I've had the same thing happen in the past few years, and I'm sure it happens to anyone who's seriously dedicated to movies. It's not something to be depressed about, though, I'm sure. Like anything one spends a lot of time with, there's a kind of chiseling effect that happens with movie tastes. Gradually, we whittle away the components of films that don't speak to us, that feel unnecessary or uninspiring, until our own personal vision of movies is achieved. It's different for everyone, and I think that's what eventually leads to unique creative talent in the filmmaking world, be it criticism or filmmaking itself.
It's definitely a strange feeling to watch a movie from my past and realize that it simply isn't now what it was to me then. The growth is integral and important, and sometimes it can take a long time -- in any event, I don't think it's preventable. It's an especially volatile time for people like you and I, who've still got a lot of living/watching to do. Given all the changes in tastes we've experienced in the past few years, can you imagine how "honed" the tastes of someone who's twenty or thirty years older are!
As an example, this is what surely leads to what's considered "the peak period" of a great artists career. Those five, ten, fifteen -- maybe less or more -- years when a director/painter/writer/musician appears to be in complete control of not only their craft, but their art. They've explored and have now found and contained those personal tools that are exactly what they feel they need to express what they want to.
As not only a film-watcher but also a hopeful filmmaker, I find each of these changes and shifts in my opinions to be very worthy of examination, and very helpful towards hopefully procuring the vision to express what I want to say in exactly the way I want to say it.
Wow, look at all those re-watches! I should probably re-visit movies more often. It can be an enlighting experience. I usually find that I only like to do it a good couple years after the initial viewing -- about the point it starts feeling like an old friend whose facial features I can't quite completely recall. :)
Any particular reason for watching "Dark City" again? Did you dislike it that much the first time?
Why Bazin specifically for "Elephant" though? Bazin struck me as a critic very interested in what motivates a characters actions based on their humanity as well as the human outlook of the director. As much as I like it and think the choices made work for the movie, Van Sant's vision is one that has little to no moral relevance here -- that is, the moral consciousness of the characters is barely addressed, and remains completely unexplored. It's a cold and technical film; its roots are in the Kubrick tradition. Moralist critics generally don't like Kubrick at all.
Maybe I misinterpreted. The title "All the Best Movies..." seems to imply that you're listing only your favorite movies from each year (with the exception of the starred ones). Is that the case, or are you listing ALL the movies you've seen from each year?
I know you've talked about this a lot, but... do you REALLY think Garfield and Dumb and Dumberer are better than Raging Bull and Raiders of the Lost Ark? I mean, really really? Say for instance that I hadn't seen any of them and I called you up and said, "Say Rushmore, I'm here at the video store and I've got Garfield in one hand and Raiders of the Lost Ark in the other -- which one should I go with?"
"Harmful Insect" is indeed great, but I've gotta agree with WB that it's a shame you didn't like "Eureka".
To me, it's a stunning presentation of a kind of purgatory on earth. The characters are alive, but not really alive -- they're just kind of drifting. The ebb and flow of time feels completely essential to creating the landscape of the film -- one straddled between this period in these peoples' lives and the next, which they can't quite make it to yet. I know Aoyama said that "The Searchers" was a big influence on "Eureka", and everytime I think of it, I can't help but also think of the line '...wander forever between the winds' as well.
Do you think the movie could've benefited from faster pacing, or is it just that the pacing wasn't your type of thing?
Well, they didn't kill women -- it was just the boy. Kôji Yakusho (the older man) is under suspicion for a while, but he eventually finds out that it's the kid who's doing it, and proceeds to stop him.
I could certainly understand your complaint if you thought it was more than one person that reacted to the event in that way, but the psychology seems much more sound when it's just the one person reacting in his own way.
Cutting the movie in half would create an entirely different movie, which I guess would be good for you, but I would hate that! :)
God I love "Fighting Elegy" ... it's by far my favorite Suzuki (though I've only seen five). Such a dexterous example of managing wild tonal shifts in a workable way -- the thing moves like a great piece of music.
This is one helluva tough list. A good portion of these movies are hard if not impossible to find even as bootlegs. Definitely a fascinating selection of flicks though -- lots of them are high up on my "to see" list.
What really sets this list apart from other similar lists is the huge amount of short and experimental works, which he dedicates nearly as many slots to as he does features. So I'd say the hours necessary to track down most of this stuff would greatly supersede the time it'd take to watch them all. :)
Your favorite movie only gets an 89?
So why exactly did you hate "Kung Fu Hustle" so damn much?
Ouch! No love for M/Other, eh? :)
I should probably just accept that you and I have different tastes for Japanese movies and stop making recommendations. Hehe.
I've had the same thing happen in the past few years, and I'm sure it happens to anyone who's seriously dedicated to movies. It's not something to be depressed about, though, I'm sure. Like anything one spends a lot of time with, there's a kind of chiseling effect that happens with movie tastes. Gradually, we whittle away the components of films that don't speak to us, that feel unnecessary or uninspiring, until our own personal vision of movies is achieved. It's different for everyone, and I think that's what eventually leads to unique creative talent in the filmmaking world, be it criticism or filmmaking itself.
It's definitely a strange feeling to watch a movie from my past and realize that it simply isn't now what it was to me then. The growth is integral and important, and sometimes it can take a long time -- in any event, I don't think it's preventable. It's an especially volatile time for people like you and I, who've still got a lot of living/watching to do. Given all the changes in tastes we've experienced in the past few years, can you imagine how "honed" the tastes of someone who's twenty or thirty years older are!
As an example, this is what surely leads to what's considered "the peak period" of a great artists career. Those five, ten, fifteen -- maybe less or more -- years when a director/painter/writer/musician appears to be in complete control of not only their craft, but their art. They've explored and have now found and contained those personal tools that are exactly what they feel they need to express what they want to.
As not only a film-watcher but also a hopeful filmmaker, I find each of these changes and shifts in my opinions to be very worthy of examination, and very helpful towards hopefully procuring the vision to express what I want to say in exactly the way I want to say it.
[Talk about long-winded.] ;)
Wow, look at all those re-watches! I should probably re-visit movies more often. It can be an enlighting experience. I usually find that I only like to do it a good couple years after the initial viewing -- about the point it starts feeling like an old friend whose facial features I can't quite completely recall. :)
Any particular reason for watching "Dark City" again? Did you dislike it that much the first time?
Cool list.
Why Bazin specifically for "Elephant" though? Bazin struck me as a critic very interested in what motivates a characters actions based on their humanity as well as the human outlook of the director. As much as I like it and think the choices made work for the movie, Van Sant's vision is one that has little to no moral relevance here -- that is, the moral consciousness of the characters is barely addressed, and remains completely unexplored. It's a cold and technical film; its roots are in the Kubrick tradition. Moralist critics generally don't like Kubrick at all.
Maybe I misinterpreted. The title "All the Best Movies..." seems to imply that you're listing only your favorite movies from each year (with the exception of the starred ones). Is that the case, or are you listing ALL the movies you've seen from each year?
Most of the movies on these "best of" lists would go on my "worst of" lists! Talk about different tastes... :)
I know you've talked about this a lot, but... do you REALLY think Garfield and Dumb and Dumberer are better than Raging Bull and Raiders of the Lost Ark? I mean, really really? Say for instance that I hadn't seen any of them and I called you up and said, "Say Rushmore, I'm here at the video store and I've got Garfield in one hand and Raiders of the Lost Ark in the other -- which one should I go with?"
And you'd say, "Dude, go with Garfield." Yeah?
:)
"Harmful Insect" is indeed great, but I've gotta agree with WB that it's a shame you didn't like "Eureka".
To me, it's a stunning presentation of a kind of purgatory on earth. The characters are alive, but not really alive -- they're just kind of drifting. The ebb and flow of time feels completely essential to creating the landscape of the film -- one straddled between this period in these peoples' lives and the next, which they can't quite make it to yet. I know Aoyama said that "The Searchers" was a big influence on "Eureka", and everytime I think of it, I can't help but also think of the line '...wander forever between the winds' as well.
Do you think the movie could've benefited from faster pacing, or is it just that the pacing wasn't your type of thing?
SPOILER WARNING!!
Well, they didn't kill women -- it was just the boy. Kôji Yakusho (the older man) is under suspicion for a while, but he eventually finds out that it's the kid who's doing it, and proceeds to stop him.
I could certainly understand your complaint if you thought it was more than one person that reacted to the event in that way, but the psychology seems much more sound when it's just the one person reacting in his own way.
Cutting the movie in half would create an entirely different movie, which I guess would be good for you, but I would hate that! :)
God I love "Fighting Elegy" ... it's by far my favorite Suzuki (though I've only seen five). Such a dexterous example of managing wild tonal shifts in a workable way -- the thing moves like a great piece of music.
This is one helluva tough list. A good portion of these movies are hard if not impossible to find even as bootlegs. Definitely a fascinating selection of flicks though -- lots of them are high up on my "to see" list.
What really sets this list apart from other similar lists is the huge amount of short and experimental works, which he dedicates nearly as many slots to as he does features. So I'd say the hours necessary to track down most of this stuff would greatly supersede the time it'd take to watch them all. :)
Lots of great movies on that list. Just wondering, how'd you come to choose these ones specifically as the ones you want to see the most?
Nice to see "The Decalogue" in there, but it's too bad you didn't like "Distant Voices, Still Lives" more. I love that movie.