« Scratching The Surface | Main | Quote of the Day »

April 20, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Daniel John Kelley

1995 had to happen because of 1993, when everything good came out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_in_film

Thus the balance of the universe was restored.

isaac

Wait, of the top ten grossing movies in 1993, which are we saying are good? I'd say The Fugitive, Sleepless in Seattle and Schindler are all good in their own way for what they are (a popcorn movie, a romantic comedy and oscar bait) but that's about it.

99

I will defend Jurassic Park as a good movie. And, somewhat surprisingly, Mrs. Doubtfire, too. They're not Citizen Kane, but for what they were, those are some well-made, entertaining and even (yes) smart movies. '93 was a pretty good year.

Malachy Walsh

Hilarious. Do people really give charts like that any credence?

isaac

I think they're more fun than aynthing else. What's interesting to me are the severe outlier years. Like... what was so bad about 1960? The number two movie was Psycho. The number 3 was Spartacus. The number eleven film was Elmer Gantry!

Josh James

Any year with an original movie like TOY STORY has to be considered a good year regardless of what else was on the calender, that's my opinion.

TOY STORY and SE7EN actually ...

Folks forget, but no one had ever done anything like Toy Story and they weren't sure it was gonna succeed ... computer animation and it's a cartoon and no singing? And it's not Disney?

It wasn't a sure bet. People forget but at the time, there was distrust.

Same with Se7en, but because of the ending, it wasn't a sure thing. Because of what was in the box. At the end.

"What's in the box? What's in the box, man? No. Noooo ... what's in the booooooxxxxx!"

99

I will counter your SE7EN and TOY STORY with BATMAN FOREVER and WATERWORLD. No year could be considered a good year that involves Kevin Costner with gills.

Josh James

Dude, WATERWORLD is not as bad a film as folks think, I mean, come on, it's not BATMAN AND ROBIN, right? It's actually pretty decent, it's not great, which people expected for 200 million, and it made a lot of money (and was more popular in other countries, who weren't following our press) ...

... and I thought gills only improved Kevin Costner's performance. He should consider wearing them on other roles, like sideburns, sideburns also improve Costner performances.

And BATMAN FOREVER is a guilty pleasure, it is not the stinkbomb failure that is BATMAN AND ROBIN ... if only for Val Kilmer and Jim Carrey. It's not a great movie, maybe it's not even a good one, but it's not a terrible movie.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

# of Visitors Since 11/22/05


  • eXTReMe Tracker