What new films would you INSIST are masterpieces?
- Thread starter zubidoo
- Start date
Lutso
Sr Member
Inglorious Basterds.
Perfect in every way as far as I am concerned. Directing, storytelling, acting, setting.
I love the way it is filmed - in a very vintage way. Cinematography reminded me personally of many 1960's films, which is almost certainly what Quentin had in mind. Not a single shaky shot in the whole flick - which I think is marvelous frankly but some would disagree. There's not a single "bad shot" in the movie. EVERY frame is thought out and has purpose.
Acting was accomplished perfectly by ALL who appear in the film. Even Mike Myers seemed like a real person in his cameo, and heck, I didn't think that was possible.
It was a very deeply thought-out film. It relied not so much on today's standrards of "action" but instead went a different (and infinitely more difficult) route by using tension, accelerated by acting and dialogue. The action was driven by story and emotion rather than just badass car chases. A lot of folks at the time didn't like the movie because it was boring. Well...poo poo.
All in all you can like it or hate it. But there's no denying that it DOES fit the bill of "masterpiece".
Sadly it didn't really get the attention it deserved. But then again, that's sort of a good thing. Films seem to retain a lot more of their decency when given "cult" status.
Perfect in every way as far as I am concerned. Directing, storytelling, acting, setting.
I love the way it is filmed - in a very vintage way. Cinematography reminded me personally of many 1960's films, which is almost certainly what Quentin had in mind. Not a single shaky shot in the whole flick - which I think is marvelous frankly but some would disagree. There's not a single "bad shot" in the movie. EVERY frame is thought out and has purpose.
Acting was accomplished perfectly by ALL who appear in the film. Even Mike Myers seemed like a real person in his cameo, and heck, I didn't think that was possible.
It was a very deeply thought-out film. It relied not so much on today's standrards of "action" but instead went a different (and infinitely more difficult) route by using tension, accelerated by acting and dialogue. The action was driven by story and emotion rather than just badass car chases. A lot of folks at the time didn't like the movie because it was boring. Well...poo poo.
All in all you can like it or hate it. But there's no denying that it DOES fit the bill of "masterpiece".
Sadly it didn't really get the attention it deserved. But then again, that's sort of a good thing. Films seem to retain a lot more of their decency when given "cult" status.
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Semantics. Here’s what I originally posted…
A master artist’s best work may consist of one piece, or in some cases it may consist of more than one.
By “best work” I’m referring to those films wherein a given filmmaker is shown to be operating at the height of his powers. Most directors never manage to create one masterpiece, let alone several. Masters like Kubrick, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Fellini, Coppola, Scorsese, Allen, Bergman, etc. have each given the world two or more of what I consider to be masterpieces.
KaanE
Sr Member
+1 :thumbsup
PHArchivist
Master Member
I would contend this...
Might I respectfully suggest the possible confsuion of a "landmark", or "milestone" film with the concept of "Masterpiece"...?
JP is CERTAINLY a landmark film. It will never be forgotten, and made a huge cultural impact. And its contribution to the advent of CGI is legendary. It IS THE film that basically launched (not initially created, but truly launched) CGI into mainstream movie-making. This sentiment does not lose sight of, nor disrespect The Abyss and T2.
But artistically, its a bit lame. Acting is pedestrian to sometimes annoying, story-telling is so so - hard not to be effective since the story was already more or less built-in. Production design and cinematography receive high marks in my mind. Not so sure about overall direction (compare JP to Ryan).
Of course these are all my personal, subjective opinions.
But to me, JP is a milestone film - a HUGE blip on the radar of film history. But not an artistic masterpiece...
Last edited:
PHArchivist
Master Member
PHArchivist
Master Member
Has Titanic been mentioned...?
Honestly, I'm not sure if I'd hold it in as high regard as some of the films mentioned here.
But, even though the love theme element gets sappier with each repeated viewing, it is still a damn fine film, beautifully crafted by a master film maker.
Honestly, I'm not sure if I'd hold it in as high regard as some of the films mentioned here.
But, even though the love theme element gets sappier with each repeated viewing, it is still a damn fine film, beautifully crafted by a master film maker.
Last edited:
Gryffindor1991
Well-Known Member
How are the Harry Potter films not a masterpiece? Based on the best books ever written. Fantastic actors. The who's who of British actors. Dame Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Julie Walters, Helena Bonham Carter, Sir Michael Gambon, Ralph Fiennes, Jason Issacs and the list continues. Many of the younger actors are fantastic and it gave them a great start to their carrers, Dan, Emma, Rupert, Tom. The sets were perfect and not cheap looking. The props and everything are just more than amazing. They put hours of work into the stuff you never see or only see for a few seconds. Sure, they didn't do the best job with sticking to the books, but still they are brilliant.
bschossler
Well-Known Member
Lord of the Rings series is a total masterpiece in my opinion.
To me, Harry Potter is just an expensive popcorn film with action little kids flock to that keeps their interest.To me, Harry Potter really isn't "that riveting". I got bored with him and the characters after say...the thrid or fourth film.Just allot of the same with a small twist in the plot,some added drama and maybe a new character or two added to the story. I failed to put up a few more films that deserve Masterpiece mention, such as Jurassic Park as well as Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Lord of the Rings and certainly there are a small handful more.
Last edited:
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Movies like Jurassic Park, Titanic, and the Potter series are certainly epic in scale (both thematically and technically), and there's a lot to be said for grand ambitions. God knows the public ate them up upon release, and they've since become part of our collective pop cultural experience.
But are they cinematic "masterpieces?" The first two will probably achieve "classic" status (if they haven't already), but I would argue their shortcomings are significant enough to exclude them from the "masterpiece" list. For all it's box office success, Jurassic Park is in some respects a pretty sloppy movie. And I don't care what anyone says, the dialogue in Titanic is laughably awful.
That doesn't mean they're not big, fun, memorable movies, but from an artistic standpoint I think both Spielberg and Cameron have done better work (especially Spielberg).
As for Potter, I think the novels constitute a sort of literary masterpiece, but the films feel pretty uneven to me. And, frankly, a bit soulless. Just one guy's opinion, of course.
It's funny, the more I ponder the question of this thread, the more surprised I am by those titles I'd qualify as 21st century masterpieces. I knew, for example, that I liked and admired Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous and David Cronenberg's A History of Violence, but it never occurred to me that I regarded them both as masterpieces. Thinking about it though, I find they fall into that rare (and admittedly subjective) "perfect" category... two very personal films by gifted filmmakers that I personally cannot find fault with. I mean, there is NOTHING I would change about either of them, nor can I imagine anyone else having executed them so beautifully. As far as I'm concerned they're unique (and refreshingly unpretentious) works of art, which I suppose is as good a definition of "masterpiece" as any.
But are they cinematic "masterpieces?" The first two will probably achieve "classic" status (if they haven't already), but I would argue their shortcomings are significant enough to exclude them from the "masterpiece" list. For all it's box office success, Jurassic Park is in some respects a pretty sloppy movie. And I don't care what anyone says, the dialogue in Titanic is laughably awful.
That doesn't mean they're not big, fun, memorable movies, but from an artistic standpoint I think both Spielberg and Cameron have done better work (especially Spielberg).
As for Potter, I think the novels constitute a sort of literary masterpiece, but the films feel pretty uneven to me. And, frankly, a bit soulless. Just one guy's opinion, of course.
It's funny, the more I ponder the question of this thread, the more surprised I am by those titles I'd qualify as 21st century masterpieces. I knew, for example, that I liked and admired Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous and David Cronenberg's A History of Violence, but it never occurred to me that I regarded them both as masterpieces. Thinking about it though, I find they fall into that rare (and admittedly subjective) "perfect" category... two very personal films by gifted filmmakers that I personally cannot find fault with. I mean, there is NOTHING I would change about either of them, nor can I imagine anyone else having executed them so beautifully. As far as I'm concerned they're unique (and refreshingly unpretentious) works of art, which I suppose is as good a definition of "masterpiece" as any.
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Another thing about a movie masterpiece (at least by my definition) is that there's something timeless about it. It gets at some sort of human truth that transcends technique. And it always gets better with age.
I personally couldn't stand Titanic.I couldn't wait until the boat hit the iceberg and sank,and even that seemed to take an eternity.Titanic was give far too much credit and (at the time) it being compared to films like Spartacus and The Ten Commandments was an insult to both those films.It certainly deserved praise for the FX,the sets and costumes....but other than that it played like your average day time soap opera, just with a far bigger budget.
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Yeah, I felt more or less the same way. Which may well have been Cameron's intension (you've got to be a soap fan to give Eric Braeden a part in your movie).
PHArchivist
Master Member
As long as we're on the maritime them, how about Master & Commander: Far Side Of The World?
The craftsmanship that went nto this film in all aspects of film making are top notch. But the film was not fully embraced due to - in my opinion - a well-executed but nonetheless languishing second act.
I think if Weir had trimmed the second act, and focused just a little less on the Aubrey/Maturin relationship element (though I know that's critical to the literary work), it would have been better received.
What do you think?
The craftsmanship that went nto this film in all aspects of film making are top notch. But the film was not fully embraced due to - in my opinion - a well-executed but nonetheless languishing second act.
I think if Weir had trimmed the second act, and focused just a little less on the Aubrey/Maturin relationship element (though I know that's critical to the literary work), it would have been better received.
What do you think?
Similar threads
