When you talk about the cinematic landscape of the 2000s, you can't ignore how much pressure it faced from the small screen. Television in the States evolved into this massive creative powerhouse during that era. Personally, I found myself completely hooked by shows like The Wire, Breaking Bad, and The Office. Even looking across the pond, you have guys like Ricky Gervais, who arguably hit his stride more on TV than in film, or that brilliant American-style anthology vibe seen in Black Mirror.
Richard Johnson42 said:And finally, lest I forget, I have to mention the master of documentaries who also happens to have directed what might be my favorite narrative feature: Herzog's The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans.
I find Herzog incredibly fascinating in his later years. Even if he isn't quite at his creative peak anymore, he’s finally starting to reach a broader audience. It's a strange trajectory—arriving in the US at 60 and suddenly working with the Hollywood A-list, even dipping his toes into 3D, all while remaining that one-of-a-kind, brilliant Werner Herzog.
Three major technological shifts have defined this decade of cinema: downloading movies online, high-end digital alternatives to film stock, and the rise of 3D technology.
The internet has effectively put global cinema at our fingertips. Suddenly, there's much more buzz surrounding the film industries in places like Korea, Iran, or Romania. While their reputations are ultimately built on wins at international festivals, the web has made their work accessible outside of official distribution channels—giving a lifeline to those of us living in the cinematic backwaters of the US. Whether this shift is permanent remains to be seen.
Major studios are trying to fight back against the internet by pushing 3D. After Avatar, it felt like 3D was the undisputed future of Hollywood, but I think the hype has largely deflated. It’s actually more interesting to watch heavyweights like Werner Herzog and Martin Scorsese take experimental dives into the 3D medium.
On the other hand, the evolution of digital filming and projection has been a massive boon for smaller film industries. Costs have plummeted, yet the quality is now catching up to traditional 35mm film. With top-tier digital cameras like RedOne or Arri Alex, indie filmmakers can produce great work, and some low-budget creators are even using high-end still cameras that deliver surprisingly solid image quality. We've already seen local productions shot entirely on stills, and an upcoming Šovagovićev project is following that same path.
I remember back on the old chat boards, we used to compile lists of the best films of the decade. You couldn't go two names without hitting Inarritu, PT Anderson, Fincher, or Coen; they were the ones who truly defined American cinema in the 2000s. Personally, I thought the Coens were at their peak earlier on, but that first trio was churning out absolute masterpieces. With Anderson, we even got one of those rare films destined to become a permanent part of the cinematic canon, There Will Be Blood. All in all, it was a strong decade for filmmaking; I don't think it was a weak one by any stretch.
Our local scene has taken a small step forward. New audio-visual centers have been established, and we're seeing a decent uptick in quality compared to the nineties. It's still a bit too early to call it a revolution, but there's enough momentum to keep hope alive.
Some of the greatest directors to ever pick up a camera—think Stanley Kubrick, Andrei Tarkovsky, Fritz Lang, or François Truffaut—have all delved into Sci-Fi. Honestly, who cares if some notoriously conservative group like the Academy doesn't have a habit of handing out Academy Awards to Sci-Fi films? Why should that even matter? Their biggest issue isn't anything deep; it's just basic genre bias.
northerntrucker2 said:I’ve actually found Malick fascinating lately. After taking a six-year hiatus between projects, he currently has three films in the works—one is already shot, and the other two are deep in pre-production.
Six years?! He’s also pulled a twenty-year disappearing act before.😁 But Malick is really in a league of his own when it comes to most things.
Personally, I think cranking out a movie once a year has been doing Allen more harm than good recently. You could really see it in that film from last year—the script felt incredibly half-baked. This year's effort suffers from similar growing pains, though I'd say it’s a much better, more "likable" movie. On the flip side, Fincher is killing it. Yeah, I thought Button was great, and The Social Network was excellent; as for trashing the remake, I’ll hold my breath until I actually see it.
Honestly, I don't get how directors who write their own scripts can manage to drop a film every single year. How do you even decide which idea is worth committing years of your life to in such a short window? Then again, there's no rhyme or reason to it—take dada Matanić, for example, who seemed to shoot Dad just because he needed something to work on. It definitely shows.
frozenskipper12 said:To be fair, he was never really a major superstar to begin with.
Maybe not, but back in his prime, he definitely brought something unique to American cinema. There’s a very specific kind of charm found in movies like Clerks and Chasing Amy.
The last decade, though? It's been a disaster. He hasn't managed to turn out a single decent film since.
I think some people here really need to take a chill pill😁
Sure, tribute bands aren't nearly as good as the originals, but I don't see the mystery in it. You get four, five, or six musicians who love a specific band and decide to play their hits just for the hell of it—or because they realize there’s a huge crowd willing to pay to hear them. It's simple math.
Look, it's derivative, I get it. But honestly, people play at weddings and in backing bands for artists like Taylor Swift or Ed Sheeran; at that level, a tribute act isn't even the worst gig a musician can land. And for the listener? It's not the end of the world either.
Does this Reddit not offer any way to view more detailed stats? A few years back, I used to post on a different site where you could actually dig into the data. You could see your exact post count per subreddit, what percentage of the sub's total activity was yours, a graph showing your peak activity hours, even the precise number of hours you've been logged in since you signed up... it was everything.
You get some incredible dialogue when you combine Cormac McCarthy’s writing with two seasoned acting heavyweights. The whole thing is confined to a single room. Looking at the list Christian Taylor3 put together, the closest thing I can think of to this is Linklater's Tape—another absolute standout.
What is actually going on with David Gordon Green? He’s an author with massive potential, yet he keeps wasting it on this kind of garbage. And from the looks of it, his next project is headed down the exact same path...
Tyler Doyle said:Well, one's going to be the screenwriter, and the other's the director.
🤣
A bit of unsolicited advice: it’s pretty obvious you guys are still rookies, so stop stressing yourselves out over production houses and stuff like that. If you actually want to make movies, go read a few books on film theory first, then try to shoot something halfway decent on your own—like a short film. Nobody is going to hand you a shot on a silver platter. Start teaching yourself step-by-step and see where it leads. Who knows, maybe you'll even land some funding from the NEA 😬
But let’s be real, ticket prices have been climbing steadily lately. If we're sticking to your logic, that actually means older movies end up bringing in less revenue compared to what they would have back in the day😁
Mark Wood79 said:It’s funny watching everyone here relentlessly claim Pavicic ruined the movie, arguing he’s completely lost touch with the facts, yet despite all that complaining—you guys still can't stop reading his reviews. 🤷
Personally, I treat his stuff like a little mental trivia game. Every time I read an info point, I find myself double-checking it in my head. It’s a decent way to test my own memory.
Mark Wood12 said:I don't see any glaring errors here.
Aside from the fact that director Wes Anderson didn't win an Oscar for the film The Artist. In reality, that movie wasn't even nominated for that specific award. Which brings us to Smith's other issue: a chronic tendency to trip over the most basic facts.
Daniel Kelly57 said:I don't get why some people aren't feeling this kind of humor. That's fine, but I don't understand how anyone could expect something totally fresh or groundbreaking from this movie. Anyone who loved the first one was basically expecting this exact sequel. It’s the same vibe in a different setting, just with another character getting married. If I'm not mistaken, there's still one single guy left, so maybe we can look forward to another installment down the road. 🙂
Maybe what bothers people is that exact lack of effort. Look, if you're making a sequel, try to be creative—that's literally the job. You shouldn't just settle for "the same thing, just somewhere else." If a studio practically films the exact same movie twice, people have every right to be disappointed. For me, formulaic plots never really land as funny.
I'm speaking generally here since I haven't actually sat down to watch the second one yet, and honestly, I probably won't, given that the style and quality of humor in the first film wasn't really my cup of tea.
I've never actually sat through a single Darren Aronofsky movie, yet here I am arguing with everyone about Black Swan, and honestly, Fontana is easily the worst film I've ever seen. :bagonhead: