2018 TV/Movie/Book Thread with Spoilers

[emunney]

I would take Whiplash over La La Land and not even have to pick a different writer/director.

[HurricaneKid]

Its been a bad 7 years. I don't think any OTHER movies from 2011-current are going to be looked upon as great films 20 years from now. Which is kind of the point.

You just have a different taste in films, which is fine. There are several films in the past 7 years that I'd consider great. La La Land is decidedly not one of them.

Well here are the Best Picture winners of the last 7 years:
Shape of Water
Moonlight
Spotlight
Birdman
12 Years a Slave
Argo
The Artist

I thought La La Land was a better fit for the Academy's long term criteria than any of these, and frankly far more enjoyable. La La Land looks NOTHING like any other movie in my top 25 (if I had such a list), and I consider that a real achievement.

What great movies do you think have come out in the last 7 years?

[emunney]

By the way, Take Shelter came out in 2011, but it's still the most underappreciated movie I know about.

[crkone]

I enjoyed it first in South Park.

[thomchatt3rton]

Not one of Malick's best imo.

I think it's close, but might give the edge to "The Thin Red Line," which I think is also one of the best movies of its decade. I'm also a huge fan of "The New World," actually. That might round out my top 3.

An interesting contrast between the literary world and the film world is that the literary world actually has effective editing. With movies it seems like the touch is so often either too heavy (overbearing studio insanity) or too light (indulgent auteurs). I actually agree that Tree of Life is great and a worthy nominee, on reflection. But I do think it's middle of the road for Malick and pretty heavily burdened by his own boundless self-accommodation.

Lubezki is unbelievable, though, and that partnership has produced some of the most spectacularly photographed movies I've ever seen (including Tree of Life).

See, I thought Tree of Life was right in that sweet spot between artistic vision and artistic self-indulgence (esp when compared to what TM did after it).



OT but is the “over indulgent auteur” REALLY a problem in hollywood? Are there too many movies like that?




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[thomchatt3rton]

By the way, Take Shelter came out in 2011, but it's still the most underappreciated movie I know about.

Great great movie. Was pretty let-down by Mud. Still havent seen his latest one.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[emunney]

I think it's close, but might give the edge to "The Thin Red Line," which I think is also one of the best movies of its decade. I'm also a huge fan of "The New World," actually. That might round out my top 3.

An interesting contrast between the literary world and the film world is that the literary world actually has effective editing. With movies it seems like the touch is so often either too heavy (overbearing studio insanity) or too light (indulgent auteurs). I actually agree that Tree of Life is great and a worthy nominee, on reflection. But I do think it's middle of the road for Malick and pretty heavily burdened by his own boundless self-accommodation.

Lubezki is unbelievable, though, and that partnership has produced some of the most spectacularly photographed movies I've ever seen (including Tree of Life).

See, I thought Tree of Life was right in that sweet spot between artistic vision and artistic self-indulgence (esp when compared to what TM did after it).



OT but is the “over indulgent auteur” REALLY a problem in hollywood? Are there too many movies like that?




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Yeah I definitely presented that as symmetrical and it isn't at all. Good catch. The list of people who get to do whatever they want and end up dropping a Southland Tales on us is not really that long. I think you'd agree that all Malick post-ToL could have used a strong editorial voice in the room asking pointed questions.

[emunney]

By the way, Take Shelter came out in 2011, but it's still the most underappreciated movie I know about.

Great great movie. Was pretty let-down by Mud. Still havent seen his latest one.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I liked Mud alright, but, yeah. Loving was very good and I really liked Midnight Special -- different types of movies, but Midnight Special would remind you most of Take Shelter.

[humanrefutation]

Its been a bad 7 years. I don't think any OTHER movies from 2011-current are going to be looked upon as great films 20 years from now. Which is kind of the point.

You just have a different taste in films, which is fine. There are several films in the past 7 years that I'd consider great. La La Land is decidedly not one of them.

Well here are the Best Picture winners of the last 7 years:
Shape of Water
Moonlight
Spotlight
Birdman
12 Years a Slave
Argo
The Artist

I thought La La Land was a better fit for the Academy's long term criteria than any of these, and frankly far more enjoyable. La La Land looks NOTHING like any other movie in my top 25 (if I had such a list), and I consider that a real achievement.

What great movies do you think have come out in the last 7 years?

I'm not sure about "long-term criteria" and "enjoyability" and all that. I mean, if long-term influence and enjoyability were relevant criteria, you'd have a lot more awards for comedies and sci-fi/fantasy/space operas and the like, while dark, depressing films like Schindler's List, Silence of the Lambs, Million Dollar Baby, and 12 Years A Slave wouldn't even get in consideration. That's worthy of debate in its own right. How can the Academy find ways to award films people actually ENJOY seeing?

As to your second question - of the movies I've seen since 2011: Django Unchained, 12 Years A Slave, Gravity, Whiplash, The Big Short, Mad Max, Arrival, Hidden Figures, Moonlight, and Get Out immediately come to mind as movies that I'll remember fondly in 20 years. In terms of film achievement, I think that 12 Years A Slave, Gravity, Whiplash, Mad Max, and Get Out are going to be seminal films in their genres.

La La Land doesn't do anything especially well, in my view. It's not breaking new ground, it doesn't have great singing, or dancing, or an especially compelling story. The only reason it got so much hype is because it was a movie about Hollywood and it starred two popular (and overrated) actors - Gosling and Stone. If I wanted to pick a musical to watch in 20 years, it wouldn't even enter my thought process.

[thomchatt3rton]

An interesting contrast between the literary world and the film world is that the literary world actually has effective editing. With movies it seems like the touch is so often either too heavy (overbearing studio insanity) or too light (indulgent auteurs). I actually agree that Tree of Life is great and a worthy nominee, on reflection. But I do think it's middle of the road for Malick and pretty heavily burdened by his own boundless self-accommodation.

Lubezki is unbelievable, though, and that partnership has produced some of the most spectacularly photographed movies I've ever seen (including Tree of Life).

See, I thought Tree of Life was right in that sweet spot between artistic vision and artistic self-indulgence (esp when compared to what TM did after it).



OT but is the “over indulgent auteur” REALLY a problem in hollywood? Are there too many movies like that?




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Yeah I definitely presented that as symmetrical and it isn't at all. Good catch. The list of people who get to do whatever they want and end up dropping a Southland Tales on us is not really that long. I think you'd agree that all Malick post-ToL could have used a strong editorial voice in the room asking pointed questions.

I knew what you meant but had to nitpick you anyway. Idk why. It's just amazing to me that anything even vaguely "indulgent" ever gets made at all ever (think about something like "Pee-wee's Big Adventure"- how the f*ck did that movie ever get made? On paper, it's preposterous. Who gave Tim Burton- a total unknown with no experience in feature films- that chance?).

And yes, I certainly agree post-Tree Malick desperately needed some kind of editorial checks and balances (that's what I meant by Tree being a "sweet spot" for Malick).

[Bucksfan28]

Rewatchability is huge for me when gauging a movie's quality. I don't think it's possible that you're able to pick up on all the little intricacies (dialogue, character behavior, etc..) of a film which make a ton more sense after you've seen the whole story play out. Things that even may seem insignificant the first time through.

So if I can convince myself that a movie is worth watching again, and find new things to appreciate, I'm gonna hold it in much higher regard.

[Bucksfan28]

Also Mad Max ***** all over whatever your favorite film of this decade is. There is no debate.

[HurricaneKid]

You just have a different taste in films, which is fine. There are several films in the past 7 years that I'd consider great. La La Land is decidedly not one of them.

Well here are the Best Picture winners of the last 7 years:
Shape of Water
Moonlight
Spotlight
Birdman
12 Years a Slave
Argo
The Artist

I thought La La Land was a better fit for the Academy's long term criteria than any of these, and frankly far more enjoyable. La La Land looks NOTHING like any other movie in my top 25 (if I had such a list), and I consider that a real achievement.

What great movies do you think have come out in the last 7 years?

I'm not sure about "long-term criteria" and "enjoyability" and all that. I mean, if long-term influence and enjoyability were relevant criteria, you'd have a lot more awards for comedies and sci-fi/fantasy/space operas and the like, while dark, depressing films like Schindler's List, Silence of the Lambs, Million Dollar Baby, and 12 Years A Slave wouldn't even get in consideration. That's worthy of debate in its own right. How can the Academy find ways to award films people actually ENJOY seeing?

As to your second question - of the movies I've seen since 2011: Django Unchained, 12 Years A Slave, Gravity, Whiplash, The Big Short, Mad Max, Arrival, Hidden Figures, Moonlight, and Get Out immediately come to mind as movies that I'll remember fondly in 20 years. In terms of film achievement, I think that 12 Years A Slave, Gravity, Whiplash, Mad Max, and Get Out are going to be seminal films in their genres.

La La Land doesn't do anything especially well, in my view. It's not breaking new ground, it doesn't have great singing, or dancing, or an especially compelling story. The only reason it got so much hype is because it was a movie about Hollywood and it starred two popular (and overrated) actors - Gosling and Stone. If I wanted to pick a musical to watch in 20 years, it wouldn't even enter my thought process.

I should have left enjoyability out of it; I don't think the Academy has ever viewed that as a constraint. I just consider too many Academy bait movies to be exhausting. Great art shouldn't be meant to be endured.

A fine list, though I consider Big Short and Hidden Figures to have dumbed down the real issues the movies covered and preclude them for not asking more of their audiences. Django is a mess, if a fun little romp. 12 Years is a great movie but brutal and agonizing to experience (fine example of enduring). Gravity was a great technical achievement and the 3d is spectacular. But the movie itself is pretty forgettable. I consider Mad Max a great popcorn flick but high cinema it is not. Get Out was good but its a horror movie and for whatever reason that has historically precluded inclusion. The Arrival was good, but hardly timeless.

The reason I liked LaLaLand wasn't the singing and dancing, it was the celebration of those that give up everything to dream, despite the costs. Thematically I think it was a home run. I don't think I have ever even sat through another musical without complaining about having to do so. It was whimsical and fun despite the toll they both paid. For audiences to feel the exhilaration, joy, and pain is a real achievement.

[HurricaneKid]

Also Mad Max ***** all over whatever your favorite film of this decade is. There is no debate.

I mean I've watched Mad Max 8 times and La La Land once. But Mad Max isn't fine cinema. Its closer to The Transformers than it is to Seven Samurai.

[thomchatt3rton]

By the way, Take Shelter came out in 2011, but it's still the most underappreciated movie I know about.

Great great movie. Was pretty let-down by Mud. Still havent seen his latest one.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I liked Mud alright, but, yeah. Loving was very good and I really liked Midnight Special -- different types of movies, but Midnight Special would remind you most of Take Shelter.

Midnight Special is the one I was thinking about. I liked Mud but I wanted it to be more. Good movie though- unfair of me to characterize it as a let-down. Hadn't heard of Loving.

Shotgun Stories from 2007 is on Amazon- didn't finish it before canceling my Prime membership but the first 20 minutes or so were interesting. Mike Shannon's in that one too.

Andrea Arnold's "Fish Tank" from 2009 is another criminally underrated gem. It was on Netflix. Another of her films, "American Honey" from 2016 was pretty good too but I never finished it (another casualty of quitting Prime).

[humanrefutation]

Well here are the Best Picture winners of the last 7 years:
Shape of Water
Moonlight
Spotlight
Birdman
12 Years a Slave
Argo
The Artist

I thought La La Land was a better fit for the Academy's long term criteria than any of these, and frankly far more enjoyable. La La Land looks NOTHING like any other movie in my top 25 (if I had such a list), and I consider that a real achievement.

What great movies do you think have come out in the last 7 years?

I'm not sure about "long-term criteria" and "enjoyability" and all that. I mean, if long-term influence and enjoyability were relevant criteria, you'd have a lot more awards for comedies and sci-fi/fantasy/space operas and the like, while dark, depressing films like Schindler's List, Silence of the Lambs, Million Dollar Baby, and 12 Years A Slave wouldn't even get in consideration. That's worthy of debate in its own right. How can the Academy find ways to award films people actually ENJOY seeing?

As to your second question - of the movies I've seen since 2011: Django Unchained, 12 Years A Slave, Gravity, Whiplash, The Big Short, Mad Max, Arrival, Hidden Figures, Moonlight, and Get Out immediately come to mind as movies that I'll remember fondly in 20 years. In terms of film achievement, I think that 12 Years A Slave, Gravity, Whiplash, Mad Max, and Get Out are going to be seminal films in their genres.

La La Land doesn't do anything especially well, in my view. It's not breaking new ground, it doesn't have great singing, or dancing, or an especially compelling story. The only reason it got so much hype is because it was a movie about Hollywood and it starred two popular (and overrated) actors - Gosling and Stone. If I wanted to pick a musical to watch in 20 years, it wouldn't even enter my thought process.

I should have left enjoyability out of it; I don't think the Academy has ever viewed that as a constraint. I just consider too many Academy bait movies to be exhausting. Great art shouldn't be meant to be endured.

A fine list, though I consider Big Short and Hidden Figures to have dumbed down the real issues the movies covered and preclude them for not asking more of their audiences. Django is a mess, if a fun little romp. 12 Years is a great movie but brutal and agonizing to experience (fine example of enduring).

The reason I liked LaLaLand wasn't the singing and dancing, it was the celebration of those that give up everything to dream, despite the costs. Thematically I think it was a home run. I don't think I have ever even sat through another musical without complaining about having to do so. It was whimsical and fun despite the toll they both paid. For audiences to feel the exhilaration, joy, and pain is a real achievement.

Hey, I've got no problem if you like La La Land, or even if you personally find it to be a great film. I can see people enjoying it and I don't begrudge them for it. I just disagree with your allegation that it's the only great movie of the last seven years.

[FrieAaron]

Also Mad Max ***** all over whatever your favorite film of this decade is. There is no debate.

I mean I've watched Mad Max 8 times and La La Land once. But Mad Max isn't fine cinema. Its closer to The Transformers than it is to Seven Samurai.

I think Mad Max is absolutely fine cinema and a masterpiece. It's an incredible example of world-building an showing without telling and the editing is basically perfect. The choreography and stunt work reminds me of the action you'd see in silent films (as does the day for night shooting they used). It would definitely be in my top 10 of the decade, just below "The Tree of Life"

[MikeIsGood]

By the way, Take Shelter came out in 2011, but it's still the most underappreciated movie I know about.

Half Nelson. Also one of my favorites regardless of level of appreciation. I’ll take any chance I can to mention it.

Okay, so Half Nelson is a rewatchable movie to me. Still, it’s not like I watch it regularly. I think I’ve seen it maybe 4 or 5 times.

[MikeIsGood]

Also Mad Max ***** all over whatever your favorite film of this decade is. There is no debate.

I mean I've watched Mad Max 8 times and La La Land once. But Mad Max isn't fine cinema. Its closer to The Transformers than it is to Seven Samurai.

I think Mad Max is absolutely fine cinema and a masterpiece. It's an incredible example of world-building an showing without telling and the editing is basically perfect. The choreography and stunt work reminds me of the action you'd see in silent films (as does the day for night shooting they used). It would definitely be in my top 10 of the decade, just below "The Tree of Life"

Definitely artsy and I think (at least close to) a masterpiece. As for “fine cinema”, I guess it depends upon the definition but I think that’s getting into semantics. It’s a great film, and studied and talked about highly in academia for many good reasons.

[thomchatt3rton]

By the way, Take Shelter came out in 2011, but it's still the most underappreciated movie I know about.

Half Nelson. Also one of my favorites regardless of level of appreciation. I’ll take any chance I can to mention it.

Okay, so Half Nelson is a rewatchable movie to me. Still, it’s not like I watch it regularly. I think I’ve seen it maybe 4 or 5 times.

LOVED Half Nelson. I thought Sugar was really underrated too.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app