 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After previously listing some other highly praised films in this category, I fully expect a lot of rotten fruit thrown my way. So feel free to do the same here. I promise not to respond no matter how vitriolic one gets unless I'm specifically asked about something I wrote or some other question about the film. The only thing I ask is to please read the review first before making negative remarks. There are many positive comments included about the film. In either event if you do have a look, I hope you enjoy it:
http://thecinemacafe.com/the-cinema-treasure-hunter/2014/10/17/top-ten-fools-gold-the-over-rated-part-4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 24, 2014 - 9:48 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MikeP
(Member)
|
Eh, not a big deal. For me, Chinatown is brilliant, my second favorite movie and I love it, love it 
You do make a few good points, but to me they seem to be more nitpicking "why didn't he do this or that", but everyone sees things differently.
Me, I cannot stomach any of PT Anderson's movies. The guy is kissed and fawned over in some circles as the Second Coming, but to me he is a talented mimic and nothing more. I've pretty much hated and laughed at each of his movies I've been subjected to
So, we go our own ways. We like what we like. 'Nuff said !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. I found Chinatown pretty boring, even though I have written a high school exam about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numbers 1 - 4 are some interesting choices.
Have you listed numbers 5 - 10 yet? If so, I can't seem to find them.
I'm glad you found #1 - 4. I am writing these one at a time in alphabetical order. The others will be future posts, however, if you're curious as to which films are on the remainder of the list please see the first entry (Blade Runner) as I have just now put up their names.
Thanks to all who have taken the time to read this review. I sincerely appreciate all of your feedback positive and negative. Movies are my life passion since I was 12 and I'm an old guy now.
The more critical look at the films in this category is because many professional writers, critics, educators and other industry professionals feel they are the absolute best that cinema has to offer. I'm not saying the emperor has no clothes, just that he's not dressed as well as some seem to think. At thecinemacafe.com there are numerous articles (i.e. Top Ten World Cinema Treasures, Guilty Treasures, 60 [so far] Hidden Gems and some in depth articles about them). I mention this in case some get the wrong impression that I just enjoy tearing down popular films and that's it.
The Top Ten Fool's Gold list is here: http://thecinemacafe.com/the-cinema-treasure-hunter/2013/7/4/fools-gold-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 26, 2014 - 5:27 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
CinemaScope
(Member)
|
Yes I rather agree with that list, except Casablanca (such a witty script). The trouble I have with Gone With The Wind is the second half, the first half goes like a steam train, fantastic, & then after in intermission it's a different movie, slow & sluggish. I gave Blade Runner another go when it was on the telly a month ago, but I only lasted 20 minutes. I'd put forward, Don't Look Now '73. A couples child dies, they go over to a drab Venice, a lot of nothing happened...& then the bloke gets stabbed by a dwarf in a rad cape, the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 26, 2014 - 9:25 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
joan hue
(Member)
|
We all know that movies used to be filmed in black and white. Since my daughters were raised on color in movies, they have little tolerance for b&w movies, even amazing films like To Kill A Mockingbird. They are a product of their times.
In the 20's we had silent films and then talkies began in the early 30's. I think the style of acting in those days seems over the top today, but that style wasn't silly then. We didn't have "method" acting, crawling into a character, etc. until around Brando's time. More Is More seemed to be required of actors by directors and by film audiences. Bette Davis and Joan Crawford's older movies can seem so over the top or melodramatic by today's standards. When Gone With The Wind came out, it had to be true to the novel and acted according to its times. I'm not saying it isn't flawed, but in those days TVs', X Boxes, video games, computers, etc. didn't exist. Two second edit shots were not needed in order to keep the attention of audience members who only had radios to listen to in their homes and movies to see in a theater. Fast paced movies like the Bourne movies were never considered. Someday, Jurassic Park will look silly to audiences, but in its day, it was shocking and amazing with its CGI effects. It already looks a bit dated when compared to LOTR and Hobbit movies.
I agree that many of the movies on that list are not perfect. I am just saying consider the times or the year these movies were made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 27, 2014 - 7:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Thanks goodness my favorite movie isn't in your top 10 because then I would have had to pout, a long drawn out pout.
I was thinking the same thing. 
Re: GONE WITH THE WIND---
Yes, it does go on a bit, doesn't it? (90 minutes of storyline stretched over 200 minutes is just taking it to the limit for me.)
And I find absolutely nothing likeable about Scarlett O'Hara. When there's no one you can consider a sympathetic protagonist, it's hard to get emotionally involved in *any* movie, no matter how "epic" or well made.
I had the same reaction, I watched it again, unfortunately, about a year ago, and I was amazed at what an entirely self obsessed and detestable person O'Hara is, I could not find any redeeming attributes about her. There is nothing romantic whatsoever about her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 27, 2014 - 7:37 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
We all know that movies used to be filmed in black and white. Since my daughters were raised on color in movies, they have little tolerance for b&w movies, even amazing films like To Kill A Mockingbird. They are a product of their times.
In the 20's we had silent films and then talkies began in the early 30's. I think the style of acting in those days seems over the top today, but that style wasn't silly then. We didn't have "method" acting, crawling into a character, etc. until around Brando's time. More Is More seemed to be required of actors by directors and by film audiences. Bette Davis and Joan Crawford's older movies can seem so over the top or melodramatic by today's standards. When Gone With The Wind came out, it had to be true to the novel and acted according to its times. I'm not saying it isn't flawed, but in those days TVs', X Boxes, video games, computers, etc. didn't exist. Two second edit shots were not needed in order to keep the attention of audience members who only had radios to listen to in their homes and movies to see in a theater. Fast paced movies like the Bourne movies were never considered. Someday, Jurassic Park will look silly to audiences, but in its day, it was shocking and amazing with its CGI effects. It already looks a bit dated when compared to LOTR and Hobbit movies.
I agree that many of the movies on that list are not perfect. I am just saying consider the times or the year these movies were made.
I think that is a very valid point, Wizard of Oz is a good example. By today's standards of course the production is totally B class, the sets and effects are sub-par and not very good. But if you watch with innocent eyes the picture still works. It would be a shame if we toss out every old picture because they do not meet up to our very modern technical standards. There is a beating heart and story to a lot of old pictures that were made as well as possible at the time. As I have stated elsewhere, I think that the practical effects in early sci-fi work better that the modern CG stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 28, 2014 - 4:01 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
pp312
(Member)
|
I had the same reaction, I watched it again, unfortunately, about a year ago, and I was amazed at what an entirely self obsessed and detestable person O'Hara is, I could not find any redeeming attributes about her. There is nothing romantic whatsoever about her.
You had to watch it more than once to discover that? I dubbed it "Lucy Goes South" about halfway through my first and only viewing, in reference of course to the Lucille Ball character who is always scheming to get what she wants at everyone else's expense. Unfortunately with GWTW there are no laughs, or no intentional ones, thus removing any need to sit through this borefest at all, ever.
Now I wish someone would explain to me the fascination with Blade Runner. I've watched it twice and all I remember is perpetual darkness, incessant dirty rain, and Rutger Hauer bending back Harrison Ford's fingers, which caused my own fingers to be sore in sympathy for several days afterwards. I found this more an enervating than elevating experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
