Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:30 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?" 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3150
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Click here to read topic.


Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:17 pm
Profile WWW
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:51 pm
Posts: 101
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
I did something like this last summer for the movies I most anticipated for the summer of '09, and really, it was hugely hit or miss. That fact is one reason why when I see a movie I highly anticipate, and it turns out to meet or exceed my expectations, I usually end up regarding it higher than if I hadn't anticipated it as much.

Of course, the reverse it also true, perhaps more so. Movies that I was hugely skeptical of, but turned out to be wonderful, like Avatar.

_________________
Read my reviews and thoughts on movies on my blog, Cineviews.


Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:23 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Of those ten, I'm only really interested in two of them, Iron Man 2 and Toy Story 3. The Expendables looks more like a home theater, night with the guys and some beer sort of thing.


Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:11 pm
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Right now the one I'm really interested to see is "Wall Street 2". Mainly because I like the first film and I'm very curious to see Gordon Gekko again. We'll see if Douglas and Stone can make magic once again.

Hopefully "Shutter Island" and "Inception" will be good. I think "The Expendables" will probably be a decent night's entertainment at least. It will probably entertain anyone who loves a good throwback film for the action films of the 1980's.

I liked "Iron Man", but I didn't love it like a lot of people did. So I don't really have any interest in seeing the sequel. If it gets really good reviews then maybe I'll check it out. I'll have to see how I feel.

I don't have any other thoughts about the other films on the list. Maybe "Kick Ass" is being hyped because of its title.


Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:50 pm
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
With the exception of Wall Street 2, I agree with all your choices. I think Wall Street was a really good movie, but it just feels like Stone is again trying to capitalize on current events to make a movie.

I am really excited about Kick-Ass. The word out of BNAT was incredible with someone(Harry, maybe) comparing it to Hard Boiled. That gets me excited real quick. I just found out that it will be the opening movie at SXSW, which I am finally going to with my writing partner.


Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:58 pm
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
I'm not the least bit excited about Shutter Island, in fact I think it looks just plain awful, and I couldn't care less aobut the new Tron film really, but i'm defiitely excited about the rest of the films ont h elst, espeiclaly Kick Ass and Expendables. But one thing I have to correct though, Deathly Hallows is NOT being bifurcated to "maximize revenue" as you put it, it's being split up because Deathly Hallows has far less fat(I.E. subplots) to trim in a film then any other book in the series, pretty much everything that happens in the book is extremely important nad can't just be left out. There's no way all of that stuff could be crammed into one film without it running longer then 4 hours, and a Potter film that long just plain would not work period. So this is one instance when splitting a film into multiple parts is a good thing.


Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:28 pm
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
I'm predicting that from those movies, Inception will be most liked by James and will probably be in his top 10.


I find it a bit weird that he didn't put Robin Hood in the list. Scott and Crow? He is probaby sceptical over the use of that story for the 100th time.

And what about The Way Back? I know not many people know about it and it doesn't even have a trailer yet but I would think James would anticipate this.


My most anticipated are probably:

Alice in Wonderland
Rapunzel
Never Let me Go
the titles I already mentioned as well as some that James included.

I really liked Shutter Island (the book). Let's see what Marty did with it. And for some weird reason I'm anxious to see Cotillard in it. I have become a big fan, I guess.


Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:53 pm
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Yeah, I agree with Vexer that HP isn't split just to make more money. That's my most anticipated of the year, followed by Inception (unlike JB I loved The Prestige and look forward to Nolans "in-betweens"). Toy Story 3 looks good as well, and like JB said it is easy to be a male and look for to the Expendables. I'm looking forward to Alice in Wonderland and The Green Zone as well. Iron Man 2 I'm kind of skeptical about after the trailer. Hoping it's good though.


Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:54 pm
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Hey, all. Longtime reader, first-time poster here...

Of these ten films, the one I'm anticipating the most is Shutter Island. I loved the book by Dennis Lehane, and Scorsese is my favorite living filmmaker. I too am hoping that the film's move to a February release date is not a sign of the distributor's lack of faith in the picture. I find it very hard to believe that any film with this kind of pedigree could possibly suck. (Honestly, when has a Scorsese picture ever truly sucked?)

As an avid comic book reader, I'm also looking forward to Iron Man 2, of course, and (to a lesser extent) Kick-Ass... although to be honest, as far as the latter goes, I was somewhat underwhelmed by the book. Perhaps this will be a rare case where the material works better in a medium other than its original one (for example, I thought Stephen King's Dolores Claiborne was a dreadful book that was made into a very good movie).


Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:06 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Vexer wrote:
I'm not the least bit excited about Shutter Island, in fact I think it looks just plain awful, and I couldn't care less aobut the new Tron film really, but i'm defiitely excited about the rest of the films ont h elst, espeiclaly Kick Ass and Expendables. But one thing I have to correct though, Deathly Hallows is NOT being bifurcated to "maximize revenue" as you put it, it's being split up because Deathly Hallows has far less fat(I.E. subplots) to trim in a film then any other book in the series, pretty much everything that happens in the book is extremely important nad can't just be left out. There's no way all of that stuff could be crammed into one film without it running longer then 4 hours, and a Potter film that long just plain would not work period. So this is one instance when splitting a film into multiple parts is a good thing.


Really? James brought it up, and I am pretty sure everyone knows about it, that damn camping bit. How many pages did that take up? A 5-10 minute montage would suffice, but who knows how much screen time that will take up? None of the movies have been much longer than 2:30, right? Make it three hours or so and call it a day.

This is it for WB and Harry Potter, they will milk it for all it is worth. But, to be fair, if I were in charge, I would prolly do the same. Hollywood is a business after all.


Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:32 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
timgoens wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I'm not the least bit excited about Shutter Island, in fact I think it looks just plain awful, and I couldn't care less aobut the new Tron film really, but i'm defiitely excited about the rest of the films ont h elst, espeiclaly Kick Ass and Expendables. But one thing I have to correct though, Deathly Hallows is NOT being bifurcated to "maximize revenue" as you put it, it's being split up because Deathly Hallows has far less fat(I.E. subplots) to trim in a film then any other book in the series, pretty much everything that happens in the book is extremely important nad can't just be left out. There's no way all of that stuff could be crammed into one film without it running longer then 4 hours, and a Potter film that long just plain would not work period. So this is one instance when splitting a film into multiple parts is a good thing.


Really? James brought it up, and I am pretty sure everyone knows about it, that damn camping bit. How many pages did that take up? A 5-10 minute montage would suffice, but who knows how much screen time that will take up? None of the movies have been much longer than 2:30, right? Make it three hours or so and call it a day.

This is it for WB and Harry Potter, they will milk it for all it is worth. But, to be fair, if I were in charge, I would prolly do the same. Hollywood is a business after all.
Yeah well I don't think making a 3 hour plus Harry Potter film would work, it would just work better as 2 parts, and aisde form the camping scene and one or 2 others, pretty much everything else in the book is vital to the series, basically the book had very little unnecessary material that oculd be left out of the film, so therefore a 2 parter is necessary. And besides, for the most part, Holywood generally likes to avoid 3 hour long films, cause they simply don't make much money because they can't be shown as often per day in theaters as films with a shorter length are(Gods And Generals being one such example) and because 3 hours is too long for mos tpeople to sit in a darkened theater. Very few 3 hour films have ever made much money at the box-office, I suspect that was the same reason why Kill Bill was split up, I doubt it would've been half as usccesful if it was a 3 hour film.


Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:50 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Vexer wrote:
Yeah well I don't think making a 3 hour plus Harry Potter film would work, it would just work better as 2 parts, and aisde form the camping scene and one or 2 others, pretty much everything else in the book is vital to the series, basically the book had very little unnecessary material that oculd be left out of the film, so therefore a 2 parter is necessary. And besides, for the most part, Holywood generally likes to avoid 3 hour long films, cause they simply don't make much money because they can't be shown as often per day in theaters as films with a shorter length are(Gods And Generals being one such example) and because 3 hours is too long for mos tpeople to sit in a darkened theater. Very few 3 hour films have ever made much money at the box-office, I suspect that was the same reason why Kill Bill was split up, I doubt it would've been half as usccesful if it was a 3 hour film.


Titanic and the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy would like to talk to you. Besides, when you are already in the theater for two and a half hours, what is thirty more minutes(as long as the movie is good, of course).

Kill Bill is the exact thing that worries me about Deathly Hallows. Vol. 1 was 111 minutes, Vol. 2 was 136 minutes. That is more than FOUR HOURS! I don't think that is what he originally planned. When the decision was made to split them up, QT went in and padded the running time on each.

That is what worries me about Deathly Hallows. I would rather have one GREAT three hour movie, not 2 okay/good two and a half hour movies.


Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:25 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
timgoens wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Yeah well I don't think making a 3 hour plus Harry Potter film would work, it would just work better as 2 parts, and aisde form the camping scene and one or 2 others, pretty much everything else in the book is vital to the series, basically the book had very little unnecessary material that oculd be left out of the film, so therefore a 2 parter is necessary. And besides, for the most part, Holywood generally likes to avoid 3 hour long films, cause they simply don't make much money because they can't be shown as often per day in theaters as films with a shorter length are(Gods And Generals being one such example) and because 3 hours is too long for mos tpeople to sit in a darkened theater. Very few 3 hour films have ever made much money at the box-office, I suspect that was the same reason why Kill Bill was split up, I doubt it would've been half as usccesful if it was a 3 hour film.


Titanic and the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy would like to talk to you. Besides, when you are already in the theater for two and a half hours, what is thirty more minutes(as long as the movie is good, of course).

Kill Bill is the exact thing that worries me about Deathly Hallows. Vol. 1 was 111 minutes, Vol. 2 was 136 minutes. That is more than FOUR HOURS! I don't think that is what he originally planned. When the decision was made to split them up, QT went in and padded the running time on each.

That is what worries me about Deathly Hallows. I would rather have one GREAT three hour movie, not 2 okay/good two and a half hour movies.



The thing is that HP has been of consistent quality and getting 2 of them to be 2 hours instead of one 3 hour movie is better for us and them, imo. I don't believe Yates will pad the length of either (one of them might end up being the shortest in the series).


Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:17 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Well Keep in mind I said generally, not all. So while there were exceptions, Hollywood certainly dosen't usually demand 3 hour films as the'yre usually not expected to make even half as much money as Titanic did, and while Titanic was admittedly suited for an epic length(that's the only remotely positve thing i'll EVER say about that abomination of a film! :evil: )but Harry Potter just isn't suited for being a 3 hour epic IMO, oh and LOTR dosen't count since only the extended versions were 3 hours, whereas the theatricla versions were 2 and a half hours. And there's no gurantee that Dealthly Hallows being one part instead of 2 would automatically make it a "better" film, I highly doubt that, I deifnitely think Kill Bill would've been weaker as a 3 hour film as it would've had serious pacing issues, and for all we know, Deathly Hallows might very well have had the same problem if it was one film.


Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:29 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
God, the reviews of The Lovely Bones broke my heart. It was like JB's reaction to seeing The Fountain in Toronto.

As for this year:

Inception is getting more and more intresting for me, which is proportionate to how much it is beginning to seem like it is going to be more and more of a mental mind-fuck sort of a film.

Shutter Island worries me because of the release date juggling but it has solid credentials with also having been based off of a novel by a reputable author (which I haven't read fortunately)

Kick-Ass has two things going for it... The web comic orgins and the fact that so far Matthew Vaughn has yet to disappoint me.

Clash of the Titans has a high nostalgia factor but I think it is going to be this years Terminator: Salvation... and not just because it has Sam in it as well. I just think it is not going to live up to its (though of dubious real quality) origins but will entertain more than most of its ilk at least.

Iron-Man 2 is a total wildcard for me though. I love the glimpses of Mickey Rourke I have gotten so far at least.


Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:40 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Some more that could interest. The first 3 make my to 10.

Robin Hood
Scott Pilgrim vs the World
Green Zone
The Wolfman
The Lightning Thief
Prince of Persia
Repo Men
Predators
Jonah Hex
Alice in Wonderland
Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Last Airbender


Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:06 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Vexer wrote:
LOTR dosen't count since only the extended versions were 3 hours, whereas the theatricla versions were 2 and a half hours. And there's no gurantee that Dealthly Hallows being one part instead of 2 would automatically make it a "better" film, I highly doubt that, I deifnitely think Kill Bill would've been weaker as a 3 hour film as it would've had serious pacing issues, and for all we know, Deathly Hallows might very well have had the same problem if it was one film.


Actually, all three LOTR movies were 3 hours, except for Return of the King, it was almost 3 and a half hours long! All of the extended editions were even longer.

You are absolutely right that there is no guarantee that a three hour movie would be better. But, we don't agree about the amount of fluff in the last book. I haven't read it since the day it came out, so I could be wrong.

Believe me, I would love both movies to be great, but I fear the worst.


Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:57 am
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
Premiere.com has a list a 2010 movie preview:

http://www.premiere.com/Feature/2010-Movie-Preview

Some not mentioned yet:
The Social Network - aka the Facebook movie. I don't know why this is even being made, but David Fincher is directing, so I'm interested.
The Beaver - Directed by Jodie Foster; starring Mel Gibson. A man walks around with a beaver puppet on his hand that he treats like a living thing.


Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:03 pm
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
The only glaring omission I see as of now is THE WOLFMAN.


Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:07 pm
Post Re: January 10, 2010: "The Top 10 of 2010?"
ed_metal_head wrote:
Premiere.com has a list a 2010 movie preview:

http://www.premiere.com/Feature/2010-Movie-Preview

Some not mentioned yet:
The Social Network - aka the Facebook movie. I don't know why this is even being made, but David Fincher is directing, so I'm interested.
The Beaver - Directed by Jodie Foster; starring Mel Gibson. A man walks around with a beaver puppet on his hand that he treats like a living thing.


After perusing through this preview, I predict 2010 will be a shitty year for movies. Is it possible to make more movies from comics? Seriously, is it? Granted, I'll see a bunch of those movies because they look fun, but, with 1 or 2 exceptions, I don't expect any of them to be "great". I honestly thought Ed's comment about The Beaver was some kind of joke I didn't get until I saw it on this preview and did a little research. That sounds so weird, that it's actually kind of intriguing.


Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:52 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr