/tv/ - Television & Movies

conan jpeg
(230.42 KB, 1600x1000)

The Citizen Kane of action movies

Why is everyone fellating Citizen Kane? What's the deal?

Raisinettes jpg
(29.05 KB, 400x248)

 >>/51/
The citizen Kane of movie snacks.

conan_the_B... jpg
(386.1 KB, 1000x1500)

Conan-The-Barbarian-�... jpg
(93.41 KB, 1000x564)

Conan-The-Barbarian-�... jpg
(94.16 KB, 1000x564)

conan-le-fi... jpg
(510.72 KB, 1098x1600)

conan-le-film... JPG
(195.25 KB, 900x1200)

 >>/50/
Seconded.

 >>/53/
Agreed. This could be the greatest movie of all time.

arnold-schw... jpg
(165.49 KB, 600x900)

 >>/54/
It has (one of) the best soundtracks ever as well.
Not to mention the beautiful visuals,the  top noptch practical effects and the great casting for all the roles.

Jaws_088Pyxurz jpg
(103.57 KB, 1600x837)

I really thought Jaws was a perfect movie for a long time. I can't find a flaw after all the times I've watched it. It's not even dated really even though it's old as fuck. The plot the pacing the acting the fucking glorious score by John Williams for christs sake. The man versus nature theme . The lack of identity politics in it.  Just a gold nugget trapped in amber

drawfagsOriginalConte... png
(18 KB, 300x300)

 >>/51/
I heard some critic say it was the first modern movie to use lighting creatively or some shit once. 

It's got a kind of debatable plot hole

>In the beginning, Kane says, "Rosebud." The nurse enters the room after the word is spoken. The shooting script only mentions Kane and the nurse being in the room. However, within the movie itself Raymond the butler tells the reporter that he had heard Kane say "Rosebud" after the fight with Susan as well as just before he drops the snow globe, implying that what the viewer is shown in that scene is from Raymond's P.O.V.

To me, the greatest movie is 2001, but having only seen the entire thing after reading the book I am not so sure that I can say that objectively it is that good as I had a better understanding of the parts of the film that had no dialogue then the typical viewer. 

I was somewhat determined at a time in my life to watch the entire AFI top 100 and got about 70 or so films into it I'd say. Most of them aren't very good and are really just praised for innovative story telling or technical achievements. 
Some of the comedies from the 30s are gold imo though. Bringing up Baby, Swing Time, Marx Brothers movies, Roman Holiday, The Philadelphia Story etc etc.
Must watches would include: The Apartment, The Network, Ben-Hur, Spartacus, and Treasure of the Sierra Madre. 

These are all off of the AFI top 100, but if you refer to this list, there is one film on here, that by no means no man woman or child should ever see. That film is called Nashville. It is the worst movie I have ever seen. Worse than Law Abiding Citizen. I have only encountered it on this list. I have never heard anyone speak of it. Never seen it on a movie buff's shelf, a rental store or library. Just the list, and my Netflix order queue. 
It's a stinker, and for no reason.

 >>/463/
roman holiday might not be on the list tbh

 >>/51/
 >>/463/

Technical breakthroughs and innovation are all well and good. These things should be celebrated for being first. Viva la historical spotlight, and all that. The problem becomes,  once the tools are out there anyone may use them and do more. Doing everything well, using all the tools at one's disposal, and making it all work within the limitations of the medium provides ample opportunity to surpass so called timeless masterpieces. This is what leaves contemporary audiences scratching their heads over claims of excellence when they are finally exposed to the exemplar.

Even where familiar only with poorly executed and mindless modern formulaics, they are, at least distantly, aware of the art behind it. Modern critical authorities shall continue posting historical lists, and be driven to white haired insanity by, "Why am I watching this? This is boring!" Boring, i.e. cliche by virtue of being so yesteryear, instead of yesterday.

 >>/465/
Yes, this is essential to not forget. Aside from the part about people scratching their heads, mostly the masses don't get things simply because they're not too bright. Relying on their taste is just the opposite side of the same coin, their judgement is also contemporary but also a whole lot more arbitary and groupthink-based. Just that they're blind to the artistic merits of a past era doesn't justify using their indifference to all artistic merit as an artistic merit itself.

 >>/467/
*poor punctuation, technically renders the meaning incorrect

One of the big red flags when listening to criticism is when they could just as well apply to a book. Things like plot holes, they are very superficial observations about narrative and mostly concern people who don't really even care whether what they're looking at is a movie or book, they only care about pandering to their own little narratives. Commercialism. If a good movie has a(n actual) plot hole it's a shame, but only for reasons external to the movie itself. And mostly it's dependent on the viewer's bias, they just claim the plot holes start where their own prior knowledge of how the world is ends. If a person was so uncultured he didn't know anybody who has a father, and a movie featured an intact family, that person would call it a plot hole that's there just some guy hanging out at some mother's house. It's a shame that this movie can't reach somebody that dense, and a better movie would reach anybody by some cinematic magic, but it's not a flaw in the movie and what it set out to portray. It would be like complaining the finest pearl doesn't also make coffee.

Hard to say, I can name a few must haves:

Pi
The Shining  1980
Night of the Living Dead (the original 60s version)
Carnival of Souls (the original 60s version)
Deliverance  1972
Bad Boys  1983
The Boys Next Door
Two-lane Blacktop
Easy Rider  1969
Beetlejuice  1988
Requiem For The Dream
Pink Flamingos (warning: not family friendly)

 >>/72/
Ah yes, add the Jaws and Rambo series as must haves too.

 >>/469/
Bro, the entire movie is about the significance of the main character's last words and flashbacks throughout the film of his life. His last word, Rosebud at the end turned out to be a sled he had as a child. Showing that, although he was rich, had all the material possessions in the world, influence, trophy wife, he wanted that happiness a child had in a simple toy. I did like the movie but when it's a plot hole that is important to the entire plot, and theme of the movie it's a bigger deal than normal imo. The entire movie is in fact bookended by his last words in the beginning and the revelation of their significance at the end. But no one was there to hear them unless you're just assuming his butler is there. Not a huge deal but it is rarely brought up even in a trivial light when critics discuss it. 
I would think you'd see it brought up more as trivial footnote at least. 
> Tour de force acting of Orson Welles, revolutionary lighting and cinematic pacing etc. Key plot point is nonsensical, but you probably won't notice your first time through.

 >>/470/
 >>/471/
Yes! Some other oldies but goodies:

Rivers Edge (1987) [not family friendly]
Blue Velvet (1986) [not family friendly]
Maximum Overdrive (1986)
The Crazies (the original 1973 film)
Slingblade (1996)
Bad Boy Bubby (1994) [not family friendly]
Night of the Comet (1984)
Trading Places (1983)
The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry (1974)
Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)

And one newer film I recall...

Nebraska (one of the very few new films I like, 2013)

Other then that I'd say 9 out of 10 new films suck ass. I'm sure there are a few exceptions. Some of the best films (in my humble opinion) came out during the mid 1960s all through the early 90s). Films started to suck after they relied heavily on special effects. I like films with good narratives, provocative scripts and unique characters that make you lean back and say "WTF? This is crazy!"