Overly appreciated movies?

[Zombie_61]

I don't dislike musicals because a heterosexual man in America isn't supposed to like them now, I just don't like signing where it doesn't belong in a movie...

This sums up my opinion of musicals rather well.

However, I think it's somewhat important to note there are two types of "musical" movies. The first type are movies in which the vast majority of the dialogue is sung such as Sweeney Todd, which I find insufferable; I've never understood the "need" to sing dialogue in a movie when it can be spoken just as easily. The second type are movies which have occasional musical set pieces in them such as The Wizard of Oz. For me these are more tolerable if they're done well, but most have the musical numbers awkwardly shoved in seemingly for no other reason than to have yet another song and dance segment.

"The Big Lebowski" - The cultish fawning over this tripe amazes me. I've almost had fist fights over it.

"Dances With Wolves" - C'mon man!

I actually like both of these movies quite a lot, but I can understand why some people don't.

And that's one of the things I enjoy about being a "movie buff"--discussing movies with people who have opinions that differ from mine. I might never agree with someone's reasons for liking or disliking any given movie, but I appreciate hearing them anyway. On occasion, viewing a movie "through someone else's eyes" has elevated my opinion of that movie (sorry, I can't think of any specific examples at the moment).

Sometimes the reputation of a movie can overwhelm or jaundice your opinion...

I understand this completely. Example: For several years a very good friend raved about a specific movie that I hadn't seen. He praised it so highly that it was virtually impossible for me to appreciate it as much as he did (or even like it) by the time I finally saw it because he had completely oversold it. Eventually I grew to like it, but we both learned a valuable lesson--don't put any movie on a pedestal so high that it can't be reached.

To a degree, the same thing happened when I finally saw The Maltese Falcon for the first time last year. I'd heard so many good things about it that it couldn't possibly "live up to the hype", and I found it disappointing. Conversely, I'd heard a lot of bad things about The Big Sleep, and when I finally saw it for the the first time (also last year) I really enjoyed it. So "word of mouth" can work both ways.

 

[Nobert]

And that's one of the things I enjoy about being a "movie buff"--discussing movies with people who have opinions that differ from mine. I might never agree with someone's reasons for liking or disliking any given movie, but I appreciate hearing them anyway. On occasion, viewing a movie "through someone else's eyes" has elevated my opinion of that movie (sorry, I can't think of any specific examples at the moment).

Yes, I'd say it's one of the things that makes one a "buff" of whatever media. Sometimes you have an initial negative reaction to a movie, a song, a book; but a friend whose taste you know is similar to yours turns out to really like it. Or you read an interview with some artist you love and they say "Oh, yes, [that thing you thought was a stinky rotten potato] is one of my big influences." First impressions can be slippery and treacherous, and I think one of the best things anyone can do is learn not to go by them entirely (yes, I'm talking to you, Human Resources).

 

[Two Types]

. . . having worked my way through most of the well and lesser known American and British noirs, I started watching French noirs recently, and boy are they good!

On the subject of lesser known British noirs, have you ever seen 'Nowhere To Go'? It doesn't always get classed as 'British Noir', but I would put it in that category. And I think it is bloody brilliant.

 

[vitanola]

Agreed. the musical score is distracting (although, I'm sure the odd mandolin music was consciously intended to evoke absurdity, but IMO, it doesn't work)

Mandolin?


MANDOLIN???

The score for "The Third Man" was by Anton Karas, a Viennese Zither virtuoso. The Zither was (and to a small extent still is) the classic Viennese instrument. the "Schrammel orchestra" or (in smaller, poorer venues) a Zither soloist practically formed the soundtrack of the night-life Vienna between the Wars. Both musical firms were associated with Old Vienna in the American mind in 1948. I suspect that the Zither music was chosen because "Schrammelmusik" sounded too much ike the "Salon Music" which could still be heard in the odd Hotel palm Court even in the Truman era.

I always thought the Zither score was brilliant, but then to me the score was appropriately evocative.

[video=youtube_share;acsnaLCTPSk]http://youtu.be/acsnaLCTPSk[/video]

Perhaps this was because I grew up in Cleveland, and oft went to the Donauschwaben Hall, Pirchner's Alpine Village, and Keifer's Ratskeller.

 

[Nobert]

When I was growing up, there was a show on local public radio called "Wind up the Victrola, Toby," which highlighted the hits of yesteryear. In my late teens I suddenly became interested in it and would tape it and then transfer the songs that appealed to me onto another cassette. One of the numbers that notably caught my fancy was "The Third Man Theme." I had never heard of the movie at that time. I'll admit that its repetitive aspect was one of the things that made it stand out, the tune always seemed to circle back on itself. It amused me and entranced me at the same time.

 

[p51]

'Big Lebowski' has always baffled me. For years, people said I HAD to watch it as I was such a Mullius fan.
I watched.
I still don't get the appeal.

I really like Dances with Wolves, always have. I like it for the slowness that builds up, that was the only way the plot could work. And life really went like that, back then, at that speed in many cases.
That said, I understand why people don't like it, but I suggested to a hater of the movie to watch the extended version. She changed her opinion, as it was a little less forgiving of the tribe if you see the original cut of the film.

 

[SHOWSOMECLASS]

Hello Worf,
I am sorry, I have to disagree w/ "Dances". Just like goobers make fun of Loungers because they don't appreciate what is historically correct. This was a correct Movie including actors speaking the Sioux'an dialect. That movie version was scrapped, because it was not marketable w/ tag lines.
Surely a good decision.
If you appreciate period correct clothing, and all that is hand made by those who know the art. This not tailoring, seamstress, quilting, blocking a hat, or crafting, Only a few can make brain-tanned leather or real porcupine quilling which pre dated beading. You are minimizing the complexities of the wardrobe just as those who see a Fedora as a Indiana Jones hat. The A2 folks go on and on and on about what is made w/ a machine.
These wardrobes were made w/ smoke-cured hides, sinew, earth paints and feathers. Lets see them market clothes for retail w/ that process.

"The Big Lebowski" - The cultish fawning over this tripe amazes me. I've almost had fist fights over it.

"Reds" - I'm not sure Mr. Beatty can even act!

"Dances With Wolves" - C'mon man!

"Gone With the Wind" - Start with the happy, cheerful slaves and work your way down from there....

"Giant" - About an hour too long.

Worf

 

[rjb1]

I tend to agree with Worf on his movie opinions and do here, also.
I didn't know about the attention to detail in terms of costumes and etc. that were in "Dances With wolves". Good for them. However, it doesn't matter, since it's the plot and to some extent the acting that are the real problem. If the clothing and hardware look period-correct, as far as I can tell on the screen, that is enough. I didn't like the movie for it's overall nature, not because of what they were wearing, or how it was made.

I'm not sure if anyone else has this reaction to movies, but sometimes there is one scene, or one particular action by a character that breaks the "willing suspension of disbelief" barrier.
In the case of "Dances With Wolves" there is a short clip that is often shown in the previews or commercials for the movie.
Kevin Costner is charging across the plains on his horse shooting at someone, and then when his pistol is empty, he dramatically throws it away (!). As a graduate of West Point, surely he must have learned in his years of military training that pistols can be *reloaded*.
Aside from the Indians-as-Saints, and the White-people-as-devils problem with the movie, this small act makes me too conscious that these are unthinking actors doing preposterous things as written by idiotic Hollywood scriptwriters.

 

[Zombie_61]

...If you appreciate period correct clothing, and all that is hand made by those who know the art. This not tailoring, seamstress, quilting, blocking a hat, or crafting, Only a few can make brain-tanned leather or real porcupine quilling which pre dated beading. You are minimizing the complexities of the wardrobe just as those who see a Fedora as a Indiana Jones hat. The A2 folks go on and on and on about what is made w/ a machine. These wardrobes were made w/ smoke-cured hides, sinew, earth paints and feathers...

The attention to detail such as this is one of the things I appreciate about the movie...right up to the point when they put lip gloss on Mary McDonnell for the scene in which Stands With A Fist marries Dances With Wolves. :eusa_doh:

 

[Baron Kurtz]

We'll disagree about who the best actor is, anyway. Certainly Orson Welles thought he was. IMO, he's a bit hammy in The Third Man, and he was (characteristically for Welles) far too convinced of his own importance to this particular film and later franchise. The sinister European characters carry the film, and the best performance by far (IMO) is by Paul Hörbiger.

And yes, it's not a very complex story. The reason this film retains interest is the cinematography, particularly the framing of shots. Note the balloon seller, the same chap from "M".

Expanding on what I said about The Third Man: the reason I think it falls short (but not by much) is the storyline isn't particularly complex; the viewer is able to figure out the characters very quickly (or at least, I was); the musical score is distracting (although, I'm sure the odd mandolin music was consciously intended to evoke absurdity, but IMO, it doesn't work); and the best actor in the film, Orson Welles, gets comparatively little screen time...

 

[Two Types]

Note the balloon seller, the same chap from "M".

'M' - Now there's a film that does deserve its reputation.

 

[jamespowers]

Ethel Merman's voice is like nails on a chalkboard with the volume turned up. I cannot listen to her sing or talk for that matter.

Exactly! :doh:

 

[jamespowers]

I don't dislike musicals because a heterosexual man in America isn't supposed to like them now, I just don't like signing where it doesn't belong in a movie. Same with anything else for the most part where it's thrown in only because the director thought it was cool.
Same thing for violence or nudity when it's obviously put in to make a r rated movie from a pg rated one.
Same also for movie like, "something about Mary" where they're being comically crude just because they can.
Maybe I expect more from film makers than that.
But as for musicals, I do tire of the musical snobs who feel that it's a personality disorder not to love musicals as much as they do...

Agreed to all parts!

 

[jamespowers]

"The Big Lebowski" - The cultish fawning over this tripe amazes me. I've almost had fist fights over it.

"Reds" - I'm not sure Mr. Beatty can even act!

"Dances With Wolves" - C'mon man!

"Gone With the Wind" - Start with the happy, cheerful slaves and work your way down from there....

"Giant" - About an hour too long.

Worf

Agreed----especially the first one. I'll never understand the cult of stupid movie....

 

[Zombie_61]

Agreed----especially the first one. I'll never understand the cult of stupid movie....

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. :cool2:

But I know the feeling; there are certain movies that are (or were) hugely popular, and I'll never understand why. For example, Mad Max. A lot of people told me I'd "love" that movie, so my wife (who was my girlfriend at the time) and I went to see it; about 30 minutes in we decided we'd rather be doing anything other than watch the rest of the movie, and left the theater. Some time later I did see it start to finish, and my opinion didn't change.

Another movie that I'll never understand the attraction to is A Christmas Story. But, in that case, at least I know why I don't understand it--I can't relate to any of the characters or situations in the movie. I wasn't alive in the 1940's, I never wanted a B.B. gun, I've never had to deal with snow, my parents weren't morons, and I don't like Bob Clark's movies.

 

[Smithy]

Anything by Stanley Kubrick.

I think Kubrick is a bit hit and miss.

"2001" is the biggest load of pretentious, overblown steaming pile of the brown stuff. But "Full Metal Jacket" is one of the best war films made IMHO.

 

[Chasseur]

Most of Tarantino's stuff. Its pretty good, but really I don't get why people fall all over themselves about them.

Also to second Flo, as much as I am a Francophile, I find many of the "New Wave" films and much of the recent strange dramas that are made to get awards at Cannes awards (cough how many films can Isabelle Hubert be in where she plays a messed up character with strange sexual desires?) to be rather tiresome...

 

[Zombie_61]

I think Kubrick is a bit hit and miss.

"2001" is the biggest load of pretentious, overblown steaming pile of the brown stuff. But "Full Metal Jacket" is one of the best war films made IMHO.

He's definitely more "miss" than "hit" with me. I agree about Full Metal Jacket, and until last year would have agreed about 2001: A Space Odyssey. I've watched 2001 a handful of times over the years in an attempt to understand why so many people held it in such high regard, and never quite got it. Then, last year, after a discussion about the movie with a good friend whose opinion I value I watched it again and, for whatever reason, it "clicked". For me, the secret was to consider it a silent movie with occasional sound effects and bits of dialogue instead of title cards. I still think the ending is rubbish, but with regards to the special effects I think it's still one of the best sci-fi movies ever made.

 

[Nobert]

I think the appeal of Tarantino is that he is, to some extent, a film maker for film buffs, especially for those with a taste toward B movies and horror flicks and such. A lot of his style seems homage based. As Saul Steinberg said, there are two kinds of artists, those whose work is a reaction to the world around them and those whose work is about everything that has happened in their medium up until then. I'd posit that there is also a big gray area in between, but Tarantino veers towards the latter.

 

[Nobert]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. :cool2:


Another movie that I'll never understand the attraction to is A Christmas Story. But, in that case, at least I know why I don't understand it--I can't relate to any of the characters or situations in the movie. I wasn't alive in the 1940's, I never wanted a B.B. gun, I've never had to deal with snow, my parents weren't morons, and I don't like Bob Clark's movies.

I'm going to try to, not convert you, but give another perspective on this. I also wasn't alive during the 40s, and never wanted a B.B. gun, but I love A Christmas Story. I like the way it seems to capture the flavor of middle-class life during the period, I like the fact that Ralphie is often borderline comatose, while his inner monologue may be reeling, which to me captures the helpless feeling of being a know-nothing kid pretty well. I don't think the parents are idiots. They're adults as seen from a kid's perspective, with their own quirks and foibles that adults think kids don't notice. Take another look at the "soap in mouth" scene. At the start, the mom is all parental discipline until she calls Schwartz's mother. Then notice her reaction when she hears Schwartz being wailed on, as though she's kind of second-guessing the whole discipline thing, thinking about what it's actually like for the kid when they are on the receiving end of what may as well be, for them, divine retribution. After she sends Ralph to bed, she tries putting the soap in her own mouth, just to see what it's like.

I find that movie has several things like that, things you don't really pick up on until you watch it a few times.

Anyway, I rest my case. You're free not to like it, of course, I just wanted to put in that plea.