Film noir

Ace in the Hole, Rififi, Out of the Past

Why is it always citizen kane? It's really you plebs who use it as a punching bag who can't watch the thing genuinely - you go in expending the end all be all on all gauges because of its reputation (a largely dubious reputation, were it foisted on any film at all), and because of that you inevitably come out disappointed. Then it becomes a personal duty to attack it when given the chance - no no, it's not you that's incapable of approaching a thing on it's own terms, no it's the thing itself that fucked up living up your imaginary idea of it.

Like the other user said - "hasn't aged well" is a non criticism.

>that it was at some time good and that changed
>Calling a film "dated" is a non-criticism that people use when they have nothing of value to say.
That's so conservative it barely warrants a serious reply. By your logic a medium has no progression of any kind. Or do you still enjoy going to your local cave-gallery and enjoy the rock paintings for what they are? The medium has evolved over the years, citizen kane drones on for much too long for starters. There's more options with digital techniques, camera lenses, budget, acting. It's crazy to just say: ''if a movie was good in it heyday it's always as good today.''

Kombat Mortel

it's a movie everyone has seen. keep your hat on, I used to think it was great, but I just dont give movies credit anymore for 'being old' or 'impactful for its time' and just rate it against contemporary movies. Then it comes up short on a couple of areas for me. Still a decent movie but... not THAT good.

Citizen Kane is extremely fun to watch, if not just for Welles performance alone. It has a lot of humor and is genuinely beautiful. You fucking zoomers really need to work on your attention span.
Maltese falcon
The big sleep

Different strokes. there's movies from that era that are giving me more joy. even movies by the same director.

>PROGRESSION IS ALWAYS GOOD
fuck you brainlet. Some pieces of art are timeless. I can read the odyssey and enjoy it I can watch citizen Kane and enjoy it. It's a million times better than any capeshit film that comes out these days.

I never said that you moron. I am saying though that progression increases options and raises the bar because of it. Also movies tend to learn from each other and improve because of it.

Were you born stupid or are you just trying really hard?

Any film that is called the best film of all time is overhyped. Citizen Kane is still really great though and is by no means dated

If it were released today it would have had 1 hour of less speeches and a much stronger impact as a result. Show don't tell would have been used more, instead of Welles just trashing a room and looking at a snowglobe. Assuming it COULD be made today, let's pretend a young Welles would make it today, it would have been a better movie I'm 100% sure just for the fact he would have more tools at his disposal to realize his vision, and more knowledge from his contemporaries and predecessors.

>movies learn from each other
No they don't. Filmmakers "learn" from each other. That still implies that progression is inherently good. Most digital shot films are far worse than their analog counterparts. Watching film for technique must be the plebbiest kind to approach to the medium. Maybe except for plot.

>Some pieces of art are timeless
nothing is timeless

> Most digital shot films are far worse than their analog counterparts.
No disagreement there. But you're again conflating my argument into an OR, where I'm not saying that at all. I'm specifically talking about great movies becoming greater over time because the crew have more options to realize their vision.

A drive would have been impossible in the 80s. A taxi driver would have been impossible in the 30s (although it would still make for a great movie!) and so on.

God you're fucking retarded. What your saying is completely nonsensical

It's ironic that you are unable to interpret and learn from a sound argument and simultaneously project your inability to learn onto some of the best filmmakers. Filmmakers who, by definition, have to learn new things constantly in order to deliver their best work.
Nostalgia and conservatism is never a good advisor for anything.

I disagree. Limitations can and often have led to great art, because to deal with such limitations means to be creative. I find it baffling to think one technique is superior to another. Also you claim that today films are more show than tell is completely wrong. The visual storytelling in mainstream media has never been this weak. Everything needs to be delivered to the viewer on a silver Platter because they are all fucking zoomers who can't pick up on any subtleties.

any filmmaker will tell you that digital is a blessing for so many reasons. And with digital I dont mean lucasarts type shit. I mean correcting blemishes, helping tidying up shots or easily creating a different mood in post in scenes.

M
The Third Man

also, I'm talking specifically about great movies. Not capeshit or anything hollywood in the past 10 years, because hollywood is utter shite nowadays. But that's down to how they choose to 'industrialize' their moviemaking process. That's an economic factor, which has nothing to do with more options being bad.

The idea that limitations bring out better product is idiotic and only true in some cases.

It's not a sound argument to say, evolution makes a medium better. That's just plain bullshit.
Editing and post production has changed so dramatically due to digital technology that it really changed the entire creative process. Of course it has its advantages but it also leads to a lot of problems and there are a lot of things that have been lost because of that.

> Of course it has its advantages but it also leads to a lot of problems
specify.

Filmmakers losing their vision again and again because there are too many things you can change. To many filters you can add. They fall in the trap of some digital gimmick instead on focusing on the important stuff.
Art can only exist due to limitations you dumb fuck.

sounds like something you've just made up on the spot because you're nostalgic. HAve you got any proof of directors saying this? Because I have read and watched endless directors mentioning in non-promo material how much easier it has become to make normal films (again, not cgi capeshit) with digital aid.

In fact, I known this for sure because I know a shitton of visual designers. You're full of shit.

why do you have to measure all art against the same ruler? art is a product of its country/region, the tastes of the culture, and the will of the producers/studios. Some films considered good in their time have no lasting effect because the time and place that they impacted no longer exists. This is likely what you mean by 'dated'. but why can't we appreciate films for being way ahead of their time, for advancing technique?

Can you not appreciate cave paintings for being made by made by Neanderthals? Can you not appreciate the pyramids for being made by ancient peoples without nb

I'm not saying that you have to pretend that ALL old movies are as entertaining as modern movies, but i think that they can be appreciated for what they are.

I enjoy Citizen Kane.

>easier=better
>YOU'RE JUST NOSTALGIC
God your pathetic. I don't give a shit what directors or visual artis say. We are talking about the effect it has on film as a medium not how convient it makes the work of an "artist"

Yeah, you're full of shit. Stop crying and take your loss like a man.

What loss? You never made an argument. You just claimed that new technology and evolution of a medium must lead to better art. You just a brain dead zoomer who clearly has no clue what art actually is

>all these brainlets ITT calling Citizen Kane dated
In regards to the thread topic: I just watched In A Lonely Place and I really liked it. One of Bogart's strongest performances and a nice script with great dialogue. Strongly recommended just like Nicholas Ray in general

"aged badly" is suggesting that general audience tastes have since changed and the popularity of the film at the time. Which is has, we don't have an endless spree of westerns, instead we have capeshit.
You're basically complaining that film discussion acknowledges the existence of social trends when explaining why a movie that isn't particularly appealing now was a massive success in its time.

Nicolas Rey is a fucking god. Johnny guitar is one hell of a masterpiece
General audience taste literally says nothing about the quality of a film

Bigger Than Life is his best film though. Definitely a forgotten masterpiece

GOD WAS WRONG

Big Heat, Big Combo, and Kiss Me Deadly are my favorites of these.

it's the greatest film genre until the french & boomers got their hands on it

Has anybody seen On the Night of the Fire?

Local library will be showing it next month (pic related) , it's a rare movie apparently. Not sure if it's easy to find a torrent.

Attached: unnamed-768x1046.jpg (768x1046, 196K)