Robert's cinema viewing rankings [Archive]

Robert the List

03-23-25, 04:06 AM

I'm gobsmacked after seeing Rear Window at the cinema.

Who was it who asked on here if you take notes when you are at the cinema? Because I found that I wished I had a notepad and pen with me watching this film. There are so many thoughts I had which I've forgotten.

Like Apocalypse Now, I went in thinking it was a great film, and left thinking it was even more special than I thought.

But unlike AN, with RW I saw the film in a completely different light than watching it on my own on my laptop.

I've seen this film on the small screen any number of times. I used to think it was a thriller. Then I thought it was an arty thriller.

Well having watched it at the cinema, I can tell you it is an arty comedy.

It's to a thriller as the first half of Barry Lyndon is to a costume drama. There were moments when everything was right in the world, and then moments later everything was wrong in the world. This film was a real parody. Also probably a genuine comment on society, likely summed up in the line delivered early on by Thelma Ritter where she says we should spend less time looking out of our windows, and more time looking at our own conduct.

I remember one moment, where Lisa suddenly comes round to thinking he was guilty, that reminded me of a dramatic moment in Jaws.
The whole film pivoted at that moment. Or at least the veneer of the story did, which turned from being a romance into a thriller (although really it was neither, it was a comedy the whole time).

Grace Kelly was absolutely gorgeous. The opening shot of her close up kissing Stewart was genius. Her clothing was stunning. So much more so than on the small screen. People talk about Cary Grant and Martin Landau in North by Northwest, and rightly so, but she was as stylish in Rear Window as the pair of them put together.
Some of her lines were wonderful, and she delivered them all perfectly. This was no doll, she delivered a masterful acting performance.

There was so much meaning in this film as well. So many little secrets hidden in there. A Hitchcock scholar could have a field day. It wouldn't surprise me if there were hidden messages to or from the KGB or something. This film was much more than it appears. In fact I'm sure it's really nothing like it appears at all. The silly did he didn't he caper was all just a ruse.

Anyway, throw in Blue Velvet which I thought was great on the small screen and awful on the big screen, and I'm worried now that I'm going to have to watch everything all over again, right from the start of my 4 year search for the greatest ever movies.

But for now, I'm just pleased to have had such a wonderful experience thanks to Mr Hitchcock, and the timeless Grace Kelly.

Robert the List

03-23-25, 04:07 AM

Coming up this week:

Paris Texas (today)
In The Mood For Love (today)
The Color of Pomegranetes (wednesday)

Robert the List

03-23-25, 01:15 PM

Paris, Texas

There's a lot of it that doesn't wash with me.
I've mentioned before that I don't believe that this is a man who did that, and that view is strengthened by seeing the flashback again on the cinecamera, to their holiday together about 45 years ago. There's no way on earth that guy is going to do that to her.
The timeline doesn't seem to work either. What we know is Hunter's about to turn 8. Travis left 4 years ago. The happygo lucky cinecam was 5 years ago. And Travis says that he left her after the violent abuse "a couple of years" after Travis was born. It doesn't stack up.
Also, he was a 50ish guy dating a 16/17 year old girl. Yet nobody ever mentions this.
I don't believe that she isn't the least bit scared of a man who's done that to her and put her child in danger (and it seems who she tried to burn alive?), or even angry towards him. She's completely forgiven him. In fact she was so in love with him (even though Travis explains that by the time they split up/tried to kill each other she'd stopped loving him, she explains that she has thought of him every day since to the extent that every man she's spoken to in the last 4 years has spoken to her in his voice. And I don't buy that either. On the surface it''s a way to explain why she doesn't realise it's him until he's told her almost his whole life story, but actually it's rubbish imo.
Something I hadn't noticed on the small screen, was Travis's character at the end of the film. Suddenly he's transformed from this dopey washout guy, to someone who has his shit together. We see it in his last phone call, and him standing on the roof with his hands on his hips. And I admire that as a performance from Dean Stanton, but in fact it's more rubbish, because in the cinecam flashback he's the dopey guy. So the idea that he was this cool together dude who lost his mind after or when it all fell apart isn't accurate either.

And this is a film that takes itself very seriously. I can live with a plot hole in something like Rear Window, which is all a bit of fun, but this is a very serious film, and very serious films need to get things right.

Why did she even give the kid up in the first place? Was that even explained?

So you have to give this film a hell of a lot of artistic license.

That said, if you can do that, the film has a lot going for it. It's gorgeous to look at. There are several stunning images I'd missed when doing my 20th century screenshots. I can think of one of him standing in red light at the top of the stairs in the club, another of him on the phone with her over his shoulder, one of Hunter under the bridge on the car, another where he's in a bar with Hunter sat on the car outside. These are great shots, and a lot of the film looks really top notch.

There are tremendous acting performances. Anne annoys me a bit, but Hunter is brilliant in his first role, Harry Dean Stanton excellent, and in a relatively small part in terms of screen time, Kinski is outstanding.

The sound track, of the twanging country guitars, really stand out in the cinema. It's a great sound that works superbly with the film.

And if you can the plot and character issues, it hits hard. There were people in the movie house hadn't moved at the end of the credits. It conveys a lot of emotional punch.

It's about where I thought it was, but I maybe see the plus points and the minus points a little more strongly having watched it on the big screen.

Robert the List

03-25-25, 06:38 PM

Laura was OK, and the big close up of Gene Tierney's face was terrific, but compared to some of the greats above it was poor fare.

crumbsroom

03-25-25, 07:03 PM

Paris Texas is probably one of the most realistic portrayals of love between a man and a woman, loneliness, self destructive urges, cycles of abuse in relationships, the ravages of alcoholism, forgiveness and the many masks any one person can wear over a lifetime.

There is nothing rubbish about any of it. What is rubbish is how the vast majority of other films completely **** these things up. Paris Texas is the gold standard for them

Robert the List

03-25-25, 07:12 PM

Paris Texas is probably one of the most realistic portrayals of love between a man and a woman

-soppy dope of a 50 year old man impregnates 16 year old girl
-they fall in love
-he dotes on her as they holiday with his brother and his wife
-he gets jealous and so puts a cowbell on her so she can't leave him without waking him up
-then he gets really jealous and chains her to a stove with her kid
-she tries to burn him alive and escapes
-although we're told she didn't love him any more anyway, she spends 4 years so in love with him that every man who speaks to her she hears his voice, to the extent that when she finally does hear his voice she doesn't realise, because every man she's heard for 4 years has spoken to her in his voice
-she's not angry with him or scared of him
-he stops being a soppy dope and is suddenly like a normal guy

same old story

Robert the List

03-25-25, 07:29 PM

Something that shocked me about Paris btw is that it's PG certificate!!!

crumbsroom

03-25-25, 07:46 PM

-soppy dope of a 50 year old man impregnates 16 year old girl
-they fall in love
-he dotes on her as they holiday with his brother and his wife
-he gets jealous and so puts a cowbell on her so she can't leave him without waking him up
-then he gets really jealous and chains her to a stove with her kid
-she tries to burn him alive and escapes
-although we're told she didn't love him any more anyway, she spends 4 years so in love with him that every man who speaks to her she hears his voice, to the extent that when she finally does hear his voice she doesn't realise, because every man she's heard for 4 years has spoken to her in his voice
-she's not angry with him or scared of him
-he stops being a soppy dope and is suddenly like a normal guy

same old story

Turning the movie into a list of events doesn't make your claim any better. It actually illustrates what was wrong with it in the first place. You can't reduce people to a list of things they did and pretend to understand anything about them

Just to illustrate

1) Apes smash some shit up
2) Ballpoint pen floats in space
3) Old dude eats some peas

2001 is obviously a lot more than this as a film, but if we reduce it to fragments of my choosing, it makes it seem ridiculous to call it a profound examination of the nature and mystery of existence.

Youre doing the same with these characters in Paris Texas and it's completely disingenuous and misses the point of who these characters are. It also makes lots of (extremely flawed) assumptions about how people are supposed to act or behave in these situations.

Robert the List

03-26-25, 02:17 AM

Turning the movie into a list of events doesn't make your claim any better. It actually illustrates what was wrong with it in the first place. You can't reduce people to a list of things they did and pretend to understand anything about them

Just to illustrate

1) Apes smash some shit up
2) Ballpoint pen floats in space
3) Old dude eats some peas
.

This doesn't illustrate anything.

There's no reason why these events are unrealistic or unlikely. All of these things could happen, whether independently or as a part of a connected story.

The scenario depicted in Paris, Texas on the other hand is unrealistic. It's, in my opinion, a flawed plot, for the reasons I've pointed out.

I don't mind whether you have the same view as I do or not, and you're welcome to state your disagreement/alternative opinion. But take the haughty and confrontational attitude elsewhere.

crumbsroom

03-26-25, 11:00 AM

This doesn't illustrate anything.

There's no reason why these events are unrealistic or unlikely. All of these things could happen, whether independently or as a part of a connected story.

The scenario depicted in Paris, Texas on the other hand is unrealistic. It's, in my opinion, a flawed plot, for the reasons I've pointed out.

I don't mind whether you have the same view as I do or not, and you're welcome to state your disagreement/alternative opinion. But take the haughty and confrontational attitude elsewhere.

It's illustrating how you can make anything seem stupid or irrelevant or nonsensical if you just pull random elements of a film out of context, and color them anyway you feel fit. Which is what you did and which I reject.

And this isn't even getting into how your claims that 'theres no way the guy in those home movies could do those terrible things' is completely off base as not only a criticism of a film, but in understanding how people work. As is your issue that she claims not to love him anymore, yet has had her memories of him shape her life ever since. The duality of what we say and who we are and how it affects us is an important element of the movie you are just dismissing out of hand.

And I don't need your permission on where I am going to post or how I choose to do it. You are on a public forum, calling out parts of a much loved film rubbish, and using pretty shaky reasoning to do so. You are going to get pushback. Deal with it. Your opinion to me is about as sacred as mine is to yours. And since I would never tell you to stop rubbishing a movie I like, maybe you should stop expecting others to tiptoe around you because you might find what they say objectionable.

Gideon58

03-26-25, 11:09 AM

Laura was OK, and the big close up of Gene Tierney's face was terrific, but compared to some of the greats above it was poor fare.

OMG, I loved Laura

Robert the List

03-26-25, 06:00 PM

Robert the List

03-26-25, 06:26 PM

Hoping to catch the following in the next month:

The Master
Taxi Driver
Blade Runner
Touch of Evil
Taipei Story
Days of Being Wild
In the Mood for Love
There Will Be Blood
Drive
La La Land
Pather Panchali
Persona
2001 A Space Odyssey
The Terrorizers

Robert the List

03-26-25, 08:33 PM

OMG, I loved Laura
I like it, but I'm literally just watching the 200 or so greatest movies of all time.
I don't bother going for anything else. It comes on the back of Apocalypse Now and Mulholland Drive, so...

Robert the List

03-29-25, 02:21 PM

Taxi Driver tonight.

Touch of Evil tomorrow.

Oh, and.....oh yeah, Blade something. Blade Jogger? Blade Skater? Something like that.

Robert the List

03-29-25, 08:30 PM

Oh I've screwed up missing Taxi Driver out of my top 100. Will have to rectify that.

Scorsese has so much fun with this film, and it's a brilliant movie in spite of most of the set looking like it's been made in a GCSE art class (is that a metaphor for Travis's inability to perceive reality?).

It's another film where I wish I'd had a note pad! Although unlike Rear Window, I think I've managed to remember most of my points.

LIKE Rear Window though, there is A LOT more comedy in this film than I'd realised. It's not a straight out comedy like King of Comedy, and Travis is definitely a straight role, but there are as many moments of comedy in the film as you would find in a comedy film.

In fact I think Scorsese is experimenting with the audience to see when you are prepared to laugh, because often the humour follows immediately after a horrific/shocking scene, or even during it..

And I do think that he also uses the film as an examination of morality. It was interesting that during the awful scenes of Keitel with the 12 year old Foster, there were members of the audience laughing at something! And there was so much awkwardness in the room during those scenes.

The morality conundrum also creeps into the viewers' assessment of Travis. Is he a hero? is he an anti-hero? is he just a villian? Well, according to a note on the wall at the end he is "Taxi Driver Hero". Do you agree? I think that's the choice of the viewer personally.

He certainly lives in a world of delusion, and although he was ostensibly well intentioned, it was interesting that he suddenly got over Betsy when he was going to see Iris.

As other commentators have pointed out, whilst he frowns at a customer talking about shooting his wife in the face or in the groin, he doesn't try to do anything about that, or even comment on it.

And that's another thing. The graphic violence, and talk of violence, and graphic talk of sex, and in fact under age prostitution. Scorsese has set out to shock here and push the boundaries that were earlier put down by Bonnie and Clyde, and he succeeds.

He even turns the gruesome violence into comedy, as well by the way, by having Travis stab the one guy through his hand, having already blow the fingers off his other hand. Sorry, cinema for lolling at that!

Whilst the sets are crap, the shots of the streets are magnificent, as are the pictures through the windshield and in the mirror. Absolutely stunning. And the music's also superb. The refrain is used to indicate Travis's delusion, but there are other parts which act as the grammar of the film, moving it along from one phase to another phase. It's a great score/soundtrack.

It's a western by the way! Or at least the shootout is right out of a western, and right after it there's a western style tune played. Keitel even has native American ('red indian') hair as it used to be depicted in the westerns.

Scorsese indulges himself further with the most extreme piece of dramatic irony you'll ever seen, where one of the people in the cafe proclaims a propehcy of Travis killing people with a gun.

He even includes a 'how did they do that' tracking shot along the ceiling after the killing, as the cops froze in time ala Marienbad.

For a fairly young director, he's had an absolute ball making this.

And he ended up with a balsa wood/papiere mache masterpiece.

Robert the List

03-29-25, 08:35 PM

Btw, I also screwed up not getting to town this afternoon to watch The Master (I'd planned to).

Saw the trailer before Taxi Driver, and it looked fantastic on the big screen.

Will try to catch it next Sunday.

Robert the List

03-30-25, 10:50 AM

Ow wow Blade Runner (Final Cut)
I went in wondering where it was in my top 10, and I've come out marginal as to whether it should be in my top 100 (and half way through had completely written off the idea).

There are plenty of things in thus film which are good. And they tend to be very good indeed. The concept of the film, particularly for 1982 (regardless of it not being an original screenplay) remains brilliant. The idea of human like machines developing souls and fighting for their lives, is great and highly original at the time as well as being incredibly prescient.
I also love the idea of doing a noir Sci fi. It completely works in terms of that style. It's arguably overdone, but the use of slat blinds with the light coming through is neat.
Rachel is a brilliant noir character. The shot of the tear rolling down her cheek, buffon hair, fur coat collar turned up remains absolutely iconic.
The climax of the film. The last half hour or so starting with the scenes in Sebastian's building where Deckard come after Pris, still hold up. You can pick at things like why the he'll would Pris -in the middle of a fight to the death - decided to go off and do some somersaults - but that apart it's riveting stuff, as well as being artistic and atmospheric.

Rutgher Hauer I thinks very good. Daryl Hannah's good.
Hauer's famed tears in rain speech is cinematic genius. It's stunning. And similarly the final line of the film about hey who lives anyway, also leaves its mark as the credits role.
But oh wow there's so much bad too.
Like about the first hour and a quarter.
Really I was watching thinking this is like some B movie. And I think that's what Ford thought too. Its well k own that he clashed with Scott, and did his narration (in the theatrical cut) half heartedly. I think his whole performance lacked conviction and belief in the film.
IIf I was watching it in 1982 I actually think I might have walked out after an hour. I would have been glad if I didn't though because the ending is iconic and high class.

Robert the List

03-30-25, 03:01 PM

We have a new number 1...

Robert the List

03-30-25, 04:34 PM

I have never really ‘got’ Welles as a director. I respect Citizen Kane, but I don’t see it as the greatest film ever made as many do, or even the greatest black and white talkie made before 1942. I don’t get the fuss about Ambersons. I rate The Third Man very highly, but he didn’t direct that. I like parts of The Lady From Shanghai, and the final scene in the fairground is sensational, but there are some very weak parts to the film as well I find. I’ve rated him as an actor, apart from that appalling Irish accent in Shanghai, and also recognised that his performance in Touch of Evil was excellent (quite aside from the astonishing amount of weight he put on for it), and that it is an excellent film.
But it’s only watching it on the big screen that I’ve realised how excellent it is.

Nobody else barely clapped. I clapped above my head and even appreciating the pointlessness of doing so nearly 70 years after it was made and all involved long gone, I still wanted to give it a standing ovation.

Touch of Evil is a masterpiece without question.
In fact right now I think that Touch of Evil is probably the greatest American movie ever made.
I have it as a viable candidate amongst a very small number of films, for the greatest film ever made.

It was very close to making my 100 list (which is going to require some amendments), but I ruled it out because of the receptionist guy in the hotel which I thought was so hammed up to be laughable. But as I'll mention below I recognise now that the film is part caricature, and I can just about accept that role now as its played within that part of the style.

In fact in that context, I can recognise it as a well played part. And that's about the lowest praise I would have for any of the cast. If you put these performances together I'd struggle to think of a film to compare with it for acting prowess. Heston I don't think is anything special, I'd put him down as OK. But Dietrich is excellent and Leigh is fantastic; she could have had so much more of a career in acting if she’d prioritised it. Harry Shannon as Welles’ sidekick Chief Gould is superb. Akim Tamiroff as Uncle Joe is sensational. But its still not the best performance in the film, because Orson Welles - whilst directing it too - delivers one of the most iconic and one of the greatest acting performances in the history of the movies. Outstanding doesn't cover it.

In terms of styles, I’d say masters at least 3 individually, and also as a combination, so we could call that 4. There’s the On the Waterfrontesque ‘documentary-like realism’, for example in the scene when Heston and Shannon are in the records office, where I’m thinking of something like Mississippi Burning. There’s the pop art like caricatures. And there’s the technical artistry; the tracking camera shots, the long take in the industrial mill or whatever it is at the end, which reminds of both the big wheel/fairground scene and also the sewers scene in The Third Man. I’m also reminded of of Kalatozov’s Soy Cuba, which I’m sure it influenced. There huge variety in techniques, from the close ups kind of in the style of A Passion of Joan of Arc, to the continuous take traipsing through the mill, to finding ourselves squashed in the elevator with Welles looking through a shaky hand held camera.
All of it works individually, and it works as a whole as well. Like he’s chucked everything he can think of into the cooking pot, given it a stir, and delivered a 5 star Michelin meal.

It’s not just a movie for people who study film making either, it’s a brilliant thriller, building up the tension, with jump out of the seat moments like looking up to see Uncle Joe’s tongue sticking out.

The poignant sign off with Dietrich having the final line bidding adieu, is the last second beautiful garnish or dressing applied to the side of one of the most wonderful tasting dishes ever cooked. Orson Welles was indeed, an arch-genius of film making.

Robert the List

04-02-25, 12:51 PM

In The Mood For Love tonight I reckon.

Was going to go for a run bit don't think I can be assed.

Robert the List

04-02-25, 04:51 PM

I remembered something else I was going to say about Rear Window.

It uses silent movie techniques a lot.

Robert the List

04-02-25, 06:15 PM

In the Mood for Love.
About a 9.

It's beautiful to look at, really a work of art. It was very impressive seeing some of these shots full size.
The music works very nicely with the images and plays an important part in creating the mood.
I don't know if it was a slightly different edit to what I'd watched online, but I appreciated this time more how much she loved him.
To me it's a story about taking your chances. About not playing by the rules and being loyal because you think that doing the right thing will reward you, but in seizing the moment and recognising that you only live once and that right now is what you really want, not what you are lamenting. Maybe their relationship was based on their support for one another due to losing their spouse, but they didn't realise when the moment was for letting go of that base and seizing the reality of what had grown between them.
Not much else to say. I noticed some asian sounding voices laughing a couple of times, for example when the majhong went on all night, so maybe there were some in jokes that Hong Kong or Chinese would get.
I like the ending because of, well, it's Cambodia. It gets an extra .25 for that. There's a lot to like, but...just...it didn't grab me personally. I didn't really feel that it was real. The two of them have rehearsals a couple of times, role playing, and to me the whole thing just felt slightly staged. So a movie I admired more than I felt it.
Watching it again reinforced my view of the absurdity of the character in 2046 being the same guy as this one. Nothing like one another.
Cinema was cold.

Robert the List

04-07-25, 06:24 PM

Vertigo is absolute gash.
Takes seeing it at the cinema to appreciate (aside from the stunning bridge) what a pile of crap it is.
Second rate rehash of Rebecca.

Robert the List

04-08-25, 06:26 PM

I gave Vertigo 4 and The Master 8.

There no way round it, the shots of that bridge are absolutely stunning. Some of the greatest movie images of all time I have no doubt. But that's about 90 seconds of the film. And it's so poetic that it cuts from those stunning images to aa picture of 60 year old James Stewart flapping around in a kiddies swimming pool that were supposed to be fooled into thinking is the Pacific Ocean.
Poetic because aside from the bridge, the film is completely hopeless. If you're drunk you might not notice because of the dramatic music, but take that away and you're left with is a load of toilet.
I knew Vertigo was overrated, but I'd never realised how much. If Hitchcock made a worse film in his brilliant career, I'd like to know what it was.

The Master was really nice. A good performance by Seymour Hoffman, albeit not as great as I thought. Phoenix is a tour de force though. Its a mesmerising show from him. I gave him a clap after one soliloquy.

And it's a gorgeous looking film too. But I only observe it. I don't live it. I don't care about it, or tbh anyone in it. It's far far better than the first half of Blade Runner. But unlike the 2nd half of Bkade Runner, tithe Master never jumps up and grabs you by the face and pulls you in. Rather, it's just there. Being The Master.

It was close to making my 100, but I made the right decision.

KeyserCorleone

04-09-25, 08:02 PM

Robert the List

04-10-25, 12:43 AM

So instead of actually detailing why the movie is hopeless beyond literally one scene involving a kiddie pool, all you do is talk like a twelve-year old in the hopes that somebody as aggressive as you will agree with you. This doesn't even look like a review at all. It looks like the lyrics to a kid-friendly crunkcore album. You need to take time to practice articulating and detailing if you're looking to be a master reviewer who can talk about the "greatest ever list of the 100 greatest films" in front of an entire community whose been passionate about moviemaking for literally 25 years. Even if someone can convince me that Vertigo's a bad movie, just insulting it openly inflames the people who believe otherwise. Anyone knows that won't work.

I'm not looking to be a master reviewer who can talk about the greatest ever list of the 100 greatest films in front of a community of whatever looool. It's a forum. There are no prequalification criteria. I have no aspiration to be a master reviewer, I have just created a list of 100 movies which is probably (particularly taking into account the detailed background information supplied about each of the films) the greatest ever list of 100 movies.

I disagree that I'm talking like a 12 year old.

I disagree that I have been aggressive. Aggressive towards whom?

I'm satisfied about my film viewing experience and at the results of my work, and I suppose proud as well at what I've achieved on this in the last few years. If you called that satisfaction smugness then I could see that as a matter of perspective or how it might have come across through the medium of the internet, although it doesn't reflect how I feel. In any case it's not aggression.

Robert the List

04-10-25, 12:46 AM

I am a little bit smug in fairness (in a light hearted way) about getting the opportunity to see the great films listed in the OP at the cinema, over the course of a few weeks. One of the benefits of having time in London!

KeyserCorleone

04-10-25, 12:51 AM

I'm exceptionally efficient at this kind of thing, and I've devoted several thousand hours to it. I'm personally content that I've done an excellent job, and whilst I appreciate that there are likely some films I have missed, I'm satisfied that I have identified in my greater list the vast bulk of the films which I would regard as being the greatest that have ever been made.

I'm also very pleased and satisfied with the cherry on the top of that exercise which is my greatest 100 list, and the thread on here containing research information about each of the films and a nominal personal comment or in a few cases review, which in itself I devoted a significant amount of time to, and which I perceive as being probably one of the greatest and most valuable sources of information that could be made available to a movie lover.

The result of the work speaks for itself, and you are welcome to share in the enjoyment of the results of the exercise should you wish to.

Should you instead decide to argue that something that someone's put thousands of hours into is a load of rubbish without even looking at it, that is also generally human prerogative.

My initial comment on here about not having seen any of the 4 films though was just an isolated remark meant in good humour (and I think largely at my own expense), and wasn't made with the intention of creating an argument on the 90s thread about the merits of the my film experiences or my of my greatest 100 films list/thread.

Some of us have been doing this for 20 years, namely our admin. And there's a difference between being "efficient" and being "detailed." I refer you to the Wayside tale of B.B. Gunn, the fastest artist in school. Calling your own work the best of the best right after acknowledging your own flas with the structure is a major contradiction, and statements like that reek of vanity when there are some who've been working on certain projects like this their whole lives. "Several thousand hours" doesn't mean anything on a forum full of filmbuffs who've also been doing this for years. You're trying to use time and speed as excuses when the results are for the community to judge, not you.

Did you honestly convince yourself that others here haven't done the same thing? I have in fact read some of your "reviews." And honestly, they make me uncomfortable. You're only giving off a "holier than thou" impression. Who said I hadn't seen your reviews? I have. You're lucky I even decided to look at your reviews after saying "this is without a doubt the best there's ever been."

You don't decide that for us. You're on a website where freedom of speech reigns 110%. You can pretend that justifies your proud claims, but that also justifies the arguments everyone gives you, so at the end of the day, using freedom of speech to call yourself Edward Elric by claiming you discovered the philosopher's stone is the most pretentious thing you can do.

Some of us put a lot of thought into real reviews. I have a ranked list of 15000 albums from best to worst, and I keep doing it because the journey of discovery is a passion-project, and I do the same thing with films as well, and you can find my ranked list of nearly 3300 films on Letterboxd, and this list doesn't even include short films.

If you're done with the journey, then you're not here because you love cinema. You're here because you want a community to glorify you, so you're doing a base amount of work and calling it general quits by glorifying your own work when others won't.

You offend the entire community by saying you've achieved the best. Even if Coppola said he made the best movie ever made when he released The Godfather, lots of people have probably said that. Coppola didn't "order" us to love it. We made that decision on our own. If you don't want people PMing each other about your seemingly "poser" attitude, and I literally just got one, then you need to grow up and realize that it takes more than "several thousand hours" to become a god among a class.

For the last time, you don't decide if it's great or not. This is a community. You've been laughed at for saying that, you know. Take it from a guy who binges Hell's Kitchen, I know pretentiousness when I see it. Saying "I disagree" doesn't prove anything. Actually articulate the way other people do. Because if you want your list to become the next big thing, you gotta articulate. If you don't plan on being a master of reviews, then you won't be a master of ratings either. Thus, you won't be capable of creating such a magnificent list.

Robert the List

04-10-25, 01:02 AM

Some of us have been doing this for 20 years, namely our admin. And there's a difference between being "efficient" and being "detailed." I refer you to the Wayside tale of B.B. Gunn, the fastest artist in school. Calling your own work the best of the best right after acknowledging your own flas with the structure is a major contradiction, and statements like that reek of vanity when there are some who've been working on certain projects like this their whole lives. "Several thousand hours" doesn't mean anything on a forum full of filmbuffs who've also been doing this for years. You're trying to use time and speed as excuses when the results are for the community to judge, not you.

Did you honestly convince yourself that others here haven't done the same thing? I have in fact read some of your "reviews." And honestly, they make me uncomfortable. You're only giving off a "holier than thou" impression. Who said I hadn't seen your reviews? I have. You're lucky I even decided to look at your reviews after saying "this is without a doubt the best there's ever been."

You don't decide that for us. You're on a website where freedom of speech reigns 110%. You can pretend that justifies your proud claims, but that also justifies the arguments everyone gives you, so at the end of the day, using freedom of speech to call yourself Edward Elric by claiming you discovered the philosopher's stone is the most pretentious thing you can do.

Some of us put a lot of thought into real reviews. I have a ranked list of 15000 albums from best to worst, and I keep doing it because the journey of discovery is a passion-project, and I do the same thing with films as well, and you can find my ranked list of nearly 3300 films on Letterboxd, and this list doesn't even include short films.

If you're done with the journey, then you're not here because you love cinema. You're here because you want a community to glorify you, so you're doing a base amount of work and calling it general quits by glorifying your own work when others won't.

You offend the entire community by saying you've achieved the best. Even if Coppola said he made the best movie ever made when he released The Godfather, lots of people have probably said that. Coppola didn't "order" us to love it. We made that decision on our own. If you don't want people PMing each other about your seemingly "poser" attitude, and I literally just got one, then you need to grow up and realize that it takes more than "several thousand hours" to become a god among a class.

For the last time, you don't decide if it's great or not. This is a community. You've been laughed at for saying that, you know. Take it from a guy who binges Hell's Kitchen, I know pretentiousness when I see it. Saying "I disagree" doesn't prove anything. Actually articulate the way other people do. Because if you want your list to become the next big thing, you gotta articulate. If you don't plan on being a master of reviews, then you won't be a master of ratings either. Thus, you won't be capable of creating such a magnificent list.
Lol. You make more constructive points in this post at least.

I note what you say, and understand where you are coming from.

I pick things up very quickly which is probably a factor in why I have been so efficient and effective, but I appreciate that others may not appreciate this.

Any movie lover should be able to find something of interest in 100 great films with quite extensive background information about each film, even if there aren't any new films on there for them to enjoy, which is probably the case of at least a few on here. But if you'd rather just get angry about it, lol.

Robert the List

04-10-25, 02:12 AM

Robert the List

04-10-25, 03:28 AM

A couple of other points by the way.

1. I actually disagree with the notion that everybody else has done the same as I have, and conversations on here indicate that that is not the case. My impression is that most people on here just watch movies. They might have a list of the movies of those they've watched which they think are the greatest, but they don't select their movies on the basis of whether or not it might be one of the greatest movies of all time. That is specifically the exercise that I've done. My movie viewing experience has been from the perspective of trying to identify the greatest films. So it's a different experience, for richer and for poorer.

2. It hadn't crossed my mind lol, but if there's a perception that when I go to the movies, I think everybody steps back in awe because the great reviewer has arrived, then no that isn't the case haha. I do probably go for a slightly different reason than others in that they probably mostly go to enjoy the film whereas I go to enjoy the film and also to aid my understanding of which films are the very greatest, being able to see them on the big screen as well. But I fully realise that nobody gives a rats ass what I think of the film haha, any other than any other customer, and of course I am just another customer, it hadn't crossed my mind that anybody might think that I might think any differently.

KeyserCorleone

04-10-25, 09:07 AM

Lol. You make more constructive points in this post at least.

I note what you say, and understand where you are coming from.

I pick things up very quickly which is probably a factor in why I have been so efficient and effective, but I appreciate that others may not appreciate this.

Any movie lover should be able to find something of interest in 100 great films with quite extensive background information about each film, even if there aren't any new films on there for them to enjoy, which is probably the case of at least a few on here. But if you'd rather just get angry about it, lol.

I'd rather articulate while I'm upset than embarrass myself by making extra bold statements. But lemme ask, if you pick up things quickly, how come you completely missed the most obvious point: if you're gonna spend time on a website where people have in-depth conversation, then you shouldn't be so high and mighty not even WANTING to provide depth beyond "toilet" language. I could even write a fake Vertigo 4/10 review more professional than yours, and Vertigo's in my top 30.

KeyserCorleone

04-10-25, 09:10 AM

KeyserCorleone

What I’d just add is firstly that I’m sorry that people are pissed off with my work. That wasn’t the intention. The main intention was for me to learn about films and enjoy films. In sharing my work on here I hoped that others could enjoy it, and I’d still hope that that is the case, it being an open forum.

Secondly, I’d add that I find this all a bit perplexing lol. I honestly believe that if someone came on here and said I have spent 12 months solid (compared to my c5 years) reviewing films and I have come up with the best ever list of 100 films, I’m sure my reaction would be along the lines of:
-Cool that you’ve shared the fruits of so much time
-This sounds interesting and I look forward to having a look at this
-I hope this is great

I’d then probably have a look at what he’s done, highlight anything I agree with, maybe some things I disagree with, maybe raise some alternatives as suggestions, and probably share my list with the person. If I generally dig his list I would probably also explore the films on there I don’t know and potentially watch some of them.

I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t get angry and defensive about it, and whilst I am partly saddened by that reaction if that’s how everyone feels, it also makes me laugh out loud.

Also the concept that someone thinks I should consider myself “lucky” because they read something I wrote about a film. Again, I just find it laughable.

Dude, this isnt about the list exclusively. It's about you claiming you made the best. This is about your Michael Scott self-righteousness. You brag about one year? I have a ranked list of 3300 movies from best to worst on Letterboxed and even though I'm proud of it, not once did I ever try to pass it off as the greatest thing on Earth. We'd have been happy with your list of you didn't talk like that. But if you're going to claim that you made the best in only a year, newsflash: I've got 14 years of film studies and 12.5 years of album studies. And I'm not even calling myself the best. Don't hype yourself up. You were too eager to rush into something and decided you were capable of the literally impossible in one year.

Robert the List

04-13-25, 08:42 AM

Taipei Story today if I get there in time!

Robert the List

04-13-25, 02:07 PM

The cinema confirms that Taipei Story is a stunning gorgeous film.

I don't have much to say about it, but it looks gorgeous. The night time Fuji shot on the rooftop is particularly stunning in the cinema but there are several showpiece images which are magnificent, and many more just regular shots which look fantastic, whether it's the beautiful lead looking through a window or a Madonna calendar on a cream coloured wall.

It's more than its looks though. It's a film with real mood to it. Whereas in American films there tends to be a lot of noise and a lot of things happening, Taipei Story is a prime and perhaps trend setting early example of greater Chinese cinema containing a lot of quiet and a shortage of explosive events. It largely just drifts along as we observe. It has a neo-realism feel to it; in the 50s or 60s they would have said it was like a documentary. But it builds a mood, and ends with drama and emotion. There are maybe some life lessons to learn in there, perhaps not dissimilar to another well known Chinese film I reviewed recently. That one might be better known, but I'd take this one if I had to choose. It's a fantastic piece of film making.

Director Edward Yang was a very fortunate man in having 10 years after making the film with lead actress Tsai Chin. What an utterly stunning woman.

Taipei Story 10/10.

Robert the List

04-13-25, 02:13 PM

Oh, I know what I meant to mention as well. In one scene in the film, somebody was watching a recording of a baseball match on tv, using a VHS cassette player. Whilst watching, they fast forwarded the tape. A large portion of the audience in the cinema (all adults) laughed. It took me a few moments to realise why!

Robert the List

04-14-25, 01:48 PM

Sneaking a bonus one in.
John and Yoko One One

Robert the List

04-14-25, 07:16 PM

I had no idea just what an annoying so and so Yoko Ono was until I watched this.
Lennon seemed absolutely sound. But her? Not sure I've ever heard more painful singing.
I think the 70s is probably the peak of American cinema.

Zotis

04-15-25, 12:37 AM

Saw The Color of Pomegranates tonight.
Well kinda.
Apparently, there's 2 versions. The one I'd seen online was the Russian version.
The one they had was the Armenian version.
I guess maybe about 50% of it was the same, but all in a different order lol.
Some images were stunning, but it didn't really work.
Nobody clapped at the end. Not one person. And there was a general sense of 'is that it'?
I know it's a different version, but I might still drop it out of my top 100 based on that.

I have the Russian version on DVD, started watching it 3 times, but still haven't finished it. It's so intensely artistic that it's pretty hard to absorb, and I can't understand a lot of the implications because I don't know enough about the context and things it's subtly referring to in Russian history/politics. I'm in awe of the individual shots and scenes, and it's a very unique style of filmmaking. At least I haven't seen anything else like it.

Robert the List

04-21-25, 03:46 PM

Won't have time to do a write up as. I'll be straight to bed (will try to give it a mark), but it's There Will Be Blood coming up.

Interesting to see how it goes on the big screen...

Robert the List

04-21-25, 06:48 PM

Robert the List

04-22-25, 05:31 PM

Really enjoyed Cinema Paradiso.

There were a couple of things I'd rather not have seen thanks, and wonder whether the director/screenwriter might have been drunk or something.

It was also all a little bit on the cheap/budget side.

But it's a charming story, with a beautiful ending.

On most scales it would merit a 9 I think, but on here it goes down as 8.5.

KeyserCorleone

04-24-25, 12:08 AM

There Will Be Blood's no more than about a 6 for me.

The landscape shots are really impressive. The contrast between the darkness of the mine shaft and thee blinding bright light of the summer afternoon on the plains is stunning. As are the silhouettes when the oil burns. One shot made me go wow.

The first 15 minutes or so is impressive and engrossing.

But that's it. The story is moribund. The characters, I couldn't really care less about them one way or the other.

The soundtrack, like a broken fiddle being sacked into a vortex, as copied by Lost the following year is grating and perplexing.

To me it's a paint by numbers try to be a masterpiece. A vehicle for showing how convincing Daniel Day Lewis is at playing his latest role.

I want more from a film than to think the lead actor is good at impressions.

The scene where Dano slaps Daniel in the church I thought was lame. You can see Day Lewis going no go in really hit me, and Dano still missing him entirely or just giving him a gentle tap.

I'd had enough by then anyway, and thankfully it was time for bed.

It's a movie you might have to watch more than once. It's more about themes and the realism of the progression rather than your standard three-act structure. And as for the music, much of it is in a genre known as sonorism, a modern classical genre that focuses on using droning soundscapes to create heavy emotions. You can't tell me you weren't absolutely distressed by the droning. For Greenwood's first attempt at sonorism, it was pretty damn gripping, and surprisingly fitting for a dark film, while being unique for a historical Southern film.