Best Films of the 00's - so far

Typos....the defense of those who have failed.

tiredhippo wrote:

Typos....the defense of those who have failed.

I was mocking your typo...

Yes....yes you were.....why address the point that was made when you can shit yourself over a missing letter....

1. 25th Hour
2. Amores Perros
3. Punch-Drunk Love
4. Children of Men
5. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

Notable mentions to:

There Will Be Blood, Gangs of New York, The Aviator, Superbad, Pan's Labyrinth, Control.

tiredhippo wrote:

Yes....yes you were.....why address the point that was made when you can shit yourself over a missing letter....

This magical thing called "humour".

American Gangster

Pans Labyrinth for sure.

also Transformers - a good film in disguise

mrblackbat wrote:

I'm not really sure you have a right to comment when you include the Bourne Supremacy in your list(s).

Lucky for us both then that I am sure.

Fu Manchu wrote:

Transformers - a good film in disguise

I wish I agreed I really do. If only the entire movie had been as cool as Starscream Vs. the Jets...

O Goncho wrote:

mrblackbat wrote:

I'm not really sure you have a right to comment when you include the Bourne Supremacy in your list(s).

Lucky for us both then that I am sure.

'twas a very shit film.

mrblackbat wrote:

O Goncho wrote:

mrblackbat wrote:

I'm not really sure you have a right to comment when you include the Bourne Supremacy in your list(s).

Lucky for us both then that I am sure.

'twas a very shit film.

I disagree, and my penis is much bigger than yours.

Wouldn't be hard. No pun intended.

But seriously, rubbish film. That completely ignored the original plot, which was rather good.

Which one was Supremacy: 1st, 2nd or 3rd?

All were awesome.

2nd. It wasn't really helped that they killed Conklin off in the first film, what with him being a major character in Supremacy....

I can't remember, but do they even mention his real name in the films?

mrblackbat wrote:

Wouldn't be hard. No pun intended.

But seriously, rubbish film. That completely ignored the original plot, which was rather good.

Just because there was no need for a sequel doesn't mean it isn't better than the original. The original plot was wrapped up as neatly as can be in the first film, but it's also easily the worst of the three.

mrblackbat wrote:

I can't remember, but do they even mention his real name in the films?

Yeah, in the second and third.

There was a need for the sequel. It just needed to be set in Hong Kong, like the sequel to the Bourne Identity actually is. And be about someone impersonating Jason Bourne in order to get the Kuomintang back in power....

O Goncho wrote:

mrblackbat wrote:

I can't remember, but do they even mention his real name in the films?

Yeah, in the second and third.

That's a plus at least.

To be honest, I'd have probably liked the films if they'd just called them something else; they're far enough away from the novels that they could have got away with it. I never even watched the third cause the second was that bad.

mrblackbat wrote:

There was a need for the sequel. It just needed to be set in Hong Kong, like the sequel to the Bourne Identity actually is. And be about someone impersonating Jason Bourne in order to get the Kuomintang back in power....

I haven't read the books; I doubt Paul Greengrass has either. If you're disgruntled because they're so different to the books that's understandable, but it doesn't make them shit films.

I think we just inadvertantly agreed.

Not really...he just said that he never watched the third because the second was so bad....

Yes, but the expectations are there, and when they're not even close to being fulfilled then it annoys and detracts from anything good about the films.

It'd have been like if in the Lord of the Rings, Bilbo is the one who goes to Sauron, and rather than a ring it's a picnic basket. In fact, Sauron probably wouldn't even have been in it. Or elves.

mrblackbat wrote:

Yes, but the expectations are there, and when they're not even close to being fulfilled then it annoys and detracts from anything good about the films.

It'd have been like if in the Lord of the Rings, Bilbo is the one who goes to Sauron, and rather than a ring it's a picnic basket. In fact, Sauron probably wouldn't even have been in it. Or elves.

It would have, if as many people knew the Bourne novels as new Lord of the Rings. The vast majority (myself obviously included) could enjoy them as films without worrying about whether they were faithful or not.

Also, Jason, you're missing the point.

I hate you and hope you die.