


the entire helicopter chase, selling cheap guns, coke using, cooking pasta crap at the end...

I love Goodfellas I promise, but some of the end of that movie could have been shaved off...

I felt like I was coming down from a paranoid coke high just watching it...

[ukplayer4]

funnily enough, the point you just made is probably the only reasonable and relevant point you have made the entire thread and it is also only half relevent.



comercial/mainstream cinema is less censored but in actual fact the very reason why hollywood had its "golden era" in the 70's is because it was the only time that film makers in hollywood were free- hence why so many were so good.


independant film makers are more free perhaps but, studio film makers have never been more shakled- and this is why most people that are in here are argueing how terrible modern films are. i dont neccesarily agree with them, there are great films now, they just arent coming from hollywood- to many people often confuse american cinema released films as "hollywood'.

i have to say that whilst i dont disagree with where you are coming from you have made a horrendous case for modern films....

[3ptShooter]

the entire helicopter chase, selling cheap guns, coke using, cooking pasta crap at the end...

I love Goodfellas I promise, but some of the end of that movie could have been shaved off...


huh? those sequences were brilliant because:


I felt like I was coming down from a paranoid coke high just watching it...

the scene ending with the slamming of the car breaks? what a ride. and those parts are the final act as everything falls apart, and as you said it make you feel every moment of it.

the phonebooth scene with de niro learns of the hit
the breakdown when he doesn't find the coke
jimmy telling her to go down the alley
the helecopter scene and the editing all through it (and the music)

brilliant stuff imho. maybe the coke binge theme hit too close to home... :D

[~primetime~]

funnily enough, the point you just made is probably the only reasonable and relevant point you have made the entire thread and it is also only half relevent.



comercial/mainstream cinema is less censored but in actual fact the very reason why hollywood had its "golden era" in the 70's is because it was the only time that film makers in hollywood were free- hence why so many were so good.


independant film makers are more free perhaps but, studio film makers have never been more shakled- and this is why most people that are in here are argueing how terrible modern films are. i dont neccesarily agree with them, there are great films now, they just arent coming from hollywood- to many people often confuse american cinema released films as "hollywood'.

i have to say that whilst i dont disagree with where you are coming from you have made a horrendous case for modern films....
every point I made was good...

btw, now that JDG brought it up...special effects should not be over looked...IT IS A HUGE PART OF CINEMA...when you watch a movie, you are "watching"...lol


everyone kinda brushed off SFX like they mean shit and we never talked about them...but that isn't the case...

Avatar being people in blue suits would look like an old Star Trek episode...

[ukplayer4]

the entire helicopter chase, selling cheap guns, coke using, cooking pasta crap at the end...

I love Goodfellas I promise, but some of the end of that movie could have been shaved off...

I felt like I was coming down from a paranoid coke high just watching it...



god almighty, way to miss the point :facepalm

[~primetime~]

huh? those sequences were brilliant because:



the scene ending with the slamming of the car breaks? what a ride. and those parts are the final act as everything falls apart, and as you said it make you feel every moment of it.

the phonebooth scene with de niro learns of the hit
the breakdown when he doesn't find the coke
jimmy telling her to go down the alley
the helecopter scene and the editing all through it (and the music)

brilliant stuff imho. maybe the coke binge theme hit too close to home... :D
Perhaps it is because I hate that feeling...lol

I do not like that part of the movie, good or not it still feels like a complete change of pace from what the rest of the movie was IMO...

[3ptShooter]

Perhaps it is because I hate that feeling...lol

I do not like that part of the movie, good or not it still feels like a complete change of pace from what the rest of the movie was IMO...

fair enough.

you're reaction though i think validates the end of the film because it was designed to feel like a complete change of pace. when you watch it again, notice how everything about it is designed to make you feel like you're spinning out of control - just like they are. whether you enjoy it is completely subjective however.

[~primetime~]

fair enough.

you're reaction though i think validates the end of the film because it was designed to feel like a complete change of pace. when you watch it again, notice how everything about it is designed to make you feel like you're spinning out of control - just like they are. whether you enjoy it is completely subjective however.
well it is actually based around a true story...but yeah I don't care for that change of pace in the movie. I think they could have had his "down fall" not feel like a paranoid coke come down...but I understand why you appreciate that for sure...

[ukplayer4]

unpleasantness towards primetime removed.

[PHX_Phan]

Perhaps it is because I hate that feeling...lol

I do not like that part of the movie, good or not it still feels like a complete change of pace from what the rest of the movie was IMO...

Maybe, just maybe, that was the purpose all along?

All those scenes did a great job of capturing the viewer and giving them a sense of what the character is going through.

Geez, I don't think you'd be able to sit through anything that wasn't loaded with CGI and shit exploding.

[~primetime~]

uk, I am not going to rehash this debate again...I guess you don't dispute any of it but you don't like my arguements, that is fine.

you are obviously one that takes your film watching very seriously...you should try working on being less critical of other's opinions...at the end of the day it is just entertainment.

ALSO, you (and others in here) are looking to far into simple posts...I never tried to pass IMDB off as the end all be all, I just used it as a quick example. Just like Dooms never tried to claim Young Guns needs 30 Oscars.

I am sorry if anything I said in here upset you, I just tried to make a case for art progression, not regression, that is all, don't try to look that deep into it.

[~primetime~]

Maybe, just maybe, that was the purpose all along?

All those scenes did a great job of capturing the viewer and giving them a sense of what the character is going through.

Geez, I don't think you'd be able to sit through anything that wasn't loaded with CGI and shit exploding.
I understand that, that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I don't like the psychotic feeling Natural Born Killers gave me or the drugged out feeling Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas either...but I understand the point

is that okay with you? or do I have to like everything you like?

[ukplayer4]

uk, I am not going to rehash this debate again...I guess you don't dispute any of it but you don't like my arguements, that is fine.

you are obviously one that takes your film watching very seriously...you should try working on being less critical of other's opinions...at the end of the day it is just entertainment.

ALSO, you (and others in here) are looking to far into simple posts...I never tried to pass IMDB off as the end all be all, I just used it as a quick example. Just like Dooms never tried to claim Young Guns needs 30 Oscars.

I am sorry if anything I said in here upset you, I just tried to make a case for art progression, not regression, that is all, don't try to look that deep into it.



removed my post, apologies man, must be my time of the month

[PHX_Phan]

I understand that, that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I don't like the psychotic feeling Natural Born Killers gave me or the drugged out feeling Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas either...but I understand the point

is that okay with you? or do I have to like everything you like?

Way to miss the point, yet again.

No one is saying you have to like it, or even that you have a poor opinion because you don't like it. You make baseless statements and provide a cursory reasoning behind your assertions.

Your critique of the end of the movie just seems poor. You don't have to like it, but suggesting that it was unnecessary or could have been cut short overlooks the purpose those scenes aimed for.

[~primetime~]

Way to miss the point, yet again.

No one is saying you have to like it, or even that you have a poor opinion because you don't like it. You make baseless statements and provide a cursory reasoning behind your assertions.

Your critique of the end of the movie just seems poor. You don't have to like it, but suggesting that it was unnecessary or could have been cut short overlooks the purpose those scenes aimed for.
I do think it was unnecessary, that is my opinion mfer do you understand that?...how is it that you keep missing that point?

it DOES NOT over look the purpose of the scene...good god


the purpose of Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars was to get some laughs, and I think that could be done away with too!!!...problem?

[~primetime~]

removed my post, apologies man, must be my time of the month
It's okay, people get really worked up over movies. This thread has taught me that for sure.

If I am to give a negative opinion on Goodfellas I should expect the lovers of that movie to lash out I guess.

It would just be nice if people weren't so critical of each other with something that is entertainment...



"ART IS SUBJECTIVE"

[ConanRulesNBC]

I love Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven.

[vapid]

I definitely think art can be objetcitvely judged to a certain degree... But it's probably Not a good time to bring that up.

[InspiredLebowski]

:roll:
he's going gundress on em."going gundress" needs to be an ISH idiom for all of eternity

[~primetime~]

I definitely think art can be objetcitvely judged to a certain degree... But it's probably Not a good time to bring that up.
it can and DOES get judged objectively, I am guilty of doing it myself in here...it is still all opinion though...there is no facts around any of it...

If I think that Goodfellas > Godfather it doesn't mean I am wrong...it just means I am in the minority...

[3ptShooter]

Ahem.:D

hadn't heard it from you so my appologies... :pimp: :D

[3ptShooter]

Way to miss the point, yet again.

No one is saying you have to like it, or even that you have a poor opinion because you don't like it. You make baseless statements and provide a cursory reasoning behind your assertions.

Your critique of the end of the movie just seems poor. You don't have to like it, but suggesting that it was unnecessary or could have been cut short overlooks the purpose those scenes aimed for.

what do you mean the critique seems poor? baseless statements and cursory reasoning? he said he got the feeling the end of the movie gave off but didn't like what it did to the film. do i agree? no. but my goodness it's just his opinion.

you won't find a bigger goodfellas fan than me, but the thought that someone would edit it differently isn't worth all that.

now that thread a few weeks ago that said the godfather was a poor film... :banghead: :banghead: :hammerhead:

:D

[RedBlackAttack]

It's okay, people get really worked up over movies. This thread has taught me that for sure.

If I am to give a negative opinion on Goodfellas I should expect the lovers of that movie to lash out I guess.

It would just be nice if people weren't so critical of each other with something that is entertainment...



"ART IS SUBJECTIVE"
How did you get your ~primetime~ account back? I thought it was permanently deleted?

[~primetime~]

How did you get your ~primetime~ account back? I thought it was permanently deleted?
the original was deleted...

-primetime-

for the hail Hitler thread when Steve pissed me off...

then I made ~primetime~...retired that at 10k...


I am going to have to go back and delete posts I think...not being at exactly 10k isn't pretty...