Critic Consensus Top 40 Films (2002-2008)

Having already completed the Critic Consensus's from 2002 to 2008, it's only natural that I made a list detailing the Critic Consensus Top 40 Films.

Unfortunately, the numbers for 2001 are not readily available and, of course, 2009 is just underway, so this list will only comprise the last 7 years.

40. "Babel" (109, 2006)
39. "Once" (113, 2007)
38. "LOTR: The Two Towers" (115, 2002)
37. "Master and Commander" (116, 2003)
36. "The Squid and The Whale" (117, 2005)
35. "Happy-Go Lucky" (122, 2008)
34. "Children of Men" (123, 2006)
33. "Ratatouille" (123.5, 2007)
32. "Army of Shadows" (124, 2006)
31. "Atonement" (124, 2006)
30. "Y Tu Mama Tambien" (125, 2002)
29. "The Incredibles" (126, 2004)
28. "Adaptation" (127, 2002)
27. "Man on Wire" (127, 2008)
26. "Finding Nemo" (129, 2003)
25. "Capturing the Friedmans" (132, 2003)
24. "A History of Violence" (137, 2005)
23. "Far From Heaven" (146, 2002)
22. "Before Sunset" (148, 2004)
21. "Mystic River" (153, 2003)
20. "Borat" (158, 2006)
19. "The Queen" (163, 2006)
18. "Milk" (164, 2008)
17. "Slumdog Millionaire" (164, 2008)
16. "American Splendor" (172.5, 2003)
15. "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" (186.5, 2004)
14. "Letters From Iwo Jima" (188, 2006)
13. "There Will Be Blood" (194, 2007)
12. "Million Dollar Baby" (196, 2004)
11. "The Dark Knight" (196, 2008)

10. "Pan's Labyrinth" (198, 2006)
9. "Brokeback Mountain" (212, 2005)
8. "The Departed" (224, 2006)
7. "The Diving Bell and Butterfly" (230, 2007)
6. "Sideways" (233, 2004)
5. "LOTR: The Return of the King" (235.5, 2003)
4. "WALL-E" (263.5, 2008)
3. "United 93" (270, 2006)
2. "Lost in Translation" (284, 2003)
1. "No Country For Old Men" (300, 2007)

Breaking down the numbers, it looks like 2002 had 4 entries, 2003 (7), 2004 (5), 2005 (3), 2006 (9), 2007 (6), 2008 (6).

This will be the last Critic Consensus blog-post until next year.

For some, it is a sad day, even sadder than the day after Thanksgiving, after having gained multiple pounds and still knowing that there will be another month of weight gain to look forward to!

For others, it is a happy day, finally, Continuity Film will be talking about films without gumming up all the works with crazy numbers, stats, and rambling rants.

For me, it was fun. It was fun to blend my interest in film and my addiction to numbers.

At times, it felt like I was squeezing the last remnants out of a bottle of toothpaste, you know what I mean, when you curl it, and curl it, and you have to squeeze with two hands just to get a pitiful drop that is barely enough to brush your teeth in the morning and then your wife reprimands you for throwing away a "perfectly good bottle" after you've almost broken your index finger squeezing so damn hard.

No, she's not a witch, she's my wife.

True love.

Critic Consensus Top Ten Films of 2008 (w/ Oscar Nominations)!

It's that time of the year again! The Academy just released their 2008 nominations and I will finally release my Critic Consensus Top Ten Films of 2008!

I have a lot to say.

First, let's hit the Critic Consensus.

10. A Christmas Tale (86)
9. Synecdoche, New York (86)
8. The Wrestler (94)
7. Rachel Getting Married (107)
6. Happy-Go-Lucky (122)
5. Man on Wire (127)
4. Milk (164)
3. Slumdog Millionaire (164)
2. The Dark Knight (196)
1. WALL-E (263.5)

And the 2008 Best Picture Nominations are:

-"Slumdog Millionaire" (3, 164)
-"Milk" (4, 164)
-"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (19, 56)
-"Frost/Nixon" (20, 48)
-"The Reader" (70, 7)

Wow. "WALL-E" (1, 263.5) & "The Dark Knight" (2, 196) were SNUBBED.

That's ridiculous. Both of these films are incredible and it's criminal that the Academy gave them the cold shoulder.

I can't wait for the excuses.

"WALL-E, oh, great movie, but that's why we have Best Animated Film." BS.

"The Dark Knight, no, too popular, we are still reeling from giving James Cameron the keys to the city with 'Titanic', we learned that lesson already. Anywho, we plan on having a Best Genre Picture for the 2010 Oscars, isn't that great?"

In the immortal words of Vizzini:

"Let me put it this way: have you ever heard or Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?

Morons!"

Let's look back at the numbers, shall we?

The last time the #1 Critic Consensus Film ("CC-Film") wasn't nominated for Best Picture?

-"United 93" (2006) (1, 270)

The last time the #1 and #2 CC-Film weren't nominated for Best Picture?

-Never. Never. Ever. Never. Since 2002, at least one of the Top 2 CC-Films were nominated every year. Not 2008.

Let's look closer at "The Reader". First off, I have not seen the film, but THEY are telling me that it is better than "WALL-E" and "The Dark Knight". Okay, excuse me while I throw-up in my mouth.

-"The Reader" (70, 7). Wow, they really outdid themselves this year. Unprecedented. "The Reader" is officially the worst-rated film EVER* (*2002-2008) nominated for Best Picture, beating out 2004's "Finding Neverland" (62, 6).

The Nominations. This is precisely why the Academy Awards have ZERO credibility. This would be equivalent to having the MLB Players voting for the Hall-of-Fame instead of the MLB Writers.

Let's look at CC-Film History (again, 02-08 only).

This is the weakest class in the last 7 years. Now, this is easy math, so stay with me, 2008 has an average rating of 23.20. (Take 3,4,19,20, & 70, add them up and divide by 5).

Here is the year-by-year rundown.

-02 (9.40)
-03 (7.00)
-04 (19.20)
-05 (7.00)
-06 (6.00)
-07 (6.80)
-08 (23.20)

Therefore, 2006 was the strongest class and 2008 is the worst EVER, and the worst since 2004.

In fact, 2008 is the first year that 3 or more Top Ten films didn't make it into the Best Picture category. In fact, only 2 made it in.

Again, quick-rundown.

-02 (4), 03 (4), 04 (3), 05 (4), 06 (5), 07 (3), 08 (2).

What would you substitute for the Nominations?

-Easy, I would insert "WALL-E" and "The Dark Knight" and I would take out "The Reader" and "Frost/Nixon". I can live with "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". I actually liked the film, in fact, I liked it better than "Slumdog Millionaire".

I know Roger Ebert says that he couldn't make a Top Ten List because it was such a good year for movies and he was compelled to make a Top Twenty instead (for the record, his vote was the first one DQ'd).

I have to say, Roger, you're full of it and so is the Academy.

Most likely, "Slumdog Millionaire" is going to win and it'll be another forgotten, plagued-by-mediocrity year in film.

Last, "WALL-E". Masterpiece. Better than any animated film. Pixar's best, better than "Finding Nemo". This film is better than "Beauty and the Beast" (which is the only animated film to be nominated for Best Picture).

In fact, in the last 7 years, "WALL-E" (4, 263.5) is #4 on the 2002-2008 list, trailing only "United 93" (3, 270), "Lost in Translation" (2, 284), and "No Country For Old Men" (1, 300).

The Academy has no sense of history.

Do you know where "The Reader" stands in the last 7 years?

#455. Right below "X2: X-Men United".

I demand a recount! I want to know every voter's vote. I think we have the right, as paying-moviegoers, to know who votes for what.

The voting needs to be more transparent.

If Obama wasn't so busy fixing all of Bush's mistakes, he should take this on too...

...right after he fixes the College Football Playoffs!

What If Production: "I Am Legend" (1976)

What If Production is a new segment to Continuity Film that hypothetically matches a project to a filmmaker and/or actor.

This week’s segment will detail Richard Matheson’s landmark horror novel, “I Am Legend.”

Background:

-Richard Matheson’s novel was published in 1954 and it took place in the near-future (1976-79).

-The novel was “loosely” adapted twice: in “The Last Man on Earth” (1964) & “The Omega Man” (1971).

-Warner Brothers owned rights to the book and John William Carrington and Joyce Hooper Carrington co-wrote an adaptation in 1971 (which, coincidentally, was used as a primer when Mark Protosevich and Akiva Goldsman adapted it in 2007).

-The 2007 version starring Will Smith is a terrible rendition of a fantastic novel. They made the film a starring vehicle for Mr. Smith. Unfortunately, the source material is far bigger than Mr. Smith, not the other way around. They basically took the core concept (the last man on earth surrounded by vampires) and gutted the rest of the details. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE. Read the book.

What if?

-The actor playing Robert Neville in 1976 would have to be the following:

-FROM "...a tall man, thirty-six, born of English-German stock...long, determined mouth and bright blue eyes..." (14)

-TO "...a bigger, more relaxed Neville...an evenly paced hermit life had increased his weight to 230 pounds. His face was full, his body broad and muscular underneath the loose-fitting denim he wore...only rarely did he crop his thick blond beard, so that it remained two or three inches from his skin...his hair was thinning, long and straggly..." (120).

Looking back on the period, I narrowed down my search to 3 Actors, the central question being, "Who has the chops and the look?":

-Robert Redford, 40.
-Jon Voight, 38.
-Clint Eastwood, 46.

-I originally had it down to 4, Jeff Bridges (27), being the last, but I deemed him too “unknown” at the time to carry this movie.

Again, looking back on the period, I narrowed down my search to 3 Directors:

-William Friedkin [“The French Connection” (1971) & “The Exorcist” (1973)]
-John Boorman [“Deliverance” (1972)]
-Steven Spielberg [“Jaws” (1975)]

Back to the actors: They needed to be bearded.

-Redford [“Jeremiah Johnson” (1972)]
-Voight [“Coming Home” (1978) combined with his performance in “Deliverance” (1972)]
-Eastwood [“The Outlaw Josey Wales” (1976)]

Out of those three actors, I would have to cancel out Redford, b/c honestly, I think he was too much of a pretty-boy and he wouldn’t be convincing enough as the gruff Robert Neville.

It’s down to Eastwood and Voight.

Hmmm. I have to take a closer look at the Directors before I do a final pairing.

-Friedkin made WB a ton of money for “The Exorcist” and Boorman made “Deliverance” for WB, as well.

-Spielberg had his heart set-on “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” (1977) during that period, but, he could’ve always moved that back.

Imagine the pairing of Spielberg and Eastwood. That would’ve been spectacular. Sure, some of you may say, why not have Eastwood direct Eastwood? Well, at the time, he was still flexing his muscles in the director’s chair and I don’t think WB would’ve given him the opportunity to prove otherwise b/c he didn’t have a high degree of clout (and Clint was ensconced in directing westerns and thrillers anyway).

-Boorman worked with Voight on “Deliverance”, so they had some past chemistry there. But, Boorman had just directed a critical and box-office flop with “Zardoz” (1974), a bizarro-SF-fantasy film starring a scantily-clad Sean Connery.

Let’s just say that Boorman’s performance would’ve cancelled him out, in that case, let’s cancel out Voight too.

-That leaves us with Friedkin and Eastwood. Why not? Friedkin was coming off a string of critical and box-office smashes, he was at the top of his game, so to speak, and WB would’ve trusted him to turn-out a great film. Remember, at the time, tentpole summer blockbusters weren’t the norm, the Industry was still figuring out the wild success (possibly, isolated incident) that was “Jaws”, and this was before “Star Wars” changed everything.

So, there we are. We have Friedkin directing and Clint Eastwood starring.

There are long gaps of silence in the film and Eastwood, after having been The Man Without a Name (and a voice) in Sergio Leone’s Spaghetti Western Trilogy, would’ve been ideal to play the silent, brooding Robert Neville.

Back to the Adaptation.

Instead of disgracefully setting the film in Manhattan (like the 2007 version), the film should follow closely to the book.

Los Angeles, north of Compton. A low-rent area. Suburbs. Sprawling city.

1976: no cell-phones, no internet, no GPS, no satellite TV, nothing.

Barebones isolation, just like in the book.

In terms of the feel/pace: imagine the first 15 silent minutes of "There Will Be Blood" (2007) combined with the island-isolation of Tom Hanks in "Cast Away" (2000).

With all of these hypothetical elements now matched, I think "I Am Legend" (1976), directed by William Friedkin, starring Clint Eastwood, would've had the potential to be a landmark horror film.

Just like the book was.

Critic Consensus Top Ten Films of 2003 & 2002

I am still tallying 2008's Critic Consensus and I'm waiting on 5 more critics.

If you, Mr/Mrs. LaSalle, Schickel, Puig, Hunter, and Thomson are reading this, HURRY UP! It's the second week of 2009 already!

Therefore, I had to delve into 2003 and 2002 in order to have a full understanding of the Critic Consensus (and I'll only go back to 2002 b/c the data isn't available on metacritic.com from 2001 down).

So, here is the...

...Critic Consensus Top Ten Films of 2003.

10. Spellbound (70)
9. The Fog of War (88)
8. In America (97)
7. Master and Commander (116)
6. Finding Nemo (129)
5. Capturing the Friedmans (132)
4. Mystic River (153)
3. American Splendor (172.5)
2. LOTR: The Return of the King (235.5)
1. Lost in Translation (284)

And the Academy Award Noms were...

-Winner: "LOTR: The Return of the King" (2, 235.5)
-"Lost in Translation" (1, 284)
-"Mystic River" (4, 153)
-"Master and Commander" (7, 116)
-"Seabiscuit" (21, 30)

2003 was a huge year for documentaries, with 3 in the Top Ten and "Capturing the Friedmans" garnering the most votes on record (132).

In terms of the Best Picture Noms, well, that's a tough one. I mean, I would leave the top four on there because they definitely deserved it. "Master and Commander" will go down as one of the best films of this decade (it is in my personal Top Ten All-Time) but...

..."Seabiscuit"??? C'mon, seriously? "Seabiscuit"? This is where the Academy screwed the pooch. They should've nominated Merielles' masterpiece "City of God" (another best film of this decade plus in my Top Ten). If not "City of God", why not "In America"?

"School of Rock" (17, 43) was better received than "Seabiscuit"!

Let's move onto 2002 while we still have time...

...Critic Consensus Top Ten Films of 2002.

10. Gangs of New York (46)
9. The Pianist (85)
8. Chicago (88)
7. Spirited Away (90)
6. About Schmidt (94)
5. Talk to Her (108)
4. LOTR: The Two Towers (115)
3. Y Tu Mama Tambien (125)
2. Adaptation (127)
1. Far From Heaven (146)

And the Academy Award noms were...

-Winner: "Chicago" (8, 88)
-"LOTR: The Two Towers" (4, 115)
-"The Pianist" (9, 85)
-"Gangs of New York" (10, 46)
-"The Hours" (16, 29)

This was a really bad year for Best Picture Noms. Who deserved to be there out of these five?

Honestly, "The Pianist", and that's it. In fact, "The Pianist" should've won that year.

Here is how I would've redone the Noms using the power of hindsight.

-W: "The Pianist" (9, 85)
-"Talk to Her" (5, 108)
-"Adaptation" (2, 127)
-"Bloody Sunday" (21, 19)
-"25th Hour" (96, 1)


"Adaptation" was a close second that year for me, more like a 1(a) to "The Pianist" (1) and Paul Greengrass's "Bloody Sunday" was gut-wrenchingly realistic and ahead of its time.

But the biggest snub of all-time?

Has to be Spike Lee's "25th Hour." That is one of his best movies, ranking right up there with "Summer of Sam", "Malcolm X", and "Do The Right Thing."

It is a shame, a shame that "Windtalkers" (82, 2) and "The Good Girl" (67, 4) had more votes than "25th Hour"!

As Ripley says in "Aliens"...

..."Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?"