2005 movies : The Excellent, The OK, and the Bad

Originally posted by Nevermind
What? How were the humans the invaders on their own home planet?

According to Spielberg's "WOTW", the Aliens were already there, making the humans the invaders. They couldn't have hidden their pods underground if the world were already inhabitated, which was a glaring oversight. Not only that, the Aliens must have known the Earth would one day be inhabitated by another lifeform from which they could use to harvest.

In Byron Haskin's 1953 version, it was an alien invasion. In Steven's version, it was just an apocalyptic "awakening", which was more or less a storyline that served as a politcal vehicle for a Hollywood director.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
Not where I live, they weren't.

The movie was still shot and released initially in 2004, if you want to split hairs. "11:14" was shot in 2003, but not available for release until 2005. Same for "Prozac Nation", which is why I didn't bother nominating either of those.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
According to Spielberg's "WOTW", the Aliens were already there, making the humans the invaders. They couldn't have hidden their pods underground if the world were already inhabitated, which was a glaring oversight. Not only that, the Aliens must have known the Earth would one day be inhabitated by another lifeform from which they could use to harvest.

In Byron Haskin's 1953 version, it was an alien invasion. In Steven's version, it was just an apocalyptic "awakening", which was more or less a storyline that served as a politcal vehicle for a Hollywood director.

Excellent point. I hadn't even thought of this.

Your treatment of 'Oldboy' is despicable though!

"Oldboy" was just..nice. I was disappointed in too many aspects to rate it any higher. Interesting story, but dull characters, and the payoff was sort of a non-event, IMO.

The Best:
OldBoy
Crash (The two best movies by far this year)

The excellent:

Batman Begins
King Kong
A Very Long Engagement
Sin City
Palindromes
March of the Penguins
Murderball

The good:
Star Wars: ROTS
Wedding Crashers
Fantastic 4
Devils Rejects
40 Year Old Virgin
Broken Flowers
Emily Rose
Land of the Dead

The Bad:

Everything else, since I can't remember them. I don't see many bad movies..... Doom was bad but it was entertaining....Mr. and Mrs Smith was pretty crappy....that's all I remember really.

What!?!?! Each character was multi-faceted and the twist was extraordinary!

The twist was genius, it was the most relevant and powerful twist in a film since Se7en. None of this Shyamalan/Saw style twists that are just there for a cheap surprise. The realization at the end presented an incredibly poigniant and thought provoking point about humanity and their great, sometimes horrible, need for happiness, even if it goes against all normal morals.

The shock wasn't

Spoiler:
that she was his daughter, it was that even after knowing she was his daughter, he made the choice to forget in order to achieve happiness.

Some fascinating lists here. Good to see such divergent opinions, and some rather good taste.

I've decided to conform to the structure this thread seems to be taking on...

The Goodest

The Life Aquatic
Batman Begins
The Wedding Crashers
Crash
Collateral
DiG!
Oldboy

The Good

King Kong
Murderball
Sin City
The Descent
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

The No Good

It's All Gone Pete Tong - One of the worst movies I've ever seen.
The Brothers Grimm - So boring.

God damn it, I need to see The Descent.

The Life Aquatic

Can't believe I forgot about that one, I liked it a great deal. And there is just something really good about Bill Murry's acting style these days. His stoic meloncholy is strangly appealing.

Quality film. Same with Crash, both worthy of places in the good or Excellent part of my list.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
The movie was still shot and released initially in 2004, if you want to split hairs. "11:14" was shot in 2003, but not available for release until 2005. Same for "Prozac Nation", which is why I didn't bother nominating either of those.

Wes Anderson always perfectly casts Bill Murray in his movies. William Defoe was also perfect in 'The Life Aquatic'. I love the little look he gives through the window just after he storms out of the meeting regarding the mutiny. Cracks me up everytime.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
According to Spielberg's "WOTW", the Aliens were already there, making the humans the invaders. They couldn't have hidden their pods underground if the world were already inhabitated, which was a glaring oversight. Not only that, the Aliens must have known the Earth would one day be inhabitated by another lifeform from which they could use to harvest.

In Byron Haskin's 1953 version, it was an alien invasion. In Steven's version, it was just an apocalyptic "awakening", which was more or less a storyline that served as a politcal vehicle for a Hollywood director.

Human's didn't invade earth they were just evolving there. Not our fault we were created on this planet. I remember that scene where they talk about the pods underground. Who says they couldn't have placed the pods underground whilst humans were on earth? Perhaps it happen before humans created a way of writing or in a more primitive state. That would make sense as to why they would place the pods there in the first place to take over us.

The Excellent
- King Kong
- Batman Begins
- Sin City
- Crash
- Kung Fu Hustle

The Good
- War of the Worlds
- Revenge of the Sith
- Mr. & Mrs. Smith
- The Machinist
* Constantine
* Unleashed
* Hide and Seek
* Million Dollar Baby
* The Woodsman

The Bad
- The Island
- Fanastic Four
- Chicken Little
- Fun With Dick and Jane
* Chicken Little

The Awful
- Doom
- Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo
- Elektra
- Son of the Mask
- Alone in the Dark
- Stealth
* Boogeyman (this movie is hilarious!... but not in a good way)

* Added

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Can't believe I forgot about that one, I liked it a great deal. And there is just something really good about Bill Murry's acting style these days. His stoic meloncholy is strangly appealing.

That's because it's not acting. Take the time to realize the "characters" Bill Murray is taking up roles as.

* A washed up movie star with self-loathing.
* A washed up oceanographer who is unsure about a son.
* A washed up techie, with self loathing, who is unsure about a son.

I just described his roles in "Lost in Translation", "Life Aquatic", and "Broken Flowers". He can't hack it in Hollywood anymore, save animated classics like "Garfield" and "Osmosis Jones", so indie directors eat up his melancholy and turn it into art imitating life, and people love it.

It doesn't take anyone special to film the slow decay of a once great comedian.

Originally posted by Nevermind
Human's didn't invade earth they were just evolving there. Not our fault we were created on this planet. I remember that scene where they talk about the pods underground. Who says they couldn't have placed the pods underground whilst humans were on earth? Perhaps it happen before humans created a way of writing or in a more primitive state. That would make sense as to why they would place the pods there in the first place to take over us.

Aliens planting giant pods on Earth, while it's still inhabited by humans, when? While they're sleeping? While they're at work? Give me a break. It's a giant flaw that nobody thought to explain. If E.T. was so intellectually superior, so much so that they could build crafts that could burrow underground, waiting for a world to be inhabited for a harvest, could they not have conjured something up to where they didn't need to wait?

Long point short; why invade when you had the planet to yourself to begin with? That's like loaning someone money when you're broke. It's stupid.

This is what happens when you remake movies, and then try to make them your own. You overcomplicate matters, in turn, confusing yourself. The simplicity and message of the original "War of the Worlds" is what made it a classic, which stands the test of time. Whereas this was a political/world view vehicle who's story took the backseat to underwhelming special effects and horrid camera tricks.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
That's because it's not acting. Take the time to realize the "characters" Bill Murray is taking up roles as.

* A washed up movie star with self-loathing.
* A washed up oceanographer who is unsure about a son.
* A washed up techie, with self loathing, who is unsure about a son.

I just described his roles in "Lost in Translation", "Life Aquatic", and "Broken Flowers". He can't hack it in Hollywood anymore, save animated classics like "Garfield" and "Osmosis Jones", so indie directors eat up his melancholy and turn it into art imitating life, and people love it.

It doesn't take anyone special to film the slow decay of a once great comedian.

Most Hollywood critics would disagree with you about Bill Murray, in fact, most anybody who can see the subtly in his performances would disagree with you. His brilliance lies not in his ability to read lines for dialogue, it lies in his ability to say more with simple facial expressions and his eyes then most actors can with their eyes/face/voices.

Just because most of his roles in recent films are similar doesn't mean he's a bad actor, there's many actors who have similar roles and are recognized as some of the best - Jack Nicholson, Philip Seymore Hoffman, Denzel Washington, just to name a few. Obviously, he isn't a hack since he's getting mounds of critical praise with his last few films, he's more popular now then he's ever been, just in a different light.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Aliens planting giant pods on Earth, while it's still inhabited by humans, when? While they're sleeping? While they're at work? Give me a break. It's a giant flaw that nobody thought to explain.

Like I said before, they could have planted them there thousands of years before human's created some sort of civilisation. We would be none the wise in the 21st Century.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
That's because it's not acting. Take the time to realize the "characters" Bill Murray is taking up roles as.

* A washed up movie star with self-loathing.
* A washed up oceanographer who is unsure about a son.
* A washed up techie, with self loathing, who is unsure about a son.

I just described his roles in "Lost in Translation", "Life Aquatic", and "Broken Flowers". He can't hack it in Hollywood anymore, save animated classics like "Garfield" and "Osmosis Jones", so indie directors eat up his melancholy and turn it into art imitating life, and people love it.

It doesn't take anyone special to film the slow decay of a once great comedian.

I can see were you're coming from 100%. I discussed the exact same thing after seeing Broken Flowers. His roles seem to be more or less the same these days. I'm a huge Bill Murray fan but it doesn't seem that he's moving on from LIT. I think he can still act and I still think he can hack it, I think he's just a bit pretentious now after the success of LIT. For me after Broken Flowers I won't see another indie film with BM in it unless I see a drastic change in character.