 
|
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 |
I thought it was a very good film, but I don't think I would have put it at the top. Scorsese was on the show with Ebert and picked "The Horse Thief" as his best of the 90's. Actually made in the 80's but Scorsese said he was going to cheat and put it as a 90's film because that's when it was widely seen. Anyone here familiar with that film? I haven't seen it...I don't think any of my rental sources have it.
I've found many,many questionable choices on Gene & Roger's Top Ten Lists dating back to 1969. While I'm in agreement about 70% of the time, they have on occasion ( both) picked some real stinkers IMHO. I agree with your thoughts on " Hoop Dreams" as well.Good , but not great.I think a lot of their( Gene& Roger's)enthusiasm for this movie was due to the fact that it dealt with two high school stars from the Chicago area.Add two Chicago movie critics and bingo....you've got the year's best movie.
He believes that the cause of the documentary film is not being served by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and therefore it is the role of the film critic to provide the publicity for worthy efforts. His perennial favorite documentary filmmaker is Earl Morris ("Gates of Heaven", "The Thin Blue Line", "Dr. Death"). "Thin Blue Line" and "Dr. Death" failed to be even nominated for an Oscar in the Documentary category. Can't remember what happened to "Hoop Dreams", but it sure didn't win an Oscar.
If I remember right, Siskel and Ebert picked "Shoah", another documentary, as best film of the '80's. My pick would be either "Naked" or "Secrets and Lies", both directed by Mike Leigh.
I think there were two trends for films in the '90's. First, the success of "Pulp Fiction" produced a whole bunch of wannabees, where attitude was numero uno as a theme over plot. Second, and more interesting, is the resurgence of films without a standard structured narrative (e.g., "Lost Highway", "Taste of Cherry", "Chunking Express"). What this means for me is that these films are going to be more abstract, challenging/difficult to view, and may risk total "crash and burn" (for me, that means "Lost Highway"). Remember Bunuel's "Un Chien Andalou"? Get ready for similar efforts from independent filmmakers.
... have missed all of them. I make it a point to forego any Quentin Tarantino / Tim Burton flicks. Ive found that I'm much happier that way.
I'm a big movie fan and have seen most notable films in the 90's. I love Indy films and smaller studio stuff as well as Major Studios works.It's really tired to say this one's my favorite, but I'll go with-
Titanic.
Tranny
My favorite part of Titanic was Sissel(the Enya-ish sounding singer). I thought Titanic was okay, but tremendously over-rated and over-hyped. The fact that I despise Dicaprio didn't help. I won't kill ya-consider yourself "Saved by Sissel".
the puedo-documenetary openning was good but IMHO throughout all the trite stuff that follows
Titanic was my favorite for these reasons.1.) Glorious filmaking by Cameron(He even filmed much of the movie himself)
2.) The most exciting special effects sequences of the 90's
3.) The most beautiful leading lady of the 90's (Ms. Winslet, also the best actress of the 90's)
4.) The best movie score I've ever heard( Horner's the bomb)
5.) One of the most interesting supporting casts of the 90's(from Zane to all of the crew members)
6.) The finest recreation of Historical sets ever made.Basically, I'm not a big fan of big ticket movies(Star Wars for instance) but I've got to give it to Cameron. He's a jerk but also a genious.
Just my takes.
Tranny
I believe Titanic was a great movie for many reasons that include special effects to storytelling. I loved it for its full 3hour+ running time. Loved it just as much the second time I saw it too. It is a great movie.Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
http://www.soundstage.com/
"2.) The most exciting special effects sequences of the 90's"
???Have you seen "The Matrix"? or similar movies? I don't remeber any mind-shattering special effects in the Titanic. Could you mention some?
RichardH
There are MANY special effects in that movie. In fact it is one of the most effects laden of recent Hollywood releases in the last few years.Basically, another to do with the ship sailing, sinking, whatever is a special effect. When the ship is sinking is astonishing. Re-watch the part where its rear is lifted high in the air with people on-board. It's amazing!
Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
By exciting special effects, I mean the blending of the creators work to further enhance the quality of the movie. In my opinion, The Matrix was a poor movie, therefore, the effects in the film were put to waste.(Karate flicks never did it for me anyway)Unless you'd like to claim that The Matrix was a more effective film(which might be your opinion) that's what I'm talking about. Besides, I would say that 11 Oscars and 13 nominations(both records) somewhat supports my opinion of the film.
Oh well, I'm your basic Titanic Geek.
Tranny
Just 5 minutes ago I was talking to someone about The Matrix. I feel that over the much-hyped The Phantom Menace, The Matrix is THE special effects movie of last year. As for the story, it was decent, but the realistic mixing of effects with the action was spellbinding. In terms of technical mastery it is a great movie.Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
http://www.soundstage.com/
I didn't really like "The Matrix" either, but I simply mentioned it as it is jam-packed with special effects. As for the Oscars, I don't think that makes any difference. Look at the Backstreet Boys, they're popular, does that make them good? Well, not in my book.Saving Private Ryan, now there's a good movie.
Richard H
Have you seen Dark City....a very unrated movie IMHO.Doug Schneider
SoundStage!
http://www.soundstage.com/
Unfortunately, I don't think Private Ryan will endure the test of time. I thoughly enjoyed the theatrical experience but have no desire to ever see it again.
I've only seen it once, in the theater, and it was a great experience. I agree with you, it's the sort of movie that losing something on repeat viewings. Still, it is what a great movie is supposed to be. For me, that means that it is one of a handful that actually made me rethink certain paradigms that I hold.RichardH
I find that I enjoy replayable stuff much more even upon 1st viewing. (e.g: I just replayed my "My Girl" LD tonight) I find myself stating that I want the film on LD when I leave the flick. I did that with "Matrix" & I'm not a Keanu fan (a DiCaprian actor). I thought it was a nice blend of "Lost in Space" & "Avengers". It had tons of effects that was harmoniously emblished with interjected style. The result was techincal equivalent of the "Oxbow Incident" in its cimenatic beauty. Where did this scenerio break down for you?
I thought if the ending had been a little more imaginative it would have really been a great movie, I still think it was pretty good though.
greg horn
to "me" that many Oscars mean just one thing, stay far far away. It was a movie explicitly designed for the acedemy. It wasn't meant to be enjoyed. It's a sure sign that it's poor & this rule of thumb is having less exceptions every year. The Oscars have become a marketting gimmick. If they design a picture that sweaps the Oscars & manage to have it still playing, they can clean up by the gullible masses. Not me, not anymore, too many flops & utter failures later, I'm on to them.
My experience with people who hate successful films is that there are other underlying issues not mentioned.Example- Many of the Titanic Haters crowd will fess up and admit their Star Wars obsession afterward. I don't know why that is, just happens alot.
Hey, I totally disagree with everything you mentioned but I'm enjoying the forum at this site. No problemo.
Tranny
My experience with people who hate successful films is that there are other underlying issues not mentioned.Example- Many of the Titanic Haters crowd will fess up and admit their Star Wars obsession afterward. I don't know why that is, just happens alot.
1st, you can keep the Phantom Menace too.
But, is there something wrong with this statewment? hmmm...
Perhaps, it's because Star Wars was successful?! I'll step out on a limb here & say it may just be a contradiction. Ya think?
Nah, can't be ... that would mean you have some unresolved issues.
I just want something intelligent fun & entertaining. Ya know ... like the beginning of Titanic. That was rivoting. The rest .... how did it go again?
But, I guess that's too much to ask of hollywood these days.
The special effects were vast and plenty and were use to help tell the story. The trick is to know when they are happening. For example, many times unoticed, green screening and using powerful software like Ultimate, with expert lighting you'll never know when things are happening unless you're told by insiders. Reading Cinefex's (Special Effects magazine) "Making of Titanic" issue you'll find the finer details of what were effects and what weren't. As Titanic wasn't showing off it's special effects, there was many great FX and the compositing was superb.You have Kate and Leo at a the front of the ship, that's a studio prop with green screen behind them. The camera is pre-programed a pass that's centered on Kate and Leo, then it pans away following the Titanic ship prop. Then the CGI artists have to create that part of the ship to every detail to the last nail, and match the perspective, angles, lighting. Then the path of the real camera is fed into the CGI camera(camera animation path) so that the CGI camera flys along the CGI ship and looks back at the ship as it passes by in the vast digital ocean. Then it's off to the compositors who take away the green screen and add in the CGI seamlessly. There could be tons of compositing layers but in the end we just see one long pan shot without us saying "hey that's a cool special effect"
Actually, that shot was obvious. The lack of a proper shadow from the ship onto the "water" (rounded white caps) & the generic ocean spray from the bow was screaming CG.It's never a good idea to use CG to model chaotic events. At least not until computers grow another quantum level (roughly 10GHz & 100Tbytes) which'll be in about a decade.
What I can't understand, with their there big budget, is that Titanic used the same dolphin clip from Steven Seagal's "Under Siege".
the only one that was any good was meant not to be mind shattering. As such this may be a surprise to you but some of the extras are CG/FX. The regular stuff was rather poor.
Of course they're CG generated. What's the difference anyway. The Matrix was all CG generated too(many people liked the effects in this film).All I care about is the end result, and the subtle work by Cameron to not overwhelm the audience was genious in my opinion.
Hey, enough Titanic for me today.
Later,
Tranny
into a cohesive statement of suspension of disbelief. To "me", most of it was like watching a saturday morning cartoon. Wakes were wrong. Current was wrong. Shadows were wrong. I could go on but you've got the concept. The project waranted a physical model.
There were four physical models used in the filming. Each a different size. The ship splitting scene, for instance, was a real model and real water.Just wanted to clear that up.
Tranny
I didn't see your choice. And hey, what's wrong with Tim Burton anyway??Tranny
I found his movies a tad piculiar. Like there was a uncohesive thread running through his movies which mad me inevitably feel like he was abused as a child. Not all the oars are in the shallow pond. There's a bizarre S&M fetish theme running through his flicks in a depiction that it's healthy.Of hand I'd guess ... "ID4" for action & "Speechless" for a romantic comedy.
nt
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 ]
