Lists by jgcorrea
No doubt, lots of intellectuals will wholeheartedly continue poring over these titles and find all kinds of meaning. I found most of them pretentious nonsense, even though I'm not at all blind to the obvious qualities of a great many turkeys. I do agree with Godard when he says that it's rather difficult to find a 100% abominable movie. Bad movies, although tough to watch, still have something to offer when it comes to teaching the viewer about filmmaking: some storytelling detail, some nice acting, some fancy photography, or some tuneful soundtrack. So why is this cinephile discouraging others from seeing particular movies? Because any list, whether positive or negative, is an event pertaining to so-called Vanity Fair. ;-) If you want me to put a nicer spin, it's a badge of pride. The only way to push past ego is to give the others something worthwhile, and kicking a film that has hardly ever been kicked is spite. Of course this list gives only a paragraph per selection, so there’s no in-depth examination of why (in the lister's not-so-humble opinion) a film failed. Anyway, this isn't quite about choosing the worst movies of all times, which would be impossible and impracticable. The bottom line is, I chose them from among the most praised, the most famous, the most awarded, and the works of great directors, or mere fakes, including perhaps a few turkeys that are memorable for the wrong reasons...
(with Service Ribbons to other talented competitors such as Messers. Downey Jr., Michael Caine, Joaquim de Almeida, Christopher Lee) As to Benedict Cumberbatch, I'd classify him as an exceptional scope-transcending case
Maybe there aren't good and bad actors, but rather good and bad performances. Anyhow, some viewers, including Yours Truly, take pleasure in ill-speaking. A neologism - 'hate-watching' - has even been created for lovers of such practice. So I'm listing cheesy hams for the sheer pleasure of pseudo-hating. I'd say I love to hate both soap operas and soapy hammies in general.
Experimental innovators work by trial and error, and arrive at their major contributions gradually, late in life. In contrast, conceptual innovators make sudden breakthroughs by formulating new ideas, usually at an early age. Such artists as Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Cézanne, Robert Frost, and Alfred Hitchcock were experimental old masters, while Vermeer, van Gogh, Picasso, Herman Melville, James Joyce, and Orson Welles were conceptual young geniuses. Welles the actor was actually as impressive as Welles the director. Few roles in the history of cinema were as superbly played as these below listed characters.
In the cinema, as in much of life, versatility is a desirable attribute. For many reasons it is hard to compare players from era to era. There are so many variables at work, from what roles they played to what directors they faced to what make-up they used. If I had to choose the best ones, I'd never forget Peter Sellers. He was the most versatile of all the players at going from comedy to drama, from irony to pathos, from bizarre accent to... another bizarre accent .
Some films, e.g. Ratatouille have such delicious portrayals of food that they can send you straight to the fridge, said the Telegraph critic Anne Billson. But which films are the least appetizing of all? These are mostly gory thrillers or black comedies around feasts in which the characters indulge every gluttonous whim with culinary abandon, including cannibalism. Their erotic gorging, groping and fondling of food and flesh is awesome as they stuff themselves to morbidity. Food fornication often becomes a metaphor for bourgeois decadence, survival of the least moral beings, Diaspora-bound communities, cultural retention, expressing unsayable things, and so on and so forth. To say the least, they are neither my cup of tea nor my bowl of sugared rice. At least as far as the foodie sequences are concerned.
The Wolf of Wall Street has more utterances of the f-word than any other non-documentary film in cinema history. As per Wikipedia: the word is used 506 times over the 180min runtime. Previously, the record was held by Spike Lee’s Summer of Sam, with 435 instances. But the single most beepable movie of all times, dropping 857 f-bombs, was itself titled likewise — a documentary about the use of the very word. Another aspiring record breaker was Nil by Mouth (1997) – with 428 instances. Yet the number of bad words in The Wolf is probably the least offensive thing about it. It’s the least of the protagonist’s crimes. The Wolf also has the largest number of copulations in any non-porn movie. It's all about excessive obscenity onto every imaginable vice. The brokering wolves perform more blows, screw more hookers, devour more sheep, throw away more dough, urinate on more legal documents than any of us can ever imagine. Of course my ears' share of profanity already reached the stratosphere many years ago. Not having watched every single foul-mouthed champion, I listed below the main representatives of such an actually inexplicable trend (in my view). I do know that sex sells well. But shall I ever understand the general public's crave for a particular word and its relevant mother-cognates?...
Prior reading: some thoughts about a definitely canonized, controversial filmmaker of personal, often hermetic dramas: <http://bergmanorama.webs.com/chaplin_dahlbeck88.htm>: this is essential for browsing, and the following list may not work for you before reading it. I trust you'll enjoy it.
The Western is a filmic genre devoted to telling stories set primarily in the later half of the 19th century in the American Old West, hence the name. Some Westerns are set as early as the Revolutionary America (e.g. Drums along the Mohawk). There are also a number of films about Western-type characters in contemporary settings. For the record, the choices herein are, of course, strictly personal.
You'll probably ask: what qualifies as underrated? Well,these movies are almost never mentioned in the director’s top-tier of films, usually mentioned as “lesser-...” Equally, a quick glance at wikipedia or even an obituary will not reveal these pictures until several paragraphs in, if at all, pointing out more popular or acclaimed pieces far earlier. You are unlikely to discover any of these ten on a “Best of...” list, even as other films by their directors will be strewn all through out them. Now,so much for guidelines, let's talk about excellence.
As 'Laura's Blog' puts it so well, this is a common question which any singing teacher can take either 5 minutes or 5 years to answer properly. It depends on a number of elements, but significantly on (i) the range (notes of sufficient quality available to the singer; (ii) the timbre of the voice (texture and characteristics of the relevant your voice). Technically speaking: a soprano range is Middle C to high C, 2 octaves above (C4 to C6). A mezzo-soprano range is A3 to A5. A contralto range is F3 to F5. In pop music, however, a soprano is not required to sing the extreme notes found in classical music, but she will share the most common characteristics of the soprano, a light to medium weight, sweet agile voice, e.g. Beyoncé, Leona Lewis, Duffy, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera and Celine Dion. Soul and gospel singers tend to lend more weight to their voices, a common characteristic of the mezzo-soprano. Examples: Adele, Dinah Washington, Mary J. Blige, Aretha Franklin and Jennifer Hudson. The contralto is the lowest female voice, often suited to jazz, with a deep, warm quality. Eg. Amy Winehouse, Sarah Vaughan, Alicia Keys and Sade. It is important to bear in mind that a quality voice can often sing outside of its own voice category. For example, Aretha Franklin has sung many songs in a soprano key and many of Amy Winehouse’s songs are suitable for mezzo-sopranos. It depends on tessitura (tessitura is a judgement of where most the notes in a song lie e.g. high or low, or in the middle of the range). (Thank you, Laura's Blog)
It is of course impossible to watch everything that one would like to. Somehow I got to witness some memorable song and dance performances. Here they are.
I could never see Nijinsky, Pavlova or mlle Camargo dancing, of course. Still I did not miss the chances to see a few other glories of ballet, modern dance, folk dance or show-biz
Beauty is hardly a subtle art, but subtlety does tend to enhance it farther.
Hollywood and the glamour community always welcomed it. Actually, western culture places the highest value on appearance.
The way 'she' looks can impact plot perception as well as spectator catharsis. Therefore, kudos to the loveliest (and, incidentally, timeless) team of beautified pros in the business:
These are masterly creators of bodily magic fusing lights, shadows, movements and musical tempos. As a balletomane, I've no words to express my deep gratitude to all of them, plus a number of absentees from database.
The absence of Helen Mirren and Sarah Bernhard is easily explained - I haven't seen the relevant movies so far - this notwithstanding, a tenth place is duly reserved for one of them.
Awards are not always well deserved and of course there will never be unanimity for that matter. But some are not only deserved but also accurate, long-overdue and very much à propos.