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?"

Critic Consensus Top Ten Films of 2005 & 2004

Okay, in order to quench my addictive personality, I had, HAD to calculate 2005 and 2004! (Don't ask why!)

After giving myself a killer mini-migraine, I felt like Paul Newman in the picture above!

Well, here it is: (this is officially IT, until, of course, 2008 tallies come in).

Critic Consensus Top Ten Films of 2005...

10. 2046 (57)
9. Cache (67)
8. Good Night, and Good Luck (88)
7. Capote (94)
6. King Kong (97.5)
5. Grizzly Man (101)
4. Munich (104)
3. The Squid and The Whale (117)
2. A History of Violence (137)
1. Brokeback Mountain (212)

Let's take a look at that year's Academy Award Nominations:

-Winner: "Crash" (15, 47)
-"Brokeback Mountain" (1, 212)
-"Munich" (4, 108)
-"Capote" (7, 94)
-"Good Night, and Good Luck" (8, 88)

Wow. How the HELL did "Crash" win that year??? I mean, it had some amazing moments and I liked the film, enough to be in my own personal Top Ten of that year, but I never, EVER thought it could win Best Picture.

"Brokeback Mountain" definitely deserved the Top Award. For Christ's sake, even Miranda July's super-indie "Me & You & Everyone You Know" (14, 51) beat out "Crash"!

Biggest Critical Miss? Uhm, can you say "The New World" (43, 15)??? I mean, that film by Malick was a masterpiece! Better than "A Thin Red Line" and definitely better than "The Devil's Rejects" (38, 18), "Kung Fu Hustle" (34, 24), and (don't get me started) "Cinderella Man" (23, 37)! Are you serious? That film was begging moviegoers to see it or they'd be given their money back! What the EFFER??

Whew. All right, let's move onto 2004 before I blow a gasket!

Critic Consensus Top Ten Films of 2004...

10. Moolade (61)
9. Bad Education (75)
8. The Aviator (76)
7. Maria Full of Grace (78)
6. House of Flying Daggers (90)
5. The Incredibles (126)
4. Before Sunset (148)
3. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (186.5)
2. Million Dollar Baby (196)
1. Sideways (233)

Again, and the Academy Award Nominations went to:

-Winner: "Million Dollar Baby" (2, 196)
-"Sideways" (1, 233)
-"The Aviator" (8, 76)
-"Ray" (23, 19)
-"Finding Neverland" (62, 6)

Wow. Now, I can understand the Academy digging "Finding Neverland", it was a pretty solid movie, but it was in 62nd place!!?!?!? That's like giving an Olympic track-guy, who fails to qualify for the semi-finals, a spot on the podium.

Then, we have "Ray". That movie was just plain horrible. It was like a Greatest Hits of Ray's life without any emotion or substance.

Who got Robbed in 2004?

"Eternal Sunshine" (3, 186.5)? Seriously. Was this "too difficult" for the Academy? I mean, how can you look at yourself in the mirror, and not pick this film. Critically lauded. Masterpiece.

"Maria Full of Grace" (7, 78)? Hah. Maybe they didn't want to include two indies? Who the heck knows with them.

This is fun.

I hope it is fun for you as well!

Happy New Year!

See you next week!

Critic Consensus Top Ten Films of 2006

The 2008 Critic Consensus List is still tallying top tens, so, since I did the 2006 version anyway, and I'm still tired and sore after cutting my fingers THRICE while assembling child, and evidently, adult-proof toys for my son Luke, here is the...

...Critic Consensus Top Ten Films of 2006.

10. Little Miss Sunshine (92)
9. Babel (109)
8. Children of Men (123)
7. Army of Shadows (124)
6. Borat (158)
5. The Queen (163)
4. Letters From Iwo Jima (188)
3. Pan's Labyrinth (198)
2. The Departed (224)
1. United 93 (270)

I'm going to do a little wrinkle this week.

Academy Award Best Picture Nominations for 2007.

-Winner: "The Departed" (2, 224)
-"Letters From Iwo Jima" (4, 188)
-"The Queen" (5, 163)
-"Babel" (9, 109)
-"Little Miss Sunshine" (10, 92)

Looking back now, we see that "United 93" was robbed big-time.

In my opinion, the noms should've been:

-"The Departed", "Letters From Iwo Jima", "The Queen", "Children of Men", & "United 93".

"Babel" is not better than "Amores Perros" and "Little Miss Sunshine" was a terrible, terrible mess of a movie.

This is fun, let's look back at the Critic Consensus Top Ten Films of 2007 and compare them to the Academy Award Nominations of 2008.

-Winner: "No Country For Old Men" (1, 300)
-"There Will Be Blood" (3, 194)
-"Atonement" (4, 124)
-"Michael Clayton" (11, 84)
-"Juno" (15, 77)

Again, solely my opinion here, but if I was doing the Noms...

-"No Country For Old Men" (even though, upon second viewing, the film is completely boring and the book is much, much better), "There Will Be Blood" (a masterpiece and probably my favorite film of ALL-TIME), "The Diving Bell and Butterfly" (another masterpiece), "The Lives of Others" (masterpiece theater), & finally "Juno" (which I loved).

Critic Consensus Top Ten Films of 2007

"The Critic Sees" by Jasper Johns.






If any of you really know me out there, you know that I'm a statistical hound.

I was the type of kid that read Baseball Enyclopedias for breakfast and invented stats before sabermetrics spawned moneyball.

Well, I've decided to blend my statistical background with my film "foreground" and comprise a formula that best illustrates the critical consensus best films of the year.

I'm starting with the Year 2007 because the raw data has already been compiled.

I will update the Year 2008 sometime in January when all the lists are in.

First things first: The Formula.

It's really easy. Even my wife, who is notoriously horrid in math, can figure this out.

I take the Top Ten Lists of the National Critics from The Austin Chronicle to the Washington Post (which are compiled on Metacritic.com) and I allocate the following scores to the list:

1(10 points), 2(9), 3(8), 4(7), 5(6),6(5),7(4),8(3),9(2),10(1).

Criteria: Some critics have a tendency to bend the rules in their favor. This is like a student not doing the homework assignment. This is a TOP TEN List, not a Top Eleven, or a Top Ten and 1/2. TOP TEN.

But I'm willing to be a little lenient. If your (critic's) list has one-tie, then your list is admissable.

Two or more ties?

Sorry, try again next year and maybe read the assignment.

That goes for you: Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader, Scott Foundas & Ella Taylor of the LA Weekly, Kenneth Turan & Carina Chocano of the Los Angeles Times, A.O. Scott & Manohla Dargis of the New York Times, & lastly you, Dennis Harvey of Variety.

Upon further ado, here is the Critic Consensus Top Ten Films of 2007.

10. Zodiac (99)
9. The Lives of Others (99)
8. I'm Not There (102)
7. Into the Wild (104)
6. Once (113)
5. Ratatouille (123.5)
4. Atonement (124)
3. There Will Be Blood (194)
2. The Diving Bell & Butterfly (230)
1. No Country For Old Men (300)

Why, do you ask, does "The Lives of Others" beat out "Zodiac" even though they both have 99?

Easy. Tie-breaker. The first tie-breaker is the highest score (10). They both have 2. The next tie-breaker is the second highest score (9). "The Lives of Others" had more.

If any of you are interested in learning which other films rank on the list, then please either:

1) Name the film in the comment section and I will reply,

OR

2) Pick a number between 11 and 120, and I will glady reply back.

The list spans from "No Country For Old Men" (300) to "The TV Set" (1).

Let's just pick a random number and test the system, I'm thinking...

67?

"A Mighty Heart" (8)

How 'bout...

29?

"Gone Baby Gone" (21)

And last, the year I was born...

'79?

"Blame It on Fidel!"

The End.

Short Film Within a Feature: "Brooks Was Here" from the "The Shawshank Redemption" (1994)

Brooks Was Here

"Short Film Within a Feature" is a new, ongoing segment of Continuity Film that examines a sequence in a feature film that can stand-alone as its own short film.

There is a sequence in Frank Darabont's "The Shawshank Redemption" (1994) that would make a perfect and powerful short film.

I've titled it "Brooks Was Here" and it is about Brooks Hatlen, an elderly man who struggles to adapt to his new life.

Taken out of the context of "Shawshank", "Brooks Was Here" still works as a short.



A raven crows as we see Brooks Hatlen, an elderly man in what we assume is a library, talking to a raven named Jake. He tells Jake that he can’t take care of him anymore and that he is free.

The raven flies through a window and Brooks is sad.

Brooks shakes hands with Prison Guards as he walks out into the new world.

The piano slowly chimes in, playing a song of melancholy.

Brooks is then seen gripping tightly, with both hands, onto a railing in a bus. He is frightened. He looks like a lost boy.

Brooks is then seen walking down a street carrying a briefcase. A large bus passes by in front of him.

A Voice-Over starts with “Dear fellas…”.

It is Brooks’s voice.

Brooks almost gets hit by a car as he attempts to cross a street.

He uses the word “automobile”, an old term for car, which indicates that he’s been away for awhile.

A door opens and he is given keys to an apartment.

We learn from his VO that the parole board got him a room in a halfway house called “The Brewer” and a job bagging groceries at the Foodway.

He is brow-beaten by a young Store Manager who reminds him to double-bag his groceries.

Birds eat feed as Brooks sits on a park bench. We learn that he goes there and hopes that his raven Jake might show up.

But he never does.

Brooks tosses and turns in his bed. It is night time. We learn that he has trouble sleeping at night, that he has bad dreams of falling, that he wakes up scared and he doesn’t remember where he is.

Brooks contemplates getting a gun and robbing the Foodway, maybe even shooting the Store Manager. What is critical in this scene and VO is that Brooks says: “Maybe I can get a gun and rob the Foodway so that they can send me home.”

Home.

We see Brooks neatly folding his clothes into an open suitcase and he thinks again about the gun and says he’s too old for that nonsense.

While fixing his tie and looking into a mirror, we learn that Brooks is tired of being afraid and decides not to stay.

He pulls out a knife and we automatically fear that he’s going to slit his wrists but instead he looks up and climbs a chair and then a table.

He balances himself on the table as he begins carving something on the wall of the threshold.

Wood fragments fall onto the table, in-between his two feet.

Through the prison-like railings of the threshold, we see Brooks closing his knife and smiling at what he wrote.

We then see the shot of his feet. He raises himself to his tippy-toes.

He balances his feet again and then rocks side-to-side and…

…the table gives way but Brooks is suspended in the air.

His feet shake and we can see the back of his body in the reflection of the mirror in the background.

We track-back from the wall that reads “Brook Was Here” to reveal…

…Brooks hanging from a rope.

Dissolves to:

A letter being read by Andy and his prison-mate Red.

It turns out that the VO of Brooks was his suicide letter to his friends in prison.

Home.