What's Wrong With Bond
Casino Royale was the best Bond movie ever. The idea was "Bond Begins", but in an updated world - no more goophy gadgets, no more ACME villains, no Ms. Moneypenny, and most importantly, replacing an English gentleman Bond for the other side of English society - the new Bond, the blonde Bond, a rugged English street urchin, the sort of brute who starts bar fights, but adopted by the state and adapted for its ends. His womanizing is cruel, and rather than a slinky spy, he is a Bourne-esque action hero. It did what every good Bond movie does - Bond actually cared about the girl and then she betrayed him...and then she died. Best of all, the first movie was alive with possibility - theater-goers sat thinking, "Is this the last Bond ever?" as Bond put in his retirement. Perhaps we should have left it at that.
It always takes 24-hours to figure out why a film with good action still wasn't that good. The action is definitely good...too much so. The first 45 minutes of the film are 3 almost uninterrupted chase sequences. The movie then settles in for the exposition, but is so intent on weaving the political backdrop and tossing in opulent settings that, ultimately, there's no time for what made Casino Royale so good - Bond. Creating a character. Giving him lines. Bond has almost nothing to say in this film - there's nothing that matches the scene where Bond first meets Vesper or where he picks up Caterina Murino. In fact, that's just my problem - it's 24-hours later and I struggle to remember a single line. I still can't figure out why it's called Quantum of Solace either. Daniel Craig says the word, 'quantum' at some point...I just can't remember why. I knew I should have been suspicious when the title was so bad...call it the "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" rule.
This gaffe, the absence of non-action scenes of worth, shove problems upon the film's pace - there's none of the tension of the card game and few moments of levity. Artistically, even the non-action scenes are cut as action scenes, ruining the iconic images that make a Bond film - the director has dreamed up a few such images, such as a woman killed and covered in oil, but barely leaves this image on the screen long enough for it to register before it's wisked away by the mandatory 6-seconds-or-less cuts of modern film making. The settings are so gorgeous, truly the film's strong point, that this is a great disservice - I'd love to have far more moments with the stills drawn out...it would help slowdown the frenetic pace of the action if nothing else.
The music-video action overload would be fine if the political backdrop spliced in were enough...but it's not. The politics are the standard Hollywood world evinced in the gamut of good to bad movies (Iron Man to The Shooter) - the bad guys are corporations backed by America, this time with a cute environmental twist. The 'blunt instrument' Bond of the first film is now a snide commentator on US policy in Latin America. Salt in a crude parable of the recent election, and voila, you've wasted 30 minutes of what should have been a better film.
This effort undermines the film in a variety of ways. First of all, it takes Bond completely out of character - Bond has always been a patriot and an imperialist, so this turn is unexplained and off-key. When did Bond get this way and why? The reason there isn't an answer is probably simple enough - it's the writer/director talking through his character; the mark of an amateur.
Worse, as is always the case when a film mistakes politics for depth, no matter how subtlely-laid out the political web is, it's still only a few minutes here and there of throwing in the standard 'non-standard' thought of our time. It merely confuses the audience that came for the action whereas those who know something about foreign policy sit in the audience rolling their eyes at yet another trite, flesh-toned if not pinko rant.
The political turn might have worked better if it had done what Dark Knight did - which is to address the headlines rather than the international news on page A6. Blonde Bond is certainly current but remains irrelevant. This Bond was trotted all over the globe working Europe, Central and South America, Russia, Africa...yet the Middle East and Islamic extremism remains a bridge too far. Ian Fleming's Bond worked on the Cold War because that's what was going on. Apparently the modern Bond hasn't graduated to working the important issues yet.
In this, the writer has made the classic Lethal Weapon PC cop-out. For those who forget, four Lethal Weapons got made about the drug business in Los Angeles in the 80's and 90's and yet not a single one involved a Latino or African-American gang as the ultimate villain. White guys in suits were running everything. This involves a certain racist animus - is it not a little insulting to suggest that inevitably white people run everything? At a certain point, this strains credulity. So how long is Bond going to remain on the B Team? Is Bond and his coterie of Bond girls too sexy for the modern Middle East or the filmmakers too craven?
The real problem, though, with all the political narrative is that it gets us away from what this Bond should have been about - Bond. The Bond at the end of the last film was deeply wounded. All of the build-up to this film suggested it was about that damaged Bond. Perhaps it is - I wouldn't know because he has about as many lines as Bill Paxton in Twister. There's almost nothing to Bond's relationship with the curiously half-Russian Bolivian girl, who ends up sitting in as little more than accented eye candy. Compared to the previous film, which had two far richer and more interesting females, the whole range of possiblities involving Bond and trust issues and the rumored 'dark, vengeance seeking' Bond are absent. Characters carried over from the previous film, like Felix Lighter, become wildly different characters with almost nothing to act as the bridge. A revenge scene drops upon us at the end and we're quits.
So what we get is a series of action sequences of varying quality plus a couple of babes and a few good lines. It's just like the old, mediocre Bond...plus better action but minus all the stuff that used to make it Bond. So, in the end, it's just another action movie. Viewed from that lens, it's nice enough, but the first movie raised so many possibilities. Would this film reintroduce darker versions of Bond staples? No. Would this film delve deeper into who Bond is, how he got that way, or how he becomes a more recognizable Bond? Not really. Plot-wise, it builds seemlessly on the previous film - in tone, artistry, and character development is adds a squirt of cheese-in-a-can.
For all the talk that the narrative of Quantum of Solace suggests a trilogy, this film feels more like the recent underwhelming 3rd films of other notable trilogies (Star Wars, Pirates of the Carribean, Spider Man) - overloaded with expensive action and drawn out exposition, empty of the charm that made the previous film(s) better.
Here's hoping that any 'trilogy' film takes the series in some other direction than backwards.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
2008 Oscars Preview
Best Picture
Nominees:
1. Tedious English War/Romance Book Adaptation Mangled Into Unrecognizable Slop (Atonement)
2. Quirky, Socially Relevant Indy Comedy (Juno)
3. Hollywood Royalty Vehicle/Corporate Greed-Crusading Lawyer (Michael Clayton)
4. Daniel Day Lewis Decides to Act Instead of Cobbling Shoes, All Mortals Tremble At His Talents (There Will Be Blood)
5. Coen Brothers Stay Inside the Lines (No Country For Old Men)
-Will Win: No Country For Old Men
-Should Win: Juno
-Essentially what the competition is: Keira Knightly Does the English Patient vs. Better Little Miss Sunshine vs. George Clooney Obligatory Nomination does A Civil Action vs. Gangs of New York Minus Pointless Non-DDL Scenes vs. a dark Fargo set in the desert.
Commentary: This year is pretty open - Atonement has no business being here as it is a complete muddle; Michael Clayton has little business being here except that apparently Hollywood grovels at George Clooney's feet. Michael Clayton is a solid, unspectacular film. That leaves us with three viable candidates - Daniel Day Lewis in an ok drama to me just isn't enough to win 'best picture' when he should win his own prize, if not have it re-named after him. Old Country is impressive, but truth be told, I think the Coens have made better films. Ultimately, Juno was great, if flawed by the at-times overly cavalier lines of the lead. It was positive, well-paced, well-written, created memorable images, had a great soundtrack, never preached, and never took sides.
- Biggest Snubs: (Again realistic snubs only) American Gangster, Charlie Wilson's War, Sweeney Todd. Though none of these should win, they're all better than Michael Clayton and Atonement.
Best Director:
- Nominees
1. Julian Schneibel directs something about human suffering that no one saw
2. Jason Reitman rocks it out with Juno
3. George Clooney rolled out of bed
4. The Coen Brothers played nice
5. Paul Thomas Anderson was graced by DDL's presence
Will Win: Coens
Should Win: Coens
I mark this as a lifetime achievement award.
Best Actor:
- Nominees - Quick comment - is anyone here other than Viggo Mortensen really playing someone that far off from their real personality?
1. George Clooney as a conflicted crusading lawyer, including a great ending gotcha scene in which Clooney drinks Tilda Swinton's milk shake, followed by an inexplicable portrayal of a cab ride. Since you haven't seen this movie, I'll just tell you - after the climactic scene, George Clooney takes a cab, and you watch him smile smugly for 5 minutes while the credits role. It's like...hey, I'm f-ing George Clooney. I made this f-ing movie. I ride in a cab and you watch it. (Michael Clayton)
2. Daniel Day Lewis as a sociopath oil wildcatter. DDL outdoes Clooney's gotcha scene with the incredible 'bastard in a box' and 'I drank your milkshake' combo. Game-set-match. (TWBB)
3. Johnny Depp as a singing demon barber/murderer. Really, is he acting? (Sweeney Todd)
4. Tommie Lee Jones is chagrined by the Iraq war (In the Valley of Elah)
5. Viggo Mortensen is a Russian mobster/spy who spends a surprising amount of this movie naked. (sorry for the spoiler. Kevin Spacey is Kaiser Soze. Get over it.) (Eastern Promises)
Will Win: DDL
Should Win: DDL. Landslide. Honorable mention to Viggo Mortensen for actually creating a character.
Biggest Snub: Tom Hanks - Charlie Wilson's War, Tommie Lee Jones in a vastly superior movie to In the Valley of Elah
Best Actress:
COMMENT: Notice that all of the men were in somewhat relevant movies whereas almost none of the women are. What is with women's roles and female stars that every year this category is essentially meaningless? Is it the writers? The producers? Or us?
Nominees:
1. Cate Blanchett plays Queen Elizabeth AGAIN!!! Can we get Helen Mirren back and they can just play the Queen of England every year for the rest of their lives and have a permanent nomination?
2. Julie Christie is old and hasn't got an Oscar yet.
3. Whodat in a movie no one saw (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE)
4. Laura Linney in The Savages
5. Ellen Page in Juno
I haven't seen The Savages so I can't really fairly appraise Laura Linney. My guess, however, is that as always she plays Laura Linney, which, if you haven't seen her, is like an American version of Julianne Moore playing Julianne Moore.
Will Win: Julie Christie (for being old)
Should Win: Ellen Page (carries a teenage part)
Biggest Snubs: Helena Bonham Carter outshines Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd, Angelina Jolie does an accent in A Mighty Heart. Honestly, why on earth would you diss two good performances by your biggest stars in favor of Marion Cotillard (Aforementioned Whodat playing a French singer raised in a brothel)? You risk Angelina skipping the walk-in when half of America is only waiting to see who she'll make out with this year. It can't possible be Brad...I'm betting on the Cambodian kid.
Best Supporting Actor:
1. Casey Affleck as a pezzonovante who shoots Brad Pitt. (Impossible to judge this performance as there is an unbelievably poor voiceover. Think of Jerrod the Subway guy reading you a cowboy outlaw script-on-tape and giving away you every character motivation, stage direction and the latest on Brangelina. Ruined the movie.)
2. Javier Bardem is the scariest movie serial killer ever.
3. Philip Seymour Hoffman hams it up in a role that acts itself in Charlie Wilson's War
4. Whodat in a film no one watched
5. Tom Wilkinson is an off-meds lawyer in George Clooney's annual nomination filler. (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE)
Will Win: Javier Bardem
Should Win: Javier Bardem
Biggest Snub: Russell Crowe outacting Denzel in American Gangster. (Surprise of the year)
Best Supporting Actress:
1. Cate Blanchett plays Bob Dylan in the same movie as like 10 dudes...and is better than all of them because she looks JUST LIKE HIM.
2. Ruby Dee is the year's token black nominee, and perhaps has 10 lines concentrated in 3 scenes in the course of the whole film (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE)
3. Soarise Ronan in Atonement - a kid can't be a Whodat. Besides, her name is like a lost commandment.
4. Whodat in a movie no one saw
5. Tilda Swinton does a great job in Michael Clayton
Will Win: Cate Blanchett (Law of averages)
Should Win: Torn, but I'll go with Swinton, just to be ornery.
Biggest Snub: Jennifer Garner, who should have won for a terrific turn in Juno.
Best Animated Film:
Ratatouille is going to win even though it wasn't THAT good. My question is this - there are 3 nominated films, whereas several animated films were NOT nominated. Is there a maximum of 3 possible nominees? If not, why is Surf's Up here and not Bee Movie? They're not going to win, but honestly, if I'm Seinfeld, I'm asking myself, 'What's the deal with that?'
Art/Visuals:
I didn't see Golden Compass, but the polar bears looked cool so they get my vote. Incidentally, no one who saw Pirates 3 (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE) can take this one seriously...the part with the giant Calypso was laughably bad. It looked like something from the 80's. I think I saw a giant ant scrambling around the tiny-town models. Anyway, the big question is WHERE IS THE 300? This movie revolutionized film art/visuals. I don't care if it's a comic book and a transparently pro-war one at that. Incredible work.
Cinematography:
I'll go with The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford. Obviously the voice over obliterated the movie by treating its audience like it was 7 years-old, but if you turn off the sound, it is a gorgeously filmed movie, really a clinic in image creation.
Adapted Screenplay:
I think the Coens should bag this one, but they really didn't change much. TWBB conversely totally changed the book, for the better, since Upton Sinclair is a tedious socialist blowhard. Something tells me, thought, that without DDL, that's kind of what TWBB would be. Atonement was a complete mess, an abysmal adaptation (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE). I'd be OK with one of the 2 no one watched winning.
Original Screenplay:
Have to go with Juno - bursting with originality and love of language. Michael Clayton is tightly written and Ratatouille is apparently richly researched and steeped in culinary culture. But if Juno doesn't win here, it would be the biggest travesty possible at these Oscars.
THIS YEAR'S NOT SO SNUB-ISH SNUBS:
We're very short on snubs that you would usually expect of the academy...American Gangster should have been better, so I can't even tell if it's a snub. There is one glaring exception:
ALL ANTI-WAR FILMS!!! Wow, they got hosed at the box office, panned by the critics, and ignored by the academy. I don't even know what to make of this. Maybe Hollywood got the point - it's irrelevant. They can lighten up a little.
WORST NOMINATION OF THE YEAR:
Nominees:
1. Female actress who is not Angelina Jolie or Helena Bonham Carter, thereby risking that they don't show up
2. Tom Wilkinson in a role that simply isn't believable; he always comes across as acting and kind of pulls the movie apart.
3. Ruby Dee, as an afterthought token nomination with almost no actual part.
4. Pirates 3 visuals, for the ludicrous giant Calypso gaffe
5. Atonement's adapted script, which butchers what I'm told is a decent book. (I don't do fiction).
WINNER: Tom Wilkson. Ruby Dee was merely barely present and Pirates 3 had one CGI error, perhaps lost amidst it's copious scripting errors. Tom Wilkinson pulled down an otherwise tight, if forgettable film so he gets the nod.
THIS YEAR'S UNINTENTIONAL BEST PORN MOVIE TITLE:
NOMINEES (Black Snake Moan was disqualified for already being borderline porn, Daddy's Little Girls was disqualified because it's just wrong. Seriously, what's wrong with you?):
1. Hot Fuzz
2. There Will Be Blood
3. No Country For Old Men
4. Breach
5. Amazing Grace
6. Once
7. Because I Said So
8. Hannibal Rising
9. The Ultimate Gift
10. Reign Over Me
11. Are We Done Yet?
12. I Am Legend
13. Perfect Stranger
14. Live Free Or Die Hard
15. No End In Sight
An impressive list. Even here No Country and Blood are competing. Hard not to go with There Will Be Blood.
10 BEST FILMS OF THE YEAR REGARDLESS OF GENRE AND/OR RELEVANCE:
This was a strong year for stupid comedies. Honorable Mentions go to Ocean's 13 and Michael Clayton.
10 Superbad
9. Charlie Wilson's War
8. The Bourne Ultimatum
7. Live Free or Die Hard
6. There Will Be Blood
5. No Country For Old Men
4. Once
3. Knocked Up
2. Juno
1. Hot Fuzz
Best Picture
Nominees:
1. Tedious English War/Romance Book Adaptation Mangled Into Unrecognizable Slop (Atonement)
2. Quirky, Socially Relevant Indy Comedy (Juno)
3. Hollywood Royalty Vehicle/Corporate Greed-Crusading Lawyer (Michael Clayton)
4. Daniel Day Lewis Decides to Act Instead of Cobbling Shoes, All Mortals Tremble At His Talents (There Will Be Blood)
5. Coen Brothers Stay Inside the Lines (No Country For Old Men)
-Will Win: No Country For Old Men
-Should Win: Juno
-Essentially what the competition is: Keira Knightly Does the English Patient vs. Better Little Miss Sunshine vs. George Clooney Obligatory Nomination does A Civil Action vs. Gangs of New York Minus Pointless Non-DDL Scenes vs. a dark Fargo set in the desert.
Commentary: This year is pretty open - Atonement has no business being here as it is a complete muddle; Michael Clayton has little business being here except that apparently Hollywood grovels at George Clooney's feet. Michael Clayton is a solid, unspectacular film. That leaves us with three viable candidates - Daniel Day Lewis in an ok drama to me just isn't enough to win 'best picture' when he should win his own prize, if not have it re-named after him. Old Country is impressive, but truth be told, I think the Coens have made better films. Ultimately, Juno was great, if flawed by the at-times overly cavalier lines of the lead. It was positive, well-paced, well-written, created memorable images, had a great soundtrack, never preached, and never took sides.
- Biggest Snubs: (Again realistic snubs only) American Gangster, Charlie Wilson's War, Sweeney Todd. Though none of these should win, they're all better than Michael Clayton and Atonement.
Best Director:
- Nominees
1. Julian Schneibel directs something about human suffering that no one saw
2. Jason Reitman rocks it out with Juno
3. George Clooney rolled out of bed
4. The Coen Brothers played nice
5. Paul Thomas Anderson was graced by DDL's presence
Will Win: Coens
Should Win: Coens
I mark this as a lifetime achievement award.
Best Actor:
- Nominees - Quick comment - is anyone here other than Viggo Mortensen really playing someone that far off from their real personality?
1. George Clooney as a conflicted crusading lawyer, including a great ending gotcha scene in which Clooney drinks Tilda Swinton's milk shake, followed by an inexplicable portrayal of a cab ride. Since you haven't seen this movie, I'll just tell you - after the climactic scene, George Clooney takes a cab, and you watch him smile smugly for 5 minutes while the credits role. It's like...hey, I'm f-ing George Clooney. I made this f-ing movie. I ride in a cab and you watch it. (Michael Clayton)
2. Daniel Day Lewis as a sociopath oil wildcatter. DDL outdoes Clooney's gotcha scene with the incredible 'bastard in a box' and 'I drank your milkshake' combo. Game-set-match. (TWBB)
3. Johnny Depp as a singing demon barber/murderer. Really, is he acting? (Sweeney Todd)
4. Tommie Lee Jones is chagrined by the Iraq war (In the Valley of Elah)
5. Viggo Mortensen is a Russian mobster/spy who spends a surprising amount of this movie naked. (sorry for the spoiler. Kevin Spacey is Kaiser Soze. Get over it.) (Eastern Promises)
Will Win: DDL
Should Win: DDL. Landslide. Honorable mention to Viggo Mortensen for actually creating a character.
Biggest Snub: Tom Hanks - Charlie Wilson's War, Tommie Lee Jones in a vastly superior movie to In the Valley of Elah
Best Actress:
COMMENT: Notice that all of the men were in somewhat relevant movies whereas almost none of the women are. What is with women's roles and female stars that every year this category is essentially meaningless? Is it the writers? The producers? Or us?
Nominees:
1. Cate Blanchett plays Queen Elizabeth AGAIN!!! Can we get Helen Mirren back and they can just play the Queen of England every year for the rest of their lives and have a permanent nomination?
2. Julie Christie is old and hasn't got an Oscar yet.
3. Whodat in a movie no one saw (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE)
4. Laura Linney in The Savages
5. Ellen Page in Juno
I haven't seen The Savages so I can't really fairly appraise Laura Linney. My guess, however, is that as always she plays Laura Linney, which, if you haven't seen her, is like an American version of Julianne Moore playing Julianne Moore.
Will Win: Julie Christie (for being old)
Should Win: Ellen Page (carries a teenage part)
Biggest Snubs: Helena Bonham Carter outshines Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd, Angelina Jolie does an accent in A Mighty Heart. Honestly, why on earth would you diss two good performances by your biggest stars in favor of Marion Cotillard (Aforementioned Whodat playing a French singer raised in a brothel)? You risk Angelina skipping the walk-in when half of America is only waiting to see who she'll make out with this year. It can't possible be Brad...I'm betting on the Cambodian kid.
Best Supporting Actor:
1. Casey Affleck as a pezzonovante who shoots Brad Pitt. (Impossible to judge this performance as there is an unbelievably poor voiceover. Think of Jerrod the Subway guy reading you a cowboy outlaw script-on-tape and giving away you every character motivation, stage direction and the latest on Brangelina. Ruined the movie.)
2. Javier Bardem is the scariest movie serial killer ever.
3. Philip Seymour Hoffman hams it up in a role that acts itself in Charlie Wilson's War
4. Whodat in a film no one watched
5. Tom Wilkinson is an off-meds lawyer in George Clooney's annual nomination filler. (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE)
Will Win: Javier Bardem
Should Win: Javier Bardem
Biggest Snub: Russell Crowe outacting Denzel in American Gangster. (Surprise of the year)
Best Supporting Actress:
1. Cate Blanchett plays Bob Dylan in the same movie as like 10 dudes...and is better than all of them because she looks JUST LIKE HIM.
2. Ruby Dee is the year's token black nominee, and perhaps has 10 lines concentrated in 3 scenes in the course of the whole film (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE)
3. Soarise Ronan in Atonement - a kid can't be a Whodat. Besides, her name is like a lost commandment.
4. Whodat in a movie no one saw
5. Tilda Swinton does a great job in Michael Clayton
Will Win: Cate Blanchett (Law of averages)
Should Win: Torn, but I'll go with Swinton, just to be ornery.
Biggest Snub: Jennifer Garner, who should have won for a terrific turn in Juno.
Best Animated Film:
Ratatouille is going to win even though it wasn't THAT good. My question is this - there are 3 nominated films, whereas several animated films were NOT nominated. Is there a maximum of 3 possible nominees? If not, why is Surf's Up here and not Bee Movie? They're not going to win, but honestly, if I'm Seinfeld, I'm asking myself, 'What's the deal with that?'
Art/Visuals:
I didn't see Golden Compass, but the polar bears looked cool so they get my vote. Incidentally, no one who saw Pirates 3 (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE) can take this one seriously...the part with the giant Calypso was laughably bad. It looked like something from the 80's. I think I saw a giant ant scrambling around the tiny-town models. Anyway, the big question is WHERE IS THE 300? This movie revolutionized film art/visuals. I don't care if it's a comic book and a transparently pro-war one at that. Incredible work.
Cinematography:
I'll go with The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford. Obviously the voice over obliterated the movie by treating its audience like it was 7 years-old, but if you turn off the sound, it is a gorgeously filmed movie, really a clinic in image creation.
Adapted Screenplay:
I think the Coens should bag this one, but they really didn't change much. TWBB conversely totally changed the book, for the better, since Upton Sinclair is a tedious socialist blowhard. Something tells me, thought, that without DDL, that's kind of what TWBB would be. Atonement was a complete mess, an abysmal adaptation (WORST NOMINATION NOMINEE). I'd be OK with one of the 2 no one watched winning.
Original Screenplay:
Have to go with Juno - bursting with originality and love of language. Michael Clayton is tightly written and Ratatouille is apparently richly researched and steeped in culinary culture. But if Juno doesn't win here, it would be the biggest travesty possible at these Oscars.
THIS YEAR'S NOT SO SNUB-ISH SNUBS:
We're very short on snubs that you would usually expect of the academy...American Gangster should have been better, so I can't even tell if it's a snub. There is one glaring exception:
ALL ANTI-WAR FILMS!!! Wow, they got hosed at the box office, panned by the critics, and ignored by the academy. I don't even know what to make of this. Maybe Hollywood got the point - it's irrelevant. They can lighten up a little.
WORST NOMINATION OF THE YEAR:
Nominees:
1. Female actress who is not Angelina Jolie or Helena Bonham Carter, thereby risking that they don't show up
2. Tom Wilkinson in a role that simply isn't believable; he always comes across as acting and kind of pulls the movie apart.
3. Ruby Dee, as an afterthought token nomination with almost no actual part.
4. Pirates 3 visuals, for the ludicrous giant Calypso gaffe
5. Atonement's adapted script, which butchers what I'm told is a decent book. (I don't do fiction).
WINNER: Tom Wilkson. Ruby Dee was merely barely present and Pirates 3 had one CGI error, perhaps lost amidst it's copious scripting errors. Tom Wilkinson pulled down an otherwise tight, if forgettable film so he gets the nod.
THIS YEAR'S UNINTENTIONAL BEST PORN MOVIE TITLE:
NOMINEES (Black Snake Moan was disqualified for already being borderline porn, Daddy's Little Girls was disqualified because it's just wrong. Seriously, what's wrong with you?):
1. Hot Fuzz
2. There Will Be Blood
3. No Country For Old Men
4. Breach
5. Amazing Grace
6. Once
7. Because I Said So
8. Hannibal Rising
9. The Ultimate Gift
10. Reign Over Me
11. Are We Done Yet?
12. I Am Legend
13. Perfect Stranger
14. Live Free Or Die Hard
15. No End In Sight
An impressive list. Even here No Country and Blood are competing. Hard not to go with There Will Be Blood.
10 BEST FILMS OF THE YEAR REGARDLESS OF GENRE AND/OR RELEVANCE:
This was a strong year for stupid comedies. Honorable Mentions go to Ocean's 13 and Michael Clayton.
10 Superbad
9. Charlie Wilson's War
8. The Bourne Ultimatum
7. Live Free or Die Hard
6. There Will Be Blood
5. No Country For Old Men
4. Once
3. Knocked Up
2. Juno
1. Hot Fuzz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)