Having the slew of Top Ten films of 2007, as well as the top ten 'flops' of 2007, come out on the blogs and entertainment sites, written by the so called critics, is making me wonder why the film critics are writing in the first place. Films, or movies, don't succeed at the box office on the basis of a critical 'pat on the back' yet films seem to 'bomb' more easily based on a critical bruising.
So the critics must love giving a film a pasting and then happily reporting that they were right all along when the movie only recoups or not as is sometimes the case; or do they?
All I know is that Top Ten box office hits seldom compare to the critical top ten in the same time frame - yet the films that struggle seem to be the ones that the critics decide are not for you or I to see.
I went to see The Brave One back in the summer and thought the film was well directed and well acted by Jodie Foster yet a day or so later i read a local film critics destruction of the film which was, frankly, unfair and far too up it's own arse for it's own good.
I wrote to the local paper that ran the critique and tried to point out that a critic's job is not to laud or destroy a film via their writing but to guide people in their choice of 'see or not see'. Where they seem to have lost the plot is in their forgetfulness of the place they should hold in the public services and the place that they want to have in the 'failed journalist/failed director/failed producer' post career.
What I want to know is what kind of film it is, who is in it and whether it's well made, covering the basics of plot, direction, casting and actor performance. That's it.
I don't want to get into the personal opinion of this critic or that - it's totally irrelevant - after all, if I want to see my Tuesday Movie and it happens to be a choice between a couple of Sci-Fi films why would I seek counsel from someone who hates sci-fi.
My point here, that I'm realising that I'm getting to in a very long-winded way, is that films, much like music, are very subjective forms of art. No critic should be so arrogant as to use their 'column' or 'site' or 'blog' to toss the movie into the cinematic toilet bowl.
With that in mind here is my Top Ten of films I've seen in 2007. There are two points to make here; 1) I have not yet seen Charlie Wilson's War and I expect that film (having just finished the book) to enter at number one 2) I obviously have not seen every film on offer over the year - this is in no way a top ten of all films - just the ones I've seen either on DVD (could be prior to 2007) or in the Cinema.
1: Eastern Promises - under-rated film of 2007 in my book - brilliant! *****
2: The Bourne Ultimatum - I'm a Bourne fan and this wasn't Supremacy ****
3: Elizabeth, The Golden Age - gripping stuff,superb acting and direction. ****
4: Shoot 'em Up - Clive Owen again? Paul Giamatti is brilliant! ****
5: A History of Violence - (DVD) 2005 but a classic Cronenburg ****
6: No Country for Old Men - Crap ending but best man hunt film ever ***
7: Transformers - Starts great, middle is crap - end fight is amazing! ***
8: American Gangster - Denzel in best form since man On Fire. ***
9: War - Good vehicle for Li and Statham. Fight romptastic! ***
10: Live Free or Die Hard - best Die Hard yet - Willis still has it. ***
Honorable mention to The Brave One.
I toyed with a top 5 worst films but after my initial bit of the post.....
However, films that I saw that did NOT live up to my expectations from watching the trailer - I like to call it 'Trailer was the best thing about the film' are:
Superbad, Balls Of Fury, Lions for Lambs and Dan in Real Life.
I still have to see Charlie Wilson, Sweeney Todd and I am Legend this year and all three would probably edge in to my Top ten at various points.
....anyway - whoever you are - enjoy checking out my best films of 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment