Thursday, November 25, 2010

Pop of King: "Best Films of 2010"

10. Green Zone
9. Jackass 3D
8. Monsters
7. Splice
6. Kick-Ass
5. Takers ("the armored-car heist is the best action sequence I’ve seen this year”)
4. The Social Network
3. Inception
2. The Town
1. Let Me In ("best horror film of the decade")


Tulkinghorn said...

Stephen King may be a great American popular novelist, but don't you think this list is a bit, well, lame? In fact exactly the kind of thing that you'd expect?

Put it this way... would you like to live inside the culture that is only interested in small audience horror/suspense films and a couple of unavoidable Hollywood big ticket items?

If I wrote King's books all day, I'd like to wind down at the end of the day by occasionally watching something that didn't remind me of me.

David Chute said...

That's one way to look at it.

Tulkinghorn said...

Oh, come on.... Live a little. Tell us what you think.

Are the ten best movies of the year really all genre films? Is there one movie with subtitles that might make it onto the list?

Is Jackass 3D really that good?

Or is King just playing to a stereotyped notion of the people who care what Stephen King likes?

David Chute said...

He's an expert in this area and his views are worth taking seriously.

Of those I've seen, "Social Network" is worthy, "Splice: and "Kick-Ass" I wish I'd liked more: smart genre films that in different ways suffer from a lack of common sense. "Takers." "The Town" and "Monsters" had a lot of critical support; not just Uncle Steve being provocative.

Tulkinghorn said...

You're right. See notes above for further explanation.

Terrance Rafferty in this morning's New York Times Book Review reminds us (well, me) of King's strengths:

"What’s amazing, and maybe a little unsettling, about King is the consistency of his purpose and his manner over that long stretch of time...... Unlike most writers, he seems never to have become bored with his own peculiar gifts — to have tired of the wonderful toys left under the tree for him when he was a kid. He might, as he claims, have a tough time imagining himself as an 18-year-old composing his first novel, but it’s no problem for us, his readers, because King at 63 still writes with the verve and glee and heedless ease of a very young man. He has not mellowed perceptibly. He has not put aside childish things. When you’re reading the grisly tales in “Full Dark, No Stars,” carried along by his rollicking, vivid prose, you think (if you’re thinking at all): “God help him, this man is having fun.”

A writer who takes such unabashed joy in the act of storytelling is a rarity. This naked pleasure is King’s secret ingredient: it makes his work — good or bad — weirdly irresistible, even addictive. And it disarms criticism, as boyish enthusiasm often does."