MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Top Ten-ing In The New Year…

There were 31 movies I pulled out on my first go through of the films to put on the list this year.

Be Sociable, Share!

43 Responses to “Top Ten-ing In The New Year…”

  1. jeffmcm says:

    I thought Murderball was much worse-shot than The Aristocrats.

  2. Terence D says:

    Really? I thought Murderball was well done. I guess I forgot how it was shot because I was so into the story. Not many doc’s are well shot though.

  3. Bruce says:

    Great call with “40 Year Old Virgin” in the Top Ten.

  4. Josh says:

    Maybe I missed it, but where is “Brokeback Mountain”????

  5. Crow T Robot says:

    Virgin was cute. But I thought its raunchy-but-big-hearted humor was somewhat deliberate. The page it tore from Farrelly-comedy was a little too close.
    For my money it’s Wedding Crashers. It had a real song in its heart.

  6. Bruce says:

    I liked them both. A lot. But agree with Dave. The last third of Crashers was a little too schmaltzy. Go all out or nothing at all.

  7. BluStealer says:

    I can’t believe he has Kingdom of Heaven in the Top Ten.
    I’m going to have to see History of Violence now. Didn’t see it in theatres because it just didn’t look good to me. Now I’m going to have to check it out.

  8. PandaBear says:

    Good Top Ten.
    You think “Constant Gardener” can make a late “Pianist” type run here at Oscar? The competition seems weak enough.

  9. Angelus21 says:

    It’s way too early to discount a film like “The Constant Gardener”. It’s too early to discount any of probably eight films right now. No one has separated from the field and established themselves as the odds on favorite. If BBM hits 50 million, it could very well do that.

  10. jeffmcm says:

    Constant Gardener came out too long ago and wasn’t seen by enough people to be a really strong contender. (Plus I just don’t think it’s a very good movie). It’ll probably get a nomination or three but that’s it.

  11. Mark Ziegler says:

    In a normal year I think it fades away. But this year? No one is knocking socks off. Every film has flaws. Maybe it gets rediscovered. I think it may crack the Five but that’s about it. I don’t think it can win.

  12. Angelus21 says:

    It has a chance though. Maybe not great but it has a chance. Just like Son of the Mask and Bewitched!

  13. Melquiades says:

    I enjoyed much of The Constant Gardener but I felt it was over-directed (and this comes from somebody who considers City of God one of my favorite films of the past ten years).
    Mierelles went a little too nuts with the whacky camera angles and quick cuts. No need to shoot, say, the scene of Fiennes character on a train ride to (I think) London in that fashion. It was distracting and took away from an otherwise powerful film.

  14. Crow T Robot says:

    It’s sad to admit there wasn’t much that knocked my socks off this year either. Sure, the good has been good and there’s always the reliable bad, but nothing really to freak out about. The ho-hum top ten lists seem to reflect it.
    But I will confess… I did see Mr. & Mrs. Smith TWICE in the same weekend. Any married people have this weird affection for it too?

  15. waterbucket says:

    Uhm…where’s the love for Brokeback Mountain? I thought it’d be number 1. hehe

  16. Lynn says:

    Man. I really want the extended Kingdom of Heaven on DVD now.
    I like so many of the actors in that movie, and Ridley Scott, but watching it in the theater, it really did feel like huge chunks were left out.
    You’d think that studios would have learned by now that 3 hour movies are acceptable to audiences, and won’t hurt the gross, *if* they’re compelling.

  17. Rufus Masters says:

    I may have to watch the DVD of Kingdom of Heaven now.

  18. champura says:

    Anyone who thinks Aristocrats and/or Murderball were the worst shot docs of the year clearly didn’t see Mondovino.

  19. Sanchez says:

    I liked how he shot “Constant Gardener”. He can do no wrong in my book after “City of God”.

  20. PetalumaFilms says:

    Uhhh….good list but I don’t think you should be allowed to include a “Directors Cut” of a movie that wasn’t released in theaters. I hate to be nit-picky, but “Oscar Voters” aren’t picking movies that were only on DVD…as a directors cut is. I mean, why not pick “40 Year Old Virgin: Unrated Version?” Or “Band Camp?”
    You should have to pick from films in theaters…even limited release. And I also think that Ridley Scott should’ve grown some balls and put his VISION on the screen…especially if the DVD is that much better. It’s offensive to me as a consumer when a company says, “hey dude, I know you saw this in theaters and it sucked, but here’s how it should’ve been because we know most people are stupid enough to buy it on DVD.” I’ll see it now…but they didn’t fool me the first time.

  21. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    SETTLE DOWN!!!!!
    Dave can put anything he wants onto his list. Jesus Christ, it’s not like Dave Poland speaks for the common people. If he saw the Director’s Cut and thought it was one of the year’s best then he has every right to put it on. If I saw the Director’s Cut and liked it that much I would put it on mine.
    It’s not Ridley’s fault that he made a 3 hour movie and the studio wanted a 2 hour one, or whatever the deal was. So why should the film suffer even more? God, “you should have to pick from films in theaters”. Sing it now, WHO’S THE BOSS?
    ANYWAY. Pretty good list I suppose, I haven’t seen many of them (yet). Happy about Constant Gardener, one of my fave’s as well. Fernando Meirelles can sit alongside Sofia Coppola and Jonathan Glazer as one my new gods of cinema.

  22. Drew McWeeny says:

    You’ve got it backwards, Petaluma. Ridley Scott wasn’t lacking for balls; Fox was. He made his film, and they cut the guts out of it. And if you’ll accept limited release, then KINGDOM OF HEAVEN qualifies, because it’s playing for two weeks in LA right now. Anyone can go. Sounds like it’s fair game for anyone’s list.

  23. PetalumaFilms says:

    Great points dude!
    In that case, my top ten for 2005 is:
    1. Puffy Chair
    2. Lord of the Rings Trilogy (on DVD…lots of extras! Totally this year)
    3. Apocolypsye Now Redux (My mom got it for me, never saw it before)
    4. Passenger (The Antonioni one…with JACK! So rad! New print!)
    5. Munich (made me think)
    6. The Day the Clown Cried ( I bought it off EBay)
    7. The Conversation (never saw it on DVD before)
    8. Comedians of Comedy (dude, it’s on DVD through netflix only!)
    9. Jimmie Jams Last Stand (a download off ifilm)
    10. KamikazeCamel’s Holiday Party….oh wait, you did that.
    Point taken?

  24. jeffmcm says:

    Yeah, if the director’s cut is a good movie, Why TF can’t DP put it on his list? I guess you like it when studios butcher movies and only see movies that have profiles on Entertainment Tonight.

  25. PetalumaFilms says:

    I disagree…but I will take this moment to say CIGARETTE BURNS was SO….FUCKING….RAD. I laughed and gasped and clenched hands to myself numerous times.
    Way to go dude. Unless you’re not *really* Drew.

  26. jeffmcm says:

    Petaluma, I agree with you in that Top Ten lists should only include movies from THIS year, not 1979 or 2003 or whenever. But since it’s widely available and BETTER, why not?

  27. Mongoose says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion that the world has gone mad.
    How anyone could think that King Kong is a good movie is beyond me. What a piece of crap! I had to walk out after 2 hours and 20 minutes. Just couldnt take it anymore. Where was the editor on this film and why oh why didnt he/she cut -cut-cut!!!!

  28. MattM says:

    The “Kingdom of Heaven” Director’s Cut is currently playing theatrically in L.A. It is not apparently on the DVD.

  29. Crow T Robot says:

    It’s playing at Laemmle Fairfax? Ugh. Perhaps the most uninviting, skanky venue in town to sit for 3 hours.

  30. Angelus21 says:

    Top Tens from 2005 should include just 2005.

  31. PandaBear says:

    I agree. Including directors cuts of movies not released in theatres is circumventing the rules of the Top 10 game. No way does Kingdom of Heaven crack a top 30 List let alone top 10.

  32. David Poland says:

    1. As Drew pointed out, this version of Kingdom of Heaven is in a L.A. theater and NOT on DVD. It could, actually have Oscar qualified with a NY run as well, though I don’t know how that will work.
    And as I noted in a late addition to the list, the reason New World is not there for me is that I am anticipating a director’s cut in 2006.
    “Circumventing the rules of the Top Ten game?” Is it a game? Why aren’t you all complaining about Street Fight? If there is anything honorable about the doc and foreign language process, it is that they are removed from the “rules” of the popularity contest.
    And btw, I think Redux might have been on my worst list of that year. Most films are not improved by additions that had been cut. There are rare occasions, like this one and Almost Famous, where the film really was compromised. And the real vision of the filmmaker should be the one we remember and look at as time goes by.

  33. MattM says:

    According to the official Oscar rules, no New York run is required. Just a run within L.A. County. (Were a NY run required, “Hoodwinked” would not have made the animated feature race.)
    So, provided that the KoH director’s cut met the other requirements (credits submission, etc.), I see no reason it would be ineligible under the rules.
    And while I still haven’t had a chance to see the longer cut of “Almost Famous,” even the shortened cut was the best picture of 2000.

  34. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Pataluma, I’m sure that reply took some hard work on your count. Keep it up.
    MattM, what’s the procedure though if a film has already had a theatrical exhibition and is now getting a second in a different guise. Would they submit it under “Kingdom of Heaven: Director’s Cut”? cause that’d be an interesting anomole. However unlikely it is.

  35. MattM says:

    The rules seem to say nothing about “Director’s Cuts” of this sort. I think, under the rules, Director’s Cuts which have been exhibited in a theatre first and meet all other eligibility requirements would be eligible. It’s hard to say. It seems like the relatively few reviews I’ve seen all say that the KoH Director’s Cut is amazing, so sounds like Fox screwed it up.

  36. JohnBritt says:

    I am really interested now more than ever to see The New World. I knew when I heard the name Q’orianka Kilcher that it sounded familiar. I did some checking and to my surprise, I found out where I knew the name. It was from Arsenio Hall’s version of Star Search. I have watched Star Search since its inception and I continued to watch the Arsenio Hall version. It seems that show just keeps putting out the stars. It has already produced little Tiffany who starred in Diary of a Mad Black Woman and now Q’orianka who makes a major turn with Oscar implications. I wonder who will be next? Can’t wait to see it even if some people call it one of the worst of the year. Plus, did you know she is related to Jewel? Strange.

  37. LesterFreed says:

    The Almost Famous DVD is head and shoulders above the original.

  38. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Was never a fan of Almost Famous – maybe I should check it out.
    And, yeah, if the KoH director’s cut is as good as people are saying then Ridley Scott oughta be fuming. It could’ve been the big manly movie that battled Brokeback.

  39. Bruce says:

    KoH was ruined by casting. Bloom a bad choice.

  40. Stella's Boy says:

    I agree Bruce. I felt the same way about Troy. I think both were hurt by Bloom. He is totally wrong for those roles, and being surrounded by much better actors in both those movies only made that all the more obvious.

  41. Bruce says:

    Bloom had his shot this year. Failing in Scott and Crowe movies? Not both his fault but he has to take a lot of the blame. Will he keep getting shots at the A list? Pitt kept getting shots but he seemed to have more chops than Bloom and didn’t start out as a leading man. Pitt took the hard way to the top. Smaller roles. Be interesting to see what Bloom does next and how he goes about it.

  42. martin says:

    bloom has no charisma and looks like sideshow bob’s more handsome brother. He needs to stick with the character stuff.

  43. Lynn says:

    I would disagree about Troy — I think he was perfectly cast in that role, and he was totally unafraid to go for everything that it asked of him. Unsympathetic, shallow, venial, cowardly, and just plain dumb, he was a striking, perfect contrast to Hector. I’m not sure a lot of young actors in the “heartthrob of the moment” stage would have embraced such a character quite so completely, or been as willing to look utterly terrified, crawl away from a fight and cling to his brother’s legs.
    I am more ambivalent about Bloom in KoH, though it’s clear he did a lot of work for it. I don’t think most of what was in the theatrical version gave him much of a chance to shine. But physically, he was more imposing, his voice was lower, and he seemed more mature.
    He is definitely a gifted physical actor… I was impressed with him when I saw him in FotR, long before all the hype. With very few lines, he was really a perfect elf, and that’s harder than it sounds. I easily believed the character was hundreds of years old (at least).
    I think he may surprise everyone and come into his own in his 30’s. He’s still awfully young.

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