John Dule's 100 Favorite Films Thread

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While there ought to be at least one of the trilogy on your list, I'm doubtful it should be #1, and if it is, it should be For a Few Dollars More

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can see the argument that TGTBaTU distills the spaghetti western into its most distinctive form. However, FaFDM has a better story and much more sympathetic and relatable characters. Only Tuco is even marginally sympathetic in TGTBaTU.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

'Lawrence of Arabia' is a movie I have always wanted to see but has always eluded me. I don't think I've ever encountered it on cable or a streaming service in the time that I've been interested in watching it. Some day I'll see it, I'm sure.

It's on Canadian Netflix right now. There are ways to trick Netflix into thinking you are Canadian.

It's on IMDb TV here, but you have to deal with some ads.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My favorite bit of Raiders trivia is how the scene with the swordsman was improved because Harrison was under the weather the day they shot the scene. Thankfully, we won't have any revisionism so that we longer have Indy shooting first.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't disagree with most of your review, but I must disagree with the idea that the film "stays truer to the themes that Burgess wanted to convey". It's clear to me that the importance of self-redemption as opposed to externally imposed redemption is the major theme Burgess wanted to convey. The omission of the numerically significant 21st chapter changes the major theme to one of the importance of remaining unchanged by external factors. One can certainly argue that the book (and thereby the movie) is better without it, but not that it's truer to Burgess' intent.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't disagree with most of your review, but I must disagree with the idea that the film "stays truer to the themes that Burgess wanted to convey". It's clear to me that the importance of self-redemption as opposed to externally imposed redemption is the major theme Burgess wanted to convey. The omission of the numerically significant 21st chapter changes the major theme to one of the importance of remaining unchanged by external factors. One can certainly argue that the book (and thereby the movie) is better without it, but not that it's truer to Burgess' intent.

Hmm, I'll admit it's been a long time since I read the book. How explicit is the conclusion that Alex changed from within? In my memory that final chapter felt very forced and tacked-on; perhaps that's just because there wasn't enough build-up to it though. Nevertheless, I take your point.

Yeah, it does come across as a forced addition to reach that conclusion, but it's basically that as an adult he finds the ultraviolence to be boring rather than intrinsically bad. Still, the chaplain character earlier in the book does help develop the theme.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Lovely Bones is not in that category, though... I honestly felt dirty after watching that film.

I never saw the film, tho I did listen to it the novel it was adapted from on the radio. (It was one of the books done on the old Radio Reader program.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It was odd how the original cast Star Trek movies pretty consistently switched between clunkers and good movies, with II, IV, and VI being good and I, III, and V being awful.

Personally, I enjoyed The Undiscovered Country slightly more than The Wrath of Khan.  Maybe that's because when it comes to movies, the only earworms I want from them are musical.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Have you ever watched the 1925 version of Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ? Of the three full-length film adaptations of Wallace's novel, it certainly follows the text the closest, including subplots and parts of the text that the others chose to omit.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Have you ever watched the 1925 version of Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ? Of the three full-length film adaptations of Wallace's novel, it certainly follows the text the closest, including subplots and parts of the text that the others chose to omit.

Like Andrei Rublev, I've wanted to see the 1925 Ben-Hur for years, but I haven't been able to find a decent copy of it anywhere. Would you say it's better than the '59 version?

The Internet Archive has a fairly good copy.

https://archive.org/details/BenHur_20161225

It's definitely different. Both have their points. The 1959 has the advantage of a full soundtrack instead of just music; the 1925 has the advantage of being able to alternate between various tints for some scenes and the use of two-color Technicolor for others. (The Wizard of Oz wasn't the first film to alternate between using monochrome and Technicolor for stylistic effect.) Sadly, by 1959, using different film stocks for different scenes just wasn't something audiences would've accepted, even if the director would've even considered it.

I like the vicious inventiveness of the pirates in the sea battle. Catapulting glass jars full of poisonous snakes and "returning" a Roman captive to the Romans by lashing him to the prow of a pirate galley before ramming a Roman galley were definitely ruthless.

The 1925 chariot race is superior as far as the actual race, but the preliminaries are done better in the 1959 version.

The 1959 version makes more use of Messala than the 1925 version, tho whether that's primarily because in the 1959 version some other characters were cut/reduced from the 1925 version, or a deliberate attempt to increase the spitefulness of Messala, I can't say. For example, in the 1959 version, after the chariot race, Messala tells Ben-Hur he can find his family in the Valley of the Lepers. In the 1925 version, he doesn't even know what's happened to Ben-Hur's family, and they are still in prison. (In the 1925 version, Pontius Pilate orders a general release of prisoners of unproven guilt when he arrives in Jerusalem, and this happens after the chariot race, which takes place in Antioch, not in Jerusalem. Incidentally, since there was a Roman Circus in Antioch, but not in Jerusalem, this makes the 1925 version more historically accurate.)

The 1925 Judah Ben-Hur was more actively involved in trying to gain his revenge, and in saving Quintus Arrius during the sea battle.

The one thing I would definitely drop that was in the 1925 version if I were to try to combine the two and keep only the best is a sideplot of Ben-Hur raising for the use of the Messiah a pair of legion-sized units, one amongst the Jews of Galilee and one amongst the Arabs of the desert. They don't play any part in the plot except to accentuate that Jesus didn't come (the first time) to fight with armies but to conquer by love and that Judah Ben-Hur was extremely wealthy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I haven't seen the 2016 reimagining, and based on what I've heard of it, I don't want to.