You Haven't Seen WHAT?!

[mousepod]

I saw CE3K the first week it was released -- I even have the program. Even though I was 10 (going on 11) when it was released, I have a strong memory of most of the scenes that iSm describes. Whether the memory is real or imagined due to the power of suggestion is another thing. Is it possible that any of the missing footage showed up in any of the TV airings? I remember that the first time is was on network TV, it was spread over two nights...
... the hunt is on!

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Here's my AFI have not seen list:

44. THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915)
54. ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930)
57. THE THIRD MAN (1949)
88. EASY RIDER (1969)

I just added these to my Netflix queue. Must see all...

[Ghoulish Delight]

Watched Citizen Kane last night. It's entirely impossible to form an opinion on it. Having seen large chunks of it in passing, and, of course, it being so talked about and so esteemed. Not to say I didn't like it, I did. But as for its status as the best movie ever, I know I'm simply not qualified to even begin to analyze that. Too far removed from the time it was made, and too overloaded with baggage about it.

[Gemini Cricket]

If I remember correctly (film school was a long time ago) here are some reasons why CK is a primo film:

- creative chiaroscuro lighting and lots of shadows...
- dissolves and wipes used in a film
- low angles that showed the ceilings of sets (not very common back then, often sets had no ceilings at all)
- non-linear storyline
- overlapping dialogue
- deep focus shots
- characters aging in a film with the use of make-up
- long takes that lingered without cuts
- special effect shots (ie the camera going through the club sign)

These are some I remember. These techniques were not commonly used back then and rarely used together in the same film.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh, I'm well aware of all the technical marvles in the film. But Pearl Harbor also has a laundry list of technical achievments. Doesn't make it the best movie of all time. Not that I'd compare the two, just saying that beyond the technical reasons, I'm unable to judge the intangible impact of the movie having been deprived of seeing it sans prior knowledge.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Oh, I'm well aware of all the technical marvles in the film. But Pearl Harbor also has a laundry list of technical achievments. Doesn't make it the best movie of all time. Not that I'd compare the two, just saying that beyond the technical reasons, I'm unable to judge the intangible impact of the movie having been deprived of seeing it sans prior knowledge.

Kane vs. Pearl Harbor

One was a first for its time. One is canned spew.

Kane has been a model for hundreds and hundreds of films that followed it. But I guess the same could be said for PH.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

One was a first for its time. One is canned spew.

Which is exactly my point. I can list the technical whizz-bangs of Pearl Harbor, it remains a crappy movie despite them. Citizen Kane's technical achievments aren't what make it a classic. They're what made it noteable at the time (just as the special effects are what made Pearl Harbor noteable at the time), but it's the creative qualities that has made it last.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Which is exactly my point. I can list the technical whizz-bangs of Pearl Harbor, it remains a crappy movie despite them. Citizen Kane's technical achievments aren't what make it a classic. They're what made it noteable at the time (just as the special effects are what made Pearl Harbor noteable at the time), but it's the creative qualities that has made it last.

Maybe it's the creative use of the technical achievments that makes it a classic?
There's also the huge story about how Hearst tried to crush Welles and the film for portraying his wife negatively. I'm sure that added some appeal to the film then and now.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Before I get to the list .... my hand is forced by earlier posts to lay down some smack fact on Close Encounters.

The Criterion version is NOT the 1977-release version. Two scenes are missing, and haven't been seen on TV, laserdisk, VHS, DVD or theatre screen since 1978 when the original film went out of release.

Consider me humbly smacked. I could swear my Criterion ld claimed to be the theatrical cut (it also claimed exclusivity on this point, as I recall) but I foolishly sold the damn thing, so I can't check the label. If even that was a tampered print, then things are indeed totally out of whack with this picture.

I'm also stunned at how badly I've misremembered that added "mad' scene - guess I hated it so much I made it worse in my head. You're right in that it adds good reason for Roy to leave his family behind. (Also interesting that Spielberg, in the doc on the latest editions, says that he would never make this film now that he has a family of his own. I'm glad he did so before he got domesticated.)

Hopeless innacurracy is the price I pay for writing posts from work when I'm too tired to fact check.

For what it's worth, I do remember those two scenes you describe. I hope Columbia will do right by this title someday. For anyone here who has never seen it, I think even the bastardized re-cuts are worth your time.

[Matterhorn Fan]

I'm suprised by how many people here have not seen "The Graduate." Isn't that on television often enough?