• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

TM2YC's 1001 Movies (Chronological up to page 25/post 481)

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
If you knocked off Suspense, Thriller, Mystery, etc. and stuck to strictly Horror, do you think the number of those movies in the book is greater than Rom-coms (sticking to a strict definition of those, too)? I honestly wonder if there's many of either...

Not sure. The 1001 list skews toward the pretentious and arty, rather than the popular, which makes it good for seeing films I wouldn't normally gravitate toward. It's missing Robocop and Predator for example which is rank insanity in my book. If you don't think you need to see those two before you die, then you don't deserve to live in the first place :LOL:.

It does have several horror classics e.g. Evil Dead, Texas Chainsaw, Videodrome, The Thing, Halloween, Night/Dawn of the Dead, Carrie, Rosemary's Baby, Shining, Argento movies, Ring, The Silence of the Lambs, Peeping Tom, Hitchcock movies and lots of early silent/talkie horror.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
The film critic Mark Kermode and Kim Newman do a great BBC series where they attempt to define different movie genres and the key ingredients that make them great. They've made 14 so far and they did one on romcoms:


I've been meaning to rewatch it for ages. Straight away he mentions Charlie Chaplin's 'City Lights', one of my all-time favourite movies.
 
Last edited:

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
51192803589_4de6a658d6_o.jpg


The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Director: Peter Jackson
Country: New Zealand
Length: 178 minutes
Type: Epic, Fantasy

I probably hadn't seen the theatrical cut of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' since the year it came out but it was playing at my local recently re-opened cinema! Although it's 30-minutes shorter than the extended version, it doesn't feel like anything very noticeable is missing (except maybe Galadriel's gifts). It's a clever bit of editing, so much action is condensed into a constantly moving 3-hours. What a treat to hear Howard Shore's thundering score on a big theatre setup again. Every time his main heroic Fellowship theme (whatever it's called?) played I got goosebumps. FotR might be the last epic model based FX movie, even the two sequels relied much more on CGI. I was admiring the many shots where the characters are composited into impressive model sets, which would surely be done digitally now. The relatively few CGI FX that are used are clearly teetering on the bleeding edge of what was possible in 2001 but most of them hold up to movie screen sized scrutiny.

 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
I always felt the Oscars missed the boat by saving praise for Return of the King when this one had (I'd argue) the harder job of setting up the world and getting you to care about the characters enough to watch two more films. I actually do really appreciate all the extra world-building and character-building in the Extended Version, which is my favorite film of any of the 6 LOTR or Hobbit movies in any cut (or the animated ones, for that matter). I'm an absolute uber-fan who went to an LOTR marathon for the pre-screening of Return of the King, so I realize my enthusiasm is disproportionate to most, but I really think this is one of the best films of all time. It should easily make anyone's Top 100 list. Are you going to follow up with rewatches of the other two? I don't know if I could stop myself at just the one...
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
Also, the commentary tracks on the EE are some of the best I've heard for any release. It helps to love the movie a lot so find everything about it fascinating, but the way they cut between various cast and crew members on the different tracks means there are no dead moments where no one is saying anything interesting. These are the only films I've watched all the way through with all the commentaries!
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
^ All of the above!

I've watched all of the bonus features from start to finish at least 3 times. The main making of LotR documentary series might be in my top 100 movies. The four commentaries are terrific but I like the PJ and Philippa Boyens one the best where they are talking about their editorial decisions script wise, which bits of dialogue were from where in the book etc. Boyens really had an encyclopedic knowledge of the book.

They're doing a staggered re-release of the trilogy in theatres. I've already got tickets booked for the next two parts in the coming weeks.

By the way, I did some more in-depth reviews of the two trilogies last year: https://forums.fanedit.org/threads/the-lord-of-the-rings.2746/post-351570
 

Racerx1969

Well-known member
Messages
265
Reaction score
148
Trophy Points
58
I waited decades for a good treatment of LotR. My wife and I were in the midnight release lines for all three movies, grabbed the EE as soon as we could and have watched them multiple times, including all the extras and commentaries. While I enjoy the various fanedits I've watched so far (and am still not done there--I'll eventually be bugging some of you editors), I still enjoy the original edits warts and all.

As I recall, these movies are what really launched Weta similar to how Star Wars launched ILM.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
51195158990_49daa890f9_o.jpg


Taxi Driver (1976)
Director: Martin Scorsese
Country: United States
Length: 114 minutes
Type: Drama

I've seen 'Taxi Driver' many a time, it's a classic and I've been lucky enough to see it on the big screen before, so this was the second time at a re-opened lockdown cinema. A film being transgressive enough to get an UK 18-certificte these days is a rarity but this is still an 18 after 45-years. You could hear the gasps of shock from the small social-distanced audience. It's not fun violence, or cathartic blood letting, it's nasty, grimy and disturbing. The counterpoint is Bernard Herrmann's lush, sometimes romantic, sometimes foreboding score, which he amazingly completed recording on his last day alive. It's always fascinating speculating which parts of what you see and hear is real, or just Travis' warped perception of reality. Martin Scorsese has made no secret of how much Michael Powell's 'Peeping Tom' has influenced his work and you can really feel it hear. Like all the close-ups on eyes, the saturated colours, particularly red and a scene where the disturbed anti-protagonist shows a girl a weird film, not realising it's weird. I must rewatch too.

 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
51203213638_9236c3f5b4.jpg


Festen (1998)
Director: Thomas Vinterberg
Country: Denmark
Length: 105 minutes
Type: Drama, Comedy

The first "Dogme 95" film; basically a no-frills type of film-making, no lights, no props, no sets, hand-held only, no sound/music dubbing etc. Plus Thomas Vinterberg shot it on a 90s consumer grade camcorder so it looks like cr*p but the lack of any of that artifice was actually refreshing and immersive. Especially since it takes place at family gathering, making it feel like you are watching an embarrassing home movie. Without any beautiful lighting, score, or a rich sound mix to distract you, you can really appreciate the other things like editing, shot selection, camera movement, writing and of course the acting, which is sensational. I wouldn't want every movie to look like this because I love a beautifully shot film but it makes a nice change. It all takes place at a hotel where a wealthy family patriarch is toasting his 60th birthday but his damaged grown-up children decide that now is the time to reveal some dark secrets as the alcohol flows. Sometimes it's very funny but sometimes it's very dark and disturbing. At one point they drink 'Gammel Dansk', which is the worst tasting alcohol I think I've ever drank (I foolishly bought myself a large bottle of it), so be warned... unless you're Danish, then you've probably acquired the taste.


 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
51226155934_832d2f2567_o.jpg


The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Director: Peter Jackson
Country: New Zealand
Length: 179 minutes
Type: Epic, Fantasy

I was expecting this cinema re-release of 'The Two Towers' to be the Theatrical Cut like FotR was but the BBFC title card said it was the Extended Edition, so I was disappointed, as I was curious to revisit the version I first saw. Then I noticed it was the TC after all. An early obvious difference was in the EE Frodo says "Nothing ever dampens your spirits does it Sam" and Sam replies "Those rain clouds might" and we wryly cut to the Hobbits huddled in the rain. In the TC it just does a non sequitur cut to them hiking. Where the shorter cut of FotR felt beautifully streamlined, the TC version of 'The Two Towers' is noticeably choppy, especially in the opening section. It's chasing back and forth in an effort to simultaneously continue the now separate three stories of the fellowship, plus explain all the new (initially) separate Rohan characters/plot and introduce Gollum. The Aragorn death fake out was questionable but at least in the EE it gives us the lovely Brago horse subplot, in the short cut he's supposedly dead then alive 30-seconds later in a rather pointless way. Despite those narrative wobbles, 'The Two Towers' is still a marvellous experience on the big screen but the EE is the way to go in future. Andy Serkis' motion-capture Gollum performance still holds up 19-years later. Sure some of the shadows are a bit hazy and the skin textures are occasionally soft but it's such a fully rounded performance, which moves like a flesh and blood actor.

 

asterixsmeagol

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
2,012
Reaction score
924
Trophy Points
128
It's been too long since I've rewatched LOTR for me to remember: Do any of the home releases of FOTR have the original weird dark Gollum from the theatrical release, or did he get replaced with the updated model they used for TTT/ROTK? I have the DVD Theatrical and Blu-ray extended but if anybody knows without me having to find the dicscs it would be nice. If they do use the dark Gollum on DVD/Blu-ray, did they swap him out in the new re-rendered 4k editions?
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
It's been too long since I've rewatched LOTR for me to remember: Do any of the home releases of FOTR have the original weird dark Gollum from the theatrical release, or did he get replaced with the updated model they used for TTT/ROTK? I have the DVD Theatrical and Blu-ray extended but if anybody knows without me having to find the dicscs it would be nice. If they do use the dark Gollum on DVD/Blu-ray, did they swap him out in the new re-rendered 4k editions?

I'm pretty sure the FotR Gollum has not been replaced in any release.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
51239082058_d2362f886e_o.jpg


The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Director: Peter Jackson
Country: New Zealand
Length: 201 minutes
Type: Epic, Fantasy

I'd booked a ticket to this cinema screening of the Theatrical Cut of 'The Return of the King' well in advance but on the appointed date I was exhausted from working a long day and felt dreadfully sick, so I was not looking forward to a 3.5-hour screening, I almost didn't go. I'm glad I went because the total cinematic perfection of the film, the relentless pacing, soul stirring music, beautiful acting and general vast epicness put a smile right back on my face, I felt like a million bucks! The moment when the beacons are lit and the camera moves from mountain, to mountain with Howard Shore's music gave me full-body goosebumps. I also got the feels on that sweeping shot where Gandalf wheels round on Shadowfax to guide the retreating soldiers back to Minas Tirith. I'd probably not seen this shorter version since the original theatrical run, wow does it fly along. I've always rated Fellowship over the other two but I don't know right now. It builds from one incredible moment to another, never letting up... until that ending section. You really do feel the slowness of the end in this shorter version, not something I feel in the longer and more evenly paced Extended Cut. Plus the absence of Saruman and The Mouth of Sauron is noticeable and awkward. Aragorn's speech at the black gates always sounds a bit underwhelming to me, especially after several other rousing speeches from other characters. I could maybe complain that Gimli is relegated to just comic relief but what comic relief! His "That still only counts as one!" is one of the all-time one-liners and concludes the big battle on a massive high. These are nitpicks though. It's still incredible how Weta Digital and Weta Workshop pulled this off nearly two decades ago. Every other shot is like a huge romantic fantasy painting, with hundreds of characters and creatures filling the frame. Despite all the action and FX, Peter Jackson always keeps the heroes and their emotions center stage.

 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
51254422024_512125468d_o.jpg


Star Wars (1977)
Director: George Lucas
Country: United States / United Kingdom
Length: 121 minutes
Type: Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Adventure

I decided to christen my new 65" TV with the 4K77 35mm fan-scan, it looked absolutely marvellous! When you've watched 'Star Wars' a thousand times, the first half does drag. It's almost at the exact mid point (not including credits) when the film explodes into life with Han's blaster bolts demolishing Docking Bay 94. I hadn't appreciated before how much the tone changes from that point. Threepio's griping notwithstanding, the first part is fairly dry, serious and lacking in humour. Han's cocky braggadocio, Chewie's cynical relationship with him, Luke's naive exasperation and then Leia's witty put downs of them all are so much fun. The second part is a perfect thrill ride, there isn't a frame out of place. Another thing you notice after too many re-watches and knowledge of the troubled production is how much the cunning editors rely on post dubbing to fix all the problems. There are so many scenes/shots where Darth Vader (who has no visible mouth) is delivering most of the exposition dialogue, intercut with reaction shots from the other actors, who presumably originally had lines. Plus famously the whole Rebel command scene being under threat from the Death Star at the end is accomplished with overdubbing, virtually none of which is matched to actors visibly speaking because they would originally have made no mention of it. I reckon John William's score and editors Richard Chew, Marcia Lucas and Paul Hirsch deserve at least 50% of the credit for the movie's wild success.

 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
^I think this is part of the gap between this and the prequel trilogy. I can imagine lots of things not going all that great, and Lucas just saying "I'll fix it in Post!" Wooden line readings? Awkward movement towards nowhere? Too much ham and cheese? "Don't worry guys, I'll fix it in post!"
He got lightning in a bottle with this one...you don't get that lucky again.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
51258904085_b9b1111a2a_o.jpg


Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Director: Steven Spielberg
Country: United States
Length: 135 minutes
Type: Sci-Fi

This is only the 2nd time I've seen 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' and it connected with me a lot more than on the first attempt. I had a big problem with the idea that Richard Dreyfuss' character abandons his family to go off on an adventure and his decision is never questioned but this time I could see how utterly his mind had been altered by his "close encounter". He is clearly driven to seek the aliens by a mania that he is physically unable to resist. I don't know which of the three versions I watched this time (it was on Netflix) and I don't know what it was last time, so maybe some editorial differences explain my differing reactions? However, on this watch I noticed how much more interested and excited I was by the scenes of François Truffaut and Bob Balaban investigating the aliens with wide-eyed, breathless wonder, than I was with the "relatable" scenes of Dreyfuss and Melinda Dillon. I kept wanting to get back to the scientists exploring methods of audio and visual communication (echoed by their own difficulties to communicate in English, French, Spanish etc) and not a blue collar guy having a mental breakdown. The FX, models, music and sound are sensational, although the actual alien costumes and puppets look a bit wonky at the end.

 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
^That aspect is the fundamental problem I can't get over whenever critics heap praise on this. SO MANY talk about this as Spielberg's best film, and I just cannot conceive of how they don't see fundamental script problems with it. It gets into that question of depiction versus endorsement. I'm fine with our main character making horrible decisions, especially if he's just not in his right mind. However, the two versions of this I've seen make it seem like he's enlightened... he's actually super-sane, possessing greater awareness then all the Earth sheep, whom he just can't connect with anymore. He's not portrayed (in those versions at least) as villainous for abandoning his family. In fact, he actually meets up with a lady who abandoned her own family, and they have an implied connection, as if it's natural for them to go off together and leave their stupid unenlightened families back on Earth. Something about all this just really gets my hackles up, and it interferes with me feeling the sense of "wonder" so many people seem to associate with this film. I'm always like, "Sure, go off and play keyboards with the Modal Nodes while your CHILDREN ARE ON FOODSTAMPS WITHOUT A FATHER!"

Fanedit idea: somehow put this together with Communion and Fire In the Sky to tell a whole arc about his travels and return in Lynchian body swap style.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,383
Trophy Points
228
51262523876_d7d75171bb_o.jpg


Big (1988)
Director: Penny Marshall
Country: United States
Length: 104 minutes
Type: Fantasy, Comedy

I first saw 'Big' when I was around young Josh's age, so it was like total wish-fulfilment joy. Images and scenes were burned onto my memory. A huge apartment filled with every conceivable toy, an indoor trampoline and your own soda vending machine seemed like a vision of a perfect adult life. Re-watching 'Big' now when I'm older than Tom Hanks was when he played grown-up Josh, it just didn't have that same sparkle. However, I could appreciate Penny Marshall's film from different angles. At a certain point Josh becomes the secondary protagonist and we start to experience the story through Elizabeth Perkins' eyes, as her character Susan becomes fascinated with Josh's seemingly strange behaviour and rediscovers her own joie de vivre, which had been deadened by the 80s corporate culture she operates in. It morphs from a fantasy comedy to a classic romantic comedy structure, mixed with 'It's a Wonderful Life', where Josh is like Clarence the angel, to Susan's George Bailey. The film ends with her POV, watching Josh walk back into his childhood, then a last shot of Josh and his friend as the credits roll but we don't see their faces again. Such subtleties of film-making perspective were lost on me as a kid. The dancing piano scene is still magical because Marshall shoots much of it in long-takes and wides where you can see Hanks and Robert Loggia are really doing the moves, in front of a crowd of clearly delighted children. The scene of Josh's first night alone in the city took me by surprise, Hanks is curled up in a foetal position sobbing in terror in what looks like the seedy hotel from 'Taxi Driver', it's so dark and real and Hanks plays it with total seriousness.

 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
^Did the film hit you with a lot of sadness in the end?
When I last rewatched it (about 10 years ago) was the first time I saw things from Perkins' perspective. It's a ride. I mean, it's not overblown here, but you have to think the first reaction is "Eww, you creep, you manipulated my choice to sleep with you!" She goes from feeling used and lied to, to having sympathy and dealing with what Josh's struggle must be, to realizing that he doesn't even get everything that's happening, to being the adult in the situation and knowing that even though she has genuine feelings for him, he can't possibly reciprocate on the same level. She has to suck up all those previous feelings and realize that he's quite literally innocent and just wish him well. It's a real melancholy gut punch for her at the end.
 
Top Bottom