Moby
Dick
https://youtube.com/shorts/aEAW5CDiJCE?si=ouRLW30W54RVci0XOr plastic bag aficionados.
g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
https://youtube.com/shorts/aEAW5CDiJCE?si=ouRLW30W54RVci0XOr plastic bag aficionados.
I got it on my last to watch again. I'll let you know in a few weeks.sorry wasn't meant in any disparaging way, just a reflection of how I feel about his films from a personal viewpoint. I wouldn't make anyone feel bad for liking anything. Except Crash. If you like Crash you should really have a talk with yourself.
I'm not even that old yet. (Tell that to my knee!)That’s ok. I will join you sooner than I’d like to admit.
The 90s part of the list is pretty good. A lot of those movies are well-regarded by critics and/or audiences, quite a few are iconic. I don't like all the movies, but they have a lot of appeal. It's a good representation of the great Hollywood film (Titanic, Schindler's List, Forrest Gump, Dances with Wolves). The 80s is more hit-or-miss.Underwhelming in which way? This list is a much worse group of films than the 2000 - Present Day period.
I'd say that the winner's in 00's are every bit as good as the 90's winners in terms of being well regarded amongst critics and audiences. The only blip was really picking The Hurt Locker over Avatar, which one can have whatever opinion one want about.The 90s part of the list is pretty good. A lot of those movies are well-regarded by critics and/or audiences, quite a few are iconic. I don't like all the movies, but they have a lot of appeal. It's a good representation of the great Hollywood film (Titanic, Schindler's List, Forrest Gump, Dances with Wolves). The 80s is more hit-or-miss.
The list of winners since then... the movies got good reviews, but they're not what is generally considered 'the best of the 21st century' by critics (with a few exceptions). But they're also not that popular with audiences either (most of the lowest-grossing Best Picture winners are from the 21st century). They're just somewhat random movies that win because of Oscar campaign, temporary narratives, and counter-narratives (a growing desire not to give to to 'the favorite'). This is especially true since 2010.
These new graphene bags are no joke.
Ffs I had just managed to stop singing that in my headThese new graphene bags are no joke.
There's no doubt the the 90's was a stronger decade for film than 2010's (at least for American film). That comparision will always have the 90's coming out on top. There's a number of years from 10's that are quite weak overall.If they were just less popular with audiences that'd be fine. But they're also not as popular with critics, at least in the long term.
The highest rated movies of the 2010s according to Metacritic were Boyhood, Moonlight, Roma, Manchester by the Sea, 12 Years a Slave, Gravity, Parasite, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Carol, and The Social Network. The list of movies that appeared in most critics' lists were: Mad Max, Moonlight, Social Network, Get Out, Under the Skin, Tree of Life, Inception, Inside Llewyin Davis, Boyhood, and The Master. The only Best Picture winners from those two lists are Moonlight, 12 Years a Slave, and Parasite.
I only see two winners in the Letterboxd Top 50 of the 2010s (Moonlight and Parasite).
'Popularity' is hard to compare since it's two different decades and consumer habits changed a lot. But at least 5 movies from the 1990s were in the top-10 box office that year (Dances with Wolves, Silence of the Lambs, Schindler's List, Forrest Gump, Titanic) and outgrossed the most successful BP winner of the 2010s (The King's Speech) when you account for inflation.