a film-etc blog
But why not all three "Lord of the Rings" films as one entry, given that it's obviously one movie (moreso than "The Godfather" in my opinion).
Because I don't rate them equally, whereas the first two Godfathers inform each other and improve each other, and I couldn't live without either one of them.
Does Coppola count as one of the three directors represented twice in your Top 20, with Lynch and Kubrick?
Nope. Call it four if you like...
I'm thinking Malick, with The Thin Red Line and Days of Heaven coming up very soon, if not tomorrow.
Surely Kane (which would be Welles' second) is still coming up?In the meantime, I will never understand the greatest-movie-ever fuss over The Godfather pictures. I think both of them (the third one never existed as far as I'm conerned) were solid, excellent, near-great, but not-quite-great. Just the other day though, I actually bought the part 1 DVD (it was $5, for chrissakes) so that I can watch the movie for the third time and try to finally get how it's so many (perfectly decent) people's favorite movie of all time.
Kane is already in lower down, at #43. I genuinely prefer Ambersons. It's not Malick, either...
Post a Comment