Lists by demented_peruvian
Excluding siblings and close cousins.
My picks for best movies of 2014. I still have to catch up on about 4-5 movies. I will update it as I do.
For an Oscar for acting. Living, male actors who still make movies only. 2012 update: crossed off top picks Gary Oldman and Christopher Plummer. 2013 update: Hugh Jackman removed. 2014 update: Chiwetel Ejiofor and Matthew McConnaughey removed. 2014 update: removed Michael Keaton and J.K. Simmons.
Actresses that have never been nominated for an acting Oscar. It is harder to do this list than the one for male actors, as, for whatever reason, good actresses get nominated quite sooner. The debate for well-known actresses usually is "overdue for winning an Oscar". It's hard to argue that an actress that has only been standing out for the past six years is 'overdue'. Conversely, many good actresses retire young, or move on to television and theater, where they stand out more. I include only actresses who are still active in cinema.
Cinemaphiles will often say that the Oscars are worthless because Orson Welles, Kubrick, and Hitchcock never won an Oscar for Best Director. Well, all three were nominated at least once. And while several great directors are also nominees and winners, there are some who are still active and overdue. Here's hoping that they make a movie that is worth that nomination.
Best movies of 2013. Ongoing list.
In no order whatsoever. Quit your complaining about 41 vs 42. Some of these movies are hybrid comedies/another genre, about 50/50%, and are still hilarious. Not a big Adam Sandler fan or Farrelly bros. fan; their movies make me chuckle, not laugh. As to whether I "know" about cinema or if I am ignorant because I do not laugh at the same, I have watched 3000 movies, from indie, to pretentious psuedo-art flicks, to B-movies and Z-movies and the MST3K-able, to mainstream blockbusters, the award nominees, and movies from every continent and most major language. Name your cult director, I've watched their film. The real question is... why take comedy seriously?
USA movies that flopped domestically (i.e. earned less than what it cost, or not enough to profit), but made a substantial gross worldwide, turning it into a hit, to the surprise of US film fans, who ask "why is there a sequel? Wasn't it a flop?" or "who allows this director to continue making movies?" Yes, I do calculate that a studio does not take in all of the gross, some of which is shared with theaters. Studios claim it is only 50%. US theater workers will tell you that it is more like 90% for the studios in the first few weeks (which is why the theaters charge so much for food), 50% in far later weeks, when less of the business is done. And they profit more in some overseas locations. Also this list does not count profit from additional sources, such as rentals, DVD sales, merchandise, and TV rights. If you want a rather accurate list of actual flops, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs
Two (or more!) movies released within roughly the same year who were identical in premise, concept, plot, selling point, or an atypical movie subtype (e.g. "a movie about 18th century gardeners"). Not counting intentional porn parodies or Z-movie rip offs, e.g. Asylum movies.
The Oscar nominations are 3 months away, but one can already predict the likely nominees (if they don't flop like "The Counselor" or "The Fifth Estate"). When they were 5 nominees, Oscarologists would pick a major historical production (particularly bios, war movies, and about royals), a fave indie/art flick, a movie that looks/sounds British, a comedy (or musical), a respected blockbuster, and an "issues" movie. Pick 5 that match these 6, sneak in an unpopular flop from a producer known to manipulate the votes, and you have your list. Now, with about 9 nominees, new categories have been added: a 3-D film by a director who is popular with critics, a sports flick, an African-American issues flick, a Cannes favorite, a Toronto favorite, a Sundance favorite, and (if they try) a Pixar flick. Also keep note that certain actors, directors, and producers are popular with voters. Finally, the Academy develops a 3-7 year-cycle of trends in type of movie that wins. With that in mind...
Animated stuff I watched on my TV, across different countries, throughout the 80s and early 90s.
When a horror franchise takes its sequel from Earth to space (usually a space station).
Action movies that follow this formula: "Ridiculously well-prepared terrorists take over [x] with great ease. All is lost. Except that, little do they suspect, one man is hiding inside, whom is highly talented and clever, and fights back." Do not confuse with movies where a hero is sent into the situation.
I keep on putting off watching "Au Revoir, Les Enfants", thus it does not appear on my list. Same goes for "Pathfinder" and "Street Smart". I don't get all the raves about "Moonstruck" (it was okay, but nothing special). "Broadcast News" puts me to sleep on every attempt. I liked "Fatal Attraction" but feel that it was overrated. My list does reflect that the 80s was the heyday of action and horror films.
Not making the cut: "The Master", "Anna Karenina", "Beasts of the Sutherland Wild" (all had some good stuff, but not enough), "Holy Motors".
The most fun movies with the most "B" movie elements.
What was so great about "The Grifters"? Fair movie, cool direction by Stephen Frears, but does not add up to much.
"Pulp Fiction" was rather good, but not that great. I like Tarantino's other movies better. And I've met him.
Good music year, bad movie year. More than the critics' choices, people were talking about Sharon Stone's legs, whether "Alien 3" was any good, the looks of Batman's villains, and jokes about the twist towards the end of "The Crying Game". Wear your X cap. Hoo-ha! You can't handle the truth!
Movies technically released in the US in 2002.