[mwallace573]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif blessingx: very good point.....I was somewhat baffled that most answers on the latest "favorite 5 movies of all time" are movie titles made in the last 15 or so years

And what's wrong with that. Just because the movie wasn't made 20+ years ago doesn't mean it isn't capable of telling a good story. Much like the music industry good movies are still being made, they are just getting harder to find.

 

[nickknutson]

I love going to the local movie house. I grew up with my Mom managing our local theater. Needless to say, I saw damn every movie from 1992-1998...the good and the bad ones. By the time I was 14, I got the okay from the owner to come in after school and run movies for me, and me alone. Once in awhile I'd bring a friend with, but usually the theater we all mine! And no, I didn't bring any women with me, I wasn't good with the ladies back then

 

[Kirosia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula /img/forum/go_quote.gif Am I missing something? Aside from convenience, how are your home systems better than a movie theater? What makes the picture quality higher? Are you just as moved by your home system?

The local theaters in my area have screens that are on par with 1st gen LCDs. Low resolution, dark and hard to see, washed out colors, etc. My old TV set looks leagues better. What's the point in watching a movie if you can barely see what's going on?

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwallace573 /img/forum/go_quote.gif And what's wrong with that. Just because the movie wasn't made 20+ years ago doesn't mean it isn't capable of telling a good story. Much like the music industry good movies are still being made, they are just getting harder to find.

True....while, to sound like a snob, Hollywood is not making as many good movies these days....there is a much larger selection of Indie and foreign movies around now.

my main point is that it looks like some people have not had much exposure to moives outside of the mainstream, current movies....here is an example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt_Carter /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. Way Of The Gun (Best action) 2. The Cell (Best thriller) 3. 300 (Best fantasy) 4. Snatch (Best comedy) 5. Hostel (The only good horror film ever made)

apologies for singling you out Matt_Carter...since yours was the first post, I thought it very apropos

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwallace573 /img/forum/go_quote.gif And what's wrong with that. Just because the movie wasn't made 20+ years ago doesn't mean it isn't capable of telling a good story. Much like the music industry good movies are still being made, they are just getting harder to find.

There's something very obviously wrong with that. No one said a great film couldn't be in the last 20 years, but that it was weird that the majority listed were. It's about exposure. Why not say most great films were released in the last two years? Last six weeks? Although they have a longer history, do you believe nearly all the great music and literature was made since the 1990?

Hell, AFI just came up with a new greatest 100 American films list. Industry people, likely younger, chose to add Titantic and The Sixth Sense and axe films like the BFI's #1 and what Rogert Ebert called "Of all the movies I have seen, this one most completely embodies the romance of going to the movies" (hey, back on topic), The Third Man, along with Dr. Zhivago, Patton, etc.

 

[vcoheda]

except for the annoying guy on the cell phone, nothing beats the big screen for a movie experience.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif If we're turning into theater/home theater snobs, let me be a movie snob for a second. I make sarcastic comments once in a while, but let me be direct - the film tastes around Head-Fi on the whole suck. Hey that's just what it is. Your equipment tastes are great. Your music tastes in comparison are wonderful. You're probably nice people. But the films populating the best of lists (there have been lots) are awful. No one here asks about assembling the best headphone setup for listing to only Britney and Fergie. Somewhere along the line we've mixed up quality with specials effects and testosterone pumping fight scenes. So you need the best setup to see how accurately battle scenes are rendered in 300 or Mel Gibsons scream is reproduced in Braveheart? You keep gobbling up George Lucus table scrap after table scrap (through releases and audio or visual improvements) trying to get the last 10% of something in the end that's not very good to begin with. And their cinematic history is the equivalent of believing all music started at U2 or REM (or even Radiohead). Seriously the film dialog around here is so inferior to the music discussed one forum over. People would never get away with saying some of the stuff they do about films if about music.

Great comment, Blessingx. I agree with you, but it's also true that a lot of the old "classics" are overrated, which discourages people from really getting into old movies. Just to pick on Kubrick, "2001" is only a fantastic movie after you've seen it once. Sitting through it the first time is an absolute chore, because the narrative is not well-constructed (it leans far too heavily to the last 1/4th of the movie, with nothing but art prior). Then you watch it a second time and can really get into it. But I don't think it's worth the critical acclaim as a movie. As a piece of art, it's exceptional -- it just fails to be a movie. It's like James Joyce's novels. They're all terrible, but no one is willing to admit they think they're terrible, because the critics have annointed him and people are afraid of being perceived as stupid or philistines. Same thing with "A Clockwork Orange." There the narrative is weighted far too heavily towards the beginning and end, with a huge swath in the middle that's so slow and plodding you want to turn it off. It's an average film that the critics have anointed.

(And don't get me started on Japanese art films made prior to 1995... all trash, pretty much

That's meant as a joke, but most of them really are terrible, because of a specific set of visual and storytelling conventions they adopted and internalized. The only movie I've ever walked out on in the theatre was a festival showing of "Nemuru otoko.")

There has also been a significant improvement in cinematography with the dramatic improvement of film chemistry in the early 1980s. The kind of film work done in Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" is now commonplace, which is a real treat for people who love the visual aspect of moviemaking.

That said, there's virtually nothing good coming out of Hollywood, but the last 25 years have been exceptional for international art films.

 

[mwallace573]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's something very obviously wrong with that. No one said a great film couldn't be in the last 20 years, but that it was weird that the majority listed were. It's about exposure. Why not say most great films were released in the last two years? Last six weeks? Although they have a longer history, do you believe nearly all the great music and literature was made since the 1990?

I was simply stating that it seems there is a good amount of people around here who think that most all movies that have come out in the last 20 years are complete garbage, and they're right for the most part. I'm just saying that there are some movies that have come out in recent years that deserve to hang up there with the big boys (and Titanic and The Sixth Sense are not two of those). Every decade has it's great movies, and the 90's and 00's are no exception.

 

[Elec]

I find it funny a lot of people are bagging on image and sound at the theater. That's pretty much the ONLY reason I go to the theater, aside from "must see this new movie ASAP". I don't go for the rude and annoying people, sticky floors, expensive food and drinks, and broken seats. I go so I can watch something on a bigass screen with a powerful (and hopefully correctly set up) surround system.

BUT considering it's almost 10 bucks just to get in now and god knows how much more for food, most of the time I'd just as soon buy the DVD for $15 or wait till it's on HBO in HD and watch it on my own bigscreen and surround setup. I suspect this trend will become even more popular as things shake out with the HD disc formats and large, high quality televisions become cheaper and easier for more people to buy.

There's just not any great incentive to go to the theater and pay ridiculous prices unless you HAVE to see a new movie right away or somehow enjoy the "communal viewing experience".

 

[virometal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif I make sarcastic comments once in a while, but let me be direct - the film tastes around Head-Fi on the whole suck.

x, I greatly admire your taste in movies and bow to your knowledge without hesitation, but calling out an entire off topic forum? We can't all be experts in everything. Movies are a populist medium. A topic that transcends every forum I visit. What do you expect here - dissertations on Brazil? If so, I worry about your sanity.

What is a good movie anyway? I thought Kill Bill was great. You hated it. "Who's right?" Am I that big of an ignoramus?

Like all art, one can approach movie making many different ways. Like you, I snicker at some selections. Then I realize you or others are probably snickering at mine. So it's all good in my book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavdRose True....while, to sound like a snob, Hollywood is not making as many good movies these days....there is a much larger selection of Indie and foreign movies around now.

I tend to agree with that; not calling anyone out though. However, I've seen many good (according to me) recent movies from Hollywood owned studios like Focus Features and Sony Picture Classics.

I would hate to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm no film historian, but I do know that not every studio film released in 1942 was Casablanca.

 

[Purgatos]

I go to the cinemas 4 or 5 times a year, but only when I'm really excited about something and want to see it immediately.

I know some people who go to the cinema and then decide what to watch when they get there. I just don't understand that.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Great comment, Blessingx. I agree with you, but it's also true that a lot of the old "classics" are overrated, which discourages people from really getting into old movies. Just to pick on Kubrick, "2001" is only a fantastic movie after you've seen it once. Sitting through it the first time is an absolute chore, because the narrative is not well-constructed (it leans far too heavily to the last 1/4th of the movie, with nothing but art prior). Then you watch it a second time and can really get into it. But I don't think it's worth the critical acclaim as a movie. As a piece of art, it's exceptional -- it just fails to be a movie. It's like James Joyce's novels. They're all terrible, but no one is willing to admit they think they're terrible, because the critics have annointed him and people are afraid of being perceived as stupid or philistines.

Wodgy, thanks for the comments, but any critical establishment can be intimidating to individuals and difficult to disagree with, but how is that different for film? And since we disagree so strongly on 2001, I want to take a quick moment to address your comments. 2001 is a great film in mine and many others book, precisely because it's Visual Art. I'm doing some assuming on how you're using the term "art", but although the film is a narrative (mans progress), I feel you're criticizing it for something it's obvious not - a traditional literary narrative. I never once think it sacrifices for visuals or that "the book was likely better", because it's an unabashed MOVIE! Film is drowning under the weight if being visual short story/novels, and I can't imagine a society collectively expecting the same out of opera or sculpture. Film strengths over all other medium/media lay outside what even some famous critics approach it as, and films that break this mold should be celebrated (and why films based on poetry can be so successful) as much as films that choose the mold of "books for the eyes" (with all the expectation of traditional literary storytelling). And in case there's any doubt from what I wrote, I'm not talking moving pretty pictures any more than I think great poetry can only be rhyming prose.

To be honest, people complain we need to stop making more movies about superheros, but I wish we'd stop adapting literary sources and see what film is really capable of. Interestingly, some of my favorite movies (2001, The Third Man) had novels written specifically to be filmed. The book was subservient to the film and it made a better movie.
Quote:

Originally Posted by virometal /img/forum/go_quote.gif x, I greatly admire your taste in movies and bow to your knowledge without hesitation, but calling out an entire off topic forum? We can't all be experts in everything. Movies are a populist medium. A topic that transcends every forum I visit. What do you expect here - dissertations on Brazil? If so, I worry about your sanity.

Perhaps you should and this is coming after my above comment, but am I really talking of this subject outside the scope of how we address it on Head-Fi? We (and certainly I) talk about films a great deal. There's a relationship to film and music and it shows here. There are a lot of threads. When people ask about phones, many ask about genres, and we start prioritizing traits we apply to those genres. Need bass or detail or soundstage and we point to equipment. We say connecting a R10 to an iPod is a waste. Do we recommend an Orpheus to play the Kelly Clarkson even if it's really well produced and mixed? How many times does "it's all about the music" get repeated? We do this all the time.

So here we have a thread discussing worth of going to a theater. Home theater is understandably immediately brought up (both off this sites direct subject). I know it was a little off topic (and I tried to joke with that, but really only one more step!

), and the technical qualities of the films discussed may make them most necessary for a high quality setup. But is it so wrong to say, as a group, while seeking out better audio, video and projection setups (that are in most cases already better than most of the history of the film going public ever received), the priorities are insanely backwards? Would you get freaked out if after mining the headphone, amp and source forums you drifted over to music and came across lots of positive GWAR discussions? Should there be relationship between interest in the art of the medium and the playback equipment? Would you want to be straight with someone investing $20K in a headphone setup to listen to The Monkeys? Hey, there's the band called The Beatles...

With great systems come great responsibilities.

 

[fatcat28037]

I'm not a big movie goer, largely because there just aren't that many movies I consider "must sees". However when I do go it's usually in the afternoon, parking is easier, prices are less and ther are fewer people. It makes for a more pleasant experience. My biggest complaint is the sound, not the quality but the volume. Frequently it's WAY too loud which detracts from the experience.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by virometal /img/forum/go_quote.gif x I tend to agree with that; not calling anyone out though. However, I've seen many good (according to me) recent movies from Hollywood owned studios like Focus Features and Sony Picture Classics. I would hate to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm no film historian, but I do know that not every studio film released in 1942 was Casablanca.

Oh there still are some wonderful movies being made....and maybe the best thing right now is that there is way more variety of new movies now (from independent, foreign, and new directors). I found a new respect for Steven Spielberg when he decided to take on Kubrick's A.I. Being Kubrick fan, I really enjoyed the movie....even though it was billed as being a Spielberg action movie, so that many movie goers actually booed it when it was in theaters.

And there are plenty of older movies out that aren't very good. It sometimes is funny just to watch those old serial movies from the 40s to see how formulaic they were. You then get a deep appreciation of the genius of some of the directors who came out of that school: Hitchc0ck being the prime example. Maybe we'll be the same way with current action movies. I just feel somewhat jaded when you have some blockbusters that have no plot, and try to make do with really bad special effects. Superman Returns and the Matrix sequels are an example (one of the reasons why I felt a big let down with the second Matrix was how bad the special effects got...when I loved the first Matrix).

I like Kill Bill too....it and Pulp Fiction are the main Tarantino movies that I like. Master and Commander is an awesome naval movie. Even 300 had some merit for being a visual action oriented movie: it wasn't pretentious and I could see some nice artistic cinema in it. But how many Superman Returns (same tired old plots with AWFUL special effects) and Ghost Riders is Hollywood going to come out with next year

I don't want to pay $10 for that drivel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Great comment, Blessingx. I agree with you, but it's also true that a lot of the old "classics" are overrated, which discourages people from really getting into old movies. Just to pick on Kubrick, "2001" is only a fantastic movie after you've seen it once. Sitting through it the first time is an absolute chore, because the narrative is not well-constructed (it leans far too heavily to the last 1/4th of the movie, with nothing but art prior). Then you watch it a second time and can really get into it. But I don't think it's worth the critical acclaim as a movie. As a piece of art, it's exceptional -- it just fails to be a movie. It's like James Joyce's novels. They're all terrible, but no one is willing to admit they think they're terrible, because the critics have annointed him and people are afraid of being perceived as stupid or philistines. Same thing with "A Clockwork Orange." There the narrative is weighted far too heavily towards the beginning and end, with a huge swath in the middle that's so slow and plodding you want to turn it off. It's an average film that the critics have anointed.

I gotta mirror blessingx over this comment. What makes Kubrick an outstanding movie maker is that he was treating the medium of film as its own literary device. People don't always need to be force fed a narrative plot. I first saw 2001 when I was in middle school....I didn't know all the profound levels it was trying to convey, but it still really held my interest. Pretty impressive when you think about how much of the movie is just slow moving, but photographically gorgeous space travel shots there are. It's still one of the few "operatic" movies that combines music and visuals. Even if you don't know that in the ending Dave Bowman is actually transversing time and space to get into an inter dimensional state, you do feel a sense of mystery over just what these god like symbols are (ie monoliths). It has a lot of fun with the possibilities of space too....it's like one of the few space movies that have brought up a zero G toilet! If you wanted the whole narrative, you can read Arthur C Clark's book....this is one of the instances where the movie does not take a subversive role to the original book. Watch 2010 and read the book, and you get a much deeper appreciation of the book.

The Shining is another great example of his. Here he took Steven King's book, and decided to not have a literal translation. King hated how Kubrick did not try to keep everything to his vision....so he supported and produced that made for TV version that is oh so how unmemorable. While King has quite a following for his books....the movies that he's tried to produce have all been dull and just not good use of screen time. Part of it is that he might have a literary mindset: which as in the case of this example, does not translate well to film.

There are a few Kubrick movies that are not my cup of tea, but I still think that he is one of the greats for cinematic movies.

 

[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do dislike the overpriced cost of admission/food, though.

You said it. I went to the AMC today and after buying a large bag of popcorn and a large soda for $10, I was able to buy a hot dog for only $1 extra. Another deal had one hotdog and one large soda for $8. So I guess that large soda is valued at $7. I'm buying stock in KO on Monday.