Newsweek's Top 10 Movies of 2005

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Subby

I'm not a big fan of awards...can you really argue that Forest Gump was "better" than Schindler's List? Or that Dances with Wolves was better than Goodfellas? Or that Whoopi Goldberg was the best supporting actress the year she appeared in Ghost?

The Academy is flawed and probably shouldn't be used as any sort of metric for "best movie".

How is it flawed? I agree it can't be used as a metric because you can't assign a value to it, but regardless I believe that it is still the most prestigious award a filmmaker can receive. If there is one that is more prestigious, I am not aware of it.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

How is it flawed? I agree it can't be used as a metric because you can't assign a value to it, but regardless I believe that it is still the most prestigious award a filmmaker can receive. If there is one that is more prestigious, I am not aware of it.

It's all a marketing campaign. Independent movies have zero chance year in and year out, unless they happen to be bought and distributed by a major studio by the end of the year, then there is a faint hope.

[Greyroofoo]

Academy Awards = bullsh*t

[cthomer5000]

One additional, and gigantic, flaw with the Academy Awards is trying to compare across genres. Was Wedding Crashers better than Capote? How in the world can anyone be expected to make that comparison.

[Subby]

Another interesting point about the Academy - voters are not required to have seen all of the movies they are voting for - so you are really asking an electorate to make decisions based on incomplete information.

That's why you often have actors getting what amounts to "lifetime achievement awards" or have studios wallpapering Daily Variety with "For Your Consideration" adverts...

[Raiders Army]

Although flawed, is there a better system? The movies are voted upon and winners are chosen. What else is there?

[Subby]

I personally think the very idea - picking a best movie, best actor, etc, is probably flawed. Too many goddamn awards out there

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Although flawed, is there a better system? The movies are voted upon and winners are chosen. What else is there?

I can imagine a number of better systems.


I think one would simply be releasing a list of X number of movies, actors, etc who receive an honor for a given year. Kind of a move all-american team.

But anyway, it's pretty irrelevant to the main part of this discussion.

[Buccaneer]

And then there are those (many?) critics willing to praise something because it pushes the envelope, regardless if it's good or not. It's like having an ulterior motive...

[Desmond]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Was Wedding Crashers better than Capote? How in the world can anyone be expected to make that comparison.

By watching them?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Desmond

By watching them?

Don't be so obtuse. It's like comparing ice cream to steak. They're so different it's absurd to try to pit them against each other on the same playing field.

That's my point about the Oscars. I think the Golden Globes does a better job with their logical split of Dramas and then Comedies/Musicals.

[Desmond]

I dont think im being obtuse at all. I can tell that Magnolia was a better film than Harold & Khumar Go To White Castle the same way I can tell that Caddyshack was a better film than Harold & Khumar Go To White Castle.

What about an uplifting drama vs a sad drama? What about a black comedy vs a slapstick comedy?

And im not trying to be a dick, I just think seperation to make it easier is sort of a copout. Some years what I would consider to be the best movie was a Comedy, sometimes it was a Drama. I don't think it's all that hard or unfair.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

One additional, and gigantic, flaw with the Academy Awards is trying to compare across genres. Was Wedding Crashers better than Capote? How in the world can anyone be expected to make that comparison.

Huh? You don't need two movies to be part of the same genre to decide which one is better...

[Buccaneer]

In my Top 10 (or 20) favorite movies list, the only criteria is that movies are very entertaining to watch over and over (just like favorite games). I don't put movies on my list 1) to show that I am somehow smarter than others, 2) to use them for social activism or 3) to further the cause of "art".

I will rephrase what I said earlier. Too many critics and art-house/indie movies want to promote an activism and simply promote a movie to support their activism. Such (propoganda) is one of the fundamental natures of art but none of us have to (or be forced to) accept it.

[timmynausea]

I think there are plenty of great movies that wouldn't be worth watching over and over.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

I think there are plenty of great movies that wouldn't be worth watching over and over.

I certainly don't judge PC games that way and movies, imo, should be no different. The new Pirates was a good example. Great gameplay (and reviews) when played once but completely worthless replay value. It would never stand the test of time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Too many critics and art-house/indie movies want to promote an activism and simply promote a movie to support their activism.

Gee, y'think?

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I certainly don't judge PC games that way and movies, imo, should be no different. The new Pirates was a good example. Great gameplay (and reviews) when played once but completely worthless replay value. It would never stand the test of time.

I'd agree to a certain extent as far as games, but I think applying this rule to movies eliminates any kind of movie like Memento or the Machinist where the viewer enjoys the process of finding out exactly what is going on. Any mysterious element isn't going to hold up to repeated viewings. It captures your imagination the first time. Once you know how it ends you can't go back and recreate that part of the experience.

[Buccaneer]

If a movie is so dominantly story-driven that it can't be re-watched for its acting, cinematography and scene construction, then how great can it be? However, we are only talking about my favorites list, which by no means can be definitive or applicable to others. That's the crux of the argument, I think; a critic's (or a fan's) top 10 list than can somehow be objective.

[Coop]

So let me get this right.. A movie about gay cowboys eating pudding is in the top 10 but Batman Begins isnt?!?!?! SOMETHING ISNT ADDING UP!!!

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Coop

So let me get this right.. A movie about gay cowboys eating pudding is in the top 10 but Batman Begins isnt?!?!?! SOMETHING ISNT ADDING UP!!!

Why?? Batman Begins was a great movie, but it's definitly not anywhere near the Top 10 of the year.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I am going to give Buccaneer a great big kiss when I see him. Seriously.

Come here, Buccaneer!

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I am going to give Buccaneer a great big kiss when I see him. Seriously.

Come here, Buccaneer!

I'm cool with that. You always strike me as someone being non-pretentious.

[Riggins44]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I have every intention of seeing Brokeback Mountain, not because I am gay myself, but because I have heard it's a very powerful and well done film. I, fortunately, am comfortable enough with who I am that I can sit and watch two men kissing as part of a stroyline and not collapse into complete panic mode.

Good luck with your issues, though.

Issues, shmissues... some people find it gross... ok, most people find it gross. You are above us all. Congrats!

[Cuckoo]

I'm kind of torn on Brokeback Mountain actually. I have read the short story that it's based on, and the film is getting outstanding reviews. I too have no issues seeing two men kissing as part of a storyline.

However, in the interest of being completely honest, I wonder if I will have a problem with other things. I intend to research the content a bit, but if it's similar to the story, I'm not sure if I want to see somewhat graphic depictions of homosexual sex. I'm assuming they have cut that down some, but I don't know for sure.

Does it mean I have issues if I prefer not to see that in a movie? It might actually. I don't really have an answer to that.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I'm kind of torn on Brokeback Mountain actually. I have read the short story that it's based on, and the film is getting outstanding reviews. I too have no issues seeing two men kissing as part of a storyline.

However, in the interest of being completely honest, I wonder if I will have a problem with other things. I intend to research the content a bit, but if it's similar to the story, I'm not sure if I want to see somewhat graphic depictions of homosexual sex. I'm assuming they have cut that down some, but I don't know for sure.

Does it mean I have issues if I prefer not to see that in a movie? It might actually. I don't really have an answer to that.

This could lead us down a dark and winding path but this thread has been fairly civil so far so here goes: I don't want to see graphic depictions of homosexual sex. By that same token, I don't want to see sex scenes with fat people and I am partial to brunettes over blondes. It doesn't offend me that homosexuals, fat people, and blondes have sex- I just don't want to see it on screen.

In fact, I don't like sex scenes in most movies as they are rarely warranted- it's almost always an attempt to give a different audience a reason to go to a movie ("honey, lets go see that new chick flick that's out" followed by the guy's thought bubble of "hm... i hate those but there's that hot girl in it and she might get naked").

Now, this may have nothing to do with Brokeback Mountain- I don't know if there are graphic depictions of sex in it. But just because someone doesn't want to see two people engage in gay sex on screen- how does that make them have issues?

SI

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Riggins44

Issues, shmissues... some people find it gross... ok, most people find it gross. You are above us all. Congrats!

What a fucking disgrace you are to that nickname.

[WrongWay]

No way in hell King Kong cracks the top 10 or top 1?

I am reading some amazing reviews for this movie.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But just because someone doesn't want to see two people engage in gay sex on screen- how does that make them have issues?

SI

Right, that was my thought as well. I just thought the distinction needed to be made in reference to this particular movie. Despite its reported quality, there will undoubtedly be people not see the movie for those exact reasons, and I don't think it means they have issues necessarily.

And again, I have no idea what kind of content the film has. I recall reading the story and there are fairly graphic descriptions of the physicality and the smells. It catches you off guard (at least it did me).

I suspect that the movie will treat the subject with more care because of the very thing we're discussing. There's always a commercial aspect to it even though it's an "art" film.

[Cuckoo]

DOLA

And in relation to the others, I have not see any of them yet. I find myself watching fewer and fewer quality movies as I get older, and I'm not sure why. I think it's the whole escape attitude whereas I used to like the intellectual stimulation of films. These days, I always feel like I need a break...

Nevertheless, I'll probably watch Brokeback Mountain, Good Night, and Good Luck and A History of Violence. I'm also interested in Syriana as I'm curious to see how "political" it is given Clooney's distaste for the current administration.

[Buccaneer]

In fact, I don't like sex scenes in most movies as they are rarely warranted- it's almost always an attempt to give a different audience a reason to go to a movie ("honey, lets go see that new chick flick that's out" followed by the guy's thought bubble of "hm... i hate those but there's that hot girl in it and she might get naked").

I agree with this completely. We have become too voyeuristic. They had made great movies before without getting explicit. For many movies, it has become gratuitous (sp?) solely because sex sells and we have nearly eliminated our moral guidelines for the sake of masturbatory fantasies. Now that we have a mainstream movie showing gay sex, it pushes the envelope for the sake of doing so. Have we become so unimaginative?

[Riggins44]

Originally Posted by Subby

What a fucking disgrace you are to that nickname.

That's right, Riggins was into watching gay sex on the big screen.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Riggins44

That's right, Riggins was into watching gay sex on the big screen.

Do you even know if that's in the movie? If not, you may want to check on things like that before you post.

[JW]

What is a great movie? I don't know. It just depends on how you define it. Let's take two of the supposed greatest movies ever.

Citizen Kane is held out by many as the greatest movie ever. But I think it is one of the most boring and unwatchable movies ever. I've watched it all the way through exactly once, because I had to, and I have no desire to ever see it again, and when I see it on tv sometimes, I watch a few minutes and just turn it off. And most people I know who have seen it feel the same way. But I'm not going to say it is not a great movie.

Casablanca is also held out by many as the greatest movie ever. And I agree that it is one of the best. It has a universal theme that appeals to a wide variety of people. I even showed it to an English class a couple of years ago of mostly poor black kids in northeast Louisiana. After the initial hesitation over the fact that it was old and in black and white, they really enjoyed it. We did it segment by segment with detailed scene analysis, after a thorough summary of the historical background of the times. They learned a lot and loved the story. They cared about the characters. They loved Rick. Is that a sign of greatness? I can not imagine doing the same with Citizen Kane.

The same is true I think with any art, and with books and plays. My students love Romeo and Juliet but despise Julius Caesar and find it incredibly boring. But which one is the better play? I like both, but I find it hard to get my students interested in JC. RJ, however, about gangs and teen love and sex, and teen suicide, well, the kids mostly love it (once they realize we're going to focus on the story and not get bogged down in the language).

What does all this lead to? I don't know, lol. Just that one person's great movie can be another person's trash.

As for Brokeback Mountain, I have no desire to go see a gay love story. I also have no desire to go see Aeon Flux (whether it is good or bad) , some futuristic cartoon, or Chicken Little, some kid movie, or Syriana, because I've heard too many people say it is confusing (despite some who say it is great). I do plan to go see The Chronicles of Narnia and Memoirs of a Geisha. Why? I think I will like them. Do I have issues?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

If a movie is so dominantly story-driven that it can't be re-watched for its acting, cinematography and scene construction, then how great can it be? However, we are only talking about my favorites list, which by no means can be definitive or applicable to others. That's the crux of the argument, I think; a critic's (or a fan's) top 10 list than can somehow be objective.

I disagree- if a movie overwhelms you that much with a script that it you don't want to watch it again (Requiem for A Dream being a prime example) it speaks of the movies power just as well as any standard you intend to hold it to.