Movies From the 21st Century That Will Be Remembered as CLASSICS

Pretty good assessment, bar the black and white part.

geezer9687 wrote:Yeah but Tranny, since when has "boring as shit" ever disqualified anything from the list of greatest movies? Have you seen the AFI list? I think about 60% of it could be qualified as "boring as shit." Those people don't care about storyline or entertainment. They watch a movie and say "Wow, look at that awesome tracking shot!"

And this is why they fail.

I'm very curious Geez, how many movies would you say you actually like in an avg. per year. I just don't want to get the wrong impression of you but from what you say I picture about 3 movies per year and all 3 are the big bang blockbusters that come out in the summer time every year.

Absolutely not. I actually like most things that I see. I just know what appeals to me, I probably see about 20-25 movies a year and like about 80% of them. I just don't go see the ones I know won't appeal to me. Unless they have great word of mouth I will check it out. I've been getting to more and more as I go along.

I do not only like blockbusters, but I do like them a lot. My top 100 is kicking around here somewhere if you want to check it out.

"film noir" is a really really vague term... if i were to describe it, i'd mention the usual lack of "good" (well-meaning, chivalrous, benevolent) characters.. even the protagonist is usually a piece of shit (though you might root for him anyway).. and the story almost never ends on a high-note.. it'll be bleak and, typically, nobody "wins"

but, in a way, it's a bullshit term that people just like to throw around.. it's like the pseudo-intellectual at a party who describes himself as an "existentialist".. try to get him to define what that actually means, i dare ya

I really hate to beat on a dead horse, but...

geezer9687 wrote:And you are really comparing TDK with Speed?

Yes. Absolutely. I feel that they are incredibly similar. They are both better-than-your-average-blockbuster action thrillers with a lot of depth and great performances, and they both re-defined what action films could be in terms of story, special effects(or, as you mentioned, lack thereof) and who the protagonist is. If you were to watch Speed now, you'd say it was absolutely fucking terrible, but if you were to say that to someone in 1995, they'd respond the exact same way you did to me. I just was saying that while the movie is incredible RIGHT NOW, the heavy-handed overbearing themes are going to hurt the film's aging process. It will look very cheesy, the performances and stunts will look laughable and future generations will wonder what the hell we were thinking...Maybe a better analogy would've been Titanic? Whatever it was late and I was running on very little sleep...

And to help the topic to proceed along...noir is french for black. A film noir is a black film, with dark themes, characters, dialogue and stories. The Cohen's work for the most part can be considered noir...Probably Tarantino too. Or at least they both have redefined it for modern audiences anyway.

IPKI$$ wrote:I really hate to beat on a dead horse, but...

geezer9687 wrote:And you are really comparing TDK with Speed?

Yes. Absolutely. I feel that they are incredibly similar. They are both better-than-your-average-blockbuster action thrillers with a lot of depth and great performances, and they both re-defined what action films could be in terms of story, special effects(or, as you mentioned, lack thereof) and who the protagonist is. If you were to watch Speed now, you'd say it was absolutely fucking terrible, but if you were to say that to someone in 1995, they'd respond the exact same way you did to me. I just was saying that while the movie is incredible RIGHT NOW, the heavy-handed overbearing themes are going to hurt the film's aging process. It will look very cheesy, the performances and stunts will look laughable and future generations will wonder what the hell we were thinking...Maybe a better analogy would've been Titanic? Whatever it was late and I was running on very little sleep...

And to help the topic to proceed along...noir is french for black. A film noir is a black film, with dark themes, characters, dialogue and stories. The Cohen's work for the most part can be considered noir...Probably Tarantino too. Or at least they both have redefined it for modern audiences anyway.

i don't personally remember being disappointed when Speed wasn't nominated for Best Picture..

and, yes, the Coens have definitely pioneered their own brand of neo-noir.. although their trademark humor stands out from the traditional genre.. for a great noir-parody, check out John Swartzwelder's "The Time Machine Did It." one of the funniest books i've ever read...

I'm trying to figure out if you were or weren't disappointed, *lol*

how much clearer can i be?

i wasn't not undisappointed when it hadn't not been overlooked for nomination

And I could say the same for TDK, although, most of what they did put there (just like in 94) wasn't much better.

Wait a minute, did you just call the best Oscar class of all time bad??? And I really don't see anything more to Speed than a bomb on a bus, how do we fix the situation, straight up thriller. I don't see your point. Plus, Keanu is not Heath Ledger, Christian Bale or Aaron Eckhart.

The best Oscar class of all-time was 1939. Gone With The Wind (which I hate but people love it), The Wizard Of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Wuthering Heights, Ninotchka, Dark Victory, Of Mice and Men and Stagecoach. The Women was snubbed but I believe still managed a few nominations.

Naw, I'm going with the trifecta of Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump and Shawshank, considering they are all better than every one of those movies.

I really like Forrest Gump and Shawshank but if I had to pick between those two, I would pick Buscemi's year.

Geez, if any of those movies are still regarded in the same esteem in 70 years time I think you can maintain that claim. But as it is movies like The Wizard of Oz are to me at least much better. l feel that because you were brought up with these movies that you have let that affect sense within your judgement. I'm not claiming that any of those three you mentioned are anything less than masterpieces (actually Forrest Gump isn't), but I think that movies truly need time to prove their worth. And when audiences not in our generation claim them to be classics they can be hailed as such.

No offense, but bull shit. I am the only audience I care about when I am judging whether a movie is great or not. I'm not going to be alive in 70 years, why should I care. I am simply stating my own opinion, that no class has had as high a quality. In fact, most years can't even produce more than one great movie. This year's class had 3. Buscemi's was also very good, but not as good as 94. You are absolutely right that this is because they are more of the movies of my generation, because I happen to be a part of my generation, not that of the 30s. Come on Surf, you shouldn't expect anything less of me.

However, this is simply an Oscar debate, as no year will ever even challenge 99 as the best year in film ever.

I certainly wasn't expecting anything more Geez, I know how much notice you take of pretty much the entire world when it comes to your likes and dislikes, but I was just voicing a general opinion that time defines a true classic. I love a lot of truly awful 80s movies, and ones I should probably never admit to, but I think they are brilliant, probably a lot better than most others would rate. They are my own personal favourites, but when we are talking about movies which will be classics in a thread dedicated to movies which will be remembered in the distant future as classics, I like to use a little restraint. I totally understand your perspective, I just broaden mine a little.


And I am never offended if someone calls my post bullshit. I am usually the first to point them out!

Ok, speaking in the context of this thread, yes, I would agree with you. But when I was talking about best Oscar class, it was a bit of a digression, and wasn't meant to be related to the thread. Just merely stating my favorite group of best picture nominees, and defending them because Ipki$$ ripped on them, which is something I've never even seen before.

Damn, there were 8 nominees back then?

Not really related, but I remember on another board, discussing what was the best decade for film from the 1900-1910 up until 2000-present.

It was virtually a dead heat between the 70s and the 90s. I think they both represent huge leaps forward in filmmaking.

i think if we're doing "important" films, 70s and 90s are good contenders.. but if we're doing "best" and "favorite" movies, i'd say the 80s would put up a helluva fight

I"m not sure the '80's would get far with "best" films...it'd def be big on the fav's side, as some of you tend to love your '80's films (personally not much of a fan...).

I actually think 2007 is a class that can contend with some of the best

packpaljs wrote:I actually think 2007 is a class that can contend with some of the best

2007 was a horrible class. A middle of the road film like Michael Clayton, an overrated film liked Atonement and the trashy Juno were nominated over Gone Baby Gone, Into The Wild, Ratatouille, The Diving Bell and The Butterfly and even Knocked Up.

Plus you had the writer's strike and the whole "will there even be an Oscars this year?" thing. I still don't believe that they should have had one because of how slim the pickings.

What also sucked about 2007:
-Mathieu Alamric and John C. Reilly were snubbed for Best Actor
-Cate Blanchett got a Best Actress nomination for a criticially trashed sequel
-Tilda Swinton won an Academy Award over Amy Ryan
-Juno fucking won Best Original Screenplay when it was basically Knocked Up with unintelligible dialogue

Buscemi wrote:

packpaljs wrote:I actually think 2007 is a class that can contend with some of the best

2007 was a horrible class. A middle of the road film like Michael Clayton, an overrated film liked Atonement and the trashy Juno were nominated over Gone Baby Gone, Into The Wild, Ratatouille, The Diving Bell and The Butterfly and even Knocked Up.

Plus you had the writer's strike and the whole "will there even be an Oscars this year?" thing. I still don't believe that they should have had one because of how slim the pickings.

What also sucked about 2007:
-Mathieu Alamric and John C. Reilly were snubbed for Best Actor
-Cate Blanchett got a Best Actress for a criticially trashed sequel
-Tilda Swinton won an Academy Award over Amy Ryan
-Juno fucking won Best Original Screenplay when it was basically Knocked Up with unintelligible dialogue

Okay, Cate Blanchett only got nominated and didn't win for the critcially trashed sequel. I personally loved Michael Clayton, I thought it was done very well. Tom Wilkinson was amazing in it as well. Bringing up Gone Baby Gone only furthers my arguement for 2007 since I forgot to mention that one. I think it should've won best supporting actress as well, but it was nominated and it should have been nominated for best actor. I mean, I thought we were arguing the class, as in all the movies mentioned, not just the movies that won.

Look at 94', Lange won best actress for a terrible movie, Quiz Show was nominated for best picture along with 4 weddings and a funeral. Best supporting actor went to Ed Wood instead of Samuel L. Jackson. It's the same thing, they always get some wrong, but as far as the movies available to pick from, they had great pickens. And I don't think drama that surrounds the awards like the writer strike will be remembered, I had already forgot until you brought it up.

I thought Quiz Show was a really good movie actually.

packpaljs wrote:Best supporting actor went to Ed Wood instead of Samuel L. Jackson

Jules Winnfield is a fuckin awesome character, and Sam Jackson played it great.. but, come on, of all the horrible decisions the Academy has made--you really think giving an ACTING oscar to Martin Landau over Samuel L. Jackson is all that notable? i mean, if it wasn't for Tarantino, the guy's resume is mostly garbage