Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

grudlian.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2122

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Posts posted by grudlian.

  1. Posted

    51 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    Hmm yea, that's interesting.

    My guess is it shows just how recently this inclusivity has developed; and how limited opportunity truly was for non-white men forever. I mean, there are great films out there by all sorts of people, but you do have to be a real cinephile to find them. And this list, as developed, is indeed even more limited (award winners, box office impact, etc.).

    I believe black and female directors will be (almost) all of my picks for each of 2016, 2017, and 2018. And they're not rare picks, I think you guys will more or less agree with them. So I think that also shows how recently this change has arisen. 

    So for me, with the "older" movies (pre-2016), I'm trying to rep diverse stories at least - so in this set there's like slavery, lesbian romance, sci-fi, female-centered survival. Even if they're directed by white men, that's still a step of progress. And your guys' picks reflect that too, I think (Mad Max Fury Road, Diary of a Teenage Girl, etc.).

     

    I agree. I've tried to make the point before that I'd like the to be more people of color and women represented but I genuinely can't think of any movies I'd consider putting on the list before the 1970s. It's purely because they were shut out of the industry (though women and people of color were still making movies just in much smaller numbers and with much less support).

    If I listed my top 10 per year as opposed to 2 or 3, we'd start seeing more non-white men. There are a few more difficult to rank years whe I could swap out a white guy for more representation but my knee jerk choices are what they are. So, I guess that's more proof of white male control even very, very recently in Hollywood. I think the rest of the decade will be heavier on non-white men but I haven't looked too closely yet.

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    One thing I'm kind of curious about is representation of women and people of color. We've talked about lack of representation on the AFI but long at our best of decade lists (which still has more years to go and more people to post lists). But we aren't really putting up many directors that aren't white men and neither are Amy and Paul.

    Obviously, we're limiting ourselves to American films and Hollywood is still largely white men. There could be some movies we've nominated that I assume are by white men that aren't.

    I think it's interesting/problematic that we're all aware of this issue but our suggestions largely don't resolve issues we've all discussed.

    • Like 2

  3. Posted

    51 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Diary of a Teenage Girl is great and it seemed like no one was talking about it.

    Whiplash is also close to the top of my list in that year. And yeah, my Gravity pick is entirely based on the theatrical experience.

    Looking at box office mojo, Diary Of A Teenage Girl made under $2 million worldwide. Looks like no one was talking about it because no one saw it. I have to assume the content is the main reason but I don't remember it getting any advertising. 

  4. Posted

    2013 - 12 Years A Slave, Her

    The only reason I'm not picking Gravity instead of Her is because I think part of the greatness is the theater experience in 3D. I don't think a truly great movie needs to be seen in specific circumstances.

    That said, if you ever get the chance to watch The Walk in 3D, DO IT! The movie is not good but the actual walk between the towers is, without question, the best 3D I've ever seen.

    2014 - Heaven Knows What, Whiplash

    Part of me would love to see An Open Secret (a documentary about child molestation in the film industry) get on the AFI list but that would never happen.

    2015 - Diary Of A Teenage Girl, Inside Out

    2015 is the hardest year for me. There are a ton of great movies like Green Room, Anomalisa, Tangerine, Brooklyn. I would put Grandma on the list, but I'm still angry Sam Elliott didn't get nominated for Best Supporting Actor. 

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    Paul & Amy continue the Best Of The Decade miniseries, picking their favorite films from each year of the 2010s! This episode covers the years 2013-2015, and they'll discuss a visionary action film, a super-low-budget indie gem, and an inescapable musical among many others. Plus: a critical eye on this year's Golden Globe nominations.

  6. Posted

    26 minutes ago, bleary said:

    This was my thought process, and you even nailed a few of the movies I was thinking about.  Mulholland Dr is my favorite film of the 21st century so far, so I very heavily feel the lack of David Lynch films in this decade.  Similarly but from the writing side, Charlie Kaufman wrote Adaptation., Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Synecdoche, New York in the 2000s, possibly all of which would land in my top 25 films of the century.  Now, when 2015 comes up for discussion, I'm going to ride hard for Anomalisa, but it's still tremendously disappointing that only one of his scripts got made in the 2010s.  So there's this category of filmmakers whose output just got completely shut off in the 2010s.  Next, there are filmmakers whose work just seemed to get precipitously worse from 2000s to 2010s.  I'm thinking of Cameron Crowe here, who started the century with Almost Famous and Vanilla Sky and has devolved into We Bought A Zoo and Aloha.  I'm thinking of Ang Lee, who went from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain to Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk and Gemini Man.  I'm thinking of Christopher Nolan, who made Memento and The Prestige in the 2000s, which I find leaps and bounds better than Inception and Interstellar (Dunkirk was solid, but I'm not sure I'd take it over either of his better two Batman movies, which were 2000s).  Then there are a lot of filmmakers who produced solid work in both decades, but for whatever reason, I'm just more drawn to the 2000s work.  For the Coens, I loved Inside Llewyn Davis, but the run they went on in the late 2000s with No Country For Old Men followed by Burn After Reading followed by A Serious Man is just insane.  For Fincher, I take Zodiac over The Social Network.  So that's where I'm at.  (The notables that I didn't mention like PTA or Wes Anderson were left out because I think their outputs across the two decades are roughly the same in quality.)

    I won't wade into the 2005 vs 2011 debate except to say that I do slightly prefer 2005.

    I agree with a lot of what you're saying here.

    For Lynch, whom I had a very strong love for, I can't say I'm missing his movies being made. I've seen a lot of his shorts this century and it seems like his work is getting increasingly inscrutable. The themes and ideas he explored in the 80s and 90s are gone (or I'm not picking them up in his work) and in their place are, well, I don't know.

    Cameron Crowe, I've found, always makes a movie slightly worse than his last movie. At least the other directors you named have had ups and downs. Crowe just keeps going downhill for me.

    For the most disappointing drop off 00s to 10s, I'm putting Peter Jackson up there. LOTR to Hobbit should be mostly equal in quality and oof, they are not. 

    6 minutes ago, bleary said:

    Sure, I definitely do, but not particularly from 2010-2012.  We'll talk about Ryan Coogler and Steve McQueen in 2013, Ava DuVernay and Damien Chazelle in 2014, Sean Baker and Marielle Heller in 2015, Barry Jenkins in 2016, Greta Gerwig and Jordan Peele and Chloe Zhao in 2017, etc.  And I'll definitely be throwing support behind some of those films in later episodes.  But at the same time, in the context of 2000s vs 2010s, there are some people on this list that I love, but from whom I still think their best work is yet to come.  For example, I think Ava DuVernay is an incredible director, but I don't think she's made her masterpiece yet.  Ditto for Ryan Coogler and, to a lesser extent, Sean Baker (I don't think we'll be disappointed in the long run if we find out that Tangerine and The Florida Project were his masterpieces, but I'm still hoping for more on the horizon).

    With Ava DuVernay, I really hope she gets back to projects that feel more personal to her. I don't think Wrinkle In Time is terrible (and I place a lot of the blame on Disney), but I also don't want her to do big budget projects at the risk of losing her voice. Ryan Coogler was able to go from Fruitvale Station to bigger budget features and keep a voice of his own even in a Marvel movie (DuVernay was doing an adaptation which isn't the same thing but still, Coogler was doing franchise films). I just get worried seeing her potentially swallowed or steamrolled.

    • Like 1

  7. Posted

    28 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Yeah, every year has good movies. But in terms of strong contenders for Best Picture or the AFI list, basically only one.

    I think Brokeback Mountain, The New World, Munich and Capote are all the kind of movies the AFI seriously considers to be contenders. The AFI is a bit heavy on melodramatic dramas (that aren't true melodramas in my mind). So, I'd see any of those being in their short list for voters. If they were making a list right now, I could see them putting on Good Night and Good Luck as a political response. Of all those, I'd only want to seriously put up Brokeback Mountain and The New World.

    And yet, I wouldn't be surprised to see Crash make their list.

  8. Posted

    2 hours ago, Cam Bert said:

    It's time for...

    How Did This Get Named?

    So again this is a problem we've encountered before. So you've made a movie with unknown actors and you've given it maybe a punny name. I assume the name is a pun or some sort of play on words, again we're all confused on this. It's also word play that doesn't work or have a direct translation. Fun side fact: If you're in Japan you'll hear the phrase "high tension" a lot. However here it means somebody that we would describe as lively or excitable which is quite literally the opposite of what it means in English. So word play is out, banking on stars is out, what are you to do? Well you kinda go with the music and romance angle I suppose. I present to you...

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSKDHHGDzC8KhWj2nw2Nsy

    ハートビート (Haatobiito) aka Heartbeat!

    Music has beats and your heart beats and beats more when in love. I think it does as good of a job if not a better of a job than High Strung,

    B-b-b-b-b-bonus fact-t-t-t-t-t! When we get Western movies here sometimes we get the international versions. This results in sometimes certain scenes missing or extended or slightly altered. Most times its not noticeable at all. Sometimes they even have a different name. For me while the movie is called Heartbeat in Japanese the English title that appears on screen is "Street Dance: New York"

    So, what is the movie Haute Tension called in Japan?

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    I think 2005 has a few good movies

    Brokeback Mountain, Brick, Grizzly Man, Cache, The Proposition, The New World, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, A History Of Violence, L'enfant, Capote, The Descent, Munich, 49 Up

    I think it's biggest fault is nothing Is really put up as truly great except Brokeback Mountain but there's still plenty of good stuff there.

    • Like 1

  10. Posted

    6 minutes ago, TopMoose said:

    9. Paul might have been joking about liking the recorder (probably because it's known as the screechy instrument kids use to play "Hot Crossed Buns") but in the hands of a master it can be gorgeous. Have a listen to Michala Petri playing Vivaldi - skip to 9:09 for some fireworks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X6GJWrZDtE

    As far as recorders go, there's a very popular song we all know that has a very prominent recorder part:  Stairway To Heaven. In the opening section, the instruments accompanying the guitar are recorders.

    • Like 4

  12. Posted

    11 hours ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    Yes, but think of like Good Will Hunting. Harvard students in bars having debates about economics was something the townies tolerated, and I see no difference in New Yorkers seeing ballerinas do line-dancing on the bar like second-rate Coyote Ugly characters.

    Isn't this the case for any college town? Especially one where students make up a not insignificant amount of the population. There's a city an hour from me with a population of 80,000. The college has 40,000 students. I sometimes think how awful that must be to be an adult living there.

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Cam Bert said:

    Also I want to ask one more question, what's the age range?

    It seems on one hand post-secondary because they are going out drinking, but yet they have kids their practicing music. Do those kids have tutors their for their regular schooling? 

    I would assume an arts college probably has some classes for younger people. Not necessarily beginners but people with talent/promise/rich parents. I want to say some of my art/music professors in college taught lessons on the side but I can't remember if they used the college itself.

    • Like 3

  16. Posted

    Here's just a genuine question about dance academies in general. How much dancing does a dance student do a day? I don't know what a full course load would be like but Ruby is doing at least contemporary and ballet in one day. That's a couple hours of aerobic exercise a day. Are students doing much more than that a day?

    1. That sounds truly exhausting but I'm also lazy.

    2. How much showering do students do a day? They change outfits for each class and presumably aren't changing into clean clothes after getting sweaty in an earlier class. So, I'd think they shower after every class unless they go sweaty and gross to every class.

    • Like 4

  17. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cameron H. said:

    Did anyone else feel like it was wildly inappropriate for both Ruby and Jazzy to be sent to Madam Markova’s office together? Their infractions, such as they were, were completely unrelated. Jazzy was suffering from chronic tardiness due to sexy-fierce, forty year old fucking, and Ruby wasn’t, what, popping when she should be locking. I get Madam Markova was busy, but damn, it really felt to me like this might be a situation where two separate meetings might have been in order.

    I agree with this. Even if they were both in academic probation for the same reason, they don't really need to have the same meeting. I could see if they were failing as part of a group project but they are roommates.

    • Like 4

  19. Posted

    2 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Not really, no. I'd put my top films from each of these years against those of any other year. If we're talking about the Oscar nominees, then I would say 2011 is weaker than the other two.

    (And in terms of "weak years," I'm not sure any of these are weaker than 2005.)

    I'll agree that the 2011 Oscar nominees (in 2012) are particularly terrible, but I will pick 2011 as a year I like more than 2010 and 2012.

    For me, 2011 has Fast Five, Oslo 31 Aug, Take This Waltz, The Muppets, The Raid, Another Earth, Pariah, Drive, Shame, A Separation, Higher Ground, Young Adult, Attack The Block, Weekend, Winnie The Pooh, Tyrannosaur, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Source Code, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes.

    Obviously, the Oscars aren't going to pick or even consider some stuff I named for big awards. That's a whole different discussion on how/why the Oscars make bad decisions. But looking through my Letterboxd, 2012 is definitely my favorite of the years we're covering here. 

  20. Posted

    3 hours ago, DrGuts1003 said:

    I was surprised the hosts (yup, still calling them hosts) didn’t comment on the conversation the judges have during the middle of Johnny and Ruby’s performance.  The female judge calls it “completely indulgent” and one of the other judges says “I disagree.  Don’t we want to evolve?  Don’t we want to progress?”

    I have so many questions about this conversation like

    - Is what they are doing really all that progressive?

    It is definitely not progressive at all. A ton of dance movies are specifically about classical dance clashing with contemporary street dance before ultimately coming together for a dance finale. It's the plot for the original Breakin'.

    It also seems especially weird at a contest put on by a school where dancers are simultaneously listening ballet and contemporary. Wouldn't you expect them to blend styles on occasion?

    • Like 3

  21. Posted

    1 hour ago, alexkirtoon said:

     enjoyed Paul commenting on how fraught the biopic genre is, and how "the Social Network", as with all "true story" movies, is blemished by the looming question of what degree has it stylized the truth to. This helps to highlight part of what is so great about "Kane". Namely, that Orson Welles chose to Make his lead character a proxy stand-in for William Randolph Hearst, and not Hearst himself. This freed him up to indulge in more hyperbole and speculation, and though Hearst still wasn't very happy about it, this has perhaps helped the film be embraced as a classic in a way that most biopics are not.

    It's written by Aaron Sorkin. I have absolute faith that he did not adhere to the truth whenever he felt it would get in the way of the story he wanted to tell.

  22. Posted

    2010

    I'd probably have to nominate Social Network but it's definitely not my favorite. I think it certainly defines the decade more than any other movie. Blue Valentine would be a close runner up. 

    My favorites from 2010 would be either True Grit, Scott Pilgrim, or Tron Legacy which is also a great use of 3D.

    2011

    This is tougher to narrow down to a nominee or two. Fast Five and Young Adult are both great. I also really liked Pariah, Drive and Higher Ground. I'd be fine with any of these getting more recognition.

    2012

    There's nothing from 2012 I'd honestly love to see on a list of best movies. I love Silver Linings Playbook, End of Watch, Spring Breakers, Dredd, Stories We Tell, but I don't think any of them do anything vital to cinema that aren't done well by other American movies.

  23. Posted

    As a fellow man who is not flexible, I want to support Paul. This is the second episode his flexibility has been a topic. Let him be as flexible or inflexible as he is.

    Did anyone else think the dancing in this was very badly filmed? Especially the break dance scenes. The camera was very dynamic and the editing kept cutting back to different dancers. I get the desire to highlight a specific dancer, but the way this was filmed detracted from the dancing. The camera would often move with the dancer which made their moves seem less impressive. I think a more static camera would have benefited everyone. 

    • Like 8

  24. Posted

    Amy & Paul kick off a new decade-spanning miniseries, where they'll pick their favorite films from each year of the 2010s! This episode covers the years 2010-2012, and they'll advocate for knotty films from cinema's modern masters, a balls-to-the-wall cult comedy, and a nearly-forgotten Best Picture winner among many others.

×