http://www.indy.com/posts/364 en-us irratebass Mon, 04 Feb 2008 06:51:32 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_12882 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_12882 mvittorio does anyone think Swingers should be added to this debate? A great movie with a great story that ANYONE can relate to, and it all ties itself together.. speaking of tying itself together how about The Big Lebowski, because "the dude's" rug tied the room together Mon, 04 Feb 2008 04:31:25 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_12878 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_12878 joe.shearer Not that I hated Cinderella Man, because I thought it was a decent enough movie. It had that horribly cheesy line, but it was still good, but not what I'd call a timeless classic. Same goes for Crash. Not great, but good. I absolutely agree with your statement 100% regarding Don Cheadle, and agree about 90% regarding Russell Crowe (see "A Good Year" and "Virtuosity," although the latter film was enjoyably bad). Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:34:32 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_12873 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_12873 randydaytona You're the first person I've heard say that he doesn't like Cinderella Man. I'm guessing I'll get a lot of crap for this but I liked Crash a lot too. Like some of the stuff in there was exaggerated like crazy but it was still a good movie. Anything with Don Cheadle or Russell Crowe is usually gonna be good. Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:47:20 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_12840 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_12840 joe.shearer I found it kind of surprising that Cinderella Man would be on your list of classic movies, if for just six little words: "You're the champion of my heart." Barf. Decent movie otherwise, though Max Baer Jr. (aka Jethro) took the film to task for making his dad out to be a scumbag when supposedly he wasn't. Supposedly Max Baer wasn't the cocky guy they made him out to be in the movie and not only did he not brag about killing a guy in the ring, he felt really bad about it and actually sent the guy's family a lot of money on a regular basis for a long time. Ron Howard has a tendency to make wholesale changes for a more cinematic story (see "A Beautiful Mind," which was highly fabricated and selectively edited). Anyway...good movies otherwise. Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:11:35 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_12762 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_12762 randydaytona Shawshank Redemption, Cinderella Man, American Beauty, L.A. Confidential Those are what I can think of right now. Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:24:10 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_12707 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_12707 john.king Boat Trip Daddy Day Camp I Know What You Did Last Summer The Negotiator Mercury Rising (not really) Dances With Wolves (don't hate) Tombstone Gladiator Braveheart (you can hate the Mel, but you can't hate the William) The Fugitive Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:56:06 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_651 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_651 JohnScott Wow, these are excellent choices. I can't argue with any of them. Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:05:25 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_592 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_592 dummied And rather than just shoot down some of your list, I'll throw my own out there (with no repeats ... yours are great, just want to get some more titles out there). LA Confidential (probably saw that one coming) Goodfellas The Silence of the Lambs Unforgiven The Usual Suspects Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:01:33 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_591 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_591 smiams2 Blow - It was a great story...compelling the whole way. Sympathizing with a notorious drug dealer is an interesting emotion to take on, and this movie did a great job evoking it. Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:25:42 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_586 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_586 joe.shearer I agree that Titanic is overrated, but it is one of those iconic films that I think fits the definition of a classic (it was actually the first one I thought of). I do agree with dummied's post, though. I was rooting for L.A. Confidential that year as well, and that's one of my absolute favorite movies that far too few people have seen. Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:24:06 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_585 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_585 JohnScott I hated Titanic as well. That's 3 hours of my life I'll never get back. Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:12:27 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_583 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_583 dummied I tend to view Titanic in much the same away I view Forrest Gump ... a popular but undeserving film that unfortunately overshadowed much better films in its year of release. Pulp Fiction (Shawshank Redemption and Quiz Show, two other movies nominated that year also deserve mention) was clearly the better movie than Gump. In Titanic's year, you have L.A. Confidential, which I still stack right up there with Chinatown as far neo-noir yummy goodness. Of course, I am a big James Ellroy fan, so that might color things a bit, but still ... clearly a better movie and one that stands the test of time much better than Cameron's sinking ship of a film. Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:56:12 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_578 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_578 Zombieguy Titanic???? That flick is IMO the MOST overrated film to come out in the last 20 years. Honestly, I thought it was a piece of crap - albeit beautiful crap. Can't argue with the rest of your list though. Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:36:29 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_569 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_569 joe.shearer John, I think I'm in total agreement with you. My point in this thread is to explore what it is that makes films classic (and certainly you were spot on when you said awards are not necessarily an indicator of timelessness). But for the purposes of this discussion, I'm interested in knowing what people think of as the films of their generation that they want to represent them in film history, as it were. Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:13:17 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_496 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_496 John Hawn Joe: What I'm saying is that no one really knows what time will do movies deemed as modern classics. Take a look of Academy Award winners and see how many come to mind when someone discusses classic. ("Chariots of Fire" anyone?) I'm sure there are great timeless films being made today, just as there are great soon-to-be forgotten films. Just how long? Well, I suppose it's going to have to be a collective agreement among moviegoers. That term, classic, is just too subjective. Ask teenagers how long it takes for a film to be deemed a classic, and I'm sure most will go back no more than three to five years. Someone a little older might say 10 years. And someone who actually remembers when talkies came in vogue might say 30 years. Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:42:33 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_485 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_485 joe.shearer So are you saying there are no films that will achieve that status? My intention is not to throw that phrase "modern day classic" around, but rather ponder at what point a film can be considered a classic. Is it 20 years? 30? Or will there never be another film considered a "classic"? At some point time marches on, generations pass on and the films of their generation become old guard. I'm working on the assumption that there are still great, timeless films being made today. Are you saying no films made since 1990 will be considered classics? Of the films you mentioned, only one was made even as recently as the 80s. And of course that term is just so vague, by definition it's going to be highly subjective as to what films are considered classics. Just to reference Napoleon Dynamite, I almost want to call it a cult film, but it really was too popular to be called that, but I agree that in terms of quality it shouldn't really be called a classic. Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:15:36 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_482 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_482 John Hawn "Modern day classics" is a contradiction of terms. It's a marketing phrase bent on convincing people that something: A.) is new, therefore not stuffy, old-fashioned, out-of-touch. B.) will someday be judged positively in years to come (never mind that many newer "modern day classics" will have been proclaimed, rendering the title under discussion as stuffy, old-fashioned, out-of-touch. Back in the day when the only places people could watch movies were in theaters, the definitions were simple. Films were either classic or not. Films were fondly remembered but rarely seen outside their first runs. Television changed that. Now all of a sudden films could be seen again and again. A box-office flop that few people remembered all of sudden became "classics" because of repeated airings. (Think "The Wizard of Oz" or "It's a Wonderful Life.") Today, with multiple platforms for movies, it's become increasingly difficult to draw lines when something is considered a "modern day classic." While usually reserved for serious films with Oscar pretensions, the term has been applied to lesser regarded but nonetheless beloved movies. Can "Napoleon Dynamite" claim classic status based on its influence on pop culture and a generation of collective memory, or will time diminish its impact? (Don't scoff. I've been waiting for "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" and "Wayne's World" to fade from a collective consciousness, but it hasn't happened -- yet.) For what it's worth, here's my arbitrary list of movies that stand the test of time and are worthy of critical appreciation: Blade Runner Citizen Kane A Clockwork Orange 42nd Street The Gold Rush The Magnificent Ambersons (minus its dreadful ending) 2001: A Space Odyssey Psycho (the Alfred Hitchock version) Strangers of a Train The Wizard of Oz Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:48:19 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_479 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_479 David Lindquist I would submit: Goodfellas The Shawshank Redemption Fargo Sun, 14 Oct 2007 05:40:45 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_475 http://www.indy.com/posts/364#comment_475