criterionforum.org

Another thought on the side-splittingly hilarious The Tourist ...

Assuming these nods are the Globes' way of getting its stars (Depp and Jolie) to appear, in order to generate an audience, isn't that a bit ridiculous considering those same stars couldn't even draw an audience to the actual film?

willoneill wrote:Another thought on the side-splittingly hilarious The Tourist ...

Assuming these nods are the Globes' way of getting its stars (Depp and Jolie) to appear, in order to generate an audience, isn't that a bit ridiculous considering those same stars couldn't even draw an audience to the actual film?

And when he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven.

The Globes used to be a good predictor for the Academy Awards, but they've become much less so over the past few years. The nominations these days don't reflect so much what the HFPA thinks are the best films, or even what they predict the Academy will go for. These days, the nominations are really just an elaborate ploy to get Johnny Depp to come to their party.

It was fun seeing Katie Holmes have to announce both Nicole Kidman and Michelle Williams as nominees in the Best Actress - Drama category this morning

mfunk9786 wrote:Observations:

- Black Swan is a contender! Seeing it nominated for Best Picture, Director, Actress, and Supporting Actress should make it a lock for several Oscar noms.
- Where's True Grit? Big snubs for Winter's Bone and 127 Hours too, leaving them out of Best Drama but including junk like Inception.
- Great to see Andrew Garfield, Michelle Williams, and Ryan Gosling on this list, since they're on the bubble for Oscar noms.
- What a bad year for Musicals and Comedies... yikes.
- The Tourist is a comedy?

j adams wrote:2010 was the worst year for "quality" films ever. I approve of the Kidman, Weaver and Burlesque noms. I can live with Inception noms. That's it. Never even heard of some of those foreignese flix.

Good thing I didn't jump the gun on my post, as you guys nailed verbatim what I was going to say.

edit: and seriously, lol at The Tourist being under comedy. I will not be seeing that movie this lifetime but I haven't seen it listed or described as a comedy anywhere. It's perfectly fitting though.

2008 makes 2010 look like 2007.

swo17 wrote:2008 makes 2010 look like 2007.

Bring back 1939!

They might as well just rename Best Comedy/Musical to the "Hangover Memorial Shitty Studio Flick" award. It'd be easier than lying about starfucking in order to justify snubbing the only half decent American comedies that DO come out, like 'A Serious Man' or 'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World'.

swo17 wrote:2008 makes 2010 look like 2007.

I certainly hope I'm wrong, but in context it seems as if you're implying that 2008 was even worse than 2010, and that 2007 was far better than both? I mean, I couldn't disagree more. I'd say 2007 is the only year even close to as bad as this year, and that 2008 (for films that came out in 2007) was the best year of the decade.

edit: Or I guess you could by implying that 2008 was so good that it makes this year look like the horrendous 2007, which makes more sense. Just a weird way of stating that considering it comes across as a counterpoint to our bitching about 2010.

Double edit: nevermind, I was reading your statement as the 2007 Golden Globe Awards (which was for the films of 2006). I don't really agree that 2008 was a bad year though.

2007 > 2010 > ... > 2008

2007 was easily the finest year for American cinema since at least 1999. That year had three films that were instant all-time classics -- and I'm not even including my own personal favorite film from the year in that tally.

swo17 wrote:2007 > 2010 > ... > 2008>∞>2006

To ensure accuracy.

It's hard to imagine how a year that saw Zodiac, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Once, Burton's only good movie for the last like six or seven years, The Assassination of Jesse James, Eastern Promises, and probably a bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting just in English language movies could possibly be a bad movie year.

I'm with swo, matrixschmatrix, and Tom. 2007 was easily the best year for cinema (American cinema especially) since at least 1999. There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Zodiac, Ratatouille, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days, I'm Not There, Once, Michael Clayton, and Margot at the Wedding in one year? Crazy. My number one film this year would have been my number seven that year. 2008 and 2009 were both pretty awful.

C'mon, I'm with all of you, but how can we cover genius english language films of 2007 without mentioning "Hot Fuzz", or even better, "Death Proof"?

I just realized that there has been a new Coen bros movie every single year since 2007, and I think every one of them would be on my top ten list for their respective year (yes, including Burn After Reading.) I'm having a hard time thinking of anyone else putting out excellent movies at that pace since Woody Allen at his height.

matrixschmatrix wrote:It's hard to imagine how a year that saw Zodiac, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Once, Burton's only good movie for the last like six or seven years, The Assassination of Jesse James, Eastern Promises, and probably a bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting just in English language movies could possibly be a bad movie year.

My bad, I thought he was talking about the 2007 Golden Globes (for films in 2006). It was the biggest joke ever, Babel fucking won. I obviously agree that 2007 was the best, as that's what I meant when I said that 2008 (the award show, for the films of 2007) was the best.

In terms of actual years in film, I don't agree at all that 2008 was worse than 2010 though. 2008 had The Wrestler, Slumdog, Let the Right One In, Rachel Getting Married, Dark Knight, Man On Wire, Taxi to the Dark Side, and a bunch of other pretty decent films. I've literally only seen about 10 films this year that I even somewhat liked, and none of them are as good as the top three or four of 2008 for me...

matrixschmatrix wrote:I just realized that there has been a new Coen bros movie every single year since 2007, and I think every one of them would be on my top ten list for their respective year (yes, including Burn After Reading.) I'm having a hard time thinking of anyone else putting out excellent movies at that pace since Woody Allen at his height.

I'm the exact opposite in these regards. I really disliked Burn After Reading and A Serious Man, thus I have serious reservations for True Grit.

I think my favorite (English language, since it's difficult for me to place foreign movies in time the same way) movies of 2008 and this year- Rachel Getting Married and Winter's Bone, respectively- are pretty comparable, but it is harder to think of other movies I liked as much this year as that one. Of course, I always do a lot of catching up when all the lists start coming out, and True Grit hasn't come out yet, so don't know that I'll be able to say for sure what I think about this year until maybe March of next year.

swo17 wrote:2008 makes 2010 look like 2007.

'10 only looks shaky because 7 8 9.

Slant wrote:Fincher's enthralled camera swings, pops, and speeds alongside the meteorically rising Zuckerberg

Really? I don't seem to remember much camera movement anywhere, except one scene without Zuckerberg (that ridiculous crew scene). Sometimes I wonder...

This is by far the stupidest argument I've seen on this board since 2008

Finch wrote:Slant's 2010 list

I haven't heard of a good portion of that list, and a lot aren't even from 2010. Looking at each of the critics' independent lists, most seem more like "look what I've seen!" lists than "I legitimately like these movies the most" lists.

edit: Dogtooth being #1 pretty much confirms this.

Nah, those are all good/ popular movies. As for the date discrepancy most people just go I saw it in theaters this year so that's the year it's from.