The list is very arthouse-like, sophisticated and ambitious. Even tough they are great Directors with superb movies, they have not made any of my all-time favourites (at least not in the last decade): As I have already explained in some orther thread, Quentin made his last “Masterpiece” with Jackie Brown. Oldboy by Chan-Wook is very close to be an all-time favourite and the Coens made their best movies back in the 90s (Barton Fink, Millers Crossing, Fargo and Lebowski). Wong Kar-Wai’s last good movie was “In the mood for love” (2000). I simply think that the 70s, 80s and 90s have produced more “masterpieces”.
I think that the last 15 years has been rather unmemorable. I study film and I honestly cannot think of any movie by Almodovar, medem, yimou, chan wook, kim ki duk, tywer, ozon, dominik graf, weingartner, fatih akin, jonze, gondry, carlos reygadas, kim ji woon, kar wai,
Most of them are Asian and people in America don’t get to see many of these movies.
Some of them are german. I dont believe that there are english dubs of any fatih-akin-movies available in the States. Maybe you tell me I am wrong.
The Asian cinema is very powerful and developing. Still I know only a few Asian films.
In the USA the people mostly didn’t care very much about foreign films. That’s also a reason why SWs were (and still are) despised by the majority.
[quote=“ION BRITTON, post:137, topic:2074”]It was a healthy peaceful argument, nothing more nothing less 
I cant say that I disagree with what you said, I am simply saying that the movie is very good for what it is and it doesn’t pretend to be anything more than that. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be a bit better though.[/quote]
I didn’t mean to provoke a dispute with you, amigo.
We think along broadly the same lines - I enjoyed it while I was watching it, I just think a bit more effort could have made it more memorable all round.
Oh, and one of the best films of the last 10 years is Quantum of Solace. It’s extremely beautiful and I get more enthusiastic with every viewing.
[quote=“Stanton, post:140, topic:2074”]Some directors who made brilliant films in the last decade out of my mind and after a quick look over my DVDs:
Almodovar, Medem, van Sant, Yimou, Coen Bros, Chan-Wook, Kim Ki Duk, Ozon, Tykwer, Soderbergh, Tarantino, Gaspar Noe, Dominik Graf, Weingartner, Haneke, van Trier, Fatih Akin, Jonze, Gondry, Carlos Reygadas, Kim Ji-woon, Kar Wai, Allen, Sofia Coppola …
All these have made at least one film which can mess with every film classic. They use a great narrative freedom to tell their unique stories, and many of these films look visually quite different from most of the films which were made the decades before.
And there are many more if I expand this list into the late 90s. And I’m sure there are more of which I even haven’t seen anything.
And the action films are aesthetically often unbelievable looking.[/quote]
Maybe it’s fair to say that Hollywood has lost it’s way during this period then. As your list contains practically no American names. Whereas in the 70s there was a plethora of memorable films made by major studios which still stand up. Practically none of the directors you list would have films showing at anyone’s local multiplex. This, I believe is the real tragedy of the situation. There seems to have been a complete dumbing down in mainstream cinema so that most theatres are only offering cgi action movies (whose visual asthetic I’m afraid I don’t share your appreciation of) or mindless romcoms and teen comedies. The one area I think has seen some genuine quality in is actually animated features. Some very good films made in that genre which I do believe will stand the test of time.
I think the quality of films has, on average, been about the same every decade. One could make an eighties, or thirties version of Stanton’s list as well. Besides that, I don’t think that much of Noe, von Trier and van Sant (who made the most horrible remake of all time by the way).
Moreover, a lot of those people on the list are not exactly products of the last 10 years, but have been around a while.
Yeah, I noticed that too. But I have much fun with Hollywood blockbusters, and I don’t think that bad about them. Many are very well made, especially the action scenes, but they are not totally fascinating.
But there are US directors like Coen, Soderbergh, Spike Jonze and a few more. And I forgot David Lynch. And I’m still hoping that Scorsese makes another great film. In retrospect many of his film got better when I rewatched them. Or Oliver Stone. Alexander has great scenes and I’m looking forward to the much longer, and much different director’s cut.
Maybe the 60s and 70s were really a great time for the genre film.
[quote=“Bad Lieutenant, post:148, topic:2074”]I think the quality of films has, on average, been about the same every decade. One could make an eighties, or thirties version of Stanton’s list as well. Besides that, I don’t think that much of Noe, von Trier and van Sant (who made the most horrible remake of all time by the way).
Moreover, a lot of those people on the list are not exactly products of the last 10 years, but have been around a while.[/quote]
For me the first half of the last century is compared to modern films not that interesting, but there were still many great film. As in all decades from the 20 onwards. But the film language was developing very slowly and censorship was a great problem. But in the 6os everything exploded, and suddenly within a few years everything was possible. In the 80s the progress had slowed down, and the film were mostly relying on the standards set before. In this decade the Action film is not so interesting, But in the last 20 years there happened again a lot.
Your dislike of some of them is just ok, as this all is of course subjective. And I haven’t said that some of these directors haven’t made great film before.
Do not like alot of actors in films today. Some are irritating or just plain obnoxious. CGI in films is not something I like on the whole. Do like some French horror films in recent years. Some original ideas floating around and often brutal / violent.
[quote=“Stanton, post:150, topic:2074”]For me the first half of the last century is compared to modern films not that interesting, but there were still many great film. As in all decades from the 20 onwards. But the film language was developing very slowly and censorship was a great problem. But in the 6os everything exploded, and suddenly within a few years everything was possible. In the 80s the progress had slowed down, and the film were mostly relying on the standards set before. In this decade the Action film is not so interesting, But in the last 20 years there happened again a lot.
Your dislike of some of them is just ok, as this all is of course subjective. And I haven’t said that some of these directors haven’t made great film before.[/quote]
True. Film advanced both techologically and with the times also ideas shifted creatively. But I don’t think the average 30’s film is worse than the average 60’s film. While the medium itself progresses and also the quantity becomes larger, I don’t think the average quality gets better or worse. The main difference between said decades is that people watch more of the latter and tend to identify more with them. This goes for me as well. A thirties mindset, b/w, the way of acting are in the way, ofr a lot of people, to get into those films. But that doesn’t make them any worse in terms of quality.
I don’t agree with you stating that the eighties was a bad time for action films. Two icons of the genre, Sly and Arnie, made their best films in this decade. Also a film like Die Hard is still an action masterpiece.
I agree with you that it’s all very subjective, but on the other hand, what has a guy like Van Sant doen in the last 10 years that will be remembered?
Nothing for ungood (to keep it german proverbly 
but where is the smiley with the knife trough its head? Quantum of Solace was by far the worst Bond I have ever seen. I was pushed to watch it in the cinema and I will never watch it again on DVD. Bond is dead 1/10
I can’t quote on Quantum as I haven’t seen it. However Stanton is the only person I know who has seen it who has such good things to say about it. He has a particular talent for such things. 
But I will say that Casino Royale was by far the best Bond film in many years so credit where it is due to those currently working on the franchise.
Quantum goes far beyond Casino Royale, which is 2nd best Bond. It was too unusual for the typical Bond fans, who are mostly too conservative in their tastes. They mainly want Bond to be like he was in former days, and they especially detest the fast cutting. Surprisingly it wasn’t a flop.
Bond is better than ever.
It’s far from perfect, but i quite liked the third cut of this. I believe it’s called ‘The Final Cut’ on my DVD.
[quote=“Bad Lieutenant, post:152, topic:2074”]True. Film advanced both techologically and with the times also ideas shifted creatively. But I don’t think the average 30’s film is worse than the average 60’s film. While the medium itself progresses and also the quantity becomes larger, I don’t think the average quality gets better or worse. The main difference between said decades is that people watch more of the latter and tend to identify more with them. This goes for me as well. A thirties mindset, b/w, the way of acting are in the way, ofr a lot of people, to get into those films. But that doesn’t make them any worse in terms of quality.
I don’t agree with you stating that the eighties was a bad time for action films. Two icons of the genre, Sly and Arnie, made their best films in this decade. Also a film like Die Hard is still an action masterpiece.
I agree with you that it’s all very subjective, but on the other hand, what has a guy like Van Sant doen in the last 10 years that will be remembered?[/quote]
For me Van Sant’s Elephant is a fascinating film. It’s in my top 50 ever, at least the one I prepared here in the forum in another thread. Gerry on the other hand was a bit hard to sit through.
I don’t like Arnie and Sly films very much. Some are good, some are ok, some are bad. Nothing special for me. Have to rewatch the 1st Terminator.
And Die Hard was (and still is) a disappointment. Far beneath its possibilities. I prefer all of the sequels, with the 2nd being the best directed.
Yes, the final cut. It is just out on DVD in Germany. I’ve only seen the theatrical version, which was already far better than its reputation.
Casino Royale retooled the Bond franchise, borrowing a few film-making tricks from the Bourne films and other modern action movies along the way, getting back to the spirit of the text and stripping out many of the camp qualities that have bedevilled on-screen Bonds for decades.
Quantum is a decent action movie but, in my opinion, not much of a Bond movie (Olga Kurylenko excepted).
I am sorry I am not known for my diplomacy but there is something wrong with your perception Casino Royale was as bad as Quantum. Its just an average action-Movie. No Style, no Humor and finally no Bond at all.
I have many arguments for my opinion: GOLDFINGER, From Russia with Love, Thunderball, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service etc.
see above