Favorite Black&White Movies.

[musicman1999]

Color was introduced through prior to CASABLANCA and CITIZEN KANE, they did have the choice though it would have been insanely expensive at the time and was not the 'norm' but still a choice, though these films work so well in B&W it's hard to envision them otherwise.

True the first major releases in color were in 1939,but using color in 1941 would be the same as using B&W in 2007,an artistic choice.These films were made in B&W because that is the way films were made in 1941.I agree that these films are better in B&W because thats how i know them,i mean i don't want to watch The Godfather in B&W cause thats not how i know it.

bill

[Smokey]

Frankly, I haven't seen Casablanca so I really cant comment on its relative worth to the film world. I hear its a good film, but never made time for it.

As my kids are younger (10,8,7) I highly doubt the artistic beauty of Casablanca would be enjoyed. I would much rather listen to them laugh, then constantly complain about how boring Casablanca would be for them.

Don’t feel bad GB, I tend to agree with you.

For some movies, one will get tons of compliments and glowing reviews labeling it as one of the greatest. But after watching it for yourself, you sit there and wonder why so much commotion.

Casablanca is good example of such a movie. It is an entraining movie, but nothing spectacular that make you run to video store to rent it. I think Bogard’s other movie Caine Mutiny (although it is in color) is much more entertaining than Casablanca.

[PeruvianSkies]

True the first major releases in color were in 1939,but using color in 1941 would be the same as using B&W in 2007,an artistic choice.These films were made in B&W because that is the way films were made in 1941.I agree that these films are better in B&W because thats how i know them,i mean i don't want to watch The Godfather in B&W cause thats not how i know it.

bill

True, although many of the earlier color films were still only seen in B&W when the aired on TV prior to the color TV being mainstream. The point that I was hoping to make is that people are not opposed to watching B&W films even today. Some people feel that B&W is no longer accessible for people nowadays, but I disagree, it's just that people have to learn how to watch them again. Current movies that are in B&W prove that people will still watch them. Older movies (take CASABLANCA for example) are too complex for people today. The film language has changed in such a huge way over the past 50 or so years. Watch a film like DOUBLE INDEMNITY...people don't act or talk like that in todays world, so you sorta have to get past the barriers that are there. If you can get past these, just like learning to watch Foreign films, read subtitles, etc...a whole new world opens up for you. I am 27 years old, I didn't grow up on B&W films, yet I have more films pre 1950 in my collection that most people have in their entire collection...why? Well, first I am a film fanatic and second, I have spent enough time learning about film that I have grown a deep appreciation for them. I realize that I am in a very small minority on these things, but that does not make me rule out the idea that people today can still appreciate older films, especially classics. It just takes some time to get used to a few things and the willingness to try something different. Chances are that if you expand your horizons and realize just how amazing films like TOUCH OF EVIL or THE LADY VANISHES are, it only makes you quench for more films like this. The reality is that the more you appreciate these older films, the more you realize just how lame most of the movies released today are.

[PeruvianSkies]

Color tinting went back to the early 1900's, but the first color full-length film was in 1918 with CUPID ANGLING, although in 1939 GONE WITH THE WIND and THE WIZARD OF OZ became two mega-blockbusters that really made color a revolutionary idea. ANIMAL CRACKERS in 1930 also experimented with color usage as well.

From PBS....

As early as 1903, filmmakers were experimenting with capturing the color of real life on film. Using filter systems such as Kinemacolor, developed by Charles Urban, black-and-white film was exposed and projected through a color filter system. Film was also tinted to create color. Artists painstakingly tinted film to create washes of color, adding an element of real life to film. One of the earliest examples of this is in the 1915 film Birth of a Nation.

During the 1920s, Eastman Kodak developed more systems such as Lenticular film, two-strip Technicolor and, in 1932, three-strip Technicolor. It was this process that had some success in Hollywood. Walt Disney began producing Technicolor cartoons in 1933. In 1939, Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz both used Technicolor.
Eastman Kodak started offering 16mm portable color home movie cameras in 1936 that used Kodachrome film. Several advances in the flexibility of film stock, color developing and camera size made it easy to travel and shoot color film anywhere in the world. Amateur filmmakers, such as Francis Line, began documenting a world they had longed to, in full color.

As America entered World War II, the U.S. government seized all commercial color film for the war effort.

[musicman1999]

True, although many of the earlier color films were still only seen in B&W when the aired on TV prior to the color TV being mainstream. The point that I was hoping to make is that people are not opposed to watching B&W films even today. Some people feel that B&W is no longer accessible for people nowadays, but I disagree, it's just that people have to learn how to watch them again. Current movies that are in B&W prove that people will still watch them. Older movies (take CASABLANCA for example) are too complex for people today. The film language has changed in such a huge way over the past 50 or so years. Watch a film like DOUBLE INDEMNITY...people don't act or talk like that in todays world, so you sorta have to get past the barriers that are there. If you can get past these, just like learning to watch Foreign films, read subtitles, etc...a whole new world opens up for you. I am 27 years old, I didn't grow up on B&W films, yet I have more films pre 1950 in my collection that most people have in their entire collection...why? Well, first I am a film fanatic and second, I have spent enough time learning about film that I have grown a deep appreciation for them. I realize that I am in a very small minority on these things, but that does not make me rule out the idea that people today can still appreciate older films, especially classics. It just takes some time to get used to a few things and the willingness to try something different. Chances are that if you expand your horizons and realize just how amazing films like TOUCH OF EVIL or THE LADY VANISHES are, it only makes you quench for more films like this. The reality is that the more you appreciate these older films, the more you realize just how lame most of the movies released today are.

I think you need to give people more credit,i don't think people care if the movie is in color or not they want quality entertainment.I remember when Schindlers came out i ran into a friend at the theatre after the film and as we are both film buffs we stopped to talk about it and i asked what he thought about the B&W and he said the film was so engrossing that it was half over before he even noticed.Give us good entertainment,colour,B&W,red and green,whatever.

bill

[PeruvianSkies]

I think you need to give people more credit,i don't think people care if the movie is in color or not they want quality entertainment.I remember when Schindlers came out i ran into a friend at the theatre after the film and as we are both film buffs we stopped to talk about it and i asked what he thought about the B&W and he said the film was so engrossing that it was half over before he even noticed.Give us good entertainment,colour,B&W,red and green,whatever.

bill

THE THIRD MAN is one of the most engrossing films of all time, yet few people alive today under the age of 40 have seen this film...why? Because people are not exposed to older films as much, but DVD has made these great films available in restored versions and this has created ways for people to have access to these films, how am I not giving people credit...what do they deserve credit for?

[PeruvianSkies]

I think you need to give people more credit,i don't think people care if the movie is in color or not they want quality entertainment.I remember when Schindlers came out i ran into a friend at the theatre after the film and as we are both film buffs we stopped to talk about it and i asked what he thought about the B&W and he said the film was so engrossing that it was half over before he even noticed.Give us good entertainment,colour,B&W,red and green,whatever.

bill

I am glad you found SCHINDLERS LIST 'entertaining'. It's probably my favorite popcorn flick.

[Lance B]

Well, again, its subjective. Personally I think that "Its a Wonderful Life" is an OK film. I saw it a couple of times, but filled with Holiday spirit after it....not so much. Frankly, I haven't seen Casablanca so I really cant comment on its relative worth to the film world. I hear its a good film, but never made time for it.

But what really makes one film better than another? If I am in the mood for a Holiday comedy film, Christmas Vacation, or Elf would probably be a better choice than Casablanca no? As my kids are younger (10,8,7) I highly doubt the artistic beauty of Casablanca would be enjoyed. I would much rather listen to them laugh, then constantly complain about how boring Casablanca would be for them.

So depending upon where you are in your life, and where I am our film choices would be vastly different. Plus, you seem to be a rather knowledgeable film buff, and tend to look more at a film for camera angles, subtle sound, and other technical stuff. I just tend to watch, and enjoy the experience for what it is to ME. A movie.

Excellent points.

I was sort of in the same boat as you a few years back when my kids were about 12, 13 and 16. They loved The Marx Bros "animal Crackers" and still do, to the point that they still bring it out every few months to watch it and have a good old laugh even though they are now 16,17 and 20. There is nothing better than to sit down with them and enjoy a great comedy like this and have a good old laugh. We even laugh so hard we cry at some of the great lines. It's great to sit down and watch a movie with your kids that you do not have top cringe at due to some smut or foul language and walk away afterwards thoroughly rewarded from the experience.

Also of great value is The Marx Brothers "Duck Soup", the scene with the "Mirror" is an absolute classic and "the Cat and the Canary" with Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard is another beauty, some of those Bob Hope one liners are gems even today.

Like you say, depending on the time of your life, movies have different appeal. It's a "Wonderful Life" is another great B&W classic that I love to watch every now and then as it sort of puts things into perspective in your life.

As you say, Christmas Vacation with Chevy Chase is a real winner too when in the mood for that sort of comedy. Another fave of mine is Funny Farm with Chevy Chase: "Remember Mrs Farmer, when you buy a house, you get everything with it, whether that be, oil, or gold, or Claude Muscleman!"

[Lance B]

Don’t feel bad GB, I tend to agree with you.

For some movies, one will get tons of compliments and glowing reviews labeling it as one of the greatest. But after watching it for yourself, you sit there and wonder why so much commotion.

Casablanca is good example of such a movie. It is an entraining movie, but nothing spectacular that make you run to video store to rent it. I think Bogard’s other movie Caine Mutiny (although it is in color) is much more entertaining than Casablanca.

Couldn't agree more.

As for critics, I see a movie rated 10/10 in the paper and shy away from it due to past experience of being disappointed with what the critics say is a superb movie. Many of these critics are a little "esoteric" for their own good, IMO.

I did put Casablanca on my B&W list, but it is not a must have, IMO. In fact, I don't have a copy and that is why I added: "No list can be without it?" I think it is quite entertaining, but I would rather watch The Caine Mutiny also, it has a much better message.

[PeruvianSkies]

Couldn't agree more.

As for critics, I see a movie rated 10/10 in the paper and shy away from it due to past experience of being disappointed with what the critics say is a superb movie. Many of these critics are a little "esoteric" for their own good, IMO.

.

As a movie critic I have to say a few things...

The first is that MOST movie critics suck. The reason is that most of them seem like they are getting paid off for giving movies good marks. Most of the time I disagree, however, there are some critics who are on-the-money most of the time. The reason that some people disagree with movie critics is because their 'scope' is much more limited than others. A movie critics sees an average of about 400+ movies per year, if not more. The average person probably sees about 100 per year, some less. When someone tells me that something like ....TOUCH OF EVIL (for example) is boring or lame or whatever...I usually filter out their response and start to ask them what their frame of reference is, most of the time they are not appreciating the film for it's technical achievements and are simply less familiar with movies of it's caliber, sure everyones entitled to their opinion, but to write-off a film like that takes some solid defense for your position, just the same goes for reasons why it's a masterpiece. You can always argue if a movie is good or bad, but you can't argue with the importance of most films, especially if you are familiar enough with it's influence and stamp on the film industry as a whole, most people are not into film that much. One has to understand visual storytelling, lighting, camera movement, directing, art direction, etc etc etc to really lecture on film.

This would be no different than someone saying that Mozart didn't have talent. Well, that's their opinion, but his body of work demonstrates his ability and those who do NOT know how to play music, read music, etc etc are not going to be nearly as reputable as a person who has studied his music, can play his music, and understands the deep roots behind modes, notes, chord structure, time signature, movements, various parts, and all the other components that make up a piece of Mozart's work. That doesn't mean that you have to be a music scholar or a film scholar to love and appreciate Mozart's music, but it certainly helps and only allows that appreciation to grow to a much deeper level.

I feel the same is true about film, if I hadn't studied it, read up on it, spent thousands of hours watching movies and learning about them, plus also shooting my own movies and working on movie sets than I would have a much more limited scope of knowledge on what I am talking about and such. I am not trying to come across with an elitist mindset, but if there is one thing that I know what I am talking about, it's movies.

[Lance B]

As a movie critic I have to say a few things...

The first is that MOST movie critics suck. The reason is that most of them seem like they are getting paid off for giving movies good marks. Most of the time I disagree, however, there are some critics who are on-the-money most of the time. The reason that some people disagree with movie critics is because their 'scope' is much more limited than others. A movie critics sees an average of about 400+ movies per year, if not more. The average person probably sees about 100 per year, some less. When someone tells me that something like ....TOUCH OF EVIL (for example) is boring or lame or whatever...I usually filter out their response and start to ask them what their frame of reference is, most of the time they are not appreciating the film for it's technical achievements and are simply less familiar with movies of it's caliber, sure everyones entitled to their opinion, but to write-off a film like that takes some solid defense for your position, just the same goes for reasons why it's a masterpiece. You can always argue if a movie is good or bad, but you can't argue with the importance of most films, especially if you are familiar enough with it's influence and stamp on the film industry as a whole, most people are not into film that much. One has to understand visual storytelling, lighting, camera movement, directing, art direction, etc etc etc to really lecture on film.

This would be no different than someone saying that Mozart didn't have talent. Well, that's their opinion, but his body of work demonstrates his ability and those who do NOT know how to play music, read music, etc etc are not going to be nearly as reputable as a person who has studied his music, can play his music, and understands the deep roots behind modes, notes, chord structure, time signature, movements, various parts, and all the other components that make up a piece of Mozart's work. That doesn't mean that you have to be a music scholar or a film scholar to love and appreciate Mozart's music, but it certainly helps and only allows that appreciation to grow to a much deeper level.

I feel the same is true about film, if I hadn't studied it, read up on it, spent thousands of hours watching movies and learning about them, plus also shooting my own movies and working on movie sets than I would have a much more limited scope of knowledge on what I am talking about and such. I am not trying to come across with an elitist mindset, but if there is one thing that I know what I am talking about, it's movies.

Well, first of all, we agree on one thing and that is that most movie critics suck.

I think you are doing many people a diservice by implying that they cannot tell a good movie from a bad movie due to the fact that they may not "understand" the film industry. To say that a film is important to the film industry is a little elitist for the film industry itself, after all the film is made for the buying public not as a self gratification and indulgence for the film industry.

I too have watched thousands of hours of films and I do not consider myself a critic, but I know what I like, just like many more here. In the end it is irrelevent what I think as it is only my opinion.

I very much agree with your assessment of visual stroy telling, lighting(for mood etc), camera movement and all the other attributes that go to make up a well constructed movie, but again, it is the buying public who pays the wages for the the "movie experts" to indulge in their craft.

What you say about Mozart is quite true, but that doesn't mean that people have to like his music. Having said that, you do not need to be a music graduate to love the music either. Also, having studied music doesn't make someone an expert as to whether the music Mozart plays or writes is what the public will like.

There was a critic who criticised Ritchie Blackmore and his "Smoke on the Water" riff saying that it can't be good music as it is only 4 chords, have a listen to Beethovens 5th symphony! Da da da daaaa. ;-)

Let's face it, at the end of the day, we can argue until the cows come home as to what is considered good or bad, but it is the buying publc who decide what will succeed and all the critics in the world can't change that. Ask 4 critics their opinion on a subject and you will come up with 8 different answers. ;-)

One movie I neglected to mention in my B&W favourites is "The Lodger"with Laird Cregar and George Sanders, that is a classic for mood and excellent lighting. This is just my opinion of course and is worth every cent that you paid for it. ;-)

[musicman1999]

The main point i was trying to make was that the fact that a movie is B&W or not is irrelevant in the case of older films,it is only meaningful in the case of newer films that chose
B&W.If Casablanca had been filmed in color in 1942 would you have thought less of it?It's impact would be exactly the same.
By giving people credit what i meant was that people will find good films,dvd has helped with this as almost every film ever made must be on dvd by now.There is a video store in my town that is known for its classic film collection and those films rent very well.
The great thing about opinions is that everyone has one and no one is wrong.If joe 6pack thinks that Transformers or Talledaga Nights is the best film ever made who am i to argue with them,i don't agree but they voted with their wallets and that matters the most.In the end a director may make a critically acclaimed film but if it does no box office he might not make a second one.

bill

[Groundbeef]

[QUOTE=PeruvianSkies]When someone tells me that something like ....TOUCH OF EVIL (for example) is boring or lame or whatever...I usually filter out their response and start to ask them what their frame of reference is, most of the time they are not appreciating the film for it's technical achievements and are simply less familiar with movies of it's caliber, sure everyones entitled to their opinion, but to write-off a film like that takes some solid defense for your position, just the same goes for reasons why it's a masterpiece. /QUOTE]

You can't have it both ways. If I don't like a film, it may be that I just didn't like it. I remeber all the times that someone has said around 10-31...YOU HAVE TO SEE the original Halloween. I don't care how 'important' or 'good' the film was. I don't LIKE horror films all that much. So for me, if I don't want to see it, who really cares? If you were to corner me at a party and start telling me about the lighting, the effects, blah blah blah, I still wouldn't want to see it. There is no other defense.

You can always argue if a movie is good or bad, but you can't argue with the importance of most films, especially if you are familiar enough with it's influence and stamp on the film industry as a whole, most people are not into film that much. One has to understand visual storytelling, lighting, camera movement, directing, art direction, etc etc etc to really lecture on film.

This is like the technical emmys. Sure they are important, but unless you really are into film appreciation, most of the viewing public doesn't give a rats ass who wins the technical award for lighting.

I am not trying to come across with an elitist mindset, but if there is one thing that I know what I am talking about, it's movies.

And we can appreciate your in depth knowledge. But to suggest that I would enjoy a film MORE (such as a horror film) if I understood the technical details more is incorrect. If I don't want to see a genre because I don't like them (horror) all the details ain't gonna sway me.

[Troy]

Touch of Evil is a great movie, as is The Third Man.

Anyone that calls themselves a "film buff" needs to see these movies.

If the studios had affordable color stock in 1942 Casablanca would have been made in color.

Yes, Joe 65pack is welcome to say Talladega Nights or Transformers are great films. But Joe 6pack has no business reviewing movies, and THAT is the pitfall with a BB like this.

Groundbeef, you can say that Nat Lamp's Xmas is better than Casablanca without even seeing Casablanca all you want, but anyone with any sorta film background is just going to laugh you off as a git.

See, on a message board like this EVERYBODY is a critic, whether you're qualified to be one or not. Consequently others that haven't seen Casablanca are going to believe a guy like Groundbeef as if he WAS a bona fide reviewer even though he's woefully unqualified to be one.

[PeruvianSkies]

Touch of Evil is a great movie, as is The Third Man.

Anyone that calls themselves a "film buff" needs to see these movies.

If the studios had affordable color stock in 1942 Casablanca would have been made in color.

Yes, Joe 65pack is welcome to say Talladega Nights or Transformers are great films. But Joe 6pack has no business reviewing movies, and THAT is the pitfall with a BB like this.

Groundbeef, you can say that Nat Lamp's Xmas is better than Casablanca without even seeing Casablanca all you want, but anyone with any sorta film background is just going to laugh you off as a git.

See, on a message board like this EVERYBODY is a critic, whether you're qualified to be one or not. Consequently others that haven't seen Casablanca are going to believe a guy like Groundbeef as if he WAS a bona fide reviewer even though he's woefully unqualified to be one.

Yeah, I agree. Thanks for your honesty too Troy, most people skirt around laying it all out there.

[Groundbeef]

Casablanca[/B] without even seeing Casablanca all you want, but anyone with any sorta film background is just going to laugh you off as a git.

See, on a message board like this EVERYBODY is a critic, whether you're qualified to be one or not. Consequently others that haven't seen Casablanca are going to believe a guy like Groundbeef as if he WAS a bona fide reviewer even though he's woefully unqualified to be one.

No, what I said was that I would rather watch Lamp's Vac, versus listening to the kids howl about an old BW film. I later qualified my statment and said that although Casablanca is certainly a fine film (so I've heard) it doesn't fit in with my family movie viewing habits. And in my mind, in my world that makes it a better CHOICE of film. That might be a better way to state it.

And qualified means what exactly? If you are talking technical issues, yes I am woefully unqualified to offer advice as to what makes a "great" movie versus what makes a "poor" movie. However, no matter what technical beauty a film may posses, if its crap scripting, and crap execution its still crap. As we bumpkins sometimes say, "you can't polish that turd". So wax all you want about the technical merits of a film, but if I don't like it, I am MORE than qualified to tell people that I didn't like it.

No more or less than if I don't like caviar. If its salty eggs you want, certainly eat them up. But no amount of discussion about where/when/ and what fish they were harvested from will make me sit back and say..."Ahhhh well you didn't say it was a Russion Wild Hand Caught Sturgen hand milked and released back into the wild...load up the plate!" They are still salty eggs, and I don't want them.

[musicman1999]

If i pay my money to rent,buy or view a film than i am qualified to express my opinion on said film.If i don't care for a film then it does not matter how well written,well acted or how good the camera work was.Just because it looks good does not mean that i have to like it.


bill

[PeruvianSkies]

If i pay my money to rent,buy or view a film than i am qualified to express my opinion on said film.If i don't care for a film then it does not matter how well written,well acted or how good the camera work was.Just because it looks good does not mean that i have to like it.


bill

No one is asking you to like it, but if you decide that you don't like a film that most people, especially film scholars, feel is a masterpiece don't get heated when they disagree with your analysis. Again, you are entitled to your opinion, just like everyone. It's a tricky business to rate artwork, I mean everyone is obviously allowed to have their views on it, but there is also that line that says, well is Mozart more talented than Beethoven? Or Kansas over ELP? What about Mozart over Kansas? Can they even be compared? What is a better film CASABLANCA or CHRISTMAS VACATION? CASABLANCA in my eyes, but which is a better Holiday film: VACATION. Which movie is funnier? VACATION. Which movie has better directing? CASABLANCA. Which movie is on the AFI top 100 movies of all time? CASABLANCA. So they are different and can not really be compared on some levels. I agree that MOST people/families would probably rather sit around and watch CHRISTMAS VACATION in December, but that doesn't mean that the appreciation of something like CASABLANCA can be ignored, or IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE for that matter, in fact that film didn't really do well upon it's initial release. Then again, think about the time it was released, people in the US didn't really think that there was anything wonderful about being in a War.

[PeruvianSkies]

See, on a message board like this EVERYBODY is a critic, whether you're qualified to be one or not. Consequently others that haven't seen Casablanca are going to believe a guy like Groundbeef as if he WAS a bona fide reviewer even though he's woefully unqualified to be one.

For me, I've written for 4 movie-review websites (DVDangle, DVDBeaver, DVDempire, and FulvueDrive-in, plus a few local publications such as The Monthly Post, the Cabinet, and CityPaper. I have taken 18 movie credits at Pittsburgh Filmmakers and worked on the set of THE MOTHMAN PROPHECiES, WONDERBOYS, and THE BREAD, MY SWEET, so I at least feel somewhat qualified to do serious discussion on film, plus I have read hundreds of books on the subject and also had a film professor/friend that I helped when writing a few books that he published on Max Ophuls. I feel like I have at least enough expertise to tell the difference between, oh let's say...CHRISTMAS VACATION and CASABLANCA.

[musicman1999]

No one is asking you to like it, but if you decide that you don't like a film that most people, especially film scholars, feel is a masterpiece don't get heated when they disagree with your analysis. Again, you are entitled to your opinion, just like everyone. It's a tricky business to rate artwork, I mean everyone is obviously allowed to have their views on it, but there is also that line that says, well is Mozart more talented than Beethoven? Or Kansas over ELP? What about Mozart over Kansas? Can they even be compared? What is a better film CASABLANCA or CHRISTMAS VACATION? CASABLANCA in my eyes, but which is a better Holiday film: VACATION. Which movie is funnier? VACATION. Which movie has better directing? CASABLANCA. Which movie is on the AFI top 100 movies of all time? CASABLANCA. So they are different and can not really be compared on some levels. I agree that MOST people/families would probably rather sit around and watch CHRISTMAS VACATION in December, but that doesn't mean that the appreciation of something like CASABLANCA can be ignored, or IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE for that matter, in fact that film didn't really do well upon it's initial release. Then again, think about the time it was released, people in the US didn't really think that there was anything wonderful about being in a War.

Hey that was not me,that was the other guy.I happen to like Casablanca and Beethoven was clearly more talented that Mozart.

bill

[PeruvianSkies]

Hey that was not me,that was the other guy.I happen to like Casablanca and Beethoven was clearly more talented that Mozart.

bill

Really Beethoven over Mozart? Wow, I personally don't think I could even make a choice if I had to, they both were just so insanely talented and true masters of the artform. Plus, they were both different at what they did, I'd probably pick Mozart more for composition/operas and Beethoven for straight up piano and symphony movements. I mean this is almost as hard as deciding between who would win...

Ditka or a hurricane named Ditka....Daaaa Bears.

[musicman1999]

Well clearly might be a stretch,Mozart was very talented,they were just rather different.Mozart was famous before Beethoven was born,he was a child prodigy and Ludwig really had to work hard.Mozart died young,mid 30's,Beethoven lived well into his 50's.Mozart was well liked and thought of as a nice guy,Beethoven not so much.Mozart made most of his money from patrons while Beethoven made his living being a musician,he was the first rockstar in a way.He also composed his 9th symphony after having complete hearing loss,imagine,thats like Coppola directing The Godfather after loosing his sight.
You are right though,picking between those 2 is like picking what color Rolls-Royce you want,but everyone has a favorite color.

bill

[PeruvianSkies]

Well clearly might be a stretch,Mozart was very talented,they were just rather different.Mozart was famous before Beethoven was born,he was a child prodigy and Ludwig really had to work hard.Mozart died young,mid 30's,Beethoven lived well into his 50's.Mozart was well liked and thought of as a nice guy,Beethoven not so much.Mozart made most of his money from patrons while Beethoven made his living being a musician,he was the first rockstar in a way.He also composed his 9th symphony after having complete hearing loss,imagine,thats like Coppola directing The Godfather after loosing his sight.
You are right though,picking between those 2 is like picking what color Rolls-Royce you want,but everyone has a favorite color.

bill

Yeah, if Coppola has lost sight those films might be even darker than they already are! Just kidding, I know that Gordon Willis (the Cinematography on all 3 films) intentionally shot these films with harsh lighting and he even admits that he pushed the envelope a bit too far on GFII.

[Troy]

And qualified means what exactly? If you are talking technical issues, yes I am woefully unqualified to offer advice as to what makes a "great" movie versus what makes a "poor" movie.

At this point I'd settle for actually seeing movies before you dismiss them.

One aspect of being qualified means that you can string sentences together, which you don't have a problem with.

However it also means that you have a general knowledge of movies of all types. Drama, comedy, action, sci-fi, documentaries, B&W, color, movies from the 30s or the 00s and even silent films.

I think it's fine that you only watch movies with your kids and that it's all color, family-fare. Really, I do. But that also means that you have little or no experience with other types of film. If you really want to talk about movies, stick to things you know about and lurk or ask questions on the subjects you don't. Don't swagger in and pontificate without a leg to stand on. Makes you look bad.

If i pay my money to rent,buy or view a film than i am qualified to express my opinion on said film.

You're talking about the other guy, right?

Of course he is, but if he has a better understanding of movies in general, that will temper the intensity of his conviction and attitude, whether he's aware of it or not. It will allow him to see that individual film from a more well-rounded perspective.

Look, if the only sushi he ever tried was uni and he hated it, does that mean that he is now qualified to say "sushi sucks!"?

"Casablanca is a great film" is not fact. Criticism is opinion. It is not absolute. Good criticism is a measured and reasoned comparison to how one piece of art ranks when compared to other, similar pieces of art. If you want to be taken seriously as a critic, you need a lot of understanding of that type of art before your opinion can carry any weight.

Casablanca was a quickly-made, throw-away movie from the studio-system assembly-line. It was just one of the hundreds of movies made that year. It was not any more popular than other movies at the time, but took on a life of it's own in later years as the Bogart mystique took root. The casting was accidental, but it was perfect. It's a good movie and a prime example of what American movies were like during the war. However, I much prefer a similar film from the same general era called "To Have and Have Not" which had simply amazing chemistry between Bogart and a very young and sexy Lauren Bacall. They were married shortly after this movie was made and you can see them falling for each other onscreen. She was sooo hot. Walter Brennan was hilarious as the drunk, too. Hoagy Carmichael too, great stuff. The only thing missing for me was Peter Lorre. THAHN has very similar WWII resistance themes to Casablanca, but it's a much more fun movie.

[Groundbeef]

At this point I'd settle for actually seeing movies before you dismiss them.

One aspect of being qualified means that you can string sentences together, which you don't have a problem with.

However it also means that you have a general knowledge of movies of all types. Drama, comedy, action, sci-fi, documentaries, B&W, color, movies from the 30s or the 00s and even silent films.

I think it's fine that you only watch movies with your kids and that it's all color, family-fare. Really, I do. But that also means that you have little or no experience with other types of film. If you really want to talk about movies, stick to things you know about and lurk or ask questions on the subjects you don't. Don't swagger in and pontificate without a leg to stand on. Makes you look bad.

I think the knife edge we are discussing is "Critical Review/Man on Street Review". I am squarely on the Man On Street side. I don't have the technical knowledge, but I do know what I like, and what I don't like. So whether I know if the director has won 10 emmys, or the lighting guy has won technical awards, it doesn't/wont affect my subjective judgement of a particular film.

Am I qualified to write a newspaper movie review? No, but I AM qualified to offer an opinon on whether I enjoyed a film or not.

And I have clearly stated on several times that I hadn't seen the film, but at no time indicated that the film was of poor quality, or that Christams Vacation was a "better" film in the sense that it was technically better. However, FOR ME it is a "better" choice to watch with the family.

So if we are going to talk about pontification, I would suggest you take your elite attitude and swagger on over to a "FilmCentric" forum. As far as I can see this is an amateur friendly (sometimes) forum, where debate should be open and free. Not everyone is an expert, but we should all be allowed to express our opinions free of righteous indignation from those that may be a bit more "technically knowlegeable". If we all lurked because we were not an expert on every topic on this board it would be a mighty boring place.