Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Webbo

Classic films you don't rate.

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

 

The one and only film mentioned in the thread that I've never heard of.

 

 

 

 

 

Requiem_for_a_dream.jpg

 

You need to see, amazing film. Darren Aronofsky about drug abuse... horrendously depressing!

 

Also the source of this tune:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbS-Zhz31CA&hd=1

 

As heard on nearly every trailer circa 2000-2003

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending on what music awards you might refer to, for me the gravitas of accolade was lost a long time ago, when sponsors, and industry politics polluted them. You can find more independent awards, like in film, but again dependant on the background of those, can you on paper decide to listen to their recommendations.

 

Again point taken, but in general, the Oscars and Baftas are the biggest awards for film and nominations will have 2-3 properlly good films. The music equivillent would be the Grammys and the Brits and I can't remember the last time I saw nominations for either of those that didn't create a sudden desire to commit violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's it, I personally think they're (not my) style over substance. Really nice style, I mean Mallick's films look lovely, but I just can't enjoy them. ..

I loved the ending of Brazil... just the first 95% left me a bit meh.

I blame the fact that I genuinely dont have an artistic bone in my body. ..

 

I see! Makes perfect sense now. I don't like to blow my own trumpet (not with my back), but I'm not bad at drawing and painting, and for me, the visuals are the main thing in a film. Maybe these films are style over substance. Maybe style over substance is a slightly unfair phrase. Maybe style is not seperate from substance, but part of it.

 

I consider style just one element of film, along with story, characters, script, etc., with each more or less as important as the others. Maybe it's a shallow thing to say, but I think style can count for everything. I think you can turn even the lamest script into a watchable film, just by getting all the visuals (sets, costumes, graphics, cinematography, everything) right.

 

 

You need to see, amazing film. Darren Aronofsky about drug abuse... horrendously depressing!

 

Also the source of this tune:

 

As heard on nearly every trailer circa 2000-2003

 

 

I'd second this. Seen it twice. I forgot how bleak it was before the second time. Make sure you have some of your favourite comedy lined up to watch after, but it is a great film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Requiem_for_a_dream.jpg

 

You need to see, amazing film. Darren Aronofsky about drug abuse... horrendously depressing!

 

Also the source of this tune:

 

 

As heard on nearly every trailer circa 2000-2003

Clint Mansell used to be vocalist for Pop Will Eat Itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casablanca . For fvck sake don't play it again Sam. Utter 1940's tripe , with Bogart mumbling and trying to look mysterious . The stilted dialogue and the camp cameos of Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Lori and Claude Rains. Ingrid Bergman was the only thing worth shagging in the whole film.

 

 

Now Voyage with Betty Davis . Christ this one really was the pits . With her bulging eyes, p*ss poor script full of emotional incontinence and acting that would put a schools Christmas nativity to shame. And that Kim Carnes can fvck right off  too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For me a classic film is a a film held up as an example fo great story-telling, good acting and fine cinematography - a film other films should aspire to!

Just because things like LOTR are fairly recent, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered. That trilogy is another level to a lot of modern films.

 

I think some people like to be a bit hip and say modern stuff isn't very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because things like LOTR are fairly recent, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered. That trilogy is another level to a lot of modern films.

 

I think some people like to be a bit hip and say modern stuff isn't very good.

 

Peter Jackson, a man who doesn't understand that more is not always better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never really taken to Casablanca, I'm just not a romantic person.

 

Towering Inferno. Nah, bilge and tripe.

 

The Wizard of Oz. Yawn. (I do get the inherent message in it but it's really overrated).

 

On the other hand, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction both Tarantino films were excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Requiem for a Dream is one of those films that genuinely haunt you for a few days after seeing it. The way it's shot, the soundtrack, the obvious messed up interchanging storylines, it's not an easy watch at all. Utterly brilliant in it's own right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP

Some very liberal interpretations of the word 'classic' in here.

 

I didn't think 'City of God' was as good as it's made out, think Tarantino's recent stuff hasn't been upto standard of old as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...