Tag Archives: a rebuttal to the idea of what a movie is
A Rebuttal to a Rebuttal: Favorite Equals Best, or, Why Back To The Future is Better Than The Godfather
John,
I’ve been interested in movies for as long as I can remember. The story I tell is that Jurassic Park started it all. It certainly didn’t hurt, but movies had definitely been on my mind for way longer than that. And my parents and grandparents were both movie buffs, so when the AFI released their ill-conceived 100 Best Movies of the First 100 Years of Movies, it was the talk of our family for an entire Thanksgiving dinner. I was ten or twelve at the time. By the time I was fifteen, I had seen 92 of the movies listed.
Continue reading
Posted in All Posts, Greg's Essays
Tagged a clockwork orange, a rebuttal to the idea of what a movie is, alfred hitchcock, american movie, andy warhol, andy warhol empire, back to the future, buster keaton, casablanca, citizen kane, clueless, comedian, empire, field of dreams, ghostbusters, greg deliso, idea of what a movie is, indiana jones, john damico, jurassic park, king of kong, martin scorsese, paradise lost, psycho, raging bull, raising arizona, roger ebert, signs, smug film, smugfilm, stanley kubrick, the burbs, the godfather, the idea of what a movie is, the king of kong, tremors, wet hot american summer
28 Comments
