Roger Ebert's S & S list...which would you choose? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Zoo Station
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-28-2012, 12:03 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Fucking iphone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
Also, Purpleoscar, good to know that all 10 of your picks are either Hollywood films or at least in the English language.

There are only 10 slots. I love Antonioni, but hate Fellini. Will I watch Antonioni more than Kubrick? No. I love Herzog, but hate Fassbender. Just as many foreign films are pretentious as great. Last year at Marienbad is worse than going to the dentist. Earrings of madame de... has lovely direction and sets but do I remember what happened in that movie? What about Children of Paradise? Do I really care about the characters in that? Hiroshima mon amour is great but is it better than Casablanca? No. Herzog has epics but better than Lawrence of Arabia? No. I love The Leopard but is it better than The Godfather part II? No. Could I squeeze Seven Samurai in there beyond The good, the bad and the ugly? No, but it was close.

Then there's the problem of English language movies I still left out. What about John Ford, John Huston, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, or Billy Wilder? I was really thinking about Giant, Some like it hot, The apartment. What about foreign films I love but aren't critically acclaimed like The Brotherhood of the Wolf, Moliere, Danton, or Crimson Rivers? I could have trouble filling top 100 movies.

It's time for your lists guys. I don't care if they are adventurous or have all foreign films. It's easy to criticize but to narrow it down to 10 is hard.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 12:14 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 10:46 AM
Paul W.S. Anderson is most certainly not a hack.
__________________

__________________
Lancemc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 12:24 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancemc View Post
Paul W.S. Anderson is most certainly not a hack.
You are either being funny or thinking of Paul T. Anderson.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 12:37 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 10:46 AM
Not in the slightest. W.S. makes modern day B-movies, with a focus on video game culture that's worked its way down to the very foundations of his technique. As a result, of course, there's a particular degree of crassness to his films, and they definitely reflect the sort of cathartic easily-digestible violence and kineticism video games of a particular ilk afford their players. His films work in much the same way. Which isn't to say they're all good, but most of them are incredibly enjoyable and the man has a remarkable hold over cinematic space, movement, and overall structure in his work. His two self-directed Resident Evil films (and probably also Death Race as a stand-out) are seriously masterclass in blocking, cutting and shooting cheap thrilling action pictures.

He's certainly not the artist with a capital 'A' that people like Paul T. Anderson or Wes Anderson are, to round out the bunch, but he's easily made more films I find myself eager to revisit with more regularity. He makes filmic play-pens for himself, his wife and his collaborators to let loose in, and for my money creates some of the most continually enjoyable genre films in Hollywood right now.
__________________
Lancemc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 01:35 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:46 AM
P WS Anderson is too much of a hack to have a top ten film in any release day, month, year, or ever. This is the context I'm writing in. I like Cliffhanger but Harlin is nowhere near Curtiz. In fact I think he would agree with me.

Casablanca (back on topic now) has one of the handful best screenplays ever and that is plenty to allow it to qualify it to the top ten ever. Being a crowd pleaser is not something that should disqualify it. If someone's list doesn't include it because of 10 other great movies were chosen instead that would make more sense in an argument than trying to defend one of the most worst directors as not being a hack.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 03:46 PM   #21
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,003
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
I'm pretty sure all of mine would be ...
Well you also didn't request a poll here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Who are you fooling? Curtiz is not a hack. He's not an auteur director with a special visual style yet he directed Sea Hawk, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Casablanca and The Adventures of Robin Hood. Even if the rest of his movies aren't near that he still isn't a hack. Renny Harlin, or Paul W.S. Anderson are hacks. Casablanca is a movie that's more about the screenplay much like Billy Wilder movies are or Network for example.
LOL, google "Michael Curtiz auteur" and you tell me what you come up with. Just because he made a good number of standout films doesn't make him an auteur. Christ, people still argue about John Huston and Howard Hawks being considered one, and they're far more talented than Curtiz.

And you just said that Casablanca is more about the screenplay. Which proves my point?
__________________
lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 03:50 PM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,003
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
There are only 10 slots. I love Antonioni, but hate Fellini. Will I watch Antonioni more than Kubrick? No. I love Herzog, but hate Fassbender. Just as many foreign films are pretentious as great. Last year at Marienbad is worse than going to the dentist. Earrings of madame de... has lovely direction and sets but do I remember what happened in that movie? What about Children of Paradise? Do I really care about the characters in that? Hiroshima mon amour is great but is it better than Casablanca? No. Herzog has epics but better than Lawrence of Arabia? No. I love The Leopard but is it better than The Godfather part II? No. Could I squeeze Seven Samurai in there beyond The good, the bad and the ugly? No, but it was close.
Your reverse snobbery is kind of lame. Resnais, Ophüls, Fassbender, Visconti, etc. These guys are removed to make way for Lucas, Curtiz?

Your list looks like it was practically copied from AFI, minus Gone With The Wind.

Ugh.
__________________
lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 08:24 PM   #23
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,039
Local Time: 01:46 AM
You are a real ass sometimes man. I'm waaaaay out of my depth here and shouldn't really comment but if this was a B&C thread... it's no wonder I hate posting in this forum.
__________________
cobl04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 10:03 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 10:46 AM
Wouldn't have Laz any other way.

Well maybe some other way, but he has a significant if abrasively made point in this case. To so easily disregard the whole of world cinema, or at least subscribe to a fairly narrow view of it is to disregard like... nearly all of cinema's many varied forms, aesthetics, cultural and historical notional sources, and so on. If the point of this discussion is to supposedly come up with some kind of conclusive or meaningful representation of cinema's achievements, that's an extraordinarily homogeneous list, and likely more in line with what I was originally talking about regarding ones mere personal preferences and so on, which is perfectly fine, but otherwise...
__________________
Lancemc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 10:10 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 10:46 AM
Anyway, like I said before I doubt I could come up with anything specific for this thread putting aside my strong personal biases to enough a degree in the pretense of "objectivity," but if I were to... likely have to include something from Ozu, Murnau, Antonioni, Resnais, Bresson, Hou, Tarkovsky or Sokurov, Bunuel, Kiarostami, maybe Welles, Fassbinder, Brakhage, Mizoguchi, Godard, Malick, Davies... fuck who knows.
__________________
Lancemc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 10:33 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
Your reverse snobbery is kind of lame. Resnais, Ophüls, Fassbender, Visconti, etc. These guys are removed to make way for Lucas, Curtiz?

Your list looks like it was practically copied from AFI, minus Gone With The Wind.

Ugh.
At least I attempted a list.

BTW Gone with the wind is better than any Fassbender movie.

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 10:38 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
At least I attempted a list.

BTW Gone with the wind is better than any Fassbender movie.
__________________
Lancemc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 10:47 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancemc View Post
Anyway, like I said before I doubt I could come up with anything specific for this thread putting aside my strong personal biases to enough a degree in the pretense of "objectivity," but if I were to... likely have to include something from Ozu, Murnau, Antonioni, Resnais, Bresson, Hou, Tarkovsky or Sokurov, Bunuel, Kiarostami, maybe Welles, Fassbinder, Brakhage, Mizoguchi, Godard, Malick, Davies... fuck who knows.
Some of those guys I would include in a top 100 list but even then I would still love to include more Coppola, Spielberg, Scorsese, Stevens, Lumet, Coens. It's not a shock that english language films dominate when the U.S. dominate film from the beginning. I like Solaris but is it better than 2001: A space odyssey? No. The discrete charm of the bourgeosie was hilarious but is it better than many Billy Wilder movies? Not a chance. I like Floating Weeds but is it better than Ikiru? Not in my opinion...yes opinion. Is my opinion more important than anyone elses? No.

To pick only 10 films is challenging. No matter what you choose 98% of great films are left out.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 10:48 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancemc View Post
binder. You should date the Naomie Harris character in Tristram Shandy. You would have a lot to talk about. Actually I prefer Fassbender movies as well.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2012, 10:54 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Some of those guys I would include in a top 100 list but even then I would still love to include more Coppola, Spielberg, Scorsese, Stevens, Lumet, Coens. It's not a shock that english language films dominate when the U.S. dominate film from the beginning. I like Solaris but is it better than 2001: A space odyssey? No. The discrete charm of the bourgeosie was hilarious but is it better than many Billy Wilder movies? Not a chance. I like Floating Weeds but is it better than Ikiru? Not in my opinion...yes opinion. Is my opinion more important than anyone elses? No.

To pick only 10 films is challenging. No matter what you choose 98% of great films are left out.
That's perfectly fine, but not exactly my point. Anyway to suggest the U.S. dominates world cinema is extremely short-sighted, unless you're talking about strictly quantity (though even then Bollywood has something to say). If you think about the true masters of the form, and if you actually dig deeply enough America has no more significance than any of a dozen other national cinemas around the globe. My previous point being, if one wants to make some stand on the "great films of cinema history" it's simply foolish to to exclude non-English language cinema because of individual preferences. Which again, can be fine if that's the point of this, but that's not what Ebert was really doing, nor what we were really debating the whole first page of this thread, so I dunno.
__________________

__________________
Lancemc is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com