[Sage]

Agreed about David Lean. Anyone who could bring romance to a giant sandbox and dignity to a POW camp could certainly have made the Western to end all Westerns.
Apparently much of Hollywood feels the same as you about Kurosawa, as many of his films have either inspired or been blatantly remade as Westerns (well, so I've read).

[Spiwak]

Nah. I never liked David Lean movies, honestly. I always get bored, and not simply because they're old. There's not enough visually stimulating in his movies to keep me interested.

Yojimbo was really the closest thing to a Western Kurosawa made (I think) and I think it worked better as a samurai flick than what it would have been if he directed Fistful of Dollars, say. Kurosawa was a great swordsman director.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

Nah. I never liked David Lean movies, honestly. I always get bored, and not simply because they're old. There's not enough visually stimulating in his movies to keep me interested.

Yojimbo was really the closest thing to a Western Kurosawa made (I think) and I think it worked better as a samurai flick than what it would have been if he directed Fistful of Dollars, say. Kurosawa was a great swordsman director.

Some people who aren't big fans of Lean's epics, wrong as they may be , do tend to enjoy his earlier, smaller films like Great Expectations, Oliver Twist, and Brief Encounter. In fact, there was a Top 100 British Films list done recently and at #2 was Brief Encounter, before Lawrence of Arabia, Kwai, or Zhivago.

I must say though, anyone who thinks Lean's films aren't visually stimulating has generally not seen them the way they are meant to be seen. I'm not trying to be an ass, but there is a correlation. Pan and scan, hell no. Widescreen? It maintains the original aspect ratio, but the result is a picture that is too small on any 4:3 screen, and still too small on the vast majority of 16 : 9 screens. The way to see Lawrence of Arabia, for instance, is at a theater showing a 70mm print. The region 2 Superbit DVD is pretty damn good (HD DVD would be amazing for this movie), but only if you can watch it on a huge 16 : 9 screen, and I'm talking over 100".

I'm speaking from personal experience as well. The first time I saw this film it was on a 30" screen. I didn't know what the hell the hype was all about. I watched it again on a 61" TV...I was still baffled by the film's reputation. It wasn't until I watched it on a huge theater screen that I understood, and now I think it's one of the 50 best films ever made.

I realize I always seem to quote Roger Ebert, but it's because he says things sometimes that I find to be so accurate. So here we go again:

"This sequence builds up to the shot in which the shimmering heat of the desert reluctantly yields the speck that becomes a man - a shot that is held for a long time before we can even begin to see the tiny figure. On television, this shot doesn't work at all - nothing can be seen. In a movie theater, looking at the stark clarity of a 70mm print, we lean forward and strain to bring a detail out of the waves of heat, and for a moment we experience some of the actual vastness of the desert and its unforgiving harshness."

"I've noticed that when people remember "Lawrence of Arabia," they don't talk about the plot. They get a certain look in their eye, as if they are remembering the whole experience and have never quite been able to put it into words. Although it seems to be a traditional narrative film - like "Bridge on the River Kwai," which Lean made just before it, or "Doctor Zhivago," which he made just after - it actually has more in common with such essentially visual epics as Kubrick's "2001" or Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky." It is spectacle and experience, and its ideas are about things you can see or feel, not things you can say. Much of its appeal is based on the fact that it does not contain a complex story with a lot of dialogue; we remember the quiet, empty passages, the sun rising across the desert, the intricate lines traced by the wind in the sand."


I believe it's a very visual film, but unlike those others, it loses almost everything when screened at small dimensions.

[Spiwak]

You're probably right about Lawrence of Arabia. I certainly wasn't impressed when I saw it on the small screen. I myself would love to have that experience with 2001 all of Kubrick's movies.

I've seen Brief Encounter and Great Expectations, and I still didn't like those as much as everyone else loves them. Something about Lean and I just don't mix.

[lumi]

Lost in Translation - a really good movie. I have a thing for movies that involve ordinary people deciding to escape their lifes.

[NcroManiac]

Strangers on a Train by Hitchcock.
Not his best, but one of the good ones, the scene on the merry-go-round is a classic.

[Maquisard]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Mission Impossible III

Really enjoyed this.

Better than no 2.

Ditto

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Kinda reminded me of True Lies a few times.

My brother dittoed that statement. Actually he said it right after the movie. I hadn't noticed, but understand why he (and you) would think that.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

You're probably right about Lawrence of Arabia. I certainly wasn't impressed when I saw it on the small screen. I myself would love to have that experience with 2001 all of Kubrick's movies.

Yeah, you know, 2001 was shot in 70mm too. Spartacus is horrible though, what overrated tripe. It would be one of his better films to see on the big screen, as far as visuals go, but no thanks... Many of his others I'm not sure would really be improved by seeing them on a large screen.

Originally Posted by NcroManiac

Strangers on a Train by Hitchcock.
Not his best, but one of the good ones, the scene on the merry-go-round is a classic.

Indeed.


By the way, the last movie I saw was a British film from 1949 called Kind Hearts and Coronets. What a masterpiece of black comedy. Alec Guinness is terrific in it (playing all 8 members of the D'Ascoyne family), as is Dennis Price. I can't think of a more immoral comedy than this, and I'm shocked that it was made by Ealing Studios. What other film asks the viewer to essentially root for a serial killer? This is how I described the movie in an IM to my friend (easier than writing a new version, and there aren't spoilers, this is all explained in the first 10 minutes of the movie):

Basically this woman marries for love instead of status. So her family disowns her. However, in that family she could have ascended to the role of Dutchess, and her son could have been Duke. Still, even after her husband dies and she's too poor to carry on, the family won't take her back. She's always teaching her son as he grows up about the family tree and how, technically, he could have been Duke one day (even though there's like 12 other family members in front of him and if they have kids, those would be in front too, LOL). So, finally she dies and her son despises the D'Ascoyne family for what they did to her. They wouldn't even let her be buried in the family tomb. So he sets out to become Duke by murdering ALL of the family members that stand between him and the Dukedom, LOL!!! And they are all played by Alec Guinness, LOL.


As if that's not immoral enough, you've got the murderous wannabe Duke having an affair with a married woman, and lusting after another woman (a widow whose husband he killed) at the same time. He says at one point: "While I never admired Edith as much as when I was with Sibella, I never longed for Sibella as much as when I was with Edith."

Anyway, I can't remember the last time I was so amused by a film that, underneath the comedic surface, seems to be completely cruel and cynical.

[Junkface]

When I grow up, I'm going to be just like Robert Hamer. Apparently Kindhearts and Coronets was a big influence on Goodfellas. And, yeah Lawrence of Arabia must be viewed on a big screen, preferably in 70mm. Although, I'm someone who doesn't even watch movies anymore because they're gutted by DVD or TV and I couldn't be bothered going to the cinema.

If we're still doing Western recomendations, something by Anthony Mann is a must, particularly if we're talking about movies that both utilise the landscape, and have a psychological dimension. I'd say The Man From Laramie is a good choice, but I don't know why. Whatever you do, don't watch The Proposition. People may call it a visually stunning existential Western, but they're ****ing pricks and probably like Lost in Translation. It's not by Anthony Mann... but seems to belong in this paragraph for some reason...

edit: the language filter is less restrictive than I thought. I take it that it's not a way of giving me blessing to sprinkle my posts with a word beginning in c and ending in unts?

[Once A Villain]

So The Proposition isn't good in your opinion? Hmmm... Well damn, I was wanting to see that. LOL.

[Spiwak]

Yeah, you know, 2001 was shot in 70mm too. Spartacus is horrible though, what overrated tripe. It would be one of his better films to see on the big screen, as far as visuals go, but no thanks... Many of his others I'm not sure would really be improved by seeing them on a large screen.

Oh I know 2001 was shot in 70mm. I got this book back when it was $200 and the first print and it came with 12 frames of a 70mm print of 2001 from Kubrick's archives. The book is definitely my most-prized possession, and the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.

As for Spartacus, I agree. I don't consider it a Kubrick film, because it was the one film he made that he didn't have control over.

I think any movie looks better on the big screen. Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining, and Barry Lyndon would certainly benefit, as I see it. In fact, any of his colo works would probably benefit since his photography is so beautiful in his later films (not knocking his B&Ws though).

[After a brisk nap]

I saw 2001 in a 70mm print for its 2001 re-release, and yes, it was mind-blowing.

Funnily enough, I think the only other film I've seen in 70mm was Spartacus, and I agree it isn't much good. (Though, does Spartacus have an intermission? I've seen at least one classic epic with an intermission in 70mm. Could possibly be Lawrence of Arabia, which I don't think is all that great either.)

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

Oh I know 2001 was shot in 70mm. I got this book back when it was $200 and the first print and it came with 12 frames of a 70mm print of 2001 from Kubrick's archives. The book is definitely my most-prized possession, and the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.

As for Spartacus, I agree. I don't consider it a Kubrick film, because it was the one film he made that he didn't have control over.

I think any movie looks better on the big screen. Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining, and Barry Lyndon would certainly benefit, as I see it. In fact, any of his colo works would probably benefit since his photography is so beautiful in his later films (not knocking his B&Ws though).

Barry Lyndon! How could I forget. Of course that one would look amazing on the big screen.

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

I saw 2001 in a 70mm print for its 2001 re-release, and yes, it was mind-blowing.

Funnily enough, I think the only other film I've seen in 70mm was Spartacus, and I agree it isn't much good. (Though, does Spartacus have an intermission? I've seen at least one classic epic with an intermission in 70mm. Could possibly be Lawrence of Arabia, which I don't think is all that great either.)

I believe Spartacus has an Intermission, but I could be wrong.

[Spiwak]

Spartacus has an intermission. I'm pretty sure of it.

[kuze]

Trois Couleurs: Bleu
Trois Couleurs: Blanc
Trois Couleurs: Rouge

Bleu was a beautiful, simple (or rather light) movie, I enjoyed it. Blanc was, however, nothing special. Didn't really like the characters and the setting.

Rouge was amazing. Just amazing. I'm not sure what the other two movies were doing in the trilogy. Sure, there were references, but still: Rouge didn't need Bleu or Blanc.
Thank you Spiwak for your top 20 list, I'd never known about Trois Couleurs without it.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I fell in love with Rouge, I wanted something like that to happen in my life. It was exquisite. Blanc was a nice touching sweet revenge story. Bleu is simply....I just relaxed into its intimacy.

[Junkface]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

So The Proposition isn't good in your opinion? Hmmm... Well damn, I was wanting to see that. LOL.

Not particularly. Taken in fairness, it's probably a slightly above average movie, with some extremely poorly executed scenes, but when I go to the cinema nowadays, I expect something revelatory, so I may have judged it too harshly. I also have a very conflicted relationship with Nick Cave, as my friends will testify, so that may have borne some influence.

[Spiwak]

Three Colors is easily my favorite multi-part movie ever. Move over LotR, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones.

For once I loved every single moment of every piece, and they work so brilliantly as a whole. But Red is my favorite too, obviously.

You should look into Kieslowski's other fims. Decalogue, Double Life of Veronique, Blind Chance....do it.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

Three Colors is easily my favorite multi-part movie ever. Move over LotR, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones.

For once I loved every single moment of every piece, and they work so brilliantly as a whole. But Red is my favorite too, obviously.

You should look into Kieslowski's other fims. Decalogue, Double Life of Veronique, Blind Chance....do it.

As much as I like Kieslowski and his trilogy, my favorite multi-part movie would be Satyajit Ray's The Apu Trilogy (Pather Panchali, Aparajito, and World of Apu). After that I'd have to say Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible and The Fanny Trilogy (Marius, Fanny, Cesar). Godfather I and II are way up there, but in that case there's a "piece" I don't care for...Part III. Heh.

With Kieslowski's Three Colors Trilogy I just can't help but prefer Red much more than the others... Blue was great, but I'm not the biggest fan of White.

[lumi]

Goodfellas - a good movie, but not a fave because it's not quite my type of story. A little better than Casino. Might have my favorite performance by Robert De Niro.

The Royal Tenenbaums - the first Wes Anderson film I've seen. I liked it quite a lot. The style reminded me of Amelie, one of my favorites. I can tell Wes is a control freak and everything in the frame was put there by him so it would be just right.

Rushmore - I think I'm starting to like Wes. A good movie, although not quite as good as the above. Knowing that he's also made The Life Aquatic, these past two films by him make me think he has something for the sea.

The Terminator - I think this movie is a classic, like Raiders of the Lost Ark. While it's not the best made film, it's still watchable and fun, and something that I'll keep turning to once in awhile. Time to watch the second one.