 
|
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: Is Pollack right? posted by Victor Khomenko on October 07, 2003 at 07:02:34:
Well I'm always on the lookout for classic movies as I expand my DVD collection. My favorites include a few movies which were produced before this 20 year rolloff put up by Pollack. The Godfather Saga being the first that comes to mind. However I recently purchased "The Deer Hunter" on DVD, a winner of 5 acadamy awards including best picture and I was absolutely bored throughout the whole movie. It lacked continuity as it jumped around and I never became emotionally involved. I also bought "Once Apon A Time in America" and again was left wondering how this film was a classic. Im not adverse to a long film, in fact I often wish films were longer and more epic in nature. I could sit through extended versions of all three Lord of the Rings titles and still want more.I have seen Gladiator more times than I can count and still admire the character of Maximus for his simple honesty, courage and the excellent performance by Russel Crowe.
Exorcist was great but Exorcist III scares the beans out of me.
Aliens is better than any War of the Worlds film transfers.
Band of Brothers is simply the best look inside a soldiers trials and tribulations ever made.
Dances with Wolves regardless of historical accuracy made me cry.
Braveheart had a bit of everything. Mel wasnt exactly the perfect scott but the movie had flavor. It was fun and sad, exciting and dramatic, a look into what things might have been like during such times.
We have had two fantastic westerns based on Wyatt Earp. Both "Tombstone" and "Wyatt Earp" were great in their own way. None of the older westerns grab me the same way these two have.
I could go on and on.. Unbreakable, Fith Element, Snatch, Contact, Xmen, Fried Green Tomatos (yes this was great!), Blackhawk Down .. etc etc. Yes Mr. Lucas completely destroyed ep1 and ep2 but for few failures in modern Hollywood there also seems to be a classic.
Strange it seems I prefer movies from Mr. Pollacks "deteriorated age" of the last 20 years. Perhaps I have a "short attention span" and want the "clothes off fast or the gun out quick" but I obviously would disagree.
I think older films allowed more room for audience perception to fill in the gaps of what could be considered conservative performances by most actors of the time. Today a great film requires a great script but also VERY convincing performances by the actors involved.
Vedric
Follow Ups:
"I think older films allowed more room for audience perception to fill in the gaps"Or, as I would say:
"I think good films allow more room for audience perception to fill in the gaps."
Imagination, thoughtfulness, education, intelligence, ah, fuck it! Give me some F/X!
"Shove it up your ass and light it with a match." - a rather frustrated moderator.
I enjoy movies with actors that have more to offer than boring, conservative interpretations of a script. Its like "emotional dynamic range". Some actors have it and some dont. Many older films in my opinion follow a script in strict order and fail in bringing forward the emotional/situational content of a scene. As if they try too hard in being accurate to the book or script and forget the emotional and situational nuance of the scene. Many (not all) older classics seem grey in color (no pun) and boring.If I want uncolored material that allows me to fill in the blanks I will read the book! I wont cry because 'great' movies of today attempt to use an actors complete dynamic range to flesh out the picture as seen through the directors eyes. Get it Sparky?
At any rate, whats your beef with modern movies and use some examples. Maybe you could include some acting examples as well? Just remember we are comparing great movies here, not flops vs. classics. Perhaps I ask too much? I already know the answer to that one..
Vedric
American Beauty, Finding Forrester, Goodwill Hunting, etc. etc.vs.
Anything by
Bergman
Renoir
Atonioni
Hitchcock
or
pre-1990 Woody AllenIt's the director's fine honing of his art - a sort of minimalism, if you will, vs. the "sledgehammer" approach of modern day Hollywood.
There are a few exceptions, of course, but by and large, Hollywood is only good at escapism fare. And the problem isn't the existence of escapism fare, it's the absence of substantial alternatives.Sorry if my previous post was a little too "spunky". My diet is limiting my wine intake - and it's making me damn irritable!
"Shove it up your ass and light it with a match." - a rather frustrated moderator.
I just like calling people Sparky and you offered me the perfect chance!Vedric
You seems to be the perfect " con sumer "
.
But let me first explain what I meant.
He is the perfect " con sumer "
Irony.
Con ( en Francais )Check out.
Do you copy me now...?
Faithfull is my name.
#Shame on you, Thomas! ( the apostle )
...what I am curious about is your impression of the "Faithless".Man, getting you talk about that film is turning out harder than getting Clinton admit his affair... with that woman... Ms Lewinski.
What exactly do you mean ?
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 ]
