Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9861750" data-attributes="member: 6799660">The question is vague, and there are multiple ways to approach it. The perfect movie for me is one I want to watch. Movies that I think <s>are perfect</s> approach perfection is a different category. We can (and should) discuss both. Perhaps better to clarify which you mean ('perfect for me' vs. 'perfect in execution' or the like), but honestly we should be able to get it from context.For me, a film that is perfect in execution very competently and effectively does what it sets out to do. A few examples:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I do not love gangster stories. I don't gravitate towards crime stories in general, and adding a bunch of stereotypes on top doesn't generally improve the experience. But if I want to watch one, man does The Godfather deliver on that story. No scene is unnecessary, no shot is wasted, the story is cohesive. It never forgets what it is, and although it clearly is in love with its villainy, it never treats Michael's descent as anything other than a tragedy/failure of a good man. I could watch it monthly and not get tired of it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Galaxy Quest is much more limited in ambition. It sets out to spoof Sci Fi (Star Trek in particular) and its fandom. It does so in a lighthearted satirical homage rather than a brutal or campy takedown (National Lampoon, or even Monty Python, would be much more withering). Again, the movie does so with withering efficiency -- nothing is there that does not serve the primary goal. The screenwriters were diligent in killing their darlings where something wasn't necessary (and the film was not re-written in the editing booth). There aren't a bunch of dangling lines that were in service of some secondary plot that got cut for time. Everything either establishes who someone is; or works towards skewering (lightly) sci fi shows, washed-up actors, or the people who obsess over either or both.</li> </ul>More nuancedly, perhaps because of the potential flaws:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There are two movies -- Caddyshack and It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World-- which basically serve the same goal. That is to provide a ghost of a plot around which some of the funniest comedians of the respective era deliver some of their best material or performances. Both serve that purpose greatly. IaMMMMW tells a more complete story, and some of the comedians don't get to flex their muscles quite as much as they otherwise could because they are working in service of the movie (Jack Benny relegated to "man driving car in desert," the Three Stooges in a short-changed role as firefighters because Jonathan Winters antics at the service station already did enough slapstick destruction). Caddyshack, otoh, sacrifices story to let the comedians go full-ham, and for that reason I've heard it said that it is a series of great comedy routines in a not-great movie (certainly the plot for the teenagers, lead by Michael O'Keefe, got short shrift). I can see and understand these critiques, even if I still consider them both really good watches and successful in what they were trying to do.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There is a certain story -- I'll call it epic tragiromantic drama. Kind of the opposite of a rom-com, it's where everyone stares at each other longingly amongst beautiful establishing shots, and everyone ends up dead or penniless and no one ends up with whom they wanted. Period pieces are well-represented. It's not a genre I actively seek out. Still, for my money, Out of Africa does this better and more effectively/efficiently than something like Wuthering Heights or Gone with the Wind. It is gorgeous. I buy the romantic leads with each other. Most of the stuff that keeps them apart does not feel forced or contrived. Still, unlike The Godfather, it doesn't make me want to cross genre interest and regularly watch it again and again.</li> </ul>This, to me, raises an interesting question. If looking at perfection in execution, can you have issues, errors, logic gaps, inconsistencies, or moments of absolute cringe, but still be really perfect. I ask because a lot of the films repeatedly brought up here have one or more.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Jurassic Park has the large drop, and also the point where the (previously earth-shaking) t-rex sneaks up on someone.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Blade Runner has the number of replicants being hunted, Deckard surviving the battle with Pris because she decides to do backflips in front of someone with a gun instead of killing him, the scene with Zhora running through windows while getting shot where it's clearly a stunt double, and the forcefully kissing Rachel.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Princess Bride has plot-enabling conveniences (deus ex holocaust cloak; what was Vizzini's plan if Westley hadn't challenged him to a deadly-duel-of-wits?), Buttercup being an active hindrance in the swamp of sadness, and Fezzik action sequences where he's played by a stuntman or a dummy because of Andre the Giant's back problems.</li> </ul>To me, these are obvious flaws. Yet I can't in all seriousness not say that they are some of the more brilliant films of all time, both in being engaging and in doing what they are trying to do.</blockquote>

Verification