I'm a picky eater when it comes to movies. It's my reward to myself to make up for having to sit through everything when I was reviewing them for the Times. Now I'm the opposite: I scan every review, cross referring a handpicked group of trusted critics to work out whether something is even in the running as something I might want to see. Then I narrow it down. So my Worst movies of the decade list has some peculiarities. For one thing, it contains none of the obvious turkeys —
Gigli, The Dukes of Hazzard, Battlefield Earth, Catwoman. Not only did I not come within a hundred miles of these film, I find it hard to imagine the poor suckers who did. Were they living in a news blackout? Did they recently emerge from a coma? Had they signed up with a Reality Show? And nor have I included many bad blockbusters, since even the turkeys make money these days, thus making them poor barometers of popular taste: a film had to make over $600 million, and then
really suck balls, to get on my list. What that leaves me with is the following — doomy masterpieces, critical darlings, cult favorites, filmmakers who aspired to be the American Dostoyevsky, films bent double with their own agendas, ideas and literary aspirations — the fake rolexes of film. The higher the praise, the harder the fall. So Crash wins because it not only won the Oscar for best film but committed the unpardonable sin of stealing it from my favorite film of the decade,
Brokeback Mountain, in the process.
A Serious Man is almost a textbook definition of a critical favorite that is just pure hell to sit through.
There Will Be Blood had masterpiece written all over it and nowhere within it. And I'm sure M Night Shaymalan made worse movies than
Signs but that was the one where he and I parted company. The urge has not seized me since.
1. Crash
2. A Serious Man
3. Kill Bill Vol. 1
4. Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
5. Australia
6. In The Bedroom
7. The Matrix Revolutions
8. Inglorious Basterds
9. Signs / Lady in the Water
10. There Will Be Blood
I would like to second the comments this post has got, with honorable mentions going to: Little Miss Sunshine, The Dark Knight, Sin City and Grindhous, Snatch, Chicago and Pearl Harbour
I'm a picky eater when it comes to movies. It's my reward to myself to make up for having to sit through everything when I was reviewing them for the Times. Now I'm the opposite: I scan every review, cross referring a handpicked group of trusted critics to work out whether something is even in the running as something I might want to see. Then I narrow it down. So my Worst movies of the decade list has some peculiarities. For one thing, it contains none of the obvious turkeys — Gigli, The Dukes of Hazzard, Battlefield Earth, Catwoman. Not only did I not come within a hundred miles of these film, I find it hard to imagine the poor suckers who did. Were they living in a news blackout? Did they recently emerge from a coma? Had they signed up with a Reality Show? And nor have I included many bad blockbusters, since even the turkeys make money these days, thus making them poor barometers of popular taste: a film had to make over $600 million, and then really suck balls, to get on my list. What that leaves me with is the following — doomy masterpieces, critical darlings, cult favorites, filmmakers who aspired to be the American Dostoyevsky, films bent double with their own agendas, ideas and literary aspirations — the fake rolexes of film. The higher the praise, the harder the fall. So Crash wins because it not only won the Oscar for best film but committed the unpardonable sin of stealing it from my favorite film of the decade, Brokeback Mountain, in the process. A Serious Man is almost a textbook definition of a critical favorite that is just pure hell to sit through. There Will Be Blood had masterpiece written all over it and nowhere within it. And I'm sure M Night Shaymalan made worse movies than Signs but that was the one where he and I parted company. The urge has not seized me since.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar