Citizen Kane
-
Yesterday I asked for movie recommendation. (Here[^]). Most of the responses were in favour of Citizen Kane. I saw the movie. My opinion: Its BORRRRRIIIINGGGGG. Just an opinion.
C isn't that hard: void (*(*f[])())() defines f as an array of unspecified size, of pointers to functions that return pointers to functions that return void "Always program as if the person who will be maintaining your program is a violent psychopath that knows where you live." - Martin Golding
(btw. from that list I would have recommended Requiem.) You didn't get it :) Maybe you are just to young. Movies have accelerated immensely in the last twenty years, Even "action-packed thrillers" from the mid-eighties are quite sobering nowadays - and Citizen Kane is way older. Movies from that time had to show and explain a lot more things that are considered "given" today. Also, Citizen Kane is an "epic" movie, in the line of shakesperean historic dramas and Ben Hur. This stuff doesn't go down well with todays "viewing preferences" of short pause-when-you-like bites, catering to the viewer with the dullest imagination, least interest and shortest attention span.* Every major production today puts in a romantic story, most of the time in the center, and most even dead serious topics provide a comedic relief character cracking some jokes. That's what I find BOOOORRRRRRIIIING. I am not blaming oyu, just as I understand lots of our movie preferences are conditioned, and if you don't want to break your comfort zone, you might be missing something. You won't know, but my latest gripe is putting a teenage love story in the center of the new Krabat movie. It's just... WHY? WTF? BURN IN HELL! *) If you are "into" movies old and new you might have noticed that today a single frame and a single chord can set a quite complex mood, whereas old movies need much more time and explanation. Hollywood has trained us to a point where they can tell a story with very few material - and some movies in the mainstream are excellent at that, and lots of artsy-fartsy movies wouldn't work if they couldn't rely on that preconditioning of the viewer.
-
(btw. from that list I would have recommended Requiem.) You didn't get it :) Maybe you are just to young. Movies have accelerated immensely in the last twenty years, Even "action-packed thrillers" from the mid-eighties are quite sobering nowadays - and Citizen Kane is way older. Movies from that time had to show and explain a lot more things that are considered "given" today. Also, Citizen Kane is an "epic" movie, in the line of shakesperean historic dramas and Ben Hur. This stuff doesn't go down well with todays "viewing preferences" of short pause-when-you-like bites, catering to the viewer with the dullest imagination, least interest and shortest attention span.* Every major production today puts in a romantic story, most of the time in the center, and most even dead serious topics provide a comedic relief character cracking some jokes. That's what I find BOOOORRRRRRIIIING. I am not blaming oyu, just as I understand lots of our movie preferences are conditioned, and if you don't want to break your comfort zone, you might be missing something. You won't know, but my latest gripe is putting a teenage love story in the center of the new Krabat movie. It's just... WHY? WTF? BURN IN HELL! *) If you are "into" movies old and new you might have noticed that today a single frame and a single chord can set a quite complex mood, whereas old movies need much more time and explanation. Hollywood has trained us to a point where they can tell a story with very few material - and some movies in the mainstream are excellent at that, and lots of artsy-fartsy movies wouldn't work if they couldn't rely on that preconditioning of the viewer.
I think the biggest barrier to anyone younger than 40 watching any move made before 1980 is the pacing. Things just take far longer to unfold. It's not just time required for explanation, it's simply a completely different attitude towards time. Back then time was spent savoring things and allowing them to unfold in a linear manner. Today time is something to be filled with as much as possible. To watch those older movies you have to be far more patient than is required for almost any other modern form of entertainment. I've been watching a lot of classics from the 40's and 50's lately and I'm old enough to appreciate them but the pacing is incredibly different than modern movies. Some of the greatest movies in history from that era would bomb miserably today just from the slower pacing alone. Even into the late 60's this was the case, watched Bullit the other day from 1968, aside from the car chase (which is justifiably famous) in the middle, the pacing was unbelievably slow by today's standards and it was considered an action movie of it's time. By today's standards the car chase in Bullit would be the absolute slowest part of any modern action movie.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
I will be watching Cloverfield, the most criticized movie in that post, next. Lets see how that goes.
C isn't that hard: void (*(*f[])())() defines f as an array of unspecified size, of pointers to functions that return pointers to functions that return void "Always program as if the person who will be maintaining your program is a violent psychopath that knows where you live." - Martin Golding
Those handycam effects might cause you headacke...:~
-
I think the biggest barrier to anyone younger than 40 watching any move made before 1980 is the pacing. Things just take far longer to unfold. It's not just time required for explanation, it's simply a completely different attitude towards time. Back then time was spent savoring things and allowing them to unfold in a linear manner. Today time is something to be filled with as much as possible. To watch those older movies you have to be far more patient than is required for almost any other modern form of entertainment. I've been watching a lot of classics from the 40's and 50's lately and I'm old enough to appreciate them but the pacing is incredibly different than modern movies. Some of the greatest movies in history from that era would bomb miserably today just from the slower pacing alone. Even into the late 60's this was the case, watched Bullit the other day from 1968, aside from the car chase (which is justifiably famous) in the middle, the pacing was unbelievably slow by today's standards and it was considered an action movie of it's time. By today's standards the car chase in Bullit would be the absolute slowest part of any modern action movie.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
I think the biggest barrier to anyone younger than 40 watching any move made before 1980 is the pacing. Things just take far longer to unfold. It's not just time required for explanation, it's simply a completely different attitude towards time. Back then time was spent savoring things and allowing them to unfold in a linear manner. Today time is something to be filled with as much as possible. To watch those older movies you have to be far more patient than is required for almost any other modern form of entertainment. I've been watching a lot of classics from the 40's and 50's lately and I'm old enough to appreciate them but the pacing is incredibly different than modern movies. Some of the greatest movies in history from that era would bomb miserably today just from the slower pacing alone. Even into the late 60's this was the case, watched Bullit the other day from 1968, aside from the car chase (which is justifiably famous) in the middle, the pacing was unbelievably slow by today's standards and it was considered an action movie of it's time. By today's standards the car chase in Bullit would be the absolute slowest part of any modern action movie.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
John C wrote:
pacing
That's the word I was looking for :) But that's not all, you are right - it is not only the necessity for a slower unfolding, but also the attitude towards it: the pacing as a degree of freedom that defines scenes, or movies.
-
Old, not-so-old, and more recent movies in this list: M Usual Suspects Dial M For Murder The Sicilian Clan (although French, this movie has been shot in French, Italian and English) Psycho Strangers on a Train The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly Shallow Grave Lock Stok and Two Smoking Barrels Sexy Beast
-
I found that movie very interesting. The problem nowadays is that people do not want to think anymore, they just want flashing action on the screen. Go get yourself a superhero movie, you will probably enjoy it. Just an opinion.
-
Absolutely (not a movie title, just an expression of my agreemnent with you :cool:)
-
Its something that always happens. You a read and then watch a movie based on it. The odds are that you will not like it. It happened to me in Da Vinci Code. The book is far far better than the film.
C isn't that hard: void (*(*f[])())() defines f as an array of unspecified size, of pointers to functions that return pointers to functions that return void "Always program as if the person who will be maintaining your program is a violent psychopath that knows where you live." - Martin Golding
When given a choice, watch the movie first, then read the book to figure out what you just saw. Da Vinci Code is a good example of that rule. As it was, I had to watch the movie three times before I thought I understood it.
-
Most people find critically acclaimed films to be "good", but in the end, you have to make your own judgments. For instance, many people don't like Kevin Costner films, but I find them to be a generally decent experience. I even liked Waterworld, which is generally considered a very bad film, and "typical" of Costner's abilities as an actor/director. I watched The Dark Knight last night, and wasn't really that impressed with the movie overall. Sure, Keith Ledger did a great job as the Joker, but other than that, it was kind of - well - lacking.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Hey, somebody else that will publicly admit Waterworld wasn't half bad. :-\ I actually enjoyed it, unlike Bored to Tears, er Dance with Wolves. But then, I never really was into westerns... Flynn
-
Most people find critically acclaimed films to be "good", but in the end, you have to make your own judgments. For instance, many people don't like Kevin Costner films, but I find them to be a generally decent experience. I even liked Waterworld, which is generally considered a very bad film, and "typical" of Costner's abilities as an actor/director. I watched The Dark Knight last night, and wasn't really that impressed with the movie overall. Sure, Keith Ledger did a great job as the Joker, but other than that, it was kind of - well - lacking.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I'm not big on Costner myself (though I want to see Tin Cup again, I listen to the soundtrack occasionally), but Waterworld in particular seems odd... My first question is, "Why does he filter it? I thought it was OK to drink straight from the tap." (Not that I would, mind you.) But more importantly... It's Earth right? And only a very small amount of land is above the surface of the water? So that land must be the summit of Mount Everest? Where did all that water come from? How can they breathe at that altitude? I doubt global warming will make the summit of Mount Everest a tropical paradise.