TV/Movies Megathread

[Queequeg]

Sarcasm?  Not even close. 

Come on.  The guy who played Napoleon was great.

It is actively bad.

[Ideologue]

On the other hand, I'm a little suspicious of any list that purports to be THE TOP TEN ______ of ALL TIME!!1 that includes five movies from the past decade.  (And two from this decade.)

I think it works for overrated though. Overrated films generally get found out over time and drop from popularity. In their first five years they're an instant classic and twenty-five years later they're a footnote.

You can argue for an underrated classic from the 40s. Who of us can really name a film from the 40s that's still overrated?

Casablanca is great, but rather overrated.

Vertigo is from the 50s, obviously, but really unbelievably overrated.  From the 30s, Dracula is monstrously overrated, insofar as it's actually terrible.  And I find it difficult to believe that one couldn't find a Fritz Lang alleged-classic that is overrated by half (Metropolis; M; I'd bet five bucks The Woman in the Moon sucks, but it was so slow I fell asleep).

But you have a point.  People forget about The Greatest Show on Earth or Around the World in 80 Days or Crash or whatever.

[celedhring]

The classic film that I think it's pretty overrated (it won the last Sight and Sound poll!) it's Vertigo - which is not to say it isn't a very good film. But the best of all time? The whole entry level faux-freudianism of the plot looks pretty silly nowadays.

[Sheilbh]

God the sooner we can all forget about Crash the better

[Ideologue]

The classic film that I think it's pretty overrated (it won the last Sight and Sound poll!) it's Vertigo - which is not to say it isn't a very good film. But the best of all time? The whole entry level faux-freudianism of the plot looks pretty silly nowadays.

Although my biggest complaint is that warping the narrative structure to put the audience ahead of Scotty is a profound misstep.  Often that "show the bomb" thing works--I mean, Rope is Showing the Bomb: The Motion Picture--but here it does all sorts of damage: first, it destroys a compelling mystery and actively deflates the suspense; and, second, because we know that Judy has earned her treatment, it blunts your appreciation of how irredeemably fucking nasty Scotty really is.

[celedhring]

On the other hand, I'm a little suspicious of any list that purports to be THE TOP TEN ______ of ALL TIME!!1 that includes five movies from the past decade.  (And two from this decade.)

I think it works for overrated though. Overrated films generally get found out over time and drop from popularity. In their first five years they're an instant classic and twenty-five years later they're a footnote.

You can argue for an underrated classic from the 40s. Who of us can really name a film from the 40s that's still overrated?

Casablanca is great, but rather overrated.

Vertigo is from the 50s, obviously, but really unbelievably overrated.  From the 30s, Dracula is monstrously overrated, insofar as it's actually terrible.  And I find it difficult to believe that one couldn't find a Fritz Lang alleged-classic that is overrated by half (Metropolis; M; I'd bet five bucks The Woman in the Moon sucks, but it was so slow I fell asleep).

But you have a point.  People forget about The Greatest Show on Earth or Around the World in 80 Days or Crash or whatever.

Neither Dracula or Casablanca are particularly rated in scholarly circles, though. Lang is a daring proposition - I always find difficult to appropiately rate films from the times film language was still developing. It's like saying that XIth century romanesque painting sucks because the drawings were bad.

[Sheilbh]

I want to storm scholarly circles to a rousing chorus La Marseillaise

[Valmy]

Neither Dracula or Casablanca are particularly rated in scholarly circles, though. Lang is a daring proposition - I always find difficult to appropiately rate films from the times film language was still developing. It's like saying that XIth century romanesque painting sucks because the drawings were bad.

What scholarly circles are those?

[The Larch]

I don't think Audrey Hepburn was in a great film in her entire life, and never came close to giving a great performance.  Sabrina is really good, but she's actually a weak link in it. 

What?  War and Peace is not a great film?

Breakfast at Tiffany's and Two for the road. Nuff said.

[Valmy]

Sarcasm?  Not even close. 

Come on.  The guy who played Napoleon was great.

It is actively bad.

Man you are no fun at all.

[Sheilbh]

I searched for Audrey Hepburn to get the name of that awful film where she plays a Belgian nun (The Nun's Story ).

On the way I found this question from Vanity Fair, 'Who Wore It Best: Audrey Hepburn or Kim Kardashian?'

Yet again I wish I could just burn down the twenty-first century

[celedhring]

The classic film that I think it's pretty overrated (it won the last Sight and Sound poll!) it's Vertigo - which is not to say it isn't a very good film. But the best of all time? The whole entry level faux-freudianism of the plot looks pretty silly nowadays.

Although my biggest complaint is that warping the narrative structure to put the audience ahead of Scotty is a profound misstep.  Often that "show the bomb" thing works--I mean, Rope is Showing the Bomb: The Motion Picture--but here it does all sorts of damage: first, it destroys a compelling mystery and actively deflates the suspense; and, second, because we know that Judy has earned her treatment, it blunts your appreciation of how irredeemably fucking nasty Scotty really is.

That scene is horribly clumsy, indeed. Awful. But Hitchcock justified the reveal in that he thought that a) the mistery of whether July and Madeleigne are the same chick wasn't the point of the film and would distract from Scotty's self-destruction. By deflating the mystery, the focus is pointed back to Scotty b) he thought it was very obvious and trying to sustain it for any length of time would be cheating the audience by creating a faux-mystery.

But the reveal is handled very badly. Writing a letter of confession that then she destroys? Hitchcock loved letters too much.

[celedhring]

Neither Dracula or Casablanca are particularly rated in scholarly circles, though. Lang is a daring proposition - I always find difficult to appropiately rate films from the times film language was still developing. It's like saying that XIth century romanesque painting sucks because the drawings were bad.

What scholarly circles are those?

You can check the Sight and Sound list, where Casablanca is #85 and Dracula doesn't even make the list. It's made by polling film critics all over the world.

[Ideologue]

Cel: I can give that to M as an early talkie.  However, my issues with M are, to be clear, not its filmmaking technique, but rather how emotionless and anchorless its procedural is.  It's a movie to recommend to people that thought Zodiac or the last half of High and Low just weren't dry and anonymous enough.  (Lorre is pretty good, though and I do like the movie, but feel its status is highly inflated.)

But the silent films of the late 20s had a well-developed language.  And Metropolis isn't a failure because it's made poorly or doesn't read as a motion picture.  It's a failure because it's kind of dumb, ideologically suspect, goofy, and boring.  And every H.G. Wells I've consulted agrees.   I mean, Safety Last is a far more incisive critique of capitalism, and the only reason that movie even exists is so Harold Lloyd can climb up a wall.

Re: Vertigo--I dunno, it would've had me going.   But I think we must disagree more substantially on the first point--I thought it actively obscured Scotty's character rather than revealed it.  He's a monster but doesn't seem like it because we know Judy deserves to be punished.  (It does, I concede, help explain why Judy would at all put up with Scotty's obvious derangement.)

I think ultimately people get overexcited about Vertigo's filmmaking, which is excellent, featuring several firsts or near-firsts; so they endeavor to elevate the story, which isn't bad but neither is it great, to the same level.

P.S.: yeah, the reveal's the worst.

[Valmy]

Neither Dracula or Casablanca are particularly rated in scholarly circles, though. Lang is a daring proposition - I always find difficult to appropiately rate films from the times film language was still developing. It's like saying that XIth century romanesque painting sucks because the drawings were bad.

What scholarly circles are those?

You can check the Sight and Sound list, where Casablanca is #85 and Dracula doesn't even make the list. It's made by polling film critics all over the world.

Well that's new.  Virtually every big fancy scholarly list I have ever seen puts Casablanca up near the top.  Maybe they found new obscure films from the 20s to rank above anything you have ever heard of.