There's hardly anyone here. *sighs* The younger generation needs to watch older movies.
-
Jane_Doe01 — 17 years ago(August 09, 2008 12:31 PM)
Oh put a sock in it. There were bad movies in the "old" days and good movies now, and of course vice versa. Being a teenage viewer of classic film doesn't mean anything. If you really take a look around you'll notice there are actually many people who claim a background of being brought up on classic films from an extremely young age(these including ones of mature subject matter for which combined with the foreign time period would seem unlikely to end up resonating with a child of today. Yet somehow..). I've run into teens and 20 somethings all over IMDB who make claims the likes of having watched Alfred Hitchcock films starting from when they first learned to walk. Lest we also forget the Audrey Hepburn and Grace Kelly idolizing "glamour" princesses whom we're usually familiar with in the form of airheaded, MTV/Gossip rag whitewashed adolescent girls and the like. Sorry if this ended up bursting your bubble, but yeah, it's pretty much a given that film tastes obviously don't correlate with intellect and personal worth.
The problem with the notion regarding the more "mainstream" (by young film buff definition) crowd of youngsters and their alleged lack of clasaic film viewing is not they don't watch them (although there are some who don't, I was one) as much as many don't fall in love with them, obsess over them or run around the internet boasting about their infatuation with them (^^hint hint). Which in my view, is a good thing. Not everyone makes it a point to revolve their life around films and film viewing, go figure. -
-
zill_o_the_wisp — 15 years ago(February 21, 2011 01:36 AM)
"I'm unaware of any films which were not made with a profit motive. "<
Check out the movies of Chantel Akerman or Bela Tarr or Fredrick Wiseman.
~
'Dogtooth' - Oscar nominated!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLOy4_tzXHY -
ZildjianDFW — 17 years ago(January 16, 2009 12:53 PM)
Yes, because those are the only movies around today.
~ rolls eyes ~
Just a few contemporary directors who make high-quality films: the Coen brothers, David Fincher, Chris Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, P. T. Anderson, Sam Mendes, Marc Forster, Darren Aronofsky. To say that there are no significant films coming out today is, with all due respect, foolish.
That being said, there are countless masterpieces from past generations to be enjoyed, too. I like BOTH older movies and newer ones, and find movies to enjoy from every time period. -
moviebuff75 — 20 years ago(January 25, 2006 06:14 AM)
"I think the real sad thing is that some of his films aren't on DVD. I'd love to see the original Ten Commandments on Cleopatra, but I can't find them anywhere!"
(How do you quote someone? LOL)
I know it's been a long while since this post originally popped up, but I'll post it in case anyone else is interested.
They released the DVD for The Ten Commandments some time over the last year or two, and are releasing a collection of Cleopatra, The Crusades, Four Frightened People, Sign of the Cross, and Union Pacific in May 2006 -
john-ruffle — 19 years ago(June 19, 2006 07:46 AM)
Ten Commandments has been released on DVD in Great Britain April 2006. It is on 3 disks, with BOTH the original 1923 and the modern versions. Very well presented, the 1923 isa the b/w version, excelent screen quality, the inter-titles are TOO good, as you miss the breathing in the projector gate; other than that, worth every penny!!!
John Ruffle -
ArmandFancypants — 19 years ago(August 07, 2006 12:19 AM)
DeMille films are like a guilty pleasure. Bad dialogue, hammy acting, but massive spectacle, and some great stories. Bruckheimer, however, is just a tool, as is Bay.
__
"Tahiti is not in Europe! I'm going to be sick!" -
voodoo_joe — 21 years ago(December 22, 2004 10:17 AM)
I agree that Michael Bay stands for everything that is wrong in cinema today, yet would Bay be the director he is right now if it weren't for DeMille? Michael Bay, James Cameron, Roland Emmerich, etc all owe their success to DeMille. Throughout DeMilles career he was thought of as a hack, or someone who is ruining cinema, just like his contemporaries I listed previously. While I in no means think Bad Boys, True Lies, or The Day After Tomorrow come close to The King of Kings, or Cleopatra. I would argue that DeMilles movies are far inferior to directors from his era, such as Eisenstein.
-
swagner2001 — 21 years ago(December 29, 2004 09:13 AM)
The majority of movie critics have always considered Cecil B. DeMille a bit of a hack.
Here's a guy who would spend thousands of dollars on research to prove that safety pins existed in the biblical era.
He was good at making profitable films, but not necessarily good ones.
He used to say "if a ten year old kid on the street can't point out who the bad guy is and who the good guy is in the first ten minutes of the movie - it's evidently not a very good film. I hate all these new movies where every character is both good and bad."
He forced himself to stick to the same simple restricting formulas, and made a ton of money.
How is this different from Jerry Bruckheimer?
(I mean, aside from DeMille's recurrent bible angle?)
Don't be an age bigot - there are great and bad movies in every era.
Long Live DeMille!
"Master of Spectacle", "Great Showman", "the director who brought the bath tub to the screen."
http://www.cecilbdemille.com/ -
marcin_kukuczka — 21 years ago(March 21, 2005 08:42 AM)
I am 26 years old and admire DeMille's movies. He was the man that started everything that is powerful in world cinema. Since his productions, every movie that is successful nowadays has SOME source in Cecil B DeMille.
His films I like most:- THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
- CLEOPATRA
- THE SIGN OF THE CROSS
- THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH
- KING OF KINGS
Cinema is a good way of escaping from problems and sorrows of the world.
-
kmokatieo33 — 21 years ago(April 08, 2005 12:55 PM)
Agreed. I'm only 15, so I still have a ways to go on my movie watching, but recently I've been trying to see as many as possible, and as wide a variety as possible. This is including old movies and new ones. I can safely say that I've seen more than most people I know. While older classics can still be excellent, some people seem to think that just because they are older, they are classics. A lot of older acting was completely over the top, and the plots all too dramatic. Not to say those things are perfect today, of course, but they weren't perfet back then, either. The difference is, some older movies are irrelevant now. For someone my age to watch a movie from the 50's is, honestly, a lot harder than watching a movie from the past five years. And also, going OUT to the movies rarely has anything to do with the movie you're watching. I'll go see ANYTHING. I love the movie theater, but it's best for seeing all the shiny new movies rather than older ones of better quality.
Since technology has gotten better, many movies have recently been depending on it, but there are still a great deal of movies that DON'T. Not all new movies are trash. Sure, some are just made to make a buck, but even those ones are still entertaining, if not all too good. I was thoroughly entertained by National Treasure, in a guilty pleasure sense, but I wouldn't see it again or ever say it's one of my favorites. With that said, my three absolute favorites are Reservoir Dogs (1992), 25th Hour (2002), and Requiem for a Dream (2000). They are all powerful, emotional b68films and probably the only ones I have ever loved the second I finished watching them. That kind of movie is my favorite.
It's unfair to expect people, especially the often bashed teenagers, to watch older movies when being entertained is probably more important than seeing a really good movie for most. Lord of the Rings (which I still realy liked) made FAR more money than the better Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It happens. You can't control what others do. Breathe.
(and Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle was REALLY funny. American Pie was not.)