Jess -- this comment, from Ethan's ComicCon review, nicely illustrates why, at the Chicago F2F, I burst out with "Ethan is the coolest guy EVER!":

"During the panel for Constantine, a die-hard Keanu Reeves fan told the actor that she had brought him an early birthday present. So Keanu invited the starstruck woman to the front of the stage, where he gave her a big hug and accepted her gift, a book called The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. Believe it or not, Keanu already had a copy. All together now: Whoa."

I don't see the up side to Forrest Gump. It's a Magical Negro movie, where the black guy doesn't even get to be the negro.

A friend of mine saw it--she really liked it, but the more she thought about it the less she liked it. After a few days she decided she hated it.

This is me. I saw it when it first came out and thought it had some funny bits, but didn't leave any strong impression overall. Then I saw it again (on a Peter Pan bus), and couldn't remember why I hadn't hated it the first time.

I'm with Hayden - Touch of Evil is one of my top movies. In large part because of the baroque element Nutty cites. (An aspect I love about Sunset Boulevard as well.)

To say the opening tracking shot is mundane however, is simply false. It introduces all the characters, establishes the milieu and if you pay attention it lays the groundwork for the plot as well.

Also, Orson purposefully set that shot up for a day when the studio sent somebody down to check up on him. They were suitably impressed that he knew what he was doing.

Finally, Ezra Pounds in his taxonomy of artistic types had a special category for Innovators who open up new modes of expression. Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie weren't just masterful musicians - they created a whole new playground for musicians to romp around in for the next thirty years when they created BeBop.

The bigger innovation in Touch of Evil however was not the tracking shot (which probably qualifies more as a tour de force) was that Welles was responding to new cameras and film stock that were being used by the French New Wave. It allowed him more flexibility and freedom in shooting, and Welles took that and very masterfully expanded upon that new visual vocabulary. Again, as he did with Kane he gave people a blueprint on what could be done and people used his innovations for many years to come.

The really funny thing, Tep, is that I also have that book. It's fab.

Bored by Touch Of Evil. But part of that is because I felt pressed to have a reaction to it, it being iconic and stuff. It was okay. Put my "okay" up against critical acclaim, and it comes off looking more like "bored."

I've had this reaction to a few things. Casablanca, Citizen Kane, a few others. (And yet, I've seen each of those movies at least twice, and I think I've seen Kane four or five times, each time trying to appreciate it in the way people seemed to think I should. I don't. So I don't ever have to watch it again.)

Then there were those I simply couldn't stand, like Five Easy Pieces and Midnight Cowboy.

My tastes are personal and peculiar, as most tastes are. Despite effectively minoring in film, were I to translate my credit hours to real school standards, understanding != liking, or caring to watch something again.

I just saw Donnie Darko recently. When it was over, I was all Huh. But I keep thinking about it. It's one of those movies that messes with your head. In general, I like that in a movie, so I've moved Donnie Darko into my "like" column.

Hec, a lot of the things you cite are hallmarks of a revolutionary or iconic movie. I think P-C is more concerned with why it's a good movie.

I agree with every word David S said in the above post.

Give it time, P-C, and then watch it again. I think you'll flip-flop on it with repeated viewings.

The only thing I liked about Forrest Gump was Gary Sinise. I thought he was fabulous.