Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Our Top 10's of 2001 -- Time To Throw Down
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Our Top 10's of 2001 -- Time To Throw Down - Page 5

post #121 of 235
1/27/02 at 10:09am
Bruce, I really liked it the first time through, but the 2nd viewing moved it even farther up my list. The quality and originality help it grow as a film, I think.


Snatch is 2000 and I don't count it when totalling films. Keep that in mind on these totals, they are "if we picked the Oscars" types of totals, same as I did last year. We need to keep our discussions on the same group of films, thus the "randomly" chosen criteria of Academy rules.

And while Snatch is in most ways a lesser sequel to LS2SB, I don't fault it for being the same, mostly because "sequels" usually are. We don't fault R.Dogs and Pulp for being similar in many ways.


Okay, let me do my list adjustments and then I will retotal. I will probably make this a weekly thing till the Oscars. Lots of rentals on 2001 films and wide-release of late films will have people "fixing" their lists.

I just saw Anniversary Party, Vanilla Sky, and APie 2 and will be watching the rest of Wet Hot American Summer, Jackpot and Rock Star this weekend. Party and Sky were both very good to me.
Reply
post #122 of 235
1/27/02 at 10:47am
Updated by moving Black Hawk Down to #5.
Reply
post #123 of 235
1/27/02 at 12:59pm
Good thing it's (Snatch) not in my top 10. Otherwise we might have to clarify what exactly makes a film eligible for that year. As of late, IMDB hasn't been 100% reliable on their information - however they state it was only shown in one theater in LA. Is that the only criteria for being eligible for that particular year? I thought I read somewhere that the film had to be in NY and LA. Please inform me if this is wrong.
Reply
post #124 of 235
1/27/02 at 1:34pm
I believe it's NY or LA.

The Academy site has extensive explanation of the eligibility rules, although it's been months since I was there.

About to bring out this week's totals.
Reply
post #125 of 235
1/27/02 at 1:35pm
I really hope to get a clarification on this point of releases as well. I try to stick to the criteria of a wide release schedule, rather than a film getting Oscar eligibility by releasing in two markets. I mean, it's meant to be seen by the majority audience in January but doesn't want to give up its Oscar nomination. That, to me, doesn't qualify it as a 2001 film...or 2000...or whatever the year in question is. That's just my theory, and since I don't get to see alot of films in the theaters, it usually doesn't make much difference. The only real questionable film coming up for me is Brotherhood of the Wolf-is that considered a 2001 or 2002 film? I'm thinking 2001 unless proven otherwise. The only reason I ask is because I remember someone mentioning whether BOTW would get the Oscar nomination for France's film selection.

Bruce
Reply
post #126 of 235
1/27/02 at 1:48pm
Well, think of it this way. The Oscars are March, so it's not so crazy to go with a list that basically includes WIDE RELEASES into JAN. I realize that it puts the TRUE JAN releases in a funny spot, but the one offset of that is that those films rarely are in the Oscar running anyway which is why they didn't get leaked out a month early in the first place.

Again, the criteria serves only 1 purpose - to ensure that everyone is discussing the same group of films. These films all get released within 1 year of each other basically and there is a B&W criteria to get on that list.

I don't expect people to have their lists done by JAN 1. We all know this is an ongoing list as some of these films trickle out to other markets. However, few Oscar films go wide later than JAN.

And finally, this is Jason's thread and his rule is WIDE or NY/LA. The only time that doesn't matter is for MY TOTALS. And that is because you can't have a total with varied criteria.

The total is supposed to reflect the HTF as a professional critic who would get to see these films on their limited release and would include them in their 2001 list (we simulate this by not finalizing the lists till much later). Just so we can compare what WE think with what THEY think.
Reply
post #127 of 235
1/27/02 at 2:02pm
This weeks totals

By total points

Memento 322.5
LOTR:FOTR 270
Moulin Rouge 228.5
A.I. 222.5
Muholland Drive 178.5

Royal Tenenbaums 166.5
Amelie 152.5
Man Who Wasn't There 93
A Beautiful Mind 87
Black Hawk Down 82

In the Bedroom 80
Vanilla Sky 79
Shrek 78
Monsters, Inc 68
Ghost World 62


By Appearances

Memento 39
FOTR 37
Moulin Rouge 36
A.I. 30
Royal Tenebaums 28

Muholland Drive 23
Amelie 22
Man Who Wasn't 18
Beautiful Mind 17
Monsters, Inc 17

By average - 1st = 10 points 10th = 1 point
(5 lists or more)

Memento 8.3
Muholland Drive 7.8
A.I. 7.4
FOTR 7.3
Mood for Love 7.0

Amelie 6.9
Amores Perros 6.4
Moulin Rouge 6.3
In the Bedroom 6.2
Vanilla Sky 6.1


Again, average can show things that haven't been seen OR films that might polorize themselves or connect strongly with people who like the film while others might just think "eh".

There are films that made lots of lists, but everyone put them in the 7-10 range. Just something to think about, not sure what it means.
Reply
post #128 of 235
1/27/02 at 2:03pm
BTW, could you imagine the Academy making our top 5 the Best Pix nominees. Now that would be a breakthrough.
Reply
post #129 of 235
1/27/02 at 9:23pm
Quote:
Again, the criteria serves only 1 purpose - to ensure that everyone is discussing the same group of films. These films all get released within 1 year of each other basically and there is a B&W criteria to get on that list.


I totally agree with the purpose of coming up with a standard - for the exact reason you mention. However, since the standard was never really defined it makes it difficult for everyone participating. Having said that, here are the actual rules for the standard we are to establish here:


2. All eligible motion pictures, unless otherwise noted (see Paragraph 9 below), must be:

a) feature length (defined as over 40 minutes),

b) publicly exhibited by means of 35mm or 70mm film or non-video tape digital process,

c) for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County,

d) for a run of at least seven consecutive days,

e) advertised and exploited during its Los Angeles run in a manner considered normal and customary to the industry, and

f) within the awards year deadlines specified in Rule Three.

...with Rule 3:

1. The required Los Angeles County qualifying run (described in Rule Two Paragraph 2) must open between January 1, 2001 and midnight of December 31, 2001.

2. A picture theatrically exhibited inside the U.S. prior to the Los Angeles qualifying run shall be eligible for submission provided the prior exhibition takes place in a commercial motion picture theater after January 1, 2000, and that no other form of public exhibition occurs through the completion of its Los Angeles run (previews and festivals excluded).

3. A picture first theatrically exhibited outside the U.S. prior to the Los Angeles qualifying run shall be eligible for submission provided the prior exhibition takes place in a commercial motion picture theater after January 1, 2000, with the following further conditions:

a) the film may not be exhibited publicly in any other medium for a six-month period following the commencement of its initial theatrical engagement, and

b) after the six-month period, the film may play in non-theatrical forms provided they are outside the U.S. (No film which is shown inside the U.S. in any non-theatrical form prior to its qualifying Los Angeles run shall be eligible for Academy Awards.)

4. Official Screen Credits forms may be returned to the Academy prior to the qualifying Los Angeles release, but not later than sixty days after such opening. However, all Official Screen Credits forms must be returned to the Academy by December 3, 2001.

5. An achievement submitted for Academy Award consideration may not be withdrawn after January 31, 2002.

6. Exceptions to the above eligibility periods and submission deadlines appear in the Special Rules for the Documentary Awards (see Rule Twelve), the Foreign Language Film Award (see Rule Fourteen), and the Short Films Awards (see Rule Nineteen).

As long as the movie opens in LA County in that year, it's eligible for that year. Snatch opened in LA County on 12/6/00 so it is a 2000 film. Odd, but if that's the rule we all agree upon then that's that.

Glad we've got that cleared up. :b

Bruce - according to this definition, Brotherhood of the Wolf is a 2002 film.

Seth - I can see perhaps two of the five being chosen by the Academy. I'm thinking it's Moulin Rouge and Lord of The Rings. The other 3 are too obscure or don't have the studios backing.

Reply
post #130 of 235
1/27/02 at 9:35pm
Yes, Brotherhood should go as the top film on your 2002 lists for TOTALING purposes. I will not ad those films into the totals.

However, you can have a "first wide release anywhere" standard based on Jason's standards for the thread.

Only totals will be affected and I think my reasoning listed above is clear and fair.


No one wants Barry Sanders on a list of the greatest hockey players either just because someone doesn't like hockey. It's all about making sure all "voters" are picking from the same hat.

But by all means let us know about those films that you saw in 2001 that kick butt. This is how In the Mood for Love is making a run this year on our lists (deservedly so).
Reply
post #131 of 235
1/27/02 at 9:37pm
Yes, Memento and A.I. have Oscar plague.

Muholland Drive has been hanging tough though and could still make it's run. Lynch seems to have a lot of support and the film does revolve all around H'wood. Helps it hit home with voters I think.
Reply
post #132 of 235
1/27/02 at 10:26pm
Damn, John beat me to the rules text I was going to post it and note that it doesn't say anything about playing in New York.

One thing I'm a little hazy on -- the "seven consecutive days" bit. One could interpret the rules as meaning "seven consecutive days in the year of consideration" or "seven consecutive days so long as one of those days is within the year of consideration". The reason for the confusion lies in Rule 3 Paragraph 1: "...between January 1, 2001 and midnight of December 31, 2001." How can it qualify if it is released December 31st, unless the second interpretation I mentioned above is correct?

Anybody know for certain? What has the Academy done before for Dec. 31st-released contenders?
Reply
post #133 of 235
1/27/02 at 11:13pm
1. Memento
2. Hedwig and the Angry Inch
3. Black Hawk Down
4. Moulin Rouge
5. The Pledge
6. Y Tu Mama Tambien
7. Amelie
8. Vanilla Sky
9. In the Bedroom
10. Ocean's 11

Just missing: Series 7: The Contenders, Royal Tenenbaums, The Fast and the Furious, Apocalypse Now: Redux, A Beautiful Mind, The Deep End, Training Day

Need to see: Mulholland Drive, The Others, Gosford Park, In the Mood for Love
Reply
post #134 of 235
1/28/02 at 7:34am
Just updated my list (on page 4) to include "A Beautiful Mind" at #9 - knocking "The Others" from the ranks. Sorry, Nicole. Perhaps when I finally get a chance to screen my "Moulin Rouge" DVD we can get you back in there!

Joel
Reply
post #135 of 235
1/30/02 at 11:49am
Seth and John,

Thanks for clearing that up. I will consider Brotherhood of the Wolf as a 2002 film (it doesn't open here until Sunday, and damn if I don't have to make a special trip just to see it). But, there are plenty of 2001 releases I've yet to see so my hands are full either way

Series 7: The Contenders

This was a completely under the radar film for me. The only place I had heard about it was right here at the HTF. Seeing it in some members top-10 list made me intrigued, to say the least. Heck, without that, I would've probably assumed it to be a TV (real) show and not bothered to watch it at all. What a shame that would've been. Highly entertaining and amusing...and of course, disturbing. The antics of the Nurse were hysterical. She really stole the film because she puts you so off guard. She truly does typify the Angel of Death label. The rest of the cast were also lively and clearly defined. A solid, solid film that was just pleasurable to watch. The ending was a bit to "soapy" for me (of course, if there is a Series 8, it works wonderfully) but I did enjoy the way the whole mass of plot lines jumbled together so hectically. As I said, great fun and it just missed my top-10 (a better ending might've vaulted it there).

Series 7: The Contenders

Bruce
Reply
post #136 of 235
2/1/02 at 5:09pm
The Princess and the Warrior

Another strong film from Tom Tykwer. I knew enough going in not to expect another Run Lola Run. Was that good or bad? In this case, very good. Great performances by Franka Potente and especially Benno Furmann. While I heard about moments in the film with "stunning power", I didn't really see that. Well, nothing that really bowled me over. But, the mood, tone and pace of the film were perfect. Always involving, always interesting...and indeed Tykwer's signature style is again on display. All in all, a very, very good film and one that shows that Tykwer is definitely more than a one-trick pony. I cannot wait for Heaven.
The Princess and the Warrior


Bruce
Reply
post #137 of 235
2/6/02 at 1:22pm
Adding In the Bedroom.

Goes in at #16 on my list. Solid film, a little too slow and dry for me to quite make my top 10.
Reply
post #138 of 235
2/6/02 at 10:25pm
Thread Starter 
[size=]I've also made some dramatic changes to my Top 10, after seeing a SLEW of films that have moved stuff up, down, off and onto the list. Right now I have my current, accurate Top 10 + 2 at the top, plus my previous Top 10 + 2 following. I've also re-rated several of my four star films after seeing again and thinking about them. I wish I could have a firmer grounding on my viewings after the first time, but sadly..... also, I really wished I lived in a larger city and have advance screening or festival passes.

When the Victoria festival subsides I'll get back to work on this thread.

Jason[/size]
Reply
post #139 of 235
2/6/02 at 10:39pm
[font=]I have re-rated sopme of my movies too. I have added Endurance: Shackleton's Legendary Antarctic Expedition
to the top 10.[/font]
Reply
post #140 of 235
2/7/02 at 9:46am
1. Mulholland Drive
2. The Man Who Wasn't There
3. A.I.
4. Memento
5. In the Bedroom
6. Ghost World
7. Lord of the Rings
8. Amelie
9. Moulin Rouge!
10. Ocean's Eleven
Reply
post #141 of 235
2/7/02 at 12:02pm
Theres some movies I havent seen yet(especially foreign)- Training Day,Amelie(My Aunt just saw and loved it),Black Hawk Down(This weekend Maybe),Waking Life,Monsters Inc, etc but heres my list from what I did see:


1. Memento (I love this movie)
2. Mulholland Drive (Finally saw it at discount theater )I need this DVD more than I do air
3. Lord Of The Rings:FOTR
4. The Man Who Wasnt There
5. Vanilla Sky
6. Ghost World
7. Blow
8. Bully
9. The Pledge (Some problems I had with the end bring this down a few)
10.The Gift
Reply
post #142 of 235
2/7/02 at 2:23pm
I'll retotal this weekend.

I figure that there is plenty of adding and reworking, especially as films release wide while others come to DVD where they get re-evaluated. I reworked mine a little a few weeks ago.
Reply
post #143 of 235
2/7/02 at 2:52pm




Reply
post #144 of 235
2/8/02 at 3:04pm
The Curse of the Jade Scorpion

Agreeable, if not overtly memorable. Woody Allen seems tired in the film and that does drag it down a bit. Otherwise, great turns by Helen Hunt, Dan Aykroyd and Charlize Theron (who was criminally underused) save the film. All in all, standard Woody-which means it was good-but there was potential for much better.


Bruce
Reply
post #145 of 235
2/8/02 at 3:21pm
[font=]SIDENOTE:
Gift and Panic are NOT 2001.
They are 2000[/font]
Reply
post #146 of 235
2/8/02 at 3:33pm
Panic opened January 19th 2001

If by chance some small hole in the wall theater in L.A. happened to hold a screening of it in the last week of December that means it's still a 2001 film in my book.
Reply
post #147 of 235
2/8/02 at 3:37pm
Oh and ditto for The Gift which also opened January 19th 2001.

Unless a film was cleary released in the prior year I see no reason to police other people lists.
Reply
post #148 of 235
2/8/02 at 11:26pm
Panic is considered a 2000 film because it first played cable (or was it on video) in 2000. This is also why it is Oscar inelligible.

Later they realized they had a film worth showing in theaters however and put it out on the rounds. That was in 2001 for everywhere I believe, although I think it still got a limited run in late 2000.

But it's not a big deal except that you know that I won't be counting it in the Top 10 list totals that I'm doing. I use Oscar eligible year for that. Otherwise, use whatever year standard you would like (w/ Jason's guidelines in mind since it's his thread).


Specifically (thanks to upcomingmovies.com) the film was first shown on Cinemax on August 27th, 2000.

That's a pretty big theater.
Reply
post #149 of 235
2/9/02 at 12:48am
Just throwing some ratings down:

Ghost World
The Smokers
Life Without Dick

and edited my Worst list including The Smokers. Awful, awful film.

Bruce
Reply
post #150 of 235
2/9/02 at 1:29am
[font=]Panic http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0194218 Dec 1st 2000
Gift http://us.imdb.com/ReleaseDates?0219699 Dec 20th 2000

We do have a top 10 of 2000 list availible
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...top+10+of+2000[/font]
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Our Top 10's of 2001 -- Time To Throw Down