Wonderful to come on here again and read this response from the iCM guys! I will now donate/pay immediately with more faith that iCM will be around for a while! Thank you! (And thank you for the site in general!)
In my opinion, non-paying users should have all the uses that they currently have. To my mind, the obvious perk to offer premium users and not non-paying users is the ability to create new lists. That would keep newbies coming and allow them to get hooked, but it would still offer a real incentive to new and old users to get a premium account.
For what it's worth, I teach a course on Russian culture, and I end the semester by showing this short, suggesting that it is a ten-minute distillation of the essence of Russian culture in general.
I know it's been said, but a monthly quota of checks for non-paying members really could be the downfall of the site. I don't mean "downfall" in the sense that I wouldn't like it; I mean "downfall" in the sense that it would stall all momentum of a building community, leading to a stall and eventual collapse of the site as we know it. The stakes are extremely high, it seems to me. You have to get the details right: make it an incentive for veterans to get the Premium accounts, but you MUST leave the site as fully functioning and inviting for non-paying members (functioning much as the site does now). If you don't, it will mean the end of iCM.
mjf314: Doesn't the site already have that function? I just clicked on your name and saw that you've watched Midnight in Paris recently. Is that not what you mean?
1. I'll be jumping in at the $25 level.
2. I am another voice agreeing that basic checking-- unlimited checking-- is the one main thing that should remain free.
3. "Amount" is for things that cannot be counted (amount of sugar, amount of dirt), while "number" is for things that can be counted (number of pencils, number of trees). So -- amount of money, but number of dollars; amount of food, but number of calories. Therefore, it should be "number of movies" and "number of checks," etc. Also, "amount" is used the same way as "less" or "much," while "number" is used the same way as "fewer" or "many." Yes, it's your unsolicited English grammar lesson for the day! ;0)))))))
I have seen the roughly one-hour-long reconstructed version, and I assume that what people have seen who are checking this film as seen. I'm checking it as well, then.
"The fact that kiwis probably don't care about flying ruined it (for me). [...] Am I the only one who thinks this? I'm not missing the point[...]"
No, you _are_ missing the point. Or you are being too much of a quasi-Autistic realist to think a little metaphorically (even though it should be fairly obvious that the bird is being anthropomorphized).
And to frankqb: [SPOILER] The bird was painstakingly nailing trees to a cliffside so that it could -- for one brief, self-destructive time in its life -- live out its dream to be able to fly, or at least to have the illusory feeling of soaring over a forest.
"The list is too slanted towards 'serious classics' - a 'serious film fan' should have more diverse tastes than that." I see what you're saying, but this list is not an attempt to create an interesting, eclectic list of personal favorites (like Rosenbaum's); this is a list of the _best of the best_ in terms of _critical acclaim_. Essentially, it is the canon. As with any canon, it's a starting place, the foundation-- not the be-all-and-end-all statement about what one should or should not see (or like).
_Molokh_ made this list, but _Mother and Son_ did not? Assumedly, if the poll were to be taken today, _Mother and Son_ would make the list, along with _Russian Ark_ (and other directors' films, such as _The Return_).
The Phantom Carriage really is much better than many of the films in the top 100. I love this list, but the ordering of the full 300 baffles me in the case of many films.
To my mind, this list is the true litmus test of a serious film fan-- more so than anything else on this site. Those folks with close to or more than 900 checks can rightly consider themselves cinematic badasses. Go ahead, strut around a little.
Reminds me more of Svankmejer than Gilliam. I just watched it for the first time, and for what it's worth my first impression is that it is a dark contemplation of modern domesticity-- its deadening routines, its banalities, its anxieties, its hopes, its claustrophobia.
Only a handful of films that are literally for children, yes, but the list as a whole reads as if 1000 teenagers were polled. (Not that there aren't a lot of great films here, but that's how I'd characterize the list in general.)
I have checked this film because I've seen the surviving ten-minute fragment. What do other people think? Is it legitimate to check a film if one has seen all that there is to see???
I've checked this film as I have seen the only existing fragments. The film in its entirety has been lost. I'm curious about other people's opinions. If I've seen as much as it is possible to see, should that merit a check?
Comments 201 - 225 of 241
Movie comment on A Trip Down Market Street Before the Fire
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
And _Bullitt_ is the re-make.Movie comment on Dickson Greeting
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
I don't want to spoil the ending, but prepare to be greeted.Movie comment on The Evidence of the Film
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
[SPOILER] Using child labor to deliver large financial packages, who could possibly have foreseen a mishap?Also, isn't it interesting that the film crew shot their primary characters _through_ a couple of random bystanders?
:0)
Thanks for uploading this!
Movie comment on Partie de campagne
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Yes, given that it's unfinished, I kept expecting an abrupt cut-off, but it seemed to be complete to me-- a narrative with shape and closure.Blog comment on There's no limit
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Wonderful to come on here again and read this response from the iCM guys! I will now donate/pay immediately with more faith that iCM will be around for a while! Thank you! (And thank you for the site in general!)Blog comment on Donate-a-thon
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
In my opinion, non-paying users should have all the uses that they currently have. To my mind, the obvious perk to offer premium users and not non-paying users is the ability to create new lists. That would keep newbies coming and allow them to get hooked, but it would still offer a real incentive to new and old users to get a premium account.Blog comment on Donate-a-thon
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Kasparius: Hear, hear.Movie comment on Yozhik v tumane
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
For what it's worth, I teach a course on Russian culture, and I end the semester by showing this short, suggesting that it is a ten-minute distillation of the essence of Russian culture in general.Blog comment on Donate-a-thon
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
I know it's been said, but a monthly quota of checks for non-paying members really could be the downfall of the site. I don't mean "downfall" in the sense that I wouldn't like it; I mean "downfall" in the sense that it would stall all momentum of a building community, leading to a stall and eventual collapse of the site as we know it. The stakes are extremely high, it seems to me. You have to get the details right: make it an incentive for veterans to get the Premium accounts, but you MUST leave the site as fully functioning and inviting for non-paying members (functioning much as the site does now). If you don't, it will mean the end of iCM.Blog comment on Donate-a-thon
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
dirtyharry98: OK, thanks.Blog comment on Donate-a-thon
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
mjf314: Doesn't the site already have that function? I just clicked on your name and saw that you've watched Midnight in Paris recently. Is that not what you mean?Blog comment on Donate-a-thon
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
1. I'll be jumping in at the $25 level.2. I am another voice agreeing that basic checking-- unlimited checking-- is the one main thing that should remain free.
3. "Amount" is for things that cannot be counted (amount of sugar, amount of dirt), while "number" is for things that can be counted (number of pencils, number of trees). So -- amount of money, but number of dollars; amount of food, but number of calories. Therefore, it should be "number of movies" and "number of checks," etc. Also, "amount" is used the same way as "less" or "much," while "number" is used the same way as "fewer" or "many." Yes, it's your unsolicited English grammar lesson for the day! ;0)))))))
Movie comment on The Scarlet Letter
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
It's on the full Silent Era list, which iCM doesn't include for some reason.Movie comment on The River
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
I have seen the roughly one-hour-long reconstructed version, and I assume that what people have seen who are checking this film as seen. I'm checking it as well, then.Movie comment on Kiwi!
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
"The fact that kiwis probably don't care about flying ruined it (for me). [...] Am I the only one who thinks this? I'm not missing the point[...]"No, you _are_ missing the point. Or you are being too much of a quasi-Autistic realist to think a little metaphorically (even though it should be fairly obvious that the bird is being anthropomorphized).
And to frankqb: [SPOILER] The bird was painstakingly nailing trees to a cliffside so that it could -- for one brief, self-destructive time in its life -- live out its dream to be able to fly, or at least to have the illusory feeling of soaring over a forest.
Toplist comment on TSPDT's 1,000 Greatest Films
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
"The list is too slanted towards 'serious classics' - a 'serious film fan' should have more diverse tastes than that." I see what you're saying, but this list is not an attempt to create an interesting, eclectic list of personal favorites (like Rosenbaum's); this is a list of the _best of the best_ in terms of _critical acclaim_. Essentially, it is the canon. As with any canon, it's a starting place, the foundation-- not the be-all-and-end-all statement about what one should or should not see (or like).Toplist comment on Russian Guild of Film Critics's Best Russian Films
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
_Molokh_ made this list, but _Mother and Son_ did not? Assumedly, if the poll were to be taken today, _Mother and Son_ would make the list, along with _Russian Ark_ (and other directors' films, such as _The Return_).Toplist comment on Silent Era's The Top 300 Silent Era Films
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
The Phantom Carriage really is much better than many of the films in the top 100. I love this list, but the ordering of the full 300 baffles me in the case of many films.Movie comment on The Old Actor
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Not sure why this film made the list. Griffith made several better films in 1912, in my opinion.Toplist comment on TSPDT's 1,000 Greatest Films
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
To my mind, this list is the true litmus test of a serious film fan-- more so than anything else on this site. Those folks with close to or more than 900 checks can rightly consider themselves cinematic badasses. Go ahead, strut around a little.Movie comment on L'assassinat du duc de Guise
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Whatever the case, the link does seem to stop mid-action. That said, I'm fairly confident that the duke stays dead.Movie comment on Dom
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Reminds me more of Svankmejer than Gilliam. I just watched it for the first time, and for what it's worth my first impression is that it is a dark contemplation of modern domesticity-- its deadening routines, its banalities, its anxieties, its hopes, its claustrophobia.Toplist comment on FOK!'s Film Top 250
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
Only a handful of films that are literally for children, yes, but the list as a whole reads as if 1000 teenagers were polled. (Not that there aren't a lot of great films here, but that's how I'd characterize the list in general.)Movie comment on Flaming Youth
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
I have checked this film because I've seen the surviving ten-minute fragment. What do other people think? Is it legitimate to check a film if one has seen all that there is to see???Movie comment on Cleopatra
Local Hero -- aka MestnyiGeroi
I've checked this film as I have seen the only existing fragments. The film in its entirety has been lost. I'm curious about other people's opinions. If I've seen as much as it is possible to see, should that merit a check?Showing items 201 – 225 of 241