 
|
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 |
Here's a rather long list of Best Films that *I'm certain* most of us have seen and love and own in our collections:"Wings" (1928)
"Cimarron" (1931)
"Cavalcade" (1933)
"The Great Ziegfeld" (1936)
"The Life of Emile Zola" (1937)
"You Can't Take it With You" (1938)
"Rebecca" (1940)
"Mrs. Miniver" (1942)
"Gentleman's Agreement" (1947)
"Going My Way" (1944)
"All About Eve" (1950)
"An American in Paris" (1951)
"The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952)
"Marty" (1955)
"Around the World in 80 Days" (1956)
"Gigi" (1958)
"Tom Jones" (1963)
"A Man for All Seasons" (1966)
"Oliver!" (1968)
"Kramer Vs. Kramer" (1979)
"Ordinary People" (1980)It would be churlish to suggest that these were not, indeed, the glory years of Hollywood. Clearly it's been all downhill since.
clark
Follow Ups:
I enjoy the award shows - not because they're awarding the best films which rarely happens but because they are for some strange reason enjoyable. More so the predictions and arguments preceding and following.The smaller award shows such as Cannes are a different beast. There are three main groups of films. Films as entertainments - giant roller coaster films that are fun while you watch - Alla Raiders of the Lost Ark or B-grade horror films you laugh at - art films attempting to be cerebral - some work most don't which is why only a minority hold the to high regard. Then there are the crossover which manage to entertain and be cerebral.
There are good and bad in all three groups...to not recognize one group or to devalue one group is shallow mindedness.
The Academy is an example of this not rewarding comedies or horror films because they're deemed "Lower" than some other form. I agree they are lower in that the best drama is generally better than the best comedy or should be weighted higher. But most years a black comedy or some other genre is done as well as it can be done and it will lose to something like Ghandi.
There is a reason tha E.T. gets a wide theatrical release every decade...one is it can sell more tickets to each new generation, the other is that it tells such a wide appealing story and is a master at that story that people will go and watch it again. The kids in 1982 will now take their own kids to see it.
The notion of a classic or a masterpiece can fit few other films than Jaws or E.T. Movies that some dim witted individuals passed of as nothing more than thriller or special effects movies continue to be popular well after the special effects. Jaws and E.T. don't hold up any longer(even with the few touch ups). Films that are nearly 25 and 30 years old still managing to impact "MOST" movie goers is impressive no matter how a few in the minority whine.
And contrary to their conceited belief systems it is not just the unwashed masses who revere them. This is different than a film which grosses lots of cash and is forgotten three years down the road. Ace Ventura like McMovies. People go to movies because there isn't much else to do and it's still relatively inixpensive - just because a movie makes lots of cash doesn't mean the people who went to see it LIKED it.
Films that get re-released to a wide audience ten year later and then 20 years later however does. Even cult hits like Rocky Horror Picture have their audiences that see more in it than I but ti means something to them.
A Clockwork Orange is always re-released down here - not a wide release but I bet it's not the only city. At least they nominated it - shows the Academy had something going for it.
NT
***The notion of a classic or a masterpiece can fit few other films than Jaws or E.T. Movies that some dim witted individuals passed of as nothing more than thriller or special effects movies continue to be popular well after the special effects. Jaws and E.T. don't hold up any longer(even with the few touch ups). Films that are nearly 25 and 30 years old still managing to impact "MOST" movie goers is impressive no matter how a few in the minority whine.That is a weak argument. The fact Jaws still "impacts" has to do a lot with the shock element.
The shock can be done in a subtle way (the creeping horror of the Repulsion) or in a direct, primitive , hammer-to-the-head one, as in Jaws.
Either one will continue shocking the public, but really, only one should be considered as a "classic", as the effect of the hammer is way to predictable to imply any creativity on part of the maker.
Simply showing open guts will get it every time. 25 years, or 50 years, or 300 years later. But that is NOT art.
Jaws doesn't shock anyone - nor was it about shock even when it was released. Of course It was hugely successful on its original release...it was after all responsible for wht the future would bring - the Hollywood Summer Blockbuster. Nothing before Jaws ever made much money in the summer. Jaws, of nothing else, was a pivotal moment in film history.You toss the word art around like you know what it is is. Jaws is art - it may be the equivelant to you of dogs playing poker but it's still art.
Jaws and many films as entertainments are STORIES - maybe you need to look up what a story is. There is a premise, some sort of conflict(Man vs Man, Man VS Environment, Man Vs Himself and Man vs Beast). All movies fall into one of these amng others. Jaws is the latter.
Why cannot a story be told about an ex NY cop that goes to a small town where a shark resides and is eating the tourists? The Fact that the story doesn't meet with Victor's approval sure doesn't make you right. Apparently more people than not liked the story premise and moreover the handling of that story. Most critical bodies would call Jaws a masterpiece and not because it had a gory sequence or two.
There are far newer shark pictures that have totally been forgotten that have way more blood and guts and way better special effects...Deep Blue Rising or whatever it was called...hell I can't even remeber the title it was so memorable.
Jaws was far more story and character development than shark eating people - it is a highly re-watchable film as well. Thrillers and horror films are usually next to impossible to watch a second or third time...you've seen the jumps and the scares and the gore...so why would you watch it again...that's right the very good performances and story of these people is why.
If all you could see in Jaws and E.T. were the puppets I feel sorry for you.
I am heartwarmed you worry about you. That is fine, but please don't ignore yourself.So Jaws was art and not a shock? Listen, you are entitled to your opinion.
There's character development? Maybe you should watch some better films to understand where the Jaw sits on the scale. You are not the one who loved the Gladiator? No?
I understand why people like Gladiator - I don't. I view oit more as an action movie and even there it wasn't particularly good.There are people out there who have reviewed tens of thousands of movies who have JAWS in their top 100. People who have seen EVERY notable foreign film on the planet who stoill have JAWS and possibly 4 -5 other Spielberg films in their top 100 and not some of those notable foreign films.
I don't give a rat's bottom whether you hate Jaws or not, or whether someone liked Gladiator or not. I think most people who liked Gladiator though would recognize that Jaws is a superior film.
Your idea of character development tell me isn't Guido...other than that he has no ideas left and is horny is there anything else you can tell me about him? no YOU CAN"T because there was nothing to tell. He was a miserable talentless horny prick - that sums him up.
You can't admit that film is subjective can you? You are desperately attempting to convince people that film is objective and you somehow have more insight on it than every other person on this planet. Now I know why you love 81/2 you have as gigantic an ego as Fellini.
Jaws wasn't a character analysis. They were realised characters based off what audiences would go in armed with as a knowledge base.Not every film must include self introspection and the discovery of the meaning of life. I'd really rather them not try as Socrates covered the ground.
s
Why are we even concerned with the "Academy"?To spend this much energy and hot air (in case of our favorite Dutch Boy AuPh... ne truly needs 10,000 fingers) on something that has written a book on dresses and cosmetic surgery and not much more? Unless you consider the American Beauty something worthy your attention.
Most people agree it is all about business... swell... then why bother if your interest is good films?
Just look at AuPh's list. How many on it would you place on your 100 best? 5? 3? I mean - Erin Brockovich? Cut us a major break.
Why then pay attention to the Oscars? Let those to whom it means something (future earning) worry about it. Me? I stopped watching it long ago, it simply doesn't exist for me.
The world has so much more to offer than the biggest tinsel celebration.
If your interest is good films - then start paying attention to things like Cannes, and other international festivals, that still retain some of the movies focus.
If your interest is gross earnings and investment - then by all means, watch Oscars and pay attention to their winners.
I dunno... I mean it has been so completely irrelevant to my life. Like another gala somewhere in Manhattan.
;^)
Shut up, and donīt go on my old "couilles " anymore, and by the way I forbid you to use the words " Grey Poupon " any more.
As the word LOTR, too.
With love, as ever.Patrick
;^)
Hehe...So let us see if we can find a film were we do agree on....Patrick le decadent.
PS: GRANDE couilles!!!!
Who gives a damn! As for Cannes for years they tried to be the contrary with all might to the US cinema, but it did go too far.
Still far more better than the clowns in Hollywood.
The bitter complaints that the Oscars had been slipping lately, led me to recall the great number of dogs that had been honored in earlier years as well. "Why then pay attention to the Oscars?" you ask. Precisely."Just look at AuPh's list. How many on it would you place on your 100 best? 5? 3? I mean - Erin Brockovich?" Exactly.
But my post got the thick-skulled tinear acting all priggish, so it wasn't time wasted.
clark
Now you're saying that posting this list was more for an energy boost, sort of like a B1 shot? You need to make up your mind and either change doctors or get a second opinion! ;^)As for "the bitter complaints that the Oscars had been slipping lately," who's complaints are those? Certainly not mine! The Oscars polled very well this year and Billy Crystal's emceeing was superb; most of the folks I know thought that the Academy Awards as a presentation were far better this year than they'd been in several previous years.
If you are speculating about the quality of films the Academy has to choose from, then we're discussing subjective opinions, and while I would agree that Hollywood relies too much on franchised sequels and remakes, there's still an abundence of quality filmfare being produced in the English language.
Cheers,
AuPh
True, most folks have seen these films, but "love and own" is a subjective call, and a bit presumptuous, don't you think? In all honesty few of those features would rank highly in my Academy Award winner's collection, but let's not mince words about it, here's my list, and the rationale behind it:Sunrise (1928) - Yes, it actually won "Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production"; technically there were two best picture Oscars given that year with Wings receiving the lesser Best Production Award. A magnificent motion picture of temptation, choices, guilt and redemption by F.W. Murnau; the only silent film to ever win Best Picture. The beauty, sheer poetry and incredible sophistication of Sunrise's cinematography are as impressive today as it was when released in 1927.
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) - Called "Best Production" changed to Best Picture the following year. One of the first and best anti-war films; a compelling tale of humanization, viewing a war as if seen through the eyes of the losing side.
Shanghai Express (1932) - It actually lost to Grand Hotel, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have won. Josef Von Sternberg's tale of intrigue, deceit, treachery, brutality, rape and uncertainty on a claustrophobic train transporting citizens and refugees of various nationalities trying to reach a safe destination while ruthless warlords fight over China.
It Happened One Night (1934) - Okay, it's Frank Capra, notorious for directing overly sentimental blindly optimistic Horatio Alger tales that became known as "Capra-corn" even in his own time, but this is one of his greatest achievements.
Casablanca (1943) - Perhaps the wittiest, most superbly written and acted patriotic-romance pictures ever made; conceived during a time when this nation and it's allies were embroiled in a very real and brutal world war against a tangible enemy bent on ever-expanding conquest. Still magnificent 60 odd years later!
The Lost Weekend (1945) - Indifferent writer finds his muse in a bottle; it might be the story of Clark's life as predicted by Nostradamus, but considering the competition that year, Reefer Madness probably could've taken home an Oscar. BTW, sorry Clark, just yankin' your chain! ;^)
Sunset Boulevard (1950) - All About Eve won, and it's certainly one of the most cleverly drawn, well written and acted dramas about the aspirations of divas in acquiring fame and fortune on stage. However, Sunset Boulevard was it's equal in every way, and sharp-edged enough that it's darkly hued ironies still cut like a Ginsu knife after over half a century.
A Place in The Sun (1951) - An American in Paris won, but George Steven's interpretation of Dreiser's An American Tragedy is arguably a better film overall (i.e., which, unless you're a fan of big production musicals, is the REAL tragedy); it's themes are less dated than one might expect, especially it's ernest analysis of complex and conflicted relationships and underlying class discriminaton.
High Noon (1952) - The Greatest Shoooe On Earth Won, and it did it without Ed Sullivan! Tsk, tsk; too bad. One can only wonder if Technicolor eye candy in the new W-i-d-e-s-c-r-e-e-n Cinemascope had something to do with an immortal classic like High Noon being overlooked for the Academy's biggest prize.
Giant (1956) - Around the World in 80 Days won, and my apologies to the late Jules Verne, but giving any film an Academy Award for Best Picture which has Cantinflas in the cast ought to be a crime punishable by sending the casting director on an extended vacation in a hot-air balloon to parts unknown until he comes to his senses again! Now Giant, while not a perfect film is a rousing epic dealing with important racial and class issues at a time when the country was just becoming focused on social inequities; a great cast, including James Dean's final performance.
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) - One of the few films to broach the subject of allied prisoners of war and deal honestly and compassionately with the suffering and challenges of that captivity; excellent performance all the way around.
A Clockwork Orange (1971) - Stanley Kubrick's finest achievement; still compelling in it's ruthless irony, visceral and fascinating in it's violent ballet and first person narrative. For some this is a very unpleasant film to watch, but a timeless classic nonetheless.
Srar Wars (1977) - Nominated, but lost to Annie Hall. Should it have won? Who knows! No offense to Woody, but how many times did you return to your local Bijou to watch Annie Hall? Perhaps it was a fluke, but there's an indefinable timeless quality to George Lucas's early Star Wars films (4, 5 & 6, respectively) that transcends it's SF genre trappings.
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) - Nominated, but lost out to Chariots of Fire; odd, but you would think that openning the Ark of the covenent and bringing forth the wrath of god would trump a burning chariot, but go figure! Again, how many times did you and your friends "raid" your local cinema for return engagements to RotLA as opposed to Chariots of Fire? I rest my case.
Titanic (1997) - No film to my knowledge has been so revered and defiled after it's initial success. Perhaps this isn't the greatest film of a historic disaster, but it still holds up well. In retrospect, James Cameron's attention to physical detail may be drawing more attention to the license he took with the film's fictionalized situations and characters. Nevertheless, it's still an incredible piece of filmwork and the romantic story underpinning the tragedy is still poignant in repeated screenings. It's closest competition was probably L.A. Confidential, which is worthy of a place in an Academy Award winning film collection.
Shakespeare in Love (1998) - The cleverness and warmth of this lavish period romantic comedy are amazing; the analogies with the modern stage and screen business are hilarious, but never over-the-top. This is truly a gem; I cannot recommend it enough.
The Sixth Sense (1999) - American Beauty won, but M. Night Shyamalan's The Sixth Sense was nominated and may have been somewhat more deserving based on my repeated viewing scale of worthiness. This disturbing movie has poignance, haunting beauty and a delicate internal logic that relies upon absolute flawless consistency in order to achieve the desired impact! IMO, this classic is worthy of anyone's Academy Award collection. One caution: Don't watch it alone on a stormy night in a darkened house.
Gladiator & Erin Brockovich (2000) - Gladiator won, but Erin Brockovich is a savvy compelling film of the unempowered defeating the powerful. Well, I guess Gadiator is about that as well, but at least in Erin Brockovich the "gladiator" survives to become rich and powerful herself in the end by defeating corporate greed. Warning: These are NOT films Conservatives should view without checking their blood pressure during the screenings.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring / The Two Towers / The Return of the King (2001/2002/2003) - These films deserve a cumulative Academy Award as the best films collectively over the past 3 years. Having won 11 Academy Awards including Best Picture this year, added to the Academy Awards won in previous years this series has achieved a stunning cumulative total of 17 Academy Awards; to my knowledge more than any picture based upon a revered series of literary novels. Among it's other achievements it's the first pure fantasy to be awarded an Oscar for Best Picture. Apparently there is nothing which breeds contempt faster than success, and true to form those who dislike Tolkien's classics or the films based on his books dislike them with a religious passion; so much so that it's rumored Jim Caviezel loaned his cross to Peter Jackson in case of any emerging backlash.
Nevertheless, If your imagination is broad enough to accept the imaginary world of Middle Earth and it's odd assortment of characters, then you'll be richly rewarded. Tolkien's fantasies have been finely rendered here and any compromises made for pacing and character development are respectful of the original literature.
One final thought: while these are very worthy of being added to anyone's Academy Award collection, the Extended versions hold more rich rewards than the standard theatrical releases. Only a mind such as Eric Von Stroheim's would have envisioned releasing these films to theaters as one film with all footage intact; I think Peter Jackson has made the wisest compromises to respect both Tokein's work and his filmed vision.
Now go forth my children, seek and you shall enjoy! ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
a
;^)
produced in 1952, was not shot in widescreen. Other than experimental and short demo widescreen efforts, the first film shot and released in Cinemascope was 1953's "The Robe".
BTW, sorry about the inaccuracies, but my resource material was incomplete and recollections of The Greatest Show on Earth at 3 AM weren't up to snuff.Also, due to the lateness of the hour there were some glaring omissions:
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) - You Can't Take It With You won, but Capra had a much better achievement in It Happened One Night several years earlier and this beautifully filmed adaptation of the Robin Hood legend stands as an example of perfect casting and direction; it may not be historically accurate, but as a fanciful romanticized vision of another heroic bygone era it ranks second to none.
Citizen Kane (1941) - How Green Was My Valley won, but in my humble estimation, that decision should be considered in retrospect as a BIG collective "Ooooops!" from Academy voters as clearly no film artistry has placed higher than Orson Welle's masterpiece on so many lists among film lovers, historians, students and collectors. Of course, the Academy's decision was understandable considering how much power and influence William Randolph Hearst had at the time.
Double Indemnity (1944) - Going My Way won, but Billy Wilder's direction of his and Raymond Chandler's snappily paced, sexy-innuendo laced screenplay adapted from James M. Caine's short novel is a magnificent exercise in film noir well deserving of the Academy's grand prize, IMO.
Cheers,
AuPh
Barbara Stanwick is SOOO sexy in this one. I just ordered another Stanwick on DVD, "Lady of Burlesque".
Let us know, please how you do find it!
I saw it on TV as a horny teenager so I am anxious to revisit it now, having grown in my knowlege of Stanwick's work and varied career.
Let us please know what the result, as I may buy it.
Thanks
.
Harmonia's First Law Of Film Bidness: There are more great films that did not win the Best Picture Academy Award than there are great films that did.Harmonia's Second Law Of Film Bidness: The fun's in the handicapping.
If I subscribed to your theory, I'd have to believe AMPAS lost its collective wits the year of my birth. (Guess which.)
So maybe it's all my fault?
s
Despite raging bronchitis you find me in good humour - we are enjoying week's respite from maestro Venzago thus the ISO played the best they have all year last weekend.
so we may be further illuminated.
I almost choke on my chew to point out the explosion in the sheer number of Hollywood films since 1980 and the suggestion that, percentage-wise, just as many good and great films may have continued to be produced.
One could also point out the rather complex world of funding of modern pictures, with the multiple layers of corporate and personal finance, both within and outside of Hollywood.
And at what point does a wildly successful indie "house" become "establishment" Hollywood?
Nah. Let's not be "churlish."
All together now: "Bring back, them good ol' days...."
Prefers to lecture people.clark
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 ]
