what golden era movie you think is overrated?

[blackdragon6]

who here has the balls to call out the great black & white films?:evilsmile

[the film freak]

who here has the balls to call out the great black & white films?:evilsmile

Battleship Potemkin. I can respect it's artistry but it's a bitch to sit through.

[Lord of Denial]

Citizen Kane!

Don't get why it is called the greatest movie ever made and never will.

[the film freak]

Citizen Kane!

Don't get why it is called the greatest movie ever made and never will.

It's just one of those movies where everything works flawlessly. It well acted, well written and looks amazing. It's got a style and point of view of it's own and stood out from other movies that were made at the time. And it's aged pretty gracefully. The themes and ideas in it are still relevent today.

I think Orson Welles made more interesting films but Citizen Kane is one of those rare movies that came out perfect and appealed to a broader audience. Kind of like Casablanca.

[Lord of Denial]

It's just one of those movies where everything works flawlessly. It well acted, well written and looks amazing. It's got a style and point of view of it's own and stood out from other movies that were made at the time. And it's aged pretty gracefully. The themes and ideas in it are still relevent today.

I think Orson Welles made more interesting films but Citizen Kane is one of those rare movies that came out perfect and appealed to a broader audience. Kind of like Casablanca.


All true but it was soooooooooo freaking boring.

[the film freak]

All true but it was soooooooooo freaking boring.

It's no Battleship Potemkin.

[Scorpion13]

All true but it was soooooooooo freaking boring.


Yeah, it shouldve had more tits and cyborgs in it.

Seriously.

[EZMOHR]

Casablanca. It's boring, the romance doesn't work for me, and I don't think it is the greatest "Hollywood" movie ever. I respect how 99.9% of the world's pop. feels about it, but for me, I would rather have a root canal.

[CaptainAwesome]

I agree on the Citizen Cain. If a movie is boring then it cannot be perfect. I will say this, though, it did revolutionize the film industry, and set the standard for direction and photogrophy in a motion picture.

[LordEd1976]

Gone with the Wind. I find it WWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYY too long and I just can't sympathize with Scarlett O'Hara at all.

[Buzz Dixon]

I humbly suggest if one finds a movie boring that millions of other people find fascinating, it may be less a matter of the movie's quality and more of a failure to connect with the material. Doesn't mean anybody is at fault, creator or audience, just that everything doesn't work for everybody.

As for me, the most overrated film (which is slowly being taken down a peg or two each generation) is BIRTH OF A NATION, as vile a piece of racist claptrap as one could ever see. Like TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, it is a visually powerful film and many people find themselves being stirred by it as they watch, but unlike TRIUMPH (where you need to know what the Nazis really stood for in order to see past the santized spectacle) the hate and bigotry is all out in the open with BIRTH.

BIRTH OF A NATION carried on the myth of the noble Lost Cause with tinges so many other Civil War themed films (THE GENERAL, GONE WITH THE WIND). The Confederacy was not a noble thing, it's destruction was very much necessary, and while one may debate the wisdom of certain post-war policies, crushing the South and Southern slavery was absolutely essential for this country to survive.

(And for the record, I'm a southerner, born and grew up there. I just know how to read a history book.)

[ragnarok_2012]

I won't say it's overrated, but I personally didn't enjoy watching the African Queen. Among other things, the romance subplot felt abrupt. Like in Daredevil, I didn't feel the movie took the love story from point A to point B very well.

That said, I love watching the Maltese Falcon (some hokiness but overall lots of fun) & Casablanca.

[Slam_Bradley]

I have to agree with Buzz. The fault vis-a-vis Citizen Kane lies in yourself Horatio, not in the film. I watched it the other night for at least the 20th time...and I constantly find more to be fascinated with.

One that comes to my mind is F.W. Murnau's Sunrise. I've seen this hailed any number of times as a silent classic. And while there are a handfull of very interesting shots, it isn't close to Murnau's best German work. And for all that there are some interesting (but not visionary) shots, the story is incredibly pedestrian. There are also no performances that particularly stood out. It's a decent late silent, but not extraordinary.

[david r]

Didn't care for:

A Streetcar Named Desire
Forbidden Planet
From Here To Eternity
Lolita (1962)

In defense of Citizen Kane, it broke rules and created some. No movie had ever been told that way. Where it begins with Kane's death, and then we watch as a reporter (face never revealed) investigates his life. We see how his quest for money, women and fame eventually lead him to despair, isolation and unhappiness. A wasted life.

The twist at the end, the "Rosebud", isn't meant to be Kane yearning for his childhood again. His death bed "Rosebud" is his wish to start again, to begin his life anew. Only this time to lead a more fulfilling existence based on friendships, love and spirituality (instead of the money, women and fame that so many of us desire), and the tragedy of the final shot in the movie--the Rosebud being burned---is Kane never will get that chance. But it's not too late for the audience.

[david r]

Casablanca should really be taken in context of the times. Back when this movie was shot, in 1942, nobody had any idea how World War II was going to end. Were the Nazis going to win and create a hell on earth? Bogart's character Sam is meant to symbolize pre-Pearl Harbor America. A heart of gold, but not wanting to get involved in the world conflict. As the movie progresses, he chooses sides and realizes he MUST get involved. The romance with Ingmar Bergman is just icing on the cake.

Gone With the Wind: LordEd, essentially Scarlett O'Hara was meant to symbolize the Old South. The whole movie, and Scarlett's evolution in it from spoiled southern belle to self-reliant, fierce businesswoman is meant to parallel what happened to the Old South before, during and after the catastrophe of the Civil War.

Yes, Scarlett comes across as uncaring, heartless and even cold and manipulative. But again, if you watch the movie, she does change and grow as GWTW progresses. I just think that film is one of the greatest films ever made.

[StoneGold]

Casablanca. It's boring, the romance doesn't work for me, and I don't think it is the greatest "Hollywood" movie ever. I respect how 99.9% of the world's pop. feels about it, but for me, I would rather have a root canal.
That's how I thought Casablanca was going to be. Then it ended up being more of a character actor film than a Cohen Bros. flick.

[Chiasm]

I've never even seen many of the so called great movies. My list of never seens and probably never will includes:


Casablanca
Citizen Kane
Gone With the Wind
The Maltese Falcon
The African Queen
Pretty much any black and white movie


In fact off the top of my head the only black and white movie I can recall ever seeing is Psycho.

[blackdragon6]

I've never even seen many of the so called great movies. My list of never seens and probably never will includes:


Casablanca
Citizen Kane
Gone With the Wind
The Maltese Falcon
The African Queen
Pretty much any black and white movie


In fact off the top of my head the only black and white movie I can recall ever seeing is Psycho.
no night of the living dead?

[Buzz Dixon]

I've never even seen many of the so called great movies. My list of never seens and probably never will includes:


Casablanca
Citizen Kane
Gone With the Wind
The Maltese Falcon
The African Queen
Pretty much any black and white movie


In fact off the top of my head the only black and white movie I can recall ever seeing is Psycho.
If you get Flix, check out FORBIDDEN ZONE. Trust me on this one.

I'm curious as to why you do not care for b+w films. This is not to say you aren't entitled to your personal feelings/reaction to the form, just wanting to know what it is about them that you personally find unappealing.

[Cyke]

I will say this, though, it did revolutionize the film industry, and set the standard for direction and photogrophy in a motion picture.

That's pretty much why I will never regard Citizen Kane as overrated, though.

Almost everything that the directors and we the viewers take for granted came from Citizen Kane.

[davids]

A soap opera for women!
Plus the fact it shows all the "Darkies" love being slaves singing while they picked all that cotton.:rolleyes:

Makes a fella embarassed to be white!

As for the hatred of black and white movies it's a generation thing. Sadly too many young people refuse to give any B&W movie a try. They are cheating themselves of decades of great movies.

[david r]

I'm surprised 2001: A Space Odyssey hasn't been mentioned yet.

[Kirayoshi]

Double post, sorry.

[Kirayoshi]

Gone With the Wind is truly an epic in scope and execution, and a visual stunner. And it has the historical distinction of featuring the first black person to win an Oscar(Butterfly McQueen). But it was also terribly dated(again, Butterfly McQueen). And I have difficulty swallowing the fact that so many people see it as the great cinematic love story, considering that Scarlett only married Rhett at first for his money. By the time she realized that she loved him, he realized that she wasn't worth it. By the end I was with Rhett; frankly my dear, I didn't give a damn either!

2001: A Space Odyssey is also an important movie, being the first serious major Science Fiction film ever. But I've seen glaciers that moved faster! Plus the last 20 minutes or so make up on of the cinema's great WTF moments.

I would also add The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur to that list. Yeah the visuals are awesome, especially the chariot race in BH, but Charlton Heston's politics in later years(especially as a mouthpiece for the NRA) have colored my perceptions of any movie he stars in. Plus the man is a such a scenery chewing ham that he makes William Shatner's performances look nuanced!

[i_mmmchocolate]

I wanted to love it but I just couldn't...Casablanca.

[Buzz Dixon]

2001: A Space Odyssey is also an important movie, being the first serious major Science Fiction film ever.
Not quite. Both METROPOLIS (1927) and THINGS TO COME (1936) were big budget epics with very serious philosophical/ethical issues at their core, both of which were made by top notch creators working at their prime (and as Kubrick had Clarke as a collaborator for 2001, so did Menzies with H.G. Wells for THINGS TO COME).

And while THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (1951) may not have been on the same scale of METROPOLIS, THINGS TO COME, or 2001, it was still a very serious A-picture from a major studio.

[the film freak]

I would also add The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur to that list. Yeah the visuals are awesome, especially the chariot race in BH, but Charlton Heston's politics in later years(especially as a mouthpiece for the NRA) have colored my perceptions of any movie he stars in. Plus the man is a such a scenery chewing ham that he makes William Shatner's performances look nuanced!

Won't argue with this. Those movies are just overblown spectacles nothing more.

[the film freak]

As for me, the most overrated film (which is slowly being taken down a peg or two each generation) is BIRTH OF A NATION, as vile a piece of racist claptrap as one could ever see. Like TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, it is a visually powerful film and many people find themselves being stirred by it as they watch, but unlike TRIUMPH (where you need to know what the Nazis really stood for in order to see past the santized spectacle) the hate and bigotry is all out in the open with BIRTH.

BIRTH OF A NATION carried on the myth of the noble Lost Cause with tinges so many other Civil War themed films (THE GENERAL, GONE WITH THE WIND). The Confederacy was not a noble thing, it's destruction was very much necessary, and while one may debate the wisdom of certain post-war policies, crushing the South and Southern slavery was absolutely essential for this country to survive.

I was thinking about mentioning this but honestly it seems like in our more enlightened (or politicaly correct in some peoples opinion) society it doesn't seem like this movie is all that reverred any more. They'll show it in film classes and such but there's always a disclaimer about the racist overtones in it.

[Buzz Dixon]

BEN HUR is a bit more than just a spectacle, and you need an actor of epic scale in order to keep from being overwashed by everything going around him.

On the other hand, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is like a Sunday school pageant with a multi-million dollar budget.

You want a good Cecil B. DeMille Biblical epic, see the original cut of THE SIGN OF THE CROSS, not the trimmed down/censored WWII re-release (if the movie opens with a WWII bombing raid, you've got the re-release).

Not a Biblical epic, but a classical era one, try his version of CLEOPATRA.

[handOFfate]

I humbly suggest if one finds a movie boring that millions of other people find fascinating, it may be less a matter of the movie's quality and more of a failure to connect with the material. Doesn't mean anybody is at fault, creator or audience, just that everything doesn't work for everybody.

As for me, the most overrated film (which is slowly being taken down a peg or two each generation) is BIRTH OF A NATION, as vile a piece of racist claptrap as one could ever see. Like TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, it is a visually powerful film and many people find themselves being stirred by it as they watch, but unlike TRIUMPH (where you need to know what the Nazis really stood for in order to see past the santized spectacle) the hate and bigotry is all out in the open with BIRTH.

BIRTH OF A NATION carried on the myth of the noble Lost Cause with tinges so many other Civil War themed films (THE GENERAL, GONE WITH THE WIND). The Confederacy was not a noble thing, it's destruction was very much necessary, and while one may debate the wisdom of certain post-war policies, crushing the South and Southern slavery was absolutely essential for this country to survive.

(And for the record, I'm a southerner, born and grew up there. I just know how to read a history book.)

I disagree with everything you say. And i'm a history major. Bigot!

[Jonathan Bogart]

On the other hand, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is like a Sunday school pageant with a multi-million dollar budget.
DeMille's original silent version of The Ten Commandments is so much better; the artifice of pageantry works on the silent screen.

I'd say that maybe 10% of my film collection (if that much) is in color, so I'm a huge fan of "golden era" (?) movies. It's difficult for me to think of "overrated" ones, because they're barely rated at all anymore, except for the handful that always pop up on critical lists as "Best of the Century" (which everyone here has been sticking to as well). Those are never my favorites: I tend to like the less-lavish studio efforts much more. (Yeah, Casablanca is in some ways the epitome of churned-out studio crap, but its force has kind of been overwhelmed by its accumulated cultural presence.)

I can only think of one that I seriously dislike, and that's Gone with the Wind. It's self-pitying bull from beginning to end, just like the original novel. But I'm generally not a fan of historical epics, anywhere, anytime; this is because I am a fan of actual history. Gone with the Wind is hardly the worst offender in this regard; but it's certainly the most overrated.

[Jonathan Bogart]

I disagree with everything you say.
You don't think slavery should have ended?

[Chiasm]

If you get Flix, check out FORBIDDEN ZONE. Trust me on this one.

I'm curious as to why you do not care for b+w films. This is not to say you aren't entitled to your personal feelings/reaction to the form, just wanting to know what it is about them that you personally find unappealing.

Nothing really other than I prefer color movies. But its not just black and white, there are a lot of classic color films I've never seen either. I've just never had the time nor the overwhelming desire to go out of my way to see all these old films. I'm sure some of them are probably pretty good. I'd bet that I could count on one hand the number of pre 1960 movies I've seen.

[davids]

9:PM Chanel 13 new york. anybody ever read the Book Ben Hur by general Lew Walace? I did, Ben Hur becomes Super Jew! First he escapes from the mines then is sentenced to the galleys. Between the mines and the rowing he developes intoa regular Atlas.

He made a request of the slave driver on board two be switched from one side of the boat to the other, because he noticed that other rowers only developed one side of their bodies.

In fact he got so strong he rowed the three man oar by himself. PS Ben Hur was a stage play long before a movie silent and in 1959 the Heston version.

PS what does Ben Hur have in comon with Billy the Kid?:evilsmile

[Dennis K]

With a couple of very notable exceptions, pretty much everything starring James Cagney.

[Kirayoshi]

With a couple of very notable exceptions, pretty much everything starring James Cagney.The only problem I have with Cagney's movies is that he kept getting cast as a ganster. Considering that he considered himself more of a song-and-dance man, that's especially ironic. If you want to see Cagney in something different, check out:

Yankee Doodle Dandy -- The movie that won him his only Oscar, a flag-waving biopic on the life of Broadway producer George M. Cohen. The self-styled song-and-dance man proved it in this movie.

One, Two, Three... -- The last movie he made before his retirement, a scathingly funny Cold War satire. Cagney plays the head of a West Berlin Coca-Cola bottling plant, who is ordered by his CEO in Atlanta to look after the CEO's wayward daughter--who promptly goes and marries a Communist! Fast-paced dialogue, biting satire and just plain hysterical situations.

[clayholio]

Like others, I didn't care much for Citizen Kane. It was a well-done film, and I wouldn't debate that for a minute. However, seeing CK parodied frequently over the years pretty much removed any possible impact the film could have on me. When I watched it, I was pretty bored.

I didn't much care for Vertigo either when I watched it the first time, but I'm starting to warm to it a bit.

[david r]

I didn't much care for Vertigo either when I watched it the first time, but I'm starting to warm to it a bit.

I felt much the same way you did when I first watched Vertigo. Big deal.

Then years later, I saw it on the big screen and it totally knocked me out. I now consider it Alfred Hitchcock's ultimate masterpiece. The movie is almost like two stories running at the same time. First Kim Novak is trying to find a "dead woman". Then later, Jimmy Stewart's character is trying to find a "dead woman". Yet both times, he finds the SAME woman.

It's really all about this perverted, warped romance between Stewart and Novak. But because of the circumstances, twice they cannot be together. Stewart loses her twice---she dies twice the same way.

[J Harper]

The only problem I have with Cagney's movies is that he kept getting cast as a ganster. Considering that he considered himself more of a song-and-dance man, that's especially ironic. If you want to see Cagney in something different, check out:

Yankee Doodle Dandy -- The movie that won him his only Oscar, a flag-waving biopic on the life of Broadway producer George M. Cohen. The self-styled song-and-dance man proved it in this movie.

One, Two, Three... -- The last movie he made before his retirement, a scathingly funny Cold War satire. Cagney plays the head of a West Berlin Coca-Cola bottling plant, who is ordered by his CEO in Atlanta to look after the CEO's wayward daughter--who promptly goes and marries a Communist! Fast-paced dialogue, biting satire and just plain hysterical situations.

You know Cagney for a time was considered for the role of Robin Hood? That would have been odd...

Cheers,

Jeremy Harper

[cactusmaac]

I didn't really like Bringing Up Baby by Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn.

A lot of the humour and mad-cap antics seemed somewhat forced.

[Buzz Dixon]

Nothing really other than I prefer color movies. But its not just black and white, there are a lot of classic color films I've never seen either. I've just never had the time nor the overwhelming desire to go out of my way to see all these old films. I'm sure some of them are probably pretty good. I'd bet that I could count on one hand the number of pre 1960 movies I've seen.
First off, please understand that I'm not arguing with you here, Chiasm, but I am genuinely curious as to why there is a disconnect between you and older films. I ask partially for business reasons: I'm working on a project now that makes allusions to older movies and there's little point of using those allusions if a big hunk of our audience isn't likely to have been exposed to them. So I am interested in how younger audiences perceive older films.

Now, as to my questions:

Is it the style of acting that makes older films unappealing to you?

Is it the pacing and directorial techniques?

Is it the fact that the films come from an era outside your particular frame of reference and you find it difficult to relate to them?

Thanx.

Buzz

(P.S. Anyone else who wants to chime in on this may do so.)

[david r]

I didn't really like Bringing Up Baby by Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn.

A lot of the humour and mad-cap antics seemed somewhat forced.

I would reluctantly agree. I've watched Bringing Up Baby and also Cary Grant's The Awful Truth and just didn't see what the fuss was about. Course, these movies are nearly 70 years old, so the generational divide must play a big role.

[Buzz Dixon]

I would reluctantly agree. I've watched Bringing Up Baby and also Cary Grant's The Awful Truth and just didn't see what the fuss was about. Course, these movies are nearly 70 years old, so the generational divide must play a big role.
BRINGING UP BABY is okay, but the scene in THE AWFUL TRUTH where Grant milks the audience for every laugh in its possession by just sitting there and smiling at Irene Dunn's discomfort during the "Gone With The Wind" number is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

[meethraa]

You Can't Take It with You
Every second of this film feels like someone sticking needles up my spine.
It's just..... so bad on every level that I can't even muster up the words to properly express my disgust.

[Kirayoshi]

You know Cagney for a time was considered for the role of Robin Hood? That would have been odd...

Cheers,

Jeremy HarperI heard about that. But considering that at one point, the list of actors briefly considered for the part of Rhett Butler included Ronald Reagan and(I swear that I'm not making this up) Groucho Marx, that's not so surprising.

I did catch him doing Shakespeare once. He played Nick Bottom(the actor who was given a donkey's head and attracted Titania) in a decent production of Midsummer Night's Dream. Don't recall too many details, except that a young Mickey Rooney was Puck.

[Aggie]

First off, please understand that I'm not arguing with you here, Chiasm, but I am genuinely curious as to why there is a disconnect between you and older films. I ask partially for business reasons: I'm working on a project now that makes allusions to older movies and there's little point of using those allusions if a big hunk of our audience isn't likely to have been exposed to them. So I am interested in how younger audiences perceive older films.

Now, as to my questions:

Is it the style of acting that makes older films unappealing to you?

Is it the pacing and directorial techniques?

Is it the fact that the films come from an era outside your particular frame of reference and you find it difficult to relate to them?

Thanx.

Buzz

(P.S. Anyone else who wants to chime in on this may do so.)


buzz,

i think sensibilities are different w/ this generation...we live in a world in which you can watch a war in real time every evening and where video games are getting more realistic everyday...for the most part, there isn't a sense of immediacy w/ the films made back in the day...and in my opinion that's what made them great...most films nowadays bombard you w/ so much information and rely too much on the technology availible, i think today's viewers have become extremely disensatized because of it...which i think it a real pity because they miss out on seeing some of the greatest films ever made...anyhoo...i'm in the camp of those who hate gone w/the wind...it's unbelievably anti-female...don't get me wrong...it's a gorgeous film, but the content is just...jeez...let's just say i wouldn't mind the opportunity to kick margaret mitchell in the ass...i also hate "it's a wonderful life" w/ an ungodly passion...mainly because i hate jimmy stewart, but there's this undercurrent of manipulation about it that really bites my ass...but then again...i'm pretty cynical so that's probaby a matter of taste...:rolleyes:

[Scorpion13]

I swear, Its A Wonderful Life has to be one of the most depressing ass movies Ive ever seen. You watch every single dream of George's crushed, him abused by not only a greedy, evil business owner but also the frightened, ignorant citizens he cared so much for.

And then he gets showed how much MORE of a toilet his town and everyone in it might have been if he hadnt been there.

I really dont see how so many people associate it with saccharine sweetness, up until the last 5 minutes its almost relentlessly downbeat.

[the film freak]

I swear, Its A Wonderful Life has to be one of the most depressing ass movies Ive ever seen. You watch every single dream of George's crushed, him abused by not only a greedy, evil business owner but also the frightened, ignorant citizens he cared so much for.

And then he gets showed how much MORE of a toilet his town and everyone in it might have been if he hadnt been there.

I really dont see how so many people associate it with saccharine sweetness, up until the last 5 minutes its almost relentlessly downbeat.

Frank Capra movies are pretty dark. I dig them though.

[Scorpion13]

Seriously.

Feel-good americana my ass!!

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington made me want to hang myself!!!

[Bouncing Boy]

[B] The romance with Ingmar Bergman is just icing on the cake.




I can't believe I'm the first person to point this out. You mean Ingred Bergman (http://imdb.com/name/nm0000006/), Ingmar Bergman (http://imdb.com/name/nm0000005/) is a swedish director.

[Bouncing Boy]

I disagree with alot of what has been said. Casablanca, Citizen Kane and It's a Wonderful Life are among my favorite movies. I do kind of agree that Gone With the Wind is a bit over-rated.

[david r]

I can't believe I'm the first person to point this out. You mean Ingred Bergman (http://imdb.com/name/nm0000006/), Ingmar Bergman (http://imdb.com/name/nm0000005/) is a swedish director.

Ingrid. Ingmar. You get my meaning. :o

Another that did nothing for me was Hitchcock's The 39 Steps from 1935. It's cited as Hitch's first real masterpiece, but I just didn't think it was all that.

[Aggie]

I swear, Its A Wonderful Life has to be one of the most depressing ass movies Ive ever seen. You watch every single dream of George's crushed, him abused by not only a greedy, evil business owner but also the frightened, ignorant citizens he cared so much for.

And then he gets showed how much MORE of a toilet his town and everyone in it might have been if he hadnt been there.

I really dont see how so many people associate it with saccharine sweetness, up until the last 5 minutes its almost relentlessly downbeat.


that's my point!...the ending is alllll wrong.

[Buzz Dixon]

Another that did nothing for me was Hitchcock's The 39 Steps from 1935. It's cited as Hitch's first real masterpiece, but I just didn't think it was all that.
THE 39 STEPS has some of my favorite Hitchchock scenes in it, such as the scene where the hero on the run from the cops is mistakensly dragooned into speaking before a political rally and he has no idea on which side the audience stands, and the end in which the cornered hero tricks the villain into revealing himself and the plot to the cops.

It's not as good as Hitchcock's films from the 1940s and 50s, but it's got a lot going for it.

[Buzz Dixon]

that's my point!...the ending is alllll wrong.
The ending isn't wrong. The ending reassures him his life had meaning and purpose. And the people he had helped -- directly or indirectly -- come to his aid in the end.

[Rabid Trekkie]

I'm trying to think of an old movie I didn't like, and aside from shows that ended up on MST3k I'm drawing a blank on any I haven't liked.

Casablanca, for me, didn't live up to the hype but it was still a good film. Still The Maltese Falcon is a lot better.

Thought I might put The Third Man down as just a mediocre mystery until Welles opens his mouth and issues some of the coolest lines ever filmed and makes the movie worth all the time you spent waiting for it to get good.

Ah, not sure if it counts as Golden Era, but I watched The Day of the Jackal and fell asleep like three times and the show kept going. It was two hours too long if you ask me.
Oh and I'll probably never watch They Died With Their Boots On as I don't want to see Flynn play that moron Custer.

Still, when it comes to bad movies nothing can beat the stuff they make nowadays.

[Kirayoshi]

Frank Capra movies are pretty dark. I dig them though.If I may be allowed to defend my favorite movie of all time--

Yes, there is a darkness to IaWL. The whole theme of the movie is George Bailey's emergence from darkness to light, from near suicidal depression to a reaffirmation of his life. But the whole movie is not dark and somber. The high school dance, followed by the walk home, was comedy gold! I still laugh out loud when George and Mary fall into the swimming pool and are still dancing, and again when Mary loses her robe and ends up hiding behind the hydrandia bushes.

Jimmy Stewart turned in the performance of a lifetime; a perfect bridge between his crackerbarrel idealism of his pre-war movies("Mr Smith Goes to Washington", "Shop Around the Corner", "You Can't Take it With You") to his darker moodier post-war films("Rope", "Vertigo", "The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance"). IaWL showed his range better than any single movie.

Yeah, it had moments of pure corn, but on the whole, It's A Wonderful Life is still, IMO, one classic film that stands the test of time.

That is all.

[Aggie]

The ending isn't wrong. The ending reassures him his life had meaning and purpose. And the people he had helped -- directly or indirectly -- come to his aid in the end.

i mean it's wrong in the sense that the "all's well, that ends well" take it has in the end given the darker aspects through out the film feels like a cop out to me...and yes i know, it's moral of the story that one person can make a difference...but it just doesn't feel right...hence my initial statement about it being manipulative...but as i said before...it's a matter of my taste...;)

[Scorpion13]

If I may be allowed to defend my favorite movie of all time--

Yes, there is a darkness to IaWL. The whole theme of the movie is George Bailey's emergence from darkness to light, from near suicidal depression to a reaffirmation of his life. But the whole movie is not dark and somber. The high school dance, followed by the walk home, was comedy gold! I still laugh out loud when George and Mary fall into the swimming pool and are still dancing, and again when Mary loses her robe and ends up hiding behind the hydrandia bushes.

Jimmy Stewart turned in the performance of a lifetime; a perfect bridge between his crackerbarrel idealism of his pre-war movies("Mr Smith Goes to Washington", "Shop Around the Corner", "You Can't Take it With You") to his darker moodier post-war films("Rope", "Vertigo", "The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance"). IaWL showed his range better than any single movie.

Yeah, it had moments of pure corn, but on the whole, It's A Wonderful Life is still, IMO, one classic film that stands the test of time.

That is all.


Oh, I agree. Its a much better movie that most people give credit for. I was simply reacting to the common misconception of it being saccharine sweet when it clearly is not.

[Buzz Dixon]

Here is an interesting take on silent films, BIRTH OF A NATION in particular:

http://www.artsjournal.com/aboutlastnight/archives20060507.shtml#106272

(If the link doesn't take you there directly, scroll down to "TT: It's History")

Here is an interesting quote:
...The Birth of a Nation progresses with the slow-motion solemnity of a funeral march. Even the title cards stay on the screen for three times as long as it takes to read them. Five minutes after the film started, I was squirming with impatience, and after another five minutes passed, I decided out of desperation to try an experiment: I cranked the film up to four times its normal playing speed and watched it that way. It was overly brisk in two or three spots, most notably the re-enactment of Lincoln’s assassination (which turned out to be quite effective—it’s the best scene in the whole film). For the most part, though, I found nearly all of The Birth of a Nation to be perfectly intelligible at the faster speed.

Putting aside for a moment the insurmountable problem of its content, it was the agonizingly slow pace of The Birth of a Nation that proved to be the biggest obstacle to my experiencing it as an objet d’art. Even after I sped it up, my mind continued to wander, and one of the things to which it wandered was my similar inability to extract aesthetic pleasure out of medieval art. With a few exceptions, medieval and early Renaissance art and music don’t speak to me. The gap of sensibility is too wide for me to cross. I have a feeling that silent film—not just just The Birth of a Nation, but all of it—is no more accessible to most modern sensibilities. (The only silent movies I can watch with more than merely antiquarian interest are the comedies of Buster Keaton.) Nor do I think the problem is solely, or even primarily, that it's silent: I have no problem with plotless dance, for instance. It’s that silent film “speaks” to me in an alien tongue, one I can only master in an intellectual way. That’s not good enough for me when it comes to art, whose immediate appeal is not intellectual but visceral (though the intellect naturally enters into it).

Me, I'm a silent movie fan, but I can easily understand the obstacles the old medium throws at new viewers.

[Slam_Bradley]

Me, I'm a silent movie fan, but I can easily understand the obstacles the old medium throws at new viewers.


I'm a fairly big silent movie fan myself. But I tend to find that I'm better able to tune in to comedies or action films than I am to silent dramas. I'm not entirely sure what's working there, but it is definitely the case with me.

[BoosterBronze]

I'm a big fan of old movies, especially old film noirs, and I love Bogart...

But "The Big Sleep" is complete and utter nonsense. Nothing makes sense, one scene never leads to another, and the ending wraps up nothing. I've seen it tree times and still don't know what it's about.

Also, I think Hitchcock's later stuff was forluamatic and dull. Some of his early stuff (Rebecca, 39 Steps, Psycho ) was exciting, but a lot of his Hollywood work was really repetitive.

A): Handesome man finds himself in situation he can't control
B): Handesome man meets hot chick, who is at first adverserial, then they fall in love.
C): Normalcy is restored following elabortate action sequence.

I just can't dig some of The Hitch.

[Buzz Dixon]

There has been a movement in recent years called "new silents" that is a return to silent cinema aesthetics (black and white photography, somewhat exaggerated art and acting style) with more modern editing and cinematography. Last year there was a new silent feature made based on H.P. Lovecraft, the conceict being that it was supposedly a silent film made in the 1920s.

Mary Pickford once observed that it was a pity talkies came after silents because when you really think about it, it should have been the other way around.

[Slam_Bradley]

But "The Big Sleep" is complete and utter nonsense. Nothing makes sense, one scene never leads to another, and the ending wraps up nothing. I've seen it tree times and still don't know what it's about.



It's not supposed to. Even Chandler didn't know what all the answers were. The move is all about the atmosphere, the characters and, particularly, the interplay between Bogie and Bacall.

[BoosterBronze]

It's not supposed to. Even Chandler didn't know what all the answers were. The move is all about the atmosphere, the characters and, particularly, the interplay between Bogie and Bacall.

Perhaps, but a lot of movies had that atmosphere while at the same time making sense.

[Arilou]

Y'know, I keep getting surprised by how many of these movies I've, if not seen, at least noticed being aired on TV.

I guess that comes from having a Public Service TV channel that feels it has to air "classics" at odd times :p

[MartinPasko]

"The Big Sleep" is complete and utter nonsense. Nothing makes sense, one scene never leads to another, and the ending wraps up nothing. I've seen it tree [sic] times and still don't know what it's about.

It's horrendously difficult to follow, and you probably need to see it a half-dozen times before you can keep it straight in your head -- much of the plot centers on a character who is never seen, only referred to in dialogue -- but it actually does make sense. The screenwriters were grimly, stubbornly determined that it would, even if they had to make stuff up to pull it off.

My old “boss,” DC editor and former literary agent Julie Schwartz, knew some pretty fascinating people, one of whom was the wife of one of Julie's earliest clients, Ed Hamilton. I'm referring, of course, to Leigh Brackett -- a favorite screenwriter of Howard Hawks's and the co-writer, with Jules Furthman and no less a personage than literary giant William Faulkner, of the "Big Sleep" script.

Once, while visiting Julie, she and Ed found themselves surrounded by a circle of star-struck aspiring filmmakers with day jobs writing comics -- Cary Bates and I foremost among them. Leigh regaled us with her recollections of writing the film -- this was the picture on which Faulkner famously got permission to "work at home," conveniently neglecting to tell Warner Bros. that when he put in the request, he meant Mississippi –- and how, halfway into the second act, Brackett and her collaborators came to the sobering realization that the novel they were adapting did not, indeed, pass any reasonable logic tests they could administer.

So they drafted a list of questions they resolved to ask the author Raymond Chandler, who was living down in San Diego and whom they could easily visit after a brief train ride. They very politely called the mystery writer, who answered the phone with characteristic boozy surliness. After being turned down for a meeting, the plucky Brackett launched into her questions, only to be met with a curt “How the fuck should I know, lady? I was drunk when I wrote it.” With that, Chandler slammed down the phone, and we should all be grateful that the film makes as much sense as it does.

[berk]

Perhaps, but a lot of movies had that atmosphere while at the same time making sense.Not always an improvement, IMO. Two of my favourite David Lynch movies, Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive, are both famously long on atmosphere and character interaction and short on sense, at least on a single viewing for most people. But the reputation of each will, I suspect, suffer in the long run precisely because so many viewers treated Mulholland Drive as a puzzle to be figured out and did indeed succeed pretty quickly in figuring out the sense behind the initially puzzling plot (the previous example of Lost Highway helped, I'm sure). But once a puzzle is solved it inevitably loses most of its charm, so can a story that's looked at as a puzzle still work as a story? For me personally, both movies stand up as movies, and I think will continue to do so; but I wonder whether or not this will be the case for audiences and critical opinion in general.

Anyway, that's just my roundabout way of suggesting that maybe it's the very fact that The Big Sleep really doesn't make sense at the narrative level - I mean, that there isn't any hidden level of plot that, once "figured out," would suddenly make everything fall into place - maybe that's one of the reasons it has remained a classic to this day. There really isn't any compelling, cohesive plot to distract us from the important stuff. Some well-known critic described this movie as "The stuff dreams are made of," and that pretty well sums it up, for me.

Mind you, I never thought Bogart was well cast as Marlowe. I like Bogart, but his Marlowe is a very different character from the guy in Chandler's books.

[Buzz Dixon]

It says something that Philip Marlowe has been played by Bogart, Robert Mitchum, Dick Powell, Elliot Gould, Powers Boothe, and James Caan -- and all turned in pretty interesting interpretations!

[berk]

It says something that Philip Marlowe has been played by Bogart, Robert Mitchum, Dick Powell, Elliot Gould, Powers Boothe, and James Caan -- and all turned in pretty interesting interpretations!Elliot Gould is even further from Marlowe than Bogart, but The Long Goodbye is still one of my favourite movies, and one of my favourite books - but neither has much in common with the other IMO. Well they do, in a way - the sadness, the corruption, the confusion, Marlowe`s perserverance in the face of overwhelming institutionalised power, whether the institututions be those of the "legitimate" political hierarchy or of organised crime ... but its sun-drenched, no-room-to-hide sadness and desperation feels very different from Chandler's books. Altman made a great decision in setting the movie in the then-contemporary era, if for no other reason than Gould probably wasn't capable of playing anyone other than a man of his particular time and place - at which he was great, but then again, maybe that's why his star-status didn't last as long as it might have .

I read someplace that Chandler`s choice to play Marlowe was none other than Cary Grant. It could never have worked, of course; there's no way you could ever hear Philip Marlowe taling in Grant's famous - and unique - mid-Atlantic "Cary Grant" accent, any more than you could hear James Bond speaking in . But I can see what Chandler might have meant. Grant projected a sort of sombreness that comes through even in some of his fluffier movies. One of my favourites is "Mr.Lucky" (we should have a thread for old movies NOT considered classics but that should be) in which he plays a Hollywood-style gangster - I mean one that's unrealistically a nice guy at heart - and there's a ridiculously sappy scene near the end where he overhears I think a mother in a church praying for the safety of her son fighting the war in Europe and he undergoes a change in heart - he's spent the whole movie scamming the war effort - which transformation he makes totally realistic just by the seriousness with which he treats it. He doesn't overplay it, which is important, but that's just technique; for me, what really puts the performance over is this basic soberness, even sadness, underlying even Grant's comedic performances. Somehow, you just believe that this happy-go-lucky, breezily manipulative crook could change his entire apparent attitude in jjsst a few minutes - because you sensed that the new serious attitude had always been there beneath the surface.

[Buzz Dixon]

Good points re Marlowe on film (particularly Gould's interpretation; THE LONG GOOD-BYE is one of my favorite film adaptations of Chandler even if they did a 180 on the original ending).

And I just remembered James Garner played Marlowe in the film by the same name -- and Bruce Lee was the mob muscle who came to intimidate him!

[david r]

Mulholland Drive is a masterpiece. I took it as David Lynch's scathing condemnation of the Hollywood movie industry. How it seduces you in, takes what it wants and then spits you out, used and ruined. (See Naomi Watts' character at the end of the film.)

A movie like that or Vertigo demand multiple viewing to really *see* everything the director has hidden. Mulholland Drive is a film I can watch over and over and still find new twists and details. And it's lost none of it's charm.

[berk]

Mulholland Drive is a masterpiece. I took it as David Lynch's scathing condemnation of the Hollywood movie industry. How it seduces you in, takes what it wants and then spits you out, used and ruined. (See Naomi Watts' character at the end of the film.)

A movie like that or Vertigo demand multiple viewing to really *see* everything the director has hidden. Mulholland Drive is a film I can watch over and over and still find new twists and details. And it's lost none of it's charm.I agree completely. Can't wait to see what Lynch is going to do next.

[Ontir]

Gone With the Bloody Wind!!!

This is one of the most annoying snooze-fest I've ever had to repeatedly wake up to, ever!