What is the best movie you've NEVER seen?

Status
Not open for further replies.

fade

Staff member
The pacing is generally terrible in older movies--even the good ones.
Please expand on this.[/QUOTE]

Okay. In many older movies, there are long expanses occupied by characters walking, sitting, or doing mundane things like folding shirts, that in short do nothing to characterize or advance the plot. It's not uncommon to actually see a character travel from point A to point B rather than merely having it implied.

This is opinion of course. Some people prefer those elements.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Do you have any specific examples from good or great movies? Because I can't think of any specifically that would match that description. I get the idea you're talking about, though, and it's something that still happens in many, many movies today.
 
Do you have any specific examples from good or great movies? Because I can't think of any specifically that would match that description. I get the idea you're talking about, though, and it's something that still happens in many, many movies today.
Lawrence of Arabia is an example of a great film with the slow pacing. It is still one of my favorites, but a lot of the people that I've shown it to were bored to tears during the marches across the sea into which no oar is dipped. The imagery was great, but people brought up on modern popcorn movies can not handle the subtle moments.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Oh, is fade just talking about "slow" moments? Slow does not equal meaningless. Many of those moments are essential for establishing the feel, tone, and texture of a film. Conversations or actions which seem to have nothing to do with the plot can be very important in establishing characters and relationships.
 

fade

Staff member
Not entirely, I'm talking mostly about pure non-essential moments. I'll have to find some specific examples, but know that I'm far from alone in pointing this out as a major trend change from older to newer movies--it's a fairly common point. Cowboys riding horses across the desert, for example...great for setting tone--the first one or two times. People sitting on a shaking train car set reading newspapers. Sure, they're all technically serving a purpose of setting or what have you. Everything in a film can be deconstructed to mean something. And sure, there are modern movies guilty of the same, but it's far less common.

Also, let me reiterate that I'm a big fan of these movies. I'm just pointing out one of the genre's flaws.
 
I

Iaculus

Hellfire is a really close #2 imo, but it has 100% less nazi imagery in a children's movie, so it loses.
Hellfire scores points for having a bitching bilingual bonus, though. That chanting in the background? It's an actual prayer in Latin that provides a nice bit of ironic commentary throughout the song. Observe:

 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Not entirely, I'm talking mostly about pure non-essential moments. I'll have to find some specific examples, but know that I'm far from alone in pointing this out as a major trend change from older to newer movies--it's a fairly common point. Cowboys riding horses across the desert, for example...great for setting tone--the first one or two times. People sitting on a shaking train car set reading newspapers. Sure, they're all technically serving a purpose of setting or what have you. Everything in a film can be deconstructed to mean something. And sure, there are modern movies guilty of the same, but it's far less common.

Also, let me reiterate that I'm a big fan of these movies. I'm just pointing out one of the genre's flaws.
Oh, okay. Yeah, it's a different style of filmmaking, just like most actors then used a different style of acting than what is dominant today. It's still a very effective style of filmmaking when used correctly, so I don't think it's accurate to call it a "flaw." But I get where you're coming from now.

I disagree that useless scenes are far less common now than they were back then, but we'd probably differ on what makes a scene useless.
 

Cajungal

Staff member
Yeah, Iaculus, I thought that was a nice touch. That prayer was actually in one of the books we had at home, so I recognized the lyrics when I bought the soundtrack as a kid. Clever, and the singers do a gorgeous job.
 
To the OP: I do not know. As that I have not seen it yet, I cannot know which would be the best.
You can get a little bit of a feeling for if a movie is something you'd like from the general buzz, people involved in making it, plot, etc.

Honestly? I can't think of anything "great" that I "should watch" that I haven't....
I didn't say these are the best movies you "should watch", just the best movie that you think you'd like, that has just slipped through the cracks.
 

Shannow

Staff member
Perhaps, but say I see it, but there is something better I do not know about, and thus, I have never seen. It cannot be answered. It is that simple.
 
Not entirely, I'm talking mostly about pure non-essential moments. I'll have to find some specific examples, but know that I'm far from alone in pointing this out as a major trend change from older to newer movies--it's a fairly common point. Cowboys riding horses across the desert, for example...great for setting tone--the first one or two times. People sitting on a shaking train car set reading newspapers. Sure, they're all technically serving a purpose of setting or what have you. Everything in a film can be deconstructed to mean something. And sure, there are modern movies guilty of the same, but it's far less common.

Also, let me reiterate that I'm a big fan of these movies. I'm just pointing out one of the genre's flaws.
I took this great class in film noir. I was watching something old (Maltese Falcon maybe), and they have Bogart and some girl talking, and then this really slow pan away to a window outside. The teacher stops the movie, says, "They're doing it now. You don't know this because you're not used to it, but when the movie came out everyone knew that the slow pan away meant they were doing it now", and then she started it up again. I was stunned, and watching some of those older movies changed considerably that day.
 
Not entirely, I'm talking mostly about pure non-essential moments. I'll have to find some specific examples, but know that I'm far from alone in pointing this out as a major trend change from older to newer movies--it's a fairly common point. Cowboys riding horses across the desert, for example...great for setting tone--the first one or two times. People sitting on a shaking train car set reading newspapers. Sure, they're all technically serving a purpose of setting or what have you. Everything in a film can be deconstructed to mean something. And sure, there are modern movies guilty of the same, but it's far less common.

Also, let me reiterate that I'm a big fan of these movies. I'm just pointing out one of the genre's flaws.
I took this great class in film noir. I was watching something old (Maltese Falcon maybe), and they have Bogart and some girl talking, and then this really slow pan away to a window outside. The teacher stops the movie, says, "They're doing it now. You don't know this because you're not used to it, but when the movie came out everyone knew that the slow pan away meant they were doing it now", and then she started it up again. I was stunned, and watching some of those older movies changed considerably that day.[/QUOTE]
You never knew that? I thought that was common knowledge. People used to understand subtly in movies, and it made them more available to a wider audience.
 
K

Kitty Sinatra

That's to say: I don't recommend it unless you want to watch it so you can say you watched it.
I disagree. It's an absolutely masterpiece. However, that is only one of the reasons it's consistently placed at the top of "Best Movies Ever Made" lists.[/QUOTE]
I never said it wasn't a masterpiece; indeed I kinda suggested that when I said it's probably worth watching if you're a film student. However, I also suggested - and am now saying - it was boring as smurf for me.

Have you, unlike Chuck, actually seen it?
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

I have, multiple times. Each time was more compelling and rewarding than the last. I think it's worth watching if you are a person.
 
Edit: Reading comprehension for the win (or whatever the kids are saying these days)

Citizen Kane or The Sound of Music.

I've seen bits of TSoM but have never actually seen the entire movie.
 
S

Singularity.EXE

For the record, I considered Citizen Kane and Raging Bull really terrible movies. They might have been revolutionary and amazing for their time, but to me, they're just utter crap.

As far as good movie that I've missed out on, I'll have to get back to you guys on that. My movie buff friend keeps track of that sort of things and always properly insults me when I haven't seen a good movie.

Oh! I know American X is on that list!
 
For the record, I considered Citizen Kane and Raging Bull really terrible movies. They might have been revolutionary and amazing for their time, but to me, they're just utter crap.

As far as good movie that I've missed out on, I'll have to get back to you guys on that. My movie buff friend keeps track of that sort of things and always properly insults me when I haven't seen a good movie.

Oh! I know American X is on that list!
American history X?
 
I find Citizen Kane a compelling character study, and it looks great.

If I had to choose a greatest movie, it'd probably be Casablanca.
 
Schindler's List, I guess.

I don't take a particular interest in movies set during WWII, though, so I'll probably never watch it unless someone makes me. So I suppose that'll make it the best movie I'll never see.

Seconding the Godfather (II and III, though, have already seen I).
 
Schindler's List, I guess.

I don't take a particular interest in movies set during WWII, though, so I'll probably never watch it unless someone makes me. So I suppose that'll make it the best movie I'll never see.

Seconding the Godfather (II and III, though, have already seen I).
I would highly recommend seeing Schindler's List if you like dramas at all. Though it's set in WWII, it's not a combat flick.
 
Schindler's List, I guess.

I don't take a particular interest in movies set during WWII, though, so I'll probably never watch it unless someone makes me. So I suppose that'll make it the best movie I'll never see.

Seconding the Godfather (II and III, though, have already seen I).
I would highly recommend seeing Schindler's List if you like dramas at all. Though it's set in WWII, it's not a combat flick.[/QUOTE]

It's not the combat that averts me. See, my dad is absolutely fascinated with all things WWI and II, and as such most of my vacations with him have been spent for the majority in some kind of war-museum or talking about the period or anything even slightly relevant to it.

I'm just sick of the whole time period, is all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top