A lot of film buffs and critics, will judge a movie based on how it was at the time of the release, compared to how stands the tests of time now. But why is that?
I mean a lot of critics and movie buffs for example, say that Citizen Kane (1941) is one of the best movies of all time, if not the best.
However, their are later movies that follow the same structure as Kane. The structure being a compelling drama of someone's life, told in flashback all leading up to an emotional ending. Forrest Gump (1994) and Slumdog Millionaire (2008) for example, follow that structure, but I thought those were more emotionally compelling than Citizen Kane. CK is good, but feels like it's in it's infancy compared to the really good later movies that use that structure, but does that mean that CK should still get top billing cause it was the original?
Or for example, if you watch M (1931), it is a very good thriller and one of my favorite films. However a similar police on the race to catch the killer or killers drama, that was done even more suspenseful in my opinion was The Chaser (2008). Or perhaps even Cell 211. Not a serial killer thriller, but a thriller of the same genre, yet M still gets praise as the great crime thriller to stand above the rest. But unlike M, The Chaser does not get near as much praise even though, a lot might agree that the story is even more shocking and scandalous, than the original that inspired the genre.
Or how The Birth of a nation is considered a great classic dealing with the civil war, and the philosophies and politics, surrounding it. But you could say that Glory (1989), and Lincoln (2012), did it better per say. In fact most people might agree that those movies were better written, but The Birth of a Nation is still on critics' greatest films of all time lists.
Or if you watch Casablanca, it's love story during tragic war times, or just hard times, where someone looses a love, or yearns for a better life. However later films like The English Patient (1996), and Robin and Marian (1976), possible do it better, with even more compelling romance.
Or Sight and Sound magazine recently had a winning vote that Vertigo (1958), was the greatest movie of all time. Vertigo is sort of a psychological thriller drama, where a main character has to overcome some tragedy in his life, that has been manipulated towards him by a villain. A very good movie, but a similar genre of movie that was done bigger, darker and more dramatic, is Oldboy, and I think that movie struck more of a chord in me, and possibly a lot of other people. Yet Vertigo still gets top billing, cause it's the most classic per say.
Do film critics and movie buffs often choose classics as their top movies because they feel it's more proper, or because they are the originals, as oppose to ones that do it better later, cause they are not in their infancy and take things in more compelling directions?
Or do they pick older classics for a different reason?
I mean a lot of critics and movie buffs for example, say that Citizen Kane (1941) is one of the best movies of all time, if not the best.
However, their are later movies that follow the same structure as Kane. The structure being a compelling drama of someone's life, told in flashback all leading up to an emotional ending. Forrest Gump (1994) and Slumdog Millionaire (2008) for example, follow that structure, but I thought those were more emotionally compelling than Citizen Kane. CK is good, but feels like it's in it's infancy compared to the really good later movies that use that structure, but does that mean that CK should still get top billing cause it was the original?
Or for example, if you watch M (1931), it is a very good thriller and one of my favorite films. However a similar police on the race to catch the killer or killers drama, that was done even more suspenseful in my opinion was The Chaser (2008). Or perhaps even Cell 211. Not a serial killer thriller, but a thriller of the same genre, yet M still gets praise as the great crime thriller to stand above the rest. But unlike M, The Chaser does not get near as much praise even though, a lot might agree that the story is even more shocking and scandalous, than the original that inspired the genre.
Or how The Birth of a nation is considered a great classic dealing with the civil war, and the philosophies and politics, surrounding it. But you could say that Glory (1989), and Lincoln (2012), did it better per say. In fact most people might agree that those movies were better written, but The Birth of a Nation is still on critics' greatest films of all time lists.
Or if you watch Casablanca, it's love story during tragic war times, or just hard times, where someone looses a love, or yearns for a better life. However later films like The English Patient (1996), and Robin and Marian (1976), possible do it better, with even more compelling romance.
Or Sight and Sound magazine recently had a winning vote that Vertigo (1958), was the greatest movie of all time. Vertigo is sort of a psychological thriller drama, where a main character has to overcome some tragedy in his life, that has been manipulated towards him by a villain. A very good movie, but a similar genre of movie that was done bigger, darker and more dramatic, is Oldboy, and I think that movie struck more of a chord in me, and possibly a lot of other people. Yet Vertigo still gets top billing, cause it's the most classic per say.
Do film critics and movie buffs often choose classics as their top movies because they feel it's more proper, or because they are the originals, as oppose to ones that do it better later, cause they are not in their infancy and take things in more compelling directions?
Or do they pick older classics for a different reason?
