Yes I know I'm normally late with my Top 10 lists of the year but it took me a while to see all the movies and DVDs I had to see. So without further ado:
Actually I'm not a professional writer. I took journalism in college but making it as a writer is tough because it is a competitive field and thanks to the internet anyone can make a journalist of themselves. Also I'm missing one important ingredient in professional writing, an ego. Arrogance is especially key for being a film critic as it gives them the confidence to think that they're right despite all the flack they get from readers writing in. I'm not arrogant enough to be a successful film critic. Also if you noticed on my list, I give some commercial movies the benefit of the doubt unlike most professional film critics. They're most admiring these artsy movies few see like The Tree Of Life and Melancholia.
RHB-Fan said:
Hello, are you sure you are not a professional film reviewer/expert etc? Just wondering you know so much about movies and quality movies it seems you are not like a lot of people who lok at how much money it made etc. I loved Super 8 it was an awesome and movie with so much excitement and I also love 'Hugo" great choice for the top movie.
Yeah, I see blockbusters. I like blockbusters but I do my rankings mostly on the basis of writing, acting, directing and producing. A lot of those blockbusters, especially the ones you mentioned, are great but their main forte is the visual effects while it's mostly lacklustre in terms of writing and acting performances.
Jon_Brit said:
I am wondering mate do you go to any so called blockbusters like the Battleships, Spiderman etc? just wondering because al your films are more the classy movies you know all I have seen in your top ten is "Hugo" and that is deserved, also seen Potter and Super 8 both excellent.
I think because the Acadaemy, like me in my Top 10 list, put a lot of emphasis on dircting efforts, scriptwriting, and acting performances. Those action movies excel in a lot of the technical stuff, especially visual effects, but are pretty lacklustre in terms of the core stuff I just talked about. Mind you I myself usually leave off a lot of movies I enjoy on each year's lists because of those factors. There were some movies I didn't exactly enjoy like The Artist or The Tree of Life that I had in the Top 10 because of its filmmaking quality. When I concoct a list like this, filmmaking excellence takes priority over personal enjoyment.
NavyBoy said:
All those top ten films are artsy rubbish that teens don't care about except for Hugo and the special mentions of Harry Potter, DRive and Super 8. These are the only obe that win Oscars anyways it seems, when will a Raiders of the Loast Ark type win?
I have one for you, in 1987 “Platoon” won and there is nothing slow or artsy about that film it is a gritty realistic look at the war in Vietnam. The movie is excellent in all areas with some outstanding performances.
NavyBoy said:
All those top ten films are artsy rubbish that teens don't care about except for Hugo and the special mentions of Harry Potter, DRive and Super 8. These are the only obe that win Oscars anyways it seems, when will a Raiders of the Loast Ark type win?
Platton is one of the more grittier movies that won a best Oscar, like most mentioned Oscar winners for Best Film tend to be artsy dramas, period pieces and the like.
I would rank "The Descendants" as my top film with "Hugo" a close second, other than that a great list.
