Wow the suggestions on here cover a lot of great classics. Sort of surprised that Citizen Cane wasn't mentioned until about 8 posts in and I'm glad to see that The Seventh Seal has been mentioned. As for what I feel is missing form this list is some movies would be Strangers on a Train, Bullitt, Taxi Driver, Phantom of the Opera (with Lon Chaney), 12 Angry Men, and It's a Wonderful Life. I would also say that The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston is worth a watch, if only once. Also since the first post said pre 1990 I would also say Brazil is a good watch and Grave of the Fireflies is worth a watch even if you're not into animated films.
First off, Rather Dashing, I could kiss you! Metropolis, with most of the missing footage restored? On a big screen in the Castro theater? Squeeeeeeee!
*ahem*
Fangirl moment over, I'd have to second any Lon Chaney movie, "M" with Peter Lorre and any of the swashbucklers with Basil Rathbone, mostly because I am in love with all of them. As actors (sorry alcore, but Rathbone was an Olympic quality fencer and it shows in his fight scenes, plus he had a cooler profile than Flynn. And he was Sherlock Holmes.) I'd also recommend "The Unholy Three" with Lon Chaney, either the silent or talkie version. They're both fantastic and Harry Earls is amazing in them as well.
I'd also suggest the Bette Davis version of "The Letter". She gives such an amazingly emotional, understated performance in that film, although it does go on about three minutes too long. (In my head the final scene doesn't exist; the film ends with the scene in the bedroom.)
I'd also suggest any Powell and Pressburger film. The duo was also known as "The Archers", complete with bulls eye logo, and their films are like moving paintings. Here are some examples to give you an idea. Black Narcissus A Matte of Life and Death I Know Where I'm Going
I'm sorry, we were looking for pre-1990 films, and Jurassic Park came out in 1993. Better luck next time.
Now get out.
Well aren't you nice and polite instead of setting up some invisible rule stating he has to follow behind you like a whipped dog and only declare pre-1990 films to be what he considers a classic.
I was referring to the OP's request for pre-1990 films. Also, I would like to politely decline your request to "blow you", and I'd like to request that you cease being a jackass. Or is his opinion more valid than mine just because you happen to agree with it?
Also, I love how restricting it to pre-1990 makes the first two Back to the Futures eligible but disqualifies the third.
Stop making sense! Also, it's "O Brother, Where Art Thou".
Seriously, though, I was just goofing around. Seems like the whole forum is at my throat over the Jurassic Park thing, so maybe I should just start lurking so people will stop attacking me.
Jeez, now I feel like that dog that's just oh-so-kickable nobody can resist...
Don't lurk. Seriously think about it. The real Crichton fans haven't even shown up yet, and then we'll really get to see you get torn apart viciously. ^_^
I'd say that's disturbing, but my friend's brother once decorated a lamp using nothing but disassembled Barbie doll body parts. Naturally, my Christmas gift to him was my sister's old "My Size Barbie" on the condition that he use it to do something awesome. It's currently hanging by its ponytail from the coatrack inside his front door, naked except for a George Washington mask and a tiny confederate hat.
So...yeah...
Anyway, okay, truce. Now I should probably ditch the Li'l Brudder avatar. It's probably just asking for trouble.
I was personally surprised about the "classic is pre-1990" part of the post. I remember thinking I wouldn't consider anything more recent than, I don't know, the 70s or so to be even close to classic. And considering he talked about black and white movies, I would even have said it had to be pre-60s or something. You know, when most movies started being in colour. (I know colour movies existed long before that).
I'm always surprised when someone mentions something as a "classic" and I'm all "wait, I had been born already, how can it be considered a classic?"
But heh, it's the OP's thread. They can give the limitations they want.
Anyway, okay, truce. Now I should probably ditch the Li'l Brudder avatar. It's probably just asking for trouble.
Man, everyone wants a piece of poor Guruguru. He gets in trouble easier than Jackie Chan.
[flashback]
Guruguru: Gee, I hope I don't run into any trouble.
Internet poster: Hey you! What're you doing?
Guruguru: I'm breathing.
Internet poster: Get him!
[beating up noises]
Which reminds me, and to slyly get back on topic. Any Jackie Chan movie before 1990 is pretty much an action movie classic. Especially the ones starring him, Yuen Biao, and Sammo Hung. To me classic is a movie that can stick with me for years after I've seen it. Like An American Tail, also a classic.
Well, no wonder I didn't understand the OP's request. I was thinking under a completely different definition. I actually feel a little silly now. It makes sense why post-1990 movies wouldn't fit then if you're talking classic in those terms.
Well I think he's thinking of classic in the idea of time period and also in the sense of a time tested classic. I agree with the idea of a modern classic but several movies we look at today as a modern classic might not be something you consider a classic in 40 years. Citizen Kane didn't win Picture of the Year but it is still talked about in this discussion every time meanwhile How Green Was My Valley won out against Citizen Kane and who here has seen How Green Was My Valley? Or as a modern day example, Forrest Gump beat Shawshank Redemption for Picture of the Year but which do you think you'll talk about in 20 years?
It's a varying definition depending on how you use it but it's easy to mistake.
Um, I've seen "How Green Was My Valley"? And it was easily as good as "Citizen Kane"? They're neither of them perfect films to my mind. I like "Shadow of a Doubt" better.
The magic about this film is that no matter how often you see it, it never gets boring. One of the best movies ever made. But The Graduate is even better! :O)
Yeah, I got that, which made me whisper because I've never heard of it. What is it about?
The film portrays Andy, who spends nearly two decades in Shawshank State Prison, a fictional penitentiary in Maine, and his friendship with Red, a fellow inmate.
Figured I'd answer the question. Also as for the movie How Green Was My Valley I wasn't saying it was as good as Citizen Kane I was making a commentary on how some define a classic. I was also pointing out that sometimes it's hard to judge at first which movie will stand a test in time. There are several great movies that aren't well know but they aren't always considered a classic because of that fact. It's a classic in ways of time but not in critical renown. It was a short rant about the various definitions of a classic.
I don't think this descritption lives up to the movie but in the end you'll have to experience this on your own in order to appreciate it. There is a reason why this movie has 9.1 points on imdb and stands amongst the very best films.
Classic movies are pretty much all I watch. For the past 3-4 years, I've been making it my personal goal to achieve some semblance of film literacy. I started with Roger Ebert's list of 350 or so "Great Movies", and after finishing that list (or getting as close as current American film distribution will allow) I've been hopping between "1001 Movies to See Before You Die" and the meta-list on "They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?", among others.
There's a great site called icheckmovies.com that lets you keep track of what movies you've seen (currently, the only movies that are on the site are those that are on some list of movies noteworthy for some reason, but I hear the site will soon be updated to include all movies).
Here is my profile if anyone wants to add me as a friend:
I guess I should have added which classics I've *specifically* been watching recently. Today was a lazy day, so I watched:
"High and Low" is what I personally would consider one of Kurosawa's lesser known movies, especially since it's not a period piece like many of his most cherished films. It's about a shoe company executive who receives a phone call that his son has been kidnapped only to realize soon after that his chauffeur's son was mistakenly kidnapped instead. The choice to pay the ransom or not suddenly becomes infinitely more difficult as it's no longer his own family that is at stake. I don't want to ruin the story, but it's tense right up until the end.
Then I watched the original "Scarface". I was very surprised how much of a straight remake the Pacino version is...I had always assumed it just pulled the general "immigrant hood makes big" skeleton of a plotline, but it uses so much more, including the phrase "The World is Yours" in big neon lights.
Now I'm watching DW Griffith's film "Way Down East" from 1920, a very old-fashioned tale (even for the time) about a country gal who is deflowered and then dishonored by a rich bastard. I'm only about halfway through, so I can't say much more. I've always found Griffith movies very hard to sit through, with the sole exception of "Broken Blossoms". There are lots of silent movies I enjoy, but the ones I enjoy are usually comedies, because they can be fast paced and visually inventive. Griffith movies are usually very talky and slow.
I don't think this descritption lives up to the movie but in the end you'll have to experience this on your own in order to appreciate it. There is a reason why this movie has 9.1 points on imdb and stands amongst the very best films.
I agree, it's not the best. It's hard to describe the movie without spoiling why it's great.
Yeah. Unfortunately, it's one of those films that you basically have to take the word of others that it's amazing and watch it on blind faith. The most I can really say without spoiling it is that it's basically the epitome of "triumph of the human spirit" in practically every possible way, and then some. Definitely one of the top movies that I feel everyone should see at least once.
Hmm, now I want to make my own personal list of movies everyone should see once, just for the hell of it...
Yeah. Unfortunately, it's one of those films that you basically have to take the word of others that it's amazing and watch it on blind faith. The most I can really say without spoiling it is that it's basically the epitome of "triumph of the human spirit" in practically every possible way, and then some. Definitely one of the top movies that I feel everyone should see at least once.
I think I'll just read the book. I'm more of a book person anyway.
I'd say it's not nearly the same, but I've never read the book, so I can't compare the two. Just from reading the Wikipedia summary of the Steven King story, I can say that I noticed two major plot points that were altered for the movie. One of them (
the suicide of Brooks
, for those who have seen it and are wondering what I'm talking about) is simply omitted from the summary and may have been in the original story, and I feel the other (
the warden killing Tommy, rather than moving him to a lower security prison
) was improved in the movie and better served to cement the main villain.
And I feel the casting was some of the best I've ever seen, though I admit that I have a hard time imagining even a much younger Morgan Freeman doing what he did to be imprisoned. One of my favorite actors in the film is Bob Gunton. I couldn't imagine anyone portraying the warden nearly as effectively as he did.
So while I wouldn't discourage you from reading the book (and I'd even like to read it myself someday), I still feel that you would be missing out if you passed on seeing the film.
Comments
*ahem*
Fangirl moment over, I'd have to second any Lon Chaney movie, "M" with Peter Lorre and any of the swashbucklers with Basil Rathbone, mostly because I am in love with all of them. As actors (sorry alcore, but Rathbone was an Olympic quality fencer and it shows in his fight scenes, plus he had a cooler profile than Flynn. And he was Sherlock Holmes.) I'd also recommend "The Unholy Three" with Lon Chaney, either the silent or talkie version. They're both fantastic and Harry Earls is amazing in them as well.
I'd also suggest the Bette Davis version of "The Letter". She gives such an amazingly emotional, understated performance in that film, although it does go on about three minutes too long. (In my head the final scene doesn't exist; the film ends with the scene in the bedroom.)
I'd also suggest any Powell and Pressburger film. The duo was also known as "The Archers", complete with bulls eye logo, and their films are like moving paintings. Here are some examples to give you an idea.
Black Narcissus
A Matte of Life and Death
I Know Where I'm Going
I'm sorry, we were looking for pre-1990 films, and Jurassic Park came out in 1993. Better luck next time.
Now get out.
Nope
Well aren't you nice and polite instead of setting up some invisible rule stating he has to follow behind you like a whipped dog and only declare pre-1990 films to be what he considers a classic.
^_^
Blow me.
Also, I love how restricting it to pre-1990 makes the first two Back to the Futures eligible but disqualifies the third.
Gasp, a post-1990 classic.
Stop making sense! Also, it's "O Brother, Where Art Thou".
Seriously, though, I was just goofing around. Seems like the whole forum is at my throat over the Jurassic Park thing, so maybe I should just start lurking so people will stop attacking me.
Oh yeah. Well you stop being so damn fun to argue with. Damn you, sir!
Jeez, now I feel like that dog that's just oh-so-kickable nobody can resist...
Don't lurk. Seriously think about it. The real Crichton fans haven't even shown up yet, and then we'll really get to see you get torn apart viciously. ^_^
I'm not sure that helped much... X_o
To think I used to like this place...
...Can we stop? I have to go to the bathroom...
Truce?
Oops. Wrong hand. This one's safe to shake.
In fact..pick a hand. I got lots of em.
I'm laughing at Will being gruff. It's so...cute. *pats Will on the head*
I'd say that's disturbing, but my friend's brother once decorated a lamp using nothing but disassembled Barbie doll body parts. Naturally, my Christmas gift to him was my sister's old "My Size Barbie" on the condition that he use it to do something awesome. It's currently hanging by its ponytail from the coatrack inside his front door, naked except for a George Washington mask and a tiny confederate hat.
So...yeah...
Anyway, okay, truce. Now I should probably ditch the Li'l Brudder avatar. It's probably just asking for trouble.
I'm always surprised when someone mentions something as a "classic" and I'm all "wait, I had been born already, how can it be considered a classic?"
But heh, it's the OP's thread. They can give the limitations they want.
Man, everyone wants a piece of poor Guruguru. He gets in trouble easier than Jackie Chan.
[flashback]
Guruguru: Gee, I hope I don't run into any trouble.
Internet poster: Hey you! What're you doing?
Guruguru: I'm breathing.
Internet poster: Get him!
[beating up noises]
Which reminds me, and to slyly get back on topic. Any Jackie Chan movie before 1990 is pretty much an action movie classic. Especially the ones starring him, Yuen Biao, and Sammo Hung. To me classic is a movie that can stick with me for years after I've seen it. Like An American Tail, also a classic.
It's a varying definition depending on how you use it but it's easy to mistake.
What's the second one?
The film portrays Andy, who spends nearly two decades in Shawshank State Prison, a fictional penitentiary in Maine, and his friendship with Red, a fellow inmate.
Figured I'd answer the question. Also as for the movie How Green Was My Valley I wasn't saying it was as good as Citizen Kane I was making a commentary on how some define a classic. I was also pointing out that sometimes it's hard to judge at first which movie will stand a test in time. There are several great movies that aren't well know but they aren't always considered a classic because of that fact. It's a classic in ways of time but not in critical renown. It was a short rant about the various definitions of a classic.
There's a great site called icheckmovies.com that lets you keep track of what movies you've seen (currently, the only movies that are on the site are those that are on some list of movies noteworthy for some reason, but I hear the site will soon be updated to include all movies).
Here is my profile if anyone wants to add me as a friend:
http://www.icheckmovies.com/profile/lordkinbote/
"High and Low" is what I personally would consider one of Kurosawa's lesser known movies, especially since it's not a period piece like many of his most cherished films. It's about a shoe company executive who receives a phone call that his son has been kidnapped only to realize soon after that his chauffeur's son was mistakenly kidnapped instead. The choice to pay the ransom or not suddenly becomes infinitely more difficult as it's no longer his own family that is at stake. I don't want to ruin the story, but it's tense right up until the end.
Then I watched the original "Scarface". I was very surprised how much of a straight remake the Pacino version is...I had always assumed it just pulled the general "immigrant hood makes big" skeleton of a plotline, but it uses so much more, including the phrase "The World is Yours" in big neon lights.
Now I'm watching DW Griffith's film "Way Down East" from 1920, a very old-fashioned tale (even for the time) about a country gal who is deflowered and then dishonored by a rich bastard. I'm only about halfway through, so I can't say much more. I've always found Griffith movies very hard to sit through, with the sole exception of "Broken Blossoms". There are lots of silent movies I enjoy, but the ones I enjoy are usually comedies, because they can be fast paced and visually inventive. Griffith movies are usually very talky and slow.
I agree, it's not the best. It's hard to describe the movie without spoiling why it's great.
Hmm, now I want to make my own personal list of movies everyone should see once, just for the hell of it...
I think I'll just read the book. I'm more of a book person anyway.
And I feel the casting was some of the best I've ever seen, though I admit that I have a hard time imagining even a much younger Morgan Freeman doing what he did to be imprisoned. One of my favorite actors in the film is Bob Gunton. I couldn't imagine anyone portraying the warden nearly as effectively as he did.
So while I wouldn't discourage you from reading the book (and I'd even like to read it myself someday), I still feel that you would be missing out if you passed on seeing the film.
Do as you please but it's the movie which is great, just in case you didn't notice. :O)