Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

i'm probably never gonna watch Mank but I do hope some reviewer out there ran with the headline "Mank Stank!"

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

TrixRabbi posted:

It was fine. A few all timers. Any given year of the 60s or 70s was wilder.

I'd say it stands out, on top of the three already mentioned you've got Stuck, Hot Fuzz, Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Gone Baby Gone, Eastern Promises, Death Proof, Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Savages (any year that has two top ten Philip Seymour Hoffman roles bears mention), and of course, Spider-Man 3.

It stands out a bit more because the oughts were kind of a wasteland (I dunno if I could put together a decent top ten for 2005, for example), but still, banger year.

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

TrixRabbi posted:

I mean it's got a solid top 10, I'd say the best of 2007 is 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. But I dunno, I find the early oughts way more fascinating. 2001-2003 is some weird rear end times as you watch the transition from pre to post 9/11 occur and cinema is struggling to shift gears.

Yeah that might just be a difference in taste then, the early oughts are certainly weird but they're one of my least favorite eras for film (particularly American film, there were for sure a lot of great movies coming out of Japan and South Korea then). The good films from that era stand out because to me they were like a drink of water in the desert.

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

Basebf555 posted:

You lost me when you said There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men don't hold up.

they definitely both hold up better than L'Avventura

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

Also, since this is the thread for awards shows, it probably bears mentioning that 2007 was one of the only years that decade where the Best Picture winner wasn’t a piece of poo poo.

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

the '10s were definitely a stronger slate of oscar winners than the oughts overall.

of the ones you haven't seen I'm most surprised by Gladiator. it's.... not good, but Joaquin Phoenix is very fun.

A Beautiful Mind.... woof.

I am sticking by No Country being the best best picture winner of the last 20 years (only Parasite comes close)

Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Mar 17, 2021

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

The Departed would probably be third for me, with 12 Years a Slave after that.

As a card carrying Boston shithead, I love The Departed unreservedly, but looking at it objectively it does have some pretty hard to ignore flaws (Vera Farmiga, god bless her, tries to do what she can with maybe the worst written female character in a Scorsese movie).

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

And I would personally slot Argo in the "utter poo poo" column. Gone Baby Gone should've been Ben Affleck's Oscar Darling.

I might bump The Hurt Locker into top tier actually, not a popular movie to defend these days but I still think it's quite good.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Uncle Boogeyman
Jul 22, 2007

TrixRabbi posted:

2011 was a great year for films never in Awards contention: Margaret, Drive, Shame, Weekend, Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Attack the Block, Melancholia. Good batch of films that never stood a chance.

Albert Brooks missing out on supporting actor for Drive is a legendary snub

Basebf555 posted:

With Gladiator a big thing to keep in mind is that it was one of the first big epic period piece dramas that extensively used CG in that way. People were used to dinosaurs and various creatures and fantastical things but at the time Gladiator felt like the CG was giving Ridley Scott the ability to create something much more convincing and immersive than we'd ever seen before in that genre. There was a lot of hype around just the colosseum scenes for that reason. So that's a major aspect of it's success that doesn't really translate today if you're sitting down to watch it for the first time.

which is extra funny because those effects look like absolute rear end now

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply