Future Classics

You would. I'd love to hear some detail of why you think it's a bad film. Not why you don't like it, but an actual objective reasoning why it's not good.



You are aware that it's loosely based on a true set of brothers, right? Also, you know that the Lincoln letter recited in the film is real, right? You're also aware that there's an actual policy preventing groups of siblings from serving in combat at the same time, right? Given those things, I'd say the silliness drops off a bit, but, that's just, like, my opinion, man.

__________________

What is my username? That tells you just about everything.

If I remember correctly, I watched this in a period of a number of both Julianne Moore movies and British movies. I hate Julianne Moore, and I am not fond of British movies. It has been far too long since I last watched Children of Men to precisely detail the elements I disliked but, if my memory serves me correctly, Andrew Sarris' review - especially this part, is pretty close:
As I said, it has been too long. Probably worth a rewatch, but I'm unsure I'll be able to go through with it.

Now that I didn't know. I wondered about the possible historicity a few months ago and searched, but didn't find anything. Indeed, all I found were more people complaining about the lack of plausibility of the premise. You mention the Sole Survivor Policy - something which has no bearing on this film considering that it deals with World War II, and the Sole Survivor Policy didn't come into place until 1948, three years later.

Furthermore, I fail to see the importance of the Bixby letter. So, some woman lost her sons and Lincoln sent a letter of condolence. Such a situation - as sad as it may be - is no reason to risk needlessly the lives of other soldiers to save the one surviving son. What if a woman has but one son to begin with? She stands to loose her only child if he were to die in the war; the result is the same: childlessness.

However, despite the harshness of the above paragraphs, I must thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm very surprised I've never run into the story of the Niland Brothers before, what with all the history and legal books I've read.

There's also the WWII film, The Fighting Sullivans, if that isn't discussed above in collaboration with Saving Private Ryan.

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

Do you not like British films because you're a German?

__________________

I've some English blood in me, as well as Scottish and Irish and Welsh. In fact, in my youth, I was an Anglophile - obsessed with all things British - which I think ended once I started watching British films.

I'm wondering how someone can consider Children of Men to be "laughably unbelievable, even as sci-fi fantasy". Even that particular quote doesn't even explain why - we're just supposed to take Sarris's word for it because he's a renowned critic. Considering some of his complaints in that review, I'm pretty sure he's not much of a fan of speculative fiction in general e.g. he considers the film's lack of clear-cut exposition about the infertility crisis as being a strike against it, despite the fact that it's kind of the point that nobody really knows why it happened. If Children of Men is what he considers laughably unbelievable, I wonder what he makes of films like Transformers or I Am Legend.

Has he ever heard of suspension of disbelief?---because I'm pretty sure there have been way more unbelievable films that people have considered good. Blade Runner, for instance, has AI literally indistinguishable from humans. I don't think the fact that these kinds of robots will probably never, ever exist prevents conjecturing about their possibility. Time travel is pretty much metaphysically impossible, but this does not undermine the relation of any of the stories involving it with what is possible. In other words, that guy, whoever he is, is freaking retradred.

I accidentally got drawn into re-watching large portions of There Will Be Blood the other day and I think that film will definitely go on to become an American classic. The interesting thing about it for me is that it has the feel of what is today considered a classic film but without actually mimicking any of the actual classic tropes. Not sure if I can justify that this quality exists, but I think its critical reputation alone will keep it in the running.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Good call. I've been meaning to rewatch There Will Be Blood (I saw it in theaters but haven't since). It didn't blow me away, but it was one of those films where I could sense there was more than I was able to take in and appreciate the first time, so I'm very much looking forward to seeing it again. And I think you're right, I think it'll stick around.

Oh, and ditto on all the Children of Men stuff. All a film has to do is be believable within the premises it provides you with. It gets to establish its own rules, and as long as it works within those, all's fair.

What makes it funnier is that the makers of Galaxy Quest named the main villain after Sarris; this is a villain who also mocked the good aliens for believing that a science-fiction TV show was actually real.

Pirates of the Caribbean? Really? It's pure popcorn, it won't be considered a "classic". Come on now.

The lists people are throwing out there are films that are generally well liked, but that's it. What qualities do they have that people will consider them classics?

I think the best films that have a chance at being classics are the Pixar movies. They remind me of the good old days of Aladdin, The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast. Those are classics. What Pixar films? Wall-E, The Incredibles and Toy Story would be my top 3 picks. But since Toy Story is more than ten years old, I'll go with Up.

There will be Blood was a good choice, but I agree with the earlier comment, we won't have any classics, like the films we consider classics now.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

TUS, are you saying that Pirates won't be considered a classic?

There are pirate festivals now. In Berkeley, Ca., we just had Pirate day, where everyone was speaking like a pirate. It was silly, yet fun. There were more captain jack sparrows than at comicon.

...and what does that have to do with Pirates of the Carribean being a classic? I imagine the popularity of pirates exists independently of the Pirates... series, and just because they're the only notable pirate-themed films in recent memory doesn't automatically grant them "classic" status.

Think about it - how many older pirate movies are revered as classics today? The only ones that spring to mind are Captain Blood and Treasure Planet, and their status is debatable.

As far as pirate "movie classics", I'd add Treasure Island (is that what you meant?) from both 1934 and 1950, The Sea Hawk (1940), The Black Swan (1942) and The Crimson Pirate (1952). I personally love Captain Hook and Disney's Peter Pan, and I grew up with the TV version of it which I watched annually as a kid.

Oh yeah, don't know why I wrote "planet". Dang futuristic re-tellings. Wonder if I should edit it now.

We have another thread which discusses a similar subject although the word "classic" isn't used there. Many of my thoughts on the subject are found in my post partway down the first page here. I had to just update an image link which was broken.

Dancer In The Dark (Lars von Trier): Lars Trier may be an arrogant *******, but that does not mean that this magnum opus have or will lose any of its power.... in sentimentality. It will be remembered as a poignant ... musical. The final scene will tear your heart out. Melodrama at its best.

Dead Man (Jarmusch) : Quite surrealistic. Is this a western? Is this a satire? I don't know..Needs time for appreciation.

I think this four movie is best.

Out of interest, what films have you seen to create such a broad, sweeping opinion. I'm not a massive fan of kitchen-sink dramas but won't discount a whole national cinema which has had some fantastic films and produced incredible talent. I'm not a fan of Classical Hollywood films either but still really enjoy some. Basically, I think you need to re-evaluate your stance.

This article might be of interest, was on IMDB homepage yesterday