|
Post by Vits on Nov 1, 2018 15:42:18 GMT
To this day, people still debate on how to define the epic genre. Honestly, it's something you recognize when you see it. I recognized that LAWRENCE OF ARABIA was a part of it. Not just because of the plot's international conflict or the things that reflected the big budget (costumes, sets, etc.). Even details like long takes of dozens of horses running. I'm glad that David Lean understood how to make a movie epic, but he forgot about other aspects like pacing. There's nothing wrong with showing one action for several seconds, as long as you're trying to set an atmosphere. Here, that doesn't feel like the intention, because it's not a moody drama. I won't accuse Lean of being an amateur who didn't know when to yell "Cut!" He knew what he was doing, but he didn't know that maybe it wasn't the right decision. All those extra seconds combined resulted in a movie without enough content to support 3 1/2 hours. However, I didn't dislike it. Peter O'Toole and Omar Sharif's performances are good, the music score and cinematography are great, and a good chunk of the lines (especially the title character's) is witty. 5/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 1, 2018 16:20:00 GMT
Well. I should hope not. Have you seen early Lean—Oliver Twist, Great Expectations, Brief Encounter? They may be (1) more to your taste and (2) a better introduction to Lean’s world and style.
I’m all for differing opinions, but honestly—don’t you want to make an effort to understand why it’s considered so much of a classic?
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 1, 2018 16:22:20 GMT
I'm glad he didn't yell "cut". They don't make movies like this anymore and likely never again. 10/10.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 1, 2018 19:44:26 GMT
Well. I should hope not. Have you seen early Lean— Oliver Twist, Great Expectations, Brief Encounter? don’t you want to make an effort to understand why it’s considered so much of a classic? 1) I've seen his version of OLIVER TWIST. I didn't like it. 2) What makes you say I don't make it?
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 1, 2018 19:51:07 GMT
Well. I should hope not. Have you seen early Lean— Oliver Twist, Great Expectations, Brief Encounter? don’t you want to make an effort to understand why it’s considered so much of a classic? 1) I've seen his version of OLIVER TWIST. I didn't like it. 2) What makes you say I don't make it? 1) I fear that what poelzig mentioned, that you have a prejudice against older movies, is true. 2) Your review makes no effort to deal with this fact. It’s just “my opinion, my opinion, my opinion.” The majority of great film-critics, by the way, don’t just say “I liked it” or not; they analyze a movie. If you don’t want to do that, fine, but then you’re opening yourself up to criticisms.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 1, 2018 23:27:34 GMT
1) I fear that what poelzig mentioned, that you have a prejudice against older movies, is true. 2) Your review makes no effort to deal with this fact. It’s just “my opinion, my opinion, my opinion.” The majority of great film-critics, by the way, don’t just say “I liked it” or not; they analyze a movie. 1) It's not. I think you just haven't read enough of my comments. 2) But this post was a comment, not a review. There's a difference.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 1, 2018 23:29:05 GMT
Vits, I respectfully but strongly disagree.
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Nov 1, 2018 23:56:48 GMT
Vits , I respectfully but strongly disagree. Ditto. Looking through his ratings and comments, I'm afraid I would say the same thing 95% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 2, 2018 0:06:50 GMT
Vits , I respectfully but strongly disagree. Ditto. Looking through his ratings and comments, I'm afraid I would say the same thing 95% of the time. What’s extraordinary is that he claims not to have a bias against older films. I wouldn’t even mind it as much if he just admitted it (m-slovak79, for example, admits it). But this guy posts his reviews everywhere, says that he doesn’t consider them reviews, gives nearly every old movie a negative rating (usually involving “boring”), and then says he doesn’t have a prejudice against old movies! Oy. Anyway, I shouldn’t get this irritated.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 2, 2018 11:06:54 GMT
Ditto. Looking through his ratings and comments, I'm afraid I would say the same thing 95% of the time. What’s extraordinary is that he claims not to have a bias against older films. I wouldn’t even mind it as much if he just admitted it (m-slovak79, for example, admits it). But this guy posts his reviews everywhere, says that he doesn’t consider them reviews, gives nearly every old movie a negative rating (usually involving “boring”), and then says he doesn’t have a prejudice against old movies! Oy. Anyway, I shouldn’t get this irritated. 1) But it's true. Click on the link I left in the O.P. and you'll see positive grades for other classics. If you don't feel like it, click here and scroll down to "top-rated years." I mean, if you want to grasp straws for reasons why someone wouldn't like certain classics (even though it's all subjective), be my guest. I would actually tell you that you have a point if you referred to the movies where I only write the grade. However, in this case, I wrote my thoughts. They're not deep, but they're not silly borderline troll sentences like "OMG! Old and long movie! It automatically sucks" and such (WarrenPeace, anyone?). Also, these things that you said imply that I only like modern movies. Have you seen how many of them I give bad grades to? Therefore... I strongly and respectfully disagree with you. 2) A comment is more superficial than a review. I only review a movie when I feel like I can really anaylize it. That's why I separate them on my blog. That's why I only do a video when it's a review. That's why I only write "review" on the title of thread when it's one.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Nov 2, 2018 15:54:11 GMT
It's just one of the greatest movies ever made.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 2, 2018 16:26:01 GMT
Well....I respectfully disagree. I consider it close to one of the most perfect movies ever made. But thanks for the post. It's a reminder that we have different perspectives and everyone derives different utility from the same product.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Nov 3, 2018 0:18:55 GMT
Some like great movies and some don't. Some call crappy movies great and then diss truly great movies. Some without any apparent sort of experience in film making can complain that one of THE acknowledged great directors didn't know what he was doing … at that point the reaction becomes <<yawn>> and
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 3, 2018 18:54:04 GMT
Some without any apparent sort of experience in film making can complain that one of THE acknowledged great directors didn't know what he was doing … Please, read it again, because I didn't say that. Also, I do have some experience. Not enough to be on the level of someone like Lean, but I don't think that's required in order to talk about a movie.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 7, 2018 8:56:08 GMT
you don't like older films However I think that there is one movie that I would personally point to , that would help your appreciation for older films. 1) Click on the link I left in the O.P. and you'll see positive grades for other classics. If you don't feel like it, click here and scroll down to "top-rated years." 2) Which one?
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 7, 2018 13:33:59 GMT
So, Vits, I wouldn’t have done this if you hadn’t kept asking for us to do this, but I took a glance at your website and your IMDb profile. One thing that struck my eye immediately was the ratings chart to the right—“ratings analysis by year.” From 1912 to the ‘90s, it was pretty low—pretty much the same across. When it hit the ‘90s, it shot up, meaning that you gave higher ratings to movie from those years and after. In fact, on the whole, you gave higher ratings to post-’90s movies than to any decade previous. That’s general, of course. As you say, your top-rated years are 1975, 1968, 1976, 1995, 1982, 1971, 1984, 2000, 1986, and 2017. What’s extraordinary is that 1960 and any year before does not make your list at all. That’s not to say that post-1960 movies aren’t “classic” (we had a post early on here asking, “What is classic?”), it’s just an observation. When poelzig, OldAussie, @joetorrence, and I, among many others, write that you may have just not like older movies, I think that’s what we mean. (Obviously Lawrence of Arabia is ’62, albeit more traditional in its filmmaking than some other contemporary works; I’m speaking in generalities.) Which is fine; you’re more than entitled to your opinion, and more than welcome to post on the Classics board anyway. But we’re not making this presumption up out of thin air, we’re getting it from somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Nov 7, 2018 14:04:53 GMT
To each their own. The film is rightly revered as a bona fide classic, in the grand scheme of things that's what matters.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 7, 2018 15:41:42 GMT
One thing that struck my eye immediately was the ratings chart to the right—“ratings analysis by year.” From 1912 to the ‘90s, it was pretty low—pretty much the same across. When it hit the ‘90s, it shot up, meaning that you gave higher ratings to movie from those years and after. In fact, on the whole, you gave higher ratings to post-’90s movies than to any decade previous. As you say, your top-rated years are 1975, 1968, 1976, 1995, 1982, 1971, 1984, 2000, 1986, and 2017. What’s extraordinary is that 1960 and any year before does not make your list at all. That’s not to say that post-1960 movies aren’t “classic” (we had a post early on here asking, “What is classic?”), it’s just an observation. 1) No, that means that I've seen many more post-90s movies than pre-90s movies. It doesn't mean I'm not interested in older movies of course. I like going to the cinema and they almost only show new movies. Modern movies are also a priority on TV programming (which is why there have to be channels dedicated to older movies). 2) I have given positive grades (even 10s) to movies made before 1960; just not enough for that specific section of the site to calculate an average. Yes, that makes them a minority in my lists of favorite movies, but... if I had a bias against older movies, I wouldn't have given a 10 to any of them, right? Heck, I'm surprised users are saying these things in this thread in particular. A 5 isn't a positive grade, but it's not like I hated this movie. To each their own. The film is rightly revered as a bona fide classic, in the grand scheme of things that's what matters. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Nov 7, 2018 16:44:44 GMT
The worst thing about this thread is that it is more of a criticism of the OP than a discussion of the movie. I am sure the OP was trying to initiate a discussion. So I will offer my own observations.
This is, in my opinion, one of the best films ever made. But it is also one of those films that you absolutely have to see on a big screen to fully appreciate it. The bigger your television, the more your enjoyment but you only get the full effect on a cinema screen. When I first read about LoA in a movie review book some time in the mid 1980s, this was mentioned. So I decided never to see it unless I could see it in a movie theatre. I am glad I waited. Many years later a local college showed it as part of a film series and I got to see it for free in all its glory. To answer one of the remarks in the first post, I can understand how the long takes of horses running and other action scenes might be more tedious on a small television than it would be in a theatre in which the screen takes up your entire field of vision. But if you see it the way it was intended, you have the full splendor of it, almost like actually being in the desert. Unfortunately, not all of us will be able to enjoy the film as its original audience did.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 7, 2018 17:51:23 GMT
it is also one of those films that you absolutely have to see on a big screen to fully appreciate it. I can understand how the long takes of horses running and other action scenes might be more tedious on a small television than it would be in a theatre 1) I find it very interesting that so many users say that without asking me first how I watched it. Yes, I watched it on TV, but there was the possibility of me watching it in a special theatrical showing. 2) Oh, I only mentioned the horse part as an example of why this movie is epic. I didn't find that tedious.
|
|