Wow! I hadn't seen this film for a good 3 years until I watched it yesterday. It is truly an incredible piece of filmmaking. Definitely one of the BEST FILMS EVER!
Agreed?

i ah vnt seen it, and no ones ever said anything but "this movie is great" and i usually avoid those. so does it cure cancer?

quote:

Originally posted by Kyle Johnson:
i ah vnt seen it, and no ones ever said anything but "this movie is great" and i usually avoid those. so does it cure cancer?

Well that's a pretty crappy attitude to have, especially for someone interested in filmmaking. You must miss out on a lot of good films.

edit: And I also think Casablanca is a really good film. Love Humphrey Bogart, and a great story.

I don't think you should avoid this film just because so many people think its incredible. Watch it, and if you still don't think it lives up to the hype then fine, but I don't think you'll be disapointed.

I just dont like black and white movies

Haha!

quote:

Originally posted by Kyle Johnson:
I just dont like black and white movies

That is a horrible horrible shame. Soooo many good films are black and white.

just because of this ill be re releasing Filling Bolster as a black and white film

I don't think Casablanca would have worked anywhere near as well is not in black and white. Got to love tht film noir look.

Ive become so engaged in surreal and/or obscure films that its hard for me to be impressed by classical storytelling styles and cinematography. After watching enough intense, in-your-face, edge-of-your-seat, thought-provoking, mind-mutilating films, these traditional movies seem so insufficient somehow.

Its the same with classic novels. Weve become so accustomed with fast-paced thrillers that 900 page character dramas seem nothing short of boring. Try reading Jane Eyre or Les Miserables right after reading Fight Club. Its near impossible

Braininthebox's post is why I hate MTV culture in a nutshell. Nothin' personal against you brain...I'm just saying I agree...Most people are so overstimulated these days, they can't sit still for 3 hours and watch amazing classic films. I miss the slower days a bit...

I personally find it hard to believe that someone interested in filmmaking find its hard to be impressed by this film.
Surely I'm not alone in thinking its a piece of cinematic genius?

I don't believe that I would call it cinematic genius. It is one of the best films ever made, but it really is so great because of the story, the acting, and other aspects not related to the technique. I think Ebert put it best when he said that the best American film ever made was Citizen Kane, but his favorite movie is Casablanca.

Meh. Citizen Kane disappointed me. For being the best film ever in so many people's opinions, it wasn't that amazing. I will eventually have to see Casablanca, but I'm not expecting as much as I was with CK.

These old legends are good. There's no doubt about it. Well made, with real craft, skill and heart... but they're typically only good for what they were, what they are, films made in a different era, at a different stage of the artform. Film is young, very young, and it changes constantly.

I love many movies made in the last 30 years, or even the last five, more than those oldies. Not cause they're old - just cause they're not as good. Art changes. Many present-day artists are better (I know that is subjective, but from our cultural perspective they are better) than the medieval folks who had just discovered perspective. It's natural.

Okay. I've securely sealed up my flame-retardant suit now.

quote:

Originally posted by titaniumdoughnut:
Meh. Citizen Kane disappointed me. For being the best film ever in so many people's opinions, it wasn't that amazing. I will eventually have to see Casablanca, but I'm not expecting as much as I was with CK.

These old legends are good. There's no doubt about it. Well made, with real craft, skill and heart... but they're typically only good for what they were, what they are, films made in a different era, at a different stage of the artform. Film is young, very young, and it changes constantly.

I love many movies made in the last 30 years, or even the last five, more than those oldies. Not cause they're old - just cause they're not as good. Art changes. Many present-day artists are better (I know that is subjective, but from our cultural perspective they are better) than the medieval folks who had just discovered perspective. It's natural.

Okay. I've securely sealed up my flame-retardant suit now.

I think it's important to understand that movies like CK are so impressive because they're what defined the technique for future filmmakers. When we watch them in this reverse order, i.e. see movies in the theater today and then see the original "le maître" of the genre we view the older work in our minds as being derivative and nothing new because we've seen it before in more modern work. Citizen Kane was considered a masterpiece because of its (at the time) revolutionary use of things like mise-en-scene, luma keying and the like.

Hoosiers, for example, is considering more boring and unoriginal now than it was when it first came out because it was one of the first "unlikely sports team goes all the way"-type stories, the underdog winning it all. It's been done so, so many times since then that when we look at it now it seems like the directors were following a template. But in reality it was movies like Mighty Ducks, Miracle and those vomit-inducing Air Bud flicks that actually followed the template.

I agree with you 100%.

quote:

Originally posted by titaniumdoughnut:
I love many movies made in the last 30 years, or even the last five, more than those oldies. Not cause they're old - just cause they're not as good. Art changes. Many present-day artists are better (I know that is subjective, but from our cultural perspective they are better) than the medieval folks who had just discovered perspective. It's natural.

Modern day filmmakers are better because movies like Citizen Kane were made. If those "medieval" folks hadn't discovered perspective when they did, we would still be in the dark ages.

That's very true, and I wonder how long it's going to take film to even out, and stop being nothing more than practice for the next generation of cinema. I feel like the 80s and 90s the trend definitely moved toward movies which age better, but they're still aging.

I also just recently realized that "casablanca" means "white house." Weird.

Just for the record I wasn't saying Citizen Kane is the best movie, I was just saying what Ebert said about it in regards to Casablanca.

I like Citizen Kane for its technique and how it set the bar very high for cinema in its time, but it definitely does not age very well as far as the story goes. I think that films in the past couple decades really do age better than older films, simply as a result of the major changes to culture and society that have occured.

If you look at a movie made in the 40s, so much about what defined a person and society then is obsolete now compared to a film made in the 80s which still has many of the norms of the culture and society that we still follow.

Hopefully that makes sense, because I'm posting in between packing up for a trip overseas and packing up my house to move shortly after, so I'm a little burnt out.