Best of 2007?

feralnomad99 said:You list all these titles and then somehow manage to omit what I consider the absolute best film of the year:
''American Gangster''

To be perfectly blunt, *American Gangster* was one of the biggest pieces of trash released last year. It was a project that neither a legendary director like Scotts nor an actor of Denzel’s caliber should have ever touched. It felt bloated, the execution was clumsy, and the narrative—regardless of its basis in true events—was fundamentally flawed. The films actually mentioned in this thread are lightyears ahead in terms of quality compared to that mess. Besides, one has to wonder: how many of the movies on this list have you actually sat down and watched?

velvetcrane57 said:American Gangster is honestly one of the biggest pieces of trash from last year.... it’s just a movie that really shouldn't have been given to a great director like Scott, nor to Denzel Washington..... it feels way too long, incredibly poorly executed, and the story is just terrible (even if it is based on actual events)... all those other films mentioned here are lightyears ahead in quality compared to gangster flicks like this... and I have to wonder, how many movies from this list have you actually sat through.....

Well, I actually find myself thinking quite the opposite, I really do! I feel like American Gangster actually possesses a coherent story and a solid concept with a clear beginning and end... everything that needs to be said is right there in the film. You know? There isn't any of that hidden "what was the author trying to convey" nonsense, and you don't get stuck in those endless debates like, "oh, he was wearing red socks when they went to kill that guy, so perhaps that symbolizes his premonition that he's next in line," and all that other stuff people tend to obsess over regarding this topic... I mean, look at the title itself, which isn't even the actual title! The real title is Oil, but as I’ve mentioned before... the whole thing was clearly just a marketing ploy to make the film seem more intriguing to audiences by calling it There Will Be Blood... and then suddenly everyone wants to write five pages analyzing the title, wondering if it links to some global crisis or if capitalism is going to swallow us all, or if it signifies the end of capitalism... but American Gangster doesn't play those games... it's straightforward and exactly what it needs to be. Honestly, these kinds of debates take me right back to my high school days, sitting through those tedious literature discussions, especially when we had to dissect Marcel Proust and his books, asking "what did the writer intend to say?" because, as I was saying earlier, if we go down that road, we could spend an eternity discussing a phone book and never stop talking about it...

edit: out of the films you listed, I think I've seen them all except for:
Ratatouille ......... though, I really can't bring myself to watch that one, I suppose🙂

Sweeney Todd, which was released back in 2008, and I definitely plan on watching that eventually since Johnny Depp is playing the lead role

Charlie Wilson's War—and just to clarify, that movie came out in 2008, specifically 2008, not 2007

feralnomad99 said:Charlie Wilson's War actually hit theaters in 2008—to be precise, its release date was in 2008, not 2007.

I tend to group all of those under 2007.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472062/
which is technically what it is.

White said:And someone above nailed it: this isn't a movie about oil. It’s a story about capitalism and religion—basically the two biggest plagues of our modern era distilled into a single human being.

Duh, of course it isn't. Just like "The Mist" isn't actually about monsters and alien attacks.
You shouldn't even have to point stuff like that out.

velvetcrane57 said:One of the worst years ever???

If you ask me, 2007 was one of the best years for cinema.
There Will Be Blood
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country For Old Men
Charlie Wilson's War
Atonement
Eastern Promises
Ratatouille
Sweeney Todd
Bourne Ultimatum
.
.
.
.
.

Honestly, if this year is even half as good as 2007... I'll be a happy man.

Last year was actually incredible.
You didn't count "American Gangster" (like someone else pointed out), you missed "Zodiac," you left out one of the most clever directorial efforts from Darjeeling Inc., and there's so much more you skipped over.
Everything from "Control" to "4,3,2" and those other Romanian films, too.
Even if you just stick to the US, you've ignored at least ten solid hits.
Think about "Transformers" or "Stardust"... half the people can't even remember them!

P.S. I haven't seen Borneo, so I can't speak to that.

Edit: Oh, wait, I just realized you actually AGREE that this year was good. Your first sentence threw me off.
Nevermind.

Arthur Garcia59 said:Of course it isn't. It’s much like how "The Fog" isn't actually about monsters and attacks.
Those kinds of elements don't even need to be explicitly highlighted.

The past year was actually quite, quite exceptional.
You failed to mention "American Gangster" (as someone pointed out), you missed "Zodiac," you left out one of the most skillfully directed pieces from Darjeeling Inc., and there is so much more you overlooked
ranging from "Control" to "4,3,2" and various other films from Romania, and so on.
Even if you limit your scope strictly to the USA, you have bypassed at least ten solid titles.
Take "Transformers," for instance, or "Stardust"... half the people can barely even remember them.

p.s. I haven't seen "Borneo," so I can't speak to that.

edit: Ah, I see now—you actually ARE arguing that this year was good. Your opening sentence threw me off.
Never mind.

Indeed, I am.

And yes, I didn't intentionally omit the titles you brought up—well, except for "Zodiac," which simply slipped my mind... because, frankly, "American Gangster" is rubbish, "Transformers" is just mindless fluff for kids with plot holes so massive they're practically structural failures, and as for Darjeeling and those other European films, I haven't sat down to watch them, so... but that year, 2007? In my estimation, it stands as the finest year of this century.

velvetcrane57 said:Look, I am TOTALLY FOR

and yeah, I didn't mean to skip those titles you mentioned—except for Zodiac, which totally slipped my mind... because, honestly, American Gangster is trash, Transformers is just a movie for kids with more plot holes than a block of Swiss cheese, and I haven't really sat down to watch Darjeeling Inc. or those other European films, so... but man, 2007 was easily the best year of this century so far.

The fact that you think "American Gangster" is garbage doesn't change a thing.
"Transformers" was one of the most fun movies released this past year, period.
Besides, the century is still young.

Arthur Garcia59 said:The fact that you think "American Gangster" is trash doesn't change much for me.
"Transformers" was one of the most entertaining films released this past year, if not quite *the* most entertaining.
The century is still young.

Well, I’d wager more people would agree that "American Gangster" is garbage, but fine... regardless, it can't exactly be called one of the better films of last year—and while taste is subjective, cinematic quality certainly isn't. Just look at the gap between "American Gangster" and "There Will Be Blood"... it's like night and day. And as for "Transformers," if you found them fun, well... hold on, because I didn't actually mention "Die Hard 4," which was easily one of the most enjoyable movies last year and a prime example of how an action flick should actually be made!
Sorry for going off-topic, everyone, but we have to pivot slightly... it's not like we've completely drifted 😁

velvetcrane57 I didn't catch what was said! You left me hanging there. What's the word? Give me the scoop!
I’m willing to bet most people are gonna call American Gangster total trash, but hey, that's fine. You can't really claim it was one of the best films from last year—look, I know taste is subjective, but film quality? That's an open-and-shut case. Take American Gangster versus There Will Be Blood. It’s night and day. Seriously. And if you actually found Transformers entertaining... wait, hold on, I didn't say that. Let me rephrase. Die Hard 4 was easily one of the most fun movies out last year. Now *that* is a perfect example of how you actually make a real action movie.
Sorry guys, I know we're drifting off-topic here, but hey, we gotta switch things up once in a while... It’s not like we've totally lost the plot or anything. 😁

If we’re only counting actual masterpieces here, then you better include Zodiac.
If we’re talking about all-time greats, you've gotta count Anderson and Zodiac. Maybe throw in some Coen too.
If we’re actually going to tally up the great ones, then you have to include everything on this list—especially American Gangster. That movie is solid. Seriously. The acting is top-tier and the script is just written so well. It belongs in the conversation.

I’m not even going to bother explaining my take on Transformers. Period.

Arthur Garcia59 said:If we’re strictly counting absolute masterpieces, then you count "Zodiac."
If we’re looking at excellent cinema, you include Anderson and "Zodiac," and perhaps the Coens.
If we move into the territory of "very good" films, then you take all of those plus "Gangster," because that’s actually a solid piece of filmmaking with stellar acting and a tight script.

I won't even dignify the Transformers with an explanation.

For me, "Zodiac" was the standout film of the year, right up until the moment "Michael Clayton," "There Will Be Blood," "Redemption," "No Country for Old Men," and—good lord—"Juno" showed up. As for "Gangster," the story is just fundamentally broken; the script is a mess and ruins the whole experience. It feels bloated, and frankly, even the cast couldn't save it. It was a massive disappointment from Ridley Scott—definitely a significant low point in his career.