Film

How do I into Film(not movies) and how do I continue later on?I'm interested in what the medium can offer not that I want to be seen as pretentious or something(its not like I will discuss them with anyone around me anyway).

Other urls found in this thread:

letterboxd.com/cinebro/list/they-shoot-pictures-dont-they-top-1000-film/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

you watch them

yeah but I don't know from where to start from.

cmon

Go about watching the films that have won the Oscar for best Motion Picture from the first to the last. That'll give you a broad range of films. Start early on, not late. So many so-called experts are only familiar with films 1990 onwards.

Your problem is that you actually think there is a difference between movies and film.

If what you mean is fancy art house, then that's much easier.

But it's not my job to recommend you exaclty the type of films that you want, it's yours. You're being lazy and treating Sup Forums as your personal assistant.

Look up top 100 lists of movies and comb through them. Torrent the things that sound interesting and start watching them. There's nothing wrong with having a 'To watch' folder of like 50 movies.

But since you're at least trying, and you made an on-topic thread I'll dump some.

>film
>not movies
one of these fags... why don't you get into 'absolute kinography' instead.

...

...

...

>Your problem is that you actually think there is a difference between movies and film.
Well I think its obvious already that I'm clueless about this topic(and the reason why I made this thread) and anyway we both know what garbage google yields on recommendations.

>i'm trying to look gruff but i start hi fiving the air every time i get a chance to spoonfeed someone and appear like a sage

...

These lists are a good place to start

...

I knew this would happen but I just wanted to make it easier so I don't get recommended capeshit.
>the room
is that a ruse chart?

>
>
>
meant to say that I really appreciate this charts.

That section is called 'Sup Forums core', of course it's a ruse.

Yeah I just didn't notice.

Also thank for the help guys I really appreciate it.I'm sure that this is going to be all but of course I wont refuse any other advice/chart/whatever.

no problem dude. just happy to see a thread about movies for a change.

>1990 onwards

He should watch a few classic films from the S&S Top 100 and then make up his mind as to which films he liked the most. I for example can't stand Hollywood films made before 1970 (only Hollywood period I enjoy is 1970-1979) as I think they are way too talky and plot driven, and they tell instead of show. Something I found out through watching a bunch of the "classics". He shouldnt watch films just because they are considered the best by a bunch of stuffy critics, all of whom were born before 1920, and have nothing in common with today's generation. If all your favorite films end up to be made after 1990, who really gives a fuck?

tl;dr watch what YOU like, not what the "critics" tell you to like

...

Start watching this

letterboxd.com/cinebro/list/they-shoot-pictures-dont-they-top-1000-film/

Not in chronological order, but browse it and pick stuff that look interesting and more accessible. Then move on to other stuff and so on.

And i'll end my dump with the noir chart.

>Tyrannosaur
Why? It's just typical British poverty and misery porn with a more sensational twist on it

>I for example can't stand Hollywood films made before 1970 (only Hollywood period I enjoy is 1970-1979) as I think they are way too talky and plot driven, and they tell instead of show. Something I found out through watching a bunch of the "classics"

I used to have the same mindset, and I'm so happy I eventually warmed to those Old Hollywood films. Not to say that your opinion is wrong or I unconditionally love them, but at the very least there's this charm to movies made back then that just doesn't exist anymore.

My only general complaint about movies from the 30s-mid 60s is the overwritten dialogue, and the tendency to shove in broad overacting characters. I swear every movie I've seen from that period has at least one horrific performance, either a shrill woman, a "comically" dumb person, a character defined only by a vocal tic, etc. It's almost a game to wait and see when that character will show up

>overwritten dialogue
yup
>broad overacting characters
those are great tho

>talky
>plot driven
Yeah, this is precisely what I'm talking about. Films aren't all about explosions and action.
You can choose to limit what you watch but I think if you do so then you're really limiting your experiences in life and that's never a good thing. It's not going to kill you to be a little open minded.

+1 for the Sight & Sound top 100.

I'm pretty tolerant of a lot of old acting styles and really love a lot of performances from then, but then I get these few I find insufferable and it takes me right out of the movie. Typically just tiny performances but they're there and hard to ignore. A few notable ones

Walter Huston in Treasure of the Sierra Madre makes me like that film so much less as soon as he appears. He's so on the mark for an old coot prospector, just a flat cliche to me.

Rear Window has fantastic acting across the board until the dog dies and that woman gives the worst "you people should be ashamed" speech ever.

The Searchers has a lot of problems with tone throughout and they're only made worse by how broad the guy playing the village idiot is. Totally at odds with how heartwrenching Wayne is at the end

Even later films like Bonnie and Clyde have it, Hackman's character's wife is unbearable and she won an Oscar for it.

Please tell me some Hollywood films that are not endless close ups of heads doing bla bla? I'd love some recommendations. One classic film I did like for example was The Night of the Hunter. No Hitchcocks and more of those famous directors, please, I have seen all of their work.

Again, I've seen hundreds of films, I know what I look for in a film by now. Classic Hollywood does absolutely nothing for me. Get back to me when you've seen as many films as I have. And open minded? I have watch films from every single country on earth from every period imaginable, I'm everything but close minded.

>The Searchers has a lot of problems with tone throughout
Everytime I bring this up I get chastised so hard. The movie is great, the filming is awesome, the sets and design are phenomenal, most performances are top notch, but the tone is all over the place. I think a lot of people hold this movie close to the chest because rarely do people get so offended when i question it's quality (save maybe for breakfast club)

I don't like this list. This is a poor list.
I don't really get why Vertigo should be the one Hitchcock film that's put on. What about North by Northwest?
There's no musicals that I can see and if you're going through the 50's and 60's having not seen a musical then you're not really experiencing films from that period right. Carousel would be a good one to place in the 50s.
Rest of it is too obscure for it's own good apart from Citizen Kane which comes across like a college student who's into books recommending A Christmas Carol.

>tfw tvcore films are hardly ever memed about these days

>that woman gives the worst "you people should be ashamed" speech ever
i don't know 'bout that. there are a lot of people irl who would address that situation just like that, especially old women. everyone except working class shmoes and young people tend to get theatrical when they address crowds.

That you use the words talky and plot driven to me sounds very close minded as well as dismissing Hollywood films from before the 70s. It doesn't sound like something someone who's seen lots of films would say.

Is 'The Steel Helmet' as good as these charts make it out to be? Never heard of it until today

>Get back to me when you've seen as many films as I have
>I have watch films from every single country on earth from every period imaginable
aye, this nigga goin ham

>No Hitchcocks and more of those famous directors, please, I have seen all of their work.
I refuse to believe this. How can you watch Ford, Welles, Hawks, Von Sternberg, Lang, Minnelli et al and yes, Hitchcock, and not see their visual beauty? Just because the styles weren't overt and the camera largely stationary doesn't mean they weren't extremely well crafted.

Are you one of those "film is a visual medium" guys that values the look of a movie over anything else? I can see that coming at odds with the more narrative driven films back then.

I think the highs outweigh the lows in it. It was one of the first Ford's I saw, and I'm eager to watch it again and see how the lighter stuff holds up. I think I have a better appreciation for that tone even if it doesn't fit with the story of the genocidal maniac on an endless quest for revenge

I've seen it called "the worst best movie" and completely agree with that sentiment. It's the most openly flawed of any canonized movie that I love

I love it, but it's extremely odd that all these charts list it when it's not even the most commonly acclaimed film by Fuller. It's a very good war movie, one of the few made about the Korean war and a precursor to the extreme cynicism of Vietnam War films. Not at all a heroic film like the ones of WW2

Where have I said they weren't well crafted? I just don't enjoy the films. Do I have to like what the critics tell me to like? Am I not allowed to have my own opinion? And where are the recommendations?

>Where have I said they weren't well crafted? I just don't enjoy the films.
I took the implication to mean they were bad because they were visually boring

>Do I have to like what the critics tell me to like? Am I not allowed to have my own opinion?
Sounds a little paranoid mate.

>And where are the recommendations?
Tell me what you do like first, not vague half-lies like saying you've seen all the movies

You didn't enjoy North by Northwest? You've got to be kidding me.

not that guy but it's pretty dumb. even if the individual bits are great.

Not much taste on this board.

I personally liked The 39 Steps a lot more, partially because Cary Grant really annoys me for some reason. The set up also really stretched my suspension of disbelief, it's a bit too ridiculous even for Hitchcock's typical lack of interest in believability.

Films I did like:

The Night of the Hunter (1955)
Lilith (1964)
Dementia (1955)
Something Wild (1961)

That's it. I would rate most of those classics by Welles, Hitchcock et all a 3 out of 5 stars at best. But hey, I just don't enjoy the formulaic Hollywood system where the director doesnt have any freedom and money rules all. Many directors have stated how terrible it is to work in there. Fuck the producers. Oh, and it's not that I don't like talky by default because Cassavetes is easily one of my favorite directors of all time. Loved the guy. So recommend whatever, OK.

Come at me, though.

That's better criticism than just "it's dumb" at least.

So much of that list is trying to be obscure for obscurities sake. There's reddit then there's this pretentiousness. Films may be good but I don't subscribe to this hipster attitude when it comes to cinema.

>character makes a slew of unbelievably stupid decisions rendering the plot laughable
>you don't have taste if you think it's dumb
wowe

It's been a while since I've seen it but I can't account for anything stupid if you don't account for typical internet over-analysing.

go like this

1890-1930
1930-1960
1960-1990
1990-Present

dats right motherfucker, watch nothing but silents till you see all the major existent ones up to the introduction of sound. you come out of that shit and you will see the true face of kino. ease your way in with the silent comedians like chaplin, keaton, lloyd, etc.

>obscure

4 Lynch films in my top 20, how is that obscure? Those are the films I love, deal with it. You think in terms of pretentiousness or obscurity, whereas I simply think in terms of something I either like or dislike. You may want to look up people's favorite lists on Mubi for example, and you will see that loads of people have similar lists. You simply haven't seen that many films if you think these films are obscure, pretty much all of them are well known, and they can be found in the Sight & Sound Top 500. Grow up, kid.

Well in that case I don't see you liking much. Just different sensibilities, which is fine, but I don't like your flippant dismissal of 40 years of movies without explanation.

>I just don't enjoy the formulaic Hollywood system where the director doesnt have any freedom and money rules all.
This is really overstated. Directors had plenty of freedom to make the kind of movies studios and audiences wanted, which were often the same movies those directors wanted to make. Nobody stopped Ford or Hitchcock or Wilder or Hawks or Mann or whoever from making very distinctives films so long as they sold. It's was just Welles and Stroheim and others who couldn't play ball that suffered from it, but in reality their films easily could have fit the mold of what a mainstream film was at the time.

>Many directors have stated how terrible it is to work in there
They still made amazing films, in my and many peoples opinions. Total freedom would have never caused Ford to make an Antonioni-type film. He was a western man through and through, and nowhere but old hollywood would have allowed him to flourish like he did.


>favorite film is Mulholland Drive
>holds Hollywood in complete contempt
Seems fitting, somehow

>werckmeister harmonies
>that anger
>calls ppl kid
consider my fedora tipped

Start with the greeks

I looked up one at random, The Angel (1982) and it's a French silent experimental independent surrealist underground art house film.
By virtue of these films being foreign they are obscure. It's ironic you're calling me pretentious when I suggest looking up Oscar films and here you are with a list of art house films and bigging up David Lynch.

Again, I never said the films weren't well made and I never said I totally disliked them. 3 out of 5 stars is decent in my book, it's not in yours? But I don't LOVE the films, I respect them for their place in the history of cinema, but I don't LOVE them personally. What's the problem here?

>By virtue of these films being foreign they are obscure
Sokurov, Tarkovsky, Tarr, Kaul et al. Who the fuck are they? Watch more and study up on the WORLD of cinema, you're stuck in your little Hollywood bubble atm. Your loss.

Oh, L'Ange is a well known experimental film. Again, you haven't seen enough films if you don't even know who the fuck Patrick Bokanowski is.

>endless close ups of heads doing bla bla?
Didn't sound very "respectful", maybe I just misinterpreted you

>Film(not movies)
Well, the first thing is you realize there isn't a distinction. There is no artistic hierarchy for art

you can start by watching movies
you might also try to watch movies, but that's the har way
alternatively, you could make an effort and watch movies

>I don't really get why Vertigo should be the one Hitchcock film that's put on.
most acclaimed film of all time?

28/30
3/23

>directors

lol you called me pretentious and then talk like that. Wow.
Please, I have as much respect for self professed connoisseurs of the art as I do for reddit kiddies who think TDK is the greatest which is none. Film isn't meant to be something you show off about.

If we're talking Hitchcock that'd be Psycho surely? I just think it's a rather uninspired choice.

>I have seen all of their work.
sure, famm

>Get back to me when you've seen as many films as I have. And open minded? I have watch films from every single country on earth from every period imaginable, I'm everything but close minded.

Sure thing, user.

don't be that guy that has Arrebato as a favourite and dislikes golden age Hollywood
just don't

>If we're talking Hitchcock that'd be Psycho surely
No, I'm sure it's Vertigo

i remember you, you wee asking for a kg invite right?

Cinema is a popular artform and that's what makes it so great
Tarkovsky can suck a dick, I'd much rather watch a commercial directed by Ford or Hawks

don't bother. Youre clearly a stupid teenager and will only join the chorus of pretentios hipsters who can only make lists and neat little collages out of some obscure flicks. cinema is dead and yyou are braindead. You are better off playing your video games and maybe some day you will make a beautiful work of art like FF9 or MGS.

>fell asleep during Psycho and Rear Window
>watch Satantango in one sitting without taking a single toilet break because I didn't want to miss a single second

I don't get it.

>MGS

That's pretty much a movie.

Yes, two, please.

>guy asks for recs
>a douchebag pseud shows up and goes 'don't rec him critically acclaimed movies; he should watch what he loves'
you realize you're not being helpful, right?
everyone here knows it was a ploy to show off your list filled with movies you cannot, for the most part, argue are better crafted than the hollywood classics.

>not even a single Satoshi Kon film in animated

Here's my list for you

Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages (Griffith, 1916)
Greed (von Stroheim, 1924)
The Gold Rush (Chaplin, 1925)
Bronenosets Potyomkin (Eisenstein, 1925)
The General (Keaton & Bruckman, 1926)
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (Dreyer, 1928)
City Lights (Chaplin, 1931)
L'Atalante (Vigo, 1934)
Modern Times (Chaplin, 1936)
La grande illusion (Renoir, 1937)
La règle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
The Magnificent Ambersons (Welles, 1942)
Ivan Groznyy I (Eisenstein, 1944)
Les enfants du paradis (Carné, 1945)
Ivan Groznyy II: Boyarsky zagovor (Eisenstein, 1946)
Monsieur Verdoux (Chaplin, 1947)
Ladri di biciclette (De Sica, 1948)
The Third Man (Reed, 1949)
Rashômon (Kurosawa, 1950)
Singin' in the Rain (Donen & Kelly, 1952)
Ikiru (Kurosawa, 1952)
Ugetsu monogatari (Mizoguchi, 1953)
Tôkyô monogatari (Ozu, 1953)
Shichinin no samurai (Kurosawa, 1954)
La strada (Fellini, 1954)
Pather Panchali (Ray, 1955)
The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
Smultronstället (Bergman, 1957)
Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
Touch of Evil (Welles, 1958)
Some Like it Hot (Wilder, 1959)
Hiroshima mon amour (Resnais, 1959)
La dolce vita (Fellini, 1960)
À bout de souffle (Godard, 1960)
L'avventura (Antonioni, 1960)
Jules et Jim (Truffaut, 1962)
Lawrence of Arabia (Lean, 1962)
Otto e mezzo (Fellini, 1963)
Pierrot le fou (Godard, 1965)
Persona (Bergman, 1966)
Andrey Rublyov (Tarkovsky, 1966)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
The Godfather (Coppola, 1972)
The Godfather Part II (Coppola, 1974)
Zerkalo (Tarkovsky, 1975)
Raging Bull (Scorsese, 1980)
Fanny och Alexander (Bergman, 1982)

>Monsieur Verdoux

i don't have any, fuck me
where did you watch that raul ruiz film friendo?
and also what website is that

What a list. I can tell you are a little boy who doesn't know what to think of any of those films. It's like a robot-made list of unrelated strips of celluloid. And this is every list on Sup Forums.

Why do you think you can recommend something without understanding it first? What's the point of all these threads full of lists of film titles? It's like you are afraid of actually talking about these films.

inb4
> what did you expect xD

get some taste, kid

There are only 11 good films in this list, Sup Forums.

Let's see if you can find them.

there are more than 11 american films on there

of course the turin horse is up there

Cute. Is this how redditors flirt? Too bad you're anonymous here.

too bad you're a faggot everywhere

not bad. I have something to tell you as well. 15 letters. Pick a vowel, nigger.