2006 Top Ten Lists - Time to Throw Down! (1 Viewer)

[Kirk Tsai]

Seth, I had considered The Lives of Others as a 2007 film for these list purposes. Looking at IMDB, it looks like it was played in a few US festivals in 2006, but was not released in general theaters in 2007. Pretty trivial, I know, but for these top ten list purposes, it could matter for the list this coming year end. It's my favorite of "2007."

 

[rich_d]

Kirk,

It was scheduled to play in Washington D.C. in December. I remember being disappointed missing it by a couple weeks as my assignment in D.C. had ended. Just because it was scheduled doesn't mean it played though. Perhaps someone from NYC or L.A. can confirm whether it played there in 2006.

If so, I think we need to call it a 2006 film. Certainly as this forum has people from around the world, perhaps we should adopt a world-centric versus a U.S. centric view of things.

But I truly understand your intent and totally agree that the U.S. distribution of this film was a real miss last year. Damn fine film.

 

[Holadem]

Gee I never posted a top 10. OK without over thinking it, my favs of last year would go like so (5-10 in no particular order):

1- The Departed
2- United 93
3- Apocalypto
4- The Lives of Others
5- The Queen
The Prestige
Blood Diamond
Letters from Iwo Jima
PotC: DMC
Little Children

--
H

 

[Greg Layton]

I don't think there's any doubt that The Lives of Others was a 2006 release considering it was originally released on 3/23/2006. It doesn't particularly matter how many theaters it was playing in in the U.S. at the end of the year.

 

[Holadem]

I go by AA qualification. In that regard, it was obviously an '06 release.

--
H

 

[Adam_S]

march 23rd 2006 was it's release in germany, it premiered at the Telluride film festival in september 2006 but didn't get a US theatrical release until February. Due to the wacky rules surrounding films qualifying for foreign film category, the festivals qualifiied it, had it not made the final five of the nominations, it would be eligable for additional nominations this year, in the manner that City of God was (didn't make the foreign cut it's first year, but earned four nominations it's second year). Since it was nominated it's no longer eligible, though it is, essentially a 2007 film based on standard academy rules for all categories but foreign film.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

Yes, I too thought of City of God when I made my previous post. Will Sony Picture Classics remember this when the award season comes by?

Rich, I understand your point about being US centric (coincidentally, I'm not even in the US for the next few months!). I remember seeing Spirited Away in Asia, and putting an asterisk to the title when I listed it in my 2001 year end list as a title not qualifying for the American awards that year. It's rather silly to follow these arbitrary Academy rules, but then again, it's rather silly to make these lists to begin with. I still follow them just to make our year end lists easier to keep track of.

 

[Adam_S]

Actually the reason City of God was able to earn it's nominations was because it was not nominated for best foreign language film the previous year, so the film's eligibility defaulted to standard eligibility rules for all films--and since it's theatrical run was in 2003 (but it qualified as Brazil's 2002 entry and had festival playdates in 2002), it had the same eligibility as all other films with a theatrical run in 2003. Because Lives of Others WAS nominated for best foreign language film in 2006 it is disqualified from being eligible for the 2007 academy awards. had it not been nominated it would be eligible. Films like Volver, that had a theatrical run in 2006, were only eligible in 2006, for the country submitting them in foreign language for 2006, and in all other categories.

 

[Tim Glover]

Nice list Holadem. Looks like we agree on several on your list.

 

[JohnRice]

Better late than never. Here's my best attempt at a list. I can't make an ordered list, so I am listing a Top 3, which are above the others to me, then the remaining 7. Adam can score them however he wants.

The Top 3
The Dead Girl
The Fountain
Pan's Labyrinth

The Other 7
The Proposition
Volver
Children of Men
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer
Little Children
The Bridge
Sweet Land

I know at least three of these (The Proposition, The Bridge and Sweet Land) can be considered previous years. I am going by their first non-festival presentation in the US. I'm extremely disappointed I don't see The Dead Girl on anyone else's list, but maybe I missed someone.

The Single Worst movie of the year
Pirates of the Caribbean: BrainDead Man's Chest - This is actually the only movie I gave up on. Funny it is on so many Top 10s.

 

[Seth Paxton]

That's what I use, but I wasn't sure how that was breaking down with Lives of Others due to what Adam just explained. Since it was a 2006 winner/nom I just frame it with other films discussed at the end of 2006, though technically it fits the 2007 AA rules otherwise.

To me it's not a "US centric" thing, it's giving a film a fair chance to be equally compared and recognized with other films. If a film has some people listing it as the #1 of 2006 and then others with it #1 2007 and maybe more with it as #1 2008 a potentially awesome film ends up as only being slightly noticed 3 years in a row rather than being #1 for any given year.

The AA version is just probably the most popular choice IF YOU MUST PICK ONLY ONE STANDARD. That's what gets lost in this. If you go by when you saw it, or when it was released period, and so on then you have many films with multi-year listings and you lose all real sense of how the HTF (or whatever group) felt about it when you start tallying things up.

One other reason for the AA standard is to make sure it's possible for most of the HTF membership to see it in time for discussion/voting, which typically goes about 3-4 months into the next year. Heck, here we are 9 months into it and still discussing.


People have debated the methodology for some time, but it's always from some personal assault viewpoint, like we are trying to exclude them or make it about the US or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the Parisian release date was when just about everyone got to see a film then we'd use that. If we could all see it as a workprint 2 years before wide release that would be fine too.

It's just that those options aren't very practical and we want to give a film every chance to be truly recognized rather than having it's vote split or less recognition simply because no one has seen it yet.

 

[Holadem]

I dunno Tim, the top 5 is rock solid, but anything could have been in that second half. I look at the list and now wonder what the heck Blood Diamonds is doing there . What I saw in '06 hasn't inspired me very much I think, and there is still tons left to see.

--
H

 

[Brian.L]

By the standards outlined above, shouldn't Lady Vengeance be on Adam's overall list? I thought it got enough votes (maybe I'm wrong?), and IMDB says "limited" US release in April 06...

 

[Adam_S]

lady Vengeance comes in at number 50, tied with a few other films. it was not mentioned on many lists.