Most original movies ever made?

I certainly wouldn't want to presume I'm the sole authority on what constitutes true originality, so I'll offer my own modest contribution—mentioning a few more recent works that actually managed to pleasantly surprise me. Almost all of Park Chan-wook's films fit the bill. I found Oldboy to be somewhat original in its directorial techniques and specific stylistic choices, as well as the way it handles narration; even I Am a Cyborg... well, that's fine, given the story and the highly distinctive characters, even if it isn't exactly devoid of references to various other films.
By the way, have you seen that American sci-fi from 1916 🙂?

mistyangler86 said:I certainly wouldn't want to presume I'm the sole authority on what constitutes true originality, so I'll offer my own modest contribution—mentioning a few more recent works that actually managed to pleasantly surprise me. Almost all of Park Chan-wook's films fit the bill. I found Oldboy to be somewhat original in its directorial techniques and specific stylistic choices, as well as the way it handles narration; even I Am a Cyborg... well, that's fine, given the story and the highly distinctive characters, even if it isn't exactly devoid of references to various other films.
By the way, have you seen that American sci-fi from 1916 🙂?

Yeah, Korean cinema is great. And as for that American flick, I've definitely seen it—you can easily find a copy online.😉

The Matrix and Oldboy... I can't really think of any others off the top of my head right now.

mistyangler86 said:I certainly wouldn't want to presume I'm the sole authority on what constitutes true originality, so I'll offer my own modest contribution—mentioning a few more recent works that actually managed to pleasantly surprise me. Almost all of Park Chan-wook's films fit the bill. I found Oldboy to be somewhat original in its directorial techniques and specific stylistic choices, as well as the way it handles narration; even I Am a Cyborg... well, that's fine, given the story and the highly distinctive characters, even if it isn't exactly devoid of references to various other films.
By the way, have you seen that American sci-fi from 1916 🙂?

You should probably lecture a little less. Some people actually want to learn something. Just an observation.

swiftcrane96 said:The Matrix and Oldboy... I can't really think of any others off the top of my head right now.

Calling it The Matrix is a stretch. It’s really just a cocktail of well-known philosophical dilemmas, handled in various ways from Zhguanz to Jean Baudrillard. This isn't even a new concept in cinema; Fassbinder explored a similar premise in Welt am Draht. Any sense of innovation here is strictly technical. Don't get me wrong, I actually think the movie is great 🙂

neonsurfer6 said:Calling it The Matrix is a stretch. It’s really just a cocktail of well-known philosophical dilemmas, handled in various ways from Zhguanz to Jean Baudrillard. This isn't even a new concept in cinema; Fassbinder explored a similar premise in Welt am Draht. Any sense of innovation here is strictly technical. Don't get me wrong, I actually think the movie is great 🙂

Man, I totally blanked on Fassby—it's been ages since I sat down to watch his stuff. Thanks for the reminder! If I recall correctly, there were two parts to it, right?

Maybe dial back the condescension just a touch. There are people out there actually looking to learn something; it was just a broad generalization,

I don't mind the generalization—it's certainly not my first time hearing one—it’s just that I fail to see what one is supposed to learn from someone listing ten incredibly famous modern films.*

neonsurfer6 said:Calling it The Matrix is a stretch. It’s really just a cocktail of well-known philosophical dilemmas, handled in various ways from Zhguanz to Jean Baudrillard. This isn't even a new concept in cinema; Fassbinder explored a similar premise in Welt am Draht. Any sense of innovation here is strictly technical. Don't get me wrong, I actually think the movie is great 🙂

Hmm, look at you. I haven't actually sat down to watch it, but if you're saying it's similar to The Matrix, then I guess it probably is.

neonsurfer6 said:The real question is how much we can actually credit Inglourious Basterds with true originality. It’s definitely unconventional and creative, sure, but when a movie relies so heavily on nods and tributes to other works, you have to wonder if "original" is really the right word to use.

As I have previously stated, originality can be found in many different aspects of presentation, and I included him on my list primarily because of his specific narrative style—the way he jumps through various time periods to tell the story. I suppose I haven't encountered films structured in such a manner very often prior to seeing his work.

neonsurfer6 said:Calling it The Matrix is a stretch. It’s really just a cocktail of well-known philosophical dilemmas, handled in various ways from Zhguanz to Jean Baudrillard. This isn't even a new concept in cinema; Fassbinder explored a similar premise in Welt am Draht. Any sense of innovation here is strictly technical. Don't get me wrong, I actually think the movie is great 🙂

When I was discussing The Matrix, I suppose I was primarily referring to the technical execution—the special effects and the overall craftsmanship—as well as that specific narrative structure where the storytelling doesn't just hand you a finished product, but rather keeps the viewer from feeling like they're simply witnessing a completed act.
I suppose originality isn't solely defined by the narrative itself, but rather encompasses various other elements that others inevitably attempt to replicate, whether to a significant or minor degree. In my estimation, the emergence of The Matrix represented something akin to a minor revolution within the cinematic landscape.

mistyotter35 said:As I have previously stated, originality can be found in many different aspects of presentation, and I included him on my list primarily because of his specific narrative style—the way he jumps through various time periods to tell the story. I suppose I haven't encountered films structured in such a manner very often prior to seeing his work.

When I was discussing The Matrix, I suppose I was primarily referring to the technical execution—the special effects and the overall craftsmanship—as well as that specific narrative structure where the storytelling doesn't just hand you a finished product, but rather keeps the viewer from feeling like they're simply witnessing a completed act.
I suppose originality isn't solely defined by the narrative itself, but rather encompasses various other elements that others inevitably attempt to replicate, whether to a significant or minor degree. In my estimation, the emergence of The Matrix represented something akin to a minor revolution within the cinematic landscape.

Look, Reservoir Dogs wasn't the first movie to mess with non-linear storytelling. If we're talking about true innovation and breaking the mold for its era, Citizen Kane clearly holds that title.

A few years before Quentin Tarantino came along, Jim Jarmusch used a similar triptych structure in Mystery Train. The only difference is that Jarmusch's timeline actually moves forward.

neonsurfer6 said:Look, Reservoir Dogs wasn't the first movie to mess with non-linear storytelling. If we're talking about true innovation and breaking the mold for its era, Citizen Kane clearly holds that title.

A few years before Quentin Tarantino came along, Jim Jarmusch used a similar triptych structure in Mystery Train. The only difference is that Jarmusch's timeline actually moves forward.

And in that very same year—they were shot almost back-to-back, actually—we also had Before the Rain by Milcet Mancevski.

Christian Taylor3 said:And in that very same year—they were shot almost back-to-back, actually—we also had Before the Rain by Milcet Mancevski.

Oh, and don't forget Before the Rain. It's a great film.

I suppose it all comes down to the way the film was presented. It’s entirely possible that other movies have utilized a similar narrative structure, but I guess the real question is how much that actually resonated with the audience. The truth of the matter is that this style essentially exploded with Reservoir Dogs, and it was precisely because of that approach—and the dialogue—that the film became such a massive favorite.
I suppose one could argue that Reservoir Dogs was constructed in a similar fashion, though I suspect it didn't quite achieve the same visceral impact you get from total junk.

mistyotter35 said:I suppose it all comes down to the way the film was presented. It’s entirely possible that other movies have utilized a similar narrative structure, but I guess the real question is how much that actually resonated with the audience. The truth of the matter is that this style essentially exploded with Reservoir Dogs, and it was precisely because of that approach—and the dialogue—that the film became such a massive favorite.
I suppose one could argue that Reservoir Dogs was constructed in a similar fashion, though I suspect it didn't quite achieve the same visceral impact you get from total junk.

Everything you're saying might be true, but that doesn't change the fact that the movie isn't particularly original.

Mulholland Drive and pretty much everything else by David Lynch

I read somewhere that The Matrix borrowed quite a bit of its DNA from the Japanese anime Megazone 23. Anyone here actually seen it?

Here’s my list:

The Holy Mountain - Alejandro Jodorowsky (honestly one of the wildest, most bizarre movies ever made)
Enter the Void - Gaspar Noé (the cinematography is wild; those visual effects really grab you)
Eraserhead, Inland Empire - David Lynch
Hour of the Wolf - Ingmar Bergman
Festen - Thomas Vinterberg
Dogville, The Element of Crime - Lars von Trier
Damnation - Béla Tarr
Even Dwarfs Started Small - Werner Herzog (this one is even weirder than The Holy Mountain)
The Devils - Ken Russell
Synecdoche, New York - Charlie Kaufman
Taxi Driver - Martin Scorsese
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Michel Gondry

hm... this feels way too subjective to me—what does anyone actually mean when they call a movie "original"?? Are we saying it lacks special effects because it’s just Hollywood junk? Or is it just that critics praise whatever makes a killing at the box office while hyping up those indie films that can't even pull a hundred people into a theater at once??
Personally, I'd say original works for The Thing (both versions, though the 1950 one is pretty laughable by today's standards), JFK, Apocalypse Now, Alien, and Beverly Hills Cop...
I definitely wouldn't put the godfather, Let, or Ben-Hur (or any of those historical epics) on that list... nor The Matrix or Lord of the Rings, since those just bore me...
So, I don't really see the point. Tastes differ, and you can't argue with that.

Look, I think you’re missing the point of the whole thread. And honestly, your logic is even more confusing when you drop this: "tastes differ and there's no arguing about them". If you actually know what "original" means—and I'm assuming you do—then you should realize a movie isn't unoriginal just because you found it boring.

Basically, an original film should logically be something that stands out on its own, marked by something no other movie has done before. Sure, everything is influenced by what came before, and almost nothing is 100% pure invention, but if something is uniquely recognizable, we can call it original.

Take David Lynch, for example. I’d call him an original director. Same with David Cronenberg.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, I think you’re missing the point of the whole thread. And honestly, your logic is even more confusing when you drop this: "tastes differ and there's no arguing about them". If you actually know what "original" means—and I'm assuming you do—then you should realize a movie isn't unoriginal just because you found it boring.

Basically, an original film should logically be something that stands out on its own, marked by something no other movie has done before. Sure, everything is influenced by what came before, and almost nothing is 100% pure invention, but if something is uniquely recognizable, we can call it original.

Take David Lynch, for example. I’d call him an original director. Same with David Cronenberg.

Look, I already laid it out clearly—my point is obvious—we're talking about a standard, universally accepted rule... I don't know... maybe it's just me, but I feel like we're missing the point here. It's all getting a bit repetitive—just more of the same noise without any actual substance... Critics' ratings are just one person's opinion—if they're calling some movie a "cult classic" or "groundbreaking," all I hear is that it's total shit...🤷

If you’re judging everything based on whether a movie is "special" or "original," then honestly, nothing since 1990 counts anymore—every single theme has been done to death. Even sci-fi falls under that umbrella if you think about it... I mean, we've had moonshots since 1905 or whenever that was.