Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Name a couple of truly great movies from the last 10 years (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Josie Maran
- Start date
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I think the stupid scene of them running of the base at night going rogue drops a few points off the top. I also remember something about sniper scene being groan worthy too.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Insein
Footballguy
I was just about to say how are you not in this thread yet.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I think this is very genre-specific. way too hard to compare Up to dumb and dumber.
we are probably not going to get far with crime flicks with goodfellas, Tarantino, l.a confidential, heat, etc. at the top of lists. comedies? dumb and dumber, mary, and a couple others will top the lists.
off the top of my head, here is where I think the last decade or so dominates or at least tops the 90s:
Documentaries - not even close
Foreign- downfall, lives of others, pans labyrinth, many others plus horror movies
animated: pixar, how to train your dragon, spirited away, many others compared to the Disney dominated 90s.
horror: looking at lists, the 90s were pretty blah.
that said, most of those genres are not what a lot of people gravitate to, so on the surface the 90s will look better.
we are probably not going to get far with crime flicks with goodfellas, Tarantino, l.a confidential, heat, etc. at the top of lists. comedies? dumb and dumber, mary, and a couple others will top the lists.
off the top of my head, here is where I think the last decade or so dominates or at least tops the 90s:
Documentaries - not even close
Foreign- downfall, lives of others, pans labyrinth, many others plus horror movies
animated: pixar, how to train your dragon, spirited away, many others compared to the Disney dominated 90s.
horror: looking at lists, the 90s were pretty blah.
that said, most of those genres are not what a lot of people gravitate to, so on the surface the 90s will look better.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
their movies are polarizing, but as far as talent and camerawork, I would submit:
p.t. Anderson
Aronofsky
cuaron
all 3 make jawdroppingly great and technical movies.
Soderbergh had talent and could make any genre of movie
I love Fincher's look and style to movies
Nolan hasnt made a dud, imo, and at least tries to make a blockbuster that might make you think a little.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
the story is interesting, but does movies slowly.
however it is a master class on camera work and the long takes. gets an 8+ from me for the car shootout and battle scenes alone. just amazing.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
When we were Kings, Crumb, little Dieter needs to fly (also foreign) were spectacular documentaries.
Nothing from today touches Silence of the Lambs for suspense/horror.
And you can call the 90s disney-only, but that's when Pixar and Tim Burton made their mark in animation - toy story 1&2, Nightmare Before Christmas, James and the Giant Peach.
I think both the cinematography and the world-building/realizing are A+ material. The performances are B+ stuff, but plenty good enough to carry the day, especially since Owen so perfectly looks the part, even if he's not going to make anyone forget Daniel Day-Lewis anytime soon.
But I can totally see where one's opinion on it might sway pretty radically depending on the political/philosophical baggage one brings to the viewing. It can play a little heavy handed. Worked for me, but I can see where it would leave certain sensibilities cold.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
not sure about pretentious. I would say that it has the lowest rewatch value of his movies since the 1st 1/2 is basically Juno explaining #### to us.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I don't group those genres, and don't think lambs is horror.
not a huge burton fan, but did forget nightmare. also would give you guys The Iron Giant.
Big Nolan fan. 
He's our...something. I don't know what. But he's going to be taught in film schools for aeons. Especially his storytelling, which is both really lucid and rigorous, without looking stifled creatively.
Stuff we take for granted like non-linearity and archetypal characters can be pretty awkward in the wrong hands. But he makes them look pretty effortless. Very smart and very accessible.
Kind of a craftsman's craftsman, even if I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say genius.
He's our...something. I don't know what. But he's going to be taught in film schools for aeons. Especially his storytelling, which is both really lucid and rigorous, without looking stifled creatively.
Stuff we take for granted like non-linearity and archetypal characters can be pretty awkward in the wrong hands. But he makes them look pretty effortless. Very smart and very accessible.
Kind of a craftsman's craftsman, even if I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say genius.
HellToupee
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
some of my faves I haven't seen mentioned
Layer Cake 2004
The Prestige 2006
Fantastic Mr Fox 2009
Moon 2009
Drive 2011
Layer Cake 2004
The Prestige 2006
Fantastic Mr Fox 2009
Moon 2009
Drive 2011
Last edited by a moderator:
Protocols of Stringer Bell
Footballguy
Somewhere in 1994 the op's father is on Prodigy message board talking about how movies of the 90s can't hold a candle to movies of the 70s
Protocols of Stringer Bell
Footballguy
Also there will be blood is amazing and should be held on a pedestal
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Haven't read all this yet, but will start with The Dark Knight. Not that I am some big super hero movie person at all, but damn that movie was just fantastic.Josie Maran said:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
hahahahahah.bushdocda said:
District 9
Zombieland
The Departed
Sin City
The Wrestler
Old School (yeah yeah, 2003)
Usually people don't realize how good movies are until a lot of time passes. Maybe some of these rise up.
And genre can be pretty important. Some people just don't care for comedies, some don't care for horror. Not sure I consider a movie one of the greatest ever just because it might appeal to 99% of the population and everyone likes it.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Can't believe I didn't think of these two. FABULOUS movies.tdoss said:
rockaction
Footballguy
Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden made a couple of exceptional, memorable films in the decade. Sugar and Half Nelson still stick in my mind after nearly at least half a decade or longer.
And KP's point about PT Anderson and Aronofsky is a good one, and one I fully endorse.
If Requiem For a Dream doesn't come out in 2000, it has to be there.
HellToupee's citing of the The Prestige is also interesting. I loved that movie.
And KP's point about PT Anderson and Aronofsky is a good one, and one I fully endorse.
If Requiem For a Dream doesn't come out in 2000, it has to be there.
HellToupee's citing of the The Prestige is also interesting. I loved that movie.
Jeff Vader
Footballguy
It's like the only movie with Julianne Moore where she doesn't get naked.Freelove said:I think both the cinematography and the world-building/realizing are A+ material. The performances are B+ stuff, but plenty good enough to carry the day, especially since Owen so perfectly looks the part, even if he's not going to make anyone forget Daniel Day-Lewis anytime soon.But I can totally see where one's opinion on it might sway pretty radically depending on the political/philosophical baggage one brings to the viewing. It can play a little heavy handed. Worked for me, but I can see where it would leave certain sensibilities cold.KarmaPolice said:
C- at best.
Jeff Vader
Footballguy
Dude, come on.Freelove said:Big Nolan fan.
He's our...something. I don't know what. But he's going to be taught in film schools for aeons. Especially his storytelling, which is both really lucid and rigorous, without looking stifled creatively.
Stuff we take for granted like non-linearity and archetypal characters can be pretty awkward in the wrong hands. But he makes them look pretty effortless. Very smart and very accessible.
Kind of a craftsman's craftsman, even if I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say genius.
Yes, I like his films. They're wonderful popcorn flicks with a little intellectual meat thrown in.
But his plots are ridiculous. There are so many gaping, nonsensical plot holes in most of his films. It's like he said, "screw congruity, we'll just make things move so fast and have so many fight scenes that nobody will ever notice."
He's like a Republican jock version of Tarantino. Both grew up watching Kung fu flicks, both had one great film and then produced a whole slew of 'better than average.'
Feel free to dislike the whiz-bang nature of his movies all you like.Dude, come on.Freelove said:Big Nolan fan.
He's our...something. I don't know what. But he's going to be taught in film schools for aeons. Especially his storytelling, which is both really lucid and rigorous, without looking stifled creatively.
Stuff we take for granted like non-linearity and archetypal characters can be pretty awkward in the wrong hands. But he makes them look pretty effortless. Very smart and very accessible.
Kind of a craftsman's craftsman, even if I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say genius.
Yes, I like his films. They're wonderful popcorn flicks with a little intellectual meat thrown in.
But his plots are ridiculous. There are so many gaping, nonsensical plot holes in most of his films. It's like he said, "screw congruity, we'll just make things move so fast and have so many fight scenes that nobody will ever notice."
He's like a Republican jock version of Tarantino. Both grew up watching Kung fu flicks, both had one great film and then produced a whole slew of 'better than average.'
But hold him up to the lens of Aristotelian Poetics or Syd Fieldian beats, and the clarity of the story arcs all but jumps off the screen. That that's true even of wildly non-linear stuff like Memento is saying something, IMO.
Now, I'm not saying the Dark Knight Rises is the Godfather or Shawshank, but go into any library with a decent-sized screenwriting section, and there's already a Nolan subsection. Maybe you think something else when I say, "going to be taught in film schools." But he's very clear in his storytelling, very accessible, and very on point with it, and that's uniformly true across his catalog, some of which is bona fide popcorn, some of which is pretty heady.
If he's a master of a form you're not particularly in love with, that doesn't make him any less a master.
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
just so we are clear- which of those director s movies are great? just curious what you think is just better than average.Dude, come on. Yes, I like his films. They're wonderful popcorn flicks with a little intellectual meat thrown in.Freelove said:Big Nolan fan.
He's our...something. I don't know what. But he's going to be taught in film schools for aeons. Especially his storytelling, which is both really lucid and rigorous, without looking stifled creatively.
Stuff we take for granted like non-linearity and archetypal characters can be pretty awkward in the wrong hands. But he makes them look pretty effortless. Very smart and very accessible.
Kind of a craftsman's craftsman, even if I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say genius.
But his plots are ridiculous. There are so many gaping, nonsensical plot holes in most of his films. It's like he said, "screw congruity, we'll just make things move so fast and have so many fight scenes that nobody will ever notice."
He's like a Republican jock version of Tarantino. Both grew up watching Kung fu flicks, both had one great film and then produced a whole slew of 'better than average.'
nolan works largely in a genre that has plot problems. i am a harsh critic, and even I let reality go when I watch a superhero movie or a flick about invading people's minds.
I put him up on the elite level because his movies look fantastic. why? because he has a great talent of blending mostly practical effects with cgi when needed. he flips semis, suspends airplanes from each other, etc where other directors leave that to the computer geeks. he was also on the cutting of filming with imax cameras.
I think batman begins is a better overall movie, but seeing the dark knight in the theaters blew me away in a way that Jurassic park did in the 90s. thought they were both game changers.
imo, nolan hasn't had a dud and I would rate all his movies as very good to great. most directors would give a left nut for his resume.
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Skerritt
Footballguy
Into the Wild
The Artist
Pan's Labyrinth
Brokeback Mountain
The Artist
Pan's Labyrinth
Brokeback Mountain
Although for the record, I don't exactly pooh-pooh lowest common denominator thinking.
If I had to spend a whole day in front of a screen watching movies, I'd probably rather watch the Bourne movies than the Godfather ones, even though I could write volumes on why they're not a millionth as good.
If I had to spend a whole day in front of a screen watching movies, I'd probably rather watch the Bourne movies than the Godfather ones, even though I could write volumes on why they're not a millionth as good.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
while I love this movie, I can think of few movies that seem to be as polarizing as into the wild.
Tom Skerritt
Footballguy
Don't disagree, but that is one of the things that makes this movie/book/story so great.
Life of Pi
flapgreen
Footballguy
Never heard of it
HellToupee
Footballguy
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
Django Unchained
The green mile
Star Trek (2009)
The green mile
Star Trek (2009)
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
#### pieflapgreen said:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
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.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.
And this thread makes me realize more than ever that this has been a horrible decade for film.
Protocols of Stringer Bell
Footballguy
Also not mentioned but relatively amazing - Apocalypto
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Scorsese made a career of overlong movies with unlikable characters.
like his movies or not, I would argue he probably has the most talent of the directors out there. style, the way he moves his camera, writes his own material. the last couple have been dark, but I wouldnt consider boogie nights and punch drunk to be like there will be blood.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Similar threads
