Our top 10's of 2000 - Time to throw down

Latest update...

Saw Dancer in the Dark on DVD yesterday. Not only am I surprised at how great the film was, it didn't bother me for a second that it was shot entirely on DV!! It actually looked like it was done on 16mm. D.i.t.D. is a very powerful and moving film, with lots of irony thrown into its well-choreographed musical numbers, which IMHO, add a magical element to the film. The ending

Spoiler:

is, I have to say, very depressing, but then again, Selma had to do what she had to do in order to save her son from permanent misery. A truly remarkable film about the power of the imagination and self-sacrifice.

1. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
2. You Can Count On Me
3. Requiem For A Dream
4. Dancer in the Dark
5. Keeping the Faith
6. Erin Brockovich
7. Unbreakable
8. Chocolat
9. Pay It Forward
10. Girlfight



- A.

Updated my list (on page 1) after going to the theater to see Pollock and renting the Dancer In the Dark DVD.

No change in the top ten though Pollock came close. Great performances by Ed Harris and Marcia Gay Harden, both worthy of their Oscar noms.

Dancer In the Dark was a disappointment after all the effusive praise I've heard for it, but it didn't work for me on any level.

Rob

------------------
"That suits me down to the ground."

Sorry to hear that Rob.


John, it's fine to watch Dancer, just have The Jerk on standby to throw in right afterward and don't do any drinking or take cough syrup before watching it. Otherwise it might be suicide prevention hotline for you.

Seriously, this will most likely leave you feeling pretty somber and in need of some Nick at Nite, but I thought it was really good and worth the effort.


OK, when I get home tonight I will do a tally of our lists, and then I will do one more on Sunday before the big show, just for everyone's interest.

Remember, this is just for fun...no wagering - Letterman

PS - Ric
Exactly. I mean we are listing our current thoughts on film. The only reason I thought it best to let it go on so long is that lists made by people who only got to see 40% of the main films seems a bit dumb. The edit as you go thing was so that we would start getting our thoughts organized without feeling as though it was some sort of final list before everything had been seen.

This thread is what we thought about 2000 films in a reasonable timeframe to see them. Once the Decembers start streeting I would consider it mostly a reasonable timeframe, except for non-US people who got later releases.

I just posted my thoughts on Wonder Boys in another thread. I found it to be just average. My Top Ten List remains intact for now.

Next Up: Before Night Falls and Dancer In The Dark

~Edwin

Haven't updated my list in a while, but In The Mood For Love is number #3 on my list and I've added a few titles like Possible Worlds, Pollock, etc.

Sorry to leave everyone hanging.. I don't think I've posted
here in 2 days! But, yeah, IMDb classifies Memento as
a 2000 release. Dunno man, I've put my .02 (plus interest)
in on that subject and I'm going with the Academy just to
compare mine against the Oscar winners. Afterwards, I'll
complain that they are blind!

Anyhow, I do have to add that Chicken Run was great.
Just saw it, and while I don't go for the Wallace/Gromit
stuff, the movie made me laugh, especially about my job
situation right now. I haven't made up my mind if it's
going on my top 10 yet or not though... but if you haven't
seen it, it's worth a rental at least.




"Next Up" (gotta mess with Edwin): The Contender

------------------
"You're going to wear the t-shirt of the band that's playing? Don't be that guy."


"PCU / Nerds are both on the release schedule for the first half of 2001." - from the Fox chat.

So, have we absolutely, positively decided to include IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE in the 2000 list?

No, In the Mood For Love is a 2001 February release in NY/LA, a bit later for the wide US release. If I understand things correctly then a BEST PICTURE contender must play in NY/LA by the end of the year for 1 week straight. I'm not using the BEST PICTURE rules for some films and then using the BEST FOREIGN PICTURE rules for others, if they are indeed different criteria.

I don't think it's fair to have a BEST PICTURE top 10 list where all the entries don't have to meet the SAME standards.

I can only see 3 reasonable choices for such standards (but I'm willing to hear all concepts). Those are:

1) Academy best picture - NY/LA for 1 week by end of year.

2) Wide release US - 1 week of wide release before end of year

3) Wide release any country - 1 week of wide release in any country


The problem with #2 is that who defines "wide release", see CTHD for that problem, or Blair Witch, etc etc.

The problem with #3 is that many of the members of HTF simply won't be able to see a lot of the "years" films based on the criteria.


Remember, the point of the lists is for discussion/comparision of HTF members to review the "year in film that was" for the majority of members.

I don't think it fits with the spirit of the thread to try and find some film to put at #1 that most members won't get to see at a theater for several months into the next year. Something like Shadow of a Vampire barely slipped in, for example. It met the AA requirements and then hit theaters within a month wide (as wide as it got at least).

In the Mood for Love should be considered a 2001 film by this threads standards, and is more than welcome to top the 2001 lists based on what I've heard.

BTW, as great as IMDb is please keep in mind that they don't even list Pulp Fiction's release at Cannes where it won the top prize. So they don't have every release date for every film, but they do show either the NY/LA date or US wide date.

I just watched Jesus' Son which is very good, although I just didn't take all the symbolism in for sure. I will have to watch it again several times to start making sense of the underlying concepts (which must be the main theme). On the surface it's very scattered and has little direction, which is perfect for the main character, but plays terrible as a straight narritive piece (which I'm certain it's not, it feels clearly abstract/interpretive).

Crudup is super-strong here, possibly better as an actor. The part required much less mainstream behavior, so I felt like it was more challenging to maintain the quirkiness (reminded me of Ruffalo in Count on Me). And speaking of that, I think the director (Maclean) did a terrific job of making each character quirky in a similar way, so there was the consistency of characters throughout the film. Very interesting and some great cameo-style performances from Hopper, Leary, Holly Hunter, and Jack Black (as good as in High Fidelity I think).


Anyway, sorry about the full review, it just blew-up on me. I have no idea where to put this film yet cause it just takes time to sink in and appreciate, but it could make the list I think.

Also, sorry about no totals, I watch JS last night and Heat with the girlfriend - her request, so I wasn't going to say no to that I'm trying to train her, so rewards for good behavior (ie film choice) are critical

Tonight, I promise.

However, as I've previously stated, the problem with all three is none of them take into account a film like Aleksandr Sokurov's Dolce. If this if intended to be a Top 10 Critically Popular Film list, that's fine. But an overall Top 10 Best Films list should be open to all films, not just wide release.

Incidentally, I agree with Bill McA's suggestion in the 2001 Film List thread: First Public Showing = Release Date. And yes, I am aware that some of my choices will have to be revised based on this criteria.
------------------
Strictly Film School

Here we go again.....

"No, In the Mood For Love is a 2001 February release in NY/LA"

I know it is, but it has played overseas in 2000, making it a 2000 title. First Public Showing = Release Date

The NY/LA issue is valid only for North American platform releases, releases that open in late December for the sole reason of Oscar consideration, then are released later into more cinemas. It's still an offical release into public cinemas, making it acceptable under that year.

I still don't know why we are going by the ACADEMY for release dates. They're just an orginization, not an end-all-be-all about when a film is released. Gary's right, it must be us Canadians or something..... I may have to start going under the Genie awards criteria or something now

"Remember, the point of the lists is for discussion/comparision of HTF members to review the "year in film that was" for the majority of members."

The majority of HTF members may be American, but quite a few aren't, and that shouldn't be a reason. I want to review releases as they are released, not when Americans and the Academy say they are. If it's for discussion purposes, just open a thread on the film and we can talk about it.

"In the Mood for Love should be considered a 2001 film by this threads standards, and is more than welcome to top the 2001 lists based on what I've heard."

I never started the 2001 Film List with those standards, and I'm not considering a film like In The Mood For Love a 2001 title because it is NOT a 2001 title. I started it for whatever criteria you want to use. That's what I started the 2001 Film List for, that's what I'm sticking on. And I'm not saying that you guys should, but do NOT force me into using it because I think it is wrong.

Jason

------------------

AWESOME Movies Of The Week
jason-whyte@home.com
ICQ: 16733922
I Am Jack's DVD List

"All your Bjork and Leslie Bibb are belong to me!"

Yikes, do we have to keep debating this?

It's Seth's thread, so he gets to set the rules. He established the Academy guidelines as one that is fair and can be followed by all of us.

Can we get back to debating the merits of the movies rather than which list they belong on or which list-making criteria are superior?

[/end rant]

Rob

------------------
"That suits me down to the ground."

Nick, I'm just counting up our lists and I saw 2 date choices that don't fit the methodology I'm using here.

By NY/LA 1 week release - Jesus' Son is 2000, not 1999 and Chopper is a 2001 release, not 2000. Hopefully you will see this and modify accordingly.

Pascal - option #1 is NOT a wide release, it represents the limited release that films often get in NY/LA simply to meet Academy standards.

I'm sorry to try and be logical about this folks, but I am simply picking a set cut-off date that will benefit the highest percentage of members. If we were all in Paris then we could agree to go by the day it first played Cannes or something.

Now, I admit that if there are some small films who simply will never get the chance to play in the US in either NY/LA then that's a tough spot. I also agree that it appears at least 1 film played in NY in 2000 but IMDb doesn't list it as having done as such. I'm not sure what to do about that.

But for something like In the Mood for Love for a thread like this, it will go to the top of the list in the 2001 version as far as I'm concerned. But one thing is going to REALLY bug me, and that is when ItMfL shows up here AND there. I just ask that you understand the reasoning I'm using.

Jason, the one problem that I've already seen with your method is that then a shitload of members will be complaining about not getting to see many films till 1+ years after your official release date.

The reason we want to be consistent is that I'm sure Al would not like to find out that half of the HTF left Dancer in the Dark off the list just because they decided it was a 2001 film. We want to compare what the rest of the membership thinks about the SAME group of films. Picking some (any) consistent criteria for deciding which films are in which group is the key.

It's just a line in the sand saying "past here you shall not cross," with apologies to Walter.

ok, here comes the updated stats (which is why I get to make the rules ...its a bitch totalling this stuff and I got Onimusha waiting to be played.

I swear, if one of you SOBs adds a film or list before SUN night, I will KILL you. Actually go ahead, but please make a note that you did so here. Makes it easier to quickly go back and adjust things.

OK - Heres the top 25 in points (#1=10 to #10=1) with a few lists of 10 without order being all given 5's. Plus a few 2001,1999 films not considered.

328 - TRAFFIC
306 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
269 - Almost Famous
256 - Requiem for a Dream
172 - High Fidelity

150 - Gladiator
142 - You Can Count on Me
120 - Dancer in the Dark
114 - Wonder Boys
113 - Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

95 - Erin Brockovich
54 - Best in Show
52 - Unbreakable
47 - American Psycho
45 - Croupier

45 - The Virgin Suicides
42 - The Contender
39 - Quills
38 - Way of the Gun
35 - Cast Away

34 - Fantasia 2000
34 - Chicken Run
33 - 13 Days
33 - Nurse Betty
30 - Shadow of the Vampire


Most appearences on top 10 lists

Traffic - 43
CTHD - 41
Almost Famous - 41
High Fidelity - 36
Requiem - 32

Gladiator - 26
Oh Brother - 23
Count on Me - 20
Wonder Boys - 19
Dancer - 17

Erin B - 17
Best in Show - 11
Am. Psycho - 10
Vir. Suicides - 10
Chicken Run - 10


Best Average Rank (4 appearences at least, sorry Yi Yi and Sunshine with only 3 but good rankings)

8.0 - Requiem
7.6 - Traffic
7.6 - Way of the Gun
7.5 - CTHD
7.1 - Count on Me

7.1 - Dancer in the Dark
6.6 - Almost Famous
6.5 - Unbreakable
6.0 - Wonder Boys
5.8 - Gladiator

5.8 - Billy Elliot
5.6 - Erin B
5.6 - Croupier
5.4 - The Cell
5.3 - The Contender


Each stat has it's own merit and meaning, but it's probably just as important to look at how each list breaks down to get a handle on what we think.

Basically I would call that 25 highest scoring list as a "25 Films that HTF recommends You See".

Did anyone notice the extreme lack of Chocolat anywhere? Come on Academy, if you are giving us a "small" film, we've got plenty of more deserving flicks right here.

See I don't mind Gladiator because it's still well received by many of us, if not really a #1. I can take it winning (mostly ) because at least it still makes people's lists. But that's my personal beef I guess.

Enjoy and abuse these stats to make whatever point you feel you need to make.

------------------
"We keep you alive to serve this ship. So row well, and live."

"This is the new cut. Y'all be bad. Woo, woo, woo.

Saw Dancer in the Dark and Memento (I assume this is eligible for the 2000 list?) and that shook up the list a fair bit.

Only a few more key releases to see till I'm done with this (phew!)

------------------
Home Theater
DVD Collection

I managed to squeeze in the very average Chocolat prior to the Oscars. (out of four).

My Top Ten List.

Next Up: Dancer In The Dark

~Edwin

------------------
American Film Institute Top 100 Films Home Theater Forum Challenge
Countdown Of AFI Movies Left To Watch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12!

There is no problem with my criteria. Otherwise I wouldn't be using it.


How does that make a certain film a 2001 title? Even I'm not getting to see certain films even until now, yet still updating accordingly. I saw INMFL on March 22nd, 2001, but it's still a 2000 title. It was released into North American cinemas in 2001, but it has already been released overseas, so I have to go by that year for accuracy.

I think that members will be complaining if I wrongly place a certain title on my list just because I saw it in that year, or was released in a later year. I know I will be complaining the most; My instincts can't allow me to bow to what Gary Tooze rightfully calls "Academy Criteria Crap".

As noted many times before, I strive by accuracy by original release date, not by when the academy says, not what the imdb.com says, not when NY/LA says it is (unless that was the place of origin), but the first day it's offically released to the public, anywhere on the planet. I find that the most accurate way to place a film where it should be.

But I also don't think that there should be a certain "set" of rules either, because there are various forms of lists that most won't agree with. I'm certainly not trying to tell you guys how to post lists, but show understanding of how I use mine. I think mine is fair enough and I will be using it.

Thanks,

Jason

------------------

AWESOME Movies Of The Week
jason-whyte@home.com
ICQ: 16733922
I Am Jack's DVD List

"All your Bjork and Leslie Bibb are belong to me!"

By the way, I think there's enough argument here for an entire forum based on this. Shall I email Ron?

Jason and I are on the same page on this one. I have already previously stated that I understand that Seth will need to apply some common set of rules to tally up the results for a popularity poll. However, I will not conform my list just to simply serve this purpose. As I have said twice before: leave my choices out - that's fine by me. No debate here, just accept my input and don't pressure me into following someone else's selection criteria.

Incidentally, keep in mind that the original purpose of this thread was just to place our Top 10 films for 2000. The idea of normalizing results with a fixed set of rules did not come about until the films began to be tabulated and ranked. I participated in this thread for the primary reason, not the afterthought.

------------------
Strictly Film School

01- Virgin Suicides


02- Almost Famous


03- House of Mirth


04- Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon


05- Requiem for a Dream


06- Traffic


07- Chicken Run


08- Shadow of the Vampire


09- You Can Count on Me


10- Dancer in the Dark

Updated my list for Dancer In The Dark. This would get my vote for this year’s highly manipulative, overly contrived and, most of all, blatantly dishonest film.

Next Up: Before Night Falls

~Edwin

------------------
American Film Institute Top 100 Films Home Theater Forum Challenge
Countdown Of AFI Movies Left To Watch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12!

Alright, after digesting it a little more, here is a more kinder and gentler review comments on Dancer In The Dark, which I have also now included in my summary comments:

Lars von Trier’s bold film about the miscarriage of justice will definitely polarize audiences. I happen to side with those who were somewhat put off by it and for good reasons. While the style is certainly interesting, it is not without its faults. The film comes off as being highly manipulative, overly contrived, and most of all, blatantly dishonest.

There are those who wouldn’t dare speak against the iconoclast von Trier and his films because, after all, they are considered “art” and how dare they? But not me. Those who are more forgiving will be able to accept the film and its flaws. Nevertheless, what I did enjoy about the film is Bjork’s remarkable performance as the blind Selma. At the very least, I recommend experiencing this one for yourself to arrive at your own conclusions.



~Edwin

------------------
American Film Institute Top 100 Films Home Theater Forum Challenge
Countdown Of AFI Movies Left To Watch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12!

Count me in too Pascal...

I couldn't be in agreement more with you both, and since I totally disagree with these criteria, I choose not to participate in this poll/thread... I think the debating of all this 2000/2001 stuff is kind of fun, but everyone please take into account how truly unimportant it is. Mostly, we are all proud of our country, but I think it is bordering on insanity to think that a film's release date is determined by the date it is finally shown in MY country, as if to say MY country is more important than any other country, especially the films' country of origin.....sheeesh. If anyone starts a thread based on what the actual release date is for the year 2000 films, I will gladly give my selections... This criteria has so many footnotes in it understanding it is more complicated than filling out your poll answers...

Corollary:
Softball Squash is an extremely physically demanding racquet sport played all over the world. Probably the country with the strongest world class players in the past 50+ years is Pakistan, but the sport has an worldwide participation of about 20 million people in The U.K., Australia ,Egypt, South Africa, Germany, Spain, South America etc etc. etc. The United States decided to adopt a derivation of the sport 25 years ago and changed the universally accepted court size and ball used. The "new" sport became known as hardball and The U.S. developed a "World Champion" of their derived sport. His name was Mark Talbott. The overwhelming softball champion at the time was Jahanghir Khan of Pakistan and it took him a couple of months playing this "new" hardball sport and he soundly beat Mark Talbott at it as well as holding the softball champions crown. The US version of the sport is all but dead, having drifted into a doubles version, and after 25 years the US has come to accept the international version having 2 players in the Top 100 in the world and more coming everyday. When the US has a player in the Top 10 ( inevitable ) or top 5 the US media will then recognize it as a legitimate newsworthy sport. ( I guess even they change their criteria! )

It may take 25 years, but I believe the US ( in this case being the "Academy" ) will come to accept the universal criteria for film release dates, and threads like this will in turn be adjusted to commonly accepted standards. This bullshit will disappear.

Thanks for listening....

and , Hey, none of that squash stuff is goin' stop me from watching the Oscars !!

------------------
Gary@2ze.com
DVD COLLECTION CONTEST , My DVD Collection ,My Home Theatre
DVDBeaver's 15 Member choices of the TOP 111 DVDs available today!

I, for one, consider this entire debate on the categorizing issue to be too anal (excuse the expression). Who cares whether a movie ends up on one year vs. the other? We are probably talking about only a handful of movies to begin with.

As I have said before, feel free to use whatever pleases you.

This is my last post on this subject matter.

~Edwin

Just got back from the screening of Before Night Falls (out of four). This film zooms into my #2 spot for 2000, knocking off Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon from that spot and Thirteen Days off My Top Ten List .

It doesn’t look like a lot of people here have seen this film yet. I will post my thoughts in the review thread.

Next Up: Croupier and Girlfight: Better than Billy Elliot? I’ll be the judge of that.

~Edwin

------------------
American Film Institute Top 100 Films Home Theater Forum Challenge
Countdown Of AFI Movies Left To Watch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12!

1) The Kid
2) The Tigger Movie
3) Fantasia 2000
4) Dinosaur
5) Chicken Run
6) Snow Day
7) The Perfect Storm
8) Erin Brockovich
9) Traffic
10) My Dog Skip/The Whole Nine Yards (tie)

Here's my biggest complaint about the bitching on any year standards I'm trying to impose.

Traffic 2001 then? No, because it was shown to the public in 2000 but not at a festival (Jason's standard)

Fantasia 2000 then becomes a 1999 film.


Yet somehow Fantasia 2000 is on Jason's list. I'm sorry to be a bit upset, but for the ragging I'm hearing I would except complete consistency. Fantasia got several public displays that weren't for festivals starting with its NYC premiere Dec 17, 1999.

And, of course, Pascal has Gohatto on his list which appears to have first been shown to the public in Japan on Dec 18th of 1999 (according to IMDb). It is not listed as a festival date, so I assume it was open to the public at that point. Perhaps it is a known festival that I am unaware of. If so, then I apologize.

And Gary, you are saying you support these standards, yet you have Ghost Dog listed as a 2000 film which isn't even close. It had plenty of public showings throughout 1999 in Europe and it's global release schedule looks an awful lot like In the Mood except a full year before. It is 2000 only by MY standards.


I can see many people's concerns over what standard we use, but before you guys get all put off by what I laid out and the unjust inconsistences of Academy standards, etc, would you please at least present lists that meet the same standards you are screaming bloody murder for us to follow.

I also have nothing else to say on the matter since it has gone on far too long as a thread distraction. I do think it's important that members have some criteria to follow so that we don't have L.A. Confidential put 2nd on a list behind Shakespeare in Love or Saving Private Ryan.


Pascal, I concede that you have a very good point that very small foreign films might get left out if they don't play NY/LA ever and would say that such films should follow the "public showing" standard.

In fact, I can go along with the "public showing" standard as long as no one minds taking Fantasia 2000, Sunshine, & Ghost Dog out of 2000 (and Croupier goes to 1998 then), which would then make In the Mood a 2000 film. But I guess I would defer to everyone else to choose a standard.

Perhaps listing the standard at the top of your list would help. That way, when another member looks at your list he/she has an idea of the films that you considered for the list.

Again, more than enough said by me on a tangent topic that only affects a few films. I just don't think anyone should feel offended by my attempts to bring a standard to the list choices.

BTW, my new additional standard is that you may only list films that I liked. Not so fast Gladiator...

(obviously kidding. And I thought Glad was ok, just not great, despite the misconception that I hated it)

Actually, I had planned on removing Gohatto from the list in favor of The Taste of Others, but as I had already stated in a private message, I had already decided to step back from this debacle in order to keep peace, so I had not been (nor will be) updating my selections. Also, I had already acknowledged that Gohatto and also Beau Travail fall in the same grey area.

I thought that the idea was to have fun and post what we thought were the best film experiences for 2000. This is no longer fun.

------------------
Strictly Film School

No shit, can't someone just make an executive decision?

Hell, I'll do it if you guys will go along with me!

IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE, for the purposes of this discussion, is a 2001 film.

Why? Because I wanna keep talking about it all year and I think it's an ideal high water mark to compare all the new films against.

Will any top IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE? Stay tuned!