Overall, I think Cinema is better then it ever was. (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

Since Ernest mentioned SPIDER-MAN 2, I liked it as much as the first SPIDER-MAN, but that was mainly because Sam Raimi knew the feel of the comic and kept those movies fairly true to the book, and also was wise enough to make the two films about PEOPLE.

I'm no fan of CGI, not at all - but in the case of the two Spidey films I have to admit that the webslinging around the city worked wonders and couldn't have been done as well back in the older days. Then again, the CGI fails when it's overused, such as substituting for live action and stuntmen when Spider-Man has a street brawl, for example. That's pathetic.

 

[JohnRice]

Steve, I have to agree with Peter and Joe. The only possible movie on that list I wouldn't sail right past is The Breakfast Club, but I've seen it enough times, plus can't stand it cleaned up for TV, so I'd probably pass on it as well. Judging by your list, I can see why you are disappointed in current movies.

Funny thing about Kill Bill, and particularly part 2 is, I'm a huge Leone fan, and Tarantino seemed to try to honor Leone more than anyone in Part 2. As I watched it, I couldn't help thinking how he included so many trappings of Leone and still managed to completely fail to capture him.

 

[JonZ]

"but that doesn't mean that the old style is pisspoor - just different"

I chose my words poorly which is something I do all the time. I shouldnt have called the acting pisspoor because there were pretty of great actors back in the day(O. Welles and T. Mifune are my fav actors), but having been born in 69, alot of stuff in the classics come off to me as "corny"

Theres plenty of great stuff pre70s. Kurosawa and lots of foreign. I also like Hitchcock and Welles work.
But Id rather watch Born On The Fourth Of July, Saving Private Ryan, Memento,One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest and Schindlers List than Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, Wizard Of Oz or Its A Wonderful Life.

 

[Agee Bassett]

I'm in full agreement with you, Peter. Really stylish, quality cinematography, at least as far as command and vigor of chiaroscuro goes, really is a lost art. Few of today's practitioners of the camera art really seem to fully grasp or appreciate the expressive possibilities of motion picture lighting the way their forbearers did (at that, current cinema's two best, Francis and Storaro, sprung from an earlier generation).

This list, which I have compiled from my movie-watching experiences over the years--and which is by no means exhaustive--represent a spate of classic Hollywood and British films (pre-1970) that, for the most part, far outclass today's corresponding product, photogenically-speaking (cream of the crop is in bold.)

This is, I feel, particularly applicable in the case of the classic b&w films, in comparison to many of today's color films, which are shot with an almost monochromatic sensibility in mind. No doubt because so many of today's cinematographers studied their craft by analyzing b&w films in film school, as film schools are wont to show. Perhaps the answer, artistically-speaking, is for studios to allow cinematographers to shoot in b&w, as so many of them are on record as desiring. Recent delvings into b&w--in particular Schindler's List and The Man Who Wasn't There--have proven the solubility of b&w with the visual sensibilities of at least a few of today's cinematographers. So long as mainstream audiences refuse to accept b&w on the big screen, though, today's shafted visual artists will be forced to pursue expression elsewhere.

 

[Holadem]

As a citizen of a place which I don't doubt fits your definition of "primitive", we actually prefer the term "Third World Country" :rolleyes.

--
H

 

[JohnRice]

Agee, I'm glad you chimed in a mentioned Freddie Francis, which gives me the opportunity to mention one of my personal faves, The Man in the Moon, though I already mentioned The Elephant Man. I doubt I would have much disagreement that TMITM may be the only film done in the last few decades which truly looks like the dye transfer classics. The check's in the mail.

Of course, on the other hand, I seem to remember you saying the only 21st Century film you had seen so far was Far from Heaven, which is probably the only other recent film with that classic look, so you are hardly an authority on modern film. :p)

 

[Agee Bassett]

I don't believe I said that it was at the time the only 21st-century film I had seen, though it was certainly one of the relative few. Since that time, however, which was some months ago, I have endeavored, thanks to the blessing that is Netflix, to check out more 21st-century films. In that time, I have seen many of your favorite 21st-century flicks, photographically-speaking and otherwise, such as Donnie Darko, Titus, and City of God, and have left never more than mildly impressed at their respective looks. In any case, however, I am the last to claim to be an authority on contemporary films. With me, it's more a case of batting average than aggregate base hits--contemporary films, though relatively low in the quantity of my viewing, are batting a disappointing average for me. (Though Darko is a stubbornly interesting movie, even if much of it was born from too geek-ish of an obsession with Back to the Future ).

Incidentally, though Haynes and Lachman made a pretty fair and respectably successful stab at the classic look, their work on Far From Heaven still does not hold a candle to Metty's work with Sirk. :p) No doubt much of it is a tale of emulsions; but at least as equally the case it simply the fact that Haynes and Lachman simply don't have the experience with the classic Hollywood lighting system that Metty and Sirk did, being practitioners smack in the Silver Age of Technicolor.

Edit: Titus was 1999, I believe. Close, but no bayonet.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I enjoy most of those movies on your list but I'm not sure I'd call them quality movies. Meaning, great filmmaking in order to be a "classic". Perhaps a classic of their day but I'm not sure how many will go down as all time classic films. I love watching TEEN WOLF and PORKY'S but to me, neither film is what I would call great filmmaking. This would also go for the hundreds of slashers I enjoy from the 80's.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Indeed I do - out to the DVD store to buy/rent older well-regarded films I have yet to see!

 

[Stephen_L]

While I love many current films, this era is not the richest in quality films. Hollywood is a business, that's true, but the nature of the business has changed. After Jaws and Star Wars Hollywood shifted from large numbers of mid-range films to putting all their financial eggs in highly expensive blockbusters. With the higher costs comes greater worry about return on each individual, more caution in story. When there were more, less expensive films released the pressure on each film to succeed was reduced; thus the business men would allow riskier films and subjects because the films didn't need to pull so much money to turn a profit.

Having said that I do feel we are in a golden age of animation (CGI and cel) and independent film which has gone a long way to keeping this filmgoer happy.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"I don't recall saying that."

You didn't, Mr. Elliott. I was speaking rhetorically, as in "nobody better try and say etc." Apologies if I was unclear.

 

[Mark Oates]

Personally, over the years I've seen thousands of movies dating from the earliest silent experiments of the 1890s to blockbusters of the present day and in all honesty I can't say if today's movies are any better from those of the past. All I do know is that the films I have enjoyed, that I love and watch repeatedly aren't from any particular era. They're not particularly stand-out examples of writing, acting, directing, photography or any criteria you'd care to make. They just connect with me and I'm happy to have a copy of them. Recent pictures are no different from older pictures (although some older pictures have that warm, fuzzy feeling of being old, old friends). Some are new friends but which I know I'll see regularly like my old friends. Some are simply fleeting encounters I've made so that I can say "Yes, I've seen that." Technical improvements don't necessarily make better movies, but neither do they make worse movies.

Each to his own taste.

 

[Michael Elliott]

My bad for misreading you.

I think people should wait at least 10-15 years before calling something a "classic" film. I think the "Best Picture" at the Oscars is the best example to look at. It seems, if you took each years Best Picture winners, ten years down the line that film is forgotten while five other films are now considered better. FORREST GUMP would be a good example of a winner that has lost some of its appeal because of PULP FICTION, SHAWSHANK and perhaps ED WOOD. ORDINARY PEOPLE quite often gets jumped on because it beat RAGING BULL. DANCES WITH WOLVES gets jumped on because it beat GOODFELLAS.

To me, in 1990 DANCES WITH WOLVES was the best film of the year but as time went on, something like GOODFELLAS took it over. The same with GUMP and the appeal that SHAWSHANK and ED WOOD would find years after they were released. I enjoyed the LOTR movies for what they were but it'll be interesting to see how people feel towards them in 2020. Will people look back and say they were the best of the year or will they get attacked because GANGS OF NEW YORK or something else didn't win?

 

[Marc Colella]

I think the problem is people are judging the quality of films by looking at what's playing at the local multiplex.

There are so many films out there to watch, if people are willing to expand their horizons and keep an open mind.

I'll always find the best films are the ones outside the Hollywood system.

That said, I still think the 90's had better cinema than what we've seen so far in the 2000's.

 

[Haggai]

Yes, I know those two movies in particular are blamed for that trend, which is an opinion that I don't share, in terms of casting blame on them. I certainly agree that a lot of (probably most) would-be summer blockbusters are crap, but I don't blame Lucas and Spielberg for having made some great movies.

I also don't think the big, crappy, over-produced blockbuster is an invention of recent decades. Stinkers of that kind have always been around--how many lousy, bloated sword-and-sandal/historical epics were foisted on the public back in the day? There were some great ones, but to be sure, there were a lot of dreadful ones. As I mentioned in a previous post, Jaws and Star Wars revolutionized the marketing and distribution of movies--major TV ad campaigns, nation-wide openings in over a thousand theaters, cross-promotional merchandising with toys and memorabilia that could make money on their own (as opposed to minor tie-ins promoting the movie), all that stuff was mostly (or entirely) unheard of before those two movies came along. The concept of trying to make lots of money with a big, expensive, lousy movie (which describes neither Jaws nor Star Wars) was not.

 

[JohnRice]

Well, I just finished watching I, Robot and I take back everything I have said in this thread. The entire movie industry around the world is doomed. :p)

 

[MarcusUdeh]

You have neglected to mention Dune. Aside from the obvious dated special effects and a few hairstyles that would not make it towards the end of that decade, this movie visually speaking could be release today. As Super 35 and Digital Intermediate are becoming the norm, people would assume the quality of this twenty-year-old film would decline. On the contrary, its still, surpassing today’s standard of excellence. Freddie Francis: is truly one of the world’s greatest cinematographic artists.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"DANCES WITH WOLVES gets jumped on because it beat GOODFELLAS."

No, Dances With Wolves gets jumped on because Costner folowed it up by appearing in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, which gave his haters ample ammunition to use against him. That is precisely where the worm turned for Mr. Costner. One hour he's the king of the mountain. By Saturday morning after the debut of Prince of Thieves, he's the prime target numero uno. There's nothing Americans hate more than a winner, and all Mr. Costner needed to do was give people an excuse, and boy, was Prince of Thieves a huge excuse.

Dances gets bashed today by the Costner-haters and by the younger folk who don't remember how big of an event DWW was in long-format filmmaking. James Cameron, Steven Spielberg and Spike Lee all credit Dances With Wolves for allowing their epic personal films to see the light of day. If Costner had followed up Dances with his amazing turn in Clint Eastwood's exceptional A Perfect World, you wouldn't hear any of this claptrap today, but we do hear it. I wonder how many of these folk are similarly up in arms over great American movies like Almost Famous or American Splendor not even being *nominated* by the Academy, much less winning. If one wants to pick a fight with the Academy, there are bigger fish to fry than the multiple wins for Dances With Wolves, a film that was indeed a milestone in modern American film.

Grrr.

 

[Andy Sheets]

Has Ed Wood truly built a following? I love it to death but I still get a lot of funny looks from people when I talk about it in casual company Shawshank is the biggest dark horse of the past decade or so, since it converted so many people through rentals and cable airings. I think LOTR will age very gracefully - they're very well-liked adaptations of a novel that has successfully renewed its audience every generation since its release. Maybe if the book dies, the movies will die, too, but my guess is that's not going to happen

 

[SteveCallas]

Hey that list I had was just for 1 year, I'd say that's pretty good for 1 year. In my opinion, Spider Man 2 was one of the most highly overrated movies that I have ever seen, and I used to read spiderman comic books all the time. It just seems to me that films like the Indiana Jones series, Aliens, E.T, Karate Kid, Top Gun, Platoon, Good Morning Vietnam, Big, Predator, Rain Man, Batman, Lethal Weapon, and even those of the early 90's - Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump, Hunt for Red October, Goodfellas, Silence of the Lambs, A Few Good Men, Reservoir Dogs, Schindler's List, A Bronx Tale, Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, Casino, Braveheart, Seven, and Apollo 13 are much more entertaining than the "great" movies that have been coming out lately. But hey, everyone has a different opinion.