The National Board of Review, a secretive and suspicious society of film reviewers, have come up with their Top Ten of 2006.
Their best picture pick? Letters from Iwo Jima, Clint Eastwood’s follow-up to Flags of Our Fathers.
Looking at the rest of their choices, I think it may be the single most confounding, misguided list I’ve seen them produce. Any list that includes The Devil Wears Prada but skips Children of Men, Little Children, Pan’s Labyrinth… oh, man, this is so ridiculous it’s not even worth talking about.
Crazy, eh? It does lead me to ask you what your list would have been, and what would your top five films of the last twenty years be?
Well, if you look at the “outstanding films” list in the right-side column of this blog, you’ll see a bunch of titles that I’ll probably include on my list.
But I haven’t narrowed it down to a definitive list yet, as there are still so many major “players” that will be released in the next few weeks. And even then, I won’t get hold of some of the foreign films that qualify for weeks to come.
I publish a preliminary list in January, and then I revise that frequently over the course of the next year. Heck, I just revised my lists for 2004 and 2003 recently…
I’m automatically suspicious of any list that is published before Christmas. I think it’s highly unlikely that all voting members of a critics’ society have *seen* all of the important films of the year, much less have considered them adequately to offer a relevant “best” list.
In any area of art, “the best” is in part subjective, of course, so it’s not like we’re gathering information for some exact science. But at least do me the favor of *watching* all of the heavy-hitters before you publish a list, unless that list is going to have a disclaimer admitting that it’s not comprehensive or conclusive…
Over the last few years, I’ve re-formatted my own personal lists to reflect that these are my “favorite” films that I’ve seen… to avoid any claim that I have some way of judging which of all yearly releases are truly “the best.” And then I try to include a list of those major releases I haven’t yet seen.
Looking at the NBR list, I have strong suspicions that there are certain major releases that they haven’t even considered.
THANK YOU so much for your statement about “300.”
Everyone says to me, “Phillip, you MUST be going to see 300 because you’re a film major and its going to be awesome movie!”
I end up giving them a talk along the lines of what you said in the first part of the Film Forum and they just stare at me like I’m stupid.
Oh well. I’d rather have art than entertainment a la gratuitous bloodshed and sex.
I reviewed “300” for my college newspaper this week (nothing else opened at our theater this weekend), and I agree with the negative reviews. It’s a piece of violence-porn (think I first came across that phrase in an Overstreet review), that glorifies war over peace and pride over humility. Plus, there are only so many ways to garrote someone with a sword before it becomes monotonous, and “300” exhausts the possibilities less than halfway into the movie.
I saw 300 on Sunday, for free and I’m so glad I didn’t pay a dime to see that film.
Here’s what I wrote on Flixster.com it: 300 is “like Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V on steroids. It’s visually stunning but be prepared to be bathed in blood and the seven deadly sins.”
-Karen
Jeffrey Overstreet said:
“300 has as much to do with studying history as Looney Toons has to do with studying wildlife.”
This is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO funny! Can I put it in my sig at A&F???
You can listen Arcade Fire’s Neon Bible for free (for a limited time) at 3voor12.
http://3voor12.vpro.nl/speler/luisterpaal/33521290
I came here to see your thoughts on ‘300’ and am disappointed that you won’t be seeing it.
I thought it was fantastic. (But most definitely not for children. Several of the sexual scenes I even had to turn away.)
The violence is obviously within the context of the story, and because of the style it seemed to me, more cartoon-like than real. (Again, definitely not for kids.)
This is a fantastic story about standing up against tyranny, fighting for freedom, and self sacrifice.
Honor, duty, glory. All things we need more of in this world.
Heh… what everyone has said concerning 300.
I was fortunate enough to see The Namesake and The Host up in Toronto last year, and I can’t recommend them enough, though for totally different reasons.
My hope is that everyone who thought 300 was full of rousing action scenes and thrilling battles will go see The Host, and see the real thing.
Odd that you couldn’t find any decent reviews of 300. Victor Davis Hanson, the noted classicist, gave the movie a fine review, as have others.
And to the above commenter, while peace is always preferable to war, the sacrifice of the Spartans at Thermopylae should always be praised.
“300” is 90% blood and gore, 5% romance/sex, and 5% storyline. Great cinematogrphy, though.
I thought the Conservatives would be loving “300” after the government of Iran personally condemned the film (but not for the violence and sex, rather the portrayal of their ancestors, the Persian people). I guess not.
I don’t think the critics matter when it comes to the box office. People will go to see whatever they think is interesting. If the marketing for a film hits them, people will go see it.
I don’t understand how this portrayal of the story is of no value simply because it’s full of lots of violence. Is the glorification of fighting always wrong, even if the fighting is FOR what’s right?
I’ve heard a bunch of critics complain how the movie shows Leonidas and the Spartans kill thousands of Persians. But the fact is that this actually happened. Why not make a violent movie about a group of 300 men who really did sacrifice themselves against impossible odds for the freedom of their country? Doesn’t this inspire something in the heart of every man who wonders if he’s capable of doing the same?
Julia, conservatives have enjoyed it thus far. See Victor Davis Hanson.
Jeremy – You would think, right? I left the theater inspired and a bit teary eyed, as I wondered if I have the courage to stand up against evil in this way, even if it means my death.
I have no idea why people have begun the ‘conservative vs. liberal’. It’s a movie about a real historical event. Of course it’s stylized and ‘Hollywood-ized’, but the basics are there.
I don’t know why ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ should even come into play as far as liking it or even going to see it in the first place.
Like so many other things, once something is labeled that way, the other side will pan it without even seeing for themselves what it’s all about. If pass on this because they don’t care for violence, that’s one thing.
But if it’s going to be labeled a conservative movie and that’s the only reason, then I wish people would be honest and say that. But then don’t comment on the content, quality or message without having seen it.
I admit I’ve been shocked by the reaction here. I thought on a Christian site that went further than the usual ‘it’s bloody so it has no redeeming value!’ discussion things would be different. I really thought people would be discussing the themes of sacrifice and honor and protecting your family and country, fighting against evil, etc. It’s been very disappointing to see that many folks aren’t even giving it a chance. (And then condemning it without having a clue what it’s all about!) Very disappointing indeed.
National Review now has an article by David Kahane on the movie 300 –
“So that noise you hear this morning is the wind created by hundreds of writers from Playa del Rey to Santa Barbara, sticking their fingers in the air to see if the wind’s suddenly shifted, wondering if they can shelve their metrosexual Syriana and Babel knockoffs and conjure up some good old-fashioned “men of the West” material.
Because the dirty little secret is, we used to write these movies all the time. Impossible odds. Quixotic causes. Death before surrender. Real all-American stuff, in which our heroes stood up for God and country and defending Princess Leia and getting back home to see their wives and children, with their shields or on them.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjM0NDEyZjM1M2JlNjE0ZGMwNDEwMzk5MzlkZjJmYjA=
If you read my review, you’ll quickly find that I’m in the camp that found the movie underwhelming and disappointing.
IMO, the reason for this is that the movie wanted to have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand, it wanted to be an over-the-top, hyper-realistic, highly stylized action flick. And to that end, it drenched the screen in lush visuals, buckets of blood, and over-the-top choreographed violence the likes of which haven’t been seen since the glory days of Hong Kong cinema.
On the other hand, it also decided to be this over-the-top, epic saga of glory, honor, and sacrifice. And to that end, it through in all of those rousing speeches by Leonidas.
Of course, these two aims are not mutually exclusive. The LOTR films pulled off the combination in a wonderful manner. But in 300‘s case, I found the combination simply worked, as the two parts often worked against eachother.
To be perfectly honest, I probably would’ve enjoyed the film a lot more had it not taken itself nearly as seriously — or at least hadn’t had the appearance of taking itself so seriously. If the movie had just been an action-packed, adrenalized, action/adventure flick, I probably could’ve enjoyed simply for what it was. (Though there’s still the issue with the overly stylized visuals, which effectively robbed the film of any visceral impact for me.)
But all of the talk about honor and sacrifice just rang false, because I knew this was merely padding out the time until the next Persian assault came down the road and the next wave of dismemberings took place.
At the risk of sounding too nitpicky, the talk about honor and sacrifice also rang a bit false because, after all, the Spartans’ culture (or at least their military) is based on infanticide and what could only be construed as child abuse and brainwashing — something that the film’s narrator explains early on, and even with a touch of pride. As such, all of this talk about honor felt somewhat deluded, deformed, and even jingoistic to me.
If the film had dealt more squarely with that discrepancy between the Spartans’ noble ideals and the barbarism on which their culture is founded, that might have given the film a bit more substance and ambiguity. I suppose you could argue that the film did just that with the subplot involving Ephialtes. But again, that particular subplot felt a little rushed to me, pushed aside to make room for the next wave of Persian cannon fodder.
D’oh! I just noticed a few errors in my previous comment.
First, it should read “And to that end, it threw in all of those rousing speeches by Leonidas.”
Second, it should read “But in 300‘s case, I found the combination simply didn’t work, as the two parts often worked against eachother.”
Apologies for any confusion this might’ve caused in what I was trying to say.
i thought the biggest problem with 300 wasn’t the violence (you have to expect that going into the theater – if you’re surprised, that’s your fault), but the message.
the message was straight out of mein kampf. it was hyper macho, derogatory to the handicapped, the homosexual and minorities. the struggle of a few for the survival of the west from the forces of the darkness from the east is just creepy. all of this pro-western imagery is really intense; it paints the spartans as saints, when in reality (the reality presented by the movie) they were oppressive and brutish.