Every reviewer puts out lists at the end of December: the best list, the worst list, the what should win an Oscar list, the what will win an Oscar list, the if they’d only had a clue while making it list. This year, I will eschew that impulse. I’m simply going to tell you the best movie of the year. Hands down. No arguing about it, the answer is clear.
Now, before I tell you what the best film is, the question must be asked: how is “best” judged. Not to get too Clintonian on this, but the question is actually important. Does one look at screenplay, directing, acting, cultural significance, or horror of horrors, box office receipts? As much as we’d all like to poo-poo that notion, let’s face it, box office receipts play a role. Let’s not get into a discussion of whether or not they should, it is a far too lengthy topic to take on here, let’s just all be adults and admit that they do.
Taking all of this into account, carefully looking at every possible aspect and facet, I can come but to one conclusion this year. Unquestionably, inarguably, utterly convincingly the best movie of 2006 is Casino Royale.
Stop and take a breath before you start ranting- hear me out on this one.
James Bond is one of the longest running franchises in film history. James Bond is one of the most successful franchises in film history. James Bond, following Casino Royale, is rejuvenated and poised to continue for years to come.
The producers of the series, following Die Another Day, dismissed Pierce Brosnan despite the huge box office take of that film. They recognized the franchise needed change and they rethought it all from the ground up. They went younger, they went rougher, they went mean. They brought in Daniel Craig, who took a beating in the press that might have even laid out 007 himself. But everyone at the production stuck to their guns and the result was Casino Royale, which opened to much critical acclaim (something the most recent Brosnan film did not have, despite its box office success). Royale opened as number one at the box office in almost every country in the world (save the U.S., where it was beat by a totally different kind of tuxedoed character). It surpassed box office records in some areas, and was a success universally.
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Sam
I think 007 deserves to be the best film of the year!
I really enjoyed it!
2 - handyguy
I loved this movie, but listing its #1 accomplishment as "huge boxoffice success" is a bit off the mark. Many, many bad movies have succeeded at the box office, and hundreds of wonderful movies get seen by only a relative handful of people.
3 - Ty
To me the best movie of the year is a toss up between BRICK and HARD CANDY.
Too bad people are too closed-minded to appreciate that these could very well be the best movies of 2006.
4 - TV and Film Guy
Handyguy, like I wrote, there are numerous ways to determine "best" and while I listed box office receipts first, that isn't the only reason I chose it.
Ty, I'm not sure I would call those films the best, but won't disagree with you that subject matter often proves crucially important on these lists.
5 - handyguy
Yes, there are many ways to determine 'best,' and box-office gross is definitely not ever one of them - especially, I would think, for someone with a masters in critical studies! If anyone really thinks Pirates of the Caribbean is better than United 93...well, let's just say we won't be having lunch any time soon.
6 - TV and Film Guy
I think box office receipts acts as a stand-in for audience appeal, and I do think that audience appeal is absolutely relevant. And again, it's only one of many criteria.
7 - Ty
"
Ty, I'm not sure I would call those films the best, but won't disagree with you that subject matter often proves crucially important on these lists."
Have you seen BRICK? Yes or no.
Have you seen HARD CANDY? Yes or no.
Sometimes people are quick to say a film is not the best of the year, especially when they have not seen it. So I am trying to ascertain whether you have seen these or not.
I also side with those who say box-office shouldn't count. Sometimes the best movies, because they are not for the dumbed down masses, are not shown everywhere.
8 - TV and Film Guy
Honestly I'm moderately offended that you would ask that question.
I believe that while mass appeal and viewing are not the sole, the main, or an absolute essential criteria, I do believe that it is important. If you make an incredibly powerful, truly mind-altering, opinion changing film, and no one sees it and so no opinions are changed, does it count?
9 - Victor Plenty
As you say, how we define "best" means a lot. In particular, who is best served by the definition? Should we choose a definition that serves the interests of moviegoers? Of filmmakers? Of the massive corporations that market and distribute the mainstream Hollywood films?
You have given highly persuasive reasons to consider Casino Royale the best movie of 2006 for Hollywood, but that is not necessarily the same thing as the best film for viewers.
What I like to see in any film review is some discussion of the film itself, not just the many mercenary fiscal considerations that go into Hollywood's decision making process. Those factors can be interesting in their way, but they won't make me care enough to spend my own money in a theater. If I'm being asked to think of it as the best movie of 2006, what is there about Casino Royale that should make me more interested in seeing it than seeing any other movie from the year?
10 - Ty
Have you seen BRICK? Yes or no.
Have you seen HARD CANDY? Yes or no.
11 - Ty
"If you make an incredibly powerful, truly mind-altering, opinion changing film, and no one sees it and so no opinions are changed, does it count?"
Many times the Oscars have films or actors/writers from films nominated that the masses haven't heard of.
Yes it does count because if you see it and think it is great, you should spread the word.
I am still waiting to get the answer of the questions I posed earlier. Have you seen Brick? Have you seen Hard Candy?
12 - Victor Plenty
Ty, you are using one of the most annoying of all the cheap debate tactics ever devised. It's even pissing me off, despite the fact I disagree with your target, and despite the fact I'm inclined to agree with at least part of your point of view. (Namely, that a film need not be popular in order to be good and important.)
Now, before you get around to targeting me with your inane barking of "Yes or no!" I'll just say right now that I've seen neither Brick nor Hard Candy and have no plans to do so, at any time, ever. The information I have seen about them makes it clear they are both perfectly squalid films. I felt queasy just from watching the trailers for them.
Even if they are powerful and life-changing, I have never desired to have my worldview changed so much for the worse. Incidentally, judging from TV and Film Guy's brief remarks about its contents, I suspect such would also be my objection if I ever happen to see Casino Royale.
13 - Hi
I just want to know if he has seen those films.
14 - Ty
You haven't so if you release a best films of the year list, I'll note that you haven't seen these so your list is only based on your closed-minded attitude against seeing indie movies.
15 - Victor Plenty
Your zealotry clearly blinds you, Ty, so your attacks will have little meaning to any reasonable person. I have nothing against indie movies. In fact I tend to prefer them to Hollywood fare.
However, as a habit of self-preservation I have learned to avoid relentlessly depressing and dreary films, regardless of whether they happen to originate from the indie scene or from the major studios.
Both Brick and Hard Candy strike me as falling squarely into the middle of this category of movies I need to avoid. This impression has nothing whatsoever to do with their indie origins.
16 - handyguy
I believe that while mass appeal and viewing are not the sole, the main, or an absolute essential criteria, I do believe that it is important.
It's of course gratifying when a film one likes finds an audience. But surely it's also a good thing to help worthy movies that haven't yet found a large audience, by telling people on here and in other places that they're good.
A film may be expensively marketed so that a lot of people show up...say, X-Men 3 or Adam Sandler's Click. Neither one of those is much of a movie by any reasonable aesthetic standards. An excellent independent or foreign film like The Queen or Half Nelson may only be seen by a tenth as many people as Click or X-Men 3. But I would say they're at least 10 times better.
It's disturbing that you even make the argument you make about commercial success. Films that are commercially successful already have their reward. If the Bond film had been less successful at the boxoffice, would you really rate it lower as a film? If the answer is yes, what does that say about your standards as a critic?
17 - DukeDeMondo
Hard Candy... now there's a number i found particularly dissapointing. Contrary to popular opinion on the matter, i thought it WAS incredibly sensationalist, and it WAS goin for cheap squirms. The Woodsman... now THERE'S a flick that knew how to approach such material.
For what it's worth, i've yet to see C-sino Royale, but i dare say i will. my own personal Best Of 2006 is undoubtably United 93, closely followed by Pan's Labyrinth. Then Borat. Then Talladega Nights. etc etc
18 - TV and Film Guy
Handyguy, I'm not arguing that commercial success is a sole requirement, just that it's something to be considered, that it can't be wholly eliminated. If people don't like a movie how can it be the best film? Yes, some of the best movies don't get a wide release, and if they did they would be popular, that's absolutely true. But, sometimes movies that various organizations decide are the best have gotten wide releases and have proven hugely unpopular. Surely a requirement for a movie to be one of the best of the year is for the audience to find it enjoyable.
19 - Steve C.
Surely a requirement for a movie to be one of the best of the year is for the audience to find it enjoyable.
This could go one of two ways. If, by 'best of the year,' you're referring to the traditional idea of Ten Best listmaking, then that's an individual's choice. Audience tastes shouldn't enter into it. However, if you're attempting to objectively find the Best Film of the Year, then you're on a fool's errand. There's no such thing because it all boils down to a matter of opinion. If 99 out of 100 people think The Royale That Is Set in That Place Where People Gamble is the best film of the year and the hundreth person says Dreamgirls, is that hundreth person suddenly wrong? Either way, the above statement seems poorly reasoned, if not frankly absurd.
Just as a point of comparion: I saw Royale with Bond (and Cheese) last Thursday. Three days prior, I survived the second half of Jacques Rivette's gargantuan 1971 film Out 1. Asd you've mentioned, the former is a huge success. The latter has seen exactly six theatrical screenings in its lifespan. The former has been seen by millions the world over, the latter by maybe a little past one thousand. Both have been generally well-liked by those who've seen it. Keeping this in mind, would you then argue that That Darn Bond is objectively the better film? (And would I be allowed to call you a loon for doing so?)
Also, Brick was an arid, overdetermined trifle, and Hard Candy was vile, morally dubious torture porn. This is, of course, Only My Opinion.
20 - TV and Film Guy
One criteria. I'm using that as one criteria. Everyone, say it with me: one criteria. One of many. Just one of many criteria. I'm factoring in many things and using box office success as a stand-in, albeit an imperfect one, for audience appreciation of the film.
21 - handyguy
I guess all I'm saying is that quality and popularity are separate measurements, not related to each other.
If you start trying to apply the "popularity makes a film better" premise to actual examples, you'll see what I mean. Start making a list of crummy movies that made lots of money and good movies that are considered box office disappointments (it's easy):
The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, It's a Wonderful Life, the Judy Garland A Star Is Born, were all considered disappointing or even downright duds in their day.
The all-time box office champs include such gems as The Phantom Menace, Cleopatra, The Towering Inferno, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and The Matrix Reloaded. And this year, we have The Da Vinci Code and Mission Impossible III in addition to the aforementioned X Men and Click. These are products being sold; audience 'affection' for them is similar to supermarket buyers choosing Tide or Diet Coke because they get heavily advertised.
The two greatest films of the 1970s are smash-hit The Godfather and the far less widely seen Nashville. Their boxoffice is irrelevant to their worth as movies.
22 - TV and Film Guy
I think there are times when the two are distinct, but I don't think that's always the case, I think it's absolutely a factor that has to be considered. Maybe it should be dismissed afterwards, but it should be considered.
23 - Steve C.
One criteria. I'm using that as one criteria. Everyone, say it with me: one criteria. One of many.
And all we're saying is that it's a pretty useless criterion and the inclusion of it goes a long way towards invalidating your argument. I mean, my number one film of the year (Jackass Number Two -- no, seriously) was a financial success. My number two film of the year (Duck Season) was not. There are several reasons why I put the former above the latter, but whether the scads of people around me enjoyed it doesn't have much to with that.
24 - handyguy
As many of us have already found out, be warned that you cannot name the subject of this article in a comment, because it contains a 'banned word.' Steve C in #19 came up with a very amusing set of substitutes. So, movie of the year or not, it's C----- Royale in the comments section.
25 - Carolyn
I'm all for The Departed!