NationStates Jolt Archive

What was your favorite movie of last year? I'd have to say I Am Legend. Awesome movie.

Pan's Labyrinth

Either TMNT or Spider-Man 3.

Transformers, shortly followed by Transformers, with Transformers coming a close third

I almost cried when I saw Transformers, and by Primus I wish it was an exaggeration :(

What was your favorite movie of last year? I'd have to say I Am Legend. Awesome movie.Meh. I was rather underwhelmed by that.

Favorite movie is hard to say. I'll probably go with Transformers, because I expected it to suck and it didn't, and because I missed out on some more quality films.

A German movie I saw, the French title is " La Vie des Autres ", I don't even know the original title.

It's about a STASI officer...fucking good.

A German movie I saw, the French title is " La Vie des Autres ", I don't even know the original title.

It's about a STASI officer...fucking good.
Das Leben der Anderen or The Lives of the Others in English. Got an Oscar and the lead actor, Ulrich Mühe, died of cancer shortly afterwards.

Pan's Labyrinth

Yeah that was very good.

I felt that I am Legend would have been a much better movie if the virus had actually killed everyone.

Anyways, favourite new movie for me was...hell, I hardly watched any. Pirates 3 was okay, as was the Bourne Ultimatum. I also enjoyed Cloverfield and the Harry Potter movie. But as far as actually great films are concerned, I can't say I watched any.

But then, I didn't see Juno, No Country for Old Men or There will be Blood.

El Laberinto de Pan, excellent portrayal of fantasy mixed with the Spanish Civil War.

Hmm, American Gangster was good, and that was 07, I think. It's so hard - as a film student - to keep up when you have to watch so many movies from the past as well.

I felt that I am Legend would have been a much better movie if the virus had actually killed everyone.

Including the screenwriter, director, and crew...

But then, I didn't see Juno, No Country for Old Men or There will be Blood.

Juno was great: funny and "indie" (even though it was sponsored by Fox). I fell asleep during No Country for Old Men, but I'd like to watch it again, and I want to see There Will be Blood but I'm not going to get my hopes up.

I didn't think any really great films were released last year, so I'll just leave that space blank.
Oh, what the hell, for the sake of patriotism I'll say This is England.

Hmm, American Gangster was good, and that was 07, I think. It's so hard - as a film student - to keep up when you have to watch so many movies from the past as well.

Watching movies is so much hard work :(

I didn't think any really great films were released last year, so I'll just leave that space blank.

Really?

I thought films like The Last King of Scotland, 300, 3:10 to Yuma, even The Bourne Ultimatum to some extent in terms of intelligent action, Transformers in terms of pure rollercoasting action and smaller films such as Hot Fuzz were indicative of the best period of film since 92-96, when we had early Tarantino, Boyle & co and others.

I really don't think this was a bad year but it's all personal opinion I guess.

Was Pan's Labyrinth a 2006 film or you don't think that was great either?

Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone

Seeing what they can do now-a-days with animation was just fricken AWESOME!

Besides, it had Ayanami Rei, you just can't go wrong with Ayanami Rei!

i don't really remember any movies i saw in the last year... Ratatouille probably :)

http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/2007/top-grossing

Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone

Seeing what they can do now-a-days with animation was just fricken AWESOME!

Besides, it had Ayanami Rei, you just can't go wrong with Ayanami Rei!

there was an Evangelion movie? ooh...

El Laberinto de Pan, excellent portrayal of fantasy mixed with the Spanish Civil War.
Just because the DVD was released in 2007 does not make it not a 2006 movie.

Really?

I thought films like The Last King of Scotland, 300, 3:10 to Yuma, even The Bourne Ultimatum to some extent in terms of intelligent action, Transformers in terms of pure rollercoasting action and smaller films such as Hot Fuzz were indicative of the best period of film since 92-96, when we had early Tarantino, Boyle & co and others.

I really don't think this was a bad year but it's all personal opinion I guess.

Was Pan's Labyrinth a 2006 film or you don't think that was great either?

2006.

As for the rest, I liked Last King but wouldn't call it great and I didn't like either 300 or 3:10 to Yuma. I thought Bourne Ultimatum was fine for what it was, a dumb action movie. Again, I wasn't keen on Hot Fuzz (other than the whole spot the cameo thing).

For me, a movie needs more than to be involving to be great, it needs to be intelligent or charming or relevant or bold and I don't think 2007 was a year where anyone really stepped forward to try and make a film that was any of those things.

Just because the DVD was released in 2007 does not make it not a 2006 movie.

Meh, I saw it on 2007 so, to me, it's from 2007. Hehe, just because I want to be arbitrary.;)

I'd have to say '300', hands down favorite movie of the year. That movie just rocked my face off. I also really liked 'The Condemned' and the third 'Pirates' movie.

Were Tarantino's and Rodriguez's 'Grindhouse' movies 2007 or 2008? I can't remember and can't be arsed to look it up, but those movies were stone cold cool regardless.

I didn't see amny movies this year. I would ahve to go with Ratatouille though. best Disney Pixar movie made.

El Laberinto de Pan, excellent portrayal of fantasy mixed with the Spanish Civil War.

That was a '07 movie? I loved it as well...


Parece probable que esto es una cosa buena para nuestros otros significativos que no encontramos antes ya que nos gusta la misma música (en su mayor parte) y tenemos el gusto por lo visto similar en libros y películas...

Including the screenwriter, director, and crew...


This. I Am Legend was an abomination.


Pans Labrynth was 06 btw. Favorite move of all time, but thats another story.

As far as 07 is concerned:

3:10 to Yuma
30 Days of Night
American Gangster
Michael Clayton

I want to see There Will Be Blood really bad.


And No Country was really...underwhelming. I have never seen a movie that won Best Picture that was so undeserving.

Across The Universe or Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story.

I'm not sure which to choose, so I'll choose both. :p

Planet terror. Possibly the greatest B movie ever made.

That was a '07 movie? I loved it as well...


Parece probable que esto es una cosa buena para nuestros otros significativos que no encontramos antes ya que nos gusta la misma música (en su mayor parte) y tenemos el gusto por lo visto similar en libros y películas...

Well, I'm not sure if it was from 06 or 07, but I saw it in 07. LOL!

Pues sí, al parecer tenemos gustos similares en muchas cosas. Mi madre diría que somos dos bichos raros.:D

I think i watched Severence in 2007 maybe 2006, that was the only horror film i actually like.

Well, I'm not sure if it was from 06 or 07, but I saw it in 07. LOL!

Pues sí, al parecer tenemos gustos similares en muchas cosas. Mi madre diría que somos dos bichos raros.:D

¿Somos dos insectos raros? Qué vuelta tan bastante extraña, pero apropiada de frase. Supongo su no peor entonces el modo que estoy acostumbrada a la audiencia de ello; que es dos aves raras.

Ghost Rider was well worth seeing, though it seemed like the Rider was both Zarathos and the Spirit of Vengeance.

I also enjoyed Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, but I have to be in a specific mood to watch it.

Ghost Rider was well worth seeing

Lies.

Hot Fuzz! :D

Also, 3:10 to Yuma, Atonement, Bridge to Terabithia, No Country for Old Men, Stardust, and Transformers are worthy runners up :fluffle:

Also, Manda Bala (Send a Bullet) for best documentary :)

Hot Fuzz!

I almost died of laughter.

Hot Fuzz? Really? The juxtaposition of nice rural English people and American movie style violence was funny for 100 minutes?

¿Somos dos insectos raros? Qué vuelta tan bastante extraña, pero apropiada de frase. Supongo su no peor entonces el modo que estoy acostumbrada a la audiencia de ello; que es dos aves raras.

Sí, somos dos bichos raros.:D
How would you write the phrase in English, about the strange birds?

Sí, somos dos bichos raros.:D
How would you write the phrase in English, about the strange birds?

We are two rare birds...

Lies.

I would have preferred a comedy or a deeper film, but there were none. As far as bizarre comic-book fantasy action goes, it was a well-done film.
http://z.about.com/d/comicbooks/1/0/T/A/GhostRidercoverC.jpg

We are two rare birds...

Gracias. Es que a mi me gusta eso de acuñar frases nuevas.:D

Gracias. Es que a mi me gusta eso de acuñar frases nuevas.:D

Esto trabaja, y usted es la bienvenida.

Esto trabaja, y usted es la bienvenida.

Me parece bien.:)

Hot Fuzz? Really? The juxtaposition of nice rural English people and American movie style violence was funny for 100 minutes?

Oh yes - very much so :)

I Am Legend was quite god. I also like Transformers.

And speaking of Hot Fuzz....Hilarious!

And No Country was really...underwhelming. I have never seen a movie that won Best Picture that was so undeserving.

You haven't seen Crash?

Parece probable que esto es una cosa buena para nuestros otros significativos que no encontramos antes ya que nos gusta la misma música (en su mayor parte) y tenemos el gusto por lo visto similar en libros y películas...

Por supuesto, un problema con esta hipótesis es que si yo le hubiera encontrado antes de que yo encontrara a mi esposa, usted sólo habría sido once, que habría hecho cualquier relación más que sólo un poco extraño...
:(

Por supuesto, un problema con esta hipótesis es que si yo le hubiera encontrado antes de que yo encontrara a mi esposa, usted sólo habría sido once, que habría hecho cualquier relación más que sólo un poco extraño...
:(

¡Joder, sí! ¡¡Sería pedofilia en su máxima expresión!!:eek:

Damn furriners :p

¡Joder, sí! ¡¡Sería pedofilia en su máxima expresión!!:eek:

Exactamente a qué yo llegaba...
Y también:http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/threadjack.gif

Exactamente a qué yo llegaba...
Y también:http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/threadjack.gif

:D
Back to the topic!!

:D
Back to the topic!!

OK,
I'm not sure what movies came out last year, so I'm not sure...
Hot Fuzz was funny, not sure if I'd call it my favourite though...

What was your favorite movie of last year? I'd have to say I Am Legend. Awesome movie.

Seriously? Why?

Das Leben der Anderen or The Lives of the Others in English. Got an Oscar and the lead actor, Ulrich Mühe, died of cancer shortly afterwards.

Loved that film.

My list:

No Country for Old Men
Zodiac
Stranger than Fiction
Little Miss Sunshine


Films that go BOOM are fun, but almost never qualify for "best" of any year.

Films that go BOOM are fun, but almost never qualify for "best" of any year.

'Best' by what/whose standard? Personally, I'd much rather go see a movie that's going to have vampires and car chases and things going 'BOOM!' than a movie where people sit around and talk and have deep moving emotional experiences and cry.

So by my lights, a movie like 'Die Hard' or 'The Condemned' is going rate higher on a 'best' scale than a movie like the Bob Dylan movie that came out recently that I forget the name of.

'Best' by what/whose standard? Personally, I'd much rather go see a movie that's going to have vampires and car chases and things going 'BOOM!' than a movie where people sit around and talk and have deep moving emotional experiences and cry.

It depends on the movie. Most action movies are simply awful because they lack any realism, especially concerning explosions.

So by my lights, a movie like 'Die Hard' or 'The Condemned' is going rate higher on a 'best' scale than a movie like the Bob Dylan movie that came out recently that I forget the name of.

I would say that all of those movies are mediocre.

You haven't seen Crash?

No, actually I havent. I tend to avoid movies whos sole messege is "Racisms bad, mk?" mostly because to me thats no shit and like preeching to the choir.

A German movie I saw, the French title is " La Vie des Autres ", I don't even know the original title.

It's about a STASI officer...fucking good.
Das Leben der Anderen. Good film indeed.

Hardly actually saw any films in 2007, seeing as they were almost without fail total pish. But there we go. Razor (The BSG thing) was good, if that counts as a movie.

Let's see, favorite movies of 2007:


In no particular order, my top five are:

300
The Bourne Ultimatum
I Am Legend
No Country For Old Men
American Gangster

Rounding out the top ten, we have:

Michael Clayton
3:10 to Yuma
Spider-man 3
Superbad
Live Free or Die Hard

Really? People are saying 300? Man, that probably is one of my top 5 worst movies of the year.

Really? People are saying 300? Man, that probably is one of my top 5 worst movies of the year.

I own a copy of that (got it as a gift) and can't be bothered to watch it...

I own a copy of that (got it as a gift) and can't be bothered to watch it...

Its like a turd wrapped in tinfoil. Looks shiney and everything, but when you get right down to it, its still a turd.

Its like a turd wrapped in tinfoil. Looks shiney and everything, but when you get right down to it, its still a turd.

I probably will get bored enough to try watching it eventually, but it (based on the previews) has suck horrible abuses of history, that I doubt I'll be able to get through it (which is the reason why I haven't tried yet).

I liked "I am Legend" and "3:10 to Yuma"

still thinkin' on any others

Sí, somos dos bichos raros.:D
How would you write the phrase in English, about the strange birds?
I thought you were saying "Yes, we are two rare bitches"!

I am Legend??? Are you out of your mind? The zombie-apocalypse theme has been done so often, there really needs to be something novel to make it worthwhile. 300 was also disappointing. Michael Clayton was my favorite, but it was pretty slim pickings this year.

I liked "I am Legend" and "3:10 to Yuma"

still thinkin' on any others

3:10 to Yuma was fantastic, because they did their fucking homework. Any element of history in that was done to the letter.

I thought you were saying "Yes, we are two rare bitches"!

roflmao

Its like a turd wrapped in tinfoil. Looks shiney and everything, but when you get right down to it, its still a turd.

"I actually feel like this film is lowering my IQ as I speak"

But look at it shine.

"Yeah, good stuff can shine too"

Looooookie... shine.

"Oh forget it"

No, actually I havent. I tend to avoid movies whos sole messege is "Racisms bad, mk?" mostly because to me thats no shit and like preeching to the choir.

So based on that sweeping generalization, you're not going to see the film that won last year's Best Picture Oscar and perhaps -- just perhaps -- might take a different look at racism? The scene with the two brothas in Beverly Hills is an a total mind-fuck on racism and I found myself laughing hard at the way that scene concluded.

I guess I'm saying that you have the perfect right to see or pass on whatever films you wish, but not seeing one because you think you know how it does what it does without having seen it sounds prejudicial. I've learned to give films a chance. I was certain I wouldn't understand what all the fuss was about regarding Donnie Darko, and the only way I can say "and boy howdy, was I ever right" is because I Netflixed it and watched it. Better to have spent some at least mildly entertaining minutes watching a mediocre picture than to have not seen it and slag it sight unseen.

I believe that every work of art deserves to be perceived with as few preconceptions as possible. I was prepared to think Darko was going to be a pretentious pile of David Lynchian horseshit. I now know it's not -- and I also know that "cult" status is something of which I'm clearly not in charge. It was a decent film. But at least now I know.

'Best' by what/whose standard? Personally, I'd much rather go see a movie that's going to have vampires and car chases and things going 'BOOM!' than a movie where people sit around and talk and have deep moving emotional experiences and cry.

So by my lights, a movie like 'Die Hard' or 'The Condemned' is going rate higher on a 'best' scale than a movie like the Bob Dylan movie that came out recently that I forget the name of.

I'm Not There.

By whose standard? By the only standard I can apply when asked what MY favorite movie is: mine. You are absolutely free to put vampires and explosions on top of other expressions. I'd rather not, is all my post was saying.

I'm Not There.

By whose standard? By the only standard I can apply when asked what MY favorite movie is: mine. You are absolutely free to put vampires and explosions on top of other expressions. I'd rather not, is all my post was saying.

Thanks, I couldn't think of it and couldn't be bothered to look it up. I was just wondering if you using some AFI standard or just going by your own and I completely agree with you on that point. With something as subjective as movies, you can really only apply your own personal preferences. I prefer vampires and car chases and explosions because I rarely get those in real life, whereas people crying and talking and sitting around tends to turn up all the time.

I probably will get bored enough to try watching it eventually, but it (based on the previews) has suck horrible abuses of history, that I doubt I'll be able to get through it (which is the reason why I haven't tried yet).

'300' was/is one of my favorites. As far as historical accuracy goes, don't let that stop you. Hollywood hasn't ever made a completely historically accurate movie about any subject. Looking for historical accuracy from Hollywood is like looking for honesty or efficency from the government. But if you go into it looking merely to be entertained for two hours, you'll definitely get your money's worth.

And as far as things being turds wrapped in tinfoil, the same could be said about socialism, but people keep falling for that gag for some reason...

Meh, I saw it on 2007 so, to me, it's from 2007. Hehe, just because I want to be arbitrary.;)
Y'know, by that logic The Seventh Seal is a 2007 film, because that's when I saw it...

Anyway.

3.10 To Yuma, Bourne Ultimatum (surprisingly - I thought it'd be crap but I quite enjoyed it) and Zodiac were the ones I liked most, with 28 Weeks Later also up there.

well I enjoyed across the universe I guess, if only for the debate I had about where a movie should end for the girl (I'm not a complete nerd) I watched it with thinks its should of ended with a wedding :p

of course Blue Harvest came out this year so this thread should be more "what is your second favourite"

28 Weeks Later also up there.

I'd of rather they just left it at 28 days myself

ruined the sense of isolation the original gave :(

I'd of rather they just left it at 28 days myself

ruined the sense of isolation the original gave :(

I'd rather they left it half way through 28 days later.

Man, I'm coming across like I hate movies aren't I?

'300' was/is one of my favorites. As far as historical accuracy goes, don't let that stop you. Hollywood hasn't ever made a completely historically accurate movie about any subject.

Which is why I tend to avoid movies with historical basis...

I was about to be very upset that Casino Royale was on no one's list... until I realised that I can no longer accurately gauge the passing of time, and Casino Royale is, in fact, a 2006 film.

So, for 2007 (I really don't watch that many movies, sad to say) I'd have to go with... 300.

I'd rather they left it half way through 28 days later.

happy ending for the soldiers?

I was about to be very upset that Casino Royale was on no one's list... until I realised that I can no longer accurately gauge the passing of time, and Casino Royale is, in fact, a 2006 film.

Another factor might be the fact that the movie was the worst bond film ever...

I thought you were saying "Yes, we are two rare bitches"!

ROFL!:D
I guess that seeing the word ¨bichos¨ can be mistaken like that.

Y'know, by that logic The Seventh Seal is a 2007 film, because that's when I saw it...

Yeah, I know.;) I was just joking. Hey, I´m in high spirits. I don´t have to go back to work until Monday. Me one happy Spanish girl!!!:D

I was about to be very upset that Casino Royale was on no one's list... until I realised that I can no longer accurately gauge the passing of time, and Casino Royale is, in fact, a 2006 film.

So, for 2007 (I really don't watch that many movies, sad to say) I'd have to go with... 300.Knowing a BAFTA member also really screws with your sense of time as you get to see a lot films on DVD the year they're released, some even before they're released in the cinema.

Films that I can remember and liked this year (in no particular order) -
Pan's Labyrinth, Run Fatboy Run, Hot Fuzz, This is England, that Joy Division film (can't remember its name -- googled it: Control), No Country For Old Men, The Lives of Others, the Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Eastern Promises, Letters From Iwo Jima, The Last King of Scotland and Babel (apparently a 2007 film according to the Times...)

Films I still want to see -- 3:10 to Yuma, There Will be Blood, American Gangster and Atonement.

I would have to say:

1) Cloverfield
2) Transformers [especially the AC-130/A10 scene]
3) The Kingdom

Another factor might be the fact that the movie was the worst bond film ever...

You spelled "best" wrong.

The Lives of Others and Pan's Labyrinth were both fantastic. I'm Not There was also very good.
One of my friends dragged me to Cloverfield and it was horrible...the more the character development progressed the more I wanted them to die.

You spelled "best" wrong.

*ignores the lefty with no taste*
;)

Some of my favourite movies of the year were (in no particular order)

Spider-Man 3
Transformers
TMNT
Ratatouille
Pirates 3
Knocked Up
Superbad
3:10 to Yuma
American Gangster
Hot Fuzz

However, My #1 Movie of 2007 would be

http://www.andyfilm.com/diehard407.jpg

*ignores the lefty with no taste*
;)

Art thou a Necromancer? For thou hast truly raised thy joke from the warrens of the damned!

Art thou a Necromancer? For thou hast truly raised thy joke from the warrens of the damned!

:D http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/vampire.gif

Arbitrary once again:
I recently saw ¨Moon Child¨, a movie that came out in 2003. Since I saw it this year that makes it, for me, an 08 release. LOL!!:D

Without a doubt, the best movie I saw from 2007 was Sunshine

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/

Pirates 3, or I Am Legend, Transformers is a very fun movie.

happy ending for the soldiers?

Who among us can honestly say they haven't tried to rape the handful of survivors of a catastrophic infection?

Seriously, I thought the movie absolutely tanked once they forgot what film they were trying to make.

Pan's Labyrinth (if it was 2007?) There Will Be Blood, No country for old men.

Cloverfield. One of my all-time favourite films now. Can't wait for the DVD in a month or two.

I really hope they make a sequel.

EDIT: Okay, technically not 2007, but early 08. Sue me.

Thanks, I couldn't think of it and couldn't be bothered to look it up. I was just wondering if you using some AFI standard or just going by your own and I completely agree with you on that point. With something as subjective as movies, you can really only apply your own personal preferences. I prefer vampires and car chases and explosions because I rarely get those in real life, whereas people crying and talking and sitting around tends to turn up all the time.

Fair enough. Trust me, if I use a standard not my own, I'll mention it. The AFI is a decent place to start, but in the end it's all up to each individual.

'300' was/is one of my favorites. As far as historical accuracy goes, don't let that stop you. Hollywood hasn't ever made a completely historically accurate movie about any subject. Looking for historical accuracy from Hollywood is like looking for honesty or efficency from the government. But if you go into it looking merely to be entertained for two hours, you'll definitely get your money's worth.

So where we diverge then is the purpose of movies. If there are multiple purposes, which one is more worthy? The escapist entertainment or the film which illuminates what it means to be human in some way? Also -- are there any films that manage to do both? I would nominate Stardust.

And as far as things being turds wrapped in tinfoil, the same could be said about socialism, but people keep falling for that gag for some reason...

**EXTRA IGNORED**

Another factor might be the fact that the movie was the worst bond film ever...

Really? So you prefer your Bond films to be completely and slavishly formulaic? You'd rather depend on the tired and shagged out comic relief from Q and mock sexual tension with Moneypenny? Really? Casino Royale was not a great movie, but it was a great Bond movie. I guess I'll just agree to disagree on that, as there's never any accounting for taste.

Hot Fuzz followed by Elizabeth the Golden Age for Cate Blanchett in being in armour

3:10 to Yuma was fantastic, because they did their fucking homework. Any element of history in that was done to the letter.

it had some bad timeline problems but i forgave that.

i rented the original from netflix. WOW is the new one an improvement. the original had horrible plot, setting and timeline problems. but it had glen ford. that has to count for something.

So where we diverge then is the purpose of movies. If there are multiple purposes, which one is more worthy? The escapist entertainment or the film which illuminates what it means to be human in some way? Also -- are there any films that manage to do both? I would nominate Stardust.

Have you ever seen Wyatt Earp, with Kevin Costner and Dennis Quaid? The movie was slightly lacking when Costner plays a "young" Wyatt Earp, but other than that it was fantastic. You will never see a better re-enactment of the gunfight at the "O.K. Corral". And while Val Kilmer played an interesting Doc Holliday in Tombstone, Quaid plays one that is superb, historically speaking.

Really? So you prefer your Bond films to be completely and slavishly formulaic? You'd rather depend on the tired and shagged out comic relief from Q and mock sexual tension with Moneypenny? Really? Casino Royale was not a great movie, but it was a great Bond movie. I guess I'll just agree to disagree on that, as there's never any accounting for taste.

I must say that while Casino Royale contained some bits the book did not have in it (Texas Hold 'Em), it was fairly close to the story. As far as Daniel Craig's performance goes, it was simply much more like the Bond of the books. "The bitch is dead now."

The Darjeeling Limited

I was about to be very upset that Casino Royale was on no one's list...
It wasn't as good as the David Niven version.

Which is why I tend to avoid movies with historical basis...

I used to think that way, and what changed my mind for me was Braveheart. Yeah, the movie is a great steaming pile as far as historical accuracy is concerned, but it's such a great movie for so many other reasons that I was converted. Plus, more than one friend told me I was coming off as a pretentious tool (which is an observation limited solely to my behavior as regards the subject, and not anyone else's.)

If there are multiple purposes, which one is more worthy? The escapist entertainment or the film which illuminates what it means to be human in some way?Also -- are there any films that manage to do both? I would nominate Stardust.

I would say that 'entertainment' is a movie's main purpose. Movies are ephemeral bits of pop culture by nature, and if one is looking for something that 'illuminates what it means to be human' there are better and more time-tested avenues which may help one achieve that goal with greater facility, such as great literature, or art, or various philosophies. Films that do manage to do both, like say Braveheart, or Apollo 13 tend to be the exception rather than the rule. For every one of those, there are 25 Grandma's Boy or Scary Movie

As far as Casino Royale, I thought it was the best Bond film since Goldeneye, which I thought was the best Bond film since Sean Connery hung it up.

I used to think that way, and what changed my mind for me was 'Braveheart.' Yeah, the movie is a great steaming pile as far as historical accuracy is concerned, but it's such a great movie for so many other reasons that I was converted. Plus, more than one friend told me I was coming off as a pretentious tool (which is an observation limited solely to my behavior as regards the subject, and not anyone else's.)

Unfortunately, the movie slanders an ancestor of mine--Robert the Bruce.

I would say that 'entertainment' is a movie's main purpose. Movies are ephemeral bits of pop culture by nature, and if one is looking for something that 'illuminates what it means to be human' there are better and more time-tested avenues which may help one achieve that goal with greater facility, such as great literature, or art, or various philosophies.


The purpose changes depending on the filmmakers involved. I would have no hesitation in saying that art is more worthy than entertainment and as such Annie Hall is more of a cultural achievement than Star Wars, Bergamn was more important than Hitchcock and so on.

The purpose changes depending on the filmmakers involved. I would have no hesitation in saying that art is more worthy than entertainment and as such Annie Hall is more of a cultural achievement than Star Wars, Bergamn was more important than Hitchcock and so on.

I would beg to differ.


Anyhoo, I should add Michael Clayton :)

This was a good year for films. The only one that disappointed me was I Am Legend. See, I don't like most horror films, and I Am Legend had more horror than I expected.

The Simpsons Movie and Die Hard 4 weren't great, but I wasn't expecting much from them.

The Bourne Ultimatum was a masterpiece action flick. Juno was a superb film. And one film that a lot of people didn't like, but I did, was Charlie Wilson's War. Stardust impressed me as a fantasy.

I'm not really sure which was my favorite 2007 film was.

Juno was a superb film.
I liked Juno. I thought Ellen Page was great... but I just couldn't suspend my belief that she would have had an abortion. Liberal person, with liberal parents and living in New England (as opposed to say Virginia)... Her main reason for keeping the baby seemed to be some Chinese girl she only casually knows waving a placard outside the clinic. But then there wouldn't have been a story had she had an abortion.

I would beg to differ.


Yeah, well, you're wrong :p

Unfortunately, the movie slanders an ancestor of mine--Robert the Bruce.

I don't know, he does kind of weasel around, but that's mostly due to listening to his father and who here hasn't gotten bad advice from a family member? He does man up and prove out in the end. That and he's a legitimate historical bad-ass.

So based on that sweeping generalization, you're not going to see the film that won last year's Best Picture Oscar and perhaps -- just perhaps -- might take a different look at racism? The scene with the two brothas in Beverly Hills is an a total mind-fuck on racism and I found myself laughing hard at the way that scene concluded.

I guess I'm saying that you have the perfect right to see or pass on whatever films you wish, but not seeing one because you think you know how it does what it does without having seen it sounds prejudicial. I've learned to give films a chance. I was certain I wouldn't understand what all the fuss was about regarding Donnie Darko, and the only way I can say "and boy howdy, was I ever right" is because I Netflixed it and watched it. Better to have spent some at least mildly entertaining minutes watching a mediocre picture than to have not seen it and slag it sight unseen.

I believe that every work of art deserves to be perceived with as few preconceptions as possible. I was prepared to think Darko was going to be a pretentious pile of David Lynchian horseshit. I now know it's not -- and I also know that "cult" status is something of which I'm clearly not in charge. It was a decent film. But at least now I know.


My that horse youre on is awfully high up...

Bergamn was more important than Hitchcock and so on.


Fail.

Fail.

Na, I'm clearly right. In the context of directing and writing films for the purposes of entertainment, Hitchcock has been more influencial. In terms of artistic contribution, there's simply no question

Charlie Wilson's War, for sure.

Really? A lot of people didn't like it? Why?

1) Hot Fuzz
2) Grindhouse
3) 3:10 to Yuma

I Am Legend, and Transformers were both great. They weren't high art, but they were entertaining to watch, and had me talking later.

Have you ever seen Wyatt Earp, with Kevin Costner and Dennis Quaid? The movie was slightly lacking when Costner plays a "young" Wyatt Earp, but other than that it was fantastic. You will never see a better re-enactment of the gunfight at the "O.K. Corral". And while Val Kilmer played an interesting Doc Holliday in Tombstone, Quaid plays one that is superb, historically speaking.



I must say that while Casino Royale contained some bits the book did not have in it (Texas Hold 'Em), it was fairly close to the story. As far as Daniel Craig's performance goes, it was simply much more like the Bond of the books. "The bitch is dead now."

Parkus, based on your recommendation -- and NSG opinions like yours are probably the only ones that could convince me -- I'll Netflix Wyatt Earp. I had stayed away from it because I really haven't liked Kevin Costner since Bull Durham, and I was afraid of another snorefest like Waterworld or The Postman.

I would say that 'entertainment' is a movie's main purpose. Movies are ephemeral bits of pop culture by nature, and if one is looking for something that 'illuminates what it means to be human' there are better and more time-tested avenues which may help one achieve that goal with greater facility, such as great literature, or art, or various philosophies. Films that do manage to do both, like say Braveheart, or Apollo 13 tend to be the exception rather than the rule. For every one of those, there are 25 Grandma's Boy or Scary Movie

As far as Casino Royale, I thought it was the best Bond film since Goldeneye, which I thought was the best Bond film since Sean Connery hung it up.

Well said, and I mostly agree. I have seen films that have profoundly affected my life, whether by adding bits of memorable comedy to my lexicon (Airplane!, Fletch, Animal House, Caddyshack, Sleeper, The Jerk, Top Secret!, A Night at the Opera, The Pink Panther, The Producers, History of the World Part One, and lots more) or by introducing me to worlds I'd not otherwise have even heard about, let alone seen (Water, Happiness, My Left Foot, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Searching for Bobby Fischer, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Blade Runner, Beyond the Gates, Tsotsi, The Lives of Others, The Last King of Scotland, Fierce People, and many more).

I don't think movies are any less valid a mode of human expression merely because they've only been around just over a century. If you can't learn something from a film that was made to illuminate a certain corner of humanity, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not talking about major life-changing stuff, but something that makes you think about more than "damn, that blowed up real good!" Now don't get me wrong, I LIKE seein' shit blow up. But I would never have been inspired to read about Gandhi without having seen Ben Kingsley's outstanding portrayal in 1982 (for example).

I'm not one of those people who's gonna sit here and pontificate over which movies are better than others and piss all over consensus classics just to be "a rebel". I know what I like, and I'll gladly enter a debate about the effectiveness of some films, but in the end, it's up to the viewer.

Which brings me to this miserable excuse for a post right here:
My that horse youre on is awfully high up...

Look, did you even read the post I'd quoted? The guy was judging something he hadn't even seen. Not that I care a whit for your opinion of me, but are you the kind of person who'll just piss all over something they haven't yet experienced?

Granted, there are some things you can take as read when it comes to entertainment. But not seeing a film like Crash just because he thinks he knows what ALL films that deal with race are going to be like? That's narrow-minded. I called him on it and then explained that I thought similarly about Donnie Darko. I thought it was going to be a pretentious pile of teen-angst horseshit. But I HAD TO WATCH IT TO FIND OUT, didn't I? I did watch it, as described in the post you farted at, and determined FOR MYSELF that the film was entertaining, but it rocked neither my world, nor the world of the person watching it with me. Cult classics are like that. What is emblematic to one set of people is merely entertaining to some others. I'll wager that more than a few of my favorite cult classics would leave you either yawning or scratching your head (Cannibal! The Musical, Bob Roberts, Meet the Feebles, Suspiria, I Married a Strange Person, But I'm A Cheerleader!, among others). And you know what? I don't care -- SO LONG AS YOU SAW FOR YOURSELF.

If telling someone that judging a film -- an Oscar winner, to boot -- without seeing it is unfair and ignorant means that I'm on "a high horse", then pardner, you better watch your head, 'cause I reckon a high horse's asshole is way up there, too.

You seem to have very different tastes in movies than I do, Intangelon, but I'd have to say that Wyatt Earp is not worth watching, because it's effectively a non-western. By that I mean simply that after Eastwood's Unforgiven so effectively turned every trope of the Western genre inside out, it's been very difficult to find any way to do a western in either the standard or the revisionist manner. I can't think of a direct comparison within the context of art, but every western since Unforgiven has been, in one way or another, like a 6-year old with a clarinet trying to follow Mozart. (Oddly enough, I'd say one of the closest examples of an exception to this is the re-make of 3:10 to Yuma).

Costner is familiar enough with the genre to recognize this, so he's been trying to get around the problem of following such a masterful anti-western by effectively draining everything that makes a western a western out of his films, most notably this one. Unfortunately, that doesn't work very well: the climactic gunfight was technically proficient and probably pretty accurate, but it was also flat, you had difficulty figuring out who was whom in the fight, and there was not nearly as much buildup to it for the payoff to be meaningful. It's not as bad as Dances with Wolves, but it's still not a very good western.

You seem to have very different tastes in movies than I do, Intangelon, but I'd have to say that Wyatt Earp is not worth watching, because it's effectively a non-western. By that I mean simply that after Eastwood's Unforgiven so effectively turned every trope of the Western genre inside out, it's been very difficult to find any way to do a western in either the standard or the revisionist manner. I can't think of a direct comparison within the context of art, but every western since Unforgiven has been, in one way or another, like a 6-year old with a clarinet trying to follow Mozart. (Oddly enough, I'd say one of the closest examples of an exception to this is the re-make of 3:10 to Yuma).

Costner is familiar enough with the genre to recognize this, so he's been trying to get around the problem of following such a masterful anti-western by effectively draining everything that makes a western a western out of his films, most notably this one. Unfortunately, that doesn't work very well: the climactic gunfight was technically proficient and probably pretty accurate, but it was also flat, you had difficulty figuring out who was whom in the fight, and there was not nearly as much buildup to it for the payoff to be meaningful. It's not as bad as Dances with Wolves, but it's still not a very good western.

I hope so -- variety is the spice of life, after all.

I haven't seen the film, is the point, so while I appreciate your explanation, I'll just rent the thing and see for myself. If I wake up and the credits are rolling, I'll know it was at least a decent soporific.

the climactic gunfight was technically proficient and probably pretty accurate, but it was also flat, you had difficulty figuring out who was whom in the fight
Probably how it was for the people who were there, pretty much :D

Yeah, well, you're wrong :p

It's not tuesday, so that can't be true! :eek:

Wyatt Earp is all right..for a given value of 'all right', but both Tombstone with Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer as Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday, respectively, and Gunfight at the O.K. Corral with Kirk Douglas were better versions of the story. As far as Westerns go, John Wayne will always have a special place in my heart, followed closely by Clint Eastwood.

I'd have to agree while disagreeing about Unforgiven, though. While I agree that Unforgiven is quite possibly the last word in Westerns, I think that it's not so much because it's an anti-Western, as it is because it's a meta-Western. It so perfectly encapsulates everything about the genre that there is really no way to top it.

For 07, I'd say either Superbad, or 300.

"I Assume you all have guns and crack!"

Parkus, based on your recommendation -- and NSG opinions like yours are probably the only ones that could convince me -- I'll Netflix Wyatt Earp. I had stayed away from it because I really haven't liked Kevin Costner since Bull Durham, and I was afraid of another snorefest like Waterworld or The Postman.

The problem with Costner is that he cannot portray emotion very well. But since Earp has been descried as a "cold fish", he comes-off quite well (except as the smiling young Earp). It is certainly a movie to see if the period and the characters interest you as they do me (I have read Earp's biography). If you do not care to get an idea of how the people were, you can at least enjoy the fact that the movie depicts historically accurate gunfighting. It is not what one would call "action-packed", yet that is part of the reason it is an accurate movie.

Comparing it with Tombstone is like comparing The Duellists (a, excellent movie which I never shut-up about) with The Three Musketeers.

Comparing it with Tombstone is like comparing The Duellists (a, excellent movie which I never shut-up about) with The Three Musketeers.

I've not seen The Duellists, can I get it off of Amazon? While unable to defend The Three Musketeers as any kind of cinematic or even taseful achievement, I do find myself endlessly entertained by Charlie Sheen and Kiefer Sutherland's antics, not to mention what's-his-name who played Porthos. (I take it you are referencing this version and not the Gene Kelly version, which however, I also enjoyed.)

Wyatt Earp is all right..for a given value of 'all right', but both Tombstone with Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer as Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday, respectively, and Gunfight at the O.K. Corral with Kirk Douglas were better versions of the story.

But inaccurate in multiple ways. In Tombstone, the movie tries too hard to villainize Behan. The fellow was a real-life scoundrel, yet the movie "makes" him a villain. Wyatt Earp shows him as a person; not a very likable person, but a person nonetheless. I also must point-out that the grudge between "Doc" Holliday and Johnny Ringo is not properly explained, particularly its beginning. Additional flaws: characters "fan" their guns in the movie, and Earp is shown to be using a "Buntline Special".

As for Gunfight at O.K. Corral, I will not even try to list the numerous mistakes--except one: Kirk Douglas as "Doc" Holliday?

I've not seen The Duellists, can I get it off of Amazon? While unable to defend The Three Musketeers as any kind of cinematic or even taseful achievement, I do find myself endlessly entertained by Charlie Sheen and Kiefer Sutherland's antics, not to mention what's-his-name who played Porthos. (I take it you are referencing this version and not the Gene Kelly version, which however, I also enjoyed.)

I was referencing the 1970's one, with Michael York as d'Artagnan. It actually is a fine movie in many respects. I own and enjoy it now-and-again.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Musketeers-Three-Four/dp/B00006LPC5/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1206124023&sr=8-2

I have seen the Gene Kelly version, though not the other one that you refer to.

The Duellists: http://www.amazon.com/Duellists-Keith-Carradine/dp/B00006JU7U/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1206124216&sr=8-1

The most historically-accurate dueling movie ever made. My fencing teacher and I love it.

You seem to have very different tastes in movies than I do, Intangelon, but I'd have to say that Wyatt Earp is not worth watching, because it's effectively a non-western. By that I mean simply that after Eastwood's Unforgiven so effectively turned every trope of the Western genre inside out, it's been very difficult to find any way to do a western in either the standard or the revisionist manner. I can't think of a direct comparison within the context of art, but every western since Unforgiven has been, in one way or another, like a 6-year old with a clarinet trying to follow Mozart. (Oddly enough, I'd say one of the closest examples of an exception to this is the re-make of 3:10 to Yuma).

Costner is familiar enough with the genre to recognize this, so he's been trying to get around the problem of following such a masterful anti-western by effectively draining everything that makes a western a western out of his films, most notably this one. Unfortunately, that doesn't work very well: the climactic gunfight was technically proficient and probably pretty accurate, but it was also flat, you had difficulty figuring out who was whom in the fight, and there was not nearly as much buildup to it for the payoff to be meaningful. It's not as bad as Dances with Wolves, but it's still not a very good western.

The movie followed history. As such, it does not try to be a "Western". It tells a true story. If you did not like where the "climax" was, it is history's fault, not the movie's. The gunfight was chaotic, as it was in reality. If you read an account of the fight, then watch the movie, you can appreciate it better.

The characters in the movie act how their real-life counterparts acted. They do not try to seem "hip" for the audience. When you finish the movie, you certainly do not come away with a thrill in you heart, but you have an understanding of real personalities and what it was like to live and die as them, and if you are like me, you are also entertained.

The reason I enjoy it so much is because it does not strain my "willful suspension of disbelief", which is exceedingly delicate. People act like people. When I read about Wyatt Earp and then watch a movie, I expect to meet a character that will match-up. I also expect a gunfight to look like a gunfight, not a stylistic circus performance.

There were movies in 2007?

I've not seen The Duellists, can I get it off of Amazon? While unable to defend The Three Musketeers as any kind of cinematic or even taseful achievement, I do find myself endlessly entertained by Charlie Sheen and Kiefer Sutherland's antics, not to mention what's-his-name who played Porthos. (I take it you are referencing this version and not the Gene Kelly version, which however, I also enjoyed.)

Oliver Platt, and no, I didn't need to look that up...how sad is that?

I like the Michael York version better, too. A bit more innocently bawdy and less polished.