1) Amores Perros 2) Black Hawk Down 3) Monster's Ball 4) Gosford Park 5) Memento 6) In The Bedroom 7) The Man Who Wasn't There 8) A Beatiful Mind 9) Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings 10) The Deep End
11) A.I. Artificial Intelligence
There's still one or two I've yet to see, but that won't change the list too much if at all.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
*saw In The Bedroom
[ March 15, 2002, 16:06: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
A.I. are you serious, that was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. While leaving this bomb it was heard in the audiance " jeeze I could have seen Tomb Raider again instead of that crap". It had about 10 minutes of good footage but the story sucked, that kid was terrible, the whole last hour was one series of unbeleivable, stupid, unscientific scenes after another. This should have been on the worst movie list.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I hate top 10 lists. I have a friend who rates his yearly movie-going by how many of the EMPIRE movie magazine's annual top 10 films he's seen. . . He never watches any old films yet considers himself a film buff, he only watched the Godfather films because the mag talked them up so much - and then he bought them on box set video, sight unseen, so convinced he would like them because the magazine people like them.
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
I did the same thing with the Godfather movies...
The first two were indeed quite good, but the third left something to be desired...
My only problem with them was that they had those goddamned "making of" featurettes at the beginning of every tape. Coppola and the rest of them completely ruined the ending of part 2 for me. Why do they put that crap at the beginning of movies? Why not at the end? I could have broken their teeth with a knotted stick.
The new Star Wars Boxed set had the same fucking thing, billionaire Lucas gaping his pie hole and ruining the movies for those who haven't seen them by pontificating on how great his stories are at the beginning of the tape...
As far as the Top Ten Movies of 2001...
I only went to the theatre a few times last year, and of those, I only enjoyed one movie enough to mention: Lord of the Rings.
Now, if you want to talk top ten Books, i'm all over that topic.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
What? No Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back? The list is flawed! Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Sadly, I don't think I watched 10 new movies in 2001. I also agree with Vogon on this one...top 10's are bad unless someone has actually seen everything that was released.
But I'll play along.
I liked Monsters Inc. I liked Ocean's 11 (except right at the end). Sadly most of the other 2001 releases I saw were kind of pathetic.... A Knight's Tale springs ever so vividly to mind...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i didnt even watch 2 new movies last year.. wow thats sad
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Grocka: Yes, yes, we know A.I. was a bomb because Americans do not like to think when they go to movies. If a movie usually has a theme that would make people think and say "I got something out of that" then they will say it is crap. Movies like "The Fast and the Furious" and "The Mummy Returns" were popular becuase you didn't have to think about anything while watching big fights and car crashes.
Haley Joel Osment's performance was wonderful as the kid and the story was as original as any other one. Certainly more original than Tomb-Raider. And since when do we base the quality of a movie soley on the special effects and box-office success? We live in a time where CGI is more important than the plot, writing, or the theme of a movie. (Not that I don't like SFX...)
Anyway, I haven't seen a lot of the movies like Gosford Park or In the Bedroom, so I can't judge them. But I do like Lord of the Rings the best of the movies I have seen, and Harry Potter, Monsters Inc., and A.I. come in behind it.
[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Veers ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Actually Veers, I am Canadian for one and it was precisly the plot of the movie which I found so stupid. It had the ideas of a good movie but they fell short of any resolution to the questions. The story line was so unbelievable that you couldn't get anything out of the movie. They touched on such topics as the relationship between Man and robots but fell short of actually saying anything relevant about it. As for the kid, his acting was bad, so he learned not to blink, so what. Here is a list of the questions that made the movie so bad for me.
1. This robot was given to a family that was obviously screwed up, didn't they do any psych testing before they gave an experimental robot away? 2. She drops him off in the middle of the bush right between the company she is trying to hide him from and this circus where they detroy robots for fun, futher proving this woman was mental disturbed and didn't deserve the robot. 3. The robot eats the spinach and it goes down his throat into his circuitry. Why would you design a robot with an open oriface to the outside that would allow this to happen? Also later the robot swims with it's mouth open and this does not short it out. Strange? 4. Why would you not have a sufficient tracking device on an experimental robot? 5. When the kid finally goes through his pinochio stuff and finds the company, the guys talks to him for a bit then leaves him in a room with a copy of himself, what was with that? Then the kid destroys the copy in this guys office and nobody does anything about it. In fact they let this kid roam around in the packing/manufacturing area of the plant? Don't they have any survalence in this place? And lastly why would you have the manufacturing plant in such a remote place? 6. When the kid does decide to commit suicide or roboticide he actually ends up finding the Blue fairy, a glass structure open to the ocean that is perfectly intact, no alge or broken parts, very weird. 7. That's not weird enough this fairy thing manages to survive an iceage, and then is cut out of the ice and then is broken by a meer touch? 8. The whole end was just stupid, they can clone the mother for only one day? What they grow her to adulthood, give her most of her memories, but not the ones that would cause her to panic because all of her family is gone and all she has is the robot that she left out in the bush to die.
You accuse me of not thinking during this movie, beleive me I thought a lot during it. Most of what I thought was this is the most stupid movie I have ever seen, why did I spend the money. And by the way I don't go to see the mindless action flicks you assume I see. I was hoping that this movie was a thought provoking look at the relationships between robots and humans, but it didn't turn out to be that.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
I agree with Grocka. A.I. was just a poor attempt by Spielberg to make 2001: A Space Odyssey. Spielberg was trying to tell the world, "Look! Look! I can be as meaningful as Kubrick!" But of course, Spielberg fell into his usual vices and the whole movie ended up getting caught in No Man's Land between actually exploring anything relevant and being a feel good movie for the whole family to enjoy. Spielberg is not Kubrick, and he never will be.
The writing to Ocean's Eleven was excellent. Lord of the Rings was quite good. Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was fucking awesome!
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I was on the fence going into Ocean's 11 but the banter between Pitt and Cloony was just great. The little twists at the end were nice. And all of the supporting actors really did a nice job.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
They should have ended A.I. when the oceans froze. Then, at least, it would have been recognizable as a tragedy. (I like a good tragedy, which is why I'm one of the few people who got/liked VOY's "Course: Oblivion.")
After that point, with the superrobots and the cloning and what... I don't know WHAT A.I. was supposed to be, but it was ridiculous.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"Spielberg is not Kubrick, and he never will be."
To be fair, Kubrick could never have made Schindler's List.
Posted by Tec (Member # 136) on :
Veers I resent the fact that you feel that Americans only like movies that are mindless and don't force us to think. That is an insanely stereotypical view of us. Sure some people don't want to think about a movie, others do. We are not perfect but then again nobody is and frankly I think the world expects to damn much from us.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Hey! Hold on! I'm American too, so don't accuse me of stereotyping! OK, maybe I was a bit harsh. I like a good mindless action movie (just watched True Lies), but I think that a large portion of America would rather see Fast and the Furious then, say, Black Hawk Down, a movie which causes you to think. It's that I personally feel that people would think a movie like "Schindler's List" is boring and someone should pop in a Steven Seagal movie instead. Also, I know many Americans do like a well-written, meaningful story like A.I. Don't get me wrong on that.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I watch movies for the "thinking" aspect, too, and I thought A.I. sucked. The first part was pretty good. Then he suddenly goes to New York, kills his clone, and gets trapped underwater. I started thinking "Well, that was an interesting ending, but it went too quickly.". And then the movie went on for another hour or so.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Well, they could have just left off at the under-the-ice part, I admit. The last part was really just a showcase for special effects (look at the skinny aliens!).
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Spielberg is the MAN when it come to movie making!
I mean, sure, he's really running out of ideas recently, and started tomake big-budget-eye-candies-crappy films instead of "meaningful" films, but man, he kicked ass all the way up to the late 90s.
Some of the masterpieces by Spielberg:
Abyss E.T. Encounter of the Third Kind Saving Private Ryan (One of the best, if not, the best war film ever made!) Schindler's List
and SHITLOAD of others.
While on the topic, how come so few of you mentioned LOTR, it's only one of the best fantasy film ever made, plus, ALL CRITICs so far give it a five thumbs up.
On the side note, WTF were those dumbass idiots thinking when they gave "Shakespare in Love" best picture instead of Saving Private Ryan. I swear, the Oscar Board that year are all fu#king retards!!
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
A.I. was neither meaningful nor well written.
I am not saying Spielberg is a hack, though my former drama teacher would argue such a point. Some of his movies are quite good and provocative: Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Close Encounters. But he isn't Kubrick and he never will be.
The Abyss was James Cameron.
And people, there is a difference between 'moving' and 'thought provoking'. If you walk out of a movie saying, "Ya, that is pretty fucked up, come to think of it." That's thought provoking. If you walk out saying, "That's some fucked up shit!" in tears, then that's moving. Black Hawk Down was more moving than thought provoking in my opinion.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
So...nobody except me liked A.I.?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I saw only one new-release movie in 2001, and that was way back in February or so, I think. It was Snatch, which I found to be quite enjoyable. Other than that, I watched nada last year. ::shrug::
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yes, I find snatch quite en� Oh, never mind. That's just too obvious...
Veers: I'm pretty sure those were the robots, not aliens.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Clearly I did Veers.
I like movies that explore humanity. A.I. was a deeply human movie, and that is what struck me about it. It essentially retells "Pinocchio" with an artifical boy trying to find out what it is like to be real and it is in that quest that he askes questions of himeslf and ultimatly of us.
Ultimatly the film is about David's relationship with his "mother," his understanding of consciousness and desires, human morality in treatment of sentient beings, and finally David's understanding that his is not a unique existance.
Is it flawed? Oh, yeah. Too long and too many coulda shoulda endings.
And Lee, I'm sorry our friend has done that to you, I assure you that I do enjoy film, old and new and try to watch both as often as I can.
Part of the reason I posted this was to stimulate debate. Good, just one film, but good nonetheless. But also to give people a list of some very fine films I saw this year that they might not be aware of. I am fortunate in many ways to live in Los Angeles and am able to go see a movie like Amores Perros when it comes out. But Amores Perros is a film from Mexico and I wonder if many people have even heard of it but it had a great story, and fascinating structure and good performances.
Clearly these are just my thoughts. For every movie you see, someone will love it and someone will hate it. Movies are very personal.
[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Those were aliens at the end of A.I. TSN.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, it's been a while, so I don't remember completely clearly, but I know that I also thought they were aliens, until I was talking to the people I saw it with, and everyone else said they thought the "aliens" were actually the future versions of the robots. I don't remember why, but it made a lot more sense than aliens at the time.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
No, they were robots, or so says Spielberg, I think. I haven't seen the film yet.
I can't say enough good things about Memento.
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
I only watch 7 movies this year, and I only would only recomend three of them. First there's Life As A House; I don't know why but it kind of reminded me that life's short and take each day at a time, something I'm doing right now by trying to get along wiht my family. Second was Ali; go figure I would watch a movie with Wil Smith on just because he's staring. And third was Sidewalks of New York; it goes to remind me that Ed Burns does know how to act.
Well that -ish was my two cents... if you don't like it then go take a Type 3b phaser rifle and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
So, you like Will Smith's stare, huh? The one where he has the white mouthguard?
:-)
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Jay: it's not something that's really been done to me. I mean, this is the guy who's gonna be my best man. It just annoys me when he puts on these airs about knowing so much about films, yet hasd probably never seen anything by, say, Kurosawa, or Robert Aldrich. . .
Memento was an amazing film. We argued about it for hours afterwards.
As for Spielberg, I'm divided. He can deliver the goods, but in both his best films - Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan - he does some very powerful work only to compromise it later by reverting to schmaltz. I haven't seen A.I. but it sounds like it's the same; I wonder what Minority Report will be like?
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
Speilberg is like the Star Trek movie series; there are good ones and bad ones...just hope that he makes a good one this time.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
After Minority Report , Spielberg's next release will be called Catch Me If You Can .
Here's the summary from IMDb: "An FBI agent tracks down and catches a young con artist who successfully impersonated an airline pilot, doctor, assistant attorney general and history professor, cashing more than $6 million in fraudulent checks in 26 countries."
Leonardo DiCaprio will be the con artist, Frank Abagnale Jr., and Tom Hanks will play the FBI agent, Joe Shaye (I think he's the FBI guy, the credits aren't clear). Sounds good to me. It's listed as being released in December of this year.
Spielberg was going to the adaptation of the novel Memoirs of a Geisha , but he's now going to do Indiana Jones 4 after Catch Me . Harrison Ford will star, along with Kate Capshaw. They have a title, but will not release it.
Anyway, that's what you get with a few minutes of research ...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Argh! What is it with holiday seasons and big-name movies lately? It used to be mainly a release period for Academy Award-baiting arthouse type films and family-friendly fluff, but lately they've become packed with big-budget big-name epics. From Thanksgiving through Christmas there will be a potential #1 movie released every week next year, although Two Towers and Chamber of Secrets ought to hang on for multiple weeks. And don't forget a certain Star-something movie.
[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
November 22, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
Posted by StarFire (Member # 748) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: After Minority Report , Spielberg's next release will be called Catch Me If You Can .
Here's the summary from IMDb: "An FBI agent tracks down and catches a young con artist who successfully impersonated an airline pilot, doctor, assistant attorney general and history professor, cashing more than $6 million in fraudulent checks in 26 countries."
Leonardo DiCaprio will be the con artist, Frank Abagnale Jr., and Tom Hanks will play the FBI agent, Joe Shaye (I think he's the FBI guy, the credits aren't clear). Sounds good to me. It's listed as being released in December of this year.
Spielberg was going to the adaptation of the novel Memoirs of a Geisha , but he's now going to do Indiana Jones 4 after Catch Me . Harrison Ford will star, along with Kate Capshaw. They have a title, but will not release it.
Anyway, that's what you get with a few minutes of research ...
They are going to do an adaptation of Memiors of a Geisha ??? Too bad. :-/
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Sorry, I just had to dig up this post because I missed it while I was away from the internet.
A.I. was the only movie I saw the entire year, and I loved it. The ending makes perfect sense (well, except for the explanation of why they can only clone her for one day).
Those were not aliens, those were future Mechas (remember the line "One day, there will just be Mecha"?). The Mechas are the only things left alive on Earth. They have also become archeologists, and want to know of their past, which is why they were digging through the ice. They just happened to find David, still functioning, and it is from David, this child, that they will find out the story of how they began, and they will see it through a child's eyes.
Does that explain it?
Also, you can't say A.I. is Spielberg's attempt to make a 2001...since Kubrick started A.I.! He had been working on it for nearly a decade before he died, and the movie was already in pre-production. It was before Kubrick's death that he selected Spielberg to direct since he knew he himself couldn't do it anymore. In fact, the original actor to play David was supposed to be a REAL robot. Kubrick could never get one realistic enough for him, so he ditched the idea before his death.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Perhaps you should have seen more movies.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
There was nothing else worth seeing.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
Kubrick had the idea. Worked on it somewhat. Then died.
Then Spielberg turned it into that waste of order, speeding us along to the Heat Death with nothing to show for it.
And you should've seen more movies. There were better things out there than A.I. Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
No-one is ever going to believe Spielberg made it the way Kubrick would have. In forming a point of view, you have several options available:-
1. Spielberg DID make it the way Kubrick intended. For the most part this merely cheapens Kubrick's memory, for many people.
2. Spielberg made the best effort he could, because at the time Kubrick died he wasn't any nearer to having a coherent film than he was when he started the project. What this does to your opinion of Spielberg in general, and this film in particular, is up to you.
3. Spielberg found himself unable to film it the way Kubrick wanted, and did the best he could. Spielberg is therefore found to be not one-tenth the filmmaker Kubrick was.
4. Spielberg just went ahead and made the film the same schmaltzy way he does everything, not giving a damn for Kubrick's intentions. Spielberg is a twat.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Nothing else to see from last year? Eh?
Here is a list of all the films I saw for 2001. There plenty worth seeing in the bunch.
The Pledge Snatch Enemy at the Gates When Brendan Met Trudy the Tailor of Panama Blow Along Came a Spider Amores Perros Memento Bridget Jones's Diary A Night at McCool's The Mummy Returns Pearl Harbor Shrek Swordfish A.I. Artifical Intelligence Evolution A Knight's Tale Kiss of the Dragon The Score Leagally Blonde Acpcalypse Now Planet of the Apes Made Curse of the Jade Scorpion Musketeer The Others The Deep End Hearts in Atlantis The Last Castle Waking Life The Man Who Wasn't There Monster's Inc. Spy Games Harry Potter Ocean's 11 The Royal Tenenbaums Ali A Beatiful Mind Gosford Park Monster's Ball Lord of the Rings
I still, still need to see In The Bedroom.
And I think we all know that Spielberg is no Kubrick. The real problems with Spielberg is that he plays to the boxoffice and that often hurts his art.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: The Pledge - Don't even remember this one Snatch - eh, maybe... Enemy at the Gates - Some cheap WWII movie made just so we can show off cheap "hot" moviestars When Brendan Met Trudy - No clue the Tailor of Panama - Nothing special looking Blow - I actually did consider this one Along Came a Spider - Never saw the "first one", so not worth seeing it Amores Perros - No clue Memento - Didn't look interesting Bridget Jones's Diary - I hate her... A Night at McCool's - Stupid comedy The Mummy Returns - First one looked bad, this looked worse Pearl Harbor - Not worth sitting through 3 hours of heartthrobs and inaccuracies Shrek - Cartoon... Swordfish - Lets just say the car looked the most interesting about this movie A.I. Artifical Intelligence - My kind of movie Evolution - Another stupid cheap comedy A Knight's Tale - My sister likes it. Reason enough. Kiss of the Dragon - Er. I can kick faster then you. The Score - Don't remember this one Leagally Blonde - Stupid, stupid, stupid Acpcalypse Now - Already saw it the first version, not worth going back to the theater for so little Planet of the Apes - Destruction of a classic Made - No clue Curse of the Jade Scorpion - Stupid comedy Musketeer - Another cheap looking movie The Others - Don't remember The Deep End - Don't remember Hearts in Atlantis - Don't remember The Last Castle - Don't remember Waking Life - Don't remember The Man Who Wasn't There - Billy Bob is not an actor... Monster's Inc. - Cartoon... Spy Games - Don't Remember Harry Potter - Rubbish Ocean's 11 - Heart-Throb-O-Rama The Royal Tenenbaums - eh, maybe... Ali - This makes boxing look as realistic as Driven made auto racing look... A Beatiful Mind - I hate that guy Gosford Park - Don't remember Monster's Ball - Billy Bob still can't act Lord of the Rings - Rubbish
That's how I viewed the 2001 movie year...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Memento was the best film last year. . .
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Wow, 359. So much rage.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I'm just looking for something more prolific to waste my $10 on.
Oh, and a movie missing from that list that I might actually have seen was Vanilla Sky. At least, I liked all the music they played on the commercials.
Mmmm....Chemical Brothers....
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
You should try a matinee.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Let's see here. Can I make a top ten list without launching into elaborate and unwarned $poilers (grrrr!).
bX top X for 2001:
Memento
Mulholland Drive
Amelie
Snatch (2000?)
Fellowship of the Ring
Ghost World
Moulin Rouge
Hedwig
Metropolis (Ozamu Tezuka Adaptation)
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
quote:Originally posted by The359: I'm just looking for something more prolific to waste my $10 on.
You should find one of those movie theaters that only player older films (by older I mean a couple of months, you know, right before they go out on video). Usually its only a couple of bucks (3-5).
And you're wrong about Swordfish, the best part of that movie wasn't the cars, it was the gratuitous nudity (or OTOH, Travolta's goatee, if you're into goatees).
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Halle Berry isn't much to look at if you ask me. Too thin I think.
And yes, trust me, the TVR Tuscan Speed 6 was the only good looking thing in that film.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I can't imagine people not wanting to know what I think about such a list.
Snatch: OK. Enemy at the Gates: Bleah. Blow: Boring. Memento: Brilliant. The Mummy Returns: Eh...ok for what it was, I guess. Not something I'd need to see again, but it didn't make me want to die. Shrek: Ha ha, cartoons that tell adult jokes! Original! Ha ha! But entertaining even so. Swordfish: Still haven't been able to sit through it. Travolta's moonlike face at the beginning is all I can take. I suppose it could get really good after about ten minutes or so. Who knows? Evolution: I could say this was a good movie when it was called Ghostbusters, but this was never a good movie. Orlando Jones is funny, though, despite never ever being in a film that was. Legally Blonde: Utterly overshadowed by Election, which I watched the same day, so objectively, who knows? I like Reese Witherspoon though. Lord of the Rings: Good.
Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
quote:Originally posted by The359: Halle Berry isn't much to look at if you ask me. Too thin I think.
And yes, trust me, the TVR Tuscan Speed 6 was the only good looking thing in that film.
Haha. okay. We'll just agree to disagree. Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I WAS WACTCHING TEH SOARDFISH!!1!!! MY FAEVORIT PAERT IS WHEN WOLVERINE IS DOING TEH KEVIN MITNICK ON TEH THRIDIMENTIONAL COMPUTAR HAXXORING!!11
HE WAS LIEK 1337 OR SOEMTHING!!11
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Was that post meant to be badly written?
Posted by MaGiC (Member # 59) on :
I certainly hope so or UM is terribly unwell...
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
That was L33T H4X0R-speak...they spell about as good as my dog...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
nevermind
[ February 23, 2002, 09:04: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
There was a film called Hedwig? Was it about Harry's bird, or something even MORE fun?
Sol is both right and wrong. Ghostbusters was a very good film. Evolution was slightly worse than listening to your most boring friend do a Jim Carey impersonation for 7 hours straight.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I didn't mean to imply that I thought Ghostbusters was bad, though I see how the sentence could be read like that.
Well, that's different than what I thought it would be.
I'm still looking forward to the summer though. There are at least several million good things happening that are making the fanboy in me go "oooooohhhh!" with excitement.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
...