Top mainstream movies since 1933

[rapoon]

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.

Discern acting ability? You're unable to make a simple comparison of the roles between the respective actors and explain why you feel that De Niro is a better actor. You keep repeating "he's/it's overrated." (it's like listening to Bush blab about WMD's) "It's overrated" without an explanation is not a sound argument. Then again, you didn't feel that Miller was admissible in your bashing of "Sin City" despite the fact he co-directed the film. *shrug* I can explain this to you as many times as you'd like, but I can't understand it for you.

[shmuppyLove]

1993 Groundhog Day

Schindler's List maybe?

[Skykid]

Discern acting ability? You're unable to make a simple comparison of the roles between the respective actors and explain why you feel that De Niro is a better actor. You keep repeating "he's/it's overrated." (it's like listening to Bush blab about WMD's) "It's overrated" without an explanation is not a sound argument. Then again, you didn't feel that Miller was admissible in your bashing of "Sin City" despite the fact he co-directed the film. *shrug* I can explain this to you as many times as you'd like, but I can't understand it for you.

I feel provoked. Miller was complicit in the making of Sin City, I was shocked at the time to see his appraisal of the movie in post PR, and some of my respect for him died. No matter how many different ways you attempt to stifle my criticism of the movie, it won't stop it from being shit, does that make sense? If so, let's leave Sin City for the wilingly deluded to fawn over and move on.

Pacino.

Ok, let's have an attempt (this is probably really pointless.)

Al Pacino has little to no versatility. He's guilty of the same flaw as DeNiro, in that he generally plays Al Pacino in every single role he's in, but he's an extreme example. People usually raise Frankie & Johnny as an example of his versatility, but no, he's very much Al Pacino in that too. His lack of range is reflected in his anemic filmography: he's unfit to play anything outside of his narrow limitations.
He's currently in pre-production for King Lear, which will interest me greatly. It'll be quite something to see Al Pacino playing Al Pacino in a Shakespeare play.

So someone who relies on playing themselves in every movie they're in is only half-acting in the first place. In Pacino's case, the other half isn't particularly good either.
He's a shouter: to express any kind of emotion, he raises his voice for dramatic effect. His toolset ends there. He's no Ben Kingsley, John Hurt, Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson, Daniel Day Lewis, Bill Murray.
He hasn't got the ability or the depth to concentrate dramatic tension through dialogue unless it involves shouting, which is the exact opposite method of conveying dramatic tension. The best of them can make a scene simmer before they've even opened their mouths; Pacino can't even make a scene get out of bed without screaming his head off.

His technique relies on a predictable formula, which you'll now identify in every film you ever watch him in because I've brought it to your attention. It goes something like this: stare intensely, look around a bit, lick lips, talk quietly, raise voice, START SHOUTING, end sentence, repeat.

There's a lot more to it than this, but this isn't school and I'm not a tutor. To make a long story short, he ain't much of an actor, capish?

[JBC]

This isn't a bad list but I really disagree with Alien 3 being on it at all, much less as the only one for 1992. Man what a disappointment that movie was. I already stated to some friends earlier today that the only good thing that came from it was the excellent Genesis game. The light gun arcade wasn't bad either but yeah... mediocre film, both versions. However, opinions are opinions and I can say that it would be much better had it been a film on it's on and not a part of the Alien series. Just alter the creature design and change the names and viola, not so bad. As it stands though, it's a blight which led to Alien Resurrection, an even worse entry.

Aliens is pretty dumb (story makes 0 sense

Doing it wrong.

I'm really glad to see Sunshine listed. One of the best Sci-Fi films in years.

While on the topic of Sci-Fi I'd like to plug Beyond the Black Rainbow for the second time today. I just found the trailer and am really looking forward to it, looks amazing. It's use of color is like Suspiria meets Tron, shot with modern cameras. Hopefully it'll make my own top list for this year.

[Drum]

Some baffling choices. No Robocop for '87? Withnail and I is a great movie ... at first, then it gets a bit dull.
Duck Soup should either take 1933 or be a runner-up to Kong.

[CMoon]

Duck Soup should either take 1933 or be a runner-up to Kong.

Goddamn are those the same year? I couldn't live without both those movies.

[Acid King]

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.

1)You lay the blame all at Rodriguez's feet, a director you take every opportunity to shit on. 2)You ignore Miller's involvement in the film while complaining the movie doesn't fit the vision for the comic and 3)Your complaints, aside from the acting, are almost strictly that the movie didn't conform to your idea of what it should have been like. Myopic narcissism.

t0y hit the nail on the head and that the movie was a decent translation of the comic. It's the content and structure of the comic that bring all the flaws you mention. Your contention that it should be slow like a true noir is laughable. It's not a noir and it wouldn't work like that. The action in the comic is far too dynamic and it breaks too many noir conventions to work in a slow or serious manner. It's violent, over the top pulp. It's not the Third Man. Turning it into a slowly developing noir would ruin the dynamism and it would go from pulp fun to boring very quickly.

[Skykid]

1)You lay the blame all at Rodriguez's feet, a director you take every opportunity to shit on.

He deserves it, he's two-thirds useless. I'm not afraid of hurting his feelings. What's he going to do, cry into his bank vault?

2)You ignore Miller's involvement in the film while complaining the movie doesn't fit the vision for the comic

It doesn't. I'm truly disappointed he could allow such sacrilege to occur, as I've mentioned several times.

3) Your complaints, aside from the acting, are almost strictly that the movie didn't conform to your idea of what it should have been like. Myopic narcissism.

No no, let me fix that. My complaints, aside from the acting, is that the movie didn't come anywhere near to the potential offered by its source material, which unfortunately is truuuuue.

t0y hit the nail on the head and that the movie was a decent translation of the comic.

It's not. It's a retelling of the basic components of the story of the comics, but not done with any artistic grace or flair, and in completely the wrong tone: comical, puerile, farcical.
It was filmed in record time as I understand it, and boy does it show.

It's the content and structure of the comic that bring all the flaws you mention. Your contention that it should be slow like a true noir is laughable. It's not a noir and it wouldn't work like that.

It makes no difference. If the same screenplay was given to a more competent director, it would be a better film. As it stands the film is weak on so many levels I could talk up its failings eternally, but I've really had enough. So I'll leave you with a line from Street Fighter and call it a night.

[Dale]

Well I at least like the character that Al Pacino always plays, unlike Deniro. Deniro's characters always come out on top and are always bad but deep done good or something. Pacino can play flawed characters that can get damaged. I also think Denzel Washington is overrated too for mostly the same reason as Robert.

I think it would be more fun to see everyone personal favorite pick for each year. I've seen films as far back as 1922. I've seen the Edison Shorts from the 1890,s but the oldest feature length film I saw was Haxan: A History Of Witchcraft Throughout The Ages.

I agree that Drive was amazing, I really want to see Melancholia still. I am quite the art fag but I love action and other schlock as well.

[Ed Oscuro]

1992 Alien 3

Just to recap, here's some movies that came out in 1992:

Dracula, Unforgiven, Aladdin, The Bodyguard (starring Whitney Houston - RIP, hope she's great in her swan song), Resevoir Dogs, A Few Good Men, Batman Returns, Basic Instinct...

All I can think of when I read "Alien 3" is "WILLIAM GIBSON FILM TREATMENT." I don't think I've seen the whole movie, though, so I can reserve some judgment here. But damn - what a wasted franchise that is.

I've started watching Dracula - not as polished as we've come to expect recently, in the first minutes at least, but still damn good.
Batman Returns wasn't on par with the first of the Michael Keaton films but still enjoyable.
Aladdin - been a while, but i's a great film.
Haven't seen the rest.

For 1982, I think that The Dark Crystal deserves at least a sub-bracket. The Muppets movies probably aren't my thing, so this is likely the best puppet movie ever made (and likely will remain so, despite its flaws).

Any reason why the original version of Let The Right One In doesn't make the cut?

Also, for 1965, The Battle Of Algiers is a must-see. You've got a glut of Westerns in there which makes me suspicious this is very much a work in progress, so find Battle Of Algiers and watch it!

By that token, the 1969 French film "Army of Shadows" is another must-see. You'll notice both these films are roughly based on historical events (Army of Shadows, or L'Armee des Ombres, I believe, is about the French Resistance in WWII, and still has the best Nazi stabbing scene recorded on film). For a lighter touch, Big Red One might be worth a spot somewhere - then again, maybe not.

Some other films from the backlog (mostly) that I think might be worth considering:

* New Jack City (1991)
* Do The Right Thing
* Jackie Brown
* Rob Roy (1995)
* Isle of the Dead (1945; the transfer I've seen is pretty old and wobbly, from 1945, but it has Boris Karloff playing a serious role, and treats a horror staple in the middle of a plague-ridden island during the first Balkan War. Martin Scorsese has put it on his list of the scariest movies of all time.
* Them! (A bit slow at times, and the "ignorance for the public good!" aspect is pretty frightening, and not treated well enough here, but otherwise possibly the best of all the "radioactive monster" films after Godzilla perhaps (haven't seen that one).

[JBC]

I've also noticed that there is only one 007 movie in the list, the most recent hit. Certainly a franchise with a 50 year longevity deserves to be given more credit? Nah, that's what personal lists are for

But still check out the old Bonds, RGC!

[Ed Oscuro]

1993 Groundhog Day

Schindler's List maybe?

Also, some guys named Guillermo del Toro and Ron Perlman made a movie called Cronos which I want to check out.

Duck Soup - heard of that one but haven't seen.

It's interesting that, despite my generally not giving a fuck about the Alien franchise (an odd thing for a Contra fan to say, for sure) that I too homed right in on that 1992 selection.

Anyway, I think it's an OK list generally for somebody from the movie-watching public who's not a film critic to have. Some genres are obviously better represented than others here, especially before the latest decade. And in all honesty, who's got time to sit through literally hundreds or thousands of films?

[JBC]

For 1982, I think that The Dark Crystal deserves at least a sub-bracket. The Muppets movies probably aren't my thing, so this is likely the best puppet movie ever made (and likely will remain so, despite its flaws).

I agree with that quite alot. The Dark Crystal is an amazing movie. It seems like the closest thing we'll ever get to an Amiga game on celluloid. It's weird, even though the movie is way different it reminds me of Shadow of the Beast. There's a really great art book for it floating around somewhere, which I don't have but got to flip through in a friend's shop one day. I really didn't like it until I got older, when I was a kid the Skesis freaked me out. I always associate it with Legend, The Neverending Story, and Labyrinth but Dark Crystal shines brighter than those.

[Wenchang]

A Place in the Sun is a much, much, much better film than The Thing From Another World.

Not seen the film you listed, but is 1956's choice really a better film than The Searchers? I would tend to doubt that.

[Ed Oscuro]

For 1982, I think that The Dark Crystal deserves at least a sub-bracket. The Muppets movies probably aren't my thing, so this is likely the best puppet movie ever made (and likely will remain so, despite its flaws).

I agree with that quite alot. The Dark Crystal is an amazing movie. It seems like the closest thing we'll ever get to an Amiga game on celluloid. It's weird, even though the movie is way different it reminds me of Shadow of the Beast. There's a really great art book for it floating around somewhere, which I don't have but got to flip through in a friend's shop one day. I really didn't like it until I got older, when I was a kid the Skesis freaked me out. I always associate it with Legend, The Neverending Story, and Labyrinth but Dark Crystal shines brighter than those.

I almost mentioned Legend (started, really, really love the opening sequence, but didn't go further yet - I have trouble sitting through lots of movies) and Krull (which is pretty good actually). And on that note - the second Schwarzenegger Conan film (I've only ever seen the second half though), and Red Sonja. Not masterpieces, perhaps, but they ought to be mentioned. Have to see Neverending Story, Labyrinth, Goonies etc. as well.

1999 - Sleepy Hollow. Not a bad film, though way too silly / irreverent for me at points.

1968 - Kuroneko? Also, for a different year, it seems that if Rashomon is in there, perhaps Throne of Blood might be as well, or Seven Samurai, or Ikiru and Stray Dog. Kurosawa did more films based on Shakespeare than I knew (Ran being one; Ikiru and Stray Dog not).

[RGC]

Wow, some great responses! I feel well on the way to having my opinions corrected. Will reply properly later. In the meantime, I'll just say that I'll be adding some of the alternative movies people have suggested (the ones I haven't seen), to an "A-priority1-RedAlert-weHaveaGo" watch list!

[Ixmucane2]

2008: Wall-E. It's like a time traveling visit from future mainstream cinema, 20 or 30 years ahead of everything else.
1950: All about Eve.

[Ed Oscuro]

1950: All about Eve.

That reminds me, the Moscow Symphony Orchestra recorded this and a bunch of other classic film suites I was able to buy pretty cheap digitally off Amazon with some free points a while back - King Kong, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Objective: Burma!, The Egyptian, Gulliver's Travels, and possibly another. Good shit there.

[Acid King]

It's not. It's a retelling of the basic components of the story of the comics, but not done with any artistic grace or flair, and in completely the wrong tone: comical, puerile, farcical.

If you didn't think the comic was puerile or comical, then you misread the comic. The comic was just a grab bag of pulp/noir cliches, dressed up with stylish artwork and superhero convention. It's not a serious, deep or grim piece of art. It's stylized pulp. It has people leaping out of buildings and landing unhurt, diving through car windshields, and a guy driving a car while holding a person's face in the ground for god's sake. The tone, atmosphere and dialogue is so over the top it borders on parody, like someone applying Spinal Tap's "It goes to 11" joke to I, the Jury. The movie, and half of your complaints about it, is just an extension of that.

It makes no difference.

It does make a difference. They'd have to rewrite the story to iron out what you see as pacing issues, which would change the dynamic of the story and create something distinctly different from the comic.

[RGC]

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

While The Social Network (currently) has the immediacy of relating to the day-to-day lives of about a squillion humans individuals, and is therefore more relevant, it didn't at any point get its emotive hooks into me the way The King's Speech did. It was powerful stuff! Both held my attention equally well though.

...2009 was a really good year for movies though.

Agreed. At some point, I'm planning on reading McCarthy's The Road, as I think it might help me appreciate the movie more. It worked quite well, but it seemed to lack something -- perhaps the descriptive detail about the mental state of the protagonists.

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)

Added LotM to my watch list.

...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.

I'd agree that since his performance in Rumble Fish, Cage has come a long way. He was that bad. I like Rumble Fish, but next time you see it, please be aware of how often Rusty James' name is mentioned. It's some weird quirk in the way the dialogue was written, and I found it really distracting. I know it's nit-pciking...

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.

The thing I like about Sunshine also applies to Moon (no, not just that it's space-based Sci-Fi): I like stories which have a simple, almost shallow exterior, but create the imaginary space in which to ponder the mortal and moral infinite. Moon does this better, but Sunshine does pretty well also.

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.

Not seen A History of Violence. Agreed, Darjeeling Limited definitely deserves a mention. Competition was stiff in 2007. Also agree about Drive, but unfortunately it was the best 2011 had to offer, as far as I'm currently aware.

So, in order to correct the OP, I need to see the following films:

CMoon The Wild Bunch, Chinatown

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

+a few that Ed mentioned.

Considering I love watching movies, I feel as though I've barely been exposed to any! My year-on-year list, incidentally, was extracted from ~1,300 movies I'd rated on IMDB. Like I said before, I watch a lot of crap. But not anymore baby! Note: I think I've seen all the Bond 007 flicks, and Casino Royale is my overall favourite.

[chum]

All mainstream movies are garbage anyway. And other sweeping statements.

[CMoon]

Re: Dark Crystal. 1982 is the year to fight for. If you want to talk about how slim the offerings are today, one only need to look at 1982:

Blade Runner
Conan the Barbarian
ET
Tron
Secret of NIMH
The Thing
Poltergeist
First Blood
Dark Crystal
...the list goes on an on. A lot of the films I'm not bothering to mention are better than anything that came out in 2011.

Part of the reason I feel this list is too ambitious is because the 60's through the early 80's have this going on, so ultimately it just turns into a what's your favorite movie list.

RE: Kurosawa. And here's the problem with stipulating mainstream. Who's mainstream? If we're talking Japan's mainstream, Kurosawa is basically going to own the 50's and 60's.

[CMoon]

1981 - Road Warrior and Excalibur need to be here. Possibly Escape from New York & Scanners.
1980 - Shining and Airplane should be added.

[Acid King]

2007 needs Eastern Promises. One of the few movies I've seen multiple times in the theater.

[RGC]

1981 - Road Warrior and Excalibur need to be here. Possibly Escape from New York & Scanners.
1980 - Shining and Airplane should be added.

OK, but assuming we wanted to whittle it down to one per year, which is the best of 1980 and 81 in your view?

[Dale]

2007 needs Eastern Promises. One of the few movies I've seen multiple times in the theater.

Yes, my favorite Cronenberg film.

[Herr Schatten]

1974: Phase IV deserves a mention. I haven't seen it in a while, but I seem to remember being quite impressed by it.

Re: DeNiro. I was about to mention Mad Dog and Glory as a movie where he's not playing deNiro, but upon further reflection, I'm not really sure about that anymore. I actually can't remember much of his performance in that.

[DEL]

From your list, I have to back 14 years before I find films I like.

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] - Street Kings
2007 Sunshine | [There Will be Blood | No Country for Old Men]
2006 Casino Royale | [The Departed]
2005 Sin City | [Batman Begins] - Constantine & Harsh Times
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 ] - Wot no Black Hawk Down & Training Day?
2000 O Brother, Where Art Thou? | [Memento] - Small Time Crooks
1999 Being John Malkovich | [Fight Club | The Matrix ] - Missed The Ninth Gate
1998 Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas | [The Big Lebowski ] - Ronin - Deep Rising The Big Hit.
1997 Lost Highway | [Donnie Brasco | Life is Beautiful]
1996 From Dusk Till Dawn
1995 Twelve Monkeys | [Se7en ] - Heat
1994 Pulp Fiction | [Leon] - Clear & Present Danger
1993 Groundhog Day - Menace II Society - Blood in Blood out
1992 Alien 3 - Trespass
1991 Terminator 2: Judgment Day | [The Silence of the Lambs] - New Jack City
1990 Goodfellas | [Total Recall | Predator 2 ] - a strong year but add King of New York & State of Grace.
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] - Evil Dead II - Hamburger Hill
1986 Aliens |Down by Law [The Fly] - Massive Miss Platoon
1985 Back to the Future |[Commando | Ran ]
1984 The Terminator - Ghostbusters - Once Upon a Time in America....maybe?
1983 Scarface - You missed Rumblefish
1982 Blade Runner |[ The Thing ]
1981 Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark - No Escape from New York & Neighbors
1980 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back |[Raging Bull | Blues Brothers] - Caddyshack
1979 Alien [|Life of Brian | Apocalypse Now] - 1941
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 - Charley Varrick - Enter the Dragon My Name is Nobody
1972 Fist of Fury |[The Godfather]
1971 Dirty Harry - Two Lane Blacktop
1970 Kelly's Heroes
1969 Midnight Cowboy
1968 The Producers |[2001: A Space Odyssey] - Coogan's Bluff - Ace High - Once Upon a Time in the West. Planet of the Apes
1967 Cool Hand Luke - yes & In the Heat of the Night
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 - really didn't see anything worthwhile in this. Two great actors but.../ |[The Innocents]
1960 Spartacus |[Psycho]


= agreed
I'll have to edit some more in when I have time to think about it.
Some of my additions are more guilty pleasures than any kind of cinematic masterpieces - but are relevant for me.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

The 2008 Burn After Reading was crazy, with the lame ending stunt leading to a WTF!? moment. Surely, they could've come up with a better ending than that one shown theatrically.

The only reason why the 1982 The Thing bombed big time at the American box office was Universal Studio's mistake to release it within two weeks of E.T.'s debut, essentially getting lost in the shuffle. If the '82 flick of TT had been released, say a month or two before E.T., I'm sure things would've been quite different at the box office.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[Ed Oscuro]

I think that 2011 is the year that films tried to break out of the blockbuster model, and there are a lot of really interesting titles out (from the descriptions, at least) at the box office. Lots of great-sounding foreign flicks, like Miss Bala from Mexico. Unfortunately, the distribution channels and our attention spans seem to demand blockbusters just as they always did - especially to compete in a fragmented media marketplace where every Dick or Jane with a smartphone can waste 30 seconds to 10 minutes of your time with ease and maybe even make you like it.

It's hard not to get the feeling, looking at some past years, that things have gotten worse, but I can look at plenty of years on the list and think "what was that all about?" Some years (like 1982) had enough good flicks to feed on for a decade at least, while some decades have you struggling to find one film you really hold close to you (I enjoyed Casino Royale, enjoyed both Sherlock Holmes films, and to break with the Britishness also enjoyed Inception, but I wouldn't want to watch any of them again, so I would have trouble saying that I really like them, in that sense; on the other hand I still enjoy Goldeneye, but likewise would take a pass on seeing Miller's Crossing again anytime soon. Barton Fink? Fuck that...

It's not. It's a retelling of the basic components of the story of the comics, but not done with any artistic grace or flair, and in completely the wrong tone: comical, puerile, farcical.

If you didn't think the comic was puerile or comical, then you misread the comic. The comic was just a grab bag of pulp/noir cliches, dressed up with stylish artwork and superhero convention. It's not a serious, deep or grim piece of art. It's stylized pulp. It has people leaping out of buildings and landing unhurt, diving through car windshields, and a guy driving a car while holding a person's face in the ground for god's sake. The tone, atmosphere and dialogue is so over the top it borders on parody, like someone applying Spinal Tap's "It goes to 11" joke to I, the Jury. The movie, and half of your complaints about it, is just an extension of that.

It makes no difference.

It does make a difference. They'd have to rewrite the story to iron out what you see as pacing issues, which would change the dynamic of the story and create something distinctly different from the comic.

I don't really want to piss over what is an excellent resource of a thread with this discussion, but re: Sin City -

One look at the mailed-in fan art pieces from other artists will tell you exactly what the original comic was all about. Style as substance, more than any kind of substance on its own ground. Sin City was an experiment against the oppressive order that had persisted since before the demise of the Comics Code, and reflected Frank Miller's fundamentalist attitude on expressive rights. Hell, the dinosaur theme park. Frank Miller wanted to draw dinosaurs; the fans wanted to see dinosaurs; hell, even I would have wanted dinosaurs, so we got them. Not much more to it than that. DINOSAURS!!

And also talking dead bodies, and a naked muscular guy with a tiny something gymnastically escaping from bondage in improbable fashion, and "OMG SHES A NINJA AWESOME!!11" And other stuff besides. Overall pretty enjoyable, even the stuff that made you feel shitty was just working towards an emotional release. It was a good new direction for Frank Miller to build off of after his work on The Dark Knight, and also a nice break from the increasingly austere, ascetic directions Alan Moore was working in. Unabashedly geeky or Western otaku, in other words, without admitting it was anything but pure blocks of muscle.

RE: Kurosawa. And here's the problem with stipulating mainstream. Who's mainstream? If we're talking Japan's mainstream, Kurosawa is basically going to own the 50's and 60's.

And also, when mainstream? I mentioned a Ron Perlman / Guillermo del Toro film, but back when Toro was far less recognized than he is today.

I think "the best films" is much more useful than mainstream or not. I generally frown upon categorizing things "art house" or "academic" for that matter, like poetry or literature or any form of arts that could get recognition, but doesn't. While there is nothing wrong with being art house or academically recognized, I think people would connect well with a lot of stuff that just doesn't get pushed out there like it should.