Looks like I'm the first. Panned by the critics, but excellent movie about the craze of the 60s leaving a purely countercultural vision slightly aside (already thoroughly documented) but showing how it damaged one of its major stars.
In fact in the movie Val Kilmer did vocals himself and real members of the Doors said that they could hardly distinguish his singing from real Jim Morrison.
I have a 1994 Jeep Wrangler. I have a fancy (for 1994) Sony cassette deck that was sitting in my basement for actual decades. My plan was to install the fab 90s tape deck in the fab 90s Jeep.
Unfortunately rubber doesn't do well sitting around for decades, Jeep or Sony. Lucky for me I was able to locate a new-old-stock tape transport on ebay and swap out the mechanical bits.
Result - all the $0.50 thrift store tapes I want to play stashed in the center console where nobody wants to steal them any more. Favorites are the Pulp Fiction soundtrack, Eiffel 95 and The Doors movie soundtrack.
I was a tape guy, I couldn't afford vinyl so taping records and the radio was my thing. The shortcomings of the Compact Cassette format are not particularly bothersome in an old Jeep, but I also strapped a Bluetooth receiver on the back so I can stream audio like a not-luddite.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your list, even though some of those are mediocre at best, but yeah I did mean per year, and limited to Hollywood (Parasite for instance not counting). And no, ok, I will also straight up disagree with the second Knives out Movie which I thought was absolute trash. A perfect example of poor storytelling and the form over substance of modern cinema.
But just taking say 1992 you have Last of the Mohicans, The Unforgiven, My Cousin Vinny, Malcolm X, Bad Lieutenant, Scent of a Woman, Reservoir Dogs, Dracula, Chaplin.
And then a bunch of fun schlomp like Arizona Dream, Basic Instinct, Sister Act, Army of Darkness, Home Alone 2, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Mighty Ducks, Wayne’s World.
These are all undoubtedly great movies.
And then another huge bunch of watchable stuff easily comparable to some of your mentions like Watcher or High Life.
And 1992 is not an outlier.
In 1993 you have Jurrasic Park, Groundhog Day, Whats Eating Gilbert Grape, Scindlers List, Meanace 2 Society, Alive, Dazed and Confused, Falling Down, In The Name of The Father, True Romance, Demolition Man, Carlitos Way, The Secret Garden, Philadelphia, A Perfect Workd, Cool Runnings, Short Cuts.
In 1991 Silence of The Lambs, Ternimator 2, JFK, Point Break, Thelma and Louise, Boyz in the Hood, The Doors, My Own Private Idaho, Barton Fink, The Fisher King, Naked Lunch.
In 1990 Goodfellas, Hunt for Red October, Total Recall, Edward Scissorhands, Home Alone, Godfather 3, Dances with Wolves, Tremors, Back to the Future 3, Awakenings, The Witches, Wild at Heart, Jacobs Ladder, Nikita, Slacker, Millers Crossing.
And the quality difference is massive too, not just somewhat better. Like just Millers Crossing is miles better than anything that has been made in the last 5 years, and I’m picking at random.
In 1994 Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, The Lion King, Speed, Ace Ventura, Dumb and Dumber, Stargate, Natural Born Killers, The Crow, Clercs, Maverick, Ed Wood, In the Mouth of Madness, Interview With The Vampire.
I could go on.
And this is not even talking about how the 80s is a better decade for cinema, or how the 70s is the peak of the power of the author with far more experimental, artistic, and substantial productions.
Has quality declined? Yes. Massively. Humongously. Stupendously.
You should watch The Doors movie by Oliver Stone starring Val Kilmer. Much of the music, including vocals, was redone with Val singing. It can be quite unsettling at times
Music of XX century is rather a broad subject, but I assume - from your question - you are looking for popular music genres like pop, rock, hiphop, etc.
In fact, most of this music has been as much a cultural phenomenon and and a statement of a generation, as it was... music. Not being rude to individual artists, who were at times very talented, a lot of this music is musically rather simplistic and doesn't require any preparation, but a cultural context. Granted your film-literature preferences, a good territory to start explorations from would be watch a few music movies, like the history of the Doors etc. that could give you the context needed and you are all set for many months of listening. But is all largely about youthful energy, about love, a man vs society, about dance and drugs. So - if you are not too young anymore - it can be a bit boring ;)
One exception would be jazz, that is a bit more complex to grasp, but again - you have a good series from Ken Burns to start with. That being said, to enjoy jazz truly in it's more complex genres, I would argue at least certain musical background is beneficial, maybe some youtube talks etc.
Classical music... well this is a true ocean. Just Beethoven piano sonatas could be a passion for a year or two. You're talking about XX century, and there's been great classical music published in that period! But probably - if you go that route - you really want to start with renaissance and baroque. Here a lot of great introductory courses are available. If you don't have musical background, Robert Greenberg series on Great Courses is really an entertaining and valuable intro.
And then there is world music, ranging from African roots bands playing drums to Indian classical music.
Now - having all that said - my personal perspective is that to enjoy music, you want to enjoy music. What I mean by that, is that you might want to dance, sing, play! Even a simple baroque dance, played by your self, could be way more gratifying that latest dull pop hit. If you really want to enjoy music and not just be a pop music encyclopedia who knows names of The Beatles - you should do one of these!
This movie is made by Oliver Stone right? Judging by prior work like The Doors (Jim Morrison) and Alexander (Alexander the Great) I don't have high hopes.
Oliver Stone likes to destroy characters on the big screen paying attention to the flaws rather than the charisma of his charactes. Jesus, I didn't remember a single battle scene from the movie "Alexander" and this guy went from Greece to India on horse battling his way out. He is considered one of the biggest strategic minds in history. He was the only leader I recall who changed the faith of battles consistently by making swift, unexpected moves with his cavalry hitting the enemy where he least expected it. Being gay[2] is not the reason why Alexander was named "Great".
[1] In the case of Alexander he admitted that it was a huge failure, but I'm not sure if by failure he and I mean the same thing, probably not.
[2] Sexual relationships amongst men were a very natural thing in ancient Greece, especially between soldiers. Indeed Alexander was married twice AFAIK.
Wow. While people like to paint Steve Jobs as sort of a one dimensional character ("Pirates of Silicon Valley" is a good example) he's actually fascinating in large part, I think, because he's really an enigma-- clearly brilliant and has accomplished so much, while being such an iconoclast. This is why attempts to portray him one dimensionally (like the book behind this movie, for instance) fail so miserably. People instinctively know he didn't create greatness simply by running around and being an asshole or lying to everyone.
This is the kind of role, that if handled by an actor with serious chops (and lets face it, I think about %50 of that is going to be having a good director) it could be a career making role with an oscar award attached.
While I like Kutcher as a person, respect his support for startups, I also recognize he's more of a social media celebrity, whose got comedic timing, but hasn't yet shown (or maybe had the opportunity to show) significant dramatic chops. Its quite possible he's got them, and he's suffered from being type cast. (Remember how Demi broke the mold by playing GI Jane... but then that also seemed to end her career.)
Sometimes unexpected actors can do great-- Tom Cruise in Born on the Fourth of July was a surprise to me, but I credit Oliver Stone for that one. The other example I can think of is Woody Harrelson in Natural Born Killers.
Harrelson's previous career was on TV as the good guy midwesterner kid, but Oliver Stone said "I saw something evil in his eyes."
I really don't think of Ashton Kutcher as having the necessary chops for this role (and the source material is itself so half assed and shallow that the project is starting from behind already.) This runs a very real risk of being of TV Movie-of-the-week quality.
I hope they get a great director and some serious work on the script, and that Kutcher dedicates himself to the role.
I'd love to see a biopic of Steve Jobs as on the nose as Val Kilmer's portrayal of Jim Morrison in The Doors. (Which is another Oliver Stone movie, but I promise you I'm not obsessed with Oliver Stone, he just handles this kind of material really well.)
Edit-
I missed the part that this isn't based on Isaacson's work. So, whether the source material will be week (like almost everything written about Jobs since he didn't give people a lot of access) or not is open to question.
Also, as dlf notes, Kutcher was in The Guardian where he played a dramatic role, and did a damn fine job. I'd forgotten about that movie... But that convinces me that Kutcher has the potential to do a brilliant Jobs performance. Lets just how the script is good and the director is strong.
Hacker Cinema
10 comments on Hacker News
ctrl+f the doors
Looks like I'm the first. Panned by the critics, but excellent movie about the craze of the 60s leaving a purely countercultural vision slightly aside (already thoroughly documented) but showing how it damaged one of its major stars.
> He was fantastic in the Doors movie. RIP
In fact in the movie Val Kilmer did vocals himself and real members of the Doors said that they could hardly distinguish his singing from real Jim Morrison.
He was fantastic in the Doors movie. RIP
I have a 1994 Jeep Wrangler. I have a fancy (for 1994) Sony cassette deck that was sitting in my basement for actual decades. My plan was to install the fab 90s tape deck in the fab 90s Jeep.
Unfortunately rubber doesn't do well sitting around for decades, Jeep or Sony. Lucky for me I was able to locate a new-old-stock tape transport on ebay and swap out the mechanical bits.
Result - all the $0.50 thrift store tapes I want to play stashed in the center console where nobody wants to steal them any more. Favorites are the Pulp Fiction soundtrack, Eiffel 95 and The Doors movie soundtrack.
I was a tape guy, I couldn't afford vinyl so taping records and the radio was my thing. The shortcomings of the Compact Cassette format are not particularly bothersome in an old Jeep, but I also strapped a Bluetooth receiver on the back so I can stream audio like a not-luddite.
</old>
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your list, even though some of those are mediocre at best, but yeah I did mean per year, and limited to Hollywood (Parasite for instance not counting). And no, ok, I will also straight up disagree with the second Knives out Movie which I thought was absolute trash. A perfect example of poor storytelling and the form over substance of modern cinema.
But just taking say 1992 you have Last of the Mohicans, The Unforgiven, My Cousin Vinny, Malcolm X, Bad Lieutenant, Scent of a Woman, Reservoir Dogs, Dracula, Chaplin.
And then a bunch of fun schlomp like Arizona Dream, Basic Instinct, Sister Act, Army of Darkness, Home Alone 2, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Mighty Ducks, Wayne’s World.
These are all undoubtedly great movies.
And then another huge bunch of watchable stuff easily comparable to some of your mentions like Watcher or High Life.
And 1992 is not an outlier.
In 1993 you have Jurrasic Park, Groundhog Day, Whats Eating Gilbert Grape, Scindlers List, Meanace 2 Society, Alive, Dazed and Confused, Falling Down, In The Name of The Father, True Romance, Demolition Man, Carlitos Way, The Secret Garden, Philadelphia, A Perfect Workd, Cool Runnings, Short Cuts.
In 1991 Silence of The Lambs, Ternimator 2, JFK, Point Break, Thelma and Louise, Boyz in the Hood, The Doors, My Own Private Idaho, Barton Fink, The Fisher King, Naked Lunch.
In 1990 Goodfellas, Hunt for Red October, Total Recall, Edward Scissorhands, Home Alone, Godfather 3, Dances with Wolves, Tremors, Back to the Future 3, Awakenings, The Witches, Wild at Heart, Jacobs Ladder, Nikita, Slacker, Millers Crossing.
And the quality difference is massive too, not just somewhat better. Like just Millers Crossing is miles better than anything that has been made in the last 5 years, and I’m picking at random.
In 1994 Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, The Lion King, Speed, Ace Ventura, Dumb and Dumber, Stargate, Natural Born Killers, The Crow, Clercs, Maverick, Ed Wood, In the Mouth of Madness, Interview With The Vampire.
I could go on.
And this is not even talking about how the 80s is a better decade for cinema, or how the 70s is the peak of the power of the author with far more experimental, artistic, and substantial productions.
Has quality declined? Yes. Massively. Humongously. Stupendously.
The Doors, love the look of the film and always enjoy kicking back and listening to the music
Labyrinth, with the kids now (and Spirited away and Totoro)
David Lynch films
American Splendor, becomes more relevant with age.
You should watch The Doors movie by Oliver Stone starring Val Kilmer. Much of the music, including vocals, was redone with Val singing. It can be quite unsettling at times
Music of XX century is rather a broad subject, but I assume - from your question - you are looking for popular music genres like pop, rock, hiphop, etc.
In fact, most of this music has been as much a cultural phenomenon and and a statement of a generation, as it was... music. Not being rude to individual artists, who were at times very talented, a lot of this music is musically rather simplistic and doesn't require any preparation, but a cultural context. Granted your film-literature preferences, a good territory to start explorations from would be watch a few music movies, like the history of the Doors etc. that could give you the context needed and you are all set for many months of listening. But is all largely about youthful energy, about love, a man vs society, about dance and drugs. So - if you are not too young anymore - it can be a bit boring ;)
One exception would be jazz, that is a bit more complex to grasp, but again - you have a good series from Ken Burns to start with. That being said, to enjoy jazz truly in it's more complex genres, I would argue at least certain musical background is beneficial, maybe some youtube talks etc.
Classical music... well this is a true ocean. Just Beethoven piano sonatas could be a passion for a year or two. You're talking about XX century, and there's been great classical music published in that period! But probably - if you go that route - you really want to start with renaissance and baroque. Here a lot of great introductory courses are available. If you don't have musical background, Robert Greenberg series on Great Courses is really an entertaining and valuable intro.
And then there is world music, ranging from African roots bands playing drums to Indian classical music.
Now - having all that said - my personal perspective is that to enjoy music, you want to enjoy music. What I mean by that, is that you might want to dance, sing, play! Even a simple baroque dance, played by your self, could be way more gratifying that latest dull pop hit. If you really want to enjoy music and not just be a pop music encyclopedia who knows names of The Beatles - you should do one of these!
This movie is made by Oliver Stone right? Judging by prior work like The Doors (Jim Morrison) and Alexander (Alexander the Great) I don't have high hopes.
Oliver Stone likes to destroy characters on the big screen paying attention to the flaws rather than the charisma of his charactes. Jesus, I didn't remember a single battle scene from the movie "Alexander" and this guy went from Greece to India on horse battling his way out. He is considered one of the biggest strategic minds in history. He was the only leader I recall who changed the faith of battles consistently by making swift, unexpected moves with his cavalry hitting the enemy where he least expected it. Being gay[2] is not the reason why Alexander was named "Great".
[1] In the case of Alexander he admitted that it was a huge failure, but I'm not sure if by failure he and I mean the same thing, probably not.
[2] Sexual relationships amongst men were a very natural thing in ancient Greece, especially between soldiers. Indeed Alexander was married twice AFAIK.
Wow. While people like to paint Steve Jobs as sort of a one dimensional character ("Pirates of Silicon Valley" is a good example) he's actually fascinating in large part, I think, because he's really an enigma-- clearly brilliant and has accomplished so much, while being such an iconoclast. This is why attempts to portray him one dimensionally (like the book behind this movie, for instance) fail so miserably. People instinctively know he didn't create greatness simply by running around and being an asshole or lying to everyone.
This is the kind of role, that if handled by an actor with serious chops (and lets face it, I think about %50 of that is going to be having a good director) it could be a career making role with an oscar award attached.
While I like Kutcher as a person, respect his support for startups, I also recognize he's more of a social media celebrity, whose got comedic timing, but hasn't yet shown (or maybe had the opportunity to show) significant dramatic chops. Its quite possible he's got them, and he's suffered from being type cast. (Remember how Demi broke the mold by playing GI Jane... but then that also seemed to end her career.)
Sometimes unexpected actors can do great-- Tom Cruise in Born on the Fourth of July was a surprise to me, but I credit Oliver Stone for that one. The other example I can think of is Woody Harrelson in Natural Born Killers.
Harrelson's previous career was on TV as the good guy midwesterner kid, but Oliver Stone said "I saw something evil in his eyes."
I really don't think of Ashton Kutcher as having the necessary chops for this role (and the source material is itself so half assed and shallow that the project is starting from behind already.) This runs a very real risk of being of TV Movie-of-the-week quality.
I hope they get a great director and some serious work on the script, and that Kutcher dedicates himself to the role.
I'd love to see a biopic of Steve Jobs as on the nose as Val Kilmer's portrayal of Jim Morrison in The Doors. (Which is another Oliver Stone movie, but I promise you I'm not obsessed with Oliver Stone, he just handles this kind of material really well.)
Edit- I missed the part that this isn't based on Isaacson's work. So, whether the source material will be week (like almost everything written about Jobs since he didn't give people a lot of access) or not is open to question.
Also, as dlf notes, Kutcher was in The Guardian where he played a dramatic role, and did a damn fine job. I'd forgotten about that movie... But that convinces me that Kutcher has the potential to do a brilliant Jobs performance. Lets just how the script is good and the director is strong.