best films of 2000/01 so far?

[ReaperFett]

last year and a bit, whats been the best youve seen? FOr me:


3. Tomb Raider
2. Snatch
1. The Way of the Gun

[Force Master Hunter]

Shrek for 2001

UnBreakable for 2000

[Darth23]

1. Final Fantasy
2. Shrek
3. um......


not in the top 3:

The Mummy Returns
A Knights Tale

That's all I've seen. I'm thinking about seeing Memento, Moulin Rouge (saw a clip on the French magazine DVD that has the TPM dvd commercial on it), A.I. Planet of the Apes and Rush Hour 2.

[DaBoSsNaStY]

6)A Knights Tail
5)Unbreakable
4)Final Fantasy
3)POTA
2)Gladiator
1)Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

[Jedieb]

Best film I've seen in 2001:
Shrek
But I don't get out much. :(

[jjwr]

Ditto: Shrek!

As much as I liked that movie I can't imagine any upcoming movie will be as good....holding out on Lord of the Rings though

[CMJ]

1. MEMENTO
A.I(not sure which I like better)
3. SHREK
4. BLOW
5. BRIDGET JONES'S DIARY
6. EVOLUTION
7. ENEMY AT THE GATES
8. PEARL HARBOR
9. HANNIBAL
10. KNIGHT'S TALE

This is my list currently...I update all year long. I would guess only the top 3 films will remain by the end of the year. In addition there are a few movies that might be on the list that I haven't decided on like MOULIN ROUGE(demands another viewing).

[Jedi Master Kyle]

My rankings for everything I've seen this year:

1. Crouching Tiger (I know, a 2000 movie, but i saw it this year)
2. The Fast and Furious
3. Kiss of the Dragon
4. Swordfish
5. Snatch
6. Pearl Harbor
7. Tomb Raider
8. Final Fantasy
9. Josie and the Pussycats
10. Saving Silverman

[ReaperFett]

(I know, a 2000 movie, but i saw it this year)

re read the thread name:)

[Jedi Master Kyle]

Hey, just because I'm a lazy, unthorough bum doesn't mean you can call me on it ok? :lol:

[Dutchy]

I've seen few 2001 releases, but 2 movies stand out:

1. Shrek
2. Billy Elliot

[JonathanLB]

1) AI
2) Memento (very close to 1...)
3) Shrek

That's my list so far. I've seen almost every major movie of the year, but those are just the ones that stand out most to me, the four star films.

[CMJ]

Wow Jon...our top 3 are pretty similar. :)

[JonathanLB]

Yeah, ours actually might be the same, because Memento is so close...I cannot decide still. I'm not sure how I'll ultimately decide, they are really different movies.

On one hand, I like Memento's concept far better because it is extremely creative and interesting, but on the other hand, AI does have higher production values and I really enjoyed all of the visuals, far more than Memento, but the execution of both stories was excellent. Memento is very thought-provoking and probably the smartest movie of the year, but AI revives a great debate that has raged for many years in the sci-fi and scientific communities with regard to, well, AI.

They're both awesome films in my opinion, but I only got to see Memento once which should practically be considered a crime! The only reason I understood it after one viewing was because I had a friend there with me who had seen it several times, so he helped explain it all. Otherwise, I would have had to go back for a second time, and anyway, I still should have seen it again, but there have been so many movies out and it's only playing down at the Fox Tower 10 here, which is the indie theater in town and that's kind of far away (not that bad, though).

I just realized today that I gave JP3 a higher rating than The Score, which is kind of odd, but I guess it comes down to which movie was executed better or something. I don't know. JP3 was a B+ and The Score a B, but I really liked The Score. I thought the acting ruled, the plot twist at the end was really cool, and overall it was a good movie, but perhaps for me the pacing wasn't good enough, and taking away a bit more, it's not the type of film you want to see over and over, whereas I could see Jurassic Park 3 three times and not be bored at all because it's pretty exciting, much like I saw TPM 50 times and still wasn't bored. The point of that little aside was just to say it is hard to compare a movie in one genre with one in another genre much of the time. I can easily say JP3 is a better summer flick than Fast and the Furious for instance, but saying AI is better than Memento is tough...

[CMJ]

I can't really dicide between them either Jon. Believe me...MEMENTO grows exponentially better the 2nd time you see it(at least to me it did). AI I think was better acted though.... and it also improved to me the 2nd time I saw it.

[IndianaJones]

I haven't seen a movie worth reporting as good. Swordfish was fun, but it wasn't the type of movie Gladiator was and still is...

Nope, I've seen the worst so far, and whats worse is that no theater near me has been playing Momento, which I really want to see. I have only heard good things about it.

[JonathanLB]

Yeah everyone I know liked Memento, except for an idiot who is sort of a friend of my best friend. We call him Mr. Negativity anyway, and he just is too stupid to understand it, that's all.

Yeah, haha, do not even compare Swordfish to Gladiator! Oh no, that's insulting. A Best Picture winner versus a summer action flick. Don't get me wrong, I thought Swordfish was pretty sweet, loved the plot twists and the general plot, but I wanted to see Travolta's character and his cause developed more, definitely. I'd still give it 3.5 stars, though. A low 3.5 maybe, but it had some sweet scenes and it was not the type of film I'd describe as just action without much of a plot (Tomb Raider falls here, but I saw it twice and I really like it, so I gave it 3.5 stars too, lol).

[Dutchy]

Yeah, haha, do not even compare Swordfish to Gladiator! Oh no, that's insulting. A Best Picture winner versus a summer action flick.

Are you saying that the fact that it won the Best Picture Oscar means anything to you? And if so, what does it mean to you?

[CMJ]

What wins best Pic DOES hold a lot of weight with me(even in years I disagree). As for Jon...it is rather strange since he complains about the Oscar's so much. :)

[Dutchy]

What wins best Pic DOES hold a lot of weight with me(even in years I disagree).

Exactly, for me too. I actually watched all the winners of the past 30 years and I'm working on 20 more. It gives a lot of satisfaction and it's interesting watching all those movies, even if the movie themselves are not all that interesting.


As for Jon...it is rather strange since he complains about the Oscar's so much. :)

I rest my case. :)

[JonathanLB]

No it normally doesn't mean anything, but the point is that the Academy is so screwed up that if even THEY liked Gladiator the most, wow, it must be good! Of course, I am saying that if a movie is both adored by audiences and the Academy happens to like it, then that must mean something usually.

If it's some low grossing film that the Academy gave Best Picture, then good for the film, but that doesn't mean much to me because the Academy is generally wrong anyway. Nevertheless, when I love a movie like Gladiator, then it also wins Best Picture, WOW, you know it must be good to have even the Academy like it!

It's like if you have a friend who hates almost every movie he sees and is totally critical of everything, but then you see a movie with him that you really loved, and he actually says, "Yeah, that was a very good film." Although you generally don't care at all what he thinks because he's so negative, the fact that even he liked this movie speaks volumes about it. There you go, best analogy I can think of. :) Or if you'd prefer, best analogy of which I can think. haha.

[Dutchy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're saying that you only attach value to people's opinions if they agree with you.

Or, what if someone who generally always agrees with you disagrees with you for once?


If it's some low grossing film that the Academy gave Best Picture, then good for the film, but that doesn't mean much to me because the Academy is generally wrong anyway.

So, what if you also loved that low grossing movie?

[Jedieb]

I just think Jon is finally starting to get over the Academy snubbing TPM so badly. But the pain still lingers for him, it lingers....

[ReaperFett]

The pain of Snatch and Way of the Guns cruel complete overlooking lives on for me. Only Del Torro beating Joachim "Out to sabotage Gladiator" Phoenix to the Oscar softened it. BDT was great in the two I saw him in, and then there was a third. He deserved it:)

[Dutchy]

I just think Jon is finally starting to get over the Academy snubbing TPM so badly. But the pain still lingers for him, it lingers....

You mean he realizes that there's always a bigger fish? ;)

[Jedieb]

LOL, you're not saying The Matrix was the bigger fish are you Dutchy? Blasphamy! ;)

[JonathanLB]

As much as I loved The Matrix, as did everyone I know in real life (not online, though), the film clearly and objectively did not deserve the awards it won. That was the Academy's mistake, but other awards circles did not make that mistake. TPM won Best Visual Effects and even other awards from various other critics groups, organizations, etc.

The Academy doesn't care for Lucas, nor should they, he is an exile from Hollywood and AMPAS is ABOUT Hollywood, so while they may honor ILM's work, they are much less likely to acknowlege an outsider like Lucas for something he actually had a part in.

I don't think that's a conspiracy theory, it's just the truth.

Anyway, nobody can compete with the "coolness" factor of The Matrix, because TPM's effects were real, not meant to be in your face and "cool," though of course I thought the pod race was pretty damn cool, same with everything else, hehe.

I never cared about the Academy Awards, and no Dutchy, there are no bigger fish. TPM is the biggest and the best. The most technologically advanced film ever made, except for Episode II which is not yet complete, and definitely the best movie.

The Matrix, interestingly, was not as well received as The Phantom Menace but had much better press. That's pretty interesting. CinemaScore was an A- for both TPM and Matrix, I think, but Matrix was more spread out, with adult females over 35 giving the film a C+ or something, but TPM had a much more uniform appeal across all age groups. I mean, it's very weird for a movie to be so incredibly popular with audiences, then receive such a huge amount of negative press. I think it very well could be the biggest phenomenon of its kind, though Patch Adams was hammered too, and that movie ruled. Still, the media wasn't out to get it, just the critics.

Dutchy, you make these very unusual assumptions about what I'm saying and it is basically just because you're trying to be argumentative. I have no need of such conversation with you, really, I am a professional and I don't need to engage in childish back-and-forth bickering with you anymore. Honestly what you do sometimes is just baiting, which is as bad as trolling on most forums.

What does me agreeing with someone have anything to do with what I was talking about before? It doesn't! I only said that the fact that the Academy gave Gladiator Best Picture is pretty impressive given that they rarely ever get anything right, except for Braveheart a few years back, so I was impressed that they did pick the best film of 2000.

I think the Academy Awards SHOULD be a popularity contest. What the hell else is it going to be? Movies are not good or bad. Movies are just movies, and people assign them their own ratings, therefore if most people, or the largest segment of the people, believe Gladiator is the best movie of 2000 (which is absolutely true), then it should win Best Picture. That's true with anything. That doesn't mean the highest grossing movie wins, it just means the best-received film should also be the Best Picture. That is the ONLY way that it is logical. M:I-2 made more, so did The Grinch thing, but neither received the kind of response that Gladiator did, which is why the highest grossing picture is not always the most popular, though that can often be the case (TPM was in 1999, and Titanic certainly was in 199:cool: .

Then again, every member of the academy should see the films that are in contention, that way the best movie wins.

The best movie is not going to be one that made $9 million and that nobody liked except for critics. That is a lousy film if it cannot even interest moviegoers enough to go see it and if they hate it when they do see it. The Academy has definitely chosen films before that were not worthy of any awards, let alone the highest of them all.

We'll just see how great The Matrix really is when the sequels arrive. I sure hope it becomes the great trilogy we are all hoping, but it will not be the next Star Wars :) There is no such thing, for one, and second, it's most probable people will be disappointed with the second film because the first was so innovative. I don't envy their job of having to create that type of film again.

[Jedieb]

I disagree with you on whether the Oscars should be a popularity contest. I'm glad it's not. There are plenty of big grossing films that do not deserve to be in contention for best picture. MI2, which I saw this weekend, was a decent action pic, but it DID NOT deserve to be nominated for best pic, I don't care how much money it made. The difference between Gladiator, Grinch, and MI2, is that only one of them ALSO received wide spread critical support. So for once, the critical and popular opinions coincided. It happens every once in awhile, but it should never be a determining factor for the Oscars.

Will AI be a top 5 grosser? No, so if the Academy uses your criteria it's got no chance for a nomination. We've got popularity awards, they're called the People's Choice. Hell there are so many award shows these days that recognition really isn't that hard to come by. MTV will give out awards for categories that involve seconds worth of film. They probably have an award for best trailer!

Yes, the Academy is a small section of industry insiders, some of who have an ax to grind and like to stick it to people like Lucas. Hell, they kept subbing Spielberg for years also. But they're still the Oscars. There are other awards out there that are much more democratic, but they'll never have the prestige and history of the Oscars. The Oscars are a link between Hollywood's past and present. Nobody ever asks; "Who won the Blockbuster award for Best Actor in 97?" No one asks, because no one really cares.

[CMJ]

Amen Jedieb. :)

[ReaperFett]

I care more about them than the "Which company butt did we all lick this year?" awards

[Dutchy]

I never cared about the Academy Awards, and no Dutchy, there are no bigger fish.

I know that's your opinion. I was just playing with words (as I'm sure you figured).


TPM is... definitely the best movie.

In your opinion.


I have no need of such conversation with you, really, I am a professional and I don't need to engage in childish back-and-forth bickering with you anymore.

I'm just asking you some questions with no second thoughts at all. I don't see being a professional puts you in a position not to discuss certain things.


That is a lousy film if it cannot even interest moviegoers enough to go see it and if they hate it when they do see it.

There are just certain type (a lot) of movies that just don't attract the general movie-going public. What movies DO? The big budget popcorn movies, those'll make a ton of money and be popular, according to you. There are a lot of excellent movie that make zip at the boxoffice. IMO usually the best ones do.


There is no such thing, for one, and second, it's most probable people will be disappointed with the second film because the first was so innovative. I don't envy their job of having to create that type of film again.

Why, as you said, did The Matrix clearly and objectively not deserve the awards it won if, as you also say, it was so innovative?

Furthermore I agree with Jedieb. Well said. :)

[JonathanLB]

Why? Didn't I mention that?

TPM had 2,200 effects shots, as we have discussed, and The Matrix had only 500. Also, it didn't pioneer any new technology, which is key to winning that award generally. Bullet-time had been done before, not to such great effect and not in feature films I don't believe, but the technology was nothing more than camera tricks, not special effects tricks (like CG, pyro, etc.). That was more like "Best Cinematography," which is maybe what they should have given it, though I still think TPM had the best cinematography. I just think they believed it was all digital, so that made it "effects" instead of cinematography.

Face it, the Academy doesn't know what they are doing half the time anyway, so they probably didn't even think about it.

The crew who did The Matrix had no nominations for Oscars, while the crew that did TPM had more than 25 nominations and more than 10 wins. I don't even know the exact numbers but it was massive. Not only are they more experienced, they're just more talented and skilled in general.

In TPM, ILM created effects that had never before been possible, such as a realistic digital star, Jar Jar, and even Watto. That level of detail had never been done before, and honestly nothing like the Pod Race had been done before either. There were many innovations in effects with TPM, while The Matrix just used old technology in a new way, which is sweet and all, but it was just released in the wrong year. Any other year, it'd have been the best effects easily, but not in 1999. No movie released in a Star Wars year will or has had better effects. You can't compete with ILM.

As I said, I still loved The Matrix, though. To me, the movie was not about the sweet effects, it was about the plot and the general awesome pacing and direction of the film. The lines are great too, the film has a wonderful script.

Speaking of awesome scripts, Snatch definitely has one of the best scripts in the last few years. I wish more movies this summer had scripts at least 3/4 that good maybe. AI and Shrek are the only two that had very good scripts, I think. The rest was just either below average or average. I'm getting the idea that Hollywood is full of mediocre writers with very little style or knowledge, because any decent writer avoids cliches, yet the script writers don't seem to understand that at all. Most of the scripts this summer are full of awful dialogue, even though the movies turned out ok, like Tomb Raider had some bad lines but it was still enjoyable. Same with The Fast and the Furious.

Your assumption that less popular films are generally the best is definitely incorrect. Some of them are very cool and just go unnoticed, but most of them cannot be as good because the talent attached is inferior and the budgets are too small. You cannot make a great film without a high budget normally. It is possible, but usually you need at least $10 million or so.

Memento succeeded because of its awesome concept and great execution, though it loses to AI on my list because it cannot compete visually. Movies ARE visual primarily (and were from the very beginning mostly about visuals), so the better film visually is going to have an edge, even with a lesser concept. AI wasn't as innovative as Memento, but it was still thought-provoking, well-directed, and it had awesome visuals with great acting, so the key factor that gives it the edge are those sets, visual effects, and props, etc. You cannot make a film like AI for cheap, so the higher budget clearly makes it a better film.

That's why the major movies are generally better; they have more resources. Of course if one director has more resources than other, he's going to have the edge. So the underdog (in this case, Memento), really has to be excellent in its script and concept to beat a more lavish production, which Memento succeeds at doing, except versus AI.

[ReaperFett]

the film has a wonderful script

Yeah, Blades...



and besides, no matter the script, Woah-boy could screw it up :)

[Dutchy]

The crew who did The Matrix had no nominations for Oscars, while the crew that did TPM had more than 25 nominations and more than 10 wins. I don't even know the exact numbers but it was massive. Not only are they more experienced, they're just more talented and skilled in general.

It's the result that counts, not whether or not they've received 25 awards before. But I get your point on The Matrix and TPM, and it's OK.


I wish more movies this summer had scripts at least 3/4 that good maybe. AI and Shrek are the only two that had very good scripts, I think. The rest was just either below average or average. I'm getting the idea that Hollywood is full of mediocre writers with very little style or knowledge, because any decent writer avoids cliches, yet the script writers don't seem to understand that at all. Most of the scripts this summer are full of awful dialogue, even though the movies turned out ok, like Tomb Raider had some bad lines but it was still enjoyable.

Summer movies are usually made for entertainment and large audiences. If you're looking for a great script then look for smaller movies.


Your assumption that less popular films are generally the best is definitely incorrect.

It's not, coz I said "IMO", so I LIKE those movies generally the best. :)


Some of them are very cool and just go unnoticed, but most of them cannot be as good because the talent attached is inferior and the budgets are too small.

You should see some of the talent attached to small movies. There are so many fantastic performances that stay unnoticed.


You cannot make a great film without a high budget normally. It is possible, but usually you need at least $10 million or so.

Lemme give you some examples:

$2.0M - Boys Don't Cry, with one of the very best performances of all time (Hilary Swank). Great drama.
$3.0M - Happiness, intense drama with great performances and a great script.
$6.5M - Go, great performances, great script and even visually very good. And all that for just $6.5M.
$8.5M - Election, very smart movie and at least one brilliant performance (Reese Witherspoon)
$10.0M - American History X, very intense movie and Edward Norton was nothing less than brilliant.

Etc., etc.

Plus an infinite row of truly great foreign movies that I don't have budget data on, but which cost way less than $10M for sure.

[Jedieb]

I'm sorry, but did someone still living at home call themselves a professional? A professional performs his/her job for a living. He or she uses his job to pay bills, rent/mortgage, buy their clothes, buy their food, pay for their transportation, their dates, etc... No offense Jon, you've done a lot to be proud of, but until you're out on your own it's a bit of a stretch to call yourself a professional.

This whole "bigger fish" thing has gotten a bit out of hand. I think it's obvious Dutchy was just making a joke to get a point across. So let's take a breath and relax...


Some of them are very cool and just go unnoticed, but most of them cannot be as good because the talent attached is inferior and the budgets are too small.

I'd have to disagree with this statement strongly. Some straight to video/cable pieces of crap do fit this description. However, many independent films easily disprove that statement. In fact, many independent films stand out because of the talent involved and their strong scripts. (John Malcovich, Stanley Tucci, Edward Harris, Edward Nortan, Edward Burns, etc) Conversely, you see many big budget Hollywood films with poor scripts, over inflated ego driven stars, and hack directors pushing assembly line like movies on the public. (Anything by Joel Estherhouse(sp?))

Money simply does not equal quality.

[Dutchy]

Money simply does not equal quality.

Exactly.

[Dutchy]

Jonathan, why do you always seem to step out of discussions? No interest? Nothing to add? Missed it? Just wondering.

[Dutchy]

Anybody out there?