Best of the Decade

[Mathor]

Taxi Driver wasn't a very high reviewed movie (except by Ebert, he always got it right historically), when it came out. Neither were any of Kubrick's films (Especially not A Clockwork Orange, which was banned from british cinema for about 15 years, and American audiences which outright rejected it) 2001, in the same light, had the most walk-outs of any film in history. They are directors that have aged and found success as people look back on their works. Nowadays I don't think you would find many people who have bad things to say about Stanley Kubrick (at least not heavily respected critics as was the case in the 70's. The 70's had the MOST terrible films of any genre. Hollywood crushed all of the good movies at that period of time. the 70's Hollywood mainstream was made up of spaghetti westerns and Pam Grier Foxy Lady-esque disco films. Only Quentin Tarantino can make these things wonderful, otherwise they are just pure trash.

[DanielBenoit]

Idk, you're probably right. At least directors during that period were given good financing and had a lot more freedom. Once the 80's came along, that was for the most part dropped for special effects films. Imagine, if made in the 70's, a film like The Hurt Locker would've gotten studio financing and might've been able to get the military technology that Transformers 2 got.

Either way, money isn't everything and despite the fact that studio back-up gave directors like Kubrick all the time they wanted, independent cinema has redefined how films are made.

[Mathor]

Indeed, which is why I disagree with the other half of critics who believe good cinema ended around 1979, and now we live in some world of filth we are trying to possibly live up to the greatness of these films.

Independent films are much richer (and more genuine) than big studio performances, I think cinema is only getting better.

[Captain_Kuchiki]

I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey at least twice here, and I agree that's its a goodie. For me...

2000's:

Paranormal Activity
I, Robot
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Star Wars Episode III
Equilibrium
Spider-Man 2
X-Men 3 The Last Stand
Beowulf
Death Note

1990's

Terminator 2
Titanic
The Crow
saving private ryan
The Fifth Element

1980's

Blade Runner
Terminator (again!)
The Thing (personal favorite)
Star Wars Episodes V and VI

1970's

Star Wars Episode IV
THX 1138

I don't watch a whole lot of movies, but there you go!

[Babbalanja]

The Brown Bunny is an extraordinary film in that it has two different point of views, one of which can be experienced only once. The first viewing is a first-person (though it seems third-person limited) narrative that, to me, rivals Scorses's Taxi Driver. The scenes seem "indulgent" at times, but the not knowing duplicates the protagonist's denial in the audience. That Brown Bunny can only be viewed once.

The second is a third-person narrative that makes those "indulgent" scenes haunting. Whether it's the race track, highway, or salt plains, those blank moments produce a melancholy.

Ebert said his opinion changed when he saw it a second time, because of the edit, but I wonder if it was because of the emotional context.

I think of the Sixth Sense and other M. Night films and the second viewing is only to confirm that the twist has been hinted at along the way, but Gallo uses context (intentionally or unintentionally) for emotional resonance in a very interesting way.

I agree that Vincent Gallo made an extraordinary movie with wit and originality. But that movie was Buffalo 66.

Brown Bunny, on the other hand, had none of the charm, humor, or pathos of his first movie. It was an interminable, overindulgent, nonsensical bore from an egomaniac who had run out of ideas. The most poignant moment is when we hear Jackson Frank singing "Milk and Honey." The second most poignant moment is when we hear Ted Curson's "Tears for Dolphy," like we did in Pasolini's Teorema.

Gallo plays the emotionally wounded protagonist Bud with a vacuous stare that seems more comical every time he flashes it. Of course it charms the ladies, all of whom seem to be named after flowers. Flowers, man. Flowers, you get it? Me neither.

You need to see Bud driving his van, driving, and more driving. Then you need to see him get out of his van and open the back. Then you need to see him putting the ramp onto the back of his van and getting into the van. Then you need to see him roll his motorbike out of the van. Then you need to see him getting onto the bike and riding out of sight. Then you need to see him riding back into view after a little while. Oh, and later, you need to see him washing his bike. This is all very very important.


****WARNING!! SPOILERS!!******

Daisy, the love of Bud's life, seems to be missing or something, because he visits her parents who don't seem to remember him. But if he's going to California to see her (and ride his bike, natch), why is he propositioning all these women along the way?

He goes to Daisy's house, but it's obvious she's gone. So he leaves a note for her.

Later she appears to him in a hotel room and smokes crack in the bathroom before giving him head. You need to see all of this in graphic detail. They talk a lot, about stuff.

But after (literally) all is said and done, we realize that Daisy is long dead and Bud saw her body being taken away in an ambulance. But if she's dead, who just came into the hotel room and serviced him? And if he knows she's dead, what's the point of going to her house looking for her and leaving a note?

Oh, I know, I should just go back to watching the Transformer movies and whatever George Clooney is in, right? Not so fast. I'm a huge fan of Bela Tarr and offbeat cinema in general. I love to see movies from directors who know how to use empty narrative space to convey melancholy. And I can tell the difference between their fascinating movies and pretentious, laughable drivel like Brown Bunny.

Regards,

Istvan

[JuniperWoolf]

Best of the decade, hmm... okay:

1930's:
1. Snow White
2. Wizard of Oz
...and not much else going on in that decade.

1940's:
1. Citizen Kane (duh)
2. Fantasia
3. The Maltese Falcon
4. Bambi (yeah, I like Disney movies)
... that's all I got.

1950's:
1. Rebel Without a Cause
2. Rear Window
3. Paths of Glory
4. A Christmas Carol
5. Cinderella

1960's:
1. Cool Hand Luke
2. Rosemary's Baby
3. Lolita
4. Psycho
5. Spartacus

1970's:
1. Apocalypse Now!
2. Invasion of the Body Snatchers
3. Taxi Driver
4. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
5. A Clockwork Orange

1980's:
1. Re-Animator
2. The Breakfast Club
3. Monty Python's The Meaning of Life
4. The Princess Bride
5. Eraserhead

1990's:
1. Pi
2. Dances With Wolves
3. Boogie Nights
4. Fight Club
5. Boyz n' da Hood

2000's:
1. There Will Be Blood
2. Inglorious Bastards
3. Gangs of New York
4. The Fountain
5. American Psycho

[Veho]

1980s:
When Harry Met Sally.

That's all... Okay, okay, so I'm not some sort of film buff like you all seem to be!

[DanielBenoit]

I agree that Vincent Gallo made an extraordinary movie with wit and originality. But that movie was Buffalo 66.

Brown Bunny, on the other hand, had none of the charm, humor, or pathos of his first movie. It was an interminable, overindulgent, nonsensical bore from an egomaniac who had run out of ideas. The most poignant moment is when we hear Jackson Frank singing "Milk and Honey." The second most poignant moment is when we hear Ted Curson's "Tears for Dolphy," like we did in Pasolini's Teorema.

Gallo plays the emotionally wounded protagonist Bud with a vacuous stare that seems more comical every time he flashes it. Of course it charms the ladies, all of whom seem to be named after flowers. Flowers, man. Flowers, you get it? Me neither.

You need to see Bud driving his van, driving, and more driving. Then you need to see him get out of his van and open the back. Then you need to see him putting the ramp onto the back of his van and getting into the van. Then you need to see him roll his motorbike out of the van. Then you need to see him getting onto the bike and riding out of sight. Then you need to see him riding back into view after a little while. Oh, and later, you need to see him washing his bike. This is all very very important.

I think you terribly misunderstand the film, for which I can't entirely blame you for virtually 99% of American audiences will misunderstand it. Yes the film is tedious and it does have long dragging parts in which almost nothing seems to happen. But to quote the great Bela Tarr "I despise stories, as they mislead people into believing that something has happened. In fact, nothing really happens as we flee from one condition to another ... All that remains is time. This is probably the only thing that's still genuine -- time itself; the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds." What Gallo has done is something in the tradition of Tarr and Tarkovsky in that they use time, not plot, to lure the audience into an enviroment, not a story, but an enviroment. Through this emotion and ideas come about, not as clearly as linear films would, but certainly more stronger.

In the end extreme long takes are an aquired taste and become more likable the more movies one sees. There is one shot in Bela Tarrs Satantango which lasts for about seven minutes of just the camera slowly zooming in on an owl in the darkness as we hear the echoing voices of people offscreen. Most audiences would have fallen asleep, but I was utterly enthralled the whole five hours of the long movie.

[Babbalanja]

What Gallo has done is something in the tradition of Tarr and Tarkovsky in that they use time, not plot, to lure the audience into an enviroment, not a story, but an enviroment. Through this emotion and ideas come about, not as clearly as linear films would, but certainly more stronger.

And in my opinion, he's just pushing buttons: Death and Loss and Need and Drama. He doesn't actually say anything about these matters, like those better directors do. He's just appropriating a technique of theirs, and using it to completely different ends. Please at least admit that it's possible a director could use the long-take technique and not make a work of genius.

In the end extreme long takes are an aquired taste and become more likable the more movies one sees. There is one shot in Bela Tarrs Satantango which lasts for about seven minutes of just the camera slowly zooming in on an owl in the darkness as we hear the echoing voices of people offscreen. Most audiences would have fallen asleep, but I was utterly enthralled the whole five hours of the long movie.

You might recall I said I liked Tarr, so it's not a matter of my unfamiliarity with extremely long takes or slow-paced storytelling. I haven't seen Satantango yet (my wife is Hungarian, even, but she won't watch it), but I loved Werckmeister Harmonies and Damnation. Since you mentioned Tarkovsky, I'll express my admiration for Andrei Rublev and Mirror.

I'm not sure whether Gallo is a fan of these directors or not, but he doesn't have their abilities. It's very telling that his Beckett-like genius showed through in certain brief vignettes in Buffalo 66: the tap-dance in the bowling alley, the argument in the photo-booth, and many other strikingly original touches. He's best in those cinematic miniatures, and is really out of his depth with expansive cinematic composition. Brown Bunny was just narcissism, substituting interminable shots of Bud for really saying anything about the character.

Regards,

Istvan

[DanielBenoit]

And in my opinion, he's just pushing buttons: Death and Loss and Need and Drama. He doesn't actually say anything about these matters, like those better directors do. He's just appropriating a technique of theirs, and using it to completely different ends. Please at least admit that it's possible a director could use the long-take technique and not make a work of genius.

But maybe he's not trying to say anything about these things, but rather instead trying to create an enviroment for the viewer to experience these things.

Besides, I'm not saying it's a masterpiece. It's a very ambitious piece of work and definitley deserves a reccomendation, but doesn't in my opinion stand to Tarr or Tarkovsky.

So in the end, yes, I do think it is possible for a film with a wealth of long takes can fail to be great or even good. How is admiring some of them somehow announcing that I admire all of them. Believe me, I certainly like the technique and find that it has quite a special effect in films unlike any other. But how do you conclude that I'm saying through merely using it implies that you have just made a great film?

You might recall I said I liked Tarr, so it's not a matter of my unfamiliarity with extremely long takes or slow-paced storytelling. I haven't seen Satantango yet (my wife is Hungarian, even, but she won't watch it), but I loved Werckmeister Harmonies and Damnation. Since you mentioned Tarkovsky, I'll express my admiration for Andrei Rublev and Mirror.

Ahh, then do forgive my assuming. These films are so often neglected by American audiences, that it's become a habit in assuming no one has seen them

I'm not sure whether Gallo is a fan of these directors or not, but he doesn't have their abilities. It's very telling that his Beckett-like genius showed through in certain brief vignettes in Buffalo 66: the tap-dance in the bowling alley, the argument in the photo-booth, and many other strikingly original touches. He's best in those cinematic miniatures, and is really out of his depth with expansive cinematic composition. Brown Bunny was just narcissism, substituting interminable shots of Bud for really saying anything about the character.

Regards,

Istvan

And there we go, I agree with you that Gallo does not have the ability of Tarr, and Buffalo 66 is a superoir film. But in the end we all have our opinions, and we can agree to disagree

[NickAdams]

I agree that Vincent Gallo made an extraordinary movie with wit and originality. But that movie was Buffalo 66.

Brown Bunny, on the other hand, had none of the charm, humor, or pathos of his first movie.

That's because it's the Brown Bunny. Would you criticize Schindler's List for not having the humor and lightheartedness of E.T.?

It was an interminable, overindulgent, nonsensical bore from an egomaniac who had run out of ideas.

When a director cast himself in the lead, he will always be accused of indulgence, but I don't see how you found it nonsensical. I can see how you might have found it boring, but there isn't a dull moment in that film for me.

The most poignant moment is when we hear Jackson Frank singing "Milk and Honey." The second most poignant moment is when we hear Ted Curson's "Tears for Dolphy," like we did in Pasolini's Teorema.

I found far more poignant moments.

Gallo plays the emotionally wounded protagonist Bud with a vacuous stare that seems more comical every time he flashes it.

See, you found humor.

Of course it charms the ladies, all of whom seem to be named after flowers. Flowers, man. Flowers, you get it? Me neither.

Of course the women are charmed: they're not real. The reference to flowers is what attracts him to all of them. I would agree that it is heavy handed and a little to coincidental, but they're not real and he passes two prostitutes before he stops for Rose. Bud goes through the fives stages of death, but not in the standard order:

1. Violet: Bargaining (He begs Violet to go with him)
2. Mrs. Lemon: Denial (They speak of Daisy as if she was still alive. Mrs. Lemon says Daisy had the Brown Bunny for a very long time, but Bud later discovers in a pet shop that they have a short life expectancy *foreshadowing*)
3. Lilly: Depression (Lilly is noticeably upset and Bud asks if she's ok)
4. Rose: Anger (He demands that she leaves his car)
5. Daisy: Acceptance (He remembers what happened)

You need to see Bud driving his van, driving, and more driving. Then you need to see him get out of his van and open the back. Then you need to see him putting the ramp onto the back of his van and getting into the van. Then you need to see him roll his motorbike out of the van. Then you need to see him getting onto the bike and riding out of sight. Then you need to see him riding back into view after a little while. Oh, and later, you need to see him washing his bike. This is all very very important.

The driving is very important. Remember that he ran off when he saw Daisy at the party (she ask him why at the climax and he doesn't know) and he abandons each of the three representatives of Daisy while he drives to California. If you remember, the final scene is Bud driving, after leaving the hotel room, and it the film closes by creating a still frame: he stops running. He has found acceptance.

I can't say that everything is symbolic, but Bud drives the black van that can be seen as a hurst and Daisy the motorcycle. The scene where Bud drives on the salt plains has been considered pointless, but it's significant. Bud pulls the, what seems like a yellow motorcycle, out of the van and pulls up parallel to it. He then looks at the van as if it's a race. He then rides the "yellow" motorcycle into the center of the white salt plans (it's a daisy), but he can't get away until he has closure.

He goes to Daisy's house, but it's obvious she's gone. So he leaves a note for her.

Later she appears to him in a hotel room and smokes crack in the bathroom before giving him head. You need to see all of this in graphic detail. They talk a lot, about stuff.

But after (literally) all is said and done, we realize that Daisy is long dead and Bud saw her body being taken away in an ambulance. But if she's dead, who just came into the hotel room and serviced him? And if he knows she's dead, what's the point of going to her house looking for her and leaving a note?

It's not obvious to him, because he's in denial. He doesn't remember it; call it post-traumatic.

I found their talking to be the best part of the film. The back and forth of the discovery and Bud's childlike whine is pitch perfect.

My only complaint with the film is that the point of view is disturbed when we see Daisy smoke crack in the bathroom.

I'll be the first to admit that I could be making connections that aren't intended, but this is definitely one of my favorites.

Can Gallo's film be accurately judge against Tarr and Tarkovsky?
I don't think so. Gallo pulled more weight than either of those guys for the Brown Bunny. It's the difference between Survivor Man and Man Vs. Wild. If there was ever a film "by" someone it's The Brown Bunny. This is also Gallo's second feature and the the Tarr we are familiar with is much different than the Tarr pre-Damnation.

[Janine]

Every era produces terrible mush, and every era produces masterpieces, the 80's is not worse than any other genre. The 80's was a wonderful decade of cinema. You are not looking in the right places. If you look at hollywood films from any decade you'll find stuff that sucks, and stuff that is amazing.

Yeah, finally a list that includes ones I liked a emensely, too. "Out of Africa" was one of my alltime favorites; I finally had to buy it..the scenery is spectacular and the music is gorgeous; the acting is superb and the story is based on truth...all elements I truly enjoy in film. I can think of a lot more films to add to this list in the same vane. I will have to make my own list soon; no time left tonight. Seems this thread is already dominated by the guys and guy movies; been that way lately I noticed. Let's get a little balance here with the female element.
I liked and saw all of these you listed, Mathor:

Tootsie
A Christmas Story
Crimes And Misdemeanors
Ran
Back To The Future
My Dinner With Andre
Out of Africa
Blue Velvet
Raiders of The Lost Ark
Amadeus
Platoon
The Elephant Man
On Golden Pond
Gandhi
Driving Mrs Daisy
Dead Poets Society

those are all pretty wonderful Hollywood films, but one could do go further into the 80's and find many lesser known treasures that I didn't list.

Mathor, definitely true - there are a lot more. I just have to put my thinking cap on and come up with my own list. If I go by directors, I am sure I can come up with tons of films I consider classics.

I would even venture to say that most of the "crappy" teen comedies from the 80's like:

Ferris Buelers Day Off
Say Anything
The Breakfast Club

are also pretty decent, though I can see why they wouldn't be the BEST movies of any period of time. But if you put all of these crappy 80's movies against the thousands of new movies like that that come out in the 90's and the 2000's (American Pie, Saw, etc) you would find that those two decades have a lot more crap like that, and a smaller majority of it has any redeeming quality to it. American mainstream has always sucked.

I like those movies a lot, even if they are "crappy" teen movies. Back in my son's adolescent years he and I would watch those film and really laugh...I recall Molly Greenwald was quite good....she was great in "16 Candles" and "Pretty in Pink" and "The Breakfast Club"...they don't make anything like those films anymore. I got a real kick out of them and still do. My son's favorite was "Say Anything" and the dinner scene when Cussack went on about not ever wanting to produce anything, make anything, invent anything, etc. We thought it was a witty film with a lot of heart.

I don't notice many British films on anyone's list. I will have to think of some good films from each decade.

Silence...I didn't kill this thread, did I?....I can hear you serious movie posters cringing at some of the teen movies I listed.

Here are some great films I thought of last night:

Lawrence of Arabia
The Bridge Over the River Kwai
Ryan's Daughter
Passage to India
The Best Years of Our Lives
The Quiet Man

I will think of more later on...have to go out now for the day...

[NickAdams]

Silence...I didn't kill this thread, did I?....I can hear you serious movie posters cringing at some of the teen movies I listed.

Here are some great films I thought of last night:

Lawrence of Arabia
The Bridge Over the River Kwai
Ryan's Daughter
Passage to India
The Best Years of Our Lives
The Quiet Man

I will think of more later on...have to go out now for the day...

Lol, no cringing from me. A lot of the films that I enjoy can be considered serious, but I enjoy them the same way I enjoyed movies like The Goonies as a child. My favorite movies tend to be the ones that fill me with wonder, so my choices come from personal resonance, rather than technical mastery and that's why I would never list Citizen Kane as a top; I just don't connect with it, so to each their own.

I find it more interesting when people list their favorite of a particular genre, like the Teen-flick; Captain_Kuchiki's list is heavy on Sci-Fi and it makes me want to dust off my THX 1138 dvd and finally watch it.

Concerning British films: I was thinking of replacing Pulp Fiction with Marc Singer's Dark Days for my best of the 90's.

[DanielBenoit]

My favorite movies tend to be the ones that fill me with wonder, so my choices come from personal resonance, rather than technical mastery and that's why I would never list Citizen Kane as a top; I just don't connect with it, so to each their own.

*cringe*

I find it more interesting when people list their favorite of a particular genre, like the Teen-flick; Captain_Kuchiki's list is heavy on Sci-Fi and it makes me want to dust off my THX 1138 dvd and finally watch it.

I have a favorite genre, it's called Keaton and Chaplin

My favorites are:
1. The General
2. City Lights
3. Sherlock Jr.
4. Steamboat Billie Jr.
5. The Kid

I'll be the first to admit that I could be making connections that aren't intended, but this is definitely one of my favorites.

Wow, this post has just convinced me to rewatch this movie after about two years.

[NickAdams]

*cringe*



I have a favorite genre, it's called Keaton and Chaplin

My favorites are:
1. The General
2. City Lights
3. Sherlock Jr.
4. Steamboat Billie Jr.
5. The Kid

Personal resonance might not have been the best choice, because my favorites have nothing to do with my life. To me Michael Bay is technical and Tarr is personal, so it's more connotation than what the word denotes. My interest is mostly narrative and the medium of cinema.

I prefer The Playhouse to The General. The General is technically superior, but The Playhouse always makes me laugh.

Wow, this post has just convinced me to rewatch this movie after about two years.

Be sure to tell me if I'm making something out of nothing. I think a lot of viewers saw it as realism and I think it was expressionism masquerading as realism.