The 00s Draft: Discussion Thread - Page 2

Argh, Diva and Bailey!  I'll get you for this!

ETA:  I made my pick based solely on what on my list I thought would get picked first.  I didn't think No Country and Basterds would go so quickly, stupid me. 

Primer is probably more "smart" than "great" so I would say it's a fourth rounder at best. It's the weakest pick overall, I think.

Though, of course, there have been no shit picks and I have seen Primer a good five times. Still, it's a massive reach at this point in the game, even though it's a Chewer favorite.

I do think this should be Batman's only appearance in this draft, but we'll see. That's a good, zeitgeisty pick. A couple of the '07 titans, and Tarantino's epic, highlight the draft so far. Curious to see what lies ahead.

Also, it's super early to be thinking ahead, but I totally think we should do a Director's Draft next.

I'm Justin Clark, and I approve of TDK as a first rounder.

Hype and rampant fanboyism be damned. That film is still great.

It really is.  And it just gets better with time.

I'll be the right bastard that says that THE DARK KNIGHT is a weak first-rounder.  Take Heath Ledger out, and it's never more than "pretty good."   Just my humble, unpopular opinion.  

I like TDK as a first rouder.  Its not a pick I would have made, but its the biggest movie of the decade, and I think that, coupled with Ledger's performance, make it a solid selection.  

I think it's a fine first-round pick, and a good snag by yt because it was going to be picked up by someone. I enjoy the film, but I am one who thinks the Hong Kong segment and some other small stuff pushes the time limit unnecessarily and keeps it from being a Great film. 

I'm of the opinion that another superhero deserved to go first before Bats.

There are 2 other superhero films I would easily place above TDK. But it's aesthetics, really. TDK's dour tone is not my favorite approach to the genre.

Also interesting: 2 Nolan films already off the board, within the top 11. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratty 

I'll be the right bastard that says that THE DARK KNIGHT is a weak first-rounder.  Take Heath Ledger out, and it's never more than "pretty good."   Just my humble, unpopular opinion.  

I'm not a fan of the "Take xx out" argument. That's essentially arguing that if we take out the good parts, the film is less good. True, but besides the point.

I was considering grabbing TDK in day 2 if it was still on the board. Certainly, given the post-9/11 metaphor that it is, it's a pretty handy one for constructing a theme around.

I've made a lot of enemies now, haven't I? Well sorry, your cries of outrage are drowned out "When Your Mind's Made Up" which is lulling me to blissful sleep right now.

The Dark Knight continues to fascinate me the more Bush subtext I'm able to see. It's also fun trying to figure out how much of what seems to be said is intentional, and what "side" Nolan really falls on, if any.

Here's my thing with There Will Be Blood- it's either a problem with Dano the actor, or Eli the character, and I'm not sure which.  Or maybe it's a problem with the way Anderson approaches religion in the film, in comparison to how he deals with capitalism.

I know that both thoughts have been expressed in some form or another by Russ and Devin when the film came out.  I think Russ had an issue with the way the film handled religion, and Devin had an issue with Dano not being able to stand up to the power of Day-Lewis.  Since I don't remember exactly what they said, I probably shouldn't bring them up, but the only reason I do is because I'm trying to express there's something there in the film's central equation that feels miscalculated a bit.

I should view it again before saying anything, but since I am trying to spur discussion, I thought I would throw it out there.  It's certainly a great film, and a worthy first round pick.  Plus, how awesome is this poster?

This is a decade draft, and more than quality, The Dark Knight is definitely a product of it's time. Savvy pick for lots of reasons.

Yeah, TDK is definitely a product of its time, perhaps more than any other film taken so far. I think it's fair to say that the decade was defined by 9/11 and it's fallout, along with the digital revolution, and to some extent TDK encompasses both in its technique and subtext.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Cellophane 

There are 2 other superhero films I would easily place above TDK. But it's aesthetics, really. TDK's dour tone is not my favorite approach to the genre.

 

There's only two widely acceptable superhero film choices worthy of showing up before Round 4.

Anyone drafting otherwise should expect to be reamed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

Here's my thing with There Will Be Blood- it's either a problem with Dano the actor, or Eli the character, and I'm not sure which.  Or maybe it's a problem with the way Anderson approaches religion in the film, in comparison to how he deals with capitalism.

 

I know that both thoughts have been expressed in some form or another by Russ and Devin when the film came out.  I think Russ had an issue with the way the film handled religion, and Devin had an issue with Dano not being able to stand up to the power of Day-Lewis.  Since I don't remember exactly what they said, I probably shouldn't bring them up, but the only reason I do is because I'm trying to express there's something there in the film's central equation that feels miscalculated a bit.

 

I should view it again before saying anything, but since I am trying to spur discussion, I thought I would throw it out there.  It's certainly a great film, and a worthy first round pick.  Plus, how awesome is this poster?

 

 

I wouldn't say there was an issue with the way religion was handled.  I just think Anderson takes an incredibly cynical stance on religion, and Dano's weasely, whiny performance, which I think is great, really plays to that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Clark 

There's only two widely acceptable superhero film choices worthy of showing up before Round 4.

 

Anyone drafting otherwise should expect to be reamed.

Or at least have a good theme to justify the selection.

I'm not even sure if it's supposed to encapsulate Religion as an institution the way Daniel represents Capitalism. It's Eli's method of playing The Game, since that's what he's good at, while bereft of Daniel's ruthlessness. I see it as symbolizing how Mammon will steamroll God in most circumstances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

Quote:

 

I wouldn't say there was an issue with the way religion was handled.  I just think Anderson takes an incredibly cynical stance on religion, and Dano's weasely, whiny performance, which I think is great, really plays to that.

 

Right, but is that fair, I think was Russ' point.  (Been four years since I read his review.)  We see good and ill spring from both capitalism and religion, and yet Anderson seems to only see Eli as a con man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

Right, but is that fair, I think was Russ' point.  (Been four years since I read his review.)  We see good and ill spring from both capitalism and religion, and yet Anderson seems to only see Eli as a con man.

My major issue is with Dano's performance. I've never been much a fan of Dano, and I think Devin's point you summarized is valid: Putting Paul Dano next to Daniel Day Lewis (especially where he plays a character so inhumanly ferocious) is unfair. There's no way he can competently stand next to DDL. There is a lot of weakness that comes through in Dano's performance, but for some reason to me it never signs true as weakness in the character, but weakness in the actor (there's a difference). I've never been able to completely put my finger on it, though. But I do think next to Day Lewis the problems are magnified. 

Was it foolish to hope Oldboy would'ved skated until Thursday? Probably. Did I do it anyway? Yep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones 

I'm not even sure if it's supposed to encapsulate Religion as an institution the way Daniel represents Capitalism. It's Eli's method of playing The Game, since that's what he's good at, while bereft of Daniel's ruthlessness. I see it as symbolizing how Mammon will steamroll God in most circumstances.

Well, unless it's an allegory, or something, I am always hesitant to say someone specifically represents something.  Still, I do think Anderson meant to take on those two concepts directly.

I definitely agree that the film's of the opinion that those who gather power and influence will almost always put their greed first, that Eli's pretensions of virtue will fall away.  But I think the film examined Daniel in a fully three dimensional way, and I only wish we'd gotten something even close to that with Eli.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

Right, but is that fair, I think was Russ' point.  (Been four years since I read his review.)  We see good and ill spring from both capitalism and religion, and yet Anderson seems to only see Eli as a con man.

Why does it have to be fair?  Regardless, its not as though its all sunshine and happiness on the flip side of this coin.  It may seem venomous for Anderson to make sniveling Eli the pathetic face of religion, but Plainview, the ruthless capitalist, ends up miserable and alone.

EDIT: Also, I realize its a fine line, but the fact that Dano is simply swallowed up by the sheer intensity of DDL's performance is what makes Dano really click for me.    

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

Quote:

Why does it have to be fair?  Regardless, its not as though its all sunshine and happiness on the flip side of this coin.  It may seem venomous for Anderson to make sniveling Eli the pathetic face of religion, but Plainview, the ruthless capitalist, ends up miserable and alone.

 

EDIT: Also, I realize its a fine line, but the fact that Dano is simply swallowed up by the sheer intensity of DDL's performance is what makes Dano really click for me.    

 

I guess it doesn't have to be fair.  But, I think inasmuch as I saw the film as conceptually about these two pillars of US history, capitalism and religion, rather than about one or the other, that there needed to be a greater balance between the two.  But perhaps that is a flaw in how I looked at the film.

Originally Posted by Justin Clark 

Was it foolish to hope Oldboy would'ved skated until Thursday? Probably. Did I do it anyway? Yep.

Ditto. I was honestly thinking I had a chance for a brief moment there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

I guess it doesn't have to be fair.  But, I think inasmuch as I saw the film as conceptually about these two pillars of US history, capitalism and religion, rather than about one or the other, that there needed to be a greater balance between the two.  But perhaps that is a flaw in how I looked at the film.

 

I like where you're coming from, I just don't think its entirely fair to read the film like that.  Its been a good while since I re-watched this, but is there a single scene where Eli is on screen when Plainview isn't?  This is the Daniel Day Lewis show - Plainview is always the focus, so as much as I like the idea of the film being conceptually about capitalism and religion (which it is to a degree), you're never going to find that kind of balance.

There is that scene where Eli wails on his father during family dinner for being a weak, pathetic fool.  Daniel is nowhere to be seen there.  To the best of my recollection, that MIGHT be the only scene Eli gets for himself.  Poor guy... Plainview takes all of his screentime.

You might even say Daniel sucks that screentime out from under him... almost like... hmmm, a proper analogy escapes me.

Like a pipeline, Mr. Jones... like a pipeline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

There is that scene where Eli wails on his father during family dinner for being a weak, pathetic fool.  Daniel is nowhere to be seen there.  To the best of my recollection, that MIGHT be the only scene Eli gets for himself.  Poor guy... Plainview takes all of his screentime.

Totally forgot about that.  Need to watch this again ASAP.

I really need to see THERE WILL BE BLOOD again.  My initial reaction upon first viewing was a little cold, despite DDL's towering performance. 

Eh, I would wager that District 9 is the first bad pick. Sure, it's great, but round one is for masterpiece-level achievements. I do not think it belongs.

I do think it's a little early for District 9 as well.  Then again, he's looking at at least 48 picks before he goes again, and I really doubt that film was going to last until the late 2nd round.  If he really wants it, this was probably his only chance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

I give full credit to District 9. It's an exceptional movie, and one that can reasonably be compared to Blade Runner.

POPPYCOCK.

I was all set to debate this in a rational manner, and then my eyes shot lasers that cut my laptop in HALF.

I love District 9; it was on my list.  But no way can it be compared to Blade Runner. 

As for There Will Be Blood, there are people who love it and people who don't, and ne'er the twain shall meet. 

As for my TDK pick, look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair. 

Edited!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

I give full credit to District 9. It's an exceptional movie, and one that can reasonably be compared to Blade Runner. I was toying with taking it myself.

 

While there aren't many surprise picks on day one, there's quite a few surprise omissions. Very curious to see where some of these guys drop.

Well, half the group has yet to go.   I am itching to get my picks in here, and I am antsy someone will steal them.   Like most everyone else, I completely forgot Once.  Once Day 1 closes out tomorrow, I will be very interested in a Summary post. 

No mentioning eligible titles!

Well, maybe you could make the exception for [REDACTED].

(C WAT I DID THAR?)

Controversy!

In my eyes, D9 is one of those 'perfect movies'.  Wikus is one of the more compelling action heroes of the decade; his transformation from bumbling bureaucrat to hideous monster is made all the more effective by Copley's performance.  Then there's the action, the incredible design work, the visual effects, all up against that Apartheid backdrop.  Blomkamp is juggling so much here, and I think he nails every action beat and every character moment.  Its exciting, unique, and endlessly watchable.

So yeah, I'll say it.  Masterpiece.  It's great science fiction.  

Although with this crowd, it's pretty unlikely no one would have thought of that film had it not been mentioned.  Still, rules is rules.

Zing!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas Booth 

Edit your post, yt. That's a valid movie you named.

Sorry... edited!  I didn't realize that was a rule until now but will be guided accordingly going forward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

Controversy!

 

In my eyes, D9 is one of those 'perfect movies'.  Wikus is one of the more compelling action heroes of the decade; his transformation from bumbling bureaucrat to hideous monster is made all the more effective by Copley's performance.  Then there's the action, the incredible design work, the visual effects, all up against that Apartheid backdrop.  Blomkamp is juggling so much here, and I think he nails every action beat and every character moment.  Its exciting, unique, and endlessly watchable.

 

So yeah, I'll say it.  Masterpiece.  It's great science fiction.  

Yeeeah... that apartheid "background."

We could go into a serious, fulfilling conversation about the racial content of District 9. But it does make the familiar problematic decision of featuring a real-life third world region and populating it with cruelly-treated lower class aliens. And who is our hero? The upper class white man who spends most of the movie DESPERATELY trying to avoid becoming an Other. Granted, there's something darkly funny, even Verhoeven-ish about that set-up, and it's the most enjoyable part of the movie for me. But, then, you also have most of the black speaking roles given to the cannibalistic criminals who believe in witchcraft and black magic. The whole thing isn't as smart as it thinks, and it's SUPER problematic once you start parsing through that subtext.

I'll go to bat for the film being drafted. The action sings, it reminded me, in some ways, of early Spielberg. And come on, you've got exo-suits, lasers and aliens - how could I NOT think that's awesome? But it's a troubling film at heart, and I don't think it should get points for being "political" when it's also being a tad "dumb."

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

Controversy!

 

In my eyes, D9 is one of those 'perfect movies'.  Wikus is one of the more compelling action heroes of the decade; his transformation from bumbling bureaucrat to hideous monster is made all the more effective by Copley's performance.  Then there's the action, the incredible design work, the visual effects, all up against that Apartheid backdrop.  Blomkamp is juggling so much here, and I think he nails every action beat and every character moment.  Its exciting, unique, and endlessly watchable.

 

So yeah, I'll say it.  Masterpiece.  It's great science fiction.  

I agree that it's a great movie, for all those reasons.  Maybe even a masterpiece.  But I still can't put it in the same league as Blade Runner, considering the times, considering how new and startling and incredibly original (to this day!) Ridley Scott's vision was, overlaying a detective story that gets to the heart of existence itself.  Blade Runner stands on its own, in my opinion. 

Because I do not like to overuse words...

I would say there have been eight masterpieces picked in this first round thus far.