Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

bleary

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    336

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by bleary

  1. Posted

    1 hour ago, DannytheWall said:

    So, then, is it an advantage or disadvantage that Sophie, arguably the central character, is only experienced by way of a first person (and male) narrator? I was really looking forward to a woman-centric film only to grumble in the first few minutes when I realized I was getting "Nick" from Great Gatsby. The service to the story is that it becomes a mystery and allows for some twists of narrative, but the disadvantage is that it really is quite trope-y. Sophie is very un-manic and un-pixie, but she essentially serves as manic pixie dream girl for both Nathan and Stingo.  

    4 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    Through Sophie’s eyes I feel like it would not only be super depressing, but just another basic, linear period piece (A to B to C).

    I think this is the right answer, that Stingo is necessary to the film as a POV character through which the story is told.  But I still think the character falls into an unfortunate middle ground, where too much time is spent on him for how uninteresting he is.  I'd be more okay with the character as a blank slate if he didn't demand so much time.

    As far as the trope-iness, I'm having trouble coming up with lots of examples of the things that I think are sort of tropes.  As DannytheWall said, The Great Gatsby also features a young writer serving as the narrator/POV character who moves to New York and meets an interesting person whose past is slowly revealed over the course of the story.  And although love triangles are aplenty in film history, there are even examples of this particular flavor of love triangle, in which the three parties are friends as the triangle forms.  Certainly Jules and Jim falls into this category, but I'm at a loss for other such films that came out before Sophie's Choice.  (Can anyone think of more?)  The Big Chill is around the same time period, but it's sort of a more complicated shape than a triangle.  One could argue that The Sun Also Rises works in this category, although Brett is certainly a proto-MPDG as well.  More recent films in this trope include Y Tu Mama Tambien and The Dreamers.

    It also feels like an 80s movie trope to have the stories of interesting people told through a different POV character, like in Amadeus (as Amy and Paul mentioned), The Elephant Man, or even Dead Poets Society (which I haven't seen in a while but I recall it being predominantly from Ethan Hawke's point of view).  There's probably more examples of this trope as well.

    There's enough that's unique in Sophie's Choice that makes it work for me, but it still feels like it's hitting familiar beats.

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    I have to say that I mostly agreed with Amy and Paul on this one.  I think this is a really great movie, and I think it's my toughest call yet on whether or not I think it belongs on the list.  As great as I think it is, I also can see Amy and Paul's argument that it somehow feels inessential.

    As far as whether Stingo is an "incel", in terms of the literal origin of the portmanteau, "involuntarily celibate", Stingo is that, undeniably.  If it weren't for the kind of creepy and mostly useless scene with Leslie, the voluntariness might be more up for debate.  As far as the current vitriolic connotation the term has, maybe I wouldn't go that far in applying it to Stingo.  But that said, I still think Stingo is an uninteresting character.

    For me, the movie is interesting in studying Sophie's character, and, as Cameron H. put it, how can she move on after surviving what she did.  The way that question is posed and answered in the film, mostly through Meryl's Hall of Fame performance, is why I ultimately come down on the side that this does belong on the list.  

    • Like 1

  3. Posted

    2 hours ago, ProfessorRockstar said:

    They could do Jaws during shark week. Or 12 Angry Men when the Adnan Syed retrial happens.

    I'm glad we're doing this.

    • Obviously, Star Wars on the week of May 4th.
    • Saving Private Ryan on D-Day.
    • Yankee Doodle Dandy on 4th of July.
    • Chinatown for February 5 (Chinese New Year).
    • Toy Story for the release of Toy Story 4.
    • North By Northwest for Presidents' Day?
    • Sunset Boulevard for the Oscars?
    • Intolerance for MLK Day? 😈
    • One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest for April Fool's Day?
    • Some Like It Hot or Tootsie for International Women's Day?
    • Dr. Strangelove for the apocalypse?
    • Like 1

  4. Posted

    2 hours ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    Criterion channel is coming back spring 2019.

    https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/6044-new-independent-criterion-channel-to-launch-spring-2019

    Probably not as good for the AFI list as the TCM/core-filmstruck part. Criterion had the rights to Spartacus at one point and has Dr Strangelove. And I think a good chunk of the silents. I think. 

    I'll sign up for it, even though FilmStruck was better.  Last I checked, the Criterion Channel had 5-10 of the AFI list, including, as you mentioned, all 3 Chaplins on the list.

  6. Posted

    Just now, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    Then his whole line of, "it'll pay for itself, America already has enough on its plate to worry about"...

    Why, that may not have been gee-gosh-golly truthful, if not with others, then at least with himself. Both now and it's ability to stay within budget in the future.

    Yeah, I was absolutely not buying the fiscal neutrality of his plan.  Nor did I really understand why his camp couldn't be taken of through state legislature instead.  But in terms of the story, his "bill" is a red herring anyway, in that it's just a means through which he finds out about the corrupt machinery.

  7. Posted

    23 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    if the boy scout event isn't going to require funding, then why does he need to pass a bill?

    It's like the border wall.  Sure, Mexico will pay for it eventually, but Trump needs U.S. money for it now.

    (I hope the sarcasm was apparent.)

  8. Posted

    I was glad that Jon Lovett pointed out how silly it was for the Liberty Bell to be included in the DC montage.

    And I think he nailed why this film ultimately works so well:  Jean Arthur's Saunders acting as an audience avatar, acknowledging the corniness of it all, but getting swept away by it anyway.  She does similar heavy lifting in You Can't Take It With You and she's great in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, but this might be her best achievement, because she absolutely holds this together.

    At any rate, this is reasonably high on my list, but I look forward to hearing from detractors.  Is this movie actually great, or are we all just won over by its charm?

    • Like 2

  10. Posted

    6 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    And I said, "😉"!

    Also, my mind just glazed over when you said, "essentially."

    Unfortunately I haven't taken a stat (non-calc based) since high school.  I think I figured out what I was having trouble with.  Trying to conceptualize it as a vector space gives it weird properties that make common things we do with vector spaces (in this case, projections)... wonky.

    So to back up, when I said what are the dimensions, that was more focused on what the values were (the, use the ratings as our dimensions, still had each movie serving as what each dimension was, just the value in each dimension was the star rating for the movie) and it was getting conflated with the assigned metric/inner product.  But to get to the wonky example, if we flip the values around, make the top rated movie of 25, value of 24, and the lowest rated movie, value of 0 (we could also do 25 and 1), while it shouldn't change anyone's computed squared-distance, it's just easier for me to think about for thought experiment purposes because of associating higher values with better movies for these things.  Let's hypothetical ranker Kevin loves Citizen Kane and ranking it number 1, hates Titanic (always ranking it last), and let's say those were the first two movies reviewed.  Also let's say there's a hypothetical ranker, Nivek, who's the reverse - loves Titanic, hates Citizen Kane, but for every other movie they have the same opinion and rank.

    So after week three, Kevin's vector is <2, 0, 1> and Nivek's vector is <0, 2, 1>.  After 25 weeks, Kevin's vector is <24, 0, a, b, c...> and Nivek's vector is <0, 24, a, b, c...>.

    The squared-distance between them at week 3 is 8.  At week 25, it is 2*24^2, even though all of the new dimensions are contributing 0 to this increased distance.

    Similarly, let's say users Ke and Ni come around, but they've both only seen the first three movies.  And their vectors are, respectively, <2, 0, 1> and <0, 2, 1>.  We want to project Kevin and Nivek's vectors down to 3-dimensional space from 25 dimensional space.  Instead of projecting <24, 0, a, b, c...> and <0, 24, a, b, c....> down to <24, 0, a> and <0, 24, a>, it seems like we should project them down to <2, 0, 1> and <0, 2, 1>.  And maybe that's the best way to compare for subsets, though simply taking the average squared-distance by dimension would be misleading, as above demonstrates, the squared distances increases at a rate of n^2 (where n = number of dimensions).

    That's what I mean by, that is wonky in terms of what I normally expect for a vector space/inner product space.  And I focused on a projection because, well, trying to compare those of us with fewer rankings, it should be useful, even if it's incomplete data, to calculate what the distance is when projecting your rating vector point down into a lower dimensional space.  Granted, I say that as someone who's only ever completed an undergraduate degree (which I guess I should say, linear projection, because as I type that out, an inverse stereographic projection would be one way to go from a subset of 3 dimensions to 2 dimensions which doesn't uphold the 'typical' linear projection behavior; though my gut reaction the inverse of a stereographic projection isn't an isometry, so talking about distances might not be the best idea.  Not that I've seen talk about stereographic projections in a linear algebra class).

     

    Ah, I get what you're saying, instead of viewing an incomplete ranking in the 25-dimensional space, just take the projections of everyone else's rankings down to the lower dimensional space.  Yeah, that would work well to give comparisons to other lists for that incomplete list.  However, the scores between two 25-dimensional vectors aren't well-comparable to the scores between lower dimensional vectors, since eliminating films from consideration will decrease the squared-distance.  More importantly to me, the spreadsheet I whipped up in 5 minutes doesn't easily give me the capability to consider those projections. 🙂

  11. Posted

    3 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    I think you mean square of the euclidean distance. 😉

    Sure, and this is what I swept under the rug when I used the word "essentially," since I didn't feel the need to mention that the monotonicity of the square root function ensures that order will be preserved between the quantity calculated and the actual Euclidean distance, and that the only downside of not taking the square root is that the triangle inequality is not necessarily satisfied, so that we don't have a proper metric space under the quantity calculated, but that's not a big deal for the purpose it was used for.

    9 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    Though I'm trying to interpret it in my brain what the dimensions would be in a way that could be extractable.

    The way I did it, the dimensions are the 25 films themselves, and a person's ranking is the component in that direction.  (So there doesn't need to be a 1st dimension, 2nd dimension, etc., but rather the Titanic dimension, the Sixth Sense dimension, etc.)  I alphabetized just to standardize, but one could easily just take the films in the order the episodes were released, in which case the vector <1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 25> would be a list in which Citizen Kane is ranked #1, Ben-Hur is ranked #2, and every subsequent episode's film took the next place on the list.  Under this system, there's nothing good to put in for an unranked film that would give a consistent result.  If I put in 0 for all unranked films, that would score them as being high on the list rather than not on the list at all.  Putting in a high number for unranked films is fairer, but still won't be comparable to other scores.

    Granted, my background is in analysis rather than statistics, which is why I took an analytical approach rather than perhaps a statistical approach.  Someone more skilled in statistics than me could probably tell me a better way for computing similarity scores on lists.

    Anyway, I didn't think anyone would care about the details, so I didn't get into it before.  But I'm glad to talk about it since you seem interested!

  12. Posted

    The intros, where they talk about feedback on the previous episode, and where they play call-ins, are taped weekly.  The rest of the episode, where they talk about a movie, do an interview, and choose the next movie, can be taped as far in advance as they need.

    At any rate, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington still does not seem to be available on any subscription service, so I recommend checking your local library (mine had two copies!) or you'll have to use money to watch it.  As for the rest:

    Sophie's Choice is available to stream through Amazon Prime: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B075DQBMN9/

    A Clockwork Orange is also available to stream through Amazon Prime: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07K6VF6TK/

    Rocky can be streamed for free with ads through Crackle at https://www.sonycrackle.com/rocky or through YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etojf-AFVXI 

     

  13. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cameron H. said:

    Okay, I’ve thought about this some more and I would like to re-adjust my stance on this (again). I now disagree with Paul (and my previous post) because by only allowing one movie per director that suggests that the director, and no one else, is responsible for a movie’s quality - and that’s bullshit. I mean, it would be one thing if every director worked with the same cast, crew, and scriptwriter on every film, but since that’s not the case, disallowing a film because it shares the same director ignores the contributions of everyone else who worked on that film. For example, even if all the other elements were the same, I doubt Raiders would be on the list if it starred Gary Busey or Rear Window if it were written by E.L. James.

    Definitely agree.  I think there's a happy medium though, because some items on the list do feel unnecessary.  As you mentioned, I don't think Godfather 2 needs to be there.  As I mentioned earlier, it seems like a waste of a spot or two to have City Lights and The Gold Rush and Modern Times all representing Chaplin.  Similarly, do we really need both of Duck Soup and A Night At the Opera?  Do we need both The African Queen and Treasure of the Sierra Madre, for that matter?

    But none of Spielberg's films on the list feel superfluous.  Some of them might not belong on the list for quality reasons, but I certainly wouldn't say he's retreading the same ground, at least in these five films.

    • Like 2

  14. Posted

    25 minutes ago, tomspanks said:

    Aw, I wanna play too

    You've got 7 more films to rank!  The method I used requires a value for each of the 25 films (since it's essentially just computing the Euclidean distance in a 25-dimensional vector space), but I could get numbers by plugging in 19 for each of the missing films.  But that wouldn't be very consistent with the rest of the scores.

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    2 hours ago, WatchOutForSnakes said:

    Here's my updated list, though some of it is pure enjoyment over spectacle and technical achievement. I'd still move things around based on my mood. 

    1. Citizen Kane
    2. Wizard of Oz
    3. All About Eve
    4. Singin' in the Rain
    5. Double Indemnity
    6. Psycho
    7. 2001: A Space Odyssey
    8. Bonnie and Clyde
    9. The French Connection
    10. Taxi Driver
    11. E. T.
    12. The General
    13. Raiders of the Lost Ark
    14. High Noon
    15. The African Queen
    16. King Kong
    17. Titanic
    18. Apocalypse Now
    19. Lord of the Rings
    20. Shawshank Redemption
    21. Platoon
    22. Swing Time
    23. Duck Soup
    24. Ben-Hur
    25. Sixth Sense

    A full list means I can compute more similarity scores!

    Your list's similarity to, from more similar to least similar:

    • Cam Bert - 836
    • Amy - 870
    • sycasey - 958
    • Paul - 990
    • Cameron H. - 1300
    • me - 1672
    • AlmostAGhost - 1964

    I think you're the first list I've seen that's closer to Amy's than to Paul's!

    • Like 2

  16. Posted

    Okay, because I'm a math nerd, I rigged up some similarity scores between the full lists posted in this thread, as well as Paul's and Amy's.  The score is equal to the sum of the squares of the differences in rankings, so the lower the number, the more similar the list.  (This is a somewhat arbitrary metric that punishes huge differences more than a simple sum of absolute value of differences would, but Google Docs' spreadsheet had this function built in, so I just used it.)

    From most similar to least similar:

    • Cam Bert and Cameron H: 412
    • Cam Bert and sycasey: 530
    • sycasey and Paul: 532
    • Paul and Amy: 650
    • sycasey and Cameron H: 882
    • Cam Bert and Paul: 974
    • sycasey and Amy: 1150
    • me and Paul: 1170
    • Cam Bert and Amy: 1274
    • Cameron H and Paul: 1312
    • sycasey and me: 1342
    • me and Amy: 1402
    • Cam Bert and AlmostAGhost: 1452
    • sycasey and AlmostAGhost: 1588
    • AlmostAGhost and Paul: 1600
    • Cameron H and Amy: 1612
    • Cameron H and AlmostAGhost: 1646
    • Cam Bert and me: 1812
    • AlmostAGhost and Amy: 1928
    • AlmostAGhost and me: 2370
    • Cameron H and me: 2438 

     

    I think I just mathematically proved that my opinion is wrong. 😳

    • Like 8

  17. Posted

    1 hour ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    I am trying not to pre-judge and forget all past opinions, but there's one on the list yet to come that I think is basically one-star trash and I hate it.

    I can't wait to find out.  Of the ones left on the list that I've seen, there's nothing that I absolutely hate, but plenty that I think is overrated.  And there's stuff like The Gold Rush that is certainly good, but really shouldn't be on the list being that City Lights and Modern Times are there as well.

    • Like 3

  18. Posted

    Since others are doing it:
     

    1. 2001: A Space Odyssey ★★★★★

    2. Raiders of the Lost Ark ★★★★★

    3. Citizen Kane ★★★★½

    4. Duck Soup ★★★★½

    5. Apocalypse Now ★★★★½

    6. All About Eve ★★★★½

    7. Singin’ in the Rain ★★★★

    8. High Noon ★★★★

    9. Titanic ★★★★

    10 .The French Connection ★★★★

    11. The Sixth Sense ★★★★

    12. The General ★★★★

    13. The Wizard of Oz ★★★★

    14. King Kong ★★★½

    15. Taxi Driver ★★★½

    16. Psycho ★★★½

    17. Bonnie and Clyde ★★★½

    18. Double Indemnity ★★★½

    19. Platoon ★★★½

    20. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial ★★★

    21. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring ★★★

    22. The Shawshank Redemption ★★★

    23. The African Queen ★★★

    24. Ben-Hur ★★★

    25. Swing Time ★★½

    • Like 3

  19. Posted

    4 hours ago, Mitch-a-paloozer said:

    I too am disappointed about Filmstruck shutting down. That said, I'd like to politely remind everyone that their local public library is a wonderful resource for your AFI Top 100 needs. It helps if your library is part of a inter-library loan system, since my library is. I haven't had any issues loaning all of these titles. 

    Just a suggestion! You get all of the movies for free (legally!) and you support your library. You'll feel great about it in the end. 

    Unrelated: Vote on Tuesday! 

    Great point, I think I've gotten 9 of the 25 films so far from my local library.  (Still haven't had to pay to rent a single film on the list.)

  20. Posted

    3 minutes ago, tomspanks said:

    I pretty much agree with all the movies people have mentioned in the A category. Maybe I would replace Airplane! with Top Secret! and This is Spinal Tap with Best in Show. I would add Clueless and Ghostbusters to this category and if we could add non-American movies, I would add Hot Fuzz and MP & the Holy Grail.

    In category b, I would add There’s Something About Mary, Wayne’s World, Major League, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and Mean Girls. 

    Fantastic call on Top Secret!, I haven't seen that in way too long, I need to queue it up again.

    Also, There's Something About Mary was actually on the AFI ballot!  And the AFI's list of comedies has it at #27, so it's lauded beyond just a guilty-pleasure: https://www.afi.com/100Years/laughs.aspx

    • Like 2

  21. Posted

    So I've enjoyed seeing people post both (a) the comedies that they think should have made the list (or in some cases, should have at least made the ballot), and (b) quasi-guilty pleasure comedies that make us laugh like crazy while still probably being undeserving of AFI laud.

    In the first category, I've already mentioned What's Up, Doc?, and I think it's absurd that it wasn't even on the ballot.  Ditto for The Jerk, Trading Places, and Coming to America.  (Seriously, how did Austin Powers make the ballot and not a single live-action Eddie Murphy film did?)  People have mentioned Airplane! and the Mel Brooks comedies as a few top notch comedies that made the ballot but not the list.  Spinal Tap hasn't been mentioned here, but it's another one that made the ballot and not the list.

    In the second category, I laugh a lot at second-wave Shane Black, particularly Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and The Nice Guys.  And I'll tune in to a good chunk of Major League 2 whenever I see it on cable.  Who has some more like this?

    • Like 3

  22. Posted

    10 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    There might also be an aspect of, "Well, this movie from a long time ago still can make us laugh, which increases our confidence that decades from now, we'll still be laughing at it, so it must be legitimately funny!  We don't know if we laugh at Airplane because we grew up with it though.  It might not age well."

    This is a good point.  The longer that a piece of comedy remains fresh, the more it's seen as something singular, or elemental.

    I also think there's probably a bit of bias against parodies and spoofs for this reason.  Someone might justifiably ask whether a film that derives humor from defying the expectations formed from previous work will hold up as well over time.  Of course, I think it's safe to say that the best parody films, like Airplane! or Blazing Saddles absolutely transcend any reliance on audience knowledge of the previous work.  Whereas something like Austin Powers (also on the AFI ballot!) probably does not.

    • Like 4

  23. Posted

    8 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    It’s great. I’m just having trouble understanding why it should be considered one of the best American film beyond and I haven’t heard anything really compelling beyond “I like it and it makes me laugh so it should be there.” I mean, I like Miami Connection, but I don’t think it belongs on the AFI’s list -lol.

    You might be right!  It might just be on the list because it made more of the voters laugh than Airplane! did.  

    • Like 2

  25. Posted

    33 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    Agreed. My problem with Comedies is that so few of them, for me anyway, are actually re-watchable. It's like going to a party and a person tells you a funny joke and then running into them a few weeks later and they tell you the same joke. It's just never going to be as funny the second time you hear it (never mind the 5th, 6th, 7th, etc,). That's a big reason why I feel like Comedy benefits from being more well-rounded. Amy has brought it up before, but I would fully support When Harry Met Sally on the AFI list. It's very funny, but even when you know all of them and can quote them by heart, there's still a really strong story about love and relationships at its core. I don't need to bust a gut laughing with every re-watch because it's built on something far more tangible than just "I'd love 'eliminate.'" 

    I'm just built differently, because I laugh at the same jokes over and over, and I love all kinds of wordplay, good and bad puns alike.  I currently watch Duck Soup about once every year or so, and it cracks me up every time.  And you list the "eliminate" gag as an example of a flat joke, but there's a very simple exchange in that scene that is one of my all-time favorite dumb puns:

    Quote

     

    Chicolini: Hey, I got an uncle lives in Taxes!

    Prosecutor: No, I'm talking about taxes - money, dollars!

    Chicolini: Dollas! There's-a where my uncle lives! Dollas, Taxes!

     

    I'm giggling now just copying and pasting it, and I think about this and laugh to myself every couple months.  So I guess what I'm saying is that Duck Soup feels like it was made specifically for me, because it's just wall-to-wall with stuff that makes me laugh.

×