C’mon man. Granting that judging movie quality is subjective (Friendship had some real laughs, as a movie I thought it didn’t work), this year is going to have to offer up a lot more to be “the greatest year in cinematic history since 1999.” Let me just mention the murderer’s row from 2007: Michael Clayton, Zodiac, There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men. All of them funded and released by major studios (i.e. painted on bigger canvases than the often necessarily cramped ones afforded by A24) and all of them All Timers. Throw in some of 2007’s other notables like Knocked Up, Superbad, Assassination of Jesse James, I’m Not There, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and I think this year is a long way out from measuring up. I don’t think we’re even close to hitting the highs of 2019. Or 2023, really. I appreciate the case for optimism, as a die hard moviegoer I am always looking for it, but some cases just aren’t going to stand up. I mean, I for one don’t need it to be the best since 1999, I’ll just take a good year of good movies that people are seeing and talking about.
Remember: this isn't just a great year for movies (potentially), like 2007 or 2019, but a massive cultural shift (potentially) like 1999 was. OK 1999 was more a culmination of what came before than a harbinger of things to come. I suppose in that sense this year might even end up being like 1967 then.
I say this for two reasons: a) these films have received buzz for the theatrical atmosphere they created. Warfare's bombast only makes sense in a theater. Sinners is a non-franchise film based on an original story that fans went to rewatch in IMAX. Friendship has a cult following where, oddly, fans talk on social about the crowd they saw it with, as if they are going to Dead concerts; b) this has been a significant vibe shift (potentially) from franchises, certainly from comic book movies. 2007 was a great year, true, but it neither summed up a cinematic movement nor signaled an about face. In 2008, Dark Knight was released and also the MCU was born.
Since Marvel has been bombing now, I have a sense that studios are saying fuck it and trying anything. Yes it's mostly been A24 this year, but was a time when they had a formula.
But as I said we'll see. Potential is often squandered.
If I could pay money to make happen what you say might be happening, I would. I’ve been dreaming of a new New Hollywood my entire life. I think Sinners makes for a really interesting conversation. That it will gross more than (so far) 2 of the 3 Marvel movies that came out this year is a real cultural event (in addition to it being good). BUT. Warfare did not perform that well. Friendship is shaping up to be a cult item, I wouldn’t say “hit.” I think it’s way too soon to think this year is auguring a new golden age, which 1967 very much did, to put it mildly. When we’re talking movies like Warfare and Friendship, A24 fare, we’re talking a niche. It’s an important niche but it’s still a niche. A24’s Everything Everywhere All At Once made far more than Friendship and Warfare will make combined and it won the Oscar, and that didn’t represent a shift in moviegoing. In fact the real shift it represented was yet another “indie” movie winning the Oscar, because all those studios who were around in 1967 and who used to make movies for adults have ceded that field. I mean check out what most of the major studios are putting up at the end of every year For Your Consideration during the awards campaigns. More often that not that cupboard is bare. I hope you’re right that could be reversing. Again, Sinners, a Warners movie, makes for an interesting case. Is it an outlier (like Oppenheimer) or is it a trend. TBD.
I just don’t think 1967 is repeatable, because the historical context represented such profound change. The Production Code died that year and what followed was an art form growing up, saying things, showing things that it literally couldn’t say and show before. Think of some movie from the 70s with characters saying the word fuck. MASH? French Connection? The Last Detail? Those characters couldn’t say that word just a few years before. Or a movie where the characters actually fucked? Carnal Knowledge? Last Tango in Paris? The Last Picture Show? Not remotely possible. This was a real novelty. Suddenly, what the movies had to offer people was wide open. People were throwing up at The Exorcist in 1973 lol. And back home, they had 3 national channels and a couple of local ones to watch, on a small box with tinny sound. And what was on there was crap. There’s a reason a movie like Kramer vs Kramer could be the number one movie at the box office in 1979, because richly drawn, adult characters dealing with real drama just wasn’t a thing you could get on TV. A movie like that could never top the box office now. You’d have to imagine a world where Sinners could do the business it’s doing if it was just about two brothers in the Prohibition era, with great acting and great drama, and not a vampire movie.
The centrality of movies to the culture back then is something I wish for. I don’t see how that comes back. The Graduate in 1967, adjust it for inflation and it made almost 800 million dollars. As much as I loved seeing Sinners on 70mm Imax, that's novel, very cool, more films should use that format and the business should promote and even build more theaters capable of showing it... that’s a $30 ticket. Even the cheap Imax is $25. That's a far cry from the cheap democratic art form movies were in 1967, and for most of our lives really. (That cheap democratic medium is now YouTube and Tiktok.) In a way, the predominance of Imax makes it seem like now is an inverse of 1967, when the big budget big ticket roadshow movies were bombing and sinking the business, allowing the young turks to come in and make something cheap like Easy Rider and somehow end up one of the biggest grossing movies of its year. The high-end Imax ticket is a subsidy for the business, perhaps masking its problems (showing high grosses but hiding low attendance) and maybe creating future ones for itself with the idea that it’s a premium business now.
But ok here’s where I will choose to be optimistic and think you could be right. Where I’ve found my movie optimism these days: at rep theaters. This is apparently happening in more than a few big cities but in LA that scene has exploded post pandemic, with new theaters opening up along with pre-existing ones, offering daily programming of old movies. These are theaters that used to be filled with old dudes toting around plastic bags filled with newspapers changing seats every half hour, but now they're filled with Gen Z and Millenials mainlining old movies. The Letterboxd kids. If a movie renaissance is going to happen it could come from there, with all the future filmmakers in attendance at the rep houses, appreciating the old forms (genres). I have hope. I just would probably cut that hope with the understanding that it will never be like it was, where The Movies dominated the culture and I’d go so far as to say helped tell our national narrative, if not shape it… But a renewal that can sustain the moviegoing habit and keep it alive as a genuine art form? I can buy that. I certainly pray for it.
There’s all kinds of reasons monoculture and shared national narrative have broken down, like, let me introduce you to the fragmenting powers of the internet. Let me point to the end of the Cold War where we lost an external enemy and people renewed their hunt for internal ones. (State religion? Let me introduce you the U.S. Constitution which forbids that.) Still, Donald Trump is deep in the national narrative. Ever seen the movie Elmer Gantry? Trump is in the great American con man tradition. He’s as American as apple pie. Granted, it’s a pie that’s been sitting on the window sill so long it’s rancid and infested with maggots, but an apple pie nonetheless.
Perhaps I should amend it to be "best year since 2007." Which would make it the best in almost twenty years. Here are some of the upcoming releases: Eddington, Weapons, Caught Stealing, One Battle After Another, Bugonia, Marty Supreme, Nouvelle Vague, The Smashing Machine.
Also I just saw Bring Her to Me, which was riveting. A step up from Talk to Me. So yeah, this should be a good year of good movies. Don't forget: as breathless as I may appear here, I still acknowledge it might not be enough to save theatrical cinema. So there's a good chance you're right that 2007 was a better year financially. Still, like the song says, go down gambling -- you may never have to go.
Oh I wasn’t referring to 2007 financially, I was talking artistically. Michael Clayton, Zodiac, There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, only the latter was within the top 40 grossing movies of that year. There’s no doubt that year was better at the box office, but then every year prior to 2020 is better in that regards. And that’s just in actual dollars — attendance-wise forget about it, that will never come back to old levels. Still, I think we’ll still have movies in theaters, I don’t think this year has to carry the load to save them.
Again, accounting for taste, but like I said I think this year has a ways to go even to match 2019. I mean: Parasite; The Irishman; Marriage Story; Once Upon a Time in Hollywood; Uncut Gems; Portrait of a Lady on Fire; The Souvenir; Little Women; The Lighthouse; Us; Midsommar… I mean, I dunno. (Clears throat, throws in 2023: Zone of Interest; Oppenheimer; Asteroid City; Beau is Afraid; Killers of the Flower Moon; May December; Spiderman Across the Universe; Anatomy of a Fall). I’m with you, I’m keen to see all the upcoming movies you mentioned, and would even add some of the stuff that played at Cannes to your list: Die My Love; Sirat; The Mastermind; Sentimental Value. I’m hoping for good movies! As ever. A good movie year where theaters gross more than last year will be great news these days. I’m just not as optimistic for it being a "best year since" year, even as I appreciate your breathlessness (and this exchange).
Civil War was my favourite last year too, and I thought Warfare was very good filmmaking.
What do you think of the whole “is it or isn’t it an anti war film” debate?
(For what it’s worth, I disagree with the argument I’ve seen going around that all war films are jingoistic, and I do also think that all the characters were intentionally, importantly, lacking depth and back story - with the marines treated as just as expendable as the Iraqi characters).
I don't think it's jingoistic either but I respect its naturalistic style. Much has been made about how it is only from the perspective of the US soldiers but that's just it: Mendoza is working off his memories. Not what he believes but what happened. It would have rang false to show the Iraqi side.
As I said, the screaming in agony makes me think this is not a pro-war film, but I also don't need films to reflect my values in order to be good. This isn't like when the Daily Wire makes a cartoon and the message matters more than the jokes. This is built off a first person account.
One critic at Pitchfork made a big stink about how Alex Garland poses with the soldiers at the end giving the middle finger. Again this is from Mendoza's perspective. All perspectives are limited. The Pitchfork guy would say it's from the perspective of the oppressor but I would say it's from the perspective of a struggling Latino who did not have many options besides service.
Mendoza also said he wanted people to know war is really like, which the film did a really good job of. Beyond the sound and violence (horrifying and something that should continue to be shown in cinema so people don’t forget) the film also illustrated also the dehumanising required for war - something I think the verbal jargon and surveillance footage captured really successfully. (It would be interesting to consider a version that never showed us outside the house, or the enemy).
if kids only like escapist stories is it possible that they're not getting enough sleep at night, are doing homework instead of hobbies, doing extra-curriculars rather than dating, are watching the news rather than meditating, etc.
In 1945, Japan had to give up their emperor, so they started making anime.
In the same way, in 2008, Hollywood had to accept DC v. Heller, so they started making superhero movies instead of Fight Club, Office Space and whatever else you loved from c.1999
italy (fascism and inquisitions) used to be considered a completely different culture from the USA, but now 1967 (civil rights, immigration) is the furthest culture away
if a unified religious direction (all christians) or unified political direction (all democrats) is bad, then wouldn't a unified cultural direction (western canon) also be bad?
I don't think there are any bad scenes in "Sinners," but I think the movie is at its... least excellent, let's say... when it's *just* a vampire movie with an obvious metaphor for race layered on top of it. (Among the reasons the movie is so great is that the obvious reading -- vampires as white people stealing your culture! -- is complicated by, e.g., the KKK subplot, and the lead vamp being overtly Irish.) Which makes the worst scene the "let's all eat cloves of garlic to make sure we're not vampires" bit, which is just a sort of limp nod to the kind of scene this kind of movie usually has.
I get what you mean about Coogler doubting Sammie's blues qua blues will resonate! I just think you're wrong. Dunno if you saw the Baz Luhrmann "Elvis" biopic from a few years back, but that was a movie that juiced its music with a bunch of anachronisms, which sometimes worked to bring that proto-rock-and-roll to life but mostly felt tacky. (Doja Cat rapping over "Hound Dog" !!! Shoot me.) I don't think that's what going on with the scene in question, though; the first hour of "Sinners" had plenty of scenes built around Miles Caton's obvious talent, so it's not like Coogler felt like hedging on that front. I just think it's extremely fucking cool how Coogler collapses 500 years of music into a single, fluid, unbroken shot, in a way that... sort of raises the stakes of the film into the metaphysical?? Is that a pretentious explanation?? Almost certainly. But it's the most kick-ass scene in a movie that kicks all sorts of ass.
I realize I'm being manic but there's been so little that has inspired me this decade in popular entertainment. I have no doubt there have been plenty of great films that made .01 cent profit. Nice to see great ambitious work get financial recognition as well.
C’mon man. Granting that judging movie quality is subjective (Friendship had some real laughs, as a movie I thought it didn’t work), this year is going to have to offer up a lot more to be “the greatest year in cinematic history since 1999.” Let me just mention the murderer’s row from 2007: Michael Clayton, Zodiac, There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men. All of them funded and released by major studios (i.e. painted on bigger canvases than the often necessarily cramped ones afforded by A24) and all of them All Timers. Throw in some of 2007’s other notables like Knocked Up, Superbad, Assassination of Jesse James, I’m Not There, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and I think this year is a long way out from measuring up. I don’t think we’re even close to hitting the highs of 2019. Or 2023, really. I appreciate the case for optimism, as a die hard moviegoer I am always looking for it, but some cases just aren’t going to stand up. I mean, I for one don’t need it to be the best since 1999, I’ll just take a good year of good movies that people are seeing and talking about.
Remember: this isn't just a great year for movies (potentially), like 2007 or 2019, but a massive cultural shift (potentially) like 1999 was. OK 1999 was more a culmination of what came before than a harbinger of things to come. I suppose in that sense this year might even end up being like 1967 then.
I say this for two reasons: a) these films have received buzz for the theatrical atmosphere they created. Warfare's bombast only makes sense in a theater. Sinners is a non-franchise film based on an original story that fans went to rewatch in IMAX. Friendship has a cult following where, oddly, fans talk on social about the crowd they saw it with, as if they are going to Dead concerts; b) this has been a significant vibe shift (potentially) from franchises, certainly from comic book movies. 2007 was a great year, true, but it neither summed up a cinematic movement nor signaled an about face. In 2008, Dark Knight was released and also the MCU was born.
Since Marvel has been bombing now, I have a sense that studios are saying fuck it and trying anything. Yes it's mostly been A24 this year, but was a time when they had a formula.
But as I said we'll see. Potential is often squandered.
If I could pay money to make happen what you say might be happening, I would. I’ve been dreaming of a new New Hollywood my entire life. I think Sinners makes for a really interesting conversation. That it will gross more than (so far) 2 of the 3 Marvel movies that came out this year is a real cultural event (in addition to it being good). BUT. Warfare did not perform that well. Friendship is shaping up to be a cult item, I wouldn’t say “hit.” I think it’s way too soon to think this year is auguring a new golden age, which 1967 very much did, to put it mildly. When we’re talking movies like Warfare and Friendship, A24 fare, we’re talking a niche. It’s an important niche but it’s still a niche. A24’s Everything Everywhere All At Once made far more than Friendship and Warfare will make combined and it won the Oscar, and that didn’t represent a shift in moviegoing. In fact the real shift it represented was yet another “indie” movie winning the Oscar, because all those studios who were around in 1967 and who used to make movies for adults have ceded that field. I mean check out what most of the major studios are putting up at the end of every year For Your Consideration during the awards campaigns. More often that not that cupboard is bare. I hope you’re right that could be reversing. Again, Sinners, a Warners movie, makes for an interesting case. Is it an outlier (like Oppenheimer) or is it a trend. TBD.
I just don’t think 1967 is repeatable, because the historical context represented such profound change. The Production Code died that year and what followed was an art form growing up, saying things, showing things that it literally couldn’t say and show before. Think of some movie from the 70s with characters saying the word fuck. MASH? French Connection? The Last Detail? Those characters couldn’t say that word just a few years before. Or a movie where the characters actually fucked? Carnal Knowledge? Last Tango in Paris? The Last Picture Show? Not remotely possible. This was a real novelty. Suddenly, what the movies had to offer people was wide open. People were throwing up at The Exorcist in 1973 lol. And back home, they had 3 national channels and a couple of local ones to watch, on a small box with tinny sound. And what was on there was crap. There’s a reason a movie like Kramer vs Kramer could be the number one movie at the box office in 1979, because richly drawn, adult characters dealing with real drama just wasn’t a thing you could get on TV. A movie like that could never top the box office now. You’d have to imagine a world where Sinners could do the business it’s doing if it was just about two brothers in the Prohibition era, with great acting and great drama, and not a vampire movie.
The centrality of movies to the culture back then is something I wish for. I don’t see how that comes back. The Graduate in 1967, adjust it for inflation and it made almost 800 million dollars. As much as I loved seeing Sinners on 70mm Imax, that's novel, very cool, more films should use that format and the business should promote and even build more theaters capable of showing it... that’s a $30 ticket. Even the cheap Imax is $25. That's a far cry from the cheap democratic art form movies were in 1967, and for most of our lives really. (That cheap democratic medium is now YouTube and Tiktok.) In a way, the predominance of Imax makes it seem like now is an inverse of 1967, when the big budget big ticket roadshow movies were bombing and sinking the business, allowing the young turks to come in and make something cheap like Easy Rider and somehow end up one of the biggest grossing movies of its year. The high-end Imax ticket is a subsidy for the business, perhaps masking its problems (showing high grosses but hiding low attendance) and maybe creating future ones for itself with the idea that it’s a premium business now.
But ok here’s where I will choose to be optimistic and think you could be right. Where I’ve found my movie optimism these days: at rep theaters. This is apparently happening in more than a few big cities but in LA that scene has exploded post pandemic, with new theaters opening up along with pre-existing ones, offering daily programming of old movies. These are theaters that used to be filled with old dudes toting around plastic bags filled with newspapers changing seats every half hour, but now they're filled with Gen Z and Millenials mainlining old movies. The Letterboxd kids. If a movie renaissance is going to happen it could come from there, with all the future filmmakers in attendance at the rep houses, appreciating the old forms (genres). I have hope. I just would probably cut that hope with the understanding that it will never be like it was, where The Movies dominated the culture and I’d go so far as to say helped tell our national narrative, if not shape it… But a renewal that can sustain the moviegoing habit and keep it alive as a genuine art form? I can buy that. I certainly pray for it.
But what if the reason we got Donald is because there's no longer a shared national Narrative, but only sub-culture narratives?
What if our culture is that we have no monoculture or state-religion, but instead we have the freedom that creates infinite sub-cultures?
There’s all kinds of reasons monoculture and shared national narrative have broken down, like, let me introduce you to the fragmenting powers of the internet. Let me point to the end of the Cold War where we lost an external enemy and people renewed their hunt for internal ones. (State religion? Let me introduce you the U.S. Constitution which forbids that.) Still, Donald Trump is deep in the national narrative. Ever seen the movie Elmer Gantry? Trump is in the great American con man tradition. He’s as American as apple pie. Granted, it’s a pie that’s been sitting on the window sill so long it’s rancid and infested with maggots, but an apple pie nonetheless.
What if monoculture didn't break down, but it only came into being at all last century because of the fairness-doctrine and banning obscen?
What if bots
Perhaps I should amend it to be "best year since 2007." Which would make it the best in almost twenty years. Here are some of the upcoming releases: Eddington, Weapons, Caught Stealing, One Battle After Another, Bugonia, Marty Supreme, Nouvelle Vague, The Smashing Machine.
Also I just saw Bring Her to Me, which was riveting. A step up from Talk to Me. So yeah, this should be a good year of good movies. Don't forget: as breathless as I may appear here, I still acknowledge it might not be enough to save theatrical cinema. So there's a good chance you're right that 2007 was a better year financially. Still, like the song says, go down gambling -- you may never have to go.
Oh I wasn’t referring to 2007 financially, I was talking artistically. Michael Clayton, Zodiac, There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, only the latter was within the top 40 grossing movies of that year. There’s no doubt that year was better at the box office, but then every year prior to 2020 is better in that regards. And that’s just in actual dollars — attendance-wise forget about it, that will never come back to old levels. Still, I think we’ll still have movies in theaters, I don’t think this year has to carry the load to save them.
Again, accounting for taste, but like I said I think this year has a ways to go even to match 2019. I mean: Parasite; The Irishman; Marriage Story; Once Upon a Time in Hollywood; Uncut Gems; Portrait of a Lady on Fire; The Souvenir; Little Women; The Lighthouse; Us; Midsommar… I mean, I dunno. (Clears throat, throws in 2023: Zone of Interest; Oppenheimer; Asteroid City; Beau is Afraid; Killers of the Flower Moon; May December; Spiderman Across the Universe; Anatomy of a Fall). I’m with you, I’m keen to see all the upcoming movies you mentioned, and would even add some of the stuff that played at Cannes to your list: Die My Love; Sirat; The Mastermind; Sentimental Value. I’m hoping for good movies! As ever. A good movie year where theaters gross more than last year will be great news these days. I’m just not as optimistic for it being a "best year since" year, even as I appreciate your breathlessness (and this exchange).
We'll see.
I’d be thrilled to be wrong. I’d be thrilled if even one of this year’s movies is as good as one of those four from ‘07.
Civil War was my favourite last year too, and I thought Warfare was very good filmmaking.
What do you think of the whole “is it or isn’t it an anti war film” debate?
(For what it’s worth, I disagree with the argument I’ve seen going around that all war films are jingoistic, and I do also think that all the characters were intentionally, importantly, lacking depth and back story - with the marines treated as just as expendable as the Iraqi characters).
I don't think it's jingoistic either but I respect its naturalistic style. Much has been made about how it is only from the perspective of the US soldiers but that's just it: Mendoza is working off his memories. Not what he believes but what happened. It would have rang false to show the Iraqi side.
As I said, the screaming in agony makes me think this is not a pro-war film, but I also don't need films to reflect my values in order to be good. This isn't like when the Daily Wire makes a cartoon and the message matters more than the jokes. This is built off a first person account.
One critic at Pitchfork made a big stink about how Alex Garland poses with the soldiers at the end giving the middle finger. Again this is from Mendoza's perspective. All perspectives are limited. The Pitchfork guy would say it's from the perspective of the oppressor but I would say it's from the perspective of a struggling Latino who did not have many options besides service.
Mendoza also said he wanted people to know war is really like, which the film did a really good job of. Beyond the sound and violence (horrifying and something that should continue to be shown in cinema so people don’t forget) the film also illustrated also the dehumanising required for war - something I think the verbal jargon and surveillance footage captured really successfully. (It would be interesting to consider a version that never showed us outside the house, or the enemy).
if kids only like escapist stories is it possible that they're not getting enough sleep at night, are doing homework instead of hobbies, doing extra-curriculars rather than dating, are watching the news rather than meditating, etc.
In 1945, Japan had to give up their emperor, so they started making anime.
In the same way, in 2008, Hollywood had to accept DC v. Heller, so they started making superhero movies instead of Fight Club, Office Space and whatever else you loved from c.1999
Meaning because of Heller they shied away from films about dissent, right?
In 2005, college students spent a year-abroad in Italy, in 2025 they spent their year-abroad in 1967. Does that sound like a full economic recovery?
what?
italy (fascism and inquisitions) used to be considered a completely different culture from the USA, but now 1967 (civil rights, immigration) is the furthest culture away
Has the best movie of the year been better than the Pulitzer Prize for fiction since the invasion of Iraq?
if a unified religious direction (all christians) or unified political direction (all democrats) is bad, then wouldn't a unified cultural direction (western canon) also be bad?
Mo, you crazy bastard -- singling out the time-bending scene from "Sinners" to say it was a WEAK POINT in the film!!?? Bruh...
My least favorite scene. Why what's yours?
I don't think there are any bad scenes in "Sinners," but I think the movie is at its... least excellent, let's say... when it's *just* a vampire movie with an obvious metaphor for race layered on top of it. (Among the reasons the movie is so great is that the obvious reading -- vampires as white people stealing your culture! -- is complicated by, e.g., the KKK subplot, and the lead vamp being overtly Irish.) Which makes the worst scene the "let's all eat cloves of garlic to make sure we're not vampires" bit, which is just a sort of limp nod to the kind of scene this kind of movie usually has.
I get what you mean about Coogler doubting Sammie's blues qua blues will resonate! I just think you're wrong. Dunno if you saw the Baz Luhrmann "Elvis" biopic from a few years back, but that was a movie that juiced its music with a bunch of anachronisms, which sometimes worked to bring that proto-rock-and-roll to life but mostly felt tacky. (Doja Cat rapping over "Hound Dog" !!! Shoot me.) I don't think that's what going on with the scene in question, though; the first hour of "Sinners" had plenty of scenes built around Miles Caton's obvious talent, so it's not like Coogler felt like hedging on that front. I just think it's extremely fucking cool how Coogler collapses 500 years of music into a single, fluid, unbroken shot, in a way that... sort of raises the stakes of the film into the metaphysical?? Is that a pretentious explanation?? Almost certainly. But it's the most kick-ass scene in a movie that kicks all sorts of ass.
I agree that "Sinners" doesn't quite get the music right. My review is here: https://moviestruck.substack.com/p/sinners-2025
I said it doesn't get the music right? It's my favorite part.
I realize I'm being manic but there's been so little that has inspired me this decade in popular entertainment. I have no doubt there have been plenty of great films that made .01 cent profit. Nice to see great ambitious work get financial recognition as well.
Fair enough.