Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 78

Thread: Critics' Darlings: The Films of 2003

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    Well, cinemabon, your weight is felt around here, both on FilmWurld, and in my little corner of the Bay Area. And if you lived a long time in LA, you're more worldly than you pretend.

    I'm glad you acknowledge Ebert's value. There's a lot more to him than first appears.
    I must concur in that Monsieur Ebert has championed many great films that would otherwise not see the light of day. There is no question of the man's intellect. And his knowledge of film is vast. -- cinemabon.
    Three cheers! I'm glad to hear you say that. It bears repeating.


    www.chrisknipp.com

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,843
    I have just updated the list of films rated highly by American print critics. You can find it on page #1 in this thread. It's an easy way to get an idea of the critical consensus regarding the movies of 2003.

    Three best reviewed English-language films are:
    American Splendor, Finding Nemo and Lost in Translation.(tie)

    Three best reviewed Foreign-language films are:
    The Son (Belgium), Russian Ark, and Marooned in Irak(Iran).

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656

    sometimes I don't think critics take their jobs seriously

    How can American Splendor be ranked better than
    Russian Ark, Winged Migration, Swimming Pool, Mystic River, or Hulk?

    I admit I haven't seen the Pekar movie, but there is no way it's better than the aforementioned films. No way. (I'm a comic book fan, so I know).

    Are these critics making a "wholesome" list? Seems that way. I think they are trying to appeal to the massive demographic that is "middle america" or "middle class". Finding Nemo and Lost in Translation are just the kind of films that a couple would go out on the town to see and be raving afterwards.

    I wanna see the list for film enthusiasts. A list for the people who approach movies with what came before deeply ingrained in their minds. (i.e. me!) Even if I disagreed with the list, at least it would be fun to discuss the who's and why's. The Lion Kings and Finding Nemos and Seabiscuits are great, but I'm on the lunatic fringe, dammit!
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840

    Let't not take this Metacritic thing too seriously.

    The Metacritic listing is useful just as a catalogue of recent movies with good critical notices. But it's not written in stone, and there are several good reasons why it doesn't work supremely well for us.

    First of all, most of us will not even have seen all the movies listed. Johann acknowledges this in objecting to the high rating of American Splendor without even having seen it. The sad fact is that we can't refute claims of merit when we don't have the evidence.

    Second, as Johann suggests, this is a critics' popularity chart. These movies had wide appeal, but they also particularly appealed to critics. I'd suggest that a movie like American Splendor rates highly with the scribes not because it's moving or powerful but because it works, and because it stands out as original and peculiar. Mystic River, for example, which they raved over, regardless of what the Metacritic listing says, looks very conventional and may ultimately fade from a critic's jaded mind for that reason.

    Third, the Metacritic numerical rating system is highly unreliable. The assigning of a number from one to a hundred after reading a page of prose is completely arbitrary. Nothing scientific about it. Read the reviews and look at the number Metacritic has assigned them and you'll see how completely off the numbers often are -- but also how difficult it is to assign a 1-100 rating to 1200 words about a movie. It's often hard to say where Anthony Lane of The New Yorker is planting his vote, but I'd certainly think his rating of Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is higher than a 70.

    And there's nothing scientific about movie criticism either. When we look back on this year, only a few movies will stand out; maybe some not even mentioned here. And at year's end when the critics compile their ten-best lists, there won't be any two the same.

    How can American Splendor be ranked better than Russian Ark, Winged Migration, Swimming Pool, Mystic River, or Hulk?


    Actually, very easily, in my opinion. Though many here might strongly object to my lack of enthusiasm for Russian Ark and Swimming Pool, still, Mystic River for all its strengths has been overrated by the critics this year, and Hulk (which I never saw) sounds like a turkey. Winged Migration is nice enough but pretty ho-hum ultimately: I'd hope for something more soul-stirring and brilliant on my final list than that.

    Watch American Splendor before you decide. But anyway, this isn't a reliable system, so don't let it bug you. Maybe the Metacritic people just goofed. Or maybe the critics did to begin with.

    But unreliable as this Metacritic system is, it's even more unreliable to decide a movie doesn't measure up when you haven't even seen it. (So, yes, I didn't really have a right to say what I did about Hulk.)
    Last edited by Chris Knipp; 11-21-2003 at 01:50 PM.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,843

    ALTERNATIVE LISTS

    I haven't been much of a thread starter but I'm satisfied with the discussion generated by this thread. It's a joy to be enriched by commentary from Chris, Johann, Cinemabon and others. Thanks fellas.
    I think it's a good time to introduce alternatives to the metacritic list. I will introduce a list of best reviewed films from rottentomatoes.com. They include both print and internet critics. Reviews are divided into fresh(thumbs up) or rotten. The score is the percentage of reviews that are "fresh" for each movie.

    100% : BUS 174 (Brasilian doc.), MANITO, MAROONED IN IRAQ.

    99% : FINDING NEMO

    98% : SPELLBOUND, WINGED MIGRATION

    97% : CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS, THE STATION AGENT, TO BE AND TO HAVE, SWEET SIXTEEN

    96% : RAISING VICTOR VARGAS, OPEN HEARTS, LOVE AND DIANE, AUTUMN SPRING

    95% : AMERICAN SPLENDOR, MAN WITHOUT A PAST, SHATTERED GLASS

    94% :LOST IN TRANSLATION

    Other movies of interest: 89% for THE SON and MAGDALENE SISTERS; 87% for SPIDER, 10, and MYSTIC RIVER; 85% for 21 GRAMS; 84% for SWIMMING POOL and MASTER AND COMMANDER.

    As a response to Johann's request for a list from film enthusiasts, I am including the highest rated films by Imdb users. These voters are a more international bunch although most are from North America and the U.K. I will exclude the following highly rated films that have yet to open in North America: Lars von Trier's Dogville, Zhang Yimou's Hero, The Photocopier from Brasil and Memories of Murder from South Korea. Users vote on a scale of 1 to 10.

    8.3: CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS, FINDING NEMO, KILL BILL vol.1, and THE STATION AGENT.

    8.2: LOST IN TRANSLATION

    8.1: AMERICAN SPLENDOR, BARBARIAN INVASIONS, MAGDALENE SISTERS and MYSTIC RIVER

    7.9: LOVE ACTUALLY, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN and X2.
    Last edited by oscar jubis; 11-22-2003 at 12:36 AM.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840

    Quick response

    Thanks for these. You certainly need to cross-check ratings if you're going to get anything out of using ratings at all. But none of them are going to mean very much unless you're used to consulting them and know the various rating systems and how they tend to run, high or low, etc. In fact, from my standpoint they just plain don't mean much anyway, because the only thing that I get anything out of is in reading the actual reviews or comments, not in looking at scores. And I'm much more interested in my own ratings than in those of some critic I barely know. Even the critics I read regularly don't influence me that much to rate one movie or another high or low.

    The same thing is also true of rottentomatoes as is true of Metacritic about the numerical ratings they use to arrive at their averages for a certain movie. Their numerical ratings are quite arbitrarily assigned by someone after reading the reviews, and hence they are not really particularly reliable. They haven't even been assigned by the reviewer, and the person who assigns them may have misread the review, misinterpreted how the critic regards the movie.

    Metacritic's 1-100 ratings run low. Kill Bill: Vol. 1 gets a 68 on Metacritic. I'm not sure where it comes on rottentomaties, but on Metacritic an 85 is a top rating. 100's don't seem to exist there. This is why you have to correct for the different rating systems, how they're administered.

    How weird to see Manito, Bus 174 and Marooned in Iraq rated a 100 on rottentomaties. I can't imagine what that means -- maybe that very few reviews are being counted for them? Bus 174 is an interesting documentary, but not that great. Manito is severely flawed and certainly doesn't deserve to be above all the more professional efforts, just for being authentic and rough. If Citizen Kane is a 100, you'd have to start at 80 and work down for an average year.

    What I get out of all these lists is names of movies somebody likes a lot which I wish I'd seen but haven't yet. Even if a certain movie actually sucks, if a lot of people are moved it, I want to see it. But no matter how many times certain movies that I have seen turn up near the top, they're not going to make it onto my final best list. I will not yield to group pressure. On the contrary the more times I see a movie overrated, the more sure I am that I ought to stand firm on it. Examples: Finding Nemo, Winged Migration, Capturing the Friedmans (notable but overrated), Swimming Pool and Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.

    What I'd like to see us discussing is how the different groups and demographics differ in what they rate high. Sundance, Metacritic and rottentomatoes, Cannes, the Academy, IMDb -- how do these groups of viewers differ in their tastes, in general?

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656

    It's all clear to me now

    Thanks Chris for clearing up the metacritic thing.

    I thought it was a conscious effort on the "critics at large" part to rank these films as the list demonstrates. I guess it's just a compilation or litmus test of what's good this year, huh?

    Where i get riled is Kill Bill at 68. See, in my warped mind I feel Kill Bill is true cinema, where American Splendor is just a good movie. (I know all about Pekar, and he bores me).

    It's all subjective.

    I still say there is nothing I've seen yet this year (even Kill Bill) that is better than Russian Ark. Man, I'm still thinking about that one.
    Enough has been said about Swimming Pool on this site, so I'll clam up on that.

    Hulk was not overrated. It was actually trashed by the critics, and I take great offence to that. Hulk will definitely be in my top ten for this year. I can't thank Ang Lee enough for making it.
    Anyone hear that Alfred Molina (from Taymor's Frida) is suiting up to play Doc Ock in the Spiderman sequel? I saw what he looks like in costume, and I am looking forward to it. The first Spiderman was great (mainly for Willem Dafoe) but it wasn't exactly a classic. Just a great comic translation. It could have been disastrous. Look what happened to The Fantastic 4 film...
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840

    Did I clear something up?

    Johan,

    Sometimes I buy, or "fall for," if you like, a critical consensus. That stopped me from seeing Hulk. Surely a majority of the critics trashed it, or at most damned it with faint praise. I have to admit I didn't like Crouching Tiger--so despite earlier triumphs by Ang Lee I was feeling he'd lost his touch (wrong to do that and wrong to trust the critics when such an important director is concerned). But I also saw a glimpse of Hulk and wasn't drawn in. What's so great about it?

    I must admit that Kill Bill is one of the few new movies that I really want to see again. Consequently, natch, I like you would rather see it again then American Splendor. I am a huge Tarantino fan and watching such a cinematic and self referential movie by him is a rich pleasure for me. I thought American Splendor was neat, and both quite unique and in keeping with some of the best new stuff, such as Kaufman's screenplays -- Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, for instance. It's inventive and I wouldn't call it uncinematic but certainly Kill Bill is more cinematic.

    I'm not by any means completely sure how all these review compendiums, Metacritic, rottentomatoes, IMDb, etc., compile their ratings and would welcome any more inside information anybody has about the mysterious ways in which they work. I'm not sure they know how they do it themselves, though, to be very honest with you. I'm pretty sure it's unscientific -- but then, how could it be otherwise? But no, it's definitely not a collective rating effort by the critics -- or in IMDb's case, rank and file viewers -- to rank a running (and ever-expanding) list of new movies. It's at best just a very rough list of what people think is good, and since we kind of already know that, who cares? There are sites (or there were) where people speculate about the politics of the Academy Awards, and that's different, and perhaps more interesting, since it gives you a look into the sometimes ugly and certainly greedy world of Hollywood bottom lines.

    Where they really matter, the arts are all about emotions and elective affinities and gut reactions, style, taste, and, yes, rating things (as is cattle raising too). Sometimes the drive to "rate" everything however gets in the way of making really helpful observations. I see that in Kael's writing sometimes. I like her sureness and self confidence -- I think you have to both be very instinctive and very smart to have that as a critic: I think most post-Kael Paulettes fake a self confidence they really lack, and can't back up their pretense of -- but when she's primarily focused on dissing a movie, she often is so much less helpful in what she says about it than when she's jacking it up.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656

    True enough

    I like the term "paulettes". Good one.

    I posted about Hulk on Bix's thread. It's just awesome, that's all.
    It's a 2003 take on the character, and I was bowled over.

    Nick Nolte doesn't really turn my crank, but he's a cut above in Hulk. Sam Elliot helps make this film great. As General Ross, he's unsung as an anchor for the film.

    Here are some "possible" negative points about it (that I dismiss):

    Jennifer Connelly is boring.
    Eric Bana is boring.
    Too much exposition (chatter).
    The CGI is not realistic.
    It's too long.

    So there, I've given you the heads up. If you saw it as I did, you'll think it's one of the best films of the year.
    Ang Lee is an amazing filmmaker. Granted, I didn't gush over Crouching Tiger, but it's still damn good moviemaking. Same with The Ice Storm (Ricci unzips her pants!) and Sense and Sensibility. He's got that Kubrick thing going on where you don't know what his next project will be, but it's a safe bet it'll be impressive one way or another.


    I got free tickets to see Kill Bill again on Sat. Glad to hear you like it. QT is my kind of filmmaker. Drown in movies or die a loser...He's the type of guy who SHOULD be making movies. He knows what great cinema is. Period. If people can't handle that, fuck 'em.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    I like your attitude. You could just make me see Hulk. But I know it won't look good on video. I'd go further on The Ice Storm: it's great. I think it's his best, and amazing. How could a guy from Taiwan get east coast angst so right? (Maybe his real name is Angst Lee.)

    I also agree QT's the best, and born to make movies. Like PT Anderson but in a different way; even more cinematic than PT.

    I didn't coin "Paulettes" of course. It's long been in use. David Denby had a long autobiographical piece in a recent Movies issue of The NYer about being a Paulette, but it was mean spirited. I've never seen Kael so trashed. Sure, she was bossy, but she also helped dozens of people in all kinds of ways and was an inspiration. He was dominated by her and then she rejected him so he has to get his revenge. This guy has turned sour. When he wrote for New York Magazine he was a pretty lively movie critic. Now The NYer has nobody because A.Lane is just a cunning wordsmith, an entertainer; he has no emotion 90% of the time so you can't trust his opinions even if you can detect what they are. And Denby is just a sourpuss. He was galvanized by the gloom of Mystic River and gave it a rave, which is fine, but so much of what's out there that's good he can't respond to.

    What about the last Matrix? Should I run out and see it? There's not much to see right now. Looney Tunes? Gothika? The Cat in the Hat? We're becalmed. I enjoyed Elf but it's forgettable.

    I really do need to see Kill Bill again while it's still in theaters.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656

    Run to see The Matrix Revolutions

    I would suggest running to the final installment of The Matrix movies.

    I raved (pardon the pun) about Reloaded, and I'm raving about Revolutions.
    Remember, it's just entertainment.
    Don't read too much into what they are giving you. It is a rockin' movie. The final battle is worth the price of admission alone.

    Yes, see Kill Bill again! I love it.
    This is my top ten for '03 a month before the onslaught:

    Russian Ark
    Kill Bill
    Swimming Pool
    Hulk
    The Dancer Upstairs
    Kiarostami's Ten
    Pirates of the Carribean
    The Matrix Reloaded
    The Matrix Revolutions
    Anger Management
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656

    IMDB, top tens, etc..

    The top 3 films on the imdb list (by users) are the first two Godfathers and The Shawshank Redemption.

    No disrespect to those films but I have to assume they are at the top because film geeks love those movies.
    I agree that The Godfather films belong at the top, but not that high. (Coppola's Apocalypse Now is better to me- he matured and risked all for his art on that production).

    Shawshank is great, but as I said before, it's just a well-made movie. Perspective, folks, perspective!

    As a self-righteous film freak, I have very esoteric taste, and the films that routinely make "best-of" lists are understandable, but I can argue why say, Herzog's Aguirre is better than Shawshank. Or how 2001 still ranks in the stratosphere while Star Wars is drowning at sea level. (Thanks for making The Phantom Menace, George!)

    How about the shocking Irreversible? I'm also imagining Dogville towering over anything cranked out by the formulaic studio heads.
    I still haven't seen Spike Lee's The 25th Hour, which may be one of the best films of the year as well.

    Should there be hollywood lists and foreign lists? Independent lists and wholesome lists? How do you complie the 10 best films of the year?! It's maddening!

    Who do you endorse? Ang Lee or Kiarostami? The Wachowski's or Ozon? Clint Eastwood? Jane Campion?



    So many films, so little time... :)
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    Johan,

    Your own taste is unclassifiable. That's a compliment. I have not seen some of your choices--Ten, Matrix Revolutions, Anger Management--most would be surprised by Pirates of the Caribbean reaching this high status.

    I like to make several lists--Ten Best US, Ten Best Foreign, Best Documentaries a separate category. Your complaints suggest it'd be good to have even more, such as Ten Best Big Budget, Ten Best Small Budget (choose the cost limits). It's all so arbitrary. Not rocket science. Not even basic math.

    Don't get your hopes up too high for 25th Hour. It's not brilliant. More like a TV drama.

    I would agree on liking Apocalypse Now better than the Godfathers, and considering Shawshank Redemption just a good entertaining story.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656

    dillemas

    reply to Chris:

    Unclassifiable. I would agree with that. Thanks. No one has ever called me unclassifiable. I'm sure you could come up with *some*
    classification....:)

    As for my current top ten list for the year, Russian Ark, Swimming Pool & TEN are the only foriegn films that blew me away.

    The other choices make me seem like a hollywood sympathizer.
    Not at all.
    These "hollywood" movies are absolutely excellent.
    I could make an "art" film list, a "political" list, a "big budget" list (as you suggest) among others, but my "unclassifiable" taste prevents me from doing so.

    So you have my list; which has The Dancer Upstairs and Anger Management sharing space.


    I Will Defend My Picks To The Death
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,843
    I am actually surprised how often our different interests/predilections/viewpoints intersect. I tend not to fight for my picks but to simply state the reasons behind them. I have no expectations about you guys liking some of my favorites and viceversa. This is to be expected, even welcome. There's probably nothing Johann can say to get me to like the Matrix movies and nothing he and I can say for Chris to avoid boredom watching Russian Ark.
    I feel uncomfortable listing faves this early but I am regularly updating an "in-progress" list in the "rate 'em as you see 'em" thread. What I find unique about 2003 is the number of outstanding and notable Amerindie films. I'll probably post about it later.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •