Posts by dustycanyon5

Honestly, Marnie is way better than Hitch
...

Kevin Turner4 said:Sure, it was made.

Your top 10 list

1. Twin Peaks: The Return (Lynch and Frost claim it's basically an 18-hour movie)
2. Mulholland Drive
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey
4. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me
5. A Moment to Remember
6. 21 Grams
7. A Tale of Two Sisters
8. Kill Bill
9. Nymphomaniac
10. Martyrs

Look, Rista, most of these are just mainstream hits. Very few of them qualify as "art house," and honestly, not a single one fits that high-brow "art film" category you seem to worship. It's a bit of a strange selection. Kill Bill, 21 Grams, those Twin Peaks films, A Moment to Remember... pretty much everything except your second and third picks.

I’m starting to think you’re just messing with us the whole time.

My own top 10 is actually gonna change pretty soon—it's already starting to shift, really—since I've been diving headfirst into some serious art cinema lately. Honestly, I'm finding most of those to be way better than what I used to call my favorites...

And hey, if you think Twin Peaks: The Return is just commercial fluff, then I don't even know what to tell you. You probably haven't even seen it...

briskhound2 said:Nah, I’m asking what makes it so deep or dramatic that people insist on labeling it "art cinema." The whole concept of a "blockbuster" didn't even exist back then, though Odyssey was definitely shot with commercial appeal in mind—kind of like how they approached The Shining...

I don't see Odyssey being made for the money at all. To me, the movie dives straight into the most universal theme there is—the actual meaning of being human. Like, who are we, where are we headed, and what's our purpose? If you don't think that's a universal theme, I honestly don't know what is...

Look, I never said Hitchcock was a bad director, it’s just that there isn't really any "art" in his stuff. He mostly stuck to those psychological thrillers... they're gripping and intense, sure, but they lack that artistic soul. I know dustycanyon5 looks up to him as a mentor, but just because he feels that way doesn't mean I have to agree. And honestly, even with Lynch, I wouldn't call him the greatest director ever, even if he is my absolute favorite...

briskhound2 said:Wait, where exactly does Kubrick deal with deep, universal themes? His two biggest hits (2001 & The Shining) are basically style over substance... honestly, most of the criticism regarding The Shining is because he completely ignored the dramatic core of the book just to focus on the visuals.

Wait, did you seriously just call the Odyssey a blockbuster???

I wouldn't say Hitchcock is one of my all-time favorite directors, even if everyone else seems to treat him like some kind of god... I mean, don't get me wrong, there are definitely movies of his I enjoy—they're solid, engaging, and fun to watch—but he just never really dove into those heavy, universal life themes that you see with guys like Kubrick, Bergman, or even Scorsese. To me, that’s what separates a good filmmaker from a true cinematic artist...

Honestly, I haven't really sat through a single Hollywood blockbuster that actually holds any artistic weight. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're all garbage... some of those big studio flicks are actually super fun and I love them for what they are. But from an artistic standpoint? Nothing really sticks. At the end of the day, their main goal is just making bank at the box office.

Richard James25 said:but I’m definitely going with Ezel as the best version—honestly, even better than the book... 😁

Now you're really overdoing it. It's an amazing show, sure, but calling it the best version or saying it beats the book? Not a chance...

For over half a century now, it feels like the movie world has been split right down the middle between people who live for big commercial hits and those who crave indie, auteur-driven art films. I've been wondering lately... which camp do you guys fall into?

Personally, I’ve always leaned toward the latter without even thinking twice about it. I mean, don't get me wrong, a few years back I was totally fine watching those massive Hollywood blockbusters—stuff like Terminator, Die Hard, or Lord of the Rings... but everything changed once I really started diving into actual cinematic art. Once you discover directors like Lynch, Bergman, or Tarkovsky, there's just no going back. Nowadays, I mostly stick to those deep, artistic films and tend to steer clear of the big commercial stuff...

fadedrider17 said:I'm a massive fan of both the book and the movie... seriously top tier!!

The Gerard Depardieu series is easily the best one. And that '98 film was great too...

I'm with you on that. The version with Gerard Depardieu is just awesome! 👏
It’s just a shame they didn't stick closer to the ending from the book...

Mark Cruz15 said:^Man, you really gotta check out Ezel if you want the full picture. It’s basically Monte Cristo with a Turkish twist.

A fellow member from OWF here (yeah, take a guess which 😁 I am)... I've definitely seen Ezel. Honestly, it's one of my all-time favorite shows. It was actually the first "adaptation" of The Count of Monte Cristo I ever watched... kind of slipped my mind to include it in the poll, though...

I just finished that 1998 miniseries starring Gerard Depardieu. Honestly? It’s hands down the best adaptation of the book out there. Sure, they rushed through the beginning a bit too fast, and they definitely tweaked the ending, but everything in between was just spot on. They really captured the grit and detail from the novel... it felt like almost nothing was left out. And man, Gerard Depardieu was incredible—in my opinion, he actually pulls it off better than Richard Chamberlain did...

I’m holding off on making any final judgments until I sit down with the 1942 version, but I highly doubt it'll top this one.

briskhound2 said:Yeah, that's why he spent so much time describing all those exotic details, from the scenery down to the clothes—it's because it isn't an adventure novel...

Have you even actually read it?

Of course I have. And honestly, so what if there are detailed descriptions of settings and outfits? That doesn't suddenly turn it into some cheap adventure flick. Lol. The whole backbone of the story is really about Edmond Dantès' psychological state while he's stuck in prison, those deep philosophical chats with the Abbot, and his intellectual schemes to dismantle his enemies without having to shed a single drop of blood.

He could've just gone out and killed them all, but that would've been too easy. He wanted to systematically tear them down one by one. To strip away every reason they had to keep living... to make them wish they'd never even been born. That’s way more powerful than those cheesy movie tropes filled with sword fights and mindless action...

briskhound2 said:I can't quite recall all the tiny details, but wasn't the main villain—the guy who stole his wife—actually killed by his own hand in the book? How is that even a satisfying ending for a massive novel that spends hundreds of pages building up this intense atmosphere just for the final showdown? The guy just leaves and kills himself. At least the movies gave us actual fights to make things feel more high-stakes...

See, the whole point of the book isn't about the fight scenes at all. If that's what you were looking for, I'm sorry to say it wasn't there. The Count of Monte Cristo isn't some typical adventure novel like most people assume; it's really more of a philosophical and psychological study with a deep life lesson at its core...

I honestly don't get what people find so disappointing about the ending. To me, it’s exactly how it should have gone down. After everyone finally gets what's coming to them, the Count realizes he was heading down a dark path and that revenge doesn't actually fix anything... He eventually finds peace with the one person who truly loved him for who he was. As far as I'm concerned, it's a perfect ending.

briskhound2 said:Why is it the worst? I actually thought it was a pretty decent version. It’s got a bit more of a modern feel, moves faster... the casting was solid too, everyone had that certain spark. The guy did something similar with Robin Hood, and he really knows how to handle these kinds of projects...

What’s so "okay" about it? They basically butchered one of the greatest literary masterpieces ever written! I get it, you can't cram an entire massive novel into a two-hour runtime, but just look at the version with Richard Chamberlain. Sure, it doesn't follow the book word-for-word, but it actually manages to capture the heart of the story on screen. This Hollywood nonsense barely even touches the original material, aside from the title itself. And don't even get me started on that awful ending...🙄

Carl Doyle65 said:I haven't actually sat down to watch any of them, but I ended up voting for the one from 2002...

I mean, where would you even cast a vote for the absolute worst one? 🤦

Looking at this poll, I’ve pretty much checked everything off my list except for the 1942 version and that mini-series with Gerard Depardieu... honestly, that one is the one I'm most hyped to finally dive into.

The 1934 flick is actually great, though it bugs me how they rushed the ending and had the Count make peace with Mercedes. Unlike most people, I’m a huge fan of how the book actually ends...

As for the 2002 version? Total disaster. I won't even go there. I feel like the only people who could actually enjoy it are those who haven't even touched the book.

So far, my favorite has to be the 1975 one. Richard Chamberlain absolutely nailed the role of The Count of Monte Cristo... he was just so convincing.

The Count of Monte Cristo is hands down my all-time favorite book... I've actually only sat through three movie versions so far. There was the one from 1934, the '75 version, and the one from 2002. Honestly, none of them really blew me away. That 1975 one felt the closest to what I imagined while reading, but even then, it didn't quite hit the mark.

So, which version of The Count of Monte Cristo do you guys think is the best?

Richard Wilson4 said:Has anyone actually attempted a "Saw" marathon? Like, is that even physically possible? 😁

Man, I knocked out all the sequels pretty much as they came out over a couple of days... but now I’m thinking about doing a total binge of all eight movies in a single day. Honestly, what's the worst that could happen? It's only like 16 hours of screen time... 😁