Search results

well, the filmmaking process hasn't changed THAT much since inception. there were also a lot of rewrites/redirection/re-actings and a lot of those things existed in the first half of film history as adam described. this is regardless of being lazy or not. (BTW Adam, one can be very hardworking...

well, i wouldn't make THAT much of generalized/sweeping comment. LOTR is certainly awesome =). that was 2001-2003. fight club can be watched OVER and OVER and OVER, again and again and again. it's seminal piece of work. i'm about 24 and i love the silent films 1900-1927! =). so age really...

paul, but that's precisely my point (which isn't based on fact i keep stressing). it is just that they achieved a higher batting avg. in percentage than what is the current crop. if 1940 gave us 500 movies even and 2000 gave us 500 movies even then 1940 would probably yield us 25-50 classics...

dana, regardless of cult status (like fight club), it was still made during that era, was a product of its times but is still a classic nonetheless. paul, while the # of dribble (sp?) existed from the start and continues, it still doesn't lessen the effect of batting avg. so if they made 500...

re: phantom menace. i'm curious have you folx actually asked kids who were 13 and younger what they thought of the movie? i've asked about 5 kids who were under 13 since ep1. they all said it sucked (their words, not mine). and obviously those who were 13 and older in '99 thought it sucked big...

the "age of" are just labels in general. i've seen nearly all silent films in the first 30 decades of 20th century (on DVD) and there's only a handful of really exceptional good films. it's the same with the "eras" of films. like Peter, i used to watch nearly all of the new releases in teh...