Old Movies

[cantthinkofanything]

There are a log of old "classic" movies that I haven't seen. Citizen Kane, Casablanca, many more. Someone in the movie thread mentioned Treasure of Sierra Madre yesterday. It's one that I've always heard was great. So I started watching it last night. I got about halfway through but had to do some stuff around the house. Good movie so far. But two things that distracted me...

1) Seems like the acting in these old movies just isn't that great. I know actors like Bogart, Huston, etc. are recognized among the greats. But their delivery of lines, weird pauses, expressions, and mannerisms just seem forced at times. Is this just the way people talked (I'm not regarding the outdated phrases) and acted back then? Or have today's actors just had more time and training to seem more natural?

2) The score. While having some amusing moments, I don't think this movie was supposed to be a comedy drama. There were times where the music didn't seem to have anything to do with what was going on with the action. There's a scene where they are headed to find treasure and they're cutting through jungle, laboring, sweating. But the music is playing this odd happy tune that might have been perfect for a Three Stooges clip.

oh...one more

3) Unrealistic scenes. There are a couple of examples. But one was this scene where bandits are attacking the train that the main characters are on. Bogart, Walter Huston, and the other guy pull out pistols and start firing out the windows. The guns don't recoil at all. The characters don't seem very concerned either. They're just sitting in front of the window shooting away. None of it seemed "right".

Maybe when I finish the movie, I'll come away with a different take. But no matter how good the story is, I don't think this movie would stack up to any of the newer classics.

It's why I have a hard time trying to watch any of them. And I"m not sure that it can be dismissed as the difference in time periods. I still watch the movies from the 60's and 70's and I don't have these same issues.

Has Holllywood just gotten better at making movies?

[cantthinkofanything]

fuck...probably tl/dr

[ChumpDumper]

1) You're seeing the tail end of traditional theatrical training. Method and realism would soon take over. Something like Marathon Man is a mini-study in the differences in old-school technique (Olivier) and new (Hoffman).

2) Yeah, scores got much more elaborate and specific to the plot as time went on.

3) Realism made a big advance in all aspects of film making during 50s and 60s and continued after that.

[Ryan Fitzpatrick]

Older people swear by the classics--and they do have their charm--but films are largely overrated in the censorship era (1932-68 or something).
Film buffs love to cream their pants over 1939, especially.
Of course there are many exceptions, but I also find a lot of the acting to be pretty comical at times--like any era, I suppose. Naturally, the production quality is better today.

If you want to see good westerns, fuck that John Wayne shit--most of his movies bore the shit out of me. Check out Once Upon a Time in the West, The Professionals, The Wild Bunch, Leone/Eastwood trio, Outlaw Josey Wales, etc for the greatest westerns.

As far as JW films (if you have to see some), The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Stagecoach, and Red River are alright

[Ryan Fitzpatrick]

btw, you should probably see Citizen Kane...even though it gets sucked off more than any other film, it's still good. You can take or leave Casablanca, although Ingrid Bergman is gorgeous. Watching those movies is more about cultural literacy and understanding where certain phrases come from now, imo:lol

[CavsSuperFan]

I am a huge fan of old movies especially the ones with Bogart…The Big sleep, Casablanca, Sierra Madre, The Maltese Falcon and To Have and Have Not are my favorites…In fact since I started collecting Bogart movies I no longer take Ambien…I simply put on a DVD & set my Sony to sleep mode and in one hour I am out like a light…It is especially soothing when trying to fall asleep to watch the dark black and white picture…I am so glad that the director did not opt to spend the extra 10 dollars to film in vibrant color….

[Ryan Fitzpatrick]

I am a huge fan of old movies especially the ones with Bogart…The Big sleep, Casablanca, Sierra Madre, The Maltese Falcon and To Have and Have Not are my favorites…In fact since I started collecting Bogart movies I no longer take Ambien…I simply put on a DVD & set my Sony to sleep mode and in one hour I am out like a light…It is especially soothing when trying to fall asleep to watch the dark black and white picture…I am so glad that the director did not opt to spend the extra 10 dollars to film in vibrant color….

You're quite the salesman.

[J.T.]

Who needs ambien during basketball season? Just watch the boring ass Spurs, no prescription necessary.

[cantthinkofanything]

Older people swear by the classics--and they do have their charm--but films are largely overrated in the censorship era (1932-68 or something).
Film buffs love to cream their pants over 1939, especially.
Of course there are many exceptions, but I also find a lot of the acting to be pretty comical at times--like any era, I suppose. Naturally, the production quality is better today.

If you want to see good westerns, fuck that John Wayne shit--most of his movies bore the shit out of me. Check out Once Upon a Time in the West, The Professionals, The Wild Bunch, Leone/Eastwood trio, Outlaw Josey Wales, etc for the greatest westerns.

As far as JW films (if you have to see some), The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Stagecoach, and Red River are alright

There was an early scene in the movie that kind of surprised me. In Tampico, some guy throws down the butt of a cigarette and then a little kid picks it up and starts puffing away.

But yeah, the Eastwood movies and Once Upon a Time are some of my favorites. All the ones you mentioned plus High Plains Drifter, which seems to get overlooked. Another lesser know Eastwood movie that's damn good is is the Beguiled (although not a western).

[leemajors]

1) You're seeing the tail end of traditional theatrical training. Method and realism would soon take over. Something like Marathon Man is a mini-study in the differences in old-school technique (Olivier) and new (Hoffman).

2) Yeah, scores got much more elaborate and specific to the plot as time went on.

3) Realism made a big advance in all aspects of film making during 50s and 60s and continued after that.

Marathon Man is awesome. Goldman scripts are generally excellent. Old Frankenheimer movies are also great - Grand Prix, Manchurian Candiate, Birdman of Alcatraz, Seconds...

[Latarian Milton]

old movies were like something between drama and modern movies imho, their exaggerated acting might look odd by today's standards but back in their time it looked just fine, and their narratives and dialogues were rather limpid and easy to understand tbh

[cantthinkofanything]

1) You're seeing the tail end of traditional theatrical training. Method and realism would soon take over. Something like Marathon Man is a mini-study in the differences in old-school technique (Olivier) and new (Hoffman).

2) Yeah, scores got much more elaborate and specific to the plot as time went on.

3) Realism made a big advance in all aspects of film making during 50s and 60s and continued after that.

Missed this. Seems like good points. I really never considered that the methods of training had changed that much.

[redzero]

I don't like how Marathon Man's ending was changed to make all the baddies kill each other, so Dustin's character didn't have to get his hands dirty (with the exception of one person, maybe).

I do agree that the acting is noticeably worse in earlier films. One has to be a giant nostalgiafag to claim otherwise. I do like Jimmy Stewart, though.

Citizen Kane is okay. I wouldn't call it the greatest movie ever.

I don't think Once Upon a Time In The West is all that great. I'd definitely would put it below The Dollars Trilogy and Unforgiven, as far as Westerns go.

[leemajors]

I don't like how Marathon Man's ending was changed to make all the baddies kill each other, so Dustin's character didn't have to get his hands dirty (with the exception of one person, maybe).

I do agree that the acting is noticeably worse in earlier films. One has to be a giant nostalgiafag to claim otherwise. I do like Jimmy Stewart, though.

Citizen Kane is okay. I wouldn't call it the greatest movie ever.

I don't think Once Upon a Time In The West is all that great. I'd definitely would put it below The Dollars Trilogy and Unforgiven, as far as Westerns go.

I forgot the ending was changed, and I've read the book. Says Goldman doesn't even know who rewrote the ending, just that Hoffman didn't like how it was supposed to end. There is also a sequel to the book called Brothers where Doc survives :lol

[Ryan Fitzpatrick]

CTOA, try some silent films too, imo...BoaN is (amazingly) still suspenseful in certain areas. Lon Chaney's films are classics too:lol....one of the most underrated of all-time, imo:

bFKSt_Q4gQA

[The Gemini Method]

I grew up watching the classics with my grandma and mom so they'll always have a special place in my heart. Movies like The Maltese Falcon, Dial M for Murder, The Birds and Sergio Argonne and the whole Spaghetti Western era movies were big for us. I'm also an avid fan of The Twilight Zone w/Rod Serling and I can go back and watch the whole series.

[ChumpDumper]

Marathon Man is awesome. Goldman scripts are generally excellent. Old Frankenheimer movies are also great - Grand Prix, Manchurian Candiate, Birdman of Alcatraz, Seconds...Yeah, I watched Seconds completely cold; knew nothing about it at all. Really a damned interesting and interestingly made movie. Raised my opinion of Rock Hudson a bit.

Now I need to watch Seven Days in May.

[cantthinkofanything]

CTOA, try some silent films too, imo...BoaN is (amazingly) still suspenseful in certain areas. Lon Chaney's films are classics too:lol....one of the most underrated of all-time, imo:

bFKSt_Q4gQA

wtf...I don't think I'm going to do any of that.

[CuckingFunt]

There are a log of old "classic" movies that I haven't seen. Citizen Kane, Casablanca, many more. Someone in the movie thread mentioned Treasure of Sierra Madre yesterday. It's one that I've always heard was great. So I started watching it last night. I got about halfway through but had to do some stuff around the house. Good movie so far. But two things that distracted me...

1) Seems like the acting in these old movies just isn't that great. I know actors like Bogart, Huston, etc. are recognized among the greats. But their delivery of lines, weird pauses, expressions, and mannerisms just seem forced at times. Is this just the way people talked (I'm not regarding the outdated phrases) and acted back then? Or have today's actors just had more time and training to seem more natural?

2) The score. While having some amusing moments, I don't think this movie was supposed to be a comedy drama. There were times where the music didn't seem to have anything to do with what was going on with the action. There's a scene where they are headed to find treasure and they're cutting through jungle, laboring, sweating. But the music is playing this odd happy tune that might have been perfect for a Three Stooges clip.

oh...one more

3) Unrealistic scenes. There are a couple of examples. But one was this scene where bandits are attacking the train that the main characters are on. Bogart, Walter Huston, and the other guy pull out pistols and start firing out the windows. The guns don't recoil at all. The characters don't seem very concerned either. They're just sitting in front of the window shooting away. None of it seemed "right".

Maybe when I finish the movie, I'll come away with a different take. But no matter how good the story is, I don't think this movie would stack up to any of the newer classics.

It's why I have a hard time trying to watch any of them. And I"m not sure that it can be dismissed as the difference in time periods. I still watch the movies from the 60's and 70's and I don't have these same issues.

Has Holllywood just gotten better at making movies?


1) You're seeing the tail end of traditional theatrical training. Method and realism would soon take over. Something like Marathon Man is a mini-study in the differences in old-school technique (Olivier) and new (Hoffman).

2) Yeah, scores got much more elaborate and specific to the plot as time went on.

3) Realism made a big advance in all aspects of film making during 50s and 60s and continued after that.

Chump pretty much nailed it.

I would say that if the differences in style prove too distracting in dramas, comedies can be a good way of connecting to older movies. The theatrical training can make drama look stilted, but it's fantastic for comedic timing. Bringing Up Baby, My Favorite Wife, Holiday, The Philadelphia Story, The Palm Beach Story, It Happened One Night, His Girl Friday, The Women, and on and on, all remain hilarious. Snappy dialog is, unfortunately, a lost art.

[cantthinkofanything]

Snappy dialog is, unfortunately, a lost art.

I totally agree. Good dialog peaked with 1983's Scarface and has never made it back.

[ohmwrecker]

I would add Arsenic and Old Lace to CF's list. Cary Grant gives the most manic and hilarious performances of all-time in that film.

[redzero]

I find several Hitchcock films enjoyable, so you should probably watch his movies if you haven't already.

[CuckingFunt]

I would add Arsenic and Old Lace to CF's list. Cary Grant gives the most manic and hilarious performances of all-time in that film.

Going off the top of my head is the only reason it wasn't there. Arsenic and Old Lace is one of my very favorites.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump pretty much nailed it.

I would say that if the differences in style prove too distracting in dramas, comedies can be a good way of connecting to older movies. The theatrical training can make drama look stilted, but it's fantastic for comedic timing. Bringing Up Baby, My Favorite Wife, Holiday, The Philadelphia Story, The Palm Beach Story, It Happened One Night, His Girl Friday, The Women, and on and on, all remain hilarious. Snappy dialog is, unfortunately, a lost art.Yeah, romantic/screwball comedies and musicals really had a seemingly effortless flow back then. Closest recent examples I can think of are from television: Sports Night (Sorkinesque dialog in drama is annoying) and Gilmore Girls (don't judge, my girlfriend at the time loved it).

Thinking back, there were some early movies that maybe could be called proto-realist because the subject matter (the Great Depression) required that kind of approach and one or more of the actors gave that kind of portrayal. The Grapes of Wrath and I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang come to mind.

[cantthinkofanything]

I find several Hitchcock films enjoyable, so you should probably watch his movies if you haven't already.

I have seen a lot of the Hitchcock movies. I never really had any issues with the acting or production. Probably because the stories were so tense and so well told.

Also used to watch the Alfred Hitchcock Hour along with Twilight Zone and Outer Limits. And later, Night Gallery.

[Avante]

Too much relies on special effects, sound tracks, directors needing to stun an audience, back in the day it was all about the acting involved. Movies were more thought out, the actors more realistic. That gang of...

Clark Gable
Gregory Peck
Marlon Brando
Henry Fonda
Jimmy Stewart
Gary Cooper
Humphrey Bogart

...as good as it got.

Give me...

On the Waterfront
Citizan Kane
Casablanca
High Noon
Treasure of the Sierra Madras

....any day of the week over what we see today.

[redzero]

the actors more realistic.


I do agree that the acting is noticeably worse in earlier films. One has to be a giant nostalgiafag to claim otherwise.

In what universe is the acting more realistic? Your nostalgia is clouding your mind.

[Avante]

In what universe is the acting more realistic? Your nostalgia is clouding your mind.

You're so right I'm so wrong. There ya go slick.

[redzero]

Thank you.

One has to be brain damaged to think that the acting in older movies was realistic. If anybody acted like that today, they would be laughed at.

People don't behave like that in real life. It's unnatural.

[Avante]

Thank you.

One has to be brain damaged to think that the acting in older movies was realistic. If anybody acted like that today, they would be laughed at.

People don't behave like that in real life. It's unnatural.

Whatever you say.

[AussieFanKurt]

Who's seen M (1931)

[AussieFanKurt]

Thank you.

One has to be brain damaged to think that the acting in older movies was realistic. If anybody acted like that today, they would be laughed at.

People don't behave like that in real life. It's unnatural.

I was just about to say that. Some of it was too corny back in the day

[Avante]

I was just about to say that. Some of it was too corny back in the day

That can be said about today's acting also.

Exactly what years do we go from old to modern?

[redzero]

Not really. There are bad actors, yes, but overall, modern acting is far more realistic.

Avante, are you honestly trying to say that the acting in the 50's was more realistic?

[AussieFanKurt]

Yeah realistic I think is the right word. Disregarding complete hacks like Miley Cyrus and other jokes that somehow have got in movies if you compare the actors of old cinema which I would say is before Bonnie and Clyde (1967) to today's then modern cinema has more realism. And the excuse of using SPX to wow audience's that is true to an extent but all the greatest modern films such as Pulp Fiction, The Godfather, Shawshank etc required little to no over the top SPX

[Avante]

Not really. There are bad actors, yes, but overall, modern acting is far more realistic.

Avante, are you honestly trying to say that the acting in the 50's was more realistic?

Whatever you say.

[silverblk mystix]

Thank you.

One has to be brain damaged to think that the acting in older movies was realistic. If anybody acted like that today, they would be laughed at.

People don't behave like that in real life. It's unnatural.

Maybe in the earlier era - it was natural.

The times have changed and people have a different way of acting/behaving.

Just look at a Shakespeare play- people haven't spoken that way in centuries- but it was the shit way back then.

[redzero]

I didn't ask you about what I say.

You are really terrible at answering extremely simple questions, which is why it's almost impossible to have a serious conversation with you.

[redzero]

Maybe in the earlier era - it was natural.

The times have changed and people have a different way of acting/behaving.

Just look at a Shakespeare play- people haven't spoken that way in centuries- but it was the shit way back then.

I honestly don't believe that people in the 30's, 40's and 50's behaved in that over-exaggerated way in their actual lives. Human beings just don't behave that way.

This is about the evolution of acting, really. In the era of silent films, actors mugged for the camera because they were limited from a technical standpoint, and that was the easiest way for them to convey emotion. With talkies came better acting, and over the years, acting has become much more natural.

[Avante]

I didn't ask you about what I say.

You are really terrible at answering extremely simple questions, which is why it's almost impossible to have a serious conversation with you.

I once posted a long long list of every 1000 yard rusher in NFL history, complete with the college those guys went to. So here comes this guy with..."you spelled Georgia wrong"....:rolleyes That's who you are, one of those only interested in making others look bad/stupid. That's why I'm not at all interested in dealing with you, you aren't looking to have an intelligent conversation with anyone, you are just looking to criticize and bug. That's all you are about and it sucks.

[redzero]

I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation with you. I just want to talk about acting with you, but I see that your feelings are hurt.

I guess this is my fault, really, because all you do is lie and deflect.

[Avante]

I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation with you. I just want to talk about acting with you, but I see that your feelings are hurt.

I guess this is my fault, really, because all you do is lie and deflect.

I thought you learned your lesson about calling me a liar? Or have you forgot?

Trust me little fella you aren't hurting feelings you are simply getting in the way.

[CuckingFunt]

Acting styles changed as Strasberg's "Method" became more prevalent.

That's not an opinion or something that's really up for debate.

[redzero]

I thought you learned your lesson about calling me a liar? Or have you forgot?

Trust me little fella you aren't hurting feelings you are simply getting in the way.

Just because you were right about one thing doesn't change the fact that you are a liar.

[CuckingFunt]

I honestly don't believe that people in the 30's, 40's and 50's behaved in that over-exaggerated way in their actual lives. Human beings just don't behave that way.

This is about the evolution of acting, really. In the era of silent films, actors mugged for the camera because they were limited from a technical standpoint, and that was the easiest way for them to convey emotion. With talkies came better acting, and over the years, acting has become much more natural.

The technical limitations certainly had a lot to do with it, but so did the fact that in the early years of film actors often came from a stage and/or vaudeville tradition. Performances weren't realistic because everyone on the soundstage was still playing to the balconies.

[Avante]

Just because you were right about one thing doesn't change the fact that you are a liar.

See that's exactly what I was talking about...BINGO! You are only here to bug people, why?

[admiralsnackbar]

The technical limitations certainly had a lot to do with it, but so did the fact that in the early years of film actors often came from a stage and/or vaudeville tradition. Performances weren't realistic because everyone on the soundstage was still playing to the balconies.
Insofar as one can be right about this, you are quite right.

[redzero]

See that's exactly what I was talking about...BINGO! You are only here to bug people, why?

Why are you more interested in whining about the same old things instead of talking about the subject at hand? This thread is about old movies. If you want to bitch, take it somewhere else.

[Avante]

Why are you more interested in whining about the same old things instead of talking about the subject at hand? This thread is about old movies. If you want to bitch, take it somewhere else.

You talk movies by calling people a liar? How about toning it down a bit and trying to be cool, ya reckon? You don't call people a liar then..."if you wanna bitch"... are you kidding me? Try dropping all that bullshit if you plan on talking to me, got it?

Dude, why do you do nothing but criticize? Answer my question. That's all you do, why?

[redzero]

I answered that question a million times. You are dishonest, because you know that I don't complain in every one of my posts or threads.

If you don't believe me, search my posts. You like to do that all the time, so do it now.


You talk movies by calling people a liar?

No. That was after you tried to change the subject.

I'm tired of you whining. Are you going to talk about old movies or not? These stupid, whiny questions of yours are played out and irrelevant to the matter at hand.

[Avante]

I answered that question a million times. You are dishonest, because you know that I don't complain in every one of my posts or threads.

If you don't believe me, search my posts. You like to do that all the time, so do it now.



No. That was after you tried to change the subject.

I'm tired of you whining. Are you going to talk about old movies or not? These stupid, whiny questions of yours are played out and irrelevant to the matter at hand.

You really do need to grow up and learn how to talk with others. No way in hell will anyone want to deal with somebody who acts like you do. You have no idea how to exchange thoughts, ideas, debate. You are too busy trying to be a little punk. Until you do learn how to act don't bother me with what you show now. I have other things I'd rather do that read some smartass punk trying to argue every fucking thing.

See ya~~~~~~~~~~~

[AussieFanKurt]

Avante trolling as always, we really need to learn to ignore it

[Avante]

Avante trolling as always, we really need to learn to ignore it

I don't troll, I was simply treating the guy the way he treats everyone else. Could it be he was trolling?

Now if you'd like to talk old movies cool:hat I've seen most of the old flicks. And if we talk the great actors we will always see....Marlon Brando, Spencer Tracey, Robert Mitchum, John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Boggie and other pre 1970 actors on the list.

[redzero]

And there are other post-1970's actors on that list.

What is your point?

If you want to say that you liked the acting more in the 30's, 40's, and 50's, that's fine. I disagree with you, but that's fine.

But you claimed that the acting was more "realistic," which simply isn't true.

[AussieFanKurt]

Sorry but John Wayne was a fucking shit actor. Clint Eastwood was far far superior. I really don't understand how John Wayne has any respect, he was in shit westerns and was a shit actor. Eastwood ftw

[Avante]

Sorry but John Wayne was a fucking shit actor. Clint Eastwood was far far superior. I really don't understand how John Wayne has any respect, he was in shit westerns and was a shit actor. Eastwood ftw

That's your opinion one I don't share. I think Eastwood was a shit actor and still is. John Wayne one of the great actors. And if you did any reasearch on just who the great actors were you'd see the Duke highly respected.

[AussieFanKurt]

That's your opinion one I don't share. I think Eastwood was a shit actor and still is. John Wayne one of the great actors. And if you did any reasearch on just who the great actors were you'd see the Duke highly respected.

:lmao Eastwood a shit actor, fair enough I guess.... I sure hope you think he isn't a shit director because you'd be delusional. Research is completely irrelevant as opinions on acting is completely subjective.

[Avante]

:lmao Eastwood a shit actor, fair enough I guess.... I sure hope you think he isn't a shit director because you'd be delusional. Research is completely irrelevant as opinions on acting is completely subjective.

Delusional is thinking John Wayne was a shit actor. And you are wrong about research. You can be subjective and uninformed. I go with what those you know the subject/topic say.

[AussieFanKurt]

Delusional is thinking John Wayne was a shit actor. And you are wrong about research. You can be subjective and uninformed. I go with what those you know the subject/topic say.

In your opinion...You love to spin that angle you are always right and so high and mighty, I am not saying you're wrong I am saying that this is my opinion. Good on you for liking Wayne, I don't

But you would be delusional if you didn't respect Clint's film making

[Avante]

In your opinion...You love to spin that angle you are always right and so high and mighty, I am not saying you're wrong I am saying that this is my opinion. Good on you for liking Wayne, I don't

But you would be delusional if you didn't respect Clint's film making

You missed the point. I was actually talking about John Wayne being liked by most movie goers not just me or my opinion. His success as an actor pretty much tells us about the impact he's made, you don't make that sort of impact in Moviedom being a shitty actor.

I don't know enought about film making to have an opinion.

[Fabbs]

3) Unrealistic scenes.
The fight scenes. :lol HWood has come a long way.


Maybe when I finish the movie, I'll come away with a different take. But no matter how good the story is, I don't think this movie would stack up to any of the newer classics.
Totally disagree. The storylines far outweight all the overblown FXs of todays lacking storylines.

And the actors better today? Don't see it at all.

[AussieFanKurt]

You missed the point. I was actually talking about John Wayne being liked by most movie goers not just me or my opinion. His success as an actor pretty much tells us about the impact he's made, you don't make that sort of impact in Moviedom being a shitty actor.

I don't know enought about film making to have an opinion.

A lot of music lovers like Lady Gaga, someone I do not like personally. Popular opinion does not equate to actually being good. I'm sure you agree Lady Gaga has been successful and has had an "impact", does that mean she is an amazing artist? According to your logic.. yes

[Avante]

A lot of music lovers like Lady Gaga, someone I do not like personally. Popular opinion does not equate to actually being good. I'm sure you agree Lady Gaga has been successful and has had an "impact", does that mean she is an amazing artist? According to your logic.. yes

Lady Gaga wouldn't make any...Best Artists...Lists. There are soooooooooo many far superior to her. I guarantee you have a...Best Actor...list/poll and John Wayne will be there. You disagree?

If you are a serious music afficinado you aren't going to be all that impressed with Lady Gaga, if you are some young kid...sure.

[AussieFanKurt]

Lady Gaga wouldn't make any...Best Artists...Lists. There are soooooooooo many far superior to her. I guarantee you have a...Best Actor...list/poll and John Wayne will be there. You disagree?

If you are a serious music afficinado you aren't going to be all that impressed with Lady Gaga, if you are some young kid...sure.

My point is that popularity doesn't mean shit. And of course he would be on a best actor list but that is completely irrelevant. I don't like him as an actor, and don't really care what lists he's on. Maybe you'll realise this soon..

[Avante]

My point is that popularity doesn't mean shit. And of course he would be on a best actor list but that is completely irrelevant. I don't like him as an actor, and don't really care what lists he's on. Maybe you'll realise this soon..

Couldn't be more wrong if you tried, popularity means everything if you are in show business. If you lack it nobody buys your music, nobody goes to your movies. As we know the bottom line is $$$$$$$$, trust me John Wayne made a lot of that for the studios that put out the pictures he starred in, you saw....JOHN WAYNE...on the marquee it was going to be a great movie.

[AussieFanKurt]

Couldn't be more wrong if you tried, popularity means everything if you are in show business. If you lack it nobody buys your music, nobody goes to your movies. As we know the bottom line is $$$$$$$$, trust me John Wayne made a lot of that for the studios that put out the pictures he starred in, you saw....JOHN WAYNE...on the marquee it was going to be a great movie.

Now I'm just getting chronically trolled and I know it because you see my point but lead away from it. I have said I personally don't like him, can you understand this at all? I know he has been successful etc. but I am not a big fan of him christ almighty is it that hard to understand..

[Avante]

Now I'm just getting chronically trolled and I know it because you see my point but lead away from it. I have said I personally don't like him, can you understand this at all? I know he has been successful etc. but I am not a big fan of him christ almighty is it that hard to understand..

Dude, there are only a few thousand football/music/track boards I could be on right now talking football/music/track why waste my time....trolling?....are you kidding me? Do yoiu even know what trolling is? So you don't like John Wayne, ok I got that, but do you really know enought about what he's done to have an educated opinion?

Look how many times do we see ..there is a God///no there isn't...is everyone trolling there? Cool this ridiculous....I'm being trolled........come on man I'm not 14 ok? I talk, I give opinions, little kids troll...ok?

[AussieFanKurt]

Well why do you keep trying to convince me or something, I don't even know what you are trying to do. I don't like him and yes I've seen enough of his movies to have an opinion. I don't even see why you care so much. When you said you didn't like Clint, did I try and force you to like him due to educated opinions etc. No.. because it's damn hard to change one's opinion. So if you know I don't like him what are you trying to do?

[Avante]

Well why do you keep trying to convince me or something, I don't even know what you are trying to do. I don't like him and yes I've seen enough of his movies to have an opinion. I don't even see why you care so much. When you said you didn't like Clint, did I try and force you to like him due to educated opinions etc. No.. because it's damn hard to change one's opinion. So if you know I don't like him what are you trying to do?

I just find it strange how anyone wouldn't like John Wayne, so I had to question your knowledge of his performances. Have you really seen enought of his movies to be able to have any sort of opinion based on anything of substance? Apparently you think you have, ok ...cool.

I've seen all of Eastwoods movies except his latest one, love the movies!!!! They just don't take a great actor to pull them off.

7qQhODwivLU (http://7qQhODwivLU)



Ok done with it.

[AussieFanKurt]

Mate, I find a lot of thing strange in life.

Regarding "old" movies have we yet put a concrete time when a movie is considered old. I really consider Bonnie and Clyde to be the start of "modern cinema"

Thoughts?

[Avante]

Mate, I find a lot of thing strange in life.

Regarding "old" movies have we yet put a concrete time when a movie is considered old. I really consider Bonnie and Clyde to be the start of "modern cinema"

Thoughts?

I don't think we can just pick a movie or a year and say....oldies stop pre/modern cinema post. As we know Bonnie and Clyde came out around 66-68 or so. I 'd have to go back before that, I was thinking early 1960's would work. Most things changed dramatically around then.

[leemajors]

good thread till avante came in.

[leemajors]

Mate, I find a lot of thing strange in life.

Regarding "old" movies have we yet put a concrete time when a movie is considered old. I really consider Bonnie and Clyde to be the start of "modern cinema"

Thoughts?

I would say it started to change when directors actually took control of their films. Probably mid 60s or so. Before Strangelove you rarely found war films that were not pro-war propaganda.

[Ryan Fitzpatrick]

I would say it started to change when directors actually took control of their films. Probably mid 60s or so. Before Strangelove you rarely found war films that were not pro-war propaganda.
Paths To Glory was one...but to be fair that was Kubrick too

[Avante]

good thread till avante came in.

Avante or redzero?

[DMC]

1) You're seeing the tail end of traditional theatrical training. Method and realism would soon take over. Something like Marathon Man is a mini-study in the differences in old-school technique (Olivier) and new (Hoffman).

2) Yeah, scores got much more elaborate and specific to the plot as time went on.

3) Realism made a big advance in all aspects of film making during 50s and 60s and continued after that.

Thank you James Lipton.

[DMC]

I don't think we can just pick a movie or a year and say....oldies stop pre/modern cinema post. As we know Bonnie and Clyde came out around 66-68 or so. I 'd have to go back before that, I was thinking early 1960's would work. Most things changed dramatically around then.
Why do you have to make a fucking list for everything anyone on here mentions? Are you OCD?

[Avante]

Why do you have to make a fucking list for everything anyone on here mentions? Are you OCD?

Why do you care what I do? I need to run things by you first, hahahaha!!!!!!!! You that wrapped up in everyone else?

[The Gemini Method]

Paths To Glory was one...but to be fair that was Kubrick too

:toast

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDaFcQJC4z8

[Capt Bringdown]

It's Friedkin Saturday!
To Live And Die In LA (1985)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5JI_RclmIg
A bit of a shite 80's trailer that doesn't do justice to this film. One of the best car-chase sequences ever, ala French Connection (another Friedkin) or Bullitt. Bomb-ass thriller.

Sorcerer (1977)
Friedkin's masterpiece, IMO. The jungle bridge sequence is bad-ass. This is a remake of a French classic that far surpasses the original in my view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BDbIzovuos

Friedkin awesome!