MovieChat Forums > Jes' Sayin' > Replies
Jes' Sayin''s Replies
Gene's reviews tended to be much shorter and to the point. They told you what you needed to know in a paragraph or two and then let you get on with the rest of your life. He didn't attempt some kind of literary masterpiece in every review. I think there's a talent in that as well as in the longer review. Pith. Succinctness. But Pulitzer Prize committees don't see things that way. Hence, less acclaim for Mr. Siskel's writing.
Dashiell Hammett wrote in a terse style and never won the Nobel Prize for literature either, but was vastly influential on all kinds of writers who followed, and not just in the detective vein either.
Or maybe you have no idea what it means to direct a movie.
<blockquote>Being a director feels like running a ranch in the West. It’s kind of a mess. You’ve got horses and cattle and chickens and broken fences and filth. You’ve got a lot of people and a lot of physical things. ... There’s nothing pure in making a movie. There’s no flow. It’s highly complex and messy. -- Jerry Seinfeld
</blockquote>
As an example of this kind of thing, they did it pretty well. It helps if you don't know the story in advance though.
The movie Greenleaf is kind of a jerk, actually. See the boat scene on youtube for an example. He's much nicer in the new program.
Noir or Film Noir is the French word for black, but also a style of movie or novel. The blackness refers to things that people do "in the shadows" when no one can see, or in another way to think about it, in the darkness of their hearts. These movies arose in the late 40s and 50s when almost all films were in black and white, and they took advantage of this in the look of the movies, using shadows heavily and interesting effects with cigarette smoke, for example, which tends to look better in a black and white background. The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, and Shanghai Express are some of the more famous films that have elements of this style.
These movies probably got popular because people were tired of the always cheerful, "good guys always win" movies of the 1930s. By this time so many had experienced the horrors and tragedies of World War II that they no longer saw the world that way. They were ready for stories that better reflected their own experiences. In the '50s these films became more tragic in nature. The characters seem doomed to fail no matter what they do.
Patricia Highsmith wrote the Ripley novels in this period and they tend to have this Noir quality so I'm guessing that is probably why they decided to make the series in black and white.
Another reason might be to avoid comparisons with the 1999 film.
Aka <i>The Horse Ate the Hat</i>, giving an idea of the silliness of the Fernandel film.
This is very close to the book, and if you've read it, is an excellent visual depiction of it. But I wouldn't recommend the film to anyone who has not read it because so much of the book is the internal thinking of the main character, which is very difficult to represent in film. Dune would be another example.
The movie still succeeds, however, because millions have read this particular book.
Actually, they did change the ending slightly, tipping the probably outcome in a particular direciton that the book does not.
👍
This article is suggesting that he should ditch the plan altogether:
https://screenrant.com/quentin-tarantino-movie-critic-10-movie-rule-break/
Also, even if he wanted such a limit, he should have refrained from announcing it until the tenth one was in the can. Now expectations can't help but be sky high.
For a final statement film, it did seem a pretty underwhelming topic.
A lot of the so-called people in that list are not individuals but organizations that no normal person likes. The KKK? Come on. Be real.
A lot of trouble for not much gain. The general staff did draw up a plan to do it though: Operation Green/Operation Tannenbaum.
Awful. All the characters are odious. Only the music is any good, but you can find that elsewhere. I can see why the actors wanted to make a movie in which they could chew up the scenery, but the result is not worth it.
The latter
I think most historians agree that Chamberlain was not being disingenuous. He really believed in what he was saying. But what people do not realize is that following the disaster of World War I, people had been searching for a different way to conduct international affairs in order to avoid a repeat. This kind of accommodation strategy was not limited to Chamberlain in the UK, but had been a tenet of his party and even more generally for years. He was just the first one to really try putting it into practice.
But the real problems went back a lot further. Since 1919 the UK had botched the peace. They imposed heavy reparations and let the Germans get away with trying to pay it not by taxes, but by raising interest rates which just created the runaway inflation disaster that gave extremists like Hitler the ability to gain power. They should have foreseen all this or at least put a stop to it. They also messed up by not standing with France to stop Hitler from retaking the Rheinland, when Germany was extremely weak and only bluffing. But they stood by and and nothing.
For more on this see <i>On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace</i> by Donald Kagan.
Hmm, there was some of that, but it wasn't <b>that</b> bad... watched on Netflix.
Then you might want to check out this movie. In this one he's not too bad.
She's pretty old though, and a public figure. See how long your list is by the time you reach her age.
Sheldon would only care about the ones awarded for physics.
Do you have any movies about Errol to add to this list?
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls084086120/
Also here's a list of obscure, but good films from the Golden Age:
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls089936531/