Tom Ace

I don't watch a whole lot of horror, but I've seen my fair share. The Ring is probably my favorite I've ever seen. Blair Witch was OK, but I didn't think it lived up to the hype. Same with Paranormal Activity. They just didn't do it for me at all. I will have to check out Martyrs, though, because, as weird as it feels to type this, I liked Irreversible. I like any movie that can really make you feel something, and while the emotions brought up by that movie are not exactly fun or enjoyable, it definitely made me feel something.

I haven't watched it recently, but I've seen it a good 8-10 times, I'd say. I loved the movie (obviously). The characters are wonderful and wonderfully acted. I agree with the conclusion that Summer isn't supposed to be completely fleshed out, as this is Tom's story. What I really like about the movie is the realism. Of course it's still a movie, but it feels pretty real. I guess it helps that I've been Tom, too.I have to disagree with you about how quickly Summer fell in love after Tom. I thought that fit pretty well. To me it made it all the sadder but more real that she had fun with Tom, but he just didn't make her want anything more. It just took her clicking with someone else to make her want that something more. Plus, it makes it sadly ironic (if I may use that word that way) that Tom was determined to change her mind about the whole love thing, and while she did eventually come to his point of view on it, it was only because she fell for someone else.I also agree about the splitscreen scenes, the Hall and Oates scene and the music. I looked up the album for the song by Carla Bruni "Quelqu'un M'A Dit" specifically, but decided to buy the whole album since it was on sale. It is one of my favorite albums, and I still go back to it regularly. It also turned me onto Regina Spektor, and I've bought two of her albums. She and the movie do a great job of setting a mood through music.I love the Ikea scenes. My wife has always loved Ikea, so we go there every so often. Now ever since seeing this, it takes on a different meaning.Lastly, I didn't completely like the ending. I would have preferred a less happy ending, with him not meeting someone new. However, I did like the name jab, and it didnt detract from the movie much at all.Instead of posting my own ratings, I'll just say that I agree 100% with yours here.

Yup, just like 2001 and other anecdotal example don't reflect the industry as a whole. You know that. No, it's not vastly different than the big stuff today. How is Lawrence of Arabia different from Braveheart or Gladiator? 2001 is a big-effects movie like a lot that come out today. And who cares about summer blockbuster season? Just because there wasn't that season doesn't mean the same type of movies weren't popular.It's simple. the most successful movies at the box office are the ones that can appeal to the broadest range of people. That has always been the case. Some decades ago, the movie-going audience was older, and so you got a little different group of movies. But even back then, the comedy/special-effects/action-thrillers were the most popular in general.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that ambition and quality of film are now seen as liabilities. Titanic got made (yes, with some help from Cameron himself), and that was one of the most ambitious movies ever. And at the time Cameron was a successful director, but not nearly the god-like money-maker he is now. It's not ambition or quality of film that are seen as liabilities. There is a simple formula. R-rated movies just don't make as much money as others. It's extremely hard for them to make even $200 million, much less $300 or 400 million. So, companies aren't going to put in $200 million to a movie that has very little chance of making it back, much less making a profit. But movies like The King's Speech still get made and still do very well.Again, I think there is a confusion because of how successful other movies are. Movies like Avengers, Spider-Man and Shrek are so successful because they appeal to a broad range of people, and they work well as movie-theater fare. That doesn't mean that other things don't get made or aren't successful. The King's Speech is a good example. That is the complete opposite of The Avengers, and yet it got made and did very well. It always has been. This idea of big action/comedy movies being the most successful isn't new. It was around in the 60s, too, when 2001 came out. It's not much different now than it was then.

My point was that people went to see both of them because of the cutting edge effects and technology. 2001 was somewhat of an event film. Even today, you'll hear from a lot of people that watching it for the first time now doesn't give you an accurate understanding because our effects and tech are so much more advanced that those in the film don't impress like they used to. Plotwise and such, yes, it and Avatar are very different, but the reason they were successful is the same. I'm not really sure what the point is here. In general, Hollywood doesn't take risks. It never has. It's not a new thing. As you say, it's an R-rated horror movie. R ratings and horror don't exactly do that well at the box office. So, why would a company put $200 million into a movie that had little chance of even making that back for them? Even worse, why would they decrease their already bad odds by not using a big name in some way?Originally you said Lovecrat stories would never get made into movies unless big-name directors were involved. That's not true. There's every chance that they'd do such a thing. They just might not want to spend $200 million on it, when they know they're unlikely to recoup that amount.

I don't understand the point, though. "Overrated" and "pretentious" are still valid words to use to describe a movie. You might like people to elaborate more, but you seem to be saying that people simply can't use those words ever, or else it means they don't have anything real to say. Blanket statements like "Using those words means you have nothing of significance to say" is no better than the people you're pretending to be better than.

I already covered this. They dominate because they appeal to a broad range of people, and these days the moviegoing audience is a lot younger than it used to be. That doesn't mean other films aren't popular too. No, that doesn't mean the industry has changed a lot, and it certainly doesn't mean it's changed for the worse. How is Planet of the Apes not a big-budget PG-13 popcorn movie? 2001 was popular because of the effects, not necessarily because everyone loved the movie. Again, it's not much different from Avatar. A whole lot of people went to see it, but most people didn't think it was a great movie all around. Why not? A lot of movies get made without big directors.

You seem to have missed my whole point. It's not that the movies you approve of aren't being made and aren't successful. They're just not big blockbusters, and they've rarely been blockbusters at any point in time. That's why I pointed to the other big movies of 1968, which were comedies, musicals and your typical "blockbuster" fare. There is no dumbing down, and dominating the box office isn't all there is. Films without lots of comedy or explosions still get made and are still popular.

No, I didn't even notice your signature. It's a little ridiculous to say that using certain words to describe something means you can't articulate yourself. If a film gets a lot of love from a lot of people, and you don't think it deserves it, that's what we call overrated. If a film has an exaggerated sense of its own importance, it's called pretentious. As you can see by the rest of my comment, I'm quite capable of articulating everything wrong with the movie, but those words would probably also describe it.

I don't think this is the perfect example of that, and I think the idea that "tastes have deteriorated" since then is a bit over the top. First of all, 2001 had a lot of special effects, so in that way it was your normal summer blockbuster you see today. Yes, it was much different in other content, but people went to see it because it was so new and different, much like they went to see Avatar. Look at the other top movies of 1968:Funny GirlThe Odd CoupleBullittPlanet of the ApesMovies with lots of effects and action or comedy do well in theaters these days because they appeal to a broad range of people. Also, the people they appeal to are those who are more likely to go to theaters: young people. Anecdotally, I only go to 1-3 movies a year in general. I tend not to see comedies in theaters because there's no need. I tend to see the big movies that I can't wait for and that are good for seeing in theaters, which means I go to big action movies mostly. However, at home I watch all kinds of other movies. For instance, one of my favorite movies from the past few years is Lars and the Real Girl. Along with that, these days if I don't catch a movie in theaters, I can watch it at home 4-6 months after it debuts in theaters. So, if there's a big event movie like 2001 that people are talking about, I don't have to go to theaters to satsify my curiosity. It has nothing to do with the general taste of the population. People still like good intellectual movies. They just tend to watch them at home, which they couldn't do 40 years ago.

Yes, words like "pretentious" and "overrated" would be accurately used to describe it, and some critics would tout it as a gem. The movie was crap. It had some good special effects, and touched on some good topics, but it was much, much too long and slow. I wouldn't have gotten through it if not for the fact that I could fast forward.

This is a tough one (as these deserted island questions usually are).1) Braveheart2) Ace Ventura: Pet Detective3) The Dark Knight4) The Princess Bride5) Last of the MohicansHonorable mention:6) Castaway

I voted TDK for both. It's one of the best movies in history, and I can watch it over and over. BB is probably second with B89 not too far behind.