Fanedit Forums

Full Version: Random movie thoughts
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(05-13-2019, 08:11 PM)Neglify Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-13-2019, 07:38 PM)MovieFreakedMind Wrote: [ -> ]Intolerance

My review:

Quote:Long story short: I didn't love it but I recognize it's a great piece of cinema history.

I'm not big into silent films. I think the only feature-length silent movie I've given 5 stars to has been Nosferatu. This was a test of endurance. The inter-titles cards looked ugly to me and started giving me a headache. But, it's amazing what D.W. Griffith was able to do 100 years ago and it's clear to me how he shaped a lot of modern movies in terms of story-telling and techniques.

4 out of 5 stars

I'm sure TM2YC has more positive things to say about it.

My review:

https://letterboxd.com/tm2yc/film/intole...-the-ages/

My advice if you want to get into silent films is:

1. Start with the latter silent films: Initially avoid early ones, even if they are classics like 'Intolerance'. The techniques of movie making were still being invented so having no camera movement, no closeups, no cross-cutting, no anything, plus terrible exaggerated acting can be pretty alienating. Stick to stuff between 1923 and 1928 at first. It's a short window but it falls after Director's were still learning and before they'd discovered sound.

2. If you can't see it in HD, don't bother, or wait for it be restored: It's perhaps obvious but when there is no dialogue, you are 100% relying on the actors faces/eyes to convey the emotion. If it's a blurry mess, then you will miss those nuances and have a bad time. Plus those old nitrate movies look stunning in pin-sharp HD.

3. The score matters: A repetitive piano score can kill the film, a big Carl Davis orchestral score can make it. So see what is available and choose one that works for you.
I'm not really a fan of Disney remaking their classics.

Animation fans have worked so hard to make that genre of film feel legitimate to a general audience who dismisses them as kid's stuff, not worth much. By remaking the very films that helped change that perception, it is de-legitimizing the art form, in a way. It's very frustrating.

A general audience will look at these and say, "Oh, it's a real movie now". But the fact of the matter is, the originals were real movies too.
I think my first silent film was Lang's Metropolis, which is incredible.
^^^ Mine too. Awesome film.
But animation isn't a genre, it's just an artform to convey other genres. By calling animation itself a genre, wouldn't that make you, Handman, part of the problem?

In all seriousness, I completely agree when it comes to their 1:1 remakes, they're pointless and stupid. But when the plot is reworked, like Malifacent or Dumbo, I have no problem with it. That being said, I'm super excited for Aladdin.
(05-14-2019, 12:14 PM)jrWHAG42 Wrote: [ -> ]But animation isn't a genre, it's just an artform to convey other genres. By calling animation itself a genre, wouldn't that make you, Handman, part of the problem?

Well, fry me in butter and call me a catfish, you're right.
I've loved silent film since before I ever watched a silent film.
(05-14-2019, 12:00 PM)Handman Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not really a fan of Disney remaking their classics.

Animation fans have worked so hard to make that genre of film feel legitimate to a general audience who dismisses them as kid's stuff, not worth much.  By remaking the very films that helped change that perception, it is de-legitimizing the art form, in a way. It's very frustrating.

A general audience will look at these and say, "Oh, it's a real movie now".  But the fact of the matter is, the originals were real movies too.

You're making the dubious assumption that these remakes qualify as real movies.
I'm not making that assumption.  I'm telling you what the general audience thinks, and that's what I've heard from them.
Thanks everyone for your insight on Intolerance. I've seen a couple of 1920s silent films, including Passion of Joan of Ark and Nosferatu, both of which I really enjoyed. I've seen parts of Birth of a Nation just to get an idea of its historical impact on cinema and that was a miserable slog to sit through, not so much because of the filmmaking but because I was disturbed by its ahistorical, racist portrayal the Civil War and Reconstruction. I'll be watching the Eureka Video restoration of Intolerance from 2014 which I've heard good things about so I'll be watching it in what seems to be the best possible quality.