Posts by Joseph Lee3

If you want to come out on top, the first rule is pretty simple: don't lose.

If you aren't flying, you aren't really living. It’s pretty simple: if you’ve got the wings, you take to the sky, because staying grounded is just a slow way of admitting you're irrelevant.

How could it not have been filmed?! And what about "Marathon Man"?! 😂

I suspect the creator of Dick Tracy intended to parody James Bond, specifically through the lens of cinema. In fact, the screenplay was drafted before the first comic ever hit the stands. The lead role was actually tailored for Peter O'Toole—so any resemblance between the drawn version of Dick Tracy and the actor certainly isn't just some cosmic coincidence!

Arthur Garcia59 said:Look, honestly, anything from that list I highlighted would be worth checking out—especially if you haven't seen any Makavejev yet.

For the heavy hitters, there's Marker, whom I didn't dwell on much, and I forgot to mention Želimir Žilnik's "Early Work," which I think won a Bear some time back.

If you actually have the stamina and the time, that longest Argentine feature seems like a solid choice.

I've already seen most of Makavejev's stuff. Some of it hits brilliantly—like "Innocence without Protection," if that's playing, I'm definitely in—but then there's "Sweet Movie," which at one point felt like everything repulsive about cinema. Just gross.

As for "Early Work"... watching that was just laughable to me. I mean, sure, it probably felt revolutionary back in '69, but since I can't quite wrap my head around its artistic merit and the actual meaning behind the content remains a total mystery to me, I truly don't get what all the fuss is about regarding Želimir Žilnik. Maybe I'm just lacking the proper formal education. 🤷

Can anyone recommend something from the lineup? I haven't heard of most of these, and I’m really not in the mood for any Jean-Luc Godard. I’ll probably just settle for that closing documentary, "The Air is Red." After that, apparently—party time! 😵

The first true mockumentary, right? I’m fairly certain Spinal Tap hit theaters after Zelig. Back then, before everything went digital, the movie was basically a masterpiece of practical effects. Legend has it that Gordon Willis actually stomped all over the film stock just to give it that gritty, realistic wear and tear. They even went out of their way to track down a camera and lenses from the 1920s to nail the look.

I suspect Allen spent more time on this project than any other, mostly because the technical hurdles were so intense; he managed to shoot two entire other movies during the time he spent in post-production for this one.

The only thing truly absurd or interesting to me is how Allen leaned into playing the lead. As a character, he’s the complete antithesis of Leonard Zelig. His range as an actor seems to hit a ceiling based on what we see in this single role—much like everything else he does. It’s as if his persona is permanently branded by his other work, similar to how people view Chaplin or plenty of other icons.

In reality, much like Zelig, he is unmistakably Woody Allen, just a version of Woody Allen who happens to find joy in telling a brilliantly deranged story.

To me, Lost Boy is easily one of the top-tier vampire flicks out there. I still vividly remember staying up late with my girlfriends from high school back when it first hit VHS; none of us were brave enough to actually watch it alone in the dark... at the time, it felt like a genuine, heart-pounding horror movie. 😁

It popped up on HBO recently, so I gave it another watch—this movie is a total 1980s icon. It’s incredibly stylized with killer vampire action; sure, the plot is a bit predictable, but that doesn't make it any less of a blast. I've always been a fan of how they blend genres, specifically when they toss a little levity into a thriller/horror setting. (Like those Frog brothers! 🤣 )

Books offer a playground for the imagination that cinema just can't touch. A movie hands you a finished, rigid image—it’s either what you pictured or it isn't. While a film dictates its own vision, a book acts more like an invitation, provoking and inspiring you to build the world yourself. That's where the real creative freedom lives.

It actually just clicked for me regarding those scenes Sam Castillo7 was talking about, specifically when Humbert is forced to stay with old Haze's woman. Apparently, Kubrick went incredibly literal with one of those moments, which sent the censors of that era into a complete tailspin. In the final cut, that entire sequence was stripped down to almost nothing, completely losing its original weight and purpose. Honestly, the scissors had to be working overtime throughout the whole production... I think one of my biggest cinematic regrets will always be that I'll never get to see the version of Lolita that Kubrick truly intended to show us. 😢

Benjamin Thompson66 said:hehe, Jacques tata is a genius... I've watched all his features... he's genuinely hilarious... sure, he picked up a bit of that Charlie Chaplin flair (mostly in how he moves) and that deadpan look from Buster Keaton... but he pushed things further, about as far as sound could take comedy away from the silent era
Tati😁

Yeah, you've got Jacques tata, the grandson and son of high-society diplomats who somehow winds up performing mime and circus acts. He grew up intoxicated by the likes of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, so it was bound to bleed into his work, bless his little heart. 😍

Amanda Lopez50 said:...it was a bit out of nowhere, but while I was reading this beautiful post, I actually started laughing out loud because I remembered that scene with the 'Sea Dog' boat—it might just be the most sweetly hilarious moment ever filmed.😍

here it is! It's pure madness. To pack that many jokes and ideas into a mere four-minute clip is almost unbelievable. What really fascinates me about his gags is their technical perfection; it’s the sheer execution of an idea that seems nearly impossible to film without modern special effects while it's still just a concept in your head. Take that specific scene with the Sea Dog, for example, where he’s painting a kayak using a bucket of paint that just floats around him from every angle. Truly incredible... 😕

By the way, my favorite bit of mischief in the opening scene of > is when the crowd is waiting for the train at the station. You can clearly see Tati's obsession with making crucial dialogue completely unintelligible through various mumbles and gestures. He often leaned into those logical absurdities; for instance, he'll frame a shot of Mr. Hulot having a conversation with some lady, but instead of hearing what they're saying, their dialogue is muffled into total nonsense, while all the ambient noise and background chatter is cranked up to full volume. 😲

In >, there’s also that incredibly sweet audio gag that runs through the whole thing—that bit with the rotating doors making a racket, or what the Monty Python crew would call "the door that goes ping!" When I think about it, Tati seemed to have a bit of a fetish for doors. In >, there is that timeless trick where he and the doorman smash through the glass doors at the restaurant entrance, yet they just keep fiddling with the handle right in front of the guests as if the door were still perfectly intact. 😂

Kate Torres said:I think I have it on tape in my video collection—I'm pretty sure—but I'm not certain about the DVD. I'll check and let you know.😉

Man, you guys... do people even talk about "video rental stores" anymore? It feels like Americans have completely lost that sense of old-school romance. I actually miss it. Like, when I go visit my parents for the whole day on a holiday, part of me really wants to swing by a rental shop to grab a tape, since my folks still cling to their old VHS player instead of upgrading to a DVD player. But—of course, I can't. You can't find a single tape anywhere these days. 😢

Getting back to Lolita. Personally, I think Kubrick's vision is quite a departure from Lyne's. For starters, I wouldn't even try to draw direct parallels between the literary and cinematic expressions; I prefer to appreciate Lolita as its own entity, judged by the merits of each specific medium and author.

The fundamental difference between Nabokov's Lolita (aside from being the only true original), Lyne's Lolita, and Kubrick's version is that Kubrick offers a satirical commentary on the book itself. He takes the material and interprets it, but his film acts more as a critique of the story rather than just a straightforward adaptation. Because of that, Kubrick's Lolita shouldn't be analyzed solely through the lens of how Nabokov intended it, but rather through the way Kubrick uses the film to critique the literary Lolita. To me, it feels almost like a cinematic review of the novel. In that light, comparing Sellers's Quilty to the literary version seems a bit misplaced. It’s precisely through that character that Kubrick delivers his commentary on the entire concept of pedophilia and similar depravities.

Tati is an absolute genius in my eyes. After Jean Renoir, he’s easily my favorite director. Honestly, I don't think anyone has ever made cinema feel quite this original or breathed such fresh life into the medium since the Lumiere brothers first stumbled upon it. By essentially reinventing silent film through his innovative way of playing with sound, and pairing that with his totally unique approach to physical comedy, he sparked a genuine revolution in how we experience movies.

I also really dig how unpretentious he was as a person. There was this intellectual humility to him, a willingness to lean into these almost childlike emotions and perspectives. That kind of mental freedom—that raw imagination paired with a lack of ego—is exactly what allowed him to turn tiny, simple ideas into massive, sweeping projects. Every single one of his films feels more original, more layered, and more inventive than the endless sea of mediocre movies that constantly clutter those "top ten" lists. It’s a real shame how things ended for him. 😢

I was just thinking about how I don't actually bother reading reviews or critiques in our American newspapers. There are really only two exceptions: when I want to get a quick scoop on a movie I’ve never even heard of—just to see what the title is—or if there happens to be a genuinely deep dive into some cultural topic buried in the arts section of a major daily. Honestly, I’m so clueless that if someone asked me to name a single prominent American film critic, I wouldn't even know where to start. 😳

On the flip side, I absolutely live for those ridiculous bits in Click! where they mock the classics by pretending they were directed by someone like Vrdoljak, or they come up with absurd ideas like a sequel to a Western set in outer space. It’s the kind of nonsense I love to read over a cup of coffee just to get a good chuckle.

When it comes to actual serious criticism and reviews, I usually stick to the British monthly publication "Sight & Sound".

Has anyone ever seen that 1997 version of Lolita pop up in our local rental shops? I'm looking for some intel. It aired on TV recently, but my plans to sit down and watch the whole thing uninterrupted just went up in smoke. 😢

It’s honestly a tragedy that we don't have the complete, uncut Kubrick version of Lolita preserved. What people are watching these days isn't the director's vision—it's just the product of heavy-handed censorship. 👎

Benjamin Gray66 said:And honestly, TV comedians back in the 70s basically ripped off 90 percent of their bits from this movie.

Is this maybe a nod to >? It just hit me—it’s wild how many modern comedies essentially scavenge gags and punchlines straight from a handful of classics by actual geniuses. I remember catching a trailer once for that Mr. Bean thing, some movie about him on vacation or whatever. I was standing there in line at the theater, watching the trailer roll, and I could hardly believe my eyes—the whole routine was just a blatant patchwork of old comedy staples. If I had to guess, they were leaning most heavily on Tati, specifically pulling stuff from >. It’s pretty unbelievable how much of that goes totally unpunished in Hollywood today!😁

Plus, > got a fantastic > release not too long ago. It’s loaded with documentary footage about Tati and the restoration of the film itself is just phenomenal. 👍

Austin Powers 4 !!! 🎉

Richard Howard2 said:You’re looking at Odyssey through too narrow a lens. That film is primarily a modernist contemplation of utopia, a pure reflection of the zeitgeist in which it was conceived. The 1960s perspective is terrifyingly well-articulated here—ranging from the inevitable progress we would have seen had the Cold War (and the space race) continued in that specific manner, to the dangerous potential of AI (or more broadly, the risk of machines assuming responsibility for humanity), all the way to a symbolically crafted re-examination of mankind, our nature, and our place in space.

At its core, Odyssey cannot be any more authentic than it already is.

It’s no different for 300, which also captures the spirit of our era perfectly.
The same applies to all the other historically inaccurate films mentioned. They are all precisely, historically accurate. Don't let minor details or trivial formalities mislead you. Besides, these aren't mistakes; the authors didn't design these developments by accident.

Sure, that’s highly likely. Though, I’d say it’s more along the lines of what you mentioned later...

Richard Howard2 said:You’re looking at Odyssey through too narrow a lens. That film is primarily a modernist contemplation of utopia, a pure reflection of the zeitgeist in which it was conceived. The 1960s perspective is terrifyingly well-articulated here—ranging from the inevitable progress we would have seen had the Cold War (and the space race) continued in that specific manner, to the dangerous potential of AI (or more broadly, the risk of machines assuming responsibility for humanity), all the way to a symbolically crafted re-examination of mankind, our nature, and our place in space.

At its core, Odyssey cannot be any more authentic than it already is.

It’s no different for 300, which also captures the spirit of our era perfectly.
The same applies to all the other historically inaccurate films mentioned. They are all precisely, historically accurate. Don't let minor details or trivial formalities mislead you. Besides, these aren't mistakes; the authors didn't design these developments by accident.

I think I’ve already touched on that somewhere else, but let’s not wander outside the scope of this specific discussion. Please, just please, don't go summoning your whole Philosophy department crew right now, or we'll all be swallowed by the darkness... they'll start prophesying like they're in some back alley where nobody asked for a vision. 😁

Great post, wearytinker8! You laid out those arguments perfectly. 👍

Jerry Martin19, I don't see how Odyssey fits in here either; it completely misses the point of why someone would bother putting together such an overambitious list. To me, you can split these types of movies into three distinct buckets. The first is just harmless fiction—a made-up story regardless of the genre. The second involves taking actual historical figures or events and twisting them out of shape. Then there’s the third—and by far the worst kind (think Fazli's Vrdoljak or a whole bunch of cheap American productions)—where the entire purpose is blatant political propaganda.

I don't see Odyssey fitting into any of those categories. In my eyes, Odyssey is pure cinema: a tapestry of images, music, and scattered ideas. It feels totally out of place among the titles mentioned. That’s exactly why I doubt the utility of lists like this, other than giving us something to pick apart and criticize! 👍

Oh yeah, I actually caught a segment on Channel A coming from the kitchen yesterday about this exact list! Honestly, I was stunned at how much weight people are trying to give this thing. My god, a whole feature dedicated to these specific titles, but unfortunately, without a single shred of critical insight.

Jerry Martin19 said:Taking a first look at this list gave me what felt like a permanent migraine, but reading Joseph Lee3 and goldeneagle2 actually helped me wrap my head around how things should be categorized. Still, nothing is getting me any closer to tackling this massive list obsession, not even Joseph Lee3 and goldeneagle2 at their absolute best...

btw, since we're talking historical facts about ancient Rome, I read somewhere that the "thumbs down" didn't actually mean death, but something else (can't recall exactly) and that it's one of those huge global myths that's been fooling modern civilization...

I can already see the quality here. It can't be bad if Milius is involved...

@Richard Howard2, even though we were going at it hard on a different thread about a week ago, I have to totally agree with you. Saying that Odyssey lacks historical accuracy is basically saying someone is sub-average. The fact that anyone put Odyssey or even 300 in this category is horrifying. The level of pure stupidity here is so extreme it swings between being pathetic and hilarious every few seconds...

Why the attitude?! 😉 These lists are great! I personally love all those intense ideas people come up with to sort movies into categories. It usually helps me focus my thoughts or crystallize an idea somewhere along the line.

True, which is exactly why I can't stand lists that try to be too "all-encompassing" and end up trivializing everything. Sure, it always feels like a list has to oversimplify things at first, but that just opens the door for a real debate. The kind of lists I can't stand are the ones claiming to be the "Top 250," "Top 100," or "26 Greatest Films Ever Made." To me, that's just pandering to the masses. 🙂

goldeneagle2, you're hitting a nerve here! 😉

I actually think the whole argument about movies being purely for entertainment and killing time is valid. Why? Because that’s exactly why I watch them myself. Whether I walk away with some profound life lesson is secondary. However, I draw the line at having things shoved down my throat when there is no reason to do so.

I don't buy the idea that we're running out of true stories capable of making a great movie. Nor do I believe we need to "tweak" essential facts just to crank up the entertainment value. That's total bullshit. It’s nothing more than a convenient excuse for lazy, incompetent filmmakers looking for an easy way out. Honestly, it feels like part of a larger trend toward mass-producing cookie-cutter cinema that insults the audience's intelligence—assuming, of course, that such intelligence still exists. If I were leaning into conspiracy theories, I’d suggest there's a systematic effort to cultivate an audience that demands less and less, eventually making the filmmaker's job completely trivial.

Fine. You get what you pay for, right? If I were a producer, I wouldn't make my own life harder by shelling out massive fees for historians, ethnologists, or archaeologists to check the facts... after all, we all know the foundation of any democracy is a kakistocracy. I rest my case! 🍿