Ipcress

"I looked up your Red Rocks-Wizard Of Oz-Pink Floyd reference (internet search). That event sounds interesting...did you go? Was it interesting?" I was planning on going but I had to leave a day and a half before it started. A few of my friends went and said it was amazing in that setting. I could only imagine. DOH! And, yeah, that place is definitely a great place to see concerts.

"And, Icpress many of us disliked and discussed Tom before you got here. Don't feel defensive." I like Tom Cruise? Or is that a joke? I hope it's a joke... I can't stand Cruise.

Titanic will be remembered. Any movie that makes 600,000,000 from the box office in the U.S. alone is going to be remembered. There has yet to be a film to pass that movie in regards to that. I wouldn't be surprised if it was remembered for just that. But I don't think that's why it will be remembered... it's a good movie. To be honest, I couldn't stand that movie when it was in theatres. I was only 14 at the time. I thought it was "stupid"... "lame".. blah, blah. Not now though.. it's one of the only 3 DiCapprio movies I admit to liking. One thing I haven't expressed is how I actually dislike The Silence of the Lambs. I listed it on my "movies that will be remembered (1990's)" list, but only because of the hype it is still recieving. Honestly, that movie seems just like any other suspense/thriller (that's how I see it). At least I still added it to my list.. because I know it will be remembered whether I like it or not.

Well, I never said I disliked silent movies. I implied that most of the ones I've seen are not all that great. To be quite honest, I think Picadilly is an amazing movie. I also like all of the popular ones - Nosferatu, Metropolis, Sunrise, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Phantom of the Opera, M., The Last Laugh, The Blue Angel... just to name a few. I have 3 VHS filled with tons of the short silents - The Golden Beetle, The Great Train Robbery, A Trip to the Moon, The Georgetown Loop (Colorado), etc. I also have several of the old experimental silents they did, to name a few - The Life and Death of 9413, a Hollywood Extra (1928), The Seashell and the Clergyman (1928), etc.

I've never done that myself, but it does work. I've heard that from tons of people. Also, when I was in Denver, CO a few years ago.. they were showing it at Red Rocks amphitheatre snyched up like that.

"I simply didn't see that chemistry between Jack and Helen, like I did in Charade between Grant and A. Hepburn." Not sure how many times you've seen As Good As It Gets, but you may be overlooking the fact that she gave him the cold shoulder more than half of the movie. She wanted nothing to do with the man. Then towards the end after he helped her son out and took Simon on the trip she started to see that he was opening up and changing. Before she started to see that she just despised the man and thought he was rude. But in the end, she gave in to him for who he was becoming... Also.. He wouldn't have started to change if it wasn't for Simon (who is gay) and Carol's (Helen Hunt) conflicting lifestyles giving him the opportunity. He allowed himself to tolerate something different. And he did it all because he thought it would help him out in the long run... though, it would also help him out with Carol. That's what I get out of it. Maybe it seems so odd because adaptation is involved and it's not "love at first sight" or a natural pairing of souls.

Tie. As cool as Bogart is... Cagney is versatile.

I know I'll get a lot of crap for this.. but.. Maybe you're all watching the wrong modern movies. Jurassic Park? C'mon... I couldn't even watch that movie all the way through. It's obvious that it's just a blockbustin' money-maker. Most movies like that are not good. Some of them are though. Also, whatever happened to watching movies for what they are? Seems like many of you watch movies and COMPARE. Man, what a dreadful word that is....

Unless she was intoxicated... heh

"Ipcress, is that The Rainmaker of Burt Lancaster and Katharine Hepburn?" Nope - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119978/

"I think it was ipcress who differentiated between STAR and ACTOR..." GarboManiac is the one who deserves credit for that picking of sorts. "So tell me, who do you think you'll be watching when you're 60 like me?" Matt Damon. The newer generation of people will consider him to be the new Steve McQueen before you know it.. because he has the ability to mix it up and get away with it without looking like an imitator. I know many people would disagree with that statement, but he's the only young actor that comes close to being "classic" as we speak. He's already showed us he can act - Good Will Hunting, The Talented Mr. Ripley, the Bourne movies (I think they're great), Bagger Vance, The Rainmaker... Then of course he's been in comedies - Dogma and Stuck on You come to mind.

Hedy Lemarr was definitely a fine looking woman.

"Just curious, what are some of the tearjerkers that fit your criteria?" I don't think about movies, as a whole, being tearjerkers. "Jack [Nicholson]is not a Cary Grant or even a Robert Redford who could charm a 30 something even a Helen Hunt!" I know a few older guys that are with 30-something-year-olds. And, just to be direct, they're not good-looking. And seeing the actresses Jack's been with in real life, I would probably have to disagree with you. Why would you even bother comparing actors? Obviously you don't do it for fun (your comment was so serious). Message was edited by: Ipcress

Not for me. That segment of the movie is a tearjerking piece though.

Of "tearjerkers"? The only sad part was towards the end.

Have to respect that... I understand where you're coming from now.

Fred? Obviously, you're the type that would much rather claim a liking to an original than a remake. Honestly, I'm like that in a lot of cases, but, really, it doesn't make sense. You can like other things. Everything isn't original. Hell, the "originals" aren't even original. If you use your point of view on everything life has to offer.. nothing is original anymore. Do you think Double Indemnity is original just because it was the 1st of 3 movies (that you listed)? The concept is based off of real crime. How original. And, as I've already stated, I'm not trying to bash or prove anything in here.. so why would you ask me to show you a movie that's unique these days? Movies weren't even unique "back in the day". It just seems like that because they were the first to be seen.

There are too many movies to list, really.. Movies That Will Be Rememberd (1990's): Dances with Wolves (1990) Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) Rudy (1993) Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993) Forrest Gump (1994) Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994) The Shawshank Redemption (1994) As Good as it Gets (1997) Good Will Hunting (1997) Titanic (1997) The Truman Show (1998) October Sky (1999) The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999) ..like I said.. there are too many to list. Those movies will be remembered though, whether you like them or not. Message was edited by: Ipcress

I appreciate the replies and I can understand where some of you are coming from. I do understand what it's like to want to hold onto something. Maybe I just don't understand the way life is portrayed in the "classics" enough to actually get into it the way I would a movie from the 70's and beyond (though I think I like the 60's-era the best). Also, I don't get how I like newer movies and older movies.. but many of you really only like older movies. Maybe it is just an age thing... maybe it just varies from generation to generation. Or maybe it's strictly relevant to the way one grows up. I'm not looking for a definite answer in here because there isn't one. I thought it would be interesting to see reasons why though.

"whereas post 1970(an arbitrary cut-off date) are NOT ONLY BAD for the previous mentioned reasons but also because of excessive and vivid depiction of violence and sex." But it's okay to hint at things like that as in older movies? Seriously, how does that make sense? That's like saying "it's okay to think about sex.. but it's not okay to actually have sex." I do realize you said the word EXCESSIVE before that bit, but still.. is that really a valid reason? And to the other person, I realize it's all opinions, but I'm obviously trying to get some of you to actually explain your opinions. I'm not bashing anyone. I even said some of my opinions in the opening of this thread. Message was edited by: Ipcress

It seems like they're just making jokes about some of my posts.

You like what you like.. And, since I didn't say it before, welcome.

Don't bash older movies.. or you get at least 10 people on you. And all 10 will cite the same actors and actresses as being great. If they mention James Dean... just ignore them. Message was edited by: Ipcress

I'm 22 years old and I like classic actors (I associate actresses with actors as well), as well as modern actors. I don't understand why the older people on here bash modern things as much as they do. Most of the time it's the same names that come up and people tend to bash 70's movies quite a bit. Bashing the 80's, some of the 90's.. and some of today's movies/actors is understandable.. but the 70's? There were some great movies in the 70's. The only way I would bash the movies of the 70's is if I strictly bashed most of the comedies, blaxploitation, etc. Man, if anything needs to be bashed it should be some of those awful silent movies that people think are so damn amazing even though, in my opinion, they're not. Some of them are... but not all. Do you people really watch those movies as much as you make it out to be? I agree with the history aspects of silent movies, but this board takes a lot of things a little too far. It's a very biased place. Just because it's old does not mean it's automatically great. James Cagney had several bad movies, Garbo has more than several, Marilyn Monroe wasn't a good actress (I don't care what you say), Cary Grant.. what a way to repeat himself in the comedies he did, eh? Marlon Brando? He has good movies... but not that many. Then you have James Dean who hardly did anything.. but he died young with credits to a few good movies so of course he's "classic". I don't get it. Could someone break this down for me in a serious manner? No jokes thrown in? I know some of you will have a hard time not throwing in sarcasm but try. EDIT: I do not mean "older" to mean "old"... keep that in mind. Also, I do realize 70's movies and beyond would not be considered classic (some don't even consider the 60's classic) but it's still a topic, nonetheless. Message was edited by: Ipcress

A lot of people on here just use IMDB or other sites to "memorize", if you will, movie info. Or the many books/magazines they own/collect. Anyway, I suggest using http://www.imdb.com for movie info. (character names, reviews, etc.).