Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

So What Really Was the Best Movie Year?


Recommended Posts

Here are some other years that I have highly rated films, the years are according to IMDB:

1933

Sons Of The Desert

King Kong

Duck Soup

Gold Diggers Of 1933 

The Invisible Man

1949

The Window

On The Town

White Heat

The Heiress

The Set Up

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NoShear said:

 Your list is only inclusive of rock music. Fans of other musical genres, such as jazzbos, might not be moved at all by it.

 Speaking just to rock 'n' roll in the year of 1969, you overlooked the pair of milestones that collectively brought the WHO fame 'n fortune: TOMMY and the Woodstock Festival!

Was only citing an example.   But if too I mentioned Miles Davis' "In A Silent Way" and "B!tches Brew" your "jazzbos" might have moved a bit. ;)  And BTW

You should realize that THE WHO  had achieved fame and fortune a FEW YEARS or so BEFORE "Tommy"  and their Woodstock appearance, which word was they really didn't enjoy the gig.  And the point of my post(which response posts helped prove) was that, like some holding the opinion that 1939 was the "best" year for movies, that in other areas some think 1969 was the "best" year in music.  And others helped prove that other years were(in their opinions) equally fruitful  for both movies AND music. 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sepiatone said:

 And BTW

You should realize that THE WHO  had achieved fame and fortune a FEW YEARS or so BEFORE "Tommy"  and their Woodstock appearance, which word was they really didn't enjoy the gig.  And the point of my post(which response posts helped prove) was that, like some holding the opinion that 1939 was the "best" year for movies, that in other areas some think 1969 was the "best" year in music.  And others helped prove that other years were(in their opinions) equally fruitful  for both movies AND music. 

Sepiatone

 This simply is not true. Though the Who were well established in the rock community prior to their 1-2 combo of TOMMY (1969) and woodstock (1970), the group hardly yet had become the proverbial household name in the United States. To emphasize my point, consider that the Who only once had been featured in a full-page article in the Los Angeles Times  through September of 1969.

 I am confident that both Dave Marsh, one of the Who's main historians, and my rock hero, Pete Townshend himself, would back me in my assertion that, again, it was the combination of TOMMY and their appearance at the Woodstock Festival through the subsequent popularity of the '70 rockumentary that brought the Who lasting fame 'n' fortune.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NoShear said:

 This simply is not true. Though the Who were well established in the rock community prior to their 1-2 combo of TOMMY (1969) and woodstock (1970), the group hardly yet had become the proverbial household name in the United States. To emphasize my point, consider that the Who only once had been featured in a full-page article in the Los Angeles Times  through September of 1969.

 I am confident that both Dave Marsh, one of the Who's main historians, and my rock hero, Pete Townshend himself, would back me in my assertion that, again, it was the combination of TOMMY and their appearance at the Woodstock Festival through the subsequent popularity of the '70 rockumentary that brought the Who lasting fame 'n' fortune.

I agree and was about to post the same thing;   Yea,  the WHO was known in the USA but they were not one of the top Rock Bands in the USA until 1970. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, NoShear said:

 This simply is not true. Though the Who were well established in the rock community prior to their 1-2 combo of TOMMY (1969) and woodstock (1970), the group hardly yet had become the proverbial household name in the United States. To emphasize my point, consider that the Who only once had been featured in a full-page article in the Los Angeles Times  through September of 1969.

 I am confident that both Dave Marsh, one of the Who's main historians, and my rock hero, Pete Townshend himself, would back me in my assertion that, again, it was the combination of TOMMY and their appearance at the Woodstock Festival through the subsequent popularity of the '70 rockumentary that brought the Who lasting fame 'n' fortune.

The Who did have a Top 10 US record with I Can See For Miles, and had a (literally) explosive appearance on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour show on CBS in September 1967, which was a Top 20 television program in the 1967-68 season.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2020 at 4:26 PM, TopBilled said:

 

As far as decades go, I think the 1990s are great years because of all the independent films that were garnering recognition. It was a creative period for the industry, an industry still dependent on formulaic blockbusters but also willing to venture off the beaten path.

I would also say this. I think that 1987, 1988, and 1989 helped to lay the groundwork to the blossoming of the early 90s and were pretty wonderful years in their own right.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

First let me say that such "what is the best" type questions are generally folly but they can be fun as long as one doesn't take them seriously.   

I see that The Grand Master has listed 10 films for 1957 as "best year":         I like some type of structure since it allows a fixed comparison criteria.  

I don't know if I have energy to come up with a list of "10 best films" by year and then compare each year and those 10 films to see which year I feel is "best". 

 Det Jim used 5 for films for 1933 and 1949.      Using 5 instead of 10 is easier but it isn't as representative of what a 'year' offers.     And,  I'm still too lazy to do 5 films per year.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, skimpole said:

How so?

(As to why I'm not generally a fan of 1970s films): The short answer would include such things as 1) I dislike the Sepia Sludge look of many 1970s films, in which brown-yellow-green is so dominant a palette than blue and red almost disappear; 2) Almost all of the official classics of the 1970s seem overrated to me, with a few exceptions like Badlands, Chinatown, and Dog Day Afternoon; 3) Many of the official classics are sluggishly paced (Coppola and Cimino are among the offenders here); 4) The sour fondness for downbeat endings is no more realistic than the happy endings of many classic films; 5) Although I admire the craft of Scorsese and his team, I feel no emotional connection to most of his films (Hugo is the major exception). That's probably more than enough for starters.

For the discussion of 1968 and 1969 music: 1968 also includes Joni Mitchell's first album Song to a Seagull and 1969 includes her second, Clouds.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kingrat said:

I dislike the Sepia Sludge look of many 1970s films, in which brown-yellow-green is so dominant a palette than blue and red almost disappear;

I can't remember if it was TCM or somewhere else where I recently heard a discussion about the disappearance of Technicolor and Metrocolor and the replacement with earthier tones. It may have been in an intro to a movie.

On a slightly unrelated note, as a longtime comic book reader who was drawn in as a very young child to all the primary colors and splashiness of the superhero comics, I'm continually distressed by the predominance of gray in all the Marvel movies that are so popular. Not just in the overall color schemes, but in the heroes' costumes themselves - try to find Captain America in his traditional red, white and blue anywhere after the first movie or two. After that, it was all gray and black.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, kingrat said:

(As to why I'm not generally a fan of 1970s films): The short answer would include such things as 1) I dislike the Sepia Sludge look of many 1970s films, in which brown-yellow-green is so dominant a palette than blue and red almost disappear; 2) Almost all of the official classics of the 1970s seem overrated to me, with a few exceptions like Badlands, Chinatown, and Dog Day Afternoon; 3) Many of the official classics are sluggishly paced (Coppola and Cimino are among the offenders here); 4) The sour fondness for downbeat endings is no more realistic than the happy endings of many classic films; 5) Although I admire the craft of Scorsese and his team, I feel no emotional connection to most of his films (Hugo is the major exception). That's probably more than enough for starters.

For the discussion of 1968 and 1969 music: 1968 also includes Joni Mitchell's first album Song to a Seagull and 1969 includes her second, Clouds.

It was a beige decade.  Earth tones were in.  Everything really looked like that - not just in the movies.  I guess it was a reaction to the over-saturated colors from the 60s...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kingrat said:

(As to why I'm not generally a fan of 1970s films): The short answer would include such things as 1) I dislike the Sepia Sludge look of many 1970s films, in which brown-yellow-green is so dominant a palette than blue and red almost disappear; 2) Almost all of the official classics of the 1970s seem overrated to me, with a few exceptions like Badlands, Chinatown, and Dog Day Afternoon; 3) Many of the official classics are sluggishly paced (Coppola and Cimino are among the offenders here); 4) The sour fondness for downbeat endings is no more realistic than the happy endings of many classic films; 5) Although I admire the craft of Scorsese and his team, I feel no emotional connection to most of his films (Hugo is the major exception). That's probably more than enough for starters.

For the discussion of 1968 and 1969 music: 1968 also includes Joni Mitchell's first album Song to a Seagull and 1969 includes her second, Clouds.

Which movies of the seventies do you find facilely downbeat?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

The Who did have a Top 10 US record with I Can See For Miles, and had a (literally) explosive appearance on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour show on CBS in September 1967, which was a Top 20 television program in the 1967-68 season.

Then there's this STILL relevant anthem from '65-------

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2020 at 9:57 AM, Det Jim McLeod said:

Here are some other years that I have highly rated films, the years are according to IMDB:

1933

Sons Of The Desert

King Kong

Duck Soup

Gold Diggers Of 1933 

The Invisible Man

1949

The Window

On The Town

White Heat

The Heiress

The Set Up

 

strong list

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2020 at 4:26 PM, TopBilled said:

It sort of annoys me when people go on and on about 1939. Typically these same people fail to acknowledge the bombs of 1939 and they never once mention the decent 'B' films from 1939. It basically becomes an excuse to talk once again about Oz and Tara.

I actually think with increasing political correctness GONE WITH THE WIND will go the way of BIRTH OF A NATION and SONG OF THE SOUTH which will put a blemish on 1939.

Personally I feel there were equally good films in 1940 and 1941, including those famous efforts from Hitchcock, Welles and Ford.

Oh, and another thing that makes me smile is how the people who rave about 1939 always fail to see that almost all the films released in the first three months of '39 were technically made in '38. And this means that films made in the last three months of 1939 have a 1940 date on them. So this obsession with 1939 is a little too narrow and uninformed for my tastes, to be honest.

As far as decades go, I think the 1990s are great years because of all the independent films that were garnering recognition. It was a creative period for the industry, an industry still dependent on formulaic blockbusters but also willing to venture off the beaten path.

we have one of our biggest splits buddy  and I've gone to see GWTW 3 times & went to Wizard if 0z once, but there is a ton more from '39

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, skimpole said:

Which movies of the seventies do you find facilely downbeat?

BADLANDS is superb

But Malick only has been up for what I rank another great war film, surrealistic '98's THIN RED LINE

 

Sheen did look like JD back then as did Dean Stockwell   & Badlands has the ever superb Warren 0ates

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, skimpole said:

Which movies of the seventies do you find facilely downbeat?

What about MEAN STEETS, GFI & II, TAXI DRIVER, APOCALYPSE NOW & DEER HUNTER though?

excuse me i'm addressing person who wasn't a fan of '70's cinema   TWO LANE BLACKTOP, THE SHOOTEST, ANNIE HALL , MANHATTAN, THE FRONT, COMING HOME  & NETWORK are others & I always found BEING THERE as brilliant

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, skimpole said:

Which movies of the seventies do you find facilely downbeat?

SEE BELOW,  listed what I rate among most depressing films ever yet made yet incredible cinema  I'm still a fan though pf the studio-system the most 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1974 was a great year for  the movies:

 

Blazing Saddles

The Godfather Part II

Lenny

The Longest Yard

The Conversation

Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore

Chinatown

Badlands

Harry and Tonto

Death Wish

The Towering Inferno

Young Frankenstein

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With so many opposing responses, I still think there's more than just WHAT movies that came out in '39 make it the "best" year for movies in some "experts" minds.  

Did techniques and movie making methods start to change radically in that year?  Or.... perhaps people were finally "better off" enough to start attending more movies more often than previous years?  I don't know.  But there HAS to be a better reason than just the number of very good to "great" films being made or released that year, as since the industry is in a  constant  evolutionary mode and, as other posts have proved, there are many other years in which very good to "great" movies have been made and released, and in greater numbers (for some years). 

And MY biggest gripe about many early '70's movies is the reluctance of cinematographers to use correction filters for fluorescent lighting.  which gave film that "greenish pall"someone complained about earlier.

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2020 at 4:26 PM, TopBilled said:

It sort of annoys me when people go on and on about 1939. Typically these same people fail to acknowledge the bombs of 1939 and they never once mention the decent 'B' films from 1939. It basically becomes an excuse to talk once again about Oz and Tara.

I actually think with increasing political correctness GONE WITH THE WIND will go the way of BIRTH OF A NATION and SONG OF THE SOUTH which will put a blemish on 1939.

Personally I feel there were equally good films in 1940 and 1941, including those famous efforts from Hitchcock, Welles and Ford.

Oh, and another thing that makes me smile is how the people who rave about 1939 always fail to see that almost all the films released in the first three months of '39 were technically made in '38. And this means that films made in the last three months of 1939 have a 1940 date on them. So this obsession with 1939 is a little too narrow and uninformed for my tastes, to be honest.

As far as decades go, I think the 1990s are great years because of all the independent films that were garnering recognition. It was a creative period for the industry, an industry still dependent on formulaic blockbusters but also willing to venture off the beaten path.

As I wrote we have a huge split on '39 & Hollywoods Golden age/Studio-system was at it's pinnacle then & the '40's

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...