« A Tale of Two 008s | Main | Just Sayin'.... »
January 05, 2009
Top Ten 2008
I haven’t exactly rushed out my 2008 Top Ten list. Really, I just didn’t much feel like it. There are plenty of movies I truly admire, but somehow, my passion is just not inflamed as it should be at the end of the year.
Here are 22 runners up: Battle For Haditha, Beaufort, Beauty in Trouble, Blindness, Boy A, Cadillac Records, The Dark Knight, Frost/Nixon, Frozen River, Gomorrah, Hancock, In Bruges, Let The Right One In, My Winnipeg, OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies, Paranoid Park, Seven Pounds, Speed Racer, Surfwise, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, The Visitor, and W.
How I feel about the films is one thing, but I want to pull out a couple of films for special mention, as they are more than just good films. The Wachowski’s Speed Racer is going to be one of the most influential films of its generation. Of course, we are already seeing other filmmakers on some of the same paths, like Gus Van Sant’s seam-unworried mixture of documentary and produced footage in Milk or Danny Boyle’s mélange of Slumdog Millionaire. But The Wachowskis are stunningly fearless and gifted… and too easily misunderstood or underthought.
Also, Nick Broomfield’s Battle For Haditha kicks most other films based on this war’s ass. There are finally a few, like the thriller-as-near-doc The Hurt Locker (from Kathryn Bigalow, due in 2009), that are egoless enough to turn the complicated trick of creating drama out of a war that is still going on.
Gus van Sant’s Paranoid Park and Tomas Alfredson’s Let The Right One In, and even, albeit more heavily handed fashion, Gabriele Muccino’s Seven Pounds offer a slow, gentle, ambitious, and demanding form of drama that somehow resonates well beyond a viewing in remarkably unexpected ways.
And now…
THE TOP TEN OF 2008
10a. MAMMA MIA! - Here we go again… my my…
Okay, I am cheating.
The reason Mamma Mia! deserves a tip of the hat on this list in spite of being hideously bad is that it is remarkably beloved by those who love it. For them, it is a party. And as such, it stands with Sex & The City and now, Gran Torino as pantheons to horrible judgments of taste, both by talented artists and sincere critics.
This is different than the Body of Lies, Cloverfield, The Day the Earth Stood Still, and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, which were just plain ugly, horrible, how do I get my 2 hours back, junk that has momentary fans but will resonate no longer than the uncountable other puffs of stinky gas expelled by Americans on their way out of fast food restaurants each day.
No, Mamma Mia! is a party. It is a wonderfully guilty pleasure. I HATE it… and I kinda enjoy watching it. It is the sincerity of all involved. I mean, how many worldwide stars would allow themselves to be heard croaking like Pierce Brosnan croaks in this film. How much more game could Meryl Streep be? I mean, compared to this, snot from Viola Davis’ nose slipping towards her mouth is just another day at the frickin’ office. And if watching Amanda Seyfried doesn’t make you consider her the tanned scent of her shoulders, etc, throughout the film, you are probably not a heterosexual male. But then again, if you aren’t female or gay, what the hell are you doing watching Mamma Mia!?
Mamma Mia! is the Rocky Horror of the boomer generation. Let’s do the time warp again.
Okay… back to the real list
10. Son of Rambow – Director Garth Jennings and producers Nick Goldsmith are a team known as Hammer and Tongs back in England. Here we know them from The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy… a movie so big that it got away from them a little… and this minor masterpiece that tells the story of a kid who loves the movies, has horrible social skills, and the sidekick he acquires to share in what seems like the impossible goal, together, of making their own sequel to Rambow. For me, it was an unbelievable delight.
9. Man On Wire – This year’s great doc, James Marsh dances on the wire as much as his subject, Philippe Petit, does. To a great degree, this is a talking head documentary at its core. Some of the images are compelling, but there is not a lot of Grade-A wowser footage. But Marsh walks the line, tells a remarkable story, and takes our breath away as we anticipate and wonder and stand amazed at what happens… even when we kinda already know the answer. He let’s us feel everything, even as Petit spends so much of his time selling feelings you are not quite sure he really feels.
8. Waltz with Bashir – You can’t imagine this one coming. Ari Folman tells his own story of considering and reconsidering his memories of fighting in Lebanon years before. It’s a documentary. But it’s also a drama. But it’s also animated. It’s expression, unlike any expression you’ve experienced before. Folman is one of the great characters of the world, both in the film and beyond. Like Persepolis last year, the boundaries of the form are being pushed by very smart people doing very smart work. Huzzah.
7 – Milk – This is a film that grew and grew and grew on me. I know the story well, having seen the documentary about Harvey Milk a few times. It’s one of those pieces that offers a look at my youth, before my consciousness of the world, so it fascinates.
The heart of this film is Sean Penn’s adult-career-best performance as Milk. Penn is such a great actor that I need to qualify it this way. How can I compare Spicoli or his work in Bad Boys or The Falcon & The Snowman or the underappreciated (including by me in 1986) At Close Range with what he is doing now, whether here or in his sublime efforts in Sweet & Lowdown or The Assassination of Richard Nixon?
Gus van Sant gives us many different shades of Milk, but mainly, three. The man, coming out of the closet and then being out of the closet. The relentless self-promoting wannabe politician. And the man, reflecting on his own story, seeing truths that could never be clear as he was living them.
And as I noted before, Van Sant’s fearlessness about mixing doc footage and footage he shot, avoiding only a dramatization of Diane Feinstein, is beautiful and effective. In an odd way, Milk touches on what Benjamin Button aspires to, as Milk has a ten year life window from start to finish. He is, really, living his life backwards, finally coming out and being himself, and then living forward for a short while, until his life was taken.
Perhaps because I do not identify with Milk in a personal way, I don’t walk into the film with a vested interest in the story, as I am finding that many gay men do. It’s like Malcolm X for blacks or a story about the feminist movies for women or Israel for many Jews. What Peter Morgan, Ron Howard & Co somehow avoid with Frost/Nixon is the literalness of it. You don’t hear many people complaining about the facts. But here, it is different. But not for me. I don’t have a horse in the race, so I can stand away from it and experience it just as a film with some political subtext. And as that, it is, to me, beautiful and lyrical and, most surprisingly, not very gay at all. Straight actors kissing here… just doesn’t rile me… at all. And I’m not sure why. But what I do know is that I found it beautiful, just as I might a kiss between an actor and an actress. These are “just” people. And yet, they are fighting for their truth. Powerful stuff.
6. A Christmas Tale - Arnaud Desplechin is a lovely man. I had the opportunity to spend some time with him on Election Night, as he and other non-Americans watched a room full of Americans revived in hope in a magical night.
He also has become one of my favorite filmmakers in the last couple of years. The masterpiece, Kings and Queen, was just a couple of years ago. Odd, but so dead on in its glimpses into the intimate, so intimate, lives of its characters. As The Magnificent Ambersons followed Citizen Kane, his newest film uses many of the same actors, but in very different roles, and adding another layer of terrific performers and performances to boot.
We have seen “this film” before, from The Family Stone to Home For The Holidays and on and on. Crazy family dragged back together for a holiday, stress and humor ensue. But in Desplechin’s hands, it is so much more. It is emotional ballet.
5. Hunger – Steve McQueen is not who you think. He is a director. And he has some big brass ones.
Hunger is, simply, about the Irish Hunger Strike of 1981 and Bobby Sands in particular. If you think Midnight Express was a harrowing prison movie, you are in for a mind blower. But with a combination of artistry and hard realism, McQueen drive this experience home – really, more than just a movie – without anything approaching an urge to flinch. If you could experience what Sands is experiencing without being there, McQueen gets you as close to that feeling as imaginable.
4. Rachel Getting Married – Jon Demme’s kinks get me. He is gentle and kind as a filmmaker and has, no question, some very odd kinks. I don’t love every film he’s done. But I admire his endless ambition, like Van Sant in his wake, to tell stories that hit him in some way that may just be out of reach from our personal understanding, but that reach into the general soul of man.
This film is an odd one, in that it is a wedding that either you really wish you were at or really wish would be over already. I have heard very little middle in the responses to this film.
I am so happy to be there… through the laughs… through the pain… through the too-long moments… through the too-short moments. Most conventional filmmakers could easily found the exact places where to shoot more or to edit out sections of the experience. But Demme, successful as he has been, reaches for more. In the process, he gives us an audience with the greatness of Debra Winger, lost to film for so long, the best work yet from Anne Hathaway, the emergence of Rosemary DeWitt, and a parade of great performances, musicians, moments, and fears.
3. WALL-E – Pixar = balls.
How do you make a cartoon – a frickin’ cartoon! – about a machine that doesn’t really speak, alone except for a cockroach, joined by another silent machine, who then end up in the middle of a universe of fat, immobile, emotionally disconnected, unaware slobs who look an awful lot like us, only to remind us that we must get back in touch with our humanity or lose it.
A cartoon.
To call it Chaplinesque is dead on. It has all the politics of Chaplin’s work… all the romance… all the silly fun… and all the visual wonder (which doesn’t seem as amazing these days, but surely was). It’s Modern Times and City Lights and more. An epic effort.
2. Slumdog Millionaire – The feel good film of the year, perhaps the decade.
Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy and Loveleen Tandan and Anthony Dod Mantle and AR Rahman and Mark Digby and the entire team have created something that echoes the great audience movies of all time. The central story is really, really simple. You can explain it in 20 words or less. But you can’t begin to know what you are about to get into as the film begins.
The “generations” of three lives, from early childhood to their 20s. This film manages, in 120 minutes flat, to tell you so many great little stories that you couldn’t possibly remember them all until after experiencing them again and again in the cinema. These three are both completely surprising and completely as expected, often in the same scenes.
But in the end, it is a love story. Love between a man and a woman. Love between two brothers. And really, the simple love of believing in someone else beyond all reason.
Watching the film on DVD is fascinating because you can hear the discomfort with this very tough film early on… what is coming… are we really going to like this… did they really just do that… I thought this was a feel good film!
It is.
1. Che’ – The theme, I have found while writing, of this list is surprise. Film after film took me someplace I didn’t expect and made me feel something that I didn’t see coming.
Che’ is, when the chips are down, as Old Hollywood as it gets.
From the overture in which we watch Cuba - and then South America – laid out, to the epic length that creates a relationship with virtually every character in a way you rarely see in modern films, to the calm central “hero” who is more real than Gary Cooper would have been, but just as movie star weighty, Che’ is the great movie experience of 2008. It is a movie that washes over you and seeps into you, as only a film that takes this kind of time can. Yet, I was never bored… not during the first, second, or third viewing.
The notion that this is two films is silly. They are their own experiences, but they are unavoidably part of a whole. And there is enough room for many different takes on the material. I, for one, do not see it as terribly political. I see it as the story of a man who believes deeply and seeks to bring his belief to action. Others see it as incredibly political, even in the modern context. Others see it very much as a biopic (and they seem to have the most problem with the movie).
Soderbergh’s work here, first in narrowing the focus with hands-on producers Laura Bickford and Benicio del Toro and screenwriters Peter Buchman and Benjamin A. van der Veen, then in choosing to shoot an epic, then in production itself… stunning. He manages to do a lot of what Terrence Malick does, but without getting distracted by the beauty of the earth. He does a lot of what Michael Mann does, in delivering the intimacy of men who do harm. He does a lot of what Ford did in shooting people anticipating trouble. And he does work that is a lot like the modern intimists like Van Sant and even Kelly Reichardt do, allowing natural quiet to the point of distraction.
I am in awe of this work. I remain amazed by Soderbergh’s tenacity, as he continues not to do “one for them and one for him” but to be a truly experimental artist, even with big budget films like The Good German, the reflection of which can be clearly seen in Che.’ You can see some Bubble too.
At 46 (in 9 days from this writing), just 20 years into his movie career, he has already made eight indelible pieces of American cinema. And now, he is off to do some more experimenting. He can be wildly infuriating, but thank goodness we have this filmmaker in our midst.
And thank the heavens for Che’. You haven’t seen its like in quite away. And don’t expect something like this to pass our way again anytime soon.
Posted by dpoland at January 5, 2009 12:42 AM
Comments
For all your struggling over Mamma Mia, it sounds like you need to just admit that it is indeed, for you anyway, a good film (I never saw it, or wanted to). I mean, you got pleasure out of it, you can't get it out of your head...
I don't remember who said it but some critic has a quote about how we need to take the guilt out of guilty pleasures in order to more fully express ourselves.
Also, I'd really like to know if anyone out there can point me to a review that explains, in clear language, how Speed Racer is 'visionary' or how it could possibly be 'influential'. 'Fun' I can see, and I didn't dislike the movie, but...I don't get it.
Posted by: jeffmcm ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 5, 2009 01:06 AM
More specifically, a review that explains what Speed Racer does that the Podrace sequence in Phantom Menace didn't do.
I must say, I do not understand the love for a Christmas Tale beyond kneejerk Francophilia. The exact same movie, were it English, would be critically dismissed.
Everything else here: some agreement, some disagreement, all respect.
Posted by: LYT at January 5, 2009 02:05 AM
Speed Racer isn't for everyone but the people who love it LOVE it. I'm one of those people.
And Cloverfield is the shit.
Posted by: Rothchild at January 5, 2009 02:28 AM
How many times did you see Mamma Mia! in the theater, Dave? Despite your pan of it, I kind of suspected that you saw it more than once.
Posted by: CaptainZahn at January 5, 2009 02:29 AM
The pod race was/is useless and pointless. Speed Racer is about art and self-expression and how it moves you and unites a family. The racing scenes convey the joy of the character to the audience in a way unparalleled. You're in the car and you want to win, and you appreciate the modesty of letting your brother keep his record. The Phantom Menace's pod race was video game junk with a kid who was better in Jingle All The Way.
Posted by: Rothchild at January 5, 2009 02:34 AM
I would not be surprised if Poland attended at least a half dozen Mamma Mia! singalong screenings, usually dressed in his best Streep-meets-Troy Duffy frumpy overalls.
And then when "HONEY HONEY" comes on, he's probably like "AW SHIT THIS IS MY JAM!" like Tyra says in COYOTE UGLY, and his wife turns kinda red and clutches his arm not to, but there's no holding back D-PO once he's possessed by the power of ABBA, and the dance floor at the front of the theater parts to make room for Poland to cut loose dead center while everyone goes HOLY SHIT IT'S JIMMY KIMMEL BREAKDANCING!, Dave like levitating off the floor laying down insane Beat Street moves while everyone pumps their fists in unison to cheer him on, later rewarding him with a straw hat for his troubles.
Posted by: LexG at January 5, 2009 02:41 AM
Funny stuff, LexG. Funny stuff.
Posted by: Rothchild at January 5, 2009 02:49 AM
'speed racer' is very pretty and very shiney.....it is not, however, very good....
that said...we've been playing it to death to show off the new system....
Posted by: scooterzz at January 5, 2009 02:54 AM
"The feel good film of the year, perhaps the decade."
See, I can understand the love for the movie even though I don't quite agree, but how is this movie the feel good movie of the decade? Just because the final few scenes are, indeed, a joyous bubble of fun, that doesn't erase the fact that there is such heartwarming things like police brutality, domestic abuse, gang warfare, eye-gouging, child abuse and even some good ol' fashioned electrocution torture! I found the contrast between the two modes quite bizarre and it reminded me of Waitress, in which we were somehow meant to find it cute that this woman was being beaten by her husband AS LONG AS SHE GOT TO MAKE HER REVOLTING PIES!!!!
:/
As much as I sorta liked Slumdog Millionaire (otherwise known as City of Slumdog or The Constant Slumdog) I find myself hating Hunger. Not sure what exactly it is that people are seeing in that movie outside of the grotesque and that middle one take sequence (which is admittedly fascinating). Like, wow, look how brutal this movie is! wowee! So talented! I just love watching people shit in their hands and then smear it on the wall. LOVE. IT. I think I had such an adverse reaction to it because I see so many Australian movies that are similarly downbeat and depressing and people complain about them all the time (including me because they're usually not very good) and yet this one comes along and, oh I dunno, because it's foreign it gets tagged as a masterpiece when if it were Australian people here would be criticising it for being a movie "nobody wants to see". Obviously that's a region-specific effect, but it's one nonetheless.
:/
Love the inclusion of Wall-E and the shoutout to Speed Racer, too. Unfortunately all the other movies in your top ten haven't been released yet (well, I did skip Son of Rambow because I didn't care for it).
Rewatched Paranoid Park today and it still ranks as my favourite film of the year. Such a perfect understanding of the way teenagers act and speak and visually stunning too.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at January 5, 2009 05:00 AM
"Just because the final few scenes are, indeed, a joyous bubble of fun, that doesn't erase the fact that there is such heartwarming things like police brutality, domestic abuse, gang warfare, eye-gouging, child abuse and even some good ol' fashioned electrocution torture!"
Wow, for a minute there I thought you were talking about Mamma Mia - and for the first time, I actually wanted to see it.
I'm glad to see another list that includes Son of Rambow, one of my favorites of the year. Now if only I could find a list besides mine that includes Rambo...
Posted by: Josh Massey at January 5, 2009 06:38 AM
Dave - No Hancock. Some people are going to smell a conspiracy and claim this isn't your real Top 10.
Posted by: Martin S at January 5, 2009 07:02 AM
I almost included Mama Mia in my list for the same reason, but the fact still stands (I've seen it a few times) that the the first 40 minutes drag quite a bit for me. Once the spotlight leaves Streep and her wacky pals, the film takes off. And, yes, Brosnan is the bravest man in Hollywood (he wasn't helped by the extreme close ups combined with the over enunciation while lip-syncing), and he gets away with it because he sells it anyway - and he's a much better actor than, say, Gerald Butler.
And Hancock did make my actual top-ten (I actually enjoyed it more the second time).
Posted by: Scott Mendelson at January 5, 2009 09:21 AM
"At 46 (in 9 days from this writing), just 20 years into his movie career, he has already made eight indelible pieces of American cinema."
What would the 8 be?
My guesses:
Che
Traffic
Sex, Lies and Videotape
The Limey
Out of Sight
Erin Brockovich
Solaris
Ocean's Eleven
Posted by: ZacharyTF at January 5, 2009 09:23 AM
I'll jump in on another comment.
Cloverfield is Shit. The marketing team behind it deserver awards, but not the actual movie. God awful.
My wife has seen Mamma Mia! three times (first time with me). Her exact words leaving the theater: "OMG, that was terrible. Can we see it again later tonight? Is there an 11:30 show? I'm serious." We didn't. But I knew that night this was going to be big. It's bad and fun. As opposed to Sex and the City, which was just bad.
Posted by: Hopscotch at January 5, 2009 09:29 AM
Just a quick thanks to DP and all who commented as my Netflix queue had gotten embarrassingly short.
I need to compile a more complete list but I think my favorite of 2008 is Milk. The story and acting just appealed me to greatly and I liked how it was a picture of a time in terms of the sets, costumes, and makeup.
I should say that I judge movies on how much I enjoy watching them not based on editing, direction, etc. I know these things influence my reaction but I am just a plain old mainstream movie viewer. I also only see what gets released fairly broadly other than what I see at Sundance.
Speaking of Sundance, I thought Frozen River was extremely good.
One exception to the "fairly broadly" qualification is Happy-Go-Lucky. It made it to my hometown, two screen theatre and I enjoyed it greatly.
Posted by: Direwolf at January 5, 2009 09:32 AM
Zachary: I doubt DP was including Ocean's 11, but I guess you could make the case for Erin Brockovich not belonging on there either. But you definitely forgot King of the Hill.
Posted by: lazarus at January 5, 2009 10:03 AM
Yes to King of the Hill over Oceans.
I actually thought his work in Ocean's 13, despite a weak script, was the best as a director in the group... Ocean's 12 the most interesting, and 11, a near failure.
And I have seen Mamma Mia! exactly once in a theater and once on a plane. But as I think I explained months back, I had this insanely positive response to every one of those f-ing teases that Universal shoved down our throats on NBC for weeks. The music and the spirit of it are infectious, not unlike the way Andrew Lloyd Webber creeps into your brain and humiliates you for knowing his work ever existed.
Cloverfield is a turd. And I just read, in Kim Voynar's soon-to-post column about English remakes of great foreign films, that the guy who "directed" it is doing the Let The Right On In remake for Overture, which is way scarier than anything in the movie. What the HELL were they thinking... and why couldn't they talk Tom McCarthy into taking it on.
Posted by: David Poland at January 5, 2009 11:02 AM
Good list, Dave. I think people will flip out over "Hunger" when it finally comes around.
Posted by: don lewis (was PetalumaFilms) at January 5, 2009 11:10 AM
Is it just me, or the Dec movies for this year are pretty disappointing?
WALL-E is still my fav in 2008. A true wonder, and got to give Pixar a lot of credit for making a love story about robots in which half of it is a silent film.
Posted by: pchu at January 5, 2009 11:18 AM
Lex, instead of acting, why not try writing a script?
Posted by: christian at January 5, 2009 11:27 AM
Remake of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN??? Fucking Hell people. Of course, we heard about the remakes of "The Host" and "Old Boy" and those haven't hit our screens just yet. Here's to hoping.
Soderbergh - I truly admire the guy for his diversity and his lack of a "staple" or "signature" trait in his movies. But many, many of his movies are good, but not near great, and insanely overrated. Traffic has a house-wife telling an assassin over the phone to shoot someone while she is running errands. It's a BS moment and I never bought it, that's not to knock Del Toro's brilliant performance and the movie has a knockout final shot. Brockovich is a tv movie of the week. My favorite film of his by a mile is "The Limey". I love that damn movie so damn much. I probably watch it once a year.
Posted by: Hopscotch at January 5, 2009 11:35 AM
I know some folks thought Ocean's 12 was a self-reflexive hoot, but it made me feel like I was at a happenin' party where everybody knew everybody else -- except me, so I sat in the corner feeling left out. I know, boo-hoo. But I don't disagree with Dave's assertion that 12 is the most interesting of the three. Still, 11 and 13 worked better for me, though they're ultimately just as larky, I suppose. I recently rewatched a big chunk of 11 on cable, and it didn't strike me as a "near failure."
"Cloverfield" is actually a very interesting piece of filmmaking, and -- oh, wait. I've tried this before. No one's having it. If David Bordwell can't convince you, I don't have a prayer. So never mind. :)
Posted by: yancyskancy at January 5, 2009 12:32 PM
Just caught a R5 screener of "Gomorrah.." LOVED IT. Maybe the best of the year. Anyone seen it??
Posted by: EthanG at January 5, 2009 12:57 PM
Oy! Gomorrah!
I will add to my list of 21!
I hate when something slips by!
Posted by: David Poland at January 5, 2009 01:27 PM
Pretty good list, Dave - as I was reading it and counting down to number 2, I was thinking UH OH, he's going to be on the Wrestler bandwagon, but no, thank the lord. It's a good movie, but I do not get why so many critics are falling over themselves for it. It's a collection of really good performances, nicely shot, but just too many melodramatic (unrealistic) touches in the second half.
SPOILER ALERT
Did any one who saw it really buy these two key moments:
- the meat-slicer scene, some guy out of central casting saying he looked like that Randy wrestler, but older????? Such a set up movie scene and completely takes you away from the grit.
- Marisa Tomei's stripper driving down to Wilmington to his last match. Did not gibe her her character at all.
The performances are good enough for it make my top 20, though.
Dave, I also have to say you make an impassioned defense for the excesses of Rachel Getting Married - I'll have to see it again on DVD to see if I could really tolerate those wedding sequences. You and so many of the geek community have me completely curious to see Speed Racer - I certainly loved V for Vendetta and Matrix Reloaded than most, so the Wachowski's have some goodwill stored up for me. I can catch it HD on Demand.
Hopscotch - I really love Soderbergh, but you have a good point about Traffic. I love the movie, but as it happens, watched it again, last night and you are right: I do NOT buy that Zeta Jones' character could just bark orders at Frankie Flowers liek that - the guys is supposed to basically be a hired terrorist/assasin, it's a real stretch of credibility. Also, Topher Grace's scenes (especially with Douglas) are distracting - it's like in he's another movie with the overdone comic relief role.
That said, Del Toro is as good as the hype and that has me intrigued to see him pull off Che.
Kamikaze, your putdowns of Slumdog are clever, but sorry, the movie is the real deal. Saw it for a second time, this past weekend, with my wife and the film has an energy and power that is unmistakable. I have always been a fan of Boyle and this is the film he's been building towards for years. And the suburban audience I saw it with - it just OWNED them.
What I don't get is people saying this is a DOWN year. To me, 2008 was the best since 2003 - the spring and summer saw some really strong entertainments (Iron Man, Bank Job, Dark Knight, Wall-E) and for me, the late fall brought a lot of really smart and engaging drama's - I mean, wow, Milk, Frost/Nixon, Slumdog, Man on Wire - ALL of these films lived up to the hype for me. Rachel Getting Married and I even liked the new Bond more than most.
I think it was a great year. And Dave, I think it's time to admit that you have a TRUE weakness for musicals. It's ok - we have all known it for many years from your campaigning for Dreamgirls, Moulin Rouge, Hedwig, Sweeney Todd, Hairspray, etc. I just knew you could not maintain the hatred of Mamma Mia, though it really can't hold a candle to any of those others. Never saw Dreamgirls, though.
Posted by: Geoff at January 5, 2009 01:48 PM
"- the meat-slicer scene, some guy out of central casting saying he looked like that Randy wrestler, but older????? Such a set up movie scene and completely takes you away from the grit.
- Marisa Tomei's stripper driving down to Wilmington to his last match. Did not gibe her her character at all."
These are really stupid observations. That's not even what the guy said to him. Try again.
Posted by: Rothchild at January 5, 2009 03:37 PM
'Kamikaze, your putdowns of Slumdog are clever, but sorry, the movie is the real deal.'
eye of the beholder, geoff. why is it so hard for people to accept that just because you (the general you) love a movie, someone else might not connect with it, or vice versa? you felt energy and power, kam did not. ce la vie. that's the movies for you.
yancy, i know 'cloverfield' has been discussed to death but since this thread is a look back at the best movies of 2008, i feel like a bit of a rant here:
i thought 'cloverfield' was perhaps the biggest wasted opportunity of the year. the concept of the monster bearing down on you / passing by within a hair's breadth / 'oh please please don't see me down here' is the stuff of childhood nightmares and could have been done to terrific effect, and there are glimpses of that nightmare in there that make the film tolerable (the beast and the carnage are terrific and believably done), but for me it's all for naught because of the writing, which appears to have been done by a fifteen-year-old boy; the direction, which also appears to have been done by a 15 yr old (the hand-held look and feel is no excuse); and perhaps most importantly the dim-bulb lead characters, every last one of whom i wanted to throttle (particularly the cameraman - if he said 'what's happening?', 'what's going on?' one more time i would have stepped through the screen and bitten off his head myself). all that redonculous 'let's establish the characters' high-school drama stuff at the beginning was so poorly conceived and acted, it made me dislike them all from the start and that's never a good thing.
i never felt the gravity of the situation at any point during proceedings, which is a bummer because with a decent script, direction and actors who were perhaps less easy on the eye and more convincing, 'cloverfield' could have been hard-out monster movie madness. at the end i felt like, 'shit, that could have been epic, those dumbasses!'. anyway, that's me and my 'cloverfield' experience, damn them all to hell.
Posted by: leahnz at January 5, 2009 03:54 PM
I have not seen Che. But I will try to as soon as it comes this weekend.
Another movie I forgot about: The Unforeseen. Brief theatrical run. It's on netflix, produced by Sundance Channel. Really good movie. I'm from TX so I'm biased, but I really enjoyed it.
I've seen Slumdog twice, Frost/Nixon twice, Milk twice. I still like Slumdog the best.
Posted by: Hopscotch at January 5, 2009 04:21 PM
Save Traffic, Kafka is better than every mainstream Soderpop film made.
Posted by: Martin S at January 5, 2009 04:41 PM
Leah's right about Cloverfield - terrific concept given perhaps the worst possible execution. If Paul Greengrass was into sci-fi monsters he could have probably hit it out of the park, but that didn't happen. And I saw that David Bordwell piece and you know, nobody's perfect and even the smartest folk can just flat-out get it wrong sometimes.
I agree that the script of The Wrestler has some pretty conventional beats to it, butthe performances plus Aronofsky's insistently realistic direction helped keep it from getting too melodramatic for me.
Posted by: jeffmcm at January 5, 2009 05:22 PM
Cloverfield = masterpiece. It'd be in my 10-15, easily. Some people just lack the will to be owned.
Posted by: LexG at January 5, 2009 05:23 PM
What does that last sentence even mean?
Posted by: jeffmcm at January 5, 2009 05:26 PM
It means-- and IO would know what I mean-- some people lack to will to give in to the experience when watching certain things, and sit there probably in the very back row, all snide and cynical and hipper-than-thou, with a defeatist, downcast, unenthused "thrill me" attitude, and watch everything from an intellectual reserve rather than an emotional one.
They respond better to irony and distance and a nearly scientific remove rather than a real enthusiasm for the visceral and the enveloping.
Posted by: LexG at January 5, 2009 05:32 PM
I'm sure that's true - but it's difficult to give in to 'visceral' and 'enveloping' when the experience is also accompanied by 'insulting'.
I have no problem with visceral filmmaking, I adore the Greengrass movies and Blair Witch and have a healthy respect for horror movies like Ils and The Strangers - but Cloverfield was in a different, crappier ballpark.
Posted by: jeffmcm at January 5, 2009 05:40 PM
Way to raise the level of discourse, Rothchild, what are you Sean Hannity???? Obviously, I touched a nerve and you love The Wrestler - well, that's great. Why don't you then explain to me what is so realistic about those particular scenes I mentioned?
I didn't say it was a bad movie - it's a good movie with very good performances. But sorry, some of those melodramatic touches took me out of the story.
Posted by: Geoff at January 5, 2009 05:59 PM
Yay, Mamma Mia is D-Po's 10ath favorite film. I knew it. If that doesn't scream "I'm a bear looking for my cub!", then I don't know what does.
Posted by: waterbucket at January 5, 2009 06:42 PM
Geoff, you pinpointed the two least effective moments in the film. And I loved Rourke and Aronfsky's verite direction.
Posted by: christian at January 5, 2009 06:50 PM
SPOILER ALERT
So just out of curiosity, Christian, are you saying that you loved The Wrestler despite those scenes?
There's a lot to like about the film - I happen to think the first half is nearly perfect and the last shot IS perfect. But those scenes (and the other featuring him dancing with his daughter) just took the film down a few notches. I think in a weaker year, the film might have made my Top Ten. But in the past two months, I have seen Rachel Getting Married, Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, and Frost/Nixon - each of them blew The Wrestler away in my eyes.
And I gotta be honest with you, it does not bring me joy to say that a Ron Howard film is better than the latest Darren Aronofsky, but there it is....
Posted by: Geoff at January 5, 2009 07:10 PM
I agree with your points about those exact scenes, but the first half is awesome and Rourke carries the film all the way to the perfect ending.
Posted by: christian at January 5, 2009 07:21 PM
Thanks, Kami. For a while there I was beginning to think I was the only one who didn't get that "feel-good" vibe of SLUMDOG. Excellent film? Sure. "Feel-good?" Not in a million years.
Posted by: Cadavra at January 5, 2009 07:26 PM
Well, Christian, there's something to be said for loving a film despite its flaws - that's probably the case with most of the fans of The Dark Knight, myself among them.
That said, I didn't find Slumdog Millionaire to have ANY weak scenes. I was also very affected by Milk - really good films to end the year!
Posted by: Geoff at January 5, 2009 07:29 PM
'It means-- and IO would know what I mean-- some people lack to will to give in to the experience when watching certain things, and sit there probably in the very back row, all snide and cynical and hipper-than-thou, with a defeatist, downcast, unenthused "thrill me" attitude, and watch everything from an intellectual reserve rather than an emotional one.
They respond better to irony and distance and a nearly scientific remove rather than a real enthusiasm for the visceral and the enveloping.'
hey lex, except for the parts with the excellent monster on the rampage, 'cloverfield' didn't really grab me and i didn't find it 'visceral and enveloping' at all, more like frustrating and badly acted with little intensity, so i guess that remark above is aimed at me, to which i have to say - and don't take this the wrong way - but piss off, that description doesn't fit me in the slightest; i'm like a big dorky puppy when it comes to movies, all eager and open-minded and excited to see anything and everything, wanting to lick and love and slobber all over movies of all types. so there.
Posted by: leahnz at January 5, 2009 07:32 PM
Cloverfield, I felt, worked best when it was in the thick of the action and not a character piece. I never understood the whole "they're all so attractive" putdown, but they weren't exactly the sort of people I want to spend time with. But, yes, the action scenes were thrilling. That helicopter bit was out of a different, far more ridiculous, movie though.
Geoff, The Dark Knight fans in the vein of IO don't believe the movie has any flaws whatsoever. As I said about Slumdog, I can see how people can like it - I did too - but the "feel good" tag is mystefying. I was grinning during the final Millionaire sequences, but I'd do that while watching the real Millionaire too so I can't give Boyle the credit for that, and so, really, it was only those final scenes that actually had any sense of "feel good" to them. The bit at the Taj Mahal was ammusing but not the sort of thing that makes me think "wow, I love life".
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at January 5, 2009 10:41 PM
Camel, you didn't have a raging erection during the whole two hours of watching the movie? That explains your complaint. ;-)
Posted by: brack at January 5, 2009 11:17 PM
leah: Sorry you didn't have as much fun with Cloverfield as I did. Since the topic has been engaged, I'll wade in one more time, with a few thoughts I jotted down after first seeing the film (for the record, I've only seen it once).
I really do think the premise of the film sets a creative challenge that the filmmakers meet in ways both mundane and exciting. The execution and editing serve the concept brilliantly. It's so brilliant, it's almost depressing, because it's proof positive that one can make a satisfying thrill ride with the barest of narrative bones ("satisfying" being the key word). It's practically a vindication of the "MTV/ADD" style of film making. And yet. The 9/11 parallels, though unsubtle, are resonant (probably too much so for anyone near ground zero on that day). And the human element, even though it surfaces in fits and starts like the footage being taped over, is strong enough to make Cloverfield work as more than just a rollercoaster.
I assume jeff will declare the above to be simply "wrong," and that will be that. I can only hope that I am one of those "smartest folk" among the wrong-headed. :)
Posted by: yancyskancy at January 6, 2009 12:16 AM
yancy, thanks for reiterating your 'cloverfield' thoughts, i can't remember what the general consensus was here when the movie came out but i have a couple of friends who absolutely love it, so perhaps i'm in the minority. i don't begrudge people for liking a movie i didn't, i feel more bummed out and a bit envious that i didn't feel that special movie magic, which for me is one of the greatest thrills in life.
anyway, for me 'cloverfield' is a tale of two movies: in one, a huge, grotesque monster goes on a thrilling new york feeding-frenzy rampage; and in the other, the humans say stupid, annoying things unconvincingly that make me want to send the lot of them back to acting class/film school. (it's fine with me that they're pretty, but not at the expense of making me believe they are going through such a horrific catastrophe)
Posted by: leahnz at January 6, 2009 01:43 AM
Brack, please explain. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at January 6, 2009 01:49 AM
In the same year, we have Cloverfield, four superhero movies, one mst likely to be nominated against a movie about a professional wrestler.
If people wonder why IO says it's the Year of The Geek, wonder no more. Giant monsters, superheroes and pro wrestlers is the convo trifecta. And all coming off the heels of five-year horror binge. No wonder theatrical is break-even.
Posted by: Martin S at January 6, 2009 07:20 AM
There are great movies that are thrilling based on having a simple premise...horror and action of course are best for this, like Evil Dead 2 or Blair Witch or Night of the Living Dead. Cloverfield had a few great scenes, but it never really worked for me either. I never felt any real dread or anything...I know a lot of people hate it, but War of the Worlds was a much better, scarier "giant things destroying the world" movie. I really wanted to like Cloverfield but it just didn't really make it across the finish line.
Posted by: The Big Perm at January 6, 2009 07:22 AM
Mamma Mia! is stupid as fuck, you can't deny that.
Still, there are so many moments of pure joy that it's hard not to be won over by it. I think Amanda Seyfried's presence also helps keep it afloat. She looks absolutely lovely and she's incredibly effervescent. Her efforts almost make the plot seem logical.
Posted by: CaptainZahn at January 6, 2009 09:48 AM
CLOVERFIELD, brilliant in its set-up, lost the "human element" when they began acting in the most illogical way: "Screw you guys, we have to climb to the top of that falling building and save a girl I barely know!" Who is pinned with a steel bar and then is just fine...
Posted by: christian at January 6, 2009 11:11 AM
Yancy, I appreciate what you said up above, and let me reiterate that I think the concept of the movie is fine and dandy but the execution is where it all falls apart, for me.
I certainly wasn't 'satisfied', I wish the narrative bones had been even barer since what we get is really pretty melodramatic (and dumb) and the 'human element' of the erased-over video struck me as contrived/melodramatic/sledge-hammery/obnoxious. The concept is supposed to be this verite/handheld video depiction of a disaster in real time, and then the filmmakers go and sabotage that plan pretty much every chance they get with the lame characters, lame dialogue, bizarre motivations, etc. etc. I liked that the one character exploded after being infected, but that belonged in a different movie.
I can imagine ways this movie, with more or less the same script, could have been made into a masterpiece, but not what's actually on screen.
Posted by: jeffmcm at January 6, 2009 11:47 AM
Camel - you're overthinking it, trust me (feel good, all right, nm)
Posted by: brack at January 6, 2009 06:26 PM
christian: FWIW, they didn't "barely know" the girl. She was one of their best friends, and the lead guy had had a relationship with her (referenced in dialogue and seen in the "taped over" scenes.
Posted by: yancyskancy at January 6, 2009 10:01 PM
i just had a delayed epiphany about why 'cloverfield' disappointed me: i wasn't rooting for them to survive! 'blair witch': rooting; 'titanic': rooting; '28 days later': rooting; 'apollo 13': rooting; even 'speed' and 'the perfect storm': rooting. cloverfield: could not care less. :(
Posted by: leahnz at January 7, 2009 12:01 AM
You said it, Leah. Robert McKee would be proud.
Posted by: jeffmcm at January 7, 2009 12:21 AM
I just watched STUCK and that deserves mention on ANYONE'S TOP TEN LIST and if not quite worthy of mention among the best of vintage Carpenter, Craven, Romero, and Hooper, it definitely operates in the same ballpark: A near-perfect, efficient, smart, gruesome B-flick with tons of social commentary and great performances but none of the ironic smarm of recent Tarantino and Rodriguez.
YES.
Posted by: LexG at January 7, 2009 12:36 AM
I think Stuck is really good as well (although I don't think a smack of Tarantino should have been necessary).
Posted by: jeffmcm at January 7, 2009 12:41 AM
Jeff, QT smacks aside, totally. Just fucking overjoyed/overwhelmed by how surprisingly awesome, smart, witty, horrific and well-done it was; If nothing else, made me want to make a beeline for EDMOND, which I've passed on up till now.
Not necessarily a *huge* fan of Romero's two most recent "Dead" films, but definitely liked them and stoked that guys like Romero and Gordon (and, tangentially, Stallone) are back on someone's radar in their minimalist, unpretentious way, delivering EXACTLY what fans would hope for in terms of intent vs. execution.
And mostly, it all makes me wish my absolute favorite of that era, Carpenter, would direct something, ANYTHING, for the big screen again. If he put even HALF the subversive, witty ambition Romero and Gordon are rolling with into whatever he concocts next, it would be infinitely rootable.
Posted by: LexG at January 7, 2009 12:49 AM
I don't think Carpenter could make a good movie again because he pretty much says he doesn't care anymore. I wish he would though, because when he was on target hardly anyone could touch him.
Posted by: The Big Perm at January 7, 2009 07:11 AM
I don't need to bring back my Cloverfield rage. It's not worth it. I'm moving on with my life. I'll just say besides the good integrating of the special effects into the grainy footage, I felt the film failed on every level and it was the only 80-minute movie I've ever seen that felt like it was 3 hours long.
Posted by: Joe Straat at January 7, 2009 08:57 AM
Yes, yancy, I realized that right after I posted. It made not a whit of emotional difference given the unbelievable behavior of the characters.
Posted by: christian at January 7, 2009 02:17 PM
Hey, LexG! Have I got a musical for you!
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939297.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
Posted by: Joe Leydon at January 7, 2009 05:33 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)