Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 2:42:24 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 8, 2006 2:42:24 GMT
2005 Please post up to ten favourite films from this year. Consult this page to confirm the year of release for a film. Thanks. (Awaiting suggestions of ranking preference.)
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 2:59:26 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 8, 2006 2:59:26 GMT
Okay, first question: are we ranking our lists? I have no problem in keeping them up to date.
And if we are, what's the scoring system? One point for each film, or reversal of points according to place on the list?
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 7:29:26 GMT
Post by jrod on Nov 8, 2006 7:29:26 GMT
Id vote for just one point for each film (perhaps you can give your favorite of the year 2 points or something as well?)
Are we supposed to post 10 films per year or five?
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 12:52:45 GMT
Post by Boz on Nov 8, 2006 12:52:45 GMT
I prefer ranked, with a descending points system.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 14:58:33 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 8, 2006 14:58:33 GMT
Since we regulars are few, the descending points system will, I think, give less ties and draws. Either way, since I'm suddenly enthusiastic about this again, I don't mind updating scores and points as and when needed.
I vote for descending points system. But to be honest, I intend and encourage these threads to be points of discussion beyond mere listings; a recommendations thread if all else fails.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 15:09:17 GMT
Post by RNL on Nov 8, 2006 15:09:17 GMT
I'd prefer to rank them. Whether each receives 1 point or the points vary inversely with their positions on the list doesn't bother me. Though, with the latter we're probably less likely to get ties.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 15:16:05 GMT
Post by RNL on Nov 8, 2006 15:16:05 GMT
Are we just going by the IMDb year index or by the commercial release dates?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 16:55:28 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 8, 2006 16:55:28 GMT
I had assumed we'd agreed on the index, but I may have misunderstood. Have I? ;D
Is it much more difficult to research, or link to, the commercial release?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 17:06:13 GMT
Post by RNL on Nov 8, 2006 17:06:13 GMT
What I'd meant was the commercial release dates. Tideland, for instance, would be 2006. I don't mind using the indexes, though. Whatever's easiest.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 17:15:39 GMT
Post by RNL on Nov 8, 2006 17:15:39 GMT
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 17:51:59 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 8, 2006 17:51:59 GMT
_1. The New World Terrence Malick _2. Caché Hidden Michael Haneke _3. Wolf Creek Greg McLean _4. Good Night, and Good Luck. George Clooney _5. King Kong Peter Jackson _6. Voksne mennesker Dark Horse Dagur Kári _7. The Proposition John Hillcoat _8. Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story Michael Winterbottom _9. Broken Flowers Jim Jarmusch 10. Manderlay Lars von Trier
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 18:27:54 GMT
Post by Boz on Nov 8, 2006 18:27:54 GMT
Reactions: Capo, you've long had me interested in seeing The New World, although as of yet my interest hasn't sustained long enough to get around to it. And I guess I really need to see Caché. I'm pretty sure my parents saw it in theaters, I'll have to ask them.
I was personally dissappointed with A History of Violence. While I've never seen any other Cronenberg's, his reputation kind of preceded him and I expected great things. In the end it came off as average, credible only for Cronenberg's willingness to inject reality with tinges of the distubring and abstract, something that other films of its kind (crime-fiction) weren't quite venturing into. I don't know, I'll have to go back, find my proview, and perhaps reconsider it. Broken Flowers, too, I failed to see just cause for so much admiration. Murray was great, and while I'm not too experienced with Jarmusch's work, his direction worked well, but again, it just seemed like the type of film that took a familiar type of plot with familiar type of characters and was suddenly given all these accolades because of the slightly different way the respected director treated it.
Really surprised to see you both ranked King Kong. I was skeptical before its release considering I hate Peter Jackson, and those thoughts seemed to be given affirmation from the wide critical reception. The stifling length wasn't too much?
And I'm really interested in seeing some Von Trier.
No love for Capote? Jarhead? Squid and the Whale?
And Capo, I could've sworn you were a Last Days fan.
My picks:
1. Brokeback Mountain Ang Lee 2. Last Days Gus Van Sant 3. Wedding Crashers David Dobkin 4. Capote Bennet Miller 5. The 40 Year Old Virgin Judd Apatow 6. The Weather Man Gore Verbinski 7. Good Night, and Good Luck George Clooney 8. Jarhead Sam Mendes 9. The Squid and the Whale Noah Baumbach 10. Lord of War Andrew Niccol
Edit: Apparently Layer Cake came out in the UK 6 months prior to its US release, so it's been removed.
And not to steal your job Capo, but our top 10 so far:
1. Last Days – 19 2. Cache – 17 3. Good Night, and Good Luck - 12 4. The New World - 11 5. King Kong – 10 5. Brokeback Mountain - 10 7. Broken Flowers – 9 7. Where the Truth Lies – 9 9. Wolf Creek – 8 9. Wedding Crashers - 8
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 19:02:15 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 8, 2006 19:02:15 GMT
I intend on posting an Excel image in the first post, when we get to five voters. It makes the coding easier...or absent.
Elaborations, lengthy and brief, shall follow...
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 19:06:50 GMT
Post by Boz on Nov 8, 2006 19:06:50 GMT
What's our system for expanding to new years? Are we waiting until we get a pretty solidified list in 2005 before a 2004 thread is opened, and so on?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 19:13:07 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 8, 2006 19:13:07 GMT
I don't like starting too many threads at once, as enthusiastic as I am about it. Not only can other people get mixed up, but it can get hectic if you've too many lists to deal with at the same time.
I'll start "2004" when I get back from the cinema later tonight. Is that okay?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 19:56:00 GMT
Post by RNL on Nov 8, 2006 19:56:00 GMT
I was personally dissappointed with A History of Violence. While I've never seen any other Cronenberg's, his reputation kind of preceded him and I expected great things. In the end it came off as average, credible only for Cronenberg's willingness to inject reality with tinges of the distubring and abstract, something that other films of its kind (crime-fiction) weren't quite venturing into. I think the more familiar you are with Cronenberg's work, the more you're likely to get out of A History of Violence. Everything that makes him who he is as an artist is there, but it's all submerged under the genre idioms he's playing with. It's arguably the first post-modern film he's made ( Videodrome being partially about post-modernism rather than an example of it in effect). It's an interesting direction for him to take. Nope. Every single second of that film is riveting. Peter Jackson has one of the most expressive cameras I've ever seen, and that goes all the way back to Bad Taste. It's also a masterclass in self-reference, if you're into that kind of thing. 1 star, 3 stars and 1 star, respectively.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 20:33:24 GMT
Post by Boz on Nov 8, 2006 20:33:24 GMT
Yeah, very eager to see Videodrome.
And wow, 1 star for Capote and 3 for Jarhead? You've got to be the only person I know who disliked Capote (if that is what you're version of a one star rating implies), and was that enthusiastic about Jarhead. I'm very interested to hear the reasoning behind those if you'd care to discuss.
And BTW, we've just started the original Kong in my film class, which will be 2nd viewing, although my 1st was probably at least 8 years ago. Perhaps I'll take a gander at Jackson's version afterwards. Were you also a LOTR fan? I'm not sure how similar they are, and if I could hate one and love the other. (Although I've never seen either. It's what I call "The Spinach Syndrome," hating something you've never tried. [Although I have tried spinach].)
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 20:40:19 GMT
Post by Boz on Nov 8, 2006 20:40:19 GMT
I don't like starting too many threads at once, as enthusiastic as I am about it. Not only can other people get mixed up, but it can get hectic if you've too many lists to deal with at the same time. I'll start "2004" when I get back from the cinema later tonight. Is that okay? Don't get the wrong impression, I'm all for avoiding confusion and stimulating extensive discussion in one year. Feel free to hold off on the 2004 thread.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 20:51:02 GMT
Post by RNL on Nov 8, 2006 20:51:02 GMT
If I really disliked a film, I'd give it no stars. 1 star means it's of some interest, there's something there to like.
Capote was a drawn-out performance-piece, with a celebrated performance from Hoffman, that's it. Any kind of intertextuality is seemingly diligently avoided. Couple the implication that the murders were dramatically 'staged' by the killers in anticipation of their future legacy with the fact that Truman Capote is self-servingly fictionalising their already fictionalised, self-serving account of the crime, and you get a fascinatingly layered narrative with enormous potential (and that's not even factoring in the presence of Harper Lee, and the film that's being made from her book, when there's been a film made from Capote's and now a film about his writing it), it could've been an exceptional movie about the practice and ethics of art, and the nature of created realities. But that side of the story is given no real attention, and what we're left with is Hoffman's remarkable mimicry and some rich cinematography.
There's a discussion in the Sam Mendes thread about Jarhead. I really liked it, and considered it for my list here, but, in the end, preferred those I've listed.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 20:54:38 GMT
Post by RNL on Nov 8, 2006 20:54:38 GMT
And BTW, we've just started the original Kong in my film class, which will be 2nd viewing, although my 1st was probably at least 8 years ago. Perhaps I'll take a gander at Jackson's version afterwards. Were you also a LOTR fan? I'm not sure how similar they are, and if I could hate one and love the other. (Although I've never seen either. It's what I call "The Spinach Syndrome," hating something you've never tried. [Although I have tried spinach].) I liked The Lord of the Rings. I haven't seen any of them in nearly three years, so I don't have much to say. I wasn't blown away, but I enjoyed them well enough. I preferred The Frighteners. I adored King Kong. Familiarity with the original will make the self-referrential structure of the remake infinitely more enjoyable for you... ...but pay attention
|
|