At least some of us got 2006 right!!!

Good read Dolce, I don't agree with most of it which I'll get into later, but it was a nice perspective on the year.

I agree with some of it. I'll be seeing Little Children within the next few days, so we'll have more to discuss...

We agree that V for Vendetta was trash, that's clear. And I would agree that Hollywood had a mediocre year, struggling to find greatness. It was rare, but the year isn't completely amiss. I think films like The Departed (which you thankfully liked) and Children of Men are extremely solid entries that will stand the test of time. Others, like United 93, might be a bit too topical and might lose some impact, but are still worth remembering. I even think movies like Shortbus, that took a chance, deserve some recognition as imperfect as they may be.

I do not agree that Bond has lost his essence, nor has he changed for good. I appreciate the change in direction for the franchise. I'm a huge fan of Bond, having seen all of the films multiple times and some of them far too many times to admit. It is different - this isn't Connery's Bond. However, the take is refreshing after years of the same mundane formula. That is where the difference in opinion probably is - I think the formula was broken, and I appreciate the change in style for what it is. I'm not a purist, and I don't think Bond is gone for good. I think we're exploring a different side of the character, and this series has the chance to explore some interesting topics. It certainly works, in my opinion. Your Bond isn't gone for good. I could still see some of it in Craig, and I certainly still feel that sense of adventure, the wonder of travel, and the glamour that makes Bond iconic.

About Children of Men. I can't disagree with you more, though I think at this point it will be impossible for you to view it without some sort of loathing you've already accumulated. I don't think one hears much of this pro-natalism you speak of because there isn't much there. Implicitly, maybe. If you go searching for it, you might find that.... but I don't think that is a fair interpretation of Cuaron's vision for this film. To me, it was much more anti-war, anti-destruction than pro-life in the political sense. Being pro-life in the contemporary sense comes with political baggage that I don't think should be considered in the case of the film. Cuaron isn't out to make that kind of a message, in my opinion. It's much more about respecting life more so than a film bent on vilifying abortion or even implying that it ought to be stopped. We both know Cuaron doesn't operate like that, and if that is what you are suggesting I don't think it's fair all things considered. It's a remarkable technical achievement (I don't know why I bother mentioning that since you've dismissed that as a reason to celebrate it) and it really works as a celebration of humanity. I'm sorry you don't seem as interested in it, because I think Cuaron did an excellent job sending the message home. That just might be me, though...

Dolce, you need to see Children Of Men. While the film itself could be called political (it's very left-wing, in fact), there's no political "pro-life" message in it.

Give it a chance for me, and I swear I'll finally give that Black Cat, White Cat film a go.

No, I think you read that right! The first line was referring to movies like Good German that wanted to be a "Noir" so much that they killed the noir genre. And My personal opinion that Pirates was a step down the original, etc. The second line is that even with these stinkers, box office numbers were up, and critics felt the need to applaid everything because they don't want to be out of touch with pop culture (or something, I don't know, can't really speak for them). The first was a comment on my fruistration with the movies. The second, my frustration with the audiences.

Bradley and others - And for Children of Men, I find it hard to believe that in 20 years of barren women science didn't develope a way to reproduce in the lab. Natalism is not the same thing as pro-choice/anti-choice debate. It is the fundamental belief that only through mothers carrying their babies in wombs can mankind reproduce. Which is bs. There's cloning, their already exterior fertilization proceedures that could soon not even require female carrying. Maybe, like implant it a man to carry (Remember the movie Junior, heh). But the raw plotline that mankind is so dependant on my ability to conceive and carry kids, and that the central focus of this movie "how the birth was used by various factions" still means the woman's actual conception and the protection of her womb are the focus of this movie. I was surprised by how many reviews I read that said how great the movie's message was of war sucking, and forgot to mention how sucky was the idea that wars would eventually end, and hope would begin, through heteronormative metods of reproduction. I'm not giving it my 12 bucks, my love for its cinematographer aside.

Ah well. I do realize one of the big problems this year (which began last year) was when the Oscar nominees started being announced a month later. It means alot of movies I really would like got delayed the extra month in release, and are coming out literally two weeks before the end of the year. Two years ago they would have at least come out in the beginning of December, giving me more time to see them before end of year review. I do still want to see Notes from a Scandal, and I somehow was never able to catch The Queen (I know, I know). Dreamgirls, Blood Diamond, Heading South, and Perfume: The Story of MUrder are still on my list too. But if I waited until I saw all of those, you guys would have gotten a year end review only in late Feb!

Anyways, I did see the trailer for a fun looking movie, Mafioso, and Namesake looks like it could be good. I am still holding my breathe for the last installment of Pirates and SP3, plus even Black Snake Moan and Smoking Aces look kind of fun. So maybe 2007 will redeem my almost complete disdain for 2006.

If I were to make a top 10, it would go like this:

10. The Proposition
9. Thank-You for Smoking
8. The Illusionist
7. Little Miss Sunshine
6. The Departed
5. Half Nelson
4. Pan's Labyrinth
3. Volver
2. Tristram Shandy
1. Little Children


Anyways, I'm glad you guys enjoyed reading it, even if it was a little rough.

I don't believe you! You said you'd watch that movie for two years already.
And I responded in my above post, that being anti-war, or even cynical, does not in my book imply being politically left-wing. The synopsis alone is enough to turn me off from this. Even if the ultimate story is "Why bring a child into this horrible place," it still assumed a priumacy of traditional forms of reproduction. The fact that they were trying to bring this preganant woman to a group called "the Human Project" or some such dopey connection between her womb and hope turned me off even as a concept. I don't care if we learn individuals are manipulative along the way. Mankind's collapse as a consequence of lack of traditional reproduction is not the same thing as man kind being so ugly people choose not to reproduce. The premis is conservative, and while it may be "left" because of its war message, it seems to stand pretty far right, and get away with it because of the war message, on other issues. I read the synopsis and was worried, so went and looked into the original author, and following that read a ton of critical reviews...all of which don't even address this, which really bugs me. Its a sign people don't even consider this natalism agenda to be an issue, or agenda, anymore.

Might have been an 'accident' on Cuaron's part (who knows except for him if he realized' but I'm not willing to sit around in this country where increasingly stringent anti-abortion laws come up in elections every term, and there's still so much antagonism to stem cell research and give my money to something that at its heart is still so focussed on female reproductive abilities.

Anyways, I knew I'd get sizzled for that one, so I'll back off now. Just thought someone had to put that out there, because its not like any single one of the dozens of critics or synopsis summaries I've read even mentioned it.

You should still watch Black Cat White Cat, though. I assure you, Snrub.

Is dolce the sexiest and smartest movie critic in the world? I believe on your CHILDREN OF MEN stance. The "Why?" issue was avoided for the sake of something "apparently" beautiful.

Getluv, you know I'll get you that green card anytime you want it!

Already taken care of, dolce.

Don't try and take my man.

I will be in New York in September. We can plan the rest of our lives in your favourite art museum while i talk dirty Australian dirty slang.

Sorry, Dolce is Miss Congeniality.

While you, are below me.

I don't appreciate that.

I'm going to embarrass you one day.

Excuse me, this is dolce's thread. If you want me to like you, you have to start being a movie critic and try and be as sexy as dolce. But I expect people like dolce to be in limited supply. My next stop is Jeff...want to take a peek.

...nevermind.

They actually did 2 years ago I believe. Although it requires female egg's so if all the men went kaput it would be ok, but it won't work without women. Also the procedure only produces female offspring.

In vitro, cloning, lots of different ideas. Its sci-fi, its futurisitic, its supposed to assume new technologies have come up with the absense of a 'normal' pregnancy in twenty years.

Am I the only one that read pulp sci-fi like Diamond Age: Or, a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer growing up? C'mon even Bladerunner and Terminator had ways of recreating humans (that ended up having emotions too!) in little cyborgs.

I also don't appreciate the casual relationship between the 'failure' of traditional reproduction and the war. All historic wars come with a rhetoric on nation-state or ethnic fertility and pro-creation. We don't consider those moments progressive, so I'm still trying to figure out why no one will address this, just push it aside. I'd feel much better if people say they liked it and addressed that topic, rather than just pretending it wasn't there. Sometimes, directors and writers have rather controversial subjects, and it becomes a part of hy one does enjoy a film, or at least stimulates goo ddiscussion. But it shocked me how no one (and I'm not saying just people here) has even mentioned the natalism aspects. Bleh.

No, it isn't just you. I also agree that it works as a celebration of humanity, on many different levels.

When I saw it I didn't see the pro-life argument, and reflecting on it I still don't. There wasn't anybody who ever really wanted to "kill" the child, just use it for their puproses.

I mean, I guess if the character had wanted to kill the child and they had kidnapped her into keeping it for the sake of humanity etc...then yes that could be seen as a pro-life/pro-choice moral dilemna, but it isn't. Granted I appreciated the movie for its technical achievments, its sound direction and its captivating qualities. I felt it worked as a celebration of humanity and such but I didn't exactly gleam anything else out of it (as say I have from movies such as Before Sunrise/Before Sunset)...just my opinion.

Oh, and yes, V for Vendetta was crap. It was fun the night I saw it...but then again it was one of those movies I was sick through and drugged up on medications (this has happened several times, see "Robots" review), and on retrospective and attempting to watch again, it has all the sublety of a Paul Haggis script.

See, but this is sci-fi. We're supposed to anticipate that two years ago in reality we already made the 'first step' so why not envision a way of procreating in the future that just doesn't bother with the womb-as-home anymore? And while I realize most people don't do this and don't need to do it in their sci-fi, it is just too central of an issue in this particular plot. A little too central for me to bother supporting it.

But honestly, I just wish there was some element of discussion around it (which there doesn't seem to be). I guess because it says war is bad, and looks good, it must be the most wonderful, liberal thing on the planet. I have news for you, even the Evangelics in this country don't like the war anymore, and I'm sure part of their arguement for bringing home the boys focusses on their desire to re-establish conservative 'family values' and gender roles as well. We should give them a pat on the back for telling Bush to end Iraq because their daughters haven't had kids since their sons went off 3 years ago. Bravo...go anti-war movement. Always liberal...all the time.

...yes there have not been traditional or historic wars because as of yet no country/countries have suddenly ceased to produce offspring. Isn't that what most spawns most wars, the desire to expand territory (whether socio-economic or religious), the desire to have more influence and ultimately power? Isn't that what most wars are for. Now, in a society where power is draining, people don't have anything to live for ultimately do you not think that more and more people would adapt a more nihilistic approach and simply give up/give in to violence? If you had nothing to "live for" -- aka no offspring, no future, would you not be more likely to do things you otherwise wouldn't? Well, maybe not "you" directly, but I think that is human nature hence the war (which wasn't really a "war" in the film per se...just a massive sliding in public perception and actions)...

That isn't human nature though. So that makes Children of Men ultimately more realistic. You've seen the mass skepticism over various forms of "test tube babies" and even in vitro requires a female womb, which, if fertile, would not/could not support a living organism. To my knowledge, we have not been successful in actually "growing" a baby in a lab, and honestly I don't forsee that happening any time in the future. It is one of the elements of life that is fascinating, because ultimately even in cloning, it will require a supporting womb in order to succeed as a life form, something we cannot produce artificially (yet), and I don't know if that sort of a technological achievment is coming in the future.

Your next stop is me ... ?

And the film doesn't gloss over the idea that there have been scientists attempting to "solve" the mystery, no doubt in any way possible. There is a scene at the beginning in which the characters discuss the thinktanks and studies that have yet to yield a solution. The film doesn't harp on it, but it suggests that those options have been exhausted without success. At that point, what is left? What is more sacred than the fertile woman?

Damn he's good

Especially because dolce loves it.

Top 100-ish:
12 Monkeys (1995)

First on the list.