Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15024175]Genuine question: do you care? If I actually take the time to do that will you give a shit or just continue to hold the same "analysis" of it that you currently do?[/QUOTE]
I care. The movie is very well rated and Ive had few movies Im so confused by the high rating by.
It just felt utterly pointless. A lot of hyped and then awarded movies are just liked by sheep who go along with everything. But maybe theres more to it. So yeah, tell me what you saw in it.
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15024105]Get out is a very good movie. Extremely unique both in perspective and genre fluidity.
Is #8 probably too high? Perhaps. But you’re the only one that it really seems to bother. Hence the call-out.[/QUOTE]
Dude come on. It's a decent horror/suspense movie but it shouldn't be included on a list like this, let alone the top 10.
I could've picked apart more films on the list but your eyes go to the top 10 first and including Get Out just feels like a really bad try hard choice. Only someone interested in virtue signaling or making a political statement would ever think to rank the film that high.
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
[QUOTE=rmt;15024170]And Black Panther gets a nod over any of the Avenger movies - what DEI nonsense.[/QUOTE]
In reality I don't think there's a single comic book or superhero movie this century that was truly "great".
Avengers is a great blockbuster type movie and fun time, but I wouldn't call it a great film. Dark Knight is legendary because of Heath Ledger, but again I wouldn't call it a great film. Not sure if those movies really deserve this level of adulation.
Black Panther being on the list is just the icing on the cake though.
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
[QUOTE=Baller234;15024186]In reality I don't think there's a single comic book or superhero movie this century that was truly "great".
Avengers is a great blockbuster type movie and fun time, but I wouldn't call it a great film. Dark Knight is legendary because of Heath Ledger, but again I wouldn't call it a great film. Not sure if those movies really deserve this level of adulation.
Black Panther being on the list is just the icing on the cake though.[/QUOTE]
Dark Knight is the only superhero movie that should be on the list.
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;15024177]I care. The movie is very well rated and Ive had few movies Im so confused by the high rating by.
It just felt utterly pointless. A lot of hyped and then awarded movies are just liked by sheep who go along with everything. But maybe theres more to it. So yeah, tell me what you saw in it.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. I'll do this without being snarky then.
[QUOTE]The family owning the house is clearly representative of (white) power structure[/QUOTE]
For starters, this is just incorrect. There is no racial angle to this movie whatsoever. This is purely a commentary on classicism and the potential pitfalls when this type of wealth inequality exists, especially in such close quarters as the two families are in in this film (the mansion is above a basement bungalow that the entire poor family lives in). And also pitfalls of certain tactics people can utilize to achieve such status.
I don't think there are any heroes or villains here, as both sides are looked at with a fairly objective lens.
The rich family is looked at as corrupted and almost wholly lacking in empathy, to a level of ignorance as to the struggles of people around them that don't live like they do. There are many nuances that describe this, but a couple of examples would be the wife commenting on the smell of one of the others without knowing what they had gone through that contributed to it. Another is the storm: the rich family enjoyed it and commented on how much they needed the rain (despite the elaborate sprinkler system in their yard), but unbeknownst to them the entire poor family's home was flooded below.
The poor family, on the other hand, is looked at as desperate to the point of being willing to deceive (and ultimately act violent), i.e. their plan that makes up the major plot of the movie. They are willing to lie and steal in an attempt to be more like the rich family. There is also ignorance on their end to, as they are unaware that their moral corruptions will to their own downfall as well, marking their entire plight of rising up the ranks socially as futile.
The violent outburst at the end is a culmination of everything above. The lack of empathy and awareness further angering those below, mixed with the desperation and frustration of the poor family realizing they will never be what they aspire to, leads to an explosion.
This outburst isn't glorified in the slightest though. Looking at it from the perspective of the poor father, in his deceptive attempts to bring his family out of poverty he has had his daughter killed, his wife arrested, and young son detained and he himself has been trapped in a subterranean bunker indefinitely. So this fragile and futile house of cards that he'd built comes crashing down in spectacular fashion, as his life becomes far more fvcked up than it even was before.
So having said that, to me it isn't at all about championing oppressed people to rise up against their oppressors. It's more commenting on what people can be capable of when they spend years festering in frustration (some of it justified), desperation, and jealousy.
On top of that it's beautifully shot, narratively smooth with subtle layers being peeled back in each scene, and darkly humorous. Great movie IMO.
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;15024177]I care. The movie is very well rated and Ive had few movies Im so confused by the high rating by.
It just felt utterly pointless. A lot of hyped and then awarded movies are just liked by sheep who go along with everything. But maybe theres more to it. So yeah, tell me what you saw in it.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. I'll do this without being snarky then.
[QUOTE]The family owning the house is clearly representative of (white) power structure[/QUOTE]
For starters, this is just incorrect. There is no racial angle to this movie whatsoever. This is purely a commentary on classicism and the potential pitfalls when this type of wealth inequality exists, especially in such close quarters as the two families are in in this film (the mansion is above a basement bungalow that the entire poor family lives in). And also pitfalls of certain tactics people can utilize to achieve such status.
I don't think there are any heroes or villains here, as both sides are looked at with a fairly objective lens.
The rich family is looked at as corrupted and almost wholly lacking in empathy, to a level of ignorance as to the struggles of people around them that don't live like they do. There are many nuances that describe this, but a couple of examples would be the wife commenting on the smell of one of the others without knowing what they had gone through that contributed to it. Another is the storm: the rich family enjoyed it and commented on how much they needed the rain (despite the elaborate sprinkler system in their yard), but unbeknownst to them the entire poor family's home was flooded below.
The poor family, on the other hand, is looked at as desperate to the point of being willing to deceive (and ultimately act violent), i.e. their plan that makes up the major plot of the movie. They are willing to lie and steal in an attempt to be more like the rich family. There is also ignorance on their end to, as they are unaware that their moral corruptions will to their own downfall as well, marking their entire plight of rising up the ranks socially as futile.
The violent outburst at the end is a culmination of everything above. The lack of empathy and awareness further angering those below, mixed with the desperation and frustration of the poor family realizing they will never be what they aspire to, leads to an explosion.
This outburst isn't glorified in the slightest though. Looking at it from the perspective of the poor father, in his deceptive attempts to bring his family out of poverty he has had his daughter killed, his wife arrested, and young son detained and he himself has been trapped in a subterranean bunker indefinitely. So this fragile and futile house of cards that he'd built comes crashing down in spectacular fashion, as his life becomes far more fvcked up than it even was before.
So having said that, to me it isn't at all about championing oppressed people to rise up against their oppressors. It's more commenting on what people can be capable of when they spend years festering in frustration (some of it justified), desperation, and jealousy.
On top of that it's beautifully shot, narratively smooth with subtle layers being peeled back in each scene, and darkly humorous. Great movie IMO.
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
Guy at work said he took his young son to see WALL-E and said it was the stupidest movie he'd ever seen. Said throughout the whole movie you just had people repeating "WALL-E" over and over again.
Also surprised that "In Bruges" didn't make the list.
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;15024173]The family owning the house is clearly representative of (white) power structure, the movie glorifies revenging your supposed oppressor.
But yea tell me more about the deep meaning Im missing.
No wonder intellect is going down if a shock gore movie like that with no purpose but glorifying violence appeals to so many as some deep movie :facepalm[/QUOTE]
Clearly representative of white power structure?
Honest advice: Leave the propaganda loop you're caught in. Stop consuming liberal media outlets by proxy who often act like present day white males are to blame for atrocities of yesteryears and also stop consuming rightwinger propaganda that acts like theres a transnational conspiracy against whites going on. Stop consuming shit - left and right - that makes everything about race. Race isn't our problem.
Koreans mostly don't give a shit about whites and there's no white power structure in south korea. Why should this be an antiwhite agendapiece?
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;15024153]The fact you cant see this list is a political statement says it all about you.
They made Parasite 1 and Get Out one of the 10 best movies of the century.
[B]They can do whatever they want with chumps like you. 0 backbone 0 resistance[/B].[/QUOTE]
It's an arbitrary ranking of movies you stupid f@#k :roll:
Completely subjective and opinion based.
This isn't something you "resist" or hit the streets in protest over. :oldlol:
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
Movies will always have underlying themes, most of which can be translated to politics. They always have and always will. If American History X came out today it would be labeled woke trash. Luckily for it, society wasn't engulfed in tribal politics at the time.
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
[QUOTE=Off the Court;15024222]Movies will always have underlying themes, most of which can be translated to politics. They always have and always will. If American History X came out today it would be labeled woke trash. Luckily for it, society wasn't engulfed in tribal politics at the time.[/QUOTE]
Maybe we weren't so lucky. Society being blind to the woke infiltration of film and culture is how we got into this mess.
I would argue the reason we have so many woke people to begin with, aside from them being gullible and stupid, is due to 25+ years of social conditioning in media. It was a slow, gradual indoctrination.
I would say the seeds of wokism were planted sometime during the 90's.
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15024188]Dark Knight is the only superhero movie that should be on the list.[/QUOTE]
Heath's Joker is legendary no doubt. The character itself and also his performance.
But I think the movie is really, REALLY overrated. I definitely don't think it's some all time great piece of cinema.
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
[QUOTE=Baller234;15024231]Heath's Joker is legendary no doubt. The character itself and also his performance.
But I think the movie is really, REALLY overrated. I definitely don't think it's some all time great piece of cinema.[/QUOTE]
While I agree, I don't think you have to be some all-time great piece of cinema to make a top 100 movies list in the last 25 years. :lol
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;15024153]The fact you cant see this list is a political statement says it all about you.
They made Parasite 1 and Get Out one of the 10 best movies of the century.
They can do whatever they want with chumps like you. 0 backbone 0 resistance.[/QUOTE]
You're a conspiracy nut...stay being a useful idiot though.
Re: New York Times 100 Top Movies of the 21st Century
[QUOTE=Baller234;15024228]Maybe we weren't so lucky. Society being blind to the woke infiltration of film and culture is how we got into this mess.
I would argue the reason we have so many woke people to begin with, aside from them being gullible and stupid, is due to 25+ years of social conditioning in media. It was a slow, gradual indoctrination.
I would say the seeds of wokism were planted sometime during the 90's.[/QUOTE]
The little man overcoming the big man is basically every movie ever in a nutshell. It isn't 25+ years, it's all of cinema. And it isn't a mess, humans enjoy seeing the underdog triumph, it is much more entertaining and meaningful than the other way around.
You gotta get over it because that theme isn't going anywhere.