Sight and Sound top 10 Films of 2013

sxt

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/polls-surveys/annual-round-ups/best-films-2013


Looks like a Pretty impressive list of films from around the world. no oscar bait in sight .Any glaring omissions in your opinion? Which one would you vote for?

https://bfiprojects.wufoo.eu/forms/best-films-of-2013-cast-your-vote/

Bullseye1

I've only seen one of the movies on the list. Their number one is a documentary and the rest appear to be arthouse. Nothing wrong with arthouse but when you exclude movies which most people go to see its not very balanced.

opr

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I've only seen one of the movies on the list. Their number one is a documentary and the rest appear to be arthouse. Nothing wrong with arthouse but when you exclude movies which most people go to see its not very balanced.

We'll I guess one would argue that they are just better films. Should they include hollywood blockbusters because more people will have seen them? Seen eight on that list and 'The Act of Killing' is without a shadow of a doubt the best thing I've seen this year.

Opr

Tipsy McSwagger

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I've only seen one of the movies on the list. Their number one is a documentary and the rest appear to be arthouse. Nothing wrong with arthouse but when you exclude movies which most people go to see its not very balanced.

Most people go and see rubbish like The Conjuring and The Hunger Games. Personally I'm delighted a documentary got number 1 and The Act of Killing is a mental film

johnny_ultimate

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I've only seen one of the movies on the list. Their number one is a documentary and the rest appear to be arthouse. Nothing wrong with arthouse but when you exclude movies which most people go to see its not very balanced.

Not Sight & Sound's critics fault if the average cinemagoer didn't go to see any of the films listed, quite frankly, and it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. And given number two is a Hollywood blockbuster - and probably the only one from the year deserving of any particular acclaim or importance - you can hardly accuse them of being anti-populist. 'Arthouse' is not a genre, and the films on this list represent a diverse range of styles. It's not like these films were hidden away either - of the 7 out of 10 I saw, I got to see them all on Dublin cinema screens where they enjoyed dedicated commercial releases.

Anyway, from what I've seen I think they're all memorable, successful films in their own ways that are certainly deserving as flagging as some of the year's best efforts. I have my own preferences (Gravity would struggle to make my top ten, Upstream Colour & The Great Beauty would vie with The Act of Killing for my own personal top spot) but as ever with Sight & Sound it's a sensible, intelligent and diverse list that handily flags a couple of films I have yet to get around to or should hopefully be getting a release early next year.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

As long as the people compiling the lists have actually seen a good variety of "art house" and "blockbuster" and are actually making a well informed list then it doesn't bother me what the ratio of one to the other is on their lists.

I made an effort this year to look beyond the multiplexes and watch more "small" films and yet I have still seen 0 of 10 on this list. At least I've heard of most of them this year

Bullseye1

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Not Sight & Sound's critics fault if the average cinemagoer didn't go to see any of the films listed, quite frankly, and it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. And given number two is a Hollywood blockbuster - and probably the only one from the year deserving of any particular acclaim or importance - you can hardly accuse them of being anti-populist. 'Arthouse' is not a genre, and the films on this list represent a diverse range of styles. It's not like these films were hidden away either - of the 7 out of 10 I saw, I got to see them all on Dublin cinema screens where they enjoyed dedicated commercial releases.

We do not all live in Dublin. And local cinemas cannot afford to put most of these on as they would simply not make money. If these were on general release I'd highly doubt commercial success. Not that a movies quality should ever be measured by commercial success. I might have attended one or two if given the opportunity. To blame the general public for lack of distribution is ludricous. It is up to the film maker and producers to ensure their work gets as wide a distribution as possible. Even the DVD release of many of these movies is poor.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Bullseye1 wrote: »

We do not all live in Dublin. And local cinemas cannot afford to put most of these on as they would simply not make money. If these were on general release I'd highly doubt commercial success. Not that a movies quality should ever be measured by commercial success. I might have attended one or two if given the opportunity. To blame the general public for lack of distribution is ludricous. It is up to the film maker and producers to ensure their work gets as wide a distribution as possible. Even the DVD release of many of these movies is poor.

Are you not contradicting yourself a bit there? You say the local cinemas would make no money from showing them, which implies no audience. Then you say you can't blame the public for lack of distribution, but if they're not showing them because of no audience surely the general public are somewhat to blame?

Bullseye1

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Are you not contradicting yourself a bit there? You say the local cinemas would make no money from showing them, which implies no audience. Then you say you can't blame the public for lack of distribution, but if they're not showing them because of no audience surely the general public are somewhat to blame?

Publicity and advertising is key. If people are not given information (trailers for example) of movies or read about them in newspapers/other publications then they are unlikely to see them at cinemas. Some of these directors make movies but yet don't publicise them, no doubt a result of budgets. Maybe they would be better off posting their movies online as they don't appear to be interested in making money like traditional studios are. At least they would get to a bigger audience.

wet_dog

What's your point exactly? In your first post you seemed to be complaining that the list is skewed towards non-mainstream films. Now you're complaining about non-mainstream films being non-mainstream. What is the relevance of your last two posts to the S&S list?

It's not a list of the best mainstream films of 2013, let alone a list of the best mainstream films released to Irish cinemas outside of Dublin in 2013.

It's a list of the best films of the year according to S&S. They're obviously of the opinion that better films were made this year outside of the mainstream than within it.

johnny_ultimate

Bullseye, I'm really struggling to see your overall argument as well. Sight & Sound is a specialist film magazine with an arthouse / international focus: every single year the end of year list will embrace the whole spectrum of cinema, and I'm not sure how or why anyone would expect anything different. I also think their critics are among the most knowledgeable film fans out there, and they should actively be encouraged to celebrate the films they genuinely feel are important or successful, rather than just what's showing in small town cinemas in Ireland. Collectively they've watched a whole heap of films this year (many even the most avid Irish cinema goer will probably never see or even hear of), and these are the ones a majority of them felt were the most powerful. It all simply boils down to that Worst case scenario, you've just got a list of ten films you could potentially consider checking out - I know I'm looking forward to tracking down the three I've missed.

Just want to address a few points you make. First, there are plenty of magazines and newspapers that cover and flag these films: I know because I rely on them. As well as specialist publications like S&S (which you can pick up in any Easons right alongside Empire or Total Film), the likes of the Guardian and even the Irish Times do a good job promoting the smaller films with the extremely limited space they have for film writing. And there's plenty of posters even on here who will mention and discuss smaller films as well. Even with all that in mind, you really cannot expect in-depth film coverage to fall on your doorstep every day. The distributors and producers of films like The Act of Killing or The Selfish Giant cannot afford the same primetime TV spots like The Hunger Games can, simple as that. If you want to find out the best film has to offer, you need to make a bit of an effort to look into it yourself as well, but certainly it's not not a particularly strenuous or obscure effort and there's plenty of advice out there to guide you in the right direction.

Second, unfortunately 'just release it on the Internet' is nowhere near as easy as that (although happily Shane Carruth was able to release Upstream Colour online thanks to self-financing, but that's a very rare case). Film production, even independent, is extraordinarily expensive, with a lot of parties involved. Filmmakers typically only have a limited amount of control over the release and exhibition plans, and there's only so much they can reasonably do when they're working with limited finance and time. For distributors and filmmakers alike, anyway, theatrical release and the festival circuit are still vitally important for building a reputation, prestige and - fingers crossed - some sort of remuneration (something of a rarity alas). It's also important to help guarantee some sort of home release, or eventual appearance on something like Netflix.

Still, I'd say a vast majority of these films - or at least the ones released in UK & Ireland so far - were available through some video-on-demand channel either before or soon after their theatrical release. The likes of Curzon on Demand might be expensive, but they're there if you're interested enough. All of them will eventually be available on Blu-Ray and DVD and VOD, even if it might be next year before a couple make it (there's always legal US VOD sites if you're particularly keen). Yes, not everyone lives in Dublin - I only pointed the capital out in order to illustrate that these films aren't exactly completely obscure releases that were only shown in one dingy cinema at the Venice Film Festival for a group of five collected critics, before disappearing into the ether, but rather films that enjoyed some sort of notable commercial distribution. But for the reasons mentioned above, being outside Dublin has never been less of a problem than it is now. I'd also wager that no matter where you live in the country there is a nearby weekly or relatively regular film club that screens a wide variety of films for anyone who cares to participate.

e_e

Terrific list, if people are too lazy and narrow-minded to seek out these films it's their loss really.

I'd give Only God Forgives, The Strange Colour of Your Body's Tears, Computer Chess, The Strange Little Cat and Leviathan a definite look-in too.

e_e

Also I think part of being a film fan is finding genuine discoveries and taking the initiative to try less familiar things, instead of just going to what all the predictable crowd-pleasers that the advertisements are telling you to see.

Almost all of my favorite films this year I've gone in knowing next to nothing about, it makes for a way more liberating and exciting experience of cinema.

Bullseye, I think that Empires rather dull and uninspired list of the years best films may be more up your street than Sight and Sound's far more interesting and diverse best of list.

Bullseye1

Deleted User wrote: »

Bullseye, I think that Empires rather dull and uninspired list of the years best films may be more up your street than Sight and Sound's far more interesting and diverse best of list.

Is that really the best you can come up with? :pac: You would think reading Sight and Sound would have inspired you to greater literary heights.

Mods are people not entitled to opinion on here without the snobs looking down their noses. I do note that Empire has been referred to as a rag by a number of members on here including mods. Is this really what we want from this section of the forum.

Another AH.

Bullseye1

e_e wrote: »

Also I think part of being a film fan is finding genuine discoveries and taking the initiative to try less familiar things, instead of just going to what all the predictable crowd-pleasers that the advertisements are telling you to see.

Almost all of my favorite films this year I've gone in knowing next to nothing about, it makes for a way more liberating and exciting experience of cinema.

I too quite enjoy going to a movie and being surprised and enjoying the experience. I will certainly try and seek out a number of these titles when they eventually make their way to BD or Netflix.

Bullseye1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Is that really the best you can come up with? :pac: You would think reading Sight and Sound would have inspired you to greater literary heights.

Mods are people not entitled to opinion on here without the snobs looking down their noses. I do note that Empire has been referred to as a rag by a number of members on here including mods. Is this really what we want from this section of the forum.

Another AH.

No trying to come up with anything. You complained that Sigh and Sound's list was flawed because they didn't include enough big budget crowd pleasers so I linked you to Empire's best of the year which is full of the films you complained that Sight and Sound overlooked. And Empire is a rag, send them a mug or potato with a films title on it and you can guarantee a 4 star review. Their reviews are little more than a synopsis of the film and they spent most of each issue fawning over all their famous friends.

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly your point is. You implied that filmmakers who work outside the mainstream, as in big budget Hollywood should release their films online. Which is exactly what most filmmakers do through VOD though from what I gather you expect them to leak their films for free on torrent sites. Marketing is key for any film but looking through the Sight and Sound list, only 3 of the films screened near me yet I'm aware of each of the films and have seen all of them bar 1 which ironically enough is Gravity, the one that got the biggest release.

delbertgrady

To save people the bother of ploughing through fourteen pages, here's the Empire list, which will no doubt trigger some discussion. I haven't bought Empire in about twelve years, around about the time when it began to really lose the run of itself. Having said that, I'm still bewildered as to some of the inclusions here, or - more specifically - the order in which they have been placed.
Clearly, an attempt has been made to have some "balance" by having a few slightly left-field inclusions, but there are some real duds on here. Plus, their self-styled "late entries" don't seem to apply to either Nebraska or Kill Your Darlings, presumably due to earlier festival screenings, but it does seem absurd to be including films that haven't been properly released yet.

1. Gravity
2. Captain Phillips
3. Rush
4. Mud
5. Lincoln
6. Stoker
7. Iron Man 3
8. Before Midnight
9. The Great Beauty
10. Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa
11. Zero Dark Thirty
12. The World's End
13. Django Unchained
14. Behind the Candelabra
15. Blue Jasmine
16. Short Term 12
17. Thor: The Dark World
18. Only God Forgives
19. Blackfish
20. Cloud Atlas
21. Upstream Colour
22. All Is Lost
23. Blue is the Warmest Colour
24. Filth
25. A Field in England
26. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
27. Trance
28. Man of Steel
29. Philomena
30. Frances Ha
31. About Time
32. The Impossible
33. Les Misérables
34. Star Trek Into Darkness
35. Saving Mr. Banks
36. The Place Beyond the Pines
37. Wreck-It Ralph
38. Warm Bodies
39. The Bling Ring
40. Nebraska
41. World War Z
42. Robot and Frank
43. Much Ado About Nothing
44. Kill Your Darlings
45. The Conjuring
46. Prisoners
47. Now You See Me
48. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (Late Entry)
49. Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (Late Entry)
50. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (Late Entry)

They've a comment on the Hobbit: "For Smaug alone, we’d be lining up to see it, but in fact what we’ve seen so far promises us much more in the way of intrigue and adventure".
Right, so you've included a film in your Top 50 of the Year, and then admitted that you haven't actually seen it. I think that exemplifies how ridiculous their journalism is.
By that rationale, they should have included the appalling Les Misérables in last year's list, 'cos the trailer promised a bunch of people singing (sometimes quite badly), some ropey CGI and a lot of embarrassing over-acting, elements that they obviously lapped up at Empire Towers, since they've included it in their list now.

johnny_ultimate

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I do note that Empire has been referred to as a rag by a number of members on here including mods. Is this really what we want from this section of the forum.

Another AH.

I'm not sure what your complaint is here? Am I not allowed criticise Empire because I'm a mod All Darko was trying to do was post an alternative list to address your initial point that the S&S effort wasn't balanced.

You're absolutely entitled to an opinion, but you also absolutely have to expect it to be countered or for people to seek clarification: discussion is what makes this forum tick. There's nothing remotely snobby about that

As for the Empire list, I count a grand total of 2 foreign language films. There's no need for an arbitrary balance between English and foreign language films (especially since American independent cinema had a seriously stellar year in 2013, well reflected by a heavy English language presence in Sight & Sound) but that's an absolutely disgraceful, narrow-minded showing for any dedicated film publication. Especially when films like Now You See Me make the cut (just to pick one example I'd struggle to imagine anyone being particularly passionate about!).

delbertgrady

delbertgrady wrote: »

To save people the bother of ploughing through fourteen pages, here's the Empire list, which will no doubt trigger some discussion.

The only discussion will be how in the hell did any group of people get together and vote on the best films of the year and include Now You See Me, World War Z, Warm Bodies, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Les Misérables, About Time, Trance, Hunger Games 2, Thor: The Dark World, The World's End and a handful of others amongst the 50 best films released over the past 12 months. I get that Empire aren't about film criticism or any in-depth examination but come on, the list is a joke. It's the kind of safe, cookie cutter rubbish that has became Empire and Total Films bread and butter. They exist simply to sell ad space and show the big studios that they can be bought for the price of some cheap merchandised tat.

Bullseye1

Deleted User wrote: »

No trying to come up with anything. You complained that Sigh and Sound's list was flawed because they didn't include enough big budget crowd pleasers so I linked you to Empire's best of the year which is full of the films you complained that Sight and Sound overlooked. And Empire is a rag, send them a mug or potato with a films title on it and you can guarantee a 4 star review. Their reviews are little more than a synopsis of the film and they spent most of each issue fawning over all their famous friends.

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly your point is. You implied that filmmakers who work outside the mainstream, as in big budget Hollywood should release their films online. Which is exactly what most filmmakers do through VOD though from what I gather you expect them to leak their films for free on torrent sites. Marketing is key for any film but looking through the Sight and Sound list, only 3 of the films screened near me yet I'm aware of each of the films and have seen all of them bar 1 which ironically enough is Gravity, the one that got the biggest release.

You seem to jump to a number of conclusions. Please tell me your not in law enforcement.

1. Where did I mention torrents? I said the WEB. Here is an example of a small studio making their own movie and publishing it for free on the net. http://rainfall.tv/work/wonderwoman/

2. Where did I mention that I was unhappy with S&S because they did not come up with crowd pleasers? Wasn't Gravity a crowd pleaser? Where did I even mention the words crowd pleaser. Jump to conclusion much.

3. Where did I mention Empire in my OP? I am talking about S&S and its choices. I do note that Empire has reviewed a number of titles on the S&S list and given them rave reviews. So hopefully readers of Empire have contributed to the financial success of those movies.

The mod who responded gave me an explanation that S&S is a magazine specifically for arthouse and foreign movies. That explains the list so fair enough.

The highlighted part of your post is quite revealing when taken into account your previous posts concerning "mindless blockbusters". :pac:

Bullseye1

delbertgrady wrote: »

Right, so you've included a film in your Top 50 of the Year, and then admitted that you haven't actually seen it. I think that exemplifies how ridiculous their journalism is.

That's a very valid point. What where they thinking.

Bullseye1

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm not sure what your complaint is here? Am I not allowed criticise Empire because I'm a mod All Darko was trying to do was post an alternative list to address your initial point that the S&S effort wasn't balanced.

You're absolutely entitled to an opinion, but you also absolutely have to expect it to be countered or for people to seek clarification: discussion is what makes this forum tick. There's nothing remotely snobby about that

As for the Empire list, I count a grand total of 2 foreign language films. There's no need for an arbitrary balance between English and foreign language films (especially since American independent cinema had a seriously stellar year in 2013, well reflected by a heavy English language presence in Sight & Sound) but that's an absolutely disgraceful, narrow-minded showing for any dedicated film publication. Especially when films like Now You See Me make the cut (just to pick one example I'd struggle to imagine anyone being particularly passionate about!).

The accusations of torrents is not legit? Since when has it been okay to accuse people of encouraging illegal activity?

Bullseye1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

You seem to jump to a number of conclusions. Please tell me your not in law enforcement.

1. Where did I mention torrents? I said the WEB. Here is an example of a small studio making their own movie and publishing it for free on the net. http://rainfall.tv/work/wonderwoman/

2. Where did I mention that I was unhappy with S&S because they did not come up with crowd pleasers? Wasn't Gravity a crowd pleaser? Where did I even mention the words crowd pleaser. Jump to conclusion much.

3. Where did I mention Empire in my OP? I am talking about S&S and its choices. I do note that Empire has reviewed a number of titles on the S&S list and given them rave reviews. So hopefully readers of Empire have contributed to the financial success of those movies.

The mod who responded gave me an explanation that S&S is a magazine specifically for arthouse and foreign movies. That explains the list so fair enough.

The highlighted part of your post is quite revealing when taken into account your previous posts concerning "mindless blockbusters". :pac:

Empire gave Phantom Menace a glowing review when it came out and that's just one in a long line of terrible films that they fell over themselves to award 4 or 5 stars to. How can you take a publication seriously when they fawn over a film from a director who will be guest editing it the month after. They are hacks of the highest order, hell their 1 star review of The Fountain when it was released on DVD ranks as one of the worst pieces of criticism in the history of the medium.

Onto you other points.

1) That's a short film and like all shorts it's been uploaded to the internet. There's no money in making shorts and all filmmakers see them as a calling card. Your entire point regarding filmmakers putting their films online is completely pointless given that pretty much every film is available through VOD. Most non mainstream films premiere on the service a month or two before going to theaters or to disc. Also, a lot of films are legally available through torrents.

2) Your opening post on the subject was about how you only saw one film on the list and that there is "Nothing wrong with arthouse but when you exclude movies which most people go to see its not very balanced". Anyone reading that would assume that you are complaining about the lack of big Budget Hollywood films aka crowd pleasers.

3) I linked the Empire top 50 as it seems to be a list that you would prefer given that it's made up almost entirely of movies which most people go to see.

I'm all for a bit of mindless fun and have enjoyed a lot of big budget Blockbusters but when it comes to doing a top films of a year list you really cannot take one serious if World War Z is listed amongst the years best. Seriously, I enjoyed WWZ for the mindless trash that it was but to say that it is superior or even a tenth as good as anything on the Sight and Sound list is just plain wrong.

e_e

delbertgrady wrote: »

Iron Man 3

Is ahead of such films as:

delbertgrady wrote: »

Before Midnight
The Great Beauty
Django Unchained
Blue Jasmine
Short Term 12
Only God Forgives
Upstream Colour
Blue is the Warmest Colour
Frances Ha
The Place Beyond the Pines
Much Ado About Nothing
Prisoners

****ing hell. Now I know why I stopped reading Empire years ago.

Bullseye1

Deleted User wrote: »

I enjoyed WWZ for the mindless trash that it was but to say that it is superior or even a tenth as good as anything on the Sight and Sound list is just plain wrong.

Where did I say otherwise? Having not seen it or the vast majority of the S&S top ten (or indeed the Empire top 50) I am unqualified to give an opinion until I've actually seen them. Cannot see Xtravision having many of them so I can only hope that NF shows them (as I am only interested in paying for what I watch).

Bullseye1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Where did I say otherwise? Having not seen it or the vast majority of the S&S top ten (or indeed the Empire top 50) I am unqualified to give an opinion until I've actually seen them. Cannot see Xtravision having many of them so I can only hope that NF shows them (as I am only interested in paying for what I watch).

I think this is the point where I inset a picture of Captain Picard face palming. Go back and reread what I wrote, I was obviously directing that at the writers of Empire who compiled the list and not you.

e_e

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Cannot see Xtravision having many of them so I can only hope that NF shows them (as I am only interested in paying for what I watch).

Amazon, HMV and IFI's film shop are your go to places for these movies. It's not S&S's fault that Xtravision's DVD retail section is shocking.

Bullseye1

e_e wrote: »

Amazon, HMV and IFI's film shop are your go to places for these movies. It's not S&S's fault that Xtravision's DVD retail section is shocking.

True but I don't want to buy the movie if I can rent for cheaper. I may not want to watch them more than once. Days of blind buy BDs are over I'm afraid. Hopefully NF improves in the coming year and put on some more foreign cinema.

I watched Cache on there. And while interesting not sure I would ever want to see it again.

johnny_ultimate

Bullseye1 wrote: »

True but I don't want to buy the movie if I can rent for cheaper. I may not want to watch them more than once. Days of blind buy BDs are over I'm afraid. Hopefully NF improves in the coming year and put on some more foreign cinema.

I watched Cache on there. And while interesting not sure I would ever want to see it again.

Unfortunately, Xtravision only stock a very limited range, and Netflix is almost down to random chance whether films will appear at all (especially the Irish one). They're both absolutely awful for back catalogue releases. If you're unwilling to blind buy DVDs and BluRays - and, honestly, they tend to account for 95% of the films I buy as that's the only way I can watch them - there's always iTunes. Act of Killing is already up there to rent (and it has been on TV), while Upstream Colour, The Great Beauty, Frances Ha and The Selfish Giant are all already listed for release there in the next month or two. The US store is also relatively easily and legally accessible, and offers a better range overall.

Again, it's worth putting that little bit of extra time or effort into tracking them down - there's never been more avenues to do so, even if there can be a little bit of a delay in getting them.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I haven't used it myself but Volta has a fair selection of films on it. You can choose to stream it just the once or download it to keep, I think.

S.M.B.

Deleted User wrote: »

The only discussion will be how in the hell did any group of people get together and vote on the best films of the year and include Now You See Me, World War Z, Warm Bodies, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Les Misérables, About Time, Trance, Hunger Games 2, Thor: The Dark World, The World's End and a handful of others amongst the 50 best films released over the past 12 months. I get that Empire aren't about film criticism or any in-depth examination but come on, the list is a joke. It's the kind of safe, cookie cutter rubbish that has became Empire and Total Films bread and butter. They exist simply to sell ad space and show the big studios that they can be bought for the price of some cheap merchandised tat.

Yet 5 of the S&S top 10 list have still managed to make it into the top 30?

People are so quick to bash empire it's a little laughable. Fair enough, it aims for a much broader film going audience than S&S, but given the way some people go on about it you'd swear they were on complete opposite ends of the publishing spectrum.

And sure why not trot out the Phantom Menace review while we're at it?

S.M.B.

S.M.B. wrote: »

Yet 5 of the S&S top 10 list have still managed to make it into the top 30?

People are so quick to bash empire it's a little laughable. Fair enough, it aims for a much broader film going audience than S&S, but given the way some people go on about it you'd swear they were on complete opposite ends of the publishing spectrum.

And sure why not trot out the Phantom Menace review while we're at it?

Yet Iron Man 3 is considered better than 4 out of the 5. Empire always throw a few noncommercial films in but even when they review the films it feels like it's just them agreeing with everyone else.

Empire may as well be the opposite to S&S. They're the Daily Mail to the Guardian. Empire is easy to read trash that has nothing to say about cinema. There's no insight, no debate, just this 100 million dollar film is shiny and we like it.

The Phantom Menace review is infamous and just one example if them celebrating a terrible film. That they slated The Fountain when it was released on DVD says quite a lot. Especially when the review was one of the poorest written pieces of criticism ever published.

S.M.B.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet Iron Man 3 is considered better than 4 out of the 5. Empire always throw a few noncommercial films in but even when they review the films it feels like it's just them agreeing with everyone else.

Empire may as well be the opposite to S&S. They're the Daily Mail to the Guardian. Empire is easy to read trash that has nothing to say about cinema. There's no insight, no debate, just this 100 million dollar film is shiny and we like it.

The Phantom Menace review is infamous and just one example if them celebrating a terrible film. That they slated The Fountain when it was released on DVD says quite a lot. Especially when the review was one of the poorest written pieces of criticism ever published.

No.

Iron Man 3 is a bigger favourite amongst Empire writers than 4 out of the 5. Is that such a hard thing to believe? That this years most successful and well received comic book movie is highly favoured by the writing staff of a mainstream movie magazine. Is it that much of a travesty?

Saying that they're the opposite is just well off the mark in my opinion and further highlights the bias that a lot of people have towards the magazine.

They give TPM a good review and they're accused of pandering to the Hollywood system. One individual reviewer writes a negative review of another movie from another director embedded in the same system and it's blasphemy. The same movie that I'm pretty sure now features in their top 500 of all time.

Look, I'm no Empire fanboy. Like a lot of people here I'd imagine, I read it in my formative years then outgrew it.

But it still serves a purpose. As it did for me back when I was first devoting proper time to the world of film.

If a handful of people who similarly loved Iron Man 3 decide to check out a few lesser known movies on that list that they had failed to hear about previously then this can only be a good thing in my book.

darced

This post has been deleted.

S.M.B.

S.M.B. wrote: »

No.

Iron Man 3 is a bigger favourite amongst Empire writers than 4 out of the 5. Is that such a hard thing to believe? That this years most successful and well received comic book movie is highly favoured by the writing staff of a mainstream movie magazine. Is it that much of a travesty?

Saying that they're the opposite is just well off the mark in my opinion and further highlights the bias that a lot of people have towards the magazine.

They give TPM a good review and they're accused of pandering to the Hollywood system. One individual reviewer writes a negative review of another movie from another director embedded in the same system and it's blasphemy. The same movie that I'm pretty sure now features in their top 500 of all time.

Look, I'm no Empire fanboy. Like a lot of people here I'd imagine, I read it in my formative years then outgrew it.

But it still serves a purpose. As it did for me back when I was first devoting proper time to the world of film.

If a handful of people who similarly loved Iron Man 3 decide to check out a few lesser known movies on that list that they had failed to hear about previously then this can only be a good thing in my book.

I have no issue with Iron Man 3 being someones preferred film but looking at it from a critical stand point and Iron Man 3 simply isn't all that great a film and it pales in comparison to something such as Blue is the Warmest Colour. Iron Man 3 is a competently made film and showcases some wonderful CGI but it has absolutely nothing to say about anything. It's entertaining but quickly forgotten and for a film to be considered amongst the best it has to do something beyond just being a decent watch.

And they are the opposite to publications such as Sight and Sound. Empire exists to showcase what Hollywood is up to. They offer no in-depth insight or criticism. Sign on Sound covers a far broader spectrum of cinema and it's reviews are a discussion of the film in question, which is why I rarely read them till after seeing a film.

I have no problem with a negative review of a celebrated film if the reviewer or critic is going to offer a different take on the film. Quite often, some of the best and most interesting reviews are those that go against the grain. Sadly the negative review of The Fountain was just a poorly written piece of trash and didn't discuss any of the reasons why the reviewer felt the film deserved a single solitary star. The Phantom Menace is just one of their glowing reviews of films that don't deserve. See also their 4 star review of Twilight, their 1 star review of Taken ( they then gave the decidedly worse Taken 2 a 2 star review), etc, etc. I'd actually have more respect for them if they stood by their own reviews but more often than not they will give a crap film a glowing review and then quietly remove it from the site. The Phantom Menace review and the 5 star Attack of the Clones reviews are the perfect examples of this practice.

I have no issue with what Empire does, it's a rag that specializes in bigging up, upcoming Hollywood blockbusters and little else. Even their DVD and Blu-Ray reviews are a waste of time given how often they will recommend a release that is being slated everywhere else for being shoddy. It's a magazine for people whose idea of cinema is whatever is playing in the local multiplex. And that's perfectly acceptable but as a result their reviews are little more than fluff pieces and their best of lists are nothing more than whatever is popular with a few left field choices thrown in. Looking at their best of 2012 list and according to Empire the best film released in 2012 was The Avengers, a film that wasn't even the best film released the weekend it came out.

Sad Professor

It's worth pointing out that the S&S list was produced by polling over a 100 critics, academics and other contributors to the magazine. It's obviously going to reflect their tastes and interests, much as the Empire list does that magazine's writers. All of Empire's writers, I'd argue, are film reviewers/journalists rather than actual film critics. I've no love for the latter, so I'm not suggesting one is necessarily better than the other. A reviewer is more focused on new releases and often has limited knowledge of older films, where as a critic or academic might be unfairly dismissive of newer, especially mainstream releases. The quality of writing from both is about the same. A lot of academics despite their knowledge are terrible writers.

krudler

I do find that Empire is more critical of movies on the podcast, they'd point out flaws with movies that are never mentioned in the magazine reviews and being that there's usually 3-4 of them chatting on it you get differing opinions. One of them is all about the arthouse stuff and it seems completely different to the content in the magazine, which fawns over a lot of completely mediocre films. Empire is what it is, I used to read it religiously but have no real need for it anymore, they've done some brilliant articles and features over the years but take all their reviews with a massive pinch of salt.

Arghus

Like a lot of people here I used to read Empire many years ago. I've a lot to thank it for really. It provided a great gateway to getting to know about the world of film. Back in the day I distinctly remember a five star review was a hard earned mark of quality. I can remember them giving a five out of five mark for The Matrix which convinced me that the movie would be worth a watch, after all top marks didn't come around every day.

Nowadays the situation is ridiculous, it isn't unusual to see a couple or more of five stars reviews every issue. Four star fudge jobs are handed out like confetti. Empire is for a large part advertising for whatever Hollywood is cooking up next. It's creditability for me is shot to pieces because it can't afford to bite the hand that feeds. The majority of features in the magazine are breathless fawning over coming attractions, so it won't do to review these upcoming features with objectivity. All the exclusive photos may dry up.

Their top fifty reflects this. It seems awfully like they got every film that they gave pages too and shook them all up to see what would bubble to the top. I'm not crapping on mainstream cinema, some of their list I really enjoyed- The Conjuring(well the first hour), The Worlds End, Philomena, Stoker, Gravity, Captain Philips, to name a few. But some of their decisions are so inexplicable they near deserve their own thread- The just okay Iron Man 3 in the top 10? Star Trek into Darkness? The completely garbage Thor 2 at number seventeen? World War Z? Trance? And just for good measure they even include major releases they haven't even seen yet. Jesus Christ, that is a crazily bad attempt at a list. They should be ashamed printing it.

Having said all of that I do think there is some (ever shrinking) amounts of good stuff from time to time within the pages. They still do a bit of good features on classic movies and some of the writers are knowledgeable enough. Kim Newman is good and contributes to both Empire and Sight and Sound. But there must be something seriously rotten going on with the magazine. If that is genuinely its best of the year then I give up. If it's not then it fails the first basic rule of film reviewing, the ability to provide an honest opinion.

As for the Sight and Sound list. It's pretty much what you would expect. Compiled from a wide variety of people and containing choices from all over the world. I disagree with the number one choice. It's a pretty amazing documentary overall but I found it dragged on a little towards the end. Also I don't know if, when you are talking about the best films of the year, you should even include documentaries. For me they are an entirely separate category but I'm sure many others differ.

Some of these films are obscure but to lambast a list for including films that are hard to find is ludicrous. A films quality isn't determined by how wide or narrow a release it gets
.
I think Sight and Sound is ,increasingly, the only film magazine worth bothering with. It's a bit dry but I think that's no harm as an alternative to the majority of film writing that's out there. I think, by and large, it tries to provide intelligent coverage of cinema, left field and otherwise. They give credit where it's due, they have plenty of coverage of mainstream releases in the magazine and they don't savage films because they play in the local multiplex.

johnny_ultimate

Just as an interesting counterpoint to the S & S official list, they also polled readers. The top five ended up identical to the critics, while only a handful of films like Before Midnight gained enough votes to surpass the original top ten choices: http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/sight-sound-peoples-poll-2013-results

Merry Prankster

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think Gravity was lobbed in there for balance - the S&S list is an aggregate of various critics' and academics' personal lists. I'm stunned that Gravity is number 2 in S&S and number 1 in Empire. Visually it was unbelievable, a unique, dazzling experience (I saw in in the IMAX and was blown away). But the script wasn't great - very two-dimensional, wooden characterization with cheap tugs at the heart strings. Away from a 3D IMAX screen, it's going to lose a lot of its power.

Whereas I thought Captain Philips was far more subtle and powerful. I went to see it twice and it was even more moving the second time. I can't believe it didn't make it into the S&S top 30 at all. Bizarre.

P.S. I sort of agree about The Act Of Killing. I wouldn't exactly call the second half a chore, but it definitely loses something as it goes on. That said, it's still an amazing, unusual documentary.

Technocentral

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I've only seen one of the movies on the list. Their number one is a documentary and the rest appear to be arthouse. Nothing wrong with arthouse but when you exclude movies which most people go to see its not very balanced.

Why can't a documentary be the best film of the year? Films like "Senna", "Touching The Void" and "One Day In September" are amongst the the most powerful, suspenseful and moving things I've ever seen in a cinema. Also as has been said just because films are popular doesn't make them the "best", quite the contrary in my opinion. I think most people just want fantasy shiite and not reality, stupid robots and wizards and not films about fellow human beings, sad really.

e_e

Yeah kind of a reductive view of documentaries. Leviathan felt like more pure cinema to me than the likes of Iron Man or World War Z.

delbertgrady

Here's Cahiers du Cinema's editor's Top Ten.

1. L'inconnu du Lac
2. Spring Breakers (!!!)
3. La Vie d'Adele (Blue is the Warmest Colour)
4. Gravity
5. A Touch of Sin
6. Lincoln
7. La Jalousie
8. Haewon et les Hommes
9. Les Rencontres d'Apres Minuit
10. La Bataille de Solférino

Fifteen other staff have their lists in the magazine too. Florence Maillard voted The Lone Ranger sixth!
Spring Breakers and Cloud Atlas - both absent from the S&S list - get multiple votes.

Bullseye1

Technocentral wrote: »

Why can't a documentary be the best film of the year? Films like "Senna", "Touching The Void" and "One Day In September" are amongst the the most powerful, suspenseful and moving things I've ever seen in a cinema. Also as has been said just because films are popular doesn't make them the "best", quite the contrary in my opinion. I think most people just want fantasy shiite and not reality, stupid robots and wizards and not films about fellow human beings, sad really.

For me its a different category just as a tv series is a different category. I also do not agree with your statement highlighted.

e_e

Bullseye1 wrote: »

For me its a different category just as a tv series is a different category.

Why? This seems so arbitrary to me.

Mickeroo

Technocentral wrote: »

Why can't a documentary be the best film of the year? Films like "Senna", "Touching The Void" and "One Day In September" are amongst the the most powerful, suspenseful and moving things I've ever seen in a cinema. Also as has been said just because films are popular doesn't make them the "best", quite the contrary in my opinion. I think most people just want fantasy shiite and not reality, stupid robots and wizards and not films about fellow human beings, sad really.

Quite the opposite? So if a film is popular its automatically bad? That's just the same level of narrow-mindedness as people who only watch mainstream hollywood films.

As for "fantasy shiite" well again that's just incredibly narrow minded, there's some brilliant fantasy/sci-fi/nonsense films and all the good ones depict most of their characters as actual human beings whether they be wizards or whatever else.

I love cinema in all its forms, its only really crap films I have anything against to be honest.

opr

Decent eclectic top 25 list done with a kick ass montage - http://vimeo.com/80862133

Reading this thread and after watching that it got me thinking about all the stuff I've enjoyed this year and the sheer volume of good stuff I've seen. I have to say it has been an absolutely cracking year for cinema.

Opr

johnny_ultimate

You know, I do often struggle to get excited about documentaries the same way I do about fiction films. It's just me: there are plenty of exceptions from throughout cinema history, but I think a lot of documentaries, even the really fascinating stories, would often play out just as well on Discovery Channel. Something like Blackfish would be an example of that, or anything predominantly based on archive footage or talking heads (I even felt that way about Senna, and I'm seemingly alone in that view :pac:). They just don't yell 'great cinema' to me the way some features would.

I have to say though, The Act of Killing and Leviathan are two films that really show how much imagination and aesthetic ambition can go into documentary form, while also showing how futile it is to divide these kinds of work into predetermined 'genres'. The craftmanship and raw cinematic power on display easily put them up there as the most remarkable feats of filmmaking this year. I'm sure there's plenty of documentary fans out there who would dispute their validity and effectiveness as informative and subjective investigations - heck, a few of us have had that argument in The Act of Killing thread - and I've read well articulated criticisms of both of them. But honestly they were just two extraordinary trips to the cinema for me this year, well up there with the year's best works of fiction.