28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[D_Davis]

That's right. Widescreen isn't always better or right. What is always better and right is when a film is presented in its original aspect ratio.

[Grouchy]

I stand corrected. Of course I agree with Davis, the important thing is to preserve the aspect ratio the DP and director worked with. I always wrongly assumed it was widescreen in the case of Touch of Evil.

I also watched Brazil for the first time on pan and scan TV. I remember when a TV channel called Retro started showing some letterboxed films, my mother was furious that they didn't use up the whole screen.

Perhaps I should have used a more obvious example, a widescreen epic like Lawrence of Arabia.

[baby doll]

A lot of '50s films were shot in a full frame ratio but projected wide (http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2010/12/19/ratio-cination/), particularly when they were shown in Europe. It's entirely likely that Welles shot Touch of Evil knowing it would be projected in both formats.

[Irish]

That's right. Widescreen isn't always better or right. What is always better and right is when a film is presented in its original aspect ratio.

If you're concerned with films being presented in their original form, does this mean you refuse to watch any DVD "special edition" or director's cut, which might re-edit or change the film?

Eg: "Brazil," "Blade Runner," "ET: The Extra Terrestrial," "Star Wars", etc?

[baby doll]

If you're concerned with films being presented in their original form, does this mean you refuse to watch any DVD "special edition" or director's cut, which might re-edit or change the film?

Eg: "Brazil," "Blade Runner," "ET: The Extra Terrestrial," "Star Wars", etc?There's clearly a difference between a filmmaker producing multiple versions of their own films, and someone else cropping a chunk of the image (or revealing a segment of the image that was intended to be masked).

Incidentally, the later films of Stanley Kubrick were shot full frame with the understanding they would be shown that way on television but were projected wide for their theatrical release. My feeling here is that we don't need all that much empty space over Tom Cruise's head in Eyes Wide Shut.

[amberlita]

I dunno. Watching the trio stare down at the end of TGTBaTU in pan and scan on AMC is really annoying. The shot of all three of them in the same frame is never seen and no it doesn't ruin the movie but I think it's important to get it right.

[Dukefrukem]

Best reviewed film ever?

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/paddington_2/

[Morris Schæffer]

Best reviewed film ever?

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/paddington_2/

You're getting slow Dukey. Get your shit together. :D


https://i.imgur.com/7XEGvYp.png

[MadMan]

The Protector (1985) had Jackie Chan and Danny Aiello as cop partners in Hong Kong. Badass.

[Ezee E]

I was watching the beginning of Gangs of New York yesterday, and the battle at the beginning with the techno-ish music and some of the random closeups is EMBARASSING. But any dialog scene with DDL makes up for it.

[dreamdead]

After probably our slowest year in filmwatching in 2017, Sarah and I might have stumbled upon a fun experiment: we're working through the alphabet with one Criterion that's new to us both each week. First was Sirk's All that Heaven Allows (richly stylized--potentially an interesting Christ allegory as Wyman denies the beatific Hudson in favor of her old life until the end), and last night was Melville's Bob le flambeur (aka, what every heist film owes its existence to). Next week will be Certain Women.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The Chaser - 2008

No idea how I feel about this. Its overall competencies sometimes dampen what comes across as macho nonsense, sometimes aplify. A suspense scene involving a sniveling woman, a chisel, and a hammer feels simultaneously tasteless and, ugh, "well staged." A late-film contrivance of timing plays far too artificial and laborious. It's an uncommonly well-made variant on the sort of posturing you see in DTV action flicks where "complex" violent men get their moral wings by avenging the honor of young women that the films value only as objects to endanger and hurt.

[MadMan]

The King's Speech is a nice film and all, but even 7 years later the fact that it won Best Picture...well...yikes.

[TGM]

The King's Speech is a nice film and all, but even 7 years later the fact that it won Best Picture...well...yikes.

Especially when you look at what it was up against. Good god, what a stacked year, and a stacked ballet at that. And yet that movie fucking won. Just, wow...

[Mysterious Dude]

So I was thinking about re-watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which I haven't seen since they were in theaters. Any opinions about the extended editions? Are they worth my valuable time?

[Milky Joe]

I don't think the theatrical cuts are available anymore? But they are much better, especially RoTK.

[baby doll]

The King's Speech is a nice film and all, but even 7 years later the fact that it won Best Picture...well...yikes.It sucked at the time, too.

[Irish]

So I was thinking about re-watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which I haven't seen since they were in theaters. Any opinions about the extended editions? Are they worth my valuable time?

Brother, have you heard the Glories and Wonders of a little TV show called "The Chronicles of Shannara"?

[MadMan]

It sucked at the time, too.Tell me how you really feel, heh.

The ROTK EE is awesome. I have not seen the TT one yet, but I read it adds a lot to the film. The FOTR EE has stuff that deserved to be cut.

[Lazlo]

LOTR EEs are excellent. I’ve seen each about a dozen times.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yeah, the EE's are by and large a good time. I mean, it's not like you're rewatching the whole series for its brevity and efficiency, so you might as well enjoy the full features.

[Watashi]

I watch the EE's once a year (usually around Christmas time). FOTR is the best. Almost everything they added is wonderful. Two Towers has the most unnecessary filler. ROTK has good stuff like the Mouth of Sauron, it's just... very long.

[Skitch]

LOTR EEs are excellent. I’ve seen each about a dozen times.

Yeah I'll never watch the theatricals again.

[D_Davis]

I like the EE of the first two.

[Lazlo]

It's been so long since I've seen the TEs that I have a hard time remembering what's actually extended in the EEs.

[Ezee E]

I don't think I've watched any of them beginning-end since the theater.

[MadMan]

Especially when you look at what it was up against. Good god, what a stacked year, and a stacked ballet at that. And yet that movie fucking won. Just, wow...

I looked, and I noticed I have now seen 8 out of the 10 nominees. Also wow, that was a quality bunch, yet Kings won. Double yikes.

[Spinal]

1. Inception ****
2. Black Swan ***
3. True Grit ***
4. Winter's Bone ***
5. The Social Network **1/2
6. Toy Story 3 **1/2
7. The King's Speech **

Didn't see:
127 Hours
The Fighter
The Kids Are All Right

A truly mystifying winner that year.

[DavidSeven]

Is there a more forgettable three-year run of Best Pictures winners than 2010-2012 (The King's Speech, The Artist, Argo)?

[Grouchy]

I would say:

1. The Social Network
2. Toy Story 3
3. Black Swan

4. True Grit
5. Winter's Bone
6. The Fighter
7. 127 Hours

8. Inception
9. The King's Speech

Haven't seen Kids, not planning on changing that anytime soon.

[baby doll]

1. Inception ****
2. Black Swan ***
3. True Grit ***
4. Winter's Bone ***
5. The Social Network **1/2
6. Toy Story 3 **1/2
7. The King's Speech **

Didn't see:
127 Hours
The Fighter
The Kids Are All Right

A truly mystifying winner that year. The Social Network warm
Winter's Bone mild
Inception mild
127 Hours mild
Black Swan cold
True Grit cold
The Kids Are Alright cold
The King's Speech cold

I haven't seen The Fighter or Toy Story 3.

[Spinal]

Is there a more forgettable three-year run of Best Pictures winners than 2010-2012 (The King's Speech, The Artist, Argo)?

I liked The Artist a lot when it came out. But I do tend to forget it exists.

[Ezee E]

I liked The Artist a lot when it came out. But I do tend to forget it exists.

It's easy to forget this one because no cable network or HBO/STARZ would dare show it unfortunately.

[baby doll]

It's easy to forget this one because no cable network or HBO/STARZ would dare show it unfortunately.They also don't show films by Ozu, Sembène, or Straub/Huillet but I haven't forgotten them. The Artist would still be a mediocre film if it were on cable all day everyday.

[Peng]

A lot of this (except the top two) need rewatches, but...

Toy Story 3 - 10
The Social Network - 9
Black Swan - 9
Inception - 8.5
True Grit - 8.5
Winter's Bone - 8
The King's Speech -7.5/8
The Fighter - 7

[Mysterious Dude]

I still like The Artist. And The King's Speech is alright.

[MadMan]

Is there a more forgettable three-year run of Best Pictures winners than 2010-2012 (The King's Speech, The Artist, Argo)?

I actually really like The Artist, and Argo. Neither would have been my pick for BP, though.

[MadMan]

For me its:

The Social Network-10
Black Swan-9.5
Inception-9.5
The Fighter-9.5
Winter's Bone-9.5
Toy Story 3-9.0
True Grit-9.0
The King's Speech-8.0

127 Hours will be viewed at some point. I recall NickGlass accusing me of being homophobic just because I had no interest in seeing The Kids Are Alright. I still think it looks like pure Oscar bait. Good times.

[MadMan]

The Social Network warm
Winter's Bone mild
Inception mild
127 Hours mild
Black Swan cold
True Grit cold
The Kids Are Alright cold
The King's Speech cold

I haven't seen The Fighter or Toy Story 3.

I doubt you would like either one. I am a sucker for boxing movies.

[Mysterious Dude]

I think 2010 must be the year I started to die inside. I have a few four-star movies, but none that I really love, and the rest of the decade has produced very few movies that I would consider to be among my favorites of all time.

[baby doll]

I think 2010 must be the year I started to die inside. I have a few four-star movies, but none that I really love, and the rest of the decade has produced very few movies that I would consider to be among my favorites of all time.I take it then you're not a fan of Arrietty the Borrower, Carlos, Copie conforme, Exit Through the Gift Shop, Film socialisme, The Forgotten Space, The Ghost Writer, Greenberg, Hereafter, The Hunter, Mysteries of Lisbon, Post Mortem, or Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives?

[Mysterious Dude]

I take it then you're not a fan of Arrietty the Borrower, Carlos, Copie conforme, Exit Through the Gift Shop, Film socialisme, The Forgotten Space, The Ghost Writer, Greenberg, Hereafter, The Hunter, Mysteries of Lisbon, Post Mortem, or Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives?
I don't know what makes you think that. At no point in my post did I say, "I don't like any movies from 2010." I am a fan of some of those movies. Not a fan of others. Some I haven't seen.

[baby doll]

I don't know what makes you think that. At no point in my post did I say, "I don't like any movies from 2010." I am a fan of some of those movies. Not a fan of others. Some I haven't seen.You said there were no films you really loved. Even as someone who finds myself less jazzed about new films than when I was young, I find it hard to believe that you couldn't find something you could get behind fully.

[Grouchy]

All this recent Tarantino talk reminded me of something that pops back into my head from time to time. Are the deleted scenes from Inglourious Basterds with Cloris Leachman and Maggie Cheung impossible to watch?

[Mysterious Dude]

You said there were no films you really loved. Even as someone who finds myself less jazzed about new films than when I was young, I find it hard to believe that you couldn't find something you could get behind fully.
There are lots of movies I've liked, even some that I would call great, since 2010. But there is a feeling I used to feel about movies (that I call "love") that I don't seem to feel anymore, at least not about new movies. I still love my old favorites, but it's like they grandfathered into it. I recently rewatched Better Luck Tomorrow, a movie I loved when it was new. I still love it. But I wonder, if I were watching it for the first time, would I still love it? I have to admit, I don't think I would. The flaws are more apparent. I've become cynical and nitpicky.

Carlos currently sits at the top of my 2010 list. I like it a lot, but I do not love it. It is not one of my favorite movies of all time. Another movie that ranks high on my 2010 list is Black Swan, but that movie did not excite me the way Requiem for a Dream did, ten years earlier.

I think a lot of people are attached to the music they loved when they were teenagers, and I feel kind of the same about movies. I was a young man when I first saw Requiem for a Dream and Better Luck Tomorrow. I was more excited about movies than I am now. I still like movies, but I think I will probably never feel that kind of "love" about a new movie again.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, maybe you're older.

[MadMan]

2010 had some cool films. I still love Inception and Scott Pilgrim, and I recall being blown away by The Social Network after seeing it in theaters. I do think the 2000s was a bit more consistent, however, compared to the current decade.

[amberlita]

I really want to know the cost of the bill Conrad Van Orton has to pay at the end of The Game. This will forever be my greatest film mystery, aside from the three seashells thing.

[Ivan Drago]

I don't know how or why Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet exists, but it's such a grand and affecting adaptation of the Shakespeare classic from the lens of truly cinematic gonzo WTFery that I want to find the time capsule that it came from.

[Skitch]

I don't know how or why Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet exists, but it's such a grand and affecting adaptation of the Shakespeare classic from the lens of truly cinematic gonzo WTFery that I want to find the time capsule that it came from.

Gilbert Grape was a great performance, but it was this film where I felt that DiCaprio was going to be one of the great actors of his generation.

[StanleyK]

Where the Wild Things Are - Good movie, but goddamn is the soundtrack insufferable. That and the overuse of shakycam are the main things that prevented me from finding it great.

Also, I'm wondering if the kid learned anything at all in the end. The mom and sister don't even get a 'sorry' from him. Maybe I missed the point, but I thought Carol was a stand-in for him and the story was about him seeing what his behavior looked like from another perspective (i.e., thoughtless and hurtful).

[Ezee E]

I really want to know the cost of the bill Conrad Van Orton has to pay at the end of The Game. This will forever be my greatest film mystery, aside from the three seashells thing.

Felt like there's some film essay that figured this out. Couldn't find it, so I must've made it up.

[Spinal]

I don't know how or why Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet exists, but it's such a grand and affecting adaptation of the Shakespeare classic from the lens of truly cinematic gonzo WTFery that I want to find the time capsule that it came from.

I would like to put it back in that time capsule and then hit that time capsule with a nuclear bomb. It pained me when this movie was used in my son's English class, as they were studying Romeo and Juliet. It's like the cinematic equivalent of white teachers using rap to teach kids about math or nutrition of whatever. Condescending and dopey.

[Irish]

It pained me when this movie was used in my son's English class, as they were studying Romeo and Juliet.

Whaaaaaaat the fuuuuuuuuuuck. I woulda stormed the next PTA and started throwing shit.

(My teacher used the Zeffirelli version.)

[Skitch]

I would like to put it back in that time capsule and then hit that time capsule with a nuclear bomb. It pained me when this movie was used in my son's English class, as they were studying Romeo and Juliet. It's like the cinematic equivalent of white teachers using rap to teach kids about math or nutrition of whatever. Condescending and dopey.

Thats how I feel about Baz movies in general.

Thats crazy about your son's class. Either that teacher is really struggling to reach kids or they've given up entirely. Either way, thats unacceptable.

[TGM]

They used that movie to teach my class as well when I was in high school. :P

Anyways, it has its issues, but I still really dig that particular movie all the same.

[Grouchy]

Doesn't seem all that bizarre to me. It retains the Shakespearean dialogue.

Anyway, it's a great film, from before Baz Luhrmann turned to shit.

[Dukefrukem]

We watched the one where the girl drops the sheets and you see boobage. I was shocked they allowed that to happen. I think it was 10th grade English?

[Mysterious Dude]

My class watched the Zeffirelli version and the Luhrmann version. Then we wrote essays about which one we liked better. Every single person in the class preferred the Luhrmann version (including me).

[Dead & Messed Up]

We watched the one where the girl drops the sheets and you see boobage. I was shocked they allowed that to happen. I think it was 10th grade English?

Same.

And it was Olivia Hussey.

We all learned something that day.

[amberlita]

The Baz version is an awful movie with a great soundtrack. They wrote “sword” on the side of guns, guys. ��

I can pretty much recite the Zeffirelli version by heart. Seen it a couple dozens times at least.

[Ivan Drago]

I was shown the Zefferelli version my freshman year of high school. It's been forever since I've seen it.

Anyway, it's been a couple days since I watched the late-90s one for the first time and I still have no idea if I liked it or not. It's something so obnoxious in style from its overuse of slow motion and speed ramps to over-the-top acting and rapid-fire editing that in theory I should hate it, but it's so absurd and surreal in its concept while retaining the grand spectacle and emotion of the classic play that I was able to get a LOT of enjoyment out of it, and even be affected by the tragic ending. It was certainly a unique theater experience.

[TGM]

They wrote “sword” on the side of guns, guys. ��.

That's precisely the sorta stuff I loved about that movie. ;)

[Ezee E]

That's precisely the sorta stuff I loved about that movie. ;)

Ditto.

[Peng]

We were shown the Baz version when we studied the play in school too (Thai international middle school, but still), I think it's because it contains no nudity, funny considering how more violent it is. I had already watched both versions before then; the Zefferelli is one of my favorites ever, but the Baz I still liked a whole lot (the chemistry can't obviously be up to the red-hot one of the older version, but it is still good, and Claire Danes is great in it). This may sound like sacrilege, and I don't know if the Baz is the first one to do that, but I really love the just-miss of the death scene, where Juliet wakes up as Romeo just finishes drinking the poison. The original scene works great in a play, but this adaptation choice really fits the cinematic version; and it's the one part where I prefer the Baz over the older one.

[Spinal]

It pains me... PAINS ME ... that Olivia Hussey's breasts are found to be more objectionable by teachers than Baz Luhrman running roughshod over the play itself.

[Grouchy]

I should see the entire Zefirelli one. It's one of those films that used to be all the time on TV so I watched bits and pieces of it and never got around to watching it from the start.

[Skitch]

I should see the entire Zefirelli one. It's one of those films that used to be all the time on TV so I watched bits and pieces of it and never got around to watching it from the start.

Its really wonderful.

[Winston*]

It's like the cinematic equivalent of white teachers using rap to teach kids about math or nutrition of whatever.

As someone who has spent a lot of time trawling youtube for good maths videos, there are so many of these kinds of videos and they are all the worst. If you record one of these, you should be banned from teaching for life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6IkCdYcFc4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRqWUY8VTYY

Also, Romeo + Juliet sucks shit.

[Ivan Drago]

Ha, I know two people who have done motion graphics on higher budget videos like those. Both of them said it's absolutely soul crushing.

BTW, of all the movies coming near me on this list (http://www.belcourt.org/events/ingmar-bergmans-cinema-a-centennial-retrospective.3035320), I've seen Persona, The Seventh Seal, and Wild Strawberries. What should I prioritize?

[Spinal]

Ha, I know two people who have done motion graphics on higher budget videos like those. Both of them said it's absolutely soul crushing.

BTW, of all the movies coming near me on this list (http://www.belcourt.org/events/ingmar-bergmans-cinema-a-centennial-retrospective.3035320), I've seen Persona, The Seventh Seal, and Wild Strawberries. What should I prioritize?

Winter Light
The Virgin Spring
Scenes from a Marriage

If I only could pick three.

[Grouchy]

The Virgin Spring is one of the most disturbing dramas ever filmed. Summer with Monika is hot, so there's always that.

I told a Jewish friend of mine who is mixed on the Coens (loves some, hates some) to watch Hail, Caesar! He was mixed on it as well, but one thing he said that stayed with me was that the Coens are the only Jewish filmmakers who constantly make Christian-themed movies. I thought that was an interesting observation. There are certainly themes of redemption and even martyrdom in all of their work.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Clue - 1985 - B

Whenever the characters stand around and bicker with each other, the dialogue bounces along joyfully with double-entendre, puns, cynical asides, and a touch of the effervescence found in something like a Thin Man or Lady Vanishes. Whenever the film leans into its cartoon sensibilities, however - most often during pitched action accompanied by an overactive cartoon score - it feels like something critical has disappeared. This all comes to a head during a climax where Tim Curry runs a symposium on doing the exact wrong thing in the exact right way, racing around like a Looney Toon come to life (impressive) but to diminishing returns as you realize that's the sole joke, and it's still going.

That might seem like a condemnation, but the film mostly works, sliding carefully into its Old Dark House environment with some gravity and mystery before revealing itself as a pure comedy (even Whale's classic dipped into genuine thrills), which makes for a subversive and enjoyable middle act. Michael McKean, fresh out of Spinal Tap, gets in some of the best jokes. He pratfalls through a broken table with pitch-perfect nonchalance, and his theater-sized slap of Mrs. Peacock shocks him as much as everybody else. Martin Mull's Mustard and Lesley Ann Warren's Scarlet also find the film's ideal wavelength of deadpan absurdity, him the blustery idiot, her the annoyed seductress. Oddly, Christopher Lloyd and Madeline Kahn feel left behind - why hire Lili Von Shtupp and have her play demure?

[Dukefrukem]

Need to watch that now.

[transmogrifier]

Need to watch that now.

Counterpoint (I watched this recently as well):

35/100


An unfunny comedy is torture to sit through; an unfunny screwball comedy is that plus a migraine plus someone screaming in your face for two hours.

[Dukefrukem]

Lol. Really looking forward to seeing what movies are available on my Airbus today.

[Skitch]

Clue is hilarious. It just goes on a tad too long.

[MadMan]

Clue is hilarious. It just goes on a tad too long.

I agree with that. The cast also makes some weaker jokes work better.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, Clue is great fun. Trans just doesn't like movies.

[Spinal]

Clue is hilarious. It just goes on a tad too long.

As you probably know, it originally screened in theaters with just one ending. Different theaters had different endings that were coded A, B and C, as I recall. The version that we all know now, with all of the endings edited together into one film didn't really exist until it came out on home video.

[Skitch]

As you probably know, it originally screened in theaters with just one ending. Different theaters had different endings that were coded A, B and C, as I recall. The version that we all know now, with all of the endings edited together into one film didn't really exist until it came out on home video.

Thats right! I forgot about that.

[amberlita]

As you probably know, it originally screened in theaters with just one ending. Different theaters had different endings that were coded A, B and C, as I recall. The version that we all know now, with all of the endings edited together into one film didn't really exist until it came out on home video.

I did not know this! That’s very cool, though very sad to think there are some people who saw this movie without the “flames on the side of my face” scene.

[transmogrifier]

Trans just doesn't like crappy movies.

Fixed that for you.

[Skitch]

Honestly my taste in comedy is so random and seemingly inconsistent I could never fault anyone for disagreeing on any comedy film. I like some slap stick, I loathe some slap stick. I love some dry humor, I loathe some. Etc, Etc.

Is there a more subjective genre of film? I say no.

[Ezee E]

As you probably know, it originally screened in theaters with just one ending. Different theaters had different endings that were coded A, B and C, as I recall. The version that we all know now, with all of the endings edited together into one film didn't really exist until it came out on home video.

Would love for a major motion picture to do that these days, but not tell anyone.

[Skitch]

Would love for a major motion picture to do that these days, but not tell anyone.

If they could manage to keep it under wraps, the following internet meltdown would be hilarious as people try to discuss it without spoilers.

[transmogrifier]

Honestly my taste in comedy is so random and seemingly inconsistent I could never fault anyone for disagreeing on any comedy film. I like some slap stick, I loathe some slap stick. I love some dry humor, I loathe some. Etc, Etc.

Is there a more subjective genre of film? I say no.

Too true.

[Dukefrukem]

Thought this was a cool poster and wanted to share.

https://i1.wp.com/bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/rated.png?resize=700%2C1054

[Spinal]

Would love for a major motion picture to do that these days, but not tell anyone.

Next Cloverfield movie.

[transmogrifier]

Netflix could easily do it; just load up a random version each time it is selected.

[Mysterious Dude]

I love Clue, but I think it was a mistake to give it multiple endings. It's telling the audience that the outcome of the story doesn't matter. The third ending is the only one that makes any sense.

[Sycophant]

Didn't a Marvel or DC movie do this with its post-credits scenes? Or did they chicken out and cram all 3 or 4 in? Or did they just upload them all to YouTube?

[Sycophant]

I forget since I've only seen it once. Does every ending have Madeline Kahn doing this? Or is it not part of the ending?

Because it's a significantly lesser movie if it doesn't include this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92IkddsjtAA

I always feel like Tim Curry didn't make quite enough movies.

[Dukefrukem]

Didn't a Marvel or DC movie do this with its post-credits scenes? Or did they chicken out and cram all 3 or 4 in? Or did they just upload them all to YouTube?

I don't recall this. I know GotG Vol 2 had 4 post credit scenes, but not really relevelent to the ending.

And then a post credit scene was added, very late in the process, to the Incredible Hulk to tie it with Iron Man. I can't recall if was a theatrical change or if it was only for the DVD release.

[TGM]

I believe it was X-Men Origins: Wolverine that did that.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Thought this was a cool poster and wanted to share.

https://i1.wp.com/bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/rated.png?resize=700%2C1054

Whoever did this image did a killer job, sincerely...

But the first two Evil Dead films aren't rated R, and Poltergeist is PG.

[Dukefrukem]

Whoever did this image did a killer job, sincerely...

But the first two Evil Dead films aren't rated R, and Poltergeist is PG.

I dont see Poltergeist. Please help.

[Spinal]

I dont see Poltergeist. Please help.

Bottom right hand corner. Carol Anne at the TV.

[Dukefrukem]

Ah yes thanks. I wonder how/why they threw that in. I can see making the Evil Dead mistake but a PG movie should definitely not be on this list.

Also, movie is that to the right of Ash?

[Dead & Messed Up]

And Herbert West in the lower-left, but Re-Animator was also an unrated release. Fuck, I'm pedantic, sorry. : /

Really dig the limited color palette.

[MadMan]

I don't recall this. I know GotG Vol 2 had 4 post credit scenes, but not really relevelent to the ending.

And then a post credit scene was added, very late in the process, to the Incredible Hulk to tie it with Iron Man. I can't recall if was a theatrical change or if it was only for the DVD release.

It was theatrical. I saw Incredible Hulk on the big screen.

I keep forgetting how many R rated films there were in the 80s. The PG-13 rating has ruined movies at times. Thanks MPAA, yah bastards.

[Grouchy]

Which Hill/Grier movie do you prefer, Coffy or Foxy Brown?

[Milky Joe]

I could recite Clue by heart if I really tried.

[baby doll]

Which Hill/Grier movie do you prefer, Coffy or Foxy Brown?Foxy Brown, but perhaps that's just because I saw it first.

[TGM]

So I finally got around to watching Speed Racer. That was fucking amazing!!

[Skitch]

It gets better with every watch.

[Ezee E]

I think I've only seen that one in the theater. Can't recall a scene from it, but it looked like a pack of Skittles on screen.

[MadMan]

I recently saw, and loved, Real Genius. Wonderful and funny 80s comedy. Val Kilmer has never been so charming since. Also there was an RTer who used Lazelo for his screen name. I wonder what happened to him.

[Dukefrukem]

So I finally got around to watching Speed Racer. That was fucking amazing!!

heh How? This is like required reading for class. You need to have watched Speed Racer to be on MC.

[Skitch]

I recently saw, and loved, Real Genius. Wonderful and funny 80s comedy. Val Kilmer has never been so charming since. Also there was an RTer who used Lazelo for his screen name. I wonder what happened to him.

Love that movie! Lazlo is still here. Hes in the Fantasy Movie League.

[TGM]

heh How? This is like required reading for class. You need to have watched Speed Racer to be on MC.

It's something I've been meaning to get around to for a while now, after years of seeing everyone here hype it up so much, but it hadn't really been readily available for me to view until just last night. Thankfully, after all those years of hype, I'm happy to report that it more than lived up to its reputation here. :p

[Spinal]

The Speed Racer ambivalence of the non-Match Cut world baffles me.

[transmogrifier]

The Speed Racer non-ambivalence of the Match Cut world baffles me. Why get so excited by the 47th best film of 2008?

[Watashi]

Speed Racer is my religion.

[Spinal]

The Speed Racer non-ambivalence of the Match Cut world baffles me. Why get so excited by the 47th best film of 2008?

#7 for me.

[Skitch]

When he drops that bitch into 5th and slaughters the final lap my face melts off like I opened the ark of the covenant.

[MadMan]

Love that movie! Lazlo is still here. Hes in the Fantasy Movie League.

Oh yeah, I forgot.

I still have not seen Speed Racer. Or Crash (2005), or a bunch of other movies this site obsesses over.

[Skitch]

Speed Racer is now on Netflix!

[Neclord]

Fuck I love Speed Racer

[Dead & Messed Up]

Well, it's a delightful movie.

[MadMan]

Speed Racer is now on Netflix!

Okay.



*Still never watches it.*

[Mysterious Dude]

Speed Racer is quite mediocre.

[Peng]

Crossing another overdue classic off the list...

Fantasia (1940) - 8/10

Nutcracker Suite > Dance of the Hours > The Sorcerer's Apprentice > Night on Bald Mountain/Ave Maria > Rite of Spring > Toccata & Fugue > The Pastoral Symphony

Personal Disney preferences might figure heavily into my reaction, which is that I vastly like this project more when it is about (almost) pure nature/natural movements or in the studio's wheelhouse of comic mania, very less so when they attempt their kind of cutesy storytelling. That's why "Pastoral" is the lowest and "Rite of Spring" gets dragged down a bit. "Toccata & Fugue" just seems too mismatchedly random for me -- literal instrument shapes distractingly amidst avant garde abstraction.

On the positive side, "Nutcracker Suite"'s whirlwind tour through nature is absolutely lovely and breathtaking, while "Sorcerer's Apprentice" is among the studio's comic mayhem best. "Night on Bald Mountain/Ave Maria" segues hauntingly from nightmare into hushed awe, making it perfect as the closer. "Dance of the Hours" surprises me the most though; I assume from the outset that it will be in that cutesy Disney mode, but then its increasingly amped-up movements start to overwhelm me, and it turns out that this combines the two modes of Fantasia I like best, into something uniquely its own, joyful and precise. This one has the chance of moving up to be my favorite on rewatch.

[transmogrifier]

Speed Racer is quite mediocre.

Correct.

[Morris Schæffer]

Years ago it was "Torque is my religion". Today it is Speed Racer. I was sure Hurricane Heist had a chance to be the next religion, but alas it was not meant to be.

[baby doll]

Okay.



*Still never watches it.**Still doesn't have Netflix.*

[Grouchy]

Speed Racer is a glorious film. I first watched it on IMAX under the influence of LSD. I recommend this approach.

[Skitch]

Speed Racer is a glorious film. I first watched it on IMAX under the influence of LSD. I recommend this approach.

Holy lord I bet that ruled. Unfortunately Speed Racer came out after my drug days ended lol. I can imagine it though.

[Ezee E]

Can't think of a movie this decade that caught on like Speed Racer did with Match Cut.

Match Cut is getting old.

[Dukefrukem]

Tree of Life?

[Ezee E]

Tree of Life?

VERY old.

[Dukefrukem]

Prometheus?

[Grouchy]

I hate both those movies.

[Dead & Messed Up]

SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS

[spoilers]

I bet I would've liked this more if I saw it immediately after In Bruges; instead, I saw it in short order after watching Three Billboards, and so a lot of my misgivings about that film are in their nascent stages here. Like the way he has American characters speaking in English cunt/fag slang, or the way he can't resist throwing the word "nigger" into what is otherwise the film's peak - a confrontation between Harrelson and Linda Bright Clay (Walken's wife in-film). Or the way he'll often chuck in revelation/coincidence that surprises but doesn't actually develop or deepen the story. The most obvious example is that Colin Farrell has no kind of meaningful reaction to learning his best friend is a psychopathic murderer. If the joke is that this flip only gets some passing revulsion rather than any sort of interior reflection or reconsideration of morality. Instead, it's about as irrelevant as the reveal that Walken's character is the killer who slit his own throat to escape the Quaker. Which means... what, exactly? And perhaps most infuriating is that McDonagh, rather than allowing any interesting female characters, makes a boys movie and then inserts a moment where one boy says to the other boy, "Hey, your female characters are shoddy props," and the other boy shrugs and says, "Whoops."

That said, I have to admit that the movie has many small moments of effective tension, like in the opening sequence where McDonagh plays with foreground/background, or the mentioned scene in the hospital where Harrelson catches on to Clay's evasive language. And individual lines and sequences carry some of the grace and humor that McDonagh's chasing. I hesitate to recommend it, but I equally hesitate to not recommend the flick.

But now I'm really, really hesitant to return to IN BRUGES, which I sorta loved at the time... but now I wonder if it hoodwinked me by acting like movies I loved instead of earning my love the old-fashioned way. By being good on its own terms.

IN BRUGES - A- (at the time)
SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS - B-
THREE BILLBOARDS - C+

[Skitch]

No no, In Bruges holds up. I've watched several times. I haven't seen Seven Psychopaths yet, but I agree with you on In Bruges and 3 Billboards scores.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, I've watched In Bruges a lot and it's still great.

Seven Psychopaths is a good movie, just not as good. His brother's films The Guard and Calvary are better.

[Dead & Messed Up]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42_fVUFsN8M

Guest director: Martin McDonagh

[Lazlo]

More Cannes/Netflix drama for this year. (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/04/netflix-threatens-to-pull-five-films-from-cannes-film-festival)

Netflix's model continues to be annoying compared to Amazon's but the big sad news here is that the new films from Cuarón, Greengrass, and Saulnier are Netflix releases and therefore won't be in any theaters near most people. Shameful.

[Skitch]

Shameful.

Shameful on who?

Netflix allows these filmmakers to make their mid-tier budget films that they obviously couldn't get set up at a studio. Shame on the studios and their broke dick system.

[Lazlo]

Shameful on who?

Netflix allows these filmmakers to make their mid-tier budget films that they obviously couldn't get set up at a studio. Shame on the studios and their broke dick system.

Fair point, but the way they just pump things out with minimal fanfare and refuse to do any sort of meaningful theatrical release is frustrating. Surely they could both line their content shelves AND give filmmakers the opportunity to have their work seen in a theatrical setting.

[baby doll]

Even before Netflix, films typically made most of their money on home video with festivals and theatrical release serving to generate press coverage and consequently viewer awareness so that the films stand out when they go to video. The French law is clearly a protectionist move that benefits theatre owners at the expense of evil corporations like Netflix. Which is evil, by the way, and I hate it, though I'm glad they chipped in to finish The Other Side of the Wind. I guess evil corporations do good things some times. But as I like watching movies in theatres and have no truck with Netflix, because it's an evil corporation and I hate it and the selection of films they have is depressingly limited, I'm siding with the French on this. Plus, it's not like Cannes has to give their films a competition slot.

[Grouchy]

Even before Netflix, films typically made most of their money on home video with festivals and theatrical release serving to generate press coverage and consequently viewer awareness so that the films stand out when they go to video. The French law is clearly a protectionist move that benefits theatre owners at the expense of evil corporations like Netflix. Which is evil, by the way, and I hate it, though I'm glad they chipped in to finish The Other Side of the Wind. I guess evil corporations do good things some times. But as I like watching movies in theatres and have no truck with Netflix, because it's an evil corporation and I hate it and the selection of films they have is depressingly limited, I'm siding with the French on this. Plus, it's not like Cannes has to give their films a competition slot.
This post is funny precisely because Netflix is becoming a haven for independent-minded films that studios are unwilling to cash out for. None but the studios is to "blame" for the rise of Netflix, and the audience response only proves this point further.

[Skitch]

Seriously. Can some of you not see the disparity between the Disney-type mega corporation audience tested only for money designed movies and the indy any way you can get it made films? You hardcore cinephiles should be in Netflix's camp over Cannes.

[baby doll]

This post is funny precisely because Netflix is becoming a haven for independent-minded films that studios are unwilling to cash out for. None but the studios is to "blame" for the rise of Netflix, and the audience response only proves this point further.I suppose it depends a lot on what you mean by independent (or independent-minded). If you mean small scale but fundamentally classical narrative films (i.e., the sort of mid-range films the studios used to turn out regularly but have largely given up on over the past twenty years), maybe I can see your point, but if we're talking about filmmakers like Pedro Costa, Lav Diaz, and Carlos Reygadas, then not so much (unless I've missed something)--to say nothing all the pre-1980 Hollywood films that aren't on Netflix. Seen in the broader context of Netflix's awfulness, the new Welles film is obviously an aberration.

[transmogrifier]

Netflix are funding mid-tier films because they don't really give a crap about quality - they are trying to pad their library to hide the fact that they are losing chunks of their library, and they are basically crossing their fingers that enough movies will click critically that they can drum up publicity and get more people to sign up. Now, clever film-makers will be able to use this system to their advantage and produce idiosyncratic, ambitious films - but there is no way Netflix deserves any credit as some kind of creative force. They are content hoarders who get lucky occasionally and trade in on the fact that they have a far more recognizable brand name than most studios to the regular public.

[Lazlo]

To be clear, I'm glad the movies are getting made and that I'll get to see them in some form. But if I'm not mistaken some of them are acquisitions, not direct Netflix productions. So the fact that Netflix has come in and just outbid other distributers, those who would put the movie in a theater, sticks in my craw a bit. It's one aspect of the continued devaluation of move theaters that's a depressing trend to me. Amazon's model is so much more preferable.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Netflix are funding mid-tier films because they don't really give a crap about quality - they are trying to pad their library to hide the fact that they are losing chunks of their library, and they are basically crossing their fingers that enough movies will click critically that they can drum up publicity and get more people to sign up. Now, clever film-makers will be able to use this system to their advantage and produce idiosyncratic, ambitious films - but there is no way Netflix deserves any credit as some kind of creative force. They are content hoarders who get lucky occasionally and trade in on the fact that they have a far more recognizable brand name than most studios to the regular public.

Yep. Their game is clearly not in quality control. Their goal is to have such a "content" advantage (ugh, that word) that their nearest competitors will simply fall by the wayside. While it's not at the level of Disney's shameless amassing of IPs and franchises and public domain, the aim is the same: market victory through quantity, not quality.

[Grouchy]

I suppose it depends a lot on what you mean by independent (or independent-minded). If you mean small scale but fundamentally classical narrative films (i.e., the sort of mid-range films the studios used to turn out regularly but have largely given up on over the past twenty years), maybe I can see your point, but if we're talking about filmmakers like Pedro Costa, Lav Diaz, and Carlos Reygadas, then not so much (unless I've missed something)--to say nothing all the pre-1980 Hollywood films that aren't on Netflix. Seen in the broader context of Netflix's awfulness, the new Welles film is obviously an aberration.
What I mean is obvious - I mean movies that cost money but are not a sure bet nor are they based on a property that already has a wide appeal. I mean films like the ones made by Scorsese, Bambauch, Greengrass, Cuarón, DuVernay, Bong, etc. I think this exodus should be a bit evident by now. Guys like Costa and Reygadas typically use smaller budgets and their styles are labeled "special interest" even amongst film buffs. I mean, I consider myself pretty open minded and I hate Reygadas.

What trans says about padding the library might be true but in my opinion it doesn't directly affect the quality of the films which depends on the filmmakers, their ambition and their talent. If this was the '70s you guys would be saying "that Roger Corman guy sucks, his production model just doesn't give a crap about quality".

[Dukefrukem]

Yep. Their game is clearly not in quality control. Their goal is to have such a "content" advantage (ugh, that word) that their nearest competitors will simply fall by the wayside. While it's not at the level of Disney's shameless amassing of IPs and franchises and public domain, the aim is the same: market victory through quantity, not quality.

Doesn't it depend what you mean by quality though? If netflix gives a filmmaker $100 million to do whatever the fuck they want to do with a movie giving them complete creative control, opposed to Disney who barely trust their directors to do anything radical as they are too afraid to lose out on their ROI, where do we draw the line at quality? Give the audience what they think they want? or let the creative juices flow?

[baby doll]

What I mean is obvious - I mean movies that cost money but are not a sure bet nor are they based on a property that already has a wide appeal. I mean films like the ones made by Scorsese, Bambauch, Greengrass, Cuarón, DuVernay, Bong, etc. I think this exodus should be a bit evident by now. Guys like Costa and Reygadas typically use smaller budgets and their styles are labeled "special interest" even amongst film buffs. I mean, I consider myself pretty open minded and I hate Reygadas.

What trans says about padding the library might be true but in my opinion it doesn't directly affect the quality of the films which depends on the filmmakers, their ambition and their talent. If this was the '70s you guys would be saying "that Roger Corman guy sucks, his production model just doesn't give a crap about quality".Regardless of whether or not one likes certain directors, the point is it's nice to have a choice. As Dave Kehr pointed out a number of years ago, a lot of classic films by the likes of Oshima and Sembène that were released on VHS never made it to DVD, and the films that made it to Blu-Ray represent an even narrower slice of film history. (As far as I can tell, no film by Naruse Mikio is currently available on Blu-Ray with English subtitles.) Netflix simply represents an intensification of this winnowing down of film history, with films that were on Netflix in the past disappearing into the ether. Speaking of Corman, I'd be very surprised if either of the two Monte Hellman westerns he produced, Ride in the Whirlwind and The Shooting, was available on Netflix.

[baby doll]

Doesn't it depend what you mean by quality though? If netflix gives a filmmaker $100 million to do whatever the fuck they want to do with a movie giving them complete creative control, opposed to Disney who barely trust their directors to do anything radical as they are too afraid to lose out on their ROI, where do we draw the line at quality? Give the audience what they think they want? or let the creative juices flow?Except they're not giving filmmakers a hundred million to do whatever the fuck they want; they're giving filmmakers a hundred million to make gritty cop movies about elves and goblins starring Will Smith.

[transmogrifier]

Corman I think was at least able to conceive of a specific type of movies that a certain audience actually wanted to see, and he hoovered up cheap talent to produce those specific movies. Reputable or not, he had a vision for the movie-viewer interaction.
Netflix, on the other hand, doesn’t give a crap what the movies are or who the audience is; they just want a mass of product that can be used to attract as many consumers as possible to sign up in the hopes something will catch their fancy on a lazy Tuesday night. Corman was balls deep in a Louisiana swamp handfishing for catfish for a group of people who really fucking like catfish; Netflix is deep-sea trawling for stuff it can grind up and sell to prisons, schools, and supermarkets as “fish sticks”.

[baby doll]

The comparison of Netflix with Roger Corman is absurd, since Corman didn't own the venues where his films were screened. A more apt comparison would be Paramount before 1947.

[Grouchy]

Regardless of whether or not one likes certain directors, the point is it's nice to have a choice. As Dave Kehr pointed out a number of years ago, a lot of classic films by the likes of Oshima and Sembène that were released on VHS never made it to DVD, and the films that made it to Blu-Ray represent an even narrower slice of film history. (As far as I can tell, no film by Naruse Mikio is currently available on Blu-Ray with English subtitles.) Netflix simply represents an intensification of this winnowing down of film history, with films that were on Netflix in the past disappearing into the ether. Speaking of Corman, I'd be very surprised if either of the two Monte Hellman westerns he produced, Ride in the Whirlwind and The Shooting, was available on Netflix.
I agree with this, by the way. I think the popularity of Netflix is a unique opportunity to produce a library of classics and weird films that presumably wouldn't be so hard to acquire and they're not using it. Their idea of movie selection (at least on Latin America) is buying underseen recent movies and a huge bunch of stuff that used to be on TV in the '90s.

But as a production model I think it's working pretty well. Martin fucking Scorsese signed up with them.

[Ezee E]

Except they're not giving filmmakers a hundred million to do whatever the fuck they want; they're giving filmmakers a hundred million to make gritty cop movies about elves and goblins starring Will Smith.

They just gave Scorsese $160 million at least.

The frustrating part from Netflix is that unless you're following some of these movies, you'll never know they actually exist in the library.

Cannes is dumb for not letting them count when a good percentage of their movies will never see more than 200 screens anyway, and some may never even get screened at all.

Both at fault.

[baby doll]

They just gave Scorsese $160 million at least.

The frustrating part from Netflix is that unless you're following some of these movies, you'll never know they actually exist in the library.

Cannes is dumb for not letting them count when a good percentage of their movies will never see more than 200 screens anyway, and some may never even get screened at all.

Both at fault.First of all, a large budget, even from a company not dependant on traditional box office returns, is not the same as artistic freedom (i.e., being given a wad of cash to do whatever the fuck you want). At the end of the day, Scorsese is going to deliver another blockbuster film like he's been doing since the early '90s, whether or not it ever winds up in a movie theatre.

But more to the point, isn't the very fact that some of the films at the festival won't get a wide release all the more reason to give them a competition slot instead of films that will be widely available on Netflix in a few months and are going to get lots of publicity anyway?

[Grouchy]

Yeah, that Silence film was a real blockbuster. Bringing Out the Dead, too, was a regular Avatar. I admit I'm not objective when it comes to Scorsese because I love the man's work so much, but your stance is just weirdly dismissive.

As for your second point, it's a good one, but that's what's weird about Netflix - they don't really advertise their feature film productions so much apart from Bright which pretty much blew on their faces.

[Skitch]

- but there is no way Netflix deserves any credit as some kind of creative force.

C'mon man, thats a bit extreme.

[Skitch]

Corman I think was at least able to conceive of a specific type of movies that a certain audience actually wanted to see, and he hoovered up cheap talent to produce those specific movies. Reputable or not, he had a vision for the movie-viewer interaction.
Netflix, on the other hand, doesn’t give a crap what the movies are or who the audience is; they just want a mass of product that can be used to attract as many consumers as possible to sign up in the hopes something will catch their fancy on a lazy Tuesday night. Corman was balls deep in a Louisiana swamp handfishing for catfish for a group of people who really fucking like catfish; Netflix is deep-sea trawling for stuff it can grind up and sell to prisons, schools, and supermarkets as “fish sticks”.

So a film doesn't count unless the people footing the bill are passionate about it? I don't think any major studio gives a shit about the product much beyond potential box office payback.

[transmogrifier]

So a film doesn't count unless the people footing the bill are passionate about it? I don't think any major studio gives a shit about the product much beyond potential box office payback.

What do you mean by "count"? A film is a film is a film. It can be good, bad, whatever. Netflix doesn't seem to care about the quality of its product as much as it cares that it fills up the little squares on the browsing page. It simply does not have the quantitative metrics to worry about that regular studios have - box office takings, exit polls, awards, whatever. It has view counts that it keeps to itself and its number of subscribers. That's all it cares about. So it'll throw money at people to produce stuff to expand the library - but did you ever wonder why all those cheap direct-to-DVD movies that were prevalent a decade or two ago were mostly piles of garbage? Because it turns out throwing money at average talent to produce stuff to fill the shelves is not exactly the best route for creativity. That is what Netflix is doing now. They are in that phase. And their movies are mostly crap.

[transmogrifier]

C'mon man, thats a bit extreme.

No, it really isn't. Is Netflix truly a mark of quality for you? I mean, good for you if it is, but if I see "Netflix Original", I treat it as a warning.

[Skitch]

I'm more interested if it says Netflix Original because most of the ones I've watched have been good. I just don't understand why you think its better quality if the studio cares about how much money a film will profit them vs Netflix wanting to check their boxes of content. I don't see a difference. If a film is good it will generate buzz and either ticket sales or subscriptions, that is, money either way for the people who foot the bill.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeah, that Silence film was a real blockbuster.

This.

[transmogrifier]

I'm more interested if it says Netflix Original because most of the ones I've watched have been good.

Can't say I agree with this much. If at all.

[Peng]

I guess "Netflix doesn't promote its films" might be a US-centric issue, as well as theater-going for a small-to-medium-budget film. Take Mudbound; if not for Netflix I would not have seen an unexpected number of people in my (Thai) timeline, both cinephile and non-, watched this kind of drama. Because for worldwide, or at least here, Netflix invests in itself being a brand (I got some freelance money writing for some of their releases here), because of accessiblity (think of what theatrical releases Mudbound would get in US, then decrease exponentially for here), and because of their immediately available subtitles. I can kinda see where the other side comes from about Netflix, but living here put me in too different a mindset to feel that negative towards them.

[Grouchy]

I live in Argentina and the only reviews I've seen for Cloverfield Paradox or Annihilation have been from online fan sites. Other than that, zero. Bright did have a lot of street posters and so do most of their TV shows.


No, it really isn't. Is Netflix truly a mark of quality for you? I mean, good for you if it is, but if I see "Netflix Original", I treat it as a warning.
And yeah, I agree with Skitch and you sort of made our argument here. If I see a film is a Netflix original, I don't inmediately assume it's good, but I might assume it's not based off a comic, videogame or YA novel, it probably has a good director and it's pretty much its own thing. And, after all, the ones I've seen (Okja and Beasts of No Nation come to mind) have been pretty good.

I understand how this might not work for you because you hate almost every film you watch no matter the source. I don't mean it as a diss, it's just reality.

[transmogrifier]

I understand how this might not work for you because you hate almost every film you watch no matter the source. I don't mean it as a diss, it's just reality.

And there we have it. Reminds me why I barely bother with this particular thread.

[Grouchy]

Hahah but it's true! What can I do about it? You have overwhelmingly negative opinions on every film, not just Netflix ones. I don't necessarily disagree with your "padding the library" theory, I just don't think it produces nothing but shit like you.

Have you seen Okja and Beasts of No Nation? What do you think about them?

[Dukefrukem]

Someone here once aggregated all of the YAYs and NAYs by everyone on MC in a given calendar year and did a ranking of most detractors and most consensus wielding votes. I wonder if we can do that again?

[baby doll]

Yeah, that Silence film was a real blockbuster. Bringing Out the Dead, too, was a regular Avatar. I admit I'm not objective when it comes to Scorsese because I love the man's work so much, but your stance is just weirdly dismissive.Box Office Mojo doesn't list a production budget for Silence, but I'm guessing a three and a half hour period drama shot in Japan with major stars wasn't cheap to make. Even if it didn't do major business, it's still clearly in a different economic bracket than, say, The King of Comedy or The Last Temptation of Christ (to say nothing of a film by Costa or Reygadas). For the record, I don't think Scorsese's post-'80s blockbusters are altogether artistically bankrupt (I especially like Goodfellas, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Age of Innocence, and The Aviator in descending order), but holding him up as the living embodiment of artistic integrity and freewheeling creativity without acknowledging the very real commercial constraints he's under (despite his obvious clout within the industry) strikes me as a form of denial. As much as I like some of Scorsese's films, none of them qualify as the work of a free man.

[Dukefrukem]

Box Office Mojo doesn't list a production budget for Silence, but I'm guessing a three and a half hour period drama shot in Japan with major stars wasn't cheap to make. Even if it didn't do major business, it's still clearly in a different economic bracket than, say, The King of Comedy or The Last Temptation of Christ (to say nothing of a film by Costa or Reygadas). For the record, I don't think Scorsese's post-'80s blockbusters are altogether artistically bankrupt (I especially like Goodfellas, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Age of Innocence, and The Aviator in descending order), but holding him up as the living embodiment of artistic integrity and freewheeling creativity without acknowledging the very real commercial constraints he's under (despite his obvious clout within the industry) strikes me as a form of denial. As much as I like some of Scorsese's films, none of them qualify as the work of a free man.

Quick google search says it cost $50 mil. Made 23 WW.

[baby doll]

Quick google search says it cost $50 mil. Made 23 WW.The fact that this one film underperformed financially is not in itself overly significant (especially as it's likely to have made back its budget on home video). The extent of Scorsese's clout within the industry is that he can have the occasional "flop" provided it's not too expensive (fifty million being a mid-range budget for the major studios these days) and that his more expensive pictures perform well enough for him to be able to continue making expensive pictures.

[Skitch]

Off to movie jail for Marty, right??

Nope, just back to mob stuff.

[Dukefrukem]

What's happening to my boy TJ Miller?

[Skitch]

Hopefully something that ensures I don't ever have to suffer his unfunny ass in another movie again.

[Grouchy]

Box Office Mojo doesn't list a production budget for Silence, but I'm guessing a three and a half hour period drama shot in Japan with major stars wasn't cheap to make. Even if it didn't do major business, it's still clearly in a different economic bracket than, say, The King of Comedy or The Last Temptation of Christ (to say nothing of a film by Costa or Reygadas). For the record, I don't think Scorsese's post-'80s blockbusters are altogether artistically bankrupt (I especially like Goodfellas, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Age of Innocence, and The Aviator in descending order), but holding him up as the living embodiment of artistic integrity and freewheeling creativity without acknowledging the very real commercial constraints he's under (despite his obvious clout within the industry) strikes me as a form of denial. As much as I like some of Scorsese's films, none of them qualify as the work of a free man.
This is an old debate. I think Scorsese has been quite vocal about the way he compromises - essentially, he makes some movies for the studios and uses that clout to make his more personal projects. Hence Cape Fear for The Age of Innocence orThe Color of Money for The Last Temptation of Christ. Regardless, when you watch his films, even his more commercial ones, do you feel his vision is compromised? I only once felt this, to be honest, with the silly romantic subplot and action movie trappings of Gangs of New York, but even there I'm not so sure they were mandated by the studio. What I usually feel is that he makes movies that are fiercely personal and thematically uncompromising like The Wolf of Wall Street. If that isn't the work of a "free man", I'm not sure what is.

I think some filmmakers are simply luckier than others in that the stuff they want to make/watch aligns a bit more with popular taste. I don't feel doing long, silent takes or films with characters that are hard to empathize with makes you a more personal filmmaker. In fact, I think those elements that you associate with "free" cinema are also tropes that can be mimicked by bad directors.

[Lazlo]

Fun game: Jump on Letterboxd and figure out the most popular film from each of the last ten years that you haven't seen.

Me:
2018 - The Cloverfield Paradox
2017 - Kingsmen: The Golden Circle
2016 - The Secret Life of Pets
2015 - The Visit
2014 - Frank
2013 - The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
2012 - Sinister
2011 - The Intouchables
2010 - Tucker and Dale vs. Evil
2009 - Mr. Nobody

[baby doll]

This is an old debate. I think Scorsese has been quite vocal about the way he compromises - essentially, he makes some movies for the studios and uses that clout to make his more personal projects. Hence Cape Fear for The Age of Innocence orThe Color of Money for The Last Temptation of Christ. Regardless, when you watch his films, even his more commercial ones, do you feel his vision is compromised? I only once felt this, to be honest, with the silly romantic subplot and action movie trappings of Gangs of New York, but even there I'm not so sure they were mandated by the studio. What I usually feel is that he makes movies that are fiercely personal and thematically uncompromising like The Wolf of Wall Street. If that isn't the work of a "free man", I'm not sure what is.

I think some filmmakers are simply luckier than others in that the stuff they want to make/watch aligns a bit more with popular taste. I don't feel doing long, silent takes or films with characters that are hard to empathize with makes you a more personal filmmaker. In fact, I think those elements that you associate with "free" cinema are also tropes that can be mimicked by bad directors.I remember reading an interview with Scorsese (I think it was in the Ebert book) where he says resignedly that Gangs of New York is the best film he was capable of making under the circumstances, but he doesn't elaborate.

Overall, I'd say Scorsese is as serious a filmmaker as is possible for someone in his position to be. To take The Wolf of Wall Street as an example, as an ambivalent celebration of douchey excess, it's conceivably the most entertaining thing Scorsese's made since the early '90s, but I wouldn't describe it as especially serious or uncompromising; even the unpleasantness of the central character is mitigated to a large extent by DiCapprio's charismatic performance (which thankfully does without the sort of Method grandstanding he's been wallowing in since the early 2000s, seemingly with Scorsese's encouragement). In other words, it's a fun film but not one that sticks in your craw.

Luis Buñuel has a story in his autobiography about meeting Nicholas Ray in Mexico in the 1950s, shortly after Ray made his first big-budget film. Buñuel suggested that Ray would feel freer making a film in Mexico for half the cost, but Ray responded it would be impossible because everyone in Hollywood would think he was finished professionally. And I suspect that Scorsese's position today is even more constricting than Ray's in the '50s. Again, that's not to say that he's a bad filmmaker or that he's no longer capable of making worthwhile films; I just think the heroic mystique that gets attached to him is unwarranted.

[Ezee E]

Off the top of my head, a handful of directors that make the movies that they want, and still have box office success without studio involvement:

Scorsese
Wes Anderson
Quentin Tarantino
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

[Dukefrukem]

Hopefully something that ensures I don't ever have to suffer his unfunny ass in another movie again.

:confused:

[Dukefrukem]

Fun game: Jump on Letterboxd and figure out the most popular film from each of the last ten years that you haven't seen.

Me:
2018 - The Cloverfield Paradox
2017 - Kingsmen: The Golden Circle
2016 - The Secret Life of Pets
2015 - The Visit
2014 - Frank
2013 - The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
2012 - Sinister
2011 - The Intouchables
2010 - Tucker and Dale vs. Evil
2009 - Mr. Nobody

I think I've seen almost every movie that was released in 2012...

2018- Ready Player One
2017- The Shape of Water
2016 - Your Name.
2015 - Carol
2014 - Paddington
2013 - Enemy
2012 - Frances Ha
2011 - Crazy, Stupid, Love
2010 - Easy A
2009 - Fantastic Mr. Fox

[Skitch]

:confused:

Not a fan.

[Mysterious Dude]

Fun game: Jump on Letterboxd and figure out the most popular film from each of the last ten years that you haven't seen.

2009 - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
2010 - Toy Story 3
2011 - Captain America: The First Avenger
2012 - Silver Linings Playbook
2013 - Iron Man 3
2014 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier
2015 - Avengers: Age of Ultron
2016 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
2017 - The Shape of Water
2018 - Black Panther

[TGM]

2018: Black Panther
2017: The Meyerowitz Stories
2016: The Handmaiden
2015: Spectre
2014: What We Do in the Shadows
2013: Monsters University
2012: Skyfall
2011: Crazy, Stupid, Love
2010: True Grit
2009: Fantastic Mr. Fox

[Dukefrukem]

And now lets' identify each poster's biggest offenders

Lazlo - The Intouchables
Isaac - Captain America: The Winter Soldier
TGM - What We Do in the Shadows

[Skitch]

2017: Call Me By Your Name
2016: Moonlight
2015: Inside Out
2014: The Grand Budapest Hotel
2013: The Selfish Giant
2012: Intouchables

I'm doing this wrong, I can't find any further back. Damn innavigable site.

[Mysterious Dude]

I'm doing this wrong, I can't find any further back. Damn innavigable site.

https://letterboxd.com/films/popular/year/2011/size/small/
https://letterboxd.com/films/popular/year/2010/size/small/
https://letterboxd.com/films/popular/year/2009/size/small/

[baby doll]

Off the top of my head, a handful of directors that make the movies that they want, and still have box office success without studio involvement:

Scorsese
Wes Anderson
Quentin Tarantino
Alejandro Gonzalez InarrituPutting aside the issue of whether or not complete artistic freedom is even possible, much less desirable (after all, I gather Iñárritu actually wanted to make 21 Grams), I think part of what I find dubious about holding up even undeniably talented mainstream filmmakers like Scorsese, the Andersons, Fincher, and Tarantino as paragons of artistic integrity is the unspoken ideology lurking behind the discussion--the implication being that money and publicity are not just desirable but necessary for artistic creation to occur in the first place, and that making films for a mass audience (the "real" people) is inherently more noble than making what Grouchy earlier referred to as "special interest" films. By this logic, directors like Costa, Reygadas, Jean-Luc Godard, Hong Sangsoo, Hou Hsiao-hsien, and Apichatpong Weerasethakul are all perverse underachievers for not trying to make bigger-budget films that can play in multiplexes.

[Winston*]

2008 - The Incredible Hulk
2009 - 500 Days of Summer
2010 - Easy A
2011 - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
2012 - The Perks of Being a Wallflower
2013 - Frozen
2014 - Whiplash
2015 - The Martian
2016 - Manchester by the Sea
2017- Call Me By Your Name
2018 - Annhiliation

Bolded the ones I'm actually interested in seeing.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I think a few moments in Wolf really stuck in my craw. Like when Jordan starts insulting Chandler's character as soon as he learned he couldn't buy the guy. And when Scorsese holds the long shot of Jordan hitting his wife. The dual emotions during that first big phone call at the penny stocks, when I'm torn because my admiration of someone who's extremely good at what they do (always good cinematic meat) brushes right up against how objectively terrible he is in that moment. And the final image, for sure. Maybe that extremely long speech that basically sums up how, at that point, Jordan is biologically incapable of not being an excessive monster.

[baby doll]

2018: Black Panther (I've no real interest in this in addition to being wary of essentialism, though a friend of mine said it was fun)
2017: Baby Driver (this looks like it might be passably entertaining but I'm in no hurry)
2016: Arrival (I prefer his early, funny movies)
2015: Max Mad: Fury Road (I haven't seen the first three yet)
2014: Interstellar (Nolan sux)
2013: Prisoners (see 2016)
2012: The Avengers (I'm not seven years old)
2011: Captain America: The First Avenger (see previous)
2010: Toy Story 3 (I haven't seen Toy Story 2, not really a big Pixar guy anyway)
2009: Watchmen (seriously, I've got shit to do; I'm not gonna bother with this crap)

[Dead & Messed Up]

2017 - Spider-Man: Homecoming (#7)
2016 - The Lobster (#9)
2015 - Ex Machina (#4)
2014 - 22 Jump Street (#16)
2013 - Spring Breakers (#8)
2012 - The Hunger Games (#5)

Need an account to go beyond that, I think.

[Winston*]

2017 - Spider-Man: Homecoming (#7)
2016 - The Lobster (#9)
2015 - Ex Machina (#4)
2014 - 22 Jump Street (#16)
2013 - Spring Breakers (#8)
2012 - The Hunger Games (#5)

Need an account to go beyond that, I think.

See Isaac's post above. Also, you should def see Ex Machina. You'd dig it .

[Skitch]

(I'm not seven years old))
I will not take the bait, I will not take the bait....

[transmogrifier]

2007 - Lars and the Real Girl (23)
2008 - Bronson (20)
2009 - X-Men Origins: Wolverine (16)
2010 - Harry Potter Second to Last One (8)
2011 - Harry Potter Last One (3)
2012 - The Perks of Being a Wallflower (8)
2013 - Man of Steel (11)
2014 - The Imitation Game (16)
2015 - Room (8)
2016 - Moonlight (4)
2017- Call Me By Your Name (10)

Bolded the ones I'm actually interested in seeing.

[Grouchy]

To take The Wolf of Wall Street as an example, as an ambivalent celebration of douchey excess, it's conceivably the most entertaining thing Scorsese's made since the early '90s, but I wouldn't describe it as especially serious or uncompromising; even the unpleasantness of the central character is mitigated to a large extent by DiCapprio's charismatic performance (which thankfully does without the sort of Method grandstanding he's been wallowing in since the early 2000s, seemingly with Scorsese's encouragement). In other words, it's a fun film but not one that sticks in your craw.
This is actually one of my favorite things to talk about. Scorsese took some flak for Goodfellas and Casino because his energetic directing style seemed to glorify the Cosa Nostra. But the thing is, his cinema always develops from an insular point of view. This is true even in movies where the main character doesn't exert his power over others like Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and After Hours. The directing style mimicks what the protagonist wants and gets out of life. My pet theory is that he developed The Wolf of Wall Street consciously as a litmus test. Do you find Jordan Belfort's lifestyle appealing? I will pull every rabbit out of my hat to make it so. And he does have scenes that sticked in my craw. I'll never forget the closing shot of Wolf, filled with what's basically a movie theater audience wanting to be Jordan.


Luis Buñuel has a story in his autobiography about meeting Nicholas Ray in Mexico in the 1950s, shortly after Ray made his first big-budget film. Buñuel suggested that Ray would feel freer making a film in Mexico for half the cost, but Ray responded it would be impossible because everyone in Hollywood would think he was finished professionally. And I suspect that Scorsese's position today is even more constricting than Ray's in the '50s. Again, that's not to say that he's a bad filmmaker or that he's no longer capable of making worthwhile films; I just think the heroic mystique that gets attached to him is unwarranted.
As a side comment, My Last Whisper by Luis Buñuel is one book that none that considers himself a film buff should skip.

[Grouchy]

(after all, I gather Iñárritu actually wanted to make 21 Grams)
Thank you for this. 21 Grams is one of the most emotionally phony films I've ever seen - on the level of Oscar Winner Crash.

Personally, I love Jonathan Glazer, Roy Andersson, Lucrecia Martel, Hong Sangsoo, Gaspar Noé, Andrei Tarkovski, Ingmar Bergman, Peter Greenaway, Wong Kar Wai, Eric Rohmer, Mike Leigh, John fucking Cassavettes, Werner Herzog, heck, even Paul Thomas Anderson - those are all "special interest" filmmakers in my book. I confess I've been too narrative-driven as a person to explore this branch of cinema even further. And I'm actually ashamed to admit that I haven't seen any Weerasethakul or Hou Hsiao-hsien film for this reason.

[Dukefrukem]

Baby doll.....comes in with the rare super disingenuous posting today.

[Peng]

2008 - Bronson
2009 - X-Men Origins: Wolverine
2010 - Blue Valentine
2011 - Shame
2012 - Les Miserables
2013 - Only God Forgives
2014 - The Maze Runner
2015 - The Danish Girl
2016 - Captain Fantastic
2017 - Kingsman: The Golden Circle
2018 - The Cloverfield Paradox

[Stay Puft]

2018 - The Cloverfield Paradox
2017 - Lady Bird
2016 - La La Land
2015 - Inside Out
2014 - Whiplash
2013 - The Wolf of Wall Street
2012 - Django Unchained
2011 - Harry Potter and the Whatever of Whatever, Part Whatever
2010 - Shutter Island
2009 - Inglourious Basterds

edit - Looking over it, my blind spots are pretty obvious and consistent. I don't care much about whatever Scorsese is up to these days, I don't care about Tarantino in general (I did see Hateful Eight, though), and out of curiosity I went back a couple more years and sure enough, it would be another Pixar film for each of those years (never been a Pixar fan but y'all know that). I was going to watch those Damien Chazelle movies, though. Just never got around to them. And I'm still catching up on 2017 films (Lady Bird is on my list).

Miss me with that Harry Potter nonsense.

[baby doll]

This is actually one of my favorite things to talk about. Scorsese took some flak for Goodfellas and Casino because his energetic directing style seemed to glorify the Cosa Nostra. But the thing is, his cinema always develops from an insular point of view. This is true even in movies where the main character doesn't exert his power over others like Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and After Hours. The directing style mimicks what the protagonist wants and gets out of life. My pet theory is that he developed The Wolf of Wall Street consciously as a litmus test. Do you find Jordan Belfort's lifestyle appealing? I will pull every rabbit out of my hat to make it so. And he does have scenes that sticked in my craw. I'll never forget the closing shot of Wolf, filled with what's basically a movie theater audience wanting to be Jordan.I think the film's last scene might've had more bite if Scorsese had found some way of forcing the viewer to reflect on their own responses to the protagonist's behaviour; I suppose one could see the final scene as an indictment of the viewer's willingness to be entertained by his actions, but one could also sit back comfortably and cluck one's tongues at the yokels paying to learn his tricks (and being suckered by him in the process). I Love You, Phillip Morris is a much more daring, funny, and disciplined movie on a similar theme that really does force the viewer to confront their responses to the conman protagonist.

[Spinal]

There's a clear pattern here:

2018 Black Panther
2017 Logan
2016 Captain America: Civil War
2015 Avengers: Age of Ultron
2014 Whiplash
2013 12 Years a Slave
2012 Skyfall
2011 Captain America: The First Avenger
2010 Iron Man 2
2009 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

[baby doll]

Thank you for this. 21 Grams is one of the most emotionally phony films I've ever seen - on the level of Oscar Winner Crash.

Personally, I love Jonathan Glazer, Roy Andersson, Lucrecia Martel, Hong Sangsoo, Gaspar Noé, Andrei Tarkovski, Ingmar Bergman, Peter Greenaway, Wong Kar Wai, Eric Rohmer, Mike Leigh, John fucking Cassavettes, Werner Herzog, heck, even Paul Thomas Anderson - those are all "special interest" filmmakers in my book. I confess I've been too narrative-driven as a person to explore this branch of cinema even further. And I'm actually ashamed to admit that I haven't seen any Weerasethakul or Hou Hsiao-hsien film for this reason.For me, the fundamental issue is not whether or not one likes certain "difficult" filmmakers (or hates Iñárittu), but the bullshit industry logic where Scorsese routinely gets fellated by reviewers and fanboys for making relatively serious, grownup films using the resources of the Hollywood machine and directors who make genuinely serious, grownup films with vastly fewer resources are ignored. The implication seems to be that grownup movies are the ideal to which genuine artists should aspire to, but they shouldn't be so grownup that teenagers in Nebraska won't go to see their films, which seems to me like a fucked up way of evaluating the importance of artists.

[Watashi]

2018 - The Cloverfield Paradox
2017 - The Shape of Water
2016 - Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
2015 - The Revenant
2014 - It Follows
2013 - Prisoners
2012 - The Hunt
2011 - Shame
2010 - Submarine
2009 - Antichrist
2008 - Twilight

[Watashi]

There's a clear pattern here:

Forget the Marvel films, how did you go by 2013 and not see 12 Years a Slave?

[Spinal]

Forget the Marvel films, how did you go by 2013 and not see 12 Years a Slave?

Strong words for someone who hasn't seen The Revenant.

[Dukefrukem]

Strong words for someone who hasn't seen The Revenant.

Meh

[Dukefrukem]

Biggest Offenders Updated IMO, not IMHO

Lazlo - The Intouchables
Isaac - Captain America: The Winter Soldier
TGM - What We Do in the Shadows
Skitch - Moonlight
Winston - Whiplash
Baby Doll - who cares, he doesn't like fun and probably has a tree of life over his fireplace mantel
D&MU - The Lobster
Trans - Moonlight
Peng - Nothing- You've seen everything you need to see. But see Captain Fantastic
Stay Puff - Whiplash
Spinal - Whiplash
Wats - WHOA see Antichrist

[baby doll]

Strong words for someone who hasn't seen The Revenant.I wouldn't describe either as mandatory viewing, but at least 12 Years a Slave is less redolent of bullshit.

[Spinal]

I was more interested in Whiplash before I saw La La Land.

[Grouchy]

I think the film's last scene might've had more bite if Scorsese had found some way of forcing the viewer to reflect on their own responses to the protagonist's behaviour; I suppose one could see the final scene as an indictment of the viewer's willingness to be entertained by his actions, but one could also sit back comfortably and cluck one's tongues at the yokels paying to learn his tricks (and being suckered by him in the process). I Love You, Phillip Morris is a much more daring, funny, and disciplined movie on a similar theme that really does force the viewer to confront their responses to the conman protagonist.
Nah, that's just the weird puritanical way people seem to want to view art nowadays. It's like everyone wants the Hays Code back. There's no need for Scorsese to clarify that Belfort is one of the bad guys or to cover his own ass, precisely because he genuinely makes movies for grown ups.

[Grouchy]

For me, the fundamental issue is not whether or not one likes certain "difficult" filmmakers (or hates Iñárittu), but the bullshit industry logic where Scorsese routinely gets fellated by reviewers and fanboys for making relatively serious, grownup films using the resources of the Hollywood machine and directors who make genuinely serious, grownup films with vastly fewer resources are ignored. The implication seems to be that grownup movies are the ideal to which genuine artists should aspire to, but they shouldn't be so grownup that teenagers in Nebraska won't go to see their films, which seems to me like a fucked up way of evaluating the importance of artists.
Well, Scorsese happens to be from the US. That does make you a more accessible filmmaker for people who have only a casual relationship with films.

I dunno, man. I get what you're saying, I just don't think it reflects badly on Marty in any way. He's also a guy who cares deeply about films from the past.

[Watashi]

Strong words for someone who hasn't seen The Revenant.

Gross. After Birdman, I can't stomach anything Inarritu does anymore.

[baby doll]

Nah, that's just the weird puritanical way people seem to want to view films nowadays. It's like everyone wants the Hays Code back. There's no need for Scorsese to clarify that Belfort is one of the bad guys or to cover his own ass, precisely because he makes movies for grown ups.Just to clarify, my position is not that Scorsese needs to clarify that the protagonist is a bad guy but that he lets the audience off the hook too easy by not pressing us to reflect on our willingness to be entertained by his shenanigans. I suppose theoretically one can reflect on this if one chooses to, but it seems to me that Scorsese's position within the industry precludes him from making the audience (or at least the larger portion of it) genuinely uncomfortable.

[Grouchy]

Just to clarify, my position is not that Scorsese needs to clarify that the protagonist is a bad guy but that he lets the audience off the hook too easy by not pressing us to reflect on our willingness to be entertained by his shenanigans.
See my above post about Goodfellas and Casino. It's what's he's been accused of all his life because his films are told from the point of view of the protagonist. That's why I feel he made this one purposefully entertaining, just to push the envelope even further.


I suppose theoretically one can reflect on this if one chooses to, but it seems to me that Scorsese's position within the industry precludes him from making the audience (or at least the larger portion of it) genuinely uncomfortable.
I don't understand what you mean here. You mean because of the budget?

[baby doll]

See my above post about Goodfellas and Casino. It's what's he's been accused of all his life because his films are told from the point of view of the protagonist. That's why I feel he made this one purposefully entertaining, just to push the envelope even further.

I don't understand what you mean here. You mean because of the budget?I think the viewer's relationship with the protagonist is more ambivalent than you describe; the film doesn't simply put the viewer inside the character's head without making any moral judgement about his behaviour. Rather, the film invites us to be entertained by and disapprove of his actions, but it does not force this ambivalence to a crisis. In other words, the film never becomes self-reflexive because, if it were, it would be much less commercial. If the film really forced the viewer to reflect on their willingness to be entertained by the character, they'd probably come away from the film feeling slightly dirty rather than entertained.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Thanks, Winston!

2017 - Spider-Man: Homecoming (#7)
2016 - The Lobster (#9)
2015 - Ex Machina (#4)
2014 - 22 Jump Street (#16)
2013 - Spring Breakers (#8)
2012 - The Hunger Games (#5)
2011 - X-Men: First Class (#5)
2010 - The King's Speech (#10)
2009 - The Fantastic Mr. Fox (#4)
2008 - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (#5)

[Dead & Messed Up]

Gross. After Birdman, I can't stomach anything Inarritu does anymore.

The Revenant will not change your mind.

[Grouchy]

the film doesn't simply put the viewer inside the character's head without making any moral judgement about his behaviour.
This is exactly what I think the film does and I'm grateful for it.

[Winston*]

Next ten years. An interesting way to find the year you cared about movies the most in. I had to go down 5 levels in 2002.


1998 - Following
1999 - Girl Interupted
2000 - Werckmeister Harmonies
2001 - Wet Hot American Summer
2002 - A Walk to Remember
2003 - The Room
2004 - Napoleon Dynamite
2005 - Pride and Prejudice
2006 - Night at the Museum
2007 - Atonement

[Spinal]

2008 In Bruges
2007 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
2006 The Devil Wears Prada
2005 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
2004 Collateral
2003 Love Actually
2002 Lilo and Stitch
2001 Ocean's Eleven
2000 Snatch
1999 10 Things I Hate About You
1998 Mulan

[Stay Puft]

2008 - Wall E
2007 - Ratatouille
2006 - Cars
2005 - Harry Potter and the Who Cares
2004 - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2003 - The Room
2002 - Harry Potter and zzzzzz
2001 - Amelie
2000 - Almost Famous
1999 - Being John Malkovich

I guess movies with Charlie Kaufman scripts are another blind spot. I'm actually a little surprised by this revelation.
No surprise that there's a lot more Pixar and Harry Potter films there.

[Dead & Messed Up]

If the film really forced the viewer to reflect on their willingness to be entertained by the character, they'd probably come away from the film feeling slightly dirty rather than entertained.

Weird; I thought the film did this very well.

[Lazlo]

2007 - Shrek the Third
2006 - Night at the Museum
2005 - Saw II
2004 - The Butterfly Effect
2003 - Freaky Friday
2002 - Ice Age
2001 - The Piano Teacher
2000 - Scary Movie
1999 - Girl, Interrupted
1998 - Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

[Watashi]

the harry potter films are good, people

[Dukefrukem]

That one harry potter film involving time travel is good, people

Fixed

[Dukefrukem]

1998 - Run Lola Run
1999 - Magnolia
2000 - In the Mood for Love
2001 - Moulin Rouge!
2002 - Punch-Drunk Love
2003 - Lost in Translation
2004 - Howl’s Moving Castle
2005 - Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
2006 - Little Miss Sunshine
2007 - The Darjeeling Limited (WTF? how have i not seen this yet?)

[Dukefrukem]

Was 2003 the worst year of cinema ever?

[Grouchy]

Ok, ok, I'll do it.

2017 - Lady Bird
2016 - Finding Dory
2015 - Me, Earl and the Dying Girl
2014 - The Babadook
2013 - Frozen
2012 - The Hunger Games
2011 - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

2010 - Tangled
2009 - Dogtooth
2008 - Twilight
2007 - Knocked Up
2006 - The Devil Wears Prada
2005 - Pride and Prejudice
2004 - The Notebook
2003 - Love Actually
2002 - Lilo & Stitch
2001 - Y Tu Mamá También (I know, I know)

2000 - The Emperor's New Groove
1999 - 10 Things I Hate About You
1998 - Mulan
1997 - Hercules
1996 - Matilda
1995 - Clueless
1994 - Clerks
1993 - Hocus Pocus
1992 - Glengarry Glen Ross
1991 - My Own Private Idaho

1990 - Pretty Woman
1989 - Kiki's Delivery Service
1988 - Grave of the Fireflies
1987 - The Princess Bride

[Skitch]

Damn dude, Glengarry and The Princess Bride and Grave of the Fireflies...get on it! :)

[Mysterious Dude]

12 Years a Slave > The Revenant

[Ezee E]

What are these lists for?

[Lazlo]

Was 2003 the worst year of cinema ever?

I dunno, I'm a big fan of:

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
All the Real Girls
Shattered Glass
Seabiscuit
I'm Not Scared
The Fog of War
Capturing the Friedmans
Bright Leaves
The Matrix Reloaded
Cold Mountain
American Splendor
Matchstick Men
X2
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
Finding Nemo
The Best of Youth
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring
Kill Bill: Vol. 1
Elephant
Lost in Translation

I think those are all excellent.

[Dead & Messed Up]

12 Years a Slave > The Revenant

[many, many, many films] > The Revenant

[transmogrifier]

the harry potter films are good, people

Having seen 75% of them, I can’t help but disagree with this.

[Dead & Messed Up]

They're watchable. Consumible. They're the slightly cold tater tots of the cinema.

[Mysterious Dude]

What are these lists for?
They are the most popular movies (according to Letterboxd) that we haven't seen for each year.

[Mysterious Dude]

Thanks, Winston!
You thank Winston for directing you to my post, but don't thank me for providing the links you needed? I'm hurt.

2008 - The Incredible Hulk (I refuse to believe this is "popular")
2007 - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
2006 - X-Men: The Last Stand
2005 - Mr. & Mrs. Smith
2004 - Howl’s Moving Castle
2003 - Love Actually
2002 - Lilo & Stitch
2001 - The Fast and the Furious
2000 - Miss Congeniality
1999 - 10 Things I Hate About You

[Watashi]

Half-Blood Prince is legit one of the more beautiful films released in the last decade or so.

[Ezee E]

THis was fun for an airplane ride. Comic book movies, animation, and the fantasy fluff of the 2000's seem to hit the most.

2018 - Ready Player One
2017 - Spider-Man: Homecoming
2016 - Zootopia
2015 - Avengers: Age of Ultron
2014 - The Kingsman
2013 - Frozen
2012 - The Hobbit
2011 - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part 2
2010 - Easy A

2009 - Star Trek (can't actually recall if I attempted to watch this or not)
2008 - Twilight
2007 - Stardust
2006 - Devil Wears Prada
2005 - Chronicles of Narnia
2004 - Butterfly Effect
2003 - The Room
2002 - Men in Black 2
2001 - Legally Blonde
2000 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas

[Ezee E]

Half-Blood Prince is legit one of the more beautiful films released in the last decade or so.

In what way? Once the 3rd movie hits, they all look and feel the same to me onward.

[baby doll]

Weird; I thought the film did this very well.
This is exactly what I think the film does and I'm grateful for it.I don't think Grouchy offers a terribly precise way of understanding viewers' emotional engagement with fictional characters. More persuasive to my mind is the model outlined by Murray Smith in his book Engaging Characters, where one's sympathetic attachment to a particular character (what Smith calls "allegiance") depends on one understanding the context of the character's actions and making a moral evaluation based on that knowledge. In The Wolf of Wall Street, the film tends to frame every situation in terms of the consequences for the protagonist (e.g., selling junk stocks to suckers is good for him professionally) while keeping the collateral damage he causes strategically offscreen, which is not quite the same thing as putting us inside his head and does not preclude one from being critical of at least some of his actions. However, since most of his victims are kept offscreen or appear only briefly, there's never a moment where the viewer really has to face up to the implications of being entertained by his misdeeds.

[Skitch]

I will die with trans on the HP is meh mountain.

But I recognize we are very alone.

[Dead & Messed Up]

You thank Winston for directing you to my post, but don't thank me for providing the links you needed? I'm hurt.

2008 - The Incredible Hulk (I refuse to believe this is "popular")
2007 - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
2006 - X-Men: The Last Stand
2005 - Mr. & Mrs. Smith
2004 - Howl’s Moving Castle
2003 - Love Actually
2002 - Lilo & Stitch
2001 - The Fast and the Furious
2000 - Miss Congeniality
1999 - 10 Things I Hate About You

Thanks, Isaac!

[Dead & Messed Up]

Half-Blood Prince is legit one of the more beautiful films released in the last decade or so.

I'll give you that, there's a lot of good eye food in Part One.

[Dukefrukem]

I will die with trans on the HP is meh mountain.

But I recognize we are very alone.

I'll send you smoke signals from They-Are-All-Crap mountain.

[Skitch]

I'll send you smoke signals from They-Are-All-Crap mountain.

And then we were three.

[Spinal]

I watched three Harry Potter movies. Which is three more than I wanted to. You can't say I didn't try.

[Peng]

OK, I am doing (what I assume is) the same as Grouchy, going further back to my birth year. This is fun:

2007 - Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
2006 - Borat
2005 - Cache
2004 - Anchorman
2003 - Elf
2002 - MIB2
2001 - Donnie Darko

2000 - Almost Famous
1999 - The Green Mile
1998 - American History X
1997 - Good Will Hunting
1996 - From Dusk Till Dawn
1995 - Ghost in the Shell
1994 - Natural Born Killers
1993 - True Romance
1992 - Wayne's World
1991 - Thelma and Louise
1990 - Edward Scissorhands

Probably looking forward to rectify 2000, 1991, and 1990 most.

[transmogrifier]

OK, I am doing (what I assume is) the same as Grouchy, going further back to my birth year. This is fun:

2007 - Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
2006 - Borat
2005 - Cache
2004 - Anchorman
2003 - Elf
2002 - MIB2
2001 - Donnie Darko

2000 - Almost Famous
1999 - The Green Mile
1998 - American History X
1997 - Good Will Hunting
1996 - From Dusk Till Dawn
1995 - Ghost in the Shell
1994 - Natural Born Killers
1993 - True Romance
1992 - Wayne's World
1991 - Thelma and Louise
1990 - Edward Scissorhands

Probably looking forward to rectify 2000, 1991, and 1990 most.

Three best films highlighted.