Mr March

Well, they are called guilty pleasures for a reason Often times, a bad film is just a joy to watch because while it may be contrived and cliched, the acting, effects, music, cinematography, subject matter, or a host of other aspects are so entertaining you can't take your eyes off it. While I don't own Devil's Advocate, you'd be hard pressed to convince me it's not worth watching when a friend offer to play his copy I couldn't agree more that Tilda Swinton is fantastic. Her roles in Narnia and Constantine were nothing short of amazing. I don't find this a bit surprising actually, since I'm of the opinion most of the best actresses in the world are from either England or Australia. No doubt their are great actresses elsewhere, but I just find that America in general recruits so many hot-babes-of-the-month as disposable actresses that the talented ones are lost in the flood of better-looking, talentless females.

Hehehe, love the internet

Tough to say. I suppose the thread creator should say, because it's the topic they wanted to discuss. Using conventional wisdom (at least in the film world) a classic is defined in several ways. - A classic film is typically a film that is highly regarded by peers, a picture that makes others stand up and take notice. This can be a new type of film genre or simply an exceptional example of an existing genre. - A classic film often has a long history as an established work that took a long time to be surpassed if ever. This is often one reason why classic films are not categorized as such until long after their inital release, for who can predict the future? - Often, but not always, influence determines whether to bestow the label "classic" upon a film. Well known examples of this would be Akira Kurosawa film's like Seven Samurai , Sergio Leone's A Fistfull of Dollars, or Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odessey. Again, only over time will the influence of a film become known, another reason for postponing bestowment. Those are just some examples I can think of off the top of my head. There are of course other definition's of classics. Some say only pre-1930 films deserve "classic" status. Others argue that "classic" is a strictly Hollywood-only designation, reserved only for those Hollywood products made pre-1970. I suppose if one were pressed, a litteral, dictionary definition could be used As one can begin to appreciate, the term isn't exactly a science.

I think the thread left "classic" behind and moved on to other films. Way too many recent and certainly non-classic examples to count Oh yeah, Fight Club rocks

I have to agree that Peter Stormare made for a pretty good Satan. Somehow he pulled off ugly, creepy, and swuave all at the same time. Next you're going to tell me I'm not the only one who kind of enjoyed the Devil's Advocate. 357242[/snapback] "Kevin? KEVIN? Remember what we talked about? Pressure? Take a big whiff!"

I can certainly understand that. From the motive in this thread, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that there are those eagerly rubbing their hands together at the possibility of a box office bomb from Jackson. *chortle* Too bad

I wasn't evaluating the films on the basis of their artistic merit or entertainment value, just the numbers. I also have to say that the supposed box office slump this year is a highly overrated and sensationalized event that really isn't as much an impact as everyone thinks it is. The box office has been showing steadily increasing returns every year for almost the last decade, each year making records. Growth like that is unsustainable, in any industry. It had to come to a stop eventually and 2005 was the year. However, 2005 may have failed to beat 2004 but 2005 is still a great year for box office take compared to recent years in comparison. It's all relative. Not that I'm defending NA filmmaking, I just want to avoid reinforcing this media blowup over the box office this year. I'm hoping that the end of box office growth will inspire some change and studios will note that many of these mediocre big budget films just aren't reliable for superior growth year after year.

Hehehe, it's funny to see bands I grew up with considered "classic rock" nowadays Labelling something a classic has never been a very easy label to define. However, the best rule of thumb is to use at least 20-30 years. In almost every art medium, the establishment often takes 20-30 years to induct a work into a category for all-time recognition. I think the reason for this is hindsight. All forms of art can produce works that have extraordinairy popularity or "value of the moment". Yet these very same works can be seen as superfluous upon reflection, sometimes even in just a few short years. To avoid this sort of thing, awards institutions often take their time.

Whoa! I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Preach on brotha!

Hmmm, seems alright. King Kong is at $400 million worldwide for a $207 million film; respectable but nothing too impressive. It's at $174 domestically, so it's not the biggest and no competition for the big boys like Potter, Spiderman, Star Wars, and Rings. I think it did better than I was expecting. But then I was predicting doom for a lot of films this year.

Whoa, this thread sure has lasted a long time.

Poor Blade Runner, such a great film that often finds so little love among science fiction fans. Kinda weird for a sci-fi film

GASP! Heresy! Death to the pagan that would say such of Kubrick's films! :)

"Now you're talking to me baby. That I like!" A film thread always gets me going though I am loathe to dwell on that which I dislike. It would be so much more interesting to discuss good film. But, since we have to stay on topic... I'm not sure what the criteria is being used to define "classic" film, but here are some "older" films I dislike that are held in high regard by powers that be: Annie Hall (1977) Possibly the greatest example of film that is a little funny, a little interesting, a little entertaining and lacking any significant weaknesses that would take away from those little triumphs. The most praised and appreciated "kinda-good" film I've ever seen. Chinatown (1974) This film is a enigma to me, having so little to offer my taste for film yet meaning so much to me in way of film structure and storytelling. Strange that such a properly written and contructed tale should make me feel so blase at the utter blandness of the result. The Manchurian Candidate (1962) The story is so contrived and cliche even for its time that I'm at a loss why the film was granted such praise. Maybe it was ol' blue eyes or perhaps Lansbury's acting, about the only element of the film that was exceptional. The Seventh Seal (1957) This is probably sacrilege when said to any university film prof, but I was dissappointed with this film. Didactic and stage-like, I just couldn't get into it nor even appreciate the film within its own time. Alexander Nevsky (1938) The russians may have invented dramatic editing, but I think they also invented the term "cinematic torture" before it became the cliche of modern film critics. Eisenstein's film really hit me hard, testing my stamina more than any other classic. On The Waterfront (1954) I like Brando as much as the next film geek, but I honestly don't care for this picture. It had its moments, just not nearly enough for me. The Deer Hunter (1978) As a fan of film, I often must endure the cries of people screaming "BORING" in reference to so many slow paced movies that I adore. However, I have to bite my tongue because there are a few films which evoke a similar attitude within myself. Cimino's insomniac sedative is such a film. Das Boot (1981) Another film that could have been great, but was so terribly long. Like Deer Hunter, this film stands as one of the few reminders to me that I must go easy on other people that complain about boring films. The Conversation (1974) I can't understand for the life of me what there is to this film that so many cherish as a great work. Coppola can (and did) far better and more praise worthy work than this film.

Yoink!

More brilliant work. Well done!

Welcome to MW

Saw the film last night. Same problem as Harry Potter, too juvenile and pretentious to take it seriously yet too unbelivably trite to be immersed by the fiction. Must say the controversy is such a joke, totally eclipsing the film itself. But I suppose selling controversy has become the new film marketting scam. This film gets 1 out of 5 for me.

So, does that mean it's open season for a political/ideological debate in this thread? Speaking as someone who would love to join in such a debate but hasn't out of respect for the rules and EXO, who is following the rules and suffering for it. I have to say I'm getting a mixed message here.

*snip* 355945[/snapback] Hm, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Yes golden age lots are carefully watched, but even a buy and hold approach for those issues make better investments/returns than modern ones b/c of the steady demand. Demand for modern titles ranges hot one minute than cold. Yes it is partly true that dealers and comic stores can make estimated guesses on which titles should be popular, partly based on the writer and penciler. However, the key is knowing how many copies to preorder of the "hot titles" AND ordering the regular sellers AND "speculating" on the other titles. Remember all of these potential sales have to cover the company overhead, which if you are operating a brick and morter place it is not low, especially in a major city. Yes turn around is fast for modern comics but that is for the steady sellers, the rest of the speculated titles end up as shelfwarmers if the dealers cannot get rid of them. So again, flipping comics in bulk is not as simple as you make it sound. Even if someone were to attempt to buy on their own through a dealer, remember you still run the risk of ordering a title that does not meet its projected demand. Not all Jim Lee, Michael Turner, Ed Benes penciled issues command a high price and few command a 40% over cover resale price. And fewer still, remain in high demand unless the early issue(s) are part of a significant storyarc/crossover. Also once the books are headed for reprints, true demand remains high but you'd do better slabbing the few issues you got and then flipping them on ebay. But as we all know, even slabbing a hot title does not guarantee 100% return and certainly not a 500% return. Having a pulse on the comics industry, upcoming titles, and artists is not enough to stack things in your favor when attempting a reasonable resale profit margin. Have you ever researched many comic stores close down in your city, state? I have and it is alarmingly high, simply put it is hard to make a profit selling modern comics. 355966[/snapback] A business is quite different than a personal collector. I'm not talking about opening up a store, I'm talking about an investment which could make a profitable turn for a private seller. As someone looking for an investment, golden age are simply a luxury item for those that get lucky or are already owners. Actively obtaining these items is too cost prohibitive. We're also talking years for a golden age investment to turn an acceptable profit. Basically, the growth isn't much higher than inflation. The rest is just part of the risk. Nothing new there. When I was into comics, private sales and quick turnaround financed my hobby all by itself.

As if we needed any more convincing that this armor set is fantastic, here come the onslaught of beautiful pictures Thanks Hayao. This is amazing!

I'd have to disagree. Modern comics are perhaps the best investment you could make. The average person has little to no hope of finding a cache of golden age comics at cheap prices that they can sell for thousands of dollars. Even estate auctions are now watched carefully and bidding is always high. Turnaround for modern comics is quite fast, usually no more than 6-10 months with profit margins sometimes as high as 500% plus. If one were to buy in bulk (say 50-100 units), in 6 months one could sell the books at 10-20% lower than the inflated street price to move them quickly and make a killing. Say Witchblade #2 for $3.95 shelf price was selling at $25 six months after release (which it was), sell your 50 units at $18-20 bucks a pop to move them fast and collectors still think they are getting a deal. Especially with nationwide access and international markets via the internet, your options for selling is very extensive. Modern comic's news publications are always publishing upcoming titles with information on the artist/writer for each new title. You can easily use this news to tell which titles will be hot. Most fans of comics/sci-fi/fantasy have an understanding of the state of the industry and what is popular at the time, even if they never use the knowledge. We all knew the Matrix was the poo at one time, we all knew when McFarlane, Spawn, Turner, X-Men, Jim Lee, Lifield, Spider-Man, and a host of others were on top for a few short years. All it takes is using what you know and taking a risk. It's work, but it's worth it.

It would depend upon your criteria for a "remake" and whether you're talking about the date of the original or the remake itself. Plenty of films are "remade" without the consent of the original, plagarism isn't detected/acted upon legally, and some are remade unofficially. Canadian director Sidney Olcott's 1907 film Ben Hur was an unofficial production, made without consent of the creator's estate. The film was also only 15 minutes long. Using the loosest interpretation and to the best of my knowledge, this film would be the earliest source film from which a remake was made. You could then examine remakes with a slew of other criteria, such as Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) was the first remake to win best picture. Ironically, the Ben-Hur remake is often credited incorrectly as the first remake to win an Oscar. Then foreign films remade into North American films and vice versa. The saga of Hammett's novel Red Harvest into Kurosawa's Yojimbo into Leone's Fistful of Dollars into Last Man Standing is but one of a few really fun remake sagas

Glad I jumped ship when they were still worth a bundle of cash. EBay is selling the issues for dirt cheap.

I don't want to sidetrack all that's be said, but I think I can help answer the most pertinent question asked by most in this thread. The subtext of the film Munich is violence begets violence. That's the message, wrapped up in a historical retelling which Spielberg happens to think fits such a theme. As for the rest, I can tell you that all film is simply a visual medium for communicating the personal views of the creator to the audience. Viewing ANY film with the expectation the creator's perception of the world will be non-biased, neutral, or absent is the antithesis of dramatic storytelling/writing. Should one feel opposed to the personal views of a given filmmaker and find themselves unable to seperate their distaste for the creator's opinions from the end product, obviously the quality of the film is irrelevant. Best to simply avoid films by that director and support films that showcase other views.