Critics' Darlings: The Films of 2003

[oscar jubis]

Metacritic.com is a site that collects the major print reviews and assigns a score on a 100-point scale to each(when the critic doesn't do so). The scores for a given film are then averaged. These are the films released in 2003 with the highest critical scores:
93 LOTR: THE RETURN OF THE KING
92 FINDING NEMO
AMERICAN SPLENDOR
LOST IN TRANSLATION
90 THE SON (Belgium)
CAPTURING THE FREEDMANS
88 TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE
MAROONED IN IRAK (Iran)
RUSSIAN ARK (Russia)
SWEET SIXTEEN
87 MAN WITHOUT A PAST (Finland)
LOVE AND DIANE
86 SCHOOL OF ROCK
TO BE AND TO HAVE (France)
MYSTIC RIVER
85 RAISING VICTOR VARGAS
MAGDALENE SISTERS
SPIDER
BUS174
84 TEN (Iran)
THIRTEEN
83 LILYA 4-EVER (Swe/Den)
WINGED MIGRATION (Fran)
82 A MIGHTY WIND
MY ARCHITECT
MASTER AND COMMANDER
THE FOG OF WAR
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED
WHALE RIDER
81 CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES
SPELLBOUND
80 CITY OF GOD (Brasil)
OT:OUR TOWN
78 BLUE CAR
DIRTY PRETTY THINGS
SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS
77 28 DAYS LATER
MAN ON THE TRAIN (Fra)
76 DIVINE INTERVENTION (Palestine)
JAPON (Mexico)
28 DAYS LATER (UK)
THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND
75 HOLES
LAWLESS HEART
74 LOST IN LA MANCHA
NOWHERE IN AFRICA (Germany)
SEABISCUIT
73 CHIHWASEON (So. Korea)
GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING
SHATTERED GLASS
STOKED
72 ALL THE REAL GIRLS
BALSEROS (Spain)
COLD MOUNTAIN
ELEPHANT
FREAKY FRIDAY
SWIMMING POOL
FELLINI:I'M A BORN LIAR (Ita/Fra)
70 FRIDAY NIGHT
THE HOUSEKEEPER (Fra)
X2
71 INTOLERABLE CRUELTY
69 BETTER LUCK TOMMOROW
68 BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM

[tabuno]

What's the good of a list of good movies that nobody sees? I don't recognize any of these movies except "Finding Nemo" and "Holes," "28 Days Later" (just opened over the weekend) and "BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM" and "X2." Your list makes me feel like I'm on some freakn' moon or the planet Mars.

[oscar jubis]

I've often wondered why your posts refer solely to the most ubiquitous Hollywood movies. Do you live in a small town, far from SLC? This is a list of films released in the USA that have received most favorable print media reviews. 27 of the 33 films listed have had theatrical releases here (the other 6 had festival screenings and will be released soon) and Miami is not a big market like NYC, LA, Chicago, Frisco, Philly, etc.

If theatres near you are not showing these films, I recommend you print the list and take a chance on a few titles when released for rental (most will be out before year's end). If you don't like them, at least you won't feel like you're "on some freakn' moon". There are some real "crowd pleasers" listed, like RAISING VICTOR VARGAS (USA), WHALE RIDER(New Zealand), CITY OF GOD, and the Oscar-winner NOWHERE IN AFRICA; documentaries like the American CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS and SPELLBOUND, and the gorgeous WINGED MIGRATION; sensitive dramas like BLUE CAR, ALL THE REAL GIRLS, SWEET 16, CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES and THE SON; and two highly original, unique movie experiences: DIVINE INTERVENTION and RUSSIAN ARK(admired in this site by everyone who posted about it).

[tabuno]

Appears that I am adrift in the sea of "ubiquitous Hollywood." Alas I am corrupted and condemned to mediocrity.

[Johann]

Originally posted by tabuno
Appears that I am adrift in the sea of "ubiquitous Hollywood." Alas I am corrupted and condemned to mediocrity.

Have no fear, Tango Tango. They invented home video for you.

The critics "darlings" are usually sooooo PC. I think most critics don't want to fall into the trap Pauline Kael did when she panned 2001: A Space Odyssey. Poor girl. She never lived that one down....

GRAB A SPINE, YOU YUPPIE CRITICS! I really hate the ones who think that panning say, The Matrix Reloaded is chic but dismissing say, Ozon's Swimming Pool is uber-intelligent.

Give me a break. I read Film Comment (one of only 2 film mags I subscribe to) and they narrowly avoid this. (I guess it's because they are "smart about movies"....)

[Johann]

Sokurov's "Mother and Son" is screening at the Pacific Cinemateque this summer. After the amazing "Russian Ark", you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be there.
That theatre is now my 2nd home. This summer is INCREDIBLE: 13 Kurosawa films with newly struck 35 mm prints and restored sound. It's "Rashomon" & "Stray Dog" on sunday night....

I'm wondering if I should start a Kurosawa thread to discuss the impact the big screen retrospective will have on me..."Seven Samurai" was one night of nirvana I'll never forget...

[oscar jubis]

I would enjoy reading about how these films impact you. Are the films being shown in a particular order? Have you seen them before on video? Is Akira more of a western director, style-wise (his movies remind me of Ford's westerns)? I wonder whether RASHOMON and IKIRU would remain my faves after re-watching them and others. I visited the Cinematheque years ago; they were showing Fritz Lang films. If I remember correctly they offered membership, with reduced admission and other benefits.

[Johann]

As it says on their website, Cinematheques are now like "museums showing the culture of the world". The PC has an unbelievably low membership fee of $3.00 and a double bill is only $8.50! With prices that low, you can spend a LOT of time there.

As for Kurosawa, I have seen all of the films on video, but some of them only once such as "I Live in Fear" & "High and Low". Kurosawa says he was influenced by Simenon & Ford, so you're right about a "western" style. The PC had the exact retrospective a few months ago. It was a huge success, naturally, so they've decided to run it again- this time with "Dersu-Uzala"- the foreign film Oscar winner in 1975. (replacing Seven Samurai which just had a run)

I talked to the manager about volunteering, etc.. and he mentioned that the theatre has been trying to put a Kubrick retrospective together for YEARS. They want a "complete" retrospective, but they've run into snags with Warner Bros. and other parties. I hope they do it in the future. Manager says "We're trying!, We're trying!" I would DIE to see Barry Lyndon on the big screen....

[Chris Knipp]

1. ON MAINSTREAM MOVIES VS. "PC" CRITICS:

Pauline Kael's panning 2001: a Space Odyssey is a bad example of critical stupidity, because a lot of people still pan it and it is, arguably, very uneven. I was more alienated by her condemnation of A Clockwork Orange, which I thought was way off on her part and rather prissy. But anyway Pauline Kael is a bad choice of critics to use as a punching bag because she's the best we've ever had. Ms. Kael was a great movie critic not because of her specific judgements (you're never going to agree 100% with anybody) but because she was smart and enthusiastic and knew movies better than anybody else. And she was never, never PC.

Are critics in general, in fact, "so PC"? I don't think so. Most of them aren't even political, with the exception of ones in The Nation and a few other places. The thing is, they see a lot of movies. That makes their taste more sophisticated than average. I like critics for how well they write and how well they defend their choices, not for their orientation. I like Roger Ebert, and I like J. Hoberman. They are two of my favorites because they're both smart and write very well; but they're miles apart.

I must say Johan is a complex and rather mysterious individual if he can see every Kurosawa film and then knock critics for not loving mainstream movies (they often do). Johan is on a rather special diet himself.

2. PROS AND CONS OF THE METACRITIC LIST:

Not being in the boonies and willing and able to go to bigger urban centers to catch up when I miss out, I've seen a lot -- well, two thirds -- of the MetaCritic list Oscar Jubis listed above and I think it's a pretty fine list. I don't agree with every choice. Some of the ones I haven't seen, I chose not to see, probably mistakenly. I am at the opposite end of the spctrum from tabuno: I still haven't seen Finding Nemo. I know I'm missing something everybody likes.

The critics list is more offbeat than the lists of those of us who only see the mainstream movies, because they've had a chance to look around. It's not because they're "so PC," but because they have a wider spectrum to choose from and, being who and where they are, they have sophisticated taste. Would anyone who had seen all the summer blockbusters not be looking for something different from that?

How wrong it is to congratulate ourselves on what we don't know or haven't seen.

Looking over the MetaCritic list, I'm particularly glad to see Charlotte, Sometimes listed so high. One's I've missed and why it happened (I saw all the others and I am very glad that I did, in a number of cases delighted: the year has included some wonderful movies):

*92 FINDING NEMO. An oversight. Must see it.
*87 MAN WITHOUT A PAST (Finland) Slipped away quickly. Sounded a bit offbeat for my taste.
*MAGDALENE SISTERS Am still trying to see it. Friends said not to go to it alone and everyone I asked to go with had seen it.
*84 TEN (Iran) Slipped away quickly. Do not leap to see Iranian films. My shortdcoming no doubt, but I have my reasons.
*83 LILYA 4-EVER (Swe/Den) Sounded very depressing; quickly gone from here.
*82 A MIGHTY WIND. Sounded irritating; not my kind of thing, I guess. The dog show satire was quite well done, though I wouldn't have seen it if it hadn't been shown on a plane flight I was on.
*OT:OUR TOWN. Don't know what this one is.
*78 BLUE CAR. Ditto.
*THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND. Still hoping to see and it's still showing locally.
*LAWLESS HEART. Don't know what this one is.
*74 LOST IN LA MANCHA. Sorry I missed it; ran only one week. Saw the preview a zillion times, which can kill the desire to see a movie.
*BALSEROS (Spain). Hard to find; just missed it in NYC.
*FELLINI:I'M A BORN LIAR (Ita/Fra). Don't know what happened to this one. I would certainly like to see it.
*70 FRIDAY NIGHT. Not sure what this one is. IMDb's listing for it is blank!

http://www.chrisknipp.com (www.chrisknipp.com)

[Johann]

I am unfamiliar with metacritic, but you bring up some interesting points Chris.

My appreciation of films is indeed complex. Incredibly complex. I remember the essential of pretty much every film I've seen.

I get really angry when I read a well-known critic's review of a film and he takes a perspective that the film does not deserve. (Ebert does that now and then- he can be very glib).

I guess I definitely feel passionate and certain about what a great film is, a good film is, a bad film is.. etc..
Critics like Ebert (who I admire greatly) who have seen the majority of say, Kurosawa's canon must be scrutinized for those reviews that give a sweeping "thumbs up" to a blockbuster film. I am highly critical of those types. Kael included. I love Pauline, but man, I disagreed with her in almost every review! I understood her perspective completely- she can WRITE, but I felt she was missing an aspect of criticism that is essential: come to the film on it's own terms.

Mysterious? I don't know. How am I mysterious? I think I'm usually very frank on this site. I never say something in passing. It all has meaning to me. (these posts are archived- better say what you mean)

[Chris Knipp]

It's nice to be thought mysterious, Johann, don't knock it.

We seem to be pretty much in agreement on Kael.

Ebert can make pretty glaring mistakes sometimes, I agree. I read a book-length collection of his stuff once and found he'd gotten a number of dates wrong. But since I started writing a lot of movie reviews myself about 18 months ago, my admiration for Ebert has grown. The elementary thing I admire about him is how succinctly and entertainingly he can sum up a film. That's an art, and he's a master of it. He is very positive, and almost never mean, and I admire that. Meanness is easy and cheap; large-spiritedness takes character. I admire Ebert for championing small movies like Charlotte, Sometimes and Better Luck Tomorrow this year, and every year. Sure, he gives the thumbs up a bit too often, especially for dubious blockbusters. But he has brought intelligence to mainstream movie criticism; he maintains a high standard in his writing. He doesn't have the passion that Siskel had, and Siskel's replacement is only that, a replacement.

metacritic.com is a site that Oscar Jubis spoke of at the top of this thread where he cited the list of movies I was commenting on just now, explaining which ones I hadn't seen from that list. He said "Metacritic.com is a site that collects the major print reviews and assigns a score on a 100-point scale to each(when the critic doesn't do so). The scores for a given film are then averaged.". Then he listed the critics' top rated films, and that was followed by tabuno's complaint: "What's the good of a list of good movies that nobody sees? I don't recognize any of these movies except "Finding Nemo" and "Holes," "28 Days Later" (just opened over the weekend) and "BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM" and "X2." Your list makes me feel like I'm on some freakn' moon or the planet Mars."

My last response was in reply to these.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
FRIDAY NIGHT. Not sure what this one is. IMDb's listing for it is blank!

Look for it under its original title Vendredi Soir. It did not open in Miami but the dvd will be released on November 11th. I can't afford to miss any film directed by arguably the best active female director (sorry Breillat and Campion and new-generation Coppola and Makhmalbaf). Ms. Claire Denis directed Chocolat (no, not that Chocolat), Nennette and Boni, I Can't Sleep and Beau Travail.

[Chris Knipp]

Ah, yes, Vendredi soir! Released in France in 2001, here earlier this year. I wrote about it. Must have repressed it.

That one is certainly in the "critics' darlings" category. It got generally high marks from critics in France and the US. I'm afraid I am emphatically one of the nay-sayers. I have liked her previous films, especially Nénette et Boni, I Can't Sleep and Beau travail, though it took a while to come around in the latter case. In the case of Vendredi soir, I doubt that repeated viewings would warm me to it, if indeed I were willing to submit to them...

“Le film est pourtant interminable.”—Joelle, Critiques ordinaries.
httpcritiques-ordinaires.ouvaton.org/article.php3?id_article=63 (http://critiques-ordinaires.ouvaton.org/article.php3?id_article=63[/URL)

Among the few French nay-sayers, the words "banal" and "banalité" were used. http://www.allocine.fr/film/critique_gen_cfilm=35145&affpub=0.html

You say," I can't afford to miss any film directed by arguably the best active female director (sorry Breillat and Campion and new-generation Coppola and Makhmalbaf)." Well, apporaching it in that spirit, you will almost certainly be in the other camp from me, and won't want to read what I wrote till much later anyway--
http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?t=113

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
you will almost certainly be in the other camp from me, and won't want to read what I wrote till much later anyway

Indeed, Chris. I try to avoid reading reviews of a given film until after I've seen it and formed an opinion. But I actually feel confident that my take will truly be my own anyway. I don't form opinions about a director's film based on his/her previous films. For instance, I am a fan of Solondz and Rudolph, and I really didn't like their latest releases. I hope the fact that I've admired Denis' previous films does not guarantee I will like Friday Night. It means I have to give it a chance.

I have been updating the list of critically lauded films, as compiled at metacritic.com. (I just added Thirteen, To Be And To Have and Lost in Translation). I just take note of the scores of films without reading any of the reviews available. I have found that this site does the best job of providing a quick way to survey critical consensus. Rotten Tomatoes, for example, divides reviews crudely into fresh or rotten, and includes very amateur electronic media reviews.

By the way, I also try to maintain an open mind when reading reviews of a movie after I've seen it, and give consideration to opposing points of view. I've often concluded that I need to give a film a second viewing. Ghost Dog and Eyes Wide Shut are two films that come to mind which required a second viewing for me to fully appreciate.

On the other hand, I've learned more about cinema from Jonathan Rosenbaum (Chicago Reader) than from anybody (I worship the guy); it's remarkable then how often I disagree with him. No matter how many times I read his reviews of Pistol Opera, Secret Lives of Dentists and Le Divorce(to name recent examples), I don't like them. I simply respond differently to these movies than he does. I love his writing because I always understand exactly the why of his opinion and because he helps me understand the reasons behind my own responses.
I apologize if I went too far off topic.

[Chris Knipp]

Points well taken. And noble sentiments.

Needless to say, reading reviews after seeing a film means more. Whether to read them beforehand is an individual matter.

But you'll grant that we all go to the movies with prejudices. Having responded negatively to Vendredi Soir, I'm inclined to think that the generally admiring response her film got in France was due in large part to Claire Denis's excellent reputation there prior to the film's coming out. Not everyone is as high minded and unbiased as you.

I believe in revising opinions too -- but also in staying true to one's gut reaction, if there was one.

I agree about the unreliabilty of Rotten Tomatoes, but I don't think you can trust any of these numerical ratings no matter who does them. Sometimes like our elections in reality it's way too close to call. And then there is the manner in which time alters judgments: people rave about a film and six months later forget it, or on reconsidering or re-seeing it, find that it comes alive for them at last -- or is much less brilliant than it originally seemed. I have little use for numerical ratings, and think Ebert and Roeper's Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down system is probably better.

The value of a really well written review is that it creates a world of discourse for those who read it. Whether they agree or disagree with it, they cut their critical teeth by forming responses to it and to other good criticism. This is what you're saying about Rosenbaum, whose reviews I should read more of to find out what all the fuss is about.

I felt I was badly misled by David Denby's review of Thirteen, which I read before I went to see it. Often people do read reviews to see if a movie sounds worth seeing; and some reviewers, perhaps the majority of the popular ones, consider it their function to send us to see a film or warn us off. Denby gave me no inkling of how unpleasant this film would be to watch. It made me nervous and downright sick at the stomach. Now that's a gut reacton!

http://www.chrisknipp.com (www.chrisknipp.com)

[cinemabon]

Criticism is so subjective. Most of it is the intellectual maturbation of the egotistical film enthusiast who feel their opinion is so important as to have an impact on the reader.

I come to this web site to gain knowledge about film from you people, never to criticize either your comments or most films. I used to read The New Yorker magazine because I liked Kale's opinion, not because she helped guide me to see or not see a certain film. I am constantly amazed at the wealth of film knowledge presented in this forum.

If I ever hit the lottery, I will send you all first class tickets, put us up in the Waldorf, where we will spend a week doing nothing but going to movies and discussing film. I would certain walk away from that experience with nothing but being the most blessed human on the face of the earth. Continue your contributions gentlemen, I am at school here, because I am enriched by every comment made on this site.

[Chris Knipp]

I agree with you that criticism is subjective. If it weren't it would be empty and mechanical. But I don't agree to the masturbation part, especially if critics are people (as you say) "who feel their opinion is so important as to have an impact on the reader. "

Masturbation has no impact on anybody else.

[cinemabon]

That was the intellectual kind, not the physical kind...

There is objectivity, Chris, as opposed to subjectivity. While I feel a short story or novel would sound empty with total objectivity, a review is supposed to be "reporting journalistically". The license of modern journalists has been completely stretched out of proportion, however film criticism seldom takes anything objectively into context other than what the reviewer had for lunch, or if they had a fight with their spouse prior to the review. I've even had critics tell me they wouldn't write a good review because they didn't like someone's body of work. What's that all about?

Here I become bombastic: Filmmaking is the most complex form of storytelling there is, involving hundreds of people, taking thousands of hours from start to finish. People are too quick to dismiss a film based on what they are "feeling" at that moment. Sometimes, it takes two, three, or even four viewings of a film to understand or appreciate what the filmmakers are trying to say, or even how they are saying it. You'll NEVER hear a critic say they saw the film more than once. NEVER! Sometimes I feel like critics have bigger egos than the stars or directors they so frequently dismiss so easily.

[Chris Knipp]

I was only quoting you: "Criticism is so subjective". I agreed, and now you're saying it's objective. I can't keep up with you. Now you are saying that the "intellectual" kind of "masturbation" does have an impact on other people? Then the analogy doesn't hold very well, and perhaps one shouldn't call it "masturbation" but just "holding forth."

You seem very upset about film critics. I'm sorry. They're a varied lot, but I think it's safe to say that for the most part they're doing their best -- with wildly varying degrees of success, to be sure. I personally enjoy reading and writing film criticism. I wish it well. My world would be a great deal poorer without it.

"Filmmaking is the most complex form of storytelling there is, involving hundreds of people..." --Here again, we have to make a distinction. That is one kind of complexity, only a physical, numerical kind. I can't really agree that Homer or Jane Austen are less "complex" in their storytelling than Ridley Scott! Filmmaking is a popular art, and as such it has to submit to popular treatment, which can be superficial. When you enter the fray, you have to accept that.

It's not true critics don't mention seeing films more than once, and I've been surprised by that lately, especially considering that Pauline Kael never saw a film more than once -- which disproves your assertion, since her ability to discuss details of the films she'd seen was matchless.

If you're good at what you do, it may, it just may, come more easily, and to think that a critic must see a film four times to understand what's going on is to vastly underestimate the critic and overestimate most films.

www.chrisknipp.com

[oscar jubis]

There is an element of subjectivity in film appreciation. What the viewer brings into the experience plays an integral part. A responsible critic has developed self-awareness about predilections, biases and such and discloses them openly. Allow me to get personal for purposes of illustration.

Consider Masked and Anonymous, a film co-written by Bob Dylan and starring Dylan as a fictional legendary musician released from jail to perform in a benefit concert. If I was to review it, I would certainly mention that I consider him a poet of the highest order and that I recently spent $56 to watch him perform. I would point out that those who dislike his writing style and world view may not forgive a couple of incoherent scenes that simply don't work.

Consider the British/German co-production Buffalo Soldiers, about the shenanigans at a US Army base in Germany circa 1989. I found this irreverent satire/action hybrid quite entertaining, but I would certainly not recommend the films to Americans not in the mood to watch comedy at the expense of our military.

My favorite film of the year, along with The Son, is Sokurov's Russian Ark. A critic who respects his readers would take into account that many filmgoers are just looking for stories and point out the film does not offer what you'd call a narrative. It's a one-take tour of L'Ermitage Museum in St. Petersburg while an unseen narrator and an aristocrat discuss art, history and politics.

Awareness of self, disclosure, and respect for the reader are essential elements of good film criticism.

[Chris Knipp]

You have some good points here. But surely a love of Bob Dylan shouldn’t blind you to incoherence in movie scenes that he’s in. Let’s distinguish between “appreciation” and criticism. "Appreciation" can be pure passion; "criticism" calls for the balancing effect of reason. It's when these two qualities come together in a powerful balance that you get a great critic.

The best movie critics are unpredictable. "Awareness of self" certainly is essential in any walk of life, particularly in any kind of writing in the arts. But "disclosure" isn't a word that I'd emphasize here. Too many personal anecdotes to explain one’s “biases” paint one into a corner or imply that one is flatly predictable. An accumulated body of reviews is enough evidence of “biases” in a critic. Good criticism surely is all about transcending those biases – while still remaining true to one’s gut reactions.

There can be biases that if hidden are pernicious, such as a simple bias in favor of a certain Hollywood studio or production company. But that’s just to say that some critics are crooks or toadies, and doesn’t help us here.

I gave my preference for narrative structure as a reason for not responding very enthusiastically to Russian Ark. But I certainly do like movies that lack a strong story line sometimes. The fact is I just found Russian Ark boring. That was my gut reaction. Searching for a reason, I gave the lack of a story line. Perhaps I ought to have just said it bored me.

I'm sorry if you wouldn't have the courage to praise Buffalo Soldiers out of fear of offending patriotic sensibilities. Your point of view on such matters is particularly needed right now. Fear of public disapproval shouldn't govern critical writing.

I repeat, film criticsm is not an exact science. It's an art. It's not masturbation and it's not a legal deposition.



www.chrisknipp.com

[Johann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Fear of public disapproval shouldn't govern critical writing.

I repeat, film criticsm is not an exact science. It's an art. It's not masturbation and it's not a legal deposition.
www.chrisknipp.com [/B]




I am not a film critic (yay!!!) and I don't know if I would want to be one. There seems to be an awful lot of pressure...
I certainly don't let disapproval govern my comments. (I sense you share this sentiment, Chris).
Being liked is nice, but you have to stay true to yourself-damn the torpedoes. There have been many opportunities in my life to be what other people want me to be but I never gave in. That's why I'm flying solo- commitment and I are not bedfellows.
This site allows me great freedom to speak my mind about movies. Freedom to say this:

How can an established artist like yourself be bored with Russian Ark? You of all people should be shouting from the rooftops the genius of Alex Sokurov. And where is your head on Greenaway?
I want to hear your thoughts on Jarman. Are you a single-minded painter, are you influenced by any other men with brushes?

Dali? Picasso? Cubism? Surrealism? the Renaissance? What is the essence of Knipp's art?

[Chris Knipp]

I'm glad we agree that a critic should be willing to stand alone.

To think that I must like Russian Ark because I am an artist seems far fetched.

[cinemabon]

As a person who made first student films, and then worked on productions in Los Angeles, I bristle at film criticism. Its not that I feel its unjustified, because we all want to be liked or have certain faults pointed out in order to better ourselves. Its just that some people seem to delight in "tearing down" another's work of art. Many people in the "industry" don't consider their work a business, but more an art form. Commentary on the other hand is welcome on all fronts. We learn from commentary; from criticism, we just create enemies.

It only takes one person to write a book and maybe another to edit it. However, a film takes hundreds of people thousands of hours to create a final product. To compare film with literature is to say that a hamburger is similar to hollandaise sauce on braised asparagus... both are cooked food, aren't they? While Marcel Proust is not a hamburger, neither is "The Godfather". But I would be a poor artist to say that one form of storytelling is better told than the other. It's just that Proust did not have two hundred people come to his home and dictate their experiences to him. Film is far more complex on just this level alone. Complexity in this sense does not imply a level of intelligence, merely intricacies involving the input of many thoughts and ideas on one end product. However, an automobile, while intricate and made by hundreds of people, is far from what I would consider an art form. Arguably, a mechanic would tell me otherwise. I guess that makes me a critic.

I didn't know you were an artist, Chris. Painting? Or filmmaker? San Fran was filled with artists when I used to fly up there on the weekends in the 70's.

[Chris Knipp]

If you prefer the term "commentary" to "criticism" fine, but surely movie reviews exist, and they are criticism as well as commentary, and some filmmakers like them, especially when they're favorable and perceptive. "Criticism" doesn't necessarily mean being critical. It can mean praising. And then it makes friends. To think of "criticism" as something negative that only tears down and "makes enemies" is a mistake.

I'm not sure the involvement of more people in producing a work of art makes the work itself more complex. And what does it matter? Complexity is of many different kinds, and is not a value in itself, and as you yourself point out.

Comparing literature with film is only a rough approximation, but they always and increasingly have a relationship with each other, sometimes a close one.

"Proust did not have two hundred people come to his home and dictate their experiences to him." An interesting thought. Actually, figuratively speaking, he did. At least he put a great many people and their experiences into his books.

It's doubtful that we can grasp anything more complex than a single human mind. But I'm not sure what the issue is here.

My recent artwork is shown on my website which I keep advertising here but nobody seems to go to! There you will see what kind of work I do, and also my writing.

www.chrisknipp.com

[Johann]

Chris, many thanks for your comments (or criticisms, pick your poison) and presence on this site- you usually give me a lot to mull over...(an extra thanks for the personal messages)


We all share a love of film on varying levels, and none of us is wrong given our own universes.


As a friend of mine e-mailed me the other day: SOL INVICTUS and keep writing to beat the band....

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for the positive feedback.

I have enjoyed our recent exchanges very much. I don't think I'm criticizing anybody here, not mostly anyway. I may be arguing from time to time.

Some more Latin (though I don't entirely subscribe to it, as you can very well see):

DE GUSTIBUS NON DISPUTANDUM (EST).

www.chrisknipp.com

[oscar jubis]

Two new additions to the metacritic list that opened this thread:
Richard Linklater's mainstream comedy The School of Rock and the award-winning American doc Love and Diane, about a Brooklyn 40-year-old mom's struggle to regain custody of her 6 kids after rehabilitation from drug addiction.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I'm sorry if you wouldn't have the courage to praise Buffalo Soldiers out of fear of offending patriotic sensibilities. Your point of view on such matters is particularly needed right now.

I characterized Buffalo Soldiers as "quite entertaining" in my brief comment. A review would expound on how and why I found it such fun, without using it to propagate my political views. I would want to give the viewer the information needed for him/her to decide whether to spend $10 and 2 hours on this film. Call me p.c., but it's not my money or my time.

You told us a few posts ago how you "felt badly misled by David Denby's review of Thirteen" and how he gave you "no inkling of how unpleasant this film would be to watch". Maybe an oversight, maybe Denby being "egotistical"(cinemabon), assuming that just because he liked the film, you would too. Certainly not the way a critic gets his readers to trust him.

[Chris Knipp]

This is a good point, I think, about the critic's job--that in addition to giving his own personal, gut-reaction-based, opinion, he should perhaps give the reader enough of an idea about what the experience of the film is to warn us of hazards he himself may choose to overlook.

I still think perhaps you're a bit too timid about playing the role of a critic, which should include being willing to buck convention and step out on one's own. This isn't a matter of waving your politics in anyone's face but of fucusing truthfully on how the movie struck you -- and being willing to try to convert others!

But this problem with Thirteen may just be my fault for not reading Denby's review carefully enough. I see now on reexamining the review that right at the beginning of it he wrote, "The audience may suffer..." and its last paragraph begins "This jiggling, frenzied movie never lets up...'Thirteen' makes one uncomfortable" he continues; and he speaks of the viewer's "unease." I allowed myself to become lost in Denby's enthusiam, in his calling it a "living, breathing movie," "emotionally coherent" and "brilliant." The warnings were there. I must take full responsibility for not seeing them.

[cinemabon]

Oscar... fyi... Winged Migration will be on DVD next month. I still haven't seen it, but I see where the release date is 2001. I know you recommended it for this year, and I read many of the posts on this site, but I assumed it was new.

Chris I checked out your site... loved the linear art; enjoyed your political views, and hope you had a great time in Venice. The subjects of your B&W photography are rather bizarre to say the least. Tires in the trunk of your car? Mine in photo school, however, weren't much better. I chose tops of trees. I liked the way they make abstract shapes in the winter time, their twisted branches against the stark gray skies.

Your film commentaries are vast and extensive. I read several. I understand your propensity toward criticism now and withdraw any objections I may have overstated. I still don't like most of the bums... I'll make an exception with you and Oscar.

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for your interest and the positive feedback. I hope you'll come around and like movie criticism better in time.

The date of Winged Migration is probably due to its being made by Frenchmen. Their movies usually don't get distibuted in the USA for a year or so. Maybe Oscar can give you its history.



www.chrisknipp.com

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon
Oscar... fyi... Winged Migration will be on DVD next month. I still haven't seen it, but I see where the release date is 2001.

Glad to hear it's being released on dvd. I hope you are not disappointed, tv screens can't do justice to its majestic vistas. You are correct about its world release date: 12/12/2001 in France and Belgium. I had the honor to attend the American premiere at the Miami Film Festival in late February.
Like Chris said, French and other foreign language films are released here one or two years after being released in the country of provenance. Maybe it's provincial to do so, but I list my favorite films according to their North American release date. I remain undecided about listing films I watch the year before-at festivals or on imported dvd- their official US release(if the film is released here at all).

I still don't like most of the bums... I'll make an exception with you and Oscar.

At least in our country, most "critics" are really entertainment writers and gossip columnists who lack knowledge of the language and history of cinema. Fine Arts and Literature critics are much better prepared to do their jobs. Thanks for excluding this amateur-in-love-with-film from the "bum" designation.

[Chris Knipp]

You just wrote:

At least in our country, most "critics" are really entertainment writers and gossip columnists who lack knowledge of the language and history of cinema. Fine Arts and Literature critics are much better prepared to do their jobs.

Overstated, in my opinion. You don't have to read the gossip/entertainment writers. Other print movie reviewers who deal critically with current movies usually have an good knowledge of movies and their history. Maybe not "history of cinema," whatever that may mean, but they know what influences have fed into whatever film they're reviewing and they've seen a lot of movies. Movies are popular art. We don't need writing about them, especially not the new ones, to be in the control of academics, which seems to be what you are implying, Oscar. There is a place for academic, learned film critics, but it's not in reviewing the movies that come out every week. Your generalization about fine arts and literature critics (why the caps? Is this a university department you're talking about?) are not as superior as you imply, either. They simply are dealing with a less popular art.

www.chrisknipp.com

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp "history of cinema," whatever that may mean.

It means just that. There is a history of the medium, over 100 years of history, and a language that is specific to cinema. Anybody can have an opinion. The good critic must have specific expertise to do anything other than summarize plot and express likes and dislikes. There are all kinds of literature, but a person who lacks a knowledge of lit history, grammar and composition would never get hired as a book critic. Too many so-called film critics have little of interest to say and nothing to teach. Why should the seventh art and its followers be condemned to such poor treatment.

[Chris Knipp]

I was trying to assert the difference between the academic and the general. You don't seem to see the difference. Many subjects get academicized and professionalized and become dry and fussy. Pauline Kael certainly had a profound knowledge of the "history of film" but she wasn't academic.

It's not correct to say that book reviewers must know the history of literature or to have studied "grammar and composition" to write good English. There are lots of things to review besides "literature" books. All you have to know is how to read and how to write, and that you can teach yourself.

Often it's only when a person forgets all he has been taught that he begins to be able to write anything interesting.

I used to think that film critics should be "filmic" but now I'm not so sure. As I've said before, this is a popular art.

You don't have to read the bad movie critics. The truth is that most of them are bad, and it doesn't matter whether they know the "history of film" or not, they're still bad.

You don't have to bring the whole "history of cinema" to bear in writing about Meg Ryan. One or two old movies will do.

The idea that if hack weekly movie critics were "properly trained" and fed the "history of film" they would write better stuff is naive. But perhaps you have a more European point of view.

[oscar jubis]

Cool. I'd certainly rather read Film Comment than the reviews on The Miami Herald or the New Yorker. But to show that sometimes things do get better, our most populist and popular critic expertly deconstructs and analyzes Citizen Kane and Casablanca scene-by-scene on the dvds' commentary track. I learned a ton from Mr. Ebert, no matter how different our tastes. Ms. Kael had no such expertise. But she sure was an amusing provocateur.

[Chris Knipp]

Your comment is revealing.

I'm glad that you were able to get something out of Ebert's remarks about Casablanca, but in saying so, you sound somewhat condescending.

I've said this before: having tried my hand at movie criticism over the past year or two, I've acquired a great deal of respect for Mr. Ebert. He has an evenness and fairness, a comprehensiveness and ability to speak to everyone in his criticism that few can match today. He's also deeply knowledgeble about "film history."

The "populist" and "popular" Ebert in fact has turned out to be a very positive force for good, in my opinion. As the most visible figure in film criticism in this country, he has the authority to champion inde films, as he often does. He also is an academic. He gives courses in film. He speaks to the average viewer and yet his command of the medium is pretty comprehensive. He is important, because he has everyone's attention and trust, and he doesn't betray that trust.

I don't see what you mean when you say Kael lacked the expertise Ebert showed in recording his commentary. What gives you that idea? You are saying that Ebert, for all his limitations, performed a useful function for you. Do you think that Kael could do no more than this little thing? You vastly underestimate her knowledge and abilities.

You show an unbecoming condescension when you call Kael "an amusing provocateur." She was much, much more than that. Because she was passionate and racy, you make the error of thinking her superficial.

When you say you'd rather read Film Comment than The New Yorker, you show that you prefer a more academic, film-buff approach to writing about the movies. The ideal critic, to my mind, is somewhere in between the overly entertaining and really emotionless writing of Anthony Lane of The New Yorker, and the excessively solemn and academic writing of some of the magazine writers about movies -- and of academics, who are in some cases quite incapable of speaking to the general audience. They can talk "filmic," but they can't talk "movie" talk.

I once had a teacher of Arabic who was not an Arab. He could tell you where to look up every word in a medieval text in the famous dictionaries, but when I brought in a newspaper article from Al Ahram that I was translating he was of no use. He understood nothing. He had never read an Arabic newspaper. He could barely read modern Arabic. You see what I'm getting at. Movies, like Arabic, are a living language.

I am not familiar with the Miami Herald but I somewhat doubt that it's altogether fair to lump The New Yorker with it, certainly not The New Yorker film reviews of Penelope Gilliatt's and Pauline Kael's time, probaby not now either. However, I find the New York Times's and Village Voice's and sometimes the Baltimore Sun's and the Los Angeles Times', reviews, to name a few, very often perceptive and worth reading.

I don't think any film writer is universally reliable or universally perceptive. Everyone is human and has lacunae in his or her range of sympathy and understanding in the arts. It's admirable to strive for comprehensiveness, but to do so too slavishly is to cease to have value as a critic. Ebert sometimes errs in this direction.

I'm not interested just in studying accepted "classics" of the movies, but, like you -- because I know you do too -- I care very much about following the new movies that come out every week, every day, and deciding for myself about their merits.

I'm an artist, mainly a printmaker and painter. When I look at a painting or print, I accept the visceral experience it gives me and base my judgment on that. I am not interested at that point in whether the artist used oil or acrylic or encaustic, aquatint or photogravure, because technique is a secondary consideration in judging the overall merits and human significance of a work of art. I'm not saying you shouldn't know anything about these things, just that they aren't of ultimate concern.

There is a difference between having expertise and flaunting it. I respect most those who carry their learning lightly -- particularly in dealing with a popular medium like the movies.


www.chrisknipp.com

[Johann]

Oliver Stone said something interesting about Kael.

"She did more harm than good. She's an elitist bag lady".

Heavy, huh?

[Chris Knipp]

No, not heavy: crappy. Oliver Stone, man, is no role model. He has a beef; that's all. She made some enemies. When you're passionate, and have a big mouth, you do. Means nothing.

But you, Johann, I don't hold this against you.

[Johann]

Thanks.

Do you mean I have a big mouth?

[HorseradishTree]

I'll always remember Oliver Stone for bringing Conan into my life.

[Chris Knipp]

I meant that Pauline Kael had a big mouth, not you, Johann.

[cinemabon]

Roger EBERT! This is, of course, the man who penned the screenplay for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" and to this day defends it. I can take Ebert or leave him. I respected Siskel to a greater degree more than his opposite because I empathized with his taste in films more than I did with Ebert ( "... a bachelor, and likely to remain so!). I also read the Tribune more than the Sun Times.

Chris... Chris... Chris! Must everything be a challenge to your wit! We know you are an artist, par excellence! But this thing about defending certain esoteric critics... it demeans your overall artistic stance. You cringe as well as the next man when a critic calls your art, CRAP! You know it isn't. We know it isn't. You know you spent hours pouring over it, developing it, pruning it, babying it... until you create a hard earned effort. You put it out there on display. Then someone walks up, takes one look and declares "CRAP!" I say, to hell with that.

The only reason I preferred Kael to others is because I enjoyed the cartoons in the New Yorker. Doesn't everybody? At least I'm honest.

By the way... I like political art... (just joking)

[Chris Knipp]

cinemabon,

I happen to enjoy reading criticism of lots of things, even art. I'm not lucky to have had a lot of criticism written about my own art, but I know what you mean. However, I am not a filmmaker, so I don't take movie reivews personally as a director or perhaps actor might. I always enjoyed the lively and really good critics. I don't care if Ebert wrote a bad script. He's not a filmmaker. I tell you truly, that since I started writing a lot of my own somewhat amateurish reviews, I have come to admire Ebert. I also like the way he champions certain new filmmakers at Sundance, like the makers of Charlotte, Sometimes and Better Luck Tomorrow. Sure, he likes too many things. And I am not a huge Altman fan, nor did I love a lot of the movies that Pauline Kael loved. But Pauline Kael was important for what she represented as much as for any writing she did.

I don'tt know what you mean by "must everything be a challenge to your wit[?]" I am who I am. You are who you are. I am not defending "esoteric" critics. I would say that Oscar Jubis is doing that a bit. Not I. I am defending the mainstream ones.

You've got the wrong guy.

[cinemabon]

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.

To a dullard from Indiana like myself... everything about S.F. is esoteric (regardless of having lived in L.A. for many years). All you need is a John Deer hat to fit in around here. Mine says, "Star Trek". You have no idea how isolated that makes me feel when the other "guys" just stare at my head!

[Chris Knipp]

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

[oscar jubis]

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).

[Johann]

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!

[Chris Knipp]

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.)

[oscar jubis]

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.

[Chris Knipp]

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?

[Johann]

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...

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[Johann]

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.

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[Johann]

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

[Johann]

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... :)

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[Johann]

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

[oscar jubis]

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.

[Chris Knipp]

Our Best Lists are a profile, a personal Rorsach test that shows as best we can exactly who we are, and that's why we don't need to compromise and arrive at a consensus.

But I'd also agree that any current 2003 best lists have to be very provisional. The way a lot of the best ones come out in the last month or so guarantees that. When you have a very good year, you have to drop items off your list that seemed big contenders at first.

I look forward to your posting on "Amerindie" films -- which I hope will be quite soon, because that's something I'm very curious to hear about.

[oscar jubis]

There has never been a year in which so many of the best movies are American ones made outside the Hollywood sphere of influence. Quality movies in every genre, including many docs, with low budgets and few "stars". If there is a big studio involved with a film from the list, it's only at the distribution level. I've seen the vast majority of the films below and found only one not worth watching (Blue Car). It's included as a sign of recognition that it has respectable critical support.
2003 is the year of the "Amerindie".

ALL THE REAL GIRLS
ELEPHANT
RAISING VICTOR VARGAS
AMERICAN SPLENDOR
CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS
LOVE AND DIANE
PIECES OF APRIL
THE COOLER
STEVIE
WEATHER UNDERGROUND
GIRLHOOD
STOKED
GERRY
THE STATION AGENT
MANITO
THIRTEEN
MASKED AND ANONYMOUS
REAL WOMEN HAVE CURVES
NORTHFORK
WARMING BY THE DEVIL'S FIRE
SPELLBOUND
BETTER LUCK TOMORROW
CHARLOTTE SOMETIMES
BLUE CAR
DECASIA

[pmw]

I think that NY Film Critics Cirlce will include Cronenberg's Spider in the poll for best of 2003. And my guess is that it may win. I loved it personally. Body horror being his best game, this was still a masterfully patient and delicate Cronenberg work.

For whatever reasons while Spider is 2003 Russian Ark is 2002, having won last year. Go figure; I think they came out within days of each other in December 2002.

[oscar jubis]

SPIDER is remarkably assured and sober. A chamber drama, a head trip with a consistent internal logic. It's keeping THE MAGDALENE SISTERS company atop my English-language list of favorite movies.

[Chris Knipp]

11 out of these 25 I haven't seen, so I can't claim a "vast majority" (what does that actually mean?) or herald a renaissance, though this must imply that inde production is up. Some are saying that consequently "inde" no longer means anything, except that the means of production and distrubution are changing.

Categories are tricky.

"Made outside the Hollywood sphere of influence" is no doubt a phrase carefully composed. Some of the directors, notably Gus Van Sant, must be viewed as intentionally stepping outside of that sphere rather than being excluded from it or far beyond it at all times.

What about an offbeat film like Spider?

There have been discussions of what "inde" means before on this website. There are no hard and fast categories. I"m not sure why Spider has come up here, but is it very offbeat and "Outside the Hollywood sphere of influence"? Or not? Especially if big companies can do the distibution for an "inde" film, the category becomes ever more fluid.

What is clear is that small is beautiful: that it can be efficient and artistically effective to work with a low budget and lmited staff, which we always knew, didn't we? Except that moviemaking is a collective effort, and that can as well mean hundreds or even thousands of people as dozens.

A friend of mine sees a great many offbeat films. I will ask her how many of these on Oscar's list she has seen and find out if she scores better than I do.

[cinemabon]

With digital cable, I now have IFC... I will look for these titles in the near future. Thanks for listing them Oscar. I always enjoy your posts. I've been away here and there, traveling, and have only seen most of the commercial crap out there. Going to an indie is like reading a short story by O. Henry - precise, poignant, and colorfully entertaining in ways that make most studios shudder with trepidation. I look forward to your list.

I, on the other hand, got dragged off to "Elf"!

[oscar jubis]

Thanks, Cinemabon. I enjoy your posts too. Like Chris says "small is beautiful". American independent movies seem to have cornered the market on sensitive drama, with realistic situations and detailed, "precise" characterizations. Patricia Clarkson (and her manager) is one actress with a particular ability to recognize quality projects. She is reason enough to seek out three films that brought a smile to my face:All the Real Girls, The Station Agent and Pieces of April. One film that can serve to illustrate the difference between "Indie" and "Hollywood" is the crowd-pleasing dramedy Raising Victor Vargas, about the titular horny 16 year old from the Bronx. Hollywood would undoubtedly turn in into something crass like American Pie.

One thing I've noticed about most indie film is the provision of a very specific sense of locale. You sense David Gordon Green's intimate familiarity with the North Carolina environs of All the Real Girls(and his marvelous, laconic George Washington). Same goes for the Northwest of the Polish brothers' Northfork and others listed.

I agree with Chris' calling independent a "fluid" designation. It has been (at least) since Disney bought Miramax in '93. But most would consider the films listed to meet criteria to be called "indie". And I propose that the excellent quality of most is the major trend of the year, and reason for us to rejoice.

[oscar jubis]

I've updated the list of 2003 movies as rated by print media critics which now takes into account the latest releases.

TOP 10 FILMS OF 2003

1.The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.
2.American Splendor
Finding Nemo
Lost in Translation
5.The Son(Belgium)
Capturing the Friedmans
7.Marooned in Iraq(Iran)
Russian Ark(Russia)
Sweet 16(Scotland/UK)
Triplets of Belleville(Ire/Fra/Can)

RUNNER UPS

Man without a Past(Fin), Love & Diane, School of Rock, To Be and To Have(Fra), Mystic River, Magdalene Sisters(Ire/UK), Spider(Can), Bus 174(Bra), 10(Iran), Raising Victor Vargas.

[Chris Knipp]

This is a good list, and I am happy to say that there aren't many I haven't seen. Can you please tell me what Love and Diane is?

I'm glad to be reminded of Sweet Sixteen.

Will be back in NYC for a few days so can catch up some.

I do highly recommend to all seeing My Architect.

I don't agreee with the high rating of Capturing the Friedmans, but it is a notable documentary in a year of exceptional ones. I'd rate My Architect and To Be and to Have well above Capturing the Friedmans.

I also recommend The Fog of War, Power Trip (not distributed?), To Be and To Have of course, all of which I caught in NYC before Christmas.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Can you please tell me what Love and Diane is?

A 2003 trend I've discerned is improved distribution of non-fiction film as a result of Bowling for Columbine's success at the box office and at the rental store. This trend did not include Love & Diane, distributed by tiny Women Make Films and screened only in NY, Boston, DC, and Chicago (and a couple festivals). It's about a Brooklyn mom's struggle to regain custody of her kids after rehabilitation from drug addiction.
Jennifer Dworkin's years-in-the-making 155 minute doc focuses on mom's relationship with her eldest daughter. I haven't seen it but here's high praise from the usually reserved J. Hoberman (Village Voice):
From first shot to last, The movie is continuously absorbing, sometimes revelatory, frequently moving experience. It's not only amazingly intimate, but also characterized by an unexpected lyricism.


I do highly recommend to all seeing My Architect.

I watched My Architect:A Son's Journey at the local Jewish Film Festival (a much better bet than our Israeli Film Festival; the best "Jewish-interest" movies are clearly from the diaspora). Rosenbaum(Chicago Reader) points out that the film illustrates director Khan's evolution regarding how to film architecture. I was too immersed in content to notice.

[Johann]

The year is over so I think it's safe to make the list.

Some preambling is required beforehand tho:

-I prefer the Matrix films over LOTR

-If I was to be incredibly personal with my picks I would say The Moab Story (which I have yet to see) and Dogville (which I also have yet to see but have the DVD) take spots one and two in the list. I worship these two art-house gods, and (if I may be so bold) THEY CAN DO NO WRONG.

-I don't know whether to include Russian Ark or The Pianist- which I saw for the first time in 2003- because Canada
has a very different release schedule from the US. Example:
Elephant . I have to wait two weeks.

So here's my "objective" list of the best films of 2003. I may like a movie better personally, but I gotta give credit where credit is due. (Finding Nemo & Triplettes of Belleville are special exceptions, and I won't include them).

1. LOTR: Return of the King
2. City of God
3. Kill Bill vol. 1
4. The Dancer Upstairs
5. 10
6. The Matrix Revolutions
7. Hulk
8. Master and Commander
9. Mystic River
10. Intolerable Cruelty

I still have yet to see The Last Samurai, Cold Mountain, Pieces of April and Lost in Translation, so this list could still change. The above 10 get a high approval rating from me.

[Chris Knipp]

"the local Jewish Film Festival (a much better bet than our Israeli Film Festival; the best "Jewish-interest" movies are clearly from the diaspora)"

Of course: drawn from a larger pool. But there are some cool Israeli films too. I liked Yossi and Jagger, recently.

"A 2003 trend I've discerned is improved distribution of non-fiction film as a result of Bowling for Columbine's success at the box office and at the rental store."

Is that really the reason? Is it not true then that there are more good documentaries this year?

I think that I did read that comment by Hoberman about Love and Diane. As for My Architect, it's great both for the "content" (the personal story) and the images (the sense it gives us of what an incredible architect Louis Kahn is).

[cinemabon]

Is it the new reality shows? Bowling for Columbine? Or perhaps, we all just crave that ability to be the fly on the wall. The collective "they" are calling 2003, the year of the documentary; especially thanks to festivals like Sundance, Venice, and Toronto, which have showcased these "new" films that are now in demand. It seems that many independents are moving in that direction as well, rather than stick with plots.

I believe the roots to this trend goes back a little further to filming styles. Documentaries in the past used to be a hit and miss proposition. I did one that had a budget of 80 to 1. That's eighty shots I did not use to everyone included in the film. I believe "Winged Migration" had a budget busting 500 to 1! Most feature films use only a 10 or 20 to 1 at the most as an average. Filmmakers then had to "steal" shots as they happened, then try to cleverly edit them together to tell their story. With the advent of faster film stocks and the "hand held" steadycam self-blimped camera, we saw an emergence of filmmakers willing to go to places they never dreamed of before. Slowly this new style of documentary films are gaining acceptance as a part of a current trend in realism.

The second part of my theory is that the line between truth and fiction in the documentary has been crossed when we all started accepting "dramatic re-enactments" as catching truth on film. There is still a typical camera and sound crew present; however we are given the impression that things are happening or unfolding naturally as we watch, when in reality, the scene was set up. This creates the illusion of reality. This works especially well for television shows like Survivor, being in someone's home, like the Ozborns.

While I like the message of certain documentaries help the public to be aware of certain societal issues, I believe strongly that the overall use of film is still plot driven by fiction. I like to think it's the creative side of mankind.

[oscar jubis]

Both of you make good points, but don't underestimate the influence of Bowling's bottom line. I can name a dozen quality docs released(so to speak) in the three years preceding Moore's moneymaker which would be granted wider distribution nowadays.

[oscar jubis]

*The highest rated documentary of all time according to IMDb voters. The doc received over 20,000 votes, more than four times as many as the nearest competitor. The most widely seen doc of all time.

*The film would have made a profit almost the size of its $4 million budget from German boxoffice($7) alone. It grossed $22 million in American theatres but it became much more popular upon home video release. It's a worldwide hit.

[Chris Knipp]

I'm sure this is true about Bowling for Columbine; the statistics prove it. And no doubt the popularity of this important doc is due (apart from the effect of the promotional and distribution power applied to it) to the forceful statements of Mr Moore and the world's wish to know what the devil is wrong with the USA these days from somebody who is sure he knows.

However, the tradition of the neutral or at least undecided observer remains a strong one in documentary, witness My Architect, in which the filmmaker went to see what he could find out about his father, not knowing what, for instance, great architects like I.M. Pei, Frank Gehry, or Philip Johnson would say about the man; and "fly on the wall" observers like the selfless, almost invisible makers of To Be and to Have.

[Johann]

To Be and To Have is playing at the cinematheque very soon and I can't wait. I've never seen a film by Mr. Philibert, who is supposedly the greatest "fly on the wall' documentary filmmaker ever. I look forward to seeing his little retro.

Michael Moore. What do you do with a guy like him?

Applaud him.
Loudly.

The guy is very vocal and I like him. He's like "Oliver Stone for dummies". He lays it all out in his new book too, bluntly telling his readers "you'll never be rich" and to get used to it. The few are controlling the many says Mike, and he's probably right.
We're all waiting with bated breath as he sharpens his sword. (Fahrenheit 9/11)

[Chris Knipp]

I hope you get a chance to see My Architect too--it really moved me a lot. I don't have to toot the horn of To Be and To Have: everybody praises it, justifiably so.