TripItUp
Footballguy
welp, i'm OUT ... it's my #1 of the decade, if not all-time.
yeah, a lot higher on my list too.
welp, i'm OUT ... it's my #1 of the decade, if not all-time.
i love glengarry glen ross as a watch, but it's not the best movie of teh decade.
But it's got Sean Penn!!well, it captures the early 80s high school scene era perfectly. The soundtrack is epic.
you're talking about Phoebe Cates... right?Great cast too. Great movie and better than Dazed IMO.
I love these so much.The scenes with him and Mr. Hand are epic.
I liked House of Games, but had already started to burn out on his approach to dialogue. By Glengarry (I always think of bricks for that), I was almost done- saved by the performances- but I just never loved the movie the way others do because of it. And funny- all my actor friends (including my brother) think his dialogue is incredible. sounds forced and completely fake to me.... but must be compelling to say for these people.Glengarry is one that I have never dug. I seem to have a mental barrier with movies that were plays but turned into a movie, as they usually feel exactly like that to me. That said, I also didn't rewatch it for this event, and it's possible I could have change my opinion on it. It's not impossible - there are a handful of others that have been slowly creeping up my list that I didn't like much 4-5 years ago. (hence why I am such a big advocate of watching movies multiple times, even ones I didn't like the first time around).
Forgot about Buffalo 66…that’s a good onewelp, i'm OUT ... it's my #1 of the decade, if not all-time.
now i'll just wait for BUFFALO '66.
and: The Birdcage, The Ice Storm, So I Married An Axe Murderer, Brasco, Boondock Saints, State of Grace, The Butcher Boy (flicks that deserve to be on any 90s list).
and BUFFALO '66.
Agreed, applicable to Arlington Rd too (not sure if it made the cut)W.T.F. Should have easily been in the top 50, if not top 25.
Just because you now know the ending and it doesn't make a re-watch as fun doesn't mean its not a great movie. Seems like a lame way to detract from the movie.
Well, one of the 3 of yours will draw some anger back at me for not ranking it at least.I am preparing for the anger coming my way tomorrow
I ain't no glamour boy...I'm fierceI am preparing for the anger coming my way tomorrow
I will post a couple more before I take off for a bit again. I start off the night with getting roasted and post 80s #37 flick first:
#65: GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS
Doing it this way, I can just @Ilov80s when a movie comes up that is on his list but not mine so he can comment.
Glengarry is one that I have never dug. I seem to have a mental barrier with movies that were plays but turned into a movie, as they usually feel exactly like that to me. That said, I also didn't rewatch it for this event, and it's possible I could have change my opinion on it. It's not impossible - there are a handful of others that have been slowly creeping up my list that I didn't like much 4-5 years ago. (hence why I am such a big advocate of watching movies multiple times, even ones I didn't like the first time around).
I think I know what he's trying to say, actually. Plays that become movies don't feel as three-dimensional as other movies where setting and effects become much more important. Movies made from plays are generally lower-budget, and the production and cinematography reflects that. Add a heavy emphasis on dialogue, and you've got a different feel to movies made from plays.but the reasoning is ridiculous
I think I know what he's trying to say, actually. Plays that become movies don't feel as three-dimensional as other movies where setting and effects become much more important. Movies made from plays are generally lower-budget, and the production and cinematography reflects that. Add a heavy emphasis on dialogue, and you've got a different feel to movies made from plays.
I can see why this movie could make the list. The critics loved it. That said, it's one of the most painfully slow movies of any decade with two characters that have no chemistry. It's memorable for me as being one of two movies from the 90s that I wanted to leave the theater but was frozen in place due to extreme boredom and somehow made it to the end. The other was Random Hearts.97 - THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY
If they would have casted anyone but Rosie Perez, I might have agreed with you. Her and Fran Drescher have the worst voices in entertainment history (and I'm not sure which one is worse).If White Men Can't Jump isn't on here I'm breaking stuff.
I don't think this is a bad take at all and kind of agree with it.hey, KP and I have totally different perspectives of movies
mine ...is no doubt, much less sophisticated
but holy hell man ...the angst ...it's a hard movie to watch - because you are in the middle of this situation
I put it beside "A Streetcar" and "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" of brilliance - but so uncomfortable it's hard to watch
to me ...that's art
life hurts.
Oh, Billy, you're so stupid!If they would have casted anyone but Rosie Perez, I might have agreed with you. Her and Fran Drescher have the worst voices in entertainment history (and I'm not sure which one is worse).
If they would have casted anyone but Rosie Perez, I might have agreed with you.
Her and Fran Drescher have the worst voices in entertainment history (and I'm not sure which one is worse).
I don't think this is a bad take at all and kind of agree with it.
However, I think GGR is Hollywood trying to imitate what they think sales is like (similar to American Beauty is what they think suburbia is like). But it is really just a caricature with exaggerated features and it comes across as cartoonish at times.
That is giving me too much credit.hey, KP and I have totally different perspectives of movies
mine ...is no doubt, much less sophisticated
but holy hell man ...the angst ...it's a hard movie to watch - because you are in the middle of this situation
I put it beside "A Streetcar" and "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" of brilliance - but so uncomfortable it's hard to watch
to me ...that's art
life hurts.
This. And I tried to explain a little more above.I think I know what he's trying to say, actually. Plays that become movies don't feel as three-dimensional as other movies where setting and effects become much more important. Movies made from plays are generally lower-budget, and the production and cinematography reflects that. Add a heavy emphasis on dialogue, and you've got a different feel to movies made from plays.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with a (female) cousin who is a novelist. She told me she doesn’t understand the hype for Breaking Bad because it’s “very male.”That is giving me too much credit.
To me this goes back to the conversation that I had with bracie about Power of the Dog - I don't gravitate to screenplay/dialogue as much as some here. On top of that, if we want to get into the psychoanalysis portion of the program - I was basically raised by women, my better friends growing up in MS and HS tended to be female, etc. When I think about it, a lot of movies that I seem to have the biggest disconnect and disagreement with the masses, especially male viewers, is movies that are greatly about dudes doing dude things. (very simplistic way to view it, but I think you get my drift). So westerns, organized crime movies, things like that. Typically hyper-masculine movie. I would put Glengarry a bit in that category, but it also has what I talked about above - very much focused on screenplay/dialogue. Usually on a rewatch of a movie that I didn't love the first time, if I do warm up to it, it usually starts with the direction, the way it looks, or a side character/performance that stood out the second time.
Or, we just like what we like.![]()
Foods that start with 'Q'. It was a Quince, Billy.Oh, Billy, you're so stupid!
To be clear, that's not the only thing. It's just something that I have noticed throughout the years - that I tend to not like the typical "guy" movies quite as much as the masses. There are some I love, some I have come around on throughout the past few years, and some like Glengarry that I've watched a few times and didn't "get".Reminds me of a conversation I had with a (female) cousin who is a novelist. She told me she doesn’t understand the hype for Breaking Bad because it’s “very male.”
I honestly don't think you've missed too much. It probably wouldn't have made my top one hundred, either. It's a movie about sad sacks, gussied up with intellectual bravado about the mundaneness and stultifying inhumanity of the bourgeois working existence.To be clear, that's not the only thing. It's just something that I have noticed throughout the years - that I tend to not like the typical "guy" movies quite as much as the masses. There are some I love, some I have come around on throughout the past few years, and some like Glengarry that I've watched a few times and didn't "get".
I see it's on Kanopy now according to justwatch. Maybe I will try again this afternoon.
On top of that, if we want to get into the psychoanalysis portion of the program - I was basically raised by women, my better friends growing up in MS and HS tended to be female, etc. When I think about it, a lot of movies that I seem to have the biggest disconnect and disagreement with the masses, especially male viewers, is movies that are greatly about dudes doing dude things. (very simplistic way to view it, but I think you get my drift). So westerns, organized crime movies, things like that. Typically hyper-masculine movie. I would put Glengarry a bit in that category, but it also has what I talked about above - very much focused on screenplay/dialogue. Usually on a rewatch of a movie that I didn't love the first time, if I do warm up to it, it usually starts with the direction, the way it looks, or a side character/performance that stood out the second time.
Or, we just like what we like.![]()
Dominant male monkey mother ####er
Mamet is the great equalizer here, though ... this wasn't some Hollywood geek conjuring up caricatures - Mamet knew the landscape.
i saw the play - so much different, delivery wise ... much more dry and rat-a-tat, which is to be expected, seeing as how the film had the luxury of multiple takes, etc.
the film was superbly cast, and each actor hit it out the park, con much gusto.
still a remarkable sit, no matter how many times i do it - a dialogue stand alone masterpiece - ergo, a true unicorn.
I think part of the equation gets left of in these discussions too. Often times we only watch a movie once or twice and it's a random bit of luck as to when you do, what your mood is, who you watched it with, etc, etc.I should say that I'm not ripping Glengarry Glen Ross, it was just...meh to me. And it's all subjective, really. Just wasn't my bag of tea the day I chose to watch it.
I think I would have liked it better on the stage.
We talk about my dislike of most 70s comedies.
Those movies are on the list- along with the standard comedies that show up on "best of" lists like Caddyshack, Animal House, Airplane!, et al.i'm still waiting for Mel Brooks to make me laugh.
never got the appeal![]()
Blazing Saddles had a moment or two. So did History of the World, Part I. But I agree. The Producers and others fall flat for me.i'm still waiting for Mel Brooks to make me laugh.
never got the appeal![]()
Those movies are on the list- along with the standard comedies that show up on "best of" lists like Caddyshack, Animal House, Airplane!, et al.
"You're a lousy ####### softball player, Jack!""Who's going to do it? You, Lt. Caffey? You, Weinberg?!"
"Who's going to do it? You, Lt. Caffey? You, Weinberg?!"
"You're a lousy ####### softball player, Jack!"