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

[lorddemaxus]

11 minutes ago, The Panda said:

 

Critic Opinion

Not really a review about "why it's the greatest" but here's a link to Pauline Kael's infamous and controversial review of this film, that I think is a recommended read for all fans of this movie (I'm a fan of this movie too but I also think her critique of the film is great): https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2016/09/18/a-clockwork-orange-pauline-kael/

[Fancyarcher]

13 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

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.

It wasn't on my list, but I love Prince of Darkness, and it's a shame it doesn't get as much attention as some of Carpenter's other best films. Some wonderful imagery in it. That green goo sequence alone terrifies me. In The Mouth of Madness is also similarly excellent, and unsettling. 

[Ethan Hunt]

A Clockwork Orange is an all time great book

 

 

Maybe just maybe I'll give the movie a chance someday 

[charlie Jatinder]

1 hour ago, The Panda said:

 

Just finished it an hour ago, what a coincidence. It was pretty great.

[charlie Jatinder]

11 hours ago, The Panda said:

Nice but too low.

 

This and 12 Angry Men should be in Top 20 at least.

[charlie Jatinder]

1 hour ago, The Panda said:

 

[Ethan Hunt]

5 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:

Nice but too low.

 

This and 12 Angry Men should be in Top 20 at least.

I don't think you have to worry about 12 Angry Men missing the top 20 lol

[titanic2187]

Clockwork Orange is a comedy version of the City of God, in the dark way of course.

 

The thing have some of the most disgusting scene that I ever seen in a movie, The practical effect was so effectively gross that made 2011 remake like a cartoon although by right the 2011 remake should looked better thanks to technological advancement. Both version prove once again, Practical effect > CGI. T

The original make me feel thrilled and disgusted but 2011 remake only gave me thrill but maybe they intentionally tone IT down for commercial reason. 

 

 

 

[SLAM!]

More like A Clockwork Snoreange 😂

[Tower]

The thing and A Clockwork orange back to back as new entries? 

 

This list is suddenly looking like a huge improvement over 2018's list.

[baumer]

Terrific work so far, panda. You always do an incredible job presenting these list. Thanks for including my gushy love of Rocky in your post LOL.

[Cap]

2 hours ago, charlie Jatinder said:

Nice but too low.

You will learn the victory Is just getting it on the damn list the friends we make along the way.

[The Panda]

Just so you all know, I’ve said all of these movies suck in each header before everyone else complained about each entry! 
 

 

I’ll keep the list going once my wifi gets back going, should be a few hours. 

[Rorschach]

3 hours ago, SLAM! said:

More like A Clockwork Snoreange 😂

Edited July 18, 2020 by Rorschach

[Jake Gittes]

A Cockwank Sausage.

[The Panda]

 

 

"Just keep swimming."

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"A clown fish named Marlin lives in the Great Barrier Reef and loses his son, Nemo, after he ventures into the open sea, despite his father's constant warnings about many of the ocean's dangers. Nemo is abducted by a boat and netted up and sent to a dentist's office in Sydney. While Marlin ventures off to try to retrieve Nemo, Marlin meets a fish named Dory, a blue tang suffering from short-term memory loss. The companions travel a great distance, encountering various dangerous sea creatures such as sharks, anglerfish and jellyfish, in order to rescue Nemo from the dentist's office, which is situated by Sydney Harbour. While the two are searching the ocean far and wide, Nemo and the other sea animals in the dentist's fish tank plot a way to return to the sea to live their lives free again."

 

Its Legacy

 

"The perception that Finding Nemo was intended to be photo-realistic is based on something that happened when Pixar Animation Studios was developing the project. One of the things we did early on was a series of photo-realistic tests," Brown adds. "Our technical team figured out what elements are needed to create photo-realistic water. You have a murk that is like a fog underwater. You have particulate matter that is like little bits of dust floating around the water. You have the caustic lighting coming down that dances all over the oceans floor. You have light beams, and you have surface images. They designed all of the individual elements using the software that was on hand. They did tests using four ocean scenes, two above water and two underwater, to see if they could recreate real footage of the sea. The technical crew worked on it and eventually came back and showed us their work. We couldn't tell the difference between the re-created footage and the original. It blew us all away.

 

One of the trickiest problems for Pixars staff was learning to communicate to each other about actions, textures and other details that are not easy to describe in the English language. A new vocabulary had to be developed in order to communicate, and technical director Oren Jacob believes they never really mastered a vocabulary that describes all the nuances of how the water should look.  Once they were able to create realistic water, the art department began to request how the water in a scene should look. Jacob says, That didnt make things easy. They might say, Its a little bit too confused, but what does that mean?' They were beginning to direct it aesthetically. That challenge continued right up until the last shot of the film.  Pixar invited a scientist to present lectures on waves, swells and other motions. Several staff members took a trip to Hawaii in 2000 to study water and sea life. They ended up using reference footage from that trip to describe conditions above and below the surface. Jacob recalled conversations at work such as: "Remember what it was like on the boat on Thursday afternoon? I want the water like that. Or: "Do you want it to look more like Wednesday or Friday? They found that referring back to those experiences was more useful than saying, I want it more choppy than angry."  Everybody had to learn and contribute to the dilemma of solving the water communication problems. The animators also had to learn to read the surge and swell, and study how fast the water is flowing. Knowledge of waters behavior was needed to help them animate properly. Camera people needed to understand the effects of water on underwater photography. The lighting experts needed to learn how far away one can see underwater. They didnt need to build sets beyond 100 or 200 feet, since you can't see beyond that.

 

Their education continued when Adam Summers, a Ph.D. from Berkeley (now at UC Irvine), became their resident ichthyologist. He explained why fish do what they do and what he thought they were thinking. He explained the unusual body movements of the blue tang, which is the species represented by the memory-impaired Dory. They make an up and down motion as they swim and they rarely use their tails. Brown had noticed the movements at the aquarium, but he didn't know what they were called or why they happened.  Brown developed the movements of the animated Dory on what he had been taught. It resulted in an interesting lesson in understanding the difference between film and reality. After a screening of his preliminary motion studies, John Lasseter, the films executive producer, asked him why Dory rarely moved her tail.  People have general ideas about how fish swim. They wiggle their tails and flap their fins. So when you have this preconceived notion and the movements on the screen doesnt support that, you loose believability. When Lasseter saw Dory swimming fast without wiggling her tail, it was physically correct for her species, but it didnt look believable to him. So Brown went back and added tail wiggle. He took creative license. He says, Fortunately we caught that early on."

- Karl Cohen, Animation World Network

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

 

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"Hilarious, exciting and endlessly inventive, Finding Nemo is an awesome aquatic animation which will exhaust the adjective store of even the most hyperbolic film hack (ahem). One word just about does the job: genius.  Somewhere, under the sea, weak-finned clown fish Nemo (Alexander Gould) lives with his fretful father, Marlin (Albert Brooks). Smothered by pop's paranoia, he ventures away from the reef, but his dad's dread is justified when a passing diver whisks him away.  Taken to a tank in a Sydney dentists, Nemo meets Gill (Willem Dafoe) and co - friendly fish who dream of escaping to the ocean. Meanwhile, Marlin bumps into a blue tang named Dory (Ellen DeGeneres), and sets out to save his son...  It's a familiar formula for the digi-drawn dynamics of Pixar, whose Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. have proved such critical and commercial hits. How increasingly impressive the achievement, then, that Finding Nemo feels so fresh.

 

There is beauty and brilliance in every frame. Tasked with creating an undersea environment, the animators have excelled themselves, capturing textures, light, shade and movement that could be photo-real, were it not for the clever way the makers have subtly caricatured landscapes, as well as characters, lending a warm cartoonish quality to the stunning visuals.  The splendour of natural history hit The Blue Planet is matched by the wit of the script and stars. Barry Humphries has a terrific cameo as a great white shark who's sworn off killing (Remember, fish are friends, not food!), while DeGeneres provides perfect timing and tone as Dory, whose short-term memory loss is a gag that never stops running.  Managing to move without falling into the jaws of sentimentality, the picture thrills and frightens too. A paean to parenthood and superb for sprogs, it's a perfect piece of storytelling. What a catch!/Reel it in!/You'll have a whale of a time! Etc, etc."

- Nev Pierce, The BBC

 

User Opinion

 

"This may be a film about finding Nemo, but this is really all about Marlin's journey.  It is very much about Marlin re-discovering trust in not only other fish, but in the world in general.  One is able to see quite easily how the traumatic events of the past plague Marlin and his outlook on life.  It is fitting that is the disappearance of Nemo that provokes Marlin to re-discovering not only the world, but life in general.  To me, this is a film more about loss and coping with that loss than it is a man finding his son.  As a viewer, what a great journey we are able to witness as a dad is able to overcome shadows in his past to locate his lost son.  While doing this Marlin is able to move on from his past and once again begin living life.  Awesome stuff on display here.
 
Pixar has always had a a vast array of endearing supporting characters, but I'm not sure any are more important than Dory here.  While it would have been easily for her to simply have been a gimmick used for comic relief, instead she is the most important driver of Marlin's journey and re-awakening.  The contrast here is something to behold as you have Dory's uninhibited trust of any and all things clashing with the overly-analytic and worrying nature of Marlin.  Over time it is through the character of Dory that Marlin is able to re-gain his trust in the world and perhaps more importantly, other fish.  I feel like I've been saying this way too much of late with these Pixar films, and yet once again the word poetic seems perfect to describe the dynamics on display here.
 
A father searches for his son and in the process is able to put the past behind him and once again find his way in the world.  It doesn't get much better than this."

- @mattmav45

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

Journey through the sea

 

 Rest in the mouth of a whale

 

See the Seagull.  Mine!

 

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 57, 2013 - 73, 2014 - 36, 2016 - 26, 2018 - 31

 

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, Andrew Stanton - 1, Quentin Tarantino - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Pixar - 3, Before Trilogy - 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 - 8, 2010s - 11

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by The Panda

[The Panda]

 

 

"Anyone can cook."

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"A rat named Remy dreams of becoming a great French chef despite his family's wishes and the obvious problem of being a rat in a decidedly rodent-phobic profession. When fate places Remy in the sewers of Paris, he finds himself ideally situated beneath a restaurant made famous by his culinary hero, Auguste Gusteau. Despite the apparent dangers of being an unlikely, and certainly unwanted, visitor in the kitchen of a fine French restaurant, Remy's passion for cooking soon sets into motion a hilarious and exciting rat race that turns the culinary world of Paris upside down."

 

Its Legacy

 

"Ratatouille plays on the dualistic cultural construction of rats that exists in
today’s world. In this film, rats are not all good or bad. They exhibit an
ability to learn and become civilized, a process exemplified by the transformation
of Django’s vermin colony from garbage-picking, sewer dwelling creatures,
undiscriminating about what they eat, into a pack of well-organized,
rule-bound animals willing and able to help out in Gusteau’s gourmet
kitchen. Remy the rat is the prime example of a creature that undergoes
change from animal to human. He, along with the rest of the rat colony, is
associated with garbage and the sewer. But throughout the film he evolves
into a different kind of being, gradually demonstrating inborn traits or acquiring
new ones associated with humanity. Remy even becomes a kind of pet rat to Linguini.

Linguini takes him into his home, providing the little creature food
and shelter. When the two of them have a falling out, and Remy temporarily
abandons the human world, Linguini expresses deep remorse. Linguini
returns home, only to find Remy gone. We view him pining over Remy’s
tiny sleeping area in fact, a tiny bed – now empty. It is above all Remy’s
interest in food and cooking that motivates him to learn and exhibit civilized
behavior. Everything from his bipedalism to his attention to cleanliness and
his thirst for reading can be attributed to his passionate involvement in the
culinary arts. Hence he is a near-perfect fictional embodiment of Wrangham’s
admittedly controversial thesis. Ratatouille is above all a story of the
civilizing process.

 

But this film is also a Proustian tale of the awakening of memory and
emotional sensibilities through food. At the end of the tale, ratatouille, the culinary
item, is finally introduced into the plot. Aside from finally revealing to
viewers the meaning of the movie’s title, the result of this narrative sequence
is particularly poignant. Anton Ego has come to Gusteau’s to experience for
himself whether or not the restaurant deserves recent critical accolades. Stuck
with the job of preparing a meal for this demanding snob, yet devoid of the
service of the regular kitchen staff, Remy decides to prepare ratatouille. Upon
hearing of this decision, Colette frowns and exclaims: ‘Rataouille? It’s a
peasant dish. Are you sure you want to serve this to Ego?’ Remy proceeds to
prepare his own version of this very ordinary fare. When Ego takes his first
bite, he becomes rapturous and is mentally transported back to childhood.
We view him as a little boy having just fallen from his bicycle, with skinned
knees. As a consolation, his mother places a soothing dish of ratatouille
before him. Ratatouille, a simple vegetable stew originating in Nice, France,
proves as perfect a dish for Anton Ego the wounded child as for Anton Ego
the food critic. Ratatouille becomes the medium through which Anton Ego
is converted from a snobbish food connoisseur into a person who understands
the power of uncomplicated, familiar, and healthy cuisine to produce emotional,
as well as biological, nourishment.

 

As the film reaches its conclusion, satisfying in that it is both foredrawn and
surprising, we are reminded of the many clever inversions employed to keep us
engaged: peasant food becomes haute cuisine, rats become diners, and a critic
becomes an adoring fan. The colorful imagery is a feast for the eyes, and the
energetic thrust of the storyline, as revealed in imaginative angles, dangerous
cuts, and wildly shifting points of view, provides a kinesthetic delight impossible
to achieve in any other medium. In other words, this is art and anthropology at

their best: it is appealing, revealing, and, dare we say, fun. And so we hope this
analysis may serve as a modest pitch for the uses of animated film in the
larger work of understanding ourselves, as anthropologists, as moviegoers,
as people.

In the film Ratatouille, the meal of ratatouille, as produced by Remy the rat,
unites man and beast. Ratatouille the film and ratatouille the food communicate
the idea that humans and rats ultimately share more in terms of aptitude and
feelings than divides them. The film thus speaks to the growing passion for
animal rights and awareness of harmony among all living beings. Yet Ratatouille
is not a simple tale. Rather, this film is a multifaceted artifact, reflecting the
complexities of our times, the comic play of stereotypes and their transformations,
the changing values around food and its preparation, and indeed, not
only what it means to be ‘civilized’, but what it means to be humane."

- Ratatouille: An Animated Account of Cooking, Taste and Human Evolution

Stanley Brandes & Thor Anderson, UC Berkley & San Francisco Art Institute

Ethnos

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"Toward the end of Ratatouille, Pixar's latest animated romp, writer-director Brad Bird mounts such a cogent, feeling, pained deconstruction of professional criticism that viewers might almost suspect he's had problems with persnickety critics in the past. But how is that possible, when everything he touches is wonderful? The writer-director behind The Iron Giant and The Incredibles (the former a critically beloved, poorly marketed underperformer, the latter a critically beloved smash) and an animation consultant on the likes of King Of The Hill and The Simpsons, Bird has a rare cinematic gift: the ability to stage slam-bang action sequences without neglecting the rich emotional resonance that makes for a great story. Ratatouille never hits the heights of The Incredibles, if only because it's operating on a much smaller and less mythic, culturally resonant stage, but it's solid enough to prove that Bird hasn't let success, critical or otherwise, go to his head.

 

As always, Pixar (Toy Story, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, etc.) leads the growing pack of CGI studios on sheer quality; the visual attention to tiny details is almost distractingly opulent, from the cuts and nicks on the chefs' hands to the way Remy's tiny chest flutters when he's panicked. And Bird aptly nails Pixar's heady house blend of pathos, action, quirk, and sheer good humor. Bird and his co-writers leave room for quiet moments and gentle morals, but for the most part, they send visual gags and verbal punchlines tearing past at an enjoyably demanding speed, whipping up the film's energy at every turn. That makes it a little frothier than Bird's other films, but it's delectable nonetheless."

- Tasha Robinson, AV Club

 

User Opinion

 

"Love this, perhaps I am biased since I love rodents, but there hasn't been a better Pixar film since. Great visuals, story, and characters!" - @CaptainJackSparrow

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

Rat in the kitchen!

 

Throw him in the boiling pot!

 

Cook Ratatouille!

 

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 51, 2013 - 62, 2014 - 31, 2016 - 52, 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, Brad Bird - 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, Jan Pinkava - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,   Martin Scorsese - 1, Steven Spielberg - 1, Andrew Stanton - 1, Quentin Tarantino - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Pixar - 4, Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Before Trilogy - 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 - 9, 2010s - 11

 

 

[The Panda]

Here's five of the top 150

 

 

 

"What I really enjoyed about this film (aside from the standard of great directing, acting and Park Chan Wook may be one of the best users of sound in a film that there is), was that the story I was expecting to watch came to a conclusion 40 minutes in.   When they ended part one, it surprised me as it had already given me everything I was expecting to see and so the twists and the reveals of the next two thirds were great bonuses. The big thing that makes the great Korean directors so damn great to watch is that when you have essentially a Hollywood film upbringing, everything shocks you as scenes that aren't supposed to happen in a film actually happen and reveals are not telegraphed from a mile away." - @chasmmi

 

 

 

"MIND=BLOWNThis movie is too powerful. Plot is super heavy. Direction and Editing are just brilliant." - @LexJoker

 

 

 

"absolutely astonishing. as a simmering portrait of nashville it's already interesting enough, but it's subtly scathing criticisms underneath become more pronounced as the film progresses, with the final scene unleashing proper satire for the first time in one of the most ironic endings ever. there's so much detail here, and so much targeted cynicism that it's impossible that everything would've been picked up on a first viewing." - @luna

 

 

 

"This movie felt like an out-of-body experience.  The journey that Pi must face with a Bengal tiger at sea was regarded as a seemingly impossible story to bring to the big screen, but Ang Lee makes it look easy.  Through the relationship between Richard Parker and Pi Patel that evolves from hostility to mutual reliance, we're given a true emotional attachment to these characters, and it's a story that manages to stay fully compelling for the entire two hours. As someone who isn't very religious, I appreciated how Ang Lee (and Yann Martel, for that matter) chose to not hit the audience over the head with the marvel of God, but rather that of hope and courage. These themes were masterfully depicted." - @Spaghetti

 

 

 

"The first 100 minutes or so and the ending are basically flawless. Most of the third hour I'm not so sure about - it certainly became less sharp and coherent, and could have used another 10 or 15 minutes to help put things into focus. But at its best I thought this was an epic on both a grand and a human scale, a film as tremendously passionate as it was technically grand; it had me glued to my seat for the entirety of its runtime. The three-way juxtaposition of the happiness of marriage, the devastation of war, and the ruined life afterwards may not be subtle, but it hits hard. (On a human scale, I honestly think that cut from the characters quietly sitting in the bar, one of them playing a beautiful melody, to the explosions and killings in Vietnam rivals the bone-to-spaceship cut in 2001 in its power, except the effect is directly opposite). The final scene got tears out of me. Will see it again for sure." - @Jake Gittes

[Plain Old Tele]

25 minutes ago, The Panda said:

Here's five of the top 150

 

 

 

"What I really enjoyed about this film (aside from the standard of great directing, acting and Park Chan Wook may be one of the best users of sound in a film that there is), was that the story I was expecting to watch came to a conclusion 40 minutes in.   When they ended part one, it surprised me as it had already given me everything I was expecting to see and so the twists and the reveals of the next two thirds were great bonuses. The big thing that makes the great Korean directors so damn great to watch is that when you have essentially a Hollywood film upbringing, everything shocks you as scenes that aren't supposed to happen in a film actually happen and reveals are not telegraphed from a mile away." - @chasmmi

 

 

 

"MIND=BLOWNThis movie is too powerful. Plot is super heavy. Direction and Editing are just brilliant." - @LexJoker

 

 

 

"absolutely astonishing. as a simmering portrait of nashville it's already interesting enough, but it's subtly scathing criticisms underneath become more pronounced as the film progresses, with the final scene unleashing proper satire for the first time in one of the most ironic endings ever. there's so much detail here, and so much targeted cynicism that it's impossible that everything would've been picked up on a first viewing." - @luna

 

 

 

"This movie felt like an out-of-body experience.  The journey that Pi must face with a Bengal tiger at sea was regarded as a seemingly impossible story to bring to the big screen, but Ang Lee makes it look easy.  Through the relationship between Richard Parker and Pi Patel that evolves from hostility to mutual reliance, we're given a true emotional attachment to these characters, and it's a story that manages to stay fully compelling for the entire two hours. As someone who isn't very religious, I appreciated how Ang Lee (and Yann Martel, for that matter) chose to not hit the audience over the head with the marvel of God, but rather that of hope and courage. These themes were masterfully depicted." - @Spaghetti

 

 

 

"The first 100 minutes or so and the ending are basically flawless. Most of the third hour I'm not so sure about - it certainly became less sharp and coherent, and could have used another 10 or 15 minutes to help put things into focus. But at its best I thought this was an epic on both a grand and a human scale, a film as tremendously passionate as it was technically grand; it had me glued to my seat for the entirety of its runtime. The three-way juxtaposition of the happiness of marriage, the devastation of war, and the ruined life afterwards may not be subtle, but it hits hard. (On a human scale, I honestly think that cut from the characters quietly sitting in the bar, one of them playing a beautiful melody, to the explosions and killings in Vietnam rivals the bone-to-spaceship cut in 2001 in its power, except the effect is directly opposite). The final scene got tears out of me. Will see it again for sure." - @Jake Gittes

I mean, shit.  

[Ethan Hunt]

That's so depressingly bad for Finding Nemo.

 

I'm devastated