http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/31234572/peter_travers_10_best_movies_of_t/photo/10
Ranked no. 7 for 2007, re-ranked as the best of the decade.
Dang, he even called him PTA.
I've always had a soft spot for Travers.
His #2 and #3 are also great choices.
Snooze. Did Peter Travers only consider movies that play at multiplexes? It's sad when Muholland Drive is the only off kilter choice and even that movie entered the mainstream (a bit) when it was released.
True, 4 through 10 are boring choices, but honestly I would have expected his whole list to look like that... so I applaud him. Let's all give Peter Travers a big hug!
Shoulda been PDL, but fine... whatever.
Travers' heart is clearly in the right place.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on December 13, 2009, 02:07:48 PM
4 through 10 are boring choices
i would add 8 to that. great list though. i don't know who this guy is but it makes me happy to see such a respectable list spring from something as widely recognised as rolling stone.
Quote from: john on December 13, 2009, 04:51:32 PM
Shoulda been PDL, but fine... whatever.
nah, he got it right.
nah, GT got it right. and PT shouldve at least rethought Da Depa'ted which hasnt even held up through half of the decade.
redeeming first choice seems a fluke after invalidating inclusion of the departed.
that movie didn't even hold up to the end of the year it was released. instantly forgettable except to marty's accountant
children of who? azkaban was a better and more memorable film by Cuaron. not that i would place either on this list.
definitely a fluke... the rest of the list isn't that great (except Mul.dr.) .... children of men, history of violence and departed are not that important movies. Actually, none of them are even the best of the decade of their own director!!!!! (children is second, History too, and Departed is fuckin third (turd? jk it's a good film, but it's just a remake and the original is better (better casting anyway that's for sure, urghh Matt Damon and Leo Dicaprio for this, rly? whatever))
I've never seen the invincibles but it looks like it's just some entertaining thing.
No Country was very good and I placed it on my own top 25...but not very re-watchable. I just did last week acutally and what I first thought was an original ending now just feels anti-climatic.
Gay Cowboys I haven't seen but again looks like a choice based on Heath Ledger's death+gay cowboys.
there is truly only one film that is clearly above all others this decade and that's there will be blood. everything else is a distant second. sorry, but that's that.
the aviator is better than the departed, and gangs of new york, for all it's faults, it's probably more memorable than both.
a history of violence is a great film, but no top ten material for a decade.
no country for old men is totally deserved, but the coens have two other fantastic pics for this decade: oh brother and the mand who wasn't there, the latter is my favorite.
a top ten of this decade should / must include spirited away.
See, I don't care if I agree with a list. People here are disagreeing with certain choices on Travers list, but just because it's from the basis of a list, all I am hearing is general disagreement. There is no inspiration to articulate why the picks are wrong or boring or whatever.
I'll always disagree about the merits of There Will be Blood or History of Violence, but a decent list can still have those films and be good if the full list surprises me and make me think about the worthiness of films I have overlooked, but this list is not only boring, but it's just bad. I swear an 18 yr old kid has recently made this same exact list. He probably thought himself newly sophisticated because he can now represent There Will Be Blood as his number one, but his youthful history of falling for overrated multiplex slosh is everywhere else on the list. LOTR was probably his number #1 when he was 15, but he transformed himself and feels like he did a 180, but he's still honoring LOTR at #10.
We all go through this. When I was younger, I was trying to find my voice, but I was still showing my youth by most of my selections being nothing more than the most popular choices. This isn't that I am against Hollywood movies because I believe the Incredibles is one of the best films on the list, but I want lists that have variety and show a balance with being able to appreciate different aspects of cinema. There is no identity of that in this list. Peters Travers is an 18 year old kid.
No he's not. Take that back.
Trying to define a decade with 10 picks is a thankless job. I think it's a good list, many of them were box office hits, some were not. But I think if you go back year by year, they're at or near the top of many critic's lists. Complaining these 10 happen to be American movies is like complaining the lack of strong female characters in Lawrence of Arabia. There just wasn't room for them.
Uhm, not taking back anything. You counter my argument by saying some of the films were box office hits and some were not. That wasn't my point. My point is that all of them were generic staples of multiplex viewing. All of them played in my little city (besides Muholland Drive) and all of them are generic choices. You are right to say that they all do appear in a lot of lists, but all the other lists have variations to the generic strands. Even the most populace movie critics throw in a few left field choices, but this movie is standard protocal through and through. I never considered Peter Travers to be much of anything anyways so I may be complaining for no reason, but my point stands.
So, you qualify them as generic because they're not obscure? And because they're not obscure and were well received it lowers their quality? Maybe not the list I'd put together either, but to call Travers a teenager for liking these movies is as out of left field and arbritary an attack as I've heard. Popularity doesn't equal cinematic junk food.
Quote from: Derek on December 14, 2009, 06:09:53 PM
So, you qualify them as generic because they're not obscure? And because they're not obscure and were well received it lowers their quality? Maybe not the list I'd put together either, but to call Travers a teenager for liking these movies is as out of left field and arbritary an attack as I've heard. Popularity doesn't equal cinematic junk food.
It's not advertising for obscurity to ask for a little variety. In fact, considering Travers representation as a "major" critic, it just shows his ineffeciency as a critic that most of his films where what publicists were arguing as that year's best movie for the Oscars. It could be coincidence that all of his choices are overly familar and popular, but it seems like he either has bad taste or is just bowing to a populace list. Even Roger Ebert would make his lists pretty varied and reflective of a critical tastebud, but I have no notion of critical taste in Travers' list at all.
dude winter came and GT is back!
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on December 14, 2009, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Derek on December 14, 2009, 06:09:53 PM
So, you qualify them as generic because they're not obscure? And because they're not obscure and were well received it lowers their quality? Maybe not the list I'd put together either, but to call Travers a teenager for liking these movies is as out of left field and arbritary an attack as I've heard. Popularity doesn't equal cinematic junk food.
It's not advertising for obscurity to ask for a little variety. In fact, considering Travers representation as a "major" critic, it just shows his ineffeciency as a critic that most of his films where what publicists were arguing as that year's best movie for the Oscars. It could be coincidence that all of his choices are overly familar and popular, but it seems like he either has bad taste or is just bowing to a populace list. Even Roger Ebert would make his lists pretty varied and reflective of a critical tastebud, but I have no notion of critical taste in Travers' list at all.
Wasn't W on your top films of the decade list? Yes, Travers list is goofy, but not as goofy as your posts.
W was #25 so not anywhere near the top ten, but I'll definitely defend the choice anyday. The only problem here is that you can't defend that bogus post because it has nothing to say. I might as well speak in code of "W. = Good" because my thumbs up or down is all that seems to matter to some here. The rest must only be filler.
No you just talk in circles pretending to have something important to say and either people get bored or confused with your rambles and you think you've won the argument. I've got to wonder if you even like movies, the large portion of your posts seem to be spent tearing most of them down. Sitting down to watch a movie must be exhausting considering the hoops it would have to jump through not to earn your disdain. I don't give a damn which way your thumb is pointing.
I hope to one day become enlightened and see movies on your level, and perhaps my world will open up and I can stop slumming it with the likes of Peter Travers.
Amusing. You say I just ramble around my points, but yet you just rambled (in a small way) around your statement that my reviews are useless. You say people get confused by my posts, but I've had very long discussions with other people way back when I wasn't even very good at discussing movies. Look at the Full Metal Jacket thread for example. Also my intention is never to win arguments, but write something at length where I come to an understanding about what I think. Trying to write out your thoughts is revelatory because it allows your brain to untangle the thoughts and feelings you have about something. Beyond that, your only insight is that I don't seem to like movies because the majority of my posts are negative, but actually the whole of my posts are more positive than negative about movies. I'm either too negative because I've bashed your favorite movies or you don't care to read what I have to say most of the time. If either, fine, I don't mind.
GT, I reckon you are one of the best on the board at very clearly expressing yourself. Also you are a teacher so it makes sense that I would have a question for you (sorry for the continued thread derail).
When you make these long posts about films etc, do they take a long time and a lot of thought/work or is it your instinct to be like that?
I ask that because sometimes I watch a film or hear something and feel I am on the brink of a very good idea/thought but I have a hard time making something coherent out of it (see my Come and See post for a good example of me wanting to talk about something and sucking a lot at it, but it can be even worst)
I don't know if you can identify the emotion I am talking about, to be certain your ''brain" understood a great truth but it has a hard time telling it to "you"... fucked up way to put it but whatever
My gf (who majored in psychology but I don't think she spoke of it in relation to her studies) believes I might have a hard time making my thoughts clear in words because I have no language... my maternal language is french and I work and live in french from 8 to 5 but my nights and even some social life are in english.....which means I am proficient in both languages but master neither.
kinda rambling there, but yeah.
GT has the best taste on the board.
He also has the worst.
GT's top five movies of all time.
5. 2001
4. 8 1/2
3. The Bicycle Thief
2. Throne of Blood
1. (tie) Any Given Sunday/Be Cool
Quote from: Pas Rap on December 15, 2009, 12:45:34 PM
When you make these long posts about films etc, do they take a long time and a lot of thought/work or is it your instinct to be like that?
It's instinctual. Before I write something, I have no concept of what length will be appropriate. There is no pre-planned idea of what will make for the most discerning or professional analysis. I just have a lot of things buzzing around my brain so I just go about trying to release it on a page. As I'm trying to interpret my thoughts and feelings, the process of writing allows me to make sense of my emotions and change things if it feels like I have to. Then further editing allows me to clear any leftover cobwebs. Sometimes I feel like a do a decent job and sometimes I feel I still need to crack the lock of a subject.
I understand what you mean about feeling unable to make coherence out of something you want to say. Even though you think I can clearly express myself, I always feel am having difficulty finding the words to say how I feel. I've come to the conclusion it's just something that will always exist. I'm a lot better than I was a few years ago and I have people like Budgie to thank for being patient with me, but the only way to get better is to continue to put yourself out there and not take any slams too serious. Just make editing your best friend and something you always do. Over time, things will get easier. Also don't be afraid to start write a post and step away if necessary. Sometimes I'll quickly save a post to document and return to it later if I'm feeling too frazzled to tackle it then.
And Stefen, I think you're joking, but I have no idea where the joke even is so I'm just going shrug shoulders.
Yeah, I was joking. You know you're me boy. I just mean you have excellent taste and probably some of the best knowledge on the board but sometimes you tend to overrate standard popcorn fare which is funny.
I don't know if its overrating when your common description words are "fun", "enjoyable" and the lengthier, "good time". It's just me being open with the bone in all of us that just finds movies naturally enjoyable, but if a film has some moxy, then things change.
Roger Ebert's Top Ten of the Decade: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/12/the_best_films_of_the_decade.html
See, I disagree with half of the list and even think a few are just bad movies, but that's a list. It shows personal reflection and variety to its tastebuds. I still think Roger Ebert is vastly overrated as a critic because there is hardly a film movement or style he won't praise, but he shows his real personality when forced to pick and choose between which films really speak to him. I also like he decorates his list with additional commentary to explain why he chose what, but that's a list that piques my curiosity in the best ways.
The inclusion of movies like Juno and Crash completely invalidates his otherwise great film picks.
He's overrating popcorn!
Haha, well no list is perfect. I have yet to find a list of any kind where I actually like everything listed, but on your point about Crash, here is an interesting take from Andrew Sullivan to why it's the worst film of the decade: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/worst_movie_of_the_decade.php
My list will be perfect. It will be more perfect than anything we've ever seen.