Best & Worst of 2004

So those morons over at MSNBC have released their best and worst movies lists for 2004. My first comment of course (and this applies to movie critics in general) is this -- these losers actually get PAID to do this?! Where do I sign up? As usual, the worst list is filled with big blockbuster films, while the best list is filled with Oscar-wannabe movies that most people have never heard of, much less seen. But let's take a look at their lists, shall we? Let's start with their best of 2004 list (MSNBC put them in alphabetical order, as opposed to ranking them, so I'll list them the same way here):

The Aviator
Before Sunset
Blind Shaft
Fahrenheit 9/11
The Incredibles
Kinsey
Maria Full of Grace
Sideways
Strayed
Touching the Void

Now I have nothing against independent films, or arthouse films. On the contrary, some of them are quite enjoyable movies. But how is it that every year the award lists and critics' lists are filled with movies that made it to 15 or 20 screens in New York and LA, and that's it? Look at the list above. I see only 2 major studio releases -- The Incredibles and The Aviator -- and The Aviator just barely came out last week!! Which seems to be standard for the "best" movies of any year -- they come out in a dozen art house theaters in major cities right before the end of the year (just in time to be qualified for that year's Oscar nominations), then they ride the wave of award buzz hoping to actually get picked up for wide distribution some time in the spring of the following year! I'm sorry, but I really have to wonder about a movie that people are only bothering to see because it was nominated for a Golden Globe Award.

So where are the films that us average film-goers know and love from the previous year to be found? The critic responsible for the above list made mention of both Shrek 2 and Spider-Man 2 for their high box office grosses, but somehow they fail to make it onto his list of best films. He even gives a brief list of the next 10 best films (which I won't bother to list here), and neither Shrek 2 or Spider-Man 2 made THAT list either!! So I'm supposed to believe that neither of these very successful and highly entertaining films was good enough to make it into the top 20 films of the year?! That's just ridiculous. Of course, this genius also mentions Harry Potter 3, and calls it the best of the Harry Potter movies (a comment I've read elsewhere as well), and to me that's just proof positive this guy has no clue at all, because Harry Potter 3 was by huge leaps and bounds the WORST of the Harry Potter movies!!

And speaking of worst, let's move on to MSNBC's worst of 2004 list, done by another brilliant MSNBC contributor (this list was actually ranked, but unlike the bright boy who made the list adn decided to put number 1 first, I'll actually list them like MOST lists are done, starting with 10 and counting down to 1). Since I've actually SEEN most of these movies (okay, so I've only seen half of them, but I've at least seen the trailers for all of them, which is a lot more than I can say for MSNBC's top 20 movies of the year), I'll actually throw my commentary in after each movie:

10. Christmas with the Kranks -- Haven't actually seen this one, but considering how many people went to see it at the theater, it can't have been that bad. Now I admit that being successful doesn't make a movie good (see also the success of such incredible steaming crap as Jackass: The Movie), but in this case I'm thinking the movie can't have been as bad as the critics make it out to be.

9. Envy -- Haven't seen this movie yet, and while it looked cute, it was obviously the type of film the critics were going to hate. It may be as bad as the critics claimed, but somehow I doubt it.

8. Surviving Christmas -- Okay, so I can't really bring myself to argue with the critics on this one. After seeing the trailers, I had no desire whatsoever to waste my time with this one. It probably actually deserves to be on this list.

7. Taxi -- I saw this movie, and I loved it! Okay, I admit that Jimmy Fallon has a ways to go before he's ready to actually take the lead in a movie, and Queen Latifah had to pick up a lot of his slack, but the movie was still pretty damned funny. Add to that some incredibly sexy women bank robbers and some pretty damned cool high speed chase scenes, and this was a solidly entertaining film. Of course, it didn't have any deep existential meaning or heartfelt examination of the human condition, so of course the critics hated it.

6. Paparazzi -- Never got around to seeing this one at the theater, but any movie where scumbag paparazzi get what's coming to them can't be all bad, can it?

5. Resident Evil: Apocalypse -- Okay, so this movie wasn't even close to the original, and the cinematography really needed some work, but it was still a pretty good movie. Was it a super-scary zombie flick? Well, no. But was it supposed to be? Again, I say, no. It was an adrenaline-filled, action/horror effects piece. And all in all it was a fun way to kill a couple of hours on a Saturday afternoon -- which is a lot more than I can say for a lot of the movies out there.

4. The Whole Ten Yards -- Another sequel that just didn't match up to the original (but how many sequels do). My main complaint (being a heterosexual male and all), is that they felt the need to make it PG-13, thus reducing the wonderful Amanda Peet nude scene that so livened up the first movie to just a shot of her bare back, but maybe that's just me. And when you really get right down to it, the joke's were a lot more forced, and it just wasn't nearly as funny as the first one. But it was still amusing at times, and hardly what I'd consider the fourth worst movie of the year.

3. The Stepford Wives -- I don't care what anyone says, this movie was hysterical. I loved this movie! Now I've only seen it once, so I don't know how the humor stands up to repeat viewings, but as far as a single theatrical viewing goes, I'd be a lot more likely to rate this one of the best movies of the year than one of the worst. Guess that's why I'll never get paid to review movies!

2. Catwoman -- Okay, so I can't argue with the critics on this one. Another movie that looked so bad I couldn't bring myself to spend good money on it. And I love the idea of Halle Berry in a skin-tight latex cat suit! But I'm also a very big fan of the Catwoman comic books, and from a comic book geek's perspective, this movie is a complete horror and disgrace. It really makes me shake my head at how disappointing DC Comic's movie adaptations have been, especially when you look at the incredible run Marvel's been on lately with its movies. I'm keeping my fingers crossed about Batman Begins!

1. The Chronicles of Riddick -- Worst movie of the year? Please! This was a pretty damned good movie. No, it was't Oscar worthy, and there were certainly much better movies put out in 2004, but this was still a very enjoyable film. The ending is kind of flat and sort of leaves you hanging (so we can only hope they get their sequels green-lit so we can actually see where they're going with that ending), but otherwise a solid action/sci-fi film.

Along with their bottom 10, they also give us a list of "dishonorable mentions" --

Van Helsing, Dodgeball, Napolean Dynamite, The Village, Dogville, The Alamo, Saw, New York Minute, A Very Long Engagement, The Butterfly Effect, and Garfield.

Only a few comments to make there: Van Helsing was okay; hardly a great film, but a lot better than a number of other movies that came out. Dodgeball was absolutely hilarious, by far the funniest movie of the year! But of course most critics are far too snooty to appreciate low-brow humor (and how often do you run across a film with genuinely funny low brow humor that doesn't immediately drop into toilet humor, like so many of the comedies that have come out recently). The Village -- okay, that was quite a disappointment, and I'm a big fan of M. Night Shyamalan.

So now that I've trashed the critics' best & worst lists (well, MSNBC's lists anways, since they're the only ones I've run across), I suppose I should qualify things by posting my own lists. Of course, I'm going to have to go back through the list of all the movies that came out in 2004, since I can barely remember last month's movies, much less movies from early spring, so it will probably be a few days. And since I actually have to pay my own way to the movies I go see, I haven't seen nearly as many as the critics have (and of course I live in a podunk town in Montana, so I don't have access to a lot of the independent films the critics all thought were so great), so my list will be more limited in its scope. But I've got a feeling my best and worst lists will be a lot closer to the average movie-goer's lists than any film critic's lists are likely to be.