Masterpieces watched since 2010

[Stewball]

What goes into a masterpiece? I have 16 films I've rated 95 or 100 since 2010, but these 4 are in a special category for a combination of being artistic, rewatchable, making a statement, and delivering an emotional punch:

Her
Like Sunday, Like Rain
The Counselor
Sucker Punch

Yes my tastes tend toward the mainstream, but these can't be accused of that, with 2 of them being miserable box office bombs, and the other 2 just so-so. There's a big difference between depressing or melancholy, and bittersweet. Money is a tool that can be used for good or bad. Simple-mindedness is a chronic condition of all extremes.

Among the intelligentsia, there is a prejudice against big budgets since their products cannot possibly be seen as anything other than examples of crass commercialism. My world is a lot more vibrant, and hopeful. "What", you say, "The Counselor is hopeful?" Yes. It holds up a picture of mankind at it's worst, but it's also a challenge to reverse the trend toward evil which has always existed. "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future....."

[VinegarBob]

Among the intelligentsia, there is a prejudice against big budgets since their products cannot possibly be seen as anything other than examples of crass commercialism.

Not to pick a fight, but I would disagree with this statement. I don't think it's a prejudice - rather it's more just how things are. There does seem to me to be a correlation between budget and vision when it comes to films, as a general rule. The more money that's involved in making a movie, the more everything has to be diluted in order to appeal to (or not offend) a wider and wider audience in order to make all that money back. I'm no foodie, but it seems to me to be kind of like a buffet; you tend to only get stuff most people like or don't object to at a buffet, not anything exotic or thought provoking.

[Stewball]

Among the intelligentsia, there is a prejudice against big budgets since their products cannot possibly be seen as anything other than examples of crass commercialism.

Not to pick a fight, but I would disagree with this statement. I don't think it's a prejudice - rather it's more just how things are.

Yeah, prejudiced--which means, after all, that they prejudge a movie based on it's budget. Though if it was a $200 mil biography on Lenin they'd probably make a hypocritical exception. (The Left never gets called on hypocrisy.)

There does seem to me to be a correlation between budget and vision when it comes to films, as a general rule. The more money that's involved in making a movie, the more everything has to be diluted in order to appeal to (or not offend) a wider and wider audience in order to make all that money back. I'm no foodie, but it seems to me to be kind of like a buffet; you tend to only get stuff most people like or don't object to at a buffet, not anything exotic or thought provoking.

If that were the case, there'd never be a big budget bomb--or a small budget success. But in fact, most blockbusters are narrowly focused on a formulaic plot with the expected big budget cast and f/x, and the start of another chain of sequels (the real bugaboo behind high budget schlock).

And if buffet meant anything, Her should have made billions what with all the themes is covered, but then they only spent $23 mil. And then there's my biggest ever quality/box disparity, Like Sunday, Like Rain. It only made $28K during its 5 week run on between 1 & 6 screens.

Gaaaah, my brain's going to have to grind for a while on that.....again.

[VinegarBob]

Yeah, prejudiced--which means, after all, that they prejudge a movie based on it's budget.

I don't think they're pre-judging them based on their budget. If they pre-judge them at all it's more likely to be based on the story/star or the fact that the lead is wearing spandex rather than how much it cost to make. After all they pre-judge stuff like Mall Cop and other dumb comedies that don't cost a fortune too.

If that were the case, there'd never be a big budget bomb--or a small budget success.

Not never, but most blockbusters make lots of money - more than enough to prop up the occasional bomb. Most indie films don't make much money. Occasionally there'll be a breakthrough indie film that catches on, but they're in the extreme minority.

And if buffet meant anything, Her should have made billions what with all the themes is covered...

I don't think the buffet analogy meant the same to you as to me, because you seem to have just proved my point here. Most people couldn't care less about those themes. Her was not a formulaic film, and covered unconventional themes, and that's precisely why it didn't make much money. And the inverse is true too imo. Looking at what's popular these days the majority of people want to see formulaic movies with unoriginal themes, featuring stars they're familiar with, superheroes and explosions (ie big budget blockbusters). Those are the most successful in terms of money, which is why the big studios keep pumping them out. Her had none of those things. I don't think it's a coincidence that it hardly made its budget back.

[Stewball]

I don't think they're pre-judging them based on their budget. If they pre-judge them at all it's more likely to be based on the story/star or the fact that the lead is wearing spandex rather than how much it cost to make. After all they pre-judge stuff like Mall Cop and other dumb comedies that don't cost a fortune too.

Well of course, a lot of movies put 'bout everything they got into the previews, so if that's the best it's got, no pre-judgement there. Same with about every horror/vampire/werewolf/zombie movie ever made.

If that were the case, there'd never be a big budget bomb--or a small budget success.

Not never, but most blockbusters make lots of money - more than enough to prop up the occasional bomb. Most indie films don't make much money. Occasionally there'll be a breakthrough indie film that catches on, but they're in the extreme minority.

Precisely, so you don't know which is which until you've seen 'em.

I don't think the buffet analogy meant the same to you as to me, because you seem to have just proved my point here. Most people couldn't care less about those themes.

Most of the overt themes are normally attractive to many people, and the rest were too subdued to be commonly noticed. It's like animated films that have something for adults and children both, much of it overlapping--the opposite of brain dead teen films which don't appeal to children or adults either one.

Her was not a formulaic film, and covered unconventional themes, and that's precisely why it didn't make much money. And the inverse is true too imo. Looking at what's popular these days the majority of people want to see formulaic movies with unoriginal themes, featuring stars they're familiar with, superheroes and explosions (ie big budget blockbusters). Those are the most successful in terms of money, which is why the big studios keep pumping them out. Her had none of those things. I don't think it's a coincidence that it hardly made its budget back.

[/quote]

All true, but, if we didn't have people taking chances and producing some occasional new and original and innovative stuff, we'd still be watching multi-generational sequels to The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind.

[jal90]

I have watched a total amount of 1475 counted full-length films (plus the ones I have watched as a kid or a teen but haven't rated yet because my memories are not solid enough), out of these 1278 since 2010. Needless to say that I've watched most of my 10 ratings since 2010, and I'm quite lenient with them so it's a big number.

And... well, it seems the thread went to some interesting places. Quite a nice discussion you guys are having.

[ehk2]

It naturally depends on age; interest and intensity of watching movies, and availability/access to resources and medium. My criticker account dates back to mid 2010. I had begun with around 800 movies with about 15 masterpieces (above 95, which equals to a 10/10 imdb point for me). Up to this day, it is now around 5100 movies -nearly half of which is shorts- with about 30 personal masterpieces. the result of 30 years of random, disinterested watching is doubled in 5 years of intensive and hopefully careful and selective watching -not toforget that I had to dig twice or much more movies to achieve finding the right ones (if we assume it our sole goal). remarkable or not? maybe I am a little mean. in any case, thanks to criticker and its community for their help for picking the right ones!

[djross]

I would never have predicted that the next film I would consider a masterpiece would be Sion Sono's Himizu, especially considering that my view of Love Exposure is that it was ambitious and interesting but ultimately overwrought and unsuccessful. But it seems to me that Himizu, in its wild way, captures something that has perhaps never been successfully represented cinematically before about contemporary intergenerational relationships. Will need to see some more of his works, and perhaps even, one day, to revisit the four hours of Love Exposure. As it stands, Himizu is, by score, for me the greatest film of the present decade, with Bruno Dumont's Little Quinquin the greatest TV series (I gave them both 92).

[dardan]

I would never have predicted that the next film I would consider a masterpiece would be Sion Sono's Himizu, especially considering that my view of Love Exposure is that it was ambitious and interesting but ultimately overwrought and unsuccessful. But it seems to me that Himizu, in its wild way, captures something that has perhaps never been successfully represented cinematically before about contemporary intergenerational relationships. Will need to see some more of his works, and perhaps even, one day, to revisit the four hours of Love Exposure. As it stands, Himizu is, by score, for me the greatest film of the present decade, with Bruno Dumont's Little Quinquin the greatest TV series (I gave them both 92).

Him having made 5 films in 2015 alone makes me both disinterested and interested in his work. Is he anything like Fassbinder? His style, the importance and prevalence of abuse, and his work ethic at least indicate that.

[djross]

I'm no expert in Fassbinder (or Sono), but no, I don't see much in common, even though they might both be seen as being attracted to a kind of ultra-melodrama in service of a kind of transgressive politics. The most recent Fassbinder film I've seen is The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant, which purports to be a female-centred psycho-drama, but in a very unpersuasive manner, as I stated in my review: "I'm less than convinced that Fassbinder is much of an authority on female psychology, in which case perhaps this is better understood as a film in which actresses have been asked to play male roles...in drag." I get a totally different feeling from Sono, or at least from Himizu, where the idea that youthful love is what contemporary society deadens receives a far more affectionate, and caring, treatment, despite the wild abandon of the filmmaking and narrative (in its apparent desire to incarnate a kind of anti-Ozu idea and practice).