ON European movies and Best acting ranking for me

 Best acting Performance by Lead Actor
Actor name Movie
1 Charlie Chaplin Modern Times
2 Kevin Spacey American beauty
3 Marlon Brando The Godfather
4 Sivaji Ganesan Thiruvarutchelvar & vietnam veedu
5 Anthony Perkins Psycho
6 Alpacino Scarface
7 Tom Hanks Forrest gump
8 James Stewart The Rope
9 Eli Wallah Good,Bad,Ugly
10 Edward Norton American History X
11 Tom Cruise Rainman
12 Laurence oliver A little romance
13 Dustin Hoffman Rain man
14 Sean Penn 21 grams
15 Kamal Haasan Anbe Sivam
16 Nagesh Thiruvilayadal
17 Peter Sellers Dr.Strangelove
18 Orson Welles Citizine Kane

========================================================================

European movies are slow and boring?(Example Italian movie La Notte)
===============================================
I dont know why a single feeling or theme is dragged in a movie emotionally,where it is
very slow paced,with no interesting ingredients in the story are considered good,thoughtful
intellectual movies?Perhaps someone could describe how the film is great, how it affects them, etc.
intelligently rather than just insult others who think differently.  If European film like
this is explained to a "novice," then they can see what the filmmaker is trying to say. For
many people growing up nowadays, the sheer quantity of junk that comes out of Hollywood
makes it difficult for one to learn to appreciate real film greatness without at least some
guidance. Many do recognize that stupid, shallow movies are just that, but the repeated
bludgeoning over the head with them makes one immmune to the slower paced character/theme-
driven film. I'm just learning myself. European movies does interest us, but also boring at
many places. It's easy to watch this film and want the characters to do this or that based
on all the films you grew up watching. Also the change in context (1960s Europe) makes it
more difficult to identify with the characters and their actions, regardless of how

universal the theme may be. Some films just lend themselves more easily to the viewer
submerging themselves into the story and identifying with the characters. I know some
people who didn't like "Lost in Translation" or "Broken Flowers" because "nothing
happened." Well, those of us who liked those films know that's not true, but they couldn't
appreciate what they viewed for what it was.I'm no expert or film historian. Just my
opinion..

 I am just getting into art film classics myself, and I know I sometimes struggle a bit...
for example, I love Ingmar Bergman but felt a little lost in "The Silence". Likewise, I
loved the experience of "L'avventura" but wasn't affected the same way by "La Notte"... so,
hearing how these films impacted other viewers would prove helpful.
I always liked Antonioni's work & L'avventura is a masterpiece. However, after first
watching ,La Notte seemed extremly boring and pretentious for me. I though I was going to
enjoy it more than L'avventura since it took place in one of the most gorgeous cities I've
ever seen - Milan. Maybe I need to watch it again to fully appreciate it.
I love the subtle films but I appreciated this one not at all. Too annoying based on a weak
scenario. They would have been able to tell the tearing of a couple in another way.
I am a person very fond of "deeper" films. I'm a big fan of Fellini, deSica and many others
of the "modern" directors of the time. My problem with this film, as goes with others of
Antonionis films, is his inability to create any kind of sympathy with the characters, his
complete uninteresting stories and much more. I honestly did not care what happened to
anyone in the film, I didn't even want to tell them to get a grip of their lives. I only
found everyone present extremely self-centred and boring. I am a person very fond of "deeper" films. I'm a big fan of Fellini, deSica and many others of the "modern" directors of the time. My problem with some of European film, as goes with
others of Antonionis films, is his inability to create any kind of sympathy with the

characters, his complete uninteresting stories and much more. I honestly did not care what
happened to anyone in the film, I didn't even want to tell them to get a grip of their
lives. I only found everyone present extremely self-centred and boring.
A good response, the above. What I pick up from this thread is that inexperienced viewers
can follow the narrative line of L'Avventura but not that of La Notte -- hence they are
turned off by it. The obvious suggestion: take care to see more good films and think
critically about them. Certainly we react on a visceral level to film; but Antonioni (and
frankly, I think all good film) demands much more than the gut response of "I followed this
film, I understood it" or "I enjoyed what was happening in this film because I was able to
understand it." Film is closest to music: any one moment in it must be considered against
all moments put together, and none can be isolated.
Besides this: the broken flow of the narrative in La Notte is intended to mirror the
breaking up of Giovanni's and Lydia's relationship, like the game of chess at the end of
the film, or the swimming pool scene. The film is decidedly not about how sad it is that a
couple breaks up, or how tortured are the lives of these two people. The film is their
destruction, it is their impassivity. There is very little of sympathetic understanding in
La Notte: a primitive state of anxious, unfulfilled, ever-present eroticism is closer to
it.

Just as the people portrayed in the movie, the audience is taken to the emptiness and
boredom of their lives,most people pretend they like these kind of movies to appear
themselves ''smart''