January 07, 2005

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

2004: The year that wasn't

by Jeanne Aufmuth

In terms of film, 2004 was the "Year That Wasn't" -- 12 months littered with cinematic corpses that weren't quite clever enough, profound enough or edited brightly enough to offer that rush of great movie karma.

2004 marks the first time in years that it was tough to cobble together a substantial Top 10 list -- a task that historically leaves critics scratching their heads while scratching a plethora of terrific almost-rans from their lists. In any given year there are 15 to 20 astounding films to choose from; this year I'm hard-pressed to name more than a handful of truly remarkable projects.

Not that there weren't plenty of good films in '04 -- just not a lot of great ones. Certainly "Sideways" and "Touching the Void" stand out from the crop. But I think fondly back to years chock full of resonant material, when one list yielded such celluloid treasures as "Election," "Run Lola Run," "Three Kings" and "The Winslow Boy" (1999) and "L.A. Confidential," "Donnie Brasco" and "Waiting for Guffman" (1997).

Last year's stupendous "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" topped many lists, and there was excellent foreign ("City of God"), animated ("Finding Nemo") and indie ("Pieces of April," "Thirteen," "Whale Rider") material to round out a stupendous 10.

But the sheer number of excellent projects is dimming. High budgets, big egos, second-rate writing and a blithe acceptance of mediocrity are gradually taking their toll on an industry whose marked focus on the box office may be hurting the situation in a significant way.

Console yourself with the fact that documentaries are more plentiful and more readily seen by mainstream audiences and that well-crafted foreign films continue to make their way to our shores. And ring in 2005 with a fervent wish for a better year at the movies.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.