RedLetterMedia presents: re:View

LiddyRules

The 9/11 Moon Landings Were An Outside Job
I think there are varying factors that determine what makes a good year for movies. They would include:

1. The year's overall box office performance.
2. Quality of the movies themselves.
3. Do a majority of the films still hold up?

I understand the importance of movies making money. But since I'm not a shareholder and none of that money goes into my pockets, I would probably put less emphasis on that than I would the other two.

I would also willing to do a 60/40 split. Meaning I would judge the year on the strength of the blockbusters. If that makes sense.
#3 is my primary criteria. Number of memorable movies plus just how memorable/influential they are. I think with time, the line between blockbuster/indie or success/failures blur too much so all you're left with is the movies (Miramax probably has a lot to do with this). Like Pulp Fiction - definitely an indie, but because of its relevance, it would probably be merged with the blockbusters of the 1990s. (Maybe not technically as far as finances go, but in the minds of the general audience, it's up there with a Jurassic Park.) Alternatively, your main indie/awards favorite of the year can be completely forgotten while other movies can gain relevance, such as 1996 with The English Patient being overtaken by Fargo, Scream, Trainspotting, Sling Blade, and Space Jam. And think about how history "rewrites" what movie is the dominant one from that year. Big Lebowski did nothing in 1998, while There's Something About Mary was one of the highest grossing comedies of all time; which is the dominant comedy now? I don't know why I'm focusing on the 1990s. 2005 - Batman Begins less money than Charlie and the Chocolate Factor, Wedding Crashers, and Chronicles of Narnia. (#1 movie that year? Revenge of the Sith. And if you had told me the time between RotS and TFA was the same between BB and BvS, I would have called you a liar. I would have sworn the Batman spread was much smaller. And yes, now you're going to say it's because it was more frequent with TDKR. Well, yeah, fine. Fair point.) 1939 - Wizard of Oz did not do that well originally, and now it's one of the most beloved movies ever made.

I think a question like this needs time to gestate and while you can get a sense of which year has great movies and which year doesn't, I think you need some distance to figure out what was a temporary cultural phenomenon, what stands the test of time, and what you just didn't see.
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
I think #3 is great if you want to judge the overall quality of a film. However, if you're trying to determine a good year, it should be the number of movies that still hold in the public consciousness.
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
Jay and Josh are filming a re:View today for Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me in anticipation of the upcoming Showtime revival of the series. We'll do our best to keep our thoughts concise but trying to go over the show, the movie, and the 90 minutes (!) of deleted material from the movie, that may prove to make brevity difficult.
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
As you can see from the last few videos, the Canadians are in town! In addition to the very time-consuming Transformers 5 videos, we've somehow found the time to shoot two re:Views and two Best of the Worst episodes with them. Lots and lots of editing is on the way! First one coming will most likely be a re:View of Blade Runner!
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Them reViewing Blade Runner means they're primed up to hate Blade Runner 2049, which should be fun.
 

Bill Lehecka

Whiny Man Baby
Donator

Surprised they posted this before a Baby Driver review. Be a shame if they don't do a Baby Driver review.
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
Well there was a tech problem with our footage from our IT re:View so we have to scrap it unfortunately. The shoot was as big of a failure as the stupid looking giant spider at the end of the movie. Because the new version comes out so soon now, instead of re-shooting the re:View, we're just going to incorporate a discussion of the TV movie in with our discussion of the new one for Half in the Bag. So it all works out in the end, unlike how stupid the giant spider looked at the end of the movie.
 

LiddyRules

The 9/11 Moon Landings Were An Outside Job
Oh shit, I'll be disappointed if they don't bring up the fact that Dan Aykroyd is literally wearing a penis on his face by the end of the movie. It's batshit.
Did we ever do that? Because it's one of the oddest movies I've ever seen, and I just watched Aguirre, the Wrath of God.
 
Top