|
Post by guttersnipe on Dec 18, 2022 5:10:48 GMT -8
I assume you're not including any films that had an initial release (however small) sometime in 2021? There are a number of great films that only became widely accessible in 2022, but technically opened internationally or at film festivals in 2021. I have yet to develop a consistent standard as to what qualifies as an "official" release date for films like that. (I am also scratching my head at the number of critics who are putting Licorice Pizza on their current-year lists for a similar reason.) I have and always will simply use the IMDb date for determining the year of a film. When you consider the multivarious fluctuations of domestic, international and now streaming or download release, there has to be some kind of arbiter in deciding when these films are coming from or the whole world's going to be on different pages. Don't get me wrong; it sometimes appears odd to trea, say, The Other Side of the Wind as a 2018 film when most people involved were long dead by that point, but that's when it was actually finished and released (it has such a troubled history you could barely justify claiming it as any other year in its laborious creation). Presumably The Overcoat will be treated the same whenever (or if ever) it's finished.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Dec 18, 2022 5:35:20 GMT -8
My top films seen in 2022 will have to wait as I don't have access to my film log at the moment. OK, here we go: The Other Side of the Wind (2018, Orson Welles)* The Song of Scorpions (2017, Anup Singh) The Coward (1965, Satyajit Ray) The Home and the World (1984, Satyajit Ray) The Worst Person in the World (2021, Joachim Trier) The Terrorizers (1986, Edward Yang) News from Planet Mars (2016, Dominik Moll) One Second (2020, Zhang Yimou) Private Life (2018, Tamara Jenkins) Barking Dogs Never Bite (2000, Bong Joon-ho) BEST SHORT: Scenes with Beans (1976, Ottó Foky) BEST DOCUMENTARY: Muhammad Ali (2021, Ken Burns) BEST MUSIC VIDEO: The Shoes - Time to Dance (2012, Daniel Wolfe) * See, looks weird, right?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 18, 2022 16:05:01 GMT -8
I have and always will simply use the IMDb date for determining the year of a film. When you consider the multivarious fluctuations of domestic, international and now streaming or download release, there has to be some kind of arbiter in deciding when these films are coming from or the whole world's going to be on different pages. Don't get me wrong; it sometimes appears odd to trea, say, The Other Side of the Wind as a 2018 film when most people involved were long dead by that point, but that's when it was actually finished and released (it has such a troubled history you could barely justify claiming it as any other year in its laborious creation). Presumably The Overcoat will be treated the same whenever (or if ever) it's finished. This is totally fair, and certainly a more consistent standard than many I've seen. I guess my issue is that whenever I put together my own "end of year" lists, I want to make sure it (1) gets posted by the end of December, and (2) features a healthy number of films that I genuinely consider to be list-worthy. The conflict with these two objectives is that many of the year's most acclaimed films don't get proper releases till the last few weeks of the year, the better to court awards voters, and it's tough to find easy ways to watch them. At the same time, I also like to highlight the smaller indie films that may have had their small debut screenings in prior years but did not make a splash until the current calendar year, because they deserve a boost where folks can give them. My rough standard for inclusion is "was the film made widely available in some form in the USA during this year?" Of course, that still leads to some conflicts, since "widely available" is not an objective term. For example, is Belle a 2022 film? It made its official US theatrical debut in January, but had multiple screenings around the country in 2021. Generally, I just go with my gut and try not to overthink it. (Oops, too late.) I am reminded of Natalie Portman promising audiences at a Q&A that Thor: Love and Thunder would be "so gay," which led to half the Internet complaining after the film's release that it was actually not gay enough. (The other half was busy complaining about Lightyear. Gotta love cinematic discourse in 2022.) TLoT is definitely one of the more colorful Marvel films, and I can see why that would make it work for you. (I think we discussed a similar point a couple of years ago about Monsters University, which improves on Monsters Inc. through its use of color and character design, even if it really lags in story.) I didn't find the film ugly per se, but the digital effects were so sloppy and amateurish - yet the latest sign of Marvel's assembly-line product churn - that they often undercut Waititi's eye for expressive visuals. (It saddens me to note that a lot of current action blockbusters look worse than those released a decade ago, due to the various CGI shortcuts taken to meet deadline. Gives added context to why so many critics found Top Gun: Maverick's practical effects so refreshing.)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 22, 2022 14:51:30 GMT -8
Metacritic now has 166 lists and growing, and Everything Everwhere has now pulled into the #1 spot - though Tar, Banshees of Inisherin, and Aftersun are all close behind. This is another instance that has me questioning the scoring method, when a more balanced weighing could theoretically put any of the top 4 in front. I also question how certain publications have individual critic lists weighed (like the dozens from RogerEbert.com) while others have a single aggregate list, despite being the product of many individual critics (like Slant or Uproxx).
I'm thinking too much into this, aren't I? I'm sorry.
Per J.C.'s earlier prediction, The Batman is currently on the cusp of the Top 20. (Though only one critic has it as his #1 film of the year.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Dec 25, 2022 5:28:12 GMT -8
Per J.C.'s earlier prediction, The Batman is currently on the cusp of the Top 20. (Though only one critic has it as his #1 film of the year.) Well, you know, critics have to protect their public image, you know. Because The Dark Knight was presented in a mostly photorealistic world, they can simply characterize it as a "crime drama", and try not to appear like mainstream consumer fanboys/girls while giving it its due praise. Nolan was telling a Bruce Wayne story, whereas Reeves is most certainly focused on the Batman character, and the world is more stylized/pulpy as a result. Regardless, The Batman is simply a refinement (and IMO, mostly an upgrade) of earlier stabs at the character and world, and was never going to be as much of a shock-to-the-system as TDK was in 2008. Franchise fatigue is most certainly a thing, and some people are burnt-out on the character/world, no matter what any individual filmmaker does. Plus, 2022 was a much stronger year (particularly in the beginning and middle, as it's not ending that strong) for film than 2008, where well-acted-but-ultimately bland films like Frost/Nixon were filling up these Top 10 lists. I think, overall, The Batman has performed well with both critics and audiences, holds up exceptionally well to repeat viewings (despite its length), and only comes up lower-than-it-should on some Metacritic and imdb user aggregates because Snyder fanboys are stuffing the ballot-box to drag it down, as it were. Any family members and friends/acquaintances I've spoken to it have sung its praises. Even this dude at work who seems to hate practically everything these days said he's watched it five or more times. EEAaO could also be characterized as a nerdy fanboy film, but it's got an Asian cast, subtitles, and LGBTQ themes, thereby allowing it to sort of be characterized as an art film, even though wacky entertainment seems to be its more primary focus. That said, I am seeing some pushback on it, unfortunately, partly due to its rabid online fanbase (probably a small percentage, but they're most certainly vocal), and I expect a fair amount of derision from normies ("Hot dog hands?!! CRINGE!) when the award nominations/wins roll in. Anyways, these two films remain my favourites of the year, in terms of future replay value and actual emotional investment. I really want to give Aftersun a look, as that seems like a very unique and engaging film, based on the trailer. I'm also probably gonna indulge Babylon in theaters, because I'm into seeing at least one everything-and-the-kitchen-sink hot mess during the Christmas season, and Pandora ain't my jam, brother.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 25, 2022 7:59:17 GMT -8
It's interesting because I'd expect a lot of critics to favor The Batman over The Dark Knight, given how Reeves' film didn't get caught up in all the "Is it authoritarian propaganda??" discourse that seems to ensnare all the other DC films. Still, while it is probably the best superhero flick of 2022, we are experiencing a much greater abundance of capes-and-tights than we did in 2008, and I expect there's some resistance to it.
In any event, though I liked a lot of what Reeves did with The Batman, it won't be making my Top 10 for the year, mainly due to the issues I had with the third act. But the nerd in me is always glad to see a superhero film make waves with critics. (Among my own friends who have seen the movie, reaction has been mixed; some people really liked it, but at least one friend of mine - big Batman fan - thought it was a snooze.)
The key to EEAaO's success is that it is an art film, but it's also one that mainstream audiences can enjoy. Becoming a word-of-mouth hit definitely helped its award-season prospects, but also made it more of an open target to detractors. Some normies will think it's too weird to be mainstream, some snobs will think it's too immature to be arty. Fun times ahead!
I am most likely going to see Blue People: Pandora Forever in the next couple of weeks as a family outing (even though I never cared for the first film). Hopefully the visuals make up for everything else. Hard pass on Babylon.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Dec 25, 2022 13:59:55 GMT -8
I think most of the third-acts of these superhero films sort of emerge as something that doesn't totally jibe (tonally, or subject-matter wise) with what went before, in terms of upping the scale and melodramatic theatrics, and maybe taking some dramatic shortcuts to get where they need to go. That said, the third act of The Batman got better and better for me over second and third viewings (I was a little overwhelmed the first time, like "Here we go, hope it sticks the landing"), and I still get a little choked up at that lovely scene with the flare. You mentioned that you felt the (new) mayor character was underdeveloped/used as a plot-device, but I think that was entirely the intent, as she and Batman/Bruce Wayne are basically meant to be relative strangers to one another, and the film is mostly shown from his POV. So the fact that these "strangers" (the original mayor's son who was orphaned, this well-meaning liberal mayor) ultimately come to put their faith in what had, to this point, been perceived as merely a violent, scary vigilante, is quite moving, IMO.
Also, w/r/t the "mystery" plot ultimately coming down to Falcone running most of the police force, I don't think that's meant to be a big "A-ha!" moment: that the mob is running the city isn't a shock, when it comes to the overall Batman mythos. What's of greater significance is the moments along the way which highlight how Falcone's got his hooks into so many of the supporting cast. That's where the drama has heft, IMO (heightened by all the terrific acting).
And as I've said before, I didn't feel TDK completely did the work (in its third act) to make Dent going after Gordon and his family convincing, and made Eckhart's work during the final scene ring rather hollow, despite his best efforts. And the final skyscraper sequence isn't visualized all that effectively, either (it's mostly a geographically incoherent blur, where a ton of computer effects took over in a film that mostly avoided them to that point). Regardless, I really like both films overall, and won't harp on it any further.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 25, 2022 19:16:28 GMT -8
Also, w/r/t the "mystery" plot ultimately coming down to Falcone running most of the police force, I don't think that's meant to be a big "A-ha!" moment: that the mob is running the city isn't a shock, when it comes to the overall Batman mythos. What's of greater significance is the moments along the way which highlight how Falcone's got his hooks into so many of the supporting cast. That's where the drama has heft, IMO (heightened by all the terrific acting). I think my issue with the Falcone development wasn't so much about the reveal as it was about how his presence ultimately felt less integral to the storyline than it should - here's the guy who has caused endless trouble for Bruce Wayne, and we should be getting more focus on him, but the story has to make time for more recognizable DC characters like Penguin* and Catwoman. Just didn't feel like the right level of attention paid to the right characters. In any case, I really do want to give the film a rewatch at some point, particularly as it's now been nearly a year since I first watched it, and see what works or doesn't work on second viewing. It's just been a bit hard for me to work up the interest to revisit a 176-minute movie, even one that centers on one of my favorite characters in pop culture. *Credit where it's due, though - between this film and Banshees of Inisherin, it has been a phenomenal year showcasing the range of Colin Farrell.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Dec 25, 2022 22:20:58 GMT -8
Also, w/r/t the "mystery" plot ultimately coming down to Falcone running most of the police force, I don't think that's meant to be a big "A-ha!" moment: that the mob is running the city isn't a shock, when it comes to the overall Batman mythos. What's of greater significance is the moments along the way which highlight how Falcone's got his hooks into so many of the supporting cast. That's where the drama has heft, IMO (heightened by all the terrific acting). I think my issue with the Falcone development wasn't so much about the reveal as it was about how his presence ultimately felt less integral to the storyline than it should - here's the guy who has caused endless trouble for Bruce Wayne, and we should be getting more focus on him, but the story has to make time for more recognizable DC characters like Penguin* and Catwoman. Just didn't feel like the right level of attention paid to the right characters. *Credit where it's due, though - between this film and Banshees of Inisherin, it has been a phenomenal year showcasing the range of Colin Farrell. Eh, I'd say they gave the right amount of attention to Selina, as the main character absolutely needs a more playful personal connection to offset all the nihilism: I imagine she'll be a featured player moving forward, so they've more than laid the groundwork here. She drops in and out of the story for extended stretches anyways, and is a key dramatic angle of the Falcone character. Penguin isn't actually given a ton of screen-time (I think Falcone's got at least as much, if not more, than him), and is just there as a recognizable (to the casual audience) red herring, mostly used for comic relief. I kind of feel like a mob boss wouldn't be in public view for an inordinate amount of time, because it would make Falcone more susceptible to assassination, which is exactly what happens when he's "brought out into the light". Where this film really shifted the focus (beyond emphasizing Batman over Bruce Wayne) from the Nolan trilogy is in emphasizing Batman and Gordon's partnership over Bruce and Alfred's, and that's perfectly acceptable, given the detective story they were telling, and young Bruce's somewhat passive-aggressive attitude towards his childhood guardian. Riddler also drops in and out of the story for extended stretches (much like Heath Ledger's Joker in TDK), and he's driving the plot, and to me, is used very effectively when needed. Much like Colin Farrell's work in The Batman and Banshees of Inisherin (not to mention After Yang, which I've also got to get around to seeing), Dano's shown some real range this year, with his work as Spielberg's gentle, modest father in The Fabelmans being diametrically opposed to his much more theatrical Edward Nashton/Riddler.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Dec 26, 2022 0:27:33 GMT -8
And without further ado, my prediction w/r/t Jeremy's Top 10 Films of 2022 list:
1) Everything Everywhere At All Once 2) The Banshees of Inisherin 3) Bodies Bodies Bodies 4) Barbarian 5) Marcel The Shell With Shoes On 6) Mad God 7) Decision To Leave 8) Puss In Boots: The Last Wish 9) Nope 10) Weird: The Al Yankovic Story
Not sure about the order beyond the first two, and the last one was a blind guess. I guess we'll find out how I did in the next week...
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Dec 26, 2022 12:41:36 GMT -8
It's interesting because I'd expect a lot of critics to favor The Batman over The Dark Knight, given how Reeves' film didn't get caught up in all the "Is it authoritarian propaganda??" discourse that seems to ensnare all the other DC films. Still, while it is probably the best superhero flick of 2022, we are experiencing a much greater abundance of capes-and-tights than we did in 2008, and I expect there's some resistance to it. In any event, though I liked a lot of what Reeves did with The Batman, it won't be making my Top 10 for the year, mainly due to the issues I had with the third act. But the nerd in me is always glad to see a superhero film make waves with critics. (Among my own friends who have seen the movie, reaction has been mixed; some people really liked it, but at least one friend of mine - big Batman fan - thought it was a snooze.) The key to EEAaO's success is that it is an art film, but it's also one that mainstream audiences can enjoy. Becoming a word-of-mouth hit definitely helped its award-season prospects, but also made it more of an open target to detractors. Some normies will think it's too weird to be mainstream, some snobs will think it's too immature to be arty. Fun times ahead! I am most likely going to see Blue People: Pandora Forever in the next couple of weeks as a family outing (even though I never cared for the first film). Hopefully the visuals make up for everything else. Hard pass on Babylon.Yeah, I've always found the claims that Snyder and Nolan are secretly reactionary authoritarians to be quite silly. It's quite clear that the problems with Snyder and Nolan's approaches are that they try to take Batman as a concept into the real world....which clangs because Batman's an explicitly fantastical and mythological interpretation of the noir hero.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 26, 2022 13:19:55 GMT -8
Eh, I'd say they gave the right amount of attention to Selina, as the main character absolutely needs a more playful personal connection to offset all the nihilism: I imagine she'll be a featured player moving forward, so they've more than laid the groundwork here. She drops in and out of the story for extended stretches anyways, and is a key dramatic angle of the Falcone character. Penguin isn't actually given a ton of screen-time (I think Falcone's got at least as much, if not more, than him), and is just there as a recognizable (to the casual audience) red herring, mostly used for comic relief. I kind of feel like a mob boss wouldn't be in public view for an inordinate amount of time, because it would make Falcone more susceptible to assassination, which is exactly what happens when he's "brought out into the light". Where this film really shifted the focus (beyond emphasizing Batman over Bruce Wayne) from the Nolan trilogy is in emphasizing Batman and Gordon's partnership over Bruce and Alfred's, and that's perfectly acceptable, given the detective story they were telling, and young Bruce's somewhat passive-aggressive attitude towards his childhood guardian. Riddler also drops in and out of the story for extended stretches (much like Heath Ledger's Joker in TDK), and he's driving the plot, and to me, is used very effectively when needed. Much like Colin Farrell's work in The Batman and Banshees of Inisherin (not to mention After Yang, which I've also got to get around to seeing), Dano's shown some real range this year, with his work as Spielberg's gentle, modest father in The Fabelmans being diametrically opposed to his much more theatrical Edward Nashton/Riddler. Selina's presence is justified by her offsetting the film's tone, as well as her relationship with Bruce. Penguin is fun, but he's mostly there to set up his upcoming spinoff TV series. (As with other recent DC films, Warner Bros. is trying to get a jump on launching a cinematic universe. They disguise their intentions well - certainly better than Batman v Superman did - but it's noticeable when you consider how each character factors into the story.) In any event, a lot of the issues are contingent on how the sequels progress; if Reeves can successfully build out the characters and themes in future films (as he did with the Planet of the Apes trilogy), I'm all for it. Farrell is good in After Yang - particularly in the tea discussion, which is easily the best part of the film - though very little of the movie really stuck with me. And having now seen The Fabelmans, I can confirm that Dano is also an impressive talent, even if that film is longer and more self-indulgent than it needs to be. Also, I think someone's been glancing at my Letterboxd page...
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Dec 26, 2022 13:49:00 GMT -8
Eh, I'd say they gave the right amount of attention to Selina, as the main character absolutely needs a more playful personal connection to offset all the nihilism: I imagine she'll be a featured player moving forward, so they've more than laid the groundwork here. She drops in and out of the story for extended stretches anyways, and is a key dramatic angle of the Falcone character. Penguin isn't actually given a ton of screen-time (I think Falcone's got at least as much, if not more, than him), and is just there as a recognizable (to the casual audience) red herring, mostly used for comic relief. I kind of feel like a mob boss wouldn't be in public view for an inordinate amount of time, because it would make Falcone more susceptible to assassination, which is exactly what happens when he's "brought out into the light". Where this film really shifted the focus (beyond emphasizing Batman over Bruce Wayne) from the Nolan trilogy is in emphasizing Batman and Gordon's partnership over Bruce and Alfred's, and that's perfectly acceptable, given the detective story they were telling, and young Bruce's somewhat passive-aggressive attitude towards his childhood guardian. Riddler also drops in and out of the story for extended stretches (much like Heath Ledger's Joker in TDK), and he's driving the plot, and to me, is used very effectively when needed. Much like Colin Farrell's work in The Batman and Banshees of Inisherin (not to mention After Yang, which I've also got to get around to seeing), Dano's shown some real range this year, with his work as Spielberg's gentle, modest father in The Fabelmans being diametrically opposed to his much more theatrical Edward Nashton/Riddler. Selina's presence is justified by her offsetting the film's tone, as well as her relationship with Bruce. Penguin is fun, but he's mostly there to set up his upcoming spinoff TV series. (As with other recent DC films, Warner Bros. is trying to get a jump on launching a cinematic universe. They disguise their intentions well - certainly better than Batman v Superman did - but it's noticeable when you consider how each character factors into the story.) In any event, a lot of the issues are contingent on how the sequels progress; if Reeves can successfully build out the characters and themes in future films (as he did with the Planet of the Apes trilogy), I'm all for it. Farrell is good in After Yang - particularly in the tea discussion, which is easily the best part of the film - though very little of the movie really stuck with me. And having now seen The Fabelmans, I can confirm that Dano is also an impressive talent, even if that film is longer and more self-indulgent than it needs to be. Also, I think someone's been glancing at my Letterboxd page... I enjoy looking at your Letterboxd page. You're quite stingy with the 5/5s, aren't you? I like that.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 26, 2022 14:21:49 GMT -8
Yes, I tend not to give out the full five-star ratings (or 0.5-star ratings, for that matter) too often - I think the only two films I watched in 2022 to get a perfect score were 12 Angry Men and What's Up, Doc? (Among contemporary films, I nearly gave Everything Everywhere a 5-star rating, but decided to leave it as a tentative 4.5 stars at the moment.) Generally very few films I watch manage to hit either extreme - which of course makes it more special when something does - and I don't understand the people who seem to give out perfect scores willy-nilly.
The thing is, I make a lot of these ratings immediately after I watch a movie, and sometimes it may change after the film has been allowed to settle in my brain a few days, even if I haven't revisited it. There are films that initially elicit a shoulder-shrug that tend to subconsciously stick with me for a while, and there are films that I like a lot while watching but then quickly forget about. Generally I formulate my best opinions about a film about a day or two after I watched it; that's enough time for it to settle in my mind without me forgetting the finer details.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Dec 26, 2022 16:28:44 GMT -8
Yes, I tend not to give out the full five-star ratings (or 0.5-star ratings, for that matter) too often - I think the only two films I watched in 2022 to get a perfect score were 12 Angry Men and What's Up, Doc? (Among contemporary films, I nearly gave Everything Everywhere a 5-star rating, but decided to leave it as a tentative 4.5 stars at the moment.) Generally very few films I watch manage to hit either extreme - which of course makes it more special when something does - and I don't understand the people who seem to give out perfect scores willy-nilly. The thing is, I make a lot of these ratings immediately after I watch a movie, and sometimes it may change after the film has been allowed to settle in my brain a few days, even if I haven't revisited it. There are films that initially elicit a shoulder-shrug that tend to subconsciously stick with me for a while, and there are films that I like a lot while watching but then quickly forget about. Generally I formulate my best opinions about a film about a day or two after I watched it; that's enough time for it to settle in my mind without me forgetting the finer details. Oh yeah, that's definitely the case for me as well. Some films improve when you really think about them; others can sink like a stone.
Yeah, I think a 5-star rating should be given out pretty sparingly. My default for excellent new releases (like Parasite, Spider-Verse, etc.) is 4.5. Sometimes as with Spider-Verse they rise to 5 stars later upon reflection. And many of the older films that I really love you've given 4 stars or more. So it seems like our tastes align quite a bit.
|
|