Favorite Film of 2010

[Arr0nax]

Yes yes, you can list a series of these objections about The Matrix too.

Neither of these films is about a realistic scenario. Both of them are clearly science-fiction and rely on engrossing the audience, not presenting a plausible world. To attack them for their plot holes means you're missing the point.

I get what you're trying to say and I agree on the intent : sometimes the important is not in the technicalities but...
You're speaking as if science-fiction does never focus on the technical credibility of the future it proposes.
Whereas it's often quite the opposite, and hence why it must not have too much holes in the plot : a lot of science-fiction novels precisely aim to propose a credible vision of what may happen in the future... See Asimov for example.

I would have a hard time categorizing Inception as either type, because it's really just a shitty movie that propose an interesting vision on nothing. All it does is focusing on the action and killing the bad guys... When you try to create a mindfuck, you better pack it with mindfucking situations, and not just a weak : "this looks like the real world, but could it be a dream ?"

Dreams could have been such an interesting topic...


Also

* Vanilla Sky

I agree with the list of films you posted and all, but quoting a remake without quoting the original seems insulting to me.
Abre Los Ojos is a masterpiece, Vanilla Sky is a remake. If any credit the latter should receive, it's only for it's polish and technical quality

 

[Thomas de Aynesworth]

The Matrix does travel down the path that William Gibson and other cyberpunkers blazed long before.

Erm... you're not serious, are you? The Matrix is anti-cyberpunk.

Compare Case and Neo, if we are to use Gibson's work.

 

[UniversalWolf]

The Matrix does travel down the path that William Gibson and other cyberpunkers blazed long before.

FWIW, the matrix from The Matrix seems to me to be a direct ripoff of the 1976 Dr.Who story, The Deadly Assassin:

The Doctor realises that the Master sent the Doctor the premonition of the assassination through the Matrix, a vast electronic neural network which can turn thought patterns into virtual reality. He decides to enter the Matrix as a means of tracking the Master. Engin warns him that if he dies in the virtual world, he will die in the real world as well.

Sound familiar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deadly_Assassin

 

[Nalano]

The Matrix does travel down the path that William Gibson and other cyberpunkers blazed long before.

I dunno.

Gibson's works were more classically Cyberpunkish, in that they were depicting the slow decline of society through a technocratic corporatist world; e.g. Brunner or Dick or Shirow or early Stephenson. Y'know, the kinda bleak tone that Lem got off on, and by bleak I mean, sure, half of it is "cyber" but the other half must be punk.

The Matrix, on the other hand, didn't really have much to say about society and played out like a more classic Hero vs Great Evil fantasy, and in that stead had as much in common with Gibson as Will Smith had with Asimov. (I mean, how do you make a movie where the premise is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the book?)

a lot of science-fiction novels precisely aim to propose a credible vision of what may happen in the future... See Asimov for example.

[...]

I would have a hard time categorizing Inception as either type, because it's really just a shitty movie that propose an interesting vision on nothing. All it does is focusing on the action and killing the bad guys... When you try to create a mindfuck, you better pack it with mindfucking situations, and not just a weak : "this looks like the real world, but could it be a dream ?"

See Ghost in the Shell for an example of what happens when a writer attempts to jam a book's worth of ideas into 90 minutes of film.

 

[Sander]

Since when has 'memorable' meant anything? It means that there was a series of themes/images that were likely to stick inside your memory. The fact that it's 'memorable' has no telling on whether it was any good or not or whether it brought anything original to the table or not.

To some extent, it is a measure of quality. But I'm not the one who started talking about it being memorable, that was a response to shihonage claiming that it would be forgotten within a year and there was absolutely nothing memorable about it. Which seems to me to be a ludicrous claim.

I get what you're trying to say and I agree on the intent : sometimes the important is not in the technicalities but...
You're speaking as if science-fiction does never focus on the technical credibility of the future it proposes.
Whereas it's often quite the opposite, and hence why it must not have too much holes in the plot : a lot of science-fiction novels precisely aim to propose a credible vision of what may happen in the future... See Asimov for example.

Oh absolutely, there's a lot of (hard) sci-fi that consciously tries to be technologically feasible. Star Trek being the most obvious example. Just saying that neither The Matrix nor Inception are part of that category.

FWIW, the matrix from The Matrix seems to me to be a direct ripoff of the 1976 Dr.Who story, The Deadly Assassin:

One of my favourite episodes. There are a few other Doctor Who episodes with similar themes, Carnival of Monsters being one.

 

[Nalano]

Oh absolutely, there's a lot of (hard) sci-fi that consciously tries to be technologically feasible. Star Trek being the most obvious example.

Really?

Star Trek is the most obvious example?

 

[Sander]

Oh absolutely, there's a lot of (hard) sci-fi that consciously tries to be technologically feasible. Star Trek being the most obvious example.

Really?

Star Trek is the most obvious example?

Yes. Star Trek went to great lengths to keep its scientific explanations plausible. Not that they always succeeded, but they tried to create a plausible and realistic future environment.

 

[Nalano]

Except for, y'know, FTL travel. Or time travel like in the last movie.

But, far more importantly, the legions of harder science fiction that should have come to mind before the Space Opera of which you mention, especially since it's known primarily for being a Space Opera.

 

[maximaz]

Haven't seen many this year but the one I think I enjoyed the most was Tron, although it did start to drag toward the end.

I enjoyed most of Book of Eli, as well. I don't buy the supposed twist though.

Red was pretty funny in most parts but meh in others. Kick Ass was not too bad either.

Alice in Wonderland was ok. Bored me to death at times though.

Was pleasantly surprised with Prince of Persia. It was no Pirates and I kind of dislike Jake Whats-his-name but it was better than I expected.

Predators was almost remarkably exactly what I expected - a mediocre, almost straight to DVD level junk. Almost on par with the MVP crap. So was Date Night and Get Him to the Greek or some shit.

Hate to say it but Expendables was a big disappointment for me as well. The great cast, the good feel, and the fun action sequences made it just tolerable. The pacing was horrible and the plot and the writing were cringeworthy. I could barely bear whenever someone opened his mouth and I don't think it was intentional because I was reminded a lot of Driven, another movie written by Sly.

I was also very disappointed in Faster, Robin Hood, Hot Tub Time Machine, and the Edge of Darkness.

Have yet to see Inception, Knight and Day, Due Date, Wall Street 2, the Town.

By the way, has anyone seen Black Swan yet? I'm hearing it's extremely disturbing in a good way.

 

[Sander]

Except for, y'know, FTL travel. Or time travel like in the last movie.

The last movie went away from that principle. FTL travel is fairly decently explained given the known science at the time. As I said, they don't always succeed, but Star Trek did try to keep everything realistic.

But, far more importantly, the legions of harder science fiction that should have come to mind before the Space Opera of which you mention, especially since it's known primarily for being a Space Opera.

Yes, tons of hard sci fi. None of it as popular and hence as obvious as Star Trek, which is why I chose it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

dunno, I prefer more the kind of sci fi as shown in Ridley Scotts Alien or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Though while I enjoyed ST the next generation a lot (picard is just cool :3 !) and most particularly the interesting world around it which was most of the time coherent I cant say it was a "realistic" form of Sci Fi. Not in the same way as it feelt with Alien for or 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

[Faceless Stranger]

Did anyone see "A Serbian Film"? Just saw the Cinema Snob's worst movies of the year and it was the first... apparently it's... not right, so I was wonderin' if any of you folks care to comment.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

The Matrix does travel down the path that William Gibson and other cyberpunkers blazed long before.

Erm... you're not serious, are you? The Matrix is anti-cyberpunk.

Never meant to imply the Matrix was a rip-off of Neuromancer. Only supporting the idea that the Matrix isn't all that original by mentioning one of it's many influences. Matrix borrows a lot of superficial cyberpunk conventions without any of the actual themes or tone that you get from a Gibson novel. I'm pretty sure the term Matrix as it is used was coined by Gibson, along with so much else that defined the genre.

I don't dwell (I have more than I'd like to already) on the Matrix much, but it has a ton of nods and influences all throughout it. White rabbits, little yellow pills, biblical mythology etc.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Alice in Wonderland was ok. Bored me to death at times though.

I saw that one too and liked it well enough. Considering that I didn't remember it though, I can't possibly mention it in the category of Best of the Year.

 

[SkuLL]

Alice in Wonderland was ok. Bored me to death at times though.

Then it wasn't OK, was it?

I saw it in 3D and it was utter shit. I was so disappointed. Not too disappointed, mind you - I already knew it was a Tim Burton flick, namsayin?

Seriously though, it was horrible. It wasn't even the same story, WTF? Why use the franchise if you're not gonna do the story? Might as well call it 'Some bitch in some place' and save a lot of money.

I was expecting stunning visuals and a modern-day, gritty approach to the drug metaphors. I was expecting a madly beautiful, dreamy, psychedelic world and an excellent performance from mr Depp. Instead, I got some half-assed backdrops and a somewhat psychedelic performance by Depp. Burton's Alice is to the original like Burton's Willy Wonka is to the original - total rape.

I even ate some shrooms in the cinema, hoping to at least tweak the visual experience, but to no gain - waste of drugs, waste of money, waste of time

So to sum up, 2010 was a horrible year for mainstream cinema. This thread is more like 'List the films you've seen in 2010', because to use the word 'Favorite' is really a bit much...

 

[Atomkilla]

Did anyone see "A Serbian Film"? Just saw the Cinema Snob's worst movies of the year and it was the first... apparently it's... not right, so I was wonderin' if any of you folks care to comment.

I'm from Serbia, and well, I've seen some parts of the film...couldn't stand to watch it all...

 

[Crni Vuk]

always knew Chuck must be a serbian. Considering how bad ass he is.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

I was expecting stunning visuals and a modern-day, gritty approach to the drug metaphors. I was expecting a madly beautiful, dreamy, psychedelic world and an excellent performance from mr Depp. Instead, I got some half-assed backdrops and a somewhat psychedelic performance by Depp. Burton's Alice is to the original like Burton's Willy Wonka is to the original - total rape.

I even ate some shrooms in the cinema, hoping to at least tweak the visual experience, but to no gain - waste of drugs, waste of money, waste of time

So to sum up, 2010 was a horrible year for mainstream cinema. This thread is more like 'List the films you've seen in 2010', because to use the word 'Favorite' is really a bit much...

This was a Disney remake, no? Fantasia is the only thing they ever made worth tripping too. You did waste your shrooms if you haven't seen Enter the Void yet.

 

[SkuLL]

Just watched the trailer for 'Enter the Void', it looks fucking awesome. Not really something I'd want to be tripping to, though. I generally don't like tripping in front of a screen anyway (unless it's a mild trip - then I like things like David Attenborough). The fact that I took shrooms to Alice in Wonderland in itself suggests how crap the movie was.

 

[maximaz]

Then it wasn't OK, was it?

I saw it on Netflix stream so I didn't get the 3D element but it looked just so bland in terms of both presentation and story. I was shocked when I found out how much money it made. However, I actually finished it, which means that it wasn't unwatchable, at least.