I do love Pulp Fiction. It's genuinely great and was a true joy at the cinema. Most people I know rate it higher than Reservoir Dogs, but is it really better than Shawshank? I don't think it is. The witticisms are better, but you're comparing to a film that's been recognised as possibly the greatest film ever made.
But the real travesty is that I don't think either of them are the best film released in 1994, and I consciously chose not to include that one in the list. I picked Shawshank instead because it has broader appeal, and because you can easily highlight what makes it so great a film.
It's just not quite as good as Leon.
1994 was a great year for cinema.
(I also chose Schindler's ahead of True Romance in '93, and that's Tarantino's finest film, courtesy of the late Tony Scott)
Interesting. Several of those films are 'action' films, although none of them are mindless summer blockbuster material.
Most of them have great visual effects. Some of them set the bar that many films still can't reach. One reason they have great effects is that the effects add to the film; they aren't the film.
But you lost all credibility the moment you proclaimed you watch blockbusters for cinematography. I've just given you a list of some of the finest films for three decades, by absolutely the best directors alive, working with genuinely great cinematographers to create masterpieces of cinema. And you want to watch a blockbuster instead?
Hmm. Sucker Punch was just awful is so many dimensions; does the Director's Cut actually redeem it at all?
I do like watching it though. I'm still not convinced that it isn't actually a great film that's only pretending to be a loud brashy overstylised teen wank film.
Pacific Rim's trailer is fantastic. It's guaranteed I'll give no money to the film. It looks utter total complete absolute shit on a stick. Without the stick.
It may be the greatest film ever made. I'll find out when it comes onto TV in a couple of years time. I'm guessing not.
It may or may not be commercially successful, but that's why I don't look to Hollywood for top-end film making. They can make great films, but a lot of the time they just don't try.
Shaolin Soccer was poor. I'm being generous here. Sorry but if that's an example of a Chinese film being 'better than Hollywood' then it explains why the Chinese films aren't international.
There are some good Chinese films, and a whole Hong Kong martial arts genre, but they just aren't where I'd look for strong stories, great camera work, brilliant acting or a deep understanding of human nature. I'd go to Korean films for that.
"The last three decades" was the challenge, and I stretched it to get Blade Runner in.
'94 had a number of strong candidates and I had a Tarantino already so Pulp Fiction missed out. Shawshank is pretty peerless anyway. '05 I'd rate several films higher than the two you propose but these things are always subjective.
I haven't actually seen a couple of the films you've suggested, including Zero Dark Thirty, so that's something to look forward to:)
I haven't see all of last year's or this year's "big" films, but the five minute answer covering '82 to '11:
1982 Blade Runner (Ridley Scott) 1983 Scarface (Brian De Palma) 1984 The Terminator (James Cameron) 1985 Brazil (Terry Gilliam) 1986 Ferris Bueller's Day Off (John Hughes) 1987 The Princess Bride (Rob Reiner) 1988 Akira (Katsuhiro Otomo) 1989 A Grand Day Out (Nick Park) 1990 Goodfellas (Martin Scorsese) 1991 Boyz n the Hood (John Singleton) 1992 Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino) 1993 Schindler's List (Steven Spielberg) 1994 The Shawshank Redemption (Frank Darabont) 1995 Crying Freeman (Christophe Gans) 1996 Trainspotting (Danny Boyle) 1997 Gattaca (Andrew Niccol) 1998 Run Lola Run (Tom Tykwer) 1999 Fight Club (David Fincher) 2000 Requiem for a Dream (Darren Aronofsky) 2001 Amelie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet) 2002 The Pianist (Roman Polanski) 2003 Dogville (Lars Von Trier) 2004 Shaun of the Dead (Edgar Wright) 2005 Hard Candy (David Slade) 2006 This Is England (Shane Meadows) 2007 Juno (Jason Reitman) 2008 Waltz with Bashir (Ari Folman) 2009 The Scouting Book for Boys (Tom Harper) 2010 Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky) 2011 We Need to Talk About Kevin (Lynne Ramsay)
No remakes (that I'm aware of), no sequels, and no easy formulaic films here.
Shit, cutting down to a single film from some of those years was raw pain. '94 and '05 in particular.
or possibly some people actually like the sensory feedback of a printed book.
Printed books definitely have a tactility that electronic readers can not provide. That's a definite advantage for me, even though many other aspects of the form factor are negative.
I'd like to convert my entire library to electronic form but I'd keep the physical stuff. I can browse it, glance up and remember I haven't read a book or an author for a while, and sure, enjoy the sensory feedback I get when reading one of the books.
So you can pick a fist fight, lose horribly and pull a gun legally... and that's exactly what happened.
Personally I believe you're completely right that's what happened. Sadly there hasn't been any objective evidence either way, so benefit of doubt has to go to the only available witness.
However, I suspect you're wrong that had Zimmerman been demonstrated as starting the fight, he'd be legally permitted to then claim self-defence in killing Martin. At a minimum he'd have committed an assault that led to a death, and that's illegal even in Florida.
if you are firing a warning shot or shooting to wound instead of kill, you must not have felt you were in mortal danger or you would have used deadly force
Shooting to wound is using potentially deadly force.
If you're good enough to wound someone without killing them, and it removes the threat against you, that's a pretty good defence in law. Especially if you then stop shooting without killing your target.
Almost nobody is good enough to shoot to wound, on purpose, at a range where it is both justified by imminent threat to life and would also prevent it.
had a woman thrown Zimmerman to the ground and started beating him senseless simply for following her and asking why she was there, he should have shot her also. Because RATIONAL people do not throw people to the ground and start beating them to death without ANY physical provocation
Rational people don't stalk someone, confront them and threaten them.
But ask yourself this: If Trayvon Martin was a rational person - and there's no evidence otherwise - then what was the physical provocation that led to him feeling the need to throw someone to the ground and attempting to subdue them?
Zimmerman may have been in a life threatening situation when he killed Martin but personally I think it's his own stupid and possibly illegal fault that he got there.
He's very lucky though. He's been found not guilty and he'll make a good living on the publicity. Innocent people walking through neighbourhoods where stupid fuckwits drive around with guns looking for victims wont be so lucky; those fuckwits will now think it's legal to shoot them.
Would someone that eats babies be more or less likely to assault someone?
The defence was that Zimmerman acted in self defence. That meant he was the victim of an assault. Demonstrating that Martin had a history of violence makes it more plausible that he would indeed have attacked Zimmerman.
What Zimmerman knew that night was that he was assaulted. Martin's character is important in assessing the truth of that, not in assessing whether it was right to shoot him.
Slashdot Mirror
I do love Pulp Fiction. It's genuinely great and was a true joy at the cinema. Most people I know rate it higher than Reservoir Dogs, but is it really better than Shawshank? I don't think it is. The witticisms are better, but you're comparing to a film that's been recognised as possibly the greatest film ever made.
But the real travesty is that I don't think either of them are the best film released in 1994, and I consciously chose not to include that one in the list. I picked Shawshank instead because it has broader appeal, and because you can easily highlight what makes it so great a film.
It's just not quite as good as Leon.
1994 was a great year for cinema.
(I also chose Schindler's ahead of True Romance in '93, and that's Tarantino's finest film, courtesy of the late Tony Scott)
Still not seen that. So many films, so little time :(
Interesting. Several of those films are 'action' films, although none of them are mindless summer blockbuster material.
Most of them have great visual effects. Some of them set the bar that many films still can't reach. One reason they have great effects is that the effects add to the film; they aren't the film.
But you lost all credibility the moment you proclaimed you watch blockbusters for cinematography. I've just given you a list of some of the finest films for three decades, by absolutely the best directors alive, working with genuinely great cinematographers to create masterpieces of cinema. And you want to watch a blockbuster instead?
Just go away. You are not worthy.
Hmm. Sucker Punch was just awful is so many dimensions; does the Director's Cut actually redeem it at all?
I do like watching it though. I'm still not convinced that it isn't actually a great film that's only pretending to be a loud brashy overstylised teen wank film.
Pacific Rim's trailer is fantastic. It's guaranteed I'll give no money to the film. It looks utter total complete absolute shit on a stick. Without the stick.
It may be the greatest film ever made. I'll find out when it comes onto TV in a couple of years time. I'm guessing not.
It may or may not be commercially successful, but that's why I don't look to Hollywood for top-end film making. They can make great films, but a lot of the time they just don't try.
Shaolin Soccer was poor. I'm being generous here. Sorry but if that's an example of a Chinese film being 'better than Hollywood' then it explains why the Chinese films aren't international.
There are some good Chinese films, and a whole Hong Kong martial arts genre, but they just aren't where I'd look for strong stories, great camera work, brilliant acting or a deep understanding of human nature. I'd go to Korean films for that.
Thank you. I thought I'd been oversimplifying it but you've placed it in exactly the same place that I had :)
It was ok, but not that great. Better than the average Hollywood film though, yes.
Ah, "no sequels" was part of the mandate.
"The last three decades" was the challenge, and I stretched it to get Blade Runner in.
'94 had a number of strong candidates and I had a Tarantino already so Pulp Fiction missed out. Shawshank is pretty peerless anyway. '05 I'd rate several films higher than the two you propose but these things are always subjective.
I haven't actually seen a couple of the films you've suggested, including Zero Dark Thirty, so that's something to look forward to :)
I haven't see all of last year's or this year's "big" films, but the five minute answer covering '82 to '11:
1982 Blade Runner (Ridley Scott)
1983 Scarface (Brian De Palma)
1984 The Terminator (James Cameron)
1985 Brazil (Terry Gilliam)
1986 Ferris Bueller's Day Off (John Hughes)
1987 The Princess Bride (Rob Reiner)
1988 Akira (Katsuhiro Otomo)
1989 A Grand Day Out (Nick Park)
1990 Goodfellas (Martin Scorsese)
1991 Boyz n the Hood (John Singleton)
1992 Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino)
1993 Schindler's List (Steven Spielberg)
1994 The Shawshank Redemption (Frank Darabont)
1995 Crying Freeman (Christophe Gans)
1996 Trainspotting (Danny Boyle)
1997 Gattaca (Andrew Niccol)
1998 Run Lola Run (Tom Tykwer)
1999 Fight Club (David Fincher)
2000 Requiem for a Dream (Darren Aronofsky)
2001 Amelie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet)
2002 The Pianist (Roman Polanski)
2003 Dogville (Lars Von Trier)
2004 Shaun of the Dead (Edgar Wright)
2005 Hard Candy (David Slade)
2006 This Is England (Shane Meadows)
2007 Juno (Jason Reitman)
2008 Waltz with Bashir (Ari Folman)
2009 The Scouting Book for Boys (Tom Harper)
2010 Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky)
2011 We Need to Talk About Kevin (Lynne Ramsay)
No remakes (that I'm aware of), no sequels, and no easy formulaic films here.
Shit, cutting down to a single film from some of those years was raw pain. '94 and '05 in particular.
Surely that depends on the pressure?
It would help if you wore pants underneath the loin cloth.
Last time I went to a party wearing a toga one of the ladies was terribly and audibly disappointed to discover I had shorts on underneath.
I was very kind and didn't point out that cougars like her were the exact bloody reason I had shorts on underneath.
It probably is, if you're not intent on being legal.
or possibly some people actually like the sensory feedback of a printed book.
Printed books definitely have a tactility that electronic readers can not provide. That's a definite advantage for me, even though many other aspects of the form factor are negative.
I'd like to convert my entire library to electronic form but I'd keep the physical stuff. I can browse it, glance up and remember I haven't read a book or an author for a while, and sure, enjoy the sensory feedback I get when reading one of the books.
So you can pick a fist fight, lose horribly and pull a gun legally... and that's exactly what happened.
Personally I believe you're completely right that's what happened. Sadly there hasn't been any objective evidence either way, so benefit of doubt has to go to the only available witness.
However, I suspect you're wrong that had Zimmerman been demonstrated as starting the fight, he'd be legally permitted to then claim self-defence in killing Martin. At a minimum he'd have committed an assault that led to a death, and that's illegal even in Florida.
I wouldn't initiate any confrontation with them using violence. So yes, they may well get the first hit.
His actions were found to be not against a law. I still haven't heard why they're defensible.
if you are firing a warning shot or shooting to wound instead of kill, you must not have felt you were in mortal danger or you would have used deadly force
Shooting to wound is using potentially deadly force.
If you're good enough to wound someone without killing them, and it removes the threat against you, that's a pretty good defence in law. Especially if you then stop shooting without killing your target.
Almost nobody is good enough to shoot to wound, on purpose, at a range where it is both justified by imminent threat to life and would also prevent it.
Hey, dancing's dangerous. I broke someone's cheek bone once.
Her husband was surprisingly sangfroid about it.
They should have never let you AOLusers on the real internet, just kept you in the box pink dialup sandbox.
Given Slashdot grew up in the Eternal September era your insult is a few decades away from being accurate.
Anyway, we did the whole IT admin thing with Snowden.
Your cynical prejudice is extremely amusing post-verdict.
Nice to know you have a sense of proportion. Do society a favour and shoot yourself. It'll be kinder to you too.
Actually it can be, in this country.
had a woman thrown Zimmerman to the ground and started beating him senseless simply for following her and asking why she was there, he should have shot her also. Because RATIONAL people do not throw people to the ground and start beating them to death without ANY physical provocation
Rational people don't stalk someone, confront them and threaten them.
But ask yourself this: If Trayvon Martin was a rational person - and there's no evidence otherwise - then what was the physical provocation that led to him feeling the need to throw someone to the ground and attempting to subdue them?
Zimmerman may have been in a life threatening situation when he killed Martin but personally I think it's his own stupid and possibly illegal fault that he got there.
He's very lucky though. He's been found not guilty and he'll make a good living on the publicity. Innocent people walking through neighbourhoods where stupid fuckwits drive around with guns looking for victims wont be so lucky; those fuckwits will now think it's legal to shoot them.
Would someone that eats babies be more or less likely to assault someone?
The defence was that Zimmerman acted in self defence. That meant he was the victim of an assault. Demonstrating that Martin had a history of violence makes it more plausible that he would indeed have attacked Zimmerman.
What Zimmerman knew that night was that he was assaulted. Martin's character is important in assessing the truth of that, not in assessing whether it was right to shoot him.