When did he say that it flopped? i remember that he said that he hoped it would flop, not saying that it actually flopped. can you give me a quote where he said that it flopped?Kumagawa Misogi said:
The Big Picture: The Best Movies of 2012
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Man, I really hope TDKR is NOT on the Worst of 2012 movie. Stoked Avengers made #1! Isn't it a bit premature to put Django Unchained here if it JUST came out today?
You, sir, are my new favourite person.Markunator said:
OT: Nothing much to say about this list other than: wow. Just look at all these comments who don't seem to understand subjectivity. You know what? The registration process should include a link to something like this, and not allow people to register until they pass.
still some movies i dint had the chance to watch. few of them are not even out yet in cinemas like lincoln. today i might see the hobbit wile for the rest i still have to wait for the dvd release.
Moonrise Kingdom?
Amour?
Beasts of the Southern Wild?
Bob needs to start watching some good movies and not only mainstream crap.
Amour?
Beasts of the Southern Wild?
Bob needs to start watching some good movies and not only mainstream crap.
The movies he would normally pound on (The Expendables for one thing) I normally like. That's not to say I hate the movies he enjoys it's just that sometimes I like mindless action films. From this list though I really wanna see:
Cloud Atlas: Mainly to see what all the talk is about.
Ted: Got it, not watched it yet.
The Hobbit: Because it's The Hobbit and the fact he didn't blast it makes me excited.
Lincoln: Not normally my sort of film, but I don't mind branching out and I feel my whole family will watch it.
Cloud Atlas: Mainly to see what all the talk is about.
Ted: Got it, not watched it yet.
The Hobbit: Because it's The Hobbit and the fact he didn't blast it makes me excited.
Lincoln: Not normally my sort of film, but I don't mind branching out and I feel my whole family will watch it.
He posts movie reviews on The Escapist, dude. Bias is to be expected, and I doubt Bob would try to say that he's unbiased. Thinking The Avengers wasn't the best movie of the year is a totally valid opinion (and one I would personally share), but to say it was a bad movie is something that the vast majority of movie critics would disagree with.Terragent said:
Of course, if Dark Knight Rises makes the "worst of" list this year, I'll stop defending Bob. Not sure what his problem with that film was. It was no Dark Knight, but it was still great.
I'm sorry, but I just have never managed to grasp why people think bringing up "bias" is any kind of an argument when you're talking about reviews. You're watching a video on one man's opinion of the top movies of the year, if you want a review aggregation there are several websites where you could just have the movies that came out in 2012 listed numerically.Terragent said:
I mean honestly, do you think that there is some sort of set of objective standards for this sort of thing? Some people are better at articulating their opinion than others, but it's all still opinion.
It's been mentioned once or twice already but we're all pretty much assuming another Spider-Man bitchfest next time, right? (personally I love the damn thing!)
I second that! I'm not saying everyone NEEDS to love the Avengers, but it's not shocking to see it at number one and it certainly doesn't make you some sort of conformist...leet_x1337 said:
One thing I keep thinking over and over again as Bob moves on through the year:
Where the heck is Looper?
One brief mention in a review of a different movie. No actual review. No mention whatsoever on any further discussion. Looper was one of my favorite movies of 2012, so obviously I would have wanted it on the list, but Bob can put whatever he wants on the list, of course. I'm just still confused as to why he hasn't given us a single mention of his opinion of it. He even said he was going to go see it- why not?
Also, in my opinion, Ted was absolutely terrible. I saw it for free while working at a movie theater and still thought I should get my money back. Decent list the rest of the way, though. Can't wait to see Django!
Where the heck is Looper?
One brief mention in a review of a different movie. No actual review. No mention whatsoever on any further discussion. Looper was one of my favorite movies of 2012, so obviously I would have wanted it on the list, but Bob can put whatever he wants on the list, of course. I'm just still confused as to why he hasn't given us a single mention of his opinion of it. He even said he was going to go see it- why not?
Also, in my opinion, Ted was absolutely terrible. I saw it for free while working at a movie theater and still thought I should get my money back. Decent list the rest of the way, though. Can't wait to see Django!
Nice list, won't argue about it.
Though, i was kinda shocked when you mentioned Cloud Atlas "not being a success". I immediately checked and thought "what the heck, the numbers won't lie, this is far from a success".
And the only thing i'm able to ask about it is: why?
This is more or less a rhetorical question, because I can imagine why, but it still won't get completely into my mind.
Cloud Atlas is fucking epic, literally, on so many levels! Yes, it is not original by itself considering it's an adaption of a book and yes, of course, movies based on books can never completely live up to the book itself, at the very basic that is because they're totally different media working through different channels, making use of different techniques, like triggering imagination, pacing and shit, but that won't make the movie by itself less awesome.
Clout Atlas is at least the most ambitious movie project of the whole year, easily going along with others from the last decade. Breaking it down: three directors and unusual ones by themselves working on 2x3 episodes and entwining them into one big movie (which by the way was financed independant), completely overthrowing the usual concepts of... close to everything, starting from staging over gender, race, faith to the concept of humanity itself. As Bob said, even trying something like this takes a lot of guts, lots more than approaching most other movies ever took, in itself this was a project most directors probably wouldn't even touch with tongs attached to a 10feet pole, wearing PPE. And they didn't just try, but they made a beautiful job.
This movie is action, comedy, crime, romance and drama, not only in one movie, but as several movies put together. It is able to trigger most emotions in sequence, while others couldn't exceed one or two. It is so friggin complex it is impossible to get it all the first time, but at the same time it knows about and pretty much throws this into the face of it's audience within the first five minutes, stating something like "this shit may look like crazy to you, but that's because it is crazy and that's ok, because live is crazy and that's why eventually you'll get why this looks oh so crazy" (in my own words).
And in my opinion, while being so complex, it is just perfectly paced, scratching at the edge of the possible attention span, but never getting boring in between and then, when your brain seems close to completely giving up, coming to an end and being final with it, not going for any sequels. But still not "finished" in the way, that you will still have to think about what you just saw and while not every piece of art has to be about that and may "just" be entertaining, it is after all an important aspect.
And about what thoughts is it? Nothing more and nothing less than all the big and "important" ones in and about life itself, but from a very unusual perspective, which I have never seen comparable in anything else before.
I still could go on about the awesomeness of this movie, its great music, sceneries, actors, the depth of the occuring characters and yadidadida, but couldn't stop wondering why it isn't a success.
But then again, I can guess: It isn't, because it is not as fucking generic as other movies, like the disastrous but successful Transformers, or Twilight, or even like Avengers (not disastrous, but in a way building to predictable dimensions and success since several years). In a way, it appears to be to epic to be mainstream and to being successful. It to easily triggers to much in its audience for it to bear with it, like "oh no, this movie made me feel emotions beside the excitement of action, it made me think about stuff and why has everything to be so complicated and yet so simple".
Kinda sad and ironic, considering it resembles a piece presented within itself, "The Cloud Atlas Sextet", described to be one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever written, but never being recognized by the public because its creator was a societal outcast for being a free spirit and never could get the necessary support.
I already saw it twice and I still could and will recognize new things about it when I'll watch it again (likely when i buy it on blu-ray or whatever) and if you haven't already, go see it yourself, because we, the movie industry and whatnot needs more of those daring, challenging and gorgeous movies!
And if you like to read, consider buying the book as well.
Though, i was kinda shocked when you mentioned Cloud Atlas "not being a success". I immediately checked and thought "what the heck, the numbers won't lie, this is far from a success".
And the only thing i'm able to ask about it is: why?
This is more or less a rhetorical question, because I can imagine why, but it still won't get completely into my mind.
Cloud Atlas is fucking epic, literally, on so many levels! Yes, it is not original by itself considering it's an adaption of a book and yes, of course, movies based on books can never completely live up to the book itself, at the very basic that is because they're totally different media working through different channels, making use of different techniques, like triggering imagination, pacing and shit, but that won't make the movie by itself less awesome.
Clout Atlas is at least the most ambitious movie project of the whole year, easily going along with others from the last decade. Breaking it down: three directors and unusual ones by themselves working on 2x3 episodes and entwining them into one big movie (which by the way was financed independant), completely overthrowing the usual concepts of... close to everything, starting from staging over gender, race, faith to the concept of humanity itself. As Bob said, even trying something like this takes a lot of guts, lots more than approaching most other movies ever took, in itself this was a project most directors probably wouldn't even touch with tongs attached to a 10feet pole, wearing PPE. And they didn't just try, but they made a beautiful job.
This movie is action, comedy, crime, romance and drama, not only in one movie, but as several movies put together. It is able to trigger most emotions in sequence, while others couldn't exceed one or two. It is so friggin complex it is impossible to get it all the first time, but at the same time it knows about and pretty much throws this into the face of it's audience within the first five minutes, stating something like "this shit may look like crazy to you, but that's because it is crazy and that's ok, because live is crazy and that's why eventually you'll get why this looks oh so crazy" (in my own words).
And in my opinion, while being so complex, it is just perfectly paced, scratching at the edge of the possible attention span, but never getting boring in between and then, when your brain seems close to completely giving up, coming to an end and being final with it, not going for any sequels. But still not "finished" in the way, that you will still have to think about what you just saw and while not every piece of art has to be about that and may "just" be entertaining, it is after all an important aspect.
And about what thoughts is it? Nothing more and nothing less than all the big and "important" ones in and about life itself, but from a very unusual perspective, which I have never seen comparable in anything else before.
I still could go on about the awesomeness of this movie, its great music, sceneries, actors, the depth of the occuring characters and yadidadida, but couldn't stop wondering why it isn't a success.
But then again, I can guess: It isn't, because it is not as fucking generic as other movies, like the disastrous but successful Transformers, or Twilight, or even like Avengers (not disastrous, but in a way building to predictable dimensions and success since several years). In a way, it appears to be to epic to be mainstream and to being successful. It to easily triggers to much in its audience for it to bear with it, like "oh no, this movie made me feel emotions beside the excitement of action, it made me think about stuff and why has everything to be so complicated and yet so simple".
Kinda sad and ironic, considering it resembles a piece presented within itself, "The Cloud Atlas Sextet", described to be one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever written, but never being recognized by the public because its creator was a societal outcast for being a free spirit and never could get the necessary support.
I already saw it twice and I still could and will recognize new things about it when I'll watch it again (likely when i buy it on blu-ray or whatever) and if you haven't already, go see it yourself, because we, the movie industry and whatnot needs more of those daring, challenging and gorgeous movies!
And if you like to read, consider buying the book as well.
Well that was a surprise. I didn't expect to see a video today. Interesting choices though, although I've only seen one of them. I wanted to see Wreck It Ralf, but I never got around to it.
In Wreck-It-Ralph, am I the only one who wasn't particularly thrilled by Calhoun? I understand what her character was supposed to be on paper, the Steel Magnolia/tough as nails but afraid to love after tragedy type, but in performance all I got from her was a stiff, 2D drill sergeant schtick making her sound like just another stereotypical male character with boobs (hardly a groundbreaking strong female character). Sure, she marries Felix and that helps her cope with her past I guess? But in reality, her personality was shallow and she had barely, if any of, an arc within the subtext of the story. Maybe this was something that was less jarring before post? But still, I don't understand why Bob gushes over this character. Admittedly, I've only seen this movie twice, but both times I've only managed to pull away with a vague distaste in comparison to all the other rich leads within the cast who really make that movie shine.
Bob sounds like he's in a uncharacteristically good mood. His Christmas haul must have been amazing.
/seriousmode: I pretty much expected all of the choices except for the Hobbit. I wouldn't have put that on the top 10.
To be fair to Bob, distilling this list must have been pretty hard. On the one hand, this year we've had some exceptional installments in otherwise high-quality series - Skyfall is one of the best Bond films ever, and TDKR, for all the criticism heaped upon it, was still a great Batman film that was inevitably judged on the merits of its literally flawless predecessor. In retrospect, I'd go so far as to say it was the second best Batman film ever.
On the other hand, you have a whole swag of new, experimental films that are equally brilliant but also break new ground outside of established series. You can see from the list which type of film Bob preferred - Ted, Wreck-It Ralph, Paranorman, Cabin in the Woods, Cloud Atlas and even the Avengers are all risky, genre-busting gambles based on novel, inventive premises that could have turned out to be giant turds but nevertheless pulled through amazingly, and I think I can appreciate Bob's choices in that regard.
Two niggles - I haven't seen Casa mi Padre and hadn't even heard of it before today, but it would have to be an Anchorman-level masterpiece to outshine Skyfall, so I'll trust to Bob's discretion on that one.
Also, the Hobbit; I don't think it belongs on the list. Bob's review was positive and it is a good film, but it's not a groundbreaker like almost all the other entries, and all its positive aspects seem to be variations on "it's a lot like Lord of the Rings." I saw it and I was conflicted, because it is like Lord of the Rings, but it's not as good as Lord of the Rings, and to be honest I didn't want it to be Lord of the Rings. I wanted it to be the Hobbit - it didn't have to be a prequel series to a basically outstanding earlier trilogy, especially since doing so just invites unfavourable comparisons to said trilogy and weighs it down with that trilogy's plot baggage. Why do I care what Bilbo and a bunch of dwarves do if the fate of the world is literally going to be decided by a completely different cast of characters later on? Does it make sense for a small-scale treasure-adventure-with-riddles-and-a-dragon plotline to be paired up against a secondary plotline about preparing for an apocalyptic showdown between good and evil?
And the decision to split it into three films is, I think, really going to hurt it eventually, because the Hobbit just doesn't have enough material to do that, and they're basically going to have to recycle Bilbo's character arc two more times for each film in order to keep him engaging, while filling in the blanks with epic-scale action set pieces that makes the core plot look meaningless and small in comparison.
Remember, the plot of the Hobbit isn't about the One Ring - it's about stealing dwarf treasure from a dragon, and then fighting over who gets to own it. By the time they get to the third film and everyone's fighting over the Arkenstone, audiences will be going "Wait, I've seen Lord of the Rings - shouldn't they be fighting over that magic ring Bilbo has, because they need to destroy it to defeat Sauron?" Their sylistic decision to film the Hobbit as a prequel to Lord of the Rings just doesn't make sense, and it hurts an otherwise enjoyable movie.
I really think, considering that the rest of the list was dominated by experimental genre-busting films, that putting the Hobbit in was an inconsistent decision. It's a competent prequel to a much better trilogy that is basically just another installment in the series - equivalent to Skyfall and TDKR in that respect, and while I can understand putting the Hobbit above TDKR due to its issues with pacing and its underwhelming action scenes, there is no reason why the Hobbit should have won out over Skyfall. Maybe Bob can address his decision in a column later on, because I'm sincerely keen to know what his reasoning was.
/seriousmode: I pretty much expected all of the choices except for the Hobbit. I wouldn't have put that on the top 10.
To be fair to Bob, distilling this list must have been pretty hard. On the one hand, this year we've had some exceptional installments in otherwise high-quality series - Skyfall is one of the best Bond films ever, and TDKR, for all the criticism heaped upon it, was still a great Batman film that was inevitably judged on the merits of its literally flawless predecessor. In retrospect, I'd go so far as to say it was the second best Batman film ever.
On the other hand, you have a whole swag of new, experimental films that are equally brilliant but also break new ground outside of established series. You can see from the list which type of film Bob preferred - Ted, Wreck-It Ralph, Paranorman, Cabin in the Woods, Cloud Atlas and even the Avengers are all risky, genre-busting gambles based on novel, inventive premises that could have turned out to be giant turds but nevertheless pulled through amazingly, and I think I can appreciate Bob's choices in that regard.
Two niggles - I haven't seen Casa mi Padre and hadn't even heard of it before today, but it would have to be an Anchorman-level masterpiece to outshine Skyfall, so I'll trust to Bob's discretion on that one.
Also, the Hobbit; I don't think it belongs on the list. Bob's review was positive and it is a good film, but it's not a groundbreaker like almost all the other entries, and all its positive aspects seem to be variations on "it's a lot like Lord of the Rings." I saw it and I was conflicted, because it is like Lord of the Rings, but it's not as good as Lord of the Rings, and to be honest I didn't want it to be Lord of the Rings. I wanted it to be the Hobbit - it didn't have to be a prequel series to a basically outstanding earlier trilogy, especially since doing so just invites unfavourable comparisons to said trilogy and weighs it down with that trilogy's plot baggage. Why do I care what Bilbo and a bunch of dwarves do if the fate of the world is literally going to be decided by a completely different cast of characters later on? Does it make sense for a small-scale treasure-adventure-with-riddles-and-a-dragon plotline to be paired up against a secondary plotline about preparing for an apocalyptic showdown between good and evil?
And the decision to split it into three films is, I think, really going to hurt it eventually, because the Hobbit just doesn't have enough material to do that, and they're basically going to have to recycle Bilbo's character arc two more times for each film in order to keep him engaging, while filling in the blanks with epic-scale action set pieces that makes the core plot look meaningless and small in comparison.
Remember, the plot of the Hobbit isn't about the One Ring - it's about stealing dwarf treasure from a dragon, and then fighting over who gets to own it. By the time they get to the third film and everyone's fighting over the Arkenstone, audiences will be going "Wait, I've seen Lord of the Rings - shouldn't they be fighting over that magic ring Bilbo has, because they need to destroy it to defeat Sauron?" Their sylistic decision to film the Hobbit as a prequel to Lord of the Rings just doesn't make sense, and it hurts an otherwise enjoyable movie.
I really think, considering that the rest of the list was dominated by experimental genre-busting films, that putting the Hobbit in was an inconsistent decision. It's a competent prequel to a much better trilogy that is basically just another installment in the series - equivalent to Skyfall and TDKR in that respect, and while I can understand putting the Hobbit above TDKR due to its issues with pacing and its underwhelming action scenes, there is no reason why the Hobbit should have won out over Skyfall. Maybe Bob can address his decision in a column later on, because I'm sincerely keen to know what his reasoning was.
Looper was better than at least half of the movies on this list (and I fucking LOVED Avengers, Wreck It Ralph, Django, and the Hobbit). It's fighting Cloud Atlas for my favorite film of 2012.