The Obvious Film Related Opinion Thread

The Magnificent Seven is as great as Seven Samurai. I'm not sure if this is obvious or unpopular?:woot:

I've seen both. I usually agree with you, but I have to say I'm in strong disagreement here. I found Mag 7 to be watered down, less emotional and characters less defined, and littered with late 50's/ early 60's era Hollywood tropes, trappings and style which haven't aged well, while Seven Samurai seems timeless in comparison. I'm not saying Mag 7 is a bad film (based on that source material, it'd almost be impossible), but I think it is inferior to Seven Sam.
 
That's why I said this might be unpopular. I love them both equally, but to each its own:yay: I thought the character of Brad Dexter (the one nobody remembers:woot:) and Bronson were particularly well written, as well as the whole film in general. Add to that the modernity of Eli Wallach's acting (before Jack Nicholson, there was Eli Wallach) and the amazing Bernstein score and voila, Timeless Classic. But like I said I love them both equally and I'm also a big Western fan.
 
Fair enough. :)

I like Westerns too, but more the Italian spaghetti western style that gave us the 'dollars (Clint Eastwood) trilogy', rather than the pure Hollywood films that preceded it. Although I like 'Shane.' But I hate the John Wayne films.
 
I've seen both. I usually agree with you, but I have to say I'm in strong disagreement here. I found Mag 7 to be watered down, less emotional and characters less defined, and littered with late 50's/ early 60's era Hollywood tropes, trappings and style which haven't aged well, while Seven Samurai seems timeless in comparison. I'm not saying Mag 7 is a bad film (based on that source material, it'd almost be impossible), but I think it is inferior to Seven Sam.

Its pretty close for me. Honestly i wasnt expecting to like magnificent seven as much as I did. I was expecting it to be watered down. it definately wasnt as emotion as samurai but it had a better pace that might make it easier to sit through for some, and some epic gunfights. I just think samurai put more emphasis on their story. you could really feel the peril and desperation of that village. both really good, but the original wins.
 
Um, I have. Twice. I thought most people had to watch it for highschool or college classes. That's how they got me.

I do think it's a bit of hyperbole when people say it's the "best film ever made." Really? Nothing in the past 70 years has surpassed it? And how do you measure what constitutes the "best" film, anyway? :o

If the only criteria for "best" is cinematography, then sure, I see it. Otherwise I've seen so many more enjoyable films. And films with over all better stories and writing. Seen it twice. Fell asleep both times. This is coming from a guy who enjoys longer epics, like gone with the wind, Laurence of Arabia, the godfather, and Seven Samurai. All of which have just as much claim to best picture ever as citizen kane. But someone decided long ago that kane was untouchable and so it remains the best, and anyone who says otherwise is uneducated in cinema. In reality a more accurate statement would be Citizen Kane is the first truly great film. And even that depends on how you view older films, like metropolis.

Orson Welles and Gregg Toland invented and experimented on a multitude of things in Citzen Kane that were never done before(Deep Focus and in-camera effects the most obvious) and changed the way films were made. Pretty much everyday on a film set nowadays, people are channeling the influence of Citizen Kane without even realizing it. It's similar to Michael Jordan. Russell has more rings than Jordan, Kareem has more points, but MJ completely changed the way the game of basketball was played, so he'll always be the greatest basketball player of all time. No film since Citizen Kane has invented/experimented with new filmmaking techniques that would become the norm. That's why it's the greatest film of all time, regardless of personal beliefs on the enjoyment of watching it. Citizen Kane was revolutionary in it's deep focus photography, extensive use of low-angle shots, in camera effects, sound driven montages, SE make-up and also has been cited as one of the earliest uses of method acting. These things are the norm now in all genres.

Citizen Kane is a great film, regardless. Master class in acting by Orson Welles who commands the screen. Beautiful cinematography...how could anyone be bored?
 
Last edited:
Well... I'll hand it to you, you make a compelling argument. That was a very expertly written defense of it, and instead of throwing counterpoints at you, I'll just defend my perhaps less enlightened perspective. As far as being "bored", perhaps now I'd view it with more mature eyes, but when I saw it in University I thought it had a glacial pace in some parts. And as innovative as it may have been, it still has some dated dialogue and that annoyingly stilted delivery in parts that mark it as a pre-method acting film.

To be honest, Kurosawa's early works, in terms of pacing, acting, directing... always struck me as more timeless than the old Hollywood golden age flicks like Citizen Kane and Casablanca. I feel modern films have a lot more common DNA with works such as Rashomon and Seven Samurai than CK. That's not to say Orson Welles didn't provide the tools; but later directors honed it better.
 
Orson Welles and Gregg Toland invented and experimented on a multitude of things in Citzen Kane that were never done before(Deep Focus and in-camera effects the most obvious) and changed the way films were made. Pretty much everyday on a film set nowadays, people are channeling the influence of Citizen Kane without even realizing it. It's similar to Michael Jordan. Russell has more rings than Jordan, Kareem has more points, but MJ completely changed the way the game of basketball was played, so he'll always be the greatest basketball player of all time. No film since Citizen Kane has invented/experimented with new filmmaking techniques that would become the norm. That's why it's the greatest film of all time, regardless of personal beliefs on the enjoyment of watching it. Citizen Kane was revolutionary in it's deep focus photography, extensive use of low-angle shots, in camera effects, sound driven montages, SE make-up and also has been cited as one of the earliest uses of method acting. These things are the norm now in all genres.

Citizen Kane is a great film, regardless. Master class in acting by Orson Welles who commands the screen. Beautiful cinematography...how could anyone be bored?

You're right on all fronts except for one, it's not the best film. it's the most important film. two different things. as a form of entertainment, entertainment value is a huge factor in each persons best. so for me, if you are going to call a movie the best it has to be universally loved by the majority of people who watch it. Citizen Kane is split down the middle, and that's only because most people will never bother to watch it. it's not a film for everyone so much as an acquired taste. While no other film will ever progress the way films are made as much as Citizen Kane, many films have far engaging stories.

For example, the modern day equivalent to citizen kane, (and this is going to spark a lot of hate, im sure)imo is Avatar. It completely changed the way we watch movies and advanced special effects, specifically 3d effects leaps and bounds beyond anything we had seen before. the story was decent enough, but nothing special. it had a social comentary, but many view it as a shallow action film, and most people who watch it claim it as either a modern masterpeice or something impossible to sit through. (much like citizen kane) now, it may be the opposite side of that coin, but it's an example of how a film may not be oscar worthy simply because it advanced film making techniques. (most people dont bother are getting sick of 3d already) True, Kane did change movie making for the better, but if you look passed how it was made andpay attention solely to the story being told, there are better ones out there.

So, because the "best movie" is so based on opinion, to find a movie that can be universally considered the best movie, it has to be largely based on quality, make no mistake, but another big factor is popularity, whether people want to admit it or not. And so, to me, for the best of both worlds we have to fast forward to the 70s. Films like Taxi driver, Star Wars, The Godfather, and Rocky. thos are films still loved by young and old, and films like that are still important to cinema, maybe not as much so as Kane, but there's no denying the impact they had on movies. of those, (and im not saying those are the only films that are in the running, just what i thought of off the top of my head) I think The Godfather is arguably the best. I would certainly rate it higher than Kane in a review. However, that doesn't take away Kanes importance and influence. It just means it told a better story, and had better pacing, or was more enjoyable for whatever reason. I know I'm basically arguing semantics, but I hope you can see my point of view on this.
 
Well... I'll hand it to you, you make a compelling argument. That was a very expertly written defense of it, and instead of throwing counterpoints at you, I'll just defend my perhaps less enlightened perspective. As far as being "bored", perhaps now I'd view it with more mature eyes, but when I saw it in University I thought it had a glacial pace in some parts. And as innovative as it may have been, it still has some dated dialogue and that annoyingly stilted delivery in parts that mark it as a pre-method acting film.

To be honest, Kurosawa's early works, in terms of pacing, acting, directing... always struck me as more timeless than the old Hollywood golden age flicks like Citizen Kane and Casablanca. I feel modern films have a lot more common DNA with works such as Rashomon and Seven Samurai than CK. That's not to say Orson Welles didn't provide the tools; but later directors honed it better.

Agreed. Citizen Kane paved the way for future masterpieces, but many movies have mastered the techniques invented in that movie. Let's not forget that before Kane, the wizard of Oz and Gone with the wind had both been made and released. Those movies arguably had close to as much impact on movies as Kane, but never get credit for it. Those are 2 more examples of movies I enjoy more then kane. Gone with the wind may be over 4 hours long, but its easier to sit through.

The single greatest factor in what made Kane what it was was the cinematography. Wells relied on Gregg Toland so much that he shared the final credit card with him. but history gives welles sole credit fore the films influence. unrelated to my point, just thought id throw that out there.
 
And then there's the innovators we'd sooner forget, such as the ultra-racist 'Birth of a Nation' which nonetheless pioneered the technique of cinematic close-ups and tight shots.
 
I don't know if you guys knew this, but the Star Wars prequels were not very good.
 
I do agree that Entertainment wise, I believe Godfather is the better and more compelling movie. If I had to try to objectively pick a movie that can be considered the greatest movie (keep in mind this is separate from my favorite movies ever), I would pick The Godfather over Citizen Kane. Bonnie and Clyde may have started the New Hollywood Era, but The Godfather was THE breakout movie of the New Hollywood Era.

The Godfather defined the greatest attributes of the New Hollywood Era, and was the ultimate culmination of a studio putting their complete faith in Coppola, even though he had to fight for his choices along the way.
 
I do agree that Entertainment wise, I believe Godfather is the better and more compelling movie. If I had to try to objectively pick a movie that can be considered the greatest movie (keep in mind this is separate from my favorite movies ever), I would pick The Godfather over Citizen Kane. Bonnie and Clyde may have started the New Hollywood Era, but The Godfather was THE breakout movie of the New Hollywood Era.

The Godfather defined the greatest attributes of the New Hollywood Era, and was the ultimate culmination of a studio putting their complete faith in Coppola, even though he had to fight for his choices along the way.

You said it.
 
Alien is Ridley Scott's best film. And Aliens, while entertaining, is not in the same league.
 
I was thinking about Alien/Aliens the other day. Cameron's is alright, takes a while to get going. Scott's is slow, too, but in a good way. I think the alien character works better solo.
 
This thread is kind of silly, but I'll bite...

Stanley Kubrick is the best director of all time
Michael Bay may be the worst (not counting industry jokes like Ed Wood and Uwe Boll)
Batman & Robin was an unholy disgrace of a film
So was The Phantom Menace
So was the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
While drama, action or CBM film franchises often have just-as-good or even superior sequels... Comedies always have awful, rehashed and just unfunny sequels (see Caddyshack and Hangover series for a start)
Haven't seen Crystal Skull, but I agree with everything else. I'll also add that Batman Forever is just as bad as B&R.
 
I was thinking about Alien/Aliens the other day. Cameron's is alright, takes a while to get going. Scott's is slow, too, but in a good way. I think the alien character works better solo.

I heard a while back that the brood from xmen, which is an alien species inspired by the film Alien, was what inspired Aliens to go endless army of Xenomorphs. The Brood started the hive aspect of both species. Does anyone know if there's any truth to that rumor? It would be fun to know that an imitation of alien served as inspiration for its continuation.
 
Alien is Ridley Scott's best film. And Aliens, while entertaining, is not in the same league.

The original is more iconic and and better paced, but the sequel has more entertainment value for me, so it's a toss up. I want to say it's like the difference between T1 and T2, but it's really not.
 
I actually slightly prefer Aliens, although Alien and Aliens are pretty close to me. The rest of the series is vastly downhill after that, IMO.
 
You're right on all fronts except for one, it's not the best film. it's the most important film. two different things. as a form of entertainment, entertainment value is a huge factor in each persons best. so for me, if you are going to call a movie the best it has to be universally loved by the majority of people who watch it. Citizen Kane is split down the middle, and that's only because most people will never bother to watch it. it's not a film for everyone so much as an acquired taste. While no other film will ever progress the way films are made as much as Citizen Kane, many films have far engaging stories.

For example, the modern day equivalent to citizen kane, (and this is going to spark a lot of hate, im sure)imo is Avatar. It completely changed the way we watch movies and advanced special effects, specifically 3d effects leaps and bounds beyond anything we had seen before. the story was decent enough, but nothing special. it had a social comentary, but many view it as a shallow action film, and most people who watch it claim it as either a modern masterpeice or something impossible to sit through. (much like citizen kane) now, it may be the opposite side of that coin, but it's an example of how a film may not be oscar worthy simply because it advanced film making techniques. (most people dont bother are getting sick of 3d already) True, Kane did change movie making for the better, but if you look passed how it was made andpay attention solely to the story being told, there are better ones out there.

So, because the "best movie" is so based on opinion, to find a movie that can be universally considered the best movie, it has to be largely based on quality, make no mistake, but another big factor is popularity, whether people want to admit it or not. And so, to me, for the best of both worlds we have to fast forward to the 70s. Films like Taxi driver, Star Wars, The Godfather, and Rocky. thos are films still loved by young and old, and films like that are still important to cinema, maybe not as much so as Kane, but there's no denying the impact they had on movies. of those, (and im not saying those are the only films that are in the running, just what i thought of off the top of my head) I think The Godfather is arguably the best. I would certainly rate it higher than Kane in a review. However, that doesn't take away Kanes importance and influence. It just means it told a better story, and had better pacing, or was more enjoyable for whatever reason. I know I'm basically arguing semantics, but I hope you can see my point of view on this.


Popularity shouldn't matter. Popularity and entertainment are completely subjective. Trying to crown a greatest film should try to be as objective as possible. The only way to do that? Look at it's craft and how innovative and influential it was and Citizen Kane takes the cake every time. Is it 100% objective? No, but its much closer to objectiveness than entertainment factor and popularity.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"