Why So Blu?

True. That wasn't a knock though. I had to pause to make sure I was correct. Then that's the only Haneke flick I have seen.

Ash Ketchum

I can't recall it right now, but I think Hitchcock may have remade one of his silent films in the early '30s. Also, one can argue that THE 39 STEPS was loosely remade as SABOTEUR and NORTH BY NORTHWEST.

superdeluxe

Are those in order?

Drexl

Putting Spike Lee on there is like putting Jack Nicholson on a greatest working actors list. It's been more than 10 years since 25th Hour, arguably his last notable film.

BambooLounge

It amazes me how little love Miracle at Saint Anna gets. QT makes a celebrated living off of pure homage cinema and Lee directs a heartfelt homage to Italian Neorealism and it gets completely ignored.

I like both QT and Lee, don't get me wrong, but Miracle at Saint Anna is a wonderful film that pays homage to one of the greatest eras in film history.

William Fuld

inri222

Yes

Jaymole

If it was a Hollywood only list it would be somewhat acceptable but not having the Dardenne brothers on that list makes it an automatic fail.

Mabuse

It gets ignored because it was fucking terrible. It had potential, it was a great idea, but the finished product is unwatchable.

Solid Snake

Yeah. That film had great potential but it loses it way very quickly.

Tarantino

The ones who deserve to be on the list.

Steven Spielberg
Quentin Tarantino
Martin Scorsese
David Fincher
Joel and Ethan Coen
Paul Thomas Anderson
Woody Allen
Ben Affleck
Christopher Nolan
David O. Russell
Darren Aronofsky
James Cameron
Alexander Payne
Ang Lee
Wes Anderson
Pedro Almodovar
Clint Eastwood

inri222

Even as a fan of most of Lee's work, I have to agree with this.

BambooLounge

Not even close to unwatchable, but to each their own.

It was a great homage to Italian Neo-realism and while obviously that is not going to be as much fun for audiences as an homage to chop-socky, I enjoyed it.

It is just another ambitious genre mashing film akin to New York, New York. It is a film that combines immensely varied cinematic elements to produce something that while flawed, is wholly unique.

Neither film is a masterpiece, but they both have fallen victim, bot critically and commercially, to simply not meeting preconceived genre expectations of critics and audiences.

Solid Snake

It's not even that. I never have expectations of Lee. The guy varies himself all the time. It just didn't rock.

RichC2

I don't agree with that. It didn't meet the expectations of being a good movie, unique is one thing but that doesn't give you an automatic pass.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, however, and I know Leonard Maltin liked it because his ad on Comcast on Demand always pimps it out.

BambooLounge

I agree that being unique, in and of itself, does not give a film a pass. But, with Miracle at St. Anna, Lee is making a bold effort. He is simultaneously trying to create an old fashioned WWII flick (which, some overly corny elements are part and parcel to) while infusing it with his own voice (not retaining the America rah rah propagandizing of those old fashioned flicks), and combining elements of Italian Neorealism.

Yes, the film is long and contains some drastic tonal shifts and diversions, but it is clearly a personal film with a message (as do most of Lee's films) and I appreciate that in a film, clearly moreso than others. If I'm going to enjoy a flawed film, it's going to be one like this or New York, New York.

Ash Ketchum

What purpose would an homage to Italian Neo-realism serve? If that's your thing, then just re-watch Italian Neo-realist classics, esp. if they already have a WWII theme, like PAISAN and OPEN CITY. (Come to think of it, I'd sooner see PAISAN again than have to sit through MIRACLE OF ST. ANNA.)

An "homage to chop-socky," on the other hand, as engineered by Tarantino, serves up exactly the kinds of thrills we got from the originals. I've seen a million kung fu, samurai, ninja and Yakuza movies and yet I loved KILL BILL VOL. 1 every bit as much. Somehow I don't see that happening with an homage to Italian neo-realism or, for that matter, an homage to film noir, to name another cinematic movement that doesn't really translate well outside of its original setting. "Chop-socky," however, can be adequately recreated year after year in as many different countries as dare to try it.

bootsy

Inside Man was his last good, notable film.

Jules Winfield

What purpose would an homage to anything serve? Just because an homage to Italian Neo-realist cinema maybe didn't pan out for Spike Lee like he wanted, everyone else should just give up and never make homages to that particular sub-genre? "Just make chop-socky homages everyone! Don't bother trying anything else!" To me, an Italian Neo-realist homage is much more exciting than another chop socky(not that I don't like those) just because there aren't as many.

BambooLounge

The purpose of an homage is right in the definition of the word. You are paying respect to something while triggering an association to the think you are paying respect to in the viewer.

And really? Homage to film noir doesn't work? There is an entire subgenre of just that called neo-noir (The Matrix, Blade Runner, Brick, Memento, etc). Neo-noir is just homage to film noir.

The point of homage is not to replace the thing being paid homage to. In may ways, it is a tip of the cap to a predecessor due to the great influence it bears on your film, career, whatever.

Miracle at St. Anna was a film that was a film that was trying to replicate older war movies to make its point by making such a film about black soldiers. Lee choosing to pay tribute to one of the rare war films to feature an African American soldier in a leading role, Paisan, was wholly appropriate for the film he was setting out to make.

I just think Tarantino's form of homage has warped your view of what homage actually is.

Ash Ketchum

Amen, brother! Every movie should have kung fu in it.

Supermallet

Batman Returns is an awesome homage to German Expressionism. Seriously.

BambooLounge

^It is...and I prefer the Burton Batman films to Nolan's in part because of artistic flourishes like that.

Defiant1

At least directors like Stephen Daldry and Tom Hooper aren't on that list. I like some of their movies quite a bit but I say it's more to the acting and writing than the directing. Their movies are basically big budget TV films. I don't feel they bring much in terms of directorial flourish.

Someone like Joe Wright on the other hand knows his way around a camera and what to do with it.

Ben Affleck? Really? One great movie gets you on the list?

bootsy

He doesn't have any great ones but he's had 3 very good ones. He belongs on the list.