Children of Men + Letters from Iwo Jima (Walter Chaw)
Dane Cook's Tourgasm (Ian Pugh)
A Star is Born (1976) (Travis Mackenzie Hoover)
That's My Bush!: The Definitive Collection (IP)
Conversations with Other Women (TMH)
In subsequent editions, this may get more elaborate.
On a side note: did anyone catch "The Office" last night? Poor Pam. Poor, delicious Pam.
UPDATE: Our own Alex Jackson has just posted his personal best/worst list at I VIDDIED IT ON THE SCREEN. Y'know, Alex is pretty punk; I'm honoured to have him on the team.
45 comments:
The Office has really been on this season. Did anyone see the previous episode? "Well, you know, all waitresses look alike". Sadly, alot of people I talked to about that episode did not even realize they switched the first pair of waitresses with a different pair on the way back to the office. And these people were laughing at Michael Scott during the party, I guess the joke was on just about everyone.
Speaking of being on, Alex's best and worst of 2006 was amazing. "Maybe the film is anti-bus accidents" hahaha.
Having laughed heartily at Dane Cook and his frat-friendly idiocy several times (even after I found out that I wasn't supposed to like him)--I too appreciate Ian's unwillingness to jump aboard the popular Cook-Hate Wagon (recently seen on "Scrubs", that bastion of mature, Algonquin-table interplay) while still offering a well-deserved takedown of a wholly mediocre film. Kudos.
I'd also have to add a much-deserved bravo to Alex for his evisceration of "The Proposition"--or "Iron John Goes Outback"--I saw this one at the 2005 TIFF--and "pretentious joylessness" leapt to mind immediately.
"Silent Hill"--pretty pictures indeed but, I was crawling the walls with confused boredom--it's no "Super Mario Bros" that's for sure.
In reference to the last post on the January 2nd blog, my #1 condescending comment of the year goes to Andrew:
and kudos once again on your strong recommendation of Into Great Silence, though I'm not sure you like it for the reasons you should
I usually say the same thing about Solondz's Happiness and a few assholes who like it, but is Alex really deserving of that attack? He makes some great points, The Death of Mister Lazarescu was my favorite movie of the year but I can see where someone would hate it. I do see the hypocrisy within the film, so I am not going to unleash on him because he has well stated opinions. Andrew, with all the irrational jerks inhabiting this world, shouldn't you lay it out on someone else?
Actually, I initially thought that you were being defensive because Alex was going after the movies you like. But now that I read his best of 2006 again, he did make it personal. I can see where you would be mad, so disregard my last post.
...but it’s utterly joyless so he can take some pleasure out of it
And there is the #1 asshole comment of the year. But still, that is pretty damn funny. Loosen up, don't be so self-serious!
I had to agree with a few of Mr. Jackson's points, but his take on (radical?) feminism left me rather confused:
Films should avoid presenting gender inequity... because women are inherently more frail?
And I'm not really following how a bearded man in a sexual context is automatically a symbol of homosexual lust. Sure, if there were more to establish that conclusion but, as it stands, the beard=gay equation seems shakey at best.
Am staying away from the Children of Men review 'til I see the film later on this weekend.
The Cook DVD sounds pretty awful, though I admith that my own feelings on him are kind of mixed. His material is really bland, favoring the kind of pop cultural references that no one is going to miss (a co-worker of mine once dismissed his stuff along the possibly snobbish but nevertheless correct lines that "you don't have to be smart to get his humor") and tired observations on male/female sexuality, but he's enthusiastic and charismatic enough that I kind of enjoy watching him. His SNL hosting gigs have displayed a solid knack for physical comedy, as well.
Still, he's know Mitch Hedberg. Or Sarah Silverman. Or Patton Oswalt. Or David Cross. But with pariahs like Carlos Mencia and (in Canada anyway) Russell Peters out there and inexplicably popular, you could do far worse.
Actually the pythagorean formula is:
beard^2(t) + gay^2(t) = 1
Therefore, beard = gay is not true
I always thought a lack of a beard was closer to gayness, because technically a man is meant to have a beard. That is why it grows. If a man shaves off the beard, he's automatically one lack of beard closer to femininity. However, since I do not have a beard nor do I have plans in the immediate future to grow one because of the periodic unsightliness involved in the process, I must be closer to Martha Stewart than Chuck Norris on the manliness scale,
I had to agree with a few of Mr. Jackson's points, but his take on (radical?) feminism left me rather confused:
Films should avoid presenting gender inequity... because women are inherently more frail?
Well, I'm probably going to go on for a while until I actually fully address your concern. I guess what I'm getting at is that when a man hits a man it's just plain old fashioned violence but when a man hits a woman it gains a political dimension.
While some fathers teach their sons that if your woman mouths off to you, you need to pop her one; others teach their sons the exact opposite, that you should never ever hit women no matter what she says or does. The attitude is not that you should never hit anybody and all violence is bad, women are given this special status.
It goes without saying that the first perspective presents a diminished view of women; but the other sees them as less morally culpable and less able to defend themselves and this also presents a diminished view of women.
Chivalry is a form of misogyny. By definition it reinforces gender inequality. I guess that I'm a misogynist in that sense, since I find female protagonists, by virtue of their femininity, more vulnerable and as thus emotionally engaging. Sympathy for Lady Vengence allowed its protagonist to display vulnerbility and as thus had a lot more impact for me than Silent Hill and The Descent which were considerably more protective of showing female characters that'll..bleed when you prick 'em to use my favorite phrase.
Choppy waters I guess. In moving toward gender equality are we neutering drama?
And I'm not really following how a bearded man in a sexual context is automatically a symbol of homosexual lust. Sure, if there were more to establish that conclusion but, as it stands, the beard=gay equation seems shakey at best.
Well, middle-aged bearded man in a sexual context. For whatever reason whenever I picture a gay man I think Richard Hatch. Only facial hair that's gayer is the handlebar mustache! In itself, I suppose that is pretty scant evidence, but combined with the presence of the Crying Game theme, the muscular very penis-like aliens that are, of course, transmitted from host to host sexually (is it unfair to say that any form of sexually transmitted death in a movie is an allusion to the HIV virus); Slither reeks of gay fear to me. I could very well be mental.
Rick
And there is the #1 asshole comment of the year. But still, that is pretty damn funny. Loosen up, don't be so self-serious!
Alex and Andrew's tiff aside, I think Andrew's previous comment in that same thread is more worthy of a second look:
Thread seems to be dying here, but I'd like to commend Travis (as usual) for searching beyond the confines of the multiplex to find those films worth talking about for more than ten minutes, and for proving once more that profundity does not end (nor start, the great majority of the time) with the latest piece of recycled pop culture detritus.
And I'd like to offer the mildest of kudos to WC for the one film that deserves inclusion on his list, and the one non-risible comment he made: Children of Men, which, as he points out, is the kind of parable that works the best: by being utterly specific about what it's doing with its own narrative, it invites and deserves broader application, rather than being so cannily vague and ambiguous that it can apply to any "archetypal" (that is, cliched) reading.
Notable because Andrew doesn't particularly want talk about any of the films in question (except for Children of Men, which is easily the safest to laud). Instead, he prefers to snipe Walter and Bill, his keyboard dripping with condescension, while he praises Travis for some perceived indie cred.
The Proposition begins with an offensive title card apologizing for using potentially offensive images of aborigines, as if the film actually had anything to do with the aborigines.
To clear this up Jackson, the aborigine tribes require any movie made down under that features them to include that opening title card. Hillcoat even comments on how its presence brings up various ethical quandaries in the DVD commentary, but it had to be there.
Notable because Andrew doesn't particularly want talk about any of the films in question (except for Children of Men, which is easily the safest to laud). Instead, he prefers to snipe Walter and Bill, his keyboard dripping with condescension, while he praises Travis for some perceived indie cred.
When I wrote that I was in fact coming off from Andrew's incredibly snotty comment there. Kind of a godsend, he kind of completely embodies the masochism this Paulette has been raging against throughout the essay, plus he's a jerk that resorts to ad hominem attacks when cornered (seriously, what was it that he said, "Lazarescu is brilliant and you're a moron"?) so I wouldn't feel conflicted in pulling him out there.
The Proposition begins with an offensive title card apologizing for using potentially offensive images of aborigines, as if the film actually had anything to do with the aborigines.
Man, I'm a shit writer. That sentence sure could have gone another time through the processer. Used both "offensive" and "aborigines" two times in a row.
To clear this up Jackson, the aborigine tribes require any movie made down under that features them to include that opening title card. Hillcoat even comments on how its presence brings up various ethical quandaries in the DVD commentary, but it had to be there.
What can I say?
1. I hadn't heard the audio commentary when I saw the film and it strikes me as a dangerous slippery slope to require such a thing. Films should be required to stand by themselves don't you think?
2. That title card preceded precisely the wrong movie. It seems perfectly in tune with its dreary "committed artiness".
3. It strikes me as utterly bizarre that the tribes require such a thing. Is nothing sacred anymore? As much as I hated The Proposition even it doesn't deserve to be mutilated by the PC police.
Bless ya for pointing that out, corym.
"Choppy waters I guess. In moving toward gender equality are we neutering drama?"
Thanks for responding, that does clear up the idea you had going there.
I think the more fundamental question is whether gender, race and the like should be taken, implicitly, as sources of drama. Certainly Lady Vengeance was a great film for effectively presenting a deeply conflicted character who is also emotionally engaging, but a similar level of emotional involvement in a male character is something I also expect. I really don't see Lady terribly different from Oldboy in the sense of evoking compassion, since the narratives are so similar. Both films begin with the characters literally imprisoned for succumbing to harmful gender stereotypes (for Lady, domestic subservience; for Oldboy, general boorishness). Then, even after they are released, they're still trapped following those same ritual stereotypes: Lady tries and fails to find redemption in being either madonna or whore, while Oldboy's brute violence fails to solve much either. The only valid solution in both is the bittersweet fantasy of clearing the slate and starting over.
To that end, taking Boy and Lady as a duo, either we clear the slate and treat male and female as basically the same or we maintain the same categories and the inherent divisiveness any categorization implies. I guess the solution is to update chivalry enough to let all people rise and fall on their own terms without, simultaneously, being callous and unsupportive - which is something The Descent lets you do. It's a balancing act for sure but, male or female, everyone bleeds at some point and everyone is capable of applying a bandage.
Lazarescu is brilliant and you're a moron
This makes me think, Why is it that all so-called "cerebralists" always end up relying on you're a moron argument? Just a general topic to discuss. Is it unhelathy amount of eliticism and self-importance? Or is it the need of compensation for lack of game with having to talk about it?
I think there is something intrinsically insecure about making a statement like that. Alex leaves himself open to attacks like "Women are dogs" because he's got game and he knows it. I'm not sure the same applies to "uncreative morons who get A-grades".
1. I hadn't heard the audio commentary when I saw the film and it strikes me as a dangerous slippery slope to require such a thing. Films should be required to stand by themselves don't you think?
2. That title card preceded precisely the wrong movie. It seems perfectly in tune with its dreary "committed artiness".
3. It strikes me as utterly bizarre that the tribes require such a thing. Is nothing sacred anymore? As much as I hated The Proposition even it doesn't deserve to be mutilated by the PC police.
1. Yeah, I didn't intend to imply that you were wrong for not knowing that (I certainly wouldn't expect you to listen to the commentary for a movie you gave one star), but otherwise, it is unfair to knock the movie for a title card the filmmakers were forced to include. Don't get me wrong though, I don't expect you to revise your writing or anything, I just thought that you'd like to know and that anyone else reading your review should know.
3. It is unfortunate... Hillcoat even makes an offhand swipe at their hypocrisy in the commentary, but has the tact not to dwell on it.
Man, I'm a shit writer. That sentence sure could have gone another time through the processer. Used both "offensive" and "aborigines" two times in a row.
My favorite avoidance of repetition of all time was in the infamous Troll 2's opening sequence, where the "writers" substitute the word "goblin" with descriptions such as "cruel forest dwellers" and "deformed beings". Ironically, the word "Troll" was never used.
plus he's a jerk that resorts to ad hominem attacks when cornered
Andrew, do you hang out with Vincent Gallo? Wait, nevermind. You aren't an underage, broken runaway.
Yeah...
I think that I feel that women are more sympathetic than men for the same reason that dogs are more sympathetic than humans; they’re more vulnerable and are less able to deal with physical and emotional anguish.
So punk! Like a film loving George Allen.
As far off topic as possible in a Best of the Year thread, but I just ran across this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hnm1ryuzf0o
*shudder*
And so proves my theory that they have to churn out one of these "movie" Movies every couple of months, simply because previous instalments are so quickly made obsolete. How do Nacho Libre and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory qualify as "epic"?
Smartest thing about the trailer, by the way, is how they altered the Superman S-shield to resemble bitter old Supes' insignia from Waid and Ross' great graphic novel, Kingdom Come.
Saddest thing would be that my favorite Kid in the Hall, Kevin McDonald ("Hmmm, why would you thank Hitler? I DON'T KNOW!"), has somehow embroiled himself in all this. I thought he was doing pretty well in voice acting.
And that Paris Hilton. She sure exists, doesn't she? Being around, doing things...
But it seems that Epic Movie is trying something new by having scenes end with a person being hit in the head with something. I have never seen that done in this type of movie before, how clever and witty!
And shouldn't "satirical" movies make fun of things that are self-serious? Why is Borat ( most likely filmed two weeks ago and tacked on) in there? Does that make sense on any level?
Actually I think Borat is in there for people with such a small frame of reference ( or so fucking retarded ) that they will laugh in a moment of self-congratulatory bliss from recognizing anything
I was thinking the same thing, assuming before I saw the trailer that it would be a spoofing The Day After Tomorrow or The Lord of the Rings (assuming they haven't already). But, really, the "epic" seems to be refering soley to the amount of genres they can pack in there.
Having seen parts of Scary 4, I think the movies are simultaneously smarter and far stupider than they get credit for. I mean, 4 culminates with a group of black celebrities in pimped rides pulling out an absurd arsenal to fight off a group of naively offensive lily-white aliens, only to end up killing themselves with petty infighting while the aliens stand there confused. That one-minute throwaway scene neatly summarized the racial divide in America better than half of Crash.
It's not knee-slapping hilarity, but social satire feels like the heart of the picture, buried under the awful and pointless movie references slathered on as komedy filler because they think audiences are too stupid to understand actual jokes.
(Scary Movie 4 / Million Dollar Baby spoilers.)
See, unlike most movies like that (which rise my ire like none other), Scary Movie 4 just kind of bounced off me--the series proper understands by this point that it isn't a lazy spoof of recent movies so much as it is a collection of dick and fart jokes that uses popular culture as a backdrop. Still, the best laugh from the film is a parody of Million Dollar Baby--where, through domino-effect slapstick, everyone except the prizefighter breaks their neck. I've long forgotten just about everything in that movie, but the image of a guy snapping his head to the side upon being hit by an errant bag of peanuts strikes me as ceaselessly hilarious. Even if you liked Million Dollar Baby, as I did, you gotta love the criticism of maudlin cinema.
And thanks, Dave, for the kind words on the "Tourgasm" review.
I also appreciated Ian's review of Tourgasm, although I like Cook even less (he's all atitude and aggression with no real jokes.) But I'm kind of given pause by Dave's comment from way back when in the thread ("I too appreciate Ian's unwillingness to jump aboard the popular Cook-Hate Wagon") which is unnecessarily condescending, as if Ian's opinion should or would have anything to do with what Dave perceives to be the "popular" opinion of Cook. I have to be honest, I don't like Cook at all, but I don't consider myself to be on any sort of bandwagon. I trust that people around here have opinions based on their true likes and dislikes and aren't expressing things in order to go along with a crowd (or, what might be worse, forced contrarianism.)
Quick poll for you fine folks: should we compile a Bottom 10 again this year? It seems to me that the consensus last year was that the practice is unbecoming.
Yes! Yes! A thousdand times yes!
Unbecoming? Nah. The movies selected by you guys as the worst of the year tend to have some degree of cultural value to them, thus making their final slagging both important and gratifying.
My worst of '06? Date Movie. And--as hard as it is to believe that there may have been worse movies than The Village in '04--for once I actually believe that the worst movie I saw all year really was the worst film released in the year.
Thing is, James, it would be pretty easy to spew bile at Cook. You give perfectly good reasons for disliking him, but you're tempered about it; vitriol really is the bandwagon response to his work, and it's not wholly deserved. It's simply because he's one of those awful/mediocre/watchable/"just good" things that the masses and media won't shut up about as being infallibly awesome (as mentioned, along with The Boondock Saints and Napoleon Dynamite, not to mention Fight Club and The Matrix). That was what Dave's comment was referring to, a follow-up from a comment on the previous thread.
It was almost too tempting to fall into that pit, though -- particularly considering his downright despicable film, Employee of the Month (a mini-diatribe about it was edited out for being neither here nor there) -- but it's Cook's stand-up material that was on display in "Tourgasm", and I made sure to review his albums to help me get a better feel for the man. (Also because the show itself, in its stupidity, refused to.) As established, he's a smug asshole and not very funny. But as Rick said, he's just aggressively mediocre with a few decent bits, and he's not as outright hateful as Carlos Mencia. By the way, I'm unfamiliar with this Russell Peters fellow -- but through his Wikipedia page, he seems to be the Canadian version of Mencia. Anyone care to elaborate?
Watch soon, by the way, for fully-justified vitriol in my double-review of "The Girls Next Door" and "Stacked."
Russell Peters: Cuddlier and less "angry" than Mencia, but therein lies much of the problem. He's fixated on racial differences, but his brand of humor lies in crafting the kind of broad racist jokes that the whole family can enjoy. Also, lots of riffs on child abuse, watered down in the same way. Not saying jokes about racism and child abuse can't work (says this Family Guy/Sarah Silverman fan), but if you're gonna deal in such touchy subject matter, your humor should have some sort of angry, confrontational charge to it. Peters is plenty hateful, but doesn't want to exclude or alienate anyone, making his whole act something akin to that scene in the Blue Collar Comedy Tour movie where one of the comedians (Ron White, I think) makes an offhand reference to capitol punishment, causing the whole audience to erupt into whooping applause.
Bottome 10... Aye.
I'd like to see a bottom 10, and I agree that it is unbecoming. It's the one moment where a critic is allowed to be as elitist and arrogant as he truly is. Followers of the critic can read and snicker along, neutral readers can read and be amused, and the rest can be offended and write hate mail, which then helps to get the critic and his followers through the year. It's the natural cycle of film criticism, you shouldn't break it.
On another note: Does anybody else try to read the "Word verification" as a word and then wonder whether it's an acronym and what it stands for? Ozpfkoj, indeed.
Speaking tangentially of the Bottom 10: next week, Kevin Smith will be joining Richard "ROFLMFAO" Roeper to cull their list of the worst films of '06.
It goes without saying that Clerks II will probably be mentioned in jest (Roeper: "lol, joel siegel"), ignoring the fact that it was truly godawful.
Damn, Ian, ya stole my thunder. (I have my sights trained on Clerks II, which has to be the worst thing Smith's ever branded.)
Top ten lists are a hell of a lot of fun and great conversation pieces, but inherently dubious whether they focus on “best” and “worst” films. So, I say bring on the “worst” lists. I will once again reiterate a favourite quote from the late Jay Scott who devised his own such lists by focusing on the “ambitiously bad” rather than the “merely bad”. It’s far more interesting to examine the failure of a “Lady In the Water” or a “Clerks 2” than lay another predictable beatdown on “John Tucker Must Die” or some other drop of multiplex bilge water. To sing another old song, I don’t think any critic (film or otherwise) should worry about being elitist—in a way, I’m expecting you to be elitist, so get on those lists y’all. When thinking of my own picks—the ones I most remember are not genuinely “bad” films--my biggest disappointments of the year were” Superman Returns, Cars and the aforementioned Lady in the Water. The one film that I truly detested and was summarily baffled by its level of critical and financial support was Inside Man. Clerks 2 would also be an interesting one to discuss. Some of the unearned pathos got by my crap-filter, as I myself slide into middle-aged sentimentality—it's a graduate seminar in the power that pop music has to seriously impede objectivity (I'm thinking of the go-Kart scene scored to the 'Pumpkins wistful 1979, it's Billy Corgan--not Smith who gets to me here)but, I think that we should ask for a bit more aesthetic competence from someone who’s made movies (sic) for well over a decade. I did however, get a bit of a kick out of imagiingig the marketing meetings behind that film : “Gawd. Look at this poster. These dudes are ugly---stick Rosario Dawson in there would ya?” Too bad it didn’t seem to work.
No one asked, but heres my Oscar Predictions--It's Marty's year folks.
Picture
The Departed
United 93
Little Miss Sunshine
The Queen
Dreamgirls
Actor
Forest Whitaker
Sascha Baron Cohen
Leonardo Di Caprio
Peter O’Toole
Ryan Gosling
Actress
Meryl Streep
Helen Mirren
Penelope Cruz
Kate Winslet
Naomi Watts
Director
Scorsese
Greengrass
Condon
Frears
Robert Altman
Solid enough predictions Dave, but I think you underestmate the heat that Eastwood's Letters From Iwo Jima seems to be generating. I see the race as essentially being another Scorsese vs. Eastwood year. Let's hope that the film that Iwo Jima ends up throwing off that list is either Little Miss Sunshine (mediocre) or Dreamgirls (haven't seen, but c'mon) and not the amazing but old-enough-to-have-been-forgotten United 93.
Oh yeah, I'm also gonna go ahead and call it for The Departed,/Scorsese. The difference between this year and 2004, 2002 (and 1990, and 1980...)? The Departed was a hella entertaining movie and a box office hit that everyone liked. Even the kids I work with at the mall were all about it.
Yes to the Bottom 10s. It's just as subjective and just as worth arguing about as the Top 10s.
Do you think Kevin Smith ever STOPS giving Jason Lee shit for being a Scientologist?
Dave, I hope you are right about Ryan Gosling and Sascha Baron Cohen. And I am praying that Djimon Hounsou does not slip in with the most irritating peformance of the year (yelling a lot takes talent I guess?)
If someone is doing a top 10 worst movies of the year list, please consider The Brothers of the Head and Drawing Restraint 9. Though I doubt the latter will be on anyone's worst list because Barney is one of the heavy-hitters that people use to validate their "intellectual" prowess. And after taking in some arbitrary pictures you do not even have to think to be considered smart (for "getting it"), which makes me regret spending so much time on the OTHER side of the brain. Though I have to admit Cremaster seems slightly more calculated, not that I care. Either way, Barney fans will play the "I dont understand him" card, which should be a card only reserved for angsty 10th graders who listen to Skinny Puppy or G.G. Allin, when speaking about themselves.
movies (sic)
Dave,
I'm a Chasing Amy fan and a Clerks apologist, and I think that's the absolute funniest thing that's ever been written on this blog. It should be the name of a column.
As for the Top 10s, Miami Vice is the only one that baffles me. In fact, it baffles me as much as any film ever chosen for an FFC Top 10. (I just checked; Sky High is better than Miami Vice and let's call What Lies Beneath a push.)
Miami Vice is ugly and boring. Of "speed, technology, bullets, and response-wetness," response-wetness seems to be the only one that doesn't qualify 90% of all action movies as masculine fantasies. It only qualifies 75%. And boy, a movie would have to have a lot of visually creative response-wetness to convince me that bleeding=orgasm. Sometimes a fluid is just a fluid.
For a site that so eloquently argues against the primacy of author intentionality, aren't you kinda assuming qualities through reverse author intentionality? If Brett Ratner had gathered a few stars and some video cameras and made the exact same Miami Vice...
I consider myself a Michael Mann fan, but he's joined the dark side. If he had shot The Last of the Mohicans on video, would it be the same film?
Some of us still like to be able to see our gritty, masculine fantasies. Maybe you saw orgasms in the film because there was nothing else to see.
Rick: Say what you will about Barney, but leave Skinny Puppy out of this!
O'JohnLandis: Did you see Vice theatrically or on DVD? I ask because of your "Some of us still like to be able to see our gritty, masculine fantasies" comment. I can't speak for the theatrical prints, but damn, the DVD is clear. If you don't like the DV look, you don't like the DV look. But that's not quite being unable to see the gritty, masculine fantasy. Cheers.
Sorry, James. I should have just said GG Allin because on heroin and covered in shit pretty much overrides on acid and covered in blood : )
I saw Miami Vice at the drive-in, actually thought it looked perfectly fine and supported the praise of Mann as one of the great visual filmmakers, and still didn't like it.
2000 (the year of release for What Lies Beneath) was a really shitty year for movies, by the way. I don't know what everybody is complaining about this year and last.
Post a Comment