Best of 2007

The consistently ingenious, focused direction of the Coen brothers is a perfect match for the plainly profound style and substance of Cormac McCarthy's novel. Their film is a modern classic, a thrilling reward for intelligent viewership and a thought-provoking parable of good and evil and fate. Perfected by a great ensemble, gorgeous cinematography, and a brilliant screenplay, this is one of the best films of the decade.

A brilliantly photographed and meticulously crafted true story about life and death, as captivatingly real and true as film gets. Much like Bauby's own life, it is painful yet strikingly beautiful upon reflection.

Easily one of the best movies of 2007, the film seems like an American classic, the story too good to fabricate. A young man's search for happiness, enlightenment and self-actualization takes him across some of the most beautiful country in the world, and he finds what he is looking for only at the end of his journey, too late. Fantastic performances and cinematography bring the amazing true story to life in a way that only film can. Sean Penn's intimate direction, informed by an obviously personal relationship with the story, puts the audience through a visceral, human experience. I've never read the book, but adaptations don't get much better than this.

The film has no equal as an unabashedly frank, honest look at the true nature of young love. Both comic and poignant, it definitely has more personality than any other film of 2007. It is completely unapologetic about its style, characters, unique wit and turn of phrase, but why should it be? The screenplay is brilliant in placing the underlying themes of the story and carefully drawing the characters on the page, and the director and actors know just what to do with it. The cast is perfect. Without being showy or pretentious, Juno is a flawless piece of work.

Some of the film's acclaim is true: it is a sprawling, meticulously detailed epic of a monster and his greed played powerfully by Daniel Day-Lewis. It is usually as deep and mesmerizing as any other film of 2007. It is clearly the work of a brilliant director. But what it lacks, ultimately, is a reason for all the effort. For two and a half hours, we watch a vile, greedy man self-destruct until he becomes a soulless derelict. And... nothing. The film treats its story and characters with such gravitas and depth that it implies great meaning as well; some overarching theme or through-line; but it never bears a connection or relevance to the viewer. I would not have preferred some political statement, but I was disappointed that after watching an occasionally slow but amazing opus of irredeemable villainy, that's all it was. It is only ever self-important, its meanings intended more for the characters than the viewer. Flaws aside, the film is a daring and iconic achievement.

This is a showcase for old-fashioned storytelling at its finest, classic yet fresh, dressed with modern film's polish and depth. It is a transporting experience with gorgeous art direction and engrossing cinematography, the best-looking film of 2007. The performances are solid and the musical score is perfectly flighty, clever, and sweeping in turns. It is based on a morality tale by novelist Ian McEwan, and though its finer points never quite coalesce in the end, its craft is stunning.

Clever, funny, gruesome and tragic all at once, the film would seem to defy storytelling physics if all its mismatch elements did not fit together so perfectly. With all due respect to Stephen Sondheim, Tim Burton is responsible for the film's brilliance. When applied to this story, this setting, this cast, and this subject matter, his trademark sensibilities make them all seem of a consummate piece. It is a literally and creatively unflinching vision of an auteur who's found the perfect material for his talents. If only he would get around to remaking Dracula.

Fantastic direction, voice talents, screenplay, animation, and score make this another great addition to Pixar's pantheon of modern classics.

I do not generally enjoy musicals (I get hung up on why they are singing all of a sudden), but as far as movie musicals go, Across the Universe is a joy to watch. Julie Taymor's inspired direction finds true meaning and emotion in the best songs of a bygone era, and her cast of phenomenal performers connects with the audience despite an occasionally spotty script. I say "spotty" because the story is flighty and unfocused, busy and all over the place. The film is a bit of a mishmash, an emotional roller coaster through the turmoil of the 1960s, but when the ingredients are this good, the product is ludicrous at its worst, magical at its best. If nothing else, the spirit of the film left me longing to go back in time and be a part of it all, and to see what The Beatles would say about the film. Or more interestingly, what they would have sung about today.

One of 2007's most memorable films for its peerless visual flourish and raw emotional delivery of a great story. It is an epic unlike any that came before, Sin City-stylized and beautiful to behold but with a powerful emotional through-line. Its political connotations are not specifically allegorical, but the film's themes resonate (good or bad) for some because they are universal and may apply to many of history's great struggles. It is not, however, an intellectual work. As a grand and beautiful piece of visual storytelling, however, it is a landmark film that looks to the future of cinema.

The stellar cast does well with the dense script, brimming with dramatic one-liners and information. The story lacks the narrative arc and sense of rhythm one expects from a feature film, but of course it does, because it is a true story. It is still entertaining and interesting, a brilliant little historic parable about the paradoxical nature of politics with a meaningful commentary on the War on Terror given historical perspective.

That the film's narrative doesn't buckle under the weight of its countless subplots and dead ends is an achievement in itself, to say nothing of the fact that the film is truly intriguing and rather creepy. Only a director as clever as David Fincher, and a cast and screenwriter so talented, could have tackled this story with such smart results.

Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl are great in the most surprisingly good movie of 2007. Its emotional range and realism set it apart from other romantic comedies, and its intelligence and poignancy make it memorable. The film would make a good companion piece to Juno, like a conceptual twin, separated at birth but a similarly affecting small miracle of great comedy.

At the very least, it is a very creative and academic film, and at most, it is an innovative but frustratingly complex new take on a biopic. The topic of Bob Dylan is particularly difficult to tackle because while vagueness is unsatisfying, precision risks missing the mark entirely. Director Todd Haynes' clever solution to this dilemma was to interpret the various phases of Dylan's life through six different characters inhabited by different actors. Their stories share few common themes, do not intersect, and do not stand on their own, so we are left to put together the many disparate bits and pieces by ourselves. While this is true to the elusive, ever-changing nature of Dylan himself, it makes for a confusing and frustrating viewing experience. It left me thinking it was more of a clever experiment than a film, something to be analyzed more than enjoyed.

The best Western in years. The story is traditional and interesting, the telling modern and gripping as anything I've seen from 2007. The film is well-cast and shot, and adapted from a cool screenplay with contemporary pace and depth.

Accomplished filmmaker David Cronenberg follows up A History of Violence with this similar story about good people mingling with violent mobsters, also an ambiguous commentary on the ethics of violence, crime, and criminals. It is a smart and brutal film, rich with accurate detail and thematic complexity. Lead performances are equally convincing, but the film as a whole is so dramatically and emotionally balanced that it fails to leave a mark.

Ridley Scott's gangster epic is not as efficient, smart or hard-hitting as the best in its genre, but with so many strong performances and a compelling true story, it is still an exciting and satisfying film.

This is an intelligent, classy genre film driven by memorable performances, just aggressive enough to avoid being buried in the superfluous layers of the screenplay. The film deals out information like a deck of cards, so once the game begins, the audience is left trying to remember, trying to guess, where the players stand. The effect is frustrating; how can we appreciate the beats of the story if we do not have enough information to fully understand them? The resolution, when it finally comes, is a relieving payoff to all the confusion.

Full of clever turns and some of the best stunts and car chases I have ever seen, this (possibly) final installment is a thoroughly adrenalized and satisfying conclusion to the best spy trilogy ever made.

This is the vulgar and hilariously immature little brother to Knocked Up and Juno. Like those two films, it is fresh, true, and brilliantly performed and written. What it lacks in profundity it makes up for in comedy; it is 2007's funniest movie.

Stunning cinematography and excellent performances create visual poetry and iconography not quite interesting enough to sustain a 152 minute run time. The story is slow and somber, building steadily for longer than the narrative can comfortably sustain, and it fails to add much we hadn't already guessed about the inevitable ending.

Death Proof is the great genre film that Quentin Tarantino intended it to be. The many scenes of drawn-out dialogue in this extended cut of the film change its overall pace and help set up the action set pieces, but the film plays better in its still verbose but more streamlined theatrical cut. Indulgent though it may be, the dialogue makes the gory punctuations more exciting by giving the audience a false sense of security, then suddenly taking them off guard with gruesome and harrowing violence. Tarantino again demonstrates his immense talent and tact, with great egotism, in a genre of poor taste, with one of the scariest movies of the year.

Probably the best Harry Potter movie yet, but the film is unbalanced by a lack of hope in the face of all the doom and gloom. Michael Gambon is a great actor, but his performance fails to provide the reliable solidity and warmth that made his character so crucial to the books.

Fulfilling its promise of excitement, plot twists, beautiful special effects, and a few good lines and performances, the film feels like a hearty five-course meal. Occasionally sloppy, sometimes brilliant, and always beautiful and entertaining, it is less clever than the original but a significant improvement on its predecessor and easily the grandest of the three. The trilogy has much in common with the Indiana Jones series, and I think it will be remembered as such in the context of modern film.

While it does not surpass the 18 years of work that came before it, the movie retains the best qualities of the show while enhancing them for the big screen. It is charming and hilarious in equal measure, and a worthy addition to the show's legacy. The jokes are fast and relentless, the satire is biting but not too offensive, and the plot is just big enough to justify the movie and fit in countless one-liners. Expecting anything more is not fair to the creators.

Pitch-perfect dialogue, delivery, cinematography and music. It is a gem of a film, mysterious yet telling, short and bittersweet.

An apocalyptic thriller in the tradition of Children of Men and 28 Days Later, I Am Legend is a surprisingly engrossing story of the last man on Earth who, for reasons that are not clear, wants to cure the human race of a disease that has already destroyed it. The computer-generated zombies are not particularly convincing or creative, but the more grounded elements of the film work much better. The film is built of small moments and details rather than action set pieces, which brings the audience into the picture rather than making them spectators. It is a beautifully shot and carefully constructed film, but it suffers from the typical zombie movie problem of building up momentum right through the end and then, once the apocalypse happens, not knowing what to do with it. Still, the payoff does not violate the terms of the story and the buildup is terrific entertainment.

A brilliant story and a fascinating soliloquy on man's quest to find happiness. The unapologetic anti-Christian sentiment in the third act is an unnecessary and contradictory departure from the main point of the plot, but when the film focuses on its sublime story and characters, it rewards the viewer's attention.

Planet Terror is the louder, cheesier, dumber, and more fun half of the Grindhouse double bill. The throw-logic-to-the-wind approach is sometimes amusing and sometimes plainly stupid, but for all its idiocy, the film is brimming with wild characters and explicit sex and violence that make the whole crazy experience pretty fun.

Never having been a fan of the cartoon series or the toys, I had no understanding of the nostalgia and pent-up desire surrounding the film until I saw it, and then I understood. It is a celebration of testosterone-fueled, explosive, special-effects-laden action sequences that justify why little boys play with action figures. It is as big, loud, and cheesy as they come, but it is a movie about giant robots blowing things up. It is the movie Michael Bay was born to direct, to slake his creative lusts, and by doing so he achieved everything one could reasonably expect from the movie.

In attempting to top the perfect previous film, Raimi and co. threw everything they had at Spider-Man 3 and ended up with a mess. The film is so full and busy that it feels out of step the entire run time, and it is immediately apparent which elements Raimi really loved and which he simply felt obligated to stick in there. As good as they were, even the action sequences would have been much better as pieces of a more cohesive whole. There are fun, creative and even brilliant moments in the film, but because the film is poorly paced and embraces some of the most absurd elements of Spider-Man mythology, I was unable to get lost in that world. With so much talent and honest attempts thrown at this film, it is still better than half of the usual summer drudgery but not nearly the triumph it might have been with a Danny Elfman score and a more focused story.

It makes an important point and does so with fun style and thorough research. It is unfortunate that Michael Moore could not resist the temptation to intervene with his trademark smug idealism; his obvious political biases distract from the truth of the real story.

Its attempt at poignancy fails because the comedic bits are too broad, cliched, and far-fetched. Performances are obviously good but deserved a better screenplay.

As hard as it is to admire a movie as thin as its own one-sheet, Will Ferrell's now famous brand of tongue-in-cheek is still inherently funny. Humor is an organic thing that dies when it is dissected; we do not need to analyze Will Ferrel movies, because to be entertained by them is to understand them. The movie is what it is, take it or leave it.

Shallow and stupid, but slightly better and more interesting than its predecessor. The story is there to serve the special effects instead of the other way around, and the direction is unthoughtful. Luckily the short run time helps by condensing the film's action and pace.