The OP’s quota doesn’t specify if it’s Hollywood or not.
Moreover: “In my opinion the greatest year for movies in the history of film based on Quality and Quantity.”
For movies, not for Hollywood movies, he’s generalizing, he’s not specifying on anything.
I was just basing it off the majority of the list. He even squeezed in Tarzan and Office Space
1939…yes…considered by many to be HOLLYWOOD’S BEST YEAR…
although….also seen were…
Le Jour se Leve
The Four Feathers
The End of the Day
The Story of the Last Chrysanthemums
Rules of the Game
The Spy in Black
but I’ll still go with 1974!
Well, 1973 is the greatest year in the history of man, but 1974 is, I think, the tops for cinema
hmmm….was ULI born in 1973?
1957 was my fav (in no order):
Sweet Smell of Success
Paths of Glory
Nights of Cabiria
12 Angry Men
Bridge on the River Kwai
Throne of Blood
The Cranes are Flying
A Face in the Crowd
Le Notti Blanche
What’s Opera, Doc?
57 is my favorite anyway. 53 might be a bit better in terms of quality.
I sooo will support thiS. 1999 is without a doubt the pinnacle of cinema.
Thumbs up to the OP and I will always agree and support Westley who is one of the only regular users in Mubi to have the courage to champion films that lack obscurity.
(and yes Mubi is that twisted that I view championing mainstream gems as courageous)
I do not give the OP my support blindly. I have a running list that records the avg. score of my top 20 rated films from each year. 1999 has always been unusually high and I hold the year extremely dear.
Flip Trotsky said, “The idea that people like classical music just to be pretentious is laughable beyond discussion.”
I never said that everyone who listens to classical music does it to make themselves look or feel intelligent. I said that there are some people who listen to classical music to make themselves look or feel intelligent. Just like there are some people who watch obscure movies and put down popular movies to make themselves look or feel intelligent.
Wu Yong said “Really, if we’re being truthful, the most pretentious position one can hold is believing they know exactly why someone dislikes any kind of work of art. Meaning the, ‘you just disliked it because it was popular’ mindset is by far the most snobbish, pretentious argument one can make.”
Are you saying that the elitism I’m talking about does not exist? That there is not a general negative attitude among many cinephiles towards films that are popular or supposedly “mainstream”? I mean, come on. The championing of the obscure for obscurity’s sake and the damning of the popular for being popular is a real thing among a lot of cinephiles. (Have you taken a look at the Mubi top 20 poll lately?) This is a real problem that exists. I don’t think it’s pretentious of me to point it out.
I love Fight club, even Palahniuk said it was great. The problem i find is that is against consumerism and at the same time you see this Brad Pitt guy with sunglasses, jacket, stealing ferraris (like it was so easy).
2009 is probably my fav year from 2000 to 2009:
Enter the void, District 9, Castaway On The Moon, Un prophète, Whatever works, City of life and death, The Damned United, Up in the air, Mary and Max, 500 days of summer, The White Ribbon, Inglorious Bastards…
1939, 1954, and 1928.
Run Lola Run was 1998, not 1999, so scribble that one from your list.
I find it downright absurd that people who harp on about the greatness of 1994 almost always fail to name three outstanding films, each one of them vastly superior to “Pulp Fiction”.
Quiz Show (Robert Redford)
An excellent film, based upon real events, about a game show swindle that took place in front of millions of people—and nobody saw a thing. One of my favourite films about the twisted world of television (“Network” and “Good Night, and Good Luck” being two others).
Fresh (Boaz Yakin)
Okay, so it was actually filmed in 1991 but it did not garner commercial release until 1994, so there. A juvenile drug peddler (Sean Nelson) sets out to defeat the crooks and liberate himself from the bad life, in what amounts to a game of real-life chess. Samuel L. Jackson features prominently in this film (playing the boy’s chess wizard hobo father), released the same year as his much more famous appearance in “Pulp Fiction”, and most QT fans weened on Samuel’s biblical tirades don’t even know about “Fresh”, far more thoughtful and clever than QT’s non-linear bullet-spewing bloodfest.
Ed Wood (Tim Burton)
A box office flop upon its release, this film took years to receive its due, and now it is considered a cult classic. That’s rather fitting, considering the films made by its subject, the notorious Edward D. Wood Jr, also sat in obscurity for many years before garnering cult status. The differences are that Tim Burton’s biopic of Wood is competently made and intentionally hilarious (not to mention deeply poignant).
I caught Fresh at the cinema and desperately wanted to see the other two (Quiz Show and Ed Wood)
but I did not attend the movies anywhere nearly as much in 1994 as I do now—I was only sixteen years of age, had not yet discovered the Astor Theatre, I was busy with American football a few nights per week, plus I was still a student and getting the small amount of money that was Austudy (mind you I was not complaining). I finally saw Ed Wood on DVD a few years ago and have seen it at the Astor several times since. I just caught up with Quiz Show (finally!) in the last year and a half; what an amazing film! I’d still love to see it on the big screen.
Surely more decent films were made in any year between 1890 and 1970 than in 1999!
Westley : “I said that there are some people who listen to classical music to make themselves look or feel intelligent. Just like there are some people who watch obscure movies and put down popular movies to make themselves look or feel intelligent.”
Who are these mythical people, and how do you know what they like? I’ve worked in ‘pretentious’ music circles for years, and I’ve yet to meet anyone I had any reason to think was being disingenuous about their likes and dislikes. I’ve also yet to meet anyone who thinks they are ‘superior’ or especially ‘intelligent’ because they like classical music.
That’s why I called your initial post in this thread one giant straw man. You’re attacking a position that no one defends in the first place.
“Are you saying that the elitism I’m talking about does not exist? That there is not a general negative attitude among many cinephiles towards films that are popular or supposedly ‘mainstream’? I mean, come on. The championing of the obscure for obscurity’s sake and the damning of the popular for being popular is a real thing among a lot of cinephiles.”
Like I said, “the most pretentious position one can hold is believing they know exactly why someone dislikes any kind of work of art. Meaning the, ‘you just disliked it because it was popular’ mindset is by far the most snobbish, pretentious argument one can make.”
Right, I’m pretentious for pointing out the obvious. I see.
>>the most pretentious position one can hold is believing they know exactly why someone dislikes any kind of work of art.<<
That would be pretentious, but often we have written opinions to refer to and need not resort to mindreading. How many times can various members say something like, “this obscure film/director/country is in desperate need of attention” followed by “and is superior to (insert canon masterpiece here), which is overrated/ we’re tired of hearing about/ should be voted down,” before we can consider it a pattern?
Meanwhile a parallel debate over whether pure entertainment can also be great art seems to occur along mostly the same dividing lines.
It doesn’t need to be an insult to anybody to point out that MUBI is in constant conflict between two broad film theories. It’s actually worth arguing about if we can remain respectful of each other while doing so.
“Right, I’m pretentious for pointing out the obvious. I see.”
The actual definition of pretentious is an unwarranted expression of exaggerated importance, worth or stature. So, yes making insanely broad generalizations about the “true” reason someone you don’t know likes a film is essentially the expressed definition of pretentious.
“It’s actually worth arguing about if we can remain respectful of each other while doing so.”
It’s not worth arguing if one group constantly asserts an absolute as to the reason the other group believes what they do.
Imagine how much shit I would get if I said, “the only reason anyone likes any of the ‘canon’ filmmakers is because they do not contain the intellectual ability to understand anything that doesn’t have a critical consensus.” Imagine that.
Even though, in my personal life, I know a cinephile that is indeed like that, it would be unjust and childish of me to assume that everyone that loves ‘canonized’ cinema is like my friend. But somehow it’s just an obvious fact that the opposite is true. That no one could possibly hold an opinion outside of the ‘canon’ world without just liking obscurity for obscurity’s sake.
Thanks, Brad, for kindly pointing out that Westley is not from another planet.
Saves me the trouble.
Of course, after you point to that absurd top 20 poll, Westley, there isn’t much need to defend you.
And btw, what a slow-motion train wreck that thing is.
The argument I suggested was worth having is the one between competing film theories, not the name calling that has resulted from them.
I’m willing to have the debate. I’m just saying any time I’ve ever approached it, in real life or elsewhere, I’ve always ended up being called a snob (or moron) that only likes what I like because it’s obscure (anyone remember Kate?). That tends to make it less than appealing…
did no one find 2002 as amazing as i did ??
also 1939 is an amazing year for hollywood, but i find 1974 equally as amazing.
personally the best year for film, in my opinion, was 1883
Yes, it’s not a debate at all when one side says they’re “pointing out the obvious”, when what they are pointing out is not even true, let alone ‘obvious’.
So 1939: The Rules of the Game, Ninotchka, Young Mr. Lincoln, Stagecoach, Jesse James, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, The Story of the Late Chrysanthemums, The Spy in Black, Le Jour Se Leve.
1928: The Docks of New York, The Wedding March, The Wind, The Crowd, The Circus, Four Sons, October, Show People, Steamboat Bill Jr., The Passion of Joan of Arc, The Last Command, Arsenal, The Man Who Laughs.
1954: Voyage to Italy, Johnny Guitar, Sansho the Bailiff, French Cancan, Rear Window, The Caine Mutiny, Fear, Godzilla (Gojira), Human Desire, Indescretion of an American Wife (one of De Sica’s better post-Bicycle Thief films), Magnificent Obsession, On the Waterfront, Senso, La Strada, Seven Samurai (though like most Kurosawa it is problematic), The Crucified Lovers.
I wish I could write blurbs on why I picked these years and films, but there’s just too many!
And I don’t wish to sound too much like an asshole, but whoever thinks 1999 is the greatest year for movies needs to either get his head checked or deserves to watch better movies. The only interesting films that came out that year are Beau Travail and The Wind Will Carry Us. New Rose Hotel too if you consider that a 1999 release. Maybe Rosetta and Bringing out the Dead.
And Magnolia is pure shit.
@ Neil Bahadur
Uh, actually you’re just wrong. Magnolia, while not perfect, is an interesting and unique film worth the watch for the opening title sequence and Tom Cruise’s performance alone. The Wind Will Carry Us and Beau Travail? I think you are basically the cliche MUBI snob that Westley is standing up against, no offense bro.
Being John Malkovich
Eyes Wide Shut
The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc
The Straight Story
Yeah. ’nuff said.
There’s no real need to accuse other people of having disingenuous taste or appreciation.
It gets us nowhere; we’ve repeatedly had these name-calling arguments on the forum and they go around in circles without a satisfactory resolution. Just explain to us what films you like/don’t like and why (i.e. from the OP: name a better year for movies than 1999) and that ought to be enough for an interesting discussion to develop.
It surely can’t be too difficult to reign in one’s ego and simply be respectful of other peoples’ tastes, as one would like one’s own tastes to be respected in return. If you tell us what you like/don’t like within the films themselves, and why, then perhaps you’ll find that other people will respect you for it. If they don’t, then that is their problem, not yours.
As I stated previously in this thread, the majority of my top hundred films were made in the 1960s. I like 1960s cinema so much because it was an era of many radical experimentations with the medium itself, and I like how the medium of film can be manipulated for expressive effects. Many of these experimentations were, in my mind, artistically successful and masterful, the most notable example for me personally being The Colour of Pomegranates.
I see 1954 has already received some love, so I will submit my OTHER favorite cinematic year, 1975
Beyond the greatest Best Picture field in Oscar history
Dog Day Afternoon
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
….there was also:
Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles
Love and Death
Lost Honor of Katharina Blum
The Magic Flute
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
The Story of Adele H
The Man Who Would Be King
Lisztomania (RIP Ken Russell)
Picnic at Hanging Rock
Three Days of the Condor
I challenge you to stop classifying films by year of release.
//Seven Samurai (though like most Kurosawa it is problematic)//
I’m curious as to what you find problematic about Kurosawa?
There are a lot of things problematic about Kurosawa, but Seven Samurai isn’t one of the films that exemplifies his problems. Quite the opposite.