THE ARTIST
Producer: Thomas Langmann
BRIDESMAIDS
Producers: Judd Apatow, Barry Mendel, Clayton Townsend
THE DESCENDANTS
Producers: Jim Burke, Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor
THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO
Producers: Ceán Chaffin, Scott Rudin
THE HELP
Producers: Michael Barnathan, Chris Columbus, Brunson Green
HUGO
Producers: Graham King, Martin Scorsese
THE IDES OF MARCH
Producers: George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Brian Oliver
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS
Producers: Letty Aronson, Stephen Tenenbaum
MONEYBALL
Producers: Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz, Brad Pitt
WAR HORSE
Producers: Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg
The Producers Guild of America Producer of the Year Award in Animated Theatrical Motion Pictures:
THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN
Producers: Peter Jackson, Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg
CARS 2
Producer: Denise Ream
KUNG FU PANDA 2
Producer: Melissa Cobb
PUSS IN BOOTS
Producers: Joe M. Aguilar, Latifa Ouaou
RANGO
Producers: John B. Carls, Gore Verbinski
@Scott sorry man no hard feelings
Quality cannot be proven period.
I probably should have put and in all caps to emphasize I mean the 2 together.
Not always no…but box office and an A+ Cinemascore demands respect. Not to mention the critical response that we’ve recited ad nauseum.
OCO300, Box office =/= Quality
What are you talking about OCO? Please just be quiet, because mentioning Potter alongside Transformers 3 and Pirates 4 isn’t helping the cause…
@Tero than how come moviegoers spent over $3 billion dollars last summer to see the last HP film, Transformers 3, annd POTC: On Stranger Tides?
Well, you know, My English is, like, not that great, man.
IRL, I would be quite close to Maude. Never Jesus.
We’re re-casting The Big Lebowski – we know OCOs Donny, and Tero’s Jesus…who’s everybody else?
OCO:
2011 was not bad. Maybe it was not as good as the year earlier, but it was much better than most of the “noughties” (2007 was best there).
@Scott ur right, I mean how was not nominated for PGA?! I mean it was a huge commercial success, it was a bad year for movies but not for sequels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOcXsyjZckY&feature=plcp&context=C3a634c4UDOEgsToPDskJ0uXtWWu4RthDh3wmgUmiL
It was only after… that I read about his possible condition. No biggie!
We still love Scott.
Scott, you HAVE that passion. You DO! Otherwise you wouldn’t be here. And everybody is talking to you, cause they see right through you.
Just let it go, dude! You KNOW that film is art.
ART.
Actually Scott, the aspbergers thing makes sense. Particularly I can see it in your insistence of discussing one topic over and over despite everybody else losing interest.
Though you probably don’t…. Aspbergers is the new OCD. Something people use as an excuse to explain their flaws.
“…swept under the rug by the summer hit that for whatever reason the awards seem to favor– that would be Bridesmaids– and the usual crop of awards season bait that came after it. You can blame plenty of individual factors on the fact that Harry isn’t doing so well with the awards, from the kid-friendly and critically loved Hugo to the fact that there won’t be a guaranteed 10 Best Picture nominees this year (the number is on a sliding scale from 5 to 10). Maybe if the voters knew they’d have 10 to play with, they’d go for the blockbuster. Maybe if they weren’t enchanted by Martin Scorsese, they’d remember the other movie about an intrepid young boy making his way through the world. Maybe if Deathly Hallows had somehow just made a little more money.”
“Here’s a question to chew over though– if Deathly Hallows hadn’t been split into two films, and was released this year as a single story, would it be nominated? Would it be so epic that the Academy would have no choice but to honor it? It’s hard to imagine something being better than one of the best-reviewed movies of the year that also made the most money, but I wonder if Academy voters see the split as more of a money-grabbing effort, and feel OK writing it off as “just a blockbuster” as a result. It didn’t work that way for Inception, so could the “Part 2″ be the difference here? Feel free to speculate over what could have been in the comments.”
source- http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-Harry-Potter-Won-t-Ever-Nominated-Best-Picture-Oscar-28609.html
Oops! My computer sent that last post on its own, I think.
What I was saying is that it’s still a pretty beautiful thing–it’s like stepping outside yourself and seeing what you’ve always seen but in a new and unexpected way. A film (and art) don’t necessarily alter your personality, but they can, every now and then, alter the way you perceive things.
Well, okay, asking a movie to change your personality is probably asking too much of a film. But the point I got from Holly Hunter is that a great film can alter your perception of things, the world, life itself, even if only temporarily. But even if only temporary, I think that’s still a pretty beautiful thing–it’s like stepping outside yourself and seeing wha
It’s defined quite simply…does it change/alter the way you live life? You see, I’m shy and socially awkward (been suggested I’m very high functioning Asperger’s) and frustrated with life right now…like I don’t belong and I’m a spectator watching everyone else having fun. So is there any film that actually has the power to change my personality and feelings toward life?
“But then I’ve also never seen a life changing/altering film…I don’t think film (or art) has that power really, as much as I wish it did.”
I think this depends on how you define life-changing or life-altering. I remember reading something from Holly Hunter about how she reacted after seeing “Wings of Desire.” She said she walked away from the theater feeling as if she were a different person from who she’d been when she’d stepped into the theater. The whole world felt different to her, like she was experiencing it in a new way. That, I think, great art and great film can do.
switch that around, lol…wtf, I must not have got enough sleep.
Sorry, I meant Before Sunset…Before Sunrise is the sequel.
“It’s better when people don’t just look at the numbers I gave, but actually read what I had to say.”
Here’s what I generally do when looking at a review…I like at the score and I read the introductory and conclusion paragraphs. That’s usually all, because I’ve found within reviews there are often times spoilers. So many reviewers just recount the plot.
“To review art scientifically looks weird, and I could never do Scott’s scale (Acting, Script, Visuals, Sound, Editing). If a film is hanging on just these five qualities, it’s dangerous. Like… what if a movie didn’t fare well in any of the five mentioned, but touched you in a new way?”
You’re right…I’ve yet really to come across a film that does so. If a film “touched” me then it’s because of the acting or the script or the cinematography or the score, etc. But then I’ve also never seen a life changing/altering film…I don’t think film (or art) has that power really, as much as I wish it did. For instance it would nice if a film such as Before Sunset actually altered my personality to be someone that is spontaneous and seizes the day.
Craig Z says:
January 4, 2012 at 5:23 am
“People rate hotels and dining and such so why not rate entertainment?”
Like I’ve said Scott. You can do whatever you want but I will still find it silly because frankly Hotels and movies are very different things. Not all things should be judged similarily. Would you rate a woman on a scale the same way you do a movie? No because those are two way different things. Like how hotels and movies have nothing in common either.
Actually guys do rate women…the 1 to 10 scale rating game, doesn’t ring a bell?
@rufussondheim: “Art is all around us.” Yup. I would even argue that film is the greatest art form because when done right, it combines the written word, performance, visuals, and music, all in a manner accessible to a wide audience.
We live in a fucked up world with fucked up people. All we can do is keep from fucking it up more as we try to find the beauty within it. The gripping movies we individually take in flash beauty before us and then delve deep into our minds and our souls. How a film moves me, how it moves you, and to what degree stands irrelevant as long as we’re all willing to open ourselves up and accept what artists bring us.
Wow, a conversation on art/film/film criticism! I will now rate it.
Originiality – 7
Intelligence – 6
Clarity – 4
Depth – 4
I give it a 21 out of 40. That rates as the fifth best conversation I’ve seen so far in 2012. Doubtful it will make my year end top 100 but nice try. Maybe your next conversation can up the ante.
——————–
I don’t give a fuck about a movie’s sound or editing or acting or any of that. That shit is all window dressing to me. What I look for in a film is the ability to show me something new about myself or the world in which I live. Yeah, sometimes a movie can be so well made the impact it may not have can be overlooked, but that’s uncommon. I want a movie to excite me intellectually or emotionally, like all art, whether it be a music, literature, theater or film/TV.
Now of course sound, editing and acting can enhance the impact of a movie, but if they are done at a minimally competent manner, that’s fine for me. (Actually, sometimes if this stuff is too polished it can lessen the impact of the movie for me. Up in the Air is a perfect example for me. It’s clear that every last second of the film was done over with great care. All of the rawness of the film was washed away. And that made the movie seem sterile to me.)
It’s a shame Scott doesn’t see film as art. That explains a lot to me. This speaks volumes. First off, it implies that art is something to be kept in a certain location and only brought out when one is in the mood. It also implies an extremely limited viewpoint of the world.
Not sure, Scott, how much science you have taken or what varieties. But I’ve taken a fair amount of molecular chemistry. And when I look at DNA and how elegantly it’s structured, all I see is art. It’s a magnificent and beautiful structure that amazes me. I am filled with awe, and forced to think of larger and grander themes and ideas that are not part of that molecule. To me, that’s what art is. Art is something that causes you to look at life differently, something that provokes thought above and beyond the physical structure.
Art is all around us, Scott. I hope, one day, you learn to see it.
The reason I can’t root for Dragon Tattoo in any of these “elections” is not that it isn’t a good movie or that Rooney Mara isn’t a good Elisabeth Salander. It’s that the Swedish original–especially Noomi Rapace–were so much better–and were virtually ignored by Hollywood.
@Scott
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/drake-fans-pack-questlove-gig-year-eve-daniel-radcliffe-potter-tops-poll-article-1.1000523?localLinksEnabled=false
IMDB has listed Johnny Depp as Hugo Producer (not an executive). So why he is not nominated as a producer with King and Scorsese?
@Craig Z I meant to put Jerry Grant, sorry about that
Im SOOOOOOOOO elated about TGWTDT & Tin Tin!
OCO, Who the hell is Jesse Grant? Nobody by that name has posted in this thread? This kid is seriously off in his own world.
@Jesse Grant how come it never ranked #1 in the box office?
Same here, I’m not a fan of film rating scales: numbers, stars, thumbs, tomatoes, popcorn buckets… For any given film, I have several views that simply cannot be expressed in figures.
“People rate hotels and dining and such so why not rate entertainment?”
Like I’ve said Scott. You can do whatever you want but I will still find it silly because frankly Hotels and movies are very different things. Not all things should be judged similarily. Would you rate a woman on a scale the same way you do a movie? No because those are two way different things. Like how hotels and movies have nothing in common either.
Personally I never give stars/points to films. I only do that on websites like this, or when a certain magazine requires it (but I do it unwillingly).
It makes people lazy, and destroys film criticism. It’s better when people don’t just look at the numbers I gave, but actually read what I had to say.
To review art scientifically looks weird, and I could never do Scott’s scale (Acting, Script, Visuals, Sound, Editing). If a film is hanging on just these five qualities, it’s dangerous. Like… what if a movie didn’t fare well in any of the five mentioned, but touched you in a new way? Scott, you probably think it can’t happen. Emotions outside your science.
You are not using your brain with food and shelter. It’s primal. Many top chefs of the world list toasted sandwhiches or tinned baked beans as their meal of choice. Rating food and shelter is pretentious considering the may that don’t have either.
Yes, but whether the bed is comfortable or the food is good is subjective or as you said “open to interpretation”
Btw Scott – I noticed no one answered your OT about dating sites. To answer your question honestly…there must be a hint of intelligence or variation in the choices. I have never partaken, but of I did and I saw Valentines Day and New Years Eve, or even worse Necromantik and Guinea Pig series as their favourites – move on.
@scott-because films (not defending Porky’s) are open to interpretation…an uncooked chicken is an uncooked chicken. An unmade bed is an unmade bed.
Scott, no no no no and no. Film is art – you need to come out of the closet!
To entertain and to educate. If it can do both then it will probably win a Oscar – quick check the list (hint Hugo)
Coherent story? Sometimes you watch, sometimes you see, sometimes you just feel…
People rate hotels and dining and such so why not rate entertainment?
Story is just part of the art
Art is subjective. You see it as a science(which isn’t) which makes it hard for you to see other peoples point of view. That’s probably why you are so off-putting most of the time.
No matter how much analysys you put into it’s all just a matter of opinion. That’s why it’s art. Just a bunch of fancy tools to make moving and talking pictures.
If you want a list book, get the videohounds guide or something similar. The lists in the back are on a micro level and are comprehensive. If you want to see a list of films under the genre ” handicapped serial killers” or ” Modern Noir” look no further…
The 1001 books is quite frankly a waste of money.
Sub genre lists are the way to go for me.
I mean there are arts incorporated, but it should be more then just art. There needs to be substance, there needs to be a coherant story, etc
Film is art. Why should it be separated?
But that’s exactly the point Craig…film needs to be separate from art.
That’s lame Scott…. I don’t like Tree of Life either but many people love it so it has its place… Different strokes. How bout you just not see Malicks next film and let the people that love it do their thing.
If someone enjoys something it has a place for them. Even if not for you.
Well I’m a perfectionist and if I were a filmmaker I would probably never actually be satisfied enough with a film to release it, lol
I agree actually Mattoc…films should be entertainment first and foremost. Now this doesn’t mean they have to be adrenaline rushes, as there’s many different aspects of a film one can find entertaining…however artsy fartsy stuff like Tree of Life has no place in a theatre or as home entertainment.
Do whatever works for you. But personally I find it silly. Cause perfection is subjective anyways and impossible and quite frankly I don’t believe filmmakers should be trying to achieve(I also doubt they do try)
I find it silly to judge art scientifically. Which I believe should be judged emotionally.
I don’t give any rating system personally. I just do my best to explain my feelings of the film.
Though in short. Do what makes you happy.
I would say films are a leveler Scott. It’s entertainment. It’s aim is to entertain and to educate. Something we all can grasp.
And you’d never see me give a film a 100 like they do on Metacritic. I believe the highest score I’ve given is a 98 and that was to The Apartment.
Well I prefer to define things in life by quantitative and qualitative measures Craig. My system is based on how close a film comes to perfection…though there is no such thing as a perfect film IMO so other rating scales where films are given 4/4, 5/5, 10/10, etc frankly don’t make sense.
It’s a book as well Craig-
Product Description
“1001 Movies” is now well-established as the definitive guide to everything you need to know about must-see movies, from the films you shouldn’t have missed the first time around, to the films you can see again and again. Expert critics in each genre of film, from romance to horror and sci-fi, have painstakingly included, revised, cut and added films to bring the must-watch list bang up-to-date for 2007. They will tell you exactly why these films deserve inclusion in this definitive illustrated list, about their conception and development, and even about the most famous pieces of memorabilia associated with them. Packed with vital statistics, and a few facts that may surprise you, this is a collector’s must for the bookshelf as well as an entertaining read for all those who love the wonderful world of film.
Whatever makes you happy Scott but we are talking about movies here which are both art and science. More art I think personally. Science to creat art to be specific.
Agreed Stefan. Absolutely agree.
I think it’s pretty obvious that a scientific person and a fine arts student might evaluate films very differently.
Scott, that list is cool. That book I mentioned isn’t just a list actually. Each movie gets a two page writeup and stuff like trivia. Awards nominations etc
Stefan, I don’t like that kind of rating either. Films aren’t term papers.
This is where the inspiration for my rating system comes from btw-
http://www.filmsquish.com/guts/?q=node/2
Mattoc, of course it’s interesting/enjoyable/fun. That is why we are all here. 😉 Because everyone of us has seen enough movies to contribute his personal estimations/feelings/favours. I really enjoy such discussions, by the way. I am just frowning about “I am giving Forrest Gump a 68.2 and Pulp Fiction an 86.4, while Shawshank Redemption is a close second with 85.9”.
Craig Z says:
January 3, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Ryan if you do enjoy lists (I absolutely do but they don’t effect my opinions) I found a pretty fun book called 101 greatest movies of all time in Barnes and Noble. Pretty in depth. Don’t remember who wrote it. It think it has pictures of Al Pacino, Orson Wells and Jack featured prominently on the cover.
There’s also a 1001 Movies To See Before You Die list, lol
http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=123154
Stefan, I agree with you 101% as a whole. What other people say about a film in meaningless to me…to a point. I do like to take an opportunity to debate a point of view if it is warranted. If someone does not like something then there is no real discussion. It’s just opinion for which everyone is entitled to.
My comment was more about human nature than anything else.
You, personally may not see any value or true indication of a films worth by ratings, but I guess you find reading lists, Oscar noms etc interesting/enjoyable/fun…?
Most lists never equal my own, but taste is something you’re born with right 😉
Nothing makes me more jealous that a seeing a budding film lover. This is not a comment directed at anyone on this site…just a general statement.
This is the moment to regret that one cannot edit apparent grammatical mistakes in his comments… “deserved places” instead of “deserves places” and “impact on” instead of “impact of”. Sorry!
@ Jesse Crall: Fair point! Personally, I am not a fan of Bridesmaids (although acknowledging that it has good scenes). I know Ebert’s review of Bridesmaids and I see where he is coming from. Therefore, there is no point in arguing against 3.5/4 for Bridesmaids. I also appreciate Ebert’s approach, which is perfect for “new” films.
What I question is the scoring of “old” films, as Scott does, ending up in 72 for Magnificent Ambersons and 90 for Citizen Kane (althouigh respecting his determination). @ Mattoc: Agreed, it may be helpful in terms of competition (although my approach still would be different). But where is the competition between, say, Citizen Kane and The Godfather? Both have their deserves places in movie history, having enormous impact of future generations of filmmaking. IMDb’s Top 250 is based on an average of valuations across the board, which is an indication, but easy to manipulate. Same with RT or MC. Helpful. Interesting to see, how critics actually respond. But not more. If I ask you about a ranking of your 10 favourites, I bet an annual salary that your ranking is different in comparison to last year or next year.
@Mel: In my limited (compared to most of you all) exposure to deeper cuts of film, the 70’s rate as my absolute favorite (1967-1980 to be exact). But yeah, all periods of film have their merits and I’d need to see about 500 more from the Hays Code era to really compare its value to the 70’s. We dig what we dig. Doesn’t mean we’re right.
I was fortunate enough to see Citizen Kane when I was 13, so I was old enough to understand its basic ideas but also so underexposed to mature films that it really knocked me on my ass. Same goes for The Godfather.
@Stefan: I like what Roger Ebert says about his star system. He basically rates films on how well they accomplish their ostensible goals. He thus avoids having to give Bridesmaids like, a 1.5 because it’s so many degrees weaker than Lawrence of Arabia. (He gave Bridesmaids a 3.5/4.)
@stefan – is it necessary? No. But a long a competition is a word then yes, scoring is an effective mechanism.
Is competition necessary? It is inherent…
Scoring movies reminds me on Dead Poets’ Society. I love the “Rip it out”-scene. Is it really necessary to score the ingredients of a movie? Is it really necessary to score movies at all. I know that Lawrence of Arabia is a better movie than, say, Bridesmaids, even without scoring. 1 or 2 thumps up or down is suffcient to me. And much more credible and reliable than ending up in a 77.2 over a 76.9.
The 70s had great films! It seems like Scott just didn’t like the aesthetics of 70s cinema…..he dissed early Scorsese!
Scott actually sounds a lot like me when I started up with Film Studies. And then after spending 4 years earning a degree in Film Studies, it all changed. I totally would have been on here pissing that HP didn’t win best pic every year they made one. Flabbergasted by how they could deny something people loved so much(pretty sure I the mark of a good film was box office and popularity). Nothing wrong with that type of fan, (that was me my whole childhood and it led me to want to study film), but it’s gonna stir a nasty pot yer not even a part of when you start talkin shit on Welles.
I think I even vaguely remember thinking Kane was mildly boring the first time I saw it in good old F101. You have to watch the shit out of that movie in college though and just like a great film, it does nothing but get better and better and better.
@scott
The way I look at it, from what you’re saying and the films you enjoy and the films you don’t enjoy, is that you want the satisfaction without putting in the effort.
There are people on this site, myself included that have put in many years of their life watching films. It’s not an easy thing to do unless you absolutely love it.
To appreciate movies fully you need context. Otherwise you don’t know whether boundaries are being pushed or merely winks to the past.
You don’t have to be a film nut like some of us, and that’s quite ok…but dismissing something without context is ignorant.
Btw – I think Fritz would be right up your alley with all those angles…then have a look at the other expressionists.
I understand what you mean about the 70s, but you’re criticisms are why I love the 70s. You need to look at it in context as I said earlier and what the rest of the world was doing. The US took the challenge of the Europeons and then some.
Nothing like a healthy little debate… 🙂
Ryan if you do enjoy lists (I absolutely do but they don’t effect my opinions) I found a pretty fun book called 101 greatest movies of all time in Barnes and Noble. Pretty in depth. Don’t remember who wrote it. It think it has pictures of Al Pacino, Orson Wells and Jack featured prominently on the cover.
Also was it Scott who said something about not liking the epics of the seventies? That’s the Sixties. Epics were very out of fashion in the Seventies. Crime movies were kind of the thing in the seventies.
But then again I don’t need a list to tell me what is great(or back up my claims)
“But then again I don’t need a list to tell me what is great (or back up my claims)”
nope, I see what you’re saying. me either.
it’s not cool to base opinions on a list
(but a list looks cool if it resembles opinions I already have)
Oh they are all pretty good films but it is just so fickle I can’t take it seriously.
Scott, Maybe you should recount that IMDB list…. Since 8 new movies a year make it on that fly by night list.
You can’t prove greatness with lists or stats Scott BTW…. Any filmgoer worth their salt(of which i personaly don’t include you) at least respects Altman greatly. Not judge them by the one movie of his they have seen and judge their greatness by the IMDB top 250……. A list that in which Donnie Darko is ranked higher than All Quiet on the Western Front….
Also, Robert Altman has been nominated for 7 Oscars…I thought you were an Oscar follower…. Maybe you should give him the benifit of the doubt instead of write him off because you have too short of an attention span for Gosford Park
Maybe you should recount that IMDB list…. Since 8 new movies a year make it
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo hit the list yesterday at #250 today it’s #219
(ding ding ding!)
Every movie on the list is great. I’d rather be on the list than off it (it can be especially indicative of january zeitgeist) but it’s only a subset of 2500 essential movies.
Since 8 new movies a year make it
Craig Z, You said it right there.
because it’s a sad year that doesn’t have 25 great movies from around the world.
(& that’s how I arrive at my estimate of 2500 great movies — probably about half of which older than 1970 I haven’t even seen yet.)
Now Ryan, I suggest you read over the following again before you accuse me of not having respect or admiration for movies, great directors, etc.
Favorite directors-
“Alfred Hitchcock (at last count I’ve seen 25 of his films)
Billy Wilder (Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, Witness for the Prosecution, Double Indemnity, Stalag 17, Sabrina, Seven Yeah Itch, Sunset Blvd.)
Frank Capra (It Happened One Night, Arsenic and Old Lace, You Can’t Take it With You, Meet John Doe, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, It’s A Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington)
Howard Hawks (The Big Sleep, Bringing Up Baby, Sergeant York, Ball of Fire, Monkey Business, Scarface (so much better then the Pacino version), To Have and Have Not, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, His Girl Friday)
Stanley Kubrick (not exactly a fav, but I’ve seen The Killing, Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Lolita, 2001, and Dr. Strangelove…it’s been a mixed bag)
now for more modern…
Christopher Nolan (seen all 8 of his films)
Steven Spielberg (Indiana Jones Trilogy, Saving Private Ryan, Munich, Jurassic Park, Catch Me If You Can, Jaws, E.T.)
Martin Scorsese (including him under modern because I don’t really care for his older stuff with the exception of Raging Bull. Seen everything from the last decade)”
before you accuse me of not having respect or admiration for movies, great directors, etc.
That’s not what I said. I didn’t accuse you of that. I didn’t accuse you of anything.
I pointed out that you’re flaunting your low regard for one specific director and a couple of specific movies that most film lovers deeply admire.
Fielding, I’m an engineering student so that shouldn’t be too much of a surprise.
Here’s my Citizen Kane review (from a few years ago) just for kicks…
Citizen Kane-
Its legendary status alone makes one apprehensive. I was just chatting with someone the other day who said he’ll never see it because he’s afraid he’ll be severely disappointed. I almost think disappointment is inevitable given it’s reputation-
Quote:
There is a semi-official consensus in film circles that Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made, which has led Roger Ebert to quip that: ‘So it’s settled: “Citizen Kane” is the official greatest film of all time.’ It topped both the AFI’s 100 Years…100 Movies list and the 10th Anniversary Update, as well as all of the Sight & Sound polls of the 10 greatest films for nearly half a century.
Well, I watched it finally and I’m reluctant to say anything against it but I’m going to attempt an honest review here and not just jump on the bandwagon like many seem to with this film. I’ll start by saying right off the bat this is not my new fav and I don’t agree with the above.
Ok, here’s the thing. On a technical level…yeah this might be the greatest film- cinematography, editing, sound, etc…it’s all top notch.
The acting is also incredible, with the exception of Joseph Cotton. However, Citizen Kane feels like “all style and no substance” Ok, perhaps none is too harsh of a word…little substance. The film is sadly quite a bore, in my opinion. Even “rosebud”…the mystery that was built up so much, felt anti-climactic and in the words of the director himself, “It’s a gimmick, really” There is another more amusing possible meaning behind the word though…
Acting- 9
Script- 6
Visuals- 10
Sound- 10
Editing- 10
Total Score = 90%
Scott, your “mark” for The Magnificent Ambersons reminds me of that ridiculous textbook in Dead Poets’ Society that instructs students to locate poems on a graph. Remember what happened to it?
In other words, I’ve seen a heck of a lot of 80-90 and even low to mid 90’s films but very few 95+, which is what it’s got to attain to be considered a masterpiece in my book.
[by the way, Scott. That makes 1001 comments you’ve posted on AD since July 11. Congratulations. (there’s no prize.)
So I’m impressed by your persistence. Maybe you like to antagonize, but it’s nice that you don’t pick fights. Carry on!]
I was speaking of Welles as he pertains to my judgment, not yours, and the 4 categories (acting, writing, producing, and directing) as they apply specifically to Orson as well. I think it’s very difficult to negatively judge a major filmmaker. You’re running uphill. A single film, maybe, but you’re probably better off championing an under-appreciated flick (like HP8, right?) than trying to dismiss something that’s acclaimed. Notice how my polite take-down of The Tree of Life at 3:03pm didn’t garner any responses. I’m not telling you to just follow what other people say. Just be aware that challenging a critical status quo requires a ton of thought regarding the material and those involved in making it.
Now I gotta say good night. Time to hit the gym so I look more like Joseph Cotten and less like Orson Welles.
Also, please note that just because I consider a film over-rated doesn’t mean I disrespect it or think it’s poor piece of filmmaking. In fact it probably just means I would rate it a B or C as opposed to an A. And while I like just about anything, I tend to be extremely critical and it’s somewhat rare for a film to classify as a true “masterpiece” in my book. That list is a short one of about 30 films.
*so I feel ok passing judgement now
The thing is Jesse, I have seen all of Orson’s films that you listed. And you are right about Citizen Kane…it excels in 4 categories, but not all 5
@Scott: I’m only 21 and so I’m still trying to fill a lot of gaps in my own film awareness. Ryan’s right about passing judgement on directors without seeing a lot of their work. I haven’t even seen The Third Man or Touch of Evil OR The Magnificent Ambersons because I’m waiting to experience them on the big screen. Thus, all I can say about Orson Welles is that he demonstrated ridiculous amounts of talent in 4 separate categories of 1 film, Citizen Kane. So, I’m excited to see what else he has to offer in various forms. But even if I found Citizen Kane dull, I’d still reserve judgement on Welles as a filmmaker until I’d seen at least all three of the films listed above. Try the same with Altman; his standing is probably as high as Welles’ in most circles thanks to a greater quantity of acclaimed works (even if Altman never quite had a Citizen Kane). You wouldn’t want to base your whole opinion on The Beatles based on just Let it Be or something. One film can define a director, or an actor, even if it’s considered a great work. I never fully “got” The Tree of Life or The Thin Red Line, but I’ll always be engaged in what Malick has to offer because I responded so highly to Days of Heaven and Badlands.
No Ryan, you can’t please everyone. Plus, have you neglected to notice all of the truly great masterpieces and directors that I do love…?
There’s only 4 with higher then an 8.0 and one of them is made for TV
Well he only really directed like 3 “masterpieces” far as I’m aware, so hence the use of most. Also, I know Welles didn’t direct The Third Man but that’s another over-rated film that Cotton is in.
Well he only really directed like 3 “masterpieces” far as I’m aware
trying to say this nicely, Scott. But the limits of your awareness don’t extend very far.
“The Third Man… another over-rated film”
When you use the word “over-rated” all that means is “I know that a shit ton of film scholars and really smart people rate The Third Man more highly than I do. But I just don’t get why they rate it so highly.”
So since all of us here know The Third Man, we think you’re clueless. And we all know Orson Welles a lot better than we know you, Scott. You’re insulting someone who means a lot to most of us. Consequently, your lack of respect for movies we love reflects badly on you around here. It doesn’t reflect on the movies at all.
So when you say something is “over-rated” all you’re doing is telling us that you don’t respect the movies and directors most film lovers admire.
If you want to broadcast that here every day, fine with me. But it’s not something I’d want to flaunt if I were you.
All most of us see is a kid who enjoys showing his ass. Have at it. It’s not interesting to argue with you.
And this opinion is further cemented by my recent viewing of The Magnificent Ambersons
Acting- 7
Script- 7
Visuals- 8
Sound- 8
Editing- 6
Total Score = 72
Verdict- Sounds great on paper…on screen not so much. Only thing really worthwhile is the irony of the fate that befalls the spoiled brat. Otherwise what you’ve got is the typically wooden Joseph Cotton in an unpleasant film of disjointed segments. Someone like Capra would have handled this so much better. 🙁
Well Citizen Kane is a technical marvel but most of his “masterpieces” feature the always wooden Joseph Cotton and are quite simply lacking in one or more departments. The only one that really hits on all cylinders is Touch of Evil.
most of his “masterpieces” feature the always wooden Joseph Cotton
Joseph Cotten appeared in only 2 of the best 10 movies Welles directed.
BTW, this article is a good laugh- http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bshapiro/2010/01/17/top-10-most-overrated-directors-of-all-time/
I actually found myself agreeing on Lean, Lynch, and Tarantino…but when I continued scrolling down the page and saw Scorsese and Hitchcock listed as the Top 2 over-rated I burst out laughing and figured it must be satire…
In fact I think Orson Welles is vastly over-rated…how’s that for a controversial notion of my own? :p
In fact I think Orson Welles is vastly over-rated… how’s that for a controversial notion of my own?
“how’s that?”
you want the truth? It’s meaningless, because the term “over-rated” is meaningless.
Coincidentally I found that list myself…though I think this link is easier to browse-
http://www.listal.com/list/entertainment-weeklys-50-greatest-directors
I have opinions of my own…but as I said before, really my only way of knowing about films from before I was born is through these sort of lists.
really my only way of knowing about films from before I was born is through these sort of lists.
Like I said, “nothing wrong with that” — I’m only saying, skimming lists for names you recognize and dismissing anything that’s absent is a sketchy way to back your arguments.
Not trying to slam you, Scott. I came to this conversation late and not even sure I understand what you’re saying. But I got the impression that you’re basing your entire opinion of Robert Altman on one movie.
Honestly, I don’t think he’s your kind of director, so I’m not even going to encourage you to seek out a lot of titles that you won’t like.
But it doesn’t make you sound very well-informed to say movies from the 70s are a “turn-off” — so if you’re not capable of sitting through them, then you shouldn’t pass judgement on them, right?
Your Orson Welles remark is just embarrassing, so you’d be better off sticking to praising stuff you like and curb your desire to sneer at certified geniuses.
And though Forrest Gump is one of my all time favorites, Robert Zemeckis being on the list over say Nolan or Fincher is laughable, lol.
Hmm, well he places at #25 on this list-
http://movies.amctv.com/movie-guide/the-50-greatest-directors-of-all-time.php
Looks like Fritz Lang is the only director in the Top 25 that I haven’t seen a film of. Howard Hawks and Preston Sturges (who aren’t in the Top 25) should be waaay higher up the list!
Scott, at some point you will need to stop relying on lists to validate your preconceived notions and start forming some actual notions of your own.
But if you need another list to guide you (nothing wrong with that), here’s Robert Altman, ranked #17 among EW’s 50 greatest directors.
The best first Altman film to see is The Player. Its biting satire of the Hollywood culture should be accessible to all viewers. The opening 6 plus minute tracking shot is a classic as is the final “filmed” scene with (I think) Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts.
It’s not the best Altman, but it’s the best introduction.
And apologies on the AFI list…I later realized I wasn’t looking at the most current.
Craig Z says:
January 3, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Did Scott just seriously bring up the IMDB top 250 as a credible source???
Full of kids who don’t know anything about films made before 1995
Oh really?
“For what it’s worth, I looked further into how many are “classics” and if I counted correctly 99 of ’em are from before 1970 and 65 of these are from “The Golden Age of Hollywood” (which if I understand correctly is from like the start of the 1930’s to the end of the 1950s, right?)”
That count is from November of 2009 though…I haven’t checked recently.
Fight Club’s at #13, just ahead of freakin’ GoodFellas. Yeah, modern cult films do really well on that list…
Hey have their moments but I mean come on….. I love Fight Club as much as most but isn’t that top 50?
Now now, Craig Z, IMDB IS topped by Shawshank which was made in 1994, so give voters a little credit…
Also, 12 Angry Men clocks in at #6, which strikes me as being a pleasant sort of WTF? selection.
Also, 12 Angry Men clocks in at #6, which strikes me as being a pleasant sort of WTF?
Maybe we’ll see Altman on the IMDb Top 250 when we see more Criterion Editions of Altman films (other than 3 Women & Short Cuts)
Did Scott just seriously bring up the IMDB top 250 as a credible source???
Full of kids who don’t know anything about films made before 1995
@Scott: MASH and Nashville both ranked in the 50’s on AFI’s most recent top 100 list. As for iMDB, few of Altman’s films were hits (though MASH was huge) so the vote totals are lower. Also, his films always seem more popular with film lovers than casual audiences, unlike Woody Allen. Altman had a genial style in his work; they weren’t especially grim or suspenseful, just very much based within the truths of the people portrayed in them. Consider The Long Goodbye, a killer semi-satire on the end of 60’s idealism despite being based on the older Raymond Chandler novel. Roger Ebert’s given a ridiculous number of Altman films 4 stars, and on my own great movies list (which means jack shit to anyone but myself) I’ve listed 4.
@Ryan Adams: I’ll have to check that book out. Love great filmmaking stories.
I haven’t picked up Variety or any of the Major papers lately. Which films are aggressively campaigning? I notice TGWTDT banner here, but unlike the others, it’s not an FYC style. I seriously think they weren’t thinking about Oscar with this one. Has anyone seen any FYC for it?