Its the movie that opened me up to foreign film. Just an incredible piece of work. I'm glad to see foreign film finally getting traction in the states, so many great projects are now getting funded.
If you haven't seen it yet, watch the Handmaiden. I was blown away.
DDL gave the best performance I've ever seen in TWBB
coupled with the sound and cinematography and its easily in my top 5 movies ever list. I watch it atleast once per year, one of the rare movies I can watch repeatedly in a full sitting.
You're really going to get pissed at me now but I would argue that critics increasingly suck at their jobs too. Maybe they are afraid to piss of the wrong people.
That's why Metacritic aggregates from a variety of sources across the geographic, age, and media landscape. It's not just Hollywood elite critics.
So of these movies, how many have you seen:
- Boyhood
- Moonlight
- Roma
- Manchester-By-the-Sea
- 12 Years a Slave
- Parasite
- Children of Paradise
- Gravity
- The Social Network
- I am Not Your Negro
- Portrait of a Lady on Fire
- Zero Dark 30
- A Seperation
- Carol
- Before Midnight
- Dunkirk
- Amour
- 45 Years
- Mr. Turner
- The Irishman
- Amazing Grace
- Inside Out
- We Were Here
- Ladybird
- Carlos
- Marriage Story
- La La Land
- Faces Places
- Call Me by Your Name
- Shoplifters
the movie itself isn’t great but he filming of it was pretty impressive. I think that gets lost on some people, or they just don’t care how something is made which is also fine.
I happen to think part of what makes a movie good isn’t just the story being told, it’s how it was told. We’ve got film makers today doing things never before done. For as bland a story as Avatar was seeing it in IMAX 3D was one of the coolest, if not he coolest movie theater experience I’ve ever had. Cameron basically invented his own version of 3D imaging and motion. It’s pretty incredible.
That's my point. Look at Avatar.... pretty to look at. Bland, formulaic story and characters. Take away the ooh and ahh cinematography and it's a crap film.
Want a great relatively recent movie? The Usual Suspects. Why? Because of the story and the characters. More of that please. Even a low budget movie can be awesome... take Swingers.
(And again, I've listed many mindless, action films that I love... even Super Hero films have their place...)
Taking me out of the equation, I suggest you try to remember the Oscar discussions on BBI that kept out of. The overwhelming opinion on the BBI Oscar threads from the last few years has been, "Meh, this isn't a great group of films." That's not me talking but tons of people on BBI. And we're talking about a group of what is supposed to be the cream of the crop films.
I agree with you as far as Avatar goes. I honestly can't even remember the plot of that movie. Always been a huge fan of James Cameron, but this one fell way flat for me.
As far as the Oscar race goes, I think you have to keep in mind that there's also a very crowded field, and I'm finding more and more lately that their selections often don't reflect mine.
PT Anderson often falls into that category I mentioned
where the art of his films is so impressive that it outweighs deficiencies in the story - like what I talked about earlier with Hard Eight, his first movie. It's so stylish that I didn't even care that the plot was rather thin.
There Will Be Blood absolutely doesn't fall into that category. It's damn close to perfect IMO. Incredible performances, stunningly shot, and it's a fascinating character study of a man whose iron will and determination to succeed drive him to become a monster.
You've got me there because I've only seen a ew of the movies that you listed:
Boyhood: Boring
Parasite: Started off strong. Was different and I give it that. But didn't match the hype.
Gravity: Was OK, wouldn't watch it again.
Dunkirk: Really interesting because of how they movie flowed and the use of music. I liked how everything tied in by the end. (My only criticism is it just didn't catch the scope of the battle and the immense clutter on the beaches).
The Irishman: I was going to watch this one, but people kept telling me how boring it was. I still will try it.
To be honest, I haven't heard of most of those films. I will have to try some of them soon.
Honestly, I would seek out more current movies, if the ones I do see (that were hyped) held my interest.
And before we "old man Eric" again, I've said repeatedly premium TV has really stepped up its game in terms of story-telling, acting, character development, etc. I find myself watching new TV more than new movies now.
another one that's so damn well made. Chastain's coming out party too (well, the Help was but this was her movie), she's been my favorite actress for a while now.
Barens, I agree and I have this conversation all the time with my friends. We scratch our heads a lot on the Oscar nominations and snubs. Just too much competition and the politics that goes into it.
I think many people fit in that category. Like I said earlier, we think differently now than even just a decade ago, especially with content consumption.
Things I loved in my 20's bore me now. Doesn't mean it isn't good, i've just grown into a different preference. TV shows give constant stimulation in 30-60 minute doses and have the leeway of adding in a ton of cliffhangers and sub plots. Movies don't have that luxury - they are much harder to make as its audience is much more impatient.
RE: Gravity is another one where the art of it makes it great
I'm glad I got to see it on a big screen, it just wouldn't have been the same at home.
100%. Gravity looks incredible, that's why you see it and it has to be in iMax (same with Avatar which stinks at home). I didn't see either for the stories.
I think many people fit in that category. Like I said earlier, we think differently now than even just a decade ago, especially with content consumption.
Things I loved in my 20's bore me now. Doesn't mean it isn't good, i've just grown into a different preference. TV shows give constant stimulation in 30-60 minute doses and have the leeway of adding in a ton of cliffhangers and sub plots. Movies don't have that luxury - they are much harder to make as its audience is much more impatient.
That I agree with you on. I think the patience level/attention span of audiences have changed. Hell, while more unusual, it was not uncommon to have a movie approach three hours (and sometimes more... with an intermission) in the "old days."
I found myself re-watching "Where Eagles Dare" recently and said to myself, they could have easily cut 30 minutes out of that movie.
Eric, sorry, I wasn't trying to get you. I phrased that poorly.
I used to feel the same way about movies. I think we grew up in a time where blockbusters often intersected with good movies, and the model has just completed fallen apart.
The big studio movies suck. No argument there. I turned to hunting down movies myself because I love the movies.
My view is at the top of the curve (good, smart, deep) -- there's a lot of great movies being made.
I think the area that is hurt the most is comedy. There are good serious comedies, but I don't see many great silly comedies anymore.
Eric, sorry, I wasn't trying to get you. I phrased that poorly.
I used to feel the same way about movies. I think we grew up in a time where blockbusters often intersected with good movies, and the model has just completed fallen apart.
The big studio movies suck. No argument there. I turned to hunting down movies myself because I love the movies.
My view is at the top of the curve (good, smart, deep) -- there's a lot of great movies being made.
I think the area that is hurt the most is comedy. There are good serious comedies, but I don't see many great silly comedies anymore.
I re-watched the six episodes of Police Squad recently. That's just silly, great stuff that they just don't make anymore. And how good was Airplane?
slapstick is gone (good riddance IMO but that's just me) and standup is back to the forefront. A 60 minute comedy special is often funnier than the best comedies, and the performers make a ton of money doing it, so not much interest in crossing over to film.
Comedy has so many different flavors too. I've always been more partial to stuff like 40 Year Old Virgin over anything Farley.
The technical side and the thematic side. Some people really aren't interested in movies that are visually amazing but have weak plots, or overly confusing/convoluted plots. In my opinion, that category includes some movies that people consider all time greats - 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example. I enjoy watching it because it's visually dazzling, but I think it drags quite a bit in places and I still don't really know what the hell the ending is all about. A great cast, great direction, and great cinematography can all elevate a mediocre script for me.
Some people, though, aren't that interested in the art of moviemaking and just want an engaging story.
I'm in the minority on this but I actually thought 2010 was a better film.. (Of course, I'm one of those weirdos who prefers Good Fellas to the Godfather).
OMG Eric. Good Fellas to the Godfather is defensible. 2001 to 2010 isn't. Are you kidding me?
RE: I don't think there's much demand for it in all honesty
slapstick is gone (good riddance IMO but that's just me) and standup is back to the forefront. A 60 minute comedy special is often funnier than the best comedies, and the performers make a ton of money doing it, so not much interest in crossing over to film.
Comedy has so many different flavors too. I've always been more partial to stuff like 40 Year Old Virgin over anything Farley.
Give me more (but please NOT remakes):
Caddyshack
Blues Brothers
Airplane
King Pin
Best in Show
Better Off Dead
Big Trouble in Little China
Office Space
The Jerk
Animal House
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Trading Places
Friday
Kentucky Fried Movie
I still like 2001, but the ending always bugged me (and I know its supposed to). Hal was badass and when you hear his voice again in 2010, it's freaky as shit. But I don't find myself sitting down and watching that movie anymore.
I have a different way of judging movies. I grade movies as "which ones do I not get tired of watching?"
would have given us their perspective on why the Dark Knight was a terrible movie...
They're fucking movies, relax.
And its just football...
Crappy argument, we are discussing something fun, spawned by Bill & Ted.
But the Dark Knight debate is interesting. I like Begins more and feel its the better movie start to finish, but the Dark Knight is still good due to its acting and action. I did not like TDKR, however, felt like Nolan mailed it in (a director I typically like).
For me there is a place for a low mental effort comedy. Sister Act, Naked Gun, Groundhog Day (my favorite movie of all time), Date Night, Coming to America, 9 to 5, Old School, Big Daddy, etc.
I do think the money is in stand up now. Low production costs, even when you pay the talent a ton, and a huge revenue driver for the streaming services.
I debate this all the time with friends. Some view movies this way, others (like me) separate them into another category. When someone says "what are you top 5 movies" my response is always "which ones I think are the best or ones I enjoy watching the most". Big difference for me as there are a bunch of fantastic movies I don't care to watch again.
Went off a cliff in the last decade. There are 2 that I can think of that were up there(Hall Pass and Bridesmaids), but otherwise, the 80’s, 90’s and 2000/10 were far superior.
I’d even venture to say that the 2000’s was the best decade for comedy.
Zombieland
Spy - Jason Statham kills it
Tag - i was surprised I liked it so much
Game Night
Grand Budapest
8th Grade
The Big Sick
Chef
Lady Bird
Cabin in the Woods (not all comedy, but enough)
Central Intelligence
Dope
Scott Pilgrim
Pretty much all of them are more drama influenced, a few more slapstick.
I thought Pop Star: Never Stop Never Stopping was hilarious, and I laughed a lot during Book Smart, Sausage Party, [Cock] Blockers, Jojo Rabbit, and Good Boys.
I also really enjoyed Blindspotting (mixes very serious with funny); Always Be My Maybe, The Lego Movie, The Big Sick, What We Do in the Shadows
Zombieland
Spy - Jason Statham kills it
Tag - i was surprised I liked it so much
Game Night
Grand Budapest
8th Grade
The Big Sick
Chef
Lady Bird
Cabin in the Woods (not all comedy, but enough)
Central Intelligence
Dope
Scott Pilgrim
Pretty much all of them are more drama influenced, a few more slapstick.
Zombieland and Cabin in the Woods are great!! Toeing the line on comedies(More so Cabin in the Woods).
But in the 2000’s,
Old School
Anchorman
Wedding Crashers
Step Brothers
40 year Old Virgin
Borat
Knocked Up
Superbad
Dodgeball
The Hangover
These are just off the top of my head, but really just no comparison between decades.
I actually favor a lot of the 2010's stuff but admit I fall in the Dramedy category than the more traditional ones. But the 2000's was a powerhouse and I was in my Teens/Early 20's then so i definitively had a ton of fun watching them.
Interestingly Apatow is a polarizing guy but he's at the forefront of a pretty big, and successful shift in the genre. I like just about all his movies to varying degrees.
Second one sucked. This doesn't look promising. That is one of the worst trailers I've ever seen. If that's what they put together to sell the movie, the actual film can't be very good,.
The second one sucked by and large, but even it had some inspired moments and ideas. The competition with Death was, dare I say, excellent.
The most respected poll there is. 100 greatest films of all time - ( New Window )
what a terrible poll that reeks of self indulgence. Only six of the top 20 movies in film history were shot in color? Give me a break.
It's also incredibly flawed
Quote:
As a qualification of what ‘greatest’ means, our invitation letter stated, “We leave that open to your interpretation. You might choose the ten films you feel are most important to film history, or the ten that represent the aesthetic pinnacles of achievement, or indeed the ten films that have had the biggest impact on your own view of cinema.”
In all cases, it is going to skew to old films. "Most important to film history" will revert back to the early days when films were just taking off and getting big because of their legacies. "Ten films that had the biggest impact on your own view of cinema" will obviously skew to old movies for two reasons: 1)people are most influenced earlier in their lives/careers. A 60 year-old cinephile isn't going to point to a movie from 2012 as one of the 10 most influential on his or her view of cinema; and 2) people are going to choose older, more class, or more obscure movies as a way to signify that they are influenced by high art and that they are "worldly."
There are more movies being made than ever before and in more countries. There is more access to making movies than ever before. There is more of a range of filmmakers, artists, and actors than ever before bringing a wider range of ideas. Not to mention that technological capabilities are greater than ever before.
The idea that good movies haven't been made post 1975, and especially post 2000 just reeks of absurdity.
The major studios respond to market demand like any other mass-consumption business. If their research says there's a market for another Bill & Ted movie, they run the numbers, figure out what they can spend on one to have a reasonable expectation of making money, and they make one. It's a product made for a market, at a price.
There are filmmakers who make films because they're creative and have something to say, but that's not what drives the sequels, franchises, etc. It's strictly business. The majors want to commoditize films as much as possible, in the sense that they want a product that can be made at a predictable price and deliver a predictable return -- on average, anyway.
The biggest obstacle to more risk-taking in movies is the high cost of marketing. You can make a movie cheaply nowadays, but it still costs something like $20 million to market a movie. Rule of thumb is you need to bring in 3x your costs. If you need to spend $20 million for marketing, you need $60 million in revenue to offset that, give or take. Also 3x the production budget. So your risk-taking movie, that cost maybe $5 million (cheap), needs to bring in $75 million to turn a profit. And that's a lot of revenue for a risk-taking movie.
That's one reason more and more eccentric, individual films are going right to streaming. Lower marketing costs and if the movie drives subscriptions, it can be a loss leader for the streaming service and still pay for itself in other ways.
I think this nails it, IMO.
On top of that, it sure seems like the American populace is getting dumber over time. Why would anyone expect the movie industry not to follow the same track? They're selling to a dumber audience; why waste the time and money even trying to make the next Citizen Kane when it will fly over the heads of half the country anyway?
Gatorade, I don't think the audience is dumber, there's just enough dumb people to profit off of. There a growing number of people who are now watching foreign films (Americans hate subtitles) along with more viewers that don't want a blockbuster. That's why the small production studios are gaining more notoriety. They have had excellent scripts for a while but are now funded, and with it even some mainstream actors to help turn a profit.
Its a really tough business where 1 flop can destroy you (unlike music or writing). I respect the hell out of the people who put it all on the line to share their creative ideas and try to make a movie.
I said garbage list, nothing more. Its pretentious on many levels, just like the people writing them have a penchant to be - (film makers, writers, historians).
A true list, IMO, would separate eras just like we do with sports. What I think is "groundbreaking" now is going to be different than what was considered groundbreaking 60 years ago.
For example there's recent Westerns made today that are better, IMO, than Rio Bravo, but the genre pretty much is what it is at this point (one of my favorites I might add) and there's really not a whole lot of room to grow it.
So yeah I think that list sucks, completely fine to think otherwise.
I said garbage list, nothing more. Its pretentious on many levels, just like the people writing them have a penchant to be - (film makers, writers, historians).
A true list, IMO, would separate eras just like we do with sports. What I think is "groundbreaking" now is going to be different than what was considered groundbreaking 60 years ago.
For example there's recent Westerns made today that are better, IMO, than Rio Bravo, but the genre pretty much is what it is at this point (one of my favorites I might add) and there's really not a whole lot of room to grow it.
So yeah I think that list sucks, completely fine to think otherwise.
Film is separated into main eras, silent and sound. There are sub-eras as well French New Wave, American indies, etc. But Babe Ruth is still the greatest Baseball player and great films are just that, great films. Maybe try watching a few of them so we can have a level discussion.
It's a flawed list that asked a large swath of people to name their 10 "greatest" films largely based on their impact on the industry and on their influence on the voter.
That is going to produce lists that skew to old films for the many reasons I stated, as well as films that can signal out how sophisticated and cultured they are.
Hardly anyone in the 40-70s who are lifelong cinephiles is going to put down a film from the last 1, 5, 10, or even 20 years as having the greatest impact on them. That's just not how people act.
I've seen a number of films on that list. Of course, many I haven't seen. And I'm not discounting their quality-- just dismissing the idea that they are all so much better than anything that has been made since the end of the Cold War.
It's like reading a list of the 100 greatest athletes of all-time and seeing all of them except for a small handful from before 1975. It would be dismissed out of hand.
A 'great' film can be made tomorrow but unlike an athlete, it can't keep making itself every year to prove longevity. It has to stand the test of time as is, i.e., impact future generations. Of course, that begs the question, if nobody makes an effort to see them are they still great?
Yes, if those that do go to see them appreciate them.
Again, I compare it to painting. It skews to older art because they stood the test of time. That's just the way it is. So any list will skew older but that does not make it a 'garbage' list.
Insofar as 100 greatest athletes of all time argument, that will always skew younger because unlike art, films,novels, etc. people don't see/appreciate the Jim Thorpe's of the world easily if at all, where anyone can see a Van Gogh or a La Règle du Jeu or a read Ulysses tomorrow. Big difference.
But, for me, that can't be the only thing of value. I see a movie for the characters and story. For example, I appreciate the unique process that went in to filming Boyhood for all parties involved. But, for the life of me, I don't get all the praise for the final product. I found the film slow and boring and the acting, including the Oscar performance from Arquette, to be nothing special.
Another example being mentioned here is Avatar. I never saw that in the theater. Watching on the TV, I was not impressed at all. The movie sucked. The acting sucked. The story sucked and was heavily borrowed. In response, I always get comments about how it looked and I needed to see it on the big screen. Sorry, but I'm not seeing a movie just because it was pretty. There has to be something more there.
In contrast, I take the original Star Wars trilogy, the new trilogy, and even the two stand alone movies. The FX don't look quite as impressive on the TV as they do on the big screen. But, I still enjoy the movies because of the characters and story. The prequel trilogy is so heavily reliant on CGI that the films suck to watch on TV and the films sucked in general. Also, while the FX are not as good on TV, they still stand out as impressive. TV or big screen, the opening scene of the original Star Wars (A New Hope now) is amazing to see. It hooks you. That is just not true of anything in Avatar for me.
RE: Gravity is another one where the art of it makes it great
I'm glad I got to see it on a big screen, it just wouldn't have been the same at home.
Another good example. I saw this at home, which probably impacted my opinion. I walked away thinking it was meh. Had I seen it on the big screen, maybe the cinematography wins me over. But, again, I generally want more than it looks pretty, or looks cool to enjoy sitting for a movie, especially at today's prices.
But not seeing it on the big screen, the way it was intended to be seen, is doing the movie a massive disservice. Flat out. And it didn't just "look pretty" you felt like you were inside of it, something I've never experienced before in a movie. I hope its re-released ahead of the next one so I can see it again because I refuse to watch it at home.
Again, if you are strictly story only than this doesn't apply to you but the difference here isn't subtle, Avatar in iMax was an event, at home its just something you can put on for background noise.
I'd also say that "looks pretty" or "looks cool" is a massive dismisal
of what was accomplished. Sure Transformers or Godzilla might fit into that category but what went into making Avatar, Gravity, Inception, Interstellar, Fury Road, etc are only truly appreciated on that big screen.
Tenet is up next and I refuse to watch it in anything other than iMax, preferably a 70mm screen.
A 'great' film can be made tomorrow but unlike an athlete, it can't keep making itself every year to prove longevity. It has to stand the test of time as is, i.e., impact future generations. Of course, that begs the question, if nobody makes an effort to see them are they still great?
Yes, if those that do go to see them appreciate them.
Again, I compare it to painting. It skews to older art because they stood the test of time. That's just the way it is. So any list will skew older but that does not make it a 'garbage' list.
Insofar as 100 greatest athletes of all time argument, that will always skew younger because unlike art, films,novels, etc. people don't see/appreciate the Jim Thorpe's of the world easily if at all, where anyone can see a Van Gogh or a La Règle du Jeu or a read Ulysses tomorrow. Big difference.
You are showing here why it's a flawed list and irrelevant for the sake of this discussion.
In the context of a discussion as to whether good movies are made anymore, you posted a link to what you called the "definitive" list, which itself is a ranking that is going to not only preclude nearly anything in the last several decades, but will skew heavily to the much, MUCH earlier decades.
A better description of what you posted would be "The 100 Most Likely Films to be in a Top 10 Most Influential List"
On top of that, as time goes on, and voters get older, their answers don't necessarily change. If a 50 year old voter has his Top 10 list of movies that had the greatest impact on film or on him. In 20 years, it's quite likely that the same 10 movies are on his list just because he is likely not going to be any more influenced in his career or perspective on film now as he will be in 20 years.
So what does that add to a conversation about whether good movies are made anymore?
That's why it's a flawed and irrelevant list. It doesn't seek to really consider modern movies.
of what was accomplished. Sure Transformers or Godzilla might fit into that category but what went into making Avatar, Gravity, Inception, Interstellar, Fury Road, etc are only truly appreciated on that big screen.
Tenet is up next and I refuse to watch it in anything other than iMax, preferably a 70mm screen.
Interstellar, for example, I'm sure was more impactful visually on the big screen. However, even at home, it was an enjoyable movie because of the story and I think what the filmmaker was trying to do comes across in a lesser degree.
Paul, just trying to give perspective with the list
Its the movie that opened me up to foreign film. Just an incredible piece of work. I'm glad to see foreign film finally getting traction in the states, so many great projects are now getting funded.
If you haven't seen it yet, watch the Handmaiden. I was blown away.
That's why Metacritic aggregates from a variety of sources across the geographic, age, and media landscape. It's not just Hollywood elite critics.
So of these movies, how many have you seen:
- Boyhood
- Moonlight
- Roma
- Manchester-By-the-Sea
- 12 Years a Slave
- Parasite
- Children of Paradise
- Gravity
- The Social Network
- I am Not Your Negro
- Portrait of a Lady on Fire
- Zero Dark 30
- A Seperation
- Carol
- Before Midnight
- Dunkirk
- Amour
- 45 Years
- Mr. Turner
- The Irishman
- Amazing Grace
- Inside Out
- We Were Here
- Ladybird
- Carlos
- Marriage Story
- La La Land
- Faces Places
- Call Me by Your Name
- Shoplifters
Quote:
the movie itself isn’t great but he filming of it was pretty impressive. I think that gets lost on some people, or they just don’t care how something is made which is also fine.
I happen to think part of what makes a movie good isn’t just the story being told, it’s how it was told. We’ve got film makers today doing things never before done. For as bland a story as Avatar was seeing it in IMAX 3D was one of the coolest, if not he coolest movie theater experience I’ve ever had. Cameron basically invented his own version of 3D imaging and motion. It’s pretty incredible.
That's my point. Look at Avatar.... pretty to look at. Bland, formulaic story and characters. Take away the ooh and ahh cinematography and it's a crap film.
Want a great relatively recent movie? The Usual Suspects. Why? Because of the story and the characters. More of that please. Even a low budget movie can be awesome... take Swingers.
(And again, I've listed many mindless, action films that I love... even Super Hero films have their place...)
Taking me out of the equation, I suggest you try to remember the Oscar discussions on BBI that kept out of. The overwhelming opinion on the BBI Oscar threads from the last few years has been, "Meh, this isn't a great group of films." That's not me talking but tons of people on BBI. And we're talking about a group of what is supposed to be the cream of the crop films.
I agree with you as far as Avatar goes. I honestly can't even remember the plot of that movie. Always been a huge fan of James Cameron, but this one fell way flat for me.
As far as the Oscar race goes, I think you have to keep in mind that there's also a very crowded field, and I'm finding more and more lately that their selections often don't reflect mine.
There Will Be Blood absolutely doesn't fall into that category. It's damn close to perfect IMO. Incredible performances, stunningly shot, and it's a fascinating character study of a man whose iron will and determination to succeed drive him to become a monster.
Boyhood: Boring
Parasite: Started off strong. Was different and I give it that. But didn't match the hype.
Gravity: Was OK, wouldn't watch it again.
Dunkirk: Really interesting because of how they movie flowed and the use of music. I liked how everything tied in by the end. (My only criticism is it just didn't catch the scope of the battle and the immense clutter on the beaches).
The Irishman: I was going to watch this one, but people kept telling me how boring it was. I still will try it.
To be honest, I haven't heard of most of those films. I will have to try some of them soon.
Honestly, I would seek out more current movies, if the ones I do see (that were hyped) held my interest.
And before we "old man Eric" again, I've said repeatedly premium TV has really stepped up its game in terms of story-telling, acting, character development, etc. I find myself watching new TV more than new movies now.
Barens, I agree and I have this conversation all the time with my friends. We scratch our heads a lot on the Oscar nominations and snubs. Just too much competition and the politics that goes into it.
Things I loved in my 20's bore me now. Doesn't mean it isn't good, i've just grown into a different preference. TV shows give constant stimulation in 30-60 minute doses and have the leeway of adding in a ton of cliffhangers and sub plots. Movies don't have that luxury - they are much harder to make as its audience is much more impatient.
100%. Gravity looks incredible, that's why you see it and it has to be in iMax (same with Avatar which stinks at home). I didn't see either for the stories.
Things I loved in my 20's bore me now. Doesn't mean it isn't good, i've just grown into a different preference. TV shows give constant stimulation in 30-60 minute doses and have the leeway of adding in a ton of cliffhangers and sub plots. Movies don't have that luxury - they are much harder to make as its audience is much more impatient.
That I agree with you on. I think the patience level/attention span of audiences have changed. Hell, while more unusual, it was not uncommon to have a movie approach three hours (and sometimes more... with an intermission) in the "old days."
I found myself re-watching "Where Eagles Dare" recently and said to myself, they could have easily cut 30 minutes out of that movie.
I used to feel the same way about movies. I think we grew up in a time where blockbusters often intersected with good movies, and the model has just completed fallen apart.
The big studio movies suck. No argument there. I turned to hunting down movies myself because I love the movies.
My view is at the top of the curve (good, smart, deep) -- there's a lot of great movies being made.
I think the area that is hurt the most is comedy. There are good serious comedies, but I don't see many great silly comedies anymore.
I used to feel the same way about movies. I think we grew up in a time where blockbusters often intersected with good movies, and the model has just completed fallen apart.
The big studio movies suck. No argument there. I turned to hunting down movies myself because I love the movies.
My view is at the top of the curve (good, smart, deep) -- there's a lot of great movies being made.
I think the area that is hurt the most is comedy. There are good serious comedies, but I don't see many great silly comedies anymore.
I re-watched the six episodes of Police Squad recently. That's just silly, great stuff that they just don't make anymore. And how good was Airplane?
Leslie Nielsen, Eddie Murphy, Bill Murray, Whoopi Goldberg, Lily Tomlin.
Those era transitioned into the Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Tina Fey, Will Ferrell.
I think there is major gap in that genre right now.
Comedy has so many different flavors too. I've always been more partial to stuff like 40 Year Old Virgin over anything Farley.
Quote:
The technical side and the thematic side. Some people really aren't interested in movies that are visually amazing but have weak plots, or overly confusing/convoluted plots. In my opinion, that category includes some movies that people consider all time greats - 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example. I enjoy watching it because it's visually dazzling, but I think it drags quite a bit in places and I still don't really know what the hell the ending is all about. A great cast, great direction, and great cinematography can all elevate a mediocre script for me.
Some people, though, aren't that interested in the art of moviemaking and just want an engaging story.
I'm in the minority on this but I actually thought 2010 was a better film.. (Of course, I'm one of those weirdos who prefers Good Fellas to the Godfather).
OMG Eric. Good Fellas to the Godfather is defensible. 2001 to 2010 isn't. Are you kidding me?
Comedy has so many different flavors too. I've always been more partial to stuff like 40 Year Old Virgin over anything Farley.
Give me more (but please NOT remakes):
Caddyshack
Blues Brothers
Airplane
King Pin
Best in Show
Better Off Dead
Big Trouble in Little China
Office Space
The Jerk
Animal House
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Trading Places
Friday
Kentucky Fried Movie
They're fucking movies, relax.
I have a different way of judging movies. I grade movies as "which ones do I not get tired of watching?"
They're fucking movies, relax.
And its just football...
Crappy argument, we are discussing something fun, spawned by Bill & Ted.
But the Dark Knight debate is interesting. I like Begins more and feel its the better movie start to finish, but the Dark Knight is still good due to its acting and action. I did not like TDKR, however, felt like Nolan mailed it in (a director I typically like).
I do think the money is in stand up now. Low production costs, even when you pay the talent a ton, and a huge revenue driver for the streaming services.
I’d even venture to say that the 2000’s was the best decade for comedy.
Zombieland
Spy - Jason Statham kills it
Tag - i was surprised I liked it so much
Game Night
Grand Budapest
8th Grade
The Big Sick
Chef
Lady Bird
Cabin in the Woods (not all comedy, but enough)
Central Intelligence
Dope
Scott Pilgrim
Pretty much all of them are more drama influenced, a few more slapstick.
I also really enjoyed Blindspotting (mixes very serious with funny); Always Be My Maybe, The Lego Movie, The Big Sick, What We Do in the Shadows
Zombieland
Spy - Jason Statham kills it
Tag - i was surprised I liked it so much
Game Night
Grand Budapest
8th Grade
The Big Sick
Chef
Lady Bird
Cabin in the Woods (not all comedy, but enough)
Central Intelligence
Dope
Scott Pilgrim
Pretty much all of them are more drama influenced, a few more slapstick.
Zombieland and Cabin in the Woods are great!! Toeing the line on comedies(More so Cabin in the Woods).
But in the 2000’s,
Old School
Anchorman
Wedding Crashers
Step Brothers
40 year Old Virgin
Borat
Knocked Up
Superbad
Dodgeball
The Hangover
These are just off the top of my head, but really just no comparison between decades.
100 greatest films of all time - ( New Window )
Interestingly Apatow is a polarizing guy but he's at the forefront of a pretty big, and successful shift in the genre. I like just about all his movies to varying degrees.
The second one sucked by and large, but even it had some inspired moments and ideas. The competition with Death was, dare I say, excellent.
what a terrible poll that reeks of self indulgence. Only six of the top 20 movies in film history were shot in color? Give me a break.
It's also incredibly flawed
In all cases, it is going to skew to old films. "Most important to film history" will revert back to the early days when films were just taking off and getting big because of their legacies. "Ten films that had the biggest impact on your own view of cinema" will obviously skew to old movies for two reasons: 1)people are most influenced earlier in their lives/careers. A 60 year-old cinephile isn't going to point to a movie from 2012 as one of the 10 most influential on his or her view of cinema; and 2) people are going to choose older, more class, or more obscure movies as a way to signify that they are influenced by high art and that they are "worldly."
There are more movies being made than ever before and in more countries. There is more access to making movies than ever before. There is more of a range of filmmakers, artists, and actors than ever before bringing a wider range of ideas. Not to mention that technological capabilities are greater than ever before.
The idea that good movies haven't been made post 1975, and especially post 2000 just reeks of absurdity.
There are filmmakers who make films because they're creative and have something to say, but that's not what drives the sequels, franchises, etc. It's strictly business. The majors want to commoditize films as much as possible, in the sense that they want a product that can be made at a predictable price and deliver a predictable return -- on average, anyway.
The biggest obstacle to more risk-taking in movies is the high cost of marketing. You can make a movie cheaply nowadays, but it still costs something like $20 million to market a movie. Rule of thumb is you need to bring in 3x your costs. If you need to spend $20 million for marketing, you need $60 million in revenue to offset that, give or take. Also 3x the production budget. So your risk-taking movie, that cost maybe $5 million (cheap), needs to bring in $75 million to turn a profit. And that's a lot of revenue for a risk-taking movie.
That's one reason more and more eccentric, individual films are going right to streaming. Lower marketing costs and if the movie drives subscriptions, it can be a loss leader for the streaming service and still pay for itself in other ways.
I think this nails it, IMO.
On top of that, it sure seems like the American populace is getting dumber over time. Why would anyone expect the movie industry not to follow the same track? They're selling to a dumber audience; why waste the time and money even trying to make the next Citizen Kane when it will fly over the heads of half the country anyway?
Gatorade, I don't think the audience is dumber, there's just enough dumb people to profit off of. There a growing number of people who are now watching foreign films (Americans hate subtitles) along with more viewers that don't want a blockbuster. That's why the small production studios are gaining more notoriety. They have had excellent scripts for a while but are now funded, and with it even some mainstream actors to help turn a profit.
Its a really tough business where 1 flop can destroy you (unlike music or writing). I respect the hell out of the people who put it all on the line to share their creative ideas and try to make a movie.
Quote:
The most respected poll there is. 100 greatest films of all time - ( New Window )
what a terrible poll that reeks of self indulgence. Only six of the top 20 movies in film history were shot in color? Give me a break.
It's also incredibly flawed...
OMG. Watch a few of those films (most of which you probably never heard of) and get back to me so you know what you're talking about.
LOL.
Put together by film critics, filmmakers, historians from around the world, but I should listen to you.
What a world.
I have 4 streaming services (HBO Max, Netflix, Prime, Hulu) and am awash in great movies.
As a fan of the movies, I feel almost bad I get to watch so many great movies for so little money. And with Covid, it's been even more meaningful.
A true list, IMO, would separate eras just like we do with sports. What I think is "groundbreaking" now is going to be different than what was considered groundbreaking 60 years ago.
For example there's recent Westerns made today that are better, IMO, than Rio Bravo, but the genre pretty much is what it is at this point (one of my favorites I might add) and there's really not a whole lot of room to grow it.
So yeah I think that list sucks, completely fine to think otherwise.
A true list, IMO, would separate eras just like we do with sports. What I think is "groundbreaking" now is going to be different than what was considered groundbreaking 60 years ago.
For example there's recent Westerns made today that are better, IMO, than Rio Bravo, but the genre pretty much is what it is at this point (one of my favorites I might add) and there's really not a whole lot of room to grow it.
So yeah I think that list sucks, completely fine to think otherwise.
Film is separated into main eras, silent and sound. There are sub-eras as well French New Wave, American indies, etc. But Babe Ruth is still the greatest Baseball player and great films are just that, great films. Maybe try watching a few of them so we can have a level discussion.
That is going to produce lists that skew to old films for the many reasons I stated, as well as films that can signal out how sophisticated and cultured they are.
Hardly anyone in the 40-70s who are lifelong cinephiles is going to put down a film from the last 1, 5, 10, or even 20 years as having the greatest impact on them. That's just not how people act.
I've seen a number of films on that list. Of course, many I haven't seen. And I'm not discounting their quality-- just dismissing the idea that they are all so much better than anything that has been made since the end of the Cold War.
It's like reading a list of the 100 greatest athletes of all-time and seeing all of them except for a small handful from before 1975. It would be dismissed out of hand.
Yes, if those that do go to see them appreciate them.
Again, I compare it to painting. It skews to older art because they stood the test of time. That's just the way it is. So any list will skew older but that does not make it a 'garbage' list.
Insofar as 100 greatest athletes of all time argument, that will always skew younger because unlike art, films,novels, etc. people don't see/appreciate the Jim Thorpe's of the world easily if at all, where anyone can see a Van Gogh or a La Règle du Jeu or a read Ulysses tomorrow. Big difference.
Another example being mentioned here is Avatar. I never saw that in the theater. Watching on the TV, I was not impressed at all. The movie sucked. The acting sucked. The story sucked and was heavily borrowed. In response, I always get comments about how it looked and I needed to see it on the big screen. Sorry, but I'm not seeing a movie just because it was pretty. There has to be something more there.
In contrast, I take the original Star Wars trilogy, the new trilogy, and even the two stand alone movies. The FX don't look quite as impressive on the TV as they do on the big screen. But, I still enjoy the movies because of the characters and story. The prequel trilogy is so heavily reliant on CGI that the films suck to watch on TV and the films sucked in general. Also, while the FX are not as good on TV, they still stand out as impressive. TV or big screen, the opening scene of the original Star Wars (A New Hope now) is amazing to see. It hooks you. That is just not true of anything in Avatar for me.
But not seeing it on the big screen, the way it was intended to be seen, is doing the movie a massive disservice. Flat out. And it didn't just "look pretty" you felt like you were inside of it, something I've never experienced before in a movie. I hope its re-released ahead of the next one so I can see it again because I refuse to watch it at home.
Again, if you are strictly story only than this doesn't apply to you but the difference here isn't subtle, Avatar in iMax was an event, at home its just something you can put on for background noise.
Tenet is up next and I refuse to watch it in anything other than iMax, preferably a 70mm screen.
Yes, if those that do go to see them appreciate them.
Again, I compare it to painting. It skews to older art because they stood the test of time. That's just the way it is. So any list will skew older but that does not make it a 'garbage' list.
Insofar as 100 greatest athletes of all time argument, that will always skew younger because unlike art, films,novels, etc. people don't see/appreciate the Jim Thorpe's of the world easily if at all, where anyone can see a Van Gogh or a La Règle du Jeu or a read Ulysses tomorrow. Big difference.
You are showing here why it's a flawed list and irrelevant for the sake of this discussion.
In the context of a discussion as to whether good movies are made anymore, you posted a link to what you called the "definitive" list, which itself is a ranking that is going to not only preclude nearly anything in the last several decades, but will skew heavily to the much, MUCH earlier decades.
A better description of what you posted would be "The 100 Most Likely Films to be in a Top 10 Most Influential List"
On top of that, as time goes on, and voters get older, their answers don't necessarily change. If a 50 year old voter has his Top 10 list of movies that had the greatest impact on film or on him. In 20 years, it's quite likely that the same 10 movies are on his list just because he is likely not going to be any more influenced in his career or perspective on film now as he will be in 20 years.
So what does that add to a conversation about whether good movies are made anymore?
That's why it's a flawed and irrelevant list. It doesn't seek to really consider modern movies.
Tenet is up next and I refuse to watch it in anything other than iMax, preferably a 70mm screen.
Didn't harm any children or animals posting it, did it?
Crappy argument, we are discussing something fun, spawned by Bill & Ted.
And the same sentiment applies to football as well.