How rare are great movies?

Case in point

I remember leaving the theater after watching L.A. Confidential and marveling at what a good movie it was. I was also very excited about the prospect of seeing more of James Ellroy's fabulous novels turned into movies of this caliber, however it was not to be, It took 9 years for a serious attempt, with an excellent director (DePalma) attached, it turned out to be horribly mis-cast and a mismash to boot. I have now turned my hopes to Joe Carnahan's adaption of White Jazz due in 2009.

I thought after the brilliance of L.A. Confidential Curtis Hanson was destined for a brilliant career, instead he fizzled.

Why are brilliant movies so rare? Why is it so hard to repeat the success?

__________________
Ain't no rocket scientists in the Fire Hall

About twentyelleven:3* over xy squared.

__________________

Well, I understand the premise of your question, but you've framed it with odd examples.

L.A. Confidential is indeed a great movie, but you've made a leap of logic where therefore everything adapted from the author or made by the director should also be just as good. That's just silly. Ellroy's novels are dense and problematic when translating to the screen. It's a sort of minor miracle that Hanson and co-screenwriter Brian Helgeland managed to take something as epic and layered as L.A. Confidential and successfully make the transition to the big screen.

For the record I thought Curtis Hanson's follow-up, Wonder Boys (2000), was just as great a film as L.A. Confidential, though obviously a very different kind of story. His output since then (8 Mile, In Her Shoes and Lucky You) hasn't done anything for me, but his filmography before Confidential was nothing as spectacular as the two movies he made in 1997 and 2000 either. The Bedroom Window is a decent Hitchcockian thriller, The Hand That Rocks the Cradle is a less-than-decent Hitchcockian thriller and The River Wild is an average thriller, at best. I don't think any of those movies spelled out that L.A. Confidential and Wonder Boys were going to be so very good.

And you've left screenwriter Helgeland out of the figuring, too. And expecting that DePalma, who's success-to-failure rate is not a good one, to wrangle The Black Dahila into a masterpiece was expecting a Hell of a lot. He was supposed to turn into a better filmmaker just because he had seen L.A. Confidential a decade before? That makes no sense.

Having the same director and creative team or somebody different adapting a particular author's work obviously is not any kind of guarantee. Bemoaning the fact that Hanson's output is uneven and only one time thus far has anybody cracked Ellroy for the big screen as evidence that great movies are rare is silly.


Great movies are relatively rare and great filmmakers even more so. But nothing you said in that original post speaks to this.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

The rarity (or commonness) of great films has direct correlation with the hyperbole of various MoFos. The trick is in figuring out who's hyperbole to trust...

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

How rare are great films?

Well, are we talking about films that are exceedingly entertaining and that the general viewer is going to desire to watch over and over and over again?

Or are we talking about some film that changes the way that all other films are made from that point on?

Or are we talking about a film that has a great subject matter and is extremely deep and uses the technology and techniques currently available to their greatest potential for telling the story?

I believe that every year a person can find at least one film that they think of as great, typically for the first reason, rarely for the second, and sometimes for the third. But in the case of the first, that is predominantly subjective as to if a film is great in their eyes, whereas the second is concrete and the third combines a combination of those two. So how rare are great films, it all depends on the meaning of great.

__________________
"As I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away."
-From Identity

I don't know, but in my opinion great movies are everywhere.. it's just the matter of how you appreciate the movie..

well said my friend....

I think great films are those who have great story behind it, like sassy girl(Korean film) and the notebook, so far they are the great film ever released, it must capture all ages of audience...IMO

I doubt if anyone in this forum (myself included) has enough knowledge of the full spectrum of movies and all of the technological development and breakthroughs, much less the objectivity to say what constitutes a great film. But the combination of your criteria is probably as close as any, Gnat.

The only film I’ve ever seen that I would classify as great is Citizen Kane. IMHO, nothing else even comes close. Yet it could be argued that it failed your first criteria as an entertaining film that the “general viewer” (whoever that may be) would watch over and over. The studio had given Orson Welles complete control of that movie, no doubt hoping he’d come up with something on the scale of his War of the Worlds radio program that had stunned the nation. Fact is, Citizen Kane did well just to break even on its initial release and did not prove the immediate money-maker that the studio was hoping for. As a result, Welles never again got total control of one of his movies. Some blame Kane’s less than stunning box-office opening on the fact that Hearst banned any mention of the movie by his vast newspaper chain. It wasn’t until Kane’s rerelease years later when Hearst had lost some of his power that the movie really began to catch on with the public. When I saw it for the first time in the 1960s, it was like seeing a movie—any movie!—for the first time because it was so different from all the movies I had seen up to that moment. I didn’t know all of the things that made it unique, but I could see that it is unique.

Look at all of the different elements that went into that movie. Screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz had an idea for a screenplay about a public figure whose story is told only through the conversations of people who knew him. His first idea was to make it about John Dillinger, but Welles turned down that idea. Still, Kane’s story is told in that unusual way with the facts being tracked down by a reporter whose face we never see. A good gimmick—Welles and Mankiewicz won the Oscar for best original screenplay for 1941.

Next, Welles and cinematographer Gregg Toland came up with very unusual camera shots. I don’t know if they were the absolute first to use low-angle shots or deep focus that kept the foreground, midground and background all in focus, but this was the movie that broke the ground for other directors to copy that work. There also were scenes where they would mask off part of the film to shoot the foreground in focus, and then reshoot that same film to get the background in focus and leave the middle area slightly out of focus.

The movie also made frequent use of special effects makeup developed to age, and in some cases “un-age” characters. It also pioneered episodic sequences in using the same set with changes of the actors’ costume and make-up to show the change in characters over the period of time.

Coming from years in radio, Welles also brought new use of sound to the movies, with the innovation of what they called a “lightning mix” so that a line of dialogue is used to segue between shots to show the passage of time, so that a character says “Merry Christmas” to Kane as a boy and continues with “And a Happy New Year” in the next scene where Kane is an adult. (You see the same thing 18 years later in North by Northwest when Eva Marie Saint is clinging to the edge of Mount Rushmore and Cary Grant reaches to her and says “Give me you hand and I’ll pull you up,” as the scene switches to him pulling her up into the top bunk of a railcar sleeper.)

I understand they also were among the first—if not the first—to use an “L” or “split” cut where you hear what’s happening in the next scene before you see it.

Anyway, Citizen Kane pioneered a lot of movie technology and procedures that were adapted by other movie makers, and it introduced several actors who became mainstays of film casts over the next 30 years. Welles himself, Joseph Cotton, Agnes Moorehead, Everett Stone, and to a lesser degree maybe, Paul Stewart and Ray Collins. It’s an unusual and entertaining story and heads the list of the 100 best films ever made. So I humbly submit it as one of the very rare truly great movies—perhaps the only one really deserving that title.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

I think this applies to movies as well as anything else involving personal preference.

__________________
MY Work!

for me, you can never tell, there's a lot of movies in theater with a different director and all that, but there's always one film that will fit your taste.

I certainly believe there are more great movies than rufnek (he says ONE), but I believe too many people think that most movies are "Great". I find a relatively few great movies, at least percentage-wise, especially as time goes by. I realize that many viewers find older films lacking somehow, but that seems to be an insult to all the filmmakers, film watchers and critics who have lived before. I still think there are many Good films, now and previously, so that's what I recommend you try to find. Just remember, there were several great films made before you were born, no matter how old you are. On a side note, if you think a flick is not worth watching, then you don't like movies.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Greatest

Side Note

Ever


I've got to say that my definition of a great film is probably vastly different to that of everyone else's as my criteria for greatness are laxer than other people's.

But a ridiculously well made movie for me is not necessarily a great movie for me.Take Atonement.I knew, as I was watching it, that it was well written,well directed,particularly well edited and cast/acted wonderfully.But I didn't think it was great. Cause it didn't make me like it.It was the cinematic equivalent of the Mona Lisa. You know it's good, but up close in-person it won't rock-your-socks.

__________________

And lo the whispering wanderer weeps
what whit to whom did my life keep?

Well quite a few great movies came out in 07.

Okay, so here's a list of the last 43 movies I've seen (not including old favorites that I was just watching again). I'll bold the ones I thought were great and underline the ones I thought were borderline great.

Sense and Sensibiliby
187
Spring in a Small Town (1948)
Springtime in a Small Town (2002)
The Yakuza
Peace Hotel
In the Realm of Senses
Charlie Wilson's War
In the Realm of Passion
Elevator to the Gallows
Night After Night
The Stunt Woman
I'm No Angel
Cloverfield
Stop Making Sense
Waitress
She Done Him Wrong
There Will be Blood
Final Victory
Music and Lyrics
Knock Off
Le Cercle Rouge
Clean and Sober
Dragon Inn (1966)
Come Drink With Me
Jubilee
Atonement
Jumper
Hard Boiled
The Sword
A Canterbury Tale (1944)
Benny & Joon
Be Kind Rewind
Project A II
Inland Empire
Cruel Story of Youth
Meet Me in St. Louis
Best in Show
The Princess and the Warrior
The Sun's Burial

So that's 3 great movies and 5 almost-great movies out of 43* movies watched.

I don't get bothered too much by people who don't like some generalization of old movies (besides, even people who "find older films lacking" aren't so absolutist about it. I've never met anyone who's seen a lot of films and didn't like at least some old ones). I probably like less old movies than new ones (you know, as a percentage of what I've seen), but that's just because the new ones aren't old yet. When they are, I'm sure most of the ones I like now will look dumb, and a small handful will still be just as awesome, just as brilliant and beautiful. I'll probably still like the dumb ones but that's because part of me is pretty dumb.

*list represents roughly two months of movie watching.

I'm glad you referenced me, but I hope you don't consider me an "absolutist", or "absolutist", if that's a better use of your term.

Genrally (Genrerally? ) speaking: Once upon a Time in the West and Unforgiven are two of the best westerns(not the motels) ever.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Neither one!


Hey Bro, have you watched Little Big Man?

Lines, I insist that you go back and put Benny and Joon in highlights this instant. If anyone has looked at my "favorite 100 films" then I suppose you may be able to gather that I may not even know what a "great" film is. And maybe I don't. I think Casablanca and To Have and Have Not are about as close to perfection as there is though for films that are now almost 70 years old. I also think most of the films in my top 10 are great as well for various different reasons, some personal and some because of public opinion. I will admit that I would make a terrible movie critic, I love a lot of movies that quite a few people won't watch, so I'm probably not very apt at picking out "great" ones.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

I don't.

I was calling attention to the fact that when people find older films lacking, they're speaking in very general terms only (hence the "I never met anyone who didn't like any old movies"), and that most people watch most movies as mere movie lovers or casual fans rather than cultural historians, just like they did in the olden days.

Also, probably, they like to rile up waggish oldsters.

What would say?

@Powdered Water: sorry, I really liked Benny & Joon, just not as much as any of the ones I highlighted or underlined. But you might not want my endorsement anyway, for I thought Sharkboy & Lavagirl in 3-D was an instant classic.