The Top 20 Films of 2011

[Dyers]

Because we all greatly respect my knowledge when it comes to film (okay, so maybe you don't), I figured I would create a thread where I would list off the Top 20 films that were theatrically released this year (and because I want to please hub).

For this thread I'm going to make 1 post dedicated to one film and give a review of it. Sounds simple enough, no? I won't post these all at once, but slowly reveal the list over the next several days (hopefully it's not weeks).

It's tough to gauge how great of a year it was for film. I always feel that it's a little foolish to judge a year right after it ends. I don't think we'll truly know how great a year is for film until a few years later. Some films age better with time and some certainly do not. There are films on this list that I strongly feel will be discussed for years to come. Other films, honestly, might fade and barely be remembered by the mass public within a few years. My initial reaction for this year is that it was a solid year. I felt there were some very unique films made that wouldn't have been released 10 years ago, and I think that's a very good thing.

Enough of that rambling though, there are couple of things I should note: I have not seen every film that was released in 2011. That should be painfully obvious. I didn't, however, see some big films that were released. These films include:

• Hugo
• The Adventures of Tin Tin
• Take Shelter
• We Need to Talk About Kevin
• The Iron Lady
• Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
• Melancholia
• J Edgar
• War Horse

I feel these are the main movies that could have easily made the list, but in all honestly it could be another 6 months before I get around to seeing all of these.

I strongly encourage people to engage and discuss their thoughts on these films and support their analysis. I'm not asking you to write a full blown essay as a response, but at least provide something constructive.

[Mcratz]

Just trowing some more out there:

Adjustment Bureau
Rango
Sucker Punch
Hanna
X-Men: First Class
Super 8
Happy Potter and what ever the hell the name of this one was.
Captain America
Rise of The Planet Of the Apes
Contagion
Moneyball
Ides of March
The Rum Diary

Just to name a couple of others.

[hub]

Just trowing some more out there:

Adjustment Bureau
Rango
Sucker Punch
Hanna
X-Men: First Class
Super 8
Happy Potter and what ever the hell the name of this one was.
Captain America
Rise of The Planet Of the Apes
Contagion
Moneyball
Ides of March
The Rum Diary

Just to name a couple of others.

Is this some kind of a joke list?

Explain thyself, knave!

[Mcratz]

I really liked X-Men and Super 8. Thought they were well done flicks.

[DBC]

X-Men was great.

[eXtreme Burrito!]

2011 Was a Shit year for cinema. There. I said it.



Come at me, motherfuckers.

[Cruisey Poo]

Sorry Mcratz, but X-men First Class was horrible. Half the movie was about little kids with terrible super powers. lol screaming high pitched to fly off the water. Overall it was just a mess. Pacing wise too.

@Mcratz

[Dyers]

Not going to lie, writing an extensive review for the 20th best film of the year isn't nearly as much fun or insightful as writing one for the top 10. Therefore, sorry if this review isn't spectacular or anything, but I tried my best. I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this film.

#20


Directed by J.J. Abrams
Released June 10, 2011
Starring: Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning, Kyle Chandler, Riley Griffiths, Ryan Lee, Ron Eldard
112 Minutes

In the summer of 1979, a group of friends in a small Ohio town witness a catastrophic train crash while making a super 8 movie and soon suspect that it was not an accident. Shortly after, unusual disappearances and inexplicable events begin to take place in town, and the local Deputy tries to uncover the truth - something more terrifying than any of them could have imagined.

Since the creation of Lost, J.J. Abrams has become one of the most wanted people in Hollywood. With the exception of Mission: Impossible III (2006), Abrams has a strong presence in the genre of Science Fiction with works such as Cloverfield (2008), Fringe (2008-), and Star Trek (2009). Super 8 continues his exploration into Science Fiction, but the film is a strong homage to the classic Spielberg blockbusters from the late 70's and early 80's.

Super 8 is eerily reminiscent of an early Spielberg film such as E.T. or one of the several monster throwback films of that time period. The great thing about those films is because they carried a certain charm and remembrance with the audience. Most people will always recall the chase scene in E.T. when they fly on their bike. Super 8 definitely differs namely for a few different reasons. First, there isn't a great memorable scene that will stand out 20 years from now. Secondly, the alien isn't a friend of the protagonist, at least not to the extent. The biggest problem I have with Super 8 is that the characters, human and alien, are not memorable. The film does a great job of developing these characters and drawing interest for the first hour, but then the dynamics of the characters and story seem to become unhinged from there. The relationship between the father and son isn't executed particularly well. In fact, most of the relationships between the adult characters and kids aren't very good as a whole. It's a dichotomy that's been played out several times before, the main kids of the film don't see eye to eye with each other. Therefore, they must find solace in other kids. Fortunately the relations among the kids are great. Subplots involving the Joe and Charles infatuation with Alice aren't excruciating or eye roll worthy. I credit this with J.J. Abrams knowing how to capture the essence of kids interacting with another.

The biggest component of Super 8 is the alien. J.J. Abrams was involved with a film similar to Super 8 a few years earlier called Cloverfield. The monster in Cloverfield appears on screen clearly at times throughout the movie, and depending on who you ask, was either a great element or a poorly executed one. The alien in Super 8 definitely doesn't make as many appearances. All we're left with is a couple of glimpses of it through the dark. It's not until the films 3rd act that we good a idea of what the creature looks like. It's an execution that works well. The Cloverfield monster appears more because… well it's bigger. It's small and agile, and if were seen frequently it wouldn't make for a very good alien and therefore wouldn't be nearly as captivating.

Overall Super 8 sets out to accomplish one thing for it's audiences: invoking a sense of fun with nostalgia. The film certainly exceeds at being fun for the audience. There are great set pieces including the train sequence and plenty of action scattered throughout the film. However, the only problem with going for a hardcore nostalgia angle for the film is that it inevitably won't be nearly as memorable as the films it's modeled after. When everyone saw E.T. back in the early 80's, they told people to go see it immediately. With Super 8, people are going to come out of the theater and saw that they liked it… and move on with their lives.

[Dyers]

#19


Directed by Rupert Wyatt
Released August 5, 2011
Starring: James Franco, Frida Pinto, John Lithgow, Brian Cox, Tom Felton, Andy Serkis
105 Minutes

At the story's heart is Caesar (Andy Serkis), a chimpanzee who gains human-like intelligence and emotions from an experimental drug. Raised like a child by the drug's creator, Will Rodman (James Franco) and a primatologist Caroline Aranha (Freida Pinto), Caesar ultimately finds himself taken from the humans he loves and imprisoned in an ape sanctuary in San Bruno. Seeking justice for his fellow inmates, Caesar gives the fellow apes the same drug that he inherited. He then assembles a simian army and escapes the sanctuary - putting man and ape on a collision course that could change the planet forever.

When I first heard word that they were going to reboot Planet of the Apes my first reaction was that it was going to be absolutely horrific. I began to think how sick I was of Hollywood just rebooting any franchise it can think of and seemingly rape the originals. Had they not learned from the Tim Burton version with Mark Wahlberg? Apparently ten years, many drinks, and the idea of a mountain of money can change the minds of many. Not me though, there was absolutely no way I was going to fall for it.

Then the first trailer came out... and my suspicions looked all but confirmed. Once again, I decided to completely ride this film off and wasn't even going to think twice about seeing it. Then the second trailer was released... and something was different. It looked good. What? Still, I figured the reviews would come out and knock some sense into me. The week leading up to the movie reviews started pouring in and to my amazement they were genuinely positive. Still not convinved the movie would be spectacular, I decided to go ahead and see the film. And I'm glad I did.

No, the movie isn't perfect by any means. Typically I gauge how great a film is for how many redeeming qualities it has. Fortunately for this film, it has one extremely good quality for it: Andy Serkis. Serkis is a flat out one man show, which completely saves the film from the extremely forgettable James Franco and Frida Pinto (no joke, when I was typing out the cast I was a little shocked to see Pinto's name on there, because I had completely forgotten she was in it). Andy Serkis is becoming one of the most important actors of our generation for the simple reason that he's proving that a great performance can be masked in CGI. Granted, that should have been realized when Lord of the Rings came out, but you could have easily attributed that to the writing. The writing is definitely not as good in this film, but with what Serkis had to work with it's quite a feat. If the Best Actor award race wasn't so tough and crowded this year, I would have felt that Serkis deserved a spot. Serkis is able to bring a seemingly truthful and real quality to Caesar. Serkis was able to bring more emotion to his character than his costars and effortlessly steals every scene that he's in.

Okay, so enough gushing about Serkis's brilliant performance. There are other aspects to this movie, which unfortunately are not up to par with Serkis. First off, the writing is pretty bad. The story does have numerous plot holes which I feel have been discussed frequently in the movie review thread on this site. As stated above as well, the writing for Caesar was spectacular. It seems to me, however, that the best writing was left for Caesar's character and then everything else was written by a student practicing script writing. I did enjoy the aspect of John Lithgow having Alzeihmer's, but I wish it would have been more of a central theme to the story instead of a minor subplot. The original Planet of the Apes was great when it was read as an issue on race, which mended together perfectly with current issues in the United States at the time. Perhaps then, this film could have been written better if had contained a heavier emphasis on the themes of genetic experiments and the relationship between chimps and primates.

Still overall the film was a very fun and entertaining watch. The film is riddled with some poor character development and plot holes. As I've stated before, I try to find one redeeming quality when I watch a film. Rise of the Planet of the Apes definitely has one: Andy Serkis performance as Caesar can hold on it's own and be reason enough to see the film.

[hub]

I like where this thread is going.