Zodiac; the best film of the past 10 years? If not, what is?

e_e

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJgxWQ-mRwY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec9jY9kPIp4

One of the best soundtracks of the decade too. The film just captures that feeling of being lost in a city of millions better than anything.

Evelyn Cusack

I really like that it has Sometimes in it, that songalways rreminds me of a dream and the film is kinda dreamy

MilanPan!c

Better movies

The Incredibles (2004)
3-Iron (2004)
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Hidden (2005)
Children of Men (2006)
No Country For Old Men (2007)
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
Cloverfield (2008)
Gomorrah (2008)
Let The Right One In (2008)
The Chaser (2008)
Wall -E (2008)
Avatar (2009)
Up (2009)
District 9 (2009)
A Prophet (2009)
Toy Story 3 (2010)
Incendies (2010)
Social Network (2010)
Silver Linings Playbook (2011)
Amour (2012)




And there's plenty more.

Tipsy McSwagger

Lost in Translation is a beautiful little film. I watched it on my own and didn't want it to end.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Better movies

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Oh **** no. That's one of the few films in this thread that I'd call outright terrible.

LuckyLloyd

I watched No Country for Old Men again on Saturday morning. It really is magnificent. It's gripping and entertaining with an utterly unique bad guy - but built on a rock solid foundation of big fundamental themes. A brilliant treatment of the cheapness of life and inevitability of death.

The question of 'best' film is a virtually impossible one to answer. It's terribly subjective and is never a level playing field given the variance of language, budget, genres, etc. No movie is without flaws of some nature, and no movie will ever have a truly universal appeal. I remember the two friends I went to see NCFOM with being quite bearish on it. They particularly hated the ending (and it was a widespread bone of contention at the time).

Having watched it a few times since, I think it would stand up as my personal favourite. It has great rewatchability too. My answer on cinema experiences would be Wall - E and The Dark Knight. I was totally lost in both and tears streamed down my face during the former. But they don't stand up as well to repeated viewings.

AwayWithFaries

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is my choice. Definitely the best thing I've watched in the last 10 years.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

Oh **** no. That's one of the few films in this thread that I'd call outright terrible.

Of course it's not even vaguely close to being terrible.

Ratings: 8.0/10 from 439,846 users

4/4 Roger Ebert

The film uses dazzling cinematography, breathless editing, driving music and headlong momentum to explode with narrative force, stirring in a romance at the same time. For Danny Boyle, it is a personal triumph. He combines the suspense of a game show with the vision and energy of "City of God" and never stops sprinting.

When I saw "Slumdog Millionaire" at Toronto, I was witnessing a phenomenon: dramatic proof that a movie is about how it tells itself. I walked out of the theater and flatly predicted it would win the Audience Award. Seven days later, it did. And that it could land a best picture Oscar nomination. We will see. It is one of those miraculous entertainments that achieves its immediate goals and keeps climbing toward a higher summit.

3.5/4 Peter Traver

What I feel for this movie isn't just admiration, it's mad love.

And that's just the first two I found.

One of the best reviewed mainstream movies of the decade.

So... this is one of those, "it's you not the rest of the world" things.

Nerdlingr

I never got the love for Slumdog either. Thought it was average enough. America needed a feelgood film to latch onto at the time, this was it. Poor boy done good, bright colours, happy ending, dance scene at the end. Did nothing for me really. Maybe i'm dead inside.:P

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Of course it's not even vaguely close to being terrible.

I have to beg to differ. It's horribly manipulative, has poor character development, 2 romantic leads that have NO CHEMISTRY WHATSOEVER, a corny message than undermines so much of the real-life cruelty on show and a plot that completely consists of contrivances. I think it's one of the most cynical films of the last decade and it really bothers me that so many fell for it. It pretty much just tortures its characters for 2 hours before a completely arbitrary happy ending that wasn't earned in the least.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

So... this is one of those, "it's you not the rest of the world" things.

No this is a real "it's the rest of the world" case. I genuinely can't see how it's a good film on any level.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

I have to beg to differ. It's horribly manipulative, has poor character development, 2 romantic leads that have NO CHEMISTRY WHATSOEVER, a corny message than undermines so much of the real-life cruelty on show and a plot that completely consists of contrivances. I think it's one of the most cynical films of the last decade and it really bothers me that so many fell for it. It pretty much just tortures its characters for 2 hours before a completely arbitrary happy ending that wasn't earned in the least.


No this is a real "it's the rest of the world" case. I genuinely can't see how it's a good film on any level.

Yeah but this is the thing, you're totally wrong.

You may not like it, but in the case where hundreds of thousands of film goers and dozens and dozens of critics do, you're obviously so far in the minority as to be an anomaly.

It's a great film - you don't like it - both are true.

EDIT: For the record - there's many great films I don't like. I acknowledge that something's are just not for me. I'm sure there's some movies I think are basically unwatchable (e.g. Big Lebowski, Silence of the Lambs, Contact) that you love. My thinking the Big Lebowski is brutally unfunny isn't really a comment on the film as much as it is on me.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Yeah but this is the thing, you're totally wrong.

You may not like it, but in the case where hundreds of thousands of film goers and dozens and dozens of critics do, you're obviously so far in the minority as to be an anomaly.

It's a great film - you don't like it - both are true.

Just because a film is popular doesn't make it a sacred cow that can't be criticized outside of the hive-mind surrounding it. I have an opinion on the film that doesn't coincide with yours or some famous critics, deal with it. You could at least respond to some of the points I've made as just saying "you're wrong" or "it's good because it's popular" just reeks of immature fanboyism.

To so casually dismiss somebody for differing just seems churlish to me, more so-called "classics" should have their status challenged to see if they hold up. We can't just all sheepishly say that something's great just because it won a few Oscars.

ButtersSuki

Slumdog wasn't great (not totally crap either btw), but I could look at Freida Pinto all day………..

Based on the thread I've bought the Director's Cut of Zodiac on BR for a 2nd viewing so I'll post again after I watch it.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

EDIT: For the record - there's many great films I don't like. I acknowledge that something's are just not for me. I'm sure there's some movies I think are basically unwatchable (e.g. Big Lebowski, Silence of the Lambs, Contact) that you love. My thinking the Big Lebowski is brutally unfunny isn't really a comment on the film as much as it is on me.

This is different though, you acknowledge the qualities in something you dislike, I do that often too. But in the case of Slumdog I think the film is almost completely lacking in merit. There's a difference here, I think it's terrible and made a case for why. If you think it's great then please try and convince me instead of shutting my opinion out.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

Just because a film is popular doesn't make it a sacred cow that can't be criticized outside of the hive-mind surrounding it. I have an opinion on the film that doesn't coincide with yours or some famous critics, deal with it. You could at least respond to some of the points I've made as just saying "you're wrong" or "it's good because it's popular" just reeks of immature fanboyism.

It's actually much more immature to assume that simply because you don't like it, it's bad.

People don't have to like it, but personal taste isn't the final word on a film vein good - if it was there would literally be no good films as every movie on the planet is hated by someone.

So.

No, you're dislike is not equal to it being bad.

And that's not me saying it, it's thousands and thousands and thousands of people flatly rejecting your criticisms.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

It's actually much more immature to assume that simply because you don't like it, it's bad.

But I'm not doing that, not even remotely. I am responding to what I saw and have thought for a while about why I had such an overwhelmingly negative response to it. It's not simply a case of "it's not for me", I find serious flaws in the script, characters, plot and message of the whole film that I can't help but want to call out.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

This is different though, you acknowledge the qualities in something you dislike, I do that often too. But in the case of Slumdog I think the film is almost completely lacking in merit. There's a difference here, I think it's terrible and made a case for why. If you think it's great then please try and convince me instead of shutting my opinion out.

I have no interest in trying to convince of things you won't accept. That's a waste of both of our time.

Deal with the fact that simply because you have an opinion, doesn't mean your opinion is right.

It's totally gonna be ok.

You don't like a good movie - the world is gonna keep on spinning.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

But I'm not doing that, not even remotely. I am responding to what I saw and have thought for a while about why I had such an overwhelmingly negative response to it. It's not simply a case of "it's not for me", I find serious flaws in the script, characters, plot and message of the whole film that I can't help but want to call out.

Yes, but you're wrong.

Simples.

LuckyLloyd

Slumdog Millionaire was 'movie of the week' fare imo. I think part of its appeal and critical acclaim were cultural factors beyond the scope of the movie itself.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

No, you're dislike is not equal to it being bad.

I think we're on completely different peggings here, you think a film is objectively great by virtue of favorable reviews or good box office returns. I disagree with that notion altogether. Some good reviews or word of mouth might urge me to see something but at the end of the day the only opinion I have to go on is my own. I find this idea that you can't possibly disagree with a film having a status of being great to be absolute bull****.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Yes, but you're wrong.

The fact that you can't even defend the film beyond this is very telling to me.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

The fact that you can't even defend the film beyond this is very telling to me.

You can say that if you want, but the fact that you feel you know more than Roger Ebert or Peter Travers is much more telling than my unwillingness to ague with you about the script of a film.

Best to just drop it, yes?

Nerdlingr

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Yes, but you're wrong.

Simples.

A very well thought out and eloquated response. Well done. :rolleyes:

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

but the fact that you feel you know more than Roger Ebert or Peter Travers

Straw man much? I'm a huge Roger Ebert fan incidentally, doesn't mean I have to blindly agree with him at every turn.

ButtersSuki

Ah will ye cool the jets the pair of ye!

MilanPan!c

Nerdlingr wrote: »

A very well thought out and eloquated response. Well done. :rolleyes:

Thanks!

And by the by, If this was a film that in anyway was seen as a mixed bag, by even 10% of critics, then maybe there's a point in an argument.

On the other hand, if someone wants to argue that paved roads have destroyed society, well... They'll have to find someone else to argue with.

It's universally praised and loved.

That's not some giant conspiracy. There's no reason for it other than the strength of the film.

The MUCH more likely explanation is that some people just don't like some good movies.

Not that a couple of guys on Boards are better judges of film quality than basically the rest of humanity.

Mickeroo

I enjoyed Slumdog myself, I like Danny Boyle's visual style, liked the soundtrack and found it to be a pretty entertaining film. There's no denying its incredibly contrived and manipulative though and nowhere near Boyle's best films in terms of quality.

I'd have more umbridge with Avatar being considered one of the best. On a technical level Avatar sure it was impressive and there could an argument made there, and I the first time I watched it I found it very enjoyable but after seeing it a couple of times since, it falls apart under any sort of criticism beyond the aesthetic. As a film its very cliched and extremely unoriginal and like Slumdog, its pretty manipulative too.

Another film that springs to mind when it comes to having enjoyed them at the time but fall apart when you begin to look deeper at them is Crash.

Basically what I'm trying to say, though I acknowledge I enjoyed these films at the time I don't think they stand up too well to scrutiny after the fact.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

Straw man much? I'm a huge Roger Ebert fan incidentally, doesn't mean I have to blindly agree with him at every turn.

Yes yes, I assume you also reject modern medicine; why listen to any experts at all?

Roger Ebert is a very spot on film critic. As you know. His resume is his work and his work was consistently excellent.

You're just some guy on Boards.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The MUCH more likely explanation is that some people just don't like some good movies.

But why does a good box office and critical reception automatically make it good? It's very condescending and narrow-minded to suggest that somebody going against the grain can't possibly have something interesting to say. It's an attitude I hate because it really blocks out discussion and unique, valuable perspectives.

Nerdlingr

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Thanks!

And by the by, If this was a film that in anyway was seen as a mixed bag, by even 10% of critics, then maybe there's a point in an argument.

Ah you're right there so, no point in discussing it at all. Its a great film cos everyone says so. Ha ha! :pac:

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Yes yes, I assume you also reject modern medicine; why listen to any experts at all?

Again you completely misunderstand. I don't reject modern medicine because my experience of it has been good, I outright reject Slumdog because I had a lousy experience with it. I'm not just some hater, I'm willing to give everything a chance and was actually really looking forward to the movie. Understand?

Shut down the film board everyone! We're not allowed to disagree at all.

Mickeroo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Yes yes, I assume you also reject modern medicine; why listen to any experts at all?

Roger Ebert is a very spot on film critic. As you know. His resume is his work and his work was consistently excellent.

You're just some guy on Boards.

Are you saying modern medicine is based on entirely subjective opinions?

Nerdlingr

e_e wrote: »

But why does a good box office and critical reception automatically make it good? It's very condescending and narrow-minded to suggest that somebody going against the grain can't possibly have something interesting to say. It's an attitude I hate because it really blocks out discussion and unique, valuable perspectives.

Judging by the responses I dont think they have any - other than taking someone else's word for it.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

But why does a good box office and critical reception automatically make it good? It's very condescending and narrow-minded to suggest that somebody going against the grain can't possibly have something interesting to say. It's an attitude I hate because it really blocks out discussion and unique, valuable perspectives.

Please spare me.

You want to know why universal critical and popular acclaim means a film is "good"?

Really?

The alternative being what?

Any films that someone doesn't like (I.e. every film ever made/to be made) should be considered not "good" if a couple of guys on the Internet don't like some things about it?

Sorry but that's nonsense.

A movie like this has been viewed and reviewed hundreds of thousands of times over multiple years. Almost no one thinks it is crap.

You do.

We've now had the entirety of meaningful discussion that can be had about your fringe opinion.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Roger Ebert is a very spot on film critic. As you know. His resume is his work and his work was consistently excellent.

Why do you think Roger Ebert had guests on his show all the time? I think he's a great critic but not the all-seeing movie eye that you see him as. Like it or not just because he has an opinion does not make it gospel, hell he disliked many films that were popular both critically and financially.

e_e

e_e wrote: »

Again you completely misunderstand. I don't reject modern medicine because my experience of it has been good, I outright reject Slumdog because I had a lousy experience with it. I'm not just some hater, I'm willing to give everything a chance and was actually really looking forward to the movie. Understand?

Shut down the film board everyone! We're not allowed to disagree at all.

Two pages back you objected to me calling a movie you loved ****e even though I made it clear people would disagree with my opinion.

Why can't you apply the same formula and show a bit of humility while accepting that you might not be correct here? Just because you think a movie is bad or good does not mean that is the case. It's your opinion at least be open minded enough to admit that others might disagree. In the case of Slumdog more people clearly disagree with your opinion as it is very popular.

MilanPan!c

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Judging by the responses I dont think they have any - other than taking someone else's word for it.

Like I said, why would I argue the well established merits of the film? Just because you and some other guy want me too?

Anything else you want?

Need your dishes done? Bit of grocery shopping?

You guys have your opinion - I'm not going to change it if Roger Ebert and close to 500k IMDB ratings haven't.

You're not going to change mine either.

So the point of arguing about it is... What?

Nerdlingr

Time to give up e_e. Head => Brick Wall.

e_e

Deleted User wrote: »

Two pages back you objected to me calling a movie you loved ****e even though I made it clear people would disagree with my opinion.

I did that to get a response out of you and find out WHY you felt that way. I didn't dismiss your opinion out of hand like Milan Panic is. I was really willing to hear why somebody would call it awful.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Please spare me.

You want to know why universal critical and popular acclaim means a film is "good"?

Really?

The alternative being what?

Any films that someone doesn't like (I.e. every film ever made/to be made) should be considered not "good" if a couple of guys on the Internet don't like some things about it?

Sorry but that's nonsense.

A movie like this has been viewed and reviewed hundreds of thousands of times over multiple years. Almost no one thinks it is crap.

You do.

We've now had the entirety of meaningful discussion that can be had about your fringe opinion.

I think you really need to be schooled in subjectivity.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

Why do you think Roger Ebert had guests on his show all the time? I think he's a great critic but not the all-seeing movie eye that you see him as. Like it or not just because he has an opinion does not make it gospel, hell he disliked many films that were popular both critically and financially.

And the dozens of other critics that loved it?

They're all wrong too?

And the 8/10 from close to 500k IMDB users? They're all wrong?

But hey, at least we know who to go to now for the definitive word of a films quality.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

And the dozens of other critics that loved it?

They're all wrong too?

And the 8/10 from close to 500k IMDB users? They're all wrong?

But hey, at least we know who to go to now for the definitive word of a films quality.

I'm not calling anyone "wrong"! That's the whole point here!

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

I think you really need to be schooled in subjectivity.

As much as you believe in your heart that everything is subjective, you know in your head it's not.

Rebecca Black is not as good as the Beatles, even if someone says they think she is.

Not every opinion is as valid as every other.

And thank god for that.

You just need to accept that you dislike something good. Everyone does. It's ok.

What NOT ok is pretending that simply because YOU think something then it's definitely valid.

That's just not the case.

Nerdlingr

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You're not going to change mine either.

So the point of arguing about it is... What?

No-one is trying to change your opinion.
We're just asking you to give yours, like e_e's gave theirs. Not some critics. You dont have any by the looks of it, other than think what you're told.
You havent given one reason why you like this film other than "well, the critics like it so it must be good".
You've dismissed people's reasoning as "youre wrong . simples".
As you said, there is no point in having an argument about it.
Mostly because you cant put forward one. Simples.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

As much as you believe in your heart that everything is subjective, you know in your head it's not.

Rebecca Black is not as good as the Beatles, even if someone says they think she is.

Not every opinion is as valid as every other.

And thank god for that.

You just need to accept that you dislike something good. Everyone does. It's ok.

What NOT ok is pretending that simply because YOU think something then it's definitely valid.

That's just not the case.

This is exactly why I elaborated on why I think the film is terrible. I'm not pulling this out of my arse.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

I'm not calling anyone "wrong"! That's the whole point here!

Well you are obviously.

You said it was ****e.

It can't be both ****e and great.

If its ****e then all the people that think its great are NECESSARILY wrong.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

This is exactly why I elaborated on why I think the film is terrible. I'm not pulling this out of my arse.

Being able to vaguely defend your dodgy opinion doesn't make your opinion any less dodgy.

Many people smarter than the both of us have defended much more dubious things, like slavery or eugenics, and yet we know for a fact that their opinions were wrong.

EDIT: I hope you don't actually think that anti-slavery campaigners just have an opinion. Because you knew, some people ARE pro-slavery and "everything is subjective". Tell me you know some opinions are wrong.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Well you are obviously.

You said it was ****e.

It can't be both ****e and great.

If its ****e then all the people that think its great are NECESSARILY wrong.

Film isn't as black and white as this. Which is why I brought up arguments that could very well be countered by others.

You're putting an implication on my posts that isn't there. I'm not so shallow and arrogant to dismiss somebody's subjective response out of hand as "you're wrong!", I'm not you.

Everlong1

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry I know a lot of people disagree with me but I just don't see the appeal of Lost in Translation. I thought it was awful & I love Bill Murray!

I second the above. Two hours of meandering nonsense.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Being able to vaguely defend your dodgy opinion doesn't make your opinion any less dodgy.

Many people smarter than the both of us have defended much more dubious things, like slavery or eugenics, and yet we know for a fact that their opinions were wrong.

Now we're getting to the heart of it, please explain to me why everyone else is RIGHT. I've made my case, the responsibility is now on you to prove me otherwise.