Camelot had amazing set design, I watched it for the first time in prep for the countdown. It didn't make my crowded ballot but I though positive about it.
Paint Your Wagon really wanted to rewatch this one, had I rewatched it it might have made my ballot. I loved Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood singing in a western and the story wasn't some happy-sappy affair.
we can infer that the environment is no longer balanced. Part of the circle of life is keeping the correct ratios in each level of the food pyramid.
Yes, that's the rationalization, and I'm sure Mufasa looks like a swell guy when offscreen he's pulling lottery tickets for which zebra needs to die for him today to maintain his kingdom.
I mean that alone is what flies for a central conflict in other movies, that's literally the premise of Dragonslayer.
Having a grub beg for its life before Timon eats it doesn't really serve the film or the overall point it is making.
But having Timon fear for his life from being killed and eaten by Nala does? My point is it's a double standard. Timon and Pumbaa's interests are equally as inconsequential to Nala as grubs are to Timon and Pumbaa. The difference is the creators deliberately drew a line through the range of animals they chose to depict and arbitrarily decided which ones they wanted the audience to empathize with, and any unfortunate implications they created by way of this fictional "kingdom", they simply chose not to depict.
Disney's shown with many movies that they can depict normally adversarial animals coexisting without necessarily getting into the weeds of interspecies politics, but in The Lion King, they do, by virtue of explicitly treating some animals as more important or worthy of moral consideration than others.
Quite simply, if that doesn't "serve the overall point of the movie", then maybe they should have left that little detail out. And despite what you may think, I don't believe the vast majority of the movie would even have to change.
__________________ Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread "Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel
Have never been able to get through Camelot, despite a sublime score, one of the most boring musicals I have ever tried to watch.
Eh, I love it. I love Franco Nero as Launcelot, I love David Hemmings (from Deep Red!) as Mordred, but Vanessa Redgrave is genuinely special as Guinevere... but she's not even the best in the movie. That goes to Richard Harris whose Arthur is so nuanced it's almost absurd. As a boy and teenager, Richard Harris' Arthur taught me that a man, even a king, can be unsure, he can be strong and wise but still sad, still full of doubts, and most of all that a man can be thoughtful. He is part of the reason that I have rejected macho masculinity my whole life in favor of a more considered approach to being a man.
Yes, Camelot the musical did that for me.
Plus, the man can sing.
So is Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018) not making it I can't believe it I did watch that for the countdown. I thought the movie was harmless but insipid, like most sequels are. I did however like the original Mamma Mia and I thought for sure it would make the countdown. I mean I would've bet on it.
Yes, that's the rationalization, and I'm sure Mufasa looks like a swell guy when offscreen he's pulling lottery tickets for which zebra needs to die for him today to maintain his kingdom.
But . . . a zebra does have to die for the lions to stay alive. They physically cannot survive without eating other animals. Scar is a villain because he kills out of malice and a desire for power. He's a villain because his pursuit of power/dominance has a negative effect on the entire ecosystem.
But having Timon fear for his life from being killed and eaten by Nala does? My point is it's a double standard. Timon and Pumbaa's interests are equally as inconsequential to Nala as grubs are to Timon and Pumbaa. The difference is the creators deliberately drew a line through the range of animals they chose to depict and arbitrarily decided which ones they wanted the audience to empathize with, and any unfortunate implications they created by way of this fictional "kingdom", they simply chose not to depict.
That is how all movies work. We care primarily about the characters we spend time with and have less empathy for characters we don't.
Someone watching Saving Private Ryan is not going to be as emotionally invested and/or upset at the death of a background extra as they will be at the death of one of the main characters.
To me, this is a bit like asking why we weren't shown (SPOILERS FOR Star Wars)
the painful immolation of all poor construction workers on the Death Star.
the painful immolation of all poor construction workers on the Death Star.
.
I mean, I own chickens and have had to deal with predation from foxes (among others), but I don't morally object to The Fantastic Mr. Fox treating the chickens as "dumb animals" while the foxes and other creatures are given full personalities and emotions. Foxes eat chickens. If you're going to center a movie on foxes, that's just a reality.
Quite simply, if that doesn't "serve the overall point of the movie", then maybe they should have left that little detail out. And despite what you may think, I don't believe the vast majority of the movie would even have to change.
Animals eat other animals to survive, and the sequence of Timon and Pumba eating does serve the film because it shows the lifestyle change that Simba is making by living with them.
I do think that it's important to be vigilant about how movies (or any art) portray different groups and when they are sending the message that a certain group is unworthy of empathy or that they are disposable. But in The Lion King I don't see that scene as saying the insects are unimportant.
I saw Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory a few times as a kid and thought it was just okay. I rewatched it for this countdown and my opinion didn't change.
I marginally prefer Tim Burton's version and also rewatched it for this, but didn't vote for either one.
Hopefully you feel different about Dirty Dancing because I had it #7. I'm guessing it didn't quite check all the boxes of a MoFo musical but it is a film I remember the family watching when I was a kid. The soundtrack is classic and Swayze dog manages to lip sync a few notes during the finale. If only we could have been treated to some notes while he was spin kicking drunks in Road House it would have a found another spot on my ballot.
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory totally slipped my mind as a musical. It would have made ballot if it hadn't. I've got a soft spot for Dahl's works and this and the source material were the entry point for me as young, wee lad.
Last edited by Little Ash; 4 weeks ago at 12:39 AM.
I am the biggest Wonka fan on this website. As proof, I once made a Wonka Factory Monopoly for a book report, have kept the same copy of when the Oompa-Loompas were still black, started a Wonka wiki (which I haven;'t updated for a while), and even redesigned the Wonka Bar itself, including adding some original flavors.
To see the film reach top 5 is the icing on today's extra-productive cake. This movie, the book and the reboot defined a huge part of my childhood. What I adore about the franchise is that it exists in its OWN GENRE, and not in the "light elements of a bunch of genres in one cool and consistent whole" way like Cowboy Bebop. No one can emulate this.
I love the original Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory, it's such a complete world building experience. Gene Wilder's Willa Wonka is mystically, maybe even magically in a god like way. Sequestered in his private world of the chocolate factory, he's the soul caretaker of the forlorn Oompa Loompas. He's also very human...flippant, arrogant and distant. At times he's sorrowful and deeply lonely and he cares greatly.
Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory has a brilliant script based on a great book and one of the most complex characters I've ever seen, played to perfection by Gene Wilder.
Glad it made the countdown! I was hoping for even higher.
But . . . a zebra does have to die for the lions to stay alive. They physically cannot survive without eating other animals.
This is not news.
Scar is a villain because he kills out of malice and a desire for power. He's a villain because his pursuit of power/dominance has a negative effect on the entire ecosystem.
Whereas Mufasa is not a villain because he is already a legitimized evil.
Someone watching Saving Private Ryan is not going to be as emotionally invested and/or upset at the death of a background extra as they will be at the death of one of the main characters.
You're really just saying that I can't morally judge the protagonists for the actions they take and the beliefs they hold towards others, provided the "others" aren't named in the credits. I think that's completely ridiculous, especially when you're bringing up Saving Private Ryan.
To me, this is a bit like asking
Are antelope a spacefaring imperial regime bent on literally blowing up entire planets?
I don't think it's even "a bit like" that at all.
Maybe if Star Wars opened up with Obi Wan explaining to Luke that the Force is a grand and cyclical concept in which Jedi vampires dominate and slaughter everyone else in the galaxy to stay in power, then maybe you'd have a point. Those gosh darn stormtroopers don't know how to run a galaxy do they? It is for the good of the universe that the Jedi know not to kill too many people. The Sith are evil because they kill people AND damage the economy in the process.
I mean, I own chickens
I am completely shocked that we disagree on this subject.
Wait, this is... MovieForums.com? I could have sworn this was Veggieboards, where everyone agrees with me all the time and definitely has not banned me for turning forums into an "acerbic gladiatorial arena".
but I don't morally object to The Fantastic Mr. Fox treating the chickens as "dumb animals"
I haven't seen Fantastic Mr. Fox, I'll take that as a movie to avoid, thank you.
in The Lion King I don't see that scene as saying the insects are unimportant.
I didn't say that they did,
or they should have been,
and I'm sure the creators didn't care.
But they begged the question anyway, so that's why I'm asking it.
Oh, did Willy Wonka just go up? TOP 5 BABYYY, I CALLED IT.
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was #47 on the MoFo Top 100 of the 1970s.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra
Whereas Mufasa is not a villain because he is already a legitimized evil.
I am having a hard time following your logic. You're saying that you consider a lion evil for eating another animal to survive?
You're really just saying that I can't morally judge the protagonists for the actions they take and the beliefs they hold towards others, provided the "others" aren't named in the credits. I think that's completely ridiculous, especially when you're bringing up Saving Private Ryan.
I'm saying that morally judging animals for eating other animals seems very strange to me. I'm also saying that in a story about animals (or people), it is natural to be more invested in the survival of the characters we spend the most time with. That said, of course we can extend empathy and care toward characters who are considered minor/other.
I'm just not sure how Timon eating a grub is a reflection of a "belief" or how/why it would be seen as a morally incorrect action.
Are antelope a spacefaring imperial regime bent on literally blowing up entire planets?
Absolutely. You can see it in their devious eyes.
I don't think it's even "a bit like" that at all.
I don't see how it's different. You're asking why certain characters are allowed to be faceless and why the audience is given permission to not care about their death/suffering, and I'm saying that's a part of a LOT of movies and it's not always due to a dehumanizing attitude but more a matter of economy.
Maybe if Star Wars opened up with Obi Wan explaining to Luke that the Force is a grand and cyclical concept . . .
It sounds like you think that the food chain is evil, and I'm not honestly sure what to say to that. Predators don't eat other animals because the Lion King commands them to. If anything, the events of the film show us that Mufasa was keeping a balance in the ecosystem so that all of the animals could thrive.
I guess it seems weirder to me to have a movie about animals and never acknowledge that they eat one another. Have you read The Wild Robot? I think that book does a pretty good job of navigating this challenge with anthropomorphized animals.
Similiar to what some of you obscure fellows said about The Lion Freakin' King... I watched Willy Wonka later than what might be an "ideal" age to watch it...I'm glad I did; I just feel more connection to Tim Burton's version (I know I know)... Gene Wilder was one of a kind though. I'll make sure to pay him my respects when we do (or re-do ) a comedies countdown someday.
Similiar to what some of you obscure fellows said about The Lion Freakin' King... I watched Willy Wonka later than what might be an "ideal" age to watch it...I'm glad I did; I just feel more connection to Tim Burton's version (I know I know)... Gene Wilder was one of a kind though. I'll make sure to pay him my respects when we do (or re-do ) a comedies countdown someday.
I'm a defender of that movie. Yes, it's absurdly long, but it's a charming story with memorable songs. There's something very down to Earth about it. It's about three lonely people making a life with each other.
Paint Your Wagon is my 20th pick and I love it so much, in spite of all its flaws, that I couldn't not have it on my list.
I had written a review of the film at a previous site I used to post at years and years ago and who knows if I still have that review. I absolutely love Paint Your Wagon and not even in a sarcastic or a so good it's bad type of way. I do recognized it is a flawed movie, but it has a charm to it and a sweetness to it. I think Lee Marvin is great in it as is Jean Seberg and it's too bad the film didn't do well to turn her career around. As much as I love Clint Eastwood, I find him to be the weak link in the film as far as the casting goes. I don't think he quite brings the humor and vulnerability and a type of self deprecating charm that the role needs. Clint Eastwood is Cline Eastwood, and though he's great as a romantic lead in The Bridges of Madison County, it's because he is essentially playing a more confident and self assured and accomplished character which Eastwood can definitely exude. He's just wrong for Paint Your Wagon... to gruff, too masculine, not near enough humor about himself.
Paint Your Wagon is the type of film that in the role of Pardner demands either a Jack Lemmon type of persona or a Cary Grant type of persona or even Ton Curtis in that role. Obviously all of those actors would be wrong and waaay too old for that part, but an actor like them that exudes that kind of energy. Maybe even someone like Alain Delon or Marcello Mastroianni. But Eastwood, while I don't think he tanks the movie, it's clear to see he isn't right for it. I understand why they cast him. They probably looked at this resume as saw his star on the rise coming off of the spaghetti westerns with Leone and then remembered he might be able to sing from he Rawhide days.
Oh well. Like I said I love Paint Your Wagon and it's sad it's largely forgotten or the butt of jokes today because there's so much great stuff going on there. It's got wonderful songs, it's a Lerner and Lowe musical and the great Paddy Chayefsky lending to the screenplay. The on-location filming northern California setting is gorgeous and the story about Mormons, wife trading, polygamy, gold mining, and the satirical look at civilization vs lawlessness is just all good fun and all of this a half century before The Book of Mormon - another musical hit that took pot shots at perhaps one of the silliest of all sub-religions (apologies to any Mormons in the house). William A. Fraker shot the film as the grip and he has so many other distinguishing looking films under his belt - Bullitt, Rosemary's Baby, and Heaven Can Wait, so it's not surprising that Paint Your Wagon looks so great.
I particularly like the musical numbers "A Million Miles Away Behind Closed Doors," "The First Thing You Know!," and "They Call the Wind Maria." However my absolutely favorite song is easily "Wanderin' Star" full of the sadness, sense of longing, and sense of resignation of someone who just can't find their place or make their mark in the world or find themselves being let down by people. The lyrics to that song are actually quite remarkable, tender, and sad in a way. And yes, I love the fact that Lee Marvin, not a singer at all, is able to do his own singing because it lends such an authenticity to the song. I think I read Seberg described his voice as gravel traveling down a rusty old rain pipe. But that's what the film needs, that's who the character is, and that's the perfect compliment to the nature of the song. I also prefer Lee Marvin's comedic turn in Paint You Wagon to another comedy western of the same time period where he won his Academy Award, Cat Ballou. But the songs and the writing are top notch in Paint You Wagon and the songs lends themselves to not only the story and character, but the tone and mood that is evoked in any particular moment within said story. These are things that Lerner and Loewe in their musicals knew, while Rodgers and Hammerstein didn't. Rodgers and Hammerstein could write some bangers for sure, but their songs work better in isolation or on the radio or as standards and they don't organically fit into the nature of the characters and storytelling.
This is also something that was new to me after years and years of being able to recognize greatness or something that works well vs mediocrity or at least something that pales in comparison. For years I had watched musicals without really paying a lot of attention to who the composers and lyricists are and at some point I just started to pay attention. What I noticed was that musicals that I found to be just awful and had zero connection to I would notice the names of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Rodgers and Hammerstein... the musicals that I absolutely love I keep seeing the names Vincente Minnelli and Lerner and Loewe appear. These were names that throughout my junior high, high school, and into my college years have heard of or think I had heard of, but it was around the time of starting college that I really began to make the connections and notice patterns in writing style, musical style, directing style, etc.
Yappers, Paint Your Wagon is a favorite and I don't even care about its flaws because when it works it works so well, as well as any other musical on my list. Shame, shame it didn't make this countdown. I had no illusion of it being anywhere near the top of the list, but I had at least hoped for a placing.
__________________
"A candy colored clown!" Member since Fall 2002 Top 100 Films, clicky below
Reply to Topic
I can't believe it
I did watch that for the countdown. I thought the movie was harmless but insipid, like most sequels are. I did however like the original Mamma Mia and I thought for sure it would make the countdown. I mean I would've bet on it.
) a comedies countdown someday.
