# Best Movies Ever Which Require Explaining -- Sometimes, A Lot of It **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 6, 2006, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200 "2006-03-06T00:42:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/21 "2006-03-06T20:35:37Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Time After Time. I was one of about fifteen people that saw this cable standard when it played in the movie houses–Well, it’s a movie about H.G. Wells following Jack the Ripper to 1980’s San Francisco in his time machine, but it’s really, really good. > > Try to get anyone to believe it. I saw it in the theater when I was 10. It was my favorite movie at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/22 "2006-03-06T20:51:53Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > I saw it in the theater when I was 10. It was my favorite movie at the time. FWIW, I seem to remember seeing and liking it, too. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/23 "2006-03-06T21:39:14Z")
**Evil Captor** , you must have seen the _edited_ Conan. Try getting the un-edited not-for-TV edition sometime. It cuts about a hair’s breadth from hard-core porn in one of two spots. Sex alright. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Rieux](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Dr.Rieux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Rieux)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/24 "2006-03-06T22:14:42Z")
Actually, if you nominate “Citizen Kane” for best movie of the 30s, you indeed have some 'splaining to do–it wasn’t made until 1941. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/25 "2006-03-06T23:33:24Z")
> [@Dr. Rieux](#): > > Actually, if you nominate “Citizen Kane” for best movie of the 30s, you indeed have some 'splaining to do–it wasn’t made until 1941. _Citizen Kane_ rolls off my knife anyway. Good cinematography, but that’s about it. There are plenty of 1941 releases–_Ball of Fire, How Green Was My Valley, The Lady Eve, The Little Foxes, The Maltese Falcon, Penny Serenade, Spellbound, Strawberry Blonde, Sullivan’s Travels_–I far prefer to _Citizen Kane_. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/26 "2006-03-07T00:10:45Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > What better way to get people to reach? It’s an outreach thing. OK, that was a joke retort, you deserve better here. I just don’t get the faintest sex/slavegirl/bondage vibe from “Clash of the Titans” and I don’t remember a heck of a lot of gratuitous nudity. Truth to tell I don’t remember any. I don’t get any sense that the filmmakers were thinking, “Those Gor novels are selling like hotcakes, think we’ll slip a little hottie slavegirl and barbaric warrior romance in there.” ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/27 "2006-03-07T00:20:43Z")
I actually saw _Deathstalker_ in a theater. I was a typical horny teenager at the time. My reaction to the movie was “@#%@#%! Even the sex scenes were boring!” I have generally listed it as one of the ten worst movies I have ever seen in my life. _Conan the Barbarian_ and _Clash of the Titans_ may not have been great films, but they were far better than _Deathstalker_. I have heard that _Deathstalker_ is much better on the small screen than on the large screen. Certainly renting it off the dollar rack or on two-for-one night would help. ---
**Author:** ![River\_Hippie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/river_hippie/32/26_2.png) [@River\_Hippie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/River_Hippie)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/28 "2006-03-07T01:17:23Z")
Mulholland Drive. One of my favorite films but I had to do \*FREAKING RESEARCH \* to really start to get it! Once I knew what Lynch was trying to do, subsequent viewings were even more rewarding. ---
**Author:** ![Go\_You\_Big\_Red\_Fire\_Engine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/eada6e/32.png) [@Go\_You\_Big\_Red\_Fire\_Engine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Go_You_Big_Red_Fire_Engine)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/29 "2006-03-07T01:43:50Z")
Ok, so I walked over to IMDB, and the ratings said around PG-13, indicating no nudity. However, apparently that is not the original cut. Wandering around the forums I came across: _“Yes, Perseus’ mother was topless at the beginning, but it wasn’t sexual in nature. There was another non-sexual nude scene near the end, when Andromeda exits the bath before her sacrifice. I guess that’s how it stayed PG rated, just the human body presented uncovered in a natural way.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/30 "2006-03-07T01:45:09Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Oh come now. How can you possibly qualify Deathstalker as a “good movie” much less a “best movie”. > > It’s silly, it’s stupid, and while there’s lots of naked women being groped, tied, wrestled, and jiggled, that does not make it a good movie. It doesn’t even make it a decent movie. It makes it a movie with two minutes of entertaining footage and over an hour of blah. > > If you want to say “It’s good for a guy who has my particular set of fetishes”, fine. But don’t pretend it’s a “good” movie. > > -Joe Well, true, it’s not a good movie considered strictly from the “watching” standpoint, not even “for a guy with my particular set of fetishes.” It’s more of a trailblazer kind of movies that only certain people like to watch – kinda like “Last Year at Marienbad” or “The Bicycle Theif” or “A Man and A Woman.” The naked women being groped, etc., do help a lot, though. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/31 "2006-03-07T01:51:52Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > **Evil Captor** , you must have seen the _edited_ Conan. Try getting the un-edited not-for-TV edition sometime. It cuts about a hair’s breadth from hard-core porn in one of two spots. Sex alright. I had forgotten about the scene with the witch, prolly because most versions I’ve seen lately have been on TV. And I don’t watch it all the way through anyway. Too dull. ---
**Author:** ![vl\_mungo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc8723/32.png) [@vl\_mungo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vl_mungo)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/32 "2006-03-07T02:00:17Z")
**Time After Time** was a pretty good movie. I saw it in the theatre when it came out too. Saw it again recently, and while I still enjoyed it… it’s become somewhat dated. **Brazil** I’d stick in comedy. As for my ballot in the other thread, I think the only pick that I feel as though I need to es’plain is **The Stunt Man** - the “Best Action/Adventure of the 80’s”… it stars Peter O’Toole, Steve Railsback (sp?) and Barbara Hershey. Railsback is an escaped convict who stumbles onto a movie set run by the egomaniacal O’Toole. O’Toole is filming a WWI Action/Adventure movie and sees in Railsback the crazy nature inherent in a “hero”. Railsback is disguised and hired as a stunt man. Hershey plays the love interest. In addition to being a great “Action/Adventure” movie, it also has an interesting (not-so) subtext about movie making and the nature of “reality”. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/33 "2006-03-07T02:18:04Z")
Sorry I’m late. I was one who picks Close Encounters over Star Wars. Close Encounters is a better-acted and written story and came out the same year. Star Wars changed the way Sci-Fi looked is the only completely defensible greatness of Star Wars. This leads me to 2001: A Space Odyssey is really the film that raised the ante: Before 2001 Sci-Fi effects were noticeable and it was accepted. 2001 Showed that the Effects could and should be seamless to the story. In Short order and filmed almost at the same time Star Wars, Close Encounters and the very slow Star Trek the Motion picture all had great special effects. So I just won’t accept at face value your > [@Evil Captor](#): > > “Star Wars” was so influential to the look and feel of SF that most SF films can very easily be divided into “before Star Wars” and “After Star Wars.” statement. You do realize that Stars Wars was a particularly great story I hope. Jim ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/34 "2006-03-07T02:21:38Z")
> [@Go You Big Red Fire Engine](#): > > Ok, so I walked over to IMDB, and the ratings said around PG-13, indicating no nudity. > However, apparently that is not the original cut. Wandering around the forums I came across: > _“Yes, Perseus’ mother was topless at the beginning, but it wasn’t sexual in nature. There was another non-sexual nude scene near the end, when Andromeda exits the bath before her sacrifice. I guess that’s how it stayed PG rated, just the human body presented uncovered in a natural way.”_ It was actually PG when released. PG-13 did not exist yet and nudity was not so unfit for viewing yet. :dubious: Sheena & Airplane are 2 more PG movies I can think of that had nudity. Sheena had quite a bit and as a 17 year I was quite pleasantly surprised by it. Jim ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/35 "2006-03-07T02:27:55Z")
Well, it seems like most of this thread is a debate about Deathstalker - which I’ve never seen and from the descriptions so far, am okay with that. I recommend **Primer** - from a couple of years ago. A small, indepedent film that uses the hard sci-fi conceit of discovering time-travel to explore a far-ranging set of questions about identify and reality. The movie purposely conflates different timestreams as part of taking you into the perspective of someone experiencing the present of the main characters. Requires lots of viewings, but pays off - satisfying and structurally consistent… ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/36 "2006-03-07T02:43:10Z")
I’ve never seen \*\*Deathstalker \*\* and I don’t know how I missed it. I thought I saw every cheesy S&S film made in the 70’s & 80’s. I might have to add this to my Netflix Queue. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/37 "2006-03-07T03:47:39Z")
> [@mbh](#): > > I actually saw _Deathstalker_ in a theater. I was a typical horny teenager at the time. My reaction to the movie was “@#%@#%! Even the sex scenes were boring!” I have generally listed it as one of the ten worst movies I have ever seen in my life. > > _Conan the Barbarian_ and _Clash of the Titans_ may not have been great films, but they were far better than _Deathstalker_. > > I have heard that _Deathstalker_ is much better on the small screen than on the large screen. Certainly renting it off the dollar rack or on two-for-one night would help. I’ll grant you, a small screen may help a lot with Deathstalker. The cinematography was not its strong point. Most of it was underlit and badly staged. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/38 "2006-03-07T03:54:32Z")
> [@mbh](#): > > _Conan the Barbarian_ and _Clash of the Titans_ may not have been great films, but they were far better than _Deathstalker_. Do NOT EVER say that about Clash Of The Titans! I loved it then. I love it now. Funny, frightening, fantastic and featuring the dynamation creations of Ray Harryhausen. Re Deathstalker I saw this way back when. Crap. Poor special effects (even by the standards of the direct to video market of the time). Poor script and dialogue. Bad acting. Judged by any standard other than bondage + nudity=good, this film sucks. Conan had good writing. It had James Earl Jones being slimy, evil, and persuasive. It had Max Von Sydow being a heartbroken dad. It had that guy whose name I can never remember but he does the voice of Aku. It had good music. Some the sets were gorgeous. Re Time After Time David Warner is a frail-looking man. For some reason, he can be really menacing. Perfectly cast as a gentleman who turns out to be Jack the Ripper. Fine performances all around. Instead of being an epic, the struggle between Wells and Jack is small and personal, and much more dramatic because of it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/39 "2006-03-07T05:11:03Z")
> [@What Exit?](#): > > Sorry I’m late. > I was one who picks Close Encounters over Star Wars. > Close Encounters is a better-acted and written story and came out the same year. > Star Wars changed the way Sci-Fi looked is the only completely defensible greatness of Star Wars. Close Encounters was better acted and written? They why wasn’t it MOrE POPULAR! Why wasn’t a huge film franchise like Star Wars? Do people still dress up in ET outfits for bi-mon-sci-fi-con? I don’t THINK so! Sorry, Star Wars was a much more engaging story that ET. Also, there were plenty others that identified movies other than Star Wars as Best SF/Fantasy of the 70s, and Close Encounters is hardly the most outrageous. I mean, “Dark Star”? Nowadays, “Dark Star” would have been a web video. > [@](#): > > This leads me to 2001: A Space Odyssey is really the film that raised the ante: > Before 2001 Sci-Fi effects were noticeable and it was accepted. > 2001 Showed that the Effects could and should be seamless to the story. > In Short order and filmed almost at the same time Star Wars, Close Encounters and the very slow Star Trek the Motion picture all had great special effects. Sure, 2001 was the first film to realize that you could now show what things looked like in outer space and have them look “real” because the NASA films had shown what outer space looked like. I’ll give you that. But the realistically slo-mo depictions of outer space were a loser, and it took George Lucas to figure out that what had really happened with NASA and computer-controlled models is that it was finally possible for SF to catch up to the visual style of the pulps of the 20s and 30s. > [@](#): > > So I just won’t accept at face value your statement. There’s a lot of that going around. > [@](#): > > You do realize that Stars Wars was a particularly great story I hope. Oh, yeah. Jim [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Dubious\_Weasle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b782af/32.png) [@Dubious\_Weasle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dubious_Weasle)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200/40 "2006-03-07T07:58:54Z")
As a lover of B-movies I’ll join\*\* Evil Captor\*\* in his esteem for Deathstalker. It was not a good movie. It was not a smart movie. It was not a clean movie. However, it was a very very b… no wait, not that either. Deathstalker is _the_ cheesy exploitative 80s barbaria/sword and sorcery flim. I would put forth that it is the archetype of the genre. Films that came before it, like _Conan_ achieved their “B” status as side-effects of production values or scripts [actually I wouldn’t really put Conan in the B movie genre in the context of its time but that’s for another discussion]. When they indulged in exploitation it was the icing on a much larger cake. When _Deathstalker_ strove for titillation, either through sexual imager, violence, or most effective with a mix of both it was the _main point_. Exploitation was the cake with Titillation icing on top, a violent center, and kinky sauce with boobie sprinkles. Deathstalker achieved what it set out to do far more then those few that preceeded it or the countless many that followed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-movies-ever-which-require-explaining-sometimes-a-lot-of-it/347200.md?page=3)