Jump to content
John

What movies from the past 10 years do you think will be considered classics?

Recommended Posts

La la Land. Hell no. What an awful film. I love musicals but not this film.

The Quiet Place will be. 

 

14 minutes ago, Steve McQueen said:

The Dark Knight

Darkest Hour

Frozen

I liked Frozen especially when the wolves show up but probably not a classic. Decent B film is enough. 

Gravity for the gravity of its performances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

 

 

I liked Frozen especially when the wolves show up but probably not a classic. Decent B film is enough. 

Thematically, Frozen is a very deep film.  Cartoon trappings hurt it, though.

But, it is beloved by many, and known by almost all.  It'll be a classic just because of that, if not for its merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steve McQueen said:

Thematically, Frozen is a very deep film.  Cartoon trappings hurt it, though.

But, it is beloved by many, and known by almost all.  It'll be a classic just because of that, if not for its merits.

I was actually referring to the horror film Frozen which is just a B film

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KK said:

I don't know if we can be friends anymore Stu.

 

Birdman is a great film! The Revenant less so, though still impressive in its own ways.

Both great technically but otherwise vacuous films. I don't seem to tolerate this guy very well. Not a single film of his spoke to me, ever.

 

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, crocodile said:

Both great technically but otherwise vacuous films. I don't seem to tolerate this guy very well. Not a single film of his spoke to me, ever.

 

Karol

If you can’t emotionally resonate to Babel or Biutiful then there’s something wrong with you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KK said:

There's so much thrown at audiences these days ...

 

 

I disagree that there is "so much out there for the audience", but let's assume there is, wouldn't that be a good thing? If we have a climate where art can thrive then there's a good chance a few masterpieces will be born.

 

10 hours ago, KK said:

 ... there's less room for the makings of modern "classics" these days.You can thank Netflix and Marvel for much of that.

 

 

So there's a wealth of movies being thrown at the audience but at the same time there's less room for creating classics. And Netflix is to blame? What?! 

 

10 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

Mindhunter was a waste of his talent.  Hated that show.

 

 

It took me a couple of episodes but then I liked it very much and I'm glad Fincher is making a second season. Something must have rubbed you the wrong way because:

 

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/mindhunter/s01/

 

53 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

If you can’t emotionally resonate to Babel or Biutiful then there’s something wrong with you!

 

Maybe Babel is trying too hard to resonate emotionally. I didn't hate that one though ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 2:19 PM, Jay said:

I enjoyed Hateful Eight more than Django I think, but love Basterds much more than either.  I look forward to his "final" film coming out soon

 

QT considers Kill Bill one movie and Hateful Eight was promoted as his eighth, so Once Upon a Time in Hollywood will be his 9th by the "official" count. He's got one more after that if he sticks to his guns on the retirement thing.

 

On 7/11/2018 at 2:12 PM, KK said:

Lincoln is a good film. No one is going to remember it in 2028 though.

 

Mm, I don't know what sort of reputation it'll have internationally but I still see it name-dropped in the US and I think it's gonna wind up in that sort of "sacred" zone here that's usually reserved for biblical epics. Like, contemporary cinephiles don't really care about Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, or King of Kings and it's not like the general public is watching them on a daily basis but they're the big movies about Moses and Jesus so they keep turning up. Abraham Lincoln is about as immortal and there are really no other good movies dramatizing his Presidency during the Civil War and none as impressive. Add Steven Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis and the consensus that the movie is rather good and I think that movie is just way too easy to put on a pedestal without anybody thinking twice. Those who disagree are gonna be too indifferent to argue because for the most part, the lowest opinions I see are that it's just boring.

 

Also Day-Lewis's performance is super convenient shorthand for an ambitiously methody actor immersing himself into an iconic role and so I think that is just gonna keep being an easy reference point for awhile. It'll be remembered as one of his essential performances so as long as his name holds weight, I think the movie will stick around.

 

Occurs to me that it'll probably end up with a reputation similar to Gandhi. A long, slow, talky movie not without merit at all but maybe too pompous for its own good in terms of creating something that exudes passionate dramatic, cinematic, or entertainment value. Still generally very well-regarded and hasn't faded into obscurity by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mrbellamy said:

Mm, I don't know what sort of reputation it'll have internationally but I still see it name-dropped in the US and I think it's gonna wind up in that sort of "sacred" zone here that's usually reserved for biblical epics.

 

And it's as boringly safe. It's in that dreaded 'respectable' zone that lots of money and talent can buy, but it lacks any zest or willingness to become more than a deferential hagiography, which is about the worst cinema i can imagine (though great scores spring from that, fortunately). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

And it's as boringly safe. It's in that dreaded 'respectable' zone that lots of money and talent can buy, but it lacks any zest or willingness to become more than a deferential hagiography, which is about the worst cinema i can imagine (though great scores spring from that, fortunately). 

 

It had a refreshing amount of verve and vitality in its writing and pacing, which excuses a strong amount of that reverence, in my mind. I also like that it portrays Lincoln as a man to do some "legally ambiguous" things to get what he wants, and a little unsure of the outcome he's aiming for (like in the "I'll get used to it" scene).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah well, of course it's a watchable movie with 'respectable' performances, loving, back-patting nods to folksy comedy, expensively mounted shots, but i hadn't questioned that. It's STILL (because?) boring - the framing is just IMHO deadly, beginning with the first shot of godly Lincoln from behind and all those cited ingredients are in aid of a history reading at once too polished and too reliant on perceptions of the past as shiny postcard material full of hammy Oscar performances, like one of thoseo ld Stanley Kramer movies (admittedly, it's not Ship of Fools-bad).

 

I never would describe it as a bad movie by any means (it isn't) but it totally rubs me the wrong way with its sunday afternoon safeness in every way. It lacks, in one word, a surprise in its approach. For Oscar voters, that might be good and enough, i bored myself through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone once said Oscar movies can't be too complicated for they need to say everything there is to be said in one viewing and wear their message on the sleeve. Otherwise they will alienate most Academy members and won't get a nod. It seems to be the case most of the time. Crash was probably the single biggest offender. Good comedy, though, as others already pointed out.

 

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Schmidt

No Country For Old Men

Zodiac

There Will Be Blood

The Master

Pan's Labyrinth

Children Of Men

The Dark Knight

 

Movies that I love but won't be regarded as classics:

 

Che

United 93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Corellian2019 said:

About Schmidt

No Country For Old Men

Zodiac

There Will Be Blood

The Master

Pan's Labyrinth

Children Of Men

The Dark Knight

 

Movies that I love but won't be regarded as classics:

 

Che

United 93

Some of these are older than 10 years. In fact most of them.

 

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

 

I disagree that there is "so much out there for the audience", but let's assume there is, wouldn't that be a good thing? If we have a climate where art can thrive then there's a good chance a few masterpieces will be born.

 

 

So there's a wealth of movies being thrown at the audience but at the same time there's less room for creating classics. And Netflix is to blame? What?! 

 

 

You're missing my point here. I was trying to point out that we're drawing towards a larger homogenization of film in general. Thanks to Netflix, it's become easier to access more films at a moment's will, and as a result, more massive CGI fests are being rapidly created to feed a binge-cultured audience. In the last 6 months, we've had about four superhero films, about four films that have grossed more than a billion dollars, and only a handful of successful films with a budget under $100 million. There are more films, tv shows, miniseries, web series, etc, being created to be seen in the cinema, on TVs, on laptops, on iPhones, etc that it's become harder for a film to make a real cultural impact than it might have been ten years ago. I wonder if even something like Lord of the Rings, which was such a big part of the zeitgeist of its time, might just be tossed in with your usual big blockbusters (as the Hobbit flicks were).

 

It also doesn't help that unique stories have a harder time finding big audiences nowadays, since the disparity between tent-pole blockbuster and independent cinema is growing ever larger. Indie cinema, while active in growth, has only become more and more exclusive. And you'd be hard-pressed to find anything to watch that isn't Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar or a cheap horror flick on an average trip to the cinema. Gone are the days when a film like Boogie Nights or even a Kubrick picture would have been considered a major box office and cultural success. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this thread, I'm reminded -sadly - of what slim pickings there have been, cinematically, in the past ten years.

There are, as JWfaners suggest, very good films (ZODIAC, THE MASTER, THERE WILL BE BLOOD, THE HATEFUL 8, etc.), but will these be talked about in 20, 30, 40, 50 years' time? Sadly, I don't think so. Why? One school of thought is that in the last twenty years, there has been an increasing rush to get as much "product", into cinemas, out, again, and into the twilight world of DVD, Blu, dedicated movie channels, and endless repeats. Now, I'm not going to say that cinema should be canonised, but, it seems to me that films, these days, don't seem to be given a chance to "breathe", and to build up a reputation, worthy of the accolade "great". There's no respect for what is presented, and how can there be, if it's all about the "opening weekend", the "gross points", and "we must get it out for Memorial Day" (even though a film desperately needs another eight weeks in post)?

Of course, there are films that buck this trend: they open small, have a showcase tour, then go wide. Other films are blatant Oscar-bait. Would THE POST get the same publicity (publicity, mind, not acclaim), if it had opened in August? 

In posting this, I have to ask the question "are these films really great, or are they just the best of a mediocre bunch?" I'm not suggesting that any of these films are "bad" - whatever that means (ok, ok, most JWfaners know what I think of TDK!) - but "great"? Really?

The films mentioned in this thread are being asked to stand alongside the likes of - off the top of my head - FRANKENSTEIN, METROPOLIS, THE BIRTH OF A NATION, GONE WITH THE WIND, THE THIRD MAN, CITIZEN KANE, THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, CHINATOWN,  LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, 2001, VERTIGO, APOCALYPSE NOW, MANHATTAN, BEN-HUR, to name a few. I'm not sure that any film made these days can earn the right to be stored in the same vault, as those mentioned.

Cinema is a constantly-evolving process, and it presents itself in new - sometimes exciting - ways. Maybe it's a generational thing, but, for me, most new films hold little interest. They entertain, but they don't stimulate. The last film that I saw three times at the cinema was TRAFFIC (the one before it, was JFK) - still my favourite film, this century, and I'm not sure if that will stand time's test.

My best wishes to anyone who values the films listed. "Fill yer boots", I say, but...remember how cinema got there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Richard said:

The films mentioned in this thread are being asked to stand alongside the likes of - off the top of my head - FRANKENSTEIN, METROPOLIS, THE BIRTH OF A NATION, GONE WITH THE WIND, THE THIRD MAN, CITIZEN KANE, THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, CHINATOWN,  LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, 2001, VERTIGO, APOCALYPSE NOW, MANHATTAN, BEN-HUR, to name a few. I'm not sure that any film made these days can earn the right to be stored in the same vault, as those mentioned.

 

20 hours ago, John said:

Keep in mind a "classic" doesn't necessarily mean it's one of the best movies ever, just a film that will stand the test of time and leave a lasting impression on movie fans and the pop culture landscape.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is going to remember these as classics like they used to, at least not on a wide scale. They may be favourites of people, but not classics. I know I will always love La La Land and Darkest Hour, but time will wear away at them. Movies aren't made to last anymore. You go to the theatres, you watch the movie, maybe get the Blu-Ray release, or stream it online, and then the next thing comes out. A lot of films these days are franchise pushers. In the next few years we're likely to get upwards of 4-5 movies from Marvel and Star Wars, a third Jurassic World, an Indiana Jones reboot movie, etc. Just think of majority of the popular titles that have come out in the past 3-4 months: Avengers: Infinity War, Solo: A Star Wars Story, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, Deadpool 2, Ant Man and the Wasp, the Sicario sequel- these are all sequels or continuations of franchises. It donned to me while watching Jurassic World that I had seen this all before. Star Wars is getting repetitive and fans are dropping off (I'm still here if you want to talk), Marvel has become excessively huge and popular, but sometimes predicatble, etc. We're drawing out too much from what we first believed to be great films. Films become classics, sequels lessen the effect. If we are to ever get a new true classic in this age, it shouldn't be dependent on another movie to follow, although if its good it might get one anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Nobody is going to remember these as classics like they used to, at least not on a wide scale. They may be favourites of people, but not classics. I know I will always love La La Land and Darkest Hour, but time will wear away at them. Movies aren't made to last anymore. You go to the theatres, you watch the movie, maybe get the Blu-Ray release, or stream it online, and then the next thing comes out. A lot of films these days are franchise pushers. In the next few years we're likely to get upwards of 4-5 movies from Marvel and Star Wars, a third Jurassic World, an Indiana Jones reboot movie, etc. Just think of majority of the popular titles that have come out in the past 3-4 months: Avengers: Infinity War, Solo: A Star Wars Story, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, Deadpool 2, Ant Man and the Wasp, the Sicario sequel- these are all sequels or continuations of franchises. It donned to me while watching Jurassic World that I had seen this all before. Star Wars is getting repetitive and fans are dropping off (I'm still here if you want to talk), Marvel has become excessively huge and popular, but sometimes predicatble, etc. We're drawing out too much from what we first believed to be great films. Films become classics, sequels lessen the effect. If we are to ever get a new true classic in this age, it shouldn't be dependent on another movie to follow, although if its good it might get one anyways.

Now I understand why you frowned on my comment regarding la la land. You are a fan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JoeinAR said:

Now I understand why you frowned on my comment regarding la la land. You are a fan!

La La Land is beautiful.:) 

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/07/11/box-office-will-hollywood-survive-the-end-of-star-wars-007-x-men-and-avengers/#4335c9f55591

An article about all the franchises carrying on (this guy says ending, but Star Wars, Marvel, Disney-Pixar will always stretch things). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KK said:

 

 

You're missing my point here. I was trying to point out that we're drawing towards a larger homogenization of film in general. Thanks to Netflix, it's become easier to access more films at a moment's will, and as a result, more massive CGI fests are being rapidly created to feed a binge-cultured audience.

 

Well, I don't see what Netflix has to do with the  Disneyfication of the world of cinema. Netflix's film catalogue is piss-poor (certainly compared to other film channels) and people mainly subscribe to Netflix for their TV series (House Of Cards made Netflix). IMO, Netflix has no influence on what's playing in theaters today, nor do any other film channels.  In fact, Netflix is buying the films that theaters are not interested in because they happen to be not superhero movies or because  they are incredible bad, like Mute. When it comes to movies, Netflix is not even a substitute for the video stores of the old days, not by a long shot. Blaming Netflix for the homogenization of film is wrong, KK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pixar recently has fallen victim to "sequelitis" but I'm glad to see they have a few original films currently in the storyboard stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Well, I don't see what Netflix has to do with the  Disneyfication of the world of cinema. Netflix's film catalogue is piss-poor (certainly compared to other film channels) and people mainly subscribe to Netflix for their TV series (House Of Cards made Netflix). IMO, Netflix has no influence on what's playing in theaters today, nor do any other film channels.  In fact, Netflix is buying the films that theaters are not interested in because they happen to be not superhero movies or because  they are incredible bad, like Mute. When it comes to movies, Netflix is not even a substitute for video stores of the old days, not by a long shot.

 

I brought up Netflix because they've had a large part to do with how we choose to consume film and television these days. It doesn't matter what's actually available on Netflix, it's the binging culture that Netflix helped encourage that's robbed most major films the ability to "breathe" (as Richard nicely put it) or really resonate in a meaningful way with audiences. Audiences just have access to so much on an instantaneous level now, right from the phones, so that the moment one Marvel flick ends, they can just move on to the next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the increasing ease of availability of films is rendering the concept of a "classic" ever less relevant. The limitations on access to films have been gradually eroded, so films aren't competing with one another (to the degree that they used to) for the ability to be seen, and consequently standing the test of time becomes easier. Thus, of today's films which remain in prominent positions of cultural circulation half a century hence, there may be a wider selection but a lesser sense of stature (on average) compared to the films of half a century ago which are still around today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John said:

Pixar recently has fallen victim to "sequelitis" but I'm glad to see they have a few original films currently in the storyboard stage.

Finding Dory was bearable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finding Dory was really good up until the third act, which I found disappointingly weak.

 

Cars 3 was mostly forgettable.

 

Incredibles 2 was derivative, but I thought it was very fun and really expanded upon the original film in a positive way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, John said:

Finding Dory was really good up until the third act, which I found disappointingly weak.

Once Dory finds her parents she immediately forgets about them to go after her friends. Hm. Dory and Hank stealing and driving that truck was very poor.

1 minute ago, John said:

Cars 3 was mostly forgettable.

Better than that mess they made with oil wars and terrorism in Cars 2, but still poor.

2 minutes ago, John said:

Incredibles 2 was derivative, but really fun, and really added on to the original film.

I need to see this still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, publicist said:

Yeah well, of course it's a watchable movie with 'respectable' performances, loving, back-patting nods to folksy comedy, expensively mounted shots, but i hadn't questioned that. It's STILL (because?) boring - the framing is just IMHO deadly, beginning with the first shot of godly Lincoln from behind and all those cited ingredients are in aid of a history reading at once too polished and too reliant on perceptions of the past as shiny postcard material full of hammy Oscar performances, like one of thoseo ld Stanley Kramer movies (admittedly, it's not Ship of Fools-bad).

 

I never would describe it as a bad movie by any means (it isn't) but it totally rubs me the wrong way with its sunday afternoon safeness in every way. It lacks, in one word, a surprise in its approach. For Oscar voters, that might be good and enough, i bored myself through it.

I wasn't bored, but I can imagine that people get bored watching Lincoln. However, the reason therefore won't be Spielberg's comfort zone issue. The general audience was probably bored by Spielberg's extensive and detailed depictions of the historical events. The tendencies to romanicizing heroization normally suits the broader audience. Darkest Hour is a much worse example of that - and look how successful it got. (Admittedly, Gary Oldman contributed a lot to its success.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a waste of time. Filmmakers should make interesting, debatable political movies, not hagiographies. Say what you will about Ollie Stone, but hew knew how to do that (and Williams also delivered better, more interesting music for him).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stones films hold no interestc for me when Ive lived through the political drama. Doesnt mean they are not well made but...

 

Netflix films are not cinema and they should be treated for what they are tv films.

2 minutes ago, kaseykockroach said:

Pardon my french, but Birth of a Nation is fucking awful.

The new one 2016? I do agree

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stone took a surprising viewpoint on Richard Nixon, building a complex character study that - while not refraining from his gaudy effects - is exactly what a engaging movie should do (likewise, 'Salvador' was next to 'Under Fire' the best movie about the fate of latin America during US intervention).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, publicist said:

Stone took a surprising viewpoint on Richard Nixon, building a complex character study that - while not refraining from his gaudy effects - is exactly what a engaging movie should do (likewise, 'Salvador' was next to 'Under Fire' the best movie about the fate of latin America during US intervention).

I absolutely agree on everything you wrote so far, but I have to mention that Salvador, like many Stone movies, suffers from a huge amount of exploitation. Apart from that most of his movies stand out as refreshingly debatable, because of their polarizing attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, crocodile said:

Some of these are older than 10 years. In fact most of them.

 

Karol

 

(face palm) For some reason, I read the title of this thread as "the first 10 years of the 21st century".

 

Well, it says something about the decline of quality over the last 10 years!

 

9 hours ago, publicist said:

Stone took a surprising viewpoint on Richard Nixon, building a complex character study that - while not refraining from his gaudy effects - is exactly what a engaging movie should do (likewise, 'Salvador' was next to 'Under Fire' the best movie about the fate of latin America during US intervention).

 

Don't forget Missing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, John said:

Pixar recently has fallen victim to "sequelitis" but I'm glad to see they have a few original films currently in the storyboard stage.

Recently? Only 8 of their 20 films don’t have sequels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×