Best Picture and Director 2007

1998 through 2007

What are your choices for Best Picture and Director of 2007?

Atonement
4
6%
Juno
1
1%
Michael Clayton
1
1%
No Country for Old Men
12
18%
There Will Be Blood
16
24%
Paul Thomas Anderson - There Will Be Blood
20
29%
Joel Coen & Ethan Coen - No Country for Old Men
11
16%
Tony Gilroy - Michael Clayton
1
1%
Jason Reitman - Juno
1
1%
Julian Schnabel - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
1
1%
 
Total votes: 68

Okri
Professor
Posts: 2465
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby Okri » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:15 pm

dws1982 wrote:I guess I really ought to to give Joe Wright's Anna Karenina another whirl...?


I whole-heartedly love Anna Karenina, but I suspect what bugs you about the opening third of Atonement ("way-too-choreographed and on the nose") would still drive you insane.

I also really liked Atonement and it's a solid second in this race for me, behind There Will Be Blood.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14743
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:00 am

dws1982 wrote:I guess I really ought to give Joe Wright's Anna Karenina another whirl...?


There are so many things wrong with Wright's version of Anna Karenina that seeing it again won't fix, but it might be worth another look just for Alicia Vikander and Domhnall Gleeson who stand out in early roles.

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 2745
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby dws1982 » Tue Apr 26, 2016 10:48 pm

Rewatched Atonement the other night for the first time since theaters. With the distance of eight years of evolving taste and emotional maturity, I'm going to say I was wrong about it. I think it's a good movie, and at times even a great one.

I have some issues with it, for sure, especially in the way some of the early scenes feel way too choreographed and on-the-nose. Starts off pretty badly--at the beginning it's about like those "Mrs. Dalloway said she would buy the flowers herself" parts of The Hours. The score is off--the typewriter motif is too much, I think; the cinematography is too soft; Keira Knightley's character is nothing when it could've been something. It's not entirely bad, or even mostly bad--as a portrait of a failure to comprehend adult relationships, it rings true, and Ronan is very good. But the early scenes are definitely closer to my initial response.

But then when it switches gears, plunges us into 1940, and shows us a cast of characters living with the consequences of their--or someone else's--actions, it becomes a better, much stronger film. Everyone is haunted in one way or another by what happened, and the consequences of it. (Knightley is better here too.) Everything feels cut short--conversations, encounters, the lives of the soldiers and civilians we see. I really like what Dario Marianelli does with the music in this segment--at times it's reminiscent of the epic sweep that Gabriel Yared gave The English Patient, only with a more tragic edge. I even thought that the Dunkirk scene benefitted immensely from the fact that I wasn't viewing it after months of talk about "that tracking shot". I thought it was pretty moving, to be honest. And then there's the ending, which I took issue with because it made explicit some things the book left a bit more vague. But it really is pretty heartbreaking on several levels.

So...at the end of the day I'd still go for No Country For Old Men in Best Picture, but if we put this in a year like 2003 or 2008 (or probably even 2010), it would be a different story.

I guess I really ought to to give Joe Wright's Anna Karenina another whirl...?

nightwingnova
Temp
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby nightwingnova » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:49 pm

Juno was charming enough; but nothing remarkable aside from being a couple of steps up from an ABC Afterschool Special.

I think Michael Clayton was fine as a thriller but I seem to recall drifting off when I watched it.

My problem with Atonement was the message that in the end, being honest about one's guilt in a tragedy absolves oneself. Just pathetic. Nevertheless, a decently made film.

While well-made, There Will Be Blood seems to have tunnel-vision in its view of greed and capitalism. There was no context and balance for counterpoint/debate to make the movie's message rise.

Loved No Country for Old Men - a stirring tragedy wrapped in existentialism.

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3344
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby FilmFan720 » Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:43 pm

Chalk me as another disappointed voter who would have cast a vote for The Assassination of Jesse James. In a year where another film was cited as the Great American Movie of the decade, I think this one single-handedly gets my vote.

My number two film of the year, though, is No Country for Old Men, and I gladly vote for it in both categories here. The Coen's have such a distinct style, and when they have adapted something in the past it has always come through as a loose adaptation with their style front and center. Here, though, they smartly let the source material do the heavy lifting and come out with a film that is distinctly Cormac McCarthy's yet also clearly filtered through their minds. It also proves just what adept filmmakers they are, how precise their camera is and I think proves away the misbegotten few who still retain that they are cold one-trick ponies.

There Will Be Blood is certainly an achievement, although one I really appreciate with some reservations. In his "Great American Movie Phase," it seems to me that P.T.A. is a little more interested in concepts than characters, particularly at the center of his piece, which has led to two fascinating, strong pieces of filmmaking that just leave me empty at the center of them. There is nothing wrong with that, but it isn't my preferred cup of tea. I give the film a second place in both races here.

As for the other films, Atonement and Juno are both wonderful pieces of filmmaking that don't quite live up to their premises. Both would strongly be at the bottom of my Top 10, or just outside of it, and I'm glad both got cited here. Michael Clayton is a bore of a film, although I should point out that 6 years later I remember almost nothing about it. I still haven't seen The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.

Some of the also-rans I love include The Lives of Others, Away from Here, Zodiac, Gone Baby Gone, Dan in Real Life and Persepolis. Overall, a really great year for movies.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby Mister Tee » Sun Mar 23, 2014 4:49 pm

When, through some miracle, your two favorite films end up not only nominated as best picture but being the two primary contenders, it might seem greedy to resent your third choice being omitted. But I do regret there was no spot for Zodiac, one of David Fincher’s best films -- especially after the Writers Guild had given it a mention. And, though I don’t have quite the level of admiration for The Assassination of Jesse James… that BJ and Okri do (I think it’s largely great movie that should have been cut by 20 minutes), it certainly would merit a spot. I’d also fondly cite Persepolis (along with The Wind Rises and Chico and Rita, the best attempts at telling adult stories in contemporary animation) and Into the Wild, which had the strangest ride through Oscar season of any movie I can think of – making only a minor impression in release, unexpectedly ace-ing the Guilds, then being almost completely snubbed in the nominations.

Beyond the top two contenders, the films the Academy chose were of middling achievement. Juno is, yes, way better than Little Miss Sunshine – its meant-as-funny moments actually made one laugh – but it’s pretty minor stuff, and I think its over-representation in the top categories is, as BJ suggests, a desire to have at least one audience-pleaser in the darkish group.

Michael Clayton has the look and feel of a more bracing movie than its screenplay allows. Clooney and company are mostly excellent (though Tom Wilkinson overshoots on the freaking-out thing), the dialogue is crisp, the structure is intriguing, and the look of the film is appropriately glum. But when you unscramble the story, all you’re left with is a “that’s what it was all about?” feeling. I’m not sure what I wanted to be at the heart of the plot, but a routine medical malfeasance/corporate cover-up was definitely not enough.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly also seemed a mismatch of form and content. I’d been a fan of Julian Schnabel since Basquiat, and especially Before Night Falls, and I liked what he did with his visuals here. But the story felt like one I’d heard oft told before. Even the device of shooting as if from the view of the stroke victim wasn’t original: Arthur Kopit’s play Wings took the same approach almost 30 years earlier (and I have the nagging feeling I saw it in some earlier film, as well). None of this is to say there’s anything particularly wrong with Diving Bell; it’s creditable work. But the enthusiasm many critics had for it mystified me.

Atonement, of course, offered far stronger content, with an excellent novel as source material. Here, it was the filmmaking that failed. I’ve now seen enough of Joe Wright’s work to be able to identify his style and acknowledge I just don’t like it, much. Not that he bungles completely: the early, longest portion of the story works mostly well (though I’m with BJ on something lots of us noted back when the film opened: that Robby’s return with the kids seems completely off – he should be hoisting them in triumph, the guy who saved the day, and, instead, he shuffles in guiltily as if he already knows he’s been accused of something). But, in later segments, Wright’s “watch me direct!” flash really annoyed me – the entrance of the nurses is so synchronized it felt like a dance number would ensue, and the Dunkirk tracking shot was a classic instance of bravura for its own sake. Enough of McEwan’s novel remained to make the material “play” – though as more a romantic weeper than the greater thing the book was. It’s not a complete disaster. But neither is it getting my vote.

A friend and I had said back around the turn of the millennium that Paul Thomas Anderson was likeliest among active directors to make a truly transcendent American film, and There Will Be Blood is the closest he’s come so far. Anderson nearly always thinks in epic terms, but sets himself apart from other epic-makers in centering his large projects on characters rather than events. Even with its century-old setting, There Will Be Blood feels bracingly contemporary: the oil man who pretends to be more devoted to family than he is, and forms a partnership of convenience with a religious sect, has clear relevance to current reality. And the film’s central character, Daniel Plainview, is of such size he’s able to dominate the story in the same way he dominates his surrounding characters. I think There Will Be Blood is a major work, and Anderson is my choice for best director (as he would have been in 1997, had that been an option). However: with all that, I have some issues with the film on a narrative level, most specifically the abrupt way it ends. When the story suddenly jumped ahead many years, and placed Plainview in a more citified context, I was expecting a third act to his story. What I got, instead, was an epilogue – a few short scenes, ending with the violent bowling alley encounter. For me, this segment of the film didn’t resolve the many issues I thought the film had been juggling throughout the preceding two hours; rather than reaching a climax and winding down, I felt like the film just stopped. This wasn’t enough to wipe away the great pleasure I’d taken in all that had come earlier. But it was enough to keep me naming it the year’s best film.

Of course, talking about problematic endings brings my favorite on the year, No Country for Old Men, right into the conversation. No Country’s ending has from the start been the subject of “controversy”, and it no doubt feels odd at first. But for me it worked, as a way of indicating that the entire film that had preceded was in some ways a dream: Tommy Lee Jones’ meditation on his own approaching mortality, told in symbolic terms with the angel of death Javier Bardem pursuing Josh Brolin. The film manages to be simultaneously an exciting chase thriller and a poetic rumination; I can’t think of another recent film that’s worked so well on both levels. The film isn’t as vast in its landscape as There Will Be Blood, but within its somewhat smaller universe it both encompasses a great deal and achieves a near-perfection of form for which Anderson is still striving. So, my vote for best picture lines up with the Academy’s (though I still can’t quite believe THEY went for it): No Country for Old Men.

Okri
Professor
Posts: 2465
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby Okri » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:09 am

I consider this a prelude to the year that AMPAS broke, but that's more the foreign film category.

Like BJ, my absolute favourite film of the year was The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. There's so much about this film that just astonishes me. I also adored it's gleeful cousin I'm Not There.

It's rare that my least favourite nominee is the lone director, but I've gotta say, Diving Bell and the Butterfly bored me to tears. There was one scene where the film comes alive (the hair dance) that jolted me in my seat out of the stupor the film was pushing me towards. I really wish Julian Schnabel had given way for Andrew Dominik or Todd Haynes (or any number of the foreign auteurs)

I'll pretty much ditto BJ on Juno and Michael Clayton as well. The opening for the Gilroy film is so dazzling that it really casts a pall on the rest of the movie. Juno has one good idea that it tries really hard to not explore.

I really wish I loved No Country for Old Men like the rest of the world seemed to. Indeed, it's a very good movie - it's taut, iconic, very well shot and acted with some marvelous scene work. I'm just not convinced it's a great movie. The climax/ending really derails the film for me - an example of McCarthy on the page not working on the screen. And is singularly entertaining and Bardem's performance was, I prefer both Brolin and Jones.

On the other hand, I simultaneously wish Atonement was the masterpiece it could've been and love it despite it's flaws anyway. It's not quite balls-to-the-wall entertaining as Wright's Anna Karenina (which really goes for broke in many remarkable ways). Hell, I'll even defend the Dunkirk-tracking shot. The casting is so pitch perfect (though if you had told me that in five years Benedict Cumberbatch would be a bigger star than James McAvoy, I would've laughed in your face) and some choices so spot on, that I forgive the flaws and enjoy the movie.

But yes, There Will Be Blood takes it. A towering achievement for all involved. Both votes for Anderson's boldness throughout. I drink your milkshake, indeed.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 3772
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby The Original BJ » Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:57 pm

I think this is the best lineup overall this decade -- the top two were extremely strong movies, and I liked all of the others at least in some way.

My votes for Picture and Director this year would be The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, which might get my vote for best movie of the decade. And then I'd fill out the top two categories with some combination of Away From Her, I'm Not There, and Zodiac, all of which I thought were top-tier efforts. But the year was very impressive even beyond that, with some really strong entries that were foreign (4 Months, 3 Weeks, & 2 Days; Lust, Caution), animated (Ratatouille), or both (Persepolis).

In the context of this year, I was a little surprised so many people found Michael Clayton to be such a tremendous experience. I thought the movie had a lot of strong elements -- good performances across the board, some cool and cynical dialogue, and a nifty structure that served a far more compelling purpose than many films that pointlessly start in media res. Tony Gilroy gives the movie a moody enough sense of atmosphere, and keeps the suspense engaging throughout. At the end of the day, though, I found the overall plot to be kind of simple -- I wanted a few more turns in the narrative before we got to Michael deducing exactly what happened. It seemed to me that this was a very solid movie for grown-ups whose reputation was inflated just because we don't get too many of those these days.

I remember seeing Diablo Cody interviewed during this awards season, and she made a comment about how surprised she was by her film's awards success because "it doesn't feel like an Oscar movie to me." And so I assume she would take zero offense at me saying that Juno was a movie I thoroughly enjoyed, but found completely miscast as a Best Picture candidate. I thought, unlike last year's quirky indie Oscar crasher Little Miss Sunshine, Juno was pretty consistently funny, in a manner that was both inventively fresh and genuinely sensitive. But given the hugely ambitious dramas excluded this year, the nomination for such a small, lightweight movie as this struck me mostly as an attempt by voters to give a nomination to something -- ANYTHING -- that had been a box office hit, and this was the candidate close enough to vaguely serious movie territory to make the cut. As for Jason Reitman, I will say that he helped make the film feel like something more interesting than a generic teen comedy, but his shocking Director nomination was mostly a coattails nod -- there aren't enough directorial pyrotechnics on display to merit being singled out in this way in my opinion.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly DID have those energetic directorial flourishes, and the movie is certainly a stylistic feat. And it wasn't just that Julian Schnabel (aided immensely by Janusz Kaminski) made such a visually artful film -- it was that he took a subject that wouldn't seem to lend itself to such a treatment at all (a protagonist who can only move one eye!) and found a way to make it feel cinematically exciting. And yet, though I found a lot of the movie impressive, it was limited as well -- as narrative, the film doesn't go much of anywhere, and though I don't in any way find the movie to be a vapid exercise in style, I don't find it to be quite a revelation because of this. Given that there are two directors (well, technically three) whose dazzling styles served more fully-developed material, I'm inclined to praise but pass on Schnabel here.

I had simply ADORED Atonement the novel, and the film was one I anticipated feverishly all year. In a strange way, my affection for the source material somehow caused me to like the movie both more AND less than I might have otherwise. More, in the sense that I admired the spot-on casting throughout the film, and loved seeing favorite elements from the novel (like Cecilia's green dress) visualized on screen in such perfect ways. I felt like my passion for the story allowed me to forgive some of the less successful elements of the translation. But there were some major disappointments as well, like the changes to the ending (I really missed the performance of Briony's play), and some scenes that just seemed completely off tonally (Robbie returning to the house, having found the kids). In a way, the movie's most talked-about sequence -- the lengthy tracking shot -- sums up my response to the film, as it was an ambitious attempt at greatness, but it was an attempt that didn't feel entirely realized in execution. So, points for effort, and for the fact that this is a period piece that seems like an actual film rather than a stuffy translation of a novel, but I wouldn't consider voting for it.

According to me, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood might be, along with The Hurt Locker, my favorite Best Picture nominees of the decade. Both movies were hugely exciting pieces crafted by directors with a superb command of film craft, a pair of dark revisionist westerns that were also filled to the brim with black humor, and instantly iconic performances. Choosing one over the other seems basically irrelevant, but, because we must...

No Country for Old Men is, at base level, a truly gripping thriller. The Coens' skill at crafting suspense sequences is about at its peak, and I was completely held by their deft handling of the numerous narratives. Javier Bardem’s coin-tossing villain is a totally macabre show-stealer, but I also thought Tommy Lee Jones was pretty terrific as well, in the role that gives the film a lot of its emotional heft and poignancy. And, thanks largely to Roger Deakins, the gorgeously barren landscapes immensely aid the film’s bleak depiction of the contemporary American West, a vision that feels like the perfect union between Cormac McCarthy's western spareness and the Coens' noirish quirkiness. It’s a movie that’s alternately thrilling, heartfelt, and darkly funny, one of the best in Coens’ oeuvre. But I did already pick them in both categories for Fargo, and...

...I think There Will Be Blood is an even more ambitious and successful achievement. From the opening dialogue-free sequence that synthesizes image and sound in hugely exciting ways, to the violent but almost horrifyingly funny finale in the bowling alley, Paul Thomas Anderson throws one completely dazzling sequence at his audience after another. His detractors have often lobbed charges at him that his movies are little more than film-school-in-a-box exercises in style, but I have never agreed with this argument. He’s a stellar craftsman, and I find that his directorial flourishes nearly always serve his material, in this case, a great, big, sad portrait of turn of the century capitalism run amuck. His film feels completely one-of-a-kind to me, even down to the way the ramshackle sets look like the characters actually built them through years of labor. And in Daniel Day-Lewis’s volcanic turn as Daniel Plainview, Anderson has given us one of contemporary film’s great anti-heroes. To me, There Will Be Blood feels both bracingly modern and like a relic from another era, as if a long lost masterpiece from the 70’s era had only recently been discovered. It gets my votes in both categories, though I certainly felt nothing less than thrilled with the Coen brothers’ wins on Oscar night for their nearly comparable achievement.

Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1071
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby Heksagon » Fri Mar 07, 2014 1:11 am

This one is easy for me, as I’m an admirer of There Will Be Blood. No Country for Old Men is a good film also, and I’m not sorry that it won, even though I do feel that the novel is considerably better.

The rest of the nominees don’t impress me that much. Atonement is borderline good, but considering the splendid source material, it could have been so much better - the main problem, I believe, is that it was directed by the boring Joe Wright. Michael Clayton is the type of film that I usually like, but this time, this film just doesn’t work for me. The acting is great, but too often, the screenplay just feels like it’s not getting anywhere.

Juno has a very weak screenplay, but fortunately it’s brought to life by Ellen Page’s excellent performance. The critical and commercial success of this film really shows how much you can achieve with a sympathetic lead character, and how much the actor can cover up a bad screenplay. Nonetheless, except for Page (who should have won the Oscar this year, IMHO), this film does not deserve its other nominations (don’t even bother bringing up its unfortunate solitary win).

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 6756
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby Sabin » Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:51 pm

Still the longest year of my life, I think. I started 2007 at Columbia in Chicago, IL working on my thesis, then I went out to Los Angeles and ended up backpacking in the middle East by the end of the year. It was an embarrassingly awesome year for movies. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, The Host, I'm Not There, Into the Wild, Away from Her, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, My Kid Could Paint That, Offside, Ratatouille, The Savages, Superbad, Zodiac, and my favorite film of the year The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. I watched it for the first time at Hollywood Arclight with a friend whose marriage I just officiated last year. We snuck in a little guy of Black Label and at the end of the film turned to each other and said "Are we drunk or was that fucking brilliant?" The movie felt like kicking open the door to the 20th century. I adore it to this day.

There's not much to say about three of the nominees. Michael Clayton is 70s posturing that is about substantially less that appears to be the case (well, for some) and it's undermined by a wildly unbelievable friendship between George Clooney and Tom Wilkinson. But I found the veneer rather intoxicating and it's an enjoyable enough experience. Juno seems like an odder and odder nominee every year. It should be called Fox Searchlight Movie. I haven't ventured back to watch it again, but I think it's somewhat underrated these days. I might prefer Jennifer's Body, but I still think it's chief pleasure is how funny it and the cast are. I think I predicted The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and Into the Wild over Juno and Atonement. If Into the Wild's exclusion for Best Picture can be attributed to the age of Academy voters, then how did Juno get in? I haven't seen The Diving Bell and the Butterfly since it's release and I find I have very little to say about it now. I recall a major complaint levied against it was how Julian Schnabel used the story for his own visual modis operandi, and right now? That's about all I can recall, and the parade of beautiful women before this man. My father leaned over to me in the theater and said "You should be in France." Still quite a good film I should return to.

Atonement was anticipated all year and when it arrive don the screen it was stronger than some gave it credit for. The first 45 minutes are just exceptional, and then it's crams an epic narrative into too short a narrative frame and the result feels unsatisfactory, but to dismiss it seems crass because so much of it is rather major IMO. It's still hard to get worked up over it. Joe Wright is not a thinker and is more concerned with craft than class. Hanna is the best thing that he's done. I hope he gets picked up by Marvel and goes to work making studio superhero films. Joe Wright's The Wolverine makes more sense than you would think.

It's between No Country and Blood. I don't have time to keep writing but I watched There Will Be Blood in New York City before traveling to Israel for Birthright in December, with no idea that I would be traveling for a few months. I watched it two weeks before "I drink your milkshake" entered meme-ville, and the filmgoing experience was mesmerizing, a tense, building, fascinating experience exploding into batshit in the last minutes. I couldn't believe what I was seeing and it remains the finest achievement of Paul Thomas Anderson's already fascinating career, even if Lincoln now feels like Daniel Day-Lewis' finest hour. There Will Be Blood and PTA get my vote. The Coens were my boys for Fargo.
Philomena is one of the year's best Philomenas!

mlrg
Assistant
Posts: 994
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby mlrg » Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:12 pm

This is a no brainer: There Will Be Blood and PT Anderson

Reza
Laureate
Posts: 7032
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby Reza » Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:39 pm

Voted for Atonement and the Coens.

My picks for 2007:

Best Picture
1. Atonement
2. No Country for Old Men
3. The Lives of Others
4. Away From Her
5. Into the Wild

The 6th Spot: 3:10 to Yuma

Best Director
1. Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men
2. Joe Wright, Atonement
3. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, The Lives of Others
4. Sarah Polley, Away From Her
5. Ben Affleck, Gone Baby Gone

The 6th Spot: Sean Penn, Into the Wild

User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2721
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby Eric » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:56 am

2007 was a "there will be blood" year for me indeed, excepting that I found that particular film flabby, pretentious and annoying, compared to tight, focused and intense Coen brothers movie (which got both my votes here).

Top 10
01. Inside
02. No Country for Old Men
03. Day Night Day Night
04. The Life of Reilly
05. Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters
06. Silent Light
07. Hostel: Part II
08. Black Book
09. Viva
10. Grindhouse

Anti-Top 10
01. Redacted (NOTE: Hopefully this remains the ONLY time Brian De Palma tops this list.)
02. The Bucket List
03. Rescue Dawn
04. The Lives of Others
05. The Brave One
06. 300
07. Zoo
08. The Man of My Life
09. Once
10. Smiley Face

HarryGoldfarb
Assistant
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Venezuela

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby HarryGoldfarb » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:10 am

I was about to vote for TWBB, a film I deeply enjoyed and value that was actually my choice by that time. Nonetheless, it struck me as an oddity that I haven't been able to see the film in its entirety again. As for NCFOM, as I have said before, I find the themes and subjects it deals with to be more important, compelling and resonant than the film itself. I'never enjoyed Juno enough to place it among the best films of the year and MC was somehow a nice surprise but hardly a powerful mind. So I went with Atonement, a film I do have seen a few times more than the rest of this group combined, and it still provokes an emotional response from me. It has a lot of flaws but it definitely is a more "enjoyable" experience.

Anderson got, without any hesitation, my vote for director.
Life is painless for the brainless.
- Fiyero

User avatar
Precious Doll
Tenured
Posts: 2680
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2007

Postby Precious Doll » Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:36 am

My top ten for 2007:

1. Ex Drummer (Koen Mortier)
2. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (Cristian Mungui)
3. The Witnesses (Andre Techine)
4. Zodiac (David Fincher)
5. The Edge of Heaven (Fatiah Akin)
6. Silent Light (Carlos Reygadas)
7. Import/Export (Ulrich Seidl)
8. Gone Baby Gone (Ben Affleck)
9. Les Chansons d’Amour (Christophe Honore)
10. There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson)

Voted for There Will Be Blood & Anderson, though having watched Atonement again a few months ago it was very tempting to consider it for picture as it was even better on a second viewing.
"I think he sexually assaulted a child and I don't think that's right…It's gotten very quiet in here, but that's true." Susan Sarandon on Woody Allen, Cannes Film Festival 2016


Return to “The 8th Decade”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest