5 Modern Movie Classics

[+/-]

Liquid Blue, did you ask for five movies that we, personally and subjectively, think are masterpieces? Or did you ask for cinematography classics? In your first post, you asked for movies that we would say are masterpieces, but a little further, you said that you were asking for, more specifically, movies that we think are cinematography classics. Now I think there's a big difference between the two, because in my opinion, a movie considered as a masterpiece doesn't necessarily make it a cinematography classic. Anyway, what were you asking for exactly?

Edit
I'm an idiot, thanks galleleo

[Galleleo]

LB didn't make this thread?

[Exalt]

so what im taking from that besides the whole arsty fartsy thing is that a classic movie in your opinion appeals to all generations, which is pretty much what i said a classic movie is.

and yoru right, every movie that is made is a work of art, not necessarilly good or bad or whatever, but still a work of art.

the real classics in art and sculpture tend to be the works of art that EVERYONE enjoys, and thinks is good.

so basicly you need to pick movies that are loved by all generations and types of people, not just the select few of you that like "cult" classics.

ill put it this way, even if i like the movie pulp fiction, someone like my parents or grandparents would totally hate the movie and think it so boring and obnoxious that they would turn it off before watching all of it. That is definately not the quality that a real classic movie possesses

[Galleleo]

I think one value of a classic is being timeless. Is people 10 years from now still watching it and finding it awesome. And I think that it takes time to become a classic.

[Squeezer]

so what im taking from that besides the whole arsty fartsy thing is that a classic movie in your opinion appeals to all generations, which is pretty much what i said a classic movie is.

and yoru right, every movie that is made is a work of art, not necessarilly good or bad or whatever, but still a work of art.

the real classics in art and sculpture tend to be the works of art that EVERYONE enjoys, and thinks is good.

so basicly you need to pick movies that are loved by all generations and types of people, not just the select few of you that like "cult" classics.

ill put it this way, even if i like the movie pulp fiction, someone like my parents or grandparents would totally hate the movie and think it so boring and obnoxious that they would turn it off before watching all of it. That is definately not the quality that a real classic movie possesses

I would consider a classic, or a masterpiece to be something that forever changed the way the medium, or art in general is viewed. I truly believe that the movies I listed forever affected the way that film was created afterward. You can't really define what it is that causes that change, but forever afterward cinema is treated differently.

For this reason, I listed Pulp Fiction (that seems to be my most debated choice.) Before PF, there wasn't a good American movie that used the dialogue to move the story. Sure, plenty of movies before it had good dialogue, but how many relied on the dialogue to keep the viewer invested? There is very little to almost no action in PF, yet the viewer feels for every character. When Vincent Vega dies, the audience can't help but empathize with him. To get a group of average people to feel sorry for the death of a heroin addict/hitman is no easy task. But, because QT is a gifted writer, we end up devastated after witnessing his death.

On top of that, no movie had played with the idea of time like Pulp Fiction had. Later movies, like Momento and Sin City use variations on a orignal, and unique idea that Tarantino crafted. Never before PF had a movie been that out of order, yet made sense. The dialogue matches up with the story, despite the fact that it is wholly out of order. For that alone, QT should have been given an Oscar. It would have been all too simple to accidentially slip up on the order of events, yet the film is done in such a way that it clearly wasn't edited out of order, but instead created that way.

For that reason, I consider Pulp Fiction a modern masterpiece/classic. It was revolutionary, and groundbreaking for it's time, and forever affected the way we look at cinema.

[Exalt]

I would consider a classic, or a masterpiece to be something that forever changed the way the medium, or art in general is viewed. I truly believe that the movies I listed forever affected the way that film was created afterward. You can't really define what it is that causes that change, but forever afterward cinema is treated differently.

For this reason, I listed Pulp Fiction (that seems to be my most debated choice.) Before PF, there wasn't a good American movie that used the dialogue to move the story. Sure, plenty of movies before it had good dialogue, but how many relied on the dialogue to keep the viewer invested? There is very little to almost no action in PF, yet the viewer feels for every character. When Vincent Vega dies, the audience can't help but empathize with him. To get a group of average people to feel sorry for the death of a heroin addict/hitman is no easy task. But, because QT is a gifted writer, we end up devastated after witnessing his death.

On top of that, no movie had played with the idea of time like Pulp Fiction had. Later movies, like Momento and Sin City use variations on a orignal, and unique idea that Tarantino crafted. Never before PF had a movie been that out of order, yet made sense. The dialogue matches up with the story, despite the fact that it is wholly out of order. For that alone, QT should have been given an Oscar. It would have been all too simple to accidentially slip up on the order of events, yet the film is done in such a way that it clearly wasn't edited out of order, but instead created that way.

For that reason, I consider Pulp Fiction a modern masterpiece/classic. It was revolutionary, and groundbreaking for it's time, and forever affected the way we look at cinema.

if your definition of a classic is something that is groundbreaking, you mine as well add movies like the matrix which use special effects in a certain way. but to me its not a movie i care about seeing 10 years from now

[Liquid Blue]

The last 2 sentences I agree with.


And the fact that you claim that emotion is very importan part of any artistic piece. Weather it's emotion in creation or emotion in reaction, it doesn't matter, but it does affect the objectivity of viewer. All I had to say

Cool.


EDIT: While Pulp Fiction was a good movie, I don't think it's a classic and I didn't feel for VV when he died. That's one of my main beefs with pulp fiction, I didn't get too attached to any of the characters and it seemed like some things were thrown in just to push the envelope.

EDIT2: Matrix wasn't groundbreaking at all, those special effects were being used in hong kong action flicks at least 5 years before the Matrix came out. Check out Hard Boiled for some good old gun action.

[Cylor]

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...lassic&x=0&y=0

What is the classic definition? Are there classic definitions? Are definitions classic? Is classic classic?

[Subjugation]

Oh god, not the fuckin dictionary again.

[Zeebu]

when i was a kid, The Princess Bride was a great movie, hell, it still is a good movie.

i liked the american beauty choice up there

i would include raging bull, but i think that was made earlier than 85 (80 i think)

american history x and shawshank redemption were both very good

if i had a kid and a nanny, the hand that rocks the cradle would have effed me up a bit

i thought memento was a cool movie also

oh well, i could list more with a little thought, but i got some work to do, maybe ill post again later

[Ephemeral]

For me, being a capitalist, a "masterpiece" can be interpeted only one way...money. Given that, the top grossing films in the period you stated are:

Titanic $1,845,000,000 (67.4% non-USA) 1997
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King $1,118,900,000 (66.3% non-USA) 2003
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone $976,5000,000 (67.5% non-USA) 2001
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers $926,3000,000 (63.1% non-USA) 2002
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace $924,3000,000 (53.4% non-USA) 1999

Note that all had impact beyond USA. Cult films and other non-commerical films may indeed be 'better' or 'more artistic' in some people's eyes but money is what counts.

[Saturn V]

For me, being a capitalist, a "masterpiece" can be interpeted only one way...money. Given that, the top grossing films in the period you stated are:

Titanic $1,845,000,000 (67.4% non-USA) 1997
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King $1,118,900,000 (66.3% non-USA) 2003
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone $976,5000,000 (67.5% non-USA) 2001
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers $926,3000,000 (63.1% non-USA) 2002
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace $924,3000,000 (53.4% non-USA) 1999

Note that all had impact beyond USA. Cult films and other non-commerical films may indeed be 'better' or 'more artistic' in some people's eyes but money is what counts.

Wow, that's just... .

[genocidal]

Top 5 (I agree with LB's distinction):
Gladiator
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (even though I hate LOTR movies)
Shrek
The Matrix
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

Top 5 Cult Movies:
Office Space
Pulp Fiction
Fight Club
American History X
Toys

[Ephemeral]

Wow, that's just... .

It was 'tongue in cheek' and meant to illustrate how threads like this can be interpreted in endless ways.

[CrvenBan]

I just saw Modigliani on dvd, and while it's not a classic or even non-flawed it holds a certain power that just had me watching. I personally liked almost all artistic moments in the movie and I like the concept of real historical people hanging out in ways that they haven't. I was annoyed with the actors accents at start and feel the movie would have been much better done in french or italian, but after a while, didn't care about it.

Very nice cinematography