Thread: Year One

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Look, I see a lot of movies starring folks I don't care for. It's the movie that I am concerned with. I won't rule out seeing anything simply because of someone who is in it. I'm not that close minded. And I go in trying to judge on a case by case basis. A movie like IN BRUGES completely changed my opinion of Colin Ferrell, who I did not care for up to that point. You are defending a movie based on lowered expectations and your main defense is basically 'I wasn't really expecting it to be funny'. That's sad bordering on pathetic. This is why **** movies keep getting made. Because people are basically saying 'as long as it's not THAT crappy...'. I'm sorry, that's not good enough for me. A comedy made about Bible stories should not be AFRAID. And that movie was all about fear. As are most modern movies. The stereotypical argument, If Blazing Saddles came out today... you know it would be a different movie.

Stop defending a movie, that 'wasn't that bad'. You deserve better than that. And so do I.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say here especially about Ferrell and In Bruges. Like you, I am also sick of movies that are safe but I just didn't see this movie and think that it was safe. I didn't think it wasn't safe either it just never crossed my mind with this particular movie so I wasn't bothered by it. Plus with Ramis, he's not the most risque director. All of his movies are borderline family friendly. In fact, there was probably more crude stuff in this than most of his movies. So I don't know why your expectations were more than that.

Originally Posted by NastiMarvasti

I actually agree with a lot of what you say here especially about Ferrell and In Bruges. Like you, I am also sick of movies that are safe but I just didn't see this movie and think that it was safe. I didn't think it wasn't safe either it just never crossed my mind with this particular movie so I wasn't bothered by it. Plus with Ramis, he's not the most risque director. All of his movies are borderline family friendly. In fact, there was probably more crude stuff in this than most of his movies. So I don't know why your expectations were more than that.

I get it...and to a point, you are right. Ramis ain't exactly Mel Brooks. I guess I was so offended by this movie because I want a comedy, especially one about the Bible, to go to dark places that may lead to the God Hates Common Sense folks to picket the damned(pun intended) thing. This was just so milquetoast...so white bread...so harmless. I hate that, as the decades progress, entertainment becomes more afraid to take risks. Name a classic movie and an argument can be made that it pushed one form of envelope or another. Adgy so loves his Criterions...and them guys are so selective about films they bestow with their blessing. Where are the future classics/Criterions? It just seems that it gets worse every year. When was the last time a (mainstream) movie was made that really qualifies as classic cinema? Say what you want, but Fight Club is the last one that really comes to my mind. Add Fincher's S7even...Zodiac too. But for the most part folks are content with 'meh' and this is what we get. Sorry for the rant. So Nasti...is it better than/as good as Ghostbusters 2?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I get it...and to a point, you are right. Ramis ain't exactly Mel Brooks. I guess I was so offended by this movie because I want a comedy, especially one about the Bible, to go to dark places that may lead to the God Hates Common Sense folks to picket the damned(pun intended) thing. This was just so milquetoast...so white bread...so harmless. I hate that, as the decades progress, entertainment becomes more afraid to take risks. Name a classic movie and an argument can be made that it pushed one form of envelope or another. Adgy so loves his Criterions...and them guys are so selective about films they bestow with their blessing. Where are the future classics/Criterions? It just seems that it gets worse every year. When was the last time a (mainstream) movie was made that really qualifies as classic cinema? Say what you want, but Fight Club is the last one that really comes to my mind. Add Fincher's S7even...Zodiac too. But for the most part folks are content with 'meh' and this is what we get. Sorry for the rant. So Nasti...is it better than/as good as Ghostbusters 2?

I hear ya bud. And until the day I die I will continue to support GB2 No, Year One was not as good as that. I had to stop for a second and realize that this conversation started with Year One and is now going towards David Fincher films, haha. I agree that there are fewer classics these days than there were in decades past. I don't think many would argue against the 70's being the greatest era in film history. It drives me crazy that crap like Transformers makes hundreds of millions of dollars and then the same people who loved that consider Zodiac to be a boring movie. That's not to say though that there aren't good movies these days, it's just that they don't make the money that bad movies make because they just aren't marketed the same way. Plus, a kid in high school isn't going to a.) have the time and money to see every good movie that comes out during non-summer season and b.) understand a movie that takes being and living through adult experiences to understand. Hell, even most Oscar winning movies are overrated. Back to your question though, off the top of my head the one guy who has consistently made great movies/classics in the last 10 or 11 years is Nolan. I know you're not the biggest fan and lets not even talk about the Batman films. Memento and Inception are two movies that will be remembered for a long time. A big reason I thought The King's Speech wasn't Oscar worthy was because no one will remember it in the future. How many people remember who won best picture the year Citizen Kane came out? And with that, we have now started with Year One and ended with Citizen Kane.

Originally Posted by NastiMarvasti

I hear ya bud. And until the day I die I will continue to support GB2 No, Year One was not as good as that. I had to stop for a second and realize that this conversation started with Year One and is now going towards David Fincher films, haha. I agree that there are fewer classics these days than there were in decades past. I don't think many would argue against the 70's being the greatest era in film history. It drives me crazy that crap like Transformers makes hundreds of millions of dollars and then the same people who loved that consider Zodiac to be a boring movie. That's not to say though that there aren't good movies these days, it's just that they don't make the money that bad movies make because they just aren't marketed the same way. Plus, a kid in high school isn't going to a.) have the time and money to see every good movie that comes out during non-summer season and b.) understand a movie that takes being and living through adult experiences to understand. Hell, even most Oscar winning movies are overrated. Back to your question though, off the top of my head the one guy who has consistently made great movies/classics in the last 10 or 11 years is Nolan. I know you're not the biggest fan and lets not even talk about the Batman films. Memento and Inception are two movies that will be remembered for a long time. A big reason I thought The King's Speech wasn't Oscar worthy was because no one will remember it in the future. How many people remember who won best picture the year Citizen Kane came out? And with that, we have now started with Year One and ended with Citizen Kane.

Actually, the Nolan reference was a good choice. Memento is a brilliant film fueled by an ESSENTIAL performance by Guy Pearce. I am completely in love with Inception simply because it challenges. Some of it may not work, but it at least brings foreign movie sensibilities to a BIG BUDGE POPCORN FLICK. Add the Matrix to the list of possible future Criterions too, not the sequels though. Other than that...Glory/Last Samurai(by default) and that sorta covers it. It's simply a sad state of affairs.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Actually, the Nolan reference was a good choice. Memento is a brilliant film fueled by an ESSENTIAL performance by Guy Pearce. I am completely in love with Inception simply because it challenges. Some of it may not work, but it at least brings foreign movie sensibilities to a BIG BUDGE POPCORN FLICK. Add the Matrix to the list of possible future Criterions too, not the sequels though. Other than that...Glory/Last Samurai(by default) and that sorta covers it. It's simply a sad state of affairs.

i fully enjoyed the Matrix, but if they Criterionize it, ima bomit.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Hey now...Toxic Avenger is AWESOME.

That it is....most Traumaville productions have some entertainment value.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I get it...and to a point, you are right. Ramis ain't exactly Mel Brooks. I guess I was so offended by this movie because I want a comedy, especially one about the Bible, to go to dark places that may lead to the God Hates Common Sense folks to picket the damned(pun intended) thing. This was just so milquetoast...so white bread...so harmless. I hate that, as the decades progress, entertainment becomes more afraid to take risks. Name a classic movie and an argument can be made that it pushed one form of envelope or another. Adgy so loves his Criterions...and them guys are so selective about films they bestow with their blessing. Where are the future classics/Criterions? It just seems that it gets worse every year. When was the last time a (mainstream) movie was made that really qualifies as classic cinema? Say what you want, but Fight Club is the last one that really comes to my mind. Add Fincher's S7even...Zodiac too. But for the most part folks are content with 'meh' and this is what we get. Sorry for the rant. So Nasti...is it better than/as good as Ghostbusters 2?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Actually, the Nolan reference was a good choice. Memento is a brilliant film fueled by an ESSENTIAL performance by Guy Pearce. I am completely in love with Inception simply because it challenges. Some of it may not work, but it at least brings foreign movie sensibilities to a BIG BUDGE POPCORN FLICK. Add the Matrix to the list of possible future Criterions too, not the sequels though. Other than that...Glory/Last Samurai(by default) and that sorta covers it. It's simply a sad state of affairs.

With regards to the Criterion angle (I love the new direction this thread has gone)...

I think there's more than one reason that recently released movies released by Criterion are indie/foreign films. Part of it is that the quality of the so-called "Hollywood" is not that great, but I'm not sure that that's changed much. That is, I'm sure the quantity of ****ty movies has increased, but I'm not sure the percentage is any higher.

The other reason being that when a big studio movie does well, there's no ****ing way that studio is going to license it's DVD distribution to another company.

But I think there have been a LOT of good films the last few years that might qualify as classics and that got plenty of attention. Stuff like There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men are, to my mind, about as good as any movies I've ever seen. Granted, very few of the truly great films of the last decade were also summer tentpole flicks, like Inception, but like I said, I think it's pretty much always been like that.

Oscar winners since 2000:

Gladiator
A Beautiful Mind
Chicago
Return of the King
Million Dollar Baby
Crash
The Departed
No Country For Old Men
Slumdog Millionaire
The Hurt Locker
The King's Speech

Now I've already said that the best movies don't always win best picture, but from that list, I only see 2 (maybe 3) movies I'd consider to be classics. Compare that to this list:

Dances With Wolves
Silence of the Lambs
Unforgiven
Schindler's List
Forrest Gump (beat out Shawshank and Pulp Fiction. What a year.)
Braveheart
The English Patient
Titanic
Shakespeare in Love
American Beauty

And notice the first half of the second list is considerably better than the second half. Kind of hard not to think quality has indeed dropped.

Originally Posted by NastiMarvasti

Oscar winners since 2000:

Gladiator
A Beautiful Mind
Chicago
Return of the King
Million Dollar Baby
Crash
The Departed
No Country For Old Men
Slumdog Millionaire
The Hurt Locker
The King's Speech

Now I've already said that the best movies don't always win best picture, but from that list, I only see 2 (maybe 3) movies I'd consider to be classics. Compare that to this list:

Dances With Wolves
Silence of the Lambs
Unforgiven
Schindler's List
Forrest Gump (beat out Shawshank and Pulp Fiction. What a year.)
Braveheart
The English Patient
Titanic
Shakespeare in Love
American Beauty

And notice the first half of the second list is considerably better than the second half. Kind of hard not to think quality has indeed dropped.

Oh man...someday I want my Shawshank Redemption Criterion.