Post your favourite movie scenes ever!

If you love the scenery in Barry Lyndon watch The Duellists! Ridley Scott borrowed a lot from Barry Lyndon in that one but he took it to a whole new level. It's like the most aesthetic movie ever.

Barry Lyndon has a very comfortable feel to it. It unfolds so gradually it's like watching a book.

Unrelated but very sad:

word on the street is dennis hopper, who has been on his death bed from prostate cancer for the past couple weeks is probably going to die soon. very sad, probably my favorite actor. he had a very interesting life.

In his honor you should check out a few of his great films:

Easy Rider

Apocalypse Now

Blue Velvet (especially)

super mario brothers (if you dare)

speed (POP QUIZ, HOT SHOT)

ok this is a weird one :

the ending form the plague dogs ( spoiler warning)

top 10 movie endings ever material in my book especially because of the music and the ambiguity about what happens

bleak dark disturbing call it what you want i call it brilliant !

I watched this western "Hang 'em High" with Clint Eastwood not long ago. I thought that the beginning was very beautiful. Unfortunately only found a video with commentary on it. If you ever watch the movie its getting even better after the bad guys arrive. The first 5-10 minutes of this movie are very very excellent with an rollercoaster of feelings. Only afterwards the movie gets quite generic unfortunately.

eyes wide shut aired yesterday night... was zapping through and it was on a channel i didn't even know about before... i'm a bit disappointed. most of the scenes were shot with totally bland light set up and the plot is just fuckin' nuts... looks like the only really decent scene is that ritual posted and the rest of the movie is more or less only fill material...

eyes wide shut is good for a couple things

1. the ritual scenes in the temple thing are pretty boss (also, yay bewbs)

2. nicole kidman getting high with tom cruise wearing a slip

I find something irresistibly attractive about Nicole Kidman that I can't describe. She's such a woman that I would feel inferior being near her without 2 years of bodybuilding and a shoulder length blonde wig (think Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall). Australian actresses are always so confident and it makes them ridiculously sexy.

Also: If you watch the following video at least half way you will automatically become an American citizen.

(high volume is recommended but required for Steppenwolf)

I hear in Paris they have a theater that plays Easy Rider all year round. A fine choice.

I am now american

dux answer my damn question in EOT you bastard!

Quote from e-freak

most of the scenes were shot with totally bland light set up

Are you nuts? The use of light is one of the best parts of the movie. You can see that Kubrick put a lot of effort and love for detail into it. It actualy plays a major role in the movie (which is not surprising for a neo-noir).

The colors red and blue for example have a meaning in the movie and are directly related to certain emotional states if you pay attention.

I also believe that he used white/yellow light as he would have used it for a black and white film noir back in the days. The movie is full of chiaroscuro effects! It's sometimes quite bright for a color movie (the bright lamps that you see all over the place are very unusual for a color movie) but notice how good the movie would still look as a classic noir thanks to them:

[Blocked Image: http://i50.tinypic.com/dlth0j.jpg]

Ok wtf at that pic

It's a strictly artistical discussion

"know what medium you use" - i don't care if it'd make a great film noir, it's freaking color movie and it looks like some cheap brit-tv production (full brightness, sharp shadows, overlayed with a too blue white balance don't make you flat look like 4 o'clock in the morning)... i know there's a lot of stuff in the picture aesthetics related to the emotions of the characters, but it doesn't really work.

also the character development is really little. they don't evolve, they just switch states... they don't react logical to what's happening around them and keep in mind what happened, but they only react to what's within theyr current scene which is totally weird. When they talk at that pool table after the ceremony Tom Cruise should be totally full of hate at that guy but he's more or less cry-baby and doesn't seem to care too much.

maybe i just need to watch the movie a few times to fully get it, but first impression was very meh (apart from the ceremony)

edit: pic:

[Blocked Image: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cM5vw5dzmtI/R9df0-Gq8XI/AAAAAAAAAcA/U1PwuQqMEGc/s400/eyeswideshut.jpg]

that scene looks totally wrong lit (much too bright, much too vivid colors for the mood of the scene and the persons involved)

edit2: come to think of it: that looks like raw-footage (as shot) without any color balancing or pp)...

Lets not forget the horrible indoor replica NYC sets

Quote

Kubrick adopted several stylistic conventions in Eyes Wide Shut. As with Barry Lyndon, much of the lighting in "Eyes Wide Shut" comes from the 'practical' lights (the lights that can be seen in the shot and are meant to be the source of light within the fiction of the story). Kubrick's style can best be described as 'simulated natural lighting' because it looks closer to the way lighting looks in real life as opposed to movies, but is still artificial. For example, the scene with the man in the red cloak and gold mask is lit by a 'pratical' spotlight from high above that one could describe as existing within the fiction of the movie, but the darker shadow areas were lit to some extent by a diffuse fill light that is not motivated by any source within the scene, perhaps a 'china ball' or helium ballon fixture off screen.

Kubrick occasionally departs from this naturalistic strategy into overt, unrealistic expressionism such as the intensly saturated blue light that flood the bathroom of the Harfords when they are arguing or the same blue light coming in through the windows of Ziegler's billard room. The film negative was 'pushed' in processing to increase the speed of the film, thus allowing for the use of natural lighting. "Eyes Wide Shut" made extensive use of Christmas lights (the story is set in the Christmas season). The colours red, blue, yellow and green feature predominantly in the film. This is enhanced by the use of Christmas decorations. It is often suggested that the colour scheme is an important symbolic schemata. This theory has weight, considering the four 'modern art' posters in the hospital hallway which individually consist of these colours (suggesting a consonance of location and symbolic meaning) and Kubrick's reputation as a master of detail. More simply it may suggest the primal or basic nature of the thematic content. Shop-fronts and street signs also express a quasi-semiotic meaning in that they convey information to an observant audience that the characters are unaware of. For example, before Bill enters the prostitute's apartment building, they stop at a store with the sign 'The Lotto Shop', perhaps indicating that he is gambling with his health.

Steppenwolf, just because Kubrick had a concept he was going after with clearly defined techniques doesn't necessarily mean the finished product is an automatic success. I personally think the lighting is fine and if the reason for it was extensive planning then so be it but someone else who doesn't like it could easily say it's a case of over-thinking a plate of beans.

I believe in any art medium it's on the artist to make sure the viewer sees his creative genius. Art is a failure if it requires anything beyond the expectations of the basic senses. If an artist does his job you shouldn't have to sit through a film putting yourself in the position of the editor, director, cinematographer, lighting engineer, and so on to appreciate it fully. The same goes for art that requires obscure knowledge of a historical period or creative "shout outs" that are supposed to be appreciated instead of the merits of the art on its own. What I think IS an acceptable suggestion for Eyes Wide Shut is that it was a personal film for Kubrick and Kubrick enthusiasts. It wasn't meant to be appreciated on a wide scale. At least with this explanation you can understand the acclaim within the context of his oeuvre and the disinterest from the general public. It's condescending to just imply "you don't GET it."

edit - I just wanted to add that you might say "well, say the director does appeal to the basic senses, it will be cheesy and hackneyed and obvious like a transformers film for example." That's not true. What makes a great director is taking 30 people into a room to watch a film and trying to get an emotion from as many of them as possible. Don't ask me how this is done, if I knew that I'd start making films tomorrow, but that's the point, that's the skill. Off the top of my head a good example might be Jaws when it first opened. Beyond that it's not even about getting the same reaction from everyone...the BEST OF THE BEST can create an emotional experience that means something completely different to every individual person in the audience.

Obviously the movie was not an automatic success as we all know. Just pointing out that was e-freak considers "cheap looking" is actualy the opposite of that. Everything else is a question of personal taste.

Well why does high production value = not cheap looking? Like I said, it could be a plate of beans type thing where you have the director moving a slider 1 inch to the left and 1 inch the the right on all the settings for 10 days only to set it back to default and hear him scream out "PERFECT!!!!!"

Sorry to be a dick I'm just playing devils advocate

Just as an example, maybe you saw chunking express? That's a pretty critically acclaimed foreign film. I think it's ugly, slow and boring. It looks like it was shot by someone who got a camcorder for christmas. You could say "but that's the genius! It's so raw!" in the same sense that you could say Kubrick made the lights artifical (which in normal practice would probably be the opposite of what a director would go for). My argument is that just doing something different doesn't warrant acclaim, it needs to work with the medium and the story, not the directors vanity.

Imo there is a difference between personal taste and the artistical "value" of something. Even if you don't like something you should be able to appreciate it on a different level if you know a thing or two about the medium or art form. Typical example for me would be Citizen Kane. I find this movie utterly boring and not aged well at all yet i can see why so many people regard it as one of the greatest movies ever.