The Film Reviewer

two words for you 'Jeunet' 'Amelie'?

ooops maybe a couple more....'In the Mood for Love'?

am supposed to be getting extra paper for my class and not on internet so I'll leave all you people that are obviously having a quiet day workwise to it:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Very few films today have any romance. I don't just mean a child or an adolesecent's view of romance which is boy-girl, Man-Woman, but a sequence of logical, dramatic events where at each stage core values are in play. Directors that operate today can't grasp that romantic essence and so we end up with chesse, which is tasty on a Cornish Wafer but not so tasty on film.

---

finding virtues in what others see as flaws is also romantic in my opinion....eg Amelie! (yes, its my favourite film)

I also really love Big Blue (as a previous poster mentioned) but reckon that the extended version of the film is actually not awfully good at times and Rosanna Arquette gets annoying but it is still sublime in places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

No listen a mint. The Wizard Of Oz is a great film because it entertains. It entertains not just because of the music but because of its ROMANCE. Loving someone because of their flaws is not romantic, loving them because of their virtues is. That is a clear distinction and one that today's film makers and audience don't understand.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

I sure don't understand :). I found the Wizard of Oz too annoying for words for instance. On the other hand Disney's Beauty and the Beast is brilliant.

---

don't worry about not understanding Stolly, Chris or Graham will be along in a minute to tell you definitively which is the better movie, along with a list of all the factual reasons proving their finding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazTheSlug

any attempt to define the "essential" elements of a good film is doomed to failure.

we can all name examples of films that succeed on their own terms where one element is emphasised above all others.

unless you specify that any film that isn't strong in all your chosen elements doesn't really count as a "film" at all :wink:

surely we all know that there's no such thing as a "good" or "great" film in absolute terms - it's all just personal opinion?

personally, I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than watch Mamma Mia, but I don't think there's any level on which I could try to convince someone who loved the film that their opinion was somehow invalid - and conversely, they'd probably think Rashomon was pants - and I bet there's someone out there who likes both!

---

I like both.

Too many people dislike films without ever watching them and Mamma Mia's an especially good example of that. I didn't especially like Abba before I watched it but incredibly I like a fair few of the songs in the film :). Also lots of would be or actual film buffs play up to and fawn on the views of film critics - liking Citizen Kane never having watched it being a totally acceptable opposite to disliking Mamma Mia never having seen it. I sometimes get to listen to Simon Mayo/Mark Kermode on radio 5 Friday afternoons and loads of the listeners who text in put on their own Mark Kermode airs and graces, liking and disliking films for exactly his reasons (rather than perhaps their own). I find his film reviews pretty good actually but I still like some films he doesn't. In fact he absolutely hates some films I like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

I sure don't understand :). I found the Wizard of Oz too annoying for words for instance. On the other hand Disney's Beauty and the Beast is brilliant.

---

Yeah, but what about flying monkeys?

I think Citizen Cane, Miller's Crossingand Shaun of the Dead stand alone on most criteria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hes

finding virtues in what others see as flaws is also romantic in my opinion....eg Amelie! (yes, its my favourite film)

I also really love Big Blue (as a previous poster mentioned) but reckon that the extended version of the film is actually not awfully good at times and Rosanna Arquette gets annoying but it is still sublime in places.

---

Not seen those Hes. Amelie sounds along the lines of Chocolat which was a good film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

I like both.

Too many people dislike films without ever watching them and Mamma Mia's an especially good example of that. I didn't especially like Abba before I watched it but incredibly I like a fair few of the songs in the film :). Also lots of would be or actual film buffs play up to and fawn on the views of film critics - liking Citizen Kane never having watched it being a totally acceptable opposite to disliking Mamma Mia never having seen it. I sometimes get to listen to Simon Mayo/Mark Kermode on radio 5 Friday afternoons and loads of the listeners who text in put on their own Mark Kermode airs and graces, liking and disliking films for exactly his reasons (rather than perhaps their own). I find his film reviews pretty good actually but I still like some films he doesn't. In fact he absolutely hates some films I like.

---

Best film by far (IMHO:D) with ABBA songs in was Muriel's Wedding :thumbup:

oooo, you are in for a treat CL. I liked Chocolat but imo Amelie is a lot better. It is quirky, stylish and different. Feel good without being schmaltzy (sp?) and sweet without being sickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Not seen those Hes. Amelie sounds along the lines of Chocolat which was a good film.

---

That is such a good film Alf! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alf

Best film by far (IMHO:D) with ABBA songs in was Muriel's Wedding :thumbup:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

I'm sure your comment is partly tongue in cheek Graham coz, as I'm sure you'll agree, a great film is a team event. One of my personal favourites is 'In The Heat Of The Night'. Good script, interesting story that is well shot...but what sticks in the mind is the incendiary interplay between Poitier and Steiger. Without them it may just have been another average 60's pot boiler.

---

Well Wheeze you are right on both counts.

I post to provoke.

And I have already indicated with my comments on Citizen Kane the important people in a movie team are not the cattle (except in cowboy movies).

So let’s take a look at In The Heat Of The Night.

It was directed by Norman Jewison who had been around the block: The Thomas Crown Affair, The Cincinnati Kid,…

It was scripted by Stirling Silliphant who earned his spurs in TV shows such as Naked City and Route 66. A good CV for taut story telling.

Who filmed it? Haskell Wexler. Wow! His work on Days of Heaven has been described as ”breathtaking” . He may well be the greatest American DP. Wexler went on to write, direct, produce and film his own movie Medium Cool which is still an interesting film 40 years later.

Editor? Has Ashby. It just gets better. Ashby went on to direct his own movies and won two Oscars (Film and Direction) for Coming Home.

And en passant the music was by Quincy Jones.

So with a team like that you and I could have acted in it and been part of a great movie but the Casting Director chose other people for the parts.

Casting Director? The most under-recognised job in filmmaking. It is they who look at the roles and decide “who playing their standard acting role will fit the bill?”

Rod Steiger is always Rod Steiger so the skill of the Casting Director was putting Rod Steiger in a film where he could act as…Rod Steiger. And if you were impressed by the “incendiary interplay”-well that was because of the skill of the Director in extracting that and the Editor in selecting the best shots from many, many takes.

So cattle?

Or I could just list the rubbish that Poitier and Steiger have also appeared in to illustrate my point, including of course Poitier reprising the same role in two follow-up Mr Tibbs films that every one chooses to forget.