Jump to content
The Panda

BOT's Top 100 Movies of All Time - Hindsight is 2020 Edition

Recommended Posts

The Pirates sequels were messy as shit back then and I refuse to believe they still aren't now. I know we all have PTSD from the conveyor-belt TV-in-public blockbusters and want some of that weirdness and grandiosity back but please.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 2
  • Not Cool 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, titanic2187 said:

I just don't get why should I care the way how he grown up. It just show you the process of growing up, literally.

The first part is fair. If you don't care you don't care. Happens to all of us. But the second part I think short-changes the movie. Yes, it does show you the process of growing up, but 1) it also shows you the process of all the people around him changing as well and 2) it's not just about the process itself but what is revealed through this process: the feeling of time flying by (emphasized by 12 years being packed into under 3 hours), the arbitrariness of connections made and lost, the way your environment shapes you as a person, seemingly insignificant moments become far bigger memories than usual coming-of-age touchstones and some events mean much more (or less) to you than they do to other people and you don't even realize it. The goal of the movie isn't to thrill you with "plot" or unexpected character development, but to observe human lives being lived and get you to reflect on all the above-mentioned things by relating them to your own experience of growing up and passage of time. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

The Pirates sequels were messy as shit back then and I refuse to believe they still aren't now. I know we all have PTSD from the conveyor-belt TV-in-public blockbusters and want some of that weirdness and grandiosity back but please.


I mean, you’re not wrong. They’re giant messes. But Verbinksi causes a lot of happy mayhem with his action sequences. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Verbinski films are at least a little bit messy but that's why I enjoy them so much (haven't seen The Mexican yet though). It's rare to see a blockbuster director who goes fuck it and decides to add the weirdest, most absurd shit into his movies.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

KGtRKvp.png

 

df4eons.png

 

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"History is turned on its comic head when, in tenth-century England, King Arthur travels the countryside to find knights who will join him at the Round Table in Camelot. Gathering up the men is a tale in itself but after a bit of a party at Camelot, many decide to leave only to be stopped by God, who sends them on a quest: to find the Holy Grail. After a series of individual adventures, the knights are reunited but must face a wizard named Tim the Enchanter, killer rabbits and lessons in the use of holy hand grenades. Their quest comes to an end however when the Police intervene - just what you would expect in a Monty Python movie."

 

Its Legacy

 

"Television was still chintzy and cheerful when Monty Python first aired in 1969, so to satirize it, the show had to be as dramatic as possible. But the opening scene of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the group’s first “proper” cinematic effort, which was released 40 years ago, did the opposite. The trappings of film are inherently epic, particularly in 1975, and in scraping together the funds to make Holy Grail, Monty Python had shot for the moon, creating a spoof tale of knights and magic in Arthurian times. So those opening credits, set to foreboding music, with irrelevant Swedish subtitles boasting about “møøse,” do a quietly perfect job of upending any expectations. No single element in the film is allowed more than a second of seriousness before getting a pie in the face.  I first saw Monty Python and the Holy Grail with my grandmother at the age of 10 at the historic Stanley Theater in Utica, New York—the grandest setting you could imagine for the grandest piece of irreverence ever produced. I had, perhaps, seen clips from the film before, or at least knew its highlight reel—the Knights Who Say Ni, “I fart in your general direction,” the killer rabbit, and so on. But with its opening credits, Monty Python and the Holy Grail hoodwinked me in the same way it did audiences in 1975, in the same spirit with which it will continue to poke fun at viewers ad infinitum.

 

You barely notice the subtitles at first, beyond chuckling at their pointless inclusion, then realize what’s going on—that the edges of reality are being blurred; that there’s no premise, not even a simple credit sequence, that this film won’t seek to subvert. The Swedish text turns into a tourism advertisement, then the film stops altogether and the audience is assured that everyone involved “has been sacked.” But the møøse won’t go away, not until the credits are overhauled in a bright, energetic new style, and even then they’ve only been replaced by llamas. Before any actors have appeared on screen or any dialogue has been spoken, the film has its audience in hysterics.  It’s possibly redundant to state what an impact Monty Python had on comedy, but needless to say, almost everything that came after it had some link, however tenuous, to the work of Cleese, Palin, Terry Jones, Graham Chapman, Eric Idle and Terry Gilliam. Showing Holy Grail to a young comedy fan now can almost be like showing Casablanca to someone who watches a lot of Hollywood dramas—it’s like seeing the template for success; one that’s been repeated, tweaked, challenged and paid homage to over and over again. Saturday Night Live began airing later that year with one foot firmly planted in Monty Python sketches; Matt Groening called it a great influence on The Simpsons; every subsequent film that broke the fourth wall felt in its debt.

 

Holy Grail has an appealing cheapness to it that it constantly winks at—the knights clopping coconuts together to imitate horses—and it doesn’t hide the brutal, damp backdrop of Scotland that everything was shot against. It can’t really pretend to be an epic movie, but then it doesn’t need to—part of the fun of Holy Grail is that, despite its setting, it’s not really satirizing anything specific. The group’s follow-up film, Life of Brian, feels like a much more targeted swipe at the widescreen cinema of David Lean or Cecil B. DeMille, and the inflated self-importance of every mythic tale, but Holy Grail is more an assault on the self-importance of cinema itself.  After the opening credits, King Arthur marches on screen, dancing on an invisible horse, and presents himself to a castle as the Sovereign of all England. “Pull the other one!” comes the voice from over the wall. Throughout the film, the humor continues in that vein—Arthur is lectured for automatically proclaiming himself king and “hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma”; the feared Black Knight is chopped to pieces in the briefest of duels; the finery of Camelot is rejected because Arthur decides “it is a silly place”; and his knights finally meet their match at the paws of a harmless-looking rabbit. Perhaps that’s why I remember seeing it in all the finery of the Stanley Theater, which it seemed almost built for. Holy Grail is never mean-spirited, but it reminds its audience never to take anything too seriously, regardless of its trappings. No matter what the future of cinema, or comedy, might be, that message should easily carry through for another 40 years or so."

- David Sims, The Atlantic

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

EW2rAjrWAAIfKET.jpg

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"All right, I’ll just say it. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is the most sublimely irreverent, most jaw-droppingly hysterical movie of the last twenty years. How many films, after all, have Knights who say “Ni!,” filth-eating peasants, and 160 nubile virgins with names like Zoot and Dingo? How many contain lengthy discussions on the aerodynamic properties of African swallows and scenes where overzealous knights hack entire wedding parties to bits, all couched in a wicked deconstruction of cherished Arthurian myths?  What aberrant comic zephyr blew the film’s six brilliant creators (Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin) together at precisely the right moment in history, and who in their right mind unleashed them on an unsuspecting public? Surprisingly, comedy’s great benefactor was that stodgiest of British cultural institutions, the BBC. Young but experienced in the ways of TV sketch comedy, the team was brought together in the late ‘60s to create a late-night show that would appeal to England’s unchained youth. Visualized as the bastard off-spring of Peter Sellers’s Goon Show and Peter Cook and Dudley Moore’s Beyond the Fringe, Monty Python’s Flying Circus was an inspired mix. The high-flown verbal gymnastics that were the trademark of Cambridge grads Chapman and Cleese, and the lowbrow physical comedy mastered by Oxford’s Idle, Jones, and Palin, were perfectly balanced by Gilliam’s voluptuously grotesque animations. This was high-wire hilarity at its most death-defying.

 

By the end of the show’s increasingly successful four-year run, the Pythons were internationally famous, and talk of making a feature film naturally arose. Their decision to tackle medieval myths long held sacred by their countrymen led to delirious liberties. What if “brave” Sir Robin were actually a coward, dogged by a minstrel who sung incessantly of his misdeeds? What if Lancelot were headstrong to the point of imbecility? What if they portrayed God not as a radiant beneficence, but as a dyspeptic bully? What if He were a cartoon? Never have poor Arthur and his men been so severely goosed, nor history so mangled. Although their brand of humor may seem to teeter on the edge of pandemonium, they’re actually following a strict comic credo all their own—once revealed in a different context: “Our chief weapons are fear, surprise, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.”  It’s said that art flourishes in adversity, and Monty Python and the Holy Grail is proof. Shooting on a nonexistent budget in the dank and rainy Scottish countryside (dressed in chain mail, no less) was rough enough, but the problems were compounded by the fact that four of the Pythons found themselves, for the first time, taking orders from two of their own. The twin Terries’ directing efforts were reportedly met with much teeth-gnashing resentment from their cohorts, who felt that they were taking too long to set up shots. Cleese has said that he felt his life was endangered on several occasions, particularly in the pyrotechnic Tim the Enchanter scene and the run across the rickety Bridge of Death. (He finally had a stunt man perform the latter for him.) Fortunately, once they saw the dailies, they realized they work making something worth stubbing a few toes over, and they soldiered on."

- Colman deKay, The Criterion Collection

 

User Opinion

 

"One of my favorite films of all time." - @Water Bottle

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

Oh, Brave Sir Robin

 

I demand a shrubbery

 

Now screw off! Ni! Ni!

 

tumblr_nfkiv9YUem1teygvgo6_1280.png

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 71, 2013 - 59, 2014 - 75, 2016 - 64, 2018 - 94

 

Director Count

 

Richard Linklater - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Alfonso Cuaron - 2, John McTiernan - 2, Lee Unkrich - 2, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, James Cameron - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, David Fincher - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Alfred Hitchock - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, David Lean - 1, Akira Kurosawa - 1, Hayao Miyazaki - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,   Martin Scorsese - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Before Trilogy - 2, Pixar - 2, Spider-Man - 2,  Cameron - 1, Die Hard - 1, Monty Python - 1, Predator - 1, Scorsese -1, Star Wars - 1, Studio Ghibli - 1, Terminator - 1, Toy Story - 1, WDAS - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1940s - 1, 1950s - 2, 1960s - 1, 1970s - 2, 1980s - 5, 1990s - 3, 2000s - 5, 2010s - 11

 

 

 

  • Like 16
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't on my list (I prefer Life of Brian overall), but Monty Python and The Holy Grail is one of those films I've probably rewatched at least eight times. Just brilliant absurdist comedy at its finest.

 

giphy.gif 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

GAV1zs7.png

 

h1IPgIi.png

 

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."

 

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"U.S. Air Force General Jack Ripper goes completely and utterly mad, and sends his bomber wing to destroy the U.S.S.R. He suspects that the communists are conspiring to pollute the "precious bodily fluids" of the American people. The U.S. president meets with his advisors, where the Soviet ambassador tells him that if the U.S.S.R. is hit by nuclear weapons, it will trigger a "Doomsday Machine" which will destroy all plant and animal life on Earth. Peter Sellers portrays the three men who might avert this tragedy: British Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, the only person with access to the demented Gen. Ripper; U.S. President Merkin Muffley, whose best attempts to divert disaster depend on placating a drunken Soviet Premier and the former Nazi genius Dr. Strangelove, who concludes that "such a device would not be a practical deterrent for reasons which at this moment must be all too obvious". Will the bombers be stopped in time, or will General Jack Ripper succeed in destroying the world?" - IMDb

 

Its Legacy

 

"This month marks the fiftieth anniversary of Stanley Kubrick’s black comedy about nuclear weapons, “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” Released on January 29, 1964, the film caused a good deal of controversy. Its plot suggested that a mentally deranged American general could order a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, without consulting the President. One reviewer described the film as “dangerous … an evil thing about an evil thing.” Another compared it to Soviet propaganda. Although “Strangelove” was clearly a farce, with the comedian Peter Sellers playing three roles, it was criticized for being implausible. An expert at the Institute for Strategic Studies called the events in the film “impossible on a dozen counts.” A former Deputy Secretary of Defense dismissed the idea that someone could authorize the use of a nuclear weapon without the President’s approval: “Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth.” (See a compendium of clips from the film.) When “Fail-Safe”—a Hollywood thriller with a similar plot, directed by Sidney Lumet—opened, later that year, it was criticized in much the same way. “The incidents in ‘Fail-Safe’ are deliberate lies!” General Curtis LeMay, the Air Force chief of staff, said. “Nothing like that could happen.” The first casualty of every war is the truth—and the Cold War was no exception to that dictum. Half a century after Kubrick’s mad general, Jack D. Ripper, launched a nuclear strike on the Soviets to defend the purity of “our precious bodily fluids” from Communist subversion, we now know that American officers did indeed have the ability to start a Third World War on their own. And despite the introduction of rigorous safeguards in the years since then, the risk of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear detonation hasn’t been completely eliminated.

 

The command and control of nuclear weapons has long been plagued by an “always/never” dilemma. The administrative and technological systems that are necessary to insure that nuclear weapons are always available for use in wartime may be quite different from those necessary to guarantee that such weapons can never be used, without proper authorization, in peacetime. During the nineteen-fifties and sixties, the “always” in American war planning was given far greater precedence than the “never.” Through two terms in office, beginning in 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower struggled with this dilemma. He wanted to retain Presidential control of nuclear weapons while defending America and its allies from attack. But, in a crisis, those two goals might prove contradictory, raising all sorts of difficult questions. What if Soviet bombers were en route to the United States but the President somehow couldn’t be reached? What if Soviet tanks were rolling into West Germany but a communications breakdown prevented nato officers from contacting the White House? What if the President were killed during a surprise attack on Washington, D.C., along with the rest of the nation’s civilian leadership? Who would order a nuclear retaliation then?

 

The most unlikely and absurd plot element in “Strangelove” is the existence of a Soviet “Doomsday Machine.” The device would trigger itself, automatically, if the Soviet Union were attacked with nuclear weapons. It was meant to be the ultimate deterrent, a threat to destroy the world in order to prevent an American nuclear strike. But the failure of the Soviets to tell the United States about the contraption defeats its purpose and, at the end of the film, inadvertently causes a nuclear Armageddon. “The whole point of the Doomsday Machine is lost,” Dr. Strangelove, the President’s science adviser, explains to the Soviet Ambassador, “if you keep it a secret!”  A decade after the release of “Strangelove,” the Soviet Union began work on the Perimeter system—a network of sensors and computers that could allow junior military officials to launch missiles without oversight from the Soviet leadership. Perhaps nobody at the Kremlin had seen the film. Completed in 1985, the system was known as the Dead Hand. Once it was activated, Perimeter would order the launch of long-range missiles at the United States if it detected nuclear detonations on Soviet soil and Soviet leaders couldn’t be reached. Like the Doomsday Machine in “Strangelove,” Perimeter was kept secret from the United States; its existence was not revealed until years after the Cold War ended.  In retrospect, Kubrick’s black comedy provided a far more accurate description of the dangers inherent in nuclear command-and-control systems than the ones that the American people got from the White House, the Pentagon, and the mainstream media.  “This is absolute madness, Ambassador,” President Merkin Muffley says in the film, after being told about the Soviets’ automated retaliatory system. “Why should you build such a thing?” Fifty years later, that question remains unanswered, and “Strangelove” seems all the more brilliant, bleak, and terrifyingly on the mark."

- Eric Schlosser, New Yorker

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

9069cdd5410007a20396302e83b340c1.jpg

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"Baleful and brilliant, Dr. Strangelove; Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, will outrage a predictable percentage of the population and enthrall an even greater percentage. Candid and Candide-an, beneath its free-form burlesque of some of the most cherished contemporary cliches, Stanley Kubrick's creation makes visual the underlying anxiety that today stirs uneasily in most of the world's population. The Columbia release is concerned with that dread probability, an "accident" triggering the Bomb. It is so funny because it is so true. It should be a huge success. Dr. Strangelove is not an assault on American nuclear policy; it is an aghast look at the entire world, a world in which the demoniacal word "overkill" is accepted as a logical point of discussion. Sterling Hayden plays the general who orders the attack, perfectly sensible from his point of view since the Russians are responsible for fluoridation of water resulting in impurity of bodily fluids, the first step in destruction of the American Way of Way Life. Keenan Wynn, another high Army officer, is vigilant against "pree-verts," although he seems a little dim about what identifies "pree-verts." He has chosen them as his symbol of the enemy. George C. Scott, the commanding Air Force general, is just as mad, but he is more formidable in his madness; it is undistinguishable from the general insanity of our time. Kubrick does not assign the insanity of nuclear fever only to one side. The Russians are equally delirious. After the world has been triggered for oblivion, the Russian ambassador is seen busily, furtively photographing American "secrets," reflex actions with no relation to realities. 

 

Kubrick's success with Dr. Strangelove is based on his knowledge that, no matter how good your story, nobody is going to listen unless it is well told. Kubrick also appreciates that a serious point may be far more devastatingly made with humor than earnestness. Voltaire survives, while others are forgotten. Kubrick tilts the world a few degrees, aims at it a clear, high-power lens, and compresses all the inanities of our time. He stretches no points, he just picks them out and puts them together. He tells his story with speed but with significant detail and with sufficient time on important sequences. Detail is superb and dialogue gleams with bright gems of inconsequence, designed to shock, amuse and keep wary the observer. Only one objection: "funny" names are very low comedy and not in keeping with the otherwise high tone of the production.   Slim Pickens has a big and important role, the commanding officer of the bomber that gets through to Russia. In a final fillip of dementia, he rides one of the bombs right down to the target. He is excellent. Peter Bull is a personification of suspicion as the Russian envoy. Tracy Reed, the only female in the cast, has a wonderful scene early in the film which she handles very well. Others important and helpful include James Earl Jones, Jack Creley, Frank Berry, Glenn Beck, Shane Rimmer and Paul Tamarin.   Gilbert Taylor's photography concentrates on black-and-white realism and is an important asset in making sure the subtle story and its elusive detail are caught. Laurie Johnson's music is a major aid to the satirical tone. It is good because it does not try to be funny on its own, but is played straight and only becomes funny when contrasted with the action on film. There is an important difference that is not always seen. Ken Adam's production design is fine. Anthony Harvey's editing keeps the story taut.  Kubrick has shown before that he is a director of rare gifts. Dr. Strangelove — the name, incidentally, of the Nazi scientist — brings them into full realization." - James Powers, THR 1964 

 

User Opinion

 

"My second favorite Kubrick film after 2001, and one of my favorite movies period. Excellent satire on nuclear war and bombs and the military, and absolutely hilarious, with clever dialogue. Sellers is brilliant in three different roles (easily his best performance) and George C. Scott is also great. The rest of the cast including Hayden, Wynn and Pickens also turn in stellar performances." - @Fancyarcher

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

It is time to learn

 

Worry less, blow em' up more

 

Keep the War Room peace

 

fbutthop7kn8ekfct9cx.jpg

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 75, 2013 - 42, 2014 - 37, 2016 - 72, 2018 - Unranked

 

Director Count

 

Richard Linklater - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Alfonso Cuaron - 2, John McTiernan - 2, Lee Unkrich - 2, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, James Cameron - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, David Fincher - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Alfred Hitchock - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, Stanley Kubrick - 1, David Lean - 1, Akira Kurosawa - 1, Hayao Miyazaki - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,   Martin Scorsese - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Before Trilogy - 2, Pixar - 2, Spider-Man - 2,  Cameron - 1, Die Hard - 1, Monty Python - 1, Predator - 1, Scorsese -1, Star Wars - 1, Studio Ghibli - 1, Terminator - 1, Toy Story - 1, WDAS - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1940s - 1, 1950s - 2, 1960s - 2, 1970s - 2, 1980s - 5, 1990s - 3, 2000s - 5, 2010s - 11

 

 

Edited by The Panda
  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I quote, "I warned you, I warned you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, Oh, no, It's just a harmless little BUNNY." like once a week.  

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

72rUizP.png

 

88NKW99.png

 

"Silencio."

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"A bright-eyed young actress travels to Hollywood, only to be ensnared in a dark conspiracy involving a woman who was nearly murdered, and now has amnesia because of a car crash. Eventually, both women are pulled into a psychotic illusion involving a dangerous blue box, a director named Adam Kesher, and the mysterious night club Silencio."

 

Its Legacy

 

"Nobody can dispute that David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive is a work of art. Fragmented geography, no-frills set designs, multi-layered interpretations and a solid soundtrack by composer Badalamenti — not to mention a complex plot revolving, both literally and figuratively, around dreams.  The recent publication Back to Mulholland Drive: Minimal Fantasy, originally published in French in 2017,  goes a step further: it studies Lynch’s cult classic as a starting point for, and as an influence in, contemporary art. According to the book’s editor, the art critic and curator Nicolas Bourriaud, Lynch helped to create an artistic style that could be called “Minimal Fantasy.” The term refers to an aesthetic of seeming mundanity mixed with surrealism, horror, and the uncanny.  Back to Mulholland Drive is the written expansion of the 2017 art exhibition Retour sur Mulholland Drive, which Bourriaud curated in the sunny city of Montpellier. Apparently, Bourriaud was unsettled by rows of palm trees and endlessly good weather, just as the viewer senses something uncanny in the seemingly shiny and tranquil Los Angeles of Mulholland Drive. Without getting into too much detail, the film’s pleasant setting starkly contrasts with the slow unraveling of the three main characters, who move through a surreal and fragmented urban dreamscape.  Bourriaud gathered the works of 24 artists, each of whom owed some artistic debt to Lynch. The artworks are explored in some detail in the first part of the book, which examines the ways that psychological tension in David Lynch’s work inspired particular artists.

 

While the eight essays in the book make Back to Mulholland Drive more than a simple catalog, its contents do little in terms of expanding on the artistic understanding of David Lynch’s film. Instead, the written contributions fold themselves into a vicious cycle of devotion to the symbolism of Mulholland Drive. (An attentive copy edit would have helped, too: at one point in the book, the character Diane Selwyn is referred to as Diane Sullivan.)  Take, for example, Pavel Cazenove’s essay “Blue Lynchean Nightmare. Analysis of a Series of Plastic Objects in Mulholland Drive.” Cazenove first cites Jacques Aumont’s theory of the cinematic object, but after a winding journey he concludes that a blue box in a pivotal scene simply “refers to the emptiness of death and destruction.” He believes that a mysterious triangular key in the film implies that Mulholland Drive is a  film à clef  “to which perhaps only the author knows the secret.” (Glad he cleared that up.)  In “Memory, Identity and Desire: A Psychoanalytic Reading of David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive,” Murat Akser tries to replicate Slavoj Zizek’s approach to Lost Highway by using Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan to untangle the fascinating mess of the film: he actually sees the two segments of the film as one being the dream of another dream. Fans of the movie Inception will surely appreciate Akser’s theory — but why should a book about art deal with a psychoanalytic approach just to try to find an underlying logic to Mulholland Drive’s plot?"

- Angelica Frey, Hyperallergic

 

From the Filmmaker

 

"So how did you first pitch the idea to ABC as a potential TV series?

 

I just had two pages that were read to them, and then more pitch stuff to give them a mood and more of a thing. And at that point, they were all saying, “Sounds great. Let’s do it.”

 

But what was on those two pages?

 

A couple of things: a woman trying to become a star in Hollywood, and at the same time finding herself becoming a detective and possibly going into a dangerous world.

 

As the idea developed in your mind, what was it about Mulholland Dr. that made you fall in love with it?

 

If someone said to you, “What was it about that girl that really made you fall in love with her?” you couldn’t say just one thing. It’s so many things. It’s everything. Same with this. You get an idea. A moment before, it wasn’t there. And it comes SO FAST! And when you get the idea, it sometimes comes with an inspiration, an energy, that fires you up. Maybe the love is in the idea, and it just comes into you. I don’t know. But the idea is really small, and then it expands and shows itself to you so you see it completely. And then it goes to the memory bank so that you can examine it some more. It’s very complete. It’s like a seed. The tree is really there, but it’s not a tree yet. It wants to be a tree, but it’s just a seed.  Sometimes an idea presents itself to you and you’re just as surprised as anyone else. I remember when I was writing Mulholland Dr., the character of the Cowboy just came walking in one night. I just started talking about this cowboy. That’s what happens—something starts occurring, but it wasn’t there a moment ago.

 

Do you then get anxious about how this idea is going to fit in with everything else?

 

No, because you’re just in that world yourself. You’re just going. There is no movie yet. Until the process completes itself, you’re just going to carry on. Somewhere along the way, when it looks like it’s taking some sort of shape, the rest of the ideas all gather around to see if they can fit into that shape. Maybe you’ll find out that that thing isn’t going to work, so you save it in a box for later.  You’ve got to be the audience for most of this trip. You can’t second-guess them. If you did, you’d be removing yourself from yourself. Then you’d be out there in really dangerous territory, trying to build something for some abstract group that’s always changing. I think you’d fail. You’ve got to do it from the inside first and hope for the best.

 

Tell me about the character of Diane—or Betty—as there are two differently named characters, both played by Naomi Watts. What do we call her?

 

This particular girl—Diane—sees things she wants, but she just can’t get them. It’s all there—the party—but she’s not invited. And it gets to her. You could call it fate—if it doesn’t smile on you, there’s nothing you can do. You can have the greatest talent and the greatest ideas, but if that door doesn’t open, you’re fresh out of luck. It takes so many ingredients and the door opening to finally make it.  There are jokes about how in L.A. everyone is writing a script and everyone has got a résumé and a photo. So there’s a yearning to get the chance to express yourself—a sort of creativity in the air. Everyone is willing to go for broke and take a chance. It’s a modern town in that way. It’s like you want to go to Las Vegas and turn that one dollar into a million dollars. Sunset Boulevard says so much about that Hollywood dream thing to me.

 

Did you ever feel that way about this town yourself—that it was the place to make your career as a filmmaker?

 

No. I came in through a weird door, and I didn’t really know about it. I arrived here in August 1970, at night, and I woke up in the morning, and I’d never seen the light so bright. A feeling comes with this light—a feeling of creative freedom. So for me it was almost an immediate full-tilt love affair from then on. Hopefully, everybody finds a place where they feel good about being where they are—a place that does something to them. That’s L.A. to me."

- Interview from Lynch on Lynch

 

EKin3BeXYAAwMpZ.jpg

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"Mulholland Drive (2001) has been lauded across the board since its release 15 years ago. It was even voted the best film of the 21st century so far in a much-publicised BBC Culture poll of 2016. Indeed, the very language used to encapsulate the film’s excellence in the concluding article of the survey fell back on what is now becoming familiar – though increasingly unsatisfying – shorthand to attempt to condense Mulholland Drive’s specific allure.  Comments praising Mulholland Drive as a “brilliant commentary on Hollywood machinations” and “a sort of backhanded Valentine to Tinsel Town” betray an overestimation of the film’s Los Angeles location and the fact that the large majority of its personnel play actresses, directors and producers in the movie business. There is no denying that Los Angeles is a necessary backdrop for the magic of David Lynch’s story to play out on. That Hollywood noir canvas is merely subservient, however, to the film’s more fertile territory and the truer cause for its marked impact on audiences.

 

It is the crowning glory of David Lynch’s craft here: a stately black limo, carrying Rita, winds its way along Mulholland Drive, accompanied by Angelo Badalamenti’s haunting synthesiser score and Lynch’s own series of mesmeric dissolves. It almost seems to whisper of the descent into the dream world – underscored by the subject of the scene being Rita (the ultimate dream fetish), whereas in the repeat journey at the end of the film, the passenger is Diane, in cold, dissatisfied reality, about to receive her final humiliation.  Mulholland Drive is not the first film to use dream logic to enhance its narrative. Where it differs from those films is that the subconscious realm is usually nightmarish and reinforces the sanctity of reality. Mulholland Drive diverges completely, in being about the increasingly stressful attempt to repress and deny the presence of reality.  This accounts for Lynch immersing his story in all manner of portents alluding to the fragility of Betty’s world. It almost prefigures the notion conjured up by Christopher Nolan in Inception (2010) of there being projections (defence mechanisms) attacking the dreamer."

- Patrick Nabarro, One Room with a View

 

User Opinion

 

"Alright, still recovering from it all, but I gotta say, daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn  I'm so glad I watched this movie (been putting it off for way too long) -- Instant classic  That's the best confusing movie I've ever seen for sure. And you know what? Everything makes sense, at least if you're willing to give it one. David Lynch's sense of imagery and symbolism is so powerful it transcends the need for plot, even though there's definitely a plot. And the latter is what I love about this movie: even though it's hella confusing (probably one of the most mindfuck movies out there?), 75% of the movie is actually quite straightforward to follow.

 

The other 25%, however, is where things get tricky.  Anyone going into this movie expecting to understand it all on first viewing kinda missed the point. David Lynch left nothing to waste (the look and feel of the dream world is so deceptively perfect!), every frame has a meaning, every character a raison d'être, and they all serve a higher purpose than just "advancing the plot".  I can't wait to watch this again. It has found its way into my most beloved movies ever after just 1 viewing. I wonder what more viewings will bring?" - @Daxtreme

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

Nightmare, subconscious

 

What an illuminate dream 

 

Ah.  Silencio.

 

mulholland_dr-1567200385-726x388.jpg

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - Unranked, 2013 - Unranked, 2014 - Unranked, 2016 - Unranked, 2018 - Unranked

 

Director Count

 

Richard Linklater - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Alfonso Cuaron - 2, John McTiernan - 2, Lee Unkrich - 2, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, James Cameron - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, David Fincher - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Alfred Hitchock - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, Stanley Kubrick - 1, David Lean - 1, David Lynch - 1, Akira Kurosawa - 1, Hayao Miyazaki - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,   Martin Scorsese - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Before Trilogy - 2, Pixar - 2, Spider-Man - 2,  Cameron - 1, Die Hard - 1, Monty Python - 1, Predator - 1, Scorsese -1, Star Wars - 1, Studio Ghibli - 1, Terminator - 1, Toy Story - 1, WDAS - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1940s - 1, 1950s - 2, 1960s - 2, 1970s - 2, 1980s - 5, 1990s - 3, 2000s - 6, 2010s - 11

 

 

 

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rorschach said:

I don't know about At World's End, but I think Dead Man's Chest is better than both Infinity War and Endgame, and I used to really not like Dead Man's Chest. It wasn't until I rewatched it this past fall that I came around on it. 

I'd say it depends on which franchise you're invested in.

 

Endgame is basically a 3 hour love letter to the fans. Of course, if you're not a big fan the best parts will fall flat for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

m7jBpHD.png

 

CUY75Dq.png

 

"You know, fightin' in a basement offers a lot of difficulties. Number one being, you're fightin' in a basement!"

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"In German-occupied France, young Jewish refugee Shosanna Dreyfus witnesses the slaughter of her family by Colonel Hans Landa. Narrowly escaping with her life, she plots her revenge several years later when German war hero Fredrick Zoller takes a rapid interest in her and arranges an illustrious movie premiere at the theater she now runs. With the promise of every major Nazi officer in attendance, the event catches the attention of the "Basterds", a group of Jewish-American guerrilla soldiers led by the ruthless Lt. Aldo Raine. As the relentless executioners advance and the conspiring young girl's plans are set in motion, their paths will cross for a fateful evening that will shake the very annals of history." - IMDb

 

Its Legacy

 

"Even before its Cannes premiere, Inglourious Basterds attracted controversy for its rewriting of history, its blending of fantasy and fact. Set between 1941 and 1944, its five chapters follow two separate plots to assassinate senior Nazi figures, including Hitler, in a Paris cinema. One is orchestrated by Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), sole survivor of a French Jewish family murdered in the opening chapter (“Once Upon a Time … In Nazi-Occupied France”) by SS troops led by Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz); in the third chapter, “German Night in Paris,” we see Shosanna living under an alias and meeting German war hero Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruehl), a famous sniper. In the other plot, outlined in the fourth chapter (“Operation Kino”), British Intelligence sends Lieutenant Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender) to liaise with the titular Basterds, a group of Jewish American soldiers, introduced in the eponymous second chapter, led by Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and dedicated to the terrorizing and killing of Nazis. This plot also involves German movie star and British secret agent Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger). The final chapter, “The Revenge of the Giant Face,” brings success: Hitler, Goebbels, Goerring, and Bormann are killed and the war ended.

 

Such cavalier revisionism, coupled with the Basterds’ gruesome violence, has provoked outrage among some critics. On his blog, Jonathan Rosenbaum called the film “deeply offensive as well as profoundly stupid … morally akin to Holocaust denial.” Others thought it formally rather than morally problematic, fragmented, talky, and ill-paced: in his one-star Guardian review, Peter Bradshaw wrote it off as “a colossal, complacent, long-winded dud, a gigantic two-and-a-half-hour anti-climax.” Manohla Dargis of The New York Times thought it “unwieldy,” “interminable,” “repellent,” and “vulgar.” Others, though, relished the movie’s self-consciously cinephile brio, including Rolling Stone‘s Peter Travers (“multi-lingual pulp poetry”) and Roger Ebert, who hailed Tarantino in the Chicago Sun-Times as “the real thing, a director of quixotic delights.” Still others were uneasily ambivalent. In the The New Yorker, David Denby thought the picture “too silly to enjoy” but suggested that “whether the Basterds are Tarantino’s ideal of an all-American killing team or his parody of one is hard to say.” Michael Wood expressed similarly skeptical uncertainty in the London Review of Books: “What’s impossible to know is how Tarantino himself views this story. Irony is not his thing, but stupidity isn’t either.”

 

Inglourious Basterds, then, is less interested in the ethics of war, let alone the substance of history, than in the power of cinema, its ability to lure us into moral quicksand or hold us in suspense. Interestingly, even as he apes certain aspects of genre, Tarantino neglects other conventional pleasures. Todd McCarthy noted in Variety, with that publication’s eye on the bottom line, that “the preponderance of subtitled dialogue might put off a certain slice of the prospective domestic audience.” And, whether intentionally or not, the multilingual, dialogue-heavy longueurs that precede each chapter’s concluding ecstasy of violence map onto Landa’s taking his time with his victims, stringing out the small talk, having another glass of milk, not eating the strudel before the cream arrives (another—deliberate?—mistake, at least for Viennese culinary purists). Calling the film “unforgivably leisurely, almost glacial,” Kenneth Turan in the Los Angeles Times also intimated that “that lack of vigor almost seems to be what the writer-director is after.” Tarantino’s motto here could be: “Wait for the cream!”  When it comes, the story’s climax is as blunt an assertion of the phantasmagorical power of cinema as the medium has ever delivered. Shosanna and Zoller kill each other but are resurrected as filmic images—themselves agents of death—before flames consume the screen and then the audience. What remains is a weird form of film as fatal dominatrix, a close-up of Shosanna projected onto smoke—the giant face of the chapter’s title—laughing as her viewers burn. It is at once absurd and overwhelming, hollow and irresistible, like that other giant face in The Wizard of Oz; like any big-screen close-up. Perhaps this is why so much time is spent carving swastikas into foreheads, removing scalps, pumping bullets into Hiter’s face. In this hypercinematic world, what could be worse than being rendered unfit for a close-up?"

- Ben Walters, Film Quarterly

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

ERnd7kWX0AADpEH.jpg

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"Now, on the occasion of Inglourious Basterds — a peculiar World War II revenge epic that ranks among the least mature films of his career — it's a good time to reflect on why that question isn't worth asking.  Call it the Tarantino Conundrum: Ever since Reservoir Dogs shook Sundance to its core in 1992 — and Pulp Fiction did likewise to Cannes two years later — critics and cineastes have been grappling with an awkward reality: This once-in-a-generation filmmaking talent is no austere grand master, but a video-store savant with a predilection for film noir and martial-arts movies, '70s blaxploitation and spaghetti westerns, lurid drive-in trash and the early works of Jean-Luc Godard.

 

Yet somehow, with each new film, comes the expectation that Tarantino needs to evolve into a more "serious" filmmaker-- the one, for example, who was able to coax sweet romantic resonances out of '70s warhorses Pam Grier and Robert Forster in Jackie Brown — and move away from the delirious pop pastiche that has always defined him as an artist.  For those still tortured by the Tarantino Conundrum, Inglourious Basterds will no doubt provide endless aggravation; there's hardly a sober moment in this alternate-history cartoon about Jews having their revenge on the Nazis even as the Reich pursues its Final Solution. To the contrary, the film stands as a vulgar kiss-off to the august trappings of World War II movies in general, and for that alone it's a refreshing and sometimes empowering wish-fulfillment fantasy. Leave the real history to be fussed over in the halls of academe; Tarantino's version more closely approximates one that might be invented by 13-year-olds playing with action figures in the backyard."

- Scott Tobias, NPR

 

User Opinion

 

"Oh God, what an astounding film. An incredible script that easily ranks the best of its year, and the powerhouse performances from Waltz and Laurent (who was shamefully snubbed) were an immense delight. Great cinematography, too. One of my favorite films ever." - @Noctis

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

Re-write history

 

Blood splattering on screen

 

But hate still remains

 

tumblr_nuwm72W0241qetb0ho1_1280.png

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 58, 2013 - 70, 2014 - Unranked, 2016 - 57, 2018 - 74

 

Director Count

 

Richard Linklater - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Alfonso Cuaron - 2, John McTiernan - 2, Lee Unkrich - 2, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, James Cameron - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, David Fincher - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Alfred Hitchock - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, Stanley Kubrick - 1, David Lean - 1, David Lynch - 1, Akira Kurosawa - 1, Hayao Miyazaki - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,   Martin Scorsese - 1, Quentin Tarantino - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Before Trilogy - 2, Pixar - 2, Spider-Man - 2,  Cameron - 1, Die Hard - 1, Monty Python - 1, Predator - 1, Scorsese -1, Star Wars - 1, Studio Ghibli - 1, Terminator - 1, Toy Story - 1, WDAS - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1940s - 1, 1950s - 2, 1960s - 2, 1970s - 2, 1980s - 5, 1990s - 3, 2000s - 7, 2010s - 11

 

 

Edited by The Panda
  • Like 14
  • Sad 1
  • ...wtf 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

KujbKTG.png

 

cfKS8PJ.png

 

"You're gonna eat lightnin' and you're gonna crap thunder!"

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"Rocky Balboa is a struggling boxer trying to make the big time, working as a debt collector for a pittance. When heavyweight champion Apollo Creed visits Philadelphia, his managers want to set up an exhibition match between Creed and a struggling boxer, touting the fight as a chance for a "nobody" to become a "somebody". The match is supposed to be easily won by Creed, but someone forgot to tell Rocky, who sees this as his only shot at the big time."

 

Its Legacy

 

"The small budget meant that the production team had to get creative. Interiors were shot in L.A., since a full 28-day shoot in Philadelphia was too pricey. Instead, the team spent less than a week on location, quietly shooting exteriors using a nonunion crew. Driving around in a nondescript van, director John Avildsen would spot an interesting locale—a portside ship, a food market—and usher Stallone out to jog, sometimes for miles, while he rolled film. It wasn’t long before the actor gave up smoking.  The slim budget was evident everywhere. Stallone’s wardrobe was plucked from his own closet. His wife worked as the set photographer. But it was more than that— the movie’s finances also meant that the director had to be choosy about how many shots to film. A crucial scene where Rocky confesses his fears about the fight to Adrian (played by Talia Shire) was almost cut before Stallone begged the producers to give him just one take. The scene became the film’s emotional spine.  When the director proposed shooting a date between Rocky and Adrian at an ice rink, the producers laughed. A rink full of extras, combined with the costs of filming all the takes, seemed risky. But when Stallone convinced them of the scene’s worth, they wrote around it. In the movie, Rocky pays off a manager to let the duo skate in an empty rink. The result was easier to shoot and made for a beautiful metaphor: a clumsy dance between two misfits, each holding the other up.

 

The parallels between the actor’s story and Rocky’s were not lost on United Artists’ marketing strategist, Gabe Sumner. A clever publicist, Sumner knew he had quite the task in front of him: selling an old-fashioned boxing movie starring a nobody. Rocky’s competition at the box office didn’t make it any easier. Late 1976 was filled with blockbusters, and Stallone’s hero had to battle with King Kong, a new Dirty Harry sequel, and Carrie for ticket sales.  To compete, Sumner turned up the volume on Stallone’s shaggy-dog story. He sold the narrative about Stallone, a self-made actor-writer who had scraped and clawed his way to the top, as irresistibly American. And he bent the facts a little, too. In Sumner’s version, studio execs offered Stallone hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep the script if they could cast a bankable movie star in the role. The impoverished actor, despite having a pregnant wife and just $106 in the bank, stood his ground. He hitchhiked to auditions. He had to sell his dog. But Stallone wasn’t a sellout, and this was his one chance to break through. The truth, Sumner later admitted, was that the studio had never met Stallone. None of it mattered, though—this was Madison Avenue mythmaking at its best.

 

The marketing strategy struck a chord. The actor’s tale so perfectly mirrored his onscreen role that the film received significant attention from both the media and audiences. And as word of mouth spread, Rocky became the highest-grossing picture of 1976, earning more than $117 million at the box office (the average ticket price at the time was just over $2). Audiences were equally captivated by the soundtrack. “Gonna Fly Now,” Conti’s trumpet-heavy theme, which accompanied Rocky’s training montage, moved more than 500,000 units.  Though some critics, including The New York Times’ reviewer, panned the flick for its sentimentality, most media embraced it. "Rocky KOs Hollywood," crowed a Newsweek cover. The Academy agreed. At the 1977 Academy Awards, Rocky became the first sports film to win Best Picture, beating out heavy hitters Network, All the President’s Men, and Taxi Driver. Frank Capra and Charlie Chaplin wrote Stallone congratulatory letters. He became a bona fide movie star, anointed by two Hollywood legends who had built their careers making heroes of the common man."

- Jake Rossen, Mental Floss

 

From the Filmmaker

 

"But Stallone insists that being deprived of an equity stake in the franchise, an annuity of sorts that he could have left to his children after his death, remains a real sore spot.  “I have zero ownership of ‘Rocky,’” he tells me when we sit down at Variety’s Los Angeles headquarters. “Every word, every syllable, every grammatical error was all my fault,” he says. “It was shocking that it never came to be, but I was told, ‘Hey, you got paid, so what are you complaining about?’ I was furious.” That said, he blames his own naiveté and lack of business savvy at the time for not pushing the issue hard enough: “You don’t want to ruffle the feathers of the golden goose.”

 

“Rocky” producer Irwin Winkler and others affiliated with the franchise reacted with surprise to learn that Stallone was carping about his stake, saying that by having healthy profit participation and additional income from ancillaries, the actor-writer-director has raked in tens of millions of dollars in profit participation in addition to his upfront fees on each installment. “He made money from every angle, and still does, so I don’t know what he’s complaining about,” says one person who requested anonymity out of fondness for the star. Another source says that Stallone made more than $10 million on “Creed” and in the mid-teens on “Creed II”; he also served as a producer on both.  Stallone also speaks openly about his painful struggle with an industry that once recognized him as one of the biggest box office draws in the world and then rejected him for some 15 years following the 1990 flop “Rocky V” and other bombs, including the 1992 comedy “Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot,” that he headlined. Describing how extinct he felt during those fallow years, Stallone says, “I was going the way of the dodo bird and the Tasmanian tiger.”"

- Dan Doperalski, Variety

 

Picture-131.png

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"'I coulda been a contender, Charlie': Brando's classic lament in On the Waterfront finds a new and vigorous echo in this low-budget film whose huge success, against all odds, mirrors its own theme. Rocky is an old-fashioned fairytale brilliantly revamped to chime in with the depressed mood of the '70s. Although its plot - nonentity gets to fight the heavyweight champ - is basically fantasy, the film deftly manages to suspend disbelief by drawing back at its more implausible moments. Despite a few clumsy early scenes, the dialogue hits some bull's-eyes ('I'm really a ham-and-egger' mumbles Stallone in disbelief when he hears he'll get a crack at the champ), and Burgess Meredith gives his best performance in years as a slobbering, aged trainer. But without its climax, Rocky would add up to very little: the big fight is cathartic, manipulative Hollywood at its best. In a word: emotion."

- Time Out

 

User Opinion

 

"The first movie that changed my life.  This, even more than Star Wars made me fall in love with movies.  Stallone is an icon and he will always be my favourite actor.  He wrote one of if not the most beautiful script of all time and it is absolutely criminal that this did not win best original screenplay.  I love Rocky in ways that cannot be described in words.  It's one of a very few films that are transcendental.  It's more than a film to me." - @baumer

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

Eye of the Tiger

 

It's the thrill of the night, oh

 

Challenge those rivals

 

Picture-51.png

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 88, 2013 - Unranked, 2014 - Unranked, 2016 - 69, 2018 - 54

 

Director Count

 

Richard Linklater - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Alfonso Cuaron - 2, John McTiernan - 2, Lee Unkrich - 2, John G. Avildsen - 1, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, James Cameron - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, David Fincher - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Alfred Hitchock - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, Stanley Kubrick - 1, David Lean - 1, David Lynch - 1, Akira Kurosawa - 1, Hayao Miyazaki - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,   Martin Scorsese - 1, Quentin Tarantino - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Before Trilogy - 2, Pixar - 2, Spider-Man - 2,  Cameron - 1, Die Hard - 1, Monty Python - 1, Predator - 1, Rocky - 1, Scorsese -1, Star Wars - 1, Studio Ghibli - 1, Terminator - 1, Toy Story - 1, WDAS - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1940s - 1, 1950s - 2, 1960s - 2, 1970s - 3, 1980s - 5, 1990s - 3, 2000s - 7, 2010s - 11

 

 

 

Edited by The Panda
  • Like 14
  • Astonished 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

X5jVRHu.png

 

DSQltH9.png

 

"Nazis. I hate these guys."

 

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"An art collector appeals to Indiana Jones to embark on a search for the Holy Grail. He learns that another archaeologist has disappeared while searching for the precious goblet, and the missing man is his own father, Dr. Henry Jones. The artifact is much harder to find than they expected, and its powers are too much for those impure of heart."

 

Its Legacy

 

"The good Dr. Jones embarks on a search for the Holy Grail and quickly learns that another archaeologist has disappeared while searching for the precious goblet — his own father, Dr. Henry Jones.  One of the film’s key scenes, turncoat Walter Donavan’s face melting and ultimately turning to dust, was conceived by ILM in one continuous shot. Three motion-controlled puppet heads reveal the character in various stages of decomposition, with ILM’s patented Morphing technique used to blend the photography.  It was the first ever digital composite of a full-screen live action image.

 

ILM VISUAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR: MICHAEL MCALISTER
ILM ANIMATION SUPERVISOR: WES TAKAHASHI
ILM VISUAL EFFECTS PRODUCER: PATRICIA BLAU
ILM VISUAL EFFECTS ART DIRECTOR: STEVE BECK
ILM STUDIOS: SAN FRANCISCO"

- Industrial Light & Magic

 

From the Filmmaker

 

"Steven Spielberg: We went back again to that whole storyline about the Monkey King from Chinese mythology. We had a really good ghost story set in a Scottish castle - it was going to be Indiana Jones and ghosts. We even had a story about Indiana Jones and Tibet. Then George came up with the idea that Indiana Jones goes after the Holy Grail. I immediately said, "Does that mean that jugular-biting white rabbits are going to come flying out of caves?" As far as I'm concerned, the Holy Grail remains defined by the Pythons. And George said, "This is going to be serious."

 

George Lucas: With Last Crusade, we decided to go back to our roots. We came back to the Holy Grail - I call it the 'Chalice From The Palace' - which we had rejected a couple of times as being too ethereal. It had to have some power, so we invented qualities to make it important.

 

Frank Marshall (Producer): Crusade wasn't a reaction to the darkness of Temple Of Doom, it was just the third part of the trilogy. Everybody signed on to do three movies. George and Steven were always thinking ahead to what the next movie was going to be, and certainly had the addition of Indy's father in mind.

 

"He wanted to talk to me about a film. I had no idea it was Indiana Jones." Sean Connery ! ! Harrison Ford: We wanted to progress the character, to get to know him better, find new levels within him. Of course, the action got bigger and better, but it was about going places with the character. One of the things I love about the third film is that it is a relationship film, between a son and a father. Who's going to come save you, junior?Spielberg: The dad thing was my idea. The Grail doesn't offer a lot of special effects and doesn't promise a huge physical climax. I just thought that the Grail that everybody seeks could be a metaphor for a son seeking reconciliation with a father and a father seeking reconciliation with a son. It also gave me a chance to suggest Sean Connery. Who else but Bond could have been worthy enough to play Indiana Jones' dad?

 

Ford: There were some other thoughts. There was an early concept of Indiana's father as a wise old Yoda type. I don't think that would have worked as well as having somebody of the strength of Sean. Sean Connery: I was doing a film with Peter Hyams, The Presidio. Peter knows Steven, and said that he wanted to talk to me about a film. I had no idea it was Indiana Jones.

 

Kathleen Kennedy (Associate Producer): With Bond being the inspiration behind the whole series to begin with, it was just a great way to pull that all together. Connery: They had to be very sure what they were going for. A more academic-type casting would have been somebody like Gregory Peck, but you needed somebody that Harrison could bounce off. Henry had to be something pretty special to produce Indy. Also, he had to be something different. When Indy says, "You never talked to me," I say, "Well, you weren't interesting until you were 19." Which is right below the belt, but probably right on the nose.

 

Spielberg: It was an emotional story but I didn't want to get sentimental. Their disconnection from each other was the basis for a lot of comedy. And it gave Tom Stoppard, who was uncredited, a lot to write. Tom is pretty much responsible for every line of dialogue.

 

Connery: I got on famously with Steven, and speak with him often. There was no seduction talk, no movie-star stuff. And Harrison's a pro, he's terrific. We got a really good relationship going.

 

John Rhys-Davies (Sallah): It was very interesting to see the way that the very determined, assertive young Harrison had matured into the laidback superstar who allowed himself to be upstaged by a man he obviously adored and revered. I mean, as alpha males go, Connery really in his time has to be the ultimate."

- Empire Interview on the Making of Indiana Jones

 

C3qL83RWcAEr8Ua.jpg

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"If you had to invent a screen superhero, a middle-aged, bespectacled archaeologist in a trilby would not be the sort of chap who instantly sprang to mind. Other mild-mannered men find it necessary to nip into a telephone kiosk and change into a cape and swimsuit, or don rippling latex muscles in the Batcave, before they can be heroes; but Dr Indiana Jones just leaves his university study via the window to start a new adventure. And his name is not really Indiana – it’s plain Henry, and his Dad calls him Junior.  What director Steven Spielberg and producer George Lucas have created with the Jones character is an ordinary old-fashioned guy. In the age of Bond gadgetry, Rambotics and spectacular sci-fi hardware (which Lucas patented in the Star Wars series), Spielberg and Lucas, the giants of American commercial cinema, have returned to an essentially British concept – the inspired amateur.  Spielberg says Jones is “a real throwback movie hero: a lover and a cad and a two-fisted hellion.” He is also perilously close to being an intellectual, being able to speak Latin and Greek when other .movie heroes seem to have difficulty speaking .at all. Jones uses no gadgets or gimmicks, and Harrison Ford, who has played the part in all three films, does not even think Indy is a hero, just a man who does the odd brave thing and “is there with a bullwhip to keep the world at bay”.

 

The story, set in 1938, follows the established formula of non-stop action and exotic locations as the Nazis struggle to keep up with the Joneses in the search for the Holy Grail. Jones Senior is a scholar (“grail-lore is his hobby”, says Indy), and he can bring down a Messerschmitt with his knowledge of Charlemagne. He’s so cool he under­takes the entire desert sequence in a three-piece tweed suit.  Jones Junior just hangs on to his hat and Jones Very Junior (played by River Phoenix) is Indy as a boy in the opening sequence, which has prompted women’s magazine cooings about ‘‘three generations of beefcake”.  The female interest is provided by Alison Doody as an archaeological Austrian tempt­ress; Denholm Elliott bumbles to perfection as Indy’s boss. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the most wonderful lark. It is also a class act."

- Victoria Mather, The Telegraph

 

 

User Opinion

 

"Easily the finest Indiana Jones film ever made. Perfect blend of action, humor, seriousness, history and acting. Music just makes it perfect.  The desert battle is easily some of the best action ever in a movie." - @BoxOfficeZ

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

Looking at the cups

 

Ooh that one glitters, drink up

 

Whoops, I am now dead

 

DOYxuJTX0AAV-zR.jpg

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 78, 2013 - 86, 2014 - 77, 2016 - 76, 2018 - 42

 

Director Count

 

Richard Linklater - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Alfonso Cuaron - 2, John McTiernan - 2, Lee Unkrich - 2, John G. Avildsen - 1, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, James Cameron - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, David Fincher - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Alfred Hitchock - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, Stanley Kubrick - 1, David Lean - 1, David Lynch - 1, Akira Kurosawa - 1, Hayao Miyazaki - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,   Martin Scorsese - 1, Steven Spielberg - 1, Quentin Tarantino - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Before Trilogy - 2, Pixar - 2, Spider-Man - 2,  Cameron - 1, Die Hard - 1, Indiana Jones - 1, Monty Python - 1, Predator - 1, Rocky - 1, Scorsese -1, Star Wars - 1, Studio Ghibli - 1, Terminator - 1, Toy Story - 1, WDAS - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1940s - 1, 1950s - 2, 1960s - 2, 1970s - 3, 1980s - 6, 1990s - 3, 2000s - 7, 2010s - 11

 

 

Edited by The Panda
  • Like 15
  • Astonished 1
  • Disbelief 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

rqdvSWn.png

 

GD9LO8x.png

 

"They're not Swedish, Mac. They're Norwegian."

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"A US research station, Antarctica, early-winter 1982. The base is suddenly buzzed by a helicopter from the nearby Norwegian research station. They are trying to kill a dog that has escaped from their base. After the destruction of the Norwegian chopper the members of the US team fly to the Norwegian base, only to discover them all dead or missing. They do find the remains of a strange creature the Norwegians burned. The Americans take it to their base and deduce that it is an alien life form. After a while it is apparent that the alien can take over and assimilate into other life forms, including humans, and can spread like a virus. This means that anyone at the base could be inhabited by The Thing, and tensions escalate."

 

Its Legacy

 

"In 1982, there was apparently only room for one extra-terrestrial at the box office. Released just weeks apart, Steven Spielberg’s E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial was met with critical acclaim and huge profits while John Carpenter’s The Thing was a flop panned by critics. It’s hard to believe that could ever be the case, but it took years for opinion to turn around on Carpenter’s now universally loved masterpiece. In the 36 years since release, much has been said already on Carpenter’s expertly crafted atmosphere steeped in paranoia, the talented cast, and how special makeup effects creator and designer Rob Bottin was integral in shaping The Thing. But as celebrated as Carpenter’s seminal film now is, it’s been understated just how brilliant Carpenter and Bottin were at assembling the best possible team and how painstaking the film’s production truly was.  Bottin, who had previously worked with Carpenter on The Fog, was only in his early twenties during production on The Thing, fresh off special makeup effects creative work on The Howling. By the lengthy production’s end, Bottin was hospitalized with exhaustion, pneumonia, and a bleeding ulcer. While Carpenter initially envisioned the Thing as a single entity, it was Bottin that suggested the creature assimilate its victims and be ever changing. This meant a much larger scope of effects work. Bottin oversaw a crew of 35 special makeup effects artists, seeking out and enlisting many of the most talented people. Even still, he’d hoard a lot of the workload himself. For 14 months of production, Bottin and his team worked around the clock, many of whom never had a single day off during that time.

 

The special makeup effects crew utilized seemingly endless quantities of rubber foam latex, fiberglass, plastic, gelatin, creamed corn, mayonnaise, bubble gum, strawberry jam, and more for the creation of the various iterations of the Thing. Through use of marionettes, prosthetics, hydraulics, and puppetry, there’s a reason The Thing is a pinnacle of special effects work. All of it built toward the most daunting version of the Thing during the climax; the Blair-Thing. The foam latex team had their work cut out for them, molding a Blair-Thing monster that was about 5 feet high and 8 feet in circumference. Bottin enlisted the work of animation effects artist Randall William Cook (The Lord of the Rings trilogy), who in turn worked with miniature supervisor Susan Turner, to work on a stop motion animation sequence involving a smaller scaled Blair-Thing. Many hours went into to animated sequence, but Carpenter ultimately cut it from the final film."

- Meagan Navarro, Bloody Disgusting

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

The-Thing-Poster-Art.jpg

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"The Thing is rightly adored for its lived-in ensemble performances, its extraordinarily grotesque practical effects (from Rob Bottin, with a little help from Stan Winston), its mood of paranoid claustrophobia, and the pulsing electro-tension of its score (Ennio Morricone does Carpenter!). Yet there is also an appealingly existential quality that comes from the solitude of its setting, the chill wintriness of its climate, and the bleak desperation of its characters’ predicament.  For these men are pitted not just against the elements, but against each other and their own inner, hidden selves, in an utterly unforgiving milieu. “There’s nothing else I can do, just wait,” concludes MacReady, halfway through the film, on a private recording that he makes as testament, should they all perish, of what has happened. This is re-echoed by his last words in the film, delivered as he sits outside, illuminated by the fires of the burning camp: “Why don’t we just wait here for a little while, see what happens.”

 

All this waiting, for what? For the death that he knows is coming? For God – or Godot? For a sign of whether he and/or the other survivor have been overtaken by the alien, or have been stripped down to their own true selves? In any case, MacReady’s last gesture in the film is to pass his bottle of J&B to the other survivor. This gesture represents a kind of checkmate: if either one of them is by now not human, the other will inevitably be infected from sharing the bottle. Yet, paradoxically, the gesture, as a signifier of trust and communion, proves that a spark of humanity, if not quite of hope, remains."

- Anton Bitel, Little White Lies

 

User Opinion

 

"Can't say whether I like this more or Alien. Either way both are stone-cold masterpieces.  Can't say whether I like this more or Halloween. Either way both are stone-cold masterpieces.  In terms of Rob Bottin's legendary effects, it's quite remarkable that this +30-years-old original looks so much better than the remake from a few years ago.  Comparing The Thing and Alien to their respective remake and semi-sequel (Prometheus), they both have in spades what is sorely missing from their modern counterparts; an atmosphere of dread and foreboding." - @The Stingray

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

What a cold, cold night

 

To see scary monster man

 

Ah!  Please don't kill me.

 

Thing-Hands-2.jpg?mtime=20171028153609

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - Unranked, 2013 - Unranked, 2014 - Unranked, 2016 - Unranked, 2018 - Unranked

 

Director Count

 

Richard Linklater - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Alfonso Cuaron - 2, John McTiernan - 2, Lee Unkrich - 2, John G. Avildsen - 1, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, James Cameron - 1, John Carpenter - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, David Fincher - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Alfred Hitchock - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, Stanley Kubrick - 1, David Lean - 1, David Lynch - 1, Akira Kurosawa - 1, Hayao Miyazaki - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,   Martin Scorsese - 1, Steven Spielberg - 1, Quentin Tarantino - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Before Trilogy - 2, Pixar - 2, Spider-Man - 2,  Cameron - 1, Die Hard - 1, Indiana Jones - 1, Monty Python - 1, Predator - 1, Rocky - 1, Scorsese -1, Star Wars - 1, Studio Ghibli - 1, Terminator - 1, Toy Story - 1, WDAS - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1940s - 1, 1950s - 2, 1960s - 2, 1970s - 3, 1980s - 7, 1990s - 3, 2000s - 7, 2010s - 11

 

Edited by The Panda
  • Like 11
  • Thanks 3
  • Astonished 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

MLFFAkp.png

 

5XVhsIs.png

 

"Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man."

 

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"Protagonist Alex DeLarge is an "ultraviolent" youth in futuristic Britain. As with all luck, his eventually runs out and he's arrested and convicted of murder and rape. While in prison, Alex learns of an experimental program in which convicts are programmed to detest violence. If he goes through the program, his sentence will be reduced and he will be back on the streets sooner than expected. But Alex's ordeals are far from over once he hits the streets of Britain."

 

Its Legacy

 

"Dressing as droogs, especially in costumes inspired by Stanley Kubrick’s film, still remains a popular pursuit. A number of musicians have dressed in the signature bowler hat and Dr Martens for their live performances. David Bowie, Guns n’ Roses, Blur, Usher and Kylie Minogue have all succumbed, while countless university students have perhaps misunderstood the context of the novel by enthusiastically, not to say provocatively, dressing as droogs for Halloween.

 

In the world of film and television, Bart Simpson, the archetypal juvenile delinquent, frequently quotes Alex in cod-Cockney, has dressed up droogish garb, and has been subjected to variants of Ludovico’s Technique in The Simpsons.  Eric Cartman of South Park has suffered similar treatment. Heath Ledger’s portrayal of The Joker in The Dark Knight was inspired, in part, by A Clockwork Orange, which is featured in a diary he kept during the filming. And not to miss out on the opportunity for screen violence, Quentin Tarantino claims that Reservoir Dogs’s infamous scene juxtaposing ‘Stuck in the Middle With You’ by Stealer’s Wheel and a severed ear was inspired by similar contrasts in Kubrick’s film adaptation."

- Anthony Burgess

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

Clockwork-Orange-32.jpg?mtime=2018102116

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"On the soundtrack we hear Henry Purcell's almost comically elegant "Music Composed for Queen Mary's Funeral." On the screen we see a closeup portrait of Alex (Malcolm McDowell), who, for a moment, is uncharacteristically still. The face looks floodlit, as if caught by one of those automatic photo machines in a bus station.However, the eyes, one of which is ringed by false lashes, reveal an intelligence that is no less alive for being occupied, momentarily, with the kind of drug fantasies that Alex and his droogs are able to buy at the Kerova Milkbar, before going out into the London night in search of the old ultra-violence. There's always the chance they'll find a dirty old man to beat up, or some frightened devotchka for a malenky bit of in-out, in-out.Thus begins "A Clockwork Orange," Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Anthony Burgess's perversely moral, essentially Christian novel about the value of free will, even if the choice exercised is to tear through the night robbing, raping and battering the citizens until they lie helpless, covered with what Alex describes happily as "the real red vino," or krovvy.In both English and Nadsat, the combination of Anglicized Russian, Gypsy, rhyming slang and associative words spoken by Alex and his teenage friends in what seems to be 1983, "A Clockwork Orange" is a great deal more than merely horror show—that is, Nadsat for good.

 

It is brilliant, a tour de force of extraordinary images, music, words and feelings, a much more original achievement for commercial films than the Burgess novel is for literature, for Burgess, after all, has some impossibly imposing literary antecedents, including the work of Joyce.The film, which opened yesterday at the Cinema I, is cast in the form of futurist fiction, but it is no spinoff from Mr. Kubrick's "2001," nor is it truly futurist, if that means it is one of those things-to-come fantasies. More correctly it contemplates the nightmares of today, often in terms that reflect the 1950's and 1960's, out of which the Burgess novel grew. It is also — at least it seems to me — an essentially British nightmare (while "2001" was essentially American) in its attentions to caste, manners, accents and the state of mind created by a kind of weary socialism.The movie shows a lot of aimless violence—the exercise of aimless choice—but it is as formally structured as the music of Alex's "lovely lovely Ludwig Van," which inspires in Alex sado-masochistic dreams of hangings, volcanic eruptions and other disasters.Alex is a terrifying character, but also an intelligent, funny and pathetic one, whose spiritual crucifixion comes when, having been jailed for murder, he is subjected to the Ludovico Treatment. Alex is one of the early guinea pigs in a rehabilitation program that involves the conditioning of his responses, via the nonstop viewing of sex, horror and atrocity movies. At the end of two weeks, he is left as dumb and defenseless as a defanged, declawed animal.Impulses to hate, anger, lust make him physically ill.

 

He has become a model of good, "as decent a lad as you would meet on a May morning," but, as his fundamentalist prison chaplain points out, he is without a soul.Under these circumstances, Alex's eventual return to his original "free" state becomes an ironic redemption, yet not much attention is paid to the fact that Alex the hood is as much a product of conditioning as was the denatured Alex, the product of aversion therapy.However, I won't quibble over the point. "A Clockwork Orange" is so beautiful to look at and to hear that it dazzles the senses and the mind, even as it turns the old real red vino to ice: Alex and his friends having a rumble with a rival gang to the tune of Rossini's "The Thieving Magpie," or preparing a gang rape in the home of a definitely upper-class writer as Alex does a lyric soft-shoe (into the stomach and face of the writer), singing "Singin' in the Rain." That's the sort of thing that makes Alex feel all nice and warm in his guttywuts.McDowell is splendid as tomorrow's child, but it is always Mr. Kubrick's picture, which is even technically more interesting than "2001." Among other devices, Mr. Kubrick constantly uses what I assume to be a wide-angle lens to distort space relationships within scenes, so that the disconnection between lives, and between people and environment, becomes an actual, literal fact.At one point in his therapy, Alex says: "The colors of the real world only become real when you viddy them in a film." "A Clockwork Orange" makes real and important the kind of fears simply exploited by other, much lesser films."

- Vincent Canby, The New York Times 1971

 

User Opinion

 

"Others will say 2001 but I've always found this to be Kubrick's most immaculately directed flick. Everything about it just comes together perfectly for me and there's never a dull moment. Malcolm McDowell gives the best performance that Kubrick ever directed as well." - @CoolioD1

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

Knock, Knock.  Hi Neighbor

 

Oh, I am singin' in the rain

 

Whack, Wack.  Dead Neighbor

 

Clockwork-Orange-10.jpg?mtime=2018102116

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 41, 2013 - 45, 2014 - 65, 2016 - Unranked, 2018 - Unranked

 

Director Count

 

Richard Linklater - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Alfonso Cuaron - 2, Stanley Kubrick - 2,  John McTiernan - 2, Lee Unkrich - 2, John G. Avildsen - 1, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, James Cameron - 1, John Carpenter - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, David Fincher - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Alfred Hitchock - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, David Lean - 1, David Lynch - 1, Akira Kurosawa - 1, Hayao Miyazaki - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,   Martin Scorsese - 1, Steven Spielberg - 1, Quentin Tarantino - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Before Trilogy - 2, Pixar - 2, Spider-Man - 2,  Cameron - 1, Die Hard - 1, Indiana Jones - 1, Monty Python - 1, Predator - 1, Rocky - 1, Scorsese -1, Star Wars - 1, Studio Ghibli - 1, Terminator - 1, Toy Story - 1, WDAS - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1940s - 1, 1950s - 2, 1960s - 2, 1970s - 4, 1980s - 7, 1990s - 3, 2000s - 7, 2010s - 11

 

 

  • Like 13
  • Astonished 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Thing is easily the best horror film ever imo. I'd like to recommend the rest of Carpenter's Apocalypse trilogy (it's my 2nd favourite trilogy of all time, behind the Before trilogy, and all 3 films made it into my list). Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness rarely get the same attention as The Thing but they are both completely insane and trippy horror films that also manage to be just as unnerving as The Thing.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.