The Ten Best Films of 2005 That I Saw

Scott Hardie | January 22, 2006
Finally, finally, finally, I have completed my annual feature. (link) I enjoy writing it too much to hurry the process or to write less, so here it is, three weeks after New Years. Next year I'm starting this shit in December.

Here's your forum to discuss my picks and to share some of your own. What were the best movies you saw last year?

Scott Hardie | January 22, 2006
Oh, and I have so not proofread this thing. If you spot a typo of any sort, please let me know. (link)

Jackie Mason | January 22, 2006
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | January 22, 2006
I didn't see it. But I did see the trailer so many times I came to hate its pregnant pauses. "Now, picture that..."

















































"...but everywhere!"

Mike Eberhart | January 23, 2006
You only gave Harry Potter 1.5 stars...? I thought it was the best of the four movies so far. What didn't you like about it?

Scott Horowitz | January 25, 2006
I'm inclined to agree with Mike (who'd ever see that coming? :)) I thought it was great. Action packed and fun.

Michael Paul Cote | January 25, 2006
I also thought that it was the best so far. I think that the challenges are growing along with the kids.

Scott Hardie | January 27, 2006
But aren't you guys fans of the book series? I've never read them and only saw each movie once in theaters, so I was sometimes lost during the film. It wasn't a matter of forgetting the recurring characters or anything, it was the feeling that it was so rushed and lacked necessary setup for certain plot elements. That, or it made perfect sense to everybody else why children were bound underwater as prizes in a contest, and why the two wands caused the reaction that unleashed spectral forms of dead people, and so on. I know that these elements are explained better in the books (Wikipedia has since made sense of them for me), but it didn't seem like the movie took the time to explain any of it, and simply rushed into the action because it had so much to cover in its running time.

That's the main problem I have with the film as craft, but there were several just plain nuisances. This one has the worst case so far of Harry Potter Syndrome (there's probably a better name for it out there), in which Harry stands around in mortal danger and is recused by more powerful supporting characters. Sure, the kid makes some moral decisions during the tournament, but in two major scenes, his ass is saved by other people while he stands there like an idiot. I've read theories that the Potter books simply follow in a long British literary tradition in which the hero gets all the credit while it's actually his support characters who do all the work, but it's annoying to me, and much worse in this movie than in the others. Maybe the book had small moments of Harry's heroism that got cut from the film, I dunno.

Another pet peeve: The kid doesn't talk. He's in virtually every scene of the movie, and he has what, 10 speaking lines? If you had to describe his personality, what could you say about him? "Smart"? "Lucky"? Those aren't personality traits. The kid is a blank slate. I guess he's written that way so anyone in the audience can imagine themselves filling his shoes, but he seems much more like a silent witness to the events of the film than an active participant, especially since he only takes action when he has to.

I enjoyed the first and third films immensely, and I only disliked the second film because so many scenes just seemed to be a rehash of the first one (Chris Columbus really shouldn't have done both). I was surprised to dislike this fourth film so much. Based on what little I know of the plots of books five and six, I expect the Harry-as-silent-witness problem to get worse.

Scott Horowitz | January 27, 2006
As a purist, in order, these were the movies closest to the books: 1,2,4,3. If you haven't read GoF, then I could see why it's hard to like that one the best. Of all the books, it has a very quick pace to it, and I think Newell tried to capture that in the movie. There are some necessary plot elements that were omitted, but nothing earth shattering. I personally felt that PoA missed too much, and if you didn't read the book you were like "wtf?"

Mike Eberhart | January 27, 2006
I definately agree with you Scott Ho... PoA was probably the worse film of the 4 so far. I still liked it, but they did leave out a ton. What irks me the most is they left out the whole explaination of the Marauder's Map. That was a big piece in the book. He finds out who created it, who owned it and what the fours name meant. The only problem that I have with the 4th movie was at the end when Voldemort was talking to his Death Eater's and he calls Pettigrew by his school nickname of Wormtail. I don't recall that happening in the book. Why would someone other than his old classmates from school call him that. I might have to go back and re-read that book.

Scott Horowitz | January 27, 2006
Actually, in the book Voldemort did refer to him as Wormtail (PDF forms of books make it nice to find this stuff). My biggest issue with the 4th movie was that they didnt' explain why the wands met.

Michael Paul Cote | January 27, 2006
Having never read the books, I wonder why a bigger stink wasn't made about the fact that Daddy Malfoy was one of Valdemorts cronies! Anyone, Anyone?

Mike Eberhart | January 27, 2006
Pretty much everyone knows that he's one of Voldemort's guys. They are just afraid to confront him about it. Lucious Malfoy acts like he has a lot of power in the wizarding world so he gets away with a lot. And you're right, they didn't explain the wands. That was a really big piece in the book. Back to Malfoy, you find out more about him in book 5. You should definately read them. They are filled with a lot more detail about every character.

Jackie Mason | January 28, 2006
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | January 31, 2006
Just FYI, Oscar nominations were announced today.

(link)

Kris Weberg | January 31, 2006
Intreresting list of films, largely confirming my suspicions that this last year was an interestingly quiet one in terms of perceived blockbusters. There's no Gladiator or Titanic up for anything this year, just a whole lot of films whose main quality was the publicity generated around them, be it controversial (Syriana, Brokeback Mountain) or "Oscar-worthy" early buzz of the usual kind (Crash, Capote, Good Night). And not a single summer blockbuster wannabe up for Best Picture, perhaps because none of them were period pieces.

Also, it's interesting to see the snubs -- no acting nods for Munich, nor anything beyond art direction and F/X categories for George Lucas.

Scott Horowitz | January 31, 2006
I think the biggest snub is that Star Wars was not nominated for visual effects

Jackie Mason | February 1, 2006
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | February 1, 2006
It's up now. (link) I was working on it. :-)

Rule change this year: Win prizes from any 2005 film, not just any nominated film. It's not because I'm getting kinder, it's because of what Kris said about there being no big blockbuster nominees this year. Who wants the poster from Capote in their living room?

I was prepared to agree, Scott, then I saw the three films that did get nominated. They weren't slackers in the visual effects department either, nor snob favorites that don't really belong. *cough*Cinderella Man for Best Makeup*cough* You could have put all four films in a hat and drawn three at random and been just as fair.

"It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp"? I haven't looked forward to the Best Song performances this much since "Blame Canada."

For Amy Adams, can I just say, w00t? Thank you.

Kris Weberg | February 1, 2006
I wouldn't mind having the poster for Capote in my room.

Jackie Mason | February 2, 2006
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | February 3, 2006
Of all my Oscar predictions, I am most confident of this one: That because of the lack of a blockbuster in the running, the telecast ratings will reach a new low for recent years, and once again there will be a wave of punditry saying nobody cares about the Oscars any more.

Ooh, just thought of one more obstacle to Mark Cuban's day-and-date crusade: Academy rules block nominations for any film not released in theaters for a certain number of weeks before other releases, which is why Fahrenheit 9/11 was out of the running (besides the fact that even Hollywood was getting kind of sick of Michael Moore by then). I doubt that the Academy, which is firmly in bed with the MPAA, which is firmly in bed with the exhibitors association, is going to lift this rule any time soon, which means that any studio with even a dash of Oscar hopes isn't going to risk giving up a nom by releasing their film day-and-date.