# “Perfect“ films



## Elpenor (Nov 6, 2020)

It occurred to me whilst watching the original version of The Taking of Pelham 123 that this is a perfect film.

As a heist / suspense film and as a piece of entertainment it is virtually flawless. Perhaps the high point of its genre despite being very much a genre film. Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw at the top of their game as they battle each other.

There must be other films which fit into this category. I also thought of Jaws, Stand By Me. Not necessarily the best film ever made from a technical or acting side but masters of their genre and made without trying to be anything other than a good entertaining story. 

Does anyone have any other contenders, or equally, feel free to attack my viewpoint, it’s all good


----------



## Supine (Nov 7, 2020)

Star Wars


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 7, 2020)

Terminator 2


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 7, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Terminator 2



pfft terminator 1


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 7, 2020)

the thing


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Nov 7, 2020)

Godfather II

The Princess Bride

Blues Brothers


----------



## Grace Johnson (Nov 7, 2020)

A Bronx Tale.

Robert de Niros directorial debut. Based on a play by Chaz Palminteri, brilliant writer. He's The guy who plays the gangster in it.

It was just so well done. It was subtle and calm but had such an emotional depth to it. It just flowed. Yeah it's a certain type of film, it's that one that Robert de Niro always did back when he was good. But he does it brilliantly. It's not stark or shocking or mind blowing. It's just a gently written piece of cinema that's been put together with a very light touch. It's an absolute pleasure to watch, there's a richness to it but it's not even trying to do anything. It's just telling a little story.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 7, 2020)

matewan.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2020)

The Sound of Music


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2020)

Carrie


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 7, 2020)

Are you people _deliberately_ trying to trigger Reno?!


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 7, 2020)

Joker


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2020)

Casablanca

Some Like It Hot

Reservoir Dogs


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2020)

Flash Gordon

The Ladykillers

King Kong


----------



## MrSki (Nov 7, 2020)

Harvey.


----------



## JimW (Nov 7, 2020)

Rashomon, uses the medium so well too.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Nov 7, 2020)

"Die Hard" which I think owes a big debt to The Taking of Pelham 123 in its style especially the one liners/dialogue.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 7, 2020)

Aliens, but it depends what one is in to.


----------



## Supine (Nov 7, 2020)

DaveCinzano said:


> Are you people _deliberately_ trying to trigger Reno?!



He disliked my nomination. Obviously had no taste


----------



## dessiato (Nov 7, 2020)

JuanTwoThree said:


> ...
> 
> Blues Brothers


An absolutely pointless but brilliantly entertaining film.

A Bout de Souffle, Bande a Parte, the originals of course.

Men in Black, all three.


----------



## Reno (Nov 7, 2020)

Supine said:


> He disliked my nomination. Obviously had no taste


I dislike all the choices as there is no such thing as a perfect film and even the OP seems rather confused about that. I just find Star Wars the saddest choice.

While I could point out plenty of individual flaws when it comes to Stars Wars, its biggest flaw is that its success steered Hollywood movies towards the bloated special effects driven franchises, which are monopolising the industry now (and the "fanboy" culture which comes with it). The 70s was the most artistically daring decade ever for Hollywood movies. I'd pick Nashville, Klute, Chinatown, Taxi Driver, All That Jazz, A New Leaf, Dog Day Afternoon, The Godfather, The Taking of Pelham 123 and at least a hundred other 70s Hollywood movies over Star Wars.

Star Wars and what it spawned spelled the end to a period of the most artistically and thematically challenging Hollywood films and now all it produces is market researched corporate product aimed at the widest common denominator.

...and that's me participating in a lighthearted thread about "perfect" films. 

Carry on...


----------



## hash tag (Nov 7, 2020)

Rear Window.
A perfectly crafted murder, mystery suspense film directed by Hitchcock starring Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly.
It has the murder mystery, it has a romance interest and it has a dozen different stories as seen by the principle 
characters spying in other peoples apartments. The film is  seen through the eyes of the principal character who is stuck
in a wheelchair, in his apartment for the entire film.
All shot in a beautifully constructed and lit stage set.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 7, 2020)

Reno said:


> I'd pick...Carry On



But which one specifically? 

_Follow That Camel_? _Up The Khyber_? _Don't Lose Your Head_? 

No, surely not..._At Your Convenience_?!


----------



## Reno (Nov 7, 2020)

DaveCinzano said:


> But which one specifically?
> 
> _Follow That Camel_? _Up The Khyber_? _Don't Lose Your Head_?
> 
> No, surely not..._At Your Convenience_?!


_Carry On Screaming!_ of course !


----------



## Sue (Nov 7, 2020)

'Do you mind if I smoke...?'


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 7, 2020)

Depends how specific you are about genres e.g.

12 Angry Men is the perfect jury film
Room is the perfect kidnapped and held in a room for years film
The Bridge on the River Kwai is the perfect British POWs in Burma film
Hacksaw Ridge is the perfect army medic not killing anyone in a single battle film
etc


----------



## Elpenor (Nov 7, 2020)

Maybe not quite that granular!


----------



## bellaozzydog (Nov 7, 2020)

I’ve no time for boom boom action movies but eminently watchable again and again are
Gladiator 
The Bourne Identity 

packed with relentless, seamless hi octane set ups they just roll through the film and time flies, I never get tired or bored of them despite having seen them both loads

Jaws is another I rediscovered on a big screen HD telly and surround sound

I describe them as films that if they start on terrestrial telly you have to watch them ....nowadays I’ll just flick to smart tv and jack em up in HD

watched citizen Kane a few weeks ago and thought it was pump


----------



## Knotted (Nov 7, 2020)

The Blues Brothers is great partly because it isn't perfect. What use is perfect anyway?


----------



## ska invita (Nov 7, 2020)

.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 7, 2020)

The Third Man...every frame!


----------



## Santino (Nov 7, 2020)

Groundhog Day


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 7, 2020)

The Conformist.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Nov 7, 2020)

O Brother Where Art Thou?

I was going to call it a modern classic until I looked it up and found to my horror that it's 20 years old


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 7, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> The Conformist.


I'll put you down for _Carry On Regardless_


----------



## fishfinger (Nov 7, 2020)

I'd say Warhol's "Sleep" is perfect. Put it on when you go to bed. It'll be finished when you wake up.


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 7, 2020)

The Lincoln Lawyer.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 7, 2020)

DaveCinzano said:


> I'll put you down for _Carry On Regardless_


I'll put you down for a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, how about that, big guy?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 7, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> I'll put you down for a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, how about that, big guy?


More of an _Emmannuelle_ kinda fella, I see


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2020)

Raising Arizona. 

Could watch it over and over.


----------



## Santino (Nov 7, 2020)

Groundhog Day


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> I’ve no time for boom boom action movies but eminently watchable again and again are
> Gladiator
> The Bourne Identity
> 
> ...


Gladiator is well boring. It sent me to sleep


----------



## Reno (Nov 7, 2020)

Elpenor said:


> It occurred to me whilst watching the original version of The Taking of Pelham 123 that this is a perfect film.
> 
> As a heist / suspense film and as a piece of entertainment it is virtually flawless. Perhaps the high point of its genre despite being very much a genre film. Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw at the top of their game as they battle each other.
> 
> ...


Love The Taking of Pelham 123, I'd definitely have it in the running for most perfect ending/last shot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2020)

As Knotted said, perfect is overrated. Give me a glorious failure any day over a well-crafted borefest. Nothing Ken Russell did was even close to perfect, but he made some glorious things.

I think Hitchcock's best film is probably Vertigo, but it's uneven in places and the Freudian bits aren't entirely convincing.
His most perfect film is probably Rope, but that's essentially a flim version of a stage play, with a limited ambition.

Kubrick always aimed for perfection. I think Dr. Strangelove is both glorious and just about perfect. The Killing is a near-perfect heist film.

Bela Tarr's Werckmeister Harmonies also deserves a mention.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Raising Arizona.
> 
> Could watch it over and over.


I like the Coens but I've never warmed to that. It's supposed to be charming, I guess. I don't find it remotely so. 

Their first film Blood Simple is probably their nearest-perfect for me.


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 7, 2020)

the big lebowski has to be


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 7, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I like the Coens but I've never warmed to that. It's supposed to be charming, I guess. I don't find it remotely so.
> 
> Their first film Blood Simple is probably their nearest-perfect for me.


THE HUDSUCKER PROXY or GTFO


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2020)

Ax^ said:


> the big lebowski has to be



Hmmm.


----------



## belboid (Nov 7, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> THE HUDSUCKER PROXY or GTFO


No


----------



## Ax^ (Nov 7, 2020)

8ball said:


> Hmmm.


----------



## Sweet FA (Nov 7, 2020)

Point Break


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 7, 2020)

Ture romance


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 7, 2020)

The Great Escape
The Sting


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 7, 2020)

Dr Strangelove


----------



## Sue (Nov 7, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The Killing is a near-perfect heist film.


I think lots of films these days are unnecessarily long and would be way better if they lost 20 minutes or half an hour or whatever. It's really my biggest bugbear with modern films.

I always use The Killing as an example of what you can do* in 85 mins -- tight, slick, stylish, nothing wasted. Now obviously depends on what kind of a film you're making and what you want to do but often less is way more but much much harder than just...more.

*Well if you're Kubrick anyway.

(And whether you go with the perfect film concept or not, lots of the films mentioned are....very very far from perfect.)


----------



## rummo (Nov 7, 2020)

The answer is of course

Withnail & I.

End of discussion.


----------



## T & P (Nov 7, 2020)

I am choosing to interpret ‘perfect’ as completely satisfying, rather than flawless masterpieces of the cinematic arts. From that standpoint... 

Pulp Fiction.
Predator.
Groundhog Day.
Trading Places.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 8, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I like the Coens but I've never warmed to that. It's supposed to be charming, I guess. I don't find it remotely so.
> 
> Their first film Blood Simple is probably their nearest-perfect for me.



Have to see it again, it's been over 30 years and found it both fascinating and confusing at the time.


----------



## Supine (Nov 8, 2020)

Highlander. There can be only one!


----------



## May Kasahara (Nov 8, 2020)

Election.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 8, 2020)

Perfect = Favourite?

Blade Runner is one of my favourite films. It it beautifully filmed, cast, scored and left questions open about a possible future of humanity. The Alien/Aliens films much the same for me.

There are timeless comedies like Airplane, Young Frankenstein, Groundhog Day, Blues Brothers (also a musical) that I will never tire of.

Jaws was far from 'perfect' but an amazing film.


One could argue (and I will ) that Watership Down is a *perfect* film. In fact if I have to die on any hill it will be this hill.


----------



## Saffy (Nov 8, 2020)

Mean Girls.


----------



## Winot (Nov 8, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> THE HUDSUCKER PROXY or GTFO



Definitely their most underrated.


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2020)

Legally Blonde II


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2020)

I'm serious!


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Nov 8, 2020)

Pretty in Pink


----------



## Badgers (Nov 8, 2020)

JuanTwoThree said:


> Pretty in Pink


Mannequin?


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Nov 8, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Mannequin?


If the category is 80s froth that is actually quite good then I'd take 'Big' over 'Mannequin' but 'Pretty in Pink' has any number of compelling reasons to be the perfect 80s light film. Harry Dean Stanton is one of them.


----------



## IC3D (Nov 8, 2020)

I broadly agree with Reno apart from tarring Star Wars with block busters that followed it has some awesome Samouri Westerns influences.
Great films are flawed character based movies like Taxi Driver and Cheech and Chong Up in Smoke. I've loved both equally and at different stages in my life.
It's like comparing music it's a matter of taste primarily though good art can be appreciated if not loved


----------



## deeyo (Nov 8, 2020)

dunno bout any perfect film but steve goodman wrote the perfect country & western song...


Spoiler








once upon a time in the west might be a candidate for the perfect western

usual suspects takes its inner logic and twist to near perfection.

re spielberg - maybe the duel was his perfect movie?


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2020)

Watched _His Girl Friday _last night - that was pretty good.


----------



## A380 (Nov 9, 2020)

Always going to come down to personal choice. But it would be hard to argue, in my opinion, that any of these aren't perfect for what they do.  Not that they are all on my favourites list.

Brief Encounter
Aliens
Joe versus the Volcano
Thema and Louise
Casablanca


Maybe, ones I think might be perfect but not quite sure:


Empire Strikes Back
Barry Lyndon
GroundHog Day
Legally Blond II (me too)
Taxi
Glory
The Guard


----------



## D'wards (Nov 9, 2020)

An American Werewolf in London


----------



## T & P (Nov 9, 2020)

Total Recall is flawed and cliched to fuck in some aspects, but I just remembered it and must add it to my list.
I’m basically seeing this challenge as ‘what films have you not only watched multiple times, but you would invariably leave on if you were channel surfing of a late Saturday night and came across it?’


----------



## A380 (Nov 9, 2020)

T & P said:


> Total Recall is flawed and cliched to fuck in some aspects, but I just remembered it and must add it to my list.
> I’m basically seeing this challenge as ‘what films have you not only watched multiple times, but you would invariably leave on if you were channel surfing of a late Saturday night and came across it?’



Not sure you need to consider a film perfect to pass the multiple views / Saturday night channel surfing test.

Many that pass that test for me are a long way from perfect. (And also don’t make my top 10s.)

Connery Bonds
Heartbreak Ridge
Airplane
Wayne’s World (s)
Bill and Ted
Gravity
The Accountant
Contact

To list a few.


----------



## AverageJoe (Nov 9, 2020)

Has anyone ever seen the George Clooney film called The Descendants? It's the only film I've ever watched, cried my eyes out and then immediately watched it again whilst still blubbing.

I just think it's an amazing, poignant, sad/happy film.

Maybe it affected me like that because of where I was personally at the time (nothing bad, just can't remember), but by crikey I remember it as a hell of a film. To me.... Perfect.

I'd be genuinely I terested to hear opinions of it, especially Reno, who's authority on film here (for me) is the ultimate.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 9, 2020)

Outland


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 9, 2020)

Watership Down.

Edit: fuck, beaten to it.


----------



## Tankus (Nov 9, 2020)

Heat
No country for Old men
Fargo


----------



## A380 (Nov 9, 2020)

Artaxerxes said:


> Outland



Isn’t that ‘just’ High Noon in space? Only saw it once.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 9, 2020)

Donnie Darko

Time travel, alienation, great soundtrack and great performances all round.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Watership Down.
> 
> Edit: fuck, beaten to it.


Good choice. Complete with a rabbit creation myth.

Bad luck to be beaten, tbf! 

Reminds me of another Kubrick-related one. AI - a perfect robot fairytale. I'm not a huge fan of Spielberg's uber-manipulative style, but it really works in this. Spielberg should only make fairytale stories.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 9, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Flash Gordon
> 
> The Ladykillers
> 
> King Kong




I love The Ladykillers.

The Lavender Hill Mob

It's A Wonderful Life

Gaslight (the one with Ingrid Bergman)

Indiana Jones (raiders of the lost ark) was a brilliant film...when I was a kid.... I believe there's a new Indiana Jones out next year? And John Williams has composed the music. Still going strong. 🙂


----------



## ska invita (Nov 9, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> THE HUDSUCKER PROXY or GTFO





belboid said:


> No


Gooo Muuuncie?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 9, 2020)

Sugar Kane said:


> I love The Ladykillers.
> 
> The Lavender Hill Mob
> 
> ...



I reckon they should have called it a day after IJatKotCS - it has some good moments but mostly feels like a tribute act to the first 3...


----------



## Flavour (Nov 9, 2020)

_Sabrina _starring Audrey Hepburn is close to perfect. Lots of that era (_Some Like it Hot _also) are extremely well-crafted. Both directed by Billy Wilder as it happens. Some of the Hitchcock movies of the same period are equally well-made, particularly _Rear Window, Vertigo _and _North by Northwest. _

I also really like _In the Mood for Love _by Wong-Kar Wai. And _Reservoir Dogs_.


----------



## rummo (Nov 9, 2020)

Lesser known gems

The Maggie
Chance of a Lifetime
A Canterbury Tale


----------



## T & P (Nov 10, 2020)

Tankus said:


> Heat
> No country for Old men
> Fargo


Funny you mention No Country... Once or twice I’ve thought of starting a thread titled something like ‘great, critically acclaimed films you actually loved but will probably never watch a second time’.

I would put No Country for Old Men in such a list, as well as a number of others that I’d happily describe as excellent and critically acclaimed. So they’re perfect or at least near-perfect as far as a form of art is concerned, but the fact that I could live to 120 and never have the urge to watch them even for just the second time goes against them.

I might yet start such a thread one of these days.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Nov 10, 2020)

Alien franchise (except the Predator and Prometheus ones)
Attack the Block
Bourne franchise
Casablanca
Fast & Furious franchise
Halloween franchise
Jaws 
La Haine
Legally Blonde franchise
Shaun of the Dead
Thelma & Louise
When Harry Met Sally


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 10, 2020)

One of the problems with culture is that it dates.  Styles seem old hat, technology is surpassed, the casual micro-bigotry of yesteryear sits poorly... you can’t look for perfection on those grounds, let alone that it is not the job of art to create “perfect”.  

That said, it’s hard to find much wrong with Vertigo or Rear Window.  Some Like It Hot and The Philadelphia Story are phenomenal comedies.  One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is lightening in a bottle.  Cabaret is everything it sets out to be - and that’s a lot.  


For some reason I’ve got no films in my list past the 70s.  Hmm.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Nov 10, 2020)

Kind Hearts and Coronets
Goodfellas
The Third Man


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 10, 2020)

Lost In Translation
Radio Days


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2020)

methinks there is a distinct confusion between 'perfect' and 'films I like an awful lot' in here.   There are loads of films that I love, but ones without a shot, or a minor character, or one line out of place?  Not many.

Even Casablanca has one line that almost makes me cringe (although it is well outweighed by all the other brilliant lines).


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 10, 2020)

W


Santino said:


> Groundhog Day


WTF?


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 10, 2020)

T & P said:


> Groundhog Day.


WTF??


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 10, 2020)

Santino said:


> Groundhog Day


WTF?


----------



## Reno (Nov 10, 2020)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Alien franchise (except the Predator and Prometheus ones)



You really think _Alien 3_ and _Alien Resurrection_ are perfect films ?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2020)

Reno said:


> You really think _Alien 3_ and _Alien Resurrection_ are perfect films ?



Find it difficult to muster much enthusiasm for either film, despite both directors output. 

Alien3 was such a disappointment when it came out. It seems to have a following in recent years, but at not convinced.


----------



## Gromit (Nov 10, 2020)

Hero (2002 film) - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




Hero


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 10, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> Lost In Translation




No.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 10, 2020)

Well OK, if perfection is _really_ (are you nuts??) the thing you are after then The Colour of Pomegranates has an every-scene-is-exquisite quality to it. It will probably bore the pants off you, but any one moment is sort of knock out. Honourable mentions for Man with a Movie Camera and The Passion of Joan of Arc.

Edit: Here we go it's on YouTube. Knock yourselves out with some perfection. Get it out your system and then go watch a film that you actually like. (To be fair I find it mesmerising.)


----------



## Gromit (Nov 10, 2020)

Supine said:


> Highlander. There can be only one!


As much as I love Highlander (and I really do love it) it is a flawed masterpiece. I forgive the flaws as I love it. 

No one can forgive Highlander 2.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 10, 2020)

I probably need to watch this again but it blew me away when I saw it in release. It was just gorgeous.


----------



## A380 (Nov 10, 2020)

belboid said:


> methinks there is a distinct confusion between 'perfect' and 'films I like an awful lot' in here.   There are loads of films that I love, but ones without a shot, or a minor character, or one line out of place?  Not many.
> 
> Even Casablanca has one line that almost makes me cringe (although it is well outweighed by all the other brilliant lines).



Definitely correct on every film having a flaw, but then Persian carpets have at least one deliberate flaw’ as onIy god can create perfection. I think most people posting are capable of making the distinction between their favourites and films they think are (near) perfect. 

Princess Bride for example, one of my all time favourites- and lots of other people’s- but no one would claim it was anywhere near perfect.


----------



## A380 (Nov 10, 2020)

Gromit said:


> ... No one can forgive Highlander 2.



Well, there can be only one...


----------



## Reno (Nov 10, 2020)

Never managed to make it all the way through Highlander as I’ve never been a fan of that 80s style of MTV filmmaking. May be one of these generational things....


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2020)

IC3D said:


> I broadly agree with Reno apart from tarring Star Wars with block busters that followed it has some awesome Samouri Westerns influences.
> Great films are flawed character based movies like Taxi Driver and Cheech and Chong Up in Smoke. I've loved both equally and at different stages in my life.
> It's like comparing music it's a matter of taste primarily though good art can be appreciated if not loved


Aye, I get where Reno is coming from, but the original Star Wars is a proper movie with plot, characters etc. They may not be great plot or characters, but they're still there - whereas with the latest entrants in the franchise, it's much more about "film as spectacle". I think it was Scorsese (or was it Godard?) who said that the movies were going back to what they were in the time of Melies, a spectacle, and not a narrative.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2020)

rummo said:


> A Canterbury Tale


good shout - my fave P&P


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2020)

Surprising (but pleasing) amount of love for Legally Blonde on the thread btw.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 10, 2020)

Artaxerxes said:


> I probably need to watch this again but it blew me away when I saw it in release. It was just gorgeous.


It's a long time ago but I liked this a lot. See also _Brothers Bloom _and _Kiss Kiss Bang Bang _all of which stick in my head as doing something special. I'd have to watch them all again to have any confidence they're (near) 'perfect' though.

This a great thread, by the way. I watched The Killing for the first time off the back of this.


----------



## IC3D (Nov 10, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Aye, I get where Reno is coming from, but the original Star Wars is a proper movie with plot, characters etc. They may not be great plot or characters, but they're still there - whereas with the latest entrants in the franchise, it's much more about "film as spectacle". I think it was Scorsese (or was it Godard?) who said that the movies were going back to what they were in the time of Melies, a spectacle, and not a narrative.



Sums it it nicely


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2020)

A380 said:


> Definitely correct on every film having a flaw, but then Persian carpets have at least one deliberate flaw’ as onIy god can create perfection. I think most people posting are capable of making the distinction between their favourites and films they think are (near) perfect.
> 
> Princess Bride for example, one of my all time favourites- and lots of other people’s- but no one would claim it was anywhere near perfect.


In which case no one should mention it on a thread about ‘perfect’ films.   There are already 209 variants of the ‘what’s your favourite film?’ threads, so why not stick to what is asked for in the title?


----------



## A380 (Nov 10, 2020)

belboid said:


> In which case no one should mention it on a thread about ‘perfect’ films.   There are already 209 variants of the ‘what’s your favourite film?’ threads, so why not stick to what is asked for in the title?



It’s an illustration of my argument to provide context  by way of example.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2020)

IC3D said:


> Sums it it nicely



Son, have you ever kissed a girl?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Aye, I get where Reno is coming from, but the original Star Wars is a proper movie with plot, characters etc. They may not be great plot or characters, but they're still there - whereas with the latest entrants in the franchise, it's much more about "film as spectacle". I think it was Scorsese (or was it Godard?) who said that the movies were going back to what they were in the time of Melies, a spectacle, and not a narrative.


Maybe I watch the wrong kind of modern films, but from what I can tell, the American tradition of storytelling is still alive in Hollywood films. Perhaps not in these blockbuster franchises, but very definitely in other kinds of films. William Goldman-style storytelling is still around, no, with a defined character arc, redemption, and all the rest of it? Hollywood is generally much less about spectacle, mood, and atmosphere than many other filmmaking traditions. 'Action' movies perhaps stand a bit apart from that?


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2020)

A380 said:


> It’s an illustration of my argument to provide context  by way of example.


But I don’t think it’s a very good one.  

we all love the movies we love.  That tends to mean we wouldn’t change anything about them, not even the abysmal dialogue in Star Wars.  I prefer umpteen movies to the ones I’ve listed as perfect (great though they are), but perfect is perfect or it is nothing.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 10, 2020)

Glengarry Glen Ross is a perfect study of male ego.


----------



## Humberto (Nov 10, 2020)

The Producers. The original one not the remake which I haven't seen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> Glengarry Glen Ross is a perfect study of male ego.


I think it's far more ambitious than that. For me, it's a study of a particular condition created by precarious capitalism.


----------



## Reno (Nov 10, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe I watch the wrong kind of modern films, but from what I can tell, the American tradition of storytelling is still alive in Hollywood films. Perhaps not in these blockbuster franchises, but very definitely in other kinds of films. William Goldman-style storytelling is still around, no, with a defined character arc, redemption, and all the rest of it? Hollywood is generally much less about spectacle, mood, and atmosphere than many other filmmaking traditions. 'Action' movies perhaps stand a bit apart from that?


There still are American films which are dramas (as in the William Goldman tradition) or more artistically minded films (Wes Anderson, PT Anderson) Almost none of them are Hollywood films. Most of them are independent films, many of them paradoxically financed by European funding bodies which technically makes them European films. Lately streaming services have also started to make these type of films, that means that really they are TV movies.


----------



## IC3D (Nov 10, 2020)

La Haine. Beautiful cinamatograhy, characters and le hip hop.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2020)

Reno said:


> There still are American films which are dramas (as in the William Goldman tradition) or more artistically minded films (Wes Anderson, PT Anderson) Almost none of them are Hollywood films. Most of them are independent films, many of them paradoxically financed by European funding bodies which technically makes them European films. Lately streaming services have also started to make these type of films, that means that really they are TV movies.


Fair enough. My idea of what is an isn't Hollywood nowadays appears to be a bit off.


----------



## Hearse Pileup (Nov 10, 2020)

Memento, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Run Lola Run are all films I really love.

Also a +1 for The Thing and Shaun of the Dead

I also really like J.A. Bayona's The Orphanage and the spanish horror film REC.

I'm sure there are others, I have a hard time picking 'bests' and 'favourites.

Obligatory mention to Fight Club - the film that got me into films.


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 10, 2020)

Back. To. The. Future.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2020)

Pan's Labyrinth is pretty perfectly made. Can't think of anything I'd want to change in it.


----------



## Hearse Pileup (Nov 10, 2020)

The Octagon said:


> Back. To. The. Future.



DAMMIT

I was literally thinking about it just before I started drafting my post lol


----------



## Hearse Pileup (Nov 10, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Pan's Labyrinth is pretty perfectly made. Can't think of anything I'd want to change in it.



I feel a lot of Del Toro's work has this level of accomplishment, I really love his work!


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 10, 2020)

IC3D said:


> La Haine. Beautiful cinamatograhy, characters and le hip hop.


I just rewatched this at the cinema recently, good pick, it is just relentlessly good every second.

I woudl also add Bring It On.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 10, 2020)

Menace II Society.
I Spit On Your Grave (remake)
High Society (musical version, oooff)


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 10, 2020)

Calamity Jane I remembered as perfect but recently tried rewatching it and it's pretty dull. you just need whip crackaway and windy city really.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 10, 2020)

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 10, 2020)

Two lane blacktop


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 10, 2020)

Hearse Pileup said:


> I feel a lot of Del Toro's work has this level of accomplishment, I really love his work!


I haven't seen enough of his films, tbh. Must rectify that.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 10, 2020)

Local hero


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 10, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> Local hero



Researched that recently to confirm my suspicion that it couldn't be as good as I remembered. It is, of course, better than I remembered.


----------



## Hearse Pileup (Nov 10, 2020)

Pee Mak is also a surprisingly good Thai horror comedy film


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2020)

Hearse Pileup said:


> I shouted it out


Welcome to Urban75 and please never use this phrase again.


----------



## Hearse Pileup (Nov 10, 2020)

Santino said:


> Welcome to Urban75 and please never use this phrase again.


My bad


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 10, 2020)

The Octagon said:


> Back. To. The. Future.


i've never seen it and never will.


----------



## Part 2 (Nov 10, 2020)

I'm not sure where perfect film meets comfort film......Carol is a film I remember watching and thinking of as being almost perfect.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2020)

Detroit City said:


> i've never seen it and never will.


You watched it next week


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 11, 2020)

rutabowa said:


> Menace II Society.
> I Spit On Your Grave (remake)
> High Society (musical version, oooff)





rutabowa said:


> Calamity Jane I remembered as perfect but recently tried rewatching it and it's pretty dull. you just need whip crackaway and windy city really.


Don’t get me wrong, I love High Society so much I have a lyric tattooed on me, but it’s floundering to keep all the characters motivated.  Inevitably it has to cut a boatload of content from the original to make room for the songs.  And there’s content in all that rapid fire screwball dialogue in The Philadelphia Story.  

The plot of TPS is more or less a traditional theatrical farce, but the enormous quantity of dialogue puts flesh on the insubstantial, improbable plot.  

Musicals tell less story, hour for hour, than non musicals.  When the plot is flimsy to start with, a musical will expose that.  What High Society does have going for it is unmatched charm plus top performances and banging tunes... but it’s still got a hole in the middle where the plot is unsatisfying.  Obviously all MHO.  

And on the subject of Calamity Jane, while I agree Windy City and Whip Crack Away are barnstormers, the film is really quitesubversive in the way it represents womanhood.  There are pretty mainstream reading of it as being a codified lesbian film, (“A Woman’s Touch” and “Secret Love” being the other two notable songs in the film) although that requires us to write off the Heteromantic ending.  


Thing is, I was considering posting some more musicals yesterday.  Singing in the Rain is glorious but the fifteen minute dance sequence has been shoehorned in and is just weird.  Maybe The Wizard of Oz? and West Side Story.  And Cabaret.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2020)

Detroit City said:


> i've never seen it and never will.



Edgy


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2020)

IC3D said:


> La Haine. Beautiful cinamatograhy, characters and le hip hop.



And never on telly/streaming services. Been hyping it to the better half for years and when she asked what's it about, the other day, could barely remember


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Nov 11, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Find it difficult to muster much enthusiasm for either film, despite both directors output.
> 
> Alien3 was such a disappointment when it came out. It seems to have a following in recent years, but at not convinced.


Tbh, I was thinking more of Alien and Aliens than anything else. If I'm channel hopping and see that an Alien(s) film is on telly, I'll watch it, but now you mention it, that's more likely to be Alien or Aliens than the others.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> Don’t get me wrong, I love High Society so much I have a lyric tattooed on me, but it’s floundering to keep all the characters motivated.  Inevitably it has to cut a boatload of content from the original to make room for the songs.  And there’s content in all that rapid fire screwball dialogue in The Philadelphia Story.
> 
> The plot of TPS is more or less a traditional theatrical farce, but the enormous quantity of dialogue puts flesh on the insubstantial, improbable plot.
> 
> ...


Cabaret probably does come the closest, it would be very hard to find a flaw in it.

Of course there is one musical that is absolutely perfect, but it's not a film so doesn't count.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Nov 11, 2020)

I'll happily nominate Rear Window as a 'perfect film,' as it's not only my favourite Hitchcock film by far, but everytime I watch it I'm amazed I love a PG-rated thriller movie so much.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2020)

Nine Bob Note said:


> I'll happily nominate Rear Window as a 'perfect film,' as it's not only my favourite Hitchcock film by far, but everytime I watch it I'm amazed I love a PG-rated thriller movie so much.


aah, the tale of the 'shrewish' wife just waiting to be murdered and the socialite who needs to be tamed.


----------



## Reno (Nov 11, 2020)

belboid said:


> aah, the tale of the 'shrewish' wife just waiting to be murdered and the socialite who needs to be tamed.


The socialite never got tamed, otherwise the film wouldn't devote its last shot to the fact that she still does as she likes. Whether the wife is "shrewish" is up to interpretation. We find out that Thorwald is a horrible person and that he was probably having an affair, so she may have good reasons to hate him.


----------



## Reno (Nov 11, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> Don’t get me wrong, I love High Society so much I have a lyric tattooed on me, but it’s floundering to keep all the characters motivated.  Inevitably it has to cut a boatload of content from the original to make room for the songs.  And there’s content in all that rapid fire screwball dialogue in The Philadelphia Story.
> 
> The plot of TPS is more or less a traditional theatrical farce, but the enormous quantity of dialogue puts flesh on the insubstantial, improbable plot.
> 
> ...


Love the dance sequence in _Singin' in the Rain_, it's not a flaw, it's a bonus.

_West Side Story_'s flaw is its two bland leads and Natalie Wood's casting as a Puerto Rican.

For a feminist musical of the 50s (or at least as feminist as you get in the 50s), how about _Gentlemen Prefer Blondes ? _The main relationship in the film is the friendship between two women and it's a satire about how women navigate their way in a patriarchal society on their terms.

_Meet Me in St. Louis_ is about as perfect a musical movie as I know.


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2020)

Amelie


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2020)

Some Like it Hot


----------



## paul mckenna (Nov 11, 2020)

Children Of Men


----------



## Reno (Nov 11, 2020)

paul mckenna said:


> Children Of Men


Don't let Atomic Suplex see that !


----------



## Winot (Nov 11, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> Local hero





SpookyFrank said:


> Researched that recently to confirm my suspicion that it couldn't be as good as I remembered. It is, of course, better than I remembered.



It’s a great film and one of my all-time favourites but I think the “Marina (Jenny Seagrove) is a mermaid” plot line is unnecessary and weird.


----------



## Reno (Nov 11, 2020)

Winot said:


> It’s a great film and one of my all-time favourites but I think the “Marina (Jenny Seagrove) is a mermaid” plot line is unnecessary and weird.


I love that, it adds another layer to the film. It's not confirmed or dwelled on either, it's just suggested in one shot.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 11, 2020)

Some more perfect films:

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

His Girl Friday

Double Indemnity.

And from New Zealand - Goodbye Pork Pie.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2020)

Reno said:


> The socialite never got tamed, otherwise the film wouldn't devote its last shot to the fact that she still does as she likes. Whether the wife is "shrewish" is up to interpretation. We find out that Thorwald is a horrible person and that he was probably having an affair, so she may have good reasons to hate him.


A - yes she does, that’s why the magazine is hidden

B - do try to develop a sense of humour


----------



## Reno (Nov 11, 2020)

belboid said:


> A - yes she does, that’s why the magazine is hidden
> 
> B - do try to develop a sense of humour


A - nope

B - your comedy routine needs work.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2020)

It’s all debatable dear heart, that’s why it’s art.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 11, 2020)

A perfect (to me) documentary: _Action, the October Crisis of 1970_

"The quiet revolution is dead. . . the real revolution is just beginning. . . a lot of stupid things are going to happen now".


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 11, 2020)

Re: _Rear Window_. One thing that makes it perfect is that you have to see it on a big screen to get the effect.


----------



## Reno (Nov 11, 2020)

belboid said:


> It’s all debatable dear heart, that’s why it’s art.


That's what I thought we were doing but when I disagree with you, it frequently results in a personal attack on me.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2020)

RW is one of Hitchcock tautest films, no doubt.  It’s just a piece of piss to criticise them from a feministy angle.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Re: _Rear Window_. One thing that makes it perfect is that you have to see it on a big screen to get the effect.



Or through a window


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 11, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> You watched it next week


I dislike that actor who played the lead.  Can't remember his name.  he has Parkinsons


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 11, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Or through a window


_Yo dog, I heard you like _etc. etc.


----------



## Reno (Nov 11, 2020)

belboid said:


> RW is one of Hitchcock tautest films, no doubt.  It’s just a piece of piss to criticise them from a feministy angle.



The feminist discourse around Hitchcock's films has moved on a lot since Laura Mulvey and there  have been plenty of reassessments by feminist film writers  like Anne Billson, Tania Modleski, Camille Paglia and Robin Wood, who would disagree with you. Whole books have been written on the matter, so I'd dispute that its "a piece of piss". Many of Hitchcock films actively deal with a male/female power imbalance, they are about chauvinist men trying to change or mold women to their ideal. That doesn't mean that the films assert that the men are good guys for doing so. Other films of the period simply took a chauvinist stance for granted without investigating it. Hitchcock's films take that as their subject matter and deal with it. Doesn't mean he was a feminist, but his films aren't as simplistic as you make them out to be.

You appear to subscribe to a "showing means approving" type of interpretation, which assumes that films uncritically take the side of their main protagonist. That's never been the case with Hitchcock, who complicates things by giving his heroes unlikeable traits, while making his villains charismatic, charming and sometimes even quite vulnerable. Much has been written about how Hitchcock used James Stewart's decent, all-American image and darkened it, but giving him fetishistic, perverse and misogynist traits. Vertigo takes that to its logical and tragic end. The reason why that film is so highly acclaimed now, is not because people think James Stewart does right by Kim Novak.

If you come to Hitchcock's films with the bias that they must be misogynistic because men treat women poorly in some of them, then that's all you will see. Look further and it gets a lot more complicated. Thematically, it also makes the films far more rich.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2020)

Detroit City said:


> I dislike that actor who played the lead.  Can't remember his name.  he has Parkinsons



Eric Stoltz


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2020)

Reno said:


> That's what I thought we were doing but when I disagree with you, it frequently results in a personal attack on me.


Apologies, I don’t mean to be personal, just thought the reaction was a tad serious for a light hearted post.  I shall endeavour to make my light heart more obvious.  




Reno said:


> The feminist discourse around Hitchcock's films has moved on a lot since Laura Mulvey and there  have been plenty of reassessments by feminist film writers  like Anne Billson, Tania Modleski, Camille Paglia and Robin Wood, who would disagree with you. Whole books have been written on the matter, so I'd dispute that its "a piece of piss". Many of Hitchcock films actively deal with a male/female power imbalance, they are about chauvinist men trying to change or mold women to their ideal. That doesn't mean that the films assert that the men are good guys for doing so. Other films of the period simply took a chauvinist stance for granted without investigating it. Hitchcock's films take that as their subject matter and deal with it. Doesn't mean he was a feminist, but his films aren't as simplistic as you make them out to be.
> 
> You appear to subscribe to a "showing means approving" type of interpretation, which assumes that films uncritically take the side of their main protagonist. That's never been the case with Hitchcock, who complicates things by giving his heroes unlikeable traits, while making his villains charismatic, charming and sometimes even quite vulnerable. Much has been written about how Hitchcock used James Stewart's decent, all-American image and darkened it, but giving him fetishistic, perverse and misogynist traits. Vertigo takes that to its logical and tragic end. The reason why that film is so highly acclaimed now, is not because people think James Stewart does right by Kim Novak.
> 
> If you come to Hitchcock's films with the bias that they must be misogynistic because men treat women poorly in some of them, then that's all you will see. Look further and it gets a lot more complicated. Thematically, it also makes the films far more rich.


All this shows is that it *is* a piece of piss to criticise them from a feminist angle, but that that doesn’t necessarily make that criticism right, or even particularly insightful on occasion. If Hitchcock films were _just_ misogyny we wouldn’t still be watching and analysing them, there is clearly more to them than that. But his misogyny does often show through, even if he also challenges it within the same film. That tension is one of the things that make them great.

In RW Mrs Thorwald is, imo, shown as shrewish, both through the glimpses we see of her and more especially because of Stewart’s commentary (which we go along with for the ride, initially). As the film progresses we see that her husband is obviously much worse. And by the end of the film, Grace can still only read that mag when hubby ain’t watching.

of course the film can be read on many other levels as well, that’s why it’s a proper classic.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 11, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> Don’t get me wrong, I love High Society so much I have a lyric tattooed on me, but it’s floundering to keep all the characters motivated.  Inevitably it has to cut a boatload of content from the original to make room for the songs.  And there’s content in all that rapid fire screwball dialogue in The Philadelphia Story.
> 
> The plot of TPS is more or less a traditional theatrical farce, but the enormous quantity of dialogue puts flesh on the insubstantial, improbable plot.
> 
> ...


I think I am a bit out of my depth, don't quite feel qualified to reply ha, I was just winging it.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 11, 2020)

Reno said:


> Love the dance sequence in _Singin' in the Rain_, it's not a flaw, it's a bonus.
> 
> _West Side Story_'s flaw is its two bland leads and Natalie Wood's casting as a Puerto Rican.
> 
> ...


The Broadway Melody(?) sequence in Singin in the Rain is iconic, yes.  It’s absolutely everything that’s the Technicolor MGM musical.  Glorious.  One of the best bits.  All I’m saying is it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the plot of the film, even down to the leading lady.  


You’re right about West Side Story.  The leads are duff.  And Natalie Wood’s vocals are dubbed too.  The stage version is perfect, though.  


Gentlemen Prefer Blondes as a feminist film is...  not a take I’ve come across before.  I’ll have to rewatch at some point.  

And it’s been decades since I last saw Meet Me in Saint Louis.  It never really captured my imagination but I was probably no more than about ten or twelve...


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 11, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Some Like it Hot


Glorious in so many ways but Tony Curtis deliberately sets out to lie and deceive Sugar into bed. My sixth formers were quite scathing of how anyone could want them to end up together after that.  

The key is, of course, that it’s Lemmon’s film all the way through.  Except the moments where Wilder brings us Monroe at her most luminous.  That dress in “I Want to be Loved By You” number (and thence on the boat) is breathtaking - she looks more naked and erotic than if she were actually nude.  So between that and Lemmon’s comic mastery (and ok, Curtis doing his best Cary Grant), plus the screwball dialogue, George Raft sending himself up and Joe E Smith’s rubber face, I’ll go with glorious.  But it’s too rapey to be “perfect”.

Which of course we would know, if we listen to the final line.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 11, 2020)

belboid said:


> Apologies, I don’t mean to be personal, just thought the reaction was a tad serious for a light hearted post.  I shall endeavour to make my light heart more obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To say Hitch has complicated and dysfunctional ways re: representation of women is so obvious as to be pointless.  But it’s not misogyny.  For each Ice Queen in peril there’s an older, less glam woman who speaks truth to our hero and puts him in his place... just as there was at home.  

Later on his career he veered more towards putting women in sexual danger (there are some frankly vile quotes from the shooting of Marnie’s rape scene, and he got worse as the years went by) - but he also presents us with hopelessly imperilled and dysfunctional male characters.  In Rear Window Stewart’s character’s dilemma at the start, and back grounding the whole film, is whether he should be “tamed” and settle down.  And it’s not presented in such a way as we think he should stay independent.  Grace Kelly’s character is gorgeous, elegant and wealthy, not clingy, she’s funny, she’s clever, she “puts out”...  We think he’s an idiot for holding back.  And by the end she’s got her way.  He has been tamed.  Domestic bliss awaits.  She might be pretending she’ll be part of his roughing-it war photographer life, but right at the end we’re let in on the truth.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 11, 2020)

I think often the men come out of Hitchcock's films rather worse than the women. It's a while since I've seen Marnie, but I remember Connery's character as really very creepy, and his chauvanism as a form of insecure clinginess - a need to feel in control. Jimmy Stewart's always pretty messed up. Cary Grant normally stumbles through and isn't quite as in control as he makes out. Hell, in North by Northwest, he still lives with his mother, I think. It is very much Eva Marie Sant's character who shows him the way. In Psycho, I think I actually prefer the first half of the film that is all about Janet Leigh and her theft. She's certainly the most complex character in the film, and it all goes a bit flat for me after she's killed.


----------



## Sue (Nov 11, 2020)

Can I just say:

Notorious
Suspicion*
Rebecca

Probably my favourite Hitchcock films and all with dodgy men/much better women.

*Would've been better without the cop-out but hey...


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2020)

You can be a misogynist and still write great female characters, especially if you think that one of their defining characteristics is being sly, which so many of his females are.  They’re not alone in that, nor are all of them.  Elderly women can be positively portrayed even while the lead is being abused (as in The Birds).  

Notorious is possibly the most interesting film in this regard, with the entire film being about the nature of trust.   Coming straight after the death of his mother, I think it’s clear what issues he’s working through.


----------



## Reno (Nov 11, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> You’re right about West Side Story.  The leads are duff.  And Natalie Wood’s vocals are dubbed too.  The stage version is perfect, though.


A new film version of _West Side Story _by Spielberg was supposed to get released this year, but like most big films it has been pushed back to next year. In that one the lead actors do their own singing and Maria will be played by a Latin-American actress.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 11, 2020)

IC3D said:


> La Haine. Beautiful cinamatograhy, characters and le hip hop.


Et une vache!


----------



## rummo (Nov 11, 2020)

In The Heat Of The Night has to be in with a shout.


----------



## T & P (Nov 11, 2020)

North by Northwest.


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 11, 2020)

Anything with Sophia Loren


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 11, 2020)

belboid said:


> In RW Mrs Thorwald is, imo, shown as shrewish, both through the glimpses we see of her and more especially because of Stewart’s commentary (which we go along with for the ride, initially). As the film progresses we see that her husband is obviously much worse. And by the end of the film, Grace can still only read that mag when hubby ain’t watching.


I've just rewatched that, inspired by this thread. Jeff's commentary on nagging is exactly that, Jeff's commentary. As the viewer you are not given specific reason to go along with it. And its context is him trying to persuade himself not to marry Grace Kelly. That says something about him. It says nothing really about the Thorwalds, who as you say, we only glimpse through the window, without hearing anything. I totally agree with Spanglechick about the ending. She will be the one who decides whether she goes off with him or he stays with her. That's the meaning of picking up that magazine. I don't see misogyny in the film. The two strongest (and most insightful) characters are women - Grace Kelly and the nurse. And GK more than holds her own when she joins in with the speculation about the lives they're watching. Jimmy Stewart's character is pretty flawed. His old wartime buddy is a bit of an arse.


----------



## Sue (Nov 11, 2020)

I never got over Perry Mason/Ironside being the baddie tbh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 11, 2020)

Sue said:


> I never got over Perry Mason/Ironside being the baddie tbh.


Like when I saw Mrs Mangle from Neighbours in Picnic at Hanging Rock.


----------



## Sue (Nov 11, 2020)

Or Quincey being an Angry Man.


----------



## albionism (Nov 12, 2020)

Emperor of the North Pole.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 12, 2020)

have been thinking...the difference between a really great film and a perfect film is really tight editing


----------



## albionism (Nov 12, 2020)

City Of God.


----------



## passenger (Nov 12, 2020)

The life of Brian.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've just rewatched that, inspired by this thread. Jeff's commentary on nagging is exactly that, Jeff's commentary. As the viewer you are not given specific reason to go along with it. And its context is him trying to persuade himself not to marry Grace Kelly. That says something about him. It says nothing really about the Thorwalds, who as you say, we only glimpse through the window, without hearing anything. I totally agree with Spanglechick about the ending. She will be the one who decides whether she goes off with him or he stays with her. That's the meaning of picking up that magazine. I don't see misogyny in the film. The two strongest (and most insightful) characters are women - Grace Kelly and the nurse. And GK more than holds her own when she joins in with the speculation about the lives they're watching. Jimmy Stewart's character is pretty flawed. His old wartime buddy is a bit of an arse.


Hitchcock is, of course, a master film-maker first, and a misogynist some way down the line. He's not setting out to make a deliberately woman hating film, it's almost accidental, because that is his point of view. So interesting and rounded characters come first, the man has to be flawed, the woman at least interesting and capable of holding her own (to some extent). But it is still easy to see why many people find it flawed and deeply sexist.   Although, I should recognise that if such (disputable) flaws rule out pretty much any Hitchcock, I did also nominate Some Like It Hot, which, as spanglechick pointed out, has a somewhat rapey premise which should see it rejected too.

With that in mind - we _are _given reasons to go along with Jeff - the shots are from his point of view, his is literally the gaze that we see.  In that sense he is privileged within the film. And he's Jimmy Stewart, of course we trust him! Unless we've seen the film before, or Vertigo, etc etc. Add in his views absolutely matched the common ones of the day. One of the main points of the film is how such voyeurism draws us, the cinema goer, into a sympathy and comradeship with such the cameras eye.  We are watching a Hitchcock thriller, so we are hoping for one of the women to be horribly killed so that we can get a thrill from the murder/film. We _have _to identify with Jeff initially to be drawn in - even if we think he's a bit of a dick, he's _our _dick. Of course as the film develops we start to challenge this opinion, but we still never get to see anything (directly through the camera) except from his view or Hitchcocks.

As to the end: so the alternative to her having acquiesced and just seeking out vicarious pleasures when Jeff isn't looking; is that she is sly and manipulative and tells him one thing but does another all along?  Not exactly feminism 101.

We can interpret films with current sensibilities, but we do also have to bear in mind how audiences of the time would have viewed it.  Barely 40 years after the birth of mass cinema, with the dominant social mores of the time, no TV to rewatch films, so you'd only be likely to see it once. We weren't anything like as used to that point of view shot, I can't think of a film that predated its interest in 'the gaze', how cinema is inherently voyeuristic. And while Hitchcock does absolutely undermine it later on, he's still telling us _we love it, _its what we want to see.


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 12, 2020)

passenger said:


> The life of Brian.


🙄


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2020)

Detroit City said:


> 🙄


----------



## Reno (Nov 12, 2020)

belboid said:


> Hitchcock is, of course, a master film-maker first, and a misogynist some way down the line. He's not setting out to make a deliberately woman hating film, it's almost accidental, because that is his point of view. So interesting and rounded characters come first, the man has to be flawed, the woman at least interesting and capable of holding her own (to some extent). But it is still easy to see why many people find it flawed and deeply sexist.   Although, I should recognise that if such (disputable) flaws rule out pretty much any Hitchcock, I did also nominate Some Like It Hot, which, as spanglechick pointed out, has a somewhat rapey premise which should see it rejected too.
> 
> With that in mind - we _are _given reasons to go along with Jeff - the shots are from his point of view, his is literally the gaze that we see.  In that sense he is privileged within the film. And he's Jimmy Stewart, of course we trust him! Unless we've seen the film before, or Vertigo, etc etc. Add in his views absolutely matched the common ones of the day. One of the main points of the film is how such voyeurism draws us, the cinema goer, into a sympathy and comradeship with such the cameras eye.  We are watching a Hitchcock thriller, so we are hoping for one of the women to be horribly killed so that we can get a thrill from the murder/film. We _have _to identify with Jeff initially to be drawn in - even if we think he's a bit of a dick, he's _our _dick. Of course as the film develops we start to challenge this opinion, but we still never get to see anything (directly through the camera) except from his view or Hitchcocks.
> 
> ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2020)

belboid said:


> Hitchcock is, of course, a master film-maker first, and a misogynist some way down the line. He's not setting out to make a deliberately woman hating film, it's almost accidental, because that is his point of view. So interesting and rounded characters come first, the man has to be flawed, the woman at least interesting and capable of holding her own (to some extent). But it is still easy to see why many people find it flawed and deeply sexist.   Although, I should recognise that if such (disputable) flaws rule out pretty much any Hitchcock, I did also nominate Some Like It Hot, which, as spanglechick pointed out, has a somewhat rapey premise which should see it rejected too.
> 
> With that in mind - we _are _given reasons to go along with Jeff - the shots are from his point of view, his is literally the gaze that we see.  In that sense he is privileged within the film. And he's Jimmy Stewart, of course we trust him! Unless we've seen the film before, or Vertigo, etc etc. Add in his views absolutely matched the common ones of the day. One of the main points of the film is how such voyeurism draws us, the cinema goer, into a sympathy and comradeship with such the cameras eye.  We are watching a Hitchcock thriller, so we are hoping for one of the women to be horribly killed so that we can get a thrill from the murder/film. We _have _to identify with Jeff initially to be drawn in - even if we think he's a bit of a dick, he's _our _dick. Of course as the film develops we start to challenge this opinion, but we still never get to see anything (directly through the camera) except from his view or Hitchcocks.
> 
> ...


I take your point about modern sensibilities, but some of the stuff is just there, and was equally there at the time. So Jeff's buddy dismisses GK's 'feminine intuition', decrying the hours wasted following up fruitless leads on feminine intuition. But what she's just told him isn't intuition. It's well-reasoned insight into behaviour. He just isn't listening. He's closer to the mark when he calls her the 'women's psychology department', but of course he's being disparaging with that remark. Link that to his earlier remark about how even idiot murderers can need thousands of man-hours to catch, and the only conclusion from the film can be that the police ought to pay more attention to psychology departments, women's or otherwise, not a surprising message for someone like Hitchcock to insert into a film. And that is just there - intentionally and unambiguously.

Just considering Rear Window, I don't think it is even a tiny bit sexist. If anything, the only sex being criticised by the film is men.


----------



## Johnny Doe (Nov 12, 2020)

I hear there's a new one out, set in Ireland, so realistic it could be a documentary!


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2020)

Harry Smiles said:


> I hear there's a new one out, set in Ireland, so realistic it could be a documentary!



Up there with Far and Away


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 12, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


>


Holy Grail was much better than Life of Brian 😆


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I take your point about modern sensibilities, but some of the stuff is just there, and was equally there at the time. So Jeff's buddy dismisses GK's 'feminine intuition', decrying the hours wasted following up fruitless leads on feminine intuition. But what she's just told him isn't intuition. It's well-reasoned insight into behaviour. He just isn't listening. He's closer to the mark when he calls her the 'women's psychology department', but of course he's being disparaging with that remark. Link that to his earlier remark about how even idiot murderers can need thousands of man-hours to catch, and the only conclusion from the film can be that the police ought to pay more attention to psychology departments, women's or otherwise, not a surprising message for someone like Hitchcock to insert into a film. And that is just there - intentionally and unambiguously.
> 
> Just considering Rear Window, I don't think it is even a tiny bit sexist. If anything, the only sex being criticised by the film is men.


His army mate is a complete dick, definitely.  But not even a tiny bit sexist? Come on.  Not even that but when they look on askance at the attempted rape of Miss Lonelyhearts, but do absolutely nothing about it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2020)

belboid said:


> His army mate is a complete dick, definitely.  But not even a tiny bit sexist? Come on.  Not even that but when they look on askance at the attempted rape of Miss Lonelyhearts, but do absolutely nothing about it?


Don't see it, no. They look away in powerless horror. There is no approval or excusing of it - she invited him in, she's asking for it. None of that. They're fond of Miss Lonelyhearts. The viewer is given no reason not to be fond of her as well. Then within a few seconds, she has fought him off. What could they have done?


----------



## Hearse Pileup (Nov 12, 2020)

Starship Troopers


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't see it, no. They look away in powerless horror. There is no approval or excusing of it - she invited him in, she's asking for it. None of that. They're fond of Miss Lonelyhearts. The viewer is given no reason not to be fond of her as well. Then within a few seconds, she has fought him off. What could they have done?


They could at least have found out her name


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 13, 2020)

There are no perfect films. Too many individuals and variables involved to create a masterpiece.
There are still great films.


----------



## Reno (Nov 13, 2020)

Detroit City said:


> Anything with Sophia Loren


Have you seen _The Cassandra Crossing_ or the remake of _Brief Encounter _she starred in with Richard Burton ?


----------



## Badgers (Nov 13, 2020)

Also Natural Born Killers.


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2020)

Reno said:


> the remake of _Brief Encounter _she starred in with Richard Burton ?


oh wow this sounds terrible.


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2020)

killer b said:


> oh wow this sounds terrible.


I was flicking through the TV guide recently and saw Brief Encounter (which I love) was on. It was this version obviously. Not sure if it was a TV movie but that was definitely the look and feeI. Oh, and it had a contemporary (70s) setting. The five mins I saw were truly terrible.


----------



## killer b (Nov 13, 2020)

it's on youtube - the 1970s setting is a little incongruous - it has the feeling of those public information films warning children off climbing pylons they used to show at school...


----------



## Reno (Nov 13, 2020)

Sue said:


> I was flicking through the TV guide recently and saw Brief Encounter (which I love) was on. It was this version obviously. Not sure if it was a TV movie but that was definitely the look and feeI. Oh, and it had a contemporary (70s) setting. The five mins I saw were truly terrible.


It was shot as a TV movie for the US, with plans to release it in cinemas in Europe. The reviews were so terrible that the cinema release got scrapped.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 13, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Like when I saw Mrs Mangle from Neighbours in Picnic at Hanging Rock.


Every Australian movie I've ever seen has had a bit in it where I've been forced to say "this is like Home and Away".


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 13, 2020)

Reno said:


> Have you seen _The Cassandra Crossing_ or the remake of _Brief Encounter _she starred in with Richard Burton ?


The Cassandra Crossing is one of the great bad movies precisely because she's in it. I know it's terrible, but it's perfectly terrible. Oh, and Richard Harris, also.


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 13, 2020)

Reno said:


> Have you seen _The Cassandra Crossing_ or the remake of _Brief Encounter _she starred in with Richard Burton ?


No I haven’t but I’ll check it out


----------



## Sue (Nov 13, 2020)

Detroit City said:


> No I haven’t but I’ll check it out


I'm not sure that was exactly Reno's point...


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 13, 2020)

Transformers : Dark of the Moon.


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 14, 2020)

Sue said:


> I'm not sure that was exactly Reno's point...


What was the point?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2020)

Detroit City said:


> What was the point?


They're two forgotten gems from the Loren ouvre, and you _need_ to see them. 

tbf I'm tempted by The Cassandra Crossing. 70s all-star disaster movie with Sophia Loren, Ava Gardner, Richard Harris, Burt Lancaster, and um, OJ Simpson. They do not make films like that anymore.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 14, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> Every Australian movie I've ever seen has had a bit in it where I've been forced to say "this is like Home and Away".


Definitely no smoothie bar in Mad Max.


----------



## Reno (Nov 14, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They're two forgotten gems from the Loren ouvre, and you _need_ to see them.
> 
> tbf I'm tempted by The Cassandra Crossing. 70s all-star disaster movie with Sophia Loren, Ava Gardner, Richard Harris, Burt Lancaster, and um, OJ Simpson. They do not make films like that anymore.


The Cassandra Crossing is worth a watch for a laugh. A mismatched cast of Hollywood has-beens and hopefuls, slumming it in a cut-rate European take on the disaster movie, as the popularity of genre was already past its sell-by date. Everybody gives career-worst performances, as they struggle through the inadvertently hilarious screenplay.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 14, 2020)

I really really liked The Two Towers. 
Went to see it in the cinema 7 times when it came out. 
It was brilliant.


----------



## Jay Park (Nov 15, 2020)

Has anybody mentioned kick-boxer yet?


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 15, 2020)

Raheem said:


> Definitely no smoothie bar in Mad Max.


I love the fact that when the original Mad Max was released outside Australia, people didn't understand that it was set in a post-apocalyptic future dystopia, and just assumed "well, this must be what it's like in Australia".


----------



## Reno (Nov 15, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> I love the fact that when the original Mad Max was released outside Australia, people didn't understand that it was set in a post-apocalyptic future dystopia, and just assumed "well, this must be what it's like in Australia".


The first Mad Max isn't set in a post apocalyptic future, it is set a few years in the future during an apparent breakdown of society. Unlike with the later films, the futuristic aspects are minimal, it's mainly a low budget revenge film with car chases. In the first sequel we find out that the social and economic unrest of the first film lead to the apocalypse.

I don't remember anybody  thinking thats what Australia is like when the film came out. They dubbed the film for US audiences, because the US distributors thought audiences wouldn't understand much of the Australian slang and they wanted US audiences to think the film takes place in the US.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 15, 2020)

Reno said:


> The first Mad Max isn't set in a post apocalyptic future, it is set a few years in the future during an apparent breakdown of society. Unlike with the latter films, the futuristic aspects are minimal. In the first sequel we find out that the social and economic unrest of the first film lead to the apocalypse.
> 
> I don't remember anybody  thinking thats what Australia is like when the film came out. They dubbed the film for US audiences, because the US distributors thought audiences wouldn't understand much of the Australian slang and they wanted US audiences to think the film takes place in the US.


Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

(and I thought the idea in MM 1 is that there had been a war elsewhere in the world, and that Oz was barely hanging on by its fingertips?)


----------



## T & P (Nov 15, 2020)

As far as this discussion is concerned, one thing seems undeniable to me anyway. If someone were to ask the question ‘which decade has produced the most perfect films’, the 80s would win by a massive landslide and no mistake.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 15, 2020)

discokermit said:


> matewan.


i have just realised this film isnt perfect. if it had gotten a bigger audience it would have been though, but it didnt so it isnt.

i apologise to anyone who feels misled by my previous statement. this is a difficult time for us all but i am sure we will get through it.


----------



## Reno (Nov 15, 2020)

discokermit said:


> i have just realised this film isnt perfect. if it had gotten a bigger audience it would have been though, but it didnt so it isnt.
> 
> i apologise to anyone who feels misled by my previous statement. this is a difficult time for us all but i am sure we will get through it.


The quality of a film should never be measured by the amount of money it made.


----------



## Sue (Nov 15, 2020)

Reno said:


> The quality of a film should never be measured by the amount of money it made.


A case in point being The Night Of the Hunter which was a critical and commercial failure but would be a very reasonable entry in the 'perfect film' thing. (I still find Robert Mitchum utterly terrifying.)


----------



## discokermit (Nov 15, 2020)

Reno said:


> The quality of a film should never be measured by the amount of money it made.


the quality of the film isnt in doubt. 
its a bit hard for me to articulate but i think film is at its best when used to educate as well as entertain and i think in this film of a struggle between miners and mine owners in a hollow in west virginia john sayles not only entertains, and not only educates us about this instance in time but does it in a way that also educates us about the nuanced roles of state, the middle class, the clergy and religion.
it educates on race and racism without being preachy, how and why its used and how it can be overcome.
it educates on womens part in thes struggles.
it also educates on the importance of music in working class life and how black and white musicians influenced, copied and adapted each others ideas.
it talks of the futility of armed struggle against an opponent with machine guns and that class solidarity is their greatest weapon.
it does all this with great actors, script, lighting, editing everything. it has some fantastic lines. some fantastic performances, james earl jones especially.
if it had reached a larger audience it would have been perfect. as it was, for whatever reason, it wasnt. something so clearly trying to make big generalisations from a small incident and educate, if people dont watch it has failed in some way in what it was trying to do.

as i say, its almost perfect but there is a way it could be improved on, which is more widespread knowledge of it. so it cant be perfect. just a very very very very good film.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 15, 2020)

Sue said:


> A case in point being The Night Of the Hunter which was a critical and commercial failure but would be a very reasonable entry in the 'perfect film' thing. (I still find Robert Mitchum utterly terrifying.)


if part of the films aim is to educate then low viewing figures are a valid criticism.


----------



## Sue (Nov 15, 2020)

discokermit said:


> if part of the films aim is to educate then low viewing figures are a valid criticism.


Is that part of the aim though? And obviously a lower budget, indie film is going to be seen by fewer people than a Hollywood blockbuster, regardless of how good the indie film is 🤷‍♀️.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 16, 2020)

Sue said:


> Is that part of the aim though? And obviously a lower budget, indie film is going to be seen by fewer people than a Hollywood blockbuster, regardless of how good the indie film is 🤷‍♀️.


all i can say is watch it and see.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 16, 2020)

oof! eh?


----------



## Sue (Nov 16, 2020)

discokermit said:


> all i can say is watch it and see.


I've seen it.


----------



## Reno (Nov 16, 2020)

discokermit said:


> the quality of the film isnt in doubt.
> its a bit hard for me to articulate but i think film is at its best when used to educate as well as entertain and i think in this film of a struggle between miners and mine owners in a hollow in west virginia john sayles not only entertains, and not only educates us about this instance in time but does it in a way that also educates us about the nuanced roles of state, the middle class, the clergy and religion.
> it educates on race and racism without being preachy, how and why its used and how it can be overcome.
> it educates on womens part in thes struggles.
> ...



Great films don't offer answers, they raise questions. Any dramatic film which sets out to "educate" makes me run screaming in the other direction. My favourite films by directors like Hitchcock, Kubrick, Billy Wilder, David Lynch etc don't set out to educate.

Not sure what makes you think why Matewan would have been a better film has it been more commercial, as if the subject matter of an 1920s miner strike would have ever had audiences flocking to the cinema. Anyways, you appear to evaluate films as to how they work as propaganda, not as art.

My favourite film by John Sayles is Limbo. It's also his most ambiguous, unresolved and probably his least commercial film.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 16, 2020)

Sexy Beast.

Roars along.
Looks great.
Superb cast.
Nods to the genre all round.
Knowing and yet still accessible.
Gal Dove in speedos 
Don Logan. Every second of him; ‘You fakkin spunkbubble Aitch....’


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Sexy Beast.
> 
> Roars along.
> Looks great.
> ...


Could never get over Don Logan being Gandhi - dunno why everyone was so afraid of the little squirt. All Ray Winstone needed to do was chuck him in the pool


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 16, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> Could never get over Don Logan being Gandhi - dunno why everyone was so afraid of the little squirt. All Ray Winstone needed to do was chuck him in the pool



Well, they did in the end!


----------



## Reno (Nov 16, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> Could never get over Don Logan being Gandhi - dunno why everyone was so afraid of the little squirt. All Ray Winstone needed to do was chuck him in the pool


I thought Ben Kingsley was great but then I think _Gandhi_ is a monumental snooze which never made the slightest impression on me. What keeps _Sexy Beast_ from being a masterpiece for me is that the robbery in the last act is far less interesting than the Pinteresque chamber piece which preceded it. Jonathan Glazer keeps getting better with every film and _Under the Skin_ is his masterpiece so far and _Birth_ is among the most underrated films of the 21st century.  I think he's the most interesting British film-maker currently working.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2020)

Reno said:


> I thought Ben Kingsley was great but then I think _Gandhi_ is a monumental snooze which never made the slightest impression on me. What keeps _Sexy Beast_ from being a masterpiece for me is that the robbery in the last act is far less interesting than the Pinteresque chamber piece which preceded it. Jonathan Glazer keeps getting better with every film and _Under the Skin_ is his masterpiece do far and _Birth_ is among the most underrated films of the 21st century.  I think he's the most interesting British film-maker currently working.


Agree about Under The Skin and willl have to catch up with Birth at some time, but really could not get on with Sexy Beast - though there are bits to love - like Winstone glistening in the pool at the start. Don Logan just did not convince for me. Posh actors being all hard never really has, though I'm sure there are exceptions


----------



## Reno (Nov 16, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> Agree about Under The Skin and willl have to catch up with Birth at some time, but really could not get on with Sexy Beast - though there are bits to love - like Winstone glistening in the pool at the start. Don Logan just did not convince for me. Posh actors being all hard never really has, though I'm sure there are exceptions



Kingsley always said that he based much of Don Logan on his grandmother, an East End rag trader and the family on his mother's side was pretty rough by his account. His father was Indian GP who drank himself to death and they lived in Salford, so not that posh.


----------



## killer b (Nov 16, 2020)

Salford is quite a big city, and not all of it is a bleak shithole y'know. My dad was born not far from where Kingsley was brought up, it's pretty leafy round there.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2020)

He sounds very posh when talking in his real voice. Not a very convincing hard man


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 16, 2020)

killer b said:


> Salford is quite a big city, and not all of it is a bleak shithole y'know. My dad was born not far from where Kingsley was brought up, it's pretty leafy round there.


He grew up in Pendlebury!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> He sounds very posh when talking in his real voice. Not a very convincing hard man


I thought he was very convincing in Sexy Beast. Not sure what his real voice has to do with anything. He's an actor.


----------



## Reno (Nov 16, 2020)

Not really that interested in the usual Urban nitpicking of who is and isn't posh and who therefore can or can't do an accent. If a large part of the family you grow up around working class and you are a talented actor, then it's not too hard to imagine that you can use that in your work convincingly even if you went to a private school.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 16, 2020)

Reno said:


> Kingsley always said that he based much of Don Logan on his grandmother, an East End rag trader and the family on his mother's side was pretty rough by his account. His father was Indian GP who drank himself to death and they lived in Salford, so not that posh.


Enjoyed the making of Sexy Beast. They could only afford Kingsley for a couple of days. Winston said Kingsley arrived 'off the plane' in character and Winston said he found him scary.


----------



## killer b (Nov 16, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> He grew up in Pendlebury!


yeah, in this (substantial, detatched) house. Lowry lived next door apparently (though not at the same time)


----------



## Oldboy (Nov 17, 2020)

Mary Poppins


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 17, 2020)

Is Sexy Beast that guy ritchie film? I can't watch his stuff. ben kingsley is obviously great though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2020)

rutabowa said:


> Is Sexy Beast that guy ritchie film? I can't watch his stuff. ben kingsley is obviously great though.


No. 

I don't think Sexy Beast is quite as amazing as some people think it is. It's a bit formulaic and predictable, imo. But Kingsley is definitely the best thing in it.


----------



## Reno (Nov 17, 2020)

rutabowa said:


> Is Sexy Beast that guy ritchie film? I can't watch his stuff. ben kingsley is obviously great though.


Fuck no. Jonathan Glazer is the opposite of Guy Ritchie.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 17, 2020)

Reno said:


> I thought Ben Kingsley was great but then I think _Gandhi_ is a monumental snooze which never made the slightest impression on me. What keeps _Sexy Beast_ from being a masterpiece for me is that the robbery in the last act is far less interesting than the Pinteresque chamber piece which preceded it. Jonathan Glazer keeps getting better with every film and _Under the Skin_ is his masterpiece so far and _Birth_ is among the most underrated films of the 21st century.  I think he's the most interesting British film-maker currently working.



Agree re Under the Skin. It’s a brilliant film. Cannot agree on the heist. It’s masterfully paced, it’s totally knowing and just enjoyably daft in terms of the interrelationships between the crew. The clothes, the meal, the class angle. It’s brilliant stuff


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 17, 2020)

Glad to see ‘sexy beast’ got a debate going.

My second perfect film is The Deer Hunter.

The first half of the film is a hypnotic close reconstruction of sixties working class America at the end of the post war boom. It’s note perfect in terms of class relations, crumbing reactionary gender politics and the social and cultural (and coming economic) tensions bubbling under that would soon be pour out due to war, the new left, deindustrialisation, the oil crisis and the rise of neo-conservativism. The end of a era at its inception. 

The second half, as a comment on the dehumanising experience of war and on power is gut wrenching.

Those who criticise it for not showing war from the Viet Cong perspective, who quibble about the accuracy of the Russian Roulette scene or moan (preposterously) that it’s too long have missed it’s meta narrative: that this is a close study of working class experience from the rust belt.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2020)

Watched Under the Skin last night cos of this thread. 

Read up on it after watching, and I hadn't realised that many of the characters really were randoms off the street who'd been picked up. That really works. The first half when she's roaming the streets/clubs in search of victims is compelling, and there are some amazingly brutal moments and shots - the dog and people in the sea, for instance, that whole scene is brilliantly done - but when she became lost and confused, so did I a little bit. 

I'm still mulling it over.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 17, 2020)

(I was joking about Guy Ritchie directing sexy beast)


----------



## Reno (Nov 17, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Watched Under the Skin last night cos of this thread.
> 
> Read up on it after watching, and I hadn't realised that many of the characters really were randoms off the street who'd been picked up. That really works. The first half when she's roaming the streets/clubs in search of victims is compelling, and there are some amazingly brutal moments and shots - the dog and people in the sea, for instance, that whole scene is brilliantly done - but when she became lost and confused, so did I a little bit.
> 
> I'm still mulling it over.


Some of the men she chats with in the van were random people filmed with hidden cameras, the ones she picks up all knew they were in a film.

I took a while to make up my mind about the film. It's based on a novel by Michel Faber which I love and which is far more concrete as to what is going on. Initially the film was going to be faithful to the book, but it would have been an expensive film which would have required a lot of special effects work, so Glazer decided to strip out most of the plot, keep the barest outline and to concentrate on the tone and atmosphere of the book. Once I made the adjustment and accepted that the film is its own thing, I came to love it, having revisited it several times.

The film refuses to be that concrete but in essence it's about an alien being who regards us the way we would regard cattle, as a resource to be harvested. Eventually she becomes curious about her human shell and she develops empathy, which is her downfall. The climactic sexual assault comes from the book, but it happens earlier and plays out differently. It's where she starts questioning her mission and her superiors. In the film that moment comes when she doesn't kill the man with neurofibromatosis. The motorcyclist is the equivalent of other alien characters in the book, especially her boss, who retains his alien form in the novel.

The book is a satirical allegory of class, sexism and the ethnics of factory farming, of which just traces remain in the film. There also is an overwhelming sense of melancholy, existential loneliness and menace in the novel, which the film captures perfectly.


----------



## Elpenor (Nov 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> My second perfect film is The Deer Hunter.
> 
> The first half of the film is a hypnotic close reconstruction of sixties working class America at the end of the post war boom. It’s note perfect in terms of class relations, crumbing reactionary gender politics and the social and cultural (and coming economic) tensions bubbling under that would soon be pour out due to war, the new left, deindustrialisation, the oil crisis and the rise of neo-conservativism. The end of a era at its inception.
> 
> ...



When I watched it recently I reflected on the end when they sing God Bless America. I couldn’t decide what I thought about it, I wasn’t sure it was ironic. In the end I decided they sang it out of a desperate need to believe in the America they’d been brought up on given all they’d lost.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2020)

Reno said:


> Some of the men she chats with in the van were random people filmed with hidden cameras, the ones she picks up all knew they were in a film.
> 
> I took a while to make up my mind about the film. It's based on a novel by Michel Faber which I love and which is far more concrete as to what is going on. Initially the film was going to be faithful to the book, but it would have been an expensive film which would have required a lot of special effects work, so Glazer decided to strip out most of the plot, keep the barest outline and to concentrate on the tone and atmosphere of the book. Once I made the adjustment and accepted that the film is its own thing, I came to love it, having revisited it several times.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the motorcyclist confused me a bit. I also realised that the best thing to do was sit back and let it wash over me. 

She barely says a word after she's lost in the fog. Does she even say one word? Not sure. It's a hell of a transformation and switching of roles.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Nov 17, 2020)

Elpenor said:


> When I watched it recently I reflected on the end when they sing God Bless America. I couldn’t decide what I thought about it, I wasn’t sure it was ironic. In the end I decided they sang it out of a desperate need to believe in the America they’d been brought up on given all they’d lost.



Good point. I understand it as a sort of lament for the death of the American dream for the organised American working class. War, unemployment, the fracturing of the nuclear family, ideas of masculinity, identity and, I think, a certain innocence. The point at which millions of lives were about to go backwards


----------



## Sue (Nov 19, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Good point. I understand it as a sort of lament for the death of the American dream for the organised American working class. War, unemployment, the fracturing of the nuclear family, ideas of masculinity, identity and, I think, a certain innocence. The point at which millions of lives were about to go backwards



It is really long though.


----------



## Santino (Nov 21, 2020)

Muppets Christmas Carol


----------



## T & P (Nov 22, 2020)

The Truman Show, come to think of it, definitely makes it to my list.


----------



## porp (Nov 23, 2020)

Les Diaboliques.

Jules et Jim. I've rarely felt more upset, and more unable to stop watching.

LA Confidential

Sholay


----------



## Knotted (Nov 23, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Perfect = Favourite?
> 
> Blade Runner is one of my favourite films. It it beautifully filmed, cast, scored and left questions open about a possible future of humanity. The Alien/Aliens films much the same for me.
> 
> ...



Watership Down is not a perfect film. It's an adaption of a book that's got a large cast of characters and several mini adventures. The film has an insoluble problem of bringing the different characters into play in all the various sub plots while maintaining a relatively short snappy rounded film. Eg. Dandelion is barely in the film at all, Strawberry is edited out completely, Clover appears as an independently minded doe and then disappears from the narrative completely. It's not perfect, it was never going to be a perfect film, more to the point it wasn't aspiring to perfection the film makers makers very clearly made a decision to role with it despite the inherent problems. Much more importantly Watership Down is so much more than mere perfection.

You can imagine a perfectly told story or a perfectly shot sequence or some perfect editing maybe even perfect acting (or at least something close to some notion of perfection). But can you have a film that is perfectly thought provoking, a film that perfectly invests you in a broader mythology, that perfectly resonates with you at a certain point in your life or that perfectly discusses ideas such as death or camaraderie. A perfect film is a film that is easy to watch, that slips down your throat with the minimum of resistance but need not contribute anything of broader cultural significance. Perfect is perfectly forgettable.

If you love Watership Down, please don't call it perfect. It's a serious disservice to a wonderful film. Looking for perfect films is a game for Cowslip Warren rabbits.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 23, 2020)

Talking about the Cowslip Warren, that episode in the film is undermined by showing the story of El-ahrairah at the start. Whereas it makes cinematic sense showing that story at the start, in the book it's a story told by Dandelion at the Cowslip Warren and it shows the Sandleford rabbits both rediscovering and reasserting their own mythology, it's not just a mythology that forms a basis for the story, it's a mythology that the rabbits own and have to fight for. In the film that's sort of there but it's more Fiver having bad feelings which are then confirmed by events, that little battle for ideas is pretty much lost in the film. That may not be a problem, the film doesn't need to follow the book, but the film does follow the book quite closely while simplifying it. They could have just dropped the Cowslip section (they dropped Strawberry anyway) and more time could have been spent Clover or Violet ('Violet's gone!', who?).

None of this undermines the film's power and it encourages you to read the book and it complements the book beautifully. But here we trying find the perfect flayrah for a pleasant afternoon silflay, and broader ideas, thoughts, feelings and world building simply will not do. The Cowslip Warren is a close relative of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and it was Huxley who invented the concept of a perfect film, films in Brave New World were called feelies. Perfect consumption - you got to feel everything.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 23, 2020)

Of course the central problem with Watership Down is that it paints a rabbits eye view of the world while anthropomorphising the rabbits. Is that an imperfection? Of course it is. It doesn't make sense if you examine closely. The solution of course is to plough on regardless of any nagging worries about the coherence of the world view. But the book (and film) throw this back at you regardless. The story is told in English and the rabbits speak English (which is of course absurd) but they also incongruously have their own words for certain things. We have a word for "car" or "automobile" but for the rabbits it is a "hrududu". Same object with two different names in the same language, is it a different thing or the same thing? None of this makes sense. But of course the rabbits have a very different relation with hrududu than we do and this is a fairly profound point about language, it is not just a method of labelling things but a way of talking about your relationship with things. The object-subject dichotomy is not absolute, there is something of the subject in the object.

So here we have a deeply baked in conceptual flaw throwing up a broader discussion point. Sometimes things are interesting not despite their flaws but because of them.


----------



## T & P (Nov 23, 2020)

I can't believe we haven't had The Matrix yet.


----------



## Santino (Nov 23, 2020)

T & P said:


> I can't believe we haven't had The Matrix yet.


It's quite boring though.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2020)

T & P said:


> I can't believe we haven't had The Matrix yet.


I can.


----------



## T & P (Nov 23, 2020)

Santino said:


> It's quite boring though.


Take the blue pill and go back to your office cubicle already


----------



## Knotted (Nov 23, 2020)

Is the mythology of the sun god Frith and El-ahrairah flawed? Well of course it is if you look at it too closely.

At one point in desperation Hazel tries to bargain with Lord Frith "my life for theirs", but Firth replies,

"There is not a day or night but a doe offers her life for her kittens, or some honest captain of Owsla his life for his Chief Rabbit's. Sometimes it is taken, sometimes it is not. But there is no bargain, for here, what is, is what must be."

That's stone cold stoicism where God doesn't even help those who help themselves. It's a naturalistic religion which could certainly be interpreted as social Darwinism with themes of overpopulation and population control. It's quite troubling if you really think about it or try to apply it outside of its context. But the real question is why did I think about it in the first place? Richard Adams developed a fictional rabbit religion that fairly and squarely solves the problem of evil. Fascinating thought, I think.

If something is perfect it is closed, final and finished. If something is thought provoking or ambiguous it is inherently open. When the Sandleford rabbits find themselves trapped between the hombre and the river, Bigwig shouts, "every rabbit for himself" but Hazel refuses. Neither is wrong from Lord Frith's point of view. Social solidarity is something that is developed separately to the religion/mythology of Lord Frith and El-ahrairah.

It is the conceptual flaws themselves that open up your thoughts in this story. But also your emotions. I find this part where Hazel is begging Lord Frith for help to be devastating in ways I find hard to express or even justify. For me there is something about it which is absolutely heartbreaking. But even here it is not about the perfect heartbreaking story, but about how it resonates with me. It very probably doesn't resonate with you in quite the same way. If I had first seen this at a different more cynical time in my life it wouldn't resonate with me in the same way.

The whole thing is sort of shakey if you want to pick it apart and test its perfectness. It is a story about anthropomorphised rabbits after all, it cannot possibly have a sense of completeness to it and therefore there can be no sense of perfection to it. And that's where the wonder of it resides. More nourishing than mere perfection.


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 23, 2020)

Badgers said:


> Perfect = Favourite?
> 
> Blade Runner is one of my favourite films. It it beautifully filmed, cast, scored and left questions open about a possible future of humanity. The Alien/Aliens films much the same for me.
> 
> ...


Blade runner is one of my favorites too


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2020)

Knotted said:


> Is the mythology of the sun god Frith and El-ahrairah flawed? Well of course it is if you look at it too closely.
> 
> At one point in desperation Hazel tries to bargain with Lord Frith "my life for theirs", but Firth replies,
> 
> ...


It’s just a film


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2020)

And it may be perfect for some. It’s a subjective thing innit


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 23, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> It’s just a film


I think your reviews might need a bit of work.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 23, 2020)

Sorry everyone. I'm getting a bit rabbity (pun intended) and emotional. But that's what Watership Down does to me. It doesn't do that to everyone, it would be awful if it did. If it were just a matter of the craft of film making done perfectly or at least really well, then it would be a matter of perfectly pushing certain buttons. But just as there is something of the subject in the object of a hrududu, there is something of me in Watership Down. I wouldn't even say it is objectively a great film, it is something a bit more important than that for me. It is a formative film. Some people find Camus profound, finding meaning in the face of suffering in an indifferent universe etc. But for me the concept of self sacrifice in the face of an indifferent universe transcends that. It captures my imagination somehow. It makes me the fool I am.

It's a subjective thing, but isn't there also a bit of the object in the subject.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 23, 2020)

I have not finished on Watership Down yet. There is one more thing that's definitely a sour note near the end and it just throws it at you and leaves you to deal with it yourself. It's well known to be an upsetting film especially for its U rating. This bit in spoiler code.



Spoiler



The dog gets released on the Efravan rabbits and flings their broken and bloodied bodies through the air to triumphant music. These rabbits are obviously the villains in the story but they are not universally without redemption in the books. The triumphant climax of the film is also one of its most horrific episodes. This is not an example of well rounded moral story telling, but a dose of brutal realism that you might get in a war film. It all fits in with the "nature is red in tooth and claw" philosophy of the story, but then that was always only ever one side of the philosophy, the other being hope, self-sacrifice and camaraderie but such sympathies are not extended to the Efravan enemy. It isn't even that it's an objective, "well this is happening now" scene, there is a definite sense of triumph.

Is this a flaw? Well yes, it's a dissonant note to end on in a film that's at least partly for kids. But as with all these flaws it challenges you to think and it will be the first film that a lot of young people will see that doesn't sugar coat anything. But _that_ musical cue with _that_ scene is off the mark IMO.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 28, 2020)

the pirates! in an adventure with scientists


----------



## T & P (Aug 19, 2021)

I have heard plenty of grown-ups rave about Paddington 2, and have since looked it up and saw that it enjoys ludicrously good critical reviews. I finally watched it for the first time today, and I have to say it seems to me the dictionary definition of a 'perfect film'.


----------



## hash tag (Aug 19, 2021)

Paddington 1 was much better.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Aug 19, 2021)

Sicario is a blinding bit of cinema


----------



## hitmouse (Aug 20, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Good point. I understand it as a sort of lament for the death of the American dream for the organised American working class. War, unemployment, the fracturing of the nuclear family, ideas of masculinity, identity and, I think, a certain innocence. The point at which millions of lives were about to go backwards


Have you read Stayin' Alive by Jefferson Cowie? Can't remember if it touches on Deer Hunter, but it's a great book in general about the cultural depictions of that specific moment, stuff like Joe and Blue Collar. And Saturday Night Fever.


Knotted said:


> The whole thing is sort of shakey if you want to pick it apart and test its perfectness. It is a story about anthropomorphised rabbits after all, it cannot possibly have a sense of completeness to it and therefore there can be no sense of perfection to it. And that's where the wonder of it resides. More nourishing than mere perfection.


I've still never actually seen/read it, but did you ever come across Fall of Efrafa? Post-rocky crust that, as the name suggests, that super inspired by the mythology of Watership Down, their albums were called Owsla, Elil, and Inle. If you have any interest at all in post-rocky crust or crusty post-rock or whatever, might be worth a listen?


----------



## Knotted (Aug 20, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I've still never actually seen/read it, but did you ever come across Fall of Efrafa? Post-rocky crust that, as the name suggests, that super inspired by the mythology of Watership Down, their albums were called Owsla, Elil, and Inle. If you have any interest at all in post-rocky crust or crusty post-rock or whatever, might be worth a listen?



No, but that sounds like the sort of thing I would like. Thanks!


----------



## Winot (Aug 20, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> Local hero


Rewatched this a couple of days ago. Even more perfect than I remember.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 20, 2021)

hitmouse yes I have, a superb book. Really interrogates the period well. I’d highly recommend it to anyone interested in the politics, culture and economic siege of the industrial working class in the 1970’s. This is also excellent:









						[PDF] Dead Man's Town: "Born in the U.S.A.," Social History, and Working-Class Identity | Semantic Scholar
					

This essay analyzes Bruce Springsteen's 1984 hit song "Born in the U.S.A." as a history and commentary on working-class identity. The article discusses the song's narrative elements and its oppositional chorus as they each relate to the social, economic, political, and cultural history of...




					www.semanticscholar.org


----------



## jeff_leigh (Aug 22, 2021)

Grace Johnson said:


> A Bronx Tale.
> 
> Robert de Niros directorial debut. Based on a play by Chaz Palminteri, brilliant writer. He's The guy who plays the gangster in it.





Grace Johnson said:


> Yeah it's a certain type of film, it's that one that Robert de Niro always did back when he was good.


When de Niro was good he was one the finest actors out there, He even learned to drive a bus for his role in that movie 😎


----------



## Grace Johnson (Aug 22, 2021)

jeff_leigh said:


> When de Niro was good he was one the finest actors out there, He even learned to drive a bus for his role in that movie 😎


I didn't know that about the bus. Lovely bit of trivia that. Thank you


----------

