what are the stone cold classic films of the century so far ?

columbine
fellowship and towers
crouching tiger

more to come

Together?

Russian Ark is a landmark, but I'd question its position as a classic.

yep seconded.

ha ha! D'oh!

I <3 you Tom.

*shakes head*

Comedies anyone?

IGBY GOES DOWN!!!
Lizzie McGuire yes. But IGBY GOES DOWN? (For one, see Tadpole for a much better similar kind of thing. If I wanted to spend two hours with someone I wanted to punch constantly I'd go to the pub with Tico Tico.)

Comedies? Well then I suggest, nay I yell at random pedestrians on the street...OLD SCHOOL!!! Classic like a vlassic.

i went in with low expectations but found it highly amusing.

Amores Perros.

Are we talking the Lukas Moodysson Together or the new Chen Kaige Together? I haven't seen the latter, but I'm ALL ABOUT the former.

Let me be the first to mention 25th Hour.

whether you like or not (and compared to some who do, i don't), Ghost World will be remembered

as will Moulin Rouge, obv. maybe for all the wrong reasons (like leading the road to Chicago) but history can't be changed now that it's happened

And Chris V.'s got it there.

It's still slightly overrated, and I'm suspicious of any film where little kids are fonts of wisdom.

me too.

xpost

the new world
city of god
mulholland dr
inland empire
royal tenenbaums
dancer upstairs
departed
superbad
the host
white diamond/grizzly man
shaolin soccer
mr. vengeance /old boy/lady vengeance
punch drunk love
election
ghost dog
audition
dancer in the dark
mean girls
spartan
eastern promises
battle royale
the jason bournes
jackass
borat
before night falls

My final cuts from the list included The Virgin Suicides, Kung Fu Hustle, 2046, Inland Empire, Spider and Gosford Park.

and as far as "stone cold classics" go, maybe the top 7 on my Stylus list would qualify. Worst decade yet, so far. Even international commercial cinema is dicier than ever, at least the portion of it we get to see.

You missed 'Hidden' from that list!

I don't miss it at all

miami motherfucking vice

worst decade yet, yeah though it was just me that thought so. without question on the popular-and/or-mainstream-but-still-a-great-movie front.

all in, i think it's fuckin pointless to divide tv from 'cinema' at this point. so it's the best decade ever, too.

dr. morbius hates arrested development, though ;_;

tv and cinema are already "divided" so i guess i agree with you, it is pointless to "divide" them

they are divided more in cultural criticism etc etc than aesthetically, business-wise, in people's homes, etc. 'aesthetically' is probably the most important there for me. if you were writing a history of american cinema since the fifties, you'd have to look at television business-wise, and as a source of talent (since lumet, altman, frankenheimer, penn). star studies also has to look across both media. as does auteur studies (mann, levinson, stone, lynch... whedon). and if you were looking at how people 'use' film too -- ie in the home environment.

or you could go the essentialist road, i guess.

Most criminally underseen:

Eureka by Shinji Aoyama

Wow, for once I agree with Morbius! It was a bit overlong, but otherwise a magnificent film. And Yakusho Koji rules!

"aesthetically, business-wise, in people's homes"

aesthetically: have you ever seen an hour and a half TV show with no breaks? TV shows (especially American ones) are written with an multi-"act" structure that is divided by ad breaks. even shows written for the BBC and therefore "free" of this constraint are heavily influenced by the decades of television writing on every other network.

business-wise: television is much cheaper and much easier to trial (pilot) so lends itself to more risk-taking, creativity, and unknown actors/directors

in people's homes: some convergence here with DVDs and the new breed of long-form cinematic television which started with Miami Vice -- i will give you this

aesthetically: have you ever seen an hour and a half TV show with no breaks? TV shows (especially American ones) are written with an multi-"act" structure that is divided by ad breaks. even shows written for the BBC and therefore "free" of this constraint are heavily influenced by the decades of television writing on every other network.

what's your model of "cinema" here? cinema was based on the unit of the reel for a hefty chunk of its history -- arguably modern mckee-type screenwriting imposes itself on film structure almost as much!

part of what i mean here is that the notion of "cinema" as comprising just 90-120 (or whatever) long features is plain wrong. and, of course, i have seen many 90-min films with ad breaks inserted.

business-wise: television is much cheaper and much easier to trial (pilot) so lends itself to more risk-taking, creativity, and unknown actors/directors

yes and no: really i meant just that the tv and film industries are well integrated, share the same physical capital (LA), have a kind of calendar mapped out (to have X-talent we can only shoot in the summer hiatus, etc.); and not really separate practices. technicians go from one to the other, as well as top-line talent. it's partly because TV is cheaper that it has been -- for fifty years -- one training ground for directors particularly.

cinema was based on the unit of the reel for a hefty chunk of its history -- arguably modern mckee-type screenwriting imposes itself on film structure almost as much!

and theatre productions were based on how long it took people's butts to get tired! this is different from ad breaks every 15 minutes! which is different from reel-changing (which stopped being an issue about 80 years ago!) D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T.

the notion of "cinema" as comprising just 90-120 (or whatever) long features is plain wrong.

o rly

i have seen many 90-min films with ad breaks inserted.

yes, and it is annoying. with television shows it is NOT annoying (as long as the ads are actually inserted in the "right" places) -- in fact, i tend to get antsy when watching long dramas like heroes or 24 on DVD or on the BBC -- there's no time to cactch your breath! the pace and editing of these shows is relentless and depends upon the breathing space supplied by the ad breaks. this is a huge difference in style and execution that is irretrievably enmeshed into the fabric of the medium.

HBO THO

i would like to add the wire to my list now

tuomas, you mentioned 'dark days' upthread, and i totally agree with you there. also: 'unknown white male'.

80 years ago still gives you 1/4 of the history of the moving image! if you watch most films on dvd, and most tv shows on dvd or torrent (as i do), the convention of an annoying musical cue + exterior shot remains, but it's not enough to distinguish it from movies -- which also use the exterior-shot-reminder-thing oftentimes.

i don't think it makes for a 'huge difference' anyway when the thing 'film' has changed such an incredible amount over time, and when most of the basic rules of construction -- devised when it was silent -- have been mostly adopted by TV. that is where TV hasn't gone back to, effectively, the 'theatrical' multi-camera steez of early sound cinema.

"cinema" was for a long time -- perhaps half its history -- a programme of films of different lengths and kinds which you could walk into at any point in their duration.

it was exactly the need to differentiate it from TV that led to the idea of a separable cinema. and obviously TV took away much of the programme-filler, e.g. news.

xpost

Each episode of the Wire only makes sense in terms of the whole show, another gigantic difference between even the most cinematic TV and movies. Every James Bond is self-contained.

it was exactly the need to differentiate it from TV that led to the idea of a separable cinema.

yes, and we live NOW.

that is where TV hasn't gone back to, effectively, the 'theatrical' multi-camera steez of early sound cinema.

what do you mean by this?

the wire is just a really loooong movie

Each episode of the Wire only makes sense in terms of the whole show, another gigantic difference between even the most cinematic TV and movies. Every James Bond is self-contained.

self-contained in its theatrical release. and then less so on the dvd. with films like the new j j abrams thing, or lord of the rings, the films are anything but self-contained. greenaway threatened to do a "film" on 97 dvds or some shit, but with a lot of sf/fantasy stuff it's kind of happening.

i think cinema is even less separable from tv now than in the 50s, when the break happened. i am only talking about drama and comedy really -- but on a basic level the move toward single-camera sitcoms and the production values on cable shows + the (post-dogme) move toward low production values in a lot of even mainstream-y films is another kind of convergence.

xpost

"that is where TV hasn't gone back to, effectively, the 'theatrical' multi-camera steez of early sound cinema."

what do you mean by this?

-- Tracer Hand, Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:14 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

the rules of space-construction in narrative cinema were developed by the end of the 20s, based on editing together master, medium close-up, close-up, inserts, etc. when sound came this system was briefly interrupted and for a while films were shot with three cameras and edited just as US sitcoms were, with the equivalent poor production value (ie flat lighting).

mind you this

http://www.adrants.com/2007/10/nbc-bitchslaps-heroes-viewers-with-inprog.php

is really becoming a problem.

and will just drive viewers to the torrents

another huge difference: even when watched in orgiastic marathon DVD sessions, television shows LIVE with you in the way that novels do. movies are pretty one and done, regardless of how many extras they include on the DVD for you to nerd out over later. you carry television shows around with you, in your head, usually for weeks at a time.

the banners are in the torrents too! or they are in mine :/

i agree mostly with second par... it's kind of why i prefer tv now. otoh i am projecting, maybe, but i think maybe sf movie fans do live with their movies more. and i know when i was younger and more obssessive i lived with them, via repeated video watching.

so i guess it is meant to make viewers to wait until the official DVDs come out. those will be torrented too, but at that point it will be very tempting (for the fan) to just snaffle the real version rather than wait hours for the download to finish. it is pretty clever actually.

TV and cinema...they are divided more in cultural criticism etc etc than aesthetically, business-wise, in people's homes

which, of course, is why ppl can't shut the fuck up in theaters, now more than ever.

TV: still works when you talk all the way through it.

Totally!!!

no one ever get shit for putting best of youth on their list

morbo's "now more than ever" comment -- again, bullshit, even for the sound era.

i wouldn't let someone talk over 'the shield' or 'lost'.

you wouldn't be missing anything

plz let me know what theaters you attend, quitit. They must be in some magical throwback zone.

do you shhhsh people morbs? are you a shhhsher?

I had to wake up a sleeping/snoring dude next to me the other night, at a Robert Bresson movie. I think it was Morbius.

If I say The Heartbreak Kid, no one is going to believe me, are they?

plz let me know what theaters you attend, quitit. They must be in some magical throwback zone.

-- Dr Morbius, Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:21 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i'm saying theatres are still noisy, that they used to be too. wonder what the noise levels were like in rural audiences of the 1920s or grindhouses of the 70s...

did he refer to it is "carpei]ng the proverbial post-prandial siesta"?

the audience reaction to everyone getting shot in the head in the departed was one of my all time favorite cinema experiences

it was better in the theater-in-the-round version

the audience reaction to everyone getting shot in the head in the departed was one of my all time favorite cinema experiences

Which was "It's about time"?

I'm not talking about Times Square or grindhouse audiences from the '70s, I'm talking about bourgeois Manhattan arthouse patrons (a male-female couple under 35, most often) who talk during the entire fucking film. Or check their Blackberrys every 15 minutes.

The problem is straight people.

the problem is bourgeois Manhattan arthouse patrons with blackberries yuppies.

Paul Verhoeven's "Black Book" or "Zwartboek," about the Dutch Resistance in WWII

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389557/

It's interesting to see the answers on this thread:

your favorite films of this decade (so far)

and this one:

ILX Top Films of 2000-04 RESULTS (yes, really)

in light of the time that's passed.

there's been a lot of talk of greats this year and i haven't liked any all that much. but i'm keen to see what others think.

I'd say the Hostel movies and Cloverfield, not as the great movies of the decade but as some of the most representative.

Me and You and Everyone We Know in a similar way, as far as what art and technology mean in daily American life in this decade.

(Then again, Fear, with Marky Mark and Reese Witherspoon, is the movie that to me is best at encapsulating American life in the 1990s.)