[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

A while ago, some of my friends were bandying around the idea that 1999 was the best year for movies in our generation. Others agree.

Comments

Re: Counter-argument

[carneggy.livejournal.com]

So out of curiousity, what would go on your case against?

Re: Counter-argument

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

Well, OK, I suppose I was exaggerating for effect. One can't really prove a year isn't a good year for movies by listing mediocre movies from that year, since every year has a virtually inexhaustible supply of mediocre films and genuine stinkers. I do think you can make a case for some years over others by looking at the number of "wow, that's what I go to the movies for" movies, and subjectively, 1999 had a lot of those for me.

Now all THAT said, I don't think having Beetlejuice, They Live, Young Guns, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, or Naked Gun make the Top 17 does a lot for 1988's case to movie greatness.

Re: Counter-argument

[carneggy.livejournal.com]

Sure, I'd personally agree with the ones you disdain.

But then, some of the ones on that 1999 list are equally iffy in my eyes - Fight Club, Eyes Wide Shut and Blair Witch Project were/are horribly, horribly overrated. Good, but not great.

Personally, in a lot of ways I'd prefer 1987: Princess Bride, The Last Emperor, Wings of Desire, Near Dark, Full Metal Jacket, Raising Arizona, Wall Street, House of Games, Empire of the Sun, etc etc.

Re: Counter-argument

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

That works for me. Though '87 isn't a multiple of eleven, so we can't attribute the flourishing of creativity that year to the mystical eleven-year sunspot cycle.

Re: Counter-argument

[carneggy.livejournal.com]

Well, it was GOING to be 11, but then the focus groups indicated it would be better if we made it even bigger.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Eyes Wide Shut wasn't merely overrated, it was execrable.