Instead of a "ten best list," Armond White makes an annual "Better Than List" which, in principle, I'm all against -- simply because of the formula: He uses a few adjectives and a "greater than" symbol to bash selected movie titles with selected other ones, like Daniel Plainview bludgeoning someone with a heavy object.
Then again, any "ten best list" (or "top ten list" or "favorites list") represents a preference for some movies over some other movies, seen by somebody under certain circumstances during a period of time. And, to not-quite-paraphrase Jean Renoir, "Everybody makes his own rules."
So, perhaps White is really just doing what (I hope) any list-maker does: Making a claim for his/her own critical taste and values, while recommending some movies. That he assumes the attitude of a bully over the approach of a critic or movie lover is, perhaps, not so important. (Quote: "'No Country for Old Men' > better than 'There Will Be Blood,' 'Zodiac.' The Coen brothers hauntingly mythologize Americana, while P.T. Anderson and David Fincher make it morbid, sadistic and self-congratulatory." Is there an inverse relationship between "morbid, sadistic and self-congratulatory" and "hauntingly mythological" -- Americana-wise, I mean?)
But look: Now I'm using other top ten lists to bash White's. Is there no getting around this? I fell ill (think of the scene with the old lady on the street in "The Orphanage") just as I was about to annotate my own 2007 list, after submitting various rankings to critics' polls at MSN Movies, indieWIRE and the Village Voice/LA Weekly poll, each of which had slightly different rules, categories and deadlines. (Then I posted a list in video form in late December). Consequently, I missed reading a lot of other peoples' lists (though The House Next Door and David Hudson at GreenCine, and the folks at Movie City News have put together invaluable lists of lists -- and/or lists of links -- that have helped me in my efforts to catch up, because, as I am fond of repeating, I actually learn from browsing these things).
Oh, yes, and I also posted the 2007 Exploding Head Awards as a kind of top-ten alternative. (Let me add that I have enjoyed no 2007 overview more than Dennis Cozzalio's at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule.)
Now, just to wrap up this whole 2007 wrap-up thing, I'm going to recommend some movies and (in munchable blurbs of 150 words or less -- I hope) give you some idea of what I liked about them, without the intention of over-selling them. If I've written more extensively about them, I'll link their titles to a more detailed review or posting.
Two more things before I get started:
* I read a lot of online writing every day (including print publications I wouldn't otherwise see), but I want to mention five blogs to which I am utterly faithful, even though only one of them is updated every day. (Which reminds me: I really need to update my blogroll. There's more good stuff out there than I can possibly even remember, much less keep up with.) Even if I unaccountably forget to visit for a few days, I always catch up with these eventually. Listed alphabetically by URL:
Observations on film art and Film Art by David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson
girish
The House Next Door
Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule
Welcome to L.A.
* I neither pretend to have seen, nor feel particularly guilty about not seeing, every movie somebody may consider worthy of consideration (or necessary for disqualification) during the calendar year before I made this list. I don't know how many movies I saw in 2007, or even how many I wrote about. (I've never kept track of numbers like that.) But even the most "comprehensive" accounting is inevitably going to boil down to: Movies I Saw That I Preferred Over Other Movies I Saw But Not Necessarily Over Ones I Didn't See -- Which You May Or May Not Have Seen, Too. And, as "Army of Shadows" and "Killer of Sheep" have shown, it may take another 30 or 40 years to catch up with some of the best movies of 2007.
List of Abstract Semi-Autobiographical Sales-Pitch Blurbs (2007):
10. "Helvetica." All the arguments we have about movies, all the enthusiasms and tastes and dislikes and metaphors, are here in this movie about a ubiquitous typeface. It's around you all the time (with hundreds and thousands of other fonts). You have only to see it, to pay attention to how it figures into your world. I appreciate all the conflicting points of view -- that Helvetica is a form of perfection, overused, corporate, infinitely flexible, idealized, neutral, clean, capitalist, socialist. They're all true, they're all inadequate, but the people in this movie care deeply, and try passionately to articulate why. It's a movie about finding meaning. That's all.
9. "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford." Coming out of this movie, I couldn't shake the feeling that I'd been somewhere as tangible as anyplace in memory or geography, even if it doesn't exist outside of the picture itself. The look (much of it as if through an old, wavy beveled window) and the narration place it in the past tense, but I didn't feel that we were looking back at these legendary outlaws through the lens of history, or the sensibility of a nickel book. More like the film itself embodied a ghost, wandering through these landscapes and these rooms where these events happened once upon a time... and are re-enacted again and again for all eternity -- perhaps with slight variations as each of the performers adapts, to wearies of, or chafes against, the role he's stuck in. We watch silently as each self-conscious character imagines himself in other roles, other scenes, that he imagines himself playing better than the one he's in...
8. "The Orphanage." Death is not an abstraction in "The Orphanage." The reason the movie works so well as a horror movie is that it's purely subjective. It's about the experience of this woman, whose son disappears, and who will do anything conceivable to find him. It requires no belief in the occult or the supernatural -- just that you empathize with a mother who will go to any depths to reclaim her lost son.
7. "Superbad." I'm tired of blurb-writing already. Let me just remind you that Michael Cera is a genius: "I even offered to pay for it. It was pimp. I'm like -- I feel like a pimp right now. Like one of those pimps." Cera's awkward, spontaneous, earnest, enthusiastic reading singlehandedly demolishes all the trendy, cutesy, contrived pop-culture "knowingness" that infects contemporary movie dialogue, from the opening scene of "Reservoir Dogs" to the pimp lyrics of "Hustle and Flow" to the first part of "Juno."
6. "Breach." A sharp commercial thriller, as cunning as "Michael Clayton" and as taut as "The Bourne Ultimatum" -- without chases, stunts or fireworks. Director Billy Ray's similarly icy "Shattered Glass" creates suspense out of the tensions within a human personality -- in this case, another con man who's deeper into his con than anyone can possibly imagine. Character is mystery. It's also one of the few serious attempts to portray a religious American who isn't patronized or embraced or mocked for his abiding devotion to his faith, because his character isn't defined by it, either. (Although, for some, the fact that he's a former Protestant who has converted to Roman Catholicism will itself be enough to mark him guilty of some brand of treason.) Not until the movie is over (echoes of "Zodiac") do we realize we've never been able to access even the most superficial secrets of his character.
5. "Persepolis." “Irritation at and occasional exasperation with the rigid dress code, with the hidebound ideology of the mullahs, with all the dos and don’ts that we were expected to internalize — this made up the substance of our ‘opposition’ to the regime." That's not a line from Marjane Satrapi's graphic novel, "Persepolis." But it might be. (Instead, it's from Zarah Ghahramani's memoir of growing up in Iran during the 1980s, "My Life as a Traitor." Both were born in Tehran: Satrapi was born in 1969; Gharhamani in 1981.) What both girls understand is that a love of punk rock or pink shoes can be revolutionary. Or would that be counter-revolutionary?
4. "12:08 East of Bucharest." The reason I think "Persepolis" and this film are the best political films of the year is because they look at politics as it is lived, not as it is exercised by those who actually wield power. The title refers to the moment when Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu fled the presidential palace by helicopter on December 22, 1989. Sixteen years later, a local television station broadcasts a live, call-in debate on the topic: "Was There a Revolution in Our Town?" If a revolution ever really was televised (where does the revolution actually take place, and can anyone see it?), it might appear like this. "12:08 East of Bucharest" contains both of the best tripod jokes in a year that desperately needed more tripod jokes. When you see the movie, you'll know why that matters.
3. "Zodiac." Most good detective stories are epistemological puzzles, and even if the characters don't quite see how the pieces all fit together, the audience is allowed a glimpse of the big picture. Spoiler: Not this one. Think of it as a post-OJ courtroom thriller without the courtroom: Even if you're 100-percent sure you know who did it, that doesn't matter. The case may be overwhelmingly convincing, but it won't necessarily hold up under cross-examination -- and, as we know better now than we did in 1969, the only thing less reliable than circumstantial evidence is eyewitness testimony. (You may be surprised to discover from the Director's Cut extras how much of the movie itself is built from CGI, bluescreen, matte paintings, composites.) "Zodiac" forces you to question what you see with your own eyes, and what you think you've seen. For example: Different actors play the Zodiac, according to the way eyewitnesses described him at the scene of each of the crimes.
2. "I'm Not There." Think of it as an inside-out take on "Zelig." "Bob Dylan" isn't a Nobody, but he creates himself a Somebody out of bits and pieces of other people's legends and his own stubborn creativity. Which is the stuff of legend. An intellectual exercise about the structuring of public identities? Didn't feel that way to me. When Woody Guthrie (a 13-year-old black kid in 1959 who thinks he's living in the Great Depression) fights off some hobos in a rolling box car who are trying to take his guitar ("This Machine Kills Fascists" it says, right there on the case), and he flies out the door and off a bridge, into a river where he's swallowed by a whale... I don't know, what more can I say in a wee blurb? I was beaming in the dark, blessed by visions of Johanna, Jonah, Judas and Joseph Campbell.
1. "No Country for Old Men." I'm far from done writing or thinking or caring about this movie, which had greater impact on me than anything else I've seen in a long time. (Maybe since "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada," my favorite movie of 2000-2007?) For now I'm simply going to repeat something I just added to a discussion at girish's ("Films: Evaluation & Value"): "I love ["Zodiac," "I'm Not There," "NCFOM"] not because I can justify that they're 'great' movies (although, to my own satisfaction, I can), but because I find each of them a profoundly moving experience that resonates with the way I see the world.... Just because I'm moved by something doesn't mean I can persuade (or expect) anyone else to be. All I can do (all anyone examining a response to a work of art can do) is to bear witness: I've never seen a movie that more powerfully and poetically conveys an essential, existential fact of human life -- the dilemma of learning how to live with the knowledge of certain death, while knowing you can't stop what's comin' -- than 'No Country for Old Men.'"
Enthusiastically recommended (listed alphabetically): "Bug," Climates," "Day Night Day Night," "Eastern Promises," "4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days," "The Host," "Into Great Silence," "Knocked Up," "Lust, Caution," "Made in America" (final episode of "The Sopranos"), "Manufactured Landscapes," "Michael Clayton," "No End in Sight," "Once," "Pierrepoint: The Last Hangman," "Ratatouille," "Red Road," "Rescue Dawn," "The TV Set"...
Recommended, but with less enthusiasm (at least until I can revisit them): "Atonement," "There Will Be Blood."
If you can get past the first 15 - 30 minutes... you may appreciate some pretty brilliant comic acting in "Juno." I think what lames the movie is the over-perky anachronistic pop-culture dialog -- which is exactly what I've always disliked about "Pulp Fiction" (to cite the most obvious example). For me, "Juno" is rescued by some perfectly pitched performances -- all the better when you consider how difficult it must have been to make so many of these contorted one-liners sound like something that wasn't carved in a toilet stall, or scribbled on the back of someone else's Pee-Chee, or thumb-keyed in a text message. (I forgive no one for: "This is one doodle that can't be undid, home skillet." Or, for that matter, references to "three little Fonzies" and words like "Correctamundo" in "Pulp Fiction.")
DVD/Theatrical Release of the Year: "Killer of Sheep." Charles Burnette's 1977 UCLA MFA thesis film was in the second (1990) group of titles in the National Film Registry. Now we know why. Milestone Films restored it, cleared the music rights, and released it in theaters and on DVD in 2007, making it the "Army of Shadows" discovery/rediscovery of the year. To label "Killer of Sheep" a "masterpiece" (because of its rarity, the legend that's grown around it over the years, or because it's about black people in Watts) is misleading and, I think, more than a little patronizing. It's a student film, with the defects and deficiencies implied by the nature of that kind of work. It's also a moving, poetic, atmospheric movie -- and not some primitive (now-)period piece that belongs in a museum collection. It's still alive.
Nice post, Jim. I have a few points.
De gustibus non est disputandum be damned, to paraphrase Ed Begley, there’s always one (though, in this case, I am glad to see there’s more). I did not like “Jesse James.” I agree with you that the evocation of a different time and place is one of the film’s high points, but it’s distracting to the story: in its quest for period realism, the film strays too far; in its attempts at assaying obsession, it becomes frivolous. What’s the story here? I don’t know. I know it’s a different medium, and thus an apples and oranges comparison, but the obsession with realism never distracted David Milch from telling a story. The drama never took a back seat to auteuristic indulgence, which, I thought, was the case in "Jesse James."
Climates is a welcome inclusion. I did enjoy it, but that might have much to do with my being Turkish, and the fact that even passable local fare is hard to come by here. It would be interesting to see what you think of Fatih Akin’s follow-up to Head-On, which I thought a better achievement than Climates, but that might be because the Hamburg-born Akin is not afflicted with the kind of petit bourgeois posturing that his Istanbulite contemporaries revel in.
And I am giddy as a school girl to see Made in America on your list. I am still waiting for that shot-by-shot analysis of the episode that you promised us a while back.
Jim, it seems like you had the same reaction to "Breach" that I had to "The Insider" a few years back.
There is another religious character this year that is treated with the utmost respect from it's creator and that's Hank Deerfield from "In the Valley of Elah". It was a bummer to see PT Anderson fall back on the false prophet bit in "There Will Be Blood"...it's too easy a simplification to make a true statement about anyone's character. That's where "TWBB" lost me.
I don't usually make a top ten list until around Oscar time. By then I've seen everything I wish to see.
And I'm very glad to see "The Host" on your list. It will probably end up in my top ten this year. That was a good month..."Zodiac" and "The Host". What a way to start a year, huh?
The movie I discovered on DVD this year is "Idiocracy" (and it actually was released this year!), the Mike Judge satire that was pretty much overlooked by the studio and then audiences. Most people I mention it to haven't even heard of it, which is a shame. While far from perfect there's some sharp satire about our current state of intellectual affairs and an incredibly hilarious performance by Dax Shepard. It also has one of the funniest moments in a film I've seen this year when they finally reach their coveted time machine.
Micheal Cera, you say?
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e8e4424115
Jim, thanks for this packed post!
Yikes, I haven't seen #5 through 10 on your list, and need to! The last 2 months, I went on a Bollywood immersion/bender in preparation for my trip home, and ended up neglecting a lot of 2007 releases. I have some catching up to do when I get back.
Yes, yes, yes. As a reader, all I want is to read about how something haunts you and move you the writer, not looking for the things that I the reader agree with.
What bothers me about ten-best critics' lists is the trend toward conformance. Critics are supposed to be more independent-thinking than the average Joe, aren't they? Then they should particularly resist the urge to form consensus.
Phillip: I too wait on my own "Best of (fill in the year)" list until about March. I know by that point it's no longer trendy to read/write Top Tens, but so many year-end releases aren't given wide releases until January, sometimes even February, so as to coincide with awards season. The same goes for DVD releases. This February, a great number of movies I missed in the Fall will be released on DVD, such as American Gangster, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Michael Clayton, Across the Universe, Gone Baby Gone, Lust, Caution, We Own the Night, The Darjeeling Limited... you get the idea. When I've had a chance to catch up with them, as well as theatrical releases like There Will Be Blood, which releases today in my area, then I'll come up with my own list.
An interesting note on your list, Jim: I have noticed that it changed, at least from the time you submitted your Top Ten for MSN and now. Your top picks remained just about the same, but 6-10 seemed to change a bit. Noticeably missing now is Eastern Promises, which still made your honorable mention list. If I may ask, what motivated this change? I'm also curious about your perspective on Ratatouille, which I saw tied for 10th on your MSN list but has since not been mentioned (except for a brief mention in your Exploding Heads awards). Just a curiosity, really. To me, Brad Bird's film is brilliant, and is an essential movie when looking at the broader picture of the digital/analog dialogue that you've examined so well in your posts on Zodiac.
I actually kind of admire that you're willing to shuffle things around a bit. Very few other critics would admit to doing that; I think the preferred view is that The Ten is set in stone. ("So it is written, so shall it be.") That you're willing to move certain movies around seems to consistent with what you pointed out early in your post, about a Top Ten being a representation of a critic's very particular position, having seen certain films at certain times, and under certain circumstances.
That Cera video is pure genius. That kid's gonna make a real career out of enacting discomfort and awkwardness. Hilarious stuff.
"2002. After 9/11." Boooooo.
Just when I want to take Armond White seriously, he comes up with shit like this:
Lions for Lambs >better than Charlie Wilson’s War
and
The Brave One > better than Eastern Promises
I realize everyone has different taste, and White prides himself on having a different take on movies than just about any other critic but no, I call bullshit a thousand times here. This is something a critic writes just for the sake of being different. Like Zizek claiming that "Under Capricorn" is one of Hitchocock's best films.
Funny thing is, when I saw "Lion for Lambs" one of my reactions was "I can't wait to see Armond White fillet this one." It's the exact kind of sanctimonious, simple-minded so-called "liberal" diatribe that White makes a living out of critiquing. But then, give him credit - he is never entirely predictable. And "The Brave One" was so laughably overwrought that I can only accept it if it's meant as some kind of meta-parody of 70s revenge films.
----------
I hate to join the critical chorus on "I'm Not There," but I really liked it until the Richard Gere segment. Absolutely nothing about that worked. I still liked the movie quite a bit, but it was frustrating to really be falling for a movie and then have it (almost) crumble apart at the end. But, man, if Cate Blanchette doesn't win for Best Supporting Actress, the Academy should be shut down. There's no need even to nominate anyone else this year.
Juno: Couldn't get past the dialogue. It's just unbearable. There's a letter in Roger Ebert's mailbag section where a read claims that people who have problems with the "hip" dialogue in "Juno" don't have the same problems when Tarantino and Kevin Smith do it. Um, I do! I do!
Ali: Yes, I liked "Head On" very much! (And thank you for the further evidence of Michael Cera's genius.)
Ted: The deadlines for those various "top ten" polls were spread over a whole month, so of course I didn't stop (re-)watching movies in between. I felt pretty strongly about my very favorites (on the top half of the list), of course. But I wanted to "spread the love" among some other titles I liked and admired. As for "Ratatouille" -- my eye somehow skipped over it when I was looking at my Big Reference List! So, I've put it back where I meant to put it. (See what I mean about the futility of trying to be anywhere near "comprehensive"?)
I'd like to offer an alternative theory about the highly specific style of the dialogs in Juno. Such intense and persistent youthful wisecracks are odd and unfamiliar to most of us adults, but I suspect it is in fact realistic within a confined circle of self-identified "cool" kids. Not that I know anything about this subculture, but from a few brushes years ago with another "cult" subculture, I wonder if Diablo Cody was merely reproducing the way of speaking in her particular group of youths.
Also I just want to give a shout to the praise of David Milch. For me at least, the unmeasurable value of Milch is not how smart and flawless he is--he is often messy and all over the place--but how thick and hot the flow of humanity and his love for humanity brim over Deadwood. How he loves people, that he makes me love them too.
As for Tony Gilroy, I believe his ability to weave intricate plots somehow has hindered the raw emotions underneath the fancy structure. But I felt it, especially in Tom Wilkinson's character, and as an undercurrent in The Bourne Ultimatum. There is a quiet outrage that is poignant to our particular time and social condition -- in that we are so content to the endless series of scandals and disgrace that one has to be insane to still feel outraged.
As for There Will Be Blood, I suspect it is, like PT Anderson's other works, ultimately about the complicated hate he has for his father.
Jim, what did you make of Michael Moore's film Sicko? It was a very important film this year, and I don't believe you've addressed anything about it.
No matter what you think of Moore and his style, you can't really disagree with the film's central arguement.
"...like Daniel Plainview bludgeoning someone with a heavy object."
Dear Jim,
Some of us aren't as privileged as you in their ability to see certain films quickly. I live in St. Louis. "There Will Be Blood" has not opened here yet, and it won't until probably next weekend, Jan. 18.
This is a film I've been sruggling mightily to avoid hearing plot twists, and major climactic developments about for almost 3 weeks now. I'd been successful until I read the above comment so carelessly revealed by you.
I understand that you were less than enthusiastic about it, and so feel no great desire to nurture its secrets from those who've yet to see it.
I doubt that your revealing of this plot point was a malicious intentional disrespect for the film or those like me who perhaps you wish to discourage from seeing it. I would like to assume it was just thoughtlessness on your part.
Regardless, I feel it was a grossly inconsiderate thing for you to put in this article/blog/entry without placing a "Spoiler Alert" before.
Are there any other details from "There Will Be Blood" you would like to cheat me out of?
Re: Lions for Lambs > Eastern Promises....
I generally try to be tolerant and understanding of others' opinions, even if I disagree. I can listen (and not roll my eyes) to someone telling me how much they loved the last 30 minutes of No Country for Old Men or Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood or how they think Sweeney Todd was a masterpiece, but...
Lions for Lambs??? The only thing Lions for Lambs was greater than in 2007 was Norbit, and even that's a bit of a toss-up. I think it set some kind of bizarre screenwriting record for most expository dialogue per minute of film.
I'd like to offer an alternative theory about the highly specific style of the dialogs in Juno. Such intense and persistent youthful wisecracks are odd and unfamiliar to most of us adults, but I suspect it is in fact realistic within a confined circle of self-identified "cool" kids. Not that I know anything about this subculture, but from a few brushes years ago with another "cult" subculture, I wonder if Diablo Cody was merely reproducing the way of speaking in her particular group of youths.
No.
It's been ten years since I've been 16, but I'm around teenagers plenty, and they only think they're that clever -- in a way, the dialogue in JUNO is wish fulfillment. Teenagers are, to be kind, awkward idiots.
My favorite movies of 2007:
-Once
-Juno
-The Bourne Ultimatum
-Superbad
-Black Snake Moan
Disappointments:
-No Country For Old Men
-Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Still haven't seen:
-I'm Not There
-There Will Be Blood
-The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Harry Lime: What do you think you know about the character of Daniel Plainview from reading that sentence? That he's got a violent temper? I don't think I've given away anything at all, because you can't understand the reference until after you've seen the movie. (In fact, I didn't even mention the title of the movie -- but the title gives away more than what I wrote.)
Oh, Mr. Emerson you are too cruel to teenagers.
Breach is good enough, and all the local details really carry some weight for me. The disappointment for me is that it did not improve dramatically over Shattered Glass. In Shattered Glass, Peter Sarsgaard was fantastic, but Christianson matched him pretty impressively. Here in Breach though, compared with Cooper, Phillipe was a sorry sight. I wish the duel was set up between Linney and Cooper instead. I really respond to Billy Ray's fascination with liars. Perhaps the next time he will feel (morally?) confident and comfortable enough to not need a "good" character in the study.
Oops, sorry, I meant Mr. Lowry was too cruel to teenagers. Also, you weren't a teenage girl...
SPOILERS FOLLOW:
Jim: It doesn't exactly take a detective to figure out that there is going to be a major conflict between Paul Dano's character and DD-L's character. From the title and the trailer, it is obvious that Plainview is a man who is going to snap and kill someone. The intrigue comes not from knowing whether or not he is going to murder someone, probably Paul Dano, but the details around the inevitable eruption (where? a bowling alley, revealed clumsily by Jeffrey Wells. how? well you know.)
Though I realize I am overreacting and it was not an explicit reveal, you still told me how Plainview kills the preacher. It would be one thing if you had said "...like Chigurh shooting someone in the head" because we know, even without seeing the film, that "NCFOM" has a high body count, most of it supplied by Chigurh and his shotgun-cum-coffeecan sized silencer. I know the body count (from murder, not oil-machine malfunction accidents) in "TWBB" is 1-2 tops. And I sincerely doubt that Paul Dano being killed by DD-L at the end, probably the bowling alley scene, is an event that doesn't take place.
If I'm totally wrong, I'd be very glad. I'd like to hope the bludgeoning in question is a non-fatal, non-significant moment of violence in the film.
I know the title is "There Will Be Blood" and you could have really stressed this point in order to poke fun at me, which you didn't. I thank you for that and hope this overly long post explains why I'm (unreasonably?) upset.
Thanks and apologies.
JE: No apologies necessary, Harry, but I think you've already seen and read WAY too much about this film (which is why I put a spoiler warning at the top of your post). Trailers give away entire movies nowadays, and are best avoided if you don't want to know anything about the movie in question. (Fortunately, I steered away from seeing any trailers for this one in the months before it screened here.) You say you think you already know how many people die in the film, how they die, that one character kills another, who those characters are played by, and the location of the scene! Wow. Seems to me that you've reached a lot of conclusions about this film before you read what I wrote -- which (as I deliberately phrased it) could be a reference to any number of things in the film. You do yourself, and the film, a disservice by making so many guesses in advance -- including who plays whom.
Re: Juno's clever dialogue...
I taught high school from 2003-2005 - I've observed plenty of modern teenagers interacting with each other. They don't speak anything like the kids in Juno. Ken's right - the thing that can be simultaneously endearing and infuriating about teenagers is that they think they're that clever, but they really, really aren't.
Ken, Fritz: That's such a great point. What I find so funny, and endearing, about the kids in "Superbad" is that they're nowhere near as clever or cool as they're trying to be. As in the moment I quoted, when an overexcited Evan (Michael Cera) sputters: "It was pimp. I'm like -- I feel like a pimp right now. Like one of those pimps."
Re: "Juno"
Well, I graduated high school in 1999, and I seem to remember speaking with my friends (freaks, geeks, punk rock fans, you know, people like Juno and her friends) in an elaborate code consisting of obscure film and music references, "Simpsons" quotes, ironic application of "gangsta" slang, and inside jokes. Our parents wouldn't get it, and we liked it that way. How come nobody's talked about the tension during the first time Juno, with her dad, meets Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman? Juno comes across as snarky, immature and even offensive in this world of adults and their serious business. That scene shows that there's more to "Juno" than gratingly "hip" dialogue. Kudos to Ms. Codey for nailing it.
Sorry, Cody.
I understand that the "excessively hip" language in Juno may come across as unrealistic and jarring to viewers, but I think the couple of comments about teenagers only thinking they're that cool are telling. To me, it was clear that the movie is narrated and seen entirely from Juno's point of view. This is her world, as she sees it. Of COURSE it wouldn't resonate with or even seem plausible to everybody else--it's her story.
It always strikes me as slightly disingenuous when people denigrate a movie for being "unrealistic"--if they wanted realism, they should have seen a documentary. Are there realistic fictional films? I'm sure there are--I regret that I'm not well-versed enough in film history to speak intelligently on that count. But most people go to movies to be immersed in someone else's world. Kudos to Diablo Cody and Ellen Page for creating such a richly imagined character and world for us to inhabit for awhile.
Did anyone else think the "milkshake" scene in "There Will Be Blood" felt like it accidentally got spliced in from "Juno."
I think I am the only person on Earth who thought Daniel Day-Lewis was absurd as Bill the Butcher. Daniel Plainview is Bill the Butcher remixed, and almost as annoying. This kind of bombastic scenery-chewing wins Oscars; I am surprised it is winning so many critical accolades.
So many critics wrote something along the lines of "This movie will leave you shaken for weeks." I can't think of many films this year that had less impact on me, from start to finish. With so many smart critics supporting it, I will have to knuckle under peer pressure and admit that "I just don't get it."
Re: "Breach"
Finally had a chance to see this on DVD and was disappointed to have missed it in the theaters. If I recall correctly, it had shoddy marketing (making it out to be a more traditional thriller). It's a shame. One of the finest American films of the year and so very deserving of appearing above on your list. It's also a shame that Cooper won't get the recognition this performance demands. But I guess at this point Cooper contributing an astounding turn to any film he's in is about as shocking as Laura Linney playing all of her characters identically.
Christopher Long,
Nobody cares what *you* think.
I really get a kick out of that post a little ways up that complains about spoilers for a movie he hasn't seen yet, and then proceeds to spoil the entire final scene. Am I the only one who simply doesn't read about new movies I haven't seen yet? I knew I wanted to see TWBB no matter what, so I avoided any articles or discussions of the film until I had the chance to see it for myself. A radical idea, apparently. If I'm going to see a film, I want to have as few preconceptions and ideas about it going in as possible.
That's why I'm so generally annoyed with the state of the trailer these days. Whoever's making trailers now seems to think that their purpose in life is to provide a one-minute summary of the entire film's plot. The trailer for TWBB wasn't as bad as most in that regard, mostly just bits of dialogue pasted over random images from the film, but so many trailers now seem to make the film itself entirely redundant.
Basically, what I'm saying is that Martin Arnold should make more trailers. His brilliant Psycho spot (which I really wish I could find online to show you all) perfectly captures the mood and terror of Hitchcock's film, while barely even using any real footage from the film itself. Simple, attention-getting, and effective, which is really all a trailer should be. But the dumbing-down of marketing (yea, who would've thought marketing of all things could be brought down to an even lower common denominator?) has resulted in the assumption that audiences don't want to be surprised or figure anything out for themselves -- they want to go into a movie knowing ahead of time exactly what they're going to see. Who knows, maybe by and large the marketers are right. It's still sad.
Chris: You are not alone in "not getting" There Will Be Blood. I saw it over the weekend and felt an odd sense of detachment during its 150-some-minute running time. I understood that to be the point (in some small way), but I connected with the movie in not the smallest way. I can admire it from a distance, I suppose, but it just doesn't grab me the way so many others films this year have.