The Big Picture: MovieBob's 2011 Top Ten
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Believe the other guy.Thunderhorse31 said:
There seems to be a generational bias against Woody Allen... and it surely isn't fair because he's one of the greatest filmmaker's and greatest comic minds of the 20th Century. But like all things that age, the new generation doesn't appreciate him. (at least many don't yet)
I think if you take the time to read his early work, look at his earlier films, consider the width and breadth of his career, and judge his work in the context of its own time, you get a picture of a visionary who created an exceptional body of work and who had a powerful and lasting influence on all who followed him.
I laughed and agree 100% with you, NinjaDeathSlap. I don?t know why people are obsessed with this movie. To me, it seems Malick has created the perfect ego for himself and knows it by making this film. He?s made good movies in the past (I enjoyed Thin Red Line) and he makes his moves several years apart so that when he decides to make another movie people are all like ?OMG, Malick is making another film. It?s been x number of years since he?s made his last one. Give him ALL the awards?. I guess this is a movie that you either love or hate, and I hate it. I?m not going to state the reasons why I hate it because I might sound stupid to the ones who love this movie, the same way I think people who criticize Drive are stupid because their only arguments are, ?they never explained why there was a second car in the holdup?, ?there?s too much pointless blood and guts?and ?there?s no dialogue'.THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, ARRRHHHH. Anyway, blah blah blah, I?m just another insignificant voice on the internet who loves movies.NinjaDeathSlap said:
To be thoroughly honest I wasn't expecting you to list The Tree of Life as #1. I don't even know why, but I just wasn't expecting it.
Though I do agree - it's a truly great film, and one of my four favourites of this year (the others being Melancholia, Sucker Punch and Drive in no particular order).
In fact it was the second film(after Drive, which was ridiculously beautiful visually too) I watched on my new computer monitor(otherwise known as a 42" LCD TV) and my jaw was literally on the ground for half the film due to the visuals alone. But overall I loved every part of the film... just visuals generally take precedence in terms of importance as far as describing a film goes.
Seems I wasn't the only one who compared it to a dream... heh.
An excellent year, overall.
Though I do agree - it's a truly great film, and one of my four favourites of this year (the others being Melancholia, Sucker Punch and Drive in no particular order).
In fact it was the second film(after Drive, which was ridiculously beautiful visually too) I watched on my new computer monitor(otherwise known as a 42" LCD TV) and my jaw was literally on the ground for half the film due to the visuals alone. But overall I loved every part of the film... just visuals generally take precedence in terms of importance as far as describing a film goes.
Seems I wasn't the only one who compared it to a dream... heh.
An excellent year, overall.
Unfortunately however it's the movie's shortcoming.SpiderJerusalem said:
Having Kevin Bacon speak in the most atrocious German accent completely defuses any tension the scene might've had. Add to that the totally flat angles and cheap way in which the scene - and nearly every other scene in the movie - is shot and you'll forgive me if the malicious, horrific, and threatening atmosphere is lost on me.
The movie even opens with a reinactment of the very first scene from the original X-Men movie. Not only is this lazy as fuck, it doesn't work in the slightest because you're watching a well-loved scene with different actors.
So yeah, this movie makes an extremely bad start, one that isn't rectified by the mediocrity that follows.
The only good thing about X-Men: First Class are Beast's feet. That's it!
He's just trying to start a discussion, which is kind of the purpose of these forums. If you don't want other people to ask about your opinions then you probably shouldn't voice them in a place where you know they probably will. Especially when you call him 'butthurt' for simply asking. But heck, I'll bite too.SteelStallion said:
Yes, the characters are unlikable shits from the start. I guess I'm just not so bitter that I instantly wish a painful death upon them from the start for that. I give characters a chance to develop.
Look, no one's questioning your sense of humour for not laughing at the toy gun, or the water pistol filled with petrol, because neither of those things were really jokes anyway. But I will question your sense of humour over thinking that those are 'the big jokes' that other people were rolling in the aisles about. When you can't even recognise the other jokes, I am going to think you don't have a sense of humour. And I would point them out to you, but none of them are really big jokes since the film isn't a comedy in the first place, or at least isn't a pure comedy. No doubt you'd do what you've already done, say that I'm claiming that those jokes are 'hysterical' rather than just 'a bit funny' in an attempt to undermine my point.
As for special effects, while they obviously didn't have a huge budget for that they still managed to create very distinctive creatures that, barring one or two scenes, never looked superimposed on the film or out of place.
Well, I haven't been to a movie theater in so long I don't remember truly how long it has been and what was the last movie I saw in the theater.
At the moment, the only thing I can see myself going to see this year, is The Hobbit, if it actually does come out in December.
I watch videos on the Escapist when I have free time to kill; it's for recreation and entertainment not for when I'm rushed and on the go.
I guess I'm just very middle of the road in my thinking on entertainment, media, and art. They are motion pictures after all, why can't it be like a still painting in an art gallery, where the painting has no real concrete subject matter and it is for viewer to decide what it painting is. It is abstract art.
On the other end of the spectrum I can't stand it when people look at something concrete where it is obvious what the meaning is, but they try to explain how an apple on a table isn't just an apple, or a man in a story fighting for his family, isn't just fighting for his family but he's fighting for some random thing the viewer thought up.
It is like those stupid literature classes that study one book, or maybe just one scene in a play, and try to interpret why a character drank a glass of water or some simple thing. Things that the writer obviously put in as filler, but now hundreds of years later, people are acting like the keys to the meaning of life or the story are in that little act.
It's those types of classes that I dreaded as an English Major. Where in stupid writing classes I write a poem about just straight nature and life, but when the professor gets to critiquing it, he goes off on some weird tangent about what he thinks my poem is about.
The apple is just an apple, and on the other end, abstract is there for you to determine what it is.
Just let them be what they are.
At the moment, the only thing I can see myself going to see this year, is The Hobbit, if it actually does come out in December.
Top ten on the others would be fine as well. I mean seriously, what else are you doing, that a six minute video isn't short?brazuca said:
I watch videos on the Escapist when I have free time to kill; it's for recreation and entertainment not for when I'm rushed and on the go.
Eric the Orange said:
Why can't a movie just be a stunning visual experience and then leave all meaning to be determined by the audience?Sylveria said:
I guess I'm just very middle of the road in my thinking on entertainment, media, and art. They are motion pictures after all, why can't it be like a still painting in an art gallery, where the painting has no real concrete subject matter and it is for viewer to decide what it painting is. It is abstract art.
On the other end of the spectrum I can't stand it when people look at something concrete where it is obvious what the meaning is, but they try to explain how an apple on a table isn't just an apple, or a man in a story fighting for his family, isn't just fighting for his family but he's fighting for some random thing the viewer thought up.
It is like those stupid literature classes that study one book, or maybe just one scene in a play, and try to interpret why a character drank a glass of water or some simple thing. Things that the writer obviously put in as filler, but now hundreds of years later, people are acting like the keys to the meaning of life or the story are in that little act.
It's those types of classes that I dreaded as an English Major. Where in stupid writing classes I write a poem about just straight nature and life, but when the professor gets to critiquing it, he goes off on some weird tangent about what he thinks my poem is about.
The apple is just an apple, and on the other end, abstract is there for you to determine what it is.
Just let them be what they are.
That's not exactly the issue. For example fantasia is a enjoyable experience without having really and narrative to speak of. But most "arthouse" movies are just boring, the message is supposed to be the point. But that's where they shoot themselves in the foot because the message isn't clear.Sonic Doctor said:
I could make a bunch of scribbles and say to you "this is deep, it has a lot of symbolism.".
You may ask "What does it mean."
which I could respond "that's for you to interpret"
And if you over analyzed it long enough you could probably BS something that had some semblance of sense. But if I was truly trying to give a message I should have made it clear.
I guess I could respect them if they said straight out that the point of the movie was to be a tool to explore your subconscious. Much like the absurdest films of David Lynch. While I still find them boring I can at least respect what he is trying to do. But if the point of the film is to deliver a message, then they fail at there purpose.
thought that you dropped the ball on this list bob, no way that tree of life was movie of the year IMO.
It wasn't that I am not open to the movie, in fact I am a lover of independent and art house movies but half of tree of life was pretentious crap that had nothing to say and said it very loudly, the other half was a fantastic and heartbreaking movie about 1960s suburban america seen through the eyes of a child.
The 'wierd' scenes in my opinion were obvious and boring, not enlightening me in any way. A special mention going to the part when swimming through a door symbolises a babies birth, not exactly deep thinking in my opinion. Never seen any of Malicks other films but judging by TOL, he seems to see himself as a unique persona with a unique and visionary take on the world.
He isn't.
my opinion, do not begrudge anyone for liking it
It wasn't that I am not open to the movie, in fact I am a lover of independent and art house movies but half of tree of life was pretentious crap that had nothing to say and said it very loudly, the other half was a fantastic and heartbreaking movie about 1960s suburban america seen through the eyes of a child.
The 'wierd' scenes in my opinion were obvious and boring, not enlightening me in any way. A special mention going to the part when swimming through a door symbolises a babies birth, not exactly deep thinking in my opinion. Never seen any of Malicks other films but judging by TOL, he seems to see himself as a unique persona with a unique and visionary take on the world.
He isn't.
my opinion, do not begrudge anyone for liking it
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.Duffeknol said:
If MovieBob were biased to superhero movies, that would imply that he automatically likes or dislikes all superhero movies, which I've already pointed out isn't the case.
Overly praising something that you like isn't the same as being biased towards it.
He didn't just have an odd accent, he had an accent which sounded like he just came off the set of 'Allo 'Allo.SpiderJerusalem said:
You find that hilarious? I find it rather sad that the cinematography in this film is held in high such regard. RedLetterMedia made an excellent point regarding this, the shots feel like your watching a parody, like The Naked Gun or Space Balls.
Imagine that; Me being disappointed when I'm spoon fed the identical scene from the first film with different actors, instead of the film coming up with something new, unique, and it's own thing. When the very first film came out that scene was a total surprise. It was the first live-action X-Men movie and it started off not with mutants fighting or something else superhero-y, but with a concentration camp. It completely blindsided you and immediately grabbed your attention.
By reinacting it in a movie from the same franchise a decade later, all that surprise is gone and they might as well have opened the movie with a "Previously on The X-MEN" segment.
Why would I go into a movie I PAYED FOR wanting to hate? If I wanted to do that I'd go watch Transformers 3, The Last Airbender, or the Twilight movies, none of wich I saw because I know I wouldn't like them.
Ah, well then... Sorry to sound as if I was trying to start another argument, you're being far more reasonable then I thought. And I was kind of a condescending dick there.SteelStallion said:
My apologies.
MovieBob, you seem to be struggling between keeping your credentials as a film critic (Midnight in Paris, Drive, and Tree of Life--You? Really, Bob?) and keeping your credentials as a nerd (Captain America as Number 2?!???). The result (your list) is honestly a bit unsettling and I'm not sure if you're being completely honest with us here. I know this year hasn't given us as many movies to love like the past couple years have (heck, last year EVERYONE's top 10 list was pretty much the same). Even Oscar is already talking about cutting the Best Picture field down from 10 (again). I say pick a side and stick to your guns. I feel like you probably spent a couple hours looking at other critics' lists and grabbed the overall consensus of their best movies, and then arbitrarily slapped the comic book ones in there to make the fanboys happy.
For the record though, "Tree of Life" is my number one pick as well (if anyone really thinks there was a better movie released in 2011, try and prove it. You can't). We also share a couple more movies on our lists. I'm just baffled by the inconsistency. Perhaps you should do two lists.