what's the best movie you haven't seen in the longest while?
$Zero
let's say, at least twenty years.
or maybe thirty.
name a great movie that you haven't seen in thirty years.
then go watch it.
report back.
if you like, do the same with a book.
-$Zero...
those people who say what you've been thinking all along
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/18e749f459562306
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2d4efa156fd3ab38
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
The Reluctant Dragon.
Still as good as it ever was.
Bill Penrose
Apocalypse Now!
I appreciate it now more for it's artistic values than for the
political statement. And the opening sequence, where the jungle erupts
in flame behind the ghostly helicopters, accompanied by Morrison's
'The End', still gives me goose bumps.
DB
$Zero
> On Nov 17, 1:02 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > what's the best movie you haven't seen in the longest while?
>
> > let's say, at least twenty years.
>
> > or maybe thirty.
>
> > name a great movie that you haven't seen in thirty years.
>
> > then go watch it.
>
> > report back.
>
> > if you like, do the same with a book.
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> > those people who say what you've been thinking all along
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/18e749f459562306
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/2d4efa156fd3ab38
>
> Apocalypse Now!
you haven't seen Apocalypse Now for twenty to thirty years?
part of the point of this particular "thought exercise" is the
enormous time gap since your last viewing of a masterpiece-type film
and its effect on your perceptions of the piece in question.
i'm exploring the effects of a life lived (experiences, education,
lessons learned, etc.) between viewings to see how much the time
passage has modified your interpretations and appreciation.
> I appreciate it now more for it's artistic values than for the
> political statement.
the horror.
the horror.
> And the opening sequence, where the jungle erupts
> in flame behind the ghostly helicopters, accompanied by
> Morrison's 'The End', still gives me goose bumps.
IIRC, that was Wagner.
The Doors song played while Martin Sheen snuck up on Brando and the
cow was slaughtered.
actually, maybe it played both times, now that i think about it.
but the second time seemed much more intense.
-$Zero...
George Carlin and the Obama win
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/7703ab747dcc210d
serenebabe
> what's the best movie you haven't seen in the longest while?
>
> let's say, at least twenty years.
>
> or maybe thirty.
<...>
I'm only going back 15 years here (fair for the under 40 set?). But
Accidental Tourist is one of my favorites I haven't seen since my
mid-20s. I'd like to see it again, soon.
How about you, Zero?
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 10/27
Bill Penrose
> IIRC, that was Wagner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU0DxJVWhGw
About as effective an intro as I've seen to a movie.
DB
Bill Penrose
Pies de Arcilla
> what's the best movie you haven't seen in the longest while?
>
> let's say, at least twenty years.
>
> or maybe thirty.
>
> name a great movie that you haven't seen in thirty years.
Wait Until Dark (1967).
Of course, I'm not old enough to have seen it when it came out, but
it's 40 years old.
$Zero
> On 2008-11-17 03:02:11 -0500, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > what's the best movie you haven't seen in the longest while?
>
> > let's say, at least twenty years.
>
> > or maybe thirty.
>
> <...>
>
> I'm only going back 15 years here (fair for the under 40 set?). But
> Accidental Tourist is one of my favorites I haven't seen since my
> mid-20s. I'd like to see it again, soon.
>
> How about you, Zero?
i don't know.
for me, it's a tough question.
it seems like i've seen all the great movies numerous times.
it's hard to recall one off the top of my head that i haven't seen in
more than twenty years or so.
i'd have to scroll through some old titles to jog my mind.
which is another weird dynamic about this phenomenon.
the easy way in which we in the modern world can reinforce what we
find worthwhile.
anyway, in general, the best movies to me are those that reflect
reality in a simple eat-a-sandwich at the beach kind of way.
those with long scenes involving one or two people living in the
moment, looking around, staring into space, going for a walk, etc..
no complicated plots.
just time passing...
in its profoundly amusing way.
-$Zero...
want to get rich? oversleep. quit your job. burn your bridges.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/70089b1572ed1330
Just Me
> part of the point of this particular "thought exercise" is the
> enormous time gap since your last viewing of a masterpiece-type film
> and its effect on your perceptions of the piece in question.
>
> i'm exploring the effects of a life lived (experiences, education,
> lessons learned, etc.) between viewings to see how much the time
> passage has modified your interpretations and appreciation.
It's a laudable exercise, but not easy to satisfy due to the many
movie channels; the availability of so many past films on video. Just
recently however, TCM for the first time aired a film (based on a
story by Kingsley Amis) that I've been wishing for the longest time to
see again.
*Only Two Can Play*
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056308/
It's Peter Sellers the same year he did Lolita, one year before Pink
Panther; with Richard Attenborough and Mai Zetterling in a sex farce
that had the sides of a giddy young lad of 16 splitting so that I
wound up rolling out of my seat to the floor. And that's the truth.
This is the memory I had of it up to that night just a couple of
months ago when I got to see it again, finally.
But what do you suppose? Would it be there again, the intensity of
shocked, naughty glee erupting from the Krakatoa of a repressed libido
in 1962? Could it hold up still through all the slow flaming flow of
a contemporary glut of the erotic and the cooling, hardened jadedness
that must come of it?
Yes. But only if you like it really, really repressed, and for all
that, virtually subterranean, very tunneling through the dirt, very,
very'. Yes, it is there yet, and especially so far as you can see what
it *must* have meant to an audience then. It's worth it for that,
vicariously, even if one's appreciation can be now nothing so high,
but something still rather shockingly low, as a pleasantly queasy
imaginative glimpse of that which must come from under the counter in
plain brown wrapper. But this is where the thrill is simply in knowing
what remains concealed, where you only get to see the wrapper, while
being given to envision just exactly what's hidden so luridly within.
Alas, even so funny as that can be, the white hot heat of catharsis
that came with a flush of embarrassed laughter back then; that time
and change has subdued, to render another kind of appreciation, along
with the mild ache to the funny bone: an antiquarian's delight for a
quaintly entertaining curiosity.
But, I'm selling it short. It is so worth seeing, and I loved seeing
it again, finally after all these years. Some things do not change,
e.g. my longstanding opinion that it's the most sophisticated piece of
social satire (not even short of Dr. Stranglove) for Peter Sellers
ever.
>
> > I appreciate it now more for it's artistic values than for the
> > political statement.
Those are nearly exactly the words I used tonight in an effort to stop
my wife from looking at me like some deviated prevert, while I played
my tape of *Wild at Heart* howling my appreciation just for her.
>
> the horror.
Omigod, yes.
>
> the horror.
Which reminds me (speaking of Apocalypse and Brando). I never saw
Tennessee Williams' *The Fugitive Kind* when that first came out, no
doubt because, like *The Rose Tattoo*, it was "Adults Only". So, I
had no first run viewing, at age 14, to compare it to. Finally saw it,
first time about 8 years ago and have seen it at least three times
since, and every viewing increases my awe for one of the finest pieces
of writing for the American screen, ever--i.e. if you don't include
*Summer & Smoke* and *Baby Doll*. Joanne Woodward in her old wreck of
a Jaguar, with Brando was just SO hot.
--
JM http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com
http://jesusexegesis.blogspot.com
Grand Mal
"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1bc9face-6150-4709...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
i don't know.
no complicated plots.
just time passing...
-$Zero...
How long's it been since you saw "The Hustler"? I watched it a couple nights
ago for the first time in forever. Excellent.
Flasherly
>
> > i'm exploring the effects of a life lived (experiences, education,
> > lessons learned, etc.) between viewings to see how much the time
> > passage has modified your interpretations and appreciation.
>
Lord of the Rings and Artificial Intelligence. The former to
interpretively assay the written, versus a construct sense compliments
to broadly juxtapose elaboration, within an expanding consciousness
granted the successive reception film viewing entitles, ostensibly and
in course as source-inspirational;- as much a latter appeal would
conveniently lend, less to a secular insularity of an Oxford-derived
continuum, for a broader sense to stage its congenital popularity upon
mythical proportions of predisposed cognisance, appertaining, no less
considered to opine, such ramifications might very well rival a
staidness ensconced in Blade Runner, indeed.