Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
So true. And when Scorsese has Bob - Kubrick has Jack - and SW has the zeitgeist of the young - it can get really complicated.
I’ll be honest, I still have never seen Ordinary People (or Chariots of Fire). These are the first 2 movies I have put on the most that I haven’t seen.
Yeah - John Hurt will get my vote for best actor, here.
Do you think the original Star Wars was deserving because of how unique it was and the impact it had on movies or are they all just too popcorn for Best Picture?
Can't speak for KP, but as someone who experienced it during its hype - I'd say no.
In a year without any truly outstanding films (Annie Hall was good, but not great), I say yes, why not?
I am not too much of a snob that a popcorny movie wouldn't get my vote for something like this.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
Yeah, probably a combination of the three. I think from the second group I've only watched Raiders. I just don't feel that strongly to movies in the early 80s (except a few choice comedies). Early 2000s would probably get more traction.
Looking at 82 and 82, it might draw some more conversation as there are some big films there but not quite anything like what I thought Empire, Raging Bull and The Shining might elicit.
Nice takes, if I post another one I hope to hear from you. I like those who against the grain (well at least the grain here).
I’d agree with probably a combo. I was holding off on voting for the research that I mentioned.
Lamotta is not complicated at all. He’s an ###. However the performance is fantastic and the direction/cinematography is gorgeous.
It was an important movie in a time when men were trying to deconstruct their gender's dickishness. Now that we see that we did that to better defend rather than resolve that particular foible, the significance pales...
It is technically outstanding, and I appreciate those aspects of it. But I find it lacking any kind of a character arc or depth, or interesting story, that makes it rise to the level of great.
That’s fair and it’s part of the reason I have wrapped this up yet. I think I should pick Raging Bull but my hearts not totally in it.
Elephant Man perhaps the most depressing movie I’ve ever seen. I recall seeing it as a kid and literally sobbing at the end.
Yeah, I generally feel like a movie that is in the Top 5 of AFI's Top 100 list should be an easy pick. It just sticks out like a sore thumb when I look at the list though. It's surrounded by movies that are not only technically great, but also have great plots and storylines.
I am a big boxing fan so I probably like it more than you do but I find it's AFI ranking really high. It's more of a latter half of the list for me.
The first one I thought of was Mary Steenburgen in Melvin & Howard, but when I checked, I saw that she actually won it. That actually concerns me, cause I typically don't like goin' chalk.
Raging Bull isn't a Jake LaMotta biopic, it's Jake LaMotta's dream world.
