CLOSE ENCOUNTERS ... IF it is in its original version with the extra 20 some minutes that were taken out. It was a much better film, and helped make things more interesting and a better story!

Other wise, I would say that E.T. is the great one, although I think that the over the moon shot is way too stoopid and not necessary, but this is Hollywood, right?

Close Encounter of the Third Kind

Three reasons.

1 - Richard Dreyfuss' character's mania that culminates with him building the Devils Tower in his living room, including using real shrubberies

2 - The massive keyboard Jumbo Tron setup

3 - The Soundtrack

 Probably should check it out again. 

^ Spielberg was an executive producer on all three of the BttF films.

Spielberg is a master in making entertaining films. Although I dislike his dinosaur duds, most of his other films are good to great. Difficult to single out one... I guess for me it would be between Close Encounters and Minority Report. I'll go with the latter this time.

Hi,

AND, don't forget Francois Truffaut! Excellent, and he has the knack for acting that he showed his actors in a lot of his films!

^ Oh, allow me to disagree on that one, Mosh. I find Truffaut's acting rather bland, here and everywhere else where he appeared.

In general, and I know it is not a popular opinion here in France and probably elsewhere, I think Truffaut is a much overrated (ah, for once I adopt this awful word) director. Up till La peau douce he's brilliant, but afterwards his bourgeois tendencies are getting the up. Fahrenheit 451 is interesting but, especially in the directing department, lacking - imho. After that, it is getting too talkative and focused on relations (and his look on relationships). His cinema becomes very soppy, if you ask me...

Hi,

Actually, a lot of French directors are "too talkative". Check this out:

Rivette: Long discussions spread out, sometimes around the story. Perfect example is "La Belle Noiseusse" which is almost 4 hours long to make a small point in the end ... but in between it is far out to watch a hand draw a picture right from the start!

Godard: Best not get started on him, because he would immediately interrupt and do some kind of philosophical diatribe about this or that. Try some metaphysics over a cup of mil, dissolving the coffee, or the other way around ... totally insane!

Berri: Very talkative films, however to say that there is no "story" means that we are too impatient. Check out the 2 films "Jean de Florette" and "Manon of the Spring". The whole time you have no idea what is really going on, and the dialogue is NOT sidestepping the issue, and neither is it hiding anything, it just seems in the right place. Until the last 5 minutes of the 2nd film, when you get the most amazing jolt. THAT, is great literature in film, right there!

Truffaut: Agreed that he is very talky in his films, but I'm not sure that any of his films would have been as good without it, not to mention that a big part of it might have been that a lot of it was improvised, by actors well drilled and trained, to know and follow a program or story!

All four of these, the major French directors, known collectively as "the new wave" were all, Film Critics as well (Les Cahiers du Cinema) ... and they knew film, its history, and a lot more. Film for them, was exposition, and dialogue was something that the English had dumped for "big moments" and dumped the rest of the dialogue and story ...  like no one cares about Shakespeare except the main lines! The French were not that egotistical! They were much more literary minded, and I think there was a place for that in film, although to say that in America is like saying something bad about all American film, most of which is just "entertainment" and has to do with money, and not film at all!

Must be this. Can't say I've ever heard of before, let alone seen it:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059181/" rel="nofollow - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059181/

That was as tense as hell featuring Dennis Weaver who later became more famous for playing a TV detective. 

-and his performance on Third Encounters is passable, at best.

Hi,

(added this first part later)

... I think it's easy to think so, when it's possible that he is not so sure what is needed, or wanted, which he shows in at least one film, too much! And this would likely have the tendency to allow the actors to be on their own quite a bit. But, acting wise, for an American film, it was nice and different, but interesting all the same, and it was not a cartoonish version of a French man which Hollywood is known for, going back to the 20's and having cartoon versions of colored people for over 50 years.

I had the thought that one of the things about that "new wave" of directors, is that they wanted to do something different, and the problem was ... how can you do it ... without saying anything ... when film, is probably 80/90% speaking? Truffaut, often let the actors do their own thing because he wasn't sure what was needed, and in many cases, it worked, because many actors are very good at just moving and saying//doing something for their character, and many times "better" than the actual writer, since they are "inside" that character.

But the fun/funny part, is how Godard did it ... he knew he was breaking the "rules" and he decided ... he would have fun with it, and he starts all kinds of bizarre bits that ends up making Terry Gilliam in MP look ... weird and strange, while Godard, comes off, more interesting. There are too many examples of this ... some music shows up and he interrupts it and says, it's wrong, and why should there be music here? ... the famous moving camera in the bar going left forever and then coming back, and we hear several different "stories" ... guess what? that's one time when it's true ... exactly what you would likely hear when you do something similar. But in film? You're getting away from the story ... and of course, Godard would tell you that the "story" is a silly kid's game!

Rivette is tough, as I think he simply allows for the actors to figure out what they want to say, although this can be a tough line to define. Mike Leigh, in his earlier days, was horrible in this area, and I even said in a review that this was like watching an actor scramble for a word, when there wouldn't be one needed, but for the sake of "filming" you had to have a word or two, so it is not "empty" and "boring" for 5 minutes. Making an actor go through that, with a live camera is not easy, or fun ... though it would be very different if it were a rehearsal.

Spielberg ... is not one of my favorites, though he has one thing that is really good ... if you want to learn something about directing, Hollywood/American style, you sit and watch his films. They are a "master class" on directing, and I'm not sure that USC has it  any better for their students. 

HI,

If anyone can ever find it, see the Acting Studio thing with Jeanne Moreau. I don't remember it all right now, but I believe she said they didn't have a script for many scenes, which, one might suggest is very Truffaut, when one sees that film that he is directing and has issues all the time with everyone and everything.  Always issues, and he just leaves them and goes to the next moment or detail.

I wish that we had some really good translations and English publications of a lot of their writing in the "Cahier du Cinema", where Truffaut, Rivette and Godard, spent a lot of time looking at a lot of films. In some ways, it was kinda interesting that they all were not afraid to improvise, though Rivette definitely trusted his actors a lot more than the other 2. Truffaut is interesting, but he is not exactly the same director at first that he was 20/30 years later. I think that his "fame" ate up his time, and then the pressure to actually make a "real film" (see that one about him directing with all the parts and pieces for an American made film!!!) as opposed to the European much less costly style, which by that time already had many directors even use hand held cameras ... although the film industry in Italy was owned and operated by one or two studios, but most elsewhere in the rest of Europe (skip England) was quite open, and not exactly well documented, but some really nifty things came out of it ... no one is ever going to say that Sven Nykvist was not exceptional and was the best director with a camera that has ever been! In my book, he "made" Ingmar Bergman, but even in those early films there is material that is likely handled by a smaller camera so it can "move" better and faster.

I would almost suggest that Truffaut was very good when he did not have a budget, and over rated when he did have some money to work with!