Perfect Movies

[Donnadogsoth]

Recently I caught the film Ghost starring Demi Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, and Patrick Swayze. This is an example of what I would call a perfect movie. There is no part of it that can be improved upon, in terms of the effect that the movie has on its audiences. Redoing the special effects would be irrelevant, the f/x are suitable. The acting is spot on, the plot, the locations, everything combines to form an effect that cannot be improved upon in terms of telling that story. Nothing distracts from the emotional core of the film.

What examples of perfect movies have you found?

[Gastronomie]

I don't normally watch much movies, but "Shin Godzilla" and "Godfather" 1 and 2 (forget about 3) were perfect in my opinion.

[Razade]

Pretty much anything Tarentino did post Death Proof. Especially his first two films. Django would be right there with his earlier work if not for that last fifteen minutes or so of gore masturbation. But if you stop watching where Dr. Schultz dies and then fast forward to where Django and Broomhilda ride off you'd be close to a perfect movie.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think Alien is pretty perfect.

[thorgrim29]

Yeah Aliens is an example, more recently I'd say Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim vs the world, Mad Max Fury Road. I think Forgetting Sarah Marshall might be a perfect Rom-Com but since I don't usually like those I might not be a good judge. I'm tempted to add Kingsman but it got a bit too silly near the end (or the rear end, hur hur hur).

[Aran Thule]

Aliens is still my favourite , got to see it recently with the music played by live orchestra. :)
I would add Shawshank Redemption to the list as well and possibly groundhog day
(and battlefield earth as worst film ever)

[dehro]

The princess bride

[Dienekes]

Amadeus is the first to come to mind.

I don't think you can really improve on Brazil.

Godfather 2 is hard to find a flaw. I think Godfather 1 comes close though parts of the middle drag slightly. It makes up for it with Brando's performance though.

Die Hard for action seems to hit every mark it sets for itself.

Psycho, Alien, and Aliens for horror/thriller.

For comedies Duck Soup, Some Like it Hot, The Big Lebowski, and Princess Bride reach perfection to me. Singing in the Rain is close, so damn close. But it loses points for the entirely pointless modern dance scene that lasts forever and does nothing.

[Pex]

When the worst part of the movie is knowing it's going to end. This is more than just looking forward to the climactic conclusion and be satisfied when it happens. That's a great movie. The perfect movie is really not wanting it to end to continue on after the climactic conclusion. The last time I felt that was "Guardians of the Galaxy", not that I see many movies. The one before that was the first Avengers movie.

[Ruslan]

Schindler's List - just the best film overall
The Princess Bride - runner up for just the best film overall

Saving Private Ryan - the perfect war movie
Die Hard - the perfect action movie
The Exorcist - the perfect horror movie
Monty Python and the Holy Grail - the perfect comedy movie
Titanic - takes two categories, Disaster and Romance
Memento - the perfect mystery movie
Goodfellas - the perfect crime movie
The Incredibles - the perfect family-friendly animated movie
Forrest Gump - the perfect drama movie
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - the perfect Western

[Calthropstu]

I'm putting Avatar on the list, as well as grave of the fireflies.

[Aedilred]

I would take issue with many of the films mentioned so far, but I don't want to derail the thread. Nevertheless, my contributions:

Once Upon a Time in the West
Chinatown
Some Like it Hot
Jaws
The Third Man

Films that I think come close:
Casablanca - I feel the Paris section could be cut and it would improve the film.
Hot Fuzz - I have seen better comedies but the structure is hard to fault. The ending is messy, though.
The Lord of the Rings - the more I watch these the more flaws I notice, but they are nevertheless astonishingly good pieces of film and it would be unreasonable to expect them to be substantially better.
Terminator 2 - the tension, action and special effects have not dated; some of the right-on dialogue has.
North by Northwest - actually hard to take issue with this, come to think of it. Worth a rewatch.
Singin' in the Rain - the film that singlehandedly converted me to the cause of musical films. Flawed I think only in that the big showpiece dance near the end is too long.
Blade Runner - director's cut, obviously. One or two spots where it drags, maybe.
Lawrence of Arabia - some pacing issues but otherwise compels attention and fills its length in a way films that size rarely do. Great cinematography, great storytelling, great performances.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - I've only seen the extended edition and thought it was about 20 minutes too long but otherwise couldn't find much of a fault. The theatrical cut, 20 minutes shorter, might be just the ticket.
The Prestige and Amélie - I'm just putting these here because I love them.

Others have already covered the first two Godfather films.

[DigoDragon]

Terminator 2 - the tension, action and special effects have not dated; some of the right-on dialogue has.

What Terminator 2 does right in my opinion is that it is a perfect sequel. It takes everything about the original movie (the concepts, the lore, the events) and builds it up better. We get a more interesting fight of machine vs. machine for higher stakes, more lore around Skynet and the Resistance, and callbacks to the previous movie that is nested well in this story. I often see movie reviewers use T2 as the measuring stick for what makes a good sequel. I think it's well deserved.

[comicshorse]

Hmmm, tricky.

Terminator
Zulu
Chinese Ghost Story
Alien
Monty Python's Holy Grail

Close ones
Ken Branagh's version of 'Henry V' ( the singing of the hymn after Agincourt just doesn't quite work for me)
Last of the Mohicans ( I loved this film until I noticed that with two exceptions while the american heroes knock off bad guys by the score the entire British army done't manage to kill one )
Actually I generally find Michael Mann's films (not that I've seen them all) as being near perfect but with one flaw wether it be over length, dialogue, unconvincing plot, etc

[Vinyadan]

Andrey Rublev. Best film ever made imho.
L'Armata Brancaleone. To hell with noble knights!
I have heard impressive things of The Desert of the Tartars, but I still need to watch it.

[Jeivar]

John Carpenter's The Thing, and The Crow.

[Blackhawk748]

Ravenous and Kubo and the Two Strings. At the end of both movies i went "I cant find anything to complain about" which is rare for me

[Drakeburn]

In my opinion, the first Back to the Future movie is a perfect movie. Or at least an almost perfect film.

[Shoreward]

I'd hesitate to call any work of art "perfect" or "unable to be improved upon", but let's run on the assumption that you mean "a movie which came together perfectly for you" so I can float by on a technicality.

For me, the movie I cite when it comes to near-perfect scripting is Hot Fuzz. Almost every single line in that movie has payoff - even ones which sound like idle banter - particularly when it comes to first half vs. last half. They set up jokes you don't even notice until the third viewing, and it's brilliantly put together even if it's not flawless. So that's my vote.

I can also echo the general love of The Thing as a horror movie that's actually about horror. Paranoia, the unknown, some potential ambiguity, and killer practical effects. Top notch.

I'd have to think hard to come up with clearer examples beyond that.

[90,000]

I don't think there is a perfect piece of art.

Except for maybe Ulysses.

[Cizak]

None. No perfect movie (or book, or song, or anything) exists. Claiming something is perfect is an insult to that particular piece as well as to art as a whole. To do so is to grow stale, to stop improving and stop evolving. Something with no flaws has no point. If you cannot improve it, it has nothing to teach you. You need to be able to criticise the things you love. You need to be able to see the flaws in things you hold dear. Not doing so is the launch point of fanaticism.

[Shamash]

Spirited away and Pan's labyrinth.

[Donnadogsoth]

None. No perfect movie (or book, or song, or anything) exists. Claiming something is perfect is an insult to that particular piece as well as to art as a whole. To do so is to grow stale, to stop improving and stop evolving. Something with no flaws has no point. If you cannot improve it, it has nothing to teach you. You need to be able to criticise the things you love. You need to be able to see the flaws in things you hold dear. Not doing so is the launch point of fanaticism.

How would you improve on Ghost? And don't say "I remake it now differently..." no, you're the director, in 1988, you have the benefit of prescience to know how it would have been received had you left it as it is, you have infinite money and every connection to everyone in Hollywood and the world, how do you make Ghost better than it already is?

[Alent]

I'm probably weird in that the movie I think is perfect isn't even on my favorite movie list: US Marshals.

The writing is amazingly clean and concise, it makes good use of conservation of detail and foreshadowing, the overall cinematography is clean and has no wasted/unnecessary footage that I've been able to see, the characters are easy to identify with, and it doesn't require you to bring knowledge of the genre or the previous movie with you into the show to enjoy it. It's simply one of the best executed movies I've ever seen, and I rarely like cop movies.

Sadly, I find all of my favorite movies are quite flawed when I judge their technical execution. I'd love to get to list a few more here, but I can think of mistakes and flaws in all of them. :smallfrown: (I like B-movies, so that's to be expected, really.)

[Scarlet Knight]

The original King Kong.

80 years later, with all our technology, all attempts to improve it failed miserably.

[dehro]

Blade runner

[Cizak]

How would you improve on Ghost? And don't say "I remake it now differently..." no, you're the director, in 1988, you have the benefit of prescience to know how it would have been received had you left it as it is, you have infinite money and every connection to everyone in Hollywood and the world, how do you make Ghost better than it already is?

No idea, I haven't watched it.

[Aotrs Commander]

Can't think of anything, movie or otherwise, that I would consider "perfect."

I can think of movies that I think are very good and that I enjoyed very much, but perfect? Nope.



Maybe the closest thing to something I would qualify as being close to "perfect" in any medium would be Spacecraft 2000-2100 AD, and even that is not perfect (the timeline is hilariously dated, for one, considerin ion drive was invented in 1987!) And that is unquestionably the single biggest influence of any medium on my life and unlife and spoke to me in a fundemental way no movie or novel ever could; so no, I don't think anything can ever be qualified as perfect.



(You don't want to ask me how I'd improve Ghost, by-the-by, because I very much doubt you'd appreciate what I would do to it, considering that I would not appreiciate it on pretty much any level to start with...!)

[Cikomyr]

"The Dinner of Idiots", the original french movie of the 1990s. Everyone i know who seen this movie would agree its as perfect a comedy as possible. Its literally impossible to improve on it; everything is peak point. The music, the performance, the delivery, the beat, the cinematography.

Its so fantastic that people i know start laughing just by quoting a few lines in a group. Its the movie that the only reason you wouls object to putting it on is "i seen it last week already", and even then.

This is the best straight-up comedy movie i have ever seen, and i wept at the pathetic american remake who not only missed the tone of the comedy, but also the point of the characters and story.

[JoshL]

I'm also in the "nothing is perfect" camp, or rather, there can be perfect but I don't think I'm qualified to judge. Even my favorite movies contain things that can be improved upon. For that matter, there are better movies that I do not like, because taste and quality are not the same thing.

But if I had to pick one movie as a perfect film, I would without hesitation say Wild Strawberries. The Seventh Seal gets all the love, but I think Wild Strawberries is a much better film.

[90,000]

But if I had to pick one movie as a perfect film, I would without hesitation say Wild Strawberries. The Seventh Seal gets all the love, but I think Wild Strawberries is a much better film.

Wild Strawberries gets a fair amount of love.

I'd say it's fairly tied up between The Seventh Seal, Persona, Wild Strawberries and Fanny och Alexander.

[Kato]

I'll agree with the "nothing is perfect" people, because clearly this is perfectly subjective. Movies are made to be enjoyed by people, and enjoyment is subjective. Even if the execution is flawless, you can not possibly make a movie, everyone will enjoy. Period. Of course you can start blaming people for "not getting" your perfect movie, or using even more accusing phrasing but does that improve that movies quality?

Of course in so far you can at best have a movie that you consider perfect, possibly something that was made especially to your tastes and hits the nail on the head. I guess those movies exist, albeit I'd be hard pressed to name them for me. There are certainly things where I'd say "they knew exactly what they were going for and they did it very well/perfect". But then there will be people who have absolutely no interest in that kind of thing and who will laugh at you if you call the movie perfect. i.e. Alien(s) are very well made movies, considering their age and genre and most people who like those genres will agree they are close to flawless. But it's not hard to find people who consider them laughable because they have no interest in scifi and/or horror. And I'm not going to call these people stupid for that. For example, I love Deadpool, which is a stupid, at times gross, violent, childish super "hero" movie. But when i watch it i feel the producers knew what the fans were looking for and they tailored their movie according to that. And yet it's perfectly acceptable to find a load of flaws in the movie, if you think the basic idea is stupid, obviously.

[dehro]

That nothing is absolutely perfect is kind of a given. Sure, photography, special effects, choreography everything can be graded according to personal taste and personal evaluation on what is perfect.. I think that we can however agree that there's a bunch of films that we find ourselves hard put to improve on them. Sure, stuff changes and so do production values, sense of humour and other things, but for the times they came out in, many films can at least aspire to be called as close as perfect as can be.
Those movies, when they come on, you just have to watch, no matter if you've seen them a hundred times already.
You're browsing and you have maybe a dvd ready to pop in, or something saved and downloaded.. then you happen on one of those titles and your evening is set. You just have to watch that classic movie, and sod everything else. That, to me, is a perfect movie.
The Blues Brothers is one such movie for me

[Donnadogsoth]

No idea, I haven't watched it.

Humour me. How would you improve on any of the films given which others have listed as perfect?

[Cikomyr]

I'm also in the "nothing is perfect" camp, or rather, there can be perfect but I don't think I'm qualified to judge. Even my favorite movies contain things that can be improved upon. For that matter, there are better movies that I do not like, because taste and quality are not the same thing.

But that's the thing. My submission, "Dinner of Idiot", is not my favourite movie. Its also not the best movie I know.

The reason i call it the perfect movie is because there is nothing you could change/add/remove to make it better. It has attained the peak of comedic realisation that fully matched its potential.

You cannot improve that movie. And its the only movie i know that i can say that.

[Ruslan]

No idea, I haven't watched it.
One might say that expressing such a strong opinion about a movie you didn't even watch is ... the launch point of fanaticism ... ?

[Cikomyr]

I kind of agree there. Saying in broad speech that "nothing can be perfect" is arrogant presumption.

I given a strong example of a "perfect" lighthearted comedy movie. That does not mean its the ultimate/best lighthearted comedy movie. Just that there is literally nothing you can add to it to make it better, its as good as it can possibly be.

You cannot prove a negative. The best you can do is prove that there is no current example by refuting the examples of a perfect movie people put forward. Doing anything else is making an arrogant sweeping declaration.

[Aotrs Commander]

One might say that expressing such a strong opinion about a movie you didn't even watch is ... the launch point of fanaticism ... ?

Leaving aside Cizak's expressed opinion about Ghost specifically was nothing more than "I've never watched it;"

Not really, no.

I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, I would not find Ghost (or Lost or Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad or yes, even Godfather or for that matter, watching a football-slash-insert-sport-here-game or Legend of Zelda: whatever the current game is called again) remotely tolerable and would be utterly bored out of my skull. I don't need to watch it to know that, because, y'know, I know what I like and those aforementioned are... not it. (And I can probably say the same for the majority of the films people have mentioned, actually.)



On top of that, it doesn't even matter how well technically executed something is (and in order for it even to gain that much, it would have to likely be pointed out to me by someone with expertise like, I dunno, Kyle Kallgren or something), but if it something fundementally does absolutely nothing for me, it is not ever going to be in the running for "good," let alone "perfect" in the Bleakbane metric. Even that thing has phenominal historical interest or importance, that does not mean I will or even can like it as a piece of entertainment media in its own right; in such a case, I am far more likely to be interested in said historical importance surround in the piece than the piece itself.




I kind of agree there. Saying in broad speech that "nothing can be perfect" is arrogant presumption.

I given a strong example of a "perfect" lighthearted comedy movie. That does not mean its the ultimate/best lighthearted comedy movie. Just that there is literally nothing you can add to it to make it better, its as good as it can possibly be.

You cannot prove a negative. The best you can do is prove that there is no current example by refuting the examples of a perfect movie people put forward. Doing anything else is making an arrogant sweeping declaration.

Nothing IS perfect, except in a hyberbolic statement. Anywhere, anywhen. Reality is inherently imperfect - woefuly so, and you can't make a silk purse out os a sow's ear.

You can make "really good" by the metric of an individual, perhaps, but perfection is an ideal, not realisable practical reality.

[Dr.Samurai]

Look, you can say "this movie cannot be improved" and someone else will say "you can improve it this way" and BAM! suddenly you have a disagreement and we fall back on "it's subjective". It's not saying that "this is your favorite movie", it's saying "you think it can't be improved, but I think it can be".

Frankly, I take this thread to mean "really really really good movies". Saying something is "perfect" in all seriousness is a bit much.

I gave the example of Alien. When I say I think it's perfect in the context of this thread, I'm really saying it's "near perfect".

[Ruslan]

I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, I would not find Ghost (or Lost or Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad or yes, even Godfather or for that matter, watching a football-slash-insert-sport-here-game or Legend of Zelda: whatever the current game is called again) remotely tolerable Well, that's more of an expression of opinion about you (which kind of movies you are likely to dislike). And since you are obviously an expert on the subject matter of your own preferences, I'm more than willing to trust you on that.

[Cikomyr]

Nothing IS perfect, except in a hyberbolic statement. Anywhere, anywhen. Reality is inherently imperfect - woefuly so, and you can't make a silk purse out os a sow's ear.

You can make "really good" by the metric of an individual, perhaps, but perfection is an ideal, not realisable practical reality.

That is so untrue.

I can show you a Perfect Circle. BAM, perfect. And lets not quibble over microns; "perfect" we are discussing is "perfect for all acceptable purposes".

I think the simpler something is, the easier it is to assess whether or not it can be perfect or not. "Dinner of Idiots" is a very, very simple movie, really. Its based on a comedy play, and somewhat acts out as one, but with everything carefully measured and controlled to have the best experience.

It is perfect for what it is, and while i agree that any proposed change you would make might end up as a subjective assessment, i still dare you to propose your change.

I do not worship this movie, and would be willing to accept that i am wrong about it. But no one ever thought of a way of making THAT movie better.

Obviously, those who dislike the movie are usually people who dont like that kind of movie to begin with. But for any fan of bantering light comedy (who speak french), its a perfect gem.

[Cipojo]

I really enjoyed "sky captain and the world of tomorrow," awesome movie that I really enjoyed as a kid

[Kato]

I think we need to agree on a proper definition of perfect. Flawless might just mean "nothing to improve " but what needs improvement can also be highly subjective. What some people consider perfect foreshadowing is an obvious give away to others, what some think is deeply emotional can also be perceived as sappy. Again, I don't think you can objectively claim either is right or wrong.
Of course, as a person you can have a lot of movies you consider flawless, but it's far too easy to find someone who will rightfully disagree with you.

[Cikomyr]

I really enjoyed "sky captain and the world of tomorrow," awesome movie that I really enjoyed as a kid

I think anything "you enjoyed as a kid" should be taken with a HEAVY grain of salt and suspicions. Nostalgia makes weird thing to the quality of any entertainment ;)

[Donnadogsoth]

Look, you can say "this movie cannot be improved" and someone else will say "you can improve it this way" and BAM! suddenly you have a disagreement and we fall back on "it's subjective". It's not saying that "this is your favorite movie", it's saying "you think it can't be improved, but I think it can be".

Frankly, I take this thread to mean "really really really good movies". Saying something is "perfect" in all seriousness is a bit much.

I gave the example of Alien. When I say I think it's perfect in the context of this thread, I'm really saying it's "near perfect".

How could Alien be perfected?

[Sith_Happens]

Mad Max: Fury Road. There's not a single thing about it I could ever think for a second about changing even the tiniest bit. Heck, just thinking about that movie two years later still makes me feel all giddy inside. Also props to it being one of the few true action movies (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19269738&postcount=17) in history.

[Dr.Samurai]

How could Alien be perfected?
I don't know. I think it's perfect. But my point is that I don't think it's "objectively" perfect. I know some people complain that it starts out too slow. I don't agree, but I tend to like stuff that starts out completely normal (some people read as boring) to build the context in which the plot is going to take place.

I don't think that anyone can say a movie is "objectively" perfect.

[Yora]

Yojimbo
Alien
The Empire Strikes Back
The Thing
Blade Runner
Aliens
Ghost in the Shell
Princess Mononoke
Inception

These are movies that I all regard as flawless.

[Velaryon]

Godfather 2 is hard to find a flaw. I think Godfather 1 comes close though parts of the middle drag slightly. It makes up for it with Brando's performance though.

The only thing I didn't like about The Godfather Part 2 is that there wasn't a whole lot of direct connection between the stories of young Vito Corleone and modern (at the time) Michael Corleone. It was like watching two completely separate movies at the same time, like channel flipping between two films in a series that were set decades apart. I would rather they had simply expanded each story into its own separate film since I didn't feel like there was a whole lot of reason for them to be together in one movie. This would also have the benefit of making it into a trilogy without having The Godfather Part 3, which is pretty much universally agreed to be terrible.


What Terminator 2 does right in my opinion is that it is a perfect sequel. It takes everything about the original movie (the concepts, the lore, the events) and builds it up better. We get a more interesting fight of machine vs. machine for higher stakes, more lore around Skynet and the Resistance, and callbacks to the previous movie that is nested well in this story. I often see movie reviewers use T2 as the measuring stick for what makes a good sequel. I think it's well deserved.

Terminator 2 is my perfect action film. It does all the things I want an action film to do (great battle scenes, exciting and tense chases, great quotable lines, badass hero, fearsome villain, interesting side characters) while also having an interesting story with an underlying message ("the future is not set"). I can see how others might not feel the same - John Connor is very much a product of his time and can come off to some as trying too hard to be cool, for example, but I liked him.

I can think of no way in which this film can be improved, nor any film in its genre that I think is better.

If only Hollywood had left it alone after that, instead of trying to squeeze more money out of the franchise with three more pretty terrible movies.

[Cizak]

Humour me. How would you improve on any of the films given which others have listed as perfect?

Quick rundown, the time since I watched these vary greatly, all of these could be expanded and discussed more in depth:

Alien: The build-up is dragging. Ripley dressing down to panties and showing butt is completely unnecessary.
Aliens: Sexist banter. Newt's feelings about her parents are ignored in favor of her relationship with Ridley.
Mad Max Fury Road: Some of Hardy's lines are too obviously dubbed. The CGI wheel in the climax sticks out from the rest of the movie's practical effects. I'm sceptical of the medical practices at the end.
The Princess Bride: The present time stuff feels out of place. Just have it be a fairy tale film.
Titanic: Rose is a terrible person.
The Incredibles: A machine built by the villain is a less exciting final boss fight than the villain themself.
John Carpenter's The Thing: Characters leave little to no impression.
Spirited Away: Ignores an engaging narrative in favor of pretty animation too much at times.
Pan's Labyrinth: Leaving it up to interpretation whether or not the fantasy was real would have been better, as they did before Ofelia got out of the locked room.
The Empire Strikes Back: Not telling Luke about Darth Vader being his father is a stupid move both by Yoda and Obi Wan. I can't remember if the training time plothole has been solved or not, if not then it's major. Boba Fett is underplayed (and overrated).
Inception: The artsyness can't sustain its length.
Terminator 2: "I need a vacation" is out of place. Some of the extra scenes from the director's cut should have been in the original, some of them should have stayed out. Miles Dyson's (widowed) family is ignored.

Some of these are among my favorite movies.



One might say that expressing such a strong opinion about a movie you didn't even watch is ... the launch point of fanaticism ... ?

Not even remotely. The closest thing I am fanatic about is criticism itself, but on the other hand I think the two are incompatible, and on the third hand I could criticise criticism for just as long as I could criticise a movie. I haven't expressed any opinion of Ghost at all,, because I haven't watched it. The only thing I'm saying is that I fully believe it cannot be perfect because I don't believe perfect art exists, and talking as if it does is actively harmful to any society. That's as far as my reach goes on Ghost. I can't criticise it further as of right now.


I kind of agree there. Saying in broad speech that "nothing can be perfect" is arrogant presumption.

I'll take arrogance of other more dangerous viewpoints.

[razorback]

While I agree in that there isn't any 'perfect' movie, I think a lot are pretty damned close.

I think, even better than a technically perfect movie is a movie that you can watch anytime. Something you have on some format (DVD, Blu-Ray, etc) but, when it comes on TV you can pick up where ever it is, whenever it comes on, and sit down and watch it.
The Thing (John Carpenter), Big Trouble in LIttle China, Escape from New York, The Outlaw Josey Wales, The Matrix (just the first one), Aliens, The Princess Bride, Terminator and Terminator II, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, pretty much any of the Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood westerns, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Wars episodes 4-6, Silverado... I could keep going on, just like everyone else could. These, to me, are perfect movies because, even though I know most/all of the twist and turns along with being able to provide most/all of the dialogue, I can just sit down right now and watch any one of them. 2+ times in a row.

[Ruslan]

Public Service Announcement

Also, comments that are pointless negation of the purpose of a thread ("threadcrapping") or comments predicting the thread will end badly ("doomsaying") are also likely to be trolling.
Do not try to negate the very purpose of the thread. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

[thorgrim29]

Seconding "Le diner de cons" (I have a friend with a sister named Marlène, and contrary to what you might think it doesn't stop being funny). It and "Les visiteurs" (the first one) are pretty un-improvable. They are also very very french so not everyone will like them, even here in Québec some people tend not to like french comedies so I can't imagine what somebody who doesn't speak the language would think.

[Cizak]

Public Service Announcement

Do not try to negate the very purpose of the thread. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

If the purpose of the thread is to discuss which movies we deem perfect, is it negating the purpose to state why I don't think any movie is perfect? Genuine question.

[Cikomyr]

If the purpose of the thread is to discuss which movies we deem perfect, is it negating the purpose to state why I don't think any movie is perfect? Genuine question.

Kind of is, yes.

[Ruslan]

Especially when you add "and talking as if it does is actively harmful to any society". That's like the epitome of threadcrapping. "Your thread is harmful to any society". Smooth.

Anyway, back to the subject: "Dinner of Idiots" - is this the movie that Dinner for Schmucks is a remake of?

[thorgrim29]

Yeah though from what I heard it's a pale pale imitation at best

[sktarq]

Yes - but do not watch the US version. It is a blight on the name of the original.

Edit:*ninjaed*

Also "nothing I would change" is a very bad measure. For while many may find Mad Max Fury Road a great movie - or even nearing perfection it made me want to spit and I needed time to seriously de stress for how bad I found it. I would have changed almost everything about it. But while those changes would have made it a far better movie for me they would have ruined it for someone who found the movie great as is.

[Ruslan]

Yes - but do not watch the US version. It is a blight on the name of the original.
Too late. Already did. Will look up the original, though.

[Knaight]

One might say that expressing such a strong opinion about a movie you didn't even watch is ... the launch point of fanaticism ... ?
It's not about that specific movie - it's about how art, in general, cannot be made perfect. That's a conclusion that can be come to reasonably without seeing every movie, reading every book, watching every play, looking at every statue, etc. It just involves making an inductive leap at some point. Having seen, read, watched, looked at, and otherwise interacted with lots of art, I'd agree with the idea that no art is perfect. Every movie I've seen has at least one line that could have been written better, or one set piece that could have been better made, or whatever else. With that said, there's a handful of movies where that's about all I can find, that are at least close to perfect. Notably:
Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou?
Burn After Reading
Stranger Than Fiction
Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels
In Bruges
HERO

[Rodin]

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade for me. Perfect blend of action, comedy, and beating up Nazis.

Airplane! would be my other nomination. The absolute pinnacle of rapid-fire comedy and one of the most brilliant demolitions of a movie genre of all time. It may well also be the most quotable movie ever.

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't know. I think it's perfect. But my point is that I don't think it's "objectively" perfect. I know some people complain that it starts out too slow. I don't agree, but I tend to like stuff that starts out completely normal (some people read as boring) to build the context in which the plot is going to take place.

I don't think that anyone can say a movie is "objectively" perfect.

Alien is objectively perfect insofar as achieving its aim of being an effective horror/sf film. Whether people today are too degraded to appreciate it because it's too slow, or there's not enough gore, or someone said something un-pc, or whatever, is not to the point. It is Quality. People who can't see its quality are lacking.

[Knaight]

Alien is objectively perfect insofar as achieving its aim of being an effective horror/sf film. Whether people today are too degraded to appreciate it because it's too slow, or there's not enough gore, or someone said something un-pc, or whatever, is not to the point. It is Quality. People who can't see its quality are lacking.

The standard of perfection is not just being an "effective" member of a genre. Alien is good. It's good in every aspect - the script is good, it's well cast and well acted, the camera work is solid, the effects are solid, the set and props are really good, so on and so forth. That's not the same thing as being perfect. As for people being degraded and lacking if they dislike it, that's ludicrous.

[Ebon_Drake]

How could Alien be perfected?

There are certainly a couple of things that often get brought up:

1: The airvent sequence ends with a rather poor shot of the alien pulling a notorious "jazz hands" pose. It's passable on first viewing due to the shock factor, but doesn't hold up too well on repeated watches. Admittedly it's mostly due to the practical limitations of a full-body costume in an enclosed space, but it'd be much improved by having the alien actually moving forward to grab Dallas, or at least swiping/bringing its hands together instead of holding that awkward pose.

2: When Ash is being reactivated, there's a very obvious cut from the dummy head being put on the table to the actor talking. This could be improved by inserting a quick shot to the other characters in the scene to mask the transition. The dummy head also isn't very convincing and the amount of synthetic blood on it doesn't match with the actor's make-up.

Again, these flaws don't detract from it being an excellent movie and both of those examples are still some of my favourite scenes.

[Donnadogsoth]

Alien: The build-up is dragging. Ripley dressing down to panties and showing butt is completely unnecessary.

To use this as an example, the first is mood-building, similar to the opening scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey. For people with contemporary attention spans or who are watching it for the fifteenth time expecting the same effect as their first time this might be a problem. The second is a key part of the psycho-sexual theme running through the picture, climaxing in the sexy-woman-menaced-by-monster trope. A problem for prudes and gender ideologues.

[Donnadogsoth]

The standard of perfection is not just being an "effective" member of a genre. Alien is good. It's good in every aspect - the script is good, it's well cast and well acted, the camera work is solid, the effects are solid, the set and props are really good, so on and so forth. That's not the same thing as being perfect. As for people being degraded and lacking if they dislike it, that's ludicrous.

How would you perfect it?

[Donnadogsoth]

There are certainly a couple of things that often get brought up:

1: The airvent sequence ends with a rather poor shot of the alien pulling a notorious "jazz hands" pose. It's passable on first viewing due to the shock factor, but doesn't hold up too well on repeated watches. Admittedly it's mostly due to the practical limitations of a full-body costume in an enclosed space, but it'd be much improved by having the alien actually moving forward to grab Dallas, or at least swiping/bringing its hands together instead of holding that awkward pose.

2: When Ash is being reactivated, there's a very obvious cut from the dummy head being put on the table to the actor talking. This could be improved by inserting a quick shot to the other characters in the scene to mask the transition. The dummy head also isn't very convincing and the amount of synthetic blood on it doesn't match with the actor's make-up.

Again, these flaws don't detract from it being an excellent movie and both of those examples are still some of my favourite scenes.

1.
(a) It has to convince on its first viewing, which it did. We didn't see the zipper. Criticising it for not working as well on subsequent viewings because we have developed standards for how aliens should behave seems like cynicism. Dallas didn't think it was unconvincing.
(b) It's an alien, man, why should it do the expected?

2.
Again, this is noticed on subsequent viewings by jaded and overeducated audiences. We can tell King Kong is stop-motion and hahaha how fake is that?! But that doesn't stop King Kong from being a perfect movie.

[Cikomyr]

Too late. Already did. Will look up the original, though.

The translation subtitles arent too bad. Not as good as the original french, the name-related puns are forced as hell in english.. but thats about it. You get the great performance of the original actors.

Please let us know whenever you will have seen it ^_^

[Cikomyr]

1.
(a) It has to convince on its first viewing, which it did. We didn't see the zipper. Criticising it for not working as well on subsequent viewings because we have developed standards for how aliens should behave seems like cynicism. Dallas didn't think it was unconvincing.
(b) It's an alien, man, why should it do the expected?

2.
Again, this is noticed on subsequent viewings by jaded and overeducated audiences. We can tell King Kong is stop-motion and hahaha how fake is that?! But that doesn't stop King Kong from being a perfect movie.

I kind of disagree. Just because you didnt noticed on the initial viewing doesnt make a flaw any less of a flaw.

A truly perfect movie would stand the test of repetition.

[Cizak]

Especially when you add "and talking as if it does is actively harmful to any society". That's like the epitome of threadcrapping. "Your thread is harmful to any society". Smooth.

I call out harmful behaviour when I see it. "It can't be criticised" will lead to "It's not allowed to be criticised". Every time, no exceptions.


Whether people today are too degraded to appreciate it because it's too slow, or there's not enough gore, or someone said something un-pc, or whatever, is not to the point. It is Quality. People who can't see its quality are lacking.
[...]
For people with contemporary attention spans or who are watching it for the fifteenth time expecting the same effect as their first time this might be a problem. [...] A problem for prudes and gender ideologues.


Well, that's my exit on engaging you. Should have seen the signs, honestly, but at least this came soon enough.

[Ruslan]

I think it's a bit too trenchant to accuse anyone who doesn't like quality films of being ... less-than-worthy. Let me rephrase it this way. It's true that *I*, a modern viewer with modern tastes, do not appreciate a slow movie like Stalker or Solaris, but that doesn't make the movies any less good. I wouldn't watch Solaris for entertainment, to be honest, but that's more of a statement about my subjective tastes than it is an objective statement about the quality of Solaris.

As long as people aren't confusing "my preference" with "quality", we are allowed to dislike a great movie.

[Donnadogsoth]

I kind of disagree. Just because you didnt noticed on the initial viewing doesnt make a flaw any less of a flaw.

A truly perfect movie would stand the test of repetition.

I noticed a flaw in all movies: they're movies! They've got known personalities pretending to be in them--hey wait a minute, I remember that guy from somewhere else--and they've got obvious camera work, obvious CGI, obvious fake blood, and pretend spacecraft. And who the heck am I in my first-person POV watching all this unfold, and I'm in outer space suddenly watching the spacecraft take off, how can that be?

[Donnadogsoth]

I think it's a bit too trenchant to accuse anyone who doesn't like quality films of being ... less-than-worthy. Let me rephrase it this way. It's true that *I*, a modern viewer with modern tastes, do not appreciate a slow movie like Stalker or Solaris, but that doesn't make the movies any less good. I wouldn't watch Solaris for entertainment, to be honest, but that's more of a statement about my subjective tastes than it is an objective statement about the quality of Solaris.

As long as people aren't confusing "my preference" with "quality", we are allowed to dislike a great movie.

That's a good point. I disliked Citizen Kane when I first saw it. I called it Citizen Novocain. But, I do not deny it is a quality film.

[90,000]

I think it's a bit too trenchant to accuse anyone who doesn't like quality films of being ... less-than-worthy. Let me rephrase it this way. It's true that *I*, a modern viewer with modern tastes, do not appreciate a slow movie like Stalker or Solaris, but that doesn't make the movies any less good. I wouldn't watch Solaris for entertainment, to be honest, but that's more of a statement about my subjective tastes than it is an objective statement about the quality of Solaris.

As long as people aren't confusing "my preference" with "quality", we are allowed to dislike a great movie.

Quality is purely, completely, 100 percent subjective.

There exist 7 billion planet Earths, at the moment. All similar, all radically different.

In the one I live in Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! is the greatest motion picture ever created.

In another Earth the same film might be crass, exploitative trash that's aged badly.

In your Earth, then, Stalker is not a good film. On account of the fact that you didn't like it.

Consensus opinion of it being a masterpiece (I opinion I share, full disclosure) shouldn't motivate you towards assuming it's "quality you don't understand" or "quality you find difficult to admire". If you don't like it, it isn't quality.

[Ruslan]

In your Earth, then, Stalker is not a good film. On account of the fact that you didn't like it.

This is exactly what I was arguing against. It is possible to dislike something while acknowledging its quality. Also, while I appreciate the metaphor, I am not an Earth.

If you don't like it, it isn't quality.
Malarkey.


Consensus opinion of it being a masterpiece (I opinion I share, full disclosure) shouldn't motivate you towards assuming it's "quality you don't understand" or "quality you find difficult to admire". Not sure how this is related to my post. Which part of my post motivated you to think I consider, for example, Stalker, to be a good movie "by consensus", rather than just thinking it up myself?

[90,000]

Pattern recognition.

[Aedilred]

Quality is purely, completely, 100 percent subjective.

I think it is possible to make a film (or other piece of art) that is objectively bad in at least some respects. My go-to example is Rumble in Hong Kong: the camerawork would shame a home video, and the rest of the technical side of things isn't much better. It could have the greatest screenplay and acting in motion picture history (it doesn't) and it would still be a bad film on the basis of its deficiencies.

Watching it really made me appreciate how films I otherwise considered unwatchably terrible were nevertheless doing a lot of things right.

[Rodin]

This is exactly what I was arguing against. It is possible to dislike something while acknowledging its quality. Also, while I appreciate the metaphor, I am not an Earth.
Malarkey.



The problem here is that quality is itself subjective. This comes up a lot with Art - to someone who appreciates Jackson Pollock, the arrangement of the colors speaks deeply to their soul. To someone who doesn't, it looks like a two-year old got into the paintbrushes.

The same is true of pretty much everything, because we all perceive the world differently. Even things like quality of acting can be up for debate, and we assign different values to different qualities. One reason Citizen Kane is supposedly great is because of the innovative camera techniques, but while that has an impact on film going forward I assign that very little value in terms of actually making a good movie.

My favorite film could be another person's utter schlock. And that's perfectly okay.

[90,000]

I think it is possible to make a film (or other piece of art) that is objectively bad in at least some respects. My go-to example is Rumble in Hong Kong: the camerawork would shame a home video, and the rest of the technical side of things isn't much better. It could have the greatest screenplay and acting in motion picture history (it doesn't) and it would still be a bad film on the basis of its deficiencies.

Watching it really made me appreciate how films I otherwise considered unwatchably terrible were nevertheless doing a lot of things right.

We're getting into the abstract deep end here, but let's give it a shot...

At that point you'd have to define in strict, objective terms what constitutes "bad filmmaking" and that's almost impossible.

Certainly there's a wide (borderline unanimous) consensus on the topic of incompetent filmmaking, but as difficult as it is to believe, that's still subjective.

[Knaight]

How would you perfect it?

I wouldn't. My point is that imperfections are inherent in all art, not that imperfections are inherent in all art unless I personally get an editing pass, in which case it's suddenly achievable.

[Donnadogsoth]

I wouldn't. My point is that imperfections are inherent in all art, not that imperfections are inherent in all art unless I personally get an editing pass, in which case it's suddenly achievable.

How are you defining perfection? You are using a standard of perfection to find Alien wanting, and I wonder what that standard is.

[Fiery Diamond]

Art is subjective. "Perfection" is an objective measure. Therefore, art cannot be perfect.

Simple as that.

To put it more eloquently: VALUE is a subjective concept, and anything that is considered art is assumed to be being measured on its value. To give a simplistic example: suppose an artist could paint pictures indistinguishable to the naked eye from photographs. Should we call that a perfect painting? Of course not. It does what it was probably intended to do (provide a flawless [at least to human inspection] photo-realistic representation of its subject) and it does it in a way that could not be done better. In that aspect (realism) it is flawless. If, however, the painting is a painting of a single brick lying on pavement (or something equally boring and unemotional) that has no symbolic meaning - then no one will value that realism. It won't MATTER that it's flawless in that respect.

Movies and other collaborative art forms are infinitely more complicated, and what even constitutes flawlessness in a particular aspect can be debated. Preferences influence our judgment to extreme degrees. "I like that movie" and "I think that was a well-done movie" are different statements, but BOTH of them are subjective measures.

Insisting that perfection is achievable is laughable at best and actively detrimental to reasonable discussion at worst.

That said, I think The Princess Bride was both entertaining AND very well executed, so that's my contribution.

[Donnadogsoth]

Art is subjective. "Perfection" is an objective measure. Therefore, art cannot be perfect.

What isn't subjective?

[Knaight]

How are you defining perfection? You are using a standard of perfection to find Alien wanting, and I wonder what that standard is.

I'm defining it as having no flaw, no matter how minor. There's nothing that could be done better, in any way. If one scene would be better had one gesture made by one character been extended by one frame, the entire film isn't perfect. In short, the literal definition.

[Aran Thule]

The Princess Bride: The present time stuff feels out of place. Just have it be a fairy tale film.




I would probably have agreed with this before i read the forward to the book.
The kid and grandad part is reenacting what happened with the director and his dad when he was a kid.
Also i think its part of its uniqueness.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

In deference to the "nothing is perfect" viewpoint, one of the closest films to perfect IMO is Heat - Di Niro and Pacino both on absolute top form, the running gun battle is brilliantly done, and even Val Kilmer looks like an actor. :smallamused:

I'd also add The Cruel Sea - possibly the best war film ever made. And possibly also the best anti-war film ever made.


I kind of disagree. Just because you didnt noticed on the initial viewing doesnt make a flaw any less of a flaw.

A truly perfect movie would stand the test of repetition.
For me, Alien (as the subject of the discussion) does stand that test. Yes, it has flaws (the aforementioned fake android head for starters), but they're not enough to pull me out of the immersion of watching it.

[Cikomyr]

For me, Alien (as the subject of the discussion) does stand that test. Yes, it has flaws (the aforementioned fake android head for starters), but they're not enough to pull me out of the immersion of watching it.

But you have to agree the flaw is there. Therefore, the movie isnt perfect.

Now, there's the difference between subjective and objective. You subjective opinion decides the flaw is not bad enough to break your entertainment. But you shouldnt let that obfuscate your objective view of the movie: it has a flaw, and the movie could be remade exactly the same, just with this one change, and would be better.

I watched Dinner of Idiots (Le Diner de Con) again yesterday evening. Just because. Couldn't find a single flaw again and had a fantastic time.

[TeChameleon]

*shrug*

Leaving aside the argument as to whether or not art can be perfect- to be brutally honest, the discussion simply doesn't hold much interest for me at this point, at least in this context- my 'perfect' movie would have to be The Blues Brothers. On considering it, I can think of one, single thing to improve on, and it is a phenomenally minor quibble- if it were up to me, I'd shoot some parts of the scene in the diner (Aretha Franklin's Think) from a slightly different angle, so that Lou Marini's head wasn't cut off in what was supposed to be his biggest scene in the movie. I mean, from what you can actually see of him in that sequence, he's going all-out, dancing on the counter while playing his saxophone, and I think it's a bit of a shame to have lost that because they misjudged the shooting angle and had to crop a bit. But like I said, that's an incredibly minor quibble.

Everything else? Beautifully paced comedy, great music, John Belushi and Dan Akroyd at peak form and playing phenomenally off one another, and not one but two of the greatest car chases in cinematic history? Yes, please. This is a movie that I can watch repeatedly and still enjoy, and that's more than a little rare.

All that being said... even movies that are terrible by just about anyone's standards can still have moments of perfection. The first one to come to mind is the live-action Street Fighter movie. It is, by and large, a borderline-unwatchable mess, without much going for it other than a handful of genuinely funny moments, delivered with gloriously deadpan dumbness (dumbpan?) by Andrew Bryniarski... and what is arguably one of the greatest performances of Raul Julia's career. That man owns every scene he's in (possibly because he's already devoured the scenery :smalltongue:), and for the all-too-brief times he's on screen, changes this schlocky mess into art by sheer force of personality. It's rather amazing to watch, really, and makes the times he's not on screen even worse by comparison >.O

Then there's the rather weird little category of 'the perfect bad movie'. I'd say that Street Fighter is the worst movie I'd consider a must-watch, but it's beaten into second place by a disturbingly wide margin by Fantasy Mission Force, a movie so impossibly awful that it's approaching perfection from the other side. While it's billed in North America as a Jackie Chan film, it's really not- it's more a film into which a very young Jackie Chan happens to wander every so often to beat the hell out of everyone involved. It's also quite possibly the most amazingly nonsensical piece of cinematography to ever come out of Hong Kong, and I'm aware that's a pretty high bar to clear. I'd recommend it very highly to just about anyone who likes movies, although it's best appreciated when at least mildly sleep deprived. I've described it in the past as 'the cinematic equivalent of an out-of-body experience'; the sense of "... wtf did I just [b]watch[/b[?" has to be experienced to be believed.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

But you have to agree the flaw is there. Therefore, the movie isnt perfect.

Now, there's the difference between subjective and objective. You subjective opinion decides the flaw is not bad enough to break your entertainment. But you shouldnt let that obfuscate your objective view of the movie: it has a flaw, and the movie could be remade exactly the same, just with this one change, and would be better

Well, there is the question of whether you actually could improve it - swapping a live actor in and out for a life cast mask is always going to be obvious, doing it in CGI makes it worse, having an actual android's impractical and cutting an actor's head off and then incinerating it is illegal.

There's other examples of art which are, essentially, imperfectly perfect - the Venus Di Milo would be ruined if someone stuck the arms back on, Rembrandt's Nachtwatch is missing a significant amount of what it was painted as and so on.

[Cikomyr]

There's other examples of art which are, essentially, imperfectly perfect - the Venus Di Milo would be ruined if someone stuck the arms back on, Rembrandt's Nachtwatch is missing a significant amount of what it was painted as and so on.

Would it?

I mean.. if we had the original Venus, by the original artist. Without any damage, you are telling me it would be a LESSER work of art than the broken one?

Thats stupid.

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm defining it as having no flaw, no matter how minor. There's nothing that could be done better, in any way. If one scene would be better had one gesture made by one character been extended by one frame, the entire film isn't perfect. In short, the literal definition.

But, again, how could Alien be better? Even the f/x, which worked fine in 1979, retain the charm of effort today.

[Cikomyr]

But, again, how could Alien be better? Even the f/x, which worked fine in 1979, retain the charm of effort today.

The F/x failed in one specific moment that has been mentioned many times already. You cannot claim that the flaw isnt there, you can only claim that the flaw is not having an impact on your enjoyment of the piece.

That doesnt make it any less of a flaw.

[Donnadogsoth]

Would it?

I mean.. if we had the original Venus, by the original artist. Without any damage, you are telling me it would be a LESSER work of art than the broken one?

Thats stupid.

The Sistine Chapel ceiling was restored from all the grime of centuries and now looks worse than it did before the restoration.

[Donnadogsoth]

The F/x failed in one specific moment that has been mentioned many times already. You cannot claim that the flaw isnt there, you can only claim that the flaw is not having an impact on your enjoyment of the piece.

That doesnt make it any less of a flaw.

But, all f/x fail. Everyone knows they're f/x. And everything is going to look dated thirty years on, no matter what the film. That can't be held against the film's perfection at the time, which is enough to elevate it to the vault of heaven.

[Strigon]

But, all f/x fail. Everyone knows they're f/x. And everything is going to look dated thirty years on, no matter what the film. That can't be held against the film's perfection at the time, which is enough to elevate it to the vault of heaven.

Yes, it absolutely can.
You seem to be saying that, because nothing can be perfect, Alien is perfect. That's ludicrous.
We're not discussing whether Alien is as close to perfect as any movie could ever be; we're discussing whether it is perfect.

Nobody is saying Alien isn't a great movie, or even a masterpiece, but they are saying it isn't perfect. You're saying it can't, and could never be, perfect. So why is this still an argument?

[Cikomyr]

Yes, it absolutely can.
You seem to be saying that, because nothing can be perfect, Alien is perfect. That's ludicrous.
We're not discussing whether Alien is as close to perfect as any movie could ever be; we're discussing whether it is perfect.

Nobody is saying Alien isn't a great movie, or even a masterpiece, but they are saying it isn't perfect. You're saying it can't, and could never be, perfect. So why is this still an argument?

Hence why the only example i can think of a perfect movie is a rather unambitious comedy movie that scored everything perfectly.

You needed 6 actors, 1 main set of 4 rooms + a few location shoots. The rest is pure Script + Actor skill gold.

[Donnadogsoth]

Yes, it absolutely can.
You seem to be saying that, because nothing can be perfect, Alien is perfect. That's ludicrous.
We're not discussing whether Alien is as close to perfect as any movie could ever be; we're discussing whether it is perfect.

Nobody is saying Alien isn't a great movie, or even a masterpiece, but they are saying it isn't perfect. You're saying it can't, and could never be, perfect. So why is this still an argument?

No one has supplied a convincing reason why it isn't perfect. Are black and white films imperfect because they don't show a colour world? Are colour 2-D films imperfect because they don't show a 3-D world? Are omniscient POV films imperfect because they aren't you-are-there dreams?

I'm saying that Alien is perfect because it did what it set out to do. That audiences find it slow today is their problem. That audiences can pick holes in the f/x is likewise their problem. If only innocents from 1979 can appreciate the film as perfection, then so be it.

[Chen]

But, again, how could Alien be better? Even the f/x, which worked fine in 1979, retain the charm of effort today.

Definitely reducing some of the build-up time as well at the beginning would make it better. It's not way too long, but its drags a very little bit. You could probably maintain a lot of the beginning content by just cutting a bit of time in a multiple of places and make it feel less plodding. I haven't seen Alien in quite a while so there are probably a couple of plot holes here and there too that could be tightened up.

None of these means the movie is bad, but it definitely means it is imperfect.

[Knaight]

I'm saying that Alien is perfect because it did what it set out to do. That audiences find it slow today is their problem. That audiences can pick holes in the f/x is likewise their problem. If only innocents from 1979 can appreciate the film as perfection, then so be it.

So we're going with "it's perfect as long as you're not sufficiently informed to notice flaws" now? On top of that, the whole idea that appreciating a film as perfection is somehow better than appreciating a film because it's excellent is being treated as a given here, and I don't buy it.

[Ruslan]

The Princess Bride: The present time stuff feels out of place. Just have it be a fairy tale film.

The present-day segments give the movie additional layer of depth. Instead of 'just a fairy tale', it's now a fairy tale that has effect on real people's lives. The grandson warming up to the grandfather at the end and asking him to come and read one more time is precious.


The Incredibles: A machine built by the villain is a less exciting final boss fight than the villain themself.
The whole point of the movie is the villain having no abilities except building machines. A metaphor on nature vs nurture, if you will. Superheroes in a world that doesn't need them because it has machines ... oops, turns out the world does need them!

[Ruslan]

In view of today's events, had to add this one to the list:

The perfect thriller: The Silence of the Lambs. RIP Jonathan Demme :(

[Jan Mattys]

I'll toss mine in no particular order:

Young Frankenstein - because.
Unforgiven - a perfect retelling of the classic "the scorpion and the frog" theme.
Rocky - which I consider one of the best romance movies ever made.

[Cizak]

The present-day segments give the movie additional layer of depth.

I disagree.


The whole point of the movie is the villain having no abilities except building machines.

I disagree.

[Rodin]

I think my definition for a "perfect movie or TV series" would be whether or not I trust modern day people to do a remake of it.

Since it's been on my mind from the re-watch thread, take Babylon 5. I'd love to see a re-done version of that - there's a lot of elements of the show that are dated from both a CGI and story-writing perspective, and I think having it re-done by modern writers would probably improve it.

On the flip side, Fawlty Towers - the only fault is that it's too short, and I don't see any way it could be improved by being re-written, having a change of actors, a bigger budget...etc.

[Donnadogsoth]

So we're going with "it's perfect as long as you're not sufficiently informed to notice flaws" now? On top of that, the whole idea that appreciating a film as perfection is somehow better than appreciating a film because it's excellent is being treated as a given here, and I don't buy it.

I'm sure there are microscopic cracks in those famous white marble statues over there, but that hardly detracts from their perfection. So the same with cynical art-critics and their magnifying glasses.

[GloatingSwine]

ITT we learn that there is no agreed upon definition of the concept of perfection as it applies to artistic endeavour, and the thread is about "list some movies you like".

[Knaight]

I'm sure there are microscopic cracks in those famous white marble statues over there, but that hardly detracts from their perfection. So the same with cynical art-critics and their magnifying glasses.

So, we are going with that then. Apparently artistic ignorance is a good thing, because it lets you enjoy things without them being ruined by being able to notice imperfections. Knowledge of a medium and the more critical perspective that gives you is a bad thing, and looking closely at a work ruins it and it shouldn't be done.

Suffice to say I don't share that opinion.

[Ruslan]

the thread is about "list some movies you like".If I didn't know any better, I could assume you're trying to imply that's a bad thing :smallconfused:

I, for one, got a lot of good info out of this thread.

[Donnadogsoth]

So, we are going with that then. Apparently artistic ignorance is a good thing, because it lets you enjoy things without them being ruined by being able to notice imperfections. Knowledge of a medium and the more critical perspective that gives you is a bad thing, and looking closely at a work ruins it and it shouldn't be done.

Suffice to say I don't share that opinion.

Artistic gnosis can be a bad thing if it engages in hypercriticism that is akin to a reductionist analysis of a painting to indicate where the artist sneezed and thus failed a brush stroke. Nothing can out-alien Alien. It did what it set out to achieve and picking it to pieces thirty or three hundred or three thousand years later misses the point that it is the top of its game. As I wrote, we can always point out that movies are just movies and thus are not as perfect as real life, but this doesn't matter. As movies these are the celestials.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Taking a "perfect movie" to mean a movie which I cannot think of a way to improve upon... Very few clear examples come to mind immediately, and I don't typically watch movies in enough detail to pick apart things like the typical Internet critic. So if I watched them more recently, or watched them again these evaluations could change.

The Big Lebowski, Pontypool, Die Hard, Tucker and Dale vs. Evil, A Simple Plan, The Last Days, Super Mario Brothers

I feel I ought to mention that two categories of movies could fit into this definition that quite possibly aren't intentional. I did not mention any movie in either of these categories, because it's not what people typically praise. Except maybe that one.

The first is, so bad it's good. Where the faults are the source of the whole appeal. Changing anything about it could make it better or worse enough that it's no longer got the same ironic appeal. It's a delicate line to tread, which makes it hard to picture how any changes could improve such movies.

The other is just simply awful movies. Movies which are so wholly, completely irredeemable that the movie would have to be changed on a fundamental level to make it better. The only changes I can imagine which would improve things would be so drastic that it could only superficially bear any resemblance to the original work.

That's what a definition for perfect like this brings along with it. The latter two categories technically qualify. I just thought the unstated assumption that the movie is also good/entertaining was worth pointing out.

[Knaight]

Artistic gnosis can be a bad thing if it engages in hypercriticism that is akin to a reductionist analysis of a painting to indicate where the artist sneezed and thus failed a brush stroke. Nothing can out-alien Alien. It did what it set out to achieve and picking it to pieces thirty or three hundred or three thousand years later misses the point that it is the top of its game. As I wrote, we can always point out that movies are just movies and thus are not as perfect as real life, but this doesn't matter. As movies these are the celestials.

Pointing out that something isn't perfect in no way prevents pointing out that something is at the pinnacle of its craft, which scuttles this particular line of criticism. As for nothing being able to out-alien Alien, we'll see*. Records are made to be broken, as they say - and as long as ignorance of a craft isn't embraced the chance of breaking said records remains.

*The species anyways - it's good enough that I don't expect it to be outdone in either of our lifetimes.

[Donnadogsoth]

Pointing out that something isn't perfect in no way prevents pointing out that something is at the pinnacle of its craft...

What would perfection mean?

[veti]

There are certainly a couple of things that often get brought up:

1: The airvent sequence ends with a rather poor shot of the alien pulling a notorious "jazz hands" pose. It's passable on first viewing due to the shock factor, but doesn't hold up too well on repeated watches. Admittedly it's mostly due to the practical limitations of a full-body costume in an enclosed space, but it'd be much improved by having the alien actually moving forward to grab Dallas, or at least swiping/bringing its hands together instead of holding that awkward pose.

2: When Ash is being reactivated, there's a very obvious cut from the dummy head being put on the table to the actor talking. This could be improved by inserting a quick shot to the other characters in the scene to mask the transition. The dummy head also isn't very convincing and the amount of synthetic blood on it doesn't match with the actor's make-up.

Again, these flaws don't detract from it being an excellent movie and both of those examples are still some of my favourite scenes.

Another one: when Ash is stabbing between his fingers with that knife at ridiculous speed, you can see the actors in shot behind him are also laughing and commenting are also sped up. Which kinda gives the FX away.

But things like this are not my idea of substantive flaws. Could the movie be better? Yes. Could it be made better? Probably not, because any plausible remake would introduce far more flaws than it would fix.

In the same vein (they're not unflawed, but they're the best of their kind that I think I'm ever likely to see), I'd like to add to the thread:

Duck Soup
Paths of Glory
Brief Encounter
Inherit the Wind
Ace in the Hole
West Side Story
Zulu
This Is Spinal Tap
Dark City
The Crying Game
Miller's Crossing
Pulp Fiction

[GloatingSwine]

If I didn't know any better, I could assume you're trying to imply that's a bad thing :smallconfused:

I, for one, got a lot of good info out of this thread.

"List some things you like" doesn't really generate any discussion. It's just a list of stuff where people talk at each other doing lists.

Hence why the vast bulk of posts in this thread where people are talking to each other are the argument about what perfection means in the context of a movie.

[Vinyadan]

I saw Stalker mentioned earlier. While I love that movie and it introduced me to Tarkovsky, I don't think it's fully perfect. The aesthetics probably are; the water shots are awesome. However, the allegory, once you get it, is a bit blunt - the scientific thinker, the literate and the faithful (I think?) lose some consistency as characters. Andrey Rublev doesn't have this problem, and is just as beautiful, while talking a lot about the relationship between work, world and creator (as, artist).

[Calthropstu]

I'll agree with the "nothing is perfect" people, because clearly this is perfectly subjective. Movies are made to be enjoyed by people, and enjoyment is subjective. Even if the execution is flawless, you can not possibly make a movie, everyone will enjoy. Period. Of course you can start blaming people for "not getting" your perfect movie, or using even more accusing phrasing but does that improve that movies quality?

Of course in so far you can at best have a movie that you consider perfect, possibly something that was made especially to your tastes and hits the nail on the head. I guess those movies exist, albeit I'd be hard pressed to name them for me. There are certainly things where I'd say "they knew exactly what they were going for and they did it very well/perfect". But then there will be people who have absolutely no interest in that kind of thing and who will laugh at you if you call the movie perfect. i.e. Alien(s) are very well made movies, considering their age and genre and most people who like those genres will agree they are close to flawless. But it's not hard to find people who consider them laughable because they have no interest in scifi and/or horror. And I'm not going to call these people stupid for that. For example, I love Deadpool, which is a stupid, at times gross, violent, childish super "hero" movie. But when i watch it i feel the producers knew what the fans were looking for and they tailored their movie according to that. And yet it's perfectly acceptable to find a load of flaws in the movie, if you think the basic idea is stupid, obviously.

Clearly you are mistaken. I am perfect and therefor anything I like must also be perfect.

[Chen]

What would perfection mean?

Generally the definition tends to be "without flaw or defect" or something to that regards. Something can be the best of its craft and still not be perfect.

[Strigon]

No one has supplied a convincing reason why it isn't perfect.



Alien: The build-up is dragging. Ripley dressing down to panties and showing butt is completely unnecessary.



1: The airvent sequence ends with a rather poor shot of the alien pulling a notorious "jazz hands" pose. It's passable on first viewing due to the shock factor, but doesn't hold up too well on repeated watches. Admittedly it's mostly due to the practical limitations of a full-body costume in an enclosed space, but it'd be much improved by having the alien actually moving forward to grab Dallas, or at least swiping/bringing its hands together instead of holding that awkward pose.

2: When Ash is being reactivated, there's a very obvious cut from the dummy head being put on the table to the actor talking. This could be improved by inserting a quick shot to the other characters in the scene to mask the transition. The dummy head also isn't very convincing and the amount of synthetic blood on it doesn't match with the actor's make-up.


They have. The fact that you're just saying "nuh-uh" doesn't mean it hasn't happened.


Are black and white films imperfect because they don't show a colour world? Are colour 2-D films imperfect because they don't show a 3-D world? Are omniscient POV films imperfect because they aren't you-are-there dreams?


No, but if there were scenes where it became an active hindrance, then it would be an imperfection. Just like the fact that Alien used a fellow in a rubber suit isn't an imperfection, but the fact that it occasionally looked like a fellow in a rubber suit is.


I'm saying that Alien is perfect because it did what it set out to do.
Yes, but it doesn't do it consistently. If I made a movie to engage a two year old, and it did that despite being riddled with plot holes and terrible acting, it wouldn't suddenly be a perfect movie because the two year old didn't notice those things.

That audiences find it slow today is their problem. That audiences can pick holes in the f/x is likewise their problem.
That's not true, at all, in any way. A truly perfect film would be perfect from all viewpoints. That isn't to say Alien also has to appeal to people who dislike the horror genre, but if someone with more experience comes along and starts noticing flaws, then it isn't perfect. A film doesn't become perfect just because you show it to a less picky audience.


If only innocents from 1979 can appreciate the film as perfection, then so be it.
Alien wasn't popular because it was perfect, it was popular because it pushed the boundaries further. It was pretty much the height of what you could do with the current technology, and as such it captivated the audience. It elevated filmmaking to a new standard within its genre, but that doesn't make it perfect. It makes it better than its competition.

[Aedilred]

For what it's worth I think the build-up in Alien is essential for building the tension necessary for the frightening parts to work. Part of it might actually be meta-knowledge spoiling the film; the way the film opens, it makes it look like Kane is going to be our main character, as he has the most focus of any of the crew. Of course, once you've seen it once (or indeed know anything about the franchise) you know it's actually Ripley who's our heroine, and so the focus on Kane might be frustrating. But this is inevitable with horror films to an extent: the same thing can only be truly shocking at most once.

On that score, then, I don't think it's a flaw in the film so much as a flaw in the audience.

I don't think removing Ripley's clothes was entirely necessary (inasmuch as anything in any film is "necessary"), but nor do I think it's actually a flaw, unless you are determined to consider any female flesh on display in any context as being a problem, in which case again I think it's worth considering whether the problem is with the film or with the audience. It emphasises her vulnerability and the desperation of the situation, and isn't sexualised or titillating. She's also not the only character who does it, either: see Kane again, who gets a long shot of him in his undies at the start of the film.

I agree when it comes to the special effects bloopers, though.

[137beth]

None. No perfect movie (or book, or song, or anything) exists. Claiming something is perfect is an insult to that particular piece as well as to art as a whole. To do so is to grow stale, to stop improving and stop evolving. Something with no flaws has no point. If you cannot improve it, it has nothing to teach you. You need to be able to criticise the things you love. You need to be able to see the flaws in things you hold dear. Not doing so is the launch point of fanaticism.

This is a perfect post:smallbiggrin:

[Donnadogsoth]

Generally the definition tends to be "without flaw or defect" or something to that regards. Something can be the best of its craft and still not be perfect.

How do you define flaw or defect?

[Cikomyr]

How do you define flaw or defect?

And objectively definable problem. Like the occasional flaws of FX in Aliens.

[Donnadogsoth]

They have. The fact that you're just saying "nuh-uh" doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Alien: The build-up is dragging. Ripley dressing down to panties and showing butt is completely unnecessary.

I didn't think it dragged, good grief, everything filmed before 1998 drags, that's hardly an objection. And I didn't think the seminudity was unnecessary.


1: The airvent sequence ends with a rather poor shot of the alien pulling a notorious "jazz hands" pose. It's passable on first viewing due to the shock factor, but doesn't hold up too well on repeated watches. Admittedly it's mostly due to the practical limitations of a full-body costume in an enclosed space, but it'd be much improved by having the alien actually moving forward to grab Dallas, or at least swiping/bringing its hands together instead of holding that awkward pose.

post facto dissection of something that was simply meant to scare. It was an alien, man, it did something scary and alien.


2: When Ash is being reactivated, there's a very obvious cut from the dummy head being put on the table to the actor talking. This could be improved by inserting a quick shot to the other characters in the scene to mask the transition. The dummy head also isn't very convincing and the amount of synthetic blood on it doesn't match with the actor's make-up.

Merely a symptom of (a) having seen the film too many times, and (b) being the child of a hypercritical society that has been trained to look for such things. These are flaws on the part of the viewer, not on the part of the film.


No, but if there were scenes where it became an active hindrance, then it would be an imperfection. Just like the fact that Alien used a fellow in a rubber suit isn't an imperfection, but the fact that it occasionally looked like a fellow in a rubber suit is.

On the contrary again: an Alien that didn't look like a man in a rubber suit would look fake because it would be obviously a contrivance.


Yes, but it doesn't do it consistently. If I made a movie to engage a two year old, and it did that despite being riddled with plot holes and terrible acting, it wouldn't suddenly be a perfect movie because the two year old didn't notice those things.

On the contrary, such a film would be perfect for two-year-olds. Just as Alien is perfect for horror/sf audiences of 1979.

[Chen]

And objectively definable problem. Like the occasional flaws of FX in Aliens.

Actually I'm not sure it needs to be objectively definable. Perfection itself need not have an objective definition. What some may find flaws, others may not. That said, if there is an objectively definable problem with a movie, by definition it is not perfect.

Ghost, for example, has a number of situations where you can see film crew and/or equipment in mirrors during the movie. This is an objective problem. That was not intended and it is a mistake. As such Ghost cannot be a perfect movie. Other aspects of the movie though, like some of the scenes were Patrick Swayze is talking to people he KNOWS can't hear him to me get a bit grating. But that's not an objective flaw. If we ignore the mirror bit and that were the only flaw I found with the movie, I could still say it's not perfect but others may not agree with me.

[Bohandas]

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist. Because all the things that are wrong with it are wrong on purpose.

[Cikomyr]

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist. Because all the things that are wrong with it are wrong on purpose.

Disagreed. Being purposely flawed doesnt make you any less flawed.

[Ruslan]

In the genre of martial arts movies, I would mention Shaolin Soccer (comedy) and Ong-Bak (serious). Not very complex or elaborate films, but what they set out to do, they do flawlessly.

[137beth]

1.
(a) It has to convince on its first viewing, which it did. We didn't see the zipper. Criticising it for not working as well on subsequent viewings because we have developed standards for how aliens should behave seems like cynicism. Dallas didn't think it was unconvincing.
(b) It's an alien, man, why should it do the expected?

2.
Again, this is noticed on subsequent viewings by jaded and overeducated audiences. We can tell King Kong is stop-motion and hahaha how fake is that?! But that doesn't stop King Kong from being a perfect movie.

Not buying it. My favorite plays are those I enjoy more the second or twentieth time I watch them than the first. My favorite novels are those I enjoy more upon rereading than the first time. My favorite comics are those I enjoy more on subsequent readings. My favorite music are all pieces I enjoy more after hearing/playing it many times. I'm not much of a movie person, but movies I like tend to be good on repeated viewings.

[Donnadogsoth]

Not buying it. My favorite plays are those I enjoy more the second or twentieth time I watch them than the first. My favorite novels are those I enjoy more upon rereading than the first time. My favorite comics are those I enjoy more on subsequent readings. My favorite music are all pieces I enjoy more after hearing/playing it many times. I'm not much of a movie person, but movies I like tend to be good on repeated viewings.

Then you're obviously not jaded or overeducated with respect to the movies, plays, novels, comics, and music that you enjoy.

[Dienekes]

Not buying it. My favorite plays are those I enjoy more the second or twentieth time I watch them than the first. My favorite novels are those I enjoy more upon rereading than the first time. My favorite comics are those I enjoy more on subsequent readings. My favorite music are all pieces I enjoy more after hearing/playing it many times. I'm not much of a movie person, but movies I like tend to be good on repeated viewings.

I think it kind of depends on what the piece of media is going for. For example I could reread LotR or The Iliad or Catch-22 a hundred times because I read them for the world or the humor or the sense of weight to the story. Or I could rewatch The Godfather or Die Hard for the acting or awesome fights.

But when you get to horror or twist ending or suspense it's harder or near impossible to recapture the initial experience. The only such movies I can really rewatch are Fight Club and The Usual Suspects. Because I can enjoy the other things in the film. But most movies that revolve around shock moments don't hold up that well.

At least for me.

[KillingAScarab]

I'm just here to second Dark City. By which I mean that's the reason I exist. Do you know the way to Shell Beach?

[2D8HP]

I'm just here to second Dark City. By which I mean that's the reason I exist. Do you know the way to Shell Beach?


I'd wondered if I was alone in finding Dark City to be superior to The Matrix which had some similar themes.

[Velaryon]

I'd wondered if I was alone in finding Dark City to be superior to The Matrix which had some similar themes.

You definitely aren't. While I initially preferred The Matrix, Dark City holds up a lot better on repeat viewing. Also, it isn't marred by terrible sequels.

[veti]

I'd wondered if I was alone in finding Dark City to be superior to The Matrix which had some similar themes.

To paraphrase Tom Lenk, Dark City should get an Oscar and beat The Matrix over the head with it. It was better scripted, better acted, and infinitely more thoughtful in its treatment of the same premise.

I saw Dark City first (it came out about a year earlier), and after that The Matrix seemed almost painfully shallow at first sight. On repeat viewing it gets worse.

[Giggling Ghast]

I would nominate Army of Darkness as the perfect horror/comedy. OK, some of the special effects are terrible, but that's part of its charm.

[Rothis Sil]

Independence day is the best movie in the world.

[Cikomyr]

Independence day is the best movie in the world.

But its not perfect.

[tantric]

Primer - a)uncompromisingly intelligent SF b)also a bit of existential horror c)won the grand jury prize at Sundance and most importantly d) was made for less than $7000. not kidding.

consider these movie narrative charts, from xkcd (https://xkcd.com/657/):

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/movie_narrative_charts.png

[Chen]

Very hard to consider Primer perfect. The problem is the time travel in the movie, while complex is not well explained IN the movie. It leads to it being more confusing that it needs to be. Once you actually get past that bit, the story itself is fairly mediocre too. I still liked the movie and it's fairly novel, but perfect, no way.

[tantric]

Very hard to consider Primer perfect. The problem is the time travel in the movie, while complex is not well explained IN the movie. It leads to it being more confusing that it needs to be. Once you actually get past that bit, the story itself is fairly mediocre too. I still liked the movie and it's fairly novel, but perfect, no way.

not to be churlish, but it won the Grand Jury prize at Sundance. that pretty much means that in 2004, it was the most perfect dramatic movie made.

[Razade]

not to be churlish, but it won the Grand Jury prize at Sundance. that pretty much means that in 2004, it was the most perfect dramatic movie made.

No it doesn't. It means it won the Grand Jury prize at Sundance. While that's a big deal for a movie, it doesn't mean anything other than that fact.

[DomaDoma]

Pan's Labyrinth. The unsaid parts of that narrative are worth the entire screenplay of a dozen good films.

[Chen]

not to be churlish, but it won the Grand Jury prize at Sundance. that pretty much means that in 2004, it was the most perfect dramatic movie made.

Even if this were true, which it isn't (as Razade points out), there is a difference between something that is "perfect" and what you've mentioned as "most perfect". It could very well be the best movie made that year or that decade or whatever, but it still is not perfect. I already listed its existing flaws. With said flaws, it is by definition not perfect.

[lunaticfringe]

I just wanna say The Outlaw Josey Wales is hands down more perfect than any of the Westerns (especially if we're talkin Clint Eastwood) listed so far.

[Marillion]

Pan's Labyrinth. The unsaid parts of that narrative are worth the entire screenplay of a dozen good films.
Yes. This. Yes. I truly cannot think of a single flaw within this movie.

Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai is a very unusual film, about a hitman (Forrest Whitaker) who serves a certain Mafia don. He considers himself a modern day (urban, if you will) Samurai and always strives to follow the Bushido code. There are many eclectic oddities in this movie, and frankly it has no business being as good as it is, but amazingly it all works. It's slow, yet uniquely captivating. Violent, yet sublime. Patently ridiculous, yet surprisingly deep. There's not a single wasted shot in the whole film.

[tielemans]

Always liked the Aliens. Considering at what time it was made. Very cool. And the more I review No Country for Old Men, the more I like it.

[dps]

Would it?

I mean.. if we had the original Venus, by the original artist. Without any damage, you are telling me it would be a LESSER work of art than the broken one?

Thats stupid.

Apparently, there are a lot of experts who now think that it never had arms to begin with, which certainly puts a different spin on the "perfect without 'em" POV.

Anyway, going with the "I can't think of any way it could be improved" definition of "perfect", I'd add The Whole Nine Yards to the list.

[Unregistered]

Commando. The perfect 80ies action movie.

[Aedilred]

Commando. The perfect 80ies action movie.

I remember being disappointed in Commando's relative bloodlessness. I'm by no means a gore fiend but considering the amount of ostensible violence in the film, by the end it was starting to look rather staged. Compared to its 80s action brethren, I felt Commando kind of blew the action part of its brief, even if had the formula down pat.

[dehro]

I remember being disappointed in Commando's relative bloodlessness. I'm by no means a gore fiend but considering the amount of ostensible violence in the film, by the end it was starting to look rather staged. Compared to its 80s action brethren, I felt Commando kind of blew the action part of its brief, even if had the formula down pat.
true, but it did gain bonus points for the cheesy oneliners.

[preetjazz]

I'm also in the "nothing is perfect" camp, or rather, there can be perfect but I don't think I'm qualified to judge. Even my favorite movies contain things that can be improved upon. For that matter, there are better movies that I do not like, because taste and quality are not the same thing.

But if I had to pick one movie as a perfect film, I would without hesitation say Wild Strawberries. The Seventh Seal gets all the love, but I think Wild Strawberries is a much better film.




Hello ,
nice i like this post

[The Duskblade]

Close enough to perfect that I wouldn't want to risk trying to improve them.

The Blue's Brothers
Who framed Rogers Rabbit
Hot Fuzz

Odd that my choices are all comedic since Im generally ambivalent about the genre. May be just that I feel dramatic works work better as a series while a tv show of any of the above probably would run out of momentum but with only a couple of hours they can keep things engaging.

A perfect tv show would be hard for exactly that reason, every show is going to have the odd episode that isn't quite up to standard. Firefly probably comes closest because it was killed so early.

Stranger Things comes so close. But I would cut the implausibly evil kid bully in a heartbeat.

[FreddyNoNose]

Die Hard.
Chinatown.
Sanjuro.
2001.
Empire Strikes Back.

[FreddyNoNose]

Yojimbo


Great movie! I actually enjoy Sanjuro more!

[FreddyNoNose]

Airplane! would be my other nomination. The absolute pinnacle of rapid-fire comedy and one of the most brilliant demolitions of a movie genre of all time. It may well also be the most quotable movie ever.


Rumack: Captain, how soon can you land?
Captain Oveur: I can't tell.
Rumack: You can tell me. I'm a doctor.
Captain Oveur: No. I mean I'm just not sure.
Rumack: Well, can't you take a guess?
Captain Oveur: Well, not for another two hours.
Rumack: You can't take a guess for another two hours?

[Emperor Demonking]

The film that first came to mind is the film I'm watching 1982' Annie. It ticks pretty much every box I would want at least sufficiently, as well as my enjoying almost every scene (a musical in which I enjoyed every scene would be too big for its boots, and that would certainly be an imperfection.)

The other film that comes to mind is The Virgin Suicides - which is my favourite films - which is certainly not flawless, but the oddities improve upon it and are needed to be perfect. On the other hand, my second favourite film is Somewhere and it's second because it lacks those intriguing oddities.

And, although I wouldn't have thought to think of it myself, Die Hard as well. Action films are simpler so Die Hard may be both perfect and flawless.

[Shoombo]

The most perfect film of all time is The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. A microbudget film made as an outsider even to the increasingly lurid films of Hollywood's New Wave, Tobe Hooper made the perfect tale of dread in a post-Vietnam world. A simple story about teens getting butchered subtly reveals the true horror behind Tobe Hooper's vision of the world: society is falling apart at the seams, and there is no going back. Evil exists stronger than ever, and it can strike anywhere at any time.

[Serpentine]

I'm going to suggest The Castle, an Australian comedy. It's not my favourite movie, but for what it is, for what it's trying to be, and for the time and the people it reflects, I don't think there's any way that it could be improved.

[tantric]

No it doesn't. It means it won the Grand Jury prize at Sundance. While that's a big deal for a movie, it doesn't mean anything other than that fact.

the same way that winning a Nobel peace prize doesn't mean you're a great peacemaker, only that a lot of swedes really like you. and like how winning an oscar for best actor doesn't mean you can act for ****, only that someone though you'd like a little golden idol.

do you even understand how asinine you sounded when you said that?

[Dienekes]

the same way that winning a Nobel peace prize doesn't mean you're a great peacemaker, only that a lot of swedes really like you. and like how winning an oscar for best actor doesn't mean you can act for ****, only that someone though you'd like a little golden idol.

do you even understand how asinine you sounded when you said that?

Interesting point when I can think of quite a few winners of the Nobel Peace Prize who in no way deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Hell, not to get political but there was a winner 8 years ago who straight up agreed he was entirely undeserving of the award.

[Vinyadan]

the same way that winning a Nobel peace prize doesn't mean you're a great peacemaker, only that a lot of swedes really like you.

Well, that's how it works.

And that's how Bob Dylan got a Nobel, to choose a nonpolitical example of blunder.

The Nobel prize will always be subject to enormous criticism. There's nothing new in that. They also occasionally take choices that have more to do with wishful thinking than facts.

All prizes also have the problem that perception of art changes a lot after a few years. The Oscars are somewhat honest in that they mostly make people compete in single aspects that can be technically compared to each other. Most prizes are not.

[tantric]

Interesting point when I can think of quite a few winners of the Nobel Peace Prize who in no way deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Hell, not to get political but there was a winner 8 years ago who straight up agreed he was entirely undeserving of the award.

are you even familiar with the idea of objectivity?

solipsism n. - extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.

you've noticed that other people sometimes make bad choices so you'll just be the judge of everything? all the sociological mechanisms that we have evolved to reward excellence are bunk and you, personally, know better. dude, if you haven't chosen a career yet, i highly recommend psychiatry.

[Dienekes]

are you even familiar with the idea of objectivity?

solipsism n. - extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.

you've noticed that other people sometimes make bad choices so you'll just be the judge of everything? all the sociological mechanisms that we have evolved to reward excellence are bunk and you, personally, know better. dude, if you haven't chosen a career yet, i highly recommend psychiatry.

Are you even familiar with straw manning?

Buttface n. - a person whose face is similar to a butt.

Ok, are we done randomly insulting each other for no real gain? Good? Good.

I'm not saying I know better. I'm saying that sometimes the group of people make mistakes, or the one they've chosen may not stand up to scrutiny from other reputable sources. After all, we're all human, and there's a fun saying about humans and erring.

So let's look at the start of the conversation. You started a conversation claiming this:


not to be churlish, but it won the Grand Jury prize at Sundance. that pretty much means that in 2004, it was the most perfect dramatic movie made.

Which isn't actually what it means. It doesn't mean it was perfect, it doesn't even mean it was the best dramatic movie of that year. It just means that it was the best that was at Sundance (which every movie released that year isn't even at) as decided by the judges. It does not mean it was perfect. It just means that they thought it was the best of the presented movies by those assembled to do the judging. Now it may well have been the best damn movie ever. But saying that it won Sundance therefore it must be the most perfect of the time is an appeal to authority, not an actual support of your statement.

Then someone else mentions the couple of flaws in the logic there.

You then called them asinine and gave a list of other group awards, and I and Vinyadan pointed out that there are a ton of controversies about who are awarded the prize in several of those awards. Often these controversies are spearheaded by people just as qualified to determine who would deserve such a prize as the members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. For example, several people who had received the Nobel Peace Prize themselves refused to recognize one years winner.

Let's look at the Nobel Committee. They're usually just a bunch of former Norwegian politicians. Why? Because the Norwegian government used to run the whole thing, not because the Norwegian government is in any way particularly more or less moral than other governments, but because that's where the founder of the idea of the prize lived.

Hell, a former member of the Nobel Committee admitted that the winner one year was done because they wanted to show support for the man, not because he had actually accomplished anything yet. Other awarded members have turned the award down because they recognized the event that got them recognized was hollow others were awarded after they were revealed to have orchestrated illegal bombings of nearby countries. Another whose entire charity has been criticized by those looking back on it today.

Now none of this is to say that the award isn't important, or that every winner was wrong. Neither is true, some truly great men, women, and organizations have won the prestigious award and it should remain prestigious. That doesn't mean that the winner was the most perfect peace advocate of that year, it just means that the goal of the organization is try and find and recognize such a person, despite the fact that deciding who is the most moral and peaceful person on the planet, is essentially impossible.

[Dragonlancer83]

Ink... really good fantasy indie movie

[Knaight]

Ink... really good fantasy indie movie

Ink is an excellent movie (particularly considering how tiny the budget was), but the first ten minutes or so are pretty bad.