Top mainstream movies since 1933

[RGC]

As we all know, here at shmups.system11.org, opinions can be wrong. Below is a list of what I regard as the best mainstream films for each year, spanning the last 79 years. The question is, which ones did I get wrong? Be brutal!!

2011 Drive | [Melancholia]
2010 The King's Speech | [True Grit]
2009 Moon | [Inglourious Basterds | [The Men Who Stare at Goats]
2008 Burn After Reading | [Let the Right One In]
2007 Sunshine | [There Will be Blood | No Country for Old Men]
2006 Casino Royale | [The Departed]
2005 Sin City | [Batman Begins]
2004 The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou | [Team America: World Police | Shaun of the Dead]
2003 Lost in Translation | [Bad Santa]
2002 28 Days Later... | [Gangs of New York]
2001 Mulholland Drive | [The Royal Tenenbaums]
2000 O Brother, Where Art Thou? | [Memento]
1999 Being John Malkovich | [Fight Club | The Matrix]
1998 Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas | [The Big Lebowski]
1997 Lost Highway | [Donnie Brasco | Life is Beautiful]
1996 From Dusk Till Dawn
1995 Twelve Monkeys | [Se7en]
1994 Pulp Fiction | [Leon]
1993 Groundhog Day
1992 Alien 3
1991 Terminator 2: Judgment Day | [The Silence of the Lambs]
1990 Goodfellas | [Total Recall | Predator 2]
1989 The Abyss | [Back to the Future Part II | My Left Foot]
1988 Die Hard | [A Fish called Wanda | Akira]
1987 Withnail & I | [Predator | Full Metal Jacket]
1986 Aliens |[The Fly]
1985 Back to the Future |[Commando | Ran]
1984 The Terminator
1983 Scarface
1982 Blade Runner |[The Thing]
1981 Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
1980 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back |[Raging Bull | Blues Brothers]
1979 Alien [|Life of Brian | Apocalypse Now]
1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers |[The Deer Hunter]
1977 Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope
1976 Taxi Driver
1975 Jaws
1974 Monty Python and the Holy Grail
1973 The Wicker Man
1972 Fist of Fury |[The Godfather]
1971 Dirty Harry
1970 Kelly's Heroes
1969 Midnight Cowboy
1968 The Producers |[2001: A Space Odyssey]
1967 Cool Hand Luke
1966 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
1965 For a Few Dollars More |[The Hill]
1964 Marnie |[A Fistful of Dollars]
1963 The Haunting |[The Birds]
1962 Cape Fear
1961 The Hustler |[The Innocents]
1960 Spartacus |[Psycho]
1959 Some Like It Hot
1958 Vertigo |[A Night to Remember]
1957 12 Angry Men
1956 It Conquered the World
1955 n/a
1954 Rear Window
1953 Calamity Jane
1952 Singin' in the Rain
1951 The Thing from Another World
1950 Rashomon
1949 The Third Man
1948 n/a
1947 n/a
1946 Notorious
1945 n/a
1944 n/a
1943 n/a
1942 Casablanca
1941 Citizen Kane
1940 Rebecca
1939 The Wizard of Oz
1938 n/a
1937 n/a
1936 n/a
1935 n/a
1934 n/a
1933 King Kong

[Square brackets denote alternatives I couldn't make my mind up on , and which therefore get an honourable mention]

NB. It struck me how few movies I've actually seen pre c.1960. That's why you'll see either some really obvious, or some bizarre choices prior to that (e.g. 1953). The reason I went back as far as 1933 is because I want to know what good early flicks, in your view, I've missed out on. I'll then take steps to see them!

----

Films that must be seen before any kind of year-on-year best list can make sense:

CMoon
The Wild Bunch, Chinatown, Secret of NIMH, Road Warrior

t0yrobo
The Constant Gardener, Pride and Prejudice, The Squid and the Whale, Brokeback Mountain, The Tree of Life, The Secret in their Eyes, Last of the Mohicans

Moniker
A History of Violence

circuitface
Beyond the Black Rainbow

Drum
Duck Soup

Ed Oscuro
Legend, Krull, (1968) Kuroneko, Throne of Blood, Ikiru, Stray Dog.

Ixmucane2
(2008)Wall-E, (1950)All About Eve

Acid King
(2007) Eastern Promises, 1949 White Heat, 1948 Key Largo, The Street With No Name (Richard Widmark is the fucking man in this one), Raw Deal, Call Northside 777, 1947 Dark Passages, Dead Reckoning, Kiss of Death, Lady from Shanghai, 1946 The Big Sleep, The Blue Dahlia, The Dark Corner, Gilda, The Postman Always Rings Twice, The Stranger, 1945 Mildred Pierce, 1944 Arsenic and Old Lace, Double Indemnity, Laura, Murder My Sweet, 1942 This Gun For Hire, The Glass Key, 1941 Dumbo, I Wake Up Screaming, The Maltese Falcon

Herr Schatten
(1974) Phase IV

DEL
Street Kings, Harsh times, Small Time Crooks, Ninth Gate, Deep Rising, The Big Hit, Clear & Present, Danger, Blood in Blood out, King of New York, State of Grace, Down by Law, Neighbors, 1941, Charley, Varrick, My Name is Nobody, Two Lane Blacktop, Coogan's Bluff, Ace High, Once Upon a Time in the West, In the Heat of the Night, 1993 Sonatine, 1984 The Hotel New Hampshire

rapoon
Giant, Pope of Greenwich Village, Paths of Glory, 8½, Breathless, Doctor Zhivago, Papillon, 1955 Rebel Without a Cause, A Streetcar Named Desire

----
Edit: Apologies for the crudity of this list. I didn't have time to build it to scale or paint it.

[Friendly]

A few films that don't really deserve to be on any "best" lists I noticed at first glance:

-Inglourious Basterds: Total crap.

-The theatrical cut of Alien 3 is awful (unless you mean the assembly cut released on dvd/blu ray many years later; that's one's pretty decent and shows it could have been a good movie)

-Aliens is pretty dumb (story makes 0 sense; ok as an action-movie but not in the same league as the original)

-The Abyss: boring, dull.

-Sin City: just bad.

-Shaun of the Dead: unfunny

[RGC]

Ok, but I need the correct answers for the ones I got wrong. :-P

[CMoon]

Any list like this is too ambitious. Some years have 5 or even 10 amazing films, other years (like the last decade) you're hard pressed to find one. Absence of Chinatown or any of the films by Friedkin make this list questionable. It's also highly suspect the further back you go (Thing from another world, really??), and even contradicts itself (Rashomon was never a 'mainstream' film even though it did make it to US theatres. Godzilla King of the Monsters was the closest thing to a mainstream western release from Japan.)

As far as being brutal, wait until Skykid finds this thread, assuming he even bothers.

Oh yeah: Where's The Wild Bunch?

[Friendly]

Yeah, exactly. What's the point of such a list? What's the point of listing less than stellar movies just because there wasn't anything better that year, or of only listing one even if there were several good ones?
It doesn't matter when a good movie was made.

And if you want a top 250, just go to imdb.com, and then in order to get a more realistic picture substract any movies made in the past 10 years.

[CMoon]

OK, now this might be more fun. Go to this page (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/index.php#YearIndex) and pick out your favorite films by year. Obviously some years like 1982 make picking one film impossible. I've gotta head to work now, but maybe I'll twiddle with this later if Skykid hasn't blown up this thread by then.

[cools]

Ok, but I need the correct answers for the ones I got wrong.

A personal list is fine, but for mainstream consensus just use IMDb. Nearly every year can be filled directly from the top 250 - for example:
http://www.listal.com/list/movie-year-f ... db-ratings

[EinhanderZwei]

Any love for the Transformers trilogy, The Smurfs, Real Steel or M:I 4? These are the best big budget movies I've seen in years

[Skykid]

As far as being brutal, wait until Skykid finds this thread, assuming he even bothers.

Yo I'm here!

Honestly, glancing through I'd say it was a list of pretty decent movies. Obviously you're a movie goer who knows how to sort the wheat from the chaff, but I'm not up to the challenge of finding respective replacements for the movies I don't agree are worthy of the year's best.
But here's a coupla things that strike me as unsavoury:

2011:Drive: This is good, but it's not a great movie. I'm yet to see the Artist, but if last nights Baftas are any indication, I'd say it eats this for breakfast. I have seen Tinker Tailor however, and I do think it's better than Drive on the whole.

2008: Let the Right One In was better than Burn After Reading, although I did enjoy (as always) that Coen caper.

2007: I really like Sunshine. I saw it twice in the theatre cos I thought my old man would like it. But I'd give No Country the honor this year.

2005: Sin City - can we just get this absolute drivel off of any top movie list ever. Such a diabolical waste of good material.

1999: I like BJM, but Fight Club owns '99 for me.

1989: I think you need to be a bit of a hardcore Cameron buff to cite The Abyss as anything except fun throwaway entertainment. Back to the Future II is something I can revisit endlessly though.

1983: Scarface is a good gangster movie, but it's iconic status is a bit overplayed versus its actual quality as a film. This year had Scorcese's King of Comedy, Coppola's Rumble Fish and Tony Scott's The Hunger, all arguably better films. It also has Return of The Jedi...

The majority are great choices I think. Without looking at the competition, the likes of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, King Kong, Citizen Kane, Blade Runner, 12 Angry Men, Jaws, Taxi Driver, Die Hard, Pulp Fiction, Lost in Translation all make up a pretty good list. Thanks for compiling it RGC, ambitious but fun to look through.

Any love for the Transformers trilogy

You're joking right? This is a serious list.

[EinhanderZwei]

Any love for the Transformers trilogy

You're joking right? This is a serious list.

Am I the only Michael Bay admirer on the planet?

But I have a more serious thing to discuss... why so much hate for Sin City?

[RGC]

Friendly,

-Inglourious Basterds: Total crap.

Your opinion is wrong! I saw this at the cinema, and have since revisited it twice. Michael Fassbender and Christoph Waltz were fantastic. It's disjointed, ludicrous, and highly amusing.

-The Abyss: boring, dull.

It hasn't aged well, I accept that. I watched the extended edition again recently, and do wish it had been left alone. But, at least it's unique; lessons in morality from subaqueous creatures, c'mon!

-Sin City: just bad.

I'd like to hear what people have against this, really.

-Shaun of the Dead: unfunny

YOIW! Nothing else by, or with Pegg has come close though.

Yeah, exactly. What's the point of such a list? What's the point of listing less than stellar movies just because there wasn't anything better that year, or of only listing one even if there were several good ones?

Well, it does help highlight weaker years. 1989 could be such an example, assuming you agree The Abyss was the best on offer.

It doesn't matter when a good movie was made.

Must everything have utility!? Well, it matters to me that Ghostbusters was released in 1984, otherwise I might have had to sit through Supergirl at the cinema for my friend's 10th birthday party. And who knows what long-term effect that could have had?

And if you want a top 250, just go to imdb.com, and then in order to get a more realistic picture substract any movies made in the past 10 years.

There's no filter on IMDB for 'As agreed by shmups.system11.org members' otherwise I would. I'm interested in what this community has to say, that's why I posted here!


CMoon,

Any list like this is too ambitious. Some years have 5 or even 10 amazing films, other years (like the last decade) you're hard pressed to find one. Absence of Chinatown or any of the films by Friedkin make this list questionable. It's also highly suspect the further back you go (Thing from another world, really??), and even contradicts itself (Rashomon was never a 'mainstream' film even though it did make it to US theatres. Godzilla King of the Monsters was the closest thing to a mainstream western release from Japan.)

As far as being brutal, wait until Skykid finds this thread, assuming he even bothers.

Oh yeah: Where's The Wild Bunch?

I must confess, both Chinatown and The Wild Bunch have been on my IMDB watch list for over a year now :$. I watch way too much crap, largely because I'm too tired after work to pay the level of attention deserved by some of these alleged classics. So, I'll purposely watch something that looks a bit trashy instead. It's a bad habit, and as a consequence good films will occasionally come along and catch me by surprise, but I'll miss some important aspect or story thread, because I'm half asleep. So, are you saying Chinatown and The Wild Bunch are the best of their respective release years?

I agree, Rashomon is not really mainstream enough. I already explained myself over 50s and 60s choices.

Skykid,

Honestly, glancing through I'd say it was a list of pretty decent movies. Obviously you're a movie goer who knows how to sort the wheat from the chaff, but I'm not up to the challenge of finding respective replacements for the movies I don't agree are worthy of the year's best.

Thanks! I'm sure you are up to the challenge though. Like my old man used to say, if you really put your mind to it you can accomplish anything. How about a replacement for 2005, since you singled Sin City out as a stinker? Do you agree Batman Begins was the best flick that year?

[Skykid]

Any love for the Transformers trilogy

You're joking right? This is a serious list.

Am I the only Michael Bay admirer on the planet?

Let's hope so.

why so much hate for Sin City?

There's not, it was very successful and generally received by people and critics who don't know their ass from their elbow. It's more tragic if you had a prior in-depth appreciation for Frank Miller's comics and envisioned a movie adaptation being completely different to the farce film-hack Robert Rodriguez churned out against a green screen.

If you want proof of the most disgusting way to not respect the film-making process, here are a few excerpts from how Sin City was butchered by a clueless individual:

" Several of the scenes were shot before every actor had signed on; as a result, several stand-ins were used before the actual actors were digitally added into the film during post-production."

"This is the future! You don't wait six hours for a scene to be lighted. You want a light over here, you grab a light and put it over here. You want a nuclear submarine, you make one out of thin air and put your characters into it."

"Rodriguez stated that he considered the film to be "less of an adaptation than a translation"

"New York Times critic Manohla Dargis claimed that the directors' "commitment to absolute unreality and the absence of the human factor" made it "hard to get pulled into the story on any level other than the visceral"."


In short, do not trust this man with anything you hold beloved - he doesn't really care about it or have the ability to do anything beyond an utterly base level 'translation'. Frank Miller's stories are beautifully dark and violent, completely enveloping with plot nuances that are unravelled in a subtly brilliant fashion. I can't think of a movie that could have possibly done the source material as little justice as Rodriguez's film. The casting was poor, the film horribly ugly, trading in actual B&W photography for a colour film transferred into black and white in post production, making it... grey.
The scenes come across as mostly one take jobs, but that's the way Rodriguez works - he just hears the dialogue but doesn't know how to identify its depth or give it any impact. He's not a director of actors, but of action. Sin City needed the former more strongly than the latter.
The biggest tragedy here is that people actually liked it and paid for it. I remember my friend telling me how incredible it was and going to the theatre a second time so I could join him. I was ready to walk 20 minutes before the end. Any 'director' who actually has to recreate an alleyway in CG rather than take his camera into the backlot and actually shoot some footage can suck my cock.

Rodriguez should stick to what he does best: Spy Kids.

[cools]

Fair old putdown there.

I loved what was done with Sin City. I specifically went and re-read the books in the days prior to watching it and thoroughly enjoyed the translation - I've not gone back and made a side by side comparison since but the feeling was of 1:1 which was the only way I can see justice being done to something so iconic.

Frank Miller's stories are beautifully dark and violent, completely enveloping with plot nuances that are unravelled in a subtly brilliant fashion.

I slightly agree with you here, but I think in order to convey them in film to anyone not previously exposed to the books you'd have to slow the whole thing down by 50%. They rely on your brain being allowed to ponder what's going on... Not always practical in a cinematic environment.

[Skykid]

Frank Miller's stories are beautifully dark and violent, completely enveloping with plot nuances that are unravelled in a subtly brilliant fashion.

I slightly agree with you here, but I think in order to convey them in film to anyone not previously exposed to the books you'd have to slow the whole thing down by 50%. They rely on your brain being allowed to ponder what's going on... Not always practical in a cinematic environment.

Well, you've totally nailed it sir. In which case, drafting in a director of actors and casting actors as opposed to third rate slop like Brittany Murphy and Rosario Dawson, and ill-fitting individuals like Bruce Willis, Michael Madsen, Josh Hartnett, Elijah Wood and Clive Owen would be a start. Then, not trying to adapt the entirety of The Hard Goodbye, The Big Fat Kill and That Yellow Bastard into a single movie, bookended with a made up nonsensical story that jars with the rest of the film, is also clearly a terrible idea.

Frank Miller is one of the only comic to film adaptations I can think of that needs to be slow burning, true film noir but updated with vicious modern violence. Also, the comics have the blackest of humour - so black it's almost not clear as to whether it's humour or not. Rodriguez misfired that completely. The audience were laughing at Marv dragging the guy along the floor outside of the car, and I was facepalming. It's not meant to be that kind of humour, it was almost slapstick.

The worst thing is: there's no art in the movie. It's just a dirty CG mess that does nothing to pleasure the eyes (apart from Alba's ass). Sin City is begging to be made with some kind of artistry. Transferring colour into grey doesn't cut it when your camera work is half assed and you finished principal filming in a week.

The movie is a waste. I pray for the day a competent director gets the chance to remake it. I think Aronofsky would be worthy of a shot, or Tomas Alfredson perhaps. God, I even think Snyder would have done a better job - he proved his worth with Watchmen.

[JBueno MD]

Never mind my avatar, but quickly glancing through your your list I would have chosen Dr. Strangelove for 1964 and Shawshank Redemption in 1994. Pretty good list, I would be hard pressed to pick a favorite film for some years due to not having enough film exposure.

[Acid King]

Skykid, I like how you leave out all of the involvement that Frank Miller had in the production of Sin City and lay blame for all your perceived transgressions against Miller's comic at the feet of Rodriguez. Both of them directed it. Obviously, the movie wouldn't have turned out the way it did if Miller thought that the movie was unrepresentative of his work and there are tons of fans of the comic who thought Miller and Rodriguez did a great job translating the comics to film. The level of myopic narcissism in your post is fucking staggering.

[rapoon]

I'm w/ Acid on this. Rodriguez received Miller’s approval before filming had begun. He got billing for Miller as co-director (against the Directors Guild) because he was intent on creating a proper "adaptation" and wanted Miller with him during the entire process.

[Friendly]

I haven't read the comics; maybe they are puerile, violent, dumb trash, too, so Miller had no reason to complain?

[Aguraki]

itt mainstream means quality.

[RGC]

Skykid, King of Comedy does deserve a mention, but for me Scarface edges it even though DeNiro is a better actor than Pacino, probably.

[Skykid]

Skykid, I like how you leave out all of the involvement that Frank Miller had in the production of Sin City and lay blame for all your perceived transgressions against Miller's comic at the feet of Rodriguez. Both of them directed it. Obviously, the movie wouldn't have turned out the way it did if Miller thought that the movie was unrepresentative of his work and there are tons of fans of the comic who thought Miller and Rodriguez did a great job translating the comics to film. The level of myopic narcissism in your post is fucking staggering.

Since when does criticism become myopic narcissism because you don't agree with it? To me that sounds more shortsighted than anything in my post. Rather than dole out petty insults, you could actually counter the criticism by explaining what it is you thought made the movie worthwhile, then at least it's a proper debate.

I'm in the minority in my opinion of the film, but I'll always call it how I see it: a grossly missed opportunity. I'm well aware of Miller's involvement, I've seen the interviews and the making of, and I watched aghast at Miller patting Rodriguez on the back and giving his approval. Frankly I would have thought he valued his work a great deal more, and had a different perspective on it - and maybe he did, it was just the money that kept him smiling.

Film is poor, end of.

Skykid, King of Comedy does deserve a mention, but for me Scarface edges it even though DeNiro is a better actor than Pacino, probably.

There's no question about it!

[t0yrobo]

Skykid, I like how you leave out all of the involvement that Frank Miller had in the production of Sin City and lay blame for all your perceived transgressions against Miller's comic at the feet of Rodriguez. Both of them directed it.

Considering that Miller's only other shot at directing was The Spirit, I highly doubt that anything good about the Sin City was his doing. If anything it would've been better without him.
I think I understand the complaints about the movie vs the comics but I still think they struck a decent balance while making a successful movie, at the time a comic based movies was still considered to be something kinda risky so they had to play it somewhat safe.
From my experience the majority of Frank Miller fans expect childish, overly violent, and sexed up pulp schlock, and the movie delivered. I guess my feelings about it are the same as with everything comic related, blame the fans because 95% of comic fans are fucking idiots. Regardless there we're better movies that year (The Constant Gardener, Pride and Prejudice, The Squid and the Whale, Brokeback Mountain)



Back to the OP! I'd switch a couple for my tastes, but I don't recall what else came out in a lot of those years so I'll just shuffle things for the last couple years.

2011- Melancholia / The Tree of Life
Drive was decent, but not nearly as good as it gets credit for.

2010 - The Secret in their Eyes / The Social Network / True Grit
I liked the King's Speech, but meh it was pure Oscar bait.

2009 - Moon / District 9 / The Road / Let the Right One In / The Men Who Stare at Goats
Inglorious Basterds had good parts, but it needed serious editing, it was like no one had the balls to tell Tarantino "no" through the whole production. 2009 was a really good year for movies though.

I agree with others that Alien 3 is a odd choice, there's plenty of better movies that came out that year (Reservoir Dogs, Last of the Mohicans)
Abyss is a weird one too. I like the movie, but the theatrical version wasn't nearly as good as the director's cut. I wouldn't put it on the list just because of that.

[Skykid]

Skykid, I like how you leave out all of the involvement that Frank Miller had in the production of Sin City and lay blame for all your perceived transgressions against Miller's comic at the feet of Rodriguez. Both of them directed it.

Considering that Miller's only other shot at directing was The Spirit, I highly doubt that anything good about the Sin City was his doing. If anything it would've been better without him.

Jeez, I forgot about that one.
Two counts of movie fail does not indicate competence in the art. And why would it, it's not his field (clearly.)

blame the fans because 95% of comic fans are fucking idiots.

Well, they support studios by letting them (paying them) for getting away with murder. The amount of comic IP's that have been butchered beyond all recognition is painful. I just wish Sin City wasn't one of those IP's, it's a little bit special compared to the average superhero fare.

[rapoon]

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who feels that De Niro is a better actor than Pacino (in all aspects) has seen Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon or Carlito's Way . Actors who've been working as long as they have - a comparison of roles needs to be made. The Director needs to be taken into account. De Niro was under the guidance and budget of Scorsese for decades.

Furthermore, Coppola moved forward w/ Rumble Fish after the success of The Outsiders but it was severely rushed. The film looks like it was pulled out of a dumpster, the editing is horrible. Matt Dilon, Chris Penn, Nicholas Cage, Dennis Hopper all give half-assed, juvenile, shit performances. The only notable acting is Micky Rourke and he hardly says a fucking thing. His demeanor gives the film weight. Tom Waits cameo is nice. A better film than Scarface? No, not even remotely close.

[Skykid]

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who feels that De Niro is a better actor than Pacino (in all aspects) has seen Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon or Carlito's Way.

De Niro can out-act Pacino blindfolded with a ball-gag in his mouth. It's totally common for people to value an actor based on the characters they play rather than the actual performance (which, if you're Pacino, involves raising your voice at regular intervals and licking your lips now and then.) I think Pacino is perhaps the most overrated actor in history in this respect, but I thought he was decent enough in Dog Day Afternoon. That's the best I've ever seen him.

I haven't seen Rumble Fish, I just remember people here telling me to watch it because it was a masterpiece.
On that glowing recommendation I would have expected it to be a Scarface beater, but I'm surprised to hear it's that bad tbh, thanks for the heads up.

[Damocles]

Odd. I don't believe anyone thought Sunshine was a good movie. I also thought Scarface was only admired by wannabe rappers and thugs. How can anyone take that movie, and his accent, seriously?

I am also slightly confused as to your definition of mainstream, as quite a few of these would fall under the cult classic status nowadays.

[rapoon]

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who feels that De Niro is a better actor than Pacino (in all aspects) has seen Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon or Carlito's Way.

De Niro can out-act Pacino blindfolded with a ball-gag in his mouth. It's totally common for people to value an actor based on the characters they play rather than the actual performance (which, if you're Pacino, involves raising your voice at regular intervals and licking your lips now and then.) I think Pacino is perhaps the most overrated actor in history in this respect, but I thought he was decent enough in Dog Day Afternoon. That's the best I've ever seen him.

Again, you've yet to make a comparison of roles (performances if you're happier with the verbiage). Your arguments consist of "he's/it's overrated" without any explanation. Is that the extent of your opinion? It means absolutely nothing...

[Skykid]

Again, you've yet to make a comparison of roles (performances if you're happier with the verbiage). Your arguments consist of "he's/it's overrated" without any explanation. Is that the extent of your opinion? It means absolutely nothing...

What do you want me to do for you exactly?

There's a library of films by the two actors in question, you can review them at your leisure. Being able to discern acting ability is something I can't teach you, at least not on a videogame forum. Take solace in knowing you are the majority, however, along with all the Nick Cage fans.

I haven't read the comics; maybe they are puerile, violent, dumb trash, too, so Miller had no reason to complain?

I can't recommend them highly enough. They're intelligently written and beautifully conceived works. As long as violence doesn't turn you off, you'll love them. The problem with Sin City the film is it made the concept puerile and childish by misunderstanding the source material. Instead of capturing their black artistry and dark noir it lapsed into a kind of speedy farce that discarded any sense of realism and connection to the characters.

[Moniker]

[stupid bitter bellyaching about Rumble Fish]

Rumble Fish is a better film, Scarface is a better movie. I don't know how you can qualify Dilon & Hopper's performances as juvenile or shit. Matters of taste can go a long way in judging a performance, and the characters were all very unorthodox by general narrative standards, but that's going way too far. I thought they were brilliant. Rourke steals the show, of course. His verbal reticence was integral to the whole point of the character. Anyway, I've praised it enough. Folks can decide for themselves.

DeNiro was a far better actor than Pacino when both were in their prime. Since the early nineties, though, Pacino is decent while DeNiro is outright bad. I can't think of a single movie I've liked him in since Cape Fear... maybe Jackie Brown. Scorsese dumped him for a reason.

Also, I must defend Inglourious Basterds. People tend to get caught up in the pacing, which at first viewing seems slow, but upon revisit is IMO deliberate. I don't really feel like making a full fledged case for it, but if you disliked it because you got impatient, you're missing out.

As far as the list goes, 2005 belonged to A History of Violence. Certainly belongs in my personal top 5 best.

2007 was a great year, but I've gotta throw out Darjeeling Limited as a contender. No Country for Old Men is probably the best film of the decade, but yeah. I love me some Wes Anderson, and I think that's his best.

To use my distinction again, Drive is a great movie, but not a great film. Great films need to be intellectually and emotionally evocative, and Drive doesn't quite get there on the first count. It is superlative entertainment, however.

---

As an overriding sentiment that goes along with these film "discussions" ... Judging things to be wanting is not a definite mark of taste. Far better to have the wisdom to find worthy things in unworthy places. Also, cynicism causes cancer.

[Skykid]

DeNiro was a far better actor than Pacino when both were in their prime. Since the early nineties, though, Pacino is decent while DeNiro is outright bad. I can't think of a single movie I've liked him in since Cape Fear... maybe Jackie Brown. Scorsese dumped him for a reason.

Although I agree with most of your post, again, I have to raise the point that the roles of the actor rarely make the actor any poorer unless the director is a useless shit and has failed them completely. I don't find De Niro particularly attractive in comedy roles, but he was no less good in the likes of Meet the Parents and Analyze This as he was in Midnight Run (a lighthearted 80's flick.)

DeNiro's only prob, for me, is that he's always DeNiro and not massively versatile, and usually ends up playing himself: but the same criticism can be levelled at lots of actors, including Jack Nicholson, and he's great.

If you can accept the general quality of film has dived, it goes someway to explaining your reservation over his recent career. He was in Limitless, which was a right load of codswallop, and he may as well not have existed. It's not his fault, the problem lies with the filmmaking process, scriptwriter and director included. In fact, I can't think of any movie he's been cast in with any real weight since Jackie Brown, and he was good in that.