QuoteReplyTopic: Classic movies Posted: August 24 2011 at 5:56pm
Originally posted by Vits
And don't worry.I have a system to give extra points to movies made before 1970.
Actually, my favorite reviews on this forum are SchumacherH8ter's.
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)
If you disagree because you think those movies were masterpieces,it's OK,because everybody thinks that.But you can't deny that,if you compare their FX and keep in mind when they were made,GHOSTBUSTERS looks like a home-made video.
And don't worry.I have a system to give extra points to movies made before 1970.
"2001"'s only good thing was it's FX.GHOSTBUSTERS's only bad thing was it's FX. The former was made 20 years before the latter.
I totally disagree (as many others would) with both those statements, but if that's your opinion, so be it. As for judging classic movies with a modern day mindset, I didn't say you were, I was only asking to keep that in mind when you do review classic movies.
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)
When it comes to classic movies and giving them reviews, you have to keep this in mind: you CANNOT use the same mindset that you have for reviewing present day movies. What are considered cliche'd story elements by today's standards were fresh and new 30 years ago. What are considered dated special effects by today's standards, were cutting edge 30 years ago. What are considered racist, sexist, or unacceptable to society by today's standards, was once considered the norm by society 30 years ago.
So you really shouldn't judge classic movies of the 30s-90s with the mindset of 2011.
"People say 'It's all about the story’. When you're making tentpole films, bull$hit." -Andy Hendrickson (Disney Animation Studios' Chief Technical Officer)
I'm so thankfull that I watched it on TV because it had comercials.
I mean,like having a bunch of people scubadiving isn't boring enough,they had to borrow from other movies,specially CLOSE ENCOUNTERS!And yes,I know the story about the studio changing the ending and then using it for the special edition.
I just saw the saga of THE EXORCIST.I'll write a conjoined review of the 5 movies soon.
THEY KEEP GETTING POSSESSED?MAYBE WE SHOULD TRY WITH A JEWISH "EXORCIST"(****/*****):
Spoilers ahead!
THE EXORCIST was a movie that,even if you don't love it,you can see why it's called a classic.And it doesn't deserve to be followed by awful sequels. Luckily,I rate movies individually instead of calculating a consensus for a saga.So what is the problem with these movies?I'll discuss them in order,but the one thing they all have in common is bad editing(they don't all have it on the same level).
I knew I wasn't going to love it because I don't get scared so often.But it turns out I didn't love it because it's hard to take seriously.I mean,when REGAN used a cross as a dildo...and when she put her mom's head in her you know what and yelled "lick me!"...it's hard not to laugh.But it was scary.If you can look pass those things,plus Ellen Burstyn's performance which is almost over the top,you'll enjoy it.
I can't say a lot about the 2nd one because the plot is incomprehensible.
In the 3rd one I was able to follow the plot,but I didn't care,the characters constantly mention that 15 years have passed since the events of the 1st one,and therefor,the release of the 1st one.I know this was meant to create nostalgia but it just reminds us how dated the movie is.Is it even a movie?It was more of a really long epilogue,tying up loose ends that weren't even there in the first place.Yes,FATHER KARRAS deserved a proper funeral,but his sacrifice was one of the best things of the original movie.I don't think they cared about that.It may seem that him being alive doesn't change that he was willing to die to save REGAN(who's barely mentioned here),but now we find out he survived,felt a lot of pain after falling down those steps,spent years with amnesia and being possessed again,and forced into murdering people.When he freed himself from the GEMINI KILLER with no assistance I thought they were going to make them the hero he already is,but then he's shot to death(did you notice KINDERMAN didn't hesitate?).There are bad movies other people tell you they saw and laugh at it,and you agree even though you didn't actually laugh.This isn't the case.Everything that is meant to be scary is actually funny,just like George C. Scott's performance.Usually,when someone adapt they're own book into a movie is a bad sign.While William Peter Blatty's script doesn't suffer from having the wrong type of narrative,it's still a story you don't want to watch nor read.And his campy directing clearly shows he just doesn't belong in that chair.
The 4th one was just as boring and unwatchable but it scared once or twice(cheap scares,of course),making it the least bad of the sequels.By showing us why FATHER MERRIN was in the Middle East,it makes the pointless beginning of the 1st one have a purpose.
I take back what I said about the 3rd one,because if there's ever been a movie with a doubtful existence,it's the 5th one.I know that for director Paul Schrader it was an opportunity to tell the story from the 4th one with his vision,but for me(and I don't think I'm alone in this),it was a re-use of forgotten material and deleted footage from the 4th one.Do you know who else used any footage as long as it didn't get wasted?Ed Wood.While I didn't actually count the similarities and differences between both movies,it's clearly the same movie all over again.I admit the scene with FATHER MERRIN confronting the nazi was well-written and an improvement on the 4th one,but it wasn't enough,so overall is worse than it's predecessors.Those were rehashes,but this one was a re-cycler.
Clearly Scorsese's shots were meant to be an homage to the Golden Age.But why did he chose the worst shots from that era?Now,the directing wasn't bad,but the editing was.
The movie never holds a consistent tone.At times it's a slow horror movie,then a psychological thriller,then a slasher flick.
Robert DeNiro is very good.So is Nick Nolte(I'd never picture him as the calmed guy).Hard to say on Jessica Lange.But Juliette Lewis is so bad.
I agree with most critics that the funny jokes and the leads's chemistry are good.But I don't agree when they say it helped overcome the cliched plot.I haven't seen that many '80s action movies,but I've seen enough to know the quality of that decade.And the action sequences here are nothing to be amazed by.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google Boomarks
Google Buzz
MySpace
Newsvine
reddit
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Post Options
Quote 
Topic: Classic movies
