Mr. Sinister Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Sticks, Gangs Of New York? Cast Away? A Beautiful Mind? Hotel Rwanda? No Country For Old Men? Crouching Tiger? There are a few more that I'm probably leaving out. I think the quantam leap of special effects somewhat put a damper on the 2000's ( more movies with less substance) , but there were a lot of classics in there as well, IMO of course. I just think that in todays fast paced 'forget everything that happened 5 minutes ago" society, people tend to forget about some of the gems of the last decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Not to hijack, but Gangs of New York was terrible. What a snoozefest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 There's plenty of "good" movies that come out. But the 2000's really didn't have any brilliant films minus those two. Inception could be added I suppose. Jesus Christ. Royal Tennenbaums Whale Rider Amelie Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Memento Traffic Wall-E Up Everything from Pixar actually The entire Woody Allen resurgence Man on Wire and dozen other documentaries I guess you only watch films that make $150 million. ---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 02:41 PM ---------- Not to hijack, but Gangs of New York was terrible. What a snoozefest. I would call it a major disappointment. It was way too long and Cameron Diaz was awful. And Leo was not quite ready for that kind of role yet. But Daniel Day Lewis was tremendous fun. The Departed was far better. And I liked Shutter Island. The Aviator is really under-rated too. Also, Cast-away and A Beautiful Mind are not great movies by any stretch. Entertaining but not great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Not to hijack, but Gangs of New York was terrible. What a snoozefest. Why? What didn't you like about it? Just curious. ---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 01:43 PM ---------- Yeah I forgot to include the Pixar movies as well. Ingenius. I was referencing non animated movies though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Why? What didn't you like about it? Just curious. It was completely ADHD. Just all over the place. And most of all, I didn't believe any of it. Not sure if that was because of the acting or plot or whatever, I dunno. I don't think about this stuff all day like LKB does. I just pass final judgement LKB, didn't you tell me once you volunteered at the Nat'l Zoo's primate exhibit from 2001-2004? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Why? What didn't you like about it? Just curious. It's poorly paced. Too long. And Cameron Diaz brings the film to a grinding hault everytime she appears. Also, that U2 song is awful. It just needed to be tighter. It's rare for a Scorsese movie to feel that bloated and languid. It's probably the only time I ever checked my watch during a Scorsese film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I would call it a major disappointment. It was way too long and Cameron Diaz was awful. And Leo was not quite ready for that kind of role yet. But Daniel Day Lewis was tremendous fun. The Departed was far better. And I liked Shutter Island. The Aviator is really under-rated too. Also' date=' Cast-away and A Beautiful Mind are not great movies by any stretch. Entertaining but not great.[/quote'] Cast-Away was not even entertaining. I still haven't seen Shutter Island. Darn kids, they ruin everything. I can, however, deliver a review of Elmo's Potty Time if you're interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 It was completely ADHD. Just all over the place.And most of all, I didn't believe any of it. Not sure if that was because of the acting or plot or whatever, I dunno. I don't think about this stuff all day like LKB does. You need me on that wall. You want me on that wall. I just pass final judgement I'm here to tell you why you feel the way you do. Because you are too dumb to figure it out on your own. LKB, didn't you tell me once you volunteered at the Nat'l Zoo's primate exhibit from 2001-2004? They are very giving creatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 So here's a question. Was Gladiator a great movie? I don't think it was. Entertaining, yes. But I will never think of it as a great movie. Sort of like any James Cameron movie. Actually, I take that back. Cameron movies are rarely entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Cast-Away was not even entertaining. I still haven't seen Shutter Island. Darn kids, they ruin everything. I can, however, deliver a review of Elmo's Potty Time if you're interested. The only problem with Shutter Island is that it was released far too close to Inception. I can't figure out which one I like more, because I actually get the two of them confused when discussing them. Remember when Leo was climbing that cliff in Inception? That was Shutter Island! Oh, **** you! ---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 02:51 PM ---------- So here's a question. Was Gladiator a great movie? I don't think it was. Entertaining, yes. But I will never think of it as a great movie. Sort of like any James Cameron movie. Actually, I take that back. Cameron movies are rarely entertaining. Gladiator was a great genre picture. It's as good as that kind of movie can be. I just don't think that kind of movie can an "all time great," because it's so limited. I mean, there is no real emotional resonance in it that's not completely melodramatic. "Hey...he loves his wife...who his enemy raped and murdered.....Just trust us on this!" In that kind of movie, you can't do the #1 rule of drama which is "Show don't tell." So, 90 percent of the dialogue becomes exposition. But, it's absolutely as good as a sand and sandals epic can be. I mean, unless you are a closeted homosexual sociopath like Ralphie on The Sopranos, you aren't haunted by that movie for days. I actually forget about it until it turns up on TNT, and then I think, "Awesome! Gladiator is on!" To this day, there are moments when I will be staring blankly at a stop light and a scene from, say, "Lost in Translation" will pop into my head. (And I admit that Lost in Translation is a very divisive movie, but I thought it was beyond brilliant. Any movie that makes me prefer the Bill Murray version of More Than This to the Bryan Ferry version is doing something right). Question: can you hijack a thread if a mod is helping you hijack it? I might create a thread called "Ask LKB why you like the stuff you like." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 To this day' date=' there are moments when I will be staring blankly at a stop light and a scene from, say, "Lost in Translation" will pop into my head. (And I admit that Lost in Translation is a very divisive movie, but I thought it was beyond brilliant. Any movie that makes me prefer the Bill Murray version of More Than This to the Bryan Ferry version is doing something right).Question: can you hijack a thread if a mod is helping you hijack it? I might create a thread called "Ask LKB why you like the stuff you like."[/quote'] But doesn't a movie owe it to you to be entertaining? I'm all for deep tracks, but I demand to be entertained at some point. Especially nowadays when I get about 2 hours a week of time to do something like watch a movie. a 90 minute documentary on jetlag and a chunky girl's strained relationship with her boyfriend doesn't really do it for me, sorry. And that's also why Donnie Darko is a giant turd, no matter what 500,000 dorks on the internet claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 But doesn't a movie owe it to you to be entertaining? I'm all for deep tracks, but I demand to be entertained at some point. Especially nowadays when I get about 2 hours a week of time to do something like watch a movie.a 90 minute documentary on jetlag and a chunky girl's strained relationship with her boyfriend doesn't really do it for me, sorry. And that's also why Donnie Darko is a giant turd, no matter what 500,000 dorks on the internet claim. I think Lost in Translation is entertaining. Obviously, that's the first objective of any widely-released film. But I don't think that you just need explosions and big big big stories to be entertaining. I did not find GI Joe particularly "entertaining" regardless of how many landmarks blew up. And I don't like all small, deep movies. Every film junkie loves "Wings of Desire" and I fell asleep watching it. To this day, Star Wars is one of my three or four favorite movies. And I do love Gladiator. And Terminator II is James Cameron's best movie. Here is my ultimate proof: I think the best movie I saw last year was Zombieland. Suck on that. Also, I have never understood Donnie Darko. I feel like it was a con of some kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I would also argue that the Golden Age of TV is right now for similar reasons. It's Always Sunny was unthinkable ten years ago. Where could it air? Maybe HBO. Technology has made shows cheap to make and cable has made shows with tiny tiny audiences into successes. About 2 million people watch Mad Men. If 2 million people watched a show in 1996' date=' it would have been the biggest flop in human history. now this is interesting. After a bit of thought, I would agree. Dexter, The Wire, The Sopranos, these series just don't get made 20 years ago and prior. the golden age of the sitcom, however, was the 1980s. (okay, 1977-1995 or so) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I guess I'm just a sucker for deep plotlines/2 1/2-3 hr. movies. Maybe I just see more than what's really there. I agree that Diaz's character was underwhelming, but I never considered her to be an important character in the movie to begin with. Daniel Day Lewis did deliver one of his best performances though. I thought it was a good revenge/betrayal type of movie. And I loved U2's "Hands That Built America" song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 now this is interesting. After a bit of thought, I would agree. Dexter, The Wire, The Sopranos, these series just don't get made 20 years ago and prior.the golden age of the sitcom, however, was the 1980s. (okay, 1977-1995 or so) Have you watched those sitcoms recently? The only two that hold up are Cheers and....wait for it.....Night Court. Family Ties was my favorite show when I was 12. It's being re-run on Kube right now. I would say that 4 out of 5 episodes of that show are utterly unwatchable in 2010. The kids outside of Michael J. Fox were dreadful actors. Every other joke was a lame "Alex likes money" thing. The pacing is a crawl. And Skippy and Nick make my skin crawl. The first two seasons of The Cosby Show still hold up. The rest of the show was a lot of strained schtick with increasingly older kids and a way too large cast. All the Garry Marshall sitcoms (Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, etc) are pretty terrible. Growing Pains wasn't good when it was a hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Cheers, Mash, Seinfeld all hold up. Even shows like Frasier are still really good. I loved Night Court when it was out. What other decade produced this many timeless sitcoms? The only other two (timeless) I can even think of are I love Lucy and The Honeymooners. (and Mash counts as 1980, and Frasier/Seinfeld count as 1990. So **** you in advance.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I guess I'm just a sucker for deep plotlines/2 1/2-3 hr. movies. I think a movie has to earn the right to be 2.5 to 3 hours long. Casino is hugely long and by no means perfect, but I felt like I needed that much time in that world. Gangs of New York could have been great a 1:45. I think the problem with it is that the sets and costumes and atmosphere are so great that Scorsese really wanted to show them off. So, it kept going and going and going. The weird thing is, it takes 3 days to build to the climax of the street fight...and then screws that up. I love the intro with the first Street Fight. I love Daniel Day Lewis. I love the "election" montage. I love the feel of it. It's just way way way too long. ---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 03:19 PM ---------- Cheers, Mash, Seinfeld all hold up. Even shows like Frasier are still really good. I loved Night Court when it was out.What other decade produced this many timeless sitcoms? The only other two (timeless) I can even think of are I love Lucy and The Honeymooners. A. I think you cheat with your time-frame. 1977-1995 is about one third the history of the medium. You've inluded everything from Chico and the Man to Suddenly Susan. B. M*A*S*H was in steep decline beyond 1977. The early Gelbart years are the best. And no one in their right mind would put M*A*S*H and Seinfeld in the same era. C. The mid 60s had two of the five greatest sit-coms ever - Dick Van Dyke and The Andy Griffith Show. I still may like Andy Griffith more than Seinfeld. D. The early 70s were good too with the early M*A*S*H and All in the Family. E. Here is my controversial pick: Community is already one of the top ten greatest sit-coms ever. Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 27, 2011 Author Share Posted January 27, 2011 Cast-Away was not even entertaining. I still haven't seen Shutter Island. Darn kids, they ruin everything. I can, however, deliver a review of Elmo's Potty Time if you're interested. How is it? I'm about to start potty-training my Elmo-obsessed two year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 How is it? I'm about to start potty-training my Elmo-obsessed two year old. The plot is way too predictable. Other than that, it is okay. ---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 02:37 PM ---------- C. The mid 60s had two of the five greatest sit-coms ever - Dick Van Dyke and The Andy Griffith Show. I still may like Andy Griffith more than Seinfeld. Maybe my scope is too narrow, I don't know. I didn't watch a lot of tv prior to being born. I remember in Jr. High though, every single weeknight was a smorgasboard of sitcoms, climaxing on Thursday nights with Cosby/Cheers/Seinfeld. Reality TV came along and by 2000 the genre was all but dead. There's a few out there nowadays like Modern Family or The Rock, but nothing like it was. That said, I've never seen the DVD show and I am not a fan of Andy Griffith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Andy Grifftin was awesome and if you disagree with me, I will fight you! I think the three camera sitcom is pretty much dead. I don't know what else can be done in that limited canvas any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Andy Grifftin was awesome and if you disagree with me' date=' I will fight you![/quote']And damned if it doesn't hold up too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 What was the worst popular sitcom of all time? The Brady Bunch? I admit, Gilligan's Island is a guilty pleasure. Damnit, I enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Andy Grifftin was awesome and if you disagree with me' date=' I will fight you![/quote']Agreed ---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 02:50 PM ---------- Out of fascination, what did you guys think of Happy Days? I used to watch it on Nick At Nite when I was younger, and thought it was pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Out of fascination, what did you guys think of Happy Days. I used to watch it on Nick At Nite when I was younger, and thought it was pretty good. I remember liking it as a kid. Happy Days is where we get the term 'jumped the shark'. So I think one might say the early years were better than the later ones. Ron Howard has a pretty amazing life, doesn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Ron Howard has a pretty amazing life, doesn't he? Understatement of the day. What's also amazing is that he's spent literally his entire life as a Hollywood child star, TV actor, and big time director yet doesn't seem the least bit jaded, cynical, or egotistical. He's been married to the same woman since 1975. He comes across as impervious to the corrosion of Hollywood. Or maybe he's fooling me with his acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.