But it didn't. It led to the greatest, most fertile period in the history of American cinema. Truthfully, I wouldn't mind seeing something like that happening again.

That sounds dangerously close to a presumed causal connection.

Welcome. James did actually review Soul Kitchen. I'm holding out hope that he'll review Enter the Void and Exit Through The Gift Shop (how 'bout it James? ) and I believe that he can't see a few of these because of availability. However, I agree with your point in general. Some of these are out on DVD and I'd be very happy if JB could review a few of them.



The International Box Office really is a strange (but interesting) thing. From the US figures you'd think those were massive bombs. Sex and the City 2 grossed $288M worldwide on a $100M budget. Probably not enough for another sequel, but pretty profitable. Narnia has $227M worldwide on a $155M budget in about 2.5 weeks. No more sequels, but it should break even (at least). TRON: Legacy might not fare as well but with $152M after 1.5 weeks on a $170M budget it shouldn't be a massive disappointment. A minor failure at worst. Break-even or a little better at best?

Anyone know what the biggest bomb of 2010 is? I'm genuinely interested. Jonah Hex made just under $11M worldwide from a $47M budget. How Do You Know has yet to open internationally but it has only $15M from a $120M production budget so far. I doubt this film plays better in foreign markets than it does in the US, but you never know.

Was Avatar your only **** of 2009? Despite personally advising most people I know to see it at least once, I feel it was only *** recommendation. There's just so much about it that cries wolf, to be honest.

His other four-star for 2009 was Inglourious Basterds.

There's no denying Hollywood came back with a vengeance. We owe it all to Scorsese and Spielberg's generation. The same thing won't happen again unless we have filmmakers who are just as talented. And in the age of home entertainment, even that might not be enough anymore.

LMFAO

Not if they suck And we are def on the second tier of superhero's at this point. So the number of people who will even care is less...

Catch Me If You Can, Chicago, About A Boy too. Personally, Gangs of NY was a pos.

We certainly are, but more than that, we seem to be sampling from multiple tiers at once. Captain America isn't quite Superman or Spider-Man, but Jonah Hex is no Captain America.

I don't believe it is. By the mid-1960s, the old guard at the studios was graying and dying, and the people who were in charge didn't know how to connect with audiences. The studios made a lot of big-budget epics, many of which flopped.

So in response, they turned the reins over to the directors for an all-too brief moment in the late 60s through the 70s. And you know the films we got. The irony here is that it was the same excesses of the studios that ultimately ended the New Hollywood auteurs.

It was a good cycle. Then it cycled back in the other direction for most of the 80s. Then we had a similar thing take place for a while in the 1990s. When the likes of Soderbergh and Tarantino and Rodriguez and PT Anderson and David O'Russell and Richard Linklater and Kevin Smith came along in the 1990s and started pushing their independent films to the forefront it was a 1990s version of what happened in the Easy Riders/Raging Bulls era. While a lot of the 1970s films were in response to the political and cultural cataclysms that were shaking the country in that era, they were also a reaction to those aforementioned failed big budget epics that didn't connect. In a same way, a lot of the 1990s independent/sundance films were a reaction to the political and cultural issues of the era as well as a reaction to big budget junk like Judge Dredd and Last Action Hero. In both cases it was a good cycle. Of course, it ultimately reverted back in both cases. Hollywood spent most of the 80s focused on Blockbusters and Bruckheimer vehicles much like it did most of the past decade. But it wouldn't shock me if it were to cycle back again because people I suspect are starting to get tired of movies that are just empty roller coasters and thrill rides. That would be good for audiences in general. And it would also make it easier for would be filmmakers who have good ideas that aren't precisely commercial.

Also, I'm not sure any of those films are four-star worthy in his eyes. The only ones that might come close are Animal Kingdom and Exit Through the Gift Shop. Maybe. I can't imagine him liking Enter the Void for some reason. I am reminded of his review for Antichrist.

They shouldn't have to be "4 star worthy" to be reviewed. 3.5 star-worthy should more than suffice.

It's also entirely possible that JB will hate Enter the Void, but let's not forget that he gave Noe's Irreversible 3.5 stars. I'm holding out hope for a review, particularly as availability increases over the coming weeks.

Neh. Pedro's right: the best we can hope for is a **1/2 and a dismissal like that he gave to Antichrist. He'll knock the running time, the acting, the this, the that.

I just finished reading the last 3 ReelThoughts articles, with this one being the absolute last, and I have to say that I totally agree. 2010 was one of the worst years for films for me. I can honestly say that there were just 2 films that I had anything resembling anticipation for: Iron Man 2 (which disappointed) and Tron: Legacy (which didn't disappoint because I had lowered my expectations). I agree with those who feel that 2010 was inundated with shitty "3D" films that were released simply to make the extra buck from the horseshit surcharge.

For me, the best year in the past decade for films overall had to be 2008, with films like The Dark Knight, Gran Torino, Iron Man, and The Wrestler. It had it's share of crap too (eg: Twilight), but for me it didn't outweigh the good.

Hopefully, 2011 will be better, but so far, I've had the same sense of anticipation as I did for this past year.

I plan to see it but not review it. Unless I think it's a candidate for the Top 100, that is.

Hmmmm 2.5, 3, 2, 3, respectively. We are just different.

You thought The Wrestler and Gran Torino were equitable? Man, we ARE different.

Or is this just one of those things?

The Wrestler is worse than it should be. It's got a dynamic director, great lead performances, and then a story so trite we know every beat before the movie begins. The arc of that movie would have felt tired in 1962. I wasn't upset by the praise it got because I love Aronofsky and washappy to see him praised after he torpedoed himself with The Fountain, but man was that overrated. Meanwhile Gran Torino is better than it should be. It's just as hoary as Aronofsky's film, but manages to be worthwhile through its general delightfulness. It's old-fashioned in every way, but funny and enjoyable. So three stars for Gran Torino, and three for The Wrestler.

But yeah, we're different.