I was sick of boring clubs, and I thought exclusion and bitter attitudes could spice up the "club scene" here on cB. So, I decided to make a club for Film Snobs. This is a place for cinephilia, in the best and worst ways. If you like movies, and you think you like good movies, you may want to apply here. But, I'm not going to be easy on you guys, I hate most of your taste. Give me crap, and I'll give it right back. Those of you who don't completely suck will be accepted into our cute little bullshit corner and will then become judge and jury in deciding whether or not future applicants should be allowed into our little circle. So, here is all you have to do, post a Top 20 list. Twenty movies that you think reflect your distinct taste and interest in cinema. If I like it, you're in. If I'm not sure, I may ask you a few questions. If I hate it, I'll ignore you or throw up.

As a club, we will discuss film, recommend work, and pretend we have status when we truly do not. Knowledge is power, f**kers.

Exclusive clubs rule. No Nates.

[New new new list v.8]

1. Blair Witch Project, The (Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sanchez, 1999)
2. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (David Lynch, 1992)
3. Possession (Andrzej Zulawski, 1981)
4. Videodrome (David Cronenberg, 1983)
5. Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One (William Greaves, 1968)
6. Blue Velvet (David Lynch, 1986)
7. Week End (Jean-Luc Godard, 1967)
8. Hour of the Wolf, The (Ingmar Bergman, 1968)
9. Juliet of the Spirits (Federico Fellini, 1965)
10. Thin Blue Line, The (Errol Morris, 1988)
11. Iron Rose, The (Jean Rollin, 1973)
12. Lickerish Quartet, The (Radley Metzger, 1970)
13. Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979)
14. Gummo (Harmony Korine, 1997)
15. Straw Dogs (Sam Peckinpah, 1971)
16. Two-Lane Blacktop (Monte Hellman, 1971)
17. A Nightmare on Elm Street (Wes Craven, 1984)
18. F for Fake (Orson Welles, 1974)
19. Beyond The Valley of the Dolls (Russ Meyer, 1970)
20. Magnifique, Le (Philippe de Broca, 1973)

So, who wants to join? Let's see those Top 20 lists!

[members]

1. Nate. (NoSex)
2. Rebecca. (Superstitious)
3. Amanda. (Athorpedo)
4. Spencer. (BeCoolHoneyBunny)
5. Winston. (ThunderEvermore)
6. Matt (Djlunatix)

I agree about Y Tu Mama Tambien, it was entertaining, but not the incredible picture everyone made it out to be. I wasn't incredibly impressed.

Ok, trying to make a list that is a better representation of my tastes, and comprised more of movies I can always go back to and watch again and still love it.

1. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007, Andrew Dominik)
2. High Fidelity (2000, Stephen Frears)
3. Heat (1995, Michael Mann)
4. History of the World Pt. 1 (1981, Mel Brooks)
5. Reservoir Dogs (1992, Quentin Tarantino)
6. Die Hard (1988, John McTiernan)
7. Munich (2005, Steven Spielberg)
8. The Brothers McMullen (1995, Ed Burns)
9. We Own The Night (2007, James Gray)
10. The Boondock Saints (1999, Troy Duffy)
11. Serenity (2005, Joss Whedon)
12. A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (2006, Dito Montiel)
13. The Thin Red Line (1998, Terrence Malick)
14. From Dusk 'Til Dawn (1996, Robert Rodriguez)
15. Rumble in the Bronx (1995, Stanley Tong)
16. Timecop (1994, Peter Hyams)
17. The Godfather (1972, Francis Ford Coppola)
18. Desperado (1995, Robert Rodriguez)
19. Collateral (2004, Michael Mann)
20. October Sky (1999, Joe Johnston)

Just realized I double posted, sorry.

When did you ever get the impression I was referring to the remake of Texas Chainsaw? The hell would I ever do that? Jessica Biel running around in a wet tank-top wasn't that great. Your presumptuous nature is embarrassing. But, just to clarify:

1. f**k loyalties.
2. Though the violence is largely implied, to suggest that there were no violent images whatsoever is a bit shortsighted.
3. When did you ever get the idea that I "can only grasp" ultra violence? The Blair Witch Project sits at my number one spot.
4. The purpose of these challenges is to get a deeper look into a person's tastes, knowledge, character, and creativity - in this case, I noticed a significant lack of grind, grit, or horror in your list. I wanted to see if you could demonstrate a broader taste. If anyone here is being narrow minded, it's the guy who can't find the enjoyment in a bloody mess.
5. Your list didn't tell me anything about you - aside from the fact that you've seen the same movies everyone else has and, even worse, took to consensus opinion.
6. You're upset. I'm sorry.



Word.



Some new movies here I haven't seen. Some new ones I have. I think I'll have to take some time to meditate on this, come up with some new challenges. But, at first glance, I think I like prefer your original list. But, I like you, so, who knows.

Because my top movies are found on AFI's top 100 list, doesn't make them any less of movies. If anything the movies I chose were to represent my style in camera direction, stylishly appealing and acting capabilities. It doesn't represent movies I found just "entertaining" like the Blair Witch seems to do. No way can you justify the use of a shaky camera, as a "smart" camera decision, unless making a film like Blair Witch. The movie was made to entertain, not impress people with the camera directions.

I understand what the "List" was supposed to represent, and to show my personalization in movies, however the request was Top 10, it didn't specify which favorite Genre, or ranked on popularity or even based on an entertainment level, if that were so, then Bubble Boy would be on that list for me. However my favorite films represent "Media feats that I find impressive, and acting abilities that shine"

I'm not hurt that I didn't get into your "club," I am disappointed, because I thought at least if these films weren't on any of your top favorite list, then there would at least be a discussion about why these films aren't to your standards. But with such a bland answer as its "AFI's top 100" really doesn't impress me or make me even want to discuss movies with you guys.

Please tell me why Sorstalansag was not up to your standards, was it the raw use of dialogue to represent the brutal truth behind World War II? Was it the quick camera shots that normally left the viewer confused, but done so flawlessly that it moved the story along nicely. It seems to me you only seem to like films that your all partial towards, which if thats the case then I wouldn't want to join.

Typical.




Its nice to see this on someones list, is it wrong to possibly compliment Channing Tatum on his acting in this movie? I've always been impressed with Downey, but Tatum really surprised me in this movie.

Wrong? Absolutely not.

But this is coming from someone who appreciated She's the Man.

List of Entertaining Movies:

1.) Mean Girls
2.) She's the Man
3.) Bubble Boy.

I love Amanda Bynes.

Bubble Boy? With Jake Gyllenhaal? Haha yeah I don't think I've seen that one all the way through.

Agreed on the first two.

Who said my list was simply a list of just entertainment? I'd say the only movie on my list that I chose simply for entertainment would be Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky. The most impressive aspect of this movie is how laughably bad it is, but, in that, it was also the most fun I have had while watching a movie. The entire movie is pretty much a plot hole, but that does not change how memorable the experience of watching it was for me.

It's apparent that you chose to only list movies that you think are theatrical feats; unfortunately, most of those were films that everyone recognizes as important, which brings me back to the whole lack of personalization idea. It's unfortunate that you decided this instead of synthesizing lists of favorites and movies that are important to you personally and historically. I'd contend that everyone that has been accepted so far has accomplished this. All of the great cinematography and impressive dialogue in the movies you listed doesn't change that there wasn't any outstanding reason to think you had any intimate grounds for choosing those films.

The most important reason Sorstalansag isn't on my list is because I have never seen it. I'm sorry, I'm not going to pretend like I have seen every movie or even all the same movies you have. I guess because I haven't seen it, that makes everything I said mute. Assuming it doesn't make my list when I see it, I'll let you know why it isn't.

And when you do see if you ever plan to, then I would be glad to discuss the directors decisions, camera direction and even script and storyline. I wish the entire "club" was like this, but i'm afraid its not, its just a chance for others to judge them based on their own personal style of film, which Casablanca being my number 1, because its beautifully orchestrated, the acting is brilliant and the storyline was easy to follow. Sorry it can't have an indepth meaning such as a Blair Witch or any of David Lynch's films, but still its my list of films I find great, and I'm sorry it doesn't meet your standards, however being a Cinematography Major with a Film Studies Minor I am always up for discussing films, assuming I have seen them as well.

Has anyone seen Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer?

That was one of the very best (if not the best) horror movies I have ever seen! If you haven't seen it I HIGHLY suggest finding it!

I saw Henry probably two years ago, after years of hearing the hype. I was, if I must say, sorely disappointed. I thought the story was emotionless, dry, boring, and non-engaging. I kept hearing about how this was an unflinching and brave depiction of a serial killer - an honest and insightful journey into the mind of a mad man. I saw nothing of the such. Worse, I saw an inflated and pseudo-hollywood demonstration of a "twisted" love story. So bad. Not particularly brutal, poorly acted, and not quirky or charming enough to warrant even a second viewing. Still, to this day, I have no idea how this film ever contracted such a reputation. Low-budget don't mean shit - f**k, Ebert loved this movie - of course it's emotionally dishonest.

Updated list, sort of.

1. Blue Velvet (David Lynch, 1986)
2. Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)
3. Gummo (Harmony Korine, 1997)
4. The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez, 1999)
5. Who Can Kill a Child? (Narciso Serrador, 1976)
6. INLAND EMPIRE (David Lynch, 2006)
7. Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (Russ Meyer, 1965)
8. Eraserhead (David Lynch, 1977)
9. Rushmore (Wes Anderson, 1998)
10. A History of Violence (David Cronenberg, 2005)
11. Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994)
12. A Nightmare on Elm Street (Wes Craven, 1984)
13. The Forbidden Zone (Richard Elfman, 1980)
14. Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola, 2003)
15. Pee Wee's Big Adventure (Tim Burton, 1985)
16. Battle Royale (Kinji Fukasaku, 2000)
17. Adaptation (Spike Jonze, 2002)
18. The Evil Dead (Sam Raimi, 1981)
19. Dead Alive (Peter Jackson, 1992)
20. Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky (Lam Ngai Kai, 1991)

I saw Dead Alive once again this weekend and asked myself why it wasn't on my top 20. I couldn't come up with a good reason for it to not be on my list, or a bad reason for it to be on my list.

I saw F for Fake last night as well. Ugh.

Love story my ass!
It showed how he could be a regular Joe. He could be a man you meet on the street, he could be the person your falling in love with. He seemed so emotional but inside he was f**kED! And Otis, oh my God, Otis. What a sick f**k!! He didn't kill because he was f**ked up, he killed because he liked it, it turned him on. I loved that movie so much.

Would you mind terribly if I asked, why? Not that you're the only one that likes this film or would put it in a top ten type list, but why?

I guess Lost in Translation seems so pretentious and forced. At least to me it does. I bought the DVD on a whim and use it for a coaster now. Maybe I'm just bitter. :|

So watched Grizzly Man and also Rescue Dawn (Both Herzog) and was very impressed. I'd say I liked White Diamond better than Grizzly Man, but it was still enthralling to say the least. Rescue Dawn was very good, but with both Steve Zahn and Christian Bale, it's hard not to be.

I watched that movie tonight. Amazing.
Sorry, I'm quoting an old post.

I actually really enjoy Lost In Translation - I found it to be a pleasant and slightly melancholy meditation on the power of chance meetings. I've spent a good deal of time pondering the weight of a single instance, so, the films basic premise appeals to me quite naturally. To compliment these sentiments, I think the atmosphere was fleshed out amazingly well.

I also really like the ending, and I'm a sucker for "'wow' them in the end and you have a hit."

I wouldn't put it in a Top anything, but I also don't hate seeing it - in fact, I like seeing it - if not only because it actually excites some sort of philosophical and emotional echo inside of me. As goes pretension - I'm not even sure of what that is anymore (and at this point, I'm not even so sure I care.)



I finally got around to seeing The White Diamond. Pretty f**king rad - very surreal. I intend, as always, to further secure my Herzog experience. For a different flavor, brand, whatever, I highly encourage you to see Julien Donkey-Boy (not as good as Gummo, but definitely worthwhile). Herzog gives an amazing performance - absolutely hilarious and haunting.

So, what do we all think of the new Cohen Brother's film?

Like I mentioned (or believe I mentioned here, I've said it regarding the movie before), I wanted to like it. I blindly went out and bought it knowing I'd love it. Problem is, the love never happened and I actually became irritated at one point watching it. The problem (well, part of the problem at least)might very well be Scarlet Johansen. I just can't watch her. That and for some reason I was hypnotized by Virgin Suicides. I'm not saying that it's an either or predicament, just that I was really disappointed about two scenes into the movie.

As far as the pretension related remark, that's the impression (or one of the impressions)I get from the film, not necessarily an impression of a viewer that might enjoy the film. Not that it's of particular importance what I may think. I just express as I will.

Haven't seen it yet, but I've been aching to go. The damn holidays and all the expenses and time that is poured into them has made it impossible for me to see any movies for quite some time. I'll post/reply here though when I do see it.

I walked away from No Country for Old Men the same way I did with Barton Fink, in sort of a "What the f**k just happened?" mood. They both were, from beginning to end, however, highly intense and entertaining. A great performance from Javier Bardem, when he's choking that cop to death, it's just...evil. And yet theres something so likable about him at the same time. Brings to mind Jubal early from the final episode of Firefly, "Objects in Space". He's odd, bad, yet ...odd. Haha it's hard to explain.

I thought Woody Harrelson would end up being a bit more bad ass than he did, but oh well.

4 Movies I would be Glad to Discuss:

1.)The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
2.)There Will Be Blood
3.)Atonement
4.)Before The Devil Knows Your Dead

...And I enjoyed the new Coen brothers film. This film was great to watch solely based on the storyline. Regardless of what some think the Coen brothers are experts at telling a story, with the exception of The Ladykillers.

- Also given that the Director of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (since he did direct Wild Things) I thought the movie was successful in its portrayal of Henry Lucas's confessions. The movie I wouldn't call the scariest of its time, but it did leave me thinking about it after the film was over, which in my book makes it a successful film. Then again I am a fan of Michael Rooker, so this is probably a biased comment.

Please delete this double post... Unfortunately I am not used to IP Boards. Ugh

Unfortunately, I have not seen as much of the Cohen Brothers as I would like to have (I'm working on it). But, I did enjoy No Country for Old Men. That's no f**king joke that that movie is "intense." Without having any music or a score to raise tension the Cohen's really demonstrated a real mastery of direction. The tight camera work and the audience's confused participation (from time to time) really let the mood spill over the theater - I was quite impressed. Although I was uninterested with most of dialogue - which is unusual for a Cohen Brothers film - I still found the film rather agreeable.

The villain was amazing, as you noted, and the violence was impeccable. Short of moments of laughter or oral acrobatics, but chock full of thrill and intrigue. Sort of a slow start and an abrupt ending, but it's forgivable given the already broken conventions. Altogether, an enjoyable experience.






I want to see that.

Who has seen Once?
Anyone in the Chicago area really like Hellraiser?

P.S. New List:
1. The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sanchez, 1999)
2. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (David Lynch, 1992)
3. Blue Velvet (David Lynch, 1986)
4. Videodrome (David Cronenberg, 1983)
5. Gummo (Harmony Korine, 1997)
6. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (Sergio Leone, 1966)
7. La Dolce Vita (Federico Fellini, 1960)
8. Crash (David Cronenberg, 1996)
9. The Seventh Seal (Ingmar Bergman, 1957)
10. Night of the Living Dead (George A. Romero, 1968)
11. The Squid and the Whale (Noah Baumbach, 2005)
12. Lawrence of Arabia (David Lean, 1962)
13. Adaptation (Spike Jonze, 2002)
14. The Forbidden Zone (Richard Elfman, 1980)
15. Straw Dogs (Sam Peckinpah, 1971)
16. Week End (Jean-Luc Godard, 1967)
17. A Nightmare on Elm Street (Wes Craven, 1984)
18. Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One (William Greaves, 1968)
19. Beyond The Valley of the Dolls (Russ Meyer, 1970)
20. The Thin Blue Line (Errol Morris, 1988)

I just saw Barbarella and know very well that Jane Fonda is not a better actor than Henry Fonda, but. Jane Fonda is not greater than Henry Fonda. Jane Fonda is not greater than Henry Fonda. Jane Fonda is not...

How many cinephiliacs here have Netflix?

Once, loved it.

I have blockbuster total access, but I think we've had this conversation.

So good.

Hey, five awful movies with amazing endings and or amazing movies with awful endings! (You can mix and match as you see fit. Just, need five total.)