Posts by Mark Wood79

David Price5 said:Christian Taylor3 went ahead and tidied up this thread quite nicely.

I get that, but his thread has a ton of links that just lead to PDF files. What I’m really looking for is if anyone has read the book I wrote. I didn't want the whole discussion to revolve solely around my own work, so I tried to expand the topic a bit. Generally speaking, I'm interested in physical books you can actually order—I'm not really looking for stuff I can just scroll through on a computer screen.🙂
I doubt Christian Taylor3 is upset; his thread is top-notch, and I made sure to give him props right when he started it.

If anyone has some solid book recommendations covering film history, different eras, theory, or anything along those lines, please share them! Feel free to drop a link where I can grab a copy.

I've actually had my eye on a specific set by John Wakeman for a while now, and I'm planning to pull the trigger soon: World Film Directors: Volume One 1890-1945 and Volume Two 1945-1985.
The books aren't cheap, so I'll definitely need to set some money aside for them. That’s why I’m looking for some honest feedback—if anyone here has read them, I could really use a glowing recommendation to justify the investment.

Dial M for Murder. Mostly.

He’s churning through movies at lightning speed—it feels like he’s trying to catch every single train on the tracks, including the Harry Potter one... well done, Rade.
Still, I mostly remember him for his work back in the old regional circuit...

I don't know much about his private life, but I have to wonder why Dennis Doyle3 calls him a total zero. Not that I'm disagreeing, I'm just genuinely curious why they'd use such harsh language...

Honestly, you probably should have just stayed away. A bit of advice for everyone else here: just ignore this, and the thread will die down on its own.

Goodnight.

It looks like this is going to be another one of those threads where someone drops a little bait just to stir the pot and then disappears.

coppergardener13 said:Al Pacino just doesn't stand a chance. He's constantly stuck in De Niro's shadow, and honestly, he's mostly just making bad movies these days.

He might be making a bad movie today, but back in the '70s, he was a cornerstone of New Hollywood. Characters like Bobby, Michael Corleone, Lion, Serpico, or Sonny Wortzik are absolute icons of that era. The guy is a legend.
The 90s gave us five more absolute masterclasses in acting.

coppergardener13 said:What has Jack Nicholson even done this decade? Honestly, everything feels like a step backward. It’s like he's lost that spark. He really needs to look at how Robert De Niro is operating and take a page out of his book regarding those awards.

Even if he had decided to pivot to stripping at sixty, Jack Nicholson’s career still speaks for itself. The man is an absolute legend.

coppergardener13 said:Dustin Hoffman is overrated. Just like those two guys mentioned above, he hasn't really delivered anything substantial...

If classics like *The Graduate*, *Midnight Cowboy*, *Straw Dogs*, *Little Big Man*, *Lenny*, *All the President's Men*, *Marathon Man*, *Papillon*, *Kramer vs. Kramer*, and *Rain Man* don't count for you, then fine. I guess we're just looking at things differently.🤷

goldenhound32 said:While I can see why people like Clint Eastwood, my vote personally goes to John Cassavetes. I've seen four of his films—Shadows, Opening Night, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, and A Woman Under the Influence. Aside from Shadows, they were all incredibly powerful, especially Opening Night. There’s something almost transcendental about that one. Truly a masterpiece.

Signed,

But man, I absolutely love Shadows.

Michael Ortiz68 said:I remember reading somewhere that some of those "film analysts" argued that the shark in Jaws was a symbol of capitalism. Spielberg apparently just reacted with something along the lines of, "Are you kidding me?"

People really do tend to overthink things sometimes—just look at everything they’ve written about David Lynch. He appreciates hard work, so he doesn't usually engage with that stuff, but I think he occasionally gets treated like some kind of oracle.

I've loved Psycho for a long time, and I actually found that take on the floor levels quite interesting. As far as analysts go, I think I prefer it when someone notices a subtle technical detail rather than trying to force a deep meaning into the plot.

Quote: is a thriller, not a drama.

goldenhound32 says: Because I suspect Hitchcock didn't really have a specific intention when he made the movie. Even if the basement is meant to represent Norman's ID, who cares? Is the film going to be better or more intense because of it? Not really. Still, Psycho

I can't say for sure, just like you can't, but it's definitely a possibility. I haven't read the novel...

When it comes to suspense, this movie is incredibly tense... man, thinking back to my first viewing, I would give a fuckin' right arm to experience it for the first time again.

It won't necessarily be "more" intense, but watching it will spark that sense of awe in me all over again. I'm talking about that specific level of symbolism you find in his work.
There are just certain directors who make you truly admire a film as a piece of art.

goldenhound32 said:If it wasn't good, he wouldn't have won an Oscar.
First off, that most famous scene from the movie—the shower scene—just feels pathetic to me. It’s bad.
And I found that whole explanation at the end (where the guy breaks down Norman's personality) really annoying, the way Hitchcock talks directly to the audience.
Even though I have respect for Slavoj Žižek, I've always been skeptical of analyses that seem totally disconnected from what the director actually intended.

They don't? Why do you think that? Especially in this case.

goldenhound32 said:I rarely find myself rewatching movies since there are still so many I haven't even seen yet.

That’s true, but I can definitely revisit David Lynch a few times just to soak up everything he has to offer. Same goes for Andrei Tarkovsky, Michael Haneke, or Nicolas Roeg—I actually revisited some early Wim Wenders recently.
Generally, if something good comes on TV that I’ve already seen, I’ll tune in. As for the theater, don't even get me started. There is nothing quite like seeing a Fritz Lang film on the big screen.

goldenhound32 said:on the other hand, I know I'll watch The Deer Hunter again eventually. Just like Apocalypse Now, the first two Godfather films, and Once Upon a Time in America. They're long movies, but they are beloved long movies!😁

Beloved long movies, indeed.

I've definitely watched Apocalypse Now at least three or four times, and I actually wanted to catch it on New Ali last night, but I had to get up early this morning.
I've also seen Once Upon a Time in America about four times and I know I'll go back to it. As for Sergio Leone, I've seen the entire Dollar Trilogy at least three times, and Once Upon a Time in the West maybe two or three times so far. I know I'll watch it again.😁

goldenhound32 said:I know I won't be watching Lawrence of Arabia again, nor Silence of the Lambs or Psycho. All three got a 7 out of 10 from me, but they didn't really blow me away.

Psycho isn't your thing? I absolutely love it. There's an interesting theory by Slavoj Žižek regarding the characters in that film, linking it back to Sigmund Freud: the first person is the ego, the second is the superego, and the basement represents the id.
Actually, I've seen Psycho twice myself, and I have a feeling a third time is coming soon.
Alongside Les Diaboliques (which I've also seen twice), Psycho remains the king of suspense for me. Of course, there are plenty of other titles, but those two really captivated me back in the day.
Regarding Leanov's work, I loved him as a kid, though I haven't watched much of his stuff lately. Personally, I think The Bridge on the River Kwai and Great Expectations are much stronger entries.

But the topic here is movies we *won't* watch a second time... there are plenty, for example:

The Postman, Independence Day, The Godfather Part III, Top Gun, The Bridges of Madison County... things like that.

By the way, are you in the mood to dig up old threads from 2003 today? I see Adam Sandler has been brought back into the mix too.

Straw Dogs-Wild Bunch-The Getaway-Pat Garrett. Tim's putting them back in order.

👍briskhound2, the beast is finally out of the cage. You certainly gave me a run for my money there.

Lisa Ross65 said:If you ask me, this poll is way too broad. You could pull ten absolute masterpieces just from 1950 alone. A decade is a massive stretch when we're talking about world cinema.

Exactly. Trying to poll entire decades is tough—actually, it’s pretty much impossible to do accurately this way. The only real way to go is year by year. I know it's more work, but it's much better.

Take 1950, for example (this comes from my own collection, though obviously, I don't have them all on original film):
Koster's Harvey, Buñuel's Los Olvidados, Kazanov's Panic in the Streets, Huston's The Asphalt Jungle, Ray's Rebel Without a Cause, Ophuls La Ronde, Melville's Les Enfants Terribles, Dassin's Night and the City, Kurosawa's Rashomon and Shubun, the Seven Days by the Boulting brothers, Hitchev's Stage Fright, Mateo's D.O.A., Lewis's Gun Crazy, Wilder's Sunset Boulevard, Zinnemann's The Men, Preminger's Where the Sidewalk Ends, Mankiewicz's All About Eve and No Way Out, and Ford's Rio Grande.
I could probably write a paragraph on every single one of these because I truly believe they are all incredible, so I'm not just listing them for the sake of it.

@Kate Harris4
Looking at all these polls, it feels like you've really left Europe behind (back in the 30s, there wasn't a single Renoir, Lubitsch, or von Sternberg—and those are European directors! There was only one Lang... and in the 40s, not a single Neorealist, whether it was Visconti, Rossellini, De Santis, De Sica, or even Dreyer...)
On this list for the 50s, just like Nicholas Walker3 mentioned, Japan is heavily overlooked (missing Mizoguchi, Ozu, and Kobayashi, with only one Kurosawa), and Europe is missing too (not a single Clouzot, Melville, Clement, Bresson, Becker, Visconti, Sjöberg, or Berlanga—just one Bergman and one Fellini...)
That said, props to you for the 50s list; you clearly put in the effort instead of just copy-pasting. A special shout-out for including Benedek's Death of a Salesman, Siegel's Riot, Fleischer's Narrow Margin (which was a B-movie back then, but is a classic now that had a solid remake with Hackman), Asquith's Browning, Preminger's Angel Face, and Ophuls The Earrings of Madame de... which are unfortunately somewhat forgotten titles today.

Lisa Ross65 said:Looks like the premiere is hitting the theater in Beverly Hills this Sunday. Anyone planning to go?

Probably just the Dinamo Chicago Supporters Club and the guys from the American Gentleman Movement, because I heard they already booked out every single seat. 🙂

Nicholas Walker3 said:And Kieslowski!?

Of course Three Colors needs to be part of the lineup. But hey, I didn't run the poll myself...

Nicholas Walker3 said:The issue for me is that I care about respecting the director and their original vision, rather than getting caught up in marketing gimmicks...

I’m not talking about marketing here; I’m talking about this specific forum poll.

The term "trilogy" doesn't bother me quite as much as it seems to bother you. It isn't out of a lack of respect; it's just that I know enough about cinema that I can't be talked into buying something subpar.
When it comes to reissues, I tend to be a bit picky. I need to see exactly what I'm getting—what the bonus features are and how it's all packaged. I have no interest in buying cheap, rushed releases where they cram fifteen movies onto a couple of discs like people living in a cramped, low-rent apartment complex.
If I see that a reissue has been done properly, I’ll buy it regardless of whatever flashy adjectives they slapped on the cover to lure in casual viewers.

All in all, regarding the poll itself, I still feel it's a shame that names like Rossellini, Lars von Trier, Michael Haneke, and Yasujirō Ozu aren't included, as I mentioned before.

That's just my two cents.

Nicholas Walker3 said:The reason they aren't considered trilogies is because they consist of two films, even if we choose to view them as one continuous story...
A trilogy should be three films tied together by a central theme. Dr. No doesn't fit that description for several reasons, and neither does Lord of the Rings or those Sergio Leone westerns, for instance. To me, a true trilogy is The Godfather, the Three Colors trilogy, or Lars von Trier's Epiphany trilogy! If you compare those actual trilogies, it becomes obvious why the others don't quite make the cut.

I asked you about that right away and didn't get an answer, so I assume you mean because of the way 1922 is split into two parts.
The Hollywood legends recognized it as a single entity the moment they suggested it was a trilogy.
In Beverly Hills, it’s being shown on November 25th and 26th in two parts: the first at 7 PM and the second at 9 PM. Maybe it's just because of the runtime—four hours is a lot, so you definitely need a break—but they actually marketed it as two separate films (though I'm not sure how the ticketing will work).

As for what you were saying about trilogies; there are plenty of series that only become "trilogies" long after the fact, rather than being the director's original intent.
Personally, I don't mind if someone groups the Leone-Eastwood collaborations together and calls it a trilogy.

Nicholas Walker3 said:Wikipedia lists who counts, so we should probably take its claims with a grain of salt... Either way, Mabuse isn't strictly a trilogy. Besides, it all started as an adaptation of a novel that eventually trapped Hitchcock in its orbit, turning into a series that outlived even him. They actually filmed several more movies featuring the same actor who played the lead in Lang's final film!

The stuff made after Lang doesn't really matter here; we're just focusing on Lang himself. So, why do you think calling it a trilogy is unjustified? Is it because of the 1922 version, or those two releases from 1933? You mentioned that Lang directed 4 Mabuse.

I noticed that Hollywood legends released the complete set with this specific line: available on Blu-ray, assembled together for the first time by a single label, and in one boxset — Fritz Lang’s legendary trilogy of films on the machinations of arch-criminal Dr. No.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm perfectly fine with accepting Mabuse as a trilogy.

Nicholas Walker3 said:Ever since the Mabuse trilogy started, there have been about ten films made involving them, and Lang himself directed four!

It really depends on how you look at it. For instance, the first Mabuse from 1922 is often split into Dr. Mabuse, The Player and Dr. Mabuse, The Player - Inferno, The Play of People of Our Time. But then again, most people view it as one distinct unit... if you check Wikipedia, they’ll list it as the Mabuse trilogy (meaning the films from 1922, 1933, and 1960).
Or are you thinking of the two different versions—French and German—from 1933?

I just remembered another fantastic trilogy that hasn't been mentioned: Rossellini's post-war series (1945-1948), which includes Rome, Rome, Open City, Paisà, and Germany, Year Zero.
Or even Ozu's Noriko trilogy released by Amazon (1949-1953): Tokyo Story, Floating Weeds, and Tokyo Story. They are all incredible titles.

I’d cast my vote for the Trier European Trilogy (1984-1991) and Haneke’s work from the late 80s through the mid-90s. Actually, I’m not even voting because they aren't on the list.😕

From the options provided, I’m going with Lang and Leone. I’m intentionally skipping Coppola because of that total disaster he put out back in 1990.