Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Will I Hate Some Movies?

Having written nearly half of the list of 500 movies that I will be watching in my challenge, I am starting to appreciate the sheer variance that are in today's movies.

One of the first things I considered when setting the challenge was whether I would enjoy watching older movies. For example; I really enjoyed Avatar, but is it possible to take the same sense of satisfaction in this day and age when watching some of the 1920's films on the list?

Will King Kong (2005) be
as iconic as the original?
A good way to decide this would be to compare films in the list that are 'original' and 'remakes' of classic stories. King Kong and Beauty And The Beast are two such films with versions that were made over 50 years apart. I can honestly say I will enjoying seeing how advances in cinema have changed and whether special effects are now more important than story telling.

Another aspect I am looking forward to is moving radically from one genre to another. Once I reach 'C', I will be watching the song-filled Carousel followed by the gore-filled Carrie. Even before that - in 'B' - the based-on-real-events crime movie Badlands will be followed by a film I saw when I was barely out of nappies - Bambi.

Finally, I have noticed one issue with watching the list alphabetically - sequels. With the majority of sequels, they logically follow each other (Toy Story 1, 2 & 3), but in my travels through the list I have noticed that The Trilogy of the Dead franchise will be a mismatch - Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead will be in order, but the film that starts the franchise - Night of the Living Dead -  will be over 100 films behind. Can anyone suggest if this will be a problem?

1 comment:

  1. I'm refusing to say which films I don't think should be on the 500 list. I am sorely tempted to, but it will no doubt turn into a mindless, near-incoherent rant. Off the top of my head, I can think of 7 out of the ones I've seen (outside of the challenge).

    You may be surprised by Carrie. It's not gory in the same sense that Saw is gory. There is a LOT of blood, but I don't think you actually see anyone being injured or maimed. If you like, you can borrow the book from me (I think it's only about 3/4" thick), which covers far more of the underlying story than the film does (althought having a seemingly drawn-out writing style, EVERYTHING Stephen King puts in a book adds to the story, which would take a month to show in a film).

    With reference to older films vs new films, I think the vast majority (probably 70-80%, if not more...) of new films are utter crap that will be disregarded by the history books. Older films only made it to production if they were genuinely good in every sense. Although there are more good recent films, I reckon a higher percentage of old films are good.

    Obviously modern special effects add to the overall atmosphere, but the general audience of a modern film is different and would most likely have the view "Don't make me think, I just wanna be entertained." (quoted from Ben Stiller in Dodgeball).