Options
What Films Do You Consider to be "Works of Art?"
[Deleted User]
Posts: 308
Forum Member
✭
There are movies that we enjoy, some movies that are outstanding, and there are a select few that some may consider to be works of art. They may not even be as entertaining as our favorite films, but just in their sheer beauty, they earn the title.
There are only a few that I consider to be in this category;
The Godfather I & II.
Schindler's List.
The Shawshank Redemption.
These are not even necessarily my top films of all time, though they do make my top something list.
What films do you honour with the accolade?
There are only a few that I consider to be in this category;
The Godfather I & II.
Schindler's List.
The Shawshank Redemption.
These are not even necessarily my top films of all time, though they do make my top something list.
What films do you honour with the accolade?
0
Comments
Pan's Labyrinth
Trainspotting
Blade Runner
Watchmen
Alien
Blue Velvet
Star Trek The Motion Picture
The Company of Wolves
Wizards
Brazil
The Flight of Dragons
The Dark Crystal
Hero
The Seventh Seal
The Piano
The very definition of an 'epic', a word sadly diluted in this day and age. And a great character study to boot, although the T.E Lawrence of the film was quite different to the T.E Lawrence of reality. Not to mention some of the finest cinematography in film history.
"El Aurens is best"
Monsters Inc.
fight club
goodfellas
Aliens
Predator
Prometheus
Cloverfield
Highlander
Robocop
When I was at school I argued that a particular song was a work of Art. I think it was Great Balls of Fire. Nobody agreed, even when I asked them why Mozart's Clarionet Concerto was art but GBOF wasn't.
Predator
Terminator
Robocop
Schindlers List
Gladiator
The Prestige
The Thing
Halloween
^^^
Completely agree with this.In my opinon Back To The Future is a great work or art but you wouldn't find many people who would put it with the likes of The Godfather and such.But I think in terms of performances,storytelling and music,it's a faultless family classic.
The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover is up there.
The thing that triggered my initial question was after watching Anna Karenina. I found myself thinking that it was a visually stunning film, but the whole time I'm watching it, it's almost as though I could see the director trying to paint this beautiful portrait, but forgot to tell a decent story. All style and no substance, and I think you need both for a film.
I think Pulp Fiction was a bit of a work of art, but I don't think Tarantino has ever really reached the heights he did in that film. Django and Inglorious both tried really hard, but they didn't quite hit the mark the way Pulp Fiction did. I mention him because he's another director with a very unique signature style, who obviously aspires to be a legend, but for me, hasn't quite hit the mark yet.
Samsara
Life Of Pi
300
Regards
Mark
Stunning use of lighting and camera work to create an atmosphere of continual suspense.
He was a master of form and theme. Complex, bit still accessible to all. Which is why he's still so highly regarded by public and academic alike.
Ridley Scott's The Duellists and Blade Runner
Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West
Orson Welles' Citizen Kane
John Ford's The Grapes of Wrath and Stagecoach
Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch
Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai
Stuff Stephanie in the Incinerator
Surf Nazis Must Die
Class of Nuke 'Em High
Plughead Rewired: Circuitry Man 2
- stunning.
Hall Pass