April 30, 2024
Box Office
http://www.soulduster.com/ on: Friday Estimates by Klady
http://www.rehabsandrentals.com/ on: Friday Estimates by Klady
Joe Leydon on: Weekend Estimates by MacKlady
Abi on: Weekend Estimates by MacKlady
betavaftrar on: 3-Day Estimates By Klady That Made The Clown Cry
Tashie Jackson on: Friday Estimates by Klady
Jeffrey Boam's Doctor on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
DiggityDawg on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
David Poland on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
berg on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
Friday Estimate by MuthaSmurfin’ Klady
4 Day Estimates by Vehicular Klady
Friday Estimates by Green Klady
4 Day Estimates by Wolfpack Klady
Weekend Estimates by Screaming Rio Klady
Friday Estimates by Rio de JaKlady
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
First again? I have no life.
No box office numbers of limited-releases movies? (Like “La Vie En Rose “, “12:08 East of Bucharest”?)
added for you, Marychan
Thank you so much, David!
Good to see that both “La Vie En Rose ” and “12:08 East of Bucharest” open well.
doncha mean SPidey 3?
and June 8-10th
So… I’m pretty sure some time ago I mentioned the possibility of Pirates 3 experiencing some kind of sequel-too-soon fatigue and winding up the lowest-grossing of the three movies, not unlike Matrix Revolutions or Back to the Future III (though obviously on a much larger scale)… that still may not happen if it hits $300 million, but it suddenly looks a lot more possible, eh?
Not if you take international into account. Pirates is already pushing $750m worldwide
Yeah, and I know, same deal for Spidey 3… but are you suggesting no one will notice that both of these movies will have the lowest domestic totals of their respective (and nevertheless very successful) trilogies?
Pirates 3 will easily cross $300m. There are many reasons for the BO drop off from its predecessor, but I think sequel-to-soon fatigue is not one of them.
Just thought I’d point out that neither Spider-Man 3 or Pirates 3 are going to come anywhere near Revenge of the Sith’s $380. Return of the King was the only one to compete, finishing a few million under Episode 3. International is another story, but it’s still an interesting fact.
No matter how many people appeared to be dissatisfied with the prequels and enamored with the next big thing, Star Wars still reigns supreme when it comes to the franchise business. Apparently critics felt the same way, as the two part 3s this summer received lower ratings, 47% for Pirates, 61% for Spidey on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to Sith’s 80%.
LOTR and SW both managed to avoid series fatigue not necessarily because they are bigger in stature, but because I think the mind of the filmgoer knows the difference between watching a long story play out over 3 films, and seeing studios throw more crap and money at the screen to “up the ante” each successive time out (and The Matrix, however creator-controlled, is still guilty of this to an extent, as well as disappearing up their own assholes).
I think you’ll find that Harry Potter is going to suffer the same fate of diminishing returns, because although the characters seem to be beloved, each story is self-contained, and there’s not as much of a sense of a cliffhanger between installments. Sure, we know Voldemort’s still out there, etc., but do they really expect the general audience to plod through 3 more films?
No way Narnia is going to make it to book 7, either.
Well, Lazarus, there’s also one other thing to consider: In just a few weeks, the last Harry Potter book will be released. And according to everything I’ve heard or read, at least one major character dies in the novel. Will THAT affect audience reaction as the movie adaptations play catch-up?
After $3.5 billion dollars at the box office, yes, Warner Bros. expects audiences to attend three more films. At gunpoint doesn’t seem to be necessary, as they actually cut a good trailer this time out. Diminishing returns? Four made more than three, proving that a Summer release compared to a Fall/Winter release is harder to sell for Fantasy.
There are few indicators to Narnia stopping, either.
Given that no one booed Alan Rickman when he showed up in GoF a few months after “Half-Blood Prince” was published, I’m not sure how much effect the story element will have on the films. Now, if you want to argue the effect not having any more books will have on the films, that’s something to consider. WB moved OotP to July 11 from July 13 last week. I’m guessing they did it to give the movie a couple more days in the market before Deathly Hallows hits the Saturday of the film’s second weekend and everyone like me stays home to read it.
“Star Wars still reigns supreme when it comes to the franchise business.”
Well, duh.
There’s only been one Narnia movie. Let’s see how #2 does before we talk about it stopping or ending.
Narnia failed to crack $300 million. It wasn’t a bomb by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m going to be very surprised if Narnia pulls in any new fans in the break between the films like LOTR did, and a much longer break, I might add. I know it’s still too early to tell, but does anyone FEEL like there’s some longevity here? Do they need to pull in bigger stars for each installment? Who thinks the popularity of the books is enough to sustain a 7 film cycle? I’m not pretending to know anything, I’m just curious what the consensus of thought around here is.
While I don’t think the Harry Potter films will drop enough to become unprofitable, or cease to be made, I still believe you’re going to see diminishing returns, with the exception of the finale making more than the previous 2 installments. And yes, the summer release of Azkaban definitely affected its take, but it wasn ‘t going to hit $300 mil regardless, and I don’t think there’s going to be another one so successful for the rest of its run.
Wrecktum, you don’t think that Pirates 3 would’ve made a bit more money with a little more distance between it and Pirates 2? I’m just questioning the idea (which studios seem to still dig) of filming back-to-back sequels to a surprise hit. Personally/creatively, it’s fine by me — I preferred Pirates 3 to 2 (though both have major problems) and I like all three Back to the Future movies. I even like the Matrix sequels more than most people. But it does seem to me that this practice has rarely paid off in big box-office nor in saving the studio money by shooting them concurrently (except with Lord of the Rings on both counts — and that was with all three being done together).
Lazarus, I agree that the Star Wars prequels are undervalued both creatively and financially … but have you read the Harry Potter books? The book-to-book continuity gets more intense in the last few. It’s not cliffhanging in the manner of a serial, but 5 and 6 are far less self-contained than 1 and 2.
Also, as much as it pains me to admit it since hardcore Potter fans can be so annoying, I’m not sure that the continuing box office success of those movies depends so much on the general audience. I’m not saying, like so many comic-geek people do, that it’s all about pleasing the fans and if they don’t do that, they’re screwed. But I think a pretty hefty number of people (plus kids) will want to see Potters 5-7 no matter what.
Lazarus, there may very well not be another Potter movie that tops 300 mil, but I doubt there will be any that come in under 240, either, which will make it one of the most consistent franchises out there. I do agree that there’s some potential for dropoff for #6. #5 is going to be premiering in the middle of Potter mania with the last book, and #7 will have extra interest, as you point out, from being the final chapter. But #6 will lack that cache plus the book series will be over. (Too bad, because book 6 is a lot better than book 5… though I think they could make a really good movie out of book 5 simply by virtue of cutting the shit out of it; in other words, doing the kind of editing that Rowling herself has long become exempt from.)
Even so, a low-grossing Potter movie means a quarter-billion domestic. That’s pretty damn good for a seven-film series. I don’t know that Star Wars (which I love) could’ve accompolished that with six or seven straight through; the huge break between trilogies probably helped it a lot in terms of making its return a major event.
Can we please put to bed the myth that the second cycle of Star Wars pictures, much as you might have liked them, were even in the same room critically as The Lord of the Rings pictures?
From Rotten Tomatoes –
The Phantom Menace 63%/40% cotc
The Fellowship of the Ring 93%/97% cotc
Attack of the Clones 66%/38% cotc
The Two Towers 97%/100% cotc
The Revenge of the Sith 80%/69% cotc
The Return of the King 94%/98% cotc
Is something a myth if it’s never been spread?
Funny enough, I am watching Episode III, right now, and it still kicks – Lucas delivered the goods, despite lukewarm dialogue. The visuals are just incredible, finally living up to years of hype over whether the “technology” was there to tell the story with scope he wanted – see the scene portraying Order 66 and the slaughter of the Jedi’s.
Ian, honestly, I don’t think any one really spread the “myth” that the prequels triology had as much as acclaim as LOTR – we are talking the only franchise in history, except for the Godfathers, where EVERY film received a Best Picture nomination. Episodes I and III received pretty good reviews, but were pretty much based on lowered expectations.
Jesse, great points about the consistency of the Potter franchise – these films are really like the James Bond films or the Star Trek films – grossing on pretty much the same plateau spread out over several films – but on a much higher level. (Though not when you factor in inflation in the case of the earlier Bond films.)
Still kind of suprising that no Potter film has grossed $300 mill since the first one, which just eked past it – throughout 2001, the hype was deafening and every one was talking about ET numbers for the first movie. Guess LOTR stole much of its thunder.
Funny enough, I am watching Episode III, right now, and it still kicks – Lucas delivered the goods, despite lukewarm dialogue. The visuals are just incredible, finally living up to years of hype over whether the “technology” was there to tell the story with scope he wanted – see the scene portraying Order 66 and the slaughter of the Jedi’s.
Ian, honestly, I don’t think any one really spread the “myth” that the prequels triology had as much as acclaim as LOTR – we are talking the only franchise in history, except for the Godfathers, where EVERY film received a Best Picture nomination. Episodes I and III received pretty good reviews, but were pretty much based on lowered expectations.
Jesse, great points about the consistency of the Potter franchise – these films are really like the James Bond films or the Star Trek films – grossing on pretty much the same plateau spread out over several films – but on a much higher level. (Though not when you factor in inflation in the case of the earlier Bond films.)
Still kind of suprising that no Potter film has grossed $300 mill since the first one, which just eked past it – throughout 2001, the hype was deafening and every one was talking about ET numbers for the first movie. Guess LOTR stole much of its thunder.
Geof: Don’t mean this as a put-down, just a query — do you think there’s always been a kinda-sorta glass ceiling for “Harry Potter” grosses because some people still preceive them as “children’s movies”?
I’ll reiterate what was said above. At no point did I claim that the Star Wars prequel trilogy was received better than LOTR critically. Do you know how to read? This thread was about Spidey and Pirates, and I was comparing the Part 3s with Revenge of the Sith. I think I even went to far as to mention LOTR as a fully successful trilogy, and what was amazing was that each film did better B.O. than the last one.
Which goes back to what I said about picking up new fans. Whether it was because of video or the awards success, it appeared that people kept jumping on the LOTR bandwagon over the course of the 3 years. I don’t see this with Harry Potter–whatever new audience members they’re gaining through 8 year olds who are just starting to read young adult fiction, they are losing older viewers who just don’t care anymore, or were curious and didn’t like what they saw.
Jesse, it ultimately doesn’t matter what the nature of books 5, 6 and 7 are, because the majority of the people who make up the theatrical audience aren’t made up of people who read the books. And while you’re going to have a certain percentage of PotterHeads who are going to see it regardless, I still think there’s going to be a slow but steady decline in attendance. While I strongly disliked the first two installments, I enjoyed the last two a lot, and I’m not rooting for it to fail. But phenomenons can only last for so long, and here’s one thing that hasn’t been mentioned: much of Star Wars’ success over the years is due to repeat business of fans who want to relive the experience again and again. How else do you explain how The Phantom Menace became the #2 grossing film in U.S. history if so many hated it? By comparison, Harry Potter’s more intense fanbase has already read the books, and don’t necessarily need to see the film more than once–it’s already in their heads.
Narnia has up to this point failed to become a phenomenon at all, and that’s why I don’t believe the series will be completed or ultimately successful. The books are well-known by generations of readers, but how many kids are obsessed with the world or its characters? Will they have a hunger to see each story as its released? They don’t have the adolescent or post-adolescent geeks onboard either, and after those demographics what’s really left for Narnia’s audience?
Joe, I completely agree with you about the Potter films – no doubt there is the perpection that they are children’s films. And besides that, do these films even draw in urban area’s? Still, $300 million is a pretty high ceiling.
Lazaras, relax, no one is really arguing with you. I think there could be diminishing returns with the Potter films, though I have a suspicion that the final chapter could be huge – Warner’s would be wise to ride the paperback momentum of the last book, pick up the pace on production, and number 7 out two summers from now.
Narnia could do well, but you’re right, they have waited too long and it’s going to come out within a week of Indy 4. And it really DOES feel like a holiday film – I can still see Disney moving it back to Christmas.
Lazarus, what makes you say that the majority of the theatrical audience isn’t made up of people who read the books?! I mean, with most properties, I would agree with you. But Harry Potter is huge. Not huge enough for $300 million with no outside help, of course, but I’d wager far more of the audience has read those than the Narnia series. And I do agree with you about future Narnia movies not being huge; the thing is, that fire lacking in Narnia fans (or in children for the Narnia universe) is totally there for Potter and should have no trouble sustaining the film series through #7. That’s three more movies, one of which is coming more or less in the eye of another storm’s worth of Pottermania. There just isn’t that much time for a gradual decline in attendance! The bottom line is: if Potter interest is eventually going to wane, why was #4 the second-highest-grossing of the bunch? If you’re arguing that the end of the book series will hurt the movies, I agree to an extent — that is, it could hurt #6 a bit. But that’s not a trend.
I also agree with your analysis of Star Wars vs. Potter fans (in terms of people wanting to relive the experience and all that). That’s an excellent partial explanation of why Star Wars movies have done better on average. But I can give you further explanation of why Phantom Menace made a ton of money RE: “how else could it happen?” as if NO other factors could possibly contribute: the irate fanbase that “hates” that movie is not any more representative of the typical audience member than a hardcore Potter fan who will see any new Potter movie two or three times (and I do believe those people exist, albeit in smaller numbers than Star Wars numbers).
I’m not claiming Phantom Menace is a lot of people’s favorite movie… but that film and the prequels in general are definitely a case where a lot of media carping (and I include in that fans and part-time critics and people who really follow the movies) isn’t really indicative of the full audience. I’d guess a lot of kids and families saw Phantom Menace and liked it just fine.
And Ian, I’ve never claimed that the Star Wars movies were in the same critical ballpark as LOTR… and not to stir up very old debates… but I personally like them a hell of a lot more. This isn’t misguided Lucas loyalty; I just think they’re more aesthetically interesting and entertaining.
I’ll start with your last comment, jesse, which I’m so glad someone has the courage to voice in a public forum as hostile and (relatively) educated as this one. I love Jackson’s trilogy to death, but I don’t think his frame compositions convey nearly the amount of depth or artistic merit as Lucas’ do, however much the latter are cluttered at times. And that non-verbal storytelling is so important to the medium, not to mention the popularity of the SW films themselves, it’s a shame more credit isn’t given where it’s due.
As for Potter, I think you’re giving too much credit to the general public. What percentage of people even READ for pleasure? Harry Potter’s audience skews a little younger than the other stuff we’re talking about (save for Narnia), and in addition to the book readers that have seen the movies (I understand there are older fans of the books included in this), you have the scores of adults who are chaperoning the kids, most of whom haven’t read the books, and really young kids who haven’t read the books but are still old enough to understand the movies.
There’s a certain percentage of older genre fans who will see HP, but there are many who won’t because they think it’s kid stuff–how much overlap do you think there is between the Horror Porn and HP audience? There are some genre fans who will see the films but won’t read the books because they’re literary snobs (like myself).
You could probably look up the book sales figures, and figure out how many people bought one, and then compare that to the amount of tickets sold. I still don’t think the number is going to be as high as you think it is.
Lazarus, maybe I’m biased because I work in publishing, but I know *loads* of adults who are not particularly fantasy/genre fans who absolutely love the Potter books. Maybe I’m overestimating (I don’t have sales figures handy) — but even so, I think you’re underestimating the number of adults who read these books. A lot of those adult chaperones probably have read the books too. You’re right; few people read for pleasure… but Potter is pretty much the most popular book in the country. Comparing readers to readers of Harry Potter is like comparing the average viewership of a network TV show with the average viewership of American Idol.
Totally agree on Lucas… I actually consider Jackson very similar to Lucas in terms of directorial talent. That is to say that they’re both good at organizing a variety of eye-popping visuals (and I do tend to prefer Lucas’s), moreso than they are at writing. I don’t think either of them are anywhere near as technically brilliant as Spielberg, and I find Lucas’s fantasy trilogies (bad dialogue and all — and there’s no great shakes in that LOTR dialogue either) much less pretentious. So I’m amused/appalled when Jackson gets credit as some kind of visionary.
With the Harry Potter books I think it is telling that my wife loves the books – with each new one we read them on the day of relase taking turns reaching each chapter – and she hates the movies. None of our friends bother seeing the HP pictures, though I, at least, have seen each of them.
However, she and almost all of our female friends love the Lord of the Rings pictures and hate the Star Wars pictures. In fact, only one of my friends likes the Star Wars pictures and he is a card-carrying (and proud!) Trekkie.
The reason the Rings pictures are so popular with women is because the pictures are just one long story, taken from a beloved and respected novel that has been popular with all ages since its publication half a century ago.
The recent Star Wars pictures, which I have had the misfortune to watch, hoping beyond hope that they would improve, were written for little boys by a very poor writer with a tin ear for dialogue and directed by a person who was no longer able to competently direct actors. It is hardly surprising that women avoided them.
Having said that, I am happy that some of you enjoy them. All I ask is that I can live my life without having to sit through what I consider to be some of the worst pictures ever made in the history of motion pictures, ever again.
There’s a reason George has to be a good non-verbal storyteller-he CAN’T write dialog. All his good compositions he “borrowed” from other filmmakers. “The Searchers” comes to mind.
I don’t think anyone will be screening the Witchblade series for you anytime soon.
Why do women like the LOTR series? Two words: Viggo Mortensen.
“All I ask is that I can live my life without having to sit through what I consider to be some of the worst pictures ever made in the history of motion pictures, ever again.”
I was just saying the same thing about LOTR the other day . . . Well, not quite. I love the first one, but the second one is an abomination, and the third suffers from Jackson’s periodic inability, nowhere on dislay in the first one, to get out of his own way. It was surprisingly hamfisted but enjoyable nonetheless. But that series was all downhill. And I’ll take Lucas’ relatively sedate compositions over Jackson’s ADHD camera movements any day. Let’s not forget Jackson followed up LOTR with King Kong. He’s not the pope; he’s fallible.
The problem Potter has is that it’s competing with itself. The mvoies are going on at the same time as the books. The originals are right there, and I guess more people will choose the originals than the adaptations. It’s just a hunch, but I suspect there are more who read the books and skip the movies than vice versa. LOTR wasn’t competing with itself that way. It had been around so long that it wasn’t a “now” thing when the movies came out. Tolkien wasn’t looking at scripts.
I’ll take SW and Potter over LOTR any day. “I just think they’re more aesthetically interesting and entertaining.” Bingo.
“The originals are right there, and I guess more people will choose the originals than the adaptations.”
Or…brace yourself…they could choose both!
If only Sophie had done that.
Regarding the “kid’s stuff” business, remember that the original batch of readers has grown older, and hasn’t abandoned the books or the films. At the University where I teach, a stunningly large percentage of the students have read the books, and the release date for the next one is something like a summer holiday; people have been talking about it all year, certainly more than any summer film. And from my experience, most of those readers do see the movie adaptations–though many seem to do so primarily to bemoan and nitpick (certainly very few of them consider them as good as LOTR). For the fourth film we sent busloads–750 students was the estimate–to a theater downtown for opening day.
“Or…brace yourself…they could choose both!”
Like me. I was talking about people who choose only one or the other. I thought that’s what Lazarus had in mind, but I could be mistaken.
You know, I read Mr. Sinclair’s last post and I was totally ready to let it go, but after a night out and a few drinks I’ve reconsidered. I really don’t want to turn this thread into a debate over the Star Wars prequels, and I know I’m likely fighting a losing battle with few supporters, but I’ll speak up anyway:
Some of the worst pictures ever made? Come on. For all the cringe-inducing dialogue and instances of wooden line-readings (which to be fair, are not found throughout the whole trilogy, with every actor), there is a wealth of creativity on display. When you insult these films, you are not just sticking it to George Lucas. There are many talented people who worked on these films, from Trisha Beggar who was ROBBED of Oscar nominations and awards for costume design, to the people in the art department, to the people in the effects crew, who saw their work overlooked in favor of the trendy work done on The Matrix. I still maintain that as amazing a job as WETA did on Gollum (for which Andy Serkis deserves a large percentage of the credit), ILM did an equally if not greater job with their work on Yoda, especially in the third film. When you consider that they weren’t working from Frank Oz’s facial expressions like WETA did with Serkis, it’s even more impressive.
Also, I’ll point again to Lucas’ gifts for compositions. I’m not arguing that he’s great with actors, writing dialogue, or the ability to let a basic image speak for itself without throwing a bunch of background junk in there. But the bottom line is that he still knows the power of a single shot, and I could post about 50 stills from the prequels that are great examples of showing character and theme without telling. Compared to cheap devices like Jackson’s altered-shutter speed ZombieCam (one of the most awful and overused directing devices in the last 10 years), Lucas’ images are the height of sophistication.
As for the films being written for little boys, I cry bullshit. Had Lucas simplified the story he would have received much less criticism. And without arguing the success of the execution, having officials arguing about taxation, trade routes, etc. is not exactly the easiest way to sell toys, which I imagine many of the detractors feel is Lucas’ number one concern. There was clearly a political slant to these films, and even disregarding the allusions to the U.S.’ current political climate, interested viewers had something to chew on regarding the way great societies and governments can decay from within. Laugh all you want; the line “So this is how liberty dies…with thunderous applause.” is more profound and spot-on than anything I’ve seen in a so-called popcorn film in recent memory. Whether Lucas was talking about Ancient Rome or George Bush’s America, the point is that he was attempting to use his mythology to make a larger statement, and it’s disingenuous to describe the films in the harsh language that you’ve chosen, Mr. Sinclair. Only your “Trekkie” friend likes them, huh? What a loser!
Call them boring, call them juvenile, call them poorly acted, written, etc. But to act like they are the work of some soulless entities makes you look like you’re thumbing your nose because you know you have a consensus behind you to agree. I challenge you to look at Spider-Man 3 or Pirates 3 and tell me there’s more artistic merit or less of a wasted afternoon to be found.
Enjoy your Harry Potter. I’m glad you feel so much better lining the pockets of the suits at Warner Bros. than you did fueling the fire George Lucas lit; you must feel so noble. And even though the women in your life seem to choose their sci-fi/fantasy with such discretion, your wife opts to sit out the little magician’s films. Hmmm.
I was disappointed in the Star Wars prequels (at least partly because I’m not a kid anymore and my tastes have changed), but anybody who says those were among the worst films of all time hasn’t seen enough films.
Mr. Sinclair is right. The latter three Star Wars films were awful. They were video games I couldn’t play. The direction, the writing, the acting — horrible across the board.
You know, I’m fine with people having whatever opinion they want, but these blanket statements like ‘worst pictures ever made in the history of motion pictures’ really rub me the wrong way, because of the rampant hyperbole.
Now let’s take 1999, when The Phantom Menace came out. That year, according to IMDB there were some 7100+ films made. (Granted a lot of those are probably short films and video games.) I think it could be safe to say that The Phantom Menace is in the top 2000 best films made in that year. If you want to be really uncharitable, maybe it’s the 3000th best film made that year, after such gems as Mickey Blue Eyes, Mumford, or My Brother the Pig.
That leaves 4000 films that The Phantom Menace was better than – in a single calendar year alone. If you want to say that the writing, directing, and acting in that movie were horrible, I can point you to at least ten movies – from that year alone – that were equally bad in each category _and_ had poorer visual effects, music, cinematography, and editing.
So you know what I call The Phantom Menace in a situation like this? Mediocre.
A critical opinion that makes no difference between a film that is ‘mediocre’ ‘below-average’ and ‘the worst film I have ever seen’ is a worthless critical opinion.
Just to put my 2c in on a comment pretty far up in this discussion: it’s definitely WAY too soon to discard the Narnia franchise! Enough of us grew up loving the books, and many people will know that’s one movie they can “safely” take their kids to see and will enjoy themselves.
As for the long haul, I never expected them to go for 7 movies, only 5 of the books are intrinsically linked. “The Magician’s Nephew” (6th book written, but first story chronologically) is too much of a metaphor on Genesis, doesn’t have enough “action” to appeal to kids (although Jadis atop of a London cab brandishing a lamp post would be fun to see!) and doesn’t provide any needed information for the series (except to introduce the Professor). As for “A Horse and His Boy”… well that’s basically a chapter in the first story (LW&W), and is pretty much self-contained except for the “cameo” by grown-up Lucy, Susan and Edmund. So can also be dropped from the lineup with no consequences to the general narrative of the franchise.
I for one am looking forward to “Dawn Treader”… just imagine the ship and Eustace as a dragon and sailing over the end of the world?! Lovely! 😉
Anyone who prefers HP or the SW prequels to the LOTR movies has the kind of taste in movies that you just nod and smile politely at, desperately waiting for someone to come and rescue you from the madman.
Oh, and TTT is the best of the LOTR series.
And Joe Leydon: Viggo Mortensen isn’t the ONLY reason we’re all fans of LOTR franchise… he’s just the reason we’ve seen any other movie he’s in (except History of Violence which was good in itself) ;o)
LOTR had an advantage over the SW prequels: it exceeded its expectations (even rabid book fans finally came round to admiring JAckson’s view of such a difficult work to translate to film). Whereas the SW prequel films had a tough time meeting expectations (with fans of the original films) and were generally disappointing to everyone, except in their visual aspects which were indeed stunning. But why oh why couldn’t Lucas have left the dialogue to someone else?!
And to add to the Harry Potter thread: watch for significantly reduced numbers on its 2nd weekend (but back up the following weekend), as all the fans are locked in their rooms reading the final book praying their favourite character isn’t the one to get the ax! ;o)
But no way is that franchise any where near sequel fatigue! Each film brings something different, it moves the story forward, the characters mature, the relationships evolve… and whenever Harry gets on that broomstick most of the public wishes they could be up there as well! The first books and movie were indeed “children’s books” (inasmuch as can be said of a book that starts off with a savage double murder), but as of the 3rd one things started getting a lot darker, and a lot more interesting. If they had remained purely children’s books, many readers would have probably dropped away as they aged.
The Rings pictures were enormous critical and commercial successes each one of which was nominated for Best Picture and whose third equalled the all-time number of Oscars given to a single picture. Anyone who compares them in a negative matter to the wretched Star Wars sequels deserves both pity and contempt. Having said that, if they are your cup of tea, all power to your elbow: they are harmless enough and all men were once little boys.
As to the Harry Potter picture, as someone remarked earlier, the third one is the only worthwhile movie, and the only one to bear repeated viewings. I shall not be in line for the next Harry Potter film, but I am very much looking forward to the Robert Zemeckis BEOWULF, especially as Zemeckis has said he intends to deliver a R rated cut. BEOWULF, in all of its primal beauty and terror, has never been done justice to in the cinema. I would heartily recommend seeking out Seeamus Heaney’s wonderful translation of the original poem to whet your appetetites.
spending time defending the star wars prequels is like masturbating with a cheese grater. painful and not worth a nanosecond of your time.
the harry potter films are split right down the middle. the first two are epically bad. the third and fourth are fun little movies with some cool stuff. I wouldn’t call any of them ‘classics’.
The Lord of the Rings films are wonderfully crafted bores. There’s a lot of heart in them, but they do drag on for what seems like forever.
anghus (and others), I had *fun* watching the Star Wars prequels. At the LOTR movies, eh, kind of. They are certainly well-crafted but I don’t find many of those characters interesting. Gollum, in the second movie. But not too many others. I realize it’s all very faithful to the books, but it’s not really my job to care about that. Honestly, I prefer Jackson’s King Kong because I was entertained for all three hours of that one.
I love the idea that someone can dismiss Star Wars as fodder for ten-year-old boys while talking about the massive achievement of Jackson’s series. I mean, at least anghus has the sense to basically dismiss all of these fantasy franchises on some level; I can totally accept saying the Star Wars movies are lousy kids’ movies if you’re also saying that the LOTR movies are boring and the Potter movies are a mixed bag. But to pretend that the LOTR movies are some kind of high art is pretty laughable to me, box-office, Tomatometer, and Oscars nonwithstanding.
And I have fucking awesome taste in movies, transmogrifier — no need for pity or polite nodding. Recent stuff I really like includes Eternal Sunshine, Squid and the Whale, Moulin Rouge, Royal Tenenbaums, Memento, Zodiac, Brick, Anchorman, Kill Bill, The Departed, 25th Hour, Ghost World, Adaptation, blah blah name-dropping.
I thought the LotR movies were good for pretty much the same reason the books were good – epic scale, beautiful scenery, and the sense of being in another world. They’re not fast-paced adventure movies like Star Wars, but they work as what they are.
The Star Wrs prequels were not horrible. They just weren’t anywhere close to the quality of the original trilogy. The action was too frenetic and nothing stood out; the stories were based on intrigue instead of adventure; the male and female lead were horribly miscast; the effects did look kinda cheesy; the cool philosophy of the Force from the first trilogy was eviscerated; and there were no “low” characters like Han Solo, Chewie, or the droids from the first trilogy. I rate these about the same as Pirates, but still better than Spider-Man.
As for Narnia, I agree that a 5-movie series looks to be tough.
“Anyone who compares them in a negative matter to the wretched Star Wars sequels deserves both pity and contempt.”
Anyone who criticizes the opinions of others in such a manner has no confidence in his own.
jesse wrote:
“And I have fucking awesome taste in movies, transmogrifier — no need for pity or polite nodding. Recent stuff I really like includes Eternal Sunshine, Squid and the Whale, Moulin Rouge, Royal Tenenbaums, Memento, Zodiac, Brick, Anchorman, Kill Bill, The Departed, 25th Hour, Ghost World, Adaptation, blah blah name-dropping. ”
In order:
great
meh
terrible
meh
great
haven’t seen
haven’t seen
haven’t seen
meh
good
good
bad
bad
*nods and smiles politely*
“Anyone who criticizes the opinions of others in such a manner has no confidence in his own.”
That should be “their” own. If you are going to attack my opinion, which you are of course as perfectly entitled to do as I am to express my own, at least do it with basic grammar skills, for if not you undermine your counterpoint by coming across as a dunderhead.
This is the most adult juvenile discussion I’ve seen in awhile……… doodoo heads.
Ian, I’m pretty sure that “their” is only actually supposed to be used in plural (a common mistake made when trying to avoid saying “his,” “her,” or the awkward “his or her”). I’m not actually sure if “anyone” is counted as plural or singular. My assumption is that because it could be replaced with a hypothetical “any person,” the correct usage would be “his” (or “her” or “his or her”) because you would definitely not use “their” with “person.”
In any case, the “their/his/her” problem is a mistake people make all the time, and I don’t believe it was your opinion that was attacked; I believe it was your condescending way of expressing it.
Transmogrifier, I would now feel pretty OK nodding and smiling politely right back. But instead I’ll ask: What are some of your recent favorites? Your taste is baffling to me so far, but curiosity is a lot more fun than condescension.
“f you are going to attack my opinion, which you are of course as perfectly entitled to do as I am to express my own, at least do it with basic grammar skills, for if not you undermine your counterpoint by coming across as a dunderhead.”
You might want to learn grammar first before you start correcting it.
“You might want to learn grammar first before you start correcting it. ”
The use of the word “first” in that sentence is redundant.
Jesse, “anyone”, like “anybody” is plural. “Any one” is singular.
Perhaps I was a little forceful in my opinion of the STAR WARS prequels. If I had not enjoyed the originals so much I might have spared the ghastly things so much of my venom.
Hey Dave, how about a Sopranos thread?
Ian, my Webster dictionary says that “anyone” and “anybody” are collective pronouns using singular (which makes sense to me because you say “anybody is,” not “anybody are”). It does make note of the difference between “any one” and “anyone” in terms of what they refer to, and also notes that “their” has been used increasingly to avoid gender-specific references… but not because they are plural words in the traditional sense.
(I’m not trying to be a dick; I kinda like discussing grammar.)
I’m often surprised by the hardcore-fan hatred of the prequels. I came at the original trilogy later than some of my friends (I saw them as a kid but didn’t see them repeatedly until I was 16, 17) but the six feel of a piece to me. I mean, the original six has a charm and novelty that the newer films can’t duplicate… but I think as imaginative and engaging fantasy adventures, the new ones are a lot of fun. There’s no shortage of bad dialogue or awkward (if endearingly so) acting in the first bunch.
Actually, Ian, there is some disagreement on the subject. For instance, I felt the tagline for “Apocalypto” — “No one can escape their destiny” — was incorrect. But the debate continues:
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns.htm
Anyone who says they have “awesome taste in movies”….
Well, probably doesn’t.
Well, “awesome” is an ambiguous word, isn’t it? I mean, a solar eclipse can be awesome. But so can a natural disaster, right?
Actually, MASON, I said I have “fucking awesome” taste in movies.
Well, I meant “awesome” in the Old English sense, which is to say “of or referring to the quality of wicked radical skateboard moves.”
Direwolf I said the same thing in a different thread.
Awesome! That reminds me of my favorite (and probably apocryphal) John Wayne story. When he played the centurion in “The Greatest Story Ever Told” David Lean (one of the two uncredited directors of a picture ostensibly directed by George Stevens) told John Wayne to put more awe into his solitary line in the picture “truly this man was the son of God.” Wayne nodded and on the second take said “Aw, truly this man was the son of God.”
I’m struggling with a couple thoughts here: that someone thought it was a good idea to cast John Wayne in The Greatest Story Ever Told, and that you really couldn’t make a film with that title at that point in time and NOT put John Wayne in it.
Mr. Sinclair, I appreciate your admission that your love for the original SW trilogy may have adversely affected your perception of the newer one, but I’ll add that anyone who thinks there’s an actual drop-off in quality between Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace either has selective memory, or has been completely blinded by nostalgia. The actors who were fresh and full of spark in the first two films are bored and uninterested (Ford, Fisher), and there are enough poorly-written lines and awkward deliveries to rival anything in the newer installment.
The difference between the films is that all of Jedi’s best moments come in longer segments (like the final showdown on the new Death Star, the Jabba’s Palace scenes between the godawful dance number [perhaps the worst scene in the entire saga] and the underwhelming Captain Blood stuff on the skiff), whereas Phantom’s frenetic pace scatters its highlights and cringe-inducers throughout the entire thing. There are very few scenes in the latter that are completely without merit (Jar Jar meets Artoo is one of them), but few manage to escape unscathed by an unwelcome Jar Jar line or bad Jake Lloyd line reading.
Personally, I’ll take the Trade Ship battle, the underwater city, the Naboo hangar escape, the pod race, all the Coruscant scenes, the 3-way lightsabre battle, and Qui-Gon’s funeral over a film that really only has a speed bike chase, space battle, and climactic showdown to offer in comparison. Jar Jar’s presence may be an unfortunate weight for the duration of TPM, but 5 minutes of Salacious Crumb and the Blue Elephant are far, far worse creations, even if they don’t talk. At least Ahmed Best wasn’t voicing a muppet.
Until the Sopranos thread goes up, I’ll say I liked the end. I had been hoping it would just end rather than some some sort of apocalyptic event ending it. I think David Chase was trying to point out that the world of the mafia types is drawing to a close, Tony still has his family, and after all the show is about the Soprano family (The Soprano’s), not Tony. But the scene where they mentioned that Little Italy is now just a one block tourist attraction and the final scene where all the threats to Tony are on display said to me that Chase was telling us that it didn
Wow, am I late to this party. Anyway, I’d just like to point out that PIRATES, SPIDEY et al can theoretically go on forever, whereas SW, RINGS and now POTTER all have/had a definite end of the road. This may be one reason why people have been willing to stick with them to a greater degree, with less of a sense of diminishing returns.
That’s a really good point, Cadavra. Although, oddly, it’s the imposition of a half-baked and overplotted “trilogy” story onto Pirates that I feel hurts the series, at least creatively (no idea about box office). I think those movies would work a hell of a lot better as Indiana Jones-style semi-stand-alones (e.g., overlapping characters and occasional references to elements from the other films, but not a huge would-be saga), and it’s too bad the creators had delusions of this being some kind of huge story (not that they won’t eventually go back for #4 — perversely, I feel like I might prefer that if they do, because the lamer stories were tied up in At World’s End… maybe #4 would be the Depp-and-Rush-being-goofy sequel I wanted all along). Spidey 3 and (especially) X-Men 3 both crammed too much in, as if they were preparing for #3 to be “it,” even though both franchises could continue easily — and I do think audiences can tell the difference between a genuine final chapter (Star Wars, LOTR) and a movie with “colon The Last Stand” stuck on there to make it sound important. Not that X3 really suffered at the box office, but still.
It also still seems like some — be it directors or producers or actors or whoever — are still spooked by the idea of doing a #4. But then they get all rushed and nervous about making #3 the last one, which results in some weak-ass #3s. So it’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
(Of course, there are few if any proper #4s — that is, not counting Star Wars/Potter — that are any good, so maybe it’s a well-founded trepidation.)
Jesse; Well, you have admit, Ghost of Frankenstein was kinda lame. But Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man kicked ass.
Hey! A grammar discussion on a movie web site, awesome! ;o)
Pity my grammar is relatively lousy so I can’t join in… have fun guys! (boys and their toys…)
Back to cinema: there is usually a drop in quality between movie series that were originally thought out with a story which lasts over several movies (
Joe, I always thought of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man as a series reboot, taking Frankenstien back to basics, showing us how he became the monster he is today. Or, wait, am I thinking of Frankenstein Begins?
Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is pretty good – but it should really be thought of as The Wolf Man 2, not Frankenstein 4.
damn! when did the discussion turn to movies I’ve never even heard about, let alone seen? :p
As I have posted elsewhere: I think the makers of modern sequels should take a few pages from the Universal horror series. Never mind “Alien vs. Predator,” or “Freddy Meets Jason.” I want to see John McClane from “Die Hard” join forces with Garcie Hart of “Miss Congeniality” to go fight terrorists. I want Daredevil and The Fantastic Four to get it on with Dr. Doom and The Owl. I want John Rambo teaching the guys from American Pie how to kick ass during basic training. I want Jack Sparrow to wash up on the shore of an enchanted realm where Hobbits roam…
That’s a fun idea, Joe! Inspector Clouseau on the trail of Hannibal Lecter! “You need THESE leetle grey cells?”
Sopranos fans: Enjoy.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jun/11/liberal_propaganda_watch_murderous_vehicles
I’ll weigh in on the Sopranos…just cause no one asked me.
I loved the ending, and the tension in the scene shows just how brilliant the editing is on that show. A family sitting down for dinner is as tense as blazing shootout. I love that the guy who looks at Tony goes to the bathroom because EVERYONE knows that’s a nod to the Godfather, thus everyone expects he might come out of the bathroom with a gun. God I’m going to miss that show.
I vowed the only remaining sequel that I will see this year is Bourne Ultimatum.
ditto for Bourne
oh, plus Harry Potter ;o) Got to see what they left out from the book! And how Radcliffe reacts to death… and Imelda Staunton!!! she’s going to be amazing as the witch from hell in pink! :O
To Jesse:
Top 10 2000-2007
1. Mulholland Dr.
2. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
3. Oldboy
4. Battle Royale
5. In the Mood for Love
6. Emperor’s New Groove, The
7. Spirited Away
8. Wonder Boys
9. Yi Yi: A One and a Two
10. Before Sunset
Ooh, I am so with you on Emperor’s New Groove! You might be the only person I’ve ever met who likes it more than I do, since I put it on my top ten for 2000 but wouldn’t call it the third-best American movie of the decade so far (though I’m glad you do). I also love Lilo & Stitch. Those two movies give me hope for Disney animation.
I haven’t seen any of those Asian movies except Oldboy, which I liked… but there isn’t much value in Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance so that muted my interest in that director. Would you say that you see a pretty even amount of international cinema and that you just prefer Asian movies, or do you mostly see U.S. and Asian stuff? I definitely see way more U.S. stuff than anything else.
Mulholland Dr is overrated. The first hour is good, though.
As long as you gave me a ranked list, might as well be more specific myself. Thrown together quickly:
1. Moulin Rouge
2. The Royal Tenenbaums
3. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
4. Almost Famous
5. Ghost World
6. Adaptation
7. Punch-Drunk Love
8. Memento
9. Minority Report
10. Brick
Aiiieeee! LISTERS!
* Hides
I’ll probably catch even more hell for this, but I’ll play, since a couple others laid their reps on the line:
1. Spirited Away
2. Gangs of New York
3. 2046
4. Cold Mountain
5. The New World
6. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
7. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
8. The Man Who Wasn’t There
9. Millenium Actress
10. The Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition)
because you’re talking ‘potter’, i wanted to add that ‘the prisoner of azkaban’ is one of my fave all time movies and i’m 41, tho i feel a bit of a dufus admitting it; i took my son to see it or i wouldn’t have gone otherwise, i do consider the potter movies as being made primarily for young people, but there’s something about ‘azkaban’ that i adore, it has an excellent soundrack and visual style, it just works for me. there’s a scene in it where harry is flying on the hippocrite and the music soars and i feel it tugging in my chest like i’m flying too, it almost makes me shed a tear (even on dvd)… anyway i feel completely silly now but at least it proves at least one grown up appreciates a harry potter movie (and i’m a die-hard scary movie fan so don’t be too hard on me, the remake of ‘dawn of the dead’ is one of my fave movies since 2001 so i’m not a complete sook)
1) The Hot Chick
2) Chasing Liberty
3) John Tucker Must Die
4) The Wicker Man (2006)
5) Daredevil
6) Bloodrayne
7) The Benchwarmers
8) Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle
9) Hardball
10) Into the Blue
It’s hard having the best taste here.
How DARE you, Stella’s Boy… Charlie’s Angels 2 is FAR superior to John Tucker Must Die!
(How awesome am I feeling that I saw 7 of your 10 in theaters?)
I actually haven’t seen all of them. In fact, I’ve only seen two of them from start to finish. But it was fun making the list, so that’s all that matters.
I feel sorry for literary snobs missing out on the most significant conversation in literature (or event in literature) of the last fifty years because they percieve Harry Potter as only children’s books (and therefore completely lacking in merit). Oh well, if they want to think that an incredibly poorly written poorly characterized ‘arty’ book like Special Topics in Calamity Physics (easily the worst book I read last year, just sad how badly executed it was), I’ll happily take the books like Harry Potter, Lies of Locke Lamora, or The Road instead.
As long as we’re posting lists:
from 2000-2007
1. Almost Famous
2. A.I. Artificial Intelligence
3. Spirited Away
4. In America
5. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
6. The Incredibles
7. Fellowship of the Ring
8. Battle Royale
9. O Brother Where Art Thou?
10. Atonement
Hey, now that somebody else has broken the A.I. ice, I’ll post my list as well:
1. A.I.
2. The New World
3. Vera Drake
4. The Pianist
5. Mulholland Drive
6. About Schmidt
7. The Happiness of the Katakuris
8. United 93
9. The Incredibles
10. Touching the Void
I also love A.I. — it definitely would go on my top 20 of the decade so far.
I’ve only make an off-the-cuff list below for 2000-2002; haven’t decided on my favorites for 2003 post yet, except Touching the void was the best of its year, definitely.
So– no one picks Cicade de deus–too trendy for you or what?
These go to eleven. (in no order)
sexy beast
love and basketball
the gleaners and I
best in show
Mulholland Dr.
Harmful Insect (Gaichu)
Take Care of my Cat
Monsoon wedding
Twilight samurai
City of god
Dolls
I can;t make a ranked list, too many movies I like.
Kairo (“pulse”) would go on that list if it went to 12.
I’m not going to apply numbers. But here’s what comes to mind for 2000 to present:
In America
Master and Commander: Far Side of the World
Sideways
Best in Show
City of God
United 93
Adaptation
Almost Famous (it’s flawed, but God I love this movie)
Y Tu Mama Tambien
LOTR: The Two Towers
Tie: The Incredibles and Finding Nemo
Road to Perdition.
Favorite performance: Amy Adams in Junebug (by a mile)
On second thought… remove Y Tu Mama Tambien and put in “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”.
jesse:
I live in Korea, so have easy access to a lot of Asian films on DVD (most of which come with English subs). I don’t think Asian films are any better or worse on average than American films (in fact, Korea produces an amazing amount of useless trash, much like any country), it’s just I happen to like those ones on my list.
2046 is a huge steaming pile of warthog shitbarf.
I could not even believe my eyes when I saw it. Wong Kar-Wai must have shot that movie while he was huffing glue.
CHASING LIBERTY? Oh, I agree–great movie…though I was kinda bummed when Michelle Pfeiffer started boning Michael Caine rather than Alan Alda.
2000-2007
1. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2. The Royal Tenenbaums
3. City of God
4. Children of Men
5. Pan’s Labyrinth
6. Memento
7. Before Sunset
8. Mulholland Drive
9. Y Tu Mama Tambien
10. Amores Perros
Ohhh la la, nice movie list! Though Before Sunset sort of sticks out as a mediocrity (a very enjoyable one, but still just a nice film IMO) among greatness. (Even though I still don’t understand Mulholland Drive and just can’t rate it that high, I get that all the smart people I know do and do).
Y Tu Mama Tambien should be on everyone’s list! That’s such a wondeful, surprising, real film, if only American filmmakers made that kind of movie instead of the American Pies….but alas….
And The New World from a prior list, that film is IMO the most unappreciated film from a true master since Oliver Stone made NIXON, which IMO is his masterpiece… The New World was beautiful, so “American,” a great love story, and edited in the most sublime way….of course I am talking about the DVD director cut and not the 1st theatrical version that New Line rushed into the theatres to qualify for the Oscars….just genius stuff, I can’t say enough about that film….
And Wonder Boys – Great, great, great film! They don’t get much better than that. Hal Ashby would be so proud!
My list, in no particular order:
1. Wonder Boys
2. Y Tu Mama Tambien
3. The New World
4. Mysterious Skin
5. Shopgirl
6. Me & You and Everyone We Know
7. Three Kings
8. Lost in Translation
9. Waitress
10. The Dreamers
OK, there are surely tons of others, including 40-Year Old Virgin which blew me away and The Departed which gets better everytime I see it, but I loved each of those films because they seemed so fresh and interested in people in a way so many movies aren’t….
It’s nice to see all the love for Wonder Boys, and it came very close to making my list. I’m curious about everyone’s enthusiasm for Almost Famous–are we talking the theatrical version or “Untitled”, the DVD Director’s Cut? I liked the film a lot but felt the last 20-30 minutes were too rushed, and never got a chance to see if the expanded version addressed this and improved it overall.
I’ve heard the “directors cut” of Almost Famous is great, but the original version was just ok. It had great moments, but any film that has a guy admitting he’s gay as the plane goes down has one groaner too many and just couldn’t make any list of mine. Kate Hudson was wonderful though…
Very cool, doing top five or top ten lists helps me get to sleep, sometimes, have been putting some thought into the best films of this decade, so far, which I cannot believe is 70% over.
1. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2. City of God
3. Memento
4. Traffic
5. High Fidelity
6. Requiem for a Dream
7. United 93
8. Bloody Sunday
9. Munich
10. Lost in Translation
11. Batman Begins
12. Wonder Boys
13. Fellowship of the Ring
14. Master & Commander
15. The Departed
16. The Incredibles
17. Return of the King
18. The Bourne Supremacy
19. Casino Royale
20. Shattered Glass
It was actually tough to narrow it down to 20 – Fast and the Furious just missed it – this decade’s answer to Saturday Night Fever (if you know, that’s HIGH praise.)
Looking back at my list, I have to say that it has been a GOOD decade for studio films – I think my list for the ’90’s would have been dominated by Miramax films.
Also, I regretfully forgot to include Matrix Reloaded – would have been in the top 10. That film is just a load of fun.
Also, from the looks of it, this was the decade that Chris Nolan and Paul Greengrass made their marks. A lot of people dismiss them as “gimmick” filmmakers, but really, you could have said that about Kubrick in the ’70’s if you really wanted to.
I couldn’t even begin to make a list of my favorite movies of the ’00s unless I sat down and tried very diligently to remember all the ones I saw on DVD. I’m impressed you fellows can do it so efforlessly.
I like the love for “The New World.” It would be on that list.
1. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Then in alphabetical order:
Amelie
American Splendor
Amores Perros
Before Sunset
City of God
In America
Me and You and Everyone We Know
Memento
Mulholland Drive
Talk to Her
Carpetmuncher: I’m pretty sure Three Kings was released in ’99. Or is this a compilation of our favorite films from the last 10 years?
I probably just got the date wrong. How about I substitute Ocean’s 11…the most complete study in transitions in recent memory, just a technical masterpiece. Lots of fun, too.