^ Interesting.
Can I ask a general question about this list? You're going through the 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die book, right? I looked through that and thought that the author -aside from the rather hyperbolic title- was pretty full of it.
There isn't an "author" to be full of much of anything writing wise. The reviews are written by about 60-70 different critics from around the world. There is one overall editor Steven Jay Schneider who puts the book together though. So the list and the reviews selected are going to be a reflection of his taste.
I have been halfway thinking that the reason you keep seeing people throw around "included on the 1,001 list" as some mark of pride is simply because the title has caught on and is very memorable, rather than that the list itself is so much better or in some way more definitive than other lists.
It doesn't have 'Robocop' or 'Predator' in the 2005 list I'm working on, so can never be definitive ('Robocop' was added in 2013, I believe).
From your reviews here, it seems to me that many of them are films that you were trying to get the right framework to appreciate, or even struggled with outright. I've seen you write "this movie is one of my new favourites", but it seems like the number of films you don't have any urge to watch again is much higher. So...
In your opinion
@TM2YC , how many of these films (or what %) are actually "Must See Before You Die!" films for a normal person? That is to say, cinephiles often feel a need to watch films to learn something about film, as like a stepping stone. I feel that the average person just wants to really connect with that individual film, to have a great experience. How many of the films on this list actually give that?
It's not really the point, that the list should be all good, or definitive, or arguably correct, or defensible, it's more about the journey towards the big goal and all the discoveries along the way. There are films from this list that I loved that I 100% would never have watched if I hadn't "forced myself to". Even the ones I've hated usually still introduce me to a new kind of story and film-making style, or just further my understanding of history, film history, or a culture from around the world. You don't know if you'll like/dislike something 'til you've tried it. To quote one of my reviews from a few posts up
"'Smoke' is one the best films I’ve ever seen and I’d never heard of it before." (I gave that 5-stars by the way). There isn't a film on this list that isn't widely adored and respected by many film fans, even if I, or in fact most average movie goers would disagree.
As such, I've never stopped to think about how many I like or dislike as a statistic. But I like statistics, so according to my Letterboxd list, of the 883 films I've watched (
and reviewed) so far it breaks down like this:
(what I'd consider masterpiece movies)
5-stars = 174
4.5-stars = 141
(what I'd consider truly great movies)
4-star = 220
(what I'd consider solid/enjoyable/worthwhile movies)
3.5-star = 145
3-star = 114
(what I'd consider arguably a waste of my time and yours movies)
2.5-stars = 58
2-stars = 19
(what I'd consider f**king contemptible movies)
1.5-stars = 7
1 star = 2
0.5-stars = 3
So 794 were/are decent-to-perfect, while only 89 were poor-to-cr*p (in my opinion). If you take 2-hours as an average movie length, then that's only 178-hours, or 7 1/2 solid days of my life that I've wasted on this endeavour
. Where as there are 535 that I'd rated 4-stars and above, ratings I'd only give to films I especially loved and would recommend to anyone, any day of the week, which is 60%. A very good hit rate. That's about 45 solid days of top drawer movie magic.
It might just come across as me not liking them, more than I like them because 1. I enjoy picking apart the flaws in even the films I love 2. it's often easier to spot why something doesn't work, than why it does (because you won't be paying attention to the flaws, if the film has your undivided attention) 3. if I feel a film has wasted my time I'm going to be verbally annoyed. Because outside of completing a list like this, I'm highly selective about what I watch, so don't watch many films that I don't like. I'm of the "I'm 99% sure I'll enjoy that, I'll give it a go" mentality, the film watchers of the "It's in front of me, I'll give it a go" mentality are strange people to me but probably they find some gems I'd overlook that way.
Sorry for the long winded answer, I didn't have time to write anything shorter.
Shine (1996)
Director: Scott Hicks
Country: Australia
Length: 105 minutes
Type: Drama, Biography
This was a bit more complex than I remembered from back in the 90s.
David Helfgott's father is tyrannical at times but there's love in there too, and it's pretty clear that Helfgott has some mental issues outside of his father's destructive influence.
Noah Taylor's performance as the young man stood out for me, over
Geoffrey Rush's Oscar winning portrayal of the older Helfgott. This was probably made at a time when the cliches of the biopic genre were less ingrained than today, so I felt less inclined to mark it down for ticking some of those trope boxes. The montage sequence where Helfgott plays "The Rach 3"during a full mental breakdown is a masterpiece of camera work, editing and audio mixing.
