Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
polishgenius

Watch Watched Watching: The Rambunctious Cinema of Terrence Malick

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, polishgenius said:

That's  the BFI's beat though to be fair. But also at least as far as mainstream goes I think you're exaggerating - their top three are Vertigo, Citizen Kane and Tokyo Story, which is a pretty standard top 3 and not atypical of the rest of the list. They definitely do eschew modern films for older, foreign films, but it's not a bad thing to have a fairly major player highlighting things that may otherwise be overlooked.

 

 

Well I think the vast majority of the movies on their list are not accessible to ‘regular’ people, which isn’t something I’d say about the AFI list which while still features older movies , are generally a lot more mainstream.

Don’t think Tokyo Story is a movie most people would have watched 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I also think that the Jurassic Park should get credit for the fact that it exhibited groundbreaking techniques (fully CGI characters interacting with humans at a level never before seen).  This was hugely influential on the future of cinema, arguably as much as any movie made in the past 30 years. 

Yes, simply being groundbreaking alone isn't enough to be an all-time great, but combine that with effective action/suspense and excellent directing, and you have a true classic. 

Were they CGI? I thought most of it was animatronics no? I always thought Dragon heart was the first with a fully CGI character :)

5 hours ago, The_Lone_Wolf said:

You haven't crossed the Wall in a long time I see, it's been how the Starks and North are human flesh eating monsters while The Targs, Fairy Godmother Queen Dany and their Allies are liberators from heaven 

  Reveal hidden contents

Like how all the Native Americans, Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Aborigines were 'liberated' 

The other side is pretty obvious. And where I stand is even more 

Oh, I haven(t gone north in years XD Too much risk for show spoilers I have been able to avoid and without any new content it really isn't worth it :)

I feel tempted to press your spoiler tags but I'm going to refrain :D 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not really sure in constitutes a flame war given there wasn't any animosity. I just don't think AFI's top 100 list is the best to go off for the reasons I previous listed. It's a non-diverse group selecting a ton of films they're nostalgic about from a relatively weak era in Hollywood. I'd love to see a top 100 list from qualified film critics 40 and under, because I'm guessing there a number of high ranking films from AFI's list that wouldn't even make theirs

Or to put it more bluntly, I don't care about a list that has Singin in the Rain 5th, but doesn't even have Empire Strikes Back or The Dark Knight on it.

Give it time, you can still connect to the dark side and go full YouTube on us :P

In general, mileage varies a lot I suppose. Based on the three films you mention, I'd never put Singing in the Rain at 5 and perhaps indeed not even on there. Empire would definitely make the cut, but I'm not sure Dark Knight would for me.

I think the biggest flaw with AFI is the fact that they don't represent foreign films, in the sense I'm not really interested in a list of 100 best American movies but care more for the 100 greatest film lists period. That being said, if you just want an overview of the best American movies than why not roll with this one?

It might not be equally representative of your taste, but then again, an older film fan might not feel represented by the under 40s you want to see. I think everyone probably agrees that a wider age distribution would be beneficial, but I don't think that a group composed of under 40s would fair better than the oldies.

Heck, given the gag-inducing craze for eighties nostalgia you might even end up worse. Looking at Godzilla v. Kong, to name but one mediocre film I saw recently, that shit heap was filled with eighties references. If that's what directors of that generation do, then I shudder and dread what type of crap all those Gen X film critics would select :P

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I think it’s interesting to compare and contrast the AFI top 100 with the British version, the BFI.

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time
 

You could say that the British list goes too far in the other direction, heavily focusing on avant garde European movies from the 60s, and not interested in anything remotely mainstream or modern.

BFI is really the list for film buffs so. I have done my best, but there are so many films on there that I have yet to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

Were they CGI? I thought most of it was animatronics no? I always thought Dragon heart was the first with a fully CGI character :)

They used both, and they were integrated pretty seamlessly.  There was an animatronic T-Rex head and foot, but otherwise it was CGI.  Likewise most of the shots of the raptors where they're moving around are CGI (virtually the entire kitchen scene for example). 

EDIT:  The animatronics were mostly just to save money.  You can tell the raptor head in the "clever girl" scene is just a model, but then it is a CGI raptor that actually mauls Muldoon.

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

feel tempted to press your spoiler tags but I'm going to refrain :D

It's just anthropology. Trust me 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Don’t think Tokyo Story is a movie most people would have watched 

 

 

Yeah but 'most people would have watched' is not a criteria for greatest film, and Tokyo Story routinely gets high on movie lists focusing on anything but the most mainstream stuff- it's not a megahit but it's not obscure. 
 
Anyway the point overall is BFI lists may consciously be slanting a specific kind of way in their picks, but no moreso than, well, any other list really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I think it’s interesting to compare and contrast the AFI top 100 with the British version, the BFI.

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time
 

You could say that the British list goes too far in the other direction, heavily focusing on avant garde European movies from the 60s, and not interested in anything remotely mainstream or modern.

Yeah that list is pretty snooty in comparison.  Like polishgenius said, that seems to be their thing.  I like how Touch of Evil gets a mention, although the fact Barry Lyndon makes the list means they're almost demanding you get bored in order to watch their selections.  Pretty cool picture for Godfather 2 though.  And in honor of this thread title, quite surprised Terrence Malick isn't better represented there.

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I do however think that isn’t enough to push it into classic category, for me there are far too many elements of the movie that means it wouldn’t hit the top of any of my lists.

About sums it up for me too.  To be clear I never meant to suggest Jurassic Park didn't deserve recognition for its groundbreaking effects.  That just doesn't put it over the hump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its great to see so much love for Jurassic Park but none for the sequel. I always hated that film. From its ott violence and plot holes galore, I thought it was one of the worst sequels of all time when I first saw it and my opinion has not changed over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't really remember Lost World, and while I'll watch Jurassic Park if I randomly find it on, I'd change the channel on Lost World.  Or the third one, which I remember even less.  Hell, I'll take Jurassic World over those two -- although, appropriately, not its sequel either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the dumbest moment in the franchise has to be in III. When they give the raptor eggs back and like...talk to the raptors with the 3D printed vocal chamber and the raptors for some reason don't murder them all. What was that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghostlydragon said:

Its great to see so much love for Jurassic Park but none for the sequel. I always hated that film. From its ott violence and plot holes galore, I thought it was one of the worst sequels of all time when I first saw it and my opinion has not changed over the years.

It's really bad.  It is kind of funny that I liked both movies when I was a kid (although no question I loved JP more than the Lost World).  But even as a I child I noticed that the plot of Lost World didn't make a lot of sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, DMC said:

AFI didn't think so, neither here nor here

For curiosity's sake I looked at the lists you so thoughtfully linked to. Ha! I've seen the films on both lists, many of them many times. The only exceptions are Schindler's List and Patton, from the first AFI list you linked, and Raging Bull on the second AFI list you linked. Not that it matters, particularly since I've seen a multitude of other films as well, and a multitude of other films a multitude of times.  OTOH I've seen JP only once, and never got through one of the others in the franchise.  Both of them were uninteresting watches for this viewer because all they are, vectors for providing a non-stop action thrill per beat. Even Jaw ,provides a whole lotta non-stop action thrill, has more dimensional narrative and characters.  Jaws is on one of the two lists, btw; while as you say, JP isn't.  Also, for reasons I don't know, I've see it at least 3 times, including first time in the theater. :D

As one might expect, the UK list is a whole more international in vision than the AFI's.

I've seen all of those too, quite a few many times as well, thanks to film series and courses, and -- television / dvds / streaming. :D :cheers:

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there is the ‘Goonies effect’ with JP for some people, where there is connection to a sense of nostalgia that bumps up just how good they think the movie is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seen a majority of the AFI list and a third of the BFI list and screw both of them for omitting Raise the Red Lantern!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Seen a majority of the AFI list and a third of the BFI list and screw both of them for omitting Raise the Red Lantern!

There are so many films that deserve to be on Best Lists!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, IFR said:

It is fun watching a passionate debate about a subjective matter. Jurassic Park and Gone with the Wind were both expertly crafted by top filmmakers of the time. 

I personally would watch Jurassic Park over Gone with the Wind any day of the week. A science experiment run amok is certainly more interesting to me than a racist love letter to Confederate times, whatever AFI says. And Dr Grant's character evolution as circumstances mold him into this strong, paternal figure, was more interesting for me to watch than Scarlett O'Hara over four hours becoming an increasingly shrill, charmless and horrible person. Neither approach was terribly original or greatly enhanced my view of the world, but certainly Jurassic Park is an intensely fun movie whose subject matter is relevant today, whereas I view Gone with the Wind as a crucible of boredom whose impact on society was actually pernicious.

But your miles may vary.

This. 

Timeless classics are timeless and classic (but not perfect) exactly because they are designed and operated - masterfully - with the basic, yet ingenious, tools of age-old storytelling. Not because they are/were building on some type of current trend that’ll expire in a few years/decades. They don’t try oh so hard to be flawless and original and groundbreaking and progressive. They are just stories told as best as their creators could, and not trying to be special and great is what actually makes them special and great. 

And yes, technology may advance and society may change, but human nature, archetypes, emotions and what we covet as human beings don’t, they’ve been the same since we exist. And the very reason why I put on Jurassic Park the other day was because I’m so tired of some assembly line series trying to educate me on social issues, or subvert my expectations and shock me. Don’t. Just tell me a reliably good story and do it well. 

I like nitpicking as much as the next person, in fact probably way more and one can nitpick anything. I do think the raptor cage is in a stupid location and I do think it’s absurd that neither the car nor the skeleton crashed Tim. And I can’t argue with the meme about how the fellowships should have used eagles in the first place. But none of that means that I don’t bow down before Jurassic Park or the Lord of the Rings and or that I don’t have them both imprinted on my heart. 

Edited by RhaenysBee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Veltigar said:

In general, mileage varies a lot I suppose. Based on the three films you mention, I'd never put Singing in the Rain at 5 and perhaps indeed not even on there. Empire would definitely make the cut, but I'm not sure Dark Knight would for me.

I think Dark Knight deserves to be in, but it can go in the latter half. And like with considering special effects and impact on film making, I think the Dark Knight, even more than the first Spiderman, proved that you could make comic book movies on a grand scale and now they dominate the industry.

Quote

It might not be equally representative of your taste, but then again, an older film fan might not feel represented by the under 40s you want to see. I think everyone probably agrees that a wider age distribution would be beneficial, but I don't think that a group composed of under 40s would fair better than the oldies.

I'd be curious to see just how much overlap there would be when picking older films and how they're ranked compared to more modern choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

It's really bad.  It is kind of funny that I liked both movies when I was a kid (although no question I loved JP more than the Lost World).  But even as a I child I noticed that the plot of Lost World didn't make a lot of sense. 

I don't think it's really bad. It's not good either, it's just kind of there. The big mistake they made was changing Sarah Harding completely. In the book she's a badass, but in the movie she's totally incompetent for most of the film.

For those who haven't read the two books, JP was largely a faithful adaptation. Obviously there are changes, notably with the kids and more people die in the book, but they were pretty true to the source material. The Lost World, otoh, basically just shares the same name. There are some characters with the same names, but they totally changed who they were for the movie. It's also worth noting that parts of the book have been used for various plot points in The Lost World, JP3 and JW. A better adaptation could have produced a much better movie.

And JP3 is hot garbage, though the JW movies aren't much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Jurassic World The Fallen Kingdom is a disgrace to the original film. It’s even a disgrace to Lost World and Jurassic Park 3. It reeks of every issue with 2010 films and it’s overall a joke in terms of story. I could have spent this £2 on a coffee. 

It does make me wish I was still at school. I hope someone somewhere wrote a killer thesis on the moral psychology of animal rights representation in film. 

Edited by RhaenysBee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the 1963 Joseph Losey film The Servant, starring Dirk Bogarde and James Fox. Bit slight, but nonetheless very good slice of master/servant psychodrama. There's a bit of Parasite in it (or rather a bit of it in Parasite I suppose), though it's not as clever and a lot more sinister. Gorgeously shot, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RhaenysBee said:

Jurassic World The Fallen Kingdom is a disgrace to the original film. It’s even a disgrace to Lost World and Jurassic Park 3. It reeks of every issue with 2010 films and it’s overall a joke in terms of story. I could have spent this £2 on a coffee. 

It does make me wish I was still at school. I hope someone somewhere wrote a killer thesis on the moral psychology of animal rights representation in film. 

Is a short little thing set after that terrible movie. I still think the idea is ridiculous but hey I'll go see the next one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...