MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Top Ten Insanity!

A Look At The Top Ten Lists

What do y’all think?

Be Sociable, Share!

38 Responses to “Top Ten Insanity!”

  1. bicycle bob says:

    why is there no eternal sunshine talk when its #2 on the list? why no buzz for best pic?

  2. Dan R% says:

    Long-term memory loss…

  3. Mark says:

    I hope at least Kate Winslet gets a nod. Probably Carreys best film. After Ace Ventura, obviously.

  4. KamikazeCamel says:

    It probably would have some buzz if Sideways hadn’t come out and won everything that Eternal Sunshine would have.
    But, also, Nathaniel (from the film experience) is constantly talking about the (100%) true that for some reason there was only about 6 movies made this year. or something like that.
    (I love Nathaniel)

  5. bicycle bob says:

    love? as in really like and wanna be with? thats so cute

  6. mex says:

    I have only seen Eternal Sunshine and I know Im not gonna see anything better in the next few years.
    It should get a nod, I mean Ray, The Aviator and Finding Neverland cant be better.

  7. bicycle bob says:

    there hasn’t been 5 better movies this yr than eternal sunshine. just not possible

  8. Mark says:

    Let’s just hope the voting members have some good memories.

  9. gombro says:

    It’s called the “too clever by half” rule. Any movie that is as quirky, visionary, culty, unusual, as ETERNAL SUNSHINE isn’t going to get much Oscar recognition. Sorry. It has nothing to do with memory, it has to do with the taste of the Acadmey. Sorry, you can’t argue taste. Best/Worst in art is a subjective response based on the subjectivity of the spectator. Everytime you say Such and Such was the best film of the year, what you really mean is “Such and Such was my favorite film of the year.” Whenever you say a movie “was boring” what you mean was “It bored me.” Gilliam’s BRAZIL was a December release and may well have been the best film of 1985 to many people, BLADE RUNNER had its devotees for best pic in its year, same for ADAPTATION. The Acadamy voters are just not, as a whole, the kind of people who respond to films like ETERNAL SUNSHINE, so don’t hold your breath for many nominations.

  10. bicycle bob says:

    in a yr as weak as this and with it making so many top 5 lists, i don’t see how it is too quirky and unusual for everyone. thats a cop out

  11. gombro says:

    How’s it a cop out? Isn’t saying ETERNAL SUNSHINE came out too early in the year for people to remember it even MORE of a cop out? (“Oh, they’ve all forgotten about it.”) Do you really think people can’t remember a film when the screener DVD is right on their coffee table next to the screeners for HOTEL REWANDA, PHANTOM, and THE AVIATOR? WITNESS, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, GLADIATOR, etc. were all early year releases that got more nominations than SUNSHINE, I wager, is about to get. (I do think SUNSHINE will get nods for Screenplay and maybe Sound, Editing, Actress, and Director. It doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell for Picture, though. And you know it.
    By the way, for those keeping track, on another thread, I said that THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST would, most likely, squeak through with some tech noms including CINEMATOGRAPHY. Guess what got an American Society of Cinematographers Nomination the other day? I actually DO know what I’m taking about. (And I can use a shift key.)

  12. gombro says:

    Also…. Saying this is a weak year is also a subjective call. I, personally think it was a good year. Any year that gives us SIDEWAYS, CLOSER, THE AVIATOR, HOUSE OF FLYING DRAGONS, BAD EDUCATION, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, SPIDER-MAN 2, a good HARRY POTTER (finally), DISTANT, NOTRE MUSIC, SARABAND, COLATTERAL, BIRTH, BIG ANIMAL, etc., is, in my book, a notably good year.

  13. Stella's Boy says:

    gombro, I don’t agree with all of your choices, but I’m with you, it wasn’t a weak year. I saw plenty of great movies this year.

  14. bicycle bob says:

    as good as potter and spiderman were, they’re not oscar caliber movies. they were good but not top 5 good. like eternal sunshine.

  15. gombro says:

    I’d give Best Picture to Spider-Man 2 or Potter over Sunshine. Sorry, I thought SUNSHINE was a gimmick movie. I’d also nominate, now that I think of it, BEFORE SUNSET, VERA DRAKE, TARNATION, SADDEST MUSIC IN THE WORLD, KINSEY…

  16. PeppersDad says:

    I’m with you, gombro, for your voiced preference of Spider-Man 2 over some of the more prevalent choices that have been appearing on these lists. While I’m at it, let me throw in for consideration The Incredibles. Technical magnificence aside, these were films that very effectively and maturely broke through their genre restraints and touched emotional chords with adult audiences. They garnered rave reviews and through-the-roof box-office receipts. It’s sad that, come awards time, people now choose to easily dismiss them as nothing more than comic-book confections for kids.

  17. Mark says:

    Let’s not go overboard here. Spiderman 2 is a good movie. A popcorn movie. But it brings nothing deeper. No themes. No great acting. No great direction. Nothing that would make it part of the Oscar talk. Give credit to what it is. A good super hero movie and lets be happy they didn’t mess it up.

  18. gombro says:

    You really think ETERNAL SUNSHINE is more than a high-brow popcorn movie, Mark? A real mind-bending art film like MULLHOLAND DRIVE, or PERSONA makes ES look like a comic book, too. At least SPIDER-MAN has a mythical and operatic quality to it, while SUNSHINE basks all too immodestly in its own self-satisfied cleverness.
    What’s the theme? True love conquers all, and that if too people are destined to be together nothing can change that. That’s sort of a high school Valentine dance’s sentiment, isn’t it? The film certainly isn’t LAST YEAR AT MARIANBAD, no matter how much it wants to think it is.

  19. gombro says:

    That should have been “TWO people are destined…” D’oh!

  20. PeppersDad says:

    gombro –
    I really liked your reference to Spider-Man 2’s “operatic quality.” Like opera, some people appreciate the sophistication of its breathless, larger-than-life grandiosity. And some people don’t.

  21. gombro says:

    Thanks, Peppers. I think that when a person votes for Best Picture, it should be a vote for what one thinks is the best picture regardless of type. One year the best picture might be a superhero movie, the next it might be a subtitled Ingmar Bergman film. The fact that the Academy has tried to dictate taste with this sort of middlebrow aesthetic (usually rewarding things like OUT OF AFRICA, AMADEUS, AMERICAN BEAUTY, SHAKESPERE IN LOVE) while ignoring both popular cinema on the one side (STAR WARS) and really challenging work on the other (WERCKMEISTER HARMONIES, DEAD RINGERS) is, finally, what’s really wrong with organizations like the Academy. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve only gotten it right three times in the last 30 years: THE GODFATHER PART II, ANNIE HALL, UNFORGIVEN.

  22. Mark says:

    Thankfully gombro doesn’t have a best picture vote or we’d have years of Jurassic Park winning because it had “operatic quality” or Lethal Weapon 4 winning because of its “mixing of characters”. There is a reason for award shows like Peoples Choice and Blockbuster. Made for guys like gombro.

  23. gombro says:

    What an idiot you seem to be, Mark.
    Actually, you would have seen FANNY AND ALEXANDER, RAISE THE RED LANTERN, MULHOLLAND DR., and AFFLICTION win if I had my way. And, admittedly, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, E.T., and a few others at the pop end. You can stick with your “simple movies that make the viewer feel smarter than he or she is,” like DRIVING MISS DAISY, PLATOON, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, and, it seems, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND. I, for my part, will continue to enjoy all kinds of movies across the spectrum when they reach the level of art. (When you pull your head out you might want to look up the reviews of critics like Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert, who have said, basically the same thing. Ebert just said he thought SPIDER-MAN 2 deserved to be nominated last week. Pauline Kael called E.T. the best film of its year.)

  24. Joe Leydon says:

    Look, I hate to sound like even more of an effete snob than I really am, but who the hell really cares about the Oscars? I mean, other than the people who compete for them, and those of us who occasionally have to write about them? The Academy may get the final word in defining Oscar-worthiness, but that doesn’t mean you or I have to accept with their judgment calls.
    In my view, the Academy is just another trade organization, sort of like a brotherhood for — well, for the cleaners of bathroom tile. The Academy of Tile Cleaners might vote EZ Duz-It as Best Mildew Remover of 2005, and that title might carry some prestige because, hey, the award was voted by experts in the field. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. I might want to buy Takes-It-Off mildew remover instead, especially if my neighborhood Grocery Megaplex store is running a triple-coupon special.

  25. gombro says:

    Joe. I (almost) totally agree with you, at least to the extent that I don’t consider the Oscars to be any kind of true barometer of quality.
    I only read these blogs, pay attention to the awards, etc. for the fun of it: seeing what happens when Miramax gets caught writing editorials for Robert Wise to sign, seeing what impact that hack William Goldman might have with his dumb Variety columns, seeing what happens when votes get split between different mindsets, etc. You have to admit it fun predicting what those nutty Oscar voters will do, don’t you? Are you saying you wouldn’t watch if it wasn’t your job?
    But you’re right in your larger point. If I actually took seriously what won and lost at the Oscars, I’d be very frustrated indeed.

  26. PeppersDad says:

    Welcome again to Mark’s brain, where the only opinion that counts is his. I love how he can claim here that popular consensus about movies is worthless; then pronounce a round table of critics on another thread to be a bunch of intellectual snobs with their heads up their asses; then declare on countless other threads that Republicans must be right because they won the popular vote.
    I guess that kind of consistency is Mark’s idea of what intellectual discourse is all about these days.

  27. gombro says:

    Yeah, amazing! The Republicans are right because they got the most votes, but SPIDER-MAN 2 sucks even though it sold the most tickets. Well, he’s the kind of person who thinks the only person who can clean up the mess in Iraq is the one who made the mess in Iraq, another great fallacy.

  28. Joe Leydon says:

    I have to admit, my enthusiam for the Oscar was dampened years ago — back when I was in college, actually, when we sat around the TV at my dorm and made rude comments when John Wayne beat Dustin Hoffman for the Best Actor award.
    Several years later, back when I toiled for the now-defunct Houston Post, I once foolishly suggested to the entertainment editor: “Look, let’s not bother with Oscar predictions this year.” Instead of agreeing, the editor — sounding a great deal like one of the village elders in Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” – replied: “We must have Oscar predictions. We have always had Oscar predictions. We always will have Oscar predictions. Readers want Oscar predictions…”
    OK, OK, I get the message.

  29. Gombro says:

    I hear you, Joe. Too bad more isn’t made of the National Society of Film Critics awards. I tend to agree with their choices more than any other awards winning group.
    One of my “moments of truth,” in terms of the Academy Awards, came when I threw an Oscar party a few years ago, and a guy there started screaming at the TV whenever his favorites didn’t win. By the end of the night he was purple with rage since, of course, his favorites never seemed to win. Later I asked him about it, and he said he’s always like that, that in fact as a teenager he would burst into tears when ever the “wrong” person won. I just couldn’t believe it! As if Oscar snubs were some kind of traumatic injustice in the big picture!! That put it all into perspective for me. Still, since I don’t get into the whole “inside baseball” culture, and I work in the film biz, Oscar watching and predicting is one of my hobbies, as long as it doesn’t take me away from watching good films, most of which never even get nominated. One that recently rocked my world was SONGS FROM THE SECOND FLOOR, which, of course, didn’t get a single nomination, or even any critics awards.

  30. Jon S says:

    Gombro: I’m with you on “Songs from the Second Floor.” It’s amazing! But just a slight correction. It did win something: a Jury Prize at Cannes as I recall, which is a much more prestigious honor than an Oscar in my book, at least in terms of the company a filmmaker joins by winning one.

  31. Mark says:

    How dumb are you to say that Spiderman 2 deserves Oscar attention? You have said some really dumb things here but now you’re into out of this world territory. Whats next? Van Helsing for best movie? Hey, it made over 100 million. It has to be good right?

  32. gombro says:

    Looks like you’re the shallow one considering of all the films I’ve been mentioning as good the only one you seem to have seen is the comic book hero one. Maybe if you had any film literacy at all we could talk about some of the many, many other films I’ve mentioned as bests: FANNY AND ALEXANDER, SONGS FROM THE SECOND FLOOR, RAISE THE RED LANTERN, AFFLICTION. And how can I be “out of this world” when I live in the same world as Roger Ebert, and he also thinks SPIDER-MAN 2 should be nominated. And why is it I have the feeling Ebert and I got better grades in school than you did?

  33. The Woods says:

    There is a reason for the Academy Awards. It is to reward the best films and performances of the year. Not to reward the highest grossing pictures. To even say that Spiderman 2 is in the same league with movies like the Aviator and Sideways is irresponsible. Thank God people like you do not vote.

  34. Joe Fitz says:

    Why didn’t The Phantom Menace win best picture? I thought Harry Potter 2 would be a shoe in too.

  35. Mark says:

    Gombro, lets not get into grades in school. You and Ebert would lose that one. Like you lose everything here apparently. But hey, you must be smart since you think Van Helsing deserves an Oscar. What do I know?

  36. bicycle bob says:

    mtv makes award shows for people like the gombro. i can see him stuffing ballot boxes for that

  37. jon s says:

    I am actually proud of Mark for at least noting that Roger Ebert, a highly respected person in the film business, also thinks SpiderMan 2 should get a best picture nomination. The fact that Mark and bicycle can’t tell the difference between crap (Van Helsing), and a great populist film (SpiderMan 2), however, shows how their brains work. Why don’t you guys actually deal with the larger issue? By your way of thinking, Lord of the Rings shouldn’t have won and E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Star Wars shouldn’t have been nominated. Do you agree with that? If not, why don’t you talk about that instead of taking childish potshots at people on this board you disagree with? Somehow you don’t seem like the kind of stuffed shirts who really thought Gandhi should have won over E.T., but like most Right Wingers, I guess you crave the voice of authority so much that you think when the authority figures have spoken (the Academy, Rush Limbaugh), the must have spoken the absolute truth. Debate closed.
    Also, there is the fact that Gombro mentioned at least five or six subtitled foreign art films he thought should have gotten nominated for best picture over the years. Why don’t you deal with that instead of just calling him or her stupid? Seems like gombro has better taste in films than most. Like the crettins you are, you’ve just latched on the fact that he or she liked SpiderMan 2 and you come back here over and over again to say “dahhah! Gombro liked SpiderMan. What a dumb ass. Ha Ha! Gurr!” No wonder most smart people think right wingers are dumb.

  38. bicycle bob says:

    hey jon boy, i have said many times how much i like spiderman 2. one of my fav’s of the yr. easily. but i can also say its not oscar worthy. i can separate my love for a film and artistic quality of story, themes, direction, etc.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon