Movies Is David Fincher among the all-time greats?

[AGGAMEMNON66]

To my understanding he has an expensive way of directing which was partly the reason the show discontinued.

Fincher said he didn’t want to continue with it because it was basically too much work. I think Netflix wanted more seasons but Fincher declined.


Which is kind of shocking considering no one does this genre (serial killers) quite like he does.

 

[Madmick]

Zodiac was one of the best films of the 2000s? I feel I missed a memo.

I must confess I find the critical adoration for that film perhaps the most puzzling of any film that's regard among critics widely outperforms its regard among the public. It really is one of the most curious cases of swelling acclaim I've ever known.

It took about a decade for them to decide they adored it. When it first came out, the critics liked it, but they didn't love it. I swear I remember it was at 69 on Metacritic when it first released, and that was back when MC was good before they added all the corporate/political fluffer votes. Even now, it's only at 79, which is entirely unimpressive considering how many films get fluffed with 98+ on there these days. Further, not only did it not win a single of the "Big Four" critic awards, it wasn't even nominated in the Best Picture category nor earned the runner-up for any of them. It didn't win for the minor film critic associations, either. Not just for Best Picture. But for any awards, really.

It wasn't like it was one of those films that divided elite film circles between those that loved or hated it like Dancer in the Dark. It was also ignored by the major film festivals for awards. It had none of that "passion index" buzz.

I think it started with a clique of influential critics in Los Angeles. They're responsible for hyping it. Take The Los Angeles Film Critics Association (one of the "Big Four"). In 2007, Zodiac was neither the winner nor the runner-up for their Best Picture. In fact, it didn't earn a single award for cast or crew. It was like they thought nothing of it. Yet, just three years later, in 2010, it took 5th place in their retrospective "Film of the Decade" special award. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, which beat out both Zodiac and No Country for Old Men for their runner-up in 2007, was way down at #22.

But that was just Los Angeles. Here was an old Metacritic feature published on January 3, 2010, that has been wiped by the website from the web, I never understood why, that specifically polled critics at the end of the decade on what the best films were:

Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade

Dozens of film critics have made their lists of the best films of the past ten years, and we've tallied the results.

web.archive.org

Zodiac is nowhere to be found. It didn't get a single vote. That list of films that got at least one goes 42 films deep.

Yet today it's ranked #589 all-time in the worldwide aggregation of critics which acclaims a whole shitload of films you'd never even see mentioned on Metacritic. It's #40 for that decade, and #14 for the decade among English-language films by TSPDY. This is what we're talking about as far as English language films. For context, I'll put the film's placement in the Metacritic "Best of the Decade" list from above in parentheses:

1. Mulholland Dr. (t-#2)
2. There Will Be Blood (#1)
3. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (t-#2)
4. Lost in Translation (t-#17)
5. A.I. Artificial Intelligence (t-#35)
6. Elephant
7. No Country for Old Men (#4)
8. Inland Empire
9. WALL-E (t-#11)
10. Brokeback Mountain (t-#17)
11. Punch-Drunk Love
12. Children of Men (t-#11)
13. Morvern Callar
14. Zodiac

 

[I Fusion I]

I must confess I find the critical adoration for that film perhaps the most puzzling of any film that's regard among critics widely outperforms its regard among the public. It really is one of the most curious cases of swelling acclaim I've ever known.

It took about a decade for them to decide they adored it. When it first came out, the critics liked it, but they didn't love it. I swear I remember it was at 69 on Metacritic when it first released, and that was back when MC was good before they added all the corporate/political fluffer votes. Even now, it's only at 79, which is entirely unimpressive considering how many films get fluffed with 98+ on there these days. Further, not only did it not win a single of the "Big Four" critic awards, it wasn't even nominated in the Best Picture category nor earned the runner-up for any of them. It didn't win for the minor film critic associations, either. Not just for Best Picture. But for any awards, really.

It wasn't like it was one of those films that divided elite film circles between those that loved or hated it like Dancer in the Dark. It was also ignored by the major film festivals for awards. It had none of that "passion index" buzz.

I think it started with a clique of influential critics in Los Angeles. They're responsible for hyping it. Take The Los Angeles Film Critics Association (one of the "Big Four"). In 2007, Zodiac was neither the winner nor the runner-up for their Best Picture. In fact, it didn't earn a single award for cast or crew. It was like they thought nothing of it. Yet, just three years later, in 2010, it took 5th place in their retrospective "Film of the Decade" special award. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, which beat out both Zodiac and No Country for Old Men for their runner-up in 2007, was way down at #22.

But that was just Los Angeles. Here was an old Metacritic feature published on January 3, 2010, that has been wiped by the website from the web, I never understood why, that specifically polled critics at the end of the decade on what the best films were:

Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade

Dozens of film critics have made their lists of the best films of the past ten years, and we've tallied the results.

web.archive.org

Zodiac is nowhere to be found. It didn't get a single vote. That list of films that got at least one goes 42 films deep.

Yet today it's ranked #589 all-time in the worldwide aggregation of critics which acclaims a whole shitload of films you'd never even see mentioned on Metacritic. It's #40 for that decade, and #14 for the decade among English-language films by TSPDY. This is what we're talking about as far as English language films. For context, I'll put the film's placement in the Metacritic "Best of the Decade" list from above in parentheses:

1. Mulholland Dr. (t-#2)
2. There Will Be Blood (#1)
3. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (t-#2)
4. Lost in Translation (t-#17)
5. A.I. Artificial Intelligence (t-#35)
6. Elephant
7. No Country for Old Men (#4)
8. Inland Empire
9. WALL-E (t-#11)
10. Brokeback Mountain (t-#17)
11. Punch-Drunk Love
12. Children of Men (t-#11)
13. Morvern Callar
14. Zodiac

Inland empire and mulholland drive are two of the greatest films ever made and they didn’t get nominated. So awards doesn’t mean much for some directors x

Its ranked 25th in that list by the way.

 

[Madmick]

Inland empire and mulholland drive are two of the greatest films ever made and they didn’t get nominated. So awards doesn’t mean much for some directors x

This is irrelevant to what I was talking about, because it's not about whether or not the director cares, or whether it "means much", I was speaking to critical acclaim changing from the time at release to the present. However, that's incorrect. I brought up the "Big Four" film critic association awards.

In 2001, Mulholland Drive won The New York Film Critics Circle's Best Picture; it was the runner-up for the Los Angeles Film Critics Association's Best Picture (also won Best Director and runner-up in Best Supporting Actress for Watts); it won the National Society of Film Critics Best Picture; finally, it was listed at #10 for the year for the National Board of Review. In other words, it was easily the most critically acclaimed film of the year in the year it came out. Nothing has changed.

In 2006, Inland Empire divided the critics, but it won the "Experimental Film Award" from the National Society of Film Critics. It's also Lynch, and everything he did has ultimately been swooned upon by the critics.

Its ranked 25th in that list by the way.

My mistake. It was in a 9-way tie for 26th by appearing on 4 Top Ten lists with the lowest average ranking among those, or 34th place, excuse me. My fault, I overlooked that.

However, that's Metacritic, and theirs is a more commercial list. These are all of the films that appeared above it on that list that have fallen below it on TSPDT since that Metacritic end-of-the-decade survey was made 16 years ago:

• #5 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• #5 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
• #8 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
• #8 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
• #8 The Dark Knight
• #11 Amelie
• #11 Memento
• #11 United 93
• #17 Almost Famous
• #17 Far From Heaven
• #17 Sideways
• #17 The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
• #17 The New World
• #26 25th Hour
• #26 Ratatouille
• #26 The Departed
• #26 The Hurt Locker
• #26 The Incredibles
• #26 Y Tu Mama Tambien

In other words, 19 of the 33 films that were ranked above it, or quite nearly a supermajority of the list. The critical regard for Zodiac has soared since it came out, but that took time to build. I'm mapping that.

However, unlike other films that didn't appear on that list, but have also risen, there is no huge cult popular following that swelled alongside the acclaim, as it has for Oldboy, for example (a film you'll notice is missing from the Metacritic list altogether).

 

[I Fusion I]

This is irrelevant to what I was talking about, because it's not about whether or not the director cares, or whether it "means much", I was speaking to critical acclaim changing from the time at release to the present. However, that's incorrect. I brought up the "Big Four" film critic association awards.

In 2001, Mulholland Drive won The New York Film Critics Circle's Best Picture; it was the runner-up for the Los Angeles Film Critics Association's Best Picture (also won Best Director and runner-up in Best Supporting Actress for Watts); it won the National Society of Film Critics Best Picture; finally, it was listed at #10 for the year for the National Board of Review. In other words, it was easily the most critically acclaimed film of the year in the year it came out. Nothing has changed.

In 2006, Inland Empire divided the critics, but it won the "Experimental Film Award" from the National Society of Film Critics. It's also Lynch, and everything he did has ultimately been swooned upon by the critics.

My mistake. It was in a 9-way tie for 26th by appearing on 4 Top Ten lists with the lowest average ranking among those, or 34th place, excuse me. My fault, I overlooked that.

However, that's Metacritic, and theirs is a more commercial list. These are all of the films that appeared above it on that list that have fallen below it on TSPDT since that Metacritic end-of-the-decade survey was made 16 years ago:

• #5 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
• #5 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
• #8 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
• #8 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
• #8 The Dark Knight
• #11 Amelie
• #11 Memento
• #11 United 93
• #17 Almost Famous
• #17 Far From Heaven
• #17 Sideways
• #17 The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
• #17 The New World
• #26 25th Hour
• #26 Ratatouille
• #26 The Departed
• #26 The Hurt Locker
• #26 The Incredibles
• #26 Y Tu Mama Tambien

In other words, 19 of the 33 films that were ranked above it, or quite nearly a supermajority of the list. The critical regard for Zodiac has soared since it came out, but that took time to build. I'm mapping that.

However, unlike other films that didn't appear on that list, but have also risen, there is no huge cult popular following that swelled alongside the acclaim, as it has for Oldboy, for example (a film you'll notice is missing from the Metacritic list altogether).

Yes, i agree that it's a movie that has grown on people, but don't take most of them literally as some of them are just the opinions of film critics, it's good to have insight and know what to do but ultimately what matters is a good opinion formed based off critical reasoning and knowledge.

What i find great is that The Dark Knight has been taken seriously since day one by critics and audiences, despite what the naysayers say.

For the academy, y'know it's also politics itself as it's some-type of films kind of award, stuff like Inland and Mulholland isn't easily digestible (i love both but found MD superior) that would explain why it didn't win best picture while being heavily praised and arguably the greatest film of the decade.

Also, what's your opinion on Inland Empire? It's a film that has a huge cult following but many naysayers or people who didn't reasonate with it. I rate both of them a 10, the latter was an incredible experience in theaters.

 

[Madmick]

Yes, i agree that it's a movie that has grown on people, but don't take most of them literally as some of them are just the opinions of film critics, it's good to have insight and know what to do but ultimately what matters is a good opinion formed based off critical reasoning and knowledge.

What i find great is that The Dark Knight has been taken seriously since day one by critics and audiences, despite what the naysayers say.

For the academy, y'know it's also politics itself as it's some-type of films kind of award, stuff like Inland and Mulholland isn't easily digestible (i love both but found MD superior) that would explain why it didn't win best picture while being heavily praised and arguably the greatest film of the decade.

Also, what's your opinion on Inland Empire? It's a film that has a huge cult following but many naysayers or people who didn't reasonate with it. I rate both of them a 10, the latter was an incredible experience in theaters.

I'm not expressing personal opinions here except puzzlement at why Zodiac in particular slowly became this critical darling since its release. @Sycho Sid was bemused by it being described as "one of the best films of the 2000's", and I think his surprise is understandable. It's not like it's some obscure arthouse darling. It was Fincher. It saw a wide release. It had a large prestige project budget. It had studio lobbies backing its run at major awards. It won nothing.

I've always found this one of more curious cases of ascension. That's all.

 

[I Fusion I]

I'm not expressing personal opinions here except puzzlement at why Zodiac in particular slowly became this critical darling since its release. @Sycho Sid was bemused by it being described as "one of the best films of the 2000's", and I think his surprise is understandable. It's not like it's some obscure arthouse darling. It was Fincher. It saw a wide release. It had a large prestige project budget. It had studio lobbies backing its run at major awards. It won nothing.

I've always found this one of more curious cases of ascension. That's all.

That's fair, understood. I agree on it but it was a huge mistake on the academy and other's to the film's quality back in the day.

 

[Adamant]

Villenueve is the worst of the lot IMO.

I would probably rank him last too out of that list. But, compared to all the other options currently working in Hollywood, I'd put him over 99% of them.

 

[I Fusion I]

I would probably rank him last too out of that list. But, compared to all the other options currently working in Hollywood, I'd put him over 99% of them.

I Agree

 

[Thai Domi]

I had to google his filmography. I can name all of QT's movies and most of Spielberg's.

 

[Bullitt68]

 

[BroScienceTalkatWork]

Absolutely not. Are you the fight club guy?

Finches is c tier. Zodiac is his best film.

 

[Plissken]

I mean with the tag are you talking top 10, 25, 50, 100 or what? I don't think he belongs in the former two but the latter two is much easier to make a case for (top 100 is a definite, top 50 is likely).