If we were to sit down and draft a formal protest letter to PBS, we’d quickly realize that almost every significant historical filmmaker from non-English speaking regions—and honestly, even many from English-speaking ones—is missing from your programming. Thank you for your years of dedicated effort in ignoring and effectively erasing cinematic history. Your loyal subscribers.
Jonathan Collins43 said:Calling it a "treasure trove" or "essential reading" for movie lovers is total nonsense. I borrowed the *basis of film theory* book, and honestly, I didn't find anything interesting in it. I’m sure Ante Peterlić was brilliant, but I haven't spent enough time with his work yet. The book I read didn't offer much insight, and it certainly didn't teach me how to sharpen my film criticism. I might dig through it a bit more, though.
Man, there are some characters on this forum... Look, if you're looking to grasp the fundamentals of cinema to broaden your perspective, you should probably embrace the books that actually explain them. placidmarlin3 asked how to evaluate a film. When someone asks a question like that, I assume they aren't fully grounded in the basics yet, so here in the US, I’d recommend studying the most legendary film scholar out there. Take a look at the introductory post; it covers the essential segments and the key concepts one needs to master. In Peterlić's book, all those vital elements and forms are explained clearly, even with specific examples. And you're telling me that has nothing to do with criticism? How is a critic supposed to judge a film if they don't have the deep knowledge and observational skills gained through studying film theory and, of course, watching actual movies? I was trying to help placidmarlin3, not you. Since you clearly have everything figured out, maybe you should just write a book yourself. Until then, let's skip the pointless arguing.
I’ve seen just about everything on this forum, but seeing someone try to drag Ante Peterlić's name through the mud is a bit much. His books, *concept and structure of film time* from 1976 and *basics of film theory* from 1977, are absolute gold mines. They’re essential reading for any true cinephile. I actually wanted to jump in and respond to placidmarlin3’s opening question by suggesting they pick up those books; they are genuinely wonderful, written with such infectious enthusiasm, and are a breeze to read. As for the topic at hand, for most people here, movies aren't a job—they're a passion and a way of life. So, it doesn't really matter if a review isn't strictly academic. What matters is understanding the soul of a film through its technical roots and following how cinema evolved through history. Honestly, it drives me crazy when people overlook legends like Murna, Charlie Chaplin, Fritz Lang, D.W. Griffith, Jean Renoir, John Ford, Kenji Mizoguchi, Carl Theodor Dreyer, Luis Buñuel, Sergei Eisenstein, and the countless others who worked to elevate film to a legitimate art form. So, here is my advice: dive into Peterlić’s work and enjoy how he breaks down the technical side of things, and if you haven't already, start exploring film history. It will make your impressions much deeper, and I'm certain you'll find plenty of high-quality analysis to draw from. Plus, you can always check out that family-run site that hosts great documents on directing, production, and all that good stuff.
hiddenhound3 said:It strikes me as incredibly narrow-minded when someone claims they refuse to watch any film that carries an IMDb rating lower than a seven. 🤷
I certainly do. I find myself doing it quite frequently simply to satisfy certain social expectations. For instance, when I am sitting there watching one of those mindless, overly sentimental teen comedies with my cousin... what else am I supposed to do? 😍
I haven't seen anyone else say that yet, but honestly, if they did—kudos to them for coming up with the absolute stupidity of the decade.
On IMDb, it’s technically possible for twenty-five guys from a local gym to get together and give Rambo 10 a perfect score. If they did that, you could basically math your way into making even a total piece of junk look like a solid 7 or 8 out of 10. I’ve never really put much stock in IMDb ratings. To me, the site is mostly just a handy online guide if you can't quite remember what year a movie came out or something along those lines.
Honestly, letting other people dictate how you should feel or think is just sad. If we actually started digging into this, we’d end up deep in the territory of Plato, debating the whole gap between what we see and what we actually know to be true.
goldenhound32 said:I don't even care for the notion of 'finishing what you started' (it sounds far too much like a perfectionist's mantra), let alone applying that logic to watching movies.
If something is garbage, why on earth should I suffer through it until the credits roll? 😕
Look, I already spoke up when someone claimed that a true cinephile is someone who watches everything—if that's the case, then I'm not a cinephile at all. There's just no way, and honestly, I don't have the TIME. Movies aren't my job; I watch them because I love them, and I'm old enough now to know what doesn't interest me. For instance, take comic book adaptations that I have zero interest in. People can talk to me about how phenomenal the special effects are all they want, but the truth is, I simply don't care, and that's that.
Nothing is garbage until I decide it’s garbage, honestly... I just can't stand prejudices, whatever kind they may be.
I guess the first sign that a movie is going nowhere is when you don't see a single recognizable face on the poster. And honestly, the second thing is that as soon as I spot some busted-up cars or cheap-looking clothes—unless we're talking about some legendary cinematic classic—I'm probably just going to change the channel.
Excuse me? That's a pretty harsh bias to have. Honestly, it feels a bit childish. Think about movies like Walkabout, Eraserhead, or even Benny's—they aren't exactly packed with A-list stars, yet they are absolute masterpieces.
hiddenhound3 said:There is an immense amount one can learn from American cinema regarding love, compassion, spiritual values, forgiveness, and even the various ways people choose to end their lives. There are countless blueprints provided for achieving the American Dream—ranging from the life of a dishwasher to that of a multi-billionaire—all while maintaining one's spiritual integrity and nobility. These films are largely realistic in their portrayal of everyday situations, leaving nothing to doubt their authenticity. Ultimately, Americans are the finest nation on Earth and they always manage to save the world.
Haha, I can definitely sense a healthy dose of irony there, but do you really mean *all* American films? This critique you're making feels a bit like looking at the whole of American society trying to present itself as perfect through various media outlets. But the reality is that the harshest critics of that very same society are often Americans themselves... Various artists who have the courage to speak their minds and say what's truly on their hearts.
When it comes to film as an art form, it’s widely known that European directors have been major inspirations for Americans throughout history—something they’ve always acknowledged—but it’s also true that influence flows both ways. We’re all just spinning on the same planet, constantly supplementing each other's ideas. Your criticism is clear, and it points toward a sense of bitterness that I used to feel myself. However, I don't feel it as much anymore because I've gained enough experience to recognize when someone is trying to sell me a cheap gimmick. Now, I just ignore the useless movies (or music, if I were to draw a parallel). You should always ignore propaganda. Hollywood has bombarded us with nonsense throughout history, especially nowadays, but it has also given us a massive collection of incredible masterpieces. Lately, there are plenty of independent producers who have the guts to take on everything. And I respect that. Whether they are from America, Japan, or Europe... You can still find a great Hollywood production (take *There Will Be Blood*, for example; it’s a clear depiction of human greed). Anyway, I get where you're coming from.
Arthur Garcia59 said:He also made My Trip to Italy, which is actually slightly more worth watching.
I get that. I’ve always been a huge fan of Italian Neorealism, and that documentary is great too. But honestly, looking back, his take on American film feels even better to me. When I really sit down and think about it, they're pretty much equal. They just tackle two completely different subjects. What really gets me about Marty, though, is how much he loves cinema; it's so pure and obvious, almost like watching a kid in awe. I genuinely consider Martin Scorsese one of the greatest directors of all time. Heh, if it weren't for him, I might have actually respected the Oscars when I was younger... they passed him over in 1976, 1980, and I'll go ahead and add 2002 to that list. Anyway, the thread isn't supposed to be solely about him, it's about Raging Bull, but I feel like there isn't much left to say about the movie itself. Everything's been covered. We could maybe dive into some specific technical details if anyone wants...
This is an absolute timeless classic. Honestly, one of the biggest snubs in Academy history was passing over Raging Bull for Best Picture—I mean, Ordinary People isn't a bad movie by any stretch, but it doesn't even come close to this masterpiece. Even though Robert De Niro took home Best Actor, it still feels like it wasn't enough. The reality is that they've overlooked Martin Scorsese many times before, starting all the way back with Taxi Driver. Marty actually put together a wonderful documentary series about cinema back in 1994 (a personal journey with Martin Scorsese through American film) spread across three parts. I’d definitely recommend checking it out.
Arthur Garcia59 said:I don't really get the point of this thread. Honestly, I feel like I could take what you wrote and apply it to any decade. You haven't actually concluded anything, asked a specific question, or even made a real suggestion here.
Well, then go ahead and write something. I’d love to chat about it, and I’m sure plenty of other classic movie buffs would too. What do you mean by "suggested"? The floor is open—if someone has a soft spot for a particular decade, they can jump in with their favorite films, thoughts, or whatever else. I'm not quite following your logic, so why don't you start a specific thread? Besides, if this isn't your thing, I'm not sure why you're even hanging out in this topic. For me, even just seeing a title like "The 1960s" would be enough to get me talking. I didn't want to leave the thread totally empty, so I just kept it brief to get the conversation started...
hollowsailor19 said:For me, Vertigo is the best movie from the 50s.
It definitely belongs in that top tier. The way they handle the editing and those camera angles is just incredible; there’s this constant sense of momentum that carries you through the whole thing. Plus, James Stewart is absolutely brilliant in it...
Even if they feel like a lifetime ago, the 1950s were an incredible era for cinema, marked by brilliant storytelling and fundamental shifts in how movies were actually made. As the culture evolved, we saw the rise of icons like Marlon Brando and James Dean. Directors like Elio Perlman were churning out absolute classics such as "Panic in the Streets," "On the Waterfront," and "East of Eden." We had Billy Wilder giving us masterpieces like "Sunset Boulevard," "Stalag 17," and "Ace in the Hole," while Alfred Hitchcock was busy directing legendary thrillers like "Strangers on a Train," "Dial M for Murder," and "Rear Window." On the global stage, we were introduced to the genius of Ingmar Bergman—just think about "The Seventh Seal"—while the legendary Federico Fellini was making his mark on directing. Akira Kurosawa was at the absolute peak of his creative powers, and Luis Buñuel continued to produce phenomenal work, like "Mexico City." To top it all off, the decade was punctuated by François Truffaut, whose "The 400 Blows" is widely seen as the spark for the French New Wave—a movement that would change the face of filmmaking forever.
If you ask me, Michael Bay hasn't really brought anything fresh to the table. Bad Boys is just your average action comedy—I’m not usually a huge fan of that genre anyway, but let's be honest, there have been much better versions out there. The Rock is a decent enough action thriller that fits right into that generic cinematic landscape of the 90s, and Armageddon is pretty much the same story. As for Pearl Harbor, it was a total fiasco; beyond the fact that it turned into a complete soap opera, it failed to show what I actually wanted to see regarding the event—the real truth behind the attack. Bad Boys 2? Zero points. From a production and technical standpoint, he might fascinate some people, but not me. Just because a movie uses sensational special effects doesn't mean it's automatically good. Personally, I don't even care much for the "big effect" category; I look for something more substantial (at least, that's how I feel).
So, that's everything I've seen from him. Should I give him "one more chance"? Honestly, I think I'll pass.
I’d personally take Rocky off this list. Both Taxi Driver and Network were filmed that same year, and honestly, they’re both better movies. I’m with you on Annie Hall; even though I’m not a huge fan of Woody, he definitely brought something fresh to the table with that one. Patton doesn't quite fit for me either, especially looking at it alongside M. A. S. H. Of course, the OP isn't looking for criticism since they just posted a list, but my critiques are aimed at the Academy. So many 70s classics didn't actually win anything—think about A Clockwork Orange, Straw Dogs, or how Chinatown only took home an award for screenplay... Midnight Cowboy really belongs to 1969. Since the Oscars are handed out in February, it was technically 1970, but chronologically, it’s a 60s film. It’s similar to how an Oscar was missed in 1979 (Kramer vs. Kramer) when Apocalypse Now was the main competition... the ceremony was held in '80, but the movie is firmly a 70s film.