I watched The Truman Show last night on a whim, and honestly this is how I learned not to just "trust rottentomatoes" if I am debating watching something. I haven't felt like I 've just wasted 90 minutes watching something (though it was really the last 50 or so, the beginning seemed somewhat promising).
Ugh. I'm gonna see if I can get my hands on Broadcast News next, if possible.
Rotten Tomatoes can be a good helpful guide, but I don't rely on it for movie recommendations. It's best to either just jump in and experience movies for yourself and take the good with the bad, or follow a few reviewers that you have a tendency to agree with.
For me, I go to Roger Ebert and Portland reviewer Mike Russell. I usually agree with them on movies (sometimes I disagree with Ebert, but mainly about comedies), and I can usually trust them when they say not to see a movie.
Rotten Tomatoes is a flawed metric because it's an aggregate sum of Pass/Fail values, but the score easily lends itself to being misinterpreted as a academic value on the familiar 0-100 range.
And that's just not what it does. Rotten Tomatoes assigns binary values to critical reviews, and then compiles in a percentile score. 9 positive reviews and 1 negative review will get a film a score of 90% Fresh, but all of those positive reviews under other metrics might be given fairly low scores despite their positivity. Depending on the tone of the critique and whatever arbitrary metric that accompanies it, a film that gets "three stars out of five" or a "C+" may still be graded by RT as a "positive" review, but could actually end up being a pretty shitty film.
Rotten Tomatoes give a great understanding of a film's polarity, the percentage of people who like it vs. the people who didn't, but it's not a metric of individual quality.
That's why every rt percentage also comes with an average review score, the number of reviews used, and how many were positive and how many were negative. It's about as good as it gets.
That's why every rt percentage also comes with an average review score, the number of reviews used, and how many were positive and how many were negative. It's about as good as it gets.
Yeah, and I agree that's all good stuff, but you have to go the movie's page on RT see it.
A lot of people just go, "Oh, this film has a bad RT score, let's skip it," or vice versa. This is bad.
0
Options
RhalloTonnyOf the BrownlandsRegistered Userregular
I remember really enjoying the Truman Show a decade ago or so.
I watched it a few weeks ago, and was kind of surprised how it didn't hold up to what I remembered, or my tastes changed.
That's why every rt percentage also comes with an average review score, the number of reviews used, and how many were positive and how many were negative. It's about as good as it gets.
Yeah, and I agree that's all good stuff, but you have to go the movie's page on RT see it.
A lot of people just go, "Oh, this film has a bad RT score, let's skip it," or vice versa. This is bad.
That's more a criticism of people, not RT. And what can I say? People are stupid.
That's why every rt percentage also comes with an average review score, the number of reviews used, and how many were positive and how many were negative. It's about as good as it gets.
Yeah, and I agree that's all good stuff, but you have to go the movie's page on RT see it.
A lot of people just go, "Oh, this film has a bad RT score, let's skip it," or vice versa. This is bad.
That's more a criticism of people, not RT. And what can I say? People are stupid.
Well, one generally tries to design ones system to accommodate people, as they are the ones using it.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Weren't they basically forced to set Crystal Skull in the 50s because Harrison Ford is old?
The basic problem with that movie (besides the execution in general) isn't that it had aliens, but that they tried to put aliens in the Indiana Jones structure. Instead, they should have put Indie in a 50s sci-fi B-movie plot.
And yes, the RT number measures consensus, not quality. Which is why some really excellent but controversial films get RT scores of 50%, because most people either love or hate them (like The Fountain).
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
That's why every rt percentage also comes with an average review score, the number of reviews used, and how many were positive and how many were negative. It's about as good as it gets.
Yeah, and I agree that's all good stuff, but you have to go the movie's page on RT see it.
A lot of people just go, "Oh, this film has a bad RT score, let's skip it," or vice versa. This is bad.
That's more a criticism of people, not RT. And what can I say? People are stupid.
When I use my Flixster app on my iPad to find local showtimes, it doesn't give me a itemized breakdown of the RT page, it just gives the score.
Metacritic score is a better go-to if you're just looking for a value.
Weren't they basically forced to set Crystal Skull in the 50s because Harrison Ford is old?
Yeah. They should have rebooted IMO. Though I'm certain they'd have found a way to screw that up anyway.
Or, here's two better options:
- Start a wholly original series based on an age-appropriate adventure set during whenever the fuck you please
- All of us collectively look long and hard at each other and admit to ourselves that sometimes we just need to let shit go and be okay with just three Indiana Jones movies
With the ubiquity of reality television now, the idea of just watching a regular person go about their regular life that is carefully monitored to ensure that nothing too out-of-the-ordinary would merit not only a decades-long show but it's own dedicated channel seems preposterous. I recall there were a couple other films with reality television gone mad premises at around the same time.
Weren't they basically forced to set Crystal Skull in the 50s because Harrison Ford is old?
Yeah. They should have rebooted IMO. Though I'm certain they'd have found a way to screw that up anyway.
Or, here's two better options:
- Start a wholly original series based on an age-appropriate adventure set during whenever the fuck you please
- All of us collectively look long and hard at each other and admit to ourselves that sometimes we just need to let shit go and be okay with just three Indiana Jones movies
What's wrong with a reboot? Were a new trilogy had been made that had the same quality as the originals would you still be against it? The whole problem with new Indiana Jones movies is that the creators are no longer giving the audience the quality the material deserves. It's all in the implementation, not the idea. If we're going to have new Indy films they may as well be good. Nor is it unprecedented for new stories to be made with the property beyond the trilogy.
I'm of the firm opinion that if you're doing a reboot anyway, just go the extra step and make it an original, new IP. Put down the security blanket, it'll be ok.
If we're going to have new Indy films they may as well be good.
If we're going to have new Indy films starring a new cast in new adventures set in possibly a new timeline, we may as well have a whole new franchise.
I don't need more Indiana Jones movies, ever. I will gladly take new ones if they're good, but I don't need them. You don't need them. We, none of us, need them.
If we're going to have new Indy films they may as well be good.
If we're going to have new Indy films starring a new cast in new adventures set in possibly a new timeline, we may as well have a whole new franchise.
I don't need more Indiana Jones movies, ever. I will gladly take new ones if they're good, but I don't need them. You don't need them. We, none of us, need them.
We only need good things. Not old things.
Yes, none of us need them. But we didn't need the previous trilogy either yet people are still liked them enough that its become an iconic brand. Good things can be from old properties. Had the James Bond franchise stopped with Connery we wouldn't have gotten Goldeneye or the recent Casino Royale. There's also the Batman reboot with Nolan or Johnson's reboot with Captain America. Not all reboots are good, I admit though that shouldn't mean we can't get good ones.
There will always be new franchises. Tomb Raider, Uncharted and The Mummy films are sort of successors to Indy. But there is only one Indy franchise. They can still do many things with the franchise with a reboot, all it needs is to be done well.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited June 2012
Indiana Jones is about Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg hitting the peaks of both their early-80s prime.
It's arguable, for sure, but without those things it's not the same for me. I'm not eager to revisit a collection of familiar names wearing familiar costumes as familiar music plays over if I don't get the same feeling and energy.
Raiders is a perfect film. There aren't many perfect films. I'm happy to let this one go; after all, not making more of them doesn't mean the originals don't still exist.
edit: and all of your examples are adaptations of existing materials, meaning that they're prone to infinite interpretation. Indy is (inspirations aside) a whole-cloth hero.
Indiana Jones is about Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg hitting the peaks of both their early-80s prime.
It's arguable, for sure, but without those things it's not the same for me. I'm not eager to revisit a collection of familiar names wearing familiar costumes as familiar music plays over if I don't get the same feeling and energy.
Fair enough.
Raiders is a perfect film. There aren't many perfect films. I'm happy to let this one go; after all, not making more of them doesn't mean the originals don't still exist.
True.
edit: and all your examples are adaptions of existing materials, meaning they're prone to interpretation. Indy is (inspirations aside) a whole-cloth hero.
Yes those are from existing materials, that doesn't mean Indy isn't open to interpretation other than Harrison Ford in the trilogy. Indy has already had comic books, novels (a series by Bantam, movie adaptions and a German series by Wolfgang Holhbein), video-games & a tv series. It'd be very simple to add another interpretation in movies as well with a reboot.
I don't mind a reboot, but I would much rather see a new property if given the choice.
Problem is, your average movie go-er isn't as open to new ideas as they were back when Indy first came out. Now, everyone is used to seeing the same 12 franchises being rolled out with a new coat of paint half-assedly slapped on. They don't want to go see Chronicle, they want to see Journey 2. They want to go see Star Wars Episode 1 again, or go see the new Transformers sequel, or they want to go see fucking Battleship the god damn movie.
Your average movie go-er nowadays is a fucking idiot, and Hollywood knows how to appeal to idiots very well. They make a lot of money off of the average idiot, mainly because the product that appeals to them is very cheap and quick to make. Sure, a higher quality, better made product will stand the test of time as one of the greatest ever, but it might fail. If it does, it would be an expensive failure.
Take Adam Sandler. The guy exists to make shitty comedies year after year (despite a few good movies in the past). They are all critically panned and almost universally hated, but they make enough money to recoup costs and get everyone involved a big check, so they get to continue business as usual, because the average movie go-er is a fucking loony.
We are human, after all. Flesh Uncovered, after all.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Again, for those playing at home, The Atomic Ross List of Perfect Films:
- Back to the Future
- The Empire Strikes Back
- E.T.
- Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Jaws
- The Godfather
- No Country for Old Men
- Chinatown
- Casablanca
- Blade Runner
- Alien
- Pulp Fiction
- Blue Velvet
- Taxi Driver
- The Big Lebowski
- Ghostbusters
- Goodfellas
- L.A. Confidential
Though I'm giving serious thought to adding Drive to that list.
Again, for those playing at home, The Atomic Ross List of Perfect Films:
- Back to the Future
- The Empire Strikes Back
- E.T.
- Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Jaws
- The Godfather
- No Country for Old Men
- Chinatown
- Casablanca
- Blade Runner
- Alien
- Pulp Fiction
- Blue Velvet
- Taxi Driver
- The Big Lebowski
- Ghostbusters
- Goodfellas
- L.A. Confidential
Though I'm giving serious thought to adding Drive to that list.
Very nice list. :^:
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Again, for those playing at home, The Atomic Ross List of Perfect Films:
- Back to the Future
- The Empire Strikes Back
- E.T.
- Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Jaws
- The Godfather
- No Country for Old Men
- Chinatown
- Casablanca
- Blade Runner
- Alien
- Pulp Fiction
- Blue Velvet
- Taxi Driver
- The Big Lebowski
- Ghostbusters
- Goodfellas
- L.A. Confidential
Though I'm giving serious thought to adding Drive to that list.
Very nice list. :^:
Thanks.
I like to think my list is for films that are both timeless and transcendent, a high watermark for the medium that doesn't weaken with age. As well, "perfect" isn't the same as "my favorite" or "the best," whatever metric the latter could possibly be. I know it doesn't have many comedies, but comedies are a strange beast, and don't age nearly as well as we might like to pretend they do.
If I had to make one just for comedies and more lighter fare, off the top of my head it would be:
- Groundhog Day
- Blazing Saddles
- Young Frankenstein
- When Harry Met Sally
- The Princess Bride
- Beetlejuice
Again, for those playing at home, The Atomic Ross List of Perfect Films:
- Back to the Future
- The Empire Strikes Back
- E.T.
- Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Jaws
- The Godfather
- No Country for Old Men
- Chinatown
- Casablanca
- Blade Runner
- Alien
- Pulp Fiction
- Blue Velvet
- Taxi Driver
- The Big Lebowski
- Ghostbusters
- Goodfellas
- L.A. Confidential
Though I'm giving serious thought to adding Drive to that list.
Excellent list. I would definitely add Drive to the list. That movie gets better each time I watch it.
If I may, there's a few movies I consider "perfect" that aren't on your list, and I'd be curious as to what you think would disqualify them from being on a perfect list.
Groundhog Day
Airplane
Brazil
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The Blues Brothers
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
EDIT: Die Hard
Double_Chris on
We are human, after all. Flesh Uncovered, after all.
Again, for those playing at home, The Atomic Ross List of Perfect Films:
- Back to the Future
- The Empire Strikes Back
- E.T.
- Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Jaws
- The Godfather
- No Country for Old Men
- Chinatown
- Casablanca
- Blade Runner
- Alien
- Pulp Fiction
- Blue Velvet
- Taxi Driver
- The Big Lebowski
- Ghostbusters
- Goodfellas
- L.A. Confidential
Though I'm giving serious thought to adding Drive to that list.
Good to know it only took 70-80 years from the birth of film for cinematic perfection to be achieved, and that it hit in such a flood. Do you think anyone got close in the intervening years?
0
Options
RhalloTonnyOf the BrownlandsRegistered Userregular
Weren't they basically forced to set Crystal Skull in the 50s because Harrison Ford is old?
The basic problem with that movie (besides the execution in general) isn't that it had aliens, but that they tried to put aliens in the Indiana Jones structure. Instead, they should have put Indie in a 50s sci-fi B-movie plot.
And yes, the RT number measures consensus, not quality. Which is why some really excellent but controversial films get RT scores of 50%, because most people either love or hate them (like The Fountain).
Being forced to set it in the 50s doesn't mean being forced to make it a 50s sci-fi B-movie.
Like, there's no reason you couldn't keep the exact same type of film as Raiders or Crusade and just replace the Nazis with Russians.
Again, for those playing at home, The Atomic Ross List of Perfect Films:
- Back to the Future
- The Empire Strikes Back
- E.T.
- Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Jaws
- The Godfather
- No Country for Old Men
- Chinatown
- Casablanca
- Blade Runner
- Alien
- Pulp Fiction
- Blue Velvet
- Taxi Driver
- The Big Lebowski
- Ghostbusters
- Goodfellas
- L.A. Confidential
Though I'm giving serious thought to adding Drive to that list.
Raiders is a perfect film. There aren't many perfect films. I'm happy to let this one go; after all, not making more of them doesn't mean the originals don't still exist.
I saw it a couple of weeks ago, on one of the new 35mm prints. I'm not sure why they didn't have those at every theater in America. It was an experience.
Again, for those playing at home, The Atomic Ross List of Perfect Films:
- Back to the Future
- The Empire Strikes Back
- E.T.
- Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Jaws
- The Godfather
- No Country for Old Men
- Chinatown
- Casablanca
- Blade Runner
- Alien
- Pulp Fiction
- Blue Velvet
- Taxi Driver
- The Big Lebowski
- Ghostbusters
- Goodfellas
- L.A. Confidential
Though I'm giving serious thought to adding Drive to that list.
Just got home from seeing a midnight showing of Prometheus in IMAX. I'm definitely glad I went, as I really enjoyed. Easily my favorite movie so far this year.
The 3D was well done. It wasn't intrusive, but added a subtle depth to the picture that made it feel more realistic. The set design, CGI, location scouting, or whatever was absolutely phenomenal. The entire movie was simultaneously beautiful and yet wrong. Fassbender was amazing as always and Theron, Rapace, and Elba fit well in their roles.
Now for theories. First the obvious one that I suspect everyone else has figured out without even seeing the movie.
I went in believing the ship from the trailer is the one from the beginning of Alien, and left believing the same. The Space Jockeys actually being more or less human was a big surprise though. I'm guessing I know what the Nephilim from Genesis are in the movie world...
Now for my more personalized one, on "Why"
I think that they were trying to terraform Earth and humans were an accident. And now they were ready to colonize...
The only problem I see with the theory is that they helped out some ancient humans. But that's easily explained by political shifts, desire for a slave race, desire for pre-built infrastructure, or just a couple outcasts wanting to be worshiped as Gods.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
@AtomicRoss, your list is missing a bunch of stuff. Off the top of my head, Vertigo, Psycho, Rear Window, The Apartment, The Maltese Falcon, On the Waterfront, Don't Look Now, and, you know, foreign films.
That's why every rt percentage also comes with an average review score, the number of reviews used, and how many were positive and how many were negative. It's about as good as it gets.
Yeah, and I agree that's all good stuff, but you have to go the movie's page on RT see it.
A lot of people just go, "Oh, this film has a bad RT score, let's skip it," or vice versa. This is bad.
That's more a criticism of people, not RT. And what can I say? People are stupid.
I disagree. RT answers the question, "What is the likelyhood each member of my party will enjoy this movie?"
That seems like a much more important metric on which to judge which film we'll see than average quality. Plus, those two ought to be pretty well correlated.
I don't really have a list of perfect films, though I think I know what Ross means.
Aside from some of the ones on his list I'd stick Kieslowski's Three Colours trilogy on mine, Get Carter, La Belle At La Bete, The General, The Red Shoes, The Ladykillers, The Wicker Man, Hana Bi, Ran, Throne of Blood, Singin' In The Rain and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Almost all stuff you couldn't add to or take away from without weakening it. My foreign film fu is too weak to pretend it's a fair list, though. I haven't seen nearly enough Truffaut, Bunel, etc.
Okay, i'm about ten minutes into Drive and already I have a huge question needing to be answered:
Did Gosling just abandon his clients in the Staples center parking garage while the cops closed in on the robbers? It looks like he slipped through the net at the cost of the job.
I watched The Truman Show last night on a whim, and honestly this is how I learned not to just "trust rottentomatoes" if I am debating watching something. I haven't felt like I 've just wasted 90 minutes watching something (though it was really the last 50 or so, the beginning seemed somewhat promising).
Ugh. I'm gonna see if I can get my hands on Broadcast News next, if possible.
Rotten Tomatoes can be a good helpful guide, but I don't rely on it for movie recommendations. It's best to either just jump in and experience movies for yourself and take the good with the bad, or follow a few reviewers that you have a tendency to agree with.
For me, I go to Roger Ebert and Portland reviewer Mike Russell. I usually agree with them on movies (sometimes I disagree with Ebert, but mainly about comedies), and I can usually trust them when they say not to see a movie.
Rotten Tomatoes is a flawed metric because it's an aggregate sum of Pass/Fail values, but the score easily lends itself to being misinterpreted as a academic value on the familiar 0-100 range.
And that's just not what it does. Rotten Tomatoes assigns binary values to critical reviews, and then compiles in a percentile score. 9 positive reviews and 1 negative review will get a film a score of 90% Fresh, but all of those positive reviews under other metrics might be given fairly low scores despite their positivity. Depending on the tone of the critique and whatever arbitrary metric that accompanies it, a film that gets "three stars out of five" or a "C+" may still be graded by RT as a "positive" review, but could actually end up being a pretty shitty film.
Rotten Tomatoes give a great understanding of a film's polarity, the percentage of people who like it vs. the people who didn't, but it's not a metric of individual quality.
Ever since they gave The Book of Eli a 40 percent I stopped taking them too seriously.
Again, for those playing at home, The Atomic Ross List of Perfect Films:
- Back to the Future
- The Empire Strikes Back
- E.T.
- Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Jaws
- The Godfather
- No Country for Old Men
- Chinatown
- Casablanca
- Blade Runner
- Alien
- Pulp Fiction
- Blue Velvet
- Taxi Driver
- The Big Lebowski
- Ghostbusters
- Goodfellas
- L.A. Confidential
Though I'm giving serious thought to adding Drive to that list.
Missing The Hurt Locker, Raging Bull, 2001, Apocalypse Now, and Seven
Again, for those playing at home, The Atomic Ross List of Perfect Films:
- Back to the Future
- The Empire Strikes Back
- E.T.
- Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Jaws
- The Godfather
- No Country for Old Men
- Chinatown
- Casablanca
- Blade Runner
- Alien
- Pulp Fiction
- Blue Velvet
- Taxi Driver
- The Big Lebowski
- Ghostbusters
- Goodfellas
- L.A. Confidential
Though I'm giving serious thought to adding Drive to that list.
To only question that list raises is which cut of Blade Runner you are listing.
Posts
Rotten Tomatoes is a flawed metric because it's an aggregate sum of Pass/Fail values, but the score easily lends itself to being misinterpreted as a academic value on the familiar 0-100 range.
And that's just not what it does. Rotten Tomatoes assigns binary values to critical reviews, and then compiles in a percentile score. 9 positive reviews and 1 negative review will get a film a score of 90% Fresh, but all of those positive reviews under other metrics might be given fairly low scores despite their positivity. Depending on the tone of the critique and whatever arbitrary metric that accompanies it, a film that gets "three stars out of five" or a "C+" may still be graded by RT as a "positive" review, but could actually end up being a pretty shitty film.
Rotten Tomatoes give a great understanding of a film's polarity, the percentage of people who like it vs. the people who didn't, but it's not a metric of individual quality.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Yeah, and I agree that's all good stuff, but you have to go the movie's page on RT see it.
A lot of people just go, "Oh, this film has a bad RT score, let's skip it," or vice versa. This is bad.
I watched it a few weeks ago, and was kind of surprised how it didn't hold up to what I remembered, or my tastes changed.
That's more a criticism of people, not RT. And what can I say? People are stupid.
Well, one generally tries to design ones system to accommodate people, as they are the ones using it.
The basic problem with that movie (besides the execution in general) isn't that it had aliens, but that they tried to put aliens in the Indiana Jones structure. Instead, they should have put Indie in a 50s sci-fi B-movie plot.
And yes, the RT number measures consensus, not quality. Which is why some really excellent but controversial films get RT scores of 50%, because most people either love or hate them (like The Fountain).
When I use my Flixster app on my iPad to find local showtimes, it doesn't give me a itemized breakdown of the RT page, it just gives the score.
Metacritic score is a better go-to if you're just looking for a value.
Yeah. They should have rebooted IMO. Though I'm certain they'd have found a way to screw that up anyway.
What was the state of reality television at the time?
Maybe the idea of someone being recorded 24/7 just seems less unusual now.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Or, here's two better options:
- Start a wholly original series based on an age-appropriate adventure set during whenever the fuck you please
- All of us collectively look long and hard at each other and admit to ourselves that sometimes we just need to let shit go and be okay with just three Indiana Jones movies
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
What's wrong with a reboot? Were a new trilogy had been made that had the same quality as the originals would you still be against it? The whole problem with new Indiana Jones movies is that the creators are no longer giving the audience the quality the material deserves. It's all in the implementation, not the idea. If we're going to have new Indy films they may as well be good. Nor is it unprecedented for new stories to be made with the property beyond the trilogy.
I love you.
If we're going to have new Indy films starring a new cast in new adventures set in possibly a new timeline, we may as well have a whole new franchise.
I don't need more Indiana Jones movies, ever. I will gladly take new ones if they're good, but I don't need them. You don't need them. We, none of us, need them.
We only need good things. Not old things.
Yes, none of us need them. But we didn't need the previous trilogy either yet people are still liked them enough that its become an iconic brand. Good things can be from old properties. Had the James Bond franchise stopped with Connery we wouldn't have gotten Goldeneye or the recent Casino Royale. There's also the Batman reboot with Nolan or Johnson's reboot with Captain America. Not all reboots are good, I admit though that shouldn't mean we can't get good ones.
There will always be new franchises. Tomb Raider, Uncharted and The Mummy films are sort of successors to Indy. But there is only one Indy franchise. They can still do many things with the franchise with a reboot, all it needs is to be done well.
It's arguable, for sure, but without those things it's not the same for me. I'm not eager to revisit a collection of familiar names wearing familiar costumes as familiar music plays over if I don't get the same feeling and energy.
Raiders is a perfect film. There aren't many perfect films. I'm happy to let this one go; after all, not making more of them doesn't mean the originals don't still exist.
edit: and all of your examples are adaptations of existing materials, meaning that they're prone to infinite interpretation. Indy is (inspirations aside) a whole-cloth hero.
Fair enough.
True.
Yes those are from existing materials, that doesn't mean Indy isn't open to interpretation other than Harrison Ford in the trilogy. Indy has already had comic books, novels (a series by Bantam, movie adaptions and a German series by Wolfgang Holhbein), video-games & a tv series. It'd be very simple to add another interpretation in movies as well with a reboot.
What do you mean that he's a "whole-cloth hero"?
Problem is, your average movie go-er isn't as open to new ideas as they were back when Indy first came out. Now, everyone is used to seeing the same 12 franchises being rolled out with a new coat of paint half-assedly slapped on. They don't want to go see Chronicle, they want to see Journey 2. They want to go see Star Wars Episode 1 again, or go see the new Transformers sequel, or they want to go see fucking Battleship the god damn movie.
Your average movie go-er nowadays is a fucking idiot, and Hollywood knows how to appeal to idiots very well. They make a lot of money off of the average idiot, mainly because the product that appeals to them is very cheap and quick to make. Sure, a higher quality, better made product will stand the test of time as one of the greatest ever, but it might fail. If it does, it would be an expensive failure.
Take Adam Sandler. The guy exists to make shitty comedies year after year (despite a few good movies in the past). They are all critically panned and almost universally hated, but they make enough money to recoup costs and get everyone involved a big check, so they get to continue business as usual, because the average movie go-er is a fucking loony.
- The Empire Strikes Back
- E.T.
- Raiders of the Lost Ark
- Jaws
- The Godfather
- No Country for Old Men
- Chinatown
- Casablanca
- Blade Runner
- Alien
- Pulp Fiction
- Blue Velvet
- Taxi Driver
- The Big Lebowski
- Ghostbusters
- Goodfellas
- L.A. Confidential
Though I'm giving serious thought to adding Drive to that list.
Very nice list. :^:
Thanks.
I like to think my list is for films that are both timeless and transcendent, a high watermark for the medium that doesn't weaken with age. As well, "perfect" isn't the same as "my favorite" or "the best," whatever metric the latter could possibly be. I know it doesn't have many comedies, but comedies are a strange beast, and don't age nearly as well as we might like to pretend they do.
If I had to make one just for comedies and more lighter fare, off the top of my head it would be:
- Blazing Saddles
- Young Frankenstein
- When Harry Met Sally
- The Princess Bride
- Beetlejuice
Excellent list. I would definitely add Drive to the list. That movie gets better each time I watch it.
If I may, there's a few movies I consider "perfect" that aren't on your list, and I'd be curious as to what you think would disqualify them from being on a perfect list.
Groundhog Day
Airplane
Brazil
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The Blues Brothers
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
EDIT: Die Hard
Good to know it only took 70-80 years from the birth of film for cinematic perfection to be achieved, and that it hit in such a flood. Do you think anyone got close in the intervening years?
Blue Velvet.
Being forced to set it in the 50s doesn't mean being forced to make it a 50s sci-fi B-movie.
Like, there's no reason you couldn't keep the exact same type of film as Raiders or Crusade and just replace the Nazis with Russians.
Now I just wanna watch L.A. Confidential again.
Fuck that movies awesome.
I saw it a couple of weeks ago, on one of the new 35mm prints. I'm not sure why they didn't have those at every theater in America. It was an experience.
So American.
The 3D was well done. It wasn't intrusive, but added a subtle depth to the picture that made it feel more realistic. The set design, CGI, location scouting, or whatever was absolutely phenomenal. The entire movie was simultaneously beautiful and yet wrong. Fassbender was amazing as always and Theron, Rapace, and Elba fit well in their roles.
Now for theories. First the obvious one that I suspect everyone else has figured out without even seeing the movie.
Now for my more personalized one, on "Why"
The only problem I see with the theory is that they helped out some ancient humans. But that's easily explained by political shifts, desire for a slave race, desire for pre-built infrastructure, or just a couple outcasts wanting to be worshiped as Gods.
I disagree. RT answers the question, "What is the likelyhood each member of my party will enjoy this movie?"
That seems like a much more important metric on which to judge which film we'll see than average quality. Plus, those two ought to be pretty well correlated.
I don't really have a list of perfect films, though I think I know what Ross means.
Aside from some of the ones on his list I'd stick Kieslowski's Three Colours trilogy on mine, Get Carter, La Belle At La Bete, The General, The Red Shoes, The Ladykillers, The Wicker Man, Hana Bi, Ran, Throne of Blood, Singin' In The Rain and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Almost all stuff you couldn't add to or take away from without weakening it. My foreign film fu is too weak to pretend it's a fair list, though. I haven't seen nearly enough Truffaut, Bunel, etc.
EDIT: Dammit, forgot Vertigo.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Ever since they gave The Book of Eli a 40 percent I stopped taking them too seriously.
Missing The Hurt Locker, Raging Bull, 2001, Apocalypse Now, and Seven
To only question that list raises is which cut of Blade Runner you are listing.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.