If they made a perfectly measured best of the decade list

Previously, I made a top 50 of the decade list. This entry is if they came up with a way to measure every film critic in America, every film buff and every academy award voter and they came up with some perfectly weighted system to measure the best films of the decade, here's what I would imagine the results would be. indicate which films are too high or low on this list. Also, I am not including more than one of any film series. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY A PERSONAL OPINION
1. Lord of the Rings: ROTK, Peter Jackson**-The definitive blockbuster of the decade. It had the trifecta of cultural buzz, box office success and critical success.
2. There Will be Blood, Paul Thomas Anderson *-Paul Thomas Anderson is a director with an increasingly more respected track record as his 90's films Boogie Nights and Magnolia have retroactively gained stature. "There Will Be Blood" has an Oscar-winning performance from Daniel Day-Lewis who's considered by critics to be a rare gem (especially since he rarely acts in movies). It's a film that touches on the themes of capitalism gone awry so it gets points for capturing the zitgiest as well as for having a bold, artistic vision.
3. City of God, Fernando Meirelles + -The '00s were a decade when international films had more of a fighting chance of entering the American mainstream if they were good enough. City of God was probably the most universally acknowledged as brilliant among those films that were widely seen by American audiences. It also has the gangster genre going for it, which is one that always gets critical acclaim.
4. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Michael Gondry-If the best-of-the decade retrospectives are to be believed, you would think that Eternal Sunshine and Sideways were the two front-runners for Best picture in the 2005 Oscar race rather than Aviator and Million Dollar Baby. My theories as to Eternal Sunshine's retroactive rise in popularity: 1) Broken storylines have defined the decade well and Eternal Sunshine had a fragmented storyline that didn't invalidate the story (i.e. Vanilla Sky, Mullholland Drive) but provided enough spin on the conventional love story 2) It merged technology with storytellling so it was kind of the next level of storytelling in that way 3) It was the most love storyesque of the three Charlie Kaufman films 4) Michael Gondry, Jim Carrey, Tom Wilkinson, Kate Winslet all have high Q ratings at the moment. Gondry was famous for music videos and short films and film students eat that s--- up
5. Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee *-A love story between two guys that was slated for Oscar Gold. Has anything like that even come close to happening before? The performances in this film are already iconic.
6. Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan-It ignited a self-feeding euphoria of "Best film ever??!" talk when it ascended to #1 on the imdb. In its defense, it redefined and transcended the superhero film genre which is THE genre who's growth defined the decade. The film boasted sensational acting, sensational choreography, sensational sound-editing, a sensational score and a sensational adaptation making it primed to sweep the Oscars in a number of ways.
7. Pan's Labyrinth, Guillermo del Toro-In terms of unquestionably innovative, this is it. The idea of taking the war picture and telling it from the point-of-view from kids and it was one of the three Amigos' films: 3 Mexican filmmakers all had big Welcome to Hollywood hits in 2006: Pan's Labrynth, Gonzalu's Babel and Cuaron's aforementioned Children of Men.
It was ranked #1 by metacritic for films of the last 10 years.
8. Wall-E, Andrew Staunton-This film truly transcended the animated film genre. It was bold enough to forego dialogue for the movie's first act and bolder still in choosing to make it's love story about two robots. It had a message but didn't come off as preachy.
9. Mulholland Drive, David Lynch +-Lynch's film had the entire audience (including the critics) simultaneously scratching their heads at the end in confusion, but one of the supposed strengths of the film is that everyone went "Huh?" in union leading to one of the few moments of universality all decade long. It wasn't just the "Huh?" and the fact that people still couldn't figure it out but Lynch's disfigured narrative was engrossing enough that it remains one of Lynch's most widely-viewed and popular works.
10. Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle **-An internationally shot film that was gritty and inspiring. Nary a bad review in sight and a near sweep at the Oscars. As it stands, the second most popular best picture winner behind LOTR. Boyle is a filmmaker for the 21st Century and this film's Best Picture award signifies a promising career that has rightfully blossomed since Trainspotting in 1996.

11. Gladiator, Ridley Scott **-Not particularly ambitious but the direction, performances, and overall production values of the picture propelled it to a best picture win. Whether a genre film like Gladiator ages well is partially dependent on the genre's level of saturation at the time of relief. Fortunately, this Roman sandals epic captured audience imaginations and created both word-of-mouth and cultural resonance.
12. Children of Men, Alfonso Cuaron **-Guys like Peter Travers at Rolling Stone and Jim Emerson at Rogerebert.com put this on their top ten list. EW listed it as one of 25 films that will remain a classic. I've seen it and I'm not sure why it was so great but it was unquestionably bold. Boldness of vision is a keyword I'm using a lot to describe what attracts critics to these films.
13. Almost Famous, Cameron Crowe-This didn't earn an Oscar nomination but retroactively it would have if critics were voting again. I've seen it pop up practically everywhere from the AV Club's list to Culture Snob to MSN Movie's list to name a few. I believe it's enhanced reputation over the years has come about because after this film, Cameron Crowe didn't make a good film again. Elizabethtown (which I personally liked) was panned for being a little too eager to tug at the heartstrings and Vanilla Sky was somewhat of a mess. The film has aged well and is the epitome of Crowe's personal touch.

14. Departed, Martin Scorsese **-Scorsesee tried hard to get an Oscar with every film he made this decade and this struck Gold. Whether it's ambitious as his two prior films, this was universally considered a crowd-pleaser. It was also a higher grossing movie than Aviator or GONY.

15. Hurt Locker, Kathyn Bighelow**-The 2000s were far more war-filled than the last two decades and the struggle to translate the conflicts from that war onto the movie screen were

16. Traffic, Steve Soderbergh*-Among films complex enough to be able to win big raves in the short-term and still feel like a work of art ten years later, this makes the list. Soderbergh won best director and Stephen Gaghan (director of Syriana) won best adapted screenplay and if they were to revote 10 years later, my bet is they would still win. Making an star-sprinkled ensemble piece that's more than the sum of its parts is rare to pull off (With so many stars appearing for narratively irrelevant cameos, I'd argue that even The Player falls short of this mark), but Traffic makes it work. Unfortunately, Soderbergh would do the exact opposite (making a movie for little reason other than the fact that high profile stars agreed to be in it) with Ocean's 12.
17. The Pianist, Roman Polanski*-Polanski's deeply personal film about art's power to heal tragedy scored some unexpected awards in the best picture race of 2002. It's a film with fairly universal praise.
18. Spiderman II, Sam Raimi- Before the Dark Knight, Spiderman II rewrote the rule book on sequels. Following up on a film that shattered records, Raimi and the filmmakers amplified the narrative by adding new angles (Spiderman's choice to be Spiderman) and revived the Superhero genre by keeping the action grounded in reality. It's a format that has been used in most of the superhero genres this decade. In short, it's been a big influence.
19. Letters from Iwo Jima, Clint Eastwood*-This has undoubtedly been the decade of Eastwood. His boldest directorial effort was telling a war story from the point of view from both sides. Whether this film changed the landscape of cinema like Unforgiven did or not, it won critics and audiences over. It was named the National Board of Review's best film of the year and made a lot of top ten lists.
20. No Country for Old Men, Joel and Ethan Coen **-It's not one that I particularly felt was worthy of best picture. Fractured endings are popular and the Coens, despite some inconsistency this decade, have overally come out of the aughts at the top of their game.
21. Lost in Translation, Sophia Coppola *-As Roger Ebert put it, this was a different kind of film that required the viewers to be patient and let love unfold at real-life pace. In a crowded year, the film eked out a best picture nomination and won a screenwriting Oscar for Sofia Coppolla
22. Memento, Christopher Nolan-The film's method of telling a story was a game changer at the time and the film holds up just as well now. Adapted from a short story by Nolan and his brother, this film was the world's first demonstration of Nolan's genius for telling a complex story and putting it to film. Curiously, Guy Pearce never got himself a slot on Christopher Nolan's preferred actor list for later movies

23. Avatar, James Cameron
24. Requiem for a Dream, Darren Aronofsky
25. Royal Tenenbaums, Wes Anderson

26. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Ang Lee *
27. Moulin Rouge!, Nicole Kidman
28. The Incredibles, Brad Bird
29. Far From Heaven, Todd Haynes
30. Chicago, Rob Marshall **
31. Little Miss Sunshine, Valerie Faris & Jonathan Dayton *
32. Grizzly Man, Warner Herzog
33. Pirates of the Carribean: Curse of the Black Pearl, Gore Verbinski
34. Munich, Stephen Spielberg *
35. Up in the Air, Jason Reitman *
36. Borat, Larry Charles
37. Juno, Jason Reitman *
38. Casino Royale, Martin Campbell
39. Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore
40. Prestige, Christopher Nolan
41. In America, Jim Sheridan
42. Michael Clayton, Tony Gileroy *
43. Hotel Rwanda, Terry George
44. Gangs of New York, Martin Scorsese *
45. Gosford Park, Rob Altman *-Altman had some struggles finding audiences in the 80's and some of the 90's, but he has a strong base of admirers and with his last few films before his death in 2006, he further cemented his legacy as one of the legends of film. Godsford Park scored Altman his 5th Oscar nomination for director and was his 3rd film to be nominated for best picture.
46. 25th Hour, Spike Lee-25th Hour is making its way on some end of the year lists for the wrong reasons as far as I'm concerned: People are making too much of it as an allegory about 9/11 but some people (like Roger Ebert) just acknowledge that it's an excellent film
47. Mystic River, Clint Eastwood*- This film would have won the Oscar for Eastwood if that pesky sequel Lord of the Rings wasn't in the way. It was an adaptation of a Dennis Lehane novel that audiences found stirring, well-acted, and emotionally resonant. It basically marked the rebirth of Clint and might have been overshadowed since by Million Dollar Baby, Letters, Changeling and Gran Torino, I've seen it sneak up on a few lists.
48. Talk to Her, Pedro Almodovar+- This list needs more foreign films and Almodovar is hard to ignore with his success in Volver, Bad Education, and
49. Little Children, Todd Fields-Fields made a couple of melodramas in this film and In the Bedroom that critics found quite effective
50. 21 Grams, Alejandro Inarritu Gonzalu-A.I.G. had 3 successful films. Amores Perros was entirely in subtitles so it had the most indie cred. Babel was the most well-publicized film because it got the Oscar nom. 21 Grams was the happy balance in the middle.

+=Best Director nom without a best picture nom
*=Best Picture nom
**=Best picture winner
Also under consideration: Dreamgirls, Bill Condon; Into the Wild, Sean Penn; Up, Pete Doctor (animated); United 93, Paul Greengrass; Bourne Ultimatum, Paul Greengrass; Crash, Paul Haggis; King Kong, Peter Jackson; Constant Gardener, Fernando Meirelles; Ray, Taylor Hackford; Blind Side, John Lee Hancock; Milk, Gus van Sant; Match Point, Woody Allen; Amilie, Jean Pierre Juenet; Big Fish, Tim Burton; Blood Diamond, Ed Zwick

Also, by year:
2000: Gladiator, Almost Famous, Traffic, CTHD, Reqiuem for a Dream
2001: Mullholland Drive, Moulan Rouge, Royal Tannenbaums, Momento, Godsford Park, (Amelie)
2002: City of God, Pianist, Far From Heaven, Gangs of New York, Chicago, 25th Hour, Talk to Her
2003: Lord of the Rings, Lost in Translation, Pirates, Mystic River, 21 Grams, In America,(Big Fish)
2004: Eternal Sunshine, Sideways, Spiderman II, Incredibles, Fahrenheit 911, Hotel Rwanda, (Ray)
2005: Brokeback Mtn, Munich, Grizzly Man, (King Kong, Crash, Match Point, Constant Gardener)
2006: Departed, Children of Men, Pan's Labrynth, Letters from Iwo Jima, Casino Royale, Little Miss Sunshine, Borat, Prestige, Little Children (United 93, Blood Diamond, Dreamgirls))
2007: There Will be Blood, No Country, Michael Clayton, Juno (Into the Wild, Bourne Ultimatum)
2008: Dark Knight, Wall-E, Slumdog Millionaire (Milk)
2009: Hurt Locker, Avatar, Up in the Air, (Up, Blind Side)

Help! We've been attacked!

BEST WEBSITES OF 2008

An article recently surfaced which caught my friend's attention and he asked me to comment on it. The article is http://www.nypress.com/21/17/news&columns/feature3.cfm

Here's my response:
I think this guy has 8 or 9 articles that he merged into one and makes a lot of generalizations which don't generally hold true. You have to read it, however, like a big textbook and agree with some and disagree with some. If the guy wanted to make sense, he should have stated that his article was targeting a specific type of blogger rather than everyone except for himself. For example, I loved Bobby and Darjeerling Limited and promoted the hell out of them, which are two movies he likes.
I also think Premiere was a great magazine (which is ironic because the author hates it) and I mourn its death as much as the next guy. I actually don’t particularly want to be a “blogger” and really want to be in the print media anyway. This started out as a way to promote my stuff so that I might get hired in the print media, and I would gladly seize doing this at once, if it meant that someone in the print media who I am a fan of, could keep their job.
I think it's very sloppy to imply that Ebert has never contributed much. Yes, Ebert the TV critic just does thumbs up or thumbs down, but in writing he has great insights and he is constantly stressing to his readers in his Q and A not to pay too much attention to stars. I agree that a lot of criticism boils down to "Is the film good or bad" but that's mostly in the world of print media, anyway, because print media caters to what the everyday Joe wants to know which is "should I see this movie?” But the internet sites have the advantage along with more in-depth journals and academic literature of analysis.
He might be right that historical context is missing from the great majority of film criticism. I think that's one of the most important things you gain from studying movies is understanding history (and not film history but actual history) better. There are courses in most film curriculums that focus on movies and society, however.

Here is his list of ten things which film bloggers and other critics make the mistake of doing:
1)“The Three Amigos” Iñárritu, Cuarón and del Toro are Mexico’s greatest filmmakers while Julian Hernandez is ignored.

Yeah, sorry never heard of Hernandez. Just like every member of the public I can’t know of every person who’s ever picked up a movie camera and made a film. I’m not making a conscious decision to denounce him. If you want to promote Hernandez, fine, great. Point taken. You might also have a point that as amateurs we don’t have access to someone like Hernandez, but that’s hardly a new discovery.


2) Gus Van Sant is the new Visconti when he’s really the new Fagin, a jailbait artful dodger

Gus Van Sant isn’t that much of an auteur, I personally don’t care for him, but more to the point, he’s not the central point of a lot of discussions. In terms of a couple of his films I know of, Finding Forrester was primarily a Sean Connery vehicle and Good Will Hunting’s autuers, at least in the eyes of the public, were writer-actors Damon and Affleck who initiated the project. So to me, you might call me in agreement with you. I don’t really know who Visconti and Fagin are, sorry.

3) Documentaries ought to be partisan rather than reportorial or observational.

I think that people tend to place partisan labels on a documentary that the documentarians don’t see themselves. I also feel that Armond White shows his blog himself, person is biased against the “liberal elite” or whatever. When he writes. “but it is the shame of middle-class and middlebrow conformity that critics follow each other when praising movies that disrespect religion, rail about the current administration or feed into a sense of nihilism that only people privileged with condos and professional tenure can afford,” he clearly can’t avoid his own partisan biases either, which I think is worse when he’s trying to suppress other people’s right to voice their own opinions.

Nevertheless, I think the view of most critics is that documentaries come in all shapes in sizes: A documentary can be partisan or non-partisan, so long as it doesn’t try to pass itself as the wrong category. The current beating the HBO film “Recount” is taking, is an illustration of that point, since it’s far less observational than it claims. I think Michael Moore, which I imagine White is referring to since a discussion about documentaries can’t possibly exclude the most influential and commercially successful one of the decade, is fairly handled by critics. Most critics advise their audiences to take Moore with a grain of salt, knowing he has a clear partisan bent.

4) Chicago, Moulin Rouge and Dreamgirls equal the great MGM musicals.

Well, I am somewhat of an expert on musicals so I can answer this. First off, there’s hardly any agreement on whether Chicago or Moulan Rouge is the true second coming of the musical. There’s plenty of people who hate Chicago and like Moulan Rouge and plenty who feel the opposite. Dreamgirls is generally considered as a respectable follow-up by Condon to Chicago, treated adequately by the awards season: A proverbial “6th nominee” that feel just short of making the final five. I don’t think much of the literature on Chicago and Moulan Rouge as the revival of the musical is saying that Chicago and Moulan Rouge equal the high point of MGM but they revived the musical and made it marketable again as evidenced by the fact that after 2002, the genre was able to be marketable and Broadway adaptations (Rent, Producers, Dreamgirls), remakes (Hairspray) and all sorts of experimental films (Across the Universe and Sweeny Todd) were able to make it to theaters. If you look at the AFI list of top 25 musicals recently released, Chicago and Moulan Rouge were on their but towards the bottom, behind the great MGM musicals.


5) Paul Verhoeven’s social satire Showgirls was camp while Cronenberg’s campy melodramas are profound.

I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t think Cronenberg’s melodramas are profound. He does a good job at creating tension and makes a good thriller (are you referring to History of Violence and Eastern Promises?) but I don’t know by what criteria you call them campy. Showgirls was rated X and I was like 11 when it came out, so I didn’t see it unfortunately. Should I catch it on DVD or so, so I can enter into the conversation?

6) Brokeback Mountain was a breakthrough while all other gay-themed movies were ignored.
No, anyone who follows the Oscars is aware that Transamerica and Capote were honored well-enough. This might have been a complaint perhaps a decade ago when Ian McKellan from Gods and Monsters lost to Hillary Swank.

7) Todd Haynes’ academic dullness is anything but.
Again, I don’t think people are analyzing Todd Haynes in an auteur sense. I think people saw merit in Far From Heaven and I’m Not There (although I’m Not There had fairly mixed reactions).

8) Dogma was a legitimate film movement.
I think you mean “Dogme 95” but nonetheless, I think there’s a great deal of filmmakers who find Von Trier’s films insulting and nonsensical, and surely the general public feels antagonized by him even more. Whether it’s a legitimate film movement is not really for us to judge. That’s like judging whether you have a legitimate article. It’s an article you wrote, but does it say good or bad things, well that’s the debate. I think Dogme 95 creates more constraints on the filmmaking than its worth (he had to break some of his own rules to make Dogville), but at the same time, I think some of his ideas have some merit and some don’t. I also think it’s clearly worth studying the movement’s context in history just as you say.

9) Only non-pop Asian cinema from J-horror to Hou Hsiao Hsien counts, while Chen Kaige, Zhang Yimou and Stephen Chow are rejected. 10) Mumblecore matters.
Don’t know much about Asian cinema, so I won’t respond. Don’t know what mumblecore is.

Lose an oscar, win a cult following

Tonight in one of the most wide-open races in years, Oscar fans with hopes of what film will join the historic pantheon of Best Picture winners that includes "All About Eve", "Casablanca", "The Godfather", "Gone with the Wind", and "On the Waterfront". But there’s no reason to get nervous about it, because who wins Best Picture is irrelevant. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying the Oscars are irrelevant. Every acting and directing award has been paramount to helping that person’s career flourish and the same goes for the other categories.

The nominations for Best Picture are also of the utmost importance. Three years ago, for example, six pictures were considered locks for an Oscar nomination and "Cold Mountain" found itself the odd film out. While "Cold Mountain" isn’t necessarily forgotten in history, its status as a future classic is less assured than "Master and Commander" or "Seabiscuit." The same thing happened the year before with "Far From Heaven". Ask your average person on the street if they have ever heard of "Far From Heaven" and think about how different that answer would be if it was "Best Picture Nominee Far From Heaven." The point is recent history suggests that being the perennial sixth film doesn’t bode well for your legacy. While "Dreamgirls" fans were massively disappointed at the film’s snub this year, I doubt they’ll still be making much noise three or four years from now.

But losing an Oscar in a close race, on the other hand, does wonders for your legacy. Aside from "Schindler’s List", the most loved films of the 1990’s have arguably become "Pulp Fiction", "Shawshank Redemption", "Saving Private Ryan", "Fargo", and "Goodfellas", all losers in close races. The winning pictures of "Forrest Gump", "Dances with Wolves", "The English Patient", and "Shakespeare in Love" get the actual award and a place in the history books, but the losers get a contingent of loyal supporters who will protest the merits of those films and who they thought was the rightful winner for years to come. How many message board threads or articles have you read on the topic? “Greatest injustices the academy has made” and counted the victories of "Forrest Gump" and "Dances with Wolves." Little by little, each of those threads, posts, and articles helps that picture get more action on the DVD shelves at local video stores.


The overkill on this subject comes from everyone from Richard Roeper to the guys posting on the IMDB and OscarWatch message boards. My theory is that it comes from a sense of pride you might have as a self-proclaimed film buff. That losing picture, whether Goodfellas or Shawshank, represents you and your tastes and not only can you take pride in promoting a film as one of your favorites that’s a good film, but you can also take pride in personally promoting a film that the high-and-mighty Academy got wrong. You can go around saying, “Schindler’s List is such a great movie, you’ve gotta see it!” but everyone knows that. Identifying yourself as a fan of these also-rans becomes a calling card of sorts for film snobs who wish to proclaim their tastes superior to that of the mainstream.

With the increase of the prominence of the blogosphere and Oscar sites, it seems only likely that this backlash against a best picture win will grow stronger as evidenced by last year’s win. How many hits are there on a simple Google search for “Brokeback Mountain” and “Crash” proclaiming the Oscar injustice there.

Perhaps, people are forgetting that the films that won aren’t necessarily unworthy films in their own right. For example, back in 1994, "Forrest Gump" had both critics entranced and moviegoers all over America buzzing. It didn’t even finish #1 on its opening weekend at the box office (True Lies did) but through good word-of-mouth it became the highest grossing film of the year and the 4th highest to date. It also won at the WGAs, the DGAs, was nominated at the BAFTAs (where it lost to Four Weddings and a Funeral) and won the National Board of Review’s prize.

Roger Ebert gave it four stars and wrote, “I've never seen a movie quite like ‘Forrest Gump.’ Any attempt to describe him will risk making the movie seem more conventional than it is.” Rolling Stone called it, “A movie heartbreaker of startling wit and grace,” and gave it 3 ½ stars which was the same rating he gave to Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption. A look back to reviews originally written in 1994 on rottentomatoes.com, shows that with the exception of the New York Times’ Stephen Holden, most of the reviews were highly favorable. Many of the ones that gave poor reviews were only written years later in retrospect. Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com wrote, “Run, Forrest, run! It sure seemed great at the time, but Gump is aging, and it's starting to show a wrinkle or too….. what a crazy chain of events Forrest Gump has spawned: a poorly-received book sequel, a restaurant chain, and hordes of imitators -- not to mention a critical backlash.”

My theory for the backlash would be that Forrest Gump was a bittersweet emotional ride that resonated with a certain generation at a certain point in time. It’s not something that holds up well to repeat viewings. Pulp Fiction, in contrast, is a revisionist genre film that can be watched over and over again by film students interested in dissecting its film conventions. The same can also be said for neo-noir films Fargo and LA Confidential, which were also best picture losers. "Dances with Wolves", similarly is an emotional epic that swept many viewers away on first viewing and was the first Western with a fighting chance of being honored since "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (the only previous Western to actually win the award was the 1931 film "Cimarron").

As for Shawshank, Tim Dirks at Filmsite.org summarizes its predicament best: “Only through positive word-of-mouth (following cable TV and broadcast airings, and then video releases) did the film do well - although its original reception at the box-office was lukewarm.” Shawshank didn’t even get voted into AFI’s Top 100 Films, but when the Institute rereleases their Top 100 list later this year, rest assured that revisionist history will give Shawshank a place (both the winner Forrest Gump and other runner-up from that year Pulp Fiction are on that list). But as with "Dances with Wolves" and "The English Patient" (I won't say "Shakespeare in Love" was exactly deserving), people fail to acknowledge that at the time those were the most popular films of their year and only through a revisionist tide do those facts get lost. That tide is a powerful one, so let that be a consolation to you if your picture loses tonight.

If you had to bet money on the 6th nominee....

If you had to bet money on what the 6th nominee was of each Oscar race over the last few years, who would you chose. My picks below:

6th Nominees:

2006:

Picture: Dreamgirls

Director: Bill Condon, Dreamgirls

Actor: Sasha Baron Cohen, Borat

Actress: Maggie Gyllenhall, Sherrybaby

S. Actor: Brad Pitt, Babel

S. Actress: Emily Blunt, Devil Wears Prada

O. Screenplay: Zach Helm, Stranger than Fiction

A. Screenplay: Paul Haggis & William Broyles Jr, Flags of Our Fathers

2005:

Picture: Walk the Line

Director: Fernando Meirelles, Constant Gardener

Actor: Russell Crowe, Cinderella Man

Actress: Zhang Zhiyi, Memoirs of a Giesha

S. Actor: Don Cheadle, Crash

S. Actress: Scarlett Johannson, Match Point

O. Screenplay: Thomas Bezucha, The Family Stone

A. Screenplay: Deborah Moggach, Pride and Prejudice

2004:

Picture: Hotel Rwanda

Director: Marc Forrester, Finding Neverland

Actor: Liam Niesson, Kinsey

Actress: Uma Thurman, Kill Bill Vol. 2

S. Actor: Peter Sargasaard, Kinsey

S. Actress: Meryl Streep, Manchurian Candidate

O. Screenplay: Taylor Hackford & James L. White, Ray

A. Screenplay: Patrick Marber, Closer

2003:

Picture: Cold Mountain

Director: Anthony Minghellia, Cold Mountain

Actor: Russell Crowe, Master and Commander

Actress: Jennifer Connelly, House of Sand and Fog

S. Actor: Albert Finney, Big Fish

S. Actress: Scarlett Johannson, Lost in Translation

O. Screenplay: John Logan, The Last Samurai

A. Screenplay: Patrick O’Brien & Peter Weir, Master and Commander

2002:

Picture: Far From Heaven

Director: Alexander Payne, About Schmidt

Actor: Richard Gere, Chicago

Actress: Maggie Gyllenhall, The Seceretary

Supp. Actor: Dennis Quaid, Far From Heaven

Supp. Actress: Edie Falco, Sunshine State

O. Screenplay: David Benioff, 25^th Hour

A. Screenplay: Chris Hampton and Robert Schenkman, The Quiet American

2001:

Picture: Black Hawk Down

Director: Todd Fields, In the Bedroom

Actor: Gene Hackman, Royal Tannenbaums

Actress: Naiomi Watts, Mullholland Drive

Supp. Actor: Jude Law, A.I.

Supp. Actress: Gwenyth Paltrow, Royal Tannenbaums

O. Screenplay: David Lynch, Mullholland Drive

A. Screenplay. Ken Nolan, Black Hawk Down

2000:

Picture: Almost Famous

Director: Joel and Ethan Coen, Oh Brother Where Art Thou

Actor: Michael Douglas, Wonderboys

Actress: Michelle Yeoh, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Supp. Actor: Gary Oldman, The Contender

Supp. Actress: Catherine Zeta-Jones, Traffic

O. Screenplay: Rod Lurie, The Contender

A. Screenplay: David Self, 13 Days

1999:

Picture: Talented Mr. Ripley

Director: Anthony Minghellia, Talented Mr. Ripley

Actor: Matt Damon, Talented Mr. Ripley

Actress: Reese Whitherspoon, Election

Supp. Actor: Al Pacino, The Insider

Supp. Actress: Cameron Diaz, Being John Malkovitch

O. Screenplay: Woody Allen, Sweet and Lowdown

A. Screenplay: John Roach and Mark Sweeney, The Straight Story

Definitive Top Ten List of 2002

This is again, taking a set of criteria and applying it to a certain year. Here's my take on 2002, discuss amongst yourselves

2002:

1. Chicago, Rob Marshall

-Won best picture

-Actors, directors considered locks and got a screenplay nom

-Won art direction awards

-Considered more successful mainstream improvement to Chicago

2. Pianist, Roman Polanski

-Won screenplay, actor and director awards despite Polanski’s PR problems

-Untouchable for critics to knock

-Won New York film critics award

3. Gangs of New York, Martin Scorsesee

-Hailed by Ebert as #1

-Had most nominations

-Had some supporters who felt it was Scorsesee’s return to form

-Oscar buzz for Sorsesee as best director

4. The Hours, Tom Daldry

-Won drama award but considered just a little bit too oscar-buzzy

-Won actress award and had 3 solid performances all oscar worthy

-Adaptation nomination

-NBR Review award

5. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Peter Jackson

-Nominated for best picture

6. Far From Heaven, Todd Haynes

-EW Predicted it in final 5

-Won snub poll of 6^th contender

-Named as #1 movie of the year by Lisa Schwarzbum

-Many top 10 accolades

-Positioned Julianne Moore for a win and best screenplay award for a win

7. About Schmidt, Alexander Payne

-Alexander Payne’s best performance of Nicholson which got him an academy award

-Runner-Up in NYC Film Critic Awards

8. Road to Perdition, Sam Mendes

-Received with great buzz and hailed by Washington Post’s Tom Shales as a must-see even if it didn’t live up to expections

-Buzz for against-type Tom Hanks role with Jude Law and Daniel Craig and Paul Newman in great supporting roles

-Big Production feel with cinematography and art direction awards going towards a lock

-One of approximately 7 or 8 films on the imdb 250 from the year

9. Adaptation, Spike Jonze

-Worthy followup to John Makovitch by Jonze/Kaufman team that was even more mainstream in some cases

-Nominations abound for acting parts

-Screenplau contender

10. Catch Me If You Can, Stephen Spielberg

-Held its own against many of the great December releases during Oscar season

-Considered for golden globe nominations for Spielberg and generated oscar buzz

-Box office success