Watch Watched Watching: The Rambunctious Cinema of Terrence Malick

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I can't believe we're sat here nitpicking Jurassic Park. Like yeah you can pick holes in the logic all day but it's not a mystery thriller, it's a spectacle film with almost no equal. Even the ninja-Rex at the end is worth it for the epic pose.  

 

8 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I don't think any of us pointing these things out don't adore the movie. 

If JP isn't my favorite movie, it's top three for me, and only it and Pulp Fiction get a pass into that group with the third one being really hard for me to pick. Jurassic Park is incredible, the story is great, the suspense is real and it's visuals holds up almost thirty years later. Shit, one of my favorite things on podcasts like Cinephobe and HDTGM are when they point out how long after JP the movie they're reviewing got made. It's that good.

We can both say on the one hand that JP is ground breaking and one of the best movies ever made while on the other also acknowledge that it has a number of plot and continuity errors, some of which seem intentional so as to create a better on camera shot.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

43 minutes ago, Slurktan said:

I mean, I didn't like it but feel free to stereotype people who don't like a piece of art as misanthropes.  I didn't like it because the protagonist is unlikeable in episode 2 (where her arc starts, it has nothing to do with being a her, it has to do with how the character acts after a tragedy.) and doesn't get any better.  I didn't like it because all men in the show have no agency and are wallpaper.  (I also don't like it in things when all female characters are treated like that, its bullshit for both sexes I guess that is fine for you though as it is apparently fine for you here?). 

If you don't like it that's fine. I disagree with your assessment.

But don't confuse things. I'm not talking about you and I'm not stereotyping anything. I'm talking about specific individuals on social media who have a track record of this sort of "outrage" commentary. The sort that consistently make a crusade out of this sort of thing for clicks. I chose not to call them out by name because I didn't think it was appropriate for this thread.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

We can both say on the one hand that JP is ground breaking and one of the best movies ever made

While obviously it was insanely successful at what it was intended to be - a brainless popcorn flick - I would never describe Jurassic Park as even remotely close to one of the best movies ever made.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

While obviously it was insanely successful at what it was intended to be - a brainless popcorn flick - I would never describe Jurassic Park as even remotely close to one of the best movies ever made.

That seems a bit reductive. The film became one of the gold standards for special effects and the story itself is very strong. Obviously it's completely subjective, but I'd be willing to bet that JP is on basically all credible top 100 movie lists and if that doesn't make it one of the best movies ever made, what does?

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The film became one of the gold standards for special effects and the story itself is very strong.

What story?  It's a premise combined with outstanding special effects and one of the greatest directors ever showing off how to do suspense.  But it's also one of the more profoundly vapid films I can think of in terms of characterization and plot.

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Obviously it's completely subjective, but I'd be willing to bet that JP is on basically all credible top 100 movie lists and if that doesn't make it one of the best movies ever made, what does?

Well, first, I'd only describe the top 10-15 on my top 100 list as one of the best movies ever made, but that's just me.  Second, AFI didn't think so, neither here nor here.  I'm sure it's on most fan-generated top 100s though - a testament do being an insanely successful popcorn flick.

[Nictarion]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

What story?  It's a premise combined with outstanding special effects and one of the greatest directors ever showing off how to do suspense.  But it's also one of the more profoundly vapid films I can think of in terms of characterization and plot.

I don’t think that’s true at all. 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

I don’t think that’s true at all. 

Granted I should have qualified that a bit.  It's one of the most successful films I'd describe as profoundly vapid, but sure, I can think of a lot shittier movies that were more so.  But in terms of characterization, which you bolded, I've always found it almost impressive how little the film made me care about the characters.

To be fair the intensity of my response is at least partially rooted in one of my pet peeves - that Spielberg in general is often overrated.  I suppose not these days but it really bothered me growing up in the 90s when he was treated like god.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, DMC said:

What story?  It's a premise combined with outstanding special effects and one of the greatest directors ever showing off how to do suspense.  But it's also one of the more profoundly vapid films I can think of in terms of characterization and plot.

It's a pretty straightforward techno thriller diving into the dangers and hubris of man playing God. I don't think the story or plot are weak points of the film. 

Quote

Well, first, I'd only describe the top 10-15 on my top 100 list as one of the best movies ever made, but that's just me.  Second, AFI didn't think so, neither here nor here.  I'm sure it's on most fan-generated top 100s though - a testament do being an insanely successful popcorn flick.

And that's fine if you want to make the pool relatively small, but I like looking at top 100 lists, same as with songs/albums, because that is less influenced by personal bias. AFI doesn't even include foreign films (obviously), so the list is flawed. In no universe should any top 100 list have Singin in the Rain at 5 while not even including something like say, Seven Samurai. 

Perhaps it's mostly ranked that high because of fan generated top 100 lists, but those are also of value and I'm not that interested in a list that heavily skew to the 1930's, 40's and 50's. For instance, Gone with the Wind has aged terribly and doesn't need to be ranked nearly as high as it is on lists determined by people stuck in old Hollywood.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

AFI doesn't even include foreign films (obviously), so the list is flawed.

I don't know how can say that's a flaw, it's just what it is.  That's like saying ranking the 100 best American-born athletes is "flawed" because it's not considering other countries.  Regardless, the fact it doesn't consider foreign films would only increase the chances Jurassic Park makes the list.

I agree Gone with the Wind is a slog though.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know how can say that's a flaw, it's just what it is.  That's like saying ranking the 100 best American-born athletes is "flawed" because it's not considering other countries.  Regardless, the fact it doesn't consider foreign films would only increase the chances Jurassic Park makes the list.

I agree Gone with the Wind is a slog though.

I guess I would just argue that's like saying Ichiro can't be one of MLB's greatest players ever because he's from Japan. And in that line of thought, I'm willing to have bigger sample to pick from because I think it's fair to argue that making the MLB HoF means you're one of the greatest baseball players ever, even if everyone agree you're not a top ten player of all time. 

Also, looking a little deeper at AFI's list, the top 15 films average release date was 1956/7. The wording on those who selected the top 100 list suggest they're mostly older gatekeepers of Hollywood, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that their picks over select from films from the 30's, 40's and 50's. Nostalgia is influencing their decisions more than actual quality. 46 of the top 100 came from those three decades, compared to 31 from the 70's, 80's and 90's, and more than half of those (18 of 31) were from the 70's. The people creating the list were clearly biased. 

Also, they didn't have Empire Strikes Back on either list so what do they know? 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I guess I would just argue that's like saying Ichiro can't be one of MLB's greatest players ever because he's from Japan.

Ok, but this has nothing to do with your argument that JP is on most "credible" top 100 lists, which is what I responded to.  The AFI is obviously a credible list, and while it denies eligibility to a lot of films by only considering American films, Jurassic Park is an American film and still was not on it - twice.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

I thought he was pretty good in The Man from UNCLE and the Mission Impossible movie he was in.  But yeah the main point is being a better actor than Swayze is a very low bar, and I think Cavill clearly is.

Figured I'd move this here to end the derail in the dating thread.

TBF I haven't seen either of them. UNCLE seemed interesting, I've never seen the show, but I kept hearing people say it wasn't very good so I never bothered with it. And for whatever reason the MI movies just never did it for me, but the last one I saw in full was the third one and I have heard some of the ones after that are really good. Can't recall which one, but one of them frequently gets brought up in discussions over the best action films of all time. I think it's the one where TC is hanging on to the side of a plane.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ok, but this has nothing to do with your argument that JP is on most "credible" top 100 lists, which is what I responded to.  The AFI is obviously a credible list, and while it denies eligibility to a lot of films by only considering American films, Jurassic Park is an American film and still was not on it - twice.

 

But those lists heavily skew towards older films. Barely anything from the 90's are on them. I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that the people with influence on them are bringing their biases for older Hollywood, something JP doesn't fit into at all. For example, Alien isn't on either list, and I think I could make a strong argument for it over at least ten films on each. Both feel like they picked what was popular when they were most impressionable, which to be fair is in part why I love JP so much. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

nd for whatever reason the MI movies just never did it for me, but the last one I saw in full was the third one and I have heard some of the ones after that are really good.

I'm not a big Mission Impossible fan either but I did happen to see the one Cavill was in due to the fact we were visiting my parents and often we just go see the least objectionable movie in theaters to break up the boredom.  Anyway he demonstrated more "range" in that one than I think Swayze is capable of. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But those lists heavily skew towards older films. Barely anything from the 90's are on them.

Briefly skimming I count 13 movies from the 1990s on at least one of the two lists (as well as one from 2001).  The lists were made in 1998 and 2007.  I think there's an argument to be made that the 2000s got short shrift in the second one, but 13 movies in one decade in a list called "100 years... 100 movies" is quite literally not skewed against that decade, using basic math.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm not a big Mission Impossible fan either but I did happen to see the one Cavill was in due to the fact we were visiting my parents and often we just go see the least objectionable movie in theaters to break up the boredom.  Anyway he demonstrated more "range" in that one than I think Swayze is capable of. 

I'll take your word for it, I've just never seen him be anything that the exact same person. Swayze isn't some great actor, but he is charismatic in many of his roles and that's just not something I've seen from Cavill.

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Briefly skimming I count 13 movies from the 1990s on at least one of the two lists (as well as one from 2001).  The lists were made in 1998 and 2007.  I think there's an argument to be made that the 2000s got short shrift in the second one, but 13 movies in one decade in a list called "100 years... 100 movies" is quite literally not skewed against that decade, using basic math.

Ctrl+F says eight films from the 90's and six from the 80's. There's almost nothing from the 10's and 20's, which isn't shocking, but after that the 80's and 90's had the least films selected from them. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Ctrl+F says eight films from the 90's and six from the 80's. There's almost nothing from the 10's and 20's, which isn't shocking, but after that the 80's and 90's had the least films selected from them. 

I skimmed the wikipedia page, which conveniently has both lists.  Anyway, it's a fair point that it's basically 7 decades not 10 - from the 30s to the 90s - but that still would round out to 14 and change per decade.  Hard to say 13 is "skewed."  As for the 80s, I don't feel like counting again, but the list should be skewed against that decade.  It sucked for films.

ETA:  Now that you got me looking at the list, I am wondering about the criteria in terms of "American" films.  They got The Third Man on there, and that's a British film.  In fact BFI ranked it the greatest British film ever right around the same time it was put on the AFI list.  Lawrence of Arabia was third on the BFI list and it's on the AFI list too.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I skimmed the wikipedia page, which conveniently has both lists.  Anyway, it's a fair point that it's basically 7 decades not 10 - from the 30s to the 90s - but that still would round out to 14 and change per decade.  Hard to say 13 is "skewed."  As for the 80s, I don't feel like counting again, but the list should be skewed against that decade.  It sucked for films.

Still not sure where you're getting 13 from. I did both lists individually and it's 8 and 11 respectively, whereas half of the films come from the 40's, 50's and 60's on both which lines up with my thesis that these are lists put together by people who are overemphasizing the middle part of the 20th century, and that they selected a lot of films that shouldn't be on a more thoughtful and nuanced list. It's basically old white people picking films that appeal to old white people, so in other words, Hollywood. 

(I agree that the 80's wasn't the best decade in cinema though unless you really love watching shit blow up while not having to think very much.)

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Still not sure where you're getting 13 from. I did both lists individually and it's 8 and 11 respectively, whereas half of the films come from the 40's, 50's and 60's on both which lines up with my thesis that these are lists put together by people who are overemphasizing the middle part of the 20th century, and that they selected a lot of films that shouldn't be on a more thoughtful and nuanced list. It's basically old white people picking films that appeal to old white people, so in other words, Hollywood. 

13 comes from those that appeared on either list, which is what I said.  Granted, that means we're talking about 123 films, not 100.  Since I'm just that bored, here's the distribution I quickly counted:

• <1930: 6
• 30s:  17
• 40s:  13
• 50s:  21
• 60s:  21
• 70s:  22
• 80s:  9
• 90s:  13
• 2000s:  1

That adds up to 124 so I must have overcounted by 1 somewhere.  I don't think that's really too skewed when you account for quality.  The 60s probably has too many, yeah, but then the 70s probably has too few - even though it has the most.  There are some 90s films I'd put on there that aren't - Lebowski, LA Confidential, Braveheart - but then there are some 90s films on there that I wouldn't.

Which is the point, this is nitpicking and entirely irrelevant to the original argument.  But again, pretty damn bored.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

13 comes from those that appeared on either list, which is what I said.  Granted, that means we're talking about 123 films, not 100.  Since I'm just that bored, here's the distribution I quickly counted:

• <1930: 6
• 30s:  17
• 40s:  13
• 50s:  21
• 60s:  21
• 70s:  22
• 80s:  9
• 90s:  13
• 2000s:  1

That adds up to 124 so I must have overcounted by 1 somewhere.  I don't think that's really too skewed when you account for quality.  The 60s probably has too many, yeah, but then the 70s probably has too few - even though it has the most.  There are some 90s films I'd put on there that aren't - Lebowski, LA Confidential, Braveheart - but then there are some 90s films on there that I wouldn't.

Which is the point, this is nitpicking and entirely irrelevant to the original argument.  But again, pretty damn bored.

K, that adds up then. 

How are we suppose to account for quality though? I'll use Singin in the Rain again. They actually moved it from 10th to 5th. Get out of here with that. It's a film that probably wouldn't have much appeal today, and even if that's not the metric we should use, I still don't think it, along with a number of other films, belongs that high on the lists, if they should even be on them. I understand that you don't consider JP a top 100 film, and even if you did that wouldn't mean it counts as one of the best films ever made, which is fine, but I just have a hard time taking AFI's list as representing anything other than what old white snob film critics like. They're over sampling from a specific time and specific type of film. I would argue, for example, when debating the best/greatest/most important 100 films of all time, no list could be complete without Enter the Dragon, even if it shouldn't be ranked very high on it. Yet I doubt many of the people who made these lists would even bother to watch it, and that's why I don't put a ton a credence on AFI's ranking. We'd be better off using a list that's a blend of critics and informed fans, both of who like a wide variety of films.

But to your point about the 70's, I'll link this QT video because I think he nails it: