best movie of the 90's (1 Viewer)

[AlleyCat]

i think the best film of the 90's is "Schindler's List" with special mentions going to "Run Lola Run" "Election" and "Leon the Proffesional".

 

[nwatts]

i think the best film of the 90's is "Schindler's List" with special mentions going to "Run Lola Run" "Election" and "Leon the Proffesional".

Those other three films are great, but Schindler's List is awful. Such a trite, sentimental and bloated film. I can't stand that Spielberg!

 

[ameh]

American Beauty

 

[AlleyCat]

Those other three films are great, but Schindler's List is awful. Such a trite, sentimental and bloated film. I can't stand that Spielberg!

i disagree. schindler's list is up there with the greatest films ever created in my opinon. i can sort of see how you think that it is overly sentimental, but i think that the overworking of emotions in more modern films has perhaps made you overly cynical and desensitized to raw emotion.

 

[nwatts]

i disagree. schindler's list is up there with the greatest films ever created in my opinon. i can sort of see how you think that it is overly sentimental, but i think that the overworking of emotions in more modern films has perhaps made you overly cynical and desensitized to raw emotion.

Schindler's List contains no "raw emotion". What it does contain is overblown, verging on melodramatic, pseudo-emotion presented to fulfill Spielberg's perpetual sentimental intentions. He makes movies that play on cheap tricks to make people weep. He has never explored the nature of real emotion in any depth or with any legitimacy.

Directors like Wong Kar-wai, Roman Polanski and Sofia Coppola know how to expose "raw" emotion.

And i'm hardly desensitised. I just don't like being told what to think, instead of thinking for myself. Spielberg allows no room for people to think in any of his films; we're presented with his bloated version of whatever event depicted and make sure there's enough explosions or sentimentality to ensure we forget about actually comprehending or processing the emotional core of his films.

 

[AlleyCat]

Schindler's List contains no "raw emotion". What it does contain is overblown, verging on melodramatic, pseudo-emotion presented to fulfill Spielberg's perpetual sentimental intentions. He makes movies that play on cheap tricks to make people weep. He has never explored the nature of real emotion in any depth or with any legitimacy.

Directors like Wong Kar-wai, Roman Polanski and Sofia Coppola know how to expose "raw" emotion.

And i'm hardly desensitised. I just don't like being told what to think, instead of thinking for myself. Spielberg allows no room for people to think in any of his films; we're presented with his bloated version of whatever event depicted and make sure there's enough explosions or sentimentality to ensure we forget about actually comprehending or processing the emotional core of his films.

although i dislike the "gung-ho" bravado of spielberg's other films, i disagree with the statement that schindler's list contains no raw emotion. i think that the acting, directing, editing, music and lighting/colour palette of the film is absolutely perfect and the film itself to be near immaculate in terms of achieving its purpose.

i actually think that the style of schindlers list is rather understated, except for liam neesons performance, and in fact spielberg has withheld from commenting on the proceedings too much to allow us to think about the situation presented.

i too hate the type of film that bashes you over the head with its opinion, i just dont think that this fimn is one of those.

i also disagree with the inclusion of sofia coppola in that list of the conjurers of emotional insight. while i think that she is entertaining and thought provoking, none of her films have provided much insight into the "raw" human emotional state.

 

[nwatts]

although i dislike the "gung-ho" bravado of spielberg's other films, i disagree with the statement that schindler's list contains no raw emotion. i think that the acting, directing, editing, music and lighting/colour palette of the film is absolutely perfect and the film itself to be near immaculate in terms of achieving its purpose.

I agree that the technical elements of Schindler's List are magnificent. It's outstandingly shot, features brilliant music (however I feel it is poorly matched to the film), the acting is first-rate... everything is stunning, except for its direction. When I first watched the film I was struck at how this was the first film I could think of where the technical elements added up, but did not make a cohesive whole.

i actually think that the style of schindlers list is rather understated, except for liam neesons performance, and in fact spielberg has withheld from commenting on the proceedings too much to allow us to think about the situation presented.

i too hate the type of film that bashes you over the head with its opinion, i just dont think that this fimn is one of those.

I found this not to be the case. There were long, pointless scenes within the concentration camps, following the oppressed (and often naked/beaten/poverty-striken) Jews around for no reason other than to evoke pity and contrived emotion within the audience. They had no bearing on the narrative or the characters, and were simply a waste of time and space. I questioned Spielberg's intentions every 10 minutes, was he making a documentary-styled film, or a historical drama? He couldn't make up his mind, and it did not work as both.

I also found the final two scenes to rip whatever was left of the film's crediblity apart. 1. Liam Neesons "I could have saved more" was poorly handled and verged upon melodrama. I don't blame Neeson he is an actor. It was Spielberg's fault for such a poor, poor scene to be allowed in the final cut. 2. The scene where everyone lays little flowers on Schindler's grave. Also pathetic. Cheap shot at the audience. It adds nothing to the film, and serves to remind everyone that yes, we're appreciative of Schindler's efforts... as if that hadn't been drilled in enough already?

i also disagree with the inclusion of sofia coppola in that list of the conjurers of emotional insight. while i think that she is entertaining and thought provoking, none of her films have provided much insight into the "raw" human emotional state.

I found her Lost in Translation to contain a vast amount of undoctored, very real emotion from Bill Murrary. One scene in particular calls to mind - he comes home, quite drunk, and quite lonely. He tries to call his wife, but she's obviously not interested in talking. It's crushing. His performance is so subtle. There is no music, there is no flashy camera work, it's just Coppola weaving Murrary, and demonstrating what real emotion is like.

Spielberg doesn't understand that level of subtlety. If he directed the same scene, we'd have Williams's sentimental music in the background, we'd have people shouting and yelling and crying. Coppola understands that to put emotion on the screen, you have to strip it of all its cinematic stereotypes and present it "raw".

 

[AlleyCat]

i can see that you percieved as bloated and sentimental what i perceived as expressive and emotional.

i very much enjoyed Lost in Translation, but dont understand how you can place it above Schindler's List in terms of creating an emotional atmosphere.

 

[icecreamdisco]

wong kar-wai and sofia coppola don't portray raw emotion; all the emotion in (most of) their films is lurking just behind the detached, 'cool' exterior. they do their thang well, though.

raw emotion = mike leigh, john cassavettes, ingmar bergman, raging bull, the celebration, husbands and wives, even closer, though i didn't like it.

 

[scoby_2000]

the notebook was made last year, so therefore this thread is a dead-end for movie discussion.

and big is from the 80's.

lol.....shut down!

 

[AlleyCat]

raging bull yes yes yes! absolutely fantastic film.

 

[Benny_]

wong kar-wai and sofia coppola don't portray raw emotion; all the emotion in (most of) their films is lurking just behind the detached, 'cool' exterior. they do their thang well, though.

raw emotion = mike leigh, john cassavettes, ingmar bergman, raging bull, the celebration, husbands and wives, even closer, though i didn't like it.

Well put as usual.

 

[Lundy]

I agree Spielberg just doesn't often grasp the concept of understated emotion. He utilises contrived sentiment as one of his trademarks almost (the little girl in red comes to mind as one of the more blatant sentimentalities in SL). But Schindler's List is one of his more understated and still one of the best films of the 90s. Maybe I'm just not a discerning enough viewer but I have a lot of trouble finding flaws in this film. Aesthetically alone, it's beautifully constructed. I think he handles a touchy subject well. Although I still rank The Pianist higher on my list (even though it's not a 90s film).

And can I just say, I hated Raging Bull. I found it overly long and boring, but then again I've never really liked any Scorcese film I've seen. I'm bound to get torn apart by film aficionados for that one

 

[walrusbear]

I agree Spielberg just doesn't often grasp the concept of understated emotion. He utilises contrived sentiment as one of his trademarks almost (the little girl in red comes to mind as one of the more blatant sentimentalities in SL). But Schindler's List is one of his more understated and still one of the best films of the 90s. Maybe I'm just not a discerning enough viewer but I have a lot of trouble finding flaws in this film. Aesthetically alone, it's beautifully constructed. I think he handles a touchy subject well. Although I still rank The Pianist higher on my list (even though it's not a 90s film).

And can I just say, I hated Raging Bull. I found it overly long and boring, but then again I've never really liked any Scorcese film I've seen. I'm bound to get torn apart by film aficionados for that one

have you watched the likes of goodfellas or taxi driver?

 

[Lundy]

have you watched the likes of goodfellas or taxi driver?

I've seen Goodfellas. Again, it didn't really capture my interest. Although I didn't outright hate it like Raging Bull.

 

[AlleyCat]

I've seen Goodfellas. Again, it didn't really capture my interest. Although I didn't outright hate it like Raging Bull.

oh no Lundy, no! im so not agreeing with you right now Goodfellas and Raging Bull are two of the most intense and amazing films in my opinion. But especially raging bull.

 

[Lundy]

oh no Lundy, no! im so not agreeing with you right now Goodfellas and Raging Bull are two of the most intense and amazing films in my opinion. But especially raging bull.

We can't all like every film, now can we? Believe me, I've tried to like Scorcese's work. I've tried oh-so-hard.

 

[crazyhomo]

for some reason i found raging bull to be the most boring movie the first time i saw it, then when i saw it again about a year later, i loved it. still, i don't think de niro has ever bettered his performance in taxi driver. that shit was just incredible

 

[nwatts]

wong kar-wai and sofia coppola don't portray raw emotion; all the emotion in (most of) their films is lurking just behind the detached, 'cool' exterior. they do their thang well, though.

raw emotion = mike leigh, john cassavettes, ingmar bergman, raging bull, the celebration, husbands and wives, even closer, though i didn't like it.

I agree with you that the emotion in Wong/Coppola's films quietly behind the curtain, but this is what I feel real emotion is. It's not the outspoken and gratingly obvious emotion of a Spielberg. Even Raging Bull, which you mentioned, contains a lot of emotion that is pushed through the camera (I feel). It's a great film, yes, but in terms of how it portrays emotion, I don't think it's as powerful as something of Wong's. And that is because it is so subtle in Wong's work.

This is just my view, though. I consider emotion most powerful when it's felt, not heard/seen.

 

[nwatts]

i can see that you percieved as bloated and sentimental what i perceived as expressive and emotional.

i very much enjoyed Lost in Translation, but dont understand how you can place it above Schindler's List in terms of creating an emotional atmosphere.

Because a) Coppola has control over every frame of her film, and b) the emotion is subtle and (as icecreamdisco put it) "lurking just behind the detached, 'cool' exterior" instead of Schindler's List, where the emotion is right in your face.