Best Of 2007, Filmleaf Members' Lists

LISTS AND QUALITY Now as for the size of lists, I really wish I had the ability to give just ten films or even fewer for a year and say these are going to matter in future to me, and to other people. I think my 1997 list above has very little fat in it. There are different ways to look at your annual list. You can see it as just your favorites. You can see it as what you think are the best of what you've seen, the best of what came out that year. For the latter kind of list maybe the Voice/LA Weekly poll list has more validity than mine or yours. Over a hundred critics may have a better sense of what's going to be remembered than we do. On the other hand I think there's a certain herd mentality among critics in general (except for the absolute contrarians--but they can be just like the wayward boy who only does what his father tells him not to do, and so is still ruled by his father).

JUST GETTING TO SEE THE STUFF IS A PROBLEM TOO FOR EVERYBODY. The whole DVD thing is a mixed blessing. It's good, but DVD viewing is no substitute for a good theatrical screening. I know a 50-inch home screen is nice, but it's still not the same. It's nice to have some experience of a film, and a tape or DVD is a good study tool (or form of home entertainment) but it's like a reproduction of the Mona Lisa or Guernica vs. the actual paintings. I just keep getting confused about releases and all that stuff more now that I see more movies pre-release in various ways. And I sometimes remember there's been a discussion here of something, like Los Muertos (I think I learned from that discussion) but forget the release facts. I had two opportunities to see Dans Paris, due to annually spending time in Paris and New York, but I miss Spanish language films you get to see, Oscar, due to being in Florida.

ETC. For your 1997 list, I'm glad to see you listed Titanic, and didn't scorn it for being a big mainstream popular movie. Maybe your kids helped prompt you. I'm also kind of glad that you too forgot to list a movie you'd meant to--Boogie Nights.

The actors in Kiss or Kill you don't remember because they are complete unknowns.

Yes, I liked Tsai Ming-Liang's River. I have recently watched his new one, I Don't Want to Sleep Alone, but I have to say that on a small screen at home it just was too hard to evaluate. Certainly there were beautiful images. I couldn't give it the attention I could have in a theater. I'm sure I prefer it to Wayward Clouds. But the last three ones don't quite have the human warmth of What Time Is It There?

Originally posted by Chris Knipp There are different ways to look at your annual list. You can see it as just your favorites. You can see it as what you think are the best of what you've seen, the best of what came out that year.
Sorry if I'm repeat myself, Chris. As I've said before, and we've discussed: my list reflects what I think it's best but since I consider that process highly subjective (no matter who's doing the listing), I use "favorites" instead of "best". It's a personal list and it doesn't reflect the opinion of anyone else but mine. If most of my favorites appear on collective lists like Metacritic, Voice/LA Times or whatever, there's no shame in that. Same goes if that's not the case.

Over a hundred critics may have a better sense of what's going to be remembered than we do. On the other hand I think there's a certain herd mentality among critics in general
Many of the movies now considered great were ignored, little-seen or underappreciated at the time of release. I agree with the comment about the herd mentality. One important factor though is that some movies are more conspicuous than others. I'm convinced, for instance, that if more critics had seen the outstanding Aussie film Ten Canoes, said film would appear in many more critics' lists.

The whole DVD thing is a mixed blessing. It's good, but DVD viewing is no substitute for a good theatrical screening.
Absolutely. But take into account that some of what gets released on dvd nowadays would only be viewable at film festivals if it wasn't for the popular dvd format.
It is a mixed blessing. Take Asian films. So few get released in the US in relation to the number of high quality Asian productions. I've learned over the years in discussion with distributors and Asian film buffs that Asian-Americans (a potentially huge market if these films were released here) watch new Asian release on import dvd. Their quality has improved, they are cheap, and they are released within weeks of theatrical premieres in Asia. I've learned to do the same. To offer an example, the last film entry into my 2007 undistributed list, a South Korean film, opened in Seoul theaters on October 3rd, 2007!

For your 1997 list, I'm glad to see you listed Titanic, and didn't scorn it for being a big mainstream popular movie. Maybe your kids helped prompt you.
No, I felt bad they were too young in 1997 to go with me when I took in a repeat theatrical screening of Titanic. No scorn for big mainstream popular movies. But if I don't think they're truly great and I have nothing mainstream to list, so be it. Absolutely loved King Kong and all three Lord of the Rings movies too. There are others. Ratatouille is pretty good.

I forgot Ten Canoes.

Where is your 2007 Undistributed list and what South Korean film are you talking about? Is that given above? I don't see it.

Your recent lists favor fewer mainstream favorites than you did in the past, I'd say, perhaps more due to your viewing patterns than any change in taste. Same with me I guess.

My bad. I failed to explain undistributed list has yet to be posted. I was referring to Jin-ho Hur's Happiness. So you watched Ten Canoes, but you didn't review it, right? English list and a list of performances I won't soon forget to be posted today.

Okay, here is my review of Ten Canoes:

http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?p=845&

I may have forgotten to post it on Filmleaf. I saw it at either Cinema Village or Quad Cinema in NY last summer. Howard Schumann also reviewed it on Cinescene:

http://www.cinescene.com/howard/tencanoes.html

I figured you hadn't posted the unreleased list yet.

LEAD PERFORMANCE

JULIE CHRISTIE (Away From Her)
NICOLE KIDMAN (Margot at the Wedding)
MARION COTILLARD (La Vie en Rose)
NAOMI WATTS (Eastern Promises)
WEI TANG (Lust, Caution)

^^^^^

BENICIO DEL TORO (Things We Lost in the Fire)
GORDON PINSET (Away From Her)
DANIEL DAY-LEWIS (There Will Be Blood)
PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN (The Savages)
DANNY GLOVER (Honeydripper)

SUPPORTING PERFORMANCE

MARISA TOMEI (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead)
JENNIFER JASON LEIGH (Margot at the Wedding)
AMY RYAN (Gone Baby Gone)
OLYMPIA DUKAKIS (Away From Her)
SAMANTHA MORTON (Control)

^^^^^

CASEY AFFLECK (The Assassination of Jesse James...)
VINCENT CASSEL (Eastern Promises)
TOM WILKINSON (Michael Clayton)
ARMIN MUELLER-STAHL (Eastern Promises)
MAX VON SYDOW (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly)

Yes Chris, you hadn't posted it until now. Thanks. Curious as to what prompted you to also post a link to Howard's. I recently came across his 2007 Best list at sensesofcinema. Rocket Science, his choice for best movie of the year, was quite excrutiating for me to watch (the central performance about the only redeeming factor, I felt).

I know I hadn't posted my Ten Canooes review-don't know why I forgot. I write for Cinescene and generally like Howard's reviews. My review of Rocket Science http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?p=797 I guess in Howard's case it's just one of what you call his "favorites". I sometimes find your favorites "excruciating for me to watch." He wrote very favorably and well about No Country for Old Men--also for Cinescene.

Makes sense. I didn't know you still contributed to CineScene. I also generally like Howard's reviews. I didn't like No Country but I certainly didn't find it (or any film you listed) excrutiating to watch. I don't remember another movie he liked this much that I thought was this weak. It's such a marked contrast of opinion. I thought the use of the omniscent narrator in Rocket Science was offputing and purposeless. I relate when you identify some plot developments in it as "far fetched". But "the whole movie is a string of ornate whimsy" just about summarizes my opinion.

I am very much a contnributor to Cinescene. I suppose Howard responded to the sensitivity to a handicapped but talented young man. Why he picked this as his top film of the year is anybody's guess.

I'm in New York now and I'm going to begin the French film seriesso tune in to the Festival Coverage or the thread here on them.

TOP 10

1. AWAY FROM HER (Sarah Polley)
2. THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (Dominik)
** I'M NOT THERE (Todd Haynes)
** MARGOT AT THE WEDDING (Noah Baumbach)
** TEN CANOES (Rolf de Heer)
6. ATONEMENT (Joe Wright)
** BLADE RUNNER 2007 Ed. (Ridley Scott)
** INTO THE WILD (Sean Penn)
9. EASTERN PROMISES (David Cronenberg)
** THERE WILL BE BLOOD (Paul Thomas Anderson)

RUNNERS UP

RED ROAD (Andrea Arnold)
HONEYDRIPPER (John Sayles)
STARTING OUT IN THE EVENING (Andrew Wagner)
MY BROTHER'S WEDDING (Charles Burnett)
ONCE (John Carney)
THE SAVAGES (Tamara Jenkins)
THIS IS ENGLAND (Shane Meadows)
THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY (Ken Loach)
ACROSS THE UNIVERSE (Julie Taymor)
SOUTHLAND TALES (Richard Kelly)

HONORABLE MENTION
Ratatouille (Bird)The Hawk is Dying (Goldberger), 2 Days in Paris (Delpy), Things We Lost in the Fire (Bier), In the Valley of Elah (Haggis), Sweeney Todd (Burton), Rescue Dawn (Herzog), A Mighty Heart (Winterbottom), The Bourne Ultimatum (Greengrass), Beowulf 3D (Zemeckis), The Simpsons Movie (Silverman).

Not Seen Yet: Brand Upon the Brain.

I have missed Red Road and Things That Were Lost in the Fire.

Odd, or ironic anyway, that you inclcude Ten Canoes here since it is billed as the first film in an Australian aboriginal language. Of course it has English narration. I commented that I hoped next time they'd make one all in the aboriginal language without the cover of English.

I don't know The Hawk Is Dying. Haven't seen the new even more final Blade Runner, which you could not omit. I almost did but needed to rest up for my current trip and the rigors of daily multiple New York review writing.

I wonder why you don't mention Michael Clayton. I think it's a very well-made, well0-acted film with important contents. I had forgotten about The Simpsons Movie, but the series meant nothing to me so it woulod be odd for me to list it. Id forgotten about Beowulf in 3D, which I was surprised I rather liked, though not really enough to list it. I can't find it on the Voice/LA Weekly poll. The Simposon's Movie is 94. But then again, In the Valley of Elah is 79. Your Red Road tied with my The Lookout at 73. We have our special pets.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I have missed Red Road
It won the top prize at the Miami Film Festival, where I first watched it. Some people were upset at their failure to comprehend the Scottish accents. It should have been released with subs like a Ken Loach film I can't quite remember. I was so surprised by the way the conclusion impacted me emotionally. I didn't see it coming. Superb performances by the whole cast.

and Things That Were Lost in the Fire.
A much more satisfying treatment of drug addiction than the more oblique point of view of Assayas' Clean. Benicio del Toro gives one of the best performances of the year and nobody noticed. Or maybe they forgot about it?

Odd, or ironic anyway, that you inclcude Ten Canoes here since it is billed as the first film in an Australian aboriginal language. Of course it has English narration.
Good point. It's been a while since I watched it and wrote the title down in the English-language page in preparation for the day I would make the list. Maybe I felt there's more English narration than aboriginal language in it...

I don't know The Hawk Is Dying.
I don't know if you're familiar with Georgia-born, Florida-based novelist Harry Crews. Perhaps he is only a regional figure. The film is a faithful adaptation of his titular novel, set in his college town of Gainsville, FLA (the unofficial border between Old Florida, the part of the State that belongs to the Old South, and the newer, more diverse rest of the State). The book was adapted and directed by another regional figure, Julian Goldberger, whom I've admired since his 1998 debut Trans (a coming-of-age set in SW Florida). The new film is not as good as Trans but it depicts its environs and community with great authenticity. And I love Paul Giamatti's performance.

I wonder why you don't mention Michael Clayton. I think it's a very well-made, well0-acted film with important contents.
It didn't impress me enough to beat the competition. Good film though.

I'd forgotten about Beowulf in 3D, which I was surprised I rather liked, though not really enough to list it.
I was apprehensive about listing it because I'm afraid I wouldn't like it nearly as much in 2D, but I can't ignore how fascinated I was by the experience of watching it in a properly equipped theater.

The Simposon's Movie is 94.
Are you sure? Metacritic score of 94? Seems too high.

Quote:

---

Maybe I felt there's more English narration than aboriginal language in it...

---

I doubt that in actual number of words but I could be wrong. Anyway it's a shame to call it an English language film

I did not say The Simpson's was a Metacritic rating of 94; I was giving the rankings of several movies on the Voice/LA Weekly poll.

I think Things That Were Lost in the Fire was a blip on the screen--it disappeared before I could get to it. So people would forget it, and Del Toro has been nominated before.

I'm not familiar with Harry Crews and was confusing him with a retired English professor at UC Berkeley, Frederick Crews.

I cannot agree with the idea that Michael Clayton isn't as good as "the competition," and think maybe you select against it because it is mainstream, and big budget, but it isn't exactly a popular movie. I would do that myself but it is just so well made and well acted and interesting that I can't. But it isn't popular, though being nominated it will now be seen. That is where that Time guy Corliss is wrong, because people go out and see movies because they've been nominated or won. As they should. Anyway Michael Clayton only did half as well as Beowulf which in turn was way below Superbad or Juno, which are close to each other in box office take.

Voice poll rankings again (you have to click on the box on this page--it's messed up):

http://www.villagevoice.com/film/080...,78739,20.html

I have no prejudice against mainstream, big budget movies. I recognize MC is highly regarded and I think of it as a good movie. I did find it awfully familiar in both content and execution. I guess what I'm saying is that I didn't find it distinctive enough. I personally felt more conflicted about leaving Zodiac and Juno out of the list.
Good comment about Corliss and awards serving the purpose of encouraging audiences to check out good films they haven't seen.