2007: The Year that the Roman Goddess' Child was Abandoned by Daniel Day-Lewis

2007 was a cynical and depressing year. I loved it! Two of the film nominees from this year were listed in Rolling Stone magazine's top 10 films of the decade. That wasn't a compliment, because I read that article and it's crap. As many know, I hate when things I like are talked about as being better than they are, because then it causes me to notice the things that are bad about it and that makes me mad. But, I thankfully still like them in this instance so let's get to it.

First on the list is appropriately my least favorite on the list, but not because I don't like it. The film is Atonement and I had very mixed feelings about it, because if it was just slightly (and I do mean slightly) different it could've been a lot better. The film centers around a romance in World War II era England and to make a long story (about 20 minutes longer than it should've been) short, the dude is sent away by being implicated in a crime he didn't commit. He is implicated by the younger sister of the dude's girlfriend. Why, you ask? It could be because she was in love with him, and was jealous of her sister. It could be because she thought he was a sex fiend. It could be because she was a brat. I like the third explanation most, but it was probably the first one. Whatever the reason, the big twist in the story is: (need I say SPOILER ahead? It should be implied) that the dude ended up dying in the war and the older sister ending up dying in a flood during the war, never having been able to get married. The reason this is a twist is because we see them living out their lives as they should've been, but this turns out to be just a story the younger sister wrote when she got older to Atone (get it?) for sending him away. Sounds pretty cool right? Too bad all we get to see of this atonement is a five minute scene where she apologizes to her sister and a 30 second scene of the couple on the beach at the end. So it boils down to roughly: 1 hour and 40 minutes real, depressing story. 5 minutes made up story which contains an apology but not much living the life they should've had. 5 minutes explanation that she wrote a book on the happiness. 30 seconds beach scene and then end credits. So basically, the explanation of the story is actually more powerful than the delivery, because we never truly get to witness much of the atonement. The movie is pretty well done overall, it just could've been better. Oh and Keira Knightley is hot, just saying.

Juno, on the other hand, is pretty much as good as it could have possibly been and it's awesome. I do think that Best Picture nominee is a bit of a stretch, but since the film had no shot of winning and they kind of just wanted to tip their hats to it for being original and quirky, that's cool with me. This is a classic example of how delivery is almost always better than an initial idea. If all you have is a good idea, then it can run out of steam early on in a film. But you can start with an idea that's completely unoriginal and make it awesome. Not that there are a whole lot of movies that are completely centered on teen pregnancy, but it certainly happens often enough in real life that it's obviously not an "original" idea. The movie is instead about the characters, who come alive through the quirky dialogue. I personally find quirky and funny dialogue to be the most realistic in movies. This is a big part of why I love Tarantino. Would bank robbers sit around all the time talking about robbing banks and torturing cops? No. Madonna songs and tipping waitresses? Definitely. To the same effect, many claim that characters in movies like Juno are far more articulate and clever than people in real life but I disagree. Cleverness by way of dialogue is the crux of human friendship and camaraderie. So when you're watching Juno (who is named after the Greek goddess Hera, whose Roman name was Juno. That little sidenote is for my mythologically illiterate readers) interact with her friends and her sort-of boyfriend (the always wonderfully awkward Michael Cera. The awkward thing is getting old, but it fits here) you feel like you really get to know them because they get along in much the same way that you do with your own friends. So major props to Diablo Cody for her awesome script and for being the only fun movie in a year full of depressing movies.

Know what would've been awesome? If one of the two most depressing movies was next on the list after I said that. But alphabetization (cruel mistress that she is) demands that I next talk about Michael Clayton: by no means a cheery movie, but it carries no existential loneliness or feelings related to the darkness of the human soul. So that's nice. This movie features yet another George Clooney playing himself type idea, which is fine because George Clooney is the fricking man! Although I will say he's a bit more intense in this movie: a taut legal thriller about a lawfirm's fixer who gets in over his head. I've seen better movies that deal with similar themes, but that doesn't take away from the quality of this film. Because any movie or show about a character outsmarting a bunch of other people and getting them to shoot themselves in the foot is certainly good in my book. As I've mentioned in the past, that is often what makes some iconic villains so likeable sometimes. And when a man spends his whole life making morally questionable decisions to cover up misdeeds, why would you try to pull a fast one on him and cover it up? Not smart. So while it ends the way you figure it will and the movie is a bit slow at times, the final scene alone is well worth the viewing. Not as good as the year's two best, but a solid movie to be sure.

When I say "the year's two best," I mean of the ones that received a nomination. There are almost always films that come out in a given year that never receive recognition but are often some of the best releases. Not that I can think of any for 2007...but in 2006 The Prestige should've been on there somewhere. But that's a tale for my next entry. For now, we can talk about a truly great film that certainly did deserve a nomination: There Will Be Blood. This was (if memory serves) Rolling Stone's top movie of the decade. And to that I say HA! But just because Rolling Stone wouldn't know the best movie of a decade if it took a ring to Mount Doom right in front of them for three years doesn't mean it's not a great movie. The defining feature of the movie of course being Daniel Day-Lewis' frighteningly good performance as the lead character, oil baron and industrial revolution supervillain Daniel Plainview. The reason I object to it being called the best film of the decade is really because the true argument could be made that it was the best performance of the decade. The words that Daniel Day-Lewis are given to speak aren't always inherently good, he makes them good. The story of a man rising to power and becoming corrupted has been done and re-done and re-re-done. So even though the delivery is certainly good, it's not particularly different or better than it has been in the past. It's a well-directed film with some great supporting performances (Paul Dano is especially brilliant) and a hauntingly creepy musical score. Definitely Oscar material, no question. But really, Rolling Stone? Really, Entertainment Weekly? Missed Lord of the Rings did we? Didn't see Million Dollar Baby huh? Ever heard of Traffic? Munich? I guess not.

And this now brings us to 2007's winner, a suspenseful, unusual, and great film: No Country for Old Men. I go back and forth on whether I agree with the Academy on which one was better, this or the one with the oil baron (I'm tired of using the italics button, it's annoying). I guess I agree at the end of the day because this one is a bit more original. It's your classic "chasing down a crazed lunatic" story, so pretty much like a modern Western, but the title of the movie says it all. Tommy Lee Jones' character never even comes into contact with Javier Bardem's character (who is so scary that if I saw the actor in real life I'd run screaming in the other direction. Right after I ran screaming toward him looking for an autograph of course). The reason being that in all walks of life, whether they be medical, legal, whatever, change drastically over time. When Tommy Lee Jones was young he probably could've caught anybody in record time. His skills haven't necessarily diminished over time, but the game has changed and he can't keep up. He's a PS2 in a PS3 world. It's not his fault he's been moved out of the system, it's just inevitable. The film explores a great many other themes such as fate and existentialism, but it'd take too much time to go into it all and I'm not even sure I remember how it exhibited a lot of those things. My only minor complaint about the filmmakers in general, is that they don't seem to be giving their movies proper endings recently. This one just kind of ends, and so does their recent one about the guy with the bad luck (not touching that italics button, not even once more). The abrupt endings are appropriate in both cases, but if their next movie does the same thing I'm going to smack them. Still in all, this movie is certainly an impressive piece of movie history and their choice to have almost no music of any kind causes the whole film to just kind of sit there, becoming more suspenseful all the while (because the music isn't there to tell you what's coming). I forget where it was on the Rolling Stone list, too high probably, but I'm certainly a big fan.

Well there you have it, certainly one of the better selections of films in recent years (2001? Yikes!) and though I feel that some of the films garnered more praise than they deserved they were still good. I haven't watched all of 2006 yet, but I only have 1 left so that entry will come up soon. And then I can do all of 2005, 04, and onto 03. I know, I broke the rules. So does Jack Bauer. So there. And though I haven't finished it, I can tell you the next installment includes 4 languages for "boring," underage stripping, and Leonardo DiCaprio getting shot in the face.