Best Ever Albums

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

badseed — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:30:12 GMT

Author: badseed

Posted: 03/26/2018 21:30

A24 Films

Ex Machina
Under the Skin
Moonlight
Lady Bird
The Witch
Spring Breakers
The End of the Tour
20th Century Women
Amy
The Lobster
The Florida Project
Enemy
The Disaster Artist
Swiss Army Man
The Killing of a Sacred Deer
It Comes at Night
A Ghost Story
De Palma
Green Room
The Blackcoat's Daughter
A Most Violent Year
Room
The Spectacular Now
American Honey
The Bling Ring
Tusk

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

hereforashortime — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:58:29 GMT

Author: hereforashortime

Posted: 03/20/2018 20:58

Paul Thomas Anderson

There Will Be Blood
Punch-Drunk Love
Boogie Nights
The Master
Magnolia
Phantom Thread

Still haven't seen Hard Eight or Inherent Vice.

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

CA Dreamin — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:41:51 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 03/20/2018 18:41

Paul Thomas Anderson

1. There Will Be Blood
2. Magnolia
3. Boogie Nights
4. Phantom Thread
5. The Master
6. Hard Eight
7. Inherent Vice
8. Punch-Drunk Love

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

hereforashortime — Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:21:07 GMT

Author: hereforashortime

Posted: 10/02/2017 19:21

Coen Brothers

No Country for Old Men
O Brother Where art thou
Fargo
The Big Lebowski
Raising Arizona
True Grit
Barton Fink
Inside Llewyn Davis
Blood Simple
The Hudsucker Proxy
Hail Caesar
Burn After Reading

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

AfterHours — Tue, 29 Aug 2017 18:20:32 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 08/29/2017 22:20

Facetious wrote:

Lady from Shanghai is probably an 8/10 at least, so it's pretty amazing. I just think F for Fake is a more enjoyable and invigorating display of his personality.

F for Fake is fantastic so no worries. I'll try and revisit it soon.

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

hereforashortime — Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:26:40 GMT

Author: hereforashortime

Posted: 08/29/2017 19:26

Best Picture Nominees of the 21st Century:
Inception
The Social Network
Inglorious Basterds
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
The Aviator
The Departed
Fellowship of the Ring
Sideways
Lost in Translation
The Big Short
La La Land
Midnight in Paris
The Grand Budapest Hotel
A Beautiful Mind
Arrival
Moneyball
Spotlight
The Revenant
True Grit
Manchester by the Sea
Her
Toy Story 3
Gravity
The Help
The Martian
Django Unchained
Hacksaw Ridge
Up
Hugo
Room
The Two Towers
Selma
Good Night, and Good Luck
The Imitation Game
Bridge of Spies
Return of the King
The Blind Side
The Theory of Everything
Boyhood
The King's Speech
Gladiator
Avatar

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

Facetious — Fri, 25 Aug 2017 12:47:48 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 08/25/2017 16:47

AfterHours wrote:

Lady from Shanghai will probably not seem like a masterpiece/near masterpiece of as high an order, unless one really understands the depths of Welles' cinematic art. Mistaking him for a flashy showman is a grave error, especially in regards to his greatest works, which are also flabbergasting, incredible outpourings of his personality/varying states of mind, with much more personal conviction than they may first appear to hold. In the case of Lady from Shanghai, much of the style, visual choices, disorienting rhythms and relentless fluctuation of emotions/themes of the film can be attributed to a metaphorical gutting of his personal feelings and persecution (both public and personal) over his in-progress separation from co-star Rita Hayworth.

Lady from Shanghai is probably an 8/10 at least, so it's pretty amazing. I just think F for Fake is a more enjoyable and invigorating display of his personality.

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

AfterHours — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 20:50:31 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 08/25/2017 00:50

Lady from Shanghai will probably not seem like a masterpiece/near masterpiece of as high an order, unless one really understands the depths of Welles' cinematic art. Mistaking him for a flashy showman is a grave error, especially in regards to his greatest works, which are also flabbergasting, incredible outpourings of his personality/varying states of mind, with much more personal conviction than they may first appear to hold. In the case of Lady from Shanghai, much of the style, visual choices, disorienting rhythms and relentless fluctuation of emotions/themes of the film can be attributed to a metaphorical gutting of his personal feelings and persecution (both public and personal) over his in-progress separation from co-star Rita Hayworth.

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

AfterHours — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:39:11 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 08/24/2017 19:39

Facetious wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

Orson Welles

(ratings rounded to the nearest 1/2 point or full point)

Citizen Kane 9.5/10 (maybe 9/10)
Touch of Evil 9/10
The Magnificent Ambersons 8.5/10 or 9/10 (probably, currently under re-evaluation)
The Lady from Shanghai 8.5/10 or 9/10
Mr Arkadin [Comprehensive Version] 8.5/10 or 9/10
Othello 7.5/10 (maybe inaccurate, maybe even a higher rating; under re-evaluation)
The Trial 7.5/10 (maybe inaccurate, maybe even a higher rating; under re-evaluation)
Falstaff: Chimes at Midnight 7/10 or maybe 7.5/10 (needs to be revisited)
F for Fake 7/10 or maybe 7.5/10 (needs to be revisited)
The Stranger 7/10 or maybe 7.5/10 (needs to be revisited)
Macbeth ??? (Rating undecided; under evaluation)
The Immortal Story 6/10

F for Fake is at least an 8; I mean come on, a 1.5 difference in the ratings between F for Fake and The Lady from Shanghai?

I will be revisiting it but I am already quite familiar with the film and would be surprised if I rated it above 7.5. There is no question to me that Lady from Shanghai is a much more amazing experience.

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

Facetious — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:00:09 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 08/24/2017 17:00

AfterHours wrote:

F for Fake is at least an 8; I mean come on, a 1.5 difference in the ratings between F for Fake and The Lady from Shanghai?

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

AfterHours — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 02:59:14 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 08/24/2017 06:59

hereforashortime wrote:

I definitely recommend you rewatch F for Fake, I'm not a big documentary fan, but even I could appreciate it.

A 7/10 or 7.5/10 on my scale is not a "low" rating at all. It is quite common for a 7.5/10 to be the best film of a year, and a 7/10 to be among them. It is quite rare to rate 8/10 or above, even rarer to rate 8.5/10. A 9/10 is extremely rare, a 9.5/10 is practically impossible and a 10/10 has never been accomplished by any film, and just one work of art (Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel) in the entire history of mankind.

Criteria is here: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15503

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

hereforashortime — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:29:35 GMT

Author: hereforashortime

Posted: 08/24/2017 04:29

I definitely recommend you rewatch F for Fake, I'm not a big documentary fan, but even I could appreciate it.

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

AfterHours — Wed, 23 Aug 2017 21:03:20 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 08/24/2017 01:03

Orson Welles

(ratings rounded to the nearest 1/2 point or full point)

Citizen Kane 9.5/10 (maybe 9/10)
Touch of Evil 9/10
The Magnificent Ambersons 8.5/10 or 9/10 (probably, currently under re-evaluation)
The Lady from Shanghai 8.5/10 or 9/10
Mr Arkadin [Comprehensive Version] 8.5/10 or 9/10
Othello 7.5/10 (maybe inaccurate, maybe even a higher rating; under re-evaluation)
The Trial 7.5/10 (maybe inaccurate, maybe even a higher rating; under re-evaluation)
Falstaff: Chimes at Midnight 7/10 or maybe 7.5/10 (needs to be revisited)
F for Fake 7/10 or maybe 7.5/10 (needs to be revisited)
The Stranger 7/10 or maybe 7.5/10 (needs to be revisited)
Macbeth ??? (Rating undecided; under evaluation)
The Immortal Story 6/10

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

hereforashortime — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:56:15 GMT

Author: hereforashortime

Posted: 08/17/2017 17:56

Tarantino

Inglourious Basterds
Pulp Fiction
Reservoir Dogs
Kill Bill Vol 2
Hateful Eight
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill Vol 1
Django Unchained
Death Proof

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

hereforashortime — Tue, 15 Aug 2017 02:32:36 GMT

Author: hereforashortime

Posted: 08/15/2017 06:32

Spider-Man Movies

Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man Homecoming
Spider-Man
The Amazing Spider-Man
Spider-Man 3
The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

AwaitingAndrew — Wed, 2 Aug 2017 21:40:07 GMT

Author: AwaitingAndrew

Posted: 08/03/2017 01:40

Alfred Hitchcock:
Vertigo
North By Northwest
Rope
Rear Window
I Confess
Dial M For Murder
The 39 Steps
The Lodger: A Story Of London In The Fog
Notorious
Psycho
Saboteur
The Lady Vanishes
Rebecca
Stage Fright
The Birds
Sabotage
Young & Innocent
To Catch A Thief
Foreign Correspondent
Suspicion
Shadow Of A Doubt
Blackmail
The Wrong Man
Spellbound
Family Plot
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Strangers On A Train
Topaz
Marnie
Frenzy
The Trouble With Harry
Mr. And Mrs. Smith
Torn Curtain
The Paradine Case
Jamaica Inn
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
Murder!
Lifeboat

I need to see more of his silent films, but there are only two films since 1934's The Man Who Knew Too Much that I've yet to see. The Master of Suspense made a ton of movies. And I should probably give Lifeboat another viewing.

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

Hayden — Wed, 2 Aug 2017 00:02:54 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 08/02/2017 04:02

AwaitingAndrew wrote:

Gary Oldman is my favorite actor thanks in large part to HP. It's where I first saw him as he brought my favorite book character to life on the big screen, and upon exploring other films as I grew up, like award caliber performances in Leon: The Professional and True Romance, discovered how fantastic he is all around and what a range he has.

Feeling a Daniel Day-Lewis VS. Gary Oldman race for the Oscars next year. Unless Joaquin Phoenix suddenly makes the Academy love him. Either way, rooting for Oldman to get his due (unless Darkest Hour is a flop of course... it's definitely been a Churchill-overload as of late).

The thing with Rickman's performance (award-wise) is that it was more of an accumulated performance rather than a specific film. Like, I couldn't pick which film he put the best performance in... possibly the first? Possibly the third?
If they hadn't cut 80% of his role in Half-Blood Prince, I'd say that, but oh well 🫢 (no classes was uber unfortunate). Either way, stellar acting. So glad none of the adult cast took the series as a joke.

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

AwaitingAndrew — Tue, 1 Aug 2017 23:41:29 GMT

Author: AwaitingAndrew

Posted: 08/02/2017 03:41

Hayden wrote:

I always felt like acting in the HP series was severely overlooked by the Oscars. Rickman was great for sure (consistently), but Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson, Ralph Fiennes, Brendan Gleeson, Gary Oldman, Julie Walters, Imelda Staunton, David Thewlis and Helena Bonham Carter all put on ridiculously strong performances.

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

Hayden — Tue, 1 Aug 2017 23:26:05 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 08/02/2017 03:26

CryingGameDahlin wrote:

Hayden wrote:

And The Chamber of Secrets has... um... not aged well.

I kept the first bit of your post because I think that's why you quoted me. Is there a difference in direction between Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets? Perhaps not, but I still far prefer the former. The Philosopher's Stone (while far from perfect) was a huge undertaking. Columbus really set the vibe for the entire series (well, Cuaron whipped it up a notch, but still), and created an extremely strong children's film. If he messed up, there wouldn't of been another 7 films, no question. There's an insane amount of charm packed into Philosopher's Stone, unrivalled in the series. The whimsy, the lightheartedness, just the general innocence of it all. It's also extremely nostalgic, but of course, that's possibly just a personal thing.

I'd rather watch Philosopher's Stone over Chamber of Secrets any day. Chamber of Secrets lulls for over half it's 160 minute runtime, which is just silly considering how small of a book it is. It feels like a chore. And, like you said, less Rickman. I should also add that Chamber of Secrets is easily my least favourite book... you can almost tell Rowling wasn't entirely sure where the series was headed when she wrote it. It's fun and all, but just... not as good as the rest. It's more-or-less a standard mystery-story formula with magic.

Looks like we agree with Half-Blood Prince. Everything you said, I second. Quite lumpy, awful (and unnecessary) physical comedy, and lopsided pacing. Honestly, the film after the 20-25 minute mark is rather cringy. I dig that cafe scene at the beginning though, thought that was a nice touch. Cinematography was top-notch, but sadly wasted.

Looking at all the films, they're all flawed, but I still feel like they did their best apart from HP6. And yeah, the books are better, everyone who's read the books agree, etc... Personally, I would've loved it as an TV series rather than 8 films, but the timing just wasn't right.

I always felt like acting in the HP series was severely overlooked by the Oscars. Rickman was great for sure (consistently), but Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson, Ralph Fiennes, Brendan Gleeson, Gary Oldman, Julie Walters, Imelda Staunton, David Thewlis and Helena Bonham Carter all put on ridiculously strong performances.

Re: Movie Rankings Thread

cestuneblague — Tue, 1 Aug 2017 22:20:51 GMT

Author: cestuneblague

Posted: 08/02/2017 02:20

Hayden wrote:

hereforashortime wrote:

Spielberg

The Terminal

Strange, I'm actually quite fond of The Terminal. Light, witty fun. Not sure why people don't seem to dig it. I think by default Schindler's List is my favourite of Spielberg... it really is an extraordinary film.

I'll join you with the Harry Potter rankings:

Deathly Hallows Part 1
Prisoner of Azkaban

Order of the Pheonix
Sorcerer's Stone
Goblet of Fire
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Deathly Hallows Part 2

Half-Blood Prince
Chamber of Secrets

The Half-Blood Prince has always felt wasted to me because it's such an awful adaptation, I try not to judge a film because of its source material, but Christ that was unfortunate. Best cinematography and acting of the series wasted by a pathetic script. I actually have a difficult time watching the second half.

And The Chamber of Secrets has... um... not aged well.

Is there really that much difference between Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets? I mean Chris Colombus is among the least imaginative visual director's out there so I think both suffered especially in terms of atmosphere & pacing though the follow-up improved the original's expensive but mostly ridiculous special effects, but for the most part looking back at them they both seem pretty much the same verse, though the latter more intense. I only prefer Philospher's because there was more Alan Rickman.

But really to be frank as much as I love the Harry Potter story I didn't really care for the movies all that much, while it's a clique to say at this point the third was still by far and large the best, mainly cause it got the playfullness of the books right and even added some depth to the story especially in regards to Harry's backstory & parents which was always a bit thin in the books. Otherwise, I donno I wasn't really too excited about the others, Goblet of Fire was solid and probably the heaviest on grandiose spectacle (which was appropiate), Order of the Phoenix sounded great on paper but it made no sense to make even OoP's slightly turgid story into the shortest movie as it pretty much just focused on one aspect (the political rebellion) but downgraded much of the character moments and all the little anecdotes & weird Rowling ideas that make the Harry Potter books so much fun and felt too bald and self-serious as an adaptation... but that was better than the lumpy Half-Blood Prince adaptation, which seemed to try and answer the criticisms by making some of the most heavy-handed and gawd-awful attempts at physical comedy i think I have ever seen, and basically had a first two hours that felt like an eternity and then tried to rush it's conclusion and pretty much the big emotional kicker that came at the end felt pretty sparkless and limp (no pun intended). While I think it had a fine if not exactly breath-taking close with Deathly Hallows, I think it didn't need to be two films, the first basically felt like it could've easily been cut down to an hour, considering a bulk of the middle section basically didn't translate the more psychological tension of their wandering around the forest and basically came across as a tourism advertisement for the Scottish Highlands, they could've easily made a film of three hours and change and still made a satisfying wrap-up, they should've just trusted the audience's attention spans some more (or, more likely, not chasing the dollar signs when they basically get two different release schedules).

So yeah overall, pretty much a decent but un-enthused reaction to much of the films, perhaps they would've been fine on their own but always paled in comparison to the books which always had a lot more free-range of ideas and attention to character devolpment that the movie struggled to adapt (both because of film-making constraints and also different creative team's fetishizing different aspects of the story). Alan Rickman was always the standout, one of the most criminally underrated performances (or series of performances) in the 21st century, and Emma pretty much owned the young cast from the get go (it took a long time for Radcliffe to realize his potential, and Ron pretty much got demoted to a glorified extra in the Yates adaptations). All in all, they were enjoyable enough but undeniably some missed potential. It's still a series worth watching.

Rankings? um...

Prisoner of Azkaban >>> Goblet of Fire > Deathly Hallows pt 2 >>> Order of Phoenix > Deathly Hallows pt 1> Philospher's Stone = Chamber of Secrets > Half-Blood Prince