The end of one year and the beginning of another is a time of top ten lists in America. I generally do not pay attention to list that supposedly have the best or worst of something because as I have said many times before judging any art form is pretty subjective and rarely does the so called professionals or experts agree on what’s the best or worst of any art form. It is all pretty subjective stuff. Everyone has his or her own taste.
Frankly, in my opinion the list that matters most in the American capitalist society is the list of top moneymakers.
There can sometime be a correlation between the popularity of a movie and how much money it makes. So if you want to know which movies were the most popular with the American public ticket gross is a good thing to look at.
The “experts” would argue that popularity does not mean good quality. Of course the “experts” as I said don’t always agree on what is good quality (“to each his own” I think the saying goes).
I might as well write about some of my favorites of 2004. I guess I’ll start with the movies. This may take several blogs since I’m still seeing movies from 2004. There are a couple of historically (or dramatizations based on historical events and/or people) based movies that I have to see and will most likely blog about afterwards.
I do not blog about every film I see. This is especially true if I don’t think the movie was very good. However even films I think were okay or excellent are not always blogged about. So, you won’t read about every film I’ve seen in this blog.
Many of the films nominated for Golden Globes I have not seen and/or have absolutely no interest in seeing. A few I do want to see or have seen.
I do think this is a weak year for ‘watchable’ and quality films(the combination is important) being nominated for a Golden Globe.
Two of the best films of 2004 in my opinion are ‘Passion Of The Christ” (A grade) directed by Mel Gibson and “Alexander” (B grade) directed by Oliver Stone.
The criticisms of “Passion Of The Christ” just seem to be too lame for me. I think one of the main complaints against “Passion Of The Christ” was that it was too bloody and violent.
The major criticisms of “Alexander” concerns things like the accents used by certain actors, hair color of leading character, and the sexuality of the leading character (which was historically accurate). Just like with “Passion Of The Christ” all of these criticisms against “Alexander” seem lame.
I think its funny that Oliver Stone who took extreme liberties with the historical facts surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and was skewered for it could be equally skewered for accurately portraying the reality of sexual expression in ancient Greece.
Could the screenplay have been ‘polished’? Yes. Could the movie had dealt in more depth with the life of Alexander The Great?………Of course. Could all of the characters have had more complexity? Absolutely. However these are all judgments a director have to make and the lack of any of these elements do not necessarily mean a bad movie.
In the movie Alexander’s case Stone broadly outlined the life of Alexander with the emphasis being on the main thing Alexander The Great is known for and that is conquering a large portion of the world (building an empire if you will) during his time.
I think “Alexander” is the most rememberable movie of 2004 for me. It is unique in American cinema in that it is an action/adventure/historical movie that does not shy away from the controversial (in the US) sexuality of the main character. The action hero is bisexual. Way to go Stone.