 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: avenging angel; barry lyndon posted by TA on November 24, 2002 at 02:41:38:
I think Angel represents a more raw talent, is more original in most respects. I love his later works great deal, but as they became more polished, they lost some of that raw discovery charm.Barry Lyndon is different, because it is hard choice between it and my other favorite - The Paths of Glory. It is perhaps the most artistic film or all. I never liked the 2001, Strangelove let the satire get the best of the director, and Orange is overrated, I think, because it is based too heavily on the story. When the story dominates, the storytelling takes the back seat. But it is still a masterpiece, make no mistake about it.
I looked at the ebert list, I am not impressed. He seems to like a lot of films I would only consider just average. For instance, how could The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp make it there? I mean - on the same list with an M? Give me a break.
This is the problem with large lists, that the range also ends up wide, in essence watering down the super qualities of the top ones.
I think the lists should be kept to no more than 20, better 10 or so, as usually the level difference between the first twenty and the second can ge large.
Follow Ups:
From the Sight & Sound "Ten Greatest Films of All Time" 2002 Critic's Poll (September 2002, see www.bfi.org.uk/topten/):Roger Ebert (Alphabetical order)
Aguirre, Wrath of God (Herzog)
Apocalypse Now (Coppola)
Citizen Kane (Welles)
Dekalog (Kieslowski)
La Dolce Vita (Fellini)
The General (Keaton)
Raging Bull (Scorsese)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
Tokyo Story (Ozu)
Vertigo (Hitchcock)You may not agree with every choice, but I don't find anything terribly divergent on this list. No zingers, choices all drawn from the usual suspects. You should see some of the lists. One iconoclast thinks The Exorcist is the greatest movie ever made, LOL!
Ebert's 100 list is really meant to re-examine and draw attention to "good" films (if not all of them "great") that may be overlooked in the current morass of mind numbing drivel at the local multiplex. He is perfectly content to praise a well-made effort whose chief virtue is entertainment. Most films on the list, if not all masterpieces, are well crafted, thoughtful enterprises. I think, despite the fact that I strongly disagree with Ebert on certain films (Blue Velvet, LOTR), he communicates a genuine enthusiasm for movies to an audience that otherwise might not discover such pleasures on their own. If he does omit some great ones - Rules of the Game, Tokyo Story - I still forgive him. They'll show up eventually. Ebert's irrelevant to me, but on the whole, he does more good than harm...unlike certain other people I could name...
...If only someone would shoot Roeper...
Oh, and Victor, I DO think The Life & Death of Colonel Blimp is a great film.
Harmonia, A big thanks for the link to the BFI site.In his Q&A column, Ebert said that his Sight & Sound list diverges slightly from his true list. The point of the poll was to make a master list of top films off the individual lists. In some cases, Ebert substituted what he knew would be more obvious choices among the other critics rather than 'throw away' the vote. In his books he's usually got a documentary and a couple offbeat picks in his top 10 lists. (I think those alternate choices would make Victor cringe even more - they're bound to be in his third tier!)
I wonder if his choices for the Great Movies feature has changed over time based on the feedback he gets from people. I mean, when he reviews The Apu Trilogy, who the hell is going to say that they checked it out after reading his column? As opposed to writing up Goodfellas. (I once wrote reviews for my school paper highlighting upcoming films at the film society. If I recommended an obscure film, it made no difference. But if I picked something overlooked that was in English and in color, a people would comment that they tried it out based on my suggestion.) Plus Ebert writes for the Sun Times, not the Chicago Tribune. It's a different audience (like the New York Post versus the New York Times).
Having read or seen Ebert for so long, I feel like I understand what he looks for in movies. He's one of the few reviewers whose reviews are archived online, and he seems to write on everthing that comes out. In other words, agree or disagree with his opinion, I have a good sense of whether I'll like a new movie after reading his review - much more than asking a colleague at work whether a movie is good. To me, the value of reading his reviews is that consistency and knowing where the opinion is coming from.
Roeper escapes me. Like Siskel, he'll dismiss films for no principled reason. I remember him talking about The Mexican on their show. Roeper basically said: Since this movie stars Brad and Julia, I expected to see a lot of Brad and Julia onscreen together. The movie puts them in very few scenes together, so it wasn't the movie I expected to see. So I didn't like it. Siskel sometimes reviewed movies like that too.
I think most of the critics participating in the S&S poll, if not all of them, are rather self-conscious in their selections, there's a feeling of compiling a list for the ages. The directors seem much more frank about their choices.I used to do a fair bit of reviewing. In picking the "greatest of all time", I think it's fairly typical that one would select films that one thought were outstanding in all their respects and had withstood the test of time, even if they weren't one's very favorite masterpieces. So many masterpieces, so little time.
But the polls are fun to peruse and they do provoke discussion.
Siskel was a master of intellectual precocity and eloquence compared to Roeper. Roeper's review of LOTR basically dismissed it - everyone knew that the only people who would be interested in the film were Tolkien geeks who consisted entirely of nerdy young male persons who'd never had a date, why would anyone else wanna see movie like that? (Gee, Roeper therby dismisses C.S. Lewis, W.H. Auden, 30 million married women, 50 million baby boomers who read it and wore Frodo lives buttons, plus countless children and old people.) Roeper is more about promoting and entertaining himself than he is concerned about offering any remotely perceptive insights into cinema.
Someone shoot him...please.
about his consistency. That's what I find with magazine reviewers (Wine Spectator, Stereophile, Et Al) I may disagree with what they think is good, but as long as they provide accurate descriptions, and are consistent, I can glean what I need to know. Hell, there are even a few people on AA that are like that.I don't read too many movie reviews, I usually take the plunge or listen to feedback from friends, but the same thing goes with them, too.
I gave at the office!
..and this list proves it. There are only two films I would consider aong the best twenty - Kane and La Dolce Vita, the rest I would put in the second tier.***Oh, and Victor, I DO think The Life & Death of Colonel Blimp is a great film.
Now you have done it! I'll go and watch the Mask.
I perused his list not long ago, and kept thinking to myself - "how can he obviously recognize the greatness of some of these films, and put other so-so, at best flicks on there?" 2 answers- he's trying to please everyone, avoiding controversy, and he's letting his personal affection for some films override his objective discernment of quality. I mean "Spinal Tap"? I LOVE Spinal Tap - one of the most hilarious films ever - but a GREAT movie?
I gave at the office!
point taken on diluting the true greats.ebert's feature is not so much a strict "best of" list as an ongoing series that covers whatever he happens to be checking out at the time. (for me, there's only so much to be said for creating a "definitive" list - what's more interesting is seeing how other people think differently about something you love or hate.)
often his choices coincide with dvd releases, theatrical revivals or recent remakes, or the passing of a certain actor or director - he's got an audience to write for.
it's also an exercise in reexamining or reconsidering films years later, like a second chance to review the film. sometimes he realizes that a movie's not as good as he remembered it being; other times new things strike him in light of changing times, new movies or his age. His comments on La Dolce Vita:
"When I saw 'La Dolce Vita' in 1960, I was an adolescent for whom 'the sweet life' represented everything I dreamed of: sin, exotic European glamour, the weary romance of the cynical newspaperman. When I saw it again, around 1970, I was living in a version of Marcello's world; Chicago's North Avenue was not the Via Veneto, but at 3 a.m. the denizens were just as colorful, and I was about Marcello's age.
"When I saw the movie around 1980, Marcello was the same age, but I was 10 years older, had stopped drinking, and saw him not as a role model but as a victim, condemned to an endless search for happiness that could never be found, not that way. By 1991, when I analyzed the film a frame at a time at the University of Colorado, Marcello seemed younger still, and while I had once admired and then criticized him, now I pitied and loved him. And when I saw the movie right after Mastroianni died, I thought that Fellini and Marcello had taken a moment of discovery and made it immortal. There may be no such thing as the sweet life. But it is necessary to find that out for yourself."
also of interest is the linked list of siskel and ebert's annual top ten lists dating back to 1969.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
