Our top 10's of 2000 - Time to throw down - Page 7

This would actually be a 2000 film (I checked November and December '00 release dates overseas), but if you want to use North American release dates for your accuracy, go ahead. I couldn't stop people, not even Leonard Maltin, from putting Croupier on their top of 2000 list even though it was originally released in 1998.

When I do see ITMFL, it will be on my 2001 Film List under "USA/Canada releases ineligible for 2001 List" section.

Regards,

Jason

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

AWESOME Movie Of The Week
jason-whyte@home.com
ICQ: 16733922

Jason, I don't understand, are you saying you plan to include ItMfL in your 2000 movies, your 2001 movies, both, or neither?

This sort of thing happens all the time though. I can remember last year everyone wanting to include Lola Rennt in their 99 lists.

I'll be placing it in my "USA/Canada releases ineligible for Offical 2001 List" section of my 2001 Film List. I normally place such film in there if it gets a notable release here. "Snatch," for example, a UK 2000 film that got a North American release 1/19. I made note of that in the section, and it will not be eligible when I do my Top 10 of 2001.

Confusing, isn't it? But I must be accurate!


Jason

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

AWESOME Movie Of The Week
jason-whyte@home.com
ICQ: 16733922

I reiterate; do a search for the movie @ IMDb. Whatever
year it comes up with on the main page of said movie,
use that. Really simple. Keeps the confusion down.
Wait. I'm trying to keep confusion out of this group.
What a monumental waste of time.



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

"All your base are belong to us."

Like most people here, I will be using the Academy's criteria to qualify for a particular year - a movie must run for at least one whole week in a theater in L.A. County. In The Mood For Love did no such thing and was hardly released at all in 2000 in North America to make it in most critics' Top Ten lists. It will be part of my 2001 films list.

~Edwin

I also saw IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE this past weekend - it's either the 2nd best movie of 2000 or the best movie of 2001 (so far).

I want to go along with whatever criteria we're using here (but, unless there's a good objective reason, I don't see why we'd care what criteria the Academy uses).

------------------
"Only one is a wanderer; two together are always going somewhere."

Al's DVD Collection
Al's Criterion Collection

Unfortunately, I cannot abide by the "Academy Rules" guideline in selecting my own top ten. According to IMDB's release information, Aleksandr Sokurov's haunting documentary, Dolce, never played in the US, even when I definitely saw it on October, 2000 in New York City.

Feel free to discount my list, but I don't believe in imposing artificial boundaries on deciding the best films to come out in 2000.

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

I completely understand and respect the decision in trying to apply some uniform logic to determining an overall top ten list. My own reservation is in having to "bump up" films which I did not deem to be as good as the films that I had listed, simply because certain films didn't qualify by Academy standard, and I need to make up the deficit. My comment was merely to state that I would not be replacing those films in question, just to abide by format. All I meant was, I don't think that my list skews the totals, but if it does, I won't be offended if it is taken out of the tally.

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

I don't know about this whole judging by Academy standards thing. The Academy isn't always incredibly reliable as we all know, and often times ignores smaller or foreign films entirely, which might mean they could be left off that list.

How I judge it is whether or not a film got any official release in the United States during the year. NY or LA for even just a week counts as well. IMDB is generally considered the best place to check for this sort of thing, but I find that Eric Carter's Film Releases is an excellent place to take a second look. If it's not listed here, chances are it didn't come out during that year. The list also includes films shown at film festivals, which is kind of a grey area. A film fest isn't exactly an official release, but I usually put movies I see at fests on my list for the year and keep them there until the end of the year, at which point I remove ones that haven't come out officially in NY or LA at some point during the year. In some cases, though, a movie that is shown at a fest never goes wider. Anyone have any thoughts about what should be done in this case?

Pascal, by my standards, it's certainly warranted to place Dolce on a 2000 list. [On a side note, I couldn't even find Dolce on Eric Carter's list, which is insane. This must've been one hell of a small release. Anyway, if you saw it in 2000 in NY, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't include it on your list. Chances are that's the widest release it's going to get anyway.

I might be alone on this, but I don't really want to base my list on the Academy's criteria, knowing their tendancy to casually forget films worthy of accolades.

Good to see we are all in agreement.

This is the criteria most US critics use for their top 10 lists. If we use the same criteria, we can compare our lists to theirs. I’m not sure if it is an “objective” reason, but I think it will make the process more fun(for me anyways).

This same thing happened with last year’s lists, and you are correct that it won’t skew our totals significantly.

Seth, next time you tally up the points, please list more than just the top 10. If possible, put their score next to them so we can see how close they are to each other. (Edit: oops, looking back I see you did show the point totals on your last list)

And about this whole In the Mood For Love thing, I'd have to say that the film, if going by US release date, would be a 2001 film. The film opened in numerous places around the world in 2000 and played in many festivals, but it still didn't get released in NY/LA until 2001, unlike other films that cause confusion such as Titus, which did get an official release in 1999 rather than 2000.

Another thing some people do is make two lists; one with films officially released in a certain year, and the other with festival films and films not yet released in America.

About the IMDB, I really dont think that the year next to the title is an good thing to go by, since that is usually the year of completion, not of release. Sometimes it takes a film years to actually play in enough venues to be considered bound to a certain year.

A good example of this is a film playing at the Santa Barbara Intl. Film Festival called The Adulterer. The film is making it's World Premiere, meaning it's the first time it's ever played anywhere, and it's listed on IMDB as a 2000 film. There are numerous others just like this.

When I finally see ItMfL, I'm going to be putting it on my 2001 list, and I truly don't care what list other people put it on. It's really an iffy one, so I think both 2000 and 2001 would work fine for it.

I guess I will include ITMFL on my 2001 list where it will take over the top spot easily.

As for 2000 films, I recently saw Chocolat which was enjoyable but not list-worthy and Joe Gould's Secret which was so-so.

------------------
"It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen"

S&S Challenge: 72 ...28
DVD BEAVER

My DVD Collection

Well, I'm certainly not going to post-date Croupier to a '98 list. It's staying on my 2000 list where it belongs.

I just saw Chunhyang which was excellent. I think this is the first Korean film that I've seen and it made me an instant Pansori fan. I've got to think about the list, though, and about this whole ITMFL situation.

------------------
"It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen"

S&S Challenge: 72 ...28
DVD BEAVER

My DVD Collection

Saw O Brother and Shadow of the Vampire. Each were good enough to land in my top ten, settling at 5 and 9, respectively. Erin B. and Cast Away fell off the list.

Quills should be up next in the theater and Pollock too, if I'm lucky.

It's looking very likely that Requiem for a Dream, You Can Count on Me, Dancer in the Dark, Best in Show, and Yi Yi will have to wait until DVD.

Evan

------------------
"* * * * * * * * * * * * *" - Buster Keaton
AFI List: Meesa finished!
S&S: 36 films left

Added Chocolat; what's all the Oscar hype about?
I did enjoy the movie; it was better than average (7/10).
However, the film just wasn't the caliber of others in my
list (IMO, obviously). It will probably see a short Top
10 shelf life as other movies are coming in on DVD for
perusal (Wonder Boys, Almost Famous, Fantasia 2K, etc).


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

"All your base are belong to us."

Edited my list and put three new films on the list: Requiem for a Dream, Dancer in the Dark and Bamboozled. My list is on the third page is anyone cares.

Example: East Is East, viewed in May of 1999 at
Cannes, wasn't available in the USA until April of 2000.
(Unless you count the Telluride Film Festival, in Sept'99)
This, by 'Academy Standards', is a 2000 film? If you
purchase a 1965 Mustang this year, is it a 2001 Ford?
When you are able to consume something is when you date it?
I'm still a bit fuzzy on this logic.

(I'm not arguing with anyone's points/ideas, just attempting
clarification on my part)


True, but the year it came out is a bit vague in our
example here. These movies that didn't come out in the
US in 2000 did come out in other countries that year,
thereby making it a film of 2000 due to the fact it was
released SOMEWHERE that year.


Well, these films were produced in another year, that's why
they wouldn't be considered for 2000.


That's why I proposed we choose the year the movie was
produced, not the year that it made it to market. The
automobile example...a 2000 Ford is made in the US;
doesnt arrive in Japan until 2001; the Japanese wouldn't
consider it a 2001 Ford, it's dated in the VIN# as a 2000.
Do not films carry a similar time stamp? Such as the
copyright date?


I can agree with this; if we as Americans are choosing our
own personal films and comparing against the Academy then
this is obviously the way films need to be classified for
us as well.


Agrred as well; I'm attempting to get on the same page as
everyone else.


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

"All your base are belong to us."

The great debate rages on I see...

I saw Pollock but didn't care for it. It felt to me like a bit too much of an "insiders" movie ie. you had to know something about the art world to really get anything out of it, because as biopic's go, this was completely by the numbers and like Man on the Moon never gets below the surface.

I was impressed by Marcia Gay Harden but Ed Harris's role was of the drunk/loud/incoherent variety and was difficult to really get a read on.

This movie also soured me on seeing Before Night Falls. It sapped my interest in seeing another biopic of an artist of which I have no knowledge and little interest.

Faithless opens this weekend, now that is something I can get excited about!

------------------
"It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen"

S&S Challenge: 72 ...28
DVD BEAVER

My DVD Collection

..

This movie has gotten very mixed reviews at best and is finally opening in my area this weekend. I will try and read up on Jackson Pollock as much as possible but I am not expecting much from this film. I am actually seeing this in the theaters to give support for the art films currently making their rounds in my local area.

I am more looking forwards to The House of Mirth and Requiem in the next few weeks.

~Edwin

Alright, I can live with going by the Academy's classifications. But even Netflix doesn't date their movies that way which makes it more difficult to track down movies that I need to catch up on. On a side note, I'm updating my list to include Way of the Gun which I found to be entertaining when it tried to be and rather segmented and floudering when not. Del Toro and Cahn did most of the work here and Juliette Lewis' performance did nothing to improve my opinion of her as an actor. Overall decent movie however, receiving a 7/10.


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

I saw In the Mood for Love this afternoon. If I were to include as a 2000 release, it would certainly make that list, likely in the top 5.

But I won't.

Now I'm gonna go find the ***official thread*** for that movie.

Good for you.

I get to see this one in two weeks.

~Edwin