Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Need a long list to read? Here are 40 movies that you might get excited about in 2014   (movies.yahoo.com) divider line 77
    More: Interesting, humans, America Ferrera, Dustin Hoffman, Jack Black, Juliette Binoche, Ian McShane, Matt Reeves, Jason Segel  
•       •       •

6027 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 02 Jan 2014 at 7:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-02 07:52:19 AM  
I should get excited about Expendables 3?  It doesn't even have Bruce Willis in it.
 
2014-01-02 07:56:06 AM  
GBH looks like a tasty treat.
 
2014-01-02 07:58:00 AM  
Lego movie looks the best. Also will see Xmen, Mockingjay, and Cpt America. I'll catch the others when they come out on Redbox.
 
2014-01-02 08:03:34 AM  
Not too bad a list, but I'd have gone with a shorter one.

Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy will be must see's for me, as well as the last 3rd of The Hobbit.  Some of the others may end up being good, but we've only got teasing bits and pieces to go by.
 
2014-01-02 08:17:48 AM  
I guess the movie industry couldn't come up with enough money from its marketing department to justify rounding it off to "50".
 
2014-01-02 08:19:55 AM  
I'll give the list props for being a list as opposed to the inevitable slideshow.  Also will give the list props for the lack of breathless-omg!-buzzfeed writing: "40 mind-blowing movies we can't wait to see!!!"

On the list itself: I'm already in line for Guardians, Captain America, and Sin City.  I'm waiting for more info on Shadow Recruit and Godzilla. On the fence for SpiderMan and Monuments Men. No frickin' way I'm paying full fare for the rest of list.
 
2014-01-02 08:31:35 AM  
I am very excited to know that there are 40 movies I will be deliberately avoiding this year. Crap remakes, half-baked adaptations and "original" movies that follow the same, banal plots recycled time and again.
When hollywood starts getting inventive, THEN i'll care. Until then, they can suck their own celluloid.
 
2014-01-02 08:36:26 AM  
Part of me really wants to go see The Fault in Our Stars because, hey, John Green needs to eat, but I need to sucker someone to join me in what is essentially going to be Feels: The Movie.
 
2014-01-02 08:37:12 AM  

Imaginativescreenname: When hollywood starts getting inventive, THEN i'll care.


Hollywood never was all that inventive.  It just *SEEMS* that way, because when we look back at the history of film-making there, we only see the good stuff.  We don't watch the majority of forgettable, unimaginative films that are their bread-and-butter.

Hell, even classics like the 1956 version of Moby Dick are often remakes of remakes based upon novels, hardly what most would call "original".
 
2014-01-02 08:39:48 AM  
A food truck movie? Seriously? When Atlanta setup up a centralized parking lot so people could drive their cars to food trucks I thought the trend was past it's prime but now that it has a Hollywood movie I'm quite certain of it.
 
2014-01-02 08:47:52 AM  
"Mr. Peabody and Sherman"...something goes wrong and only they can "save the universe".

Finally, a movie about saving the universe.
 
2014-01-02 08:50:00 AM  
1. "Interstellar"
Release Date: Nov. 7
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Jessica Chastain, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine
Director: Christopher Nolan
The Scoop: Nolan turns his attention from Gotham City to outer space with this sci-fi film about mankind taking more than just one small step in our continuing exploration of the cosmos. The film's trailer promises something grand and majestic as McConaughey plays a self-described pioneer who takes space travel to the next level; Nolan is definitely swinging for the fences here, looking to create something worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey." Considering the fact that he's Christopher Nolan, he just might pull it off.


God. I hope not. 2001 might be the most overrated movie of all time. Even calling it a movie is a huge stretch. It's just hours of landscapes, boring shiat floating in space with about 10 minutes of actual dialog. No characters, no plot, no emotion, no point. I sincerely hope Interstellar is nothing like 2001.
 
2014-01-02 08:51:57 AM  
Seen the preview for Godzilla while at the Hobbit movie this past weekend. That looks pretty damn awesome.
 
2014-01-02 08:53:00 AM  
None of those look even vaguely interesting
 
2014-01-02 08:56:58 AM  

Ooba Tooba: Seen the preview for Godzilla while at the Hobbit movie this past weekend. That looks pretty damn awesome.


I remember the trailer for the last Godzilla movie looking damn good as well.
 
2014-01-02 08:58:52 AM  
Clint Eastwood directing a musical?  OK, I'm actually intrigued by that; Eastwood has always used music very well in his films and Honkeytonk Man is a pretty interesting, oddly ignored Eastwood film about a musician.  So him doing Jersey Boys could be good.

Besides that, I'll keep an  eye out for Foxcatcher, because the duPont murder story is pretty damn crazy.

And of course, How to Train Your Dragon 2 because of my inner child.
 
2014-01-02 09:05:00 AM  
Looking forward to Foxcather, the Wes Anderson, and George Clooney movies.

/I wont end up seeing them
 
2014-01-02 09:10:07 AM  
Most of those movies shouldn't get anyone excited. And Inherent Vice is missing from the list (because its release date hasn't been announced).
 
2014-01-02 09:11:30 AM  

taurusowner: 1. "Interstellar"
Release Date: Nov. 7
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Jessica Chastain, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine
Director: Christopher Nolan
The Scoop: Nolan turns his attention from Gotham City to outer space with this sci-fi film about mankind taking more than just one small step in our continuing exploration of the cosmos. The film's trailer promises something grand and majestic as McConaughey plays a self-described pioneer who takes space travel to the next level; Nolan is definitely swinging for the fences here, looking to create something worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey." Considering the fact that he's Christopher Nolan, he just might pull it off.


God. I hope not. 2001 might be the most overrated movie of all time. Even calling it a movie is a huge stretch. It's just hours of landscapes, boring shiat floating in space with about 10 minutes of actual dialog. No characters, no plot, no emotion, no point. I sincerely hope Interstellar is nothing like 2001.


*can't tell if troll or just stupid*
 
2014-01-02 09:11:53 AM  
35. "Mr. Peabody and Sherman"

Somebody needs to tell Dreamworks to cut the number of movies they make in half.  The Rocky & Bullwinkle nostalgia porn movie was rancid; what makes them think this one will be any better?   And they have a bad track record with voice actors (I don't think Colbert will stink up the joint, but they've had way too many Shark Tale-esque stinkers).

28. "How to Train Your Dragon 2"

I was very pleasantly surprised by the first one.  This is what happens when that studio gets it right; I just wish there were more of these and fewer Road to El Dorados.

25. "Transformers: Age of Extinction"

Someone take Michael Bay behind the woodshed and put him out of our misery.

23. "The LEGO Movie"

Looks very promising, and this might be one of those very few movies where they can pull off using a stable of A-list actors for voice work.

22. "Godzilla"

Honestly, I'd rather have more movies in the Pacific Rim universe.  That's the first time since Iron Giant I've gotten excited about a giant robot/monster flick.

15. "22 Jump Street"

Someone remind me to set up a VPN to relentlessly torrent and then immediately delete this over and over, out of spite.

14. "Monuments Men"

I'm getting an Ocean's Eleven meets Kelly's Heroes vibe.  This could either be amazing or cringe-worthy.


/And any movie that's described as "a classier version of The Lawnmower Man" is asking to be the Ishtar of our generation.
 
2014-01-02 09:16:58 AM  

Imaginativescreenname: I am very excited to know that there are 40 movies I will be deliberately avoiding this year. Crap remakes, half-baked adaptations and "original" movies that follow the same, banal plots recycled time and again.
When hollywood starts getting inventive, THEN i'll care. Until then, they can suck their own celluloid.


I wish I was as cool as you.
 
2014-01-02 09:19:17 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: taurusowner: 1. "Interstellar"
Release Date: Nov. 7
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Jessica Chastain, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine
Director: Christopher Nolan
The Scoop: Nolan turns his attention from Gotham City to outer space with this sci-fi film about mankind taking more than just one small step in our continuing exploration of the cosmos. The film's trailer promises something grand and majestic as McConaughey plays a self-described pioneer who takes space travel to the next level; Nolan is definitely swinging for the fences here, looking to create something worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey." Considering the fact that he's Christopher Nolan, he just might pull it off.


God. I hope not. 2001 might be the most overrated movie of all time. Even calling it a movie is a huge stretch. It's just hours of landscapes, boring shiat floating in space with about 10 minutes of actual dialog. No characters, no plot, no emotion, no point. I sincerely hope Interstellar is nothing like 2001.

*can't tell if troll or just stupid*


2001 is overrated.  Terribly slow movie.

I don't like Bladerunner either.  Sorry.
 
2014-01-02 09:19:22 AM  
Movies I will likely see:
The Expendables 3
Hercules
Sin City: A Dame to Kill For
Mr Peabody and Sherman
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
How to Train Your Dragon 2
Transformers: Age of Extinction
The Lego Movie
Godzilla
The Hobbit There and Back Again
Divergent
Captain America: Winter Soldier
Noah
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Maleficent
Guardians of the Galaxy
X-Men Days of Future Past
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1
I, Frankenstein
Robocop
300: Rise of the Empire
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Resident Evil 6
Night at the Museum 3
 
2014-01-02 09:21:01 AM  

Smoking GNU: Ooba Tooba: Seen the preview for Godzilla while at the Hobbit movie this past weekend. That looks pretty damn awesome.

I remember the trailer for the last Godzilla movie looking damn good as well.


And as giant monster movies go, it wasn't that bad.  In fact, it was pretty damned decent.

I know it's heretical to say this, but the 1998 Godzilla was better than about 90% of the Japanese Godzilla films, even the subsequent Godzilla: Final Wars, where traditionally styled Gojira defeats "Zilla".

It's got better acting, a better story, better movie science, better humor, and better special effects than pretty much every Godzilla film except for the first one.

As near as I can tell, being an actual Gojira fan since the early 1970's, it gets panned by two distinct groups:  People who aren't Godzilla fans, because it's a stupid giant monster movie*, and a lot of actual Godzilla fans, because they changed the look of Godzilla too much.

If they changed the name of the film to "The Monster That Ate New York" or some other thing other than Godzilla, I'm positive it would be seen in a much better light today.

Having said all that, I'm looking forward to the new film.  Based on the quick glimpses, the design looks good.


*What the fark did you expect?  Dr Zhivago?
 
2014-01-02 09:42:50 AM  

taurusowner: God. I hope not. 2001 might be the most overrated movie of all time. Even calling it a movie is a huge stretch. It's just hours of landscapes, boring shiat floating in space with about 10 minutes of actual dialog. No characters, no plot, no emotion, no point. I sincerely hope Interstellar is nothing like 2001.


I  understand not liking the movie - even at it's Hollywood premiere it famously had some walk-outs.  2001 is hard to wrap your head around, but just remember that it's purpose was to inspire awe.  Rather than edit the movie to speed the pace up, or skip mundane details, the slow pace is the point.

Also, a polite reminder that when Kubrick made 2001, we hadn't even gone to the frickin' moon, yet, and my toaster has a more powerful computer than was available in 1968.  My point being it's hard to comprehend how different your mind-set would have been seeing the movie 50 years ago, and what an achievement it was.

A modern equivalent might be The Matrix.  It was ground breaking when it came out, but the world quickly caught up to it (I still recall the Taco Bell commercial that used bullet time for a quesadilla); or Jurassic Park giving us the first really realistic CGI.  When they first come out, they are almost mind-blowingly creative because we have never seen anything like it before.  After a little while, they are absorbed and become almost normal.  My kids will never be as impressed by them as I was.  No reason for someone from today being as impressed by 2001 as someone in 1968.  Doesn't mean you couldn't try to appreciate it, though.
 
2014-01-02 09:45:42 AM  
Unbroken was an excellent book and I hope the movie is as good. I highly reccomend reading it if you get the chance.
 
2014-01-02 09:45:49 AM  

weddingsinger: taurusowner: God. I hope not. 2001 might be the most overrated movie of all time. Even calling it a movie is a huge stretch. It's just hours of landscapes, boring shiat floating in space with about 10 minutes of actual dialog. No characters, no plot, no emotion, no point. I sincerely hope Interstellar is nothing like 2001.

I  understand not liking the movie - even at it's Hollywood premiere it famously had some walk-outs.  2001 is hard to wrap your head around, but just remember that it's purpose was to inspire awe.  Rather than edit the movie to speed the pace up, or skip mundane details, the slow pace is the point.

Also, a polite reminder that when Kubrick made 2001, we hadn't even gone to the frickin' moon, yet, and my toaster has a more powerful computer than was available in 1968.  My point being it's hard to comprehend how different your mind-set would have been seeing the movie 50 years ago, and what an achievement it was.

A modern equivalent might be The Matrix.  It was ground breaking when it came out, but the world quickly caught up to it (I still recall the Taco Bell commercial that used bullet time for a quesadilla); or Jurassic Park giving us the first really realistic CGI.  When they first come out, they are almost mind-blowingly creative because we have never seen anything like it before.  After a little while, they are absorbed and become almost normal.  My kids will never be as impressed by them as I was.  No reason for someone from today being as impressed by 2001 as someone in 1968.  Doesn't mean you couldn't try to appreciate it, though.


The only acceptable opinions are "Overrate shiat" and "Total genius."  Please take note.
 
2014-01-02 09:49:35 AM  
For me, the must sees on that list are:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Godzilla
Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

Might see in theater:
X-Men Days of Future Past (Burnt out on Wolverine)
The Hobbit: There and Back Again (To long and have yet to see the 2nd Hobbit movie)
Transformers: Age of Extinction (Not happy with how the Trilogy turned out but good thing is, no Shai)

Movies I may see due to friends:
The Expendables 3
 
2014-01-02 09:51:16 AM  
Guardians of the Galaxy, but that's about it.
 
2014-01-02 10:02:19 AM  
Also: do they make movies for adults anymore? Or is it going to be rehashed 80s and 90s toy, comic and cartoon IP forever?
 
2014-01-02 10:03:02 AM  

dittybopper: Smoking GNU: Ooba Tooba: Seen the preview for Godzilla while at the Hobbit movie this past weekend. That looks pretty damn awesome.

I remember the trailer for the last Godzilla movie looking damn good as well.

And as giant monster movies go, it wasn't that bad.  In fact, it was pretty damned decent.

I know it's heretical to say this, but the 1998 Godzilla was better than about 90% of the Japanese Godzilla films, even the subsequent Godzilla: Final Wars, where traditionally styled Gojira defeats "Zilla".

It's got better acting, a better story, better movie science, better humor, and better special effects than pretty much every Godzilla film except for the first one.

As near as I can tell, being an actual Gojira fan since the early 1970's, it gets panned by two distinct groups:  People who aren't Godzilla fans, because it's a stupid giant monster movie*, and a lot of actual Godzilla fans, because they changed the look of Godzilla too much.

If they changed the name of the film to "The Monster That Ate New York" or some other thing other than Godzilla, I'm positive it would be seen in a much better light today.

Having said all that, I'm looking forward to the new film.  Based on the quick glimpses, the design looks good.


*What the fark did you expect?  Dr Zhivago?


Actually you missed one group.

The one that argues that they changed the allegorical nature of the story between the classic Godzilla and the 98 Godzilla.
 
2014-01-02 10:19:55 AM  
lh6.ggpht.com
 
2014-01-02 10:20:44 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [lh6.ggpht.com image 850x478]


Hey look!  It is Batista.
 
2014-01-02 10:21:41 AM  

taurusowner: 1. "Interstellar"
Release Date: Nov. 7
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Jessica Chastain, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine
Director: Christopher Nolan
The Scoop: Nolan turns his attention from Gotham City to outer space with this sci-fi film about mankind taking more than just one small step in our continuing exploration of the cosmos. The film's trailer promises something grand and majestic as McConaughey plays a self-described pioneer who takes space travel to the next level; Nolan is definitely swinging for the fences here, looking to create something worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey." Considering the fact that he's Christopher Nolan, he just might pull it off.


God. I hope not. 2001 might be the most overrated movie of all time. Even calling it a movie is a huge stretch. It's just hours of landscapes, boring shiat floating in space with about 10 minutes of actual dialog. No characters, no plot, no emotion, no point. I sincerely hope Interstellar is nothing like 2001.


I've never actually blocked someone before for simply expressing an opinion about a movie.

/And then you said that...

//New Year, new list.
 
2014-01-02 10:23:51 AM  

Caeldan: Actually you missed one group.

The one that argues that they changed the allegorical nature of the story between the classic Godzilla and the 98 Godzilla.


Classic Godzilla stopped being a metaphor for the atomic bomb in the early 1960's, so their opinions don't even count.

Case in point:  Minya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Godzilla
 
2014-01-02 10:27:42 AM  

weddingsinger: A modern equivalent might be The Matrix.  It was ground breaking when it came out, but the world quickly caught up to it (I still recall the Taco Bell commercial that used bullet time for a quesadilla); or Jurassic Park giving us the first really realistic CGI.  When they first come out, they are almost mind-blowingly creative because we have never seen anything like it before.  After a little while, they are absorbed and become almost normal.  My kids will never be as impressed by them as I was.  No reason for someone from today being as impressed by 2001 as someone in 1968.  Doesn't mean you couldn't try to appreciate it, though.


A: I have tried. It's not really a movie.

B: The Matrix has a plot. There is a story arc where characters deal with situations, dialogue shows both their motivations and furthers the story. And from beginning to end, both the plot and the characters change and develop as the story moves on.

I get that Kubrick was a genius with visuals and cinematography. If you want to praise 2001 for being like a live action painting or some form of visual art, ok. You'd be right. But it's not a movie. It doesn't have the elements necessary for it to really be considered a film. The movie isn't about anything. The only character of any depth whatsoever is HAL. Nothing happens.  There's no story. I can put a bunch of nice photos and prints of painting into a binding and call it a book. But it's not a novel. There's no story to paintings and pictures. And there's no story to 2001 either. It's just....nothing. Nice looking nothing, but still nothing that really qualifies as a film. And something has to be a film for it to be a "good" film.

If you've got about 45 minutes to kill,  an open mind, and want to see it broken down, check this out.
http://www.confusedmatthew.com/2001-a-space-odyssey.html
 
2014-01-02 10:31:00 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: *can't tell if troll or just stupid*


why not both dot jpg
 
2014-01-02 10:32:05 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: 2001 is overrated. Terribly slow movie.

I don't like Bladerunner either. Sorry.


don't worry bro,  Transformers and TMNT are all the great scifi you need
 
2014-01-02 10:35:06 AM  
Welcome to Fark. We hate movies here.
 
2014-01-02 10:37:38 AM  
More farking coloring book movies.  What a treat
 
2014-01-02 10:41:17 AM  

Marquis de Sod: None of those look even vaguely interesting


This. Although David Fincher, Christopher Nolan and the Wachowskis are on the list, and their movies are always at least interesting.
 
2014-01-02 10:58:20 AM  

Uncle Pooky: Welcome to Fark. We hate movies here.


I still don't mind the occasional popcorn movie (See my anticipation for Guardians up-thread), but X-Men and Transformers movies have been coming out for 10-15 years nonstop. It was neat to relive my childhood that one time....10 years ago....but I'd rather see a modern take - not remake, but a modern day version - of movies like Thief, Bullitt, French Connection, or something like that. But not many of those come out each year, it seems.
 
2014-01-02 11:00:44 AM  
FTL:

Sin City: ADtKf
Grand Budapest Hotel
Monuments Men
Hobbit
Gone Girl
XMen:DoFP
Noah
Interstellar


will be seen for sure.

as will
Robocop
Horrible Bosses 2
the Equalizer
and a few others I'm forgetting.
 
2014-01-02 11:07:03 AM  

Crewmannumber6: Marquis de Sod: None of those look even vaguely interesting

This. Although David Fincher, Christopher Nolan and the Wachowskis are on the list, and their movies are always at least interesting.


Fark.com, never change.
 
2014-01-02 11:12:08 AM  
There is only one movie on that list that I am outraged over... Annie! Why isn't Annie a red head! Damn it Hollywood! You changed one of the very few ginger / red head roles and I will not stand for it! Give us ginger / red heads back one of our movie characters!
 
2014-01-02 11:16:21 AM  

weddingsinger: taurusowner: God. I hope not. 2001 might be the most overrated movie of all time. Even calling it a movie is a huge stretch. It's just hours of landscapes, boring shiat floating in space with about 10 minutes of actual dialog. No characters, no plot, no emotion, no point. I sincerely hope Interstellar is nothing like 2001.

I  understand not liking the movie - even at it's Hollywood premiere it famously had some walk-outs.  2001 is hard to wrap your head around, but just remember that it's purpose was to inspire awe.  Rather than edit the movie to speed the pace up, or skip mundane details, the slow pace is the point.

Also, a polite reminder that when Kubrick made 2001, we hadn't even gone to the frickin' moon, yet, and my toaster has a more powerful computer than was available in 1968.  My point being it's hard to comprehend how different your mind-set would have been seeing the movie 50 years ago, and what an achievement it was.

A modern equivalent might be The Matrix.  It was ground breaking when it came out, but the world quickly caught up to it (I still recall the Taco Bell commercial that used bullet time for a quesadilla); or Jurassic Park giving us the first really realistic CGI.  When they first come out, they are almost mind-blowingly creative because we have never seen anything like it before.  After a little while, they are absorbed and become almost normal.  My kids will never be as impressed by them as I was.  No reason for someone from today being as impressed by 2001 as someone in 1968.  Doesn't mean you couldn't try to appreciate it, though.


Your mature, rational explanation and sense of perspective have no place here.
 
2014-01-02 11:26:31 AM  

weddingsinger: taurusowner: God. I hope not. 2001 might be the most overrated movie of all time. Even calling it a movie is a huge stretch. It's just hours of landscapes, boring shiat floating in space with about 10 minutes of actual dialog. No characters, no plot, no emotion, no point. I sincerely hope Interstellar is nothing like 2001.

I  understand not liking the movie - even at it's Hollywood premiere it famously had some walk-outs.  2001 is hard to wrap your head around, but just remember that it's purpose was to inspire awe.  Rather than edit the movie to speed the pace up, or skip mundane details, the slow pace is the point.

Also, a polite reminder that when Kubrick made 2001, we hadn't even gone to the frickin' moon, yet, and my toaster has a more powerful computer than was available in 1968.  My point being it's hard to comprehend how different your mind-set would have been seeing the movie 50 years ago, and what an achievement it was.

A modern equivalent might be The Matrix.  It was ground breaking when it came out, but the world quickly caught up to it (I still recall the Taco Bell commercial that used bullet time for a quesadilla); or Jurassic Park giving us the first really realistic CGI.  When they first come out, they are almost mind-blowingly creative because we have never seen anything like it before.  After a little while, they are absorbed and become almost normal.  My kids will never be as impressed by them as I was.  No reason for someone from today being as impressed by 2001 as someone in 1968.  Doesn't mean you couldn't try to appreciate it, though.


I will help you out as well with a quick media jump. Look at gaming for better examples. Most of us who played on the Nintendo Entertainment System, Atari 2600 or many of the home systems in the 80s were blown away graphically with each new installment of more powerful systems and engines. Where as modern day kids are used to being able to move in every and all directions, shoot up and down, and play online. These are things that I can remember being "mind blowingly awesome" back in the 90s like Wolfenstein, DOOM and Quake giving us 3D shooters. Online gaming back on the Dreamcast was never heard of. Now all the kids take this as the norm and can not imagine how we played games back when there were only 2 player games max.
 
2014-01-02 11:37:27 AM  

weddingsinger: taurusowner: God. I hope not. 2001 might be the most overrated movie of all time. Even calling it a movie is a huge stretch. It's just hours of landscapes, boring shiat floating in space with about 10 minutes of actual dialog. No characters, no plot, no emotion, no point. I sincerely hope Interstellar is nothing like 2001.

I  understand not liking the movie - even at it's Hollywood premiere it famously had some walk-outs.  2001 is hard to wrap your head around, but just remember that it's purpose was to inspire awe.  Rather than edit the movie to speed the pace up, or skip mundane details, the slow pace is the point.

Also, a polite reminder that when Kubrick made 2001, we hadn't even gone to the frickin' moon, yet, and my toaster has a more powerful computer than was available in 1968.  My point being it's hard to comprehend how different your mind-set would have been seeing the movie 50 years ago, and what an achievement it was.

A modern equivalent might be The Matrix.  It was ground breaking when it came out, but the world quickly caught up to it (I still recall the Taco Bell commercial that used bullet time for a quesadilla); or Jurassic Park giving us the first really realistic CGI.  When they first come out, they are almost mind-blowingly creative because we have never seen anything like it before.  After a little while, they are absorbed and become almost normal.  My kids will never be as impressed by them as I was.  No reason for someone from today being as impressed by 2001 as someone in 1968.  Doesn't mean you couldn't try to appreciate it, though.


TV Tropes calls it the "Seinfeld is Unfunny" problem.

I saw it at age 15 in 2001 and didn't get most of it at all. Granted, I should probably watch it again now that I'm no longer around the age where I saw The Phantom Menace and loved it, but my reaction was:

Beforehand: Pumped to see what's considered one of the best sci-fi films of all time
-A really long pre-movie bit of classical music and nothing else
-A bunch of bullshiat with monkeys I just don't care about enacting broad concepts like survival of the fittest...and a monolith
-An "intermission" with more farking classical music and nothing else
-Fairly interesting but still ear-bleedingly slow-paced space stuff, with a climax that I actually liked...and that monolith thing again
-Completely WTF ending that apparently only makes sense if you've read the book or something...and that monolith again

But like I said, I was about 15 at the time. I feel like it needs to be seen on the big screen, so if my local classic movie theater ever shows it, I'll try and go.
 
2014-01-02 11:48:27 AM  
I couldn't possibly be more in on X men: Days of Futures Past or Monuments Men...but I will have to wait and see on the rest of that list
 
2014-01-02 11:57:57 AM  

weddingsinger: taurusowner: God. I hope not. 2001 might be the most overrated movie of all time. Even calling it a movie is a huge stretch. It's just hours of landscapes, boring shiat floating in space with about 10 minutes of actual dialog. No characters, no plot, no emotion, no point. I sincerely hope Interstellar is nothing like 2001.

I  understand not liking the movie - even at it's Hollywood premiere it famously had some walk-outs.  2001 is hard to wrap your head around, but just remember that it's purpose was to inspire awe.  Rather than edit the movie to speed the pace up, or skip mundane details, the slow pace is the point.

Also, a polite reminder that when Kubrick made 2001, we hadn't even gone to the frickin' moon, yet, and my toaster has a more powerful computer than was available in 1968.  My point being it's hard to comprehend how different your mind-set would have been seeing the movie 50 years ago, and what an achievement it was.

A modern equivalent might be The Matrix.  It was ground breaking when it came out, but the world quickly caught up to it (I still recall the Taco Bell commercial that used bullet time for a quesadilla); or Jurassic Park giving us the first really realistic CGI.  When they first come out, they are almost mind-blowingly creative because we have never seen anything like it before.  After a little while, they are absorbed and become almost normal.  My kids will never be as impressed by them as I was.  No reason for someone from today being as impressed by 2001 as someone in 1968.  Doesn't mean you couldn't try to appreciate it, though.


the very fact we haven't been back to the moon since is a wonderful emphasis of what is lost in younger people not appreciating the film because "_insert generic reason X_"

also, the matrix is a terrible "equivalent".  2001 paved the way for many good-to-great-to even a few seminal films that followed; films that expanded on the medium as a philosophical stage. The Matrix paved the way for an overload of wire-fu and bullet-time VFX.   For added LOLS, the Matrix isn't even the best scifi film of its decade.
 
2014-01-02 12:06:10 PM  

Leader O'Cola: also, the matrix is a terrible "equivalent".  2001 paved the way for many good-to-great-to even a few seminal films that followed; films that expanded on the medium as a philosophical stage. The Matrix paved the way for an

overload of wire-fu and bullet-time VFX.   For added LOLS, the Matrix isn't even the best scifi film of its decade.

Just because the people who followed it did a bad job doesn't diminish the Matrix.  Of course, I didn't say the Matrix was the best sci-fi, just ground breaking - it opened up new possibilities.  Don't blame Jurassic Park because George Lucas and others took a dump on our chests using CGI some years later.

I REALLY hope Guardians of the Galaxy is good.  The Hobbit trilogy is a wasted opportunity.  Does EVERY single one of the five Jack Ryan movies have him complaining that he is 'just an analyst' and yet he is GD James Bond once he starts trying?
 
2014-01-02 12:07:19 PM  

blackminded: Your mature, rational explanation and sense of perspective have no place here.


I apologize.  I'll be less reasonable and adult, more about absolute right or wrong, and all about "winning" an argument.  More name-calling...

2001 definitely isn't a traditional story - it's contemplative and, yes, over long.  It's basically a two hour and 40 minute treatise on the nature of man, our evolution, and our tools/technology like some sort of philosophy paper.  From 1) The Dawn of man where the bones first used as weapons, then, 2) TMA-1,  the marvel of technology and how far we've come; 3) Jupiter Mission pushes that even further with artificial intelligence/HAL; 4) The infinite shows us as super-evolved (star-child who we later find out sort-of fused with HAL), though still not as far as the alien/machine that triggers each evolution.

Not a fun movie, certainly.  I could never watch it casually or often, like like some of my favorites.  But then, there are people who didn't like Pacific Rim - those ahole Nazi's somehow don't like a movie about giant robots fighting giant monsters, plus Stringer Bell.  Stupid morans should just go back to Russia (did I do that right?)
 
2014-01-02 12:19:39 PM  

Gunny Highway: Crewmannumber6: Marquis de Sod: None of those look even vaguely interesting

This. Although David Fincher, Christopher Nolan and the Wachowskis are on the list, and their movies are always at least interesting.

Fark.com, never change.


I tend to really like older movies, anyway, so I might just see some of these in ten years or so
 
2014-01-02 12:21:26 PM  
I'm hoping Interstellar is so good it sparks a national movement to accelerate manned space exploration.
 
2014-01-02 12:27:09 PM  

texdent: Movies I will likely see:
The Expendables 3
Hercules
Sin City: A Dame to Kill For
Mr Peabody and Sherman
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
How to Train Your Dragon 2
Transformers: Age of Extinction
The Lego Movie
Godzilla
The Hobbit There and Back Again
Divergent
Captain America: Winter Soldier
Noah
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Maleficent
Guardians of the Galaxy
X-Men Days of Future Past
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1
I, Frankenstein
Robocop
300: Rise of the Empire
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Resident Evil 6
Night at the Museum 3


Do you realize that you are what's wrong with civilization?
 
2014-01-02 12:32:18 PM  
Couldn't agree more with #1. Also, I might have to willingly pay for a Tom Cruise movie. And a Bible movie. Transcendence might be cool as well, just as long as there's not too much Depp.
 
2014-01-02 12:39:21 PM  
They should make a movie about the survivors of the Obama Healthcare program.
 
2014-01-02 12:49:11 PM  
weddingsinger:   Does EVERY single one of the five Jack Ryan movies have him complaining that he is 'just an analyst' and yet he is GD James Bond once he starts trying?

That's because too many American heroes have to fit the "aw gee shucks why me?" everyman archetype.
 
2014-01-02 01:18:02 PM  

weddingsinger: I REALLY hope Guardians of the Galaxy is good. The Hobbit trilogy is a wasted opportunity.


I think regardless of how good GotG is, it won't be a huge hit. I just don't see mainstream audiences getting on board.

And The Hobbit movies are fantastic. Once you put aside your "Different from the book" complaints, it's a brilliant spectacle.
 
2014-01-02 01:25:39 PM  

Hebalo: And The Hobbit movies are fantastic. Once you put aside your "Different from the book" complaints, it's a brilliant spectacle.


 I disagree.  I don't hate them, but they are a waste of potential and it's not because they're different than the book.

My complaint is, along with being overly long, how the entire Necromancer plot is not (strongly) tied to the main plot, and could be lifted out entirely (Wait, why is a different Orc in charge now?  Why bother with that at all?).  I would have preferred one Hobbit movie (or two), and a Necromancer movie separate.  The entire Necromancer part feels like it's tacked on to tie to the Lord of the Rings movies, as a prologue, instead of letting the Hobbit be it's own thing in the same universe.  Weaving plot threads together works in LoTR because it all leads to the same point.  In the Hobbit movies, we have a main plot, and a sub plot that is for a different movie.
 
2014-01-02 01:35:44 PM  

UNC_Samurai: 22. "Godzilla"

Honestly, I'd rather have more movies in the Pacific Rim universe. That's the first time since Iron Giant I've gotten excited about a giant robot/monster flick.


You are getting your wish as they are making a Pacific Rim 2 and there is a possibility, distant but still there, of a Pacific Rim / Godzilla cross over as both movies are made by the same studio.
 
2014-01-02 02:11:55 PM  
You guys pretty much listed all I want to see, except that Tom cruise movie actually looks pretty good IMO
 
2014-01-02 02:13:38 PM  
Oh, and the new jack Ryan one looks pretty farking dumb. I welcome it though because it means someone will start playing clear and present danger on a loop
 
2014-01-02 02:43:12 PM  
On average, I may see 1 movie a month, maybe as many as 3 as summer comes and goes. Several i probably shouldn't, like TF4 and TMNT and Robocop, but what can I do, nerd cred to keep up with.
 
2014-01-02 03:51:57 PM  

UNC_Samurai: 15. "22 Jump Street"

Someone remind me to set up a VPN to relentlessly torrent and then immediately delete this over and over, out of spite.


Just seed the hell out of it with 2-hour-long test patterns.

14. "Monuments Men"

I'm getting an Ocean's Eleven meets Kelly's Heroes vibe. This could either be amazing or cringe-worthy.


Hmm. Rat pack Oceans 11 or Brat pack Oceans 11? I'm okay either way. Just please god don't let it be Oceans 12.
 
2014-01-02 04:31:23 PM  

yves0010: There is only one movie on that list that I am outraged over... Annie! Why isn't Annie a red head! Damn it Hollywood! You changed one of the very few ginger / red head roles and I will not stand for it! Give us ginger / red heads back one of our movie characters!


Not trying to sound racist here (although I'm sure that many will say that...cue the coloring book kid .gif) but looking at the pic and cast list of the Annie reboot reminds me of the Honeymooners movie where someone thought "Hey, let's take an established story with established characters, but we need it to be original too so ...oooh, here's a neat twist...let's change the skin tone."
 
2014-01-02 06:31:18 PM  

weddingsinger: Hebalo: And The Hobbit movies are fantastic. Once you put aside your "Different from the book" complaints, it's a brilliant spectacle.

 I disagree.  I don't hate them, but they are a waste of potential and it's not because they're different than the book.

My complaint is, along with being overly long, how the entire Necromancer plot is not (strongly) tied to the main plot, and could be lifted out entirely (Wait, why is a different Orc in charge now?  Why bother with that at all?).  I would have preferred one Hobbit movie (or two), and a Necromancer movie separate.  The entire Necromancer part feels like it's tacked on to tie to the Lord of the Rings movies, as a prologue, instead of letting the Hobbit be it's own thing in the same universe.  Weaving plot threads together works in LoTR because it all leads to the same point.  In the Hobbit movies, we have a main plot, and a sub plot that is for a different movie.


Well the necromancer plot is actually referenced in the book, so I'm alright with that to an extent.

The freaking hacked in elven love triangle and dwarven under the mountain theme park shiat which wasted time that could have been spent on smaugs attack and resolution thereof of that plot line within the second movie is what pissed me off.

We still have a major battle to deal with, plus gandalfs escape from the necromancer that we could have seen at least one resolution in the second movie.
 
2014-01-02 06:43:49 PM  

Premeditated_Road_Rage: yves0010: There is only one movie on that list that I am outraged over... Annie! Why isn't Annie a red head! Damn it Hollywood! You changed one of the very few ginger / red head roles and I will not stand for it! Give us ginger / red heads back one of our movie characters!

Not trying to sound racist here (although I'm sure that many will say that...cue the coloring book kid .gif) but looking at the pic and cast list of the Annie reboot reminds me of the Honeymooners movie where someone thought "Hey, let's take an established story with established characters, but we need it to be original too so ...oooh, here's a neat twist...let's change the skin tone."


I was being sarcastic on this one but then I read the little summary and they changed the adopted father's name to something else.... Why would they do that? The name and character is fine the way it is. So why must they change things to begin with. On the hand of changing race / gender, do it for the right reasons and not because of "diversity" (read political Bovine Scatology). I am looking at you new Fantastic Four movie. But King Pin in the Daredevil Movie was actually a great choice.
 
2014-01-02 07:51:46 PM  

yves0010: There is only one movie on that list that I am outraged over... Annie! Why isn't Annie a red head! Damn it Hollywood! You changed one of the very few ginger / red head roles and I will not stand for it! Give us ginger / red heads back one of our movie characters!


Ummmm.  She IS a head-head.... There's even a picture of her in the article.
 
2014-01-02 08:30:49 PM  

T.rex: yves0010: There is only one movie on that list that I am outraged over... Annie! Why isn't Annie a red head! Damn it Hollywood! You changed one of the very few ginger / red head roles and I will not stand for it! Give us ginger / red heads back one of our movie characters!

Ummmm.  She IS a head-head.... There's even a picture of her in the article.


I assume you meant to type red-head, but you are ignoring one really big factor there -- that's at least relevant to the OP.

//don't tell Meghan Kelley about this
 
2014-01-02 08:34:38 PM  

T.rex: yves0010: There is only one movie on that list that I am outraged over... Annie! Why isn't Annie a red head! Damn it Hollywood! You changed one of the very few ginger / red head roles and I will not stand for it! Give us ginger / red heads back one of our movie characters!

Ummmm.  She IS a head-head.... There's even a picture of her in the article.


Actually, she seems to have a brown head. Not a red head. But thats not the point... The point was I was being sarcastic. I swear we need a sarcastic font.
 
2014-01-02 11:10:42 PM  
Seen the preview for Godzilla while at the Hobbit movie this past weekend. That looks pretty damn awesome. piece-of-shiatty

ftfy
 
2014-01-02 11:14:32 PM  
where's the farkin' Aquaman movie?

or the Atom?
 
2014-01-02 11:40:12 PM  

Imaginativescreenname: I am very excited to know that there are 40 movies I will be deliberately avoiding this year. Crap remakes, half-baked adaptations and "original" movies that follow the same, banal plots recycled time and again.
When hollywood starts getting inventive, THEN i'll care. Until then, they can suck their own celluloid.


Ah go cry in your Moscow mule you hipster twat.
 
2014-01-03 01:47:30 AM  

Leader O'Cola: JusticeandIndependence: 2001 is overrated. Terribly slow movie.

I don't like Bladerunner either. Sorry.

don't worry bro,  Transformers and TMNT are all the great scifi you need


Says the Robocrap fanboi
/Now he's just a guy in a supersuit
//Who could easily be played by Channing Tatum
///Soul, it has none
 
2014-01-03 11:03:20 AM  
I guess I've been watching too many movies, but these all look really boring.  Super hero films, and more of the same mediocre bloated stuff from Nolan, the Wachowskis, et al.  Ugh.  The Favreau film could be OK I suppose.
 
2014-01-03 11:03:23 AM  
I'll be going to see quite a few of these I think:
- Veronica Mars in March (whoo hoo)
- The Hobbit III - the first two were better than I expected
- Mockingjay (with the kids)
- Unsure about Transformers
- Unsure about XMen - They cut out Rogue!
- Unsure about Captain America
- Unsure about The Muppets
 
Displayed 77 of 77 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report