Name a couple of truly great movies from the last 10 years (2 Viewers)

[Jeff Vader]

Django Unchained

The green mile

Star Trek (2009)

The Green Mile was in the 90s

ya my GF pointed that out also haha

Did you punch her for getting lippy?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Django Unchained

The green mile

Star Trek (2009)

The Green Mile was in the 90s

ya my GF pointed that out also haha

Did you punch her for getting lippy?

nope...my knuckles are already busted...no need to add to the damage

 

[KarmaPolice]

The sorts of things that make Nolan a "great director" are the same sorts of things that make Stephen King a "great writer."

You ask 1,000 academics whether King or Nabokov is a better novelist, you're likely to get something like 999 of them answering the same way. But if you ask 1,000 people at bookstores, that'll more or less flip. And one might justifiably argue that that's just lowest-common-denominator talk. But if you ask 1,000 writers, you're going to get an interesting split of opinion.

Why?

Because Stephen King, although he doesn't go in for the sort of literary shenanigans Nabokov does, writes in such a way that everything you learn in Creative Writing 101 is really, really well developed in his craft. Writers fawn. The stuff from your grad seminar in metanarrative? Not so much. And I'm certainly not saying Nabokov doesn't deserve his praise. He does, and in about a million literary ways, he's light years ahead of SK. But there's a lot of nuts and bolts stuff that gets brushed aside as "simple," that's actually very difficult to master. And masters of that sort of craft have an ability to resonate with audiences across the intellectual spectrum. They're the Tim Duncans of creativity.

Nolan brings the same sort of uncanny mastery of the fundamentals to the craft of filmmaking. If he's making popcorn flicks, he's making ones that stand up to the scrutiny of the screenwriting power elite. And making the best popcorn flicks is no shame.

He's not filling his subtext with paeans to post-war Japanese cinema or Spaghetti Westerns like a QT does. But he Stephen Kings the hell out of his films. He's what happens if you master the material in your intro class, then spend a lifetime polishing it, but never move on the more prissy bits of film academia. Just good, rock-solid stuff, with occasional bits of storytelling genius to keep the discussion moving and the critics guessing. 100 years from now, nobody's going to be talking about the delicate interplay between light and dark in any Batman movies. But any of them will still be very good examples of textbook storytelling brought to life on the big screen.

That's what I mean when I say he's destined to be a film school darling. I don't love a lot of his stuff, but I respect the hell out him as an artist, not so much for how he's pushed the boundaries, as for how he's worked within them.

Anyway, good talk.

This is a really good post, both with regards to Nolan and also with how you've characterized Stephen King vs. Vladamir Nabakov. You're more charitable than I would be for King in this comparison, but I get what you're trying to say.

And this thread makes me realize more than ever that this has been a horrible decade for film.

horrible decade for film?

I bet we could come up with a list of 50-100 great movies that have come out since 2003 or so (and basically have done so in this thread).

I know we all cling to stuff we have watched over and over, or watched in high school/college with our buddies, but statements like this are just silly. I guess it could be true if you only watch one type of movie, but any decade of film has great stuff to watch.

sorry, I will get off your lawn now.

 

[Josie Maran]

The sorts of things that make Nolan a "great director" are the same sorts of things that make Stephen King a "great writer."

You ask 1,000 academics whether King or Nabokov is a better novelist, you're likely to get something like 999 of them answering the same way. But if you ask 1,000 people at bookstores, that'll more or less flip. And one might justifiably argue that that's just lowest-common-denominator talk. But if you ask 1,000 writers, you're going to get an interesting split of opinion.

Why?

Because Stephen King, although he doesn't go in for the sort of literary shenanigans Nabokov does, writes in such a way that everything you learn in Creative Writing 101 is really, really well developed in his craft. Writers fawn. The stuff from your grad seminar in metanarrative? Not so much. And I'm certainly not saying Nabokov doesn't deserve his praise. He does, and in about a million literary ways, he's light years ahead of SK. But there's a lot of nuts and bolts stuff that gets brushed aside as "simple," that's actually very difficult to master. And masters of that sort of craft have an ability to resonate with audiences across the intellectual spectrum. They're the Tim Duncans of creativity.

Nolan brings the same sort of uncanny mastery of the fundamentals to the craft of filmmaking. If he's making popcorn flicks, he's making ones that stand up to the scrutiny of the screenwriting power elite. And making the best popcorn flicks is no shame.

He's not filling his subtext with paeans to post-war Japanese cinema or Spaghetti Westerns like a QT does. But he Stephen Kings the hell out of his films. He's what happens if you master the material in your intro class, then spend a lifetime polishing it, but never move on the more prissy bits of film academia. Just good, rock-solid stuff, with occasional bits of storytelling genius to keep the discussion moving and the critics guessing. 100 years from now, nobody's going to be talking about the delicate interplay between light and dark in any Batman movies. But any of them will still be very good examples of textbook storytelling brought to life on the big screen.

That's what I mean when I say he's destined to be a film school darling. I don't love a lot of his stuff, but I respect the hell out him as an artist, not so much for how he's pushed the boundaries, as for how he's worked within them.

Anyway, good talk.

This is a really good post, both with regards to Nolan and also with how you've characterized Stephen King vs. Vladamir Nabakov. You're more charitable than I would be for King in this comparison, but I get what you're trying to say.

And this thread makes me realize more than ever that this has been a horrible decade for film.

horrible decade for film? I bet we could come up with a list of 50-100 great movies that have come out since 2003 or so (and basically have done so in this thread).

I know we all cling to stuff we have watched over and over, or watched in high school/college with our buddies, but statements like this are just silly. I guess it could be true if you only watch one type of movie, but any decade of film has great stuff to watch.

sorry, I will get off your lawn now.

:disagree:

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I think this thread has merit.

There are lots and lots of really, really good movies in the last decade.

But I'm not sure how many are "all time greats". I'm really not.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

horrible decade for film?

I bet we could come up with a list of 50-100 great movies that have come out since 2003 or so (and basically have done so in this thread).

I know we all cling to stuff we have watched over and over, or watched in high school/college with our buddies, but statements like this are just silly. I guess it could be true if you only watch one type of movie, but any decade of film has great stuff to watch.

sorry, I will get off your lawn now.

This is kind of what I was getting at when I asked the OP his age (was never answered).

I think we go through a time where our tastes are maturing beyond the dreck we liked as teenagers, and as such those first films that we get into after that change in our tastes really stick with us for the rest of our lives.

I heavily prefer the films released in the last decade to those released in the decade before that. Of course, I would guess that I'm about 10 years younger than people like the OP and Ivan who obviously feel the exact opposite. I would also guess that, 10 years from now, I'll be lodging the same complaint about 2014-2024.

 

[Josie Maran]

horrible decade for film?

I bet we could come up with a list of 50-100 great movies that have come out since 2003 or so (and basically have done so in this thread).

I know we all cling to stuff we have watched over and over, or watched in high school/college with our buddies, but statements like this are just silly. I guess it could be true if you only watch one type of movie, but any decade of film has great stuff to watch.

sorry, I will get off your lawn now.

This is kind of what I was getting at when I asked the OP his age (was never answered).

I think we go through a time where our tastes are maturing beyond the dreck we liked as teenagers, and as such those first films that we get into after that change in our tastes really stick with us for the rest of our lives.

I heavily prefer the films released in the last decade to those released in the decade before that. Of course, I would guess that I'm about 10 years younger than people like the OP and Ivan who obviously feel the exact opposite. I would also guess that, 10 years from now, I'll be lodging the same complaint about 2014-2024.

40.

And I get what you're saying, and it makes sense that my favorite flicks would be the ones that were made when my tastes were being formed.

Yet it is the exact opposite when it comes to TV shows. If I were to do a top 10 or 20 TV series since 1990, I can only think of two or three from the 90s that would crack that list. Completely the opposite of movies.

TV has changed and evolved and grown, while movies have--well, stagnating would be a compliment.

Not to get into a movies vs TV debate since that gets touched on a lot, just saying that you're pointing out the nostalgia factor doesn't hold water.

 

[Freelove]

horrible decade for film?

I bet we could come up with a list of 50-100 great movies that have come out since 2003 or so (and basically have done so in this thread).

I know we all cling to stuff we have watched over and over, or watched in high school/college with our buddies, but statements like this are just silly. I guess it could be true if you only watch one type of movie, but any decade of film has great stuff to watch.

sorry, I will get off your lawn now.

This is kind of what I was getting at when I asked the OP his age (was never answered).

I think we go through a time where our tastes are maturing beyond the dreck we liked as teenagers, and as such those first films that we get into after that change in our tastes really stick with us for the rest of our lives.

I heavily prefer the films released in the last decade to those released in the decade before that. Of course, I would guess that I'm about 10 years younger than people like the OP and Ivan who obviously feel the exact opposite. I would also guess that, 10 years from now, I'll be lodging the same complaint about 2014-2024.

40.

And I get what you're saying, and it makes sense that my favorite flicks would be the ones that were made when my tastes were being formed.

Yet it is the exact opposite when it comes to TV shows. If I were to do a top 10 or 20 TV series since 1990, I can only think of two or three from the 90s that would crack that list. Completely the opposite of movies.

TV has changed and evolved and grown, while movies have--well, stagnating would be a compliment.

Not to get into a movies vs TV debate since that gets touched on a lot, just saying that you're pointing out the nostalgia factor doesn't hold water.

I don't think the TV thing has much to do with anyone's age and tastes.

It's just that in the past, even the best shows were constrained by the limitations placed on them by the networks.

Now that the big premiums are tied into multimedia packages and have infinitely more resources than they used to, they're able to go to dramatic places (and commercial free, too!) the Hill Street Blues of the world couldn't have dreamed of.

I'm not so sure if you look at the best old network TV shows and compare them to the best new network TV shows that the modern era comes off looking so rosy.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

horrible decade for film?

I bet we could come up with a list of 50-100 great movies that have come out since 2003 or so (and basically have done so in this thread).

I know we all cling to stuff we have watched over and over, or watched in high school/college with our buddies, but statements like this are just silly. I guess it could be true if you only watch one type of movie, but any decade of film has great stuff to watch.

sorry, I will get off your lawn now.

This is kind of what I was getting at when I asked the OP his age (was never answered).

I think we go through a time where our tastes are maturing beyond the dreck we liked as teenagers, and as such those first films that we get into after that change in our tastes really stick with us for the rest of our lives.

I heavily prefer the films released in the last decade to those released in the decade before that. Of course, I would guess that I'm about 10 years younger than people like the OP and Ivan who obviously feel the exact opposite. I would also guess that, 10 years from now, I'll be lodging the same complaint about 2014-2024.

40.

And I get what you're saying, and it makes sense that my favorite flicks would be the ones that were made when my tastes were being formed.

Yet it is the exact opposite when it comes to TV shows. If I were to do a top 10 or 20 TV series since 1990, I can only think of two or three from the 90s that would crack that list. Completely the opposite of movies.

TV has changed and evolved and grown, while movies have--well, stagnating would be a compliment.

Not to get into a movies vs TV debate since that gets touched on a lot, just saying that you're pointing out the nostalgia factor doesn't hold water.

And I'm 31, so pretty much exactly the age difference I was predicting.

As to TV, well TV has completely transformed as a medium over the last few decades. TV was rarely even trying to do what they're accomplishing with perfection nowadays. It just wasn't a place for serious drama or style. Serialized shows barely existed, no one was even trying them. Partially because it was much harder for people to commit to serialized shows where you had to see every episode before the invention of things like the DVR and online streaming.

 

[Freelove]

Also on the Stephen King thing, that's not me talking, so much as quoting unattributed the opinions of lots of people. King genuinely is a "writer's writer." Ask around if you're within shouting distance of a good college English dept. The same high-fallutin' lit snobs who can come up with a million justifiable reasons to hate on James Patterson will mostly go, "Oh, King? Yeah, he's pretty solid."

Ridiculously uneven and willing to whore himself to degrees that would make a Saigon masseuse blush. But a good, capable craftsman all the same.

 

[Josie Maran]

Yes, I'm very aware that how tv shows are made has changed quite a bit. That wasn't the point.

There were shows I loved back in the day that I wouldn't spend ten minutes on now, so the nostalgia factor that Bagel is pointing to is not what this thread is about.

 

[Freelove]

And all I'm sayin' is that a lot of the reason no sane person would spend ten minutes on one of the shows he or she loved back in the day, is that those shows have been lapped by shows with a humpton more creative freedom.

It makes a kind of sense to compare cinema of the 70's to cinema of the 90's and the 2010's. At each stop along the way, you've pretty much had film and the creativity of the writers and directors. In TV, you're comparing apples to racecars. It's fair to wonder whether the films of today match up to the great films of eras past. TV's pretty much a completely different medium than it used to be.

 

[Chaka]

And all I'm sayin' is that a lot of the reason no sane person would spend ten minutes on one of the shows he or she loved back in the day, is that those shows have been lapped by shows with a humpton more creative freedom.

It makes a kind of sense to compare cinema of the 70's to cinema of the 90's and the 2010's. At each stop along the way, you've pretty much had film and the creativity of the writers and directors. In TV, you're comparing apples to racecars. It's fair to wonder whether the films of today match up to the great films of eras past. TV's pretty much a completely different medium than it used to be.

And you make a very good point about comparing network shows of today with those of our formative years. It is unfair to compare Dallas, Magnum PI and The Dukes of Hazzard with Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad and South Park. The rules of television have simply changed too much.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Yes, I'm very aware that how tv shows are made has changed quite a bit. That wasn't the point.

There were shows I loved back in the day that I wouldn't spend ten minutes on now, so the nostalgia factor that Bagel is pointing to is not what this thread is about.

this is where we disagree. there is a huge difference in budget/quality/focus in tv shows from even 15 years ago. also able to push the envelope more now. just based on the sheer volume of quality tv shows going now it is not hard to see why shows like breaking bad, game of thrones, et al would show up on an alltime great list. plus they are fresh in our mind, and I would bet not many of us go back and rewatch a ton of shows from the past.

I think movies are different for a lot of people. sure, the budgets are bigger, but not a lot has changed in cinema over the past few decades.

movies have a lot higher rewatch value. it is so hard for a movie to replace something like pulp fiction, goodfellas, dumb and dumber, or others that most of us watched a bunch and quote with our friends. I agree that I think most of us have around a decade long sweet spot of movies that we saw in our high school through college years that probably dominates what our alltime lists would be. for most here, I would guess that is the 90s.

there are still directors out there that were making quality movies then too. a lot have a distinct style. are goodfellas and casino that much different than the departed or wolf of wall street? they do different genres but a Tarantino movie is distinctly his, finchers movies look similar, etc. I just think it is too easy to be lazy and say, well inglorious basterds was ok, but its no pulp fiction and not take a step back and ask why. trust me, I do the same thing.

unless you just watch westerns and crime/gangster movies (which just dont seem to be as common), I just cant buy people saying it is a horrible decade for movies. imo, they aren't trying, are set in their ways, or the # of movies they watch has taken a hit because of the amount of tv shows they are watching.

 

[cstu]

And all I'm sayin' is that a lot of the reason no sane person would spend ten minutes on one of the shows he or she loved back in the day, is that those shows have been lapped by shows with a humpton more creative freedom.

It makes a kind of sense to compare cinema of the 70's to cinema of the 90's and the 2010's. At each stop along the way, you've pretty much had film and the creativity of the writers and directors. In TV, you're comparing apples to racecars. It's fair to wonder whether the films of today match up to the great films of eras past. TV's pretty much a completely different medium than it used to be.

The Wonder Years still holds up well.

 

[joffer]

I think this thread has merit.

There are lots and lots of really, really good movies in the last decade.

But I'm not sure how many are "all time greats". I'm really not.

We're onto something

 

[flapgreen]

And Andy Griffith

 

[bigmarc27]

I can't believe that many people like Inception that much. It was a decent movie but not mind blowing.

It was an unexpectedly original l story, with great performances and awesome visuals. Based on what it's been compared to so far, I'll f'n take it.

It reminded me a lot of the matrix. Don't get me wrong if was decent and I love Leonardo. He is one of the best actors.

Here is a movie I loved how about Shutter Island

The book was awesome. Don't think I dare see the movie

Read it and thought the movie was a pretty decent movie as well.

 

[mr roboto]

This is stupid. Give it another 10-15 years and mythologies will form around some of these 'very good but not great' movies and they will become great. It's called nostalgia.

 

[mr roboto]

This is stupid. Give it another 10-15 years and mythologies will form around some of these 'very good but not great' movies and they will become great. It's called nostalgia.

If I had to guess, NCFOM, 12 Years a Slave, Kings Speech, Dark Knight.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Imo the difference between TV and Movies is that people are more willing to look off the beaten path a bit for a good TV show but don't seem to be willing to do the same for a good movie. Most of the people chastising the movies these days seem to be focusing on big blockbuster type movies that show at all major movie theaters; yet when TV shows are discussed they ignore the analogous CBS/ABC/NBC shows and mention cable shows from HBO/AMC as great. If you guys experimented more with your movie watching and checked out some indie/art/foreign or whatever films like you're willing to do experiment with your TV shows, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This may sound stupid, but my friend called No Country For Old Men "Augustinian." As I look this up, I think it's less a narrative about order and chaos than a meditation on good, evil, and free will. Let me explain:

Maybe this is what my friend is getting at. Remember how frustrated Chigurh gets when the wife tells him not to toss the coin, and that he has a choice to kill her or not to kill her. That he has free will. He gets flustered, angry. He's not evil in his own head; it's fate that determines somebody's living or dying. It's chance. Her pointing out that he has free will is the only time in the movie that he reflects or gets angry. I'm a dilettante, but I thought of him during this thread. So....here goes.

From Augustine on evil.

Augustine observed that evil could not be chosen because there is no evil thing to choose. One can only turn away from the good, that is from a greater good to a lesser good (in Augustine's hierarchy) since all things are good. "For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil--not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked."[4]

Evil, then, is the act itself of choosing the lesser good. To Augustine the source of evil is in the free will of persons: "And I strained to perceive what I now heard, that free-will was the cause of our doing ill."[5] Evil was a "perversion of the will, turned aside from...God" to lesser things.[6]

eta* This scene is on right now on IFC

I think the end of Fargo is like that too:

THE CRUISER Marge drives. Grimsrud sits in the back seat, hands cuffed behind him. For a long moment there, he is quiet - only engine hum and the periodic clomp of wheels on pavement seams - as Marge grimly shakes her head. MARGE ... So that was Mrs. Lundegaard in there? She glances up in the rear-view mirror. Grimsrud, cheeks sunk, eyes hollow, looks sourly out at the road. Marge shakes her head. At length: MARGE ... I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. Grimsrud's head bobs with bumps on the road; otherwise he is motionless, reactionless, scowling and gazing out. MARGE ... And those three people in Brainerd. No response. Marge, gazing forward, seems to be talking to herself. MARGE ... And for what? For a little bit of money. We hear distant sirens. MARGE ... There's more to life than money, you know. She glances up in the rear-view mirror. MARGE ... Don't you know that?... And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day... Grimsrud's hollow eyes stare out.

The SP doesn't show it but in the actual filming Grimsrud and Marge share a glance in the rear view mirror.

No, it hadn't occurred to him, he didn't know. Or maybe he refused to know.

I have a few friends who over time have had sort of runs in with folks that I would call almost sociopathic. There are people in the world who go through others' lives like trains, people don't see them coming because they are playing by entirely different rules, or rather by a complete lack of rules. Now, do they know they are how they are, that they are acting in such a fashion? I don't know.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I have a few friends who over time have had sort of runs in with folks that I would call almost sociopathic. There are people in the world who go through others' lives like trains, people don't see them coming because they are playing by entirely different rules, or rather by a complete lack of rules. Now, do they know they are how they are, that they are acting in such a fashion? I don't know.

That's the point of Chigur. He's not immoral, he's amoral. He's supposed to represent evil itself and he's the mechanism that causes mayhem when people don't choose to do good.

And the choice extends not just to the person who chooses - it is much wider than that. Did Carla Jean deserve the visit from Chigur? Of course not. But it was Llewelyn's choice that brought him there.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Imo the difference between TV and Movies is that people are more willing to look off the beaten path a bit for a good TV show but don't seem to be willing to do the same for a good movie. Most of the people chastising the movies these days seem to be focusing on big blockbuster type movies that show at all major movie theaters; yet when TV shows are discussed they ignore the analogous CBS/ABC/NBC shows and mention cable shows from HBO/AMC as great. If you guys experimented more with your movie watching and checked out some indie/art/foreign or whatever films like you're willing to do experiment with your TV shows, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.

this is a great post.

a lot of the movies that people are listing from the good old days weren't exactly world beaters at the box office. they got popular once they hit video at the time when a lot of us were getting into movies and had more time to watch more (fight club, pulp fiction, clerks, etc.). now we grumble about the stuff that is dominating the theaters and say there are no good movies anymore. to me this is like looking at a list of the top box office from the 90s, seeing Twister, Titanic, Episode 1, and Independence Day and declaring it a ####ty decade for movies.

sure, theaters and studios seem a tad more unwilling to sink money in a movie that isn't a known commodity now, but on the flipside, with streaming, netflix, and other options we have more access to anything we would want to find.

for every sequel and superhero movie out there, a movie like take shelter, moon, or short term 12 is out there as well. great movies can always be found. are they all-time great? I am sure some might end up there, but as we have said, to get there also requires time and repeat viewings.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Also not mentioned but relatively amazing - Apocalypto

loved this movie

Don't look now but...I agree. Apocalypto was very good.

:mindblown:

I joke, but think we agree more often than not.

 

[rockaction]

This may sound stupid, but my friend called No Country For Old Men "Augustinian." As I look this up, I think it's less a narrative about order and chaos than a meditation on good, evil, and free will. Let me explain:

Maybe this is what my friend is getting at. Remember how frustrated Chigurh gets when the wife tells him not to toss the coin, and that he has a choice to kill her or not to kill her. That he has free will. He gets flustered, angry. He's not evil in his own head; it's fate that determines somebody's living or dying. It's chance. Her pointing out that he has free will is the only time in the movie that he reflects or gets angry. I'm a dilettante, but I thought of him during this thread. So....here goes.

From Augustine on evil.

Augustine observed that evil could not be chosen because there is no evil thing to choose. One can only turn away from the good, that is from a greater good to a lesser good (in Augustine's hierarchy) since all things are good. "For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil--not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked."[4]

Evil, then, is the act itself of choosing the lesser good. To Augustine the source of evil is in the free will of persons: "And I strained to perceive what I now heard, that free-will was the cause of our doing ill."[5] Evil was a "perversion of the will, turned aside from...God" to lesser things.[6]

eta* This scene is on right now on IFC

I think the end of Fargo is like that too:

THE CRUISER Marge drives. Grimsrud sits in the back seat, hands cuffed behind him. For a long moment there, he is quiet - only engine hum and the periodic clomp of wheels on pavement seams - as Marge grimly shakes her head. MARGE ... So that was Mrs. Lundegaard in there? She glances up in the rear-view mirror. Grimsrud, cheeks sunk, eyes hollow, looks sourly out at the road. Marge shakes her head. At length: MARGE ... I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. Grimsrud's head bobs with bumps on the road; otherwise he is motionless, reactionless, scowling and gazing out. MARGE ... And those three people in Brainerd. No response. Marge, gazing forward, seems to be talking to herself. MARGE ... And for what? For a little bit of money. We hear distant sirens. MARGE ... There's more to life than money, you know. She glances up in the rear-view mirror. MARGE ... Don't you know that?... And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day... Grimsrud's hollow eyes stare out.

The SP doesn't show it but in the actual filming Grimsrud and Marge share a glance in the rear view mirror.

No, it hadn't occurred to him, he didn't know. Or maybe he refused to know.

I have a few friends who over time have had sort of runs in with folks that I would call almost sociopathic. There are people in the world who go through others' lives like trains, people don't see them coming because they are playing by entirely different rules, or rather by a complete lack of rules. Now, do they know they are how they are, that they are acting in such a fashion? I don't know.

Ugh. It's tough. I've met some sociopaths. I think they know, but they would rather not be reminded. I've gotten close enough to them to see the flicker of recognition of conscience in their eyes. It's a bizarre, fleeting thing. Maybe that's the lapsed Catholic in me.

After writing what I wrote, I did some more investigation into how people view Chigurh. It varies widely. People consider him an allegory for death. They consider him fate. They consider him chaos and chance. I think, as Freelove pointed out, there are many ways to view Chigurh. My main question is this, though (and here's where I defend my original position): in the book, Carla Jean calls the coin. She loses. In the movie, they make it a specific point that she will not do it. That he has moral agency. That it is his choice. When he wearily says, "I got here the same way the coin did," to me, it's unconvincing. This is also why I love the Coen brothers. One of them -- I forget which -- has a master's in political philosophy from Princeton, IIRC. They play with big boys' toys and know what they're doing. I think there are a million themes running around that movie. Anyway, thanks for the comment.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

After writing what I wrote, I did some more investigation into how people view Chigurh. It varies widely. People consider him an allegory for death. They consider him fate. They consider him chaos and chance. I think, as Freelove pointed out, there are many ways to view Chigurh. My main question is this, though (and here's where I defend my original position): in the book, Carla Jean calls the coin. She loses. In the movie, they make it a specific point that she will not do it. That he has moral agency. That it is his choice. When he wearily says, "I got here the same way the coin did," to me, it's unconvincing. This is also why I love the Coen brothers. One of them -- I forget which -- has a master's in political philosophy from Princeton, IIRC. They play with big boys toys and know what they're doing. I think there are a million themes running around that movie. Anyway, thanks for the comment.

Not choosing is still a choice. Carla Jean doesn't call it so Chigurh has to do what he has to do.

It is because she refused the opportunity to grasp a chance that she resigned herself to fate.

 

[rockaction]

After writing what I wrote, I did some more investigation into how people view Chigurh. It varies widely. People consider him an allegory for death. They consider him fate. They consider him chaos and chance. I think, as Freelove pointed out, there are many ways to view Chigurh. My main question is this, though (and here's where I defend my original position): in the book, Carla Jean calls the coin. She loses. In the movie, they make it a specific point that she will not do it. That he has moral agency. That it is his choice. When he wearily says, "I got here the same way the coin did," to me, it's unconvincing. This is also why I love the Coen brothers. One of them -- I forget which -- has a master's in political philosophy from Princeton, IIRC. They play with big boys toys and know what they're doing. I think there are a million themes running around that movie. Anyway, thanks for the comment.

Not choosing is still a choice. Carla Jean doesn't call it so Chigurh has to do what he has to do.

It is because she refused the opportunity to grasp a chance that she resigned herself to fate.

Rush lyric! No, I subsequently read that take made by people. Others take a different stance, and the one that I take is she actually makes him assume moral agency for his own action. That's why he insists for her to "call it." It's the only time in the movie he gets angry or out-of-sorts. Sure, he can once again comfort himself that he is fate, but she has provoked him for that moment, that instant. I think it's an important moment. Otherwise, hermeneutically speaking, there's no reason to change the book.

eta* Also, two things of note. Carla Jean actually acknowledges her fate in that scene. "I knowed (sic) exactly what was in store for me," she says. And second, the only time Chigurh displays any sort of vulnerability to fate, to chance, is right after that scene with the car accident. He gets his proverbial ### kicked. Of course, he gets away. But only because of the goodwill by the two young boys that save him and promise not to tell. It probably isn't too far-fetched that Carla Jean has thrown his fatalistic world out of whack by her actions in the scene prior.

But that's my personal interpretation, of course.

 

[KarmaPolice]

man, I need to watch No Country again.

 

[Sabertooth]

Superbad.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

I'm an old fart who likes movies in every decade and I would say that 2012 will eventually rank as one of the best years for movies.

Silver Linings Playbook

Argo

The Legend of Pi

Lincoln

Zero Dark Thirty

Les Miserables

Django Unchained

Beasts Of The Southern Wild

The Impossible

The Avengers

The Dark Knight Rises

Moonrise Kingdom

Skyfall

These are not all 4 star movies but they are all very good. Am amazinhg year!

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'm an old fart who likes movies in every decade and I would say that 2012 will eventually rank as one of the best years for movies.

Silver Linings Playbook

Argo

The Legend of Pi

Lincoln

Zero Dark Thirty

Les Miserables

Django Unchained

Beasts Of The Southern Wild

The Impossible

The Avengers

The Dark Knight Rises

Moonrise Kingdom

Skyfall

These are not all 4 star movies but they are all very good. Am amazinhg year!

there are a few of those I did not like, but agree on the year. my list would also include:

the master

shame

cabin in the woods

raid: redemption

martha marcy may Marlene

the sessions

margin call

safety not guaranteed

I really liked this year of movies.

 

[Chaka]

I'm an old fart who likes movies in every decade and I would say that 2012 will eventually rank as one of the best years for movies.

Silver Linings Playbook

Argo

The Legend of Pi

Lincoln

Zero Dark Thirty

Les Miserables

Django Unchained

Beasts Of The Southern Wild

The Impossible

The Avengers

The Dark Knight Rises

Moonrise Kingdom

Skyfall

These are not all 4 star movies but they are all very good. Am amazinhg year!

Good list for the most part but I despised the Impossible. They handled the actual tsunami quite well but after that it was simply a hot mess of poor decision making (by MacGregor) and saccharine/obvious Hollywood plot devices. I was also quite put off that they couldn't cast, y'know, some actual Spanish people (or at least people who looked Spanish). Seriously, did they even call Javier Bardem?

 

[flapgreen]

man, I need to watch No Country again.

You're wasting your time. That movie sucks.

 

[KarmaPolice]

man, I need to watch No Country again.

You're wasting your time. That movie sucks.

not sure you and I have agreed on many movies, so I think I will be safe watching it again.

remember really liking in when I watched it, just haven't gotten around to watching it since it first came out.