Comments on: 2007: The Movie(s)

2007: The Movie(s)

Weebot — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:38:34 -0800

Indiewire put out their second annual film critic's poll recently. There Will Be Blood tops the list, with Zodiac, No Country for Old Men, Syndromes and a Century, and 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days following behind.

A spiritual successor/competitor to the Village Voice's film poll, Indiewire polled 106 North American film critics—mostly those who work online or in the alternative press—for their favorite films, performances, documentaries, etc, as well as their thoughts about the year in film. Here's the full list, as well as the lists for best film, performance, supporting performance, director, screenplay, first film, documentary, cinematography, and undistributed film. It all comes with an accompanying essay, as well as an essay about 2007 in undistributed film. It also comes with a collection of the critics' comments—critic's defending their orphan #1 picks, their thoughts about the best and worst films of the year, and comments about the state of film culture. You can also view it by each participating critics' ballot. (The ones that I follow are Scott Foundas, Ed Gonzalez, J. Hoberman, Nathan Lee, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Matt Zoller Seitz, Amy Taubin, Charles Taylor, Scott Tobias, Armond White, and Stephanie Zacharek).

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:47:28 -0800

Black Book at 11? The widely reviled Southland Tales at 18? Seriously?

By: blucevalo

blucevalo — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:48:05 -0800

I really want to see "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood." I've not been this psyched about new movies in a while. And I've not seen "Zodiac" either -- definitely want to get the DVD. Thanks for the post.

By: Skot

Skot — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:01:07 -0800

What the hell? Zodiac was like walking around in circles for three hours loaded down with a backpack full of drear. (Uh . . . so have fun with that, blucevalo!)

By: The Card Cheat

The Card Cheat — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:03:53 -0800

Michael Clayton didn't even make the top 20? P-shaw.

By: Weebot

Weebot — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:04:15 -0800

kittens for breakfest: With Southland Tales, you have to remember that a lot of polarizing films will score highly in polls like this because passionate advocates will place the film higher on their list, whether it be out of sheer enthusiasm, political considerations (they just want to see the film higher on the list, so they place it in their one or two slot when they really liked other films more), or both. Plus, their is no way to vote against a film. Black Book was awesome.

By: chillmost

chillmost — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:05:44 -0800

Who does the music in the trailer for Syndromes and a Century?

By: statolith

statolith — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:08:30 -0800

Syndromes and a Century Whoa! That's a nice surprise. Go Thai cinema! (Wish it had shown in my town, though...)

By: humuhumu

humuhumu — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:08:58 -0800

Yeah, Zodiac just wouldn't end. It was allright for two hours and then lost points for every five minutes after that. Ended up with something like a -83 on my scale.

By: FelliniBlank

FelliniBlank — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:12:43 -0800

Aha, and the top five includes two films shot (partially) in Marfa, Texas. Coincidence? I think not.

By: hopeless romantique

hopeless romantique — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:16:00 -0800

I would've put 3:10 to Yuma higher up. Also, ditto to what everyone's said about Zodiac.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:20:55 -0800

I guess critics like art films. And thank God. I suspect were it not for end of the year lists like this, every movie released by Hollywood would be about Bruce Willis and his gun.

By: mikeh

mikeh — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:21:55 -0800

I liked Zodiac, but I also didn't think it was suspense-laden like some friends did, so I wasn't waiting for a resolution. It's an amazing period piece that is more about the personalities and the procedure than the case, although I think a few actors were underutilized or had some weak points. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was similarly long, so I opted to go alone rather than annoy my friends I took to Zodiac.

By: aeschenkarnos

aeschenkarnos — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:25:05 -0800

Some further info, 'cos I wanted to look it up myself and might as well save others the effort. :) IMDB links: There Will Be Blood, Zodiac, No Country For Old Men, Syndromes and a Century, 4 Months 3 Weeks and 2 Days. Rottentomatoes links: There Will Be Blood (90%), Zodiac (89%), No Country For Old Men (95%), Syndromes and a Century (87%), 4 Months 3 Weeks and 2 Days (94%). Movies with RT rating >79% (including all of the above, obviously). For the parents, there is only one movie in that list to take the kids to - Enchanted (IMDB). It was awesome! As good as Shrek, in my humble opinion. :)

By: cell divide

cell divide — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:30:35 -0800

I really liked Zodiac, just saw it last night. But I seem to like movies that my friends have said they found boring, I like being able to kind of sink into a film, and Zodiac held my interest all the way through. I don't think I would've enjoyed it in the theatre though.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:34:47 -0800

Weebot, I dug Black Book a lot, but I feel like its ranking is...high. Because when I say I dug it, what I mean is that it was this kind of awesome WWII exploitation movie in arthouse dress, and I can't help but love that; or, as a perceptive critic whose name I can't recall (s/he may have been a Netflix commentator, for all I know) put it, "It was like the Dutch Resistance as imagined by a feverishly horny fourteen-year-old boy." That's not a criticism, either. This is just generally how Verhoeven rolls, trash and bombast mixed up with social criticism, and in his best work (Flesh + Blood, Robocop, Starship Troopers, and, well, Black Book), none of these is more important than any other. Sometimes the trash takes over and you have Showgirls, sometimes it's all sound and fury like Hollow Man, but he hits more than he misses, and Black Book is a success. But it's also fucking ridiculous and melodramatic beyond belief, and while it never quite gets all the way to camp...man, I dunno. It's so over the top that I cannot take it completely seriously, and I do think I'm supposed to, and for that reason I'm surprised to see it occupy such a lofty perch on this list. Maybe I shouldn't be, and maybe the critics are just prescient; I think it'll stick around a lot longer, in a cult way, than more than a few Oscar contenders.

By: Horace Rumpole

Horace Rumpole — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:35:18 -0800

If you really want to gorge on critics' Top Ten lists, you need the Big Ass Chart.

By: Weebot

Weebot — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:49:04 -0800

kittens for breakfest: I think we're on the same page; I like Black Book precisely because it's such a debased film. In the same way Showgirls' awfulness is tied to its utter contempt for star-is-born narratives, Black Book shows that cinematic depictions of the Holocaust have devolved into empty artifice by employing said artifice.

By: Weebot

Weebot — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:25:54 -0800

aeschenkarnos: Ratatouille came in at a respectable 20.

By: bove

bove — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:48:17 -0800

I was just about to post a link to the same chart that Horace Rumpole linked. That is one of the most definitive critics lists each year. They try to be as inclusive as possible.

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:00:55 -0800

No This is England (93% Rotten Tomatoes), no top ten...

By: aldurtregi

aldurtregi — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:17:52 -0800

I'm gonna have to disagree with you people regarding Zodiac. Closest thing to a masterpiece I have seen all year and Fincher's best work, imo.

By: muckster

muckster — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:22:07 -0800

Here's my list, in case you care, topped by There Will Be Blood. I missed 4 Months, but it's #1 on Marcy's list, and it's getting released in January. All in all, it's been a great year for movies.

By: muckster

muckster — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:24:16 -0800

Oh, and while I wasn't asked to participate in the indieWire poll, I'm pleased to see I made that big-ass MCN list.

By: arcticwoman

arcticwoman — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:25:32 -0800

I don't understand all the fuss about Ratatouille. It was ok, not fantastic, just ok.

By: muckster

muckster — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:41:03 -0800

arcticwoman, I liked Ratatouille a good bit -- it's my favorite of the Pixar flicks -- but I think one reason it ranks so high with critics is that it's, among other things, about critics and criticism.

By: lukemeister

lukemeister — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:42:03 -0800

muckster, You're just taunting those of us who live in flyover country and won't be able to see There Will Be Blood for a while. (*** burrows into snow, goes into hibernation ***)

By: lukemeister

lukemeister — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:46:26 -0800

Wow, there were at least 113 movies this year better than Charlie Wilson's War? We are truly living in a golden age of cinema.

By: Titania

Titania — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:34:20 -0800

Why are the awards shows and critics' lists forgetting 3:10 to Yuma? That was a damn good movie. Ben Foster deserves to win a few supporting actor award for his performance in 3:10.

By: tylerfulltilt

tylerfulltilt — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:57:23 -0800

Zodiac was flipping amazing. The cinematography was flipping amazing. the acting was very good. The screenplay was amazing. All around, still the best movie I saw this year. Give fincher the nod for best director please.

By: dhammond

dhammond — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:04:18 -0800

Agreed...Zodiac was brilliant and captured the essence of the case far better than I would have hoped for.

By: a robot made out of meat

a robot made out of meat — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:44:35 -0800

I gave up on meta-critic analysis after I saw A History of Violence on Rotten Tomatoes' suggestion.

By: troubles

troubles — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:48:04 -0800

Manda Bala, which I imagine isn't very well known, came in 5th on the documentary list and I would highly recommend it. Stylistically beautiful and edgy, about corruption in Brazil. Made by a disciple of Errol Morris. On another note, I'm with fearfulsymmetry... This Is England is way way too low on the list. You should all do yourselves a favor and go see it.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:54:07 -0800

I have not yet seen There Will Be Blood or Zodiac yet, but No Country for Old Men might be one of the greatest movies of the last 25 years. I have seen that movie three times, have read the script countless more, and I still discover new things in it. I haven't seen a film with so many layers, so much text in it, since Eyes Wide Shut. I'm not sure whether the genius of it lies in McCarthy's novel or the Coen Bros. direction, or a combination of the two, but wow. And seconding Titania's comment about 3:10 to Yuma. That was easily one of the best westerns ever made - much better than Unforgiven and Pale Rider. I actually tried to see Yuma, but it had disappeared from the theater by then.

By: dobbs

dobbs — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:17:48 -0800

I loved Zodiac. Saw it twice in the theatre and once on dvd. No Country was also grand. Cannot wait to see the PTA film as I've been looking forward to that for a year. It's been a great year for American cinema--probably the best since '99. As for the Pixar Rat movie, I don't get the hype. I didn't see Cars but I thought this one was easily the worst so far. I also thought the Host was weak. I shut it off out of boredom. So bizarre to see Killer of Sheep on there. Nice to see Hal Holbrook--his performance made that picture for me.

By: dobbs

dobbs — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:23:58 -0800

And seconding Titania's comment about 3:10 to Yuma. That was easily one of the best westerns ever made - much better than Unforgiven The mind, it boggles. I thought 310 was a fine film but it's no where near the same caliber as Unforgiven. Also, they blew it in the last 5 minutes, imo. ... and Pale Rider That ain't saying much considering Pale Rider is just a bad rip of Shane.

By: naju

naju — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:09:50 -0800

I really liked Southland Tales and I hope it gets some (cult) love on DVD. Part of the problem is it immerses itself thoroughly in the messy absurdity of Post-9/11 America. So all the tragedy and ridiculous camp and youtubery clash together without any warnings. And there aren't many cues telling you how to react to any particular scene. No wonder critics aren't too keen on it. As long as you can accept that this is all intentional, though, it's a pretty hilarious and intriguing movie.

By: sineater

sineater — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:11:38 -0800

can someone tell me if 3:10 to Yuma is better than The Proposition? Because that's the best western I've ever seen.

By: mrzarquon

mrzarquon — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:07:18 -0800

naju- I find that hard to believe. I've seen the movie, I haven't drank the koolaid and read the books. I really wanted to like it. I loved Donnie Darko, and I could see the attempts of a coherent film beneath it, but it just wasn't there. And I don't think this is something like Divine Intervention, a film whose experience watching it is meant to capture what it feels like to be in Palestine (best description I can think of for that film). Southland tales is poorly put together. The acting is wooden, and it feels like Richard Kelley couldn't bring himself to make a single coherent story (or back away from his pseudo christian time travel messiah story) because everyone was waiting with baited breath for another Donnie Darko, so they weren't questioning his technique or style. Instead you got a film that had some awkward laughs, a decent soundtrack, and leaving people with the experience of WTF did I just watch? I never left a film angry because of the director before. And I really wanted to like to film. I was ready to lay back and soak it in, but there was nothing there. To claim that it is intentional is to ignore the amount of massive editing and redubbing and narrative (which is just insane) that they did after they purchased the films at cannes, to make a marketable product. If all of this was intentional, then it wouldn't have had to be so heavily edited to be the end result. I envision the process was more of a "great, you shot 5 different story lines here, have really no context or introduction, lets try our best to make a 100 minute movie out of it that will recoup our expenses, and be easily marketable to all those people who will pick it up on dvd trying to understand how artistic it is." There are some good elements in it, and you can see the direction he was trying to go, but it just doesn't hang right. Nor does it have the level of "OMG, I have to see that again" that you got from Donnie Darko. I don't know, maybe I am just pissed from wasting my money on the film, but I don't think it belongs on any "best of" lists. Unless it is "Best films that demonstrated that no one questioned what the artist was doing (and how that is a bad thing at times)" which would also include Matrix 2&3, etc.

By: naju

naju — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:03:02 -0800

mrzarquon, Fair enough, and that's the opinion of most people who've seen the movie. And I haven't read the books, nor seen the Cannes edit (which might be an even better movie, actually). But I find it even harder to believe that this was intended to be a "single coherent story" within a traditional film framework. I think it's more likely that people are trying to fit it into that mold, and of course the movie fails spectacularly in that way. This movie is trying to do something very different, and you can see it even in the individual unedited scenes - within a single scene in the span of a few minutes, the movie can jump wildly from satire to kitsch to non-jokes to melancholy to outrage, and sometimes several of these simultaneously. I mean, there are enough pomo hijinks in every frame, that eventually you have to say, "OK, this clearly isn't trying to be the next Donnie Darko." A lot of your complaints seem built into the movie from the very start. Of course you'll get wooden acting when you cast teen pop stars and SNL/Mad TV washups and D-listers and let them loose in your pop-culture-nightmare-wasteland. Even the soundtrack operates on a spectrum between seriousness and kitsch - surely it's no accident that he had Moby create the score, when he's basically the posterboy for soundtracking commercials (and there's even a joke about that with the SUV commercial). Not to mention the ridiculous faux-product-placements of Bud and Hustler. I can see I'll just end up writing an essay, so I'll stop. But I really do believe there's a lot of stuff going on here...

By: lapolla

lapolla — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:32:47 -0800

zodiac tops my list - and i don't even particularly like fincher. loved ratatouille, probably would list it second. 3:10 to yuma is awesome, not better than the proposition but just as good, in a totally different way. it has a fantastic soundtrack, a very clever and subtle hommage to old-school western soundtracks as well as hints of hugo montenegro' style, throughout, without being derivitive. only other soundtrack that came close was the one for bourne ultimatum, which is about all i liked of that movie. no country for old men was very, very good, but i think it faltered in the last few minutes and the only thing i could figure that makes it work is if it is a meditation on impotence. i still rank it up in the top 5. i haven't seen cate blanchette's performance in i'm not there, but kate winslet has my vote for her performance in romance and cigarettes - hers is a freakin' fearless, bawdy, amazing performance. i think it could even top bardem's supposrt work in no country for old men. too bad for steve zahn... who was also brilliant. best sound editing was for the orphanage. i'm looking forward to seeing there will be blood. aaah - gotta run to catch a plane - thanks for this post, it is excellent!