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

Imperial_Samura

My list... I haven't put down every movie I saw, even some of the ones I loved, but it can't be helped (based on movies Australia got in 2005) - and the line between great, good and ok can occasionally be close for some of them.

The Great-
The Constant Gardener
King Kong
Good Night and Good Luck
Broken Flowers
The Proposistion
Wallace and Gromit
The Corpse Bride
Downfall
Memoirs of a Giesha
Yesterday

The Good -
Harry Potter - Goblet of Fire
Hotel Rawanda
Sin City
Brokeback Mountain
Kung Fu Hustle
Serenity
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Howls Moving Castle
Joyeux Noel

The OK-
Star Wars III
War of the Worlds
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Pride and Prejudice
Batman Begins
2046
Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang

The Trash deserving Death -
Doom
Stealth
Mr. and Mrs. Smith
Domino
The Dukes of Hazard
The Island
Into the Blue

Mišt

I dont really remember the early ones I saw but what the hell..

Excellent
Batman Begins
SW: ROTS
King Kong
Harry Potter

Good
Mr & Mrs Smith
Robots
Saw 2
Family Guy Stewie Griffin Untold Story
The Island

Meh...alright...
Unleashed
Assault on Precinct 13

Meh...poor
Elektra

Ya Krunk'd Floo

Oldboy was the best movie I saw from 2005.

I enjoyed Batman and The Wedding Crashers.

Crash was excellent.

King Kong was great.

DiG! and Murderball were exceptional documentaries.

I adored The Life Aquatic.

Rapscallion

Great: King Kong, Munich, Crash, The Constant Gardener

Good: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Batman Begins, War of the Worlds, Mr. and Mrs. Smith

Decent: The Island, Cinderella Man, Sin City, Star Wars, Stewie Griffin:the Untold Story

Average: ---

Mediocre: Syriana

Bad: ---

God Awful: Fantastic Four, Stealth, Harry Potter

Nevermind

The Good
-Batman Begins
-SW: ROTS
-Sin City
-King Kong
-Serenity
-Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
-War of the Worlds
-The Machinist
-*Broken Flowers
-*Domino
-*Cinderella Man
-*Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

The OK
-Fun with Dick and Jane
-Wedding Crashers
-Fantasic Four
-Mr & Mrs Smith
-*Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

The Bad
-Son of the mask (Worst movie of all time)
-Elektra (Can't believe that was only last year)
-Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo
-Kicking and Screaming

*Newly added.

Solo

Originally posted by DarkWizard
This thread is basically about the movies you have seen last year, and what you thought of them.

The Good
-Batman Begins
-Serenity
-King Kong
-Narnia
-Harry Potter
-Jarhead
-Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
-Sin City
-Revenge of the Sith IMO, Greivous made up for the dilouge

The OK
-Fun with Dick and Jane
-Chicken Little
-Zathura
-Hide and Seek
-Wedding Crashers
-Kicking and Screaming
-Fantastic 4

The Bad
-Robots
-Madagascar
-Elektra
-Kingdom of heaven
-War of the Worlds (Too many plot holes)

What do you guys think?

War of the Worlds is in 'The Bad' and Fantastic 4 is in 'The OK'?
I already know how DW will answer this:
Well, it doesn't matter if it's good or bad, it has Jessica Alba smile

Nevermind

Originally posted by Solo
Well, it doesn't matter if it's good or bad, it has Jessica Alba smile

Damn straight! With Almost nude and lingerie scenes droolio.

DarkWizard

Originally posted by Solo
War of the Worlds is in 'The Bad' and Fantastic 4 is in 'The OK'?
I already know how DW will answer this:
Well, it doesn't matter if it's good or bad, it has Jessica Alba smile

Not Necessarily. Fantastic 4 actually took some time to make some sense. War of the Worlds Had so many questions unanswered, That I don't even want to go into it.

Wolfie

The Good
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Constantine
The Devil's Rejects
High Tension
The Jacket
Kung Fu Hustle
Land of the Dead
The Longest Yard
Lord of War
Memoirs of a Geisha
Mr. and Mrs. Smith
Red Eye
Sahara
Saw II
Sin City
Sky High
Unleashed
Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
Wedding Crashers

The Okay
The 40 Year Old Virgin
Assault on Precinct 13
Bad News Bears
Cursed
Elektra
Fantastic Four
Hide and Seek
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
House of Wax
Seed of Chucky
Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
War of the Worlds
White Noise

The Bad
The Amityville Horror
Batman Begins
The Brothers Grimm
The Cave
Herbie: Fully Loaded
Kicking and Screaming
The Man

Nevermind

The Good
-Batman Begins
-SW: ROTS
-Sin City
-King Kong
-Serenity
-Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
-War of the Worlds
-The Machinist
-Broken Flowers
-Domino
-Cinderella Man
-Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
-*Land of the dead
-*Red Eye

The OK
-Fun with Dick and Jane
-Wedding Crashers
-Fantastic Four
-Mr & Mrs Smith
-Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
-*Seed of Chucky

The Bad
-Son of the mask (Worst movie of all time)
-Elektra (Can't believe that was only last year)
-Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo
-Kicking and Screaming
-*Herbie: Fully Loaded

*Newly added.

Originally posted by DarkWizard
Not Necessarily. Fantastic 4 actually took some time to make some sense. War of the Worlds Had so many questions unanswered, That I don't even want to go into it.

It's not like War of the worlds is an original film. It was a remake and sometimes the disadvantage with remakes is that you have to work with the material you got. '05's version had the same ending as '53's. Spielberg kept true to the original and make a great 00's version of it. If anything you should be dissin' the original.

DarkWizard

Originally posted by Nevermind
It's not like War of the worlds is an original film. It was a remake and sometimes the disadvantage with remakes is that you have to work with the material you got. '05's version had the same ending as '53's. Spielberg kept true to the original and make a great 00's version of it. If anything you should be dissin' the original.

I was ok with the '53 version. At least it didn't make me say "WTF?!" every 10 seconds. Like, How the Video Camera still worked even with the EMP, or how they were the only ones in the united states smart enough to fix the car, or how the news team was able to record footage of the Tri-Pods, and then show it in the van to Tom Cruise's character. Or perhaps, How the boy who ran into the huge explosion survived, or much less made it to Boston alone before Cruise did.

I walked out of the theater more flabbergasted than entertained.

Cinemaddiction

Originally posted by Nevermind
If anything you should be dissin' the original.

Why? Atleast in the original, the aliens were the invaders on Earth and not the humans themselves.

Cinemaddiction

Excellent:

Sin City
Unleashed
Amityville Horror (2005)
Crash
High Tension
Batman Begins
Fantastic Four
The Island
Hide and Seek
The Devils Rejects
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
The Exorcism of Emily Rose
The Jacket
My Summer of Love

OK

Assault on Precinct 13
Ong Bak
Downfall
Constantine
Oldboy
Star Wars: Episode 3
Bewitched
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
King Kong

Bad:

War of the Worlds
The Corpse Bride
Lord of War
The Constant Gardner
Elektra
Alone in the Dark
Boogeyman
The Hhoneymooners
Ring 2
The Cave
Cry Wolf

BTW, The Machinist and Hotel Rwanda were 2004 films.

Nevermind

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Why? Atleast in the original, the aliens were the invaders on Earth and not the humans themselves.

What? How were the humans the invaders on their own home planet?

DeVi| D0do

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
BTW, The Machinist and Hotel Rwanda were 2004 films.
Not where I live, they weren't.

Nevermind

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

Same here.

Cinemaddiction

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.

Cinemaddiction

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.

Ya Krunk'd Floo

Cinemaddiction

"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.

BackFire

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.

Ya Krunk'd Floo

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

BackFire

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 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. Again, the best use of the twist/shock ending I've seen in a long, long time.

Imperial_Samura

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

Ya Krunk'd Floo

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.

BackFire

God damn it, I need to see The Descent.

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.

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

DeVi| D0do

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.
Ong Bak was made and released in 2003 and yet you still nominated that...

Ya Krunk'd Floo

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.

Nevermind

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.

DeVi| D0do

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

Cinemaddiction

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.

Cinemaddiction

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.

BackFire

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.

Nevermind

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.

Nevermind

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.

Cinemaddiction

Originally posted by BackFire
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.

Critics are biased, careful, and touchy, especially with independent filmmakers, because that's where the new blood comes from. So, anyone who wants to be taken as a serious, well respected critic, isn't going to ride Jim Jaramusch or Wes Anderson, or dare knock Bill Murray who's being heralded as the next Buster Keaton. I never said Bill Murray was a hack, though, I just said he can't make the grade in Hollywood, which he hasn't been for years, and why he's being courted by these "eclectic" indie filmmakers, the likes of which I personally can't stand.

My point is, he isn't acting. He's going through the motions, and I think he has everyone fooled in the movies where he's merely playing himself, in the same token, stereotyping his last days in cinema. I hate the fact that people find "entertainment" in movies starring people that are cashing in on what some consider relatability in sadness, but what I call showing up for a paycheck, playing yourself.

Cinemaddiction

Originally posted by Nevermind
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.

That's what I said earlier, and if that's the case, why didn't they take the Earth then..?

BackFire

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Critics are biased, careful, and touchy, especially with independent filmmakers, because that's where the new blood comes from. So, anyone who wants to be taken as a serious, well respected critic, isn't going to ride Jim Jaramusch or Wes Anderson, or dare knock Bill Murray who's being heralded as the next Buster Keaton. I never said Bill Murray was a hack, though, I just said he can't make the grade in Hollywood, which he hasn't been for years, and why he's being courted by these "eclectic" indie filmmakers, the likes of which I personally can't stand.

My point is, he isn't acting. He's going through the motions, and I think he has everyone fooled in the movies where he's merely playing himself, in the same token, stereotyping his last days in cinema. I hate the fact that people find "entertainment" in movies starring people that are cashing in on what some consider relatability in sadness, but what I call showing up for a paycheck, playing yourself.

Critics aren't biased. Some may be, but many just give their opinions on films. Plenty of critics put down many independent films, if they genuinely don't like them. It's kinda a fallacious mindset to simply insinuate that all critics will by default love independent films because of a bias, without any valid form of reasoning or evidence to support such a silly claim. So if any critic likes an independent film that you don't, he's biased? They give valid reasons as to why or why not they like/dislike movies they review, if anyone is coming off as bias, it's you making up accusations about Bill Murray, no offense.

Also, why do you say he's playing himself? So in real life you somehow know, factually, that he is the way his characters are in recent movies? How do you know this, how did you come to this questionable conclusion? Do you know him personally? Again, making a very very sloppy and baseless assumption that has absolutely zero credibility or merrit. He's just found a niche, and he's good at playing that type of character. He's basically become a character actor of a completely different form then how he used to be.

Also, you make it sound like he's untalented because he hasn't been in big overblown hollywood movies, as if those movies have good acting/actors to begin with. Plenty of good actors only do independent films because they are more artistic and they offer a more interesting roll then some shitty hollywood movie with explosions and a meteor coming to earth. Plenty of great actors choose independent movies so they can satisfy their artistic desires, where playing a doctor is some overblow shitfest with no brains doesn't appeal to them.

Sounds like you simply don't like Murray or his recent movies and so you are making stuff up to try and hurt his reputation/movies, when in reality you probably just didn't like his movies.

Ya Krunk'd Floo

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
I hate the fact that people find "entertainment" in movies starring people that are cashing in on what some consider relatability in sadness, but what I call showing up for a paycheck, playing yourself.

I don't know what 'relatability' means, but sadness - or melancholy, if you want the more pertinent description of his performances - is a legitimate emotion, too. I know from previous discussions, you dislike Wes Anderson, but I think you're really just missing the gentle humor and sardonic optimism of his movies. He doesn't suffer the bombast or deliver the blatancy of a Michael Bay/Joel Schumacher production, which is precisely what entertains so many people. Not everyone wants the 'message' of the movie stuffed down their throats.

Bill Murray's recent movies contain perfect examples of deceptively subtle performances that are melancholic, but ultimately charming. He's matured from a fantastic and exuberant entertainer to a fantastic and subtle performer. I like both.

Cinemaddiction

Originally posted by BackFire
Critics aren't biased. Some may be, but many just give their opinions on films. Plenty of critics put down many independent films, if they genuinely don't like them. It's kinda a fallacious mindset to simply insinuate that all critics will by default love independent films because of a bias, without any valid form of reasoning or evidence to support such a silly claim. So if any critic likes an independent film that you don't, he's biased? They give valid reasons as to why or why not they like/dislike movies they review, if anyone is coming off as bias, it's you making up accusations about Bill Murray, no offense.

Also, why do you say he's playing himself? So in real life you somehow know, factually, that he is the way his characters are in recent movies? How do you know this, how did you come to this questionable conclusion? Do you know him personally? Again, making a very very sloppy and baseless assumption that has absolutely zero credibility or merrit. He's just found a niche, and he's good at playing that type of character. He's basically become a character actor of a completely different form then how he used to be.

Also, you make it sound like he's untalented because he hasn't been in big overblown hollywood movies, as if those movies have good acting/actors to begin with. Plenty of good actors only do independent films because they are more artistic and they offer a more interesting roll then some shitty hollywood movie with explosions and a meteor coming to earth. Plenty of great actors choose independent movies so they can satisfy their artistic desires, where playing a doctor is some overblow shitfest with no brains doesn't appeal to them.

Sounds like you simply don't like Murray or his recent movies and so you are making stuff up to try and hurt his reputation/movies, when in reality you probably just didn't like his movies.

Critics, and their opinions, like actors, can be bought and sold. I wasn't speaking in generalities, including all critics, given they split down the middle, and it would be uncharacteristically naive of me to suggest such. There's plenty of Wes Anderson dick riding in the media, sometimes because it's en vogue, sometimes because critics genuinely feel he's something special. That's Hollywood, and that's their opinion, which is worth about as much as the next persons. It's all in how you voice your opinion that gets you respect. Some people base their favorite critics soley on the reader and critic liking or disliking the same movies, regardless of supporting causes. That's why I don't value any critics opinion.

I don't know Bill Murray personally, but himself and the characters are not too far detatched. He's washed up, not having a hit since "Groundhog Day". He plays roles of has beens in his last three movies, which is art imitating life. He showed up on Letterman, not once but TWICE, drunk as hell, on live television. That, coupled with jobbing to voicing "Garfield", don't bode well for his celebrity status, in my opinion. This "character niche" he's found is just Bill Murray being Bill Murray, so it would seem. I've read enough into the man himself to draw parallels, and they're not that distant. All these pretentious, mid-life crisis, dysfunctional family lifestyle bullshit movies that pass for entertainment really bother me.

In closing, I have nothing against Bill Murray, he's obviously tapped into a very reputable and profitable genre, that of movies for single adults who feel they've failed in every aspect of life. I guess the market for those kind of movies is out there, and are considered entertainment for someone, so, who am I to knock it, right? His talent is diminished, he's a shell of his former outrageous, witty, and cunning self, now, fodder for arthouse pity flicks and Criterion Collection DVD library titles. Watching him "evolve" in the films he's chose is like cinematic morphine.

That's just my opinion.

Cinemaddiction

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I don't know what 'relatability' means, but sadness - or melancholy, if you want the more pertinent description of his performances - is a legitimate emotion, too. I know from previous discussions, you dislike Wes Anderson, but I think you're really just missing the gentle humor and sardonic optimism of his movies. He doesn't suffer the bombast or deliver the blatancy of a Michael Bay/Joel Schumacher production, which is precisely what entertains so many people. Not everyone wants the 'message' of the movie stuffed down their throats.

Bill Murray's recent movies contain perfect examples of deceptively subtle performances that are melancholic, but ultimately charming. He's matured from a fantastic and exuberant entertainer to a fantastic and subtle performer. I like both.

I don't find anything entertaining about watching a horde of former child-stars sqwander over spent riches and their personal indifferences, nether in adult based "dark comedy". My god, how could I have forgotten "Rushmore".

Anyone remember what his character role in "Rushmore" was, by chance?

An unhappy millionaire.

Art imitating life. I rest my case.

BackFire

He hasn't had a hit? You must define "hit" differently then me, because Lost in Translation was a HUGE success. It made a profit of 1,000% and was nominated for numerous awards, and earned him several awards as well. Life Aquatic and broken flowers were also quite successful. So where's this idea that he hasn't had a hit since groundhogs day coming from?

So he was "drunk" on Letterman (I think you'd have to be to go on such a shitty talk show). This coulda been a publicity stunt or merely an act, it could have been planned. Aside from a possible drunk appearance on TV, that has nothing to do with his personal life or his professional life, what evidence actually supports the idea that he's just playing himself in all of these movies? Maybe he's just so good at playing these types of rolls that he actually convinces you that that's how he really is, he's THAT convincing, eh?

Moreover, you're making another bad generallization and assumptions about the people who enjoy these movies. Why do you think people who enjoy these movies are inherently single and feel they've failed at life? That's no different then saying that anyone who enjoys Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is a serial killer, or anyone who enjoys 40 Year Old Virgin is a middle aged virgin. You can't generalise about an audience and assume that they are all in some way similar to the content of a film that they like. It's not the case, and I'm sure you know it.

The man's talent has only grown, I'm sure he could still go do some silly outrageous comedy, he has just gone down another path, very few comedic actors are able to transcend into Drama with the success that he has, that fact alone is enough to retort any baseless knocks at his talent or character that you or anyone could make.

Cinemaddiction

Originally posted by BackFire
He hasn't had a hit? You must define "hit" differently then me, because Lost in Translation was a HUGE success. It made a profit of 1,000% and was nominated for numerous awards, and earned him several awards as well. Life Aquatic and broken flowers were also quite successful. So where's this idea that he hasn't had a hit since groundhogs day coming from?

So he was "drunk" on Letterman (I think you'd have to be to go on such a shitty talk show). This coulda been a publicity stunt or merely an act, it could have been planned. Aside from a possible drunk appearance on TV, that has nothing to do with his personal life or his professional life, what evidence actually supports the idea that he's just playing himself in all of these movies? Maybe he's just so good at playing these types of rolls that he actually convinces you that that's how he really is, he's THAT convincing, eh?

Moreover, you're making another bad generallization and assumptions about the people who enjoy these movies. Why do you think people who enjoy these movies are inherently single and feel they've failed at life? That's no different then saying that anyone who enjoys Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is a serial killer, or anyone who enjoys 40 Year Old Virgin is a middle aged virgin. You can't generalise about an audience and assume that they are all in some way similar to the content of a film that they like. It's not the case, and I'm sure you know it.

The man's talent has only grown, I'm sure he could still go do some silly outrageous comedy, he has just gone down another path, very few comedic actors are able to transcend into Drama with the success that he has, that fact alone is enough to retort any baseless knocks at his talent or character that you or anyone could make.

Awards mean shit to me, man. Every single one of them, because they're based on nothing but the opinions of the peers of the filmmaker. Not the public, because "Lost in Translation", in MANY, MANY circles, is DESPISED and regarded as one of the most utterly ostentatious movies of the past decade. I'm sure having the last name of COPPOLA had a little something to do with it. Oozing with pretentious, heavy-handed self-pity and grief, that movie was.

Have you ever SEEN what Wes Anderson looks like? Google an image, it's private school brat personified. Given most of his works are rooted in personal experience, how could he be making films for anyone other than his own kind? There's a theme in his movies, what, with the main characters being unhappy, divorced, having lost in love and life, being dysfunctional. It's pretty obvious to me that he's shooting for a particular demographic, and it's MY OPINION is that they include the menopausal and erectily dysfunctional.

I'm not on some Bill Murray smear campaign. Someone said there was something appealing about his "acting style" and I disagreed, and shared my opinion. I cited examples to show the parallels where the roles he takes on reflect his present lifestyle, and has been the case for the past 8 years. Adult comedies and dramas where namely adults can relate.

Apparently, Wes Anderson feels Bill Murray can convey dejection, isolation, and a sense of worthless that no other actor can, and if that's what sells his movies then fine. But I care to see people walk in here, praising him for more or less being his usual self, in situations that are all too familiar.

I'm done, and I'd really like to get back on topic.

Cinemaddiction

Edit, Triple post.

Cinemaddiction

edit, triple post.

BackFire

Awards don't mean much, but they do show if a film is successful in some form or another. Also there's the fact that Lost in Translation made an assload of money for what it was. Regaurdless, whether you like it or not, it was a hit, and it was a successful movie.

I've seen what Anderson looks like, but I'm not one to be shallow enough to judge a guy on his looks, let alone let his looks have anything to do with how I feel about his films. The theme in his movies is subtle humor, there are other similarties, and yes, the characters having been divorced or unhappy is some of them, that's just dramatic devices. Many dramas have characters who are unhappy and trying to regain their happiness, you're attck is more on the drama genre then Wes Anderson, who's using pretty normal dramatic techniques. I've noticed that Wes Anderson fans are varied, in a very large way. I'm sure many are middle aged, but there are also many who are young, who just like his odd style of quiet humor and his unique style of film.

In all honesty I've not seen any examples showing this supposed parallel between Bill Murrays rolls and his personal life. The only common is that he plays middle aged men, one of which was a rich man. That's not enough to really support the thought that he's just playing himself and nothing more. You're simply ignoring/not recognizing the things he does well. Which as I and others have said, is very subtle facial expresions. The guy can do more with his eyes, and with his mouth closed then most can do with all communitative tools combined.

And yes, it is baseless because it's based on pure assumption. He's not doing commercials in Japan, and he hasn't taken another route, he's simply changed his style of acting, he's still acting. But yeah, if he does happen to be in a film about erectile dysfunction then obviously that must mean he has erectile dysfunction in real life, just like Dylan Baker playing a convincing peadophile must mean that he's a peadophile in real life, and so fourth.

Nevermind

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
That's what I said earlier, and if that's the case, why didn't they take the Earth then..?

That is one of the many plot holes. However, I don't think it stops it from being a good movie. I thought it was a good action/Thriller/Sci-fi flick. It didn't get boring. Some good camera work, good acting (If I remember properly I was surprised how good Dakota's acting was). The plot holes annoyed me at first but I looked over that. Definitely some good visual work. Nice pop-corn flick.

Cinemaddiction

I dunno what the hell was up with the quadruple posting. Could someone edit 3 of them?

Cinemaddiction

Originally posted by Nevermind
(If I remember properly I was surprised how good Dakota's acting was).

Err..no. Her role in WOTW was absolutely dreadful and intolerable.

BackFire

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
I dunno what the hell was up with the quadruple posting. Could someone edit 3 of them?

lol, I didn't even notice. I'll edit for you.

Ya Krunk'd Floo

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
There's a theme in his movies, what, with the main characters being unhappy, divorced, having lost in love and life, being dysfunctional. It's pretty obvious to me that he's shooting for a particular demographic, and it's MY OPINION is that they include the menopausal and erectily dysfunctional.

Have you actually seen his movies, or are you just going on the descriptions you read on imdb.com? Every Wes Anderson movie ends with a charmingly triumphant success, and a conviction within the main protagonists that life just got better. I've forgotten the ending to 'Bottle Rocket', but 'Rushmore' ends with Max's show, 'The Royal Tenenbaums' has a 'closure' moment for each character, and the finale to 'The Life Aquatic' shows the redemption of Steve Zissou. These are hardly facets to appease those with penis problems. If so, what do you say about someone in their late twenties who finds entertainment in a puerile film aimed at pre-teens, a la 'The Fantastic Four'? Perhaps a cloest pedophile? Seems to be the way your line of thinking is going...

WrathfulDwarf

I agree with Cinema about Critics being biased. Specially that bloated senile Roger Ebert that praises films that appeal to his political views.

Now as for my list:

The Excellent:

Batman Begins
Sin City
Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
Haute Tension (not really a 2005 film but was release in theathers 2005...doesn't count? Who cares?!)

The Good (Actually NO! Excellent and Good are almost the same so I'll call it...) The Entertaining

Doom
Kingdom of Heaven
Madagascar
Chronicles of Narnia

The Ugly, Disappointing, and the "I never want to see EVER again in DVD, TV, Cable, or even in as a cheap Arline movie":

Land of the Dead (Romero FAILED! The only factor that kept me in the movie was the Gore. Storyline, characters, artistic value=0)
Star Wars Episode III (Similar to other George but this one was inetiable. Trully disappointed)
Aeon Flux (W T F?)
Chicken Little (Mc Donalds should had a Chicken nuggets promotion instead of promoting this lame animation)
Valiant
Saw II
Fantastic Four (After Sin City and Batman Begins....Why would you see this crap from Marvel Comics?)
Elektra (Yet another Marvel Comics Disaster)
Son of the Mask (Uh, hello? anyone saw this? Shame on you if you did)
Alone in the Dark (Uwe Boll triumphs again! By far his best work on a crap movie)
Peter Jackson's King Kong (Overly done...not really something getting on DVD)
That's it...hopefully 2006 will be far more better. smile

Cinemaddiction

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Have you actually seen his movies, or are you just going on the descriptions you read on imdb.com? Every Wes Anderson movie ends with a charmingly triumphant success, and a conviction within the main protagonists that life just got better. I've forgotten the ending to 'Bottle Rocket', but 'Rushmore' ends with Max's show, 'The Royal Tenenbaums' has a 'closure' moment for each character, and the finale to 'The Life Aquatic' shows the redemption of Steve Zissou. These are hardly facets to appease those with penis problems. If so, what do you say about someone in their late twenties who finds entertainment in a puerile film aimed at pre-teens, a la 'The Fantastic Four'? Perhaps a cloest pedophile? Seems to be the way your line of thinking is going...

I've seen them all, and the happy ending in his movies is just that, because it seems that it's some sort of message, promoting false hope to the people that feel they can relate to his movies. Wes Anderson comes off as a off-beat movie snob, with dark humor, and his legions will just say that people that don't like "his" humor just "don't get it".

I get it just fine, I just don't like it, and it doesn't entertain me, in fact it makes me feel as worthless as the characters he hustles in his films.