Cool News
Moriarty’s Big Fat Juicy 2006 List Part Two! The Top Ten!!
SPOILER ALERT !!
Interesting as always, gang.
When you put your personal opinion out there, there are a certain percentage of people who will automatically, simply for the sport of it, be assholes to you in response.
May I remind you that I am not trying to establish an objective list of the best films of 2006. I think anyone who tells you what the “best” films of the year were is arrogant. All I can tell you is what my personal favorite films of the year were. This is a personal list, as all lists are, and so I have no doubt it is different than your own would be. I can respect that difference.
Can you?
For now, let’s jump right back into it and count down my ten favorite films of the year, starting with...
NUMBER TEN: THE GOOD SHEPHERD (dir. Robert De Niro; scr. Eric Roth)
You can read my original review of this film right here.
Yep. I liked it this much.
I love it when movies engage me on several levels at once. Here, the first level is just as a sweeping family drama, the way one man’s dedication to an idea eventually undoes every good thing he’s ever touched. Matt Damon’s made a sort of study out of playing emotionally crippled blanks, men who barely exist. It’s not easy, and I find it especially interesting to see how he manages to play variations on the type without repeating himself. But beyond the surface level, which I found engrossing enough, there’s a game here being played by Eric Roth that I think goes above and beyond. Roth obviously couldn’t write about the actual men who were part of the early days of the CIA without stepping into a legal morass, so he had to create composite characters and blend events together. I watched the film twice, and the second time through, I tried to pick out who was supposed to be who, and which events have been combined or slightly rewritten. Roth won’t get the credit he deserves because he’s writing about such a specific and largely invisible part of American history, but it’s impressive and intelligent work.
NUMBER NINE: UNITED 93 (dir./scr. Paul Greengrass)
You can read my original review of this film right here.
There are two real documentaries on my list this year, but UNITED 93 manages to capture an event in a way that is as immediate as a great documentary, but as penetrating as only fiction can be. Paul Greengrass is one of those guys who I think is still just warming up. We haven’t seen his best work yet. Even this film, good as it is, still just hints at the gifts he has as a filmmaker.
There’s a recurrent quality in the films that affect me most each year, a sense that the films I like most are the ones that have the most humanity, the most unfiltered life. I love it when a filmmaker figures out how to make me invest, when a situation and a cast and a style all come together to create something persuasive. I don’t feel like I could single out any one cast member for recognition because this is truly an ensemble effort. There are no movie star roles in this because of the way Greengrass avoids what would typically pass as drama in a film like this. There is little in the way of conventional drama here, and that approach is what makes the film so compelling.
In the end, I’m not putting this on list because of importance or because of politics or for any reason other than the sheer visceral impact that the film had on me. After seeing Oliver Stone’s well-intentioned but utterly Hollywood WORLD TRADE CENTER, this film’s merits seemed even clearer to me. Someday, once we’re on the far side of current events, we will hopefully be able to look back at the events of 9/11 with clear eyes and a greater understanding of all the forces in play that day. But for now, I can’t imagine a film that could better encapsulate the way that day felt. WORLD TRADE CENTER is about survival and victory and small triumphs in the face of adversity, and maybe someday, that’ll be how we think about 9/11. But UNITED 93 better captures the powerlessness of that morning, the confusion, and the numbing horror, and from where I sit, that’s the more honest way of processing what happened.
NUMBER EIGHT: A SCANNER DARKLY (dir./scr. Richard Linklater)
You can read my original review of this film right here.
I’m not really sure what genre this film is. Yes, it appears to be set in a future where tech is slightly beyond where it is now, so I guess you could ostensibly call it “science-fiction.” Only this really isn’t about tech or the future at all. You could call it a mystery, since there is a puzzle that is at the heart of the story, but it’s a mystery that the audience is given the answer to long before the main character is, so I’m not really sure that’s right either.
Philip K. Dick is equally difficult to categorize, and that’s why I’ve always been so fascinated by his work. Like many people my age, my introduction to his work was after I saw BLADE RUNNER in the theater. I picked up a copy of DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP? and realized as I read it that it bore almost no resemblance to the film. I also realized that it was rich and dense in a way no film could hope to do justice. It’s been twenty-five years now that I’ve been a fan of this prickly, difficult author, and I’d given up hope of ever seeing an adaptation of his work that was faithful both in tone and text.
The real marvel of the film for me isn’t just that the adaptation honors the author being adapted, although that is rare enough in Hollywood these days. For me, the thing that makes this a film I’ll return to, a film that deserves mention at the end of the year, is the persuasive way Linklater’s work with animator Bob Sabiston convincingly makes the viewer feel like they’re as strung out and disconnected as Bob Arctor is in the film.
A SCANNER DARKLY, more than any drug casualty film I’ve seen, etches both the siren song and the eventual ruin with an even hand. I greatly respect Aronofsky’s REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, but that movie is so focused on the negative ruin of drug use that it misses the day-to-day spikes of bliss that keep the users using. Dick’s book and the film both have a huge undercurrent of sadness, but shot through with moments of humor and even hope. Anyone who thinks this is just “a bunch of losers using drugs and having stoned conversations” missed one of the most movingly human films of the year.
NUMBER SEVEN: BLACK BOOK (dir. Paul Verhoeven; scr. Gerard Soeteman & Paul Verhoeven)
You can read my original review of this film right here.
Man, I’d given up on Verhoeven.
That’s absurd, of course. He’s been making fascinating, challenging adult entertainment as long as I’ve been alive. TURKISH DELIGHT, his first great film, was 1973, and SOLDIER OF ORANGE was 1977. It was a full decade later that he made his last film that really worked for me, the classic ROBOCOP. Since then, I’ve found myself frustrated by the material that Hollywood has offered him, and frustrated to see his prodigiously perverse wit turned towards increasingly witless material. Harry and I spent some time on the set of HOLLOW MAN watching him work, and as much of a kick as it was to meet the mad Dutchman, I found myself depressed to see him working on such a formulaic piece of genre trash.
It’s hard to believe that was just over six years ago. That was his last film, and since then, we’ve heard vague rumbles about what he was working on. When he started production on ZWARTBOEK, his first film in Dutch since the great, insane THE FOURTH MAN, it was almost a non-event in terms of coverage. And I feel retroactively bad about that. I guess I just didn’t want to get my hopes up. But when this film unspooled halfway through BNAT this year, it pretty much knocked me flat. Everything I’ve ever liked about Verhoeven is on display in the film, but more than that... he’s grown, marrying his action-movie acumen with his original sensibilities to remarkable effect.
If this movie just marked the triumphant return of Verhoeven to form, that might be enough to vaunt it onto this list, but it gets pushed over the top for me due to the fact that it also seems to be the arrival of a major new face in international film. Carice van Houten may have been working for almost a decade in the Netherlands, but she’s never had a breakout role in a film that was exported before, and she arrive here as a fully-formed movie star. She’s in pretty much every moment of this film, and the role calls for some pretty dramatic shifts in tone and character, and she handles them all with aplomb. She’s stunning, but there are a lot of beautiful women in film who I find utterly blank onscreen. Van Houten has an earthy quality, a weight to her, that is arresting. This is a woman who has lived, who has experience on her side, and who is not to be underestimated. Her character survives WWII by means of some genuinely shaky moral choices, but it’s impossible to judge her for it. She makes you understand just what those choices cost her character, and she makes you understand that Rachel Ellis may survive, but she does not get away unscathed. It’s devastating work, and I’m hoping that other people will discover her and embrace her work with the same fervor I have when the film is rolled out later this spring by Sony Pictures Classics.
In the meantime, let’s just say I’ve learned my lesson about Verhoeven, and I’m eagerly anticipating his adaptation of the first Erast Fandorin mystery, THE WINTER QUEEN, when it is released later this year, and I’ll do my best to never count him out again.
NUMBER SIX: DREAMGIRLS (dir./scr. Bill Condon)
You can read my original review of this film right here.
Shifting gears a bit, I think this is the film I saw the most times in a theater this year. Four total. And there’s a reason for that. I found this film to be joyous. Cleansing, in a way. This is an audience movie, and when it plays to the right audience, there’s a communal thing that happens that is one of the main reasons I go to the movies. If I didn’t need that particular part of the fix, then DVD would have rendered moviegoing obsolete for me long ago. I love being in a crowd when they get caught up in a film and they start to react as a group. And I give Bill Condon a lot of credit... watching the film four times, you start to figure out the magic trick, but it’s slick. Because every time I saw it, it did the exact same thing to the crowd in the exact same places. Condon uses the edge of his frame and the audience in the movie as a sort of visual laugh track. He builds in applause in a natural way, and it helps to build and sustain energy in the movie. He has people jumping up, right at the edge of the frame like human punctuation marks. It’s clever, almost subliminal stuff, and it’s just part of the canny construction of the piece. I did a Q&A with Condon at BNAT this year, and I’ve spoken with him about the film after two of the other times I saw it, and in talking to him about the film, he always talks about the influence that the original Michael Bennett staging had on him. That was evidently a minimal set and just a wall of swinging mirrors that all spun to suggest the passage of time or a shift in location, constantly moving, and the effect was evidently very cinematic. It’s funny, because Condon transforms the cinema into a live theater, and in doing so, he encourages the audience to make some noise.
In my original review, I said Give Eddie The Oscar. And I still feel that way. I don’t know if he’ll be nominated on Tuesday, but if he is, then it pleases me enormously on his behalf. I absolutely think he deserves it, and for me, it all comes down to the first number he does in the film. It’s the moment where the movie hooks me every time, and I’m not exaggerating... the first time I saw it, it moved me to tears of joy. It starts with Eddie putting out his cigarette in the sandwich before he turns around to face Danny Glover. It’s a movie star entrance.
Condon gets iconography. He knows that this sort of movie needs the cast to be bigger than real. This is not a gritty realistic look at the way Motown was built, which seems to be what most of the film’s detractors were hoping to see. Condon is making a movie about... dreams. This isn’t meant to be a one-to-one correlation, a roman a clef retelling of the lives of Berry Gordy and Diana Ross. Of course it’s evocative. But as with THE GOOD SHEPHERD, this is art that uses fiction to get at something like the truth. And in this case, that means painting on a grand scale. When Eddie makes that movie star entrance, and then heads upstairs to meet the three girls, he has to be larger than life. He has to carry the right sort of movie star weight to kick the film into high gear. And he does. I love the way he starts the number on the piano, then moves away as another player sits down so he can sing with the girls. And right away, singing with them, Eddie Murphy is sexual in a way that he almost never plays on film. He’s predatory. He’s the Big Bad Wolf, and all three of the girls swoon a little bit as they sing back to him. But at the same time, they prove themselves right away to Jimmy, and he’s impressed. He may be thinking about doing terrible things to them, but he’s also pushing to see what they have as performers. And then just like that, just as they pick up the song and start to follow him, the whole stage swings around into “Round and Around” with the full band and a huge audience, and the audacity of the way Condon stages it and plays it... that’s what got me. Like I said at the start of this... joyous.
I like the fact that Jennifer Hudson is fetishized by Condon in the film just as much as Beyonce is, and it’s the same for Anika Noni Rose. They are all treated as beautiful women, sexual beings. Hudson’s a sassy thing at the start of the film, and she’s the most forward of the three girls. It shouldn’t be a big deal that a film could treat her as a viable romantic lead in a film, but it is. I also like the fact that the film calls Effie on her bullshit. When the film reaches the “And I Am Telling You” number, Effie has a breakdown, and it’s humiliating. I know people see it as an anthem of sorts, but I also think it’s an admission of hubris. Effie really does think she should be the center of things from day one, and when she doesn’t get her way, it sours her. She wants what she is owed, and she grows increasingly pissy about her work.
The film humbles her before it finally gives her back her life, and it seems to me that it’s not just a rags to riches story, but also a story about integrity. Every one of the girls has to find their integrity, even at the cost of things they want, and in doing so, they’re finally able to be the friends they were in the start again. I may not be completely satisfied with Jamie Foxx in the film; his character frustrated me more in repeat viewings. But even so, that’s a small thing in a movie that may be the most purely entertaining of my top ten.
NUMBER FIVE: LAKE OF FIRE (dir. Tony Kaye)
Most of the films on this list are movies that I reviewed over the course of the year, but there are a few that I have not had the chance to write about yet. Only one of those is a review that I’ve been actively avoiding, though, and it’s because the material is so difficult, so intensely personal in terms of the way it will play for each audience, that I haven’t been able to figure out where to start a review.
LAKE OF FIRE is a passion project for Tony Kaye, who is best known for AMERICAN HISTORY X and his behind-the-scenes struggles with Ed Norton on that film. I saw several early cuts of that film, and I have to say... I never really clicked with any of them. Kaye’s been portrayed as a bit of a nutter in most of the press about him, and I had sort of written him off. Big mistake. LAKE OF FIRE proves that Kaye is a director of real vision, and he’s done something I didn’t think was possible: he made a movie about abortion in America that never chooses a side.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say that by the end of the movie, I have no idea what Tony Kaye thinks, pro or con, and that’s a good thing. Kaye’s film is more about the way the entire abortion debate has stopped being a debate of any kind. Instead, it has become an entrenched recitation of position back and forth, with no attempt to change anyone’s mind. Indeed, there’s no chance since no one listens when the issue comes up. People just shout slogans at each other, and the result is an ideological fracture that I don’t believe can be healed through conversation or education at this point. It's a motherfucker to sit through. It is an incredibly difficult and painful film in places. It's almost impossible to watch at times. It's incredibly emotional. It's filled with people that terrify and sadden and upset me. And I sort of think everyone should be required to see it.
Visually, the film has little flourishes of style, like the way Tony Kaye uses black and white or the soundtrack. The film uses material from the last fourteen years, from the 20th anniversary of Roe V Wade to very recently, and he’s still doing a bit of tweaking on the picture even past the version I saw.
Doesn’t matter. I’m sure he’ll make some minor changes, but at three hours, the power of the film isn’t any one thing... it’s the cumulative impact of it all. It’s the interviews with talking heads like self-described "liberal atheist" Nat Hentoff and his fascinating discussion of “the seamless garment,” a standard used to determine how consistent someone’s philosophical stance is. It’s the way he illustrates the deterioration of discourse in America over the passage of time. It’s the interview with Norma McCorvey, the infamous “Roe” whose case inspired the landmark decision, and who has since become a born-again Christian who is staunchly anti-abortion. He introduces people on both sides of the issue. He introduces moderates. Extremists. Terrorists. Victims. Doctors.
And he builds the cacophany, going from the rational and the moderate to the more and more extreme and crazy and scary and sad. Paul Hill, a violent dangerous man who shot several people outside a clinic, is interviewed in the days before the incident, interviewed outside the clinic he eventually attacked, something that is terrifying to watch here because of what you know he does later. And then after all of that... after he almost drowns you in this debate... after it’s gotten to the point where you can’t hear one more person weigh in on it because you know they’re not going to bring anything new to the table...
... he stops the movie cold and walks you through an entire abortion. Start to finish. In the most explicit detail possible. So you can't say you don't know what it is. So you can't describe it in either monstrous or muted terms. It's just there. The whole process.
There's a step I never knew about. And it upset me deeply. Evidently, after the process is complete, the doctor takes the removed matter into another room and, in a sterile tray, he has to assemble all the matter in an approximate shape to make sure he got it all. Head. Arms. Legs. Body. And he does. On camera. It's not an abstract idea. It's not an argument about semantics. It's not people shooting other people. It's not picket signs. It’s not the same as getting your teeth cleaned. It just is what it is. And after you’ve seen this film, I guarantee that whatever your feelings are about it, they will be considered ones. Kaye’s movie puts whatever your beliefs are under a microscope.
One of the reasons I feel like this absolutely demands a place on my list this year is because it still doesn’t have a distributor. It was produced by Anonymous Content, but so far the only place to see the film was at the Toronto Film Festival. I want to see someone pick this film up and release it. I feel that an industry that fails to properly handle a picture as exceptional as this one is an industry that has failed at its basic responsibilities. This is genuinely important filmmaking, and people should have a chance to see it.
And look... I have very strong feelings about abortion personally. I was adopted as a baby by truly wonderful and loving parents. I lucked out. Faced with a presumably unwanted pregnancy, my birth mother carried me for nine months and then put me up for adoption. Roe V Wade was 1973. I was born in 1970. If Roe V Wade had happened a few years earlier, who knows what decision she might have made?
When I was still a young adult, I was involved in a relationship that resulted in a pregnancy. In that case, I wasn’t given a choice on how to handle it. The other person made that decision for themselves, and they had an abortion, something that devastated me at the time, and that I’ve never really recovered from or even spoken about, even to those who are closest to me.
Thankfully, now in my later life, I’m lucky enough to have married a beautiful woman I love, and we’ve had our first child, and I’m finally related to someone by blood, finally part of a family of my own making. Even after all the experiences in my life, I can’t presume to say that I have an opinion about how other people should deal with this incredibly difficult decision. Even knowing how easily I could have been a statistic instead of a person... even knowing the pain of a loss to this process... and even knowing the joy of holding my own child... I can only say how I would choose, or how my wife would choose. Tony Kaye’s film drives the point home in a way that I hope makes everyone contemplate the issue with fresh eyes, from any number of perspectives. Last year, Roger Ebert wrote about how he felt CRASH had the potential to genuinely affect change in audiences. With LAKE OF FIRE, I’m absolutely sure that no one who sees it will walk away without the film impacting them to some degree.
NUMBER FOUR: THE FOUNTAIN (dir. Darren Aronofsky; scr. Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handler)
You can read my original review of this film right here.
I’ve written a lot about this film this year. In fact, I’ve been writing about this film for so long now (since my first piece back in 2002) that it wouldn’t have surprised me if it had turned out to be a disappointment for me. That happens when you spend a lot of time covering a particular project... by the time it’s released, you’re tired of it.
With THE FOUNTAIN, though, I find that the more time I’ve spent with the finished film, the more rewarding it is. I’m fully prepared to concede that this is not a film for everyone. It’s ambitious. It’s willfully surreal at times. It is incredibly obtuse about making some very simple points, but that’s the fun of it for me. When I see people attacking the film for its underlying themes, I see a cynical rejection of a movie that is completely free of cynicism. Again... I get it. We live in a time where the ideas of devotion and faith and true love are devalued, even mocked. Darren Aronofsky is a filmmaker who had unlimited options after REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, and he could easily take his acclaimed visual style and apply it to some big studio action movie or some cookie-cutter blockbuster, and I’m sure he’d be very successful at it. Instead, he laid himself out there with the most personal thing he’s made so far, and for his efforts, he found himself roundly rejected or even ridiculed by the mainstream.
Fine. You don’t deserve it. It seems that increasingly, filmmakers who lay themselves emotionally bare are bitchslapped for doing so. I take great hope from the fact that a studio actually bankrolled this film, and from the fact that we still have filmmakers who are willing to gamble on such personal, heartfelt visions. Even if you think the film’s ambition outweighs what it actually delivers, I think its mere existence is cause for celebration.
NUMBER THREE: VOLVER (dir./scr. Pedro Almodovar)
I had CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER on my runners-up list this year, and one of the main reasons I was excited by it was the reunion of Zhang Yimou and Gong Li. They weren’t the only big reunion in the film world this year. For my money, it was even more thrilling to see Carmen Maura working with Almodovar for the first time since 1988’s WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN. It’s especially gratifying because the event is part of what may well be the warmest, most approachable film that the director has ever made. I’ve always enjoyed his work, but I’m very careful who I recommend something like TALK TO HER or BAD EDUCATION to. With VOLVER, he’s made a film that seems to be more affectionate, more playful, and more inviting than anything he’s done before, and the movie hit me like a ton of bricks as a result.
Which is not to say that the film shies away from the darker side of things. Death hangs like a shadow over the entire movie. The opening shot finds the widows of a small Spanish town tending to the headstones of their dearly departed. This is where we meet Raimunda (Penelope Cruz), her daughter Paula (Yohana Cobo), and Raimunda’s sister Sole (Lola Duenas). They’re in town so they can visit the graves of their mother and father, and so they can drop by and visit Agustina (Blanco Portillo), an old friend of the family, and Tia Paula (Chus Lampreave), their mother’s sister. They are struck by how frail Tia Paula seems, how she seems disoriented, but everything in her house is well cared for, and it looks like she’s been cooking for all of them. Agustina talks to them about how the ghost of their mother is the one who cares for Tia Paula, and they all try to laugh it off.
Without giving away the various twists and turns in Almodovar’s script, let’s just say that Raimunda’s life is complicated, as is her relationship with pretty much everyone in her life. She has unresolved issues about her dead mother. She has a fairly severe problem with her husband. She’s got a rather unorthodox business plan. And her sister has a huge secret that’s going to change Raimunda’s life when it is revealed. Almodovar always seems adept at juggling soap opera elements, but here, he turns them into something more than just plot threads. I think this might be the most successful overall thematic piece by Almodovar. This is a film about secrets and the toll they take on those who carry them. It’s also a film that does a fantastic job of etching the way Latin women relate from generation to generation. Harry was telling me that one of the reasons THE HOST meant so much to him this year was because of the exposure he’s had to Korean family life thanks to his fiancée. I get it. VOLVER probably speaks to me directly because I live with not only my wife, but also her mother and her sister, so I pretty much get the live version of this film every day here in the house. There is a dynamic between mothers and daughters that is universal to every culture, but in the Latin culture, there are specific details that Almodovar captures perfectly here. It’s funny, it’s sweet, it’s maddening at times. And in that one perfect moment... Penelope singing in the restaurant... one of my favorite moments in anything this year... there was no film that broke my heart with such clarity this year.
NUMBER TWO: INLAND EMPIRE (dir./scr. David Lynch)
You can read my original review of this film right here.
When I included THE SCIENCE OF SLEEP in my runners-up list, I said it was the second-best film at capturing the feeling of dreaming this year. It should come as no surprise that David Lynch’s brilliant, difficult INLAND EMPIRE is the other film I was referring to. It is the most unconventional film on my entire list this year, and I find that it’s also the one that grows the most the more I think back on it.
Because it was shot on shitty DV instead of Lynch’s typical lush Technicolor look, it's more like some tape you just found and started watching, and it's not a movie, it's just a tape of things happening, and as the things happen, they get more and more fucked up, and you really aren't sure who made this or why, but it scares you that it even exists. And by the end of it, you’re debating whether you should just put the tape back where you found it or call the cops and report a crime.
Laura Dern has been an actor I’ve liked since the first time I can remember seeing her opposite Eric Stoltz in MASK. She’s always worked well with Lynch, and I like that her character in BLUE VELVET is totally different from her character in WILD AT HEART. She’s never played anything like her character here, though, and if the Oscars were about genuine excellence in performance and not just who spends the most ad money or campaigns the hardest, then Laura Dern’s name would be on the list of nominees on Tuesday morning. I’ve seen a lot of actors portray the descent into madness, the dissolution of personality, but I’ve never seen anyone crumble as completely as Dern does. This is horrifying work. Genuinely upsetting.
And then there’s the last scene of the film. The closing credits. For most filmmakers, this would be an afterthought, but in this film, Lynch uses his closing credits to stage an audacious sequence that feels to me like a sort of summation of his entire career, a last lap around the inside of his head. For a film to contain such unbridled glee in filmmaking and such absolute darkness in equal measure, it’s something truly special.
NUMBER ONE: STEP UP
Yes, it’s true.
Okay, no. It’s not. I’m kidding. I actually just wanted to warn you that I’m giving a three-way tie for first this year. Before you roll your eyes, allow me a moment to explain myself.
When we look back at 2006 to discuss the year in film later, there’s one story that we’ll be telling above any other. It is the story of the Three Amigos. Guillermo Del Toro, Alejandro Innaritu, and Alfonso Cuaron are all world-class filmmakers, and they all seem to have hit some sort of artistic stride this year. I’ve enjoyed watching the three of them work the publicity trail together, and what strikes me is how unusual it is to see three people who all have films in play during awards season so actively stumping for each other’s movies. Last week, for example, there was a screening of CHILDREN OF MEN on the Universal lot for Academy members, and Cuaron was out of the country, unable to attend. So Del Toro and Innaritu stepped in to host the screening and talk the film up.
Seriously... think about that. Do you think for a moment that if Clint Eastwood was unable to host a screening of LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, Martin Scorsese would show up to urge voters to consider the film? Or vice-versa? Has anyone heard of Stephen Frears hosting any screenings of THE DEPARTED this year?
There is a selflessness to the efforts of the Three Amigos that I find inspirational, and it makes me think of the stories we’ve all heard about the filmmakers of the ‘70s, all of them friends and peers, sitting in each other’s editing rooms and giving notes, contributing ideas for each other’s scripts. I think one of the reasons the ‘70s were such a special time in American film is because there was a sense of community. And now, with these three filmmakers, what we see is a potent reminder of just what happens when you support other artists. These three men have all made the best films of their careers, and in doing so, they’ve made the three best films of the year, films that are totally different from each other. I can’t choose one over the others, so I’m giving the three way tie to:
PAN’S LABYRINTH (dir./scr. Guillermo Del Toro)
BABEL (dir. Alejandro Innaritu; scr. Guillermo Arriaga)
CHILDREN OF MEN (dir. Alfonso Cuaron; scr. Alfonso Cuaron & Timothy J Sexton and David Arata and Mark Fergus & Hawk Otsby)
You can read my original review of BABEL right here.
You can read my original review of CHILDREN OF MEN right here.
PAN’S LABYRINTH has frustrated some viewers because of the way it was sold, and I understand that. It was sold almost entirely using the fantasy imagery from the film, but it’s not a fantasy film. The film is grounded very firmly in the real world, in the days after the Spanish Civil War as Franco’s fascist forces slowly crush the last rebel holdouts. Ivana Baquero stars as Ofelia, a young girl whose mother (Ariadna Gil) has married Capitan Vidal (Sergi Lopez), the cruel leader of a regiment dedicated to hunting down rebel forces. Ofelia understandably regresses into a fantasy world to escape the horrors of her real life, but even there, she doesn’t find the escape she seeks. As with the best fairy tales, there’s an arbitrary set of rules she is supposed to follow, rules that seem to make no sense. Go under the tree, find the frog. Draw a door on the wall, don’t eat anything. And every time she tries to rebel, every minor infraction of the rules, she is punished. What Del Toro does so well in this film is gradually, little by little, he cuts off any way for Ofelia to find relief. His film is a tragedy, and there’s a profound sorrow to it. Even so, there is beauty here and the most unorthodox happy ending since Gilliam’s BRAZIL.
I’ve admired the craft of Innaritu’s first two films, but I didn’t connect fully with either one of them. With BABEL, it felt to me like he finally put it all together. Arriaga’s script is a model of economy, and his character work here is both original and effortless. These individual storylines tie together with remarkable grace, and the way the film finally adds up laid me out on first viewing. We throw words like “globalization” these days, but one of the things film can do better than any other media is show us just how small our planet really is, and just how deeply we are all connected.
All three of the Amigos are strong visualists, but with CHILDREN OF MEN, Alfonso Cuaron has moved right to the top of his generation. He is an enormously talented filmmaker, and there are things he does here that I have watched over and over, and I’m still not quite sure how he did them. Even if his accomplishment was a purely technical one, it would earn him a place somewhere on the list. But it’s not. CHILDREN OF MEN is positively drenched in theme, every frame of it. My only complaint about the movie comes near the very end, when I think the symbology becomes too overt (a boat called Tomorrow? Really?), but even then, I think Cuaron nails the tone of those scenes. He has successfully created a future that feel real here. So often, when you see a Hollywood version of dystopia, it feels like the work of an art director, carefully calculated and too neatly thought-out. Here, Cuaron and his writers and his production designers have created a world that I find terrifying because it feels so plausible. I don’t think this vision of the future is inevitable. I have faith in people, faith in the world. But I think this does what the best science-fiction does... it serves as a cautionary tale.
All three of these films leave room for interpretation, room for you as a viewer to fill in your own ideas, your own feelings, your own interpretations. So often, film is pushed through a development machine that grinds out the rough edges, the loose ends, the personal details. But somehow, these three films were all released with all those things intact, and that gives me real hope. When I look back at a year of film, I believe that the film I choose as my favorite each year should be the one that most completely reaffirms my faith in the potential of cinema. And this year, for there to be three films that meet that criteria... well, that’s an unexpected gift.
I’ll have one more article for you this weekend, a look at the worst films I sat through this year as well as some individual accomplishments worth noting. And then it’s on to 2007.
Click here for a look at my list of the runners-up, the ten films that almost made my top ten!
Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles
Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles
-
+ Expand All
-
Babel didn't have half of the emotion power 21 Grams had ... Pitt was good.
Dreamgirls are way overrated, but that chubby chick sings beautifuly and that's the only reason this movie should be watched ... Beyonce not only has less naturalism to her than a wooden doll but she also lost all of her sexines loosing so much weight and beeing another skinny chick in the industry ... WHERE ARE THE CURVES? I ask!!!! -
Now that I know it's not centrally a fantasty, I wouldn't be so disappointed. I haven't heard as much positive feedback on Babel, and I am surprised that you put up The Good Shepherd as high as you did. That gives me some hope because I sure love me my spy movies.
-
I jsut saw Pan's Labyrinth tonight, and it lived up to the hype and then some. amazing. I loved Babel, and I'm going to see Children of Men soon enough. Dreamgirls was truly uninspiring to me, but I can see why so many people love it.by the way, I Was really hoping you would weigh in and on the doofus talking about Crash in your secondary list talkback. worth a read if you missed it.as always, your list is the best, thank you sir!
-
I loved all three films and I loved them all the more when considering them together.
That being said I imagine that Pan's is the one I will be watching the most out of the three.
Still, The Fountain is the film I am itching to see again. -
about the dangers male nurses pose to society. More haunting than 'Moonraker''s grim warning about the space race.
-
glad to hear someone else say this. It hurts my head to think of all the complaining and bitching about remakes and lack of originality in filmmaking these days, and then to have something so unique and different as The Fountain be kicked in the balls so hard.
-
I pretty much KNEW that the Tres Amigos theme would be strong with you. You're so right about Children of Men, about how real the movie feels. It is a technical milestone of modern cinema, and it is a damn shame it wasn't marketed as well as it was. I fell in love with the film the first time I saw it, and fell deeper in love on the 2nd and 3rd viewing. And that is why it's so great to me, personally, because I haven't truly LOVED a film in a very long time, probably since Fellowship. What I think is a main contributing factor is the ensemble cast, all at the tops of their games, and especially Clive Owen. He is now completely forgiven for King Arthur. Theo's story is hopefully sad, and one critic put it best when they said (can't recall the direct quote but) Theo begins this journey not believing in the world, that it has all gone to shit, having nothing to live for. And the camera follows this hopeless chap, occasionally removing itself from him to focus on human moments like a mother crying, holding her dead son, or fugees distressed in their cage. But as he finally has something to fight for, something to live for, the camera never leaves his side, even (in my favorite part of the film) running alongside him through the battle and uprising as he ducks for cover trying to make his way to Kee, to save her. That is why I love this film so. Doesn't it feel so grand to have a movie you so care about that you try and sell it passionately to your friends and family who have never heard of the film. I've made believers out of plenty of people by now, and more are still to come. Thank you Alfonso Cuaron, thank you.
-
Insert wink here.
-
and you put it at number 4? you went on an on about how it was your dekstop, how it was your screensaver, and etc. etc.
and you give it number 4? -
and you put it at number 4? you went on an on about how it was your dekstop, how it was your screensaver, and etc. etc.
and you give it number 4? -
Honestly, I can't understand what you all see in that film. It felt hackneyed throughout and the last half was predictable and melodramatic...
The could have left Michael Caine's character out completely. Useless, and he sticks out like a sore thumb with his overacting.
I was shocked at the end how disappointed I was in that film. It could have been so much more, and it came across simply as a blockbuster trying to pass itself off as something thoughtful.
And on a side note, Moriarty, you talk about being lucky to be a "person" instead of a "statistic". I'm afraid your one of many who conflate *their* life with life in general. Yeah, you might have received a gift, friend, but for millions in the world, life is no "gift". Life for many is day-by-day fighting for survival. I wonder if you would be considering life a gift if you were living in the sewage outwaste of the affluent in some Asian megalopolis. Or in a land where arsenic-poisoned water drops family members and neighbors like flies. Or in a dirt-floor shack in Appalachia getting nightly visits from your step dad.
*Your* life might be a gift. *Life* isn't. In fact, I would venture to say that the only reason your life is a "gift" is exactly because it is a nightmare for so many others, who live to feed your clothing, food, and shelter needs. Your life isn't a gift. It's a winning lottery ticket. How are you gonna use your winnings? -
Okay, where do I begin. First of all, oceanfrog, Caine's character bring a needed light-hearted side to this mostly gloomy film. He is given some of the best straight-up dialogue in the film. Also I believe Jasper is an anti-Theo, where no matter how bad the world has gone he is always enlightening and it proves not to be a catalyst to Theo but more of inspiration. And Caine certainly is not overacting, he and Owen play off eachother very well. I can't see how else Theo and Kee could have gotten into safe harbor at the fugee camp without him, and the help of his fascist-pig friend Sid.
-
You accuse Children of Men of melodrama? Seriously, its easy to take the moral high ground behind the lovely facade of an internet fan-site lurker isn't it? Bottom line, if you have the free time to read this website you are one of those "lottery winners" as well. So hows about we shut the fuck up, eh?
-
"Strawberry Cough!" "It's Strawberry Cough! Don't you get it?" "Strawberry Cough!".... Did I say overwrought? I did, didn't I? And hackneyed? I'm sure I said that, too. Let me add ham-handed to that.
-
Of course I'm one of the lottery winners! And so are you! I wasn't taking any "moral high ground". I was forcing out in the open this false idea that many of us seem to carry that somehow we have been "gifted" this life. We have not. That kind of false thinking allows us to feel that somehow we are special. We are not. Not you, not I, not Moriarty. We are unique, for sure. But not special. We haven't been granted our riches because we are special, or because we are better. And don't think for a moment that we are not "rich". I am technically "poor" by the consensus American economic view. But I am rich beyond the wildest dreams of millions, nay billions in this world.
Got anything useful to add? -
you're using that line as a detriment to his performance as a whole? I'm thinking you just don't get this movie at all, oceanfrog.
-
you're an atheist!
-
Even if I was a pious Christian, the point still stands.
-
One of the best movie from the US this year...
-
That was pretty damn funny, Mori.
Great list, too. -
The Fountain still hasn't opened in Australia (soon, very soon) and I confess I got caught by the 'Step Up' thing, but as for everything else - even when I disagree, I like your argument for the film. To my mind, the trifecta goes Children of Men > Pan's Labyrinth > Babel, but they're all fantastic films (even though Babel depressed me so much it'll be ages before I see it again, unlike the other two).
-
Uh, no, that line is just one example of the film getting it wrong. "Strawberry Cough" stuck out like a sore thumb. Little felt "organic" or "real", even though it was striving mightily to be. The battle scene at the end felt like stage choreography... I mean it almost had a beat...
And there's more... The Roma that miraculously survives the onslaught of British troops only to send off Clive's character in the boat at the end, and later get blown up in an air strike... 1,2,3... 1,2,3... hear that? Almost like a drum machine... -
I really don't get what you are going for here. Do you think you are telling Mori something he doesn't know? Your little rants seem a bit midguided. I get it man. I really do. I volunteer every weekend on the South Side of Chicago and I have seen the apathy that exists down there. All of my classes (poli. sci.) deal with the sad state of affairs the world is in. I just don't think jumping all over Mori is the best outlet for this type of stuff. He was talking about movies. There is a better arena for this type of stuff then AICN. You know?
-
I didn't realise that the boat at the end was called Tomorrow, it might seem a bit cheesy but then I ask you all to consider this: Theo is in every single scene in the film, the boat arrives just after he has died, I think it's just as likely that the ending is merely his dying thoughts, he clings on to hope as his oxygen starved brain slowly slips away, it would certainly make the name of the ship seem more appropriate.
-
Is on my list to see this week. I literally can't wait. Then there's Zodiac coming out this week too. I really, really, really want to see United 93. I just don't think I have the heart for it.
-
It gets my vote for the worst movie by people who should have known better. It's the emotional equivalent of a Friday 13th movie, although the best review I read of it treated it as a comedy: http://tinyurl.com/2j7g9r.
-
Saw it last night with two buddies. After the movie, none of us spoke and we just went home. I felt so bad that I hugged both of my kids. Amazingly dark, deep and brilliant movie. HIGHLY recommended.
-
Some people really liked the movie (myself included), others did not. And I thought Caine was great, had some great humorous lines thrown in there. I viewed him as another 'event' that futher changed Theo during his journey to self-awakening.And dude, while I hear what you are saying with the majority of the world in piss-poor conditions, but to think that no one is special, I feel sorry for you. If we all felt that, then there is no need to fight for anything at all. I have a one year old and I think she's pretty god damn special. While I do not consider myself special, I have known people who were special throughout my life. But perhaps we are saying the same thing, except I choose to use the adjective special instead of unique.
-
If Moriarty can talk about abortion, about life, how he values it, what he feels this movie will do, etc, etc, it is the perfect place for responding.
If not here, where? On some activist blog? His point was that the movie would provoke thought and discussion on the matter. Well, it has. And you want me to just keep my mouth shut and take it elsewhere, because this isn't the "arena" for it?
Perhaps no one wants to talk about these things here. Perhaps these forums are just for sniping over which BSG was better, or Kevin Smith adulation.
Perhaps I should just write my thoughts on a slip of paper and slide them into a tiny box and place the box in a dresser underneath some old sweaters so that no one could ever see them.
Uh, no thanks.
I brought this up, because this "life is a gift" line is part of what drives the anti-abortionists. The ones who aren't "pro life", but objectively "pro birth". They just want to get you born. They don't give a damn about you after you're born. You're in God's hands, then.
I don't buy it. I think it's fanatical malarky, and it allows us to yet again evade human responsibility by putting off the consequences until we're dead and "in God's hands", under the guise of moral rectitude. There are human consequences to every action -- getting pregnant, having an abortion, outlawing an abortion -- and we can't evade our human responsibility by hiding behind this idea of divine right. Even if life *were* a gift from "God", it would not absolve us from our responsibility to others. -
I loved his character and his last scene just made me ill. The reality of this movie is what got me. Not a blockbuster/hero movie. It felt like this could really happen. I felt like I was there with them. Even the ending was great. Next will be Pan's. Babel I guess I will have to rent one day.
-
What I mean by "special" is what many mean by special: "priveleged". Because special has that extra meaning, I prefer "unique".
-
While I don't think I could make it thru this movie, I'm glad to hear about it. Freedom is about as important to me as breath. That said, I was also adopted and I just can't feel 'ok' about abortion with obvious medical or tramatic exceptions. By the standard of anyone I should have been an obvious case for abortion. But I'm glad to be alive and I've lived a hard childhood but I love my life and I would never be alright with having never had a chance to live it. What I can't be ok with is that I know kids who grew up in foster care, me for one, and had terrible things happen to them, but we all still want to be alive. My biggest problem with abortion is that some people say it's for the kid's sake and that is just not true. I've never met one single kid who was in the situation that parents who aborted their child wanted to spare the child living in that would rather have been never born than go thru what they are going thru. Not a single one. I know 9 months is a long time to edure being pregnant, but if you at least do that and give the child up for adoption, isn't it worth knowing that the child will be happy to be given life?
-
My wife and I watched every Almodovar film available on Netflix this summer (tragically, Women on the Verge and Tie Me up aren't available!), since she'd never seen any of them. I realized that I'd never really given him the credit he deserves - he's one of top directors working. His work (especially Volver) always surprises, and they surprise in surprising ways. Volver is so anti-Hollywood. I can't imagine a Hollywood film with an all-female cast that has NO ROMANCE. And it works - an extremely funny film about real relationships.
-
privileged. People who are retarded have been called special, but not someone who is privileged. For instance, stooopider was 'special'. But that's neither here nor there. Do you by chance live next to a Jesus Camp or something oceanfrog? Not that I don't agree with you in terms of not taking responsibility for your actions, but just asking.
-
you sold me on Babel and Children of Men. I'll check 'em out as soon asd I can.
-
I just wish Inland Empire would fucking come to Toronto!
-
Anyway, I'm glad a movie has released that is just about the whole thing and not just propaganda from anyone's point of view. I agree that a woman's body is her's to decide what to do with... it is unfortunate that abortion is a choice women should ever have to make. It's just sad. I think that society needs to offer better solutions than aborting human life. There's gotta be better solutions. Spanking used to be the way to discipline your children and when it kept them from worse pain it was an ok way to discipline, but now days we have figured out better ways to discipline. Can't we do that with complicated pregnancies? I think we can.
-
...that the vast majority of the desperately poor and subsistence-level survivors of the world prefer being alive to, well, not. Otherwise they'd all kill themselves, and get it over with already.
The fact that billions of people live with a level of struggle and sadness most of us will never see or comprehend doesn't mean their lives aren't worth living. -
Just doing my duty as a AICN talkbacker, let's hope this phrase never dies because it's always funny. Always. An example of a phrase that wasn't funny at all was, 'pwns teh suck' or whatever the hell that was. Now that...that phrase sucked. 'Gotta Eat' on the other hand, is pure gold.
-
DAM YOU ROB ZOMBIE
-
You have a top twelve here, not a top ten. That's a cheat any way you look at it. Everything should be moved down, with 9 and 10 being moved to the runners up and 19 and 20 being moved off the list.
-
I love American History X and still recommend it to people that i KNOW can handle it but always with the wrning "this film can be pretty rough" it sounds like Tony Kaye has relaly captured something here with Lake of Fire that I know I want to see. Another abortion through adoption survivor here. Born in 77 to a 19 y/o college student, limited family support (only the g-mother was willing to support her) I was given to a family that COULDN'T have children and my life, while not perfect, I can say has been blessed. That's how I look at things, that I have been blessed with life. I've gotten into many debates and arguments about the abortion issue over the years adn you're right Mori, it often does just end in arguments being shouted back and forth at each other, facts rarely get in the way. Even when facts are tried to be presented sometimes it's down in "combative" ways, like shown movie poster size images of aborted fetuses which just gets people riled up adn into a shouting match. When it comes to "abortion protestors" I much perfer the tatics of "BOUND4LIFE" a group that even Planned Parenthood says is using a brillent stratagy, that is the stand silently with tape acros their mouth that says 'Life'. Too many times we get caught up in the emotions of the abortion debate and not the facts and that is sad.
-
so it's a top 12 list and not a top 10 list, big deal, find something else better to do then bitch about stupid little things
-
If anyone else made that three hour bore it would be laughed off the screen. I got the film fine, but just because he can do it feels like you're dreaming doesn't make up for the completely uninteresting storyline and the unengaging characters. For three hours that's a sin.
-
He is both the comedic relief and also provides another event that will forever change Theo. I mean seriously do people even pay attention anymore.
-
Jan 18, 2007 10:07:41 AM CST
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you...
by ernieanderson
on the opinion that BABEL, CHILDREN OF MEN and PAN'S LABYRINTH are the best films of the directors' respective careers.
They are merely the best films so far. Goddamn, the talent each has shown in each of those three films is such a leap over their previously amazing work, I almost shudder in anticipation of their future work. If they continue to improve at all, we will be fortunate beyond words.
Great list, though.
Catch phrases are not funny, people. Stop using them. -
Come on Mori, "arrogant"? Seems like you're trying to be a little high and mighty calling out every print journalist or even online critic who uses "Best". And you might be right. BUt that's why they are critics.
-
Is boring. I'm not being an asshole, Mori, that's just my opinion. I can understand liking it, but it just didn't connect with me. That and Billy Crudup's accent is awful.
-
Children of Men might be the best film of the decade. Twenty years from now people will look back and say, "Children of Men is one of the great films of cinema history." Nobody saw Blade Runner when it came out either.
-
I'm sorry, but that's not an argument.
For someone committing suicide, their own free will (whatever that is) has to fight against the survival instincts of millions of cells, the social stigma against suicide, and the religious fanatics that instill in their heads ideas of eternal damnation. If killing ourselves was such a hard thing to do because life is so frickin' precious, we'd probably also be doing a hell of a lot less killing of the animals of the world than we do. But we slaughter them with impunity. (Well, *we* don't. We get others to.) We'd probably do a lot less killing of each other, too, don't you think?
And you see what Moriarty was getting at, echoed in the words of Everett Robert? He's an "abortion through adoption survivor". Never mind that "he" didn't exist until "he" was out of the womb. "He" miraculously survived and is now "blessed". These are the same people (not Everett, necessarily) who want to give fetuses citizen rights. Seriously, there are people out there who want to win the debate by making fetuses citizens, and therefore making abortion murder. Pause for a moment and consider the ramifications of such an act. From the moment of conception, a woman's womb would *have to*, by dint of this draconian law, come under the care of the State. That's the only way that they can protect the fetus through its nine months, and the only way that they could enforce this absurd law. But they don't consider that in their machinations, because they aren't concerned with consequences. They are "pro birth". They're not "pro life". They don't give a shit about life that already exists (the mother, who is already a citizen), except for her "immortal soul" which will burn in hellfire. They don't give a shit about the children who are born (they have aligned themselves for years with a Republican majority that has done everything in its power to take away possibility from the lives of the poor in our country, by weakening the public education system, by allowing our health-care system to become the privelege of the rich, etc etc).
I'm sorry, but to anyone who wants to have a dialog, the choice for me is easy. Align myself with those people? No way. I value my liberty, the liberty of every woman I've ever met, the promise of a better tomorrow through human endeavor and compassion, and the necessity for us to live and act in the world we have with consideration for the world we have, not consideration for an afterlife that exists only for those who believe it. -
Jan 18, 2007 10:29:04 AM CST
John Ashcroft must not be on your Christmas card list
by just pillow talk
since he wanted to ban all abortions and call a fetus a citizen from fertilization. He's a fucking loon.
-
Was ok.... To my suprise, people were complaining whenever one of the characters started singing... It's like they didn't know they were going to watch a musical...
-
Babel was one of the worst things I've seen in a long time. Schlock masquerading as an "important message." That said, I guess I can see where someone would like it if they were in the right mood, and like the dude says "That's just like... your opinion man."
-
you do know Guillermo delToro is about to adapt H.P. Lovecraft's "At the Mountains of Madness". My favorite horror short story, and one of the best ever.Read it and you will know.. perhaps only Del Toro would do it justice.
-
I'm a liberal (well, libertarian at least), irreligious, skeptical secularist who is against abortion rights (except in the case of rape or the mother's life is in danger). I don't believe in an afterlife, souls, etc. I don't believe there is such a thing as "sin." However, I do believe that we as a society need to maintain certain minimum standards of ethical conduct and abortion crosses those standards.
-
...I think it's an indisputable fact that a hard life is usually worth living despite its many drawbacks, this is not an anti-abortion argument. I'm as pro-choice as the next guy, really, but this view is rooted in the rights of the woman outweighing the *potential* life of a fetus -- not this deluded idea that a great many lives just aren't worth living, so we shouldn't feel bad for the world's loss of those who don't get to be born.
-
I gotta give you props for the stuff you said about "Dreamgirls". Most of these folks simply don't get it. You hit the nail on the head. It is, indeed, a movie about dreams. More than that - it's the true definition of Soul Cinema. In fact, the flick is packed with so much soul for your average stuffy stodgy film critic to handle. Heck...even the legion of pot-smoking XBOX 360 addicts that regularly frequent these talkbacks can barely handle the movie.
-
Thanks for the information about "Black Book" and "Lake of Fire," Mori. I hadn't heard of either of those films until reading about them on your list. I now want to seek them out and watch both of them.
-
Then you I could have an argument with.
Unfortunately, I believe your position opens the entire country up to the overreaching of those radicals on the anti-abortion side who would go to the extremes mentioned in my previous post. And given our inability as a nation to provide financial, physical and emotional support for the poorest among us, I find myself unwilling -- in addition to stealing their potential by dumbing down the school system and denying them adequate health care by pricing it out of their reach -- to deny them essential decision-making over their bodies. -
Hmm. I've only seen United, Vulver(sic), Children of and Pan's Lab out of these. So I guess I'll take this as an chance to visit Blockbusters.
-
I've been following the project for years. And yes, I know I'm going to get knocked on my coal mining ass by it.
-
I'm sorry guys and gals but Pan's isn't as good as advertised. I think people are overwhelmed by the hype and miss the inherant problems within the story like, who the hell's point of view does this movie represent? Way to cluttered a narrative.
-
Thanks for making me cry with that Lake of Fire review, you bastard.
-
Superb list, and with excellent analysis and explanation, this might be the best list of '06. Now, I'm glad it wasn't rushed like other critic's lists. The only slight qualm I would have is A Scanner Darkly being more of an average movie. The ending is stunning, I agree, but it makes up for all the shapeshifting suits and psycho-babblery coupled by the sea-sick animation which all becomes a migraine inducer. Without the animation, I feel Robert Downey Jr. would have garnered some Globes and Oscar talk for the role. But maybe I was in the wrong "state" for the film.
-
with Dreamgirls by delaying all the true "musical numbers" to the second hour. Up until then, it's just a movie with some music, all the songs being sung on stage. It's awkward when it makes the transition and truth be told, the reason everyone goes ga-ga over "And I'm Telling You" is because it's the only really good song in the whole piece. Can you say over-hyped?
-
Honestly, I didn't feel cheated by the lack of sci-fi stuff. I felt cheated that the spanish conq and space scenes were all part of a book that Hugh and Weisz wrote. I went into the movie thinking that Hugh and Weisz drank from the fountain and really were living forever through time, and not metaphysically living together throught the book and the tree crap.
-
That seals the deal. I'm seeing this today. There's a theatre near by that sells booze. (It saves the trouble of sneaking it in and searching for a suitable mixer)
-
Because you will be disappointed. The move is all style and very little substance. I was quite frankly at how imagination or insight that Aronofsky brought to the table. The cast can't be faulted (not even that fat guy from MY NAME IS EARL) but the writer/director sure can... The year's biggest disappointment.
-
Moriarty, I thought this was one of your favorite films. Are you referring to the "Love Conquers All" version, because I like to pretend that cut doesn't exist? The ending of BRAZIL is most definitely not happy. You have seen the film, yes?
-
Doesn't it bother anyone that the movie makers totally changed the movie of CHILDREN OF MEN to fit their own liberal anti-Republican views and ignored the great novel with its strong Conservative and Christian themes? Is it okay to dump on the source material when it does not fit your own worldview? Strange hypocrisy for reviewers who should judge a work on its merits and not how well it lines up with your own political slant.
-
Putting a movie filmed at your house as #2? Putting Babel near the top slot for the same of some Three Amigos shit going on? Motherfucking Snakes? I don't think so.
-
I thought Children Of Men was a good film made with incredible skill. But best film in a decade? Don't see that. Maybe I need another viewing to let it sink in. Just felt like the movie had get up but not a lot of go. Well-made, but nowhere near the level of "Minority Report" for my tastes.
-
Your top ten had twelve films in it. That's cheating. Either expand the list or lop some off. Just messing, though maybe you should have just made a top 25 and bit the bullet with a clear #1 instead of hemming and hawing and finally giving up and cramming three flicks into one spot. I understand the feeling though. Every time one makes any sort of "favorites" list, it always feels like you're playing favorites with your own children...
-
I know I'm in the minority here and I'll probably catch a beatdown, but hear me out. As for Pan's Labyrinth, I thought the fantasy elements were fantastic. But I found the rest of the story incredibly broad. In fact, it made Black Book look subtle by comparison. And that's really saying something. Her stepdad seemed like a caricature, not a real person. I wouldn't have been surprised to see him kick a puppy at some point. Even Ralph Fiennes had glimpses of real human feelings in Schindler's List. Which, to me, made him even scarier. Children of Men just bored me for huge stretches of time. Plus, the story seemed like a cheat. (SPOILERS AHEAD) They set up this world where a baby could change the future depending on whose hands she fell into, so she had to be protected at all costs. So how does it end? They walk right out the front door, past all the people who supposedly would kill to get their hands on her. Huh? Anyway, that's my opinion. Emphasis on "opinion". You may not agree with me, but I don't think we need to bring my mother into this.
-
It probably doesn't bother that many people, because a large amount don't know it's based on a book to begin with. It's also one of the preachiest, shrillest and longwinded dystopian vision books I've read. The film is a definite improvement, and at least the film doesn't try to claim the rise of secularism as the reason for infertility because that idea is just plain stupid.
-
If a critic likes the film it's not hypocrisy, it just means they like the film. Now whether they like the film because of the strong performances and amazing direction or becuase of it's politics, it doesn't matter. They liked the film and not the novel and they are 2 seperate entities, there's no hypocrisy going on at all in that case. In fact it would be more hypocritical to enjoy the film, realise it's not like the book and then slate the film on that basis.
-
...so, could be mine.
-
of my must see list. I always Tony Kaye was a talented motherfucker. Can't wait to see a truly unbiased look at this issue.
-
Mori, usually I like to come in here and call you an assknob or something simply because your wit in your eventual retort to name callers in the TB's always completely cracks me up. But I'm not going to do it this time. Your Lake of Fire review is the best thing you have published so far, in my meaningless opinion. Bravo.
-
j/k. Thanks Mori, I love your insights, even when we disagree. You've inspired me to rush out and catch "A Scanner Darkly", at least. Oh, and for the record, I would have swapped "The Departed" for "The Good Shepherd" on your two lists, but they were both pretty great, so who cares?
-
It's a top ten list, not a top 12 as someone said above. It's like the time Harry had multiple ties all through his top ten list. Make a decision!
-
I haven't seen some of the films on it yet like The Fountain or Volver (still catching up) but your top 3 #1 films are all in my Top 10.I loathe the presence of Dreamgirls on your list though - a sentiment that seems to be shared by many of the posters here as well. The film as a whole just wasn't that good.While I have no problems with some of the performers being recognized for their work (I'm all for Hudson, Murphy or Beyonce - btw I still can't believe I liked Beyonce's performance). I thought the film itself was an exercise in show over substance and an excellent example of everything that could go wrong with a movie musical.I absolutely hated the screenplay. The transitions between songs were so stage-like and hackneyed that they killed any momentum for me. In some instances they were so forced that I found myself wishing against more singing. That's never good for a musical.
Jamie Foxx was really bad - Stealth bad. And singlehandedly ruined some scenes for me. My favorite scenes are all scenes without Foxx's character and as you probably know those were few and far between.
IMO Dreamgirls is the Crash of 2006. Solid to great performances hidden in a terrible screenplay and all the publicity of the studios behind it 100%. It will win a crapload of awards. It will beat out The Departed or United 93 as Best Picture and I will hate it for the rest of my life. I so wanted to like the film - I was one of those that thought Chicago deserved all the acclaim and was a huge fan of Condon's work there - but it was just bad. Hudson's performance deserved a better shelter.
-
entire point of the film. The zealot ideological poeople on both sides are the ones causing misery in the film. Theo OUR MORAL CENTER was not political but pro-humanity.
-
let me say that i thought this movie was a mundane at best. It wanted to be a serious thought piece, but with its silly premise it was hard to attach myself to any of it, which made the ending that much more ridiculous. If people were so attached to the "youngest child" who died in the beginning, I found myself wondering why they would be hiding a potential newborn, when it would be embraced just the same. I know that the main charecter pointed to this notion a couple of times, but it never really felt explained why they had to hide her. much like the rest of this movie. you have to suspend common sense.
-
It is due to the fact that real artists see the Awards Season for what it is: an empty exercise in self-promotion and self-congratulation. The worst films made today are the ones that exist simply to be Oscar bait. It baffles me how people like Harvey Weinstein can get so obsessed with winning awards that are so arbitrarily given for ART.
-
was humanity. And rex, you don't need to suspend common sense, you just need to employ other senses...like listening. The reasons for not telling people about the baby are covered in the meeting at the farmhouse. Kee is a foogie (films spelling not mine) and the government would not allow such a person to be the mother to the child. The child would have been used as a political pawn the second news got out. The fishes were just as selfish and blind as the government and everyone else, apart from Theo and Julian and Pam Ferris' character.
-
Then why did she walk right out into the middle of a war zone and not only did they not take the baby, they stopped shooting so they could marvel at just how darn cute the little tyke was?
-
imagine seeing a child, a crying child, for the first time in two decades. They were all in shock and a glimmer of hope probably flew through their minds.
-
And the army is not the government anyway. They are the grunts on the frontline confronted with a true miracle, not suits in a comfy office being told about a baby.
-
it can be seen as a metaphor for how amidst the cycle of violence and retaliation human live if forgotten about. The fighting only stops for a minute or two no more, then it cranks right back up. It's like Theo says; the world was fucked way before the infertility thing.
-
I agree with pillow talk, but it still feels like a cop out and, frankly, lessens the impact of the rest of the movie. I mean, they spend the whole movie trying to escape. And in the end, they stroll right out the front door.
-
that was interesting. He was amazed on how his brother continues to live. But then his son is a fucking vegetable and he lives above the whole city, above the day to day shit. Except for that pig balloon. (it was a pig, right?)
-
It was a recreation of Pink Floyd's "Animals" album cover.
-
... such is the beauty of BRAZIL.
When I call BRAZIL the most fucked-up happy ending of all time, I mean it. Sam Lowry's body may be in that chair, catatonic and damaged from the torture, but Sam is free. He's gone. He escapes, and no chair and no system will ever hold him again. The first time I saw the film (one of my two favorites of all time, btw), as the camera pulled back to reveal Sam alone in that dome, and the music came up on the soundtrack, and I realized that Gilliam had set Sam free, but only where it counted... in his head... I was gobsmacked. It's still one of my favorite movie moments ever. -
Thanks Cameron for that tidbit.
-
Mori, I agree with you on Brazil, just a shame no-one at Universal did.
No probs pillow. It's doubly funny because the music playing in the Rolls Royce on the drive to the powerstation is by King Crimson who music snobs have for years argued as being vastly superior to Floyd in everyway.
-
I consider Starship Troopers another great Verhoeven film. I'm not sure if Winter Queen is released in 2007 though.
-
The tide of bugs is just fuck'n great when they are about to overrun them...
-
just wanted to get this TB to #100...for Mori...for country!
-
I don't think that the newborn would be embraced the same as the 18-year-old. The 18-year-old represented the end of the good times. That 18-year-old was still one of the people - one of their generation. This newborn represents a desperate grab at trying to reclaim what was lost. Also, note that the 18-year-old died as a result of his celebrity. In that respect, the newborn is similar, and her safety is in jeopardy.
-
I think the hypocrisy I see is how anything with a non-Christian theme is expected to be true to teh source material. Anything that is of a moral, Conservative, or Christian (not always one in the same, but they get treated the same) origin gets the shaft. It is almost like people don't like the Christian message. I'm glad you at least read the book, it was much better than the movie, but again I don't think you like the novel because you could't seperate its morals from its narrative.
-
I don't think the reaction of the people was a cheat. It seemed realistic to me. BUT...why did Cuaron have to make it so damn stylistically overwrought? The outreached hands, the music...it was just way too heavyhanded. After a film rooted in so much gritty, abrupt reality, that ending severely undermined what was almost a perfect film for me up to that point. The ending is pretty damn important, so I gotta disagree with Moriarty when he says that he can overlook the flaws in the conclusion. (There were a couple other moments there that weren't ideal for me either.) That said, I agree with his rationale for the three-way tie, even though I haven't seen Babel or Pan's yet. The kinship of those three guys is very admirable.
-
My read of the end of BRAZIL is the opposite of yours. The joy of the apparent happy ending is pulled back to reveal the tragic reality. It's the narrative equivalent of the highway shot where they pull up and you can see that behind the steady row of colorful billboards the entire landscape is ruined and blasted.
-
How a nation that's so in love with the death penalty can still get so worked up about abortion?
By the way Mori list is pretty spot on.
Pan's & Children of Men are amazing -
on the list. Good picks. Sci-fi is so rarely good movie material, it's amazing we had two great sci-fi films in one year.
-
try and tell me why I didn't like something. I know perfectly well why i didn't like it. The same reason I don't like most of PD James' detective stuff. It's longwinded, repetitive and overwrought. The novel has the added problem of being as preachy as the average Micheal Moore film. But perhaps I should just tell you that the only reason you liked it was because you agreed with it's politics...would that be more suited to you level of discsussion? As for your point about people wanting non christian works adapted faithfully and christian works stripped of subtext, I'd have to say it depends on who you ask. His Dark Materials is having all it's references to the Church removed to appease Christians whereas Narnia was puposefully sold as a Christian metaphor. It's not as one sided as you seem to think.
-
If I haven't agreed with you, I haven't seen what you chose. Although Pan didn't strike such a chord with me, certainly the Mexicans put on a fantastic show this year. As did the Spanish genious with Volver. Mainstream awards aren't going to mean shit this year, and less every year, because WE are so much more informed about reality and what's out there than most people are the Academy or whoever aren't going to mean shit to us, just like the Golden Globes don't. Only film festivals, yours or overseas (where I am) really are only signifigant, and they have been, when they're showing what everyone else doesn't, especially when these films are winning awards and don't even get a USA limited run. God bless Fantastic Fest and BNAT. When I come back to the US, I'm seriouslly consiering migrating to Austin. Not that you live there, I have no idea but you know what I mean. Casino Royale was my fav, because of living in Prague and pure entertainment value. I'd be happy with Children of Men being anyone's favorite. It was my 3rd, Babel was my #2. And, just bought Lost Girls, it's absolutely amazing and you said it first. Happy New Year & Cheers.
-
Today you died to me Moriarty. I'll never read your critics again.
-
... that's a shame. I'll still read your talkbacks. And, really, it's just a matter of degrees when you're talking about a top ten. All of these will end up in my house on DVD and in my player in years to come. Can't we just agree it was a lovely year of movies and make out a little? C'mere! MWAH!
-
There. Just resurrected ya. Plus your top 3 number ones make perfect sense.
-
I'd withhold judgment on Forrest Whitaker until you actually see the movie. In fact, that's just a good idea in general. I'd also ease up on the white supremacist meetings.
-
Jesus it's really that simple. The reason why they started shooting again is becuase the baby which represents hope has leaved their periphery. It's an extremely pessmistic view about humanity and shows what the movie says all along. Theo only cares about humanity not about taking sides or joining a fight which is why he never touches a weapon. The cease fire sequence not only sums up the view of the movie but offers a sad comment about our world today. Seriously people it's just a metaphor.
-
But I definately feel that Children of Men and Pan's Labyrinth are the best movies of the year, nad probably the best movies of the last few years. The rest of your list I don't quite agree with though, especially the Good Shepherd and Dreamgirls.
-
"Is that the Minutemen, man?" "Yeah, man!" "Well turn it up, man!"
-
As we all know some people will will say anything,or write it,just to get a response,and if somebody that might be considered a web celebrity actually responds in any way,it will be the most joyfull moment of their lousy lives.Or if anybody at all responds probably.Cant you guys put up a filter to keep out the ones who doesnt have anything useful to say?
Sure have to wade through a lot of muck here sometimes. -
I'm a sucker for lists, and I really enjoy reading a bunch of different opinions. It's a shame that people feel the need to attack you for it, but if it's debating the merits of the film and not your taste, then that's all to the good. It's just a shame that because I line in New Zealand, I'll probably have to wait months to see some of these films - at least half of these weren't released here in 2006, and some of them won't be for another couple of months at least.
-
Havent seen all the movies on the list,after reading this i am more interested in several of them.
But the films of the Tres Amigos has got to be at the top,and if they dont recieve major Oscars that just goes to prove that the most famous movie event/selection is just as dumb and dishonest as the ignorant masses of movie-consumers.
Thank you for your excellent commentaries,Moriarty,really.
The Children of Men is a movie that continues to amaze me each time i see it.That long scene in the car,the way the camera swirls around showing everything,yet nobody's holding the camera,the way that ball pops perfectly from one mouth to another,the knocking down of the motorcycle,its just amazing.And the scene set to The Court of the Krimson King.And the soldiers and the baby...¡Cuaron,eres un chingado!te pasaste,man. -
Yeah, I can understand why people would love Babel but unfortunately I didn't. It's probably one I need to see again, unlike Children Of Men which I KNOW is fucking incredible and worthy of every accolade thrown at it. Can I just say that after the first list I was crazily convinced that Balboa would be in Mori's top selection, I don't know what I was thinking! Personally I WOULD place Casino Royale in any top ten list for '06.
-
I seem to recall you seeing it at the AFI Fest in November. Personally, I think it was the most affecting, poignant film of the year. But I'm a sucker for well done documentaries.
-
Poor Marissa Tomei and Mira Sorvino always get singled out as wins that make a joke of the Oscars, but really, Helen Hunt is way, way worse. Do you know ANYONE who's ever enjoyed Helen Hunt? Ever? Okay, maybe Kenneth Turan. But he's hateful, unpleasant, irritating, void of charisma, and has all the looks of a Van Nuys bus driver. Gotta love that movie she did where she was out stealing men away from SCARLETT JOHANSSON. Likely story, Helen. And nice forehead. Why her SAG membership didn't lapse after ROLLERCOASTER is one of Hollywood's enduring mysteries. Anyway, MIAMI VICE is sorely missing from not just this list, but too many of them. That movie is exactly what life is all about. Christ, Farrell's moustache should win an Oscar. Not to mention John Murphy's score.
-
...for Moriarty. I didn't see "Pro-Life," but from reading the script, it's kind of hard to reconcile the broad strokes contained therein with the critic so moved by "Lake of Fire." I guess I'm wondering about the leap from the introspection expressed above to the idea of writing a Masters of Horror episode about Assault on Clinic 13. Obviously you were writing with the project and audience in mind, but it just seems an odd choice. Again, not trolling; just curious.
-
TOSHI GOTTA EAT!
-
Angelina Jolie, a definite star and pretty solid actress (draggish recent turns maybe excepted), who rather justifiably won for GIRL, INTERRUPTED, a movie that otherwise was kind of average; It's possible to give a galvanizing, force-of-nature performance in an otherwise straightforward or lightweight movie, and I'd definitely put Denzel's TRAINING DAY perfomance in that category-- it's a potboiler totally transported by a riveting lead performance. Maybe you don't see it as such, and that's fine. But plenty of good/great actors have won for middling or otherwise unexceptional movies-- Jack Lemmon for Save the Tiger, Art Carney for Harry and Tonto, etc. Hell, ROBERTO BENIGNI won BEST ACTOR at one point. No real point here, other than Hunt's win, yes, was in a well-received movie that won other Oscars, and I guess yes she got caught up in the sweep, but nothing she did before, DURING, or since AS GOOD AS IT GETS warrants an Oscar-winner. Then again, it's well known that the Actress and especially Supporting Actress categories are usually pretty what-the-fuck, anything goes. See Jennifer Hudson, who will no doubt follow her OSCAR WIN by never being in another good movie, ever, and certainly never delivering a legit big-screen performance again. I'd imagine she'll go straight to Broadway from here out. Making "BEST ACTRESS" kind of a misnomer when they do these gimmick-noms (see, any kid, unknown foreigner, or amateur actress who's disappeared into obscurity immediately following the Oscars.)
-
I'm the racist. I'm the one who referred to African Americans as "the black people". I'm the one who shat on the Oscar chances of a black man in a film I haven't even seen. And I'm the one who thinks that only black people have won undeserved Oscars. I'm the racist. Good call.
-
... so what about those of us who liked MIAMI VICE quite a bit, but didn't put it in the top ten? Are we stupid, too?
This is exactly what I was talking about in the beginning of this article. We all respond to movies for personal reasons, and these rankings are arbitrary and personal. Yet someone will always show up to insult anyone who liked something they didn't and drag the conversation down to the level of insulting anyone who feels differently.
Don't pat yourself on the back too hard for being "adult," especially with your screen name and your attitude in this talkback so far. -
Mori is right about these things being not just arbitrary but wholly dependent on the life experiences one brings to the table. I also don't understand this pressing need to ALWAYS agree with critics-- You see this CONSTANTLY in the message board know-it-all world: "Roeper is dead to me because he didn't love LOTR!" "You lost me when you had UNITED 93 as #3 instead of #1!" Jesus, does anyone REALLY expect to be 100% simpatico with any critic? And isn't that the fun of it, finding DIFFERING perspectives. Even the best U.S. critics of today-- your A.O. Scott, Michael Phillips, Manohla Dargis, Ebert, Ed Gonzalez, Anthony Lane-- don't agree ALL the time. Some of the best critics are the contrarian ones, the ones that push you harder to think things through beyond #1! and THUMBS UP! and FOUR STARS! It's of course fun to nitpick each other's lists and stuff, but yeah, some guys on here make it like a PERSONAL AFFRONT if Harry or Drew or Capone or anyone's list doesn't line up with theirs right down the line.
-
... it's not a troll question at all. In fact, I'm surprised it took 100+ talkbacks for someone to ask. I sort of expected it sooner.
PRO-LIFE was never meant to be a political tract about abortion. I know that Joe Dante's HOMECOMING in Season One was very overtly political, and that was the way Joe and Sam Hamm wanted to handle their material. I wanted people to think they'd get a political piece, and then give them a monster movie instead.
I think PRO-LIFE is about 70% of what we wanted it to be, and if it really falls apart anywhere, it's in our execution of some of our ideas. Ultimately, I wanted everyone in the film to be a blowhard and full of shit. I wasn't looking to make either side of the debate "right" in the film.
I actually didn't see LAKE OF FIRE until we had finished filming PRO-LIFE, and I'm glad. There are things in this movie that would have made it much harder for me to leave my own feelings out of the movie, and they really didn't have a place in what we were doing.
I think there's a time and place for serious discussion of these issues. A movie about a girl who was raped by a monster probably is not that time or place. -
between debate, satire, and exploitation. all have their place, but too often (especially in the talkbacks) everything is rolled into one. and on an issue as divisive and personal as this, it's important to differentiate.oh hey, on a lighter note, BannedOnTheRun, if you're still interested in "Henri", it's here, along with some other stuff: http://tinyurl.com/y9t7wa
-
it will be from his laptop on the shitter where he is taking a double dump...cause Mori just tore him a new one!
-
I totally agree with you, Mori. I found the critical reception of that film to be appalling. They ought to be forced to watch the Wayans brothers for the next year. Everyone's entitled to their opinion but that film didn't deserve the ridicule it received from people who should have been far more intelligent and accepting towards it.
-
From all accounts, he's just batshit crazy. I have a friend who did a commercial shoot with him in Hawaii. Midway through, he just disappears and his producer has to beg him to come back. He finally relents and comes back three days later with a shaved head and a vow not to speak for the rest of the shoot. Not exactly the kind of thing that engenders confidence in a nervous client. But the film comes back and it looks incredible and everyone is happy. Apparently, he just won't listen to anyone but his own misguided muse. Which might explain the three-hour documentary that no one will touch with a ten-foot pole.
-
I think it's the shorter American cut that changes the background to the sky around Sam. I really liked that and I was surprised when Gilliam's director's cut didn't do the clouds but stayed in ultra-wide shot with Sam confined. I think the point you alluded to about his mind being free was made better in the American cut (though I do like all the other additions in longer version) and by taking that away, it seemed as if Gilliam was making the point that Sam really had lost the battle afterall. I don't know, I guess it's up for interpretation...
-
a summary of this talkback in 25 words or less. too many posts to read. I came in too late to really make a positive impact here. but if SOMEONE could help me out, that'd be great and you'd make a wonderful contribution to humanity.email is: infitior@gmail.com
-
I'm too old to be "hip" on what's hot, what's going down on the street if you will...just curious.
-
what they're writing. They're just trolling for a fight.
-
Like your mumma!
-
Well, well, well. Do we have our first new breakout Troll of 2007? If so, I'll gladly sharpen my bayonet.
-
Great list, Mori. Thanks. I'd really like to see "Lake Of Fire". Probably have to put it in the old Netflix queue and wait for a few years.
-
you're using that word, but does it really mean what garbageman says? come on, help an old guy out here!btw manatee, netflix got cancelled in my house a year and a half ago. they're currently embroiled in a ton of bad press and negative customer reaction considering they insist on only giving the hot, new movies to the latest members to sign up, while restricting or limiting older or more frequent renters to the most sought-after movies.
-
I sure do appreciate the definition. and here all this time I thought I was a troll for scouring the net for scarlet johanson wet tshirt pics! boy, do I feel better knowing there's no specific terminology out there to define what I've been up to. cue hugh *sigh*
-
First: are you new to AICN? For some reason, your posts "sound" familiar. Did you used to have a different TB handle in the past?Regarding Trolls: Garbageman33's description is pretty accurate. However, I would be willing to say that most Trolls actually DO believe what they say. In fact, some of them are just flat-out insane. Someone who "trolls" a messageboard is just looking to start fires/fights. For example: I could just start calling you a f*ckhead or a racist for no real reason other than to get a reaction out of you. Another classic Troll-sign is someone who constantly claims "ownage/pwnage" when they have actually done no such thing.AICN has had some LEGENDARY Trolls in the past. However, there have only been a few second-rate poseurs in the past several months.
-
...we have something in common, Deus V
-
Gaius--I've been reading AICN for perhaps 5-6 years but never posted till last week. I can recall some "inflamatory" people on here in the past but none come to mind as legendary necessarily. I literally didn't know what "troll" meant despite the obvious meanings. lastly, I'm sorry for what they did to you at the end of season one of rome on hbo.chrome my friend, there's more we have in common than that. for instance, if you like SJ you also like Anne Hathaway, Jessica Biel, Katetherine Heigl, etc etc. These women in hollywood LOOK like women (ie: they have hips, boobs, womanly features if you will)! PRAISE GOD FOR THAT! I know the boys on this site love the likes of Keira Knightly and such, and while that's common if you're 17, once a boy turns into a man you realize having a partner in bed who's got something to hold onto is alot more fun than trying to nail a 2x4 for 20 minutes. or 20 seconds, depending on your stress level at work.
-
This is one of the best years in movies in a while (I would daresay the best so far in the new millenium) and The Fountain might not be "the" best of the year, I also make a list of the best of the year in my head in no particular order, because imho you can't directly compare two different films. Not even an original and it's remake. Buuuut there's NO WAY the forgetable Babel is better than The Fountain or Children of Men. It's one of the most overrated movies of the year, making cartoonish characters appear in the same old same old model of Iñarritu that, at this point, after 3 fucking identical movies, has tired me. With Aronofsky I always get a totally new cinematic experience, with Iñarritu, I get the same movie with different characters. And that's why The Beatles are better than The Rolling Stones.
-
And I might still read one or two of your reviews, after all you praised Like of Fire and Casino Royale.
-
Columbine out. Quick tip for you, Columbine. If you don't want to be construed as racist or homophobic, you might not want to use phrases like "the black people" or "the homosexuals". It makes it sound like they're somehow different from us and belong on a reservation or something. And if you don't see the difference between black people and THE black people, well, there's nothing more I can do for you. Garbageman33 out.
-
The self hating Jew, not the school thing... He's no Don Murphy, but what else do we have...? On a serious topic, Hollywood IS run by the Jews and Homosexuals who like to throw black people a bone on occasion. I also like the image of Columbine typing "Columbine out" and dramatically flicking himself away from the keyboard as he posts.
-
And so did the Academy voters who'll probably end up giving him the Oscar. Which, in turn, will get a lot more people to see his incredible performance. It's strange that you're worried his nomination, versus the other four people, is the one that's gonna keep Hugh Jackman from getting the nod. Speaking of which, I'm guessing just as many people saw Last King of Scotland as The Fountain.
-
You have issued a clear invitation to the dance.
-
Sorry, I wasn't telling you what you thought. I've read long winded and preachy books (Christian and non-Christian) and COM was not one of them. At least you are reading and then giving your thoughts as opposed to being ignorant of the source material and praising COM. I have trouble getting behind any work which goes against the author's original intent. Narnia was way way way watered down from the books so it would not offend the unchurched. It was still a good film, because if you knew the books you could fill in what they left out. I really wish they would film the "His Dark Majesty" books exactly as they are written. The message is so bleak and cynical it would polarize audiences and allow people to see how depraved Philip Pullman’s view of religion and life is. I really don’t like the idea of watering down his anti-church rants because good people are going to see the film and not realize they are supporting a anti-Christian zealot.
-
As a student of politics, foreign policy, history and hollywood, I can say he's right when he points out that Jews in hollywood are self haters, which must mean they're jew self haters if that makes sense.further to that, evidence is found in the fact that people like Barbra Steisand, a 100% bonafide hollywood Jew hates and I mean absolutely HATES someone like George Bush, despite the fact that he's sacrificed his presidency to keep Israel safe from nuts like Hussein and Ahmadinejad who are SUPER JEW HATERS. And I bet if you asked her what she thought of those two crackpots she'd say something like "a dictator who provides free health care should have been left in power, even if he did have chemical or biological weapons to use on Israel" or "that guy who runs iran cracks me up! I love the way he's always making fun of george bush, who's a big idiot by the way."that's one thing about hollywood jews that's always confused me, is why they're so liberal, and worship guys like clinton (ie: speilberg would french clinton if given the chance, either or both of them) who would have sold israel to the syrians or iranians if made a reasonable offer.anyway, that's it for me. I have to pee, and my wife's current issue of us weekly with scarlet johanson's big fat face will be staring up at me from the counter wherest I left her earlier today...watching...
-
I'm sure I typed His Dark Materials,
-
I can't believe there is actually a serious debate about race in the Academy awards (against the probably only black man against the four white men - why isn't the argument against white domination of proceedings?). I guess this is the world where CRASH wins a best picture award.
-
If Columbine were to get banned, what are the odds he returns under the name "Beslan"?Something tells me he's that type.
-
I am a Green and I support Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky and am very left, but I think you are being overly PC. When you are talking about how one group of people will interact with another group or be affected by something. Are you offended by "you people" Sorry, I just have always felt very sorry for Ross Perot for trying to address the problems felt by black people in this country and being branded a racist for using "you people" to talk about people of color. He could have abstractly discussed people of color, but he was clear in the fact that he did not face the problems that black people face in this country and he was boned for it.
-
I like to think he'd have the good taste to evolve into something like "Tower2" or "HitlerA.OK" or even "Clitney Spears".
-
while Columbine is formulating his response to your post, if you're interested in islam, I recommend reading a few books by Bernard Lewis, specifically "what went wrong" and "the crisis of islam." Lewis is a Hebrew and is VERY well respected in his field.if you want a less romantic view of the current state of islam, check out a few books by Robert Spencer. start with "the politically incorrect guide to islam and the crusades" and then read "the truth about muhammad." both are more critical but cite historical and religious sources. all four are good reads and well-worth the money and time. they read quickly and are great for a general understanding of the historical and current conditions in the islamic world.not sure if columbine has read these or knows about them, but I figured it was important to you so here are you good Sir.
-
I mean, even if he tries to make sense, if you claim Miami Vice is a work of genius, and think Pan's Labyrinth and Babel are pieces of trash, you're either lying, or you're a completely useless moron. you might not think they deserve high accolades, but if you insult people that love them, you're foolish.bottom line, his name, using "THE blacks" etc., and movie preferences so ridiculous they can barely be believed, they all point to one thing: TROLL.and like other trolls in AICN history, I feel bad for the guy. imagine how starved for attention you'd have to be to need negative TB attention? he's like the kid that throws the basketball over the fence because he can't play. it's pathetic. so remember that before you rip him again guys. poor guy.
-
So, are you guys saying that she only won that Oscar because a bunch of white judges finally got to see her getting nailed, "Make me feel good!"???What? Too much? I didn't get struck by lightning did I?
-
I love the whole part of the story that involves the suicide kits, because it is so relevant to the story of Clive Owen's character. His life has more or less gone to shit and he represents the average man in britain at the time. After finding purpose in his life again, he gets the choice, like so many others, to go out his way and die serving a purpose.
I'm seeing Pan's tomorrow, but so far the Mexican Trilogy has been great, Babel and Children of Men are near-certainties to make my top 10 list ("Children" is top 5). I'm wondering why nobody cares for Bobby the way I do, it may even be my favorite of the year. -
I loved it.
-
about The Fountain. "Even if you think the film’s ambition outweighs what it actually delivers, I think its mere existence is cause for celebration."
I do happen to feel that way about it's overall ambition vs. output. It's film I really really really have to see for a second time, but still, I respected the hell out of it. -
Elitests...
-
That's one of my favorite films, period. I love that it works both as a cheesy gore flick with giangt bugs (the effects still hold up incredibly well) and as a horrifyingly prescient thesis on US foreign policy, militarism and fascism. I love that the whole movie is, basically, a propganda film as it would be broadcast a couple hundred years in the future by a fascist government to lure more civilians into the military. There are so many layers to this movie it's stunning that there are still people dismissing it as trash.
-
I don't think I ever called it "trash" per se. But I think it's not half as clever as it thinks it is, and as adaptations go, it's fairly rotten. Go ahead... call me a Heinlein fanboy if you must... but if Verhoeven wanted to make a pornographic propaganda fascism satire, I wish he'd come up with one of his own and called it something else.
TOTAL RECALL and BASIC INSTINCT, though... total trash. -
I've been reading Y for ages now and only just saw the trailer for CoM and it hit me immediately. Is CoM adapted from a book?
-
Amazon it, yo. In other news, "maturity" is overrated. I can't believe there are actually people -- on THIS website, no less -- who insult other people because their taste in films isn't "adult" enough. Whatever the fuck that means.
-
Brian K Vaughan has either read CoM or had a similar idea. just goes to show that somebody has always done it before.
-
Both hilarious and moving, most original death I saw last year. The movie has definately been overrated imho, but the shot in the car is movie shot of the 00's so far.
-
Like mr.piper.gates said, reading your response was the one "joyfull moment of my lousy life." I'm interested in what fatherhood does to one's perspectives; for a couple years after my daughter was born I'd have my buddy "screen" some of my rentals... Should I see Trainspotting? Um, not yet. How about The Sweet Hereafter? Yeah, definitely wait on that one. When you're a parent, there's horror, and then there's Horror.
-
I've said it before regarding Halle Berry, but c'mon: no one has had more surgery to look like a white woman, with the exception of Michael Jackson. Something about that Oscar speech coming out of that altered body really grated on me.
-
What happened to Part 1?
-
Americans seem to love it, I thought it was by the numbers.those 2 action shots were worth it tho.
what happened to peace?...PEACE! -
Are you suggesting that Halle Berry and Prince are in fact two different people?
-
the further adventures of raviolli princess.7 seas: samething that's happened to peace in our current world - it's always cast aside.
pillow out. -
It had better not suck. I don't suspect it will and I love Clive Owen (and Ms. Moore is teh hot); however, it's interesting (after reading the thoughts on Brazil above) how much geeks prefer dystopian films (and literature). The more the future sucks, the more we like it; and the moment we smell happy ending, we think "sell out" and wonder where to get the director's cut with the downer ending. Must be something about the air in parents' basements.
-
from making model airplanes and whatnot. You'll enjoy Children of Men, no worries.
-
Depends on how you look at it. In my opinion, it does. But it's not tacked-on. It feels earned. Sure, the ship's called TOMORROW, about as obvious a point of symbolism as Scorsese's rat crawling on the windowsill, but it works. See it.
-
for Best Picture and Best Director, I'm starting to get worried it might be over looked..
-
On a variety of topics
Yes, Children of Men is based on a very good book by Doris Lessing.
I have always sided with the "Brazil" has a happy ending crowd. The ONLY joy in Sam Lowry's life is his fantasy world. He escaped in the only way possible. And I how many parallels would you care to draw between Brazil and the present, with a government's wet dream of being able to blame everything, and scare the populace, with talk of terrorsits everywhere.
The Oscars have always been political. Columbine is only getting attacked (on this one issue) because he's focusing on black actors. Every Oscar season we hear the same things, he won't win because he won last year, she won't win because a Brit won last year, he doesn't deserve to win but the Academy will throw him a bone this year.
And to paraphrase "Larry Sanders"...."Do you know who runs Hollywood?" "The Jews?" "The GAY Jews!"
And yes, I'm Jewish. -
Not Doris Lessing. I think you may have it mixed up with Children Of Violence which Lessing wrote.
-
Curious to see how that measures of to Children of Men...
-
Thank you. I was lazy and didn't check out the details. They're both great writers though.
-
I don't know how you "ffoend" somebody but since your opinion means nothing, it doesn't matter.
-
Question for you Mori. The other day i watched pixar's 'incredibles' again, and it struck me that one of the reasons why i enjoy it so much is that it is just fun. I notice on your list that everything seems to either have some issue to address or something to impart etc. The only one that seems to have that 'pure' fun aspect to it is possibly Dreamgirls. Now is that because you did not watch any movie this year that was just real enjoyable even if it had flaws? Or do you think that for a movie to crack a best list it has to be some kind of really profound experience? I'm of the opinion that we have to (or should) deal with so much profound stuff in day to day living anyway that we some times lose sight of the fact that movies should sometimes be pure enjoyment and escapism and as a result don't give good but flawed films of that nature the profile they deserve. BTW that is one of the reasons why i did like Starship Troopers. Flawed satire it may be, but it works so well as a fun soldier-vs-bugs movie.
-
BTW my previous post is not meant to sound belligerent (just realized it sounds that way!!) I actually am interested in points of view on this.
-
Didn't take it as belligerant at all, man.
THE INCREDIBLES was actually my choice for my favorite film the year it came out. I love a great fun film. I go to the movies for all sorts of moods. It's just that this happened to be a heavier year of movies, in terms of what worked for me. -
... I'm not really sure what "in the clouds" means, but I never said anything anywhere about "no opinions."
That's all any of this conversation is... opinions. What I said is that there is no way I'm going to tell you that my favorite films of the year are any sort of objective third-party "best" list. The fact that we all have different experiences we bring to a movie as we watch it, the fact that we all have different things we want from films... these all play into how we react to what we watch. And for that reason, my tastes and your tastes may not be the same. -
... I've been civil this entire time, and look what it gets me. People condescending to me about how they know what's "good" and how I "cheated" on my list.
Can you show me where the formal rules for writing a list of the movies I liked this year are posted? I cheated? Really? That's fucking ridiculous. I wrote what I felt. That's not cheating... that's my honest opinion.
But by all means... nitpick me about a million pointless things like whether or not INLAND EMPIRE is number four or number two, things that make absolutely no fucking difference to the discussion of a film's artistic merits. It's far more important that I adhere to some lunatic notion that the numbering on this list is somehow sacrosanct than it is that I actually back up my opinion instead of just pissing on someone else's.
Thanks. You make it so much fun. -
... deciding exactly when a fetus is a human being and when it is just a lump of cells. As far as I've researched, NOBODY KNOWS and nobody can come up with a logical method of determining what is and is not murder - the only valid difference of opinion comes down to how careful one must be when dealing with an unknown like that, and while everyone has a right to "go with their gut opinion," they're morons if they think they're right and everybody else who has a different idea of when someone is a "person" is wrong. If that's you, stop arguing about being "pro-life" or "pro-choice" and start becoming a smarter person. How someone can consider themselves intelligent and still believe with utmost certainty that their position on when "life" begins is correct is incompatible with reality - they're arrogant and foolish.
-
... no, no, really, I love it. Please continue to explain to me why I'm wrong and how I cheated.
Honestly, it's people like you who suck the fun out of doing anything. I would rather you just stop reading anything I write than come back here and continually bitch about ridiculous shit like this. Oh, no! I put 12 films on my list! The world is ending! The laws of nature have been violated!
Who cares? Just for you, next year my top ten will consist of 37 movies, two TV shows, and a handful of songs. That'll show you. -
... don't touch my sensitive area. My wife won't like it if you do.
-
I think I was the first person to bring up the twelve films thing (and also use the cheat word). I was doing it in significant part to take the piss and stir the pot. I really did not expect (and maybe this is more due to others, but I'll take responsibility) for you to get quite so upset. I can't say it was completely tongue-in-cheek. I do have to admit it does bother me a little, when, for example, there's a tie for first and the next movie down is listed as second - clearly, it's third. Nitpicky? maybe, but c'mon - it's basic logic. However, I understand that it is not really important to the ideas you were attempting to convey. I also believe the part about cheating also has some truth to it. If you have 22 films you want to call out, just say here are my top 22. I could almost never pick my top 10 films or top 10 bands or top 10 songs, or top 10 tv shows. More than likely it might be my top 7 or 22 or 39 or 105. It would depend on where I was at at that point in time. Anyways, no offense intended.
-
is from "Duel In The Sun" and you know it. I will take your silence, or response, to be an acknowledgment of falsity and with a firm handshake I bid you good evening.
-
is perfectly fine. Since choosing a top ten can only be achieved by attempting to retrieve emotional memories of past experiences and therefore can only be said to be as accurate as any memory can be; it is therefore perfectly suitable that Mori pick three films and declare that to the best of his knowledge he enjoyed these three films with equal reward. So cram it, Stink-palm.
-
...that people could get so worked up because Mori put more than 10 films on HIS top 10. It's opinion. HIS opinion. Hey, if Mori REALLY wanted to put Step Up as HIS #1, so be it. If all 10 spots had 10 ties to it, so be it. It is HIS opinion. Until y'all have yer own black TB box, and can put up your own top however many you want, maybe you should keep it under your hat. Mori, I'm sure your math is better than mine. 2+2 still equals 5, right? Right?
-
...are people really upset that he talked about 12 films in this article rather than ten? Get over it. I enjoyed reading about every film in this list (even Tony Kaye's one, which made me feel pretty squeamish) and would far prefer to have 'more' rather than cutting it for the sake of a really pedantic argument.
-
Jeebus Christmas, when Mr. McWeeny wrote about the ending of "Brazil," he almost quoted Terry Gilliam's audio commentary word for word. He's absolutely right about two of his three numero unos, but watch out for regurgitating stuff you hear and read. Blech.
-
when he first saw the movie. It's my favorite film of the last 25 years, and "Brazil" is more relevant now than it was when it came out. Thank goodness we live in a time when "director's cuts" are released. Both "Blade Runner" and "Brazil" were far inferior films in the studio hack versions.
One last thing: I loved the part about being an adopted child, and finally making your own blood family. That was powerful stuff. Good luck with the family, Mr. McWeeny. -
I do have to say that when you are doing a list like this, you have to sacrifice some of your favorites to winnow down the list to a top ten. And then you should then have to say this is the best of the year. Pick one. They don't pick three homecoming queens. They don't allow a three-way tie for Miss America. When they hand out Oscars, they only give one Best Picture Award.
My number one is "Pan's Labrynth" with "Children of Men" second. They aren't tied. "Pan's" is del Toro's first full-fledged masterpiece. I hope he gets his weight down or he'll have a shortened career due to health problems.
And no, del Toro doesn't gotta eat. Not everything. -
Honestly, I've never heard the audio commentary. With certain filmmakers, I don't want them to contradict (or confirm) my reading of their film because I don't want to ruin my personal take on it. BRAZIL is my second favorite film ever, and that was my honest reaction in 1985 when I first saw it. If that's what Gilliam says, then I'm glad, but I promise... it's my original take on it.
-
As I explained, I think there's one story that will endure from this year, and it's the story of how the Three Amigos all hit the ground running this year. To me, this moment is what my number one slot celebrates more than any of the individual films. It's not a cheat at all because I see this as one significant event.
-
I think any director of real passion would have a problem with the "could you switch films and still be as good?" thing. Del Toro's films work as well as they do because you're pretty much getting an unfiltered look inside that guy's head with each picture.
What I find fascinating about Cuaron is how he seems to be an artistic chameleon. I don't really see any visual similarity between Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN and HARRY POTTER and CHILDREN OF MEN, and that's rare. Most of time, guys without an identifiable style from film to film are what we call journeymen, or less politely, hacks. Cuaron is anything but. Instead, he seems to be one of those rare talents whose style shifts depending on the material. That's a gift, and it marks him as one of the guys we will no doubt be paying attention to for some time. -
... many people have plenty of fun at this site. But as I said, the place for hardcore pornography is not under an article about SPIDER-MAN. Do you have no sense of appropriateness? Children love SPIDER-MAN. We get readers as young as ten or eleven years old here who send us mail. The idea of one of them stumbling across you guys ranting for 400 talkbacks about fucking dinosaurs saddens me. Pardon me if I would rather you take that to an appropriate forum on our message boards.
And I've heard the same sad song about how we're corrupt and sold out for... well... pretty much the whole ten years the site has existed. And it's still not true. So cry me a river if you don't like my stance on things, but all I ask is that you (A) not be insulting and (B) consider the proper place for certain types of postings. If that ruins your fun, then I guess I'll have to cope with that.
And I wasn't looking forward to more of your postings either, so we're even. -
... not upset at all by you. I think I've explained why I consider my number one spot one event and therefore not cheating, but this is all just supposed to be for fun anyway, so I hope we can just agree to not get hung up on the semantics of the list.
Sir Guy pissed me off because he wouldn't just accept that we approach things differently. He had to be an asshole about it. Go back and read the start of the article. I have no problem with someone having a different opinion than me, but I have a problem with people who won't let me have my own opinion. -
Yeah, all Mexican films look the same to you, don't they, gringo? (I keed.)
-
We don't need another porkchop.
-
... it's time to stop trying to speak reasonably (or unreasonably) to Sir Guy. He's determined to cast me as the villain killjoy here.
If I thought he'd actually comprehend what I was saying, I'd remind him that Harry is our host. That goes for all of us, me included. He expresses himself however he chooses here. But I stand by what I said before... we have forums if Wanna Banana wants to post a filthy story for you to jack off to. Post in the appropriate place, and have all the fun you want. But this new trend of intentionally hijacking a talkback with pointless catchphrases just to see if you can clog up our server isn't funny, and if I try to gently remind you of that, I get this kind of tantrum from Sir Guy.
I love talkback. I love having a dialogue with you guys, and I love that you guys engage each other in conversation. But if suggesting that we try to actually use the appropriate parts of the site for those conversations means that I'm "humorless," then so be it. -
Children of Men the movie is totally different from the book. Please check out P.D James’s excellent novel. Honestly ask yourself if you are okay with Hollywood gutting the central themes of a story when it is made into a movie. I’m not talking about adapting it for another medium, but willingly ignoring the author’s requests so the director can squeeze his own political views into another’s work. If you are okay with it on COM I hope you have the integrity to apply the same standards to other works such as the upcoming Golden Compass, but I’m predicting now that we will see a lot of cries of censorship on these boards and I’m betting they will point their fingers at Conservatives or Christians.
-
and I regret my false accusation. Please accept my sincere apologies. I also agree with your attitude that there should be more civility around this place. I have been visiting this site for quite a while yet only recently have I posted on a Talkback, as the level of discourse tends toward the imbecilic. But boys will be boys. Don't take the bait from the jackals.
I am watching "A Little Princess" and it has a quality I have noticed in other collaborations between Alfonso Cuarón and Emmanual Lubezki. The camera has a lurking quality that embues it with a character of its own, as if "it" is another character in the film, similar to a third-person narrator in fiction, but different than a typical audience perspective. As with "Children of Men," we are witness to events, directed as to what we are allowed access to, but quite often allowed to have our own experience while events unfold. I don't feel the heavy-handedness of Spielberg with regard to emotional manipulation, but they are both terrific technical directors. I think Cuarón has a brilliant career ahead of him and "Children of Men" in his calling card. Guillermo del Toro has a remarkable imagination and is an intuitive and born storyteller, and I see his technical skill starting to catch up with his creativity. It's important to remember that films are not made by one person, and often the collaboration between craftspeople is what filmgoers think of when they speak of a director's style. One only has to consider the shift Spielberg took once he started collaborating with Janusz Kaminski, Scorsese's work with Chapman and Balhaus, Allen and Willis, and recently Cuarón and Lubezki, and del Toro and Guillermo Navarro.Mr. McWeeny, I also concede to oyur justification for the three number one films. You make a good point, and I agree with you about the impact those three filmmakers are going to have on the world of cinema. It's an exciting time to be a movie fan."Brazil" kicks major ass. Sorry for writing so much. I'll try to rein it in a little next time. -
because those three filmmakers represent an exciting movement afoot in the world of cinema. Their films are real cinema. More than any recent rash of films, I am seeing a resurgence of the language of film. It makes sense it would come from our friends to the south, as I think the next fifty years are going to see a boom in Central and South America, in cultural and economic growth, and the next New Wave will come from the South.
-
"A.I." looks like "Minority Report"? For a start, the former is in widescreen and the latter is 2.35:1. Secondly, the colour palette in MR is biased much more towards blue, plus there's a lot more grain on the image. In A.I. the colours remain fairly balanced, the image quite soft, the camera-work much more steady and controlled while MR has more hand-held stuff. Surely most could look at any frame from either movie and spot the difference. Yeah, there are some trademarks common in the photography. Spielberg seems to like a lot of smoke and moody lighting, but this dates back before he collaborated with Kaminski. Ultimately, his DP is there to give him what he wants. The DP need not change, but Spielberg may just need to utilise him differently.
-
Sorry dude, thought I'd jump on the bandwagon and pick on you for useless shit.
-
If you say his name three times, he grants you a wish.
-
I sent an e-mail to someone else regarding the open position to review books for AICN.
I haven't heard back from you yet; I'm not certain if you received it, and I'm still interested. Don't know if you'll see this, but I can try.
Thanks. -
"For a start, the former is in widescreen and the latter is 2.35:1."What? 'Widescreen' means any number of things, from (A.I.'s) 1.85:1, to 2.35:1, to (Minority Report's) 2.39:1. Why don't you learn a thing or two before trying to sound like an expert?
-
No need for hostility. 1.85:1 is commonly referred to as widescreen. My point still stands - MR has a wider frame than A.I., and that's something that immediately makes the films visually distinct. Dunno why you're insulting me. However I, and I'm sure others, appreciate the clarification. Nice work.
-
(Good call though pointing out that MR is in 2.39:1 and not 2.35:1. Didn't think I'd get caught on that. Still my point wasn't to assert that I'm an expert, just that the two films are visually separate from each other. Clearly you seem to know more about the subject than I. What do you think? Do you think MR looks identitcal to AI?)
-
and agree once and for all that AI was an absolute and utter piece of crap? I'm still pissed at what a cheat that was.
-
Sort of following on from what Yack said about Cuaron making a Mad Max film. That got me thinking about "Apocalypto" and its DP, Dean Semler, who also worked on the Mad Max sequels. I think Semler did a great job shooting "Apocalypto" the way he did, in those difficult environments. Must've been a real challenge.
-
Yeah, your point: I think you'r absolutely right in stating that MR and AI look nothing alike, although they are both great films. As you earlier stated, MR has a wider perspective, but more importantly, it was run through a filter during the DI that gave the film its signature bluish, blown-out style. A.I. is filmed more realistically, and the smaller frame is remeniscant more of storybooks than MR's Lawrence of Arabia-inspired epically.Speilberg is known for picking DPs to his vision of a script, not simply attack every film in the same way. One needs only watch (as I did this previous year) Bill Butler's Jaws and Vilmos Zsigmond's Close Encounters back-to-back to see this in action. I believe he is currently trusting too much in Janusz Kaminski's versitility, which has gotten him into trouble with the boringly-shot Lost World and Terminal (the latter a debatable point), and hope that Indy 4 manages to look more like Raiders than War of the Worlds.
-
When some douchebag gets banned...actually, I enjoy the idea that "next year my top ten will consist of 37 movies, two TV shows, and a handful of songs." We never get to hear Mori discuss television in depth, particularly when he catches a bygone series in its entirety on DVD. It would be interesting to get his retrospective take on full series...I know the dude is busy as all get out, but I think it would be cool.
-
I agree with you about "The Lost World". Aside from looking maybe a little more drab than the first Jurassic movie it really wasn't distinctive.
I have to say I'm impressed with the photography in "Babel", "Children of Men" and "Pan's Labyrinth". There are similarities between the first two in terms of a pseudo-documentary style and naturalistic look, but it's so great how the look of those pictures goes hand-in-hand with the stories being told.
Mori superbly makes the point above about film-makers and cinematographers can do that, who can put their first inclinations aside and serve the material. -
Mori superbly makes the point above about film-makers and cinematographers [who] can do that
-
I need to see Babel. I think your post finally solidifies that. I love Children of Men, and I just saw Laberinto del Fauno, and I liked it as well. If you say the cinematography on Babel is as interesting as those two, then it is a must-see.
-
....and I fucking hated it. "Ohhh! Ofelia drifts off into the cutesy wutesy fake little dreamworld after getting killed by the evil Spaniard!" What a load of shit. The fact that it was subtitled made it even worse. The ending reminded me of the series finale of "Newhart" for chrissakes. Don't filmmakers understand that the "it was all a dream"/"the whole thing took place in a snowglobe" endings have all been done to death?
-
Actually, evidence would suggest that Del Toro believes that the 'fantasy' world was real. Mainly, the flower growing on the fig tree, but also several things happened to Ophelia that could happen if the 'fantasy' were real.Watch the movie again, get your head out of our ass about the subtitles (you do realize that not everyone on the Earth speaks English, right?), and pay attention. Or just go see Night at the Museum with everyone else. We don't want you in the theater when we're watching films that you aren't smart enough to understand.
-
Not all of us are anal film students who get their rocks off watching a fig tree sprout a flower. I went to the movie expecting to see fantasy awesomeness that Del Toro and Cuaron usually bring (I enjoyed CoM by Alfonso, BTW), but instead I get a Spanish civil war with a minor fantasy subplot. Blech. Just BLECH.
-
I'll agree the film was mis-sold, but that's the fault of marketing, not Del Toro or the film.The film was about how the girl responded to the world crumbling around her. Without the 'Spanish civil war,' it would just be another hokey fantasy epic (Eragon anyone?).
-
Out of curiosity, what's your userID in The Zone?
-
Fair enough, Greg. Fair enough.
-
That's better. Would that all AICN feuds were settled in four posts.
-
"Actually, evidence would suggest that Del Toro believes that the 'fantasy' world was real. Mainly, the flower growing on the fig tree, but also several things happened to Ophelia that could happen if the 'fantasy' were real."
That's what I found as well. It wasn't like "The Matrix" where, at least in the first one, there's a clear distinction between real and virtual.
In PL some of the fantasy elements sort of bleed into the real story. Took me a number of viewings but I just kept finding new details that actually deepen the mystery of the story. And that's part of why I like the movie - a lot of it is open to interpretation.
And the fantasy was, far from being cutesy wutesy, often grotesque and disturbing. -
NM, I saw that you're "Yack Backer," with a space. I just hadn't been in The Zone in a little while. Welcome.
-
I hate ties. It's like cheating and having a top 12 list. Roeper did that this year. To me, a top 10 is only 10 films and each has it's own position.
-
I liked it and think you bring up interesting points about it but I have to say that a major fault kept me from "loving it". The "reveal" in the end (don't want to give anything away). Didn't you see that coming from a mile away? Again, don't want to give anything away so I'll just say this: height.
-
We've yet to see Paul Greengrass's best work? I beg to differ. Does no one remember the genius that was Due South. What a fucking show.
-
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too long, but the man can write and think and think in his writing and he has the forum so nobody is going to edit him shorter, so good on him. WHAT I REALLLLLY wanted to say (ironic that I wrote too long in this talkback too) is that when I saw "Babel" I just wanted it to end! I was sobbing, but because I was so bored and unaffected by the film. Good performances, deadly, dull film that was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I hope I didn't go overboard with zzzzs, I think about three would have proved the point.
-
I'm still eagerly awaiting that one.
-
United 93 was my top pick,and there are a couple on your list that I'd like to check out.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts