2004 in review: Films

2004 was a good year for me and films. A subscription to the ScreenSelect DVD rental service helped me see 100 new films. (New to me, that is–not just films released in 2004.) Spread out over a whole year, 100 films isn’t all that much, but I didn’t set myself that target until the middle of September. I had watched about 60 films by that point, and I figured that with a good push, I could easily get in the last 40.

Well, I made it, but there were weeks where it felt like a real slog. I have to watch another film tonight? Gah. Can’t I just play some Halo 2 instead? For me, setting targets is a great way of turning activities that are normally a great pleasure into boring chores. I think it’s entirely possible that I’ll make it up to 100 films again in 2005, but this time, I’m not going to make it a goal.

Having said that, I do feel a great sense of achievement at having reached 100. It’s nothing compared to what your average film critic will watch in a year, and I’m still not even close to having seen all the recent important new releases. However, it’s a big deal to me because I feel like I’m not losing ground on the films I want to see. (Or, at least not losing ground quite so quickly.) I’ve watched a large proportion of the new releases that have interested me in 2004, and I’ve caught up on a bunch of films I missed in previous years.

Another good thing is that I now have a respectable chunk of data to play with and turn into charts and graphs:

Chart of my film ratings for 2004

With the exception of the anomaly at 2 stars, the chart runs pretty well the way you’d expect: a roughly bell-shaped curve, with its peak skewed to the favourable end. The skew comes from observational bias: I tend to watch films that I think I’ll like, so it’s hardly surprising that my average rating comes out to 3.23 stars, half-way between “solid and enjoyable” and “pretty good”.

For the purposes of rating films, I find it helpful to keep my text labels for each star value in mind:

Star rating Explanation
5 stars All-time great
4.5 stars Highly recommended/award-level film
4 stars Recommended
3.5 stars Pretty good
3 stars Solid and enjoyable
2.5 stars Almost okay, but too flawed to make the grade
2 stars Disappointing
1.5 stars More than just disappointing: actively bad
1 stars Don’t waste your time
0.5 stars Drivel
0 stars Give me those hours of my life back, you fucker!

“Recommended” only kicks in at 4 stars and above. 36 out of the hundred films I saw made that grade. Last year, 15 out of the 38 films (39%) I watched hit that mark, so it looks like I’m maintaining a certain level of consistency. However, both last year and this year I felt that only four films rated a full five stars, which may mean that I’ve been rating more critically this year. I’m a bit concerned about the blip at two stars. That tells me that I’m having some difficulty judging films I don’t like. I guess I just need to watch more rubbish, so I can fine-tune my distinctions.

So what were my favourite films of the year? Well, including films that IMDB says were released in 2003, but that only made it over to this side of the pond in 2004, here’s my top 10:


  1. The Incredibles
    (5 stars)
  2. Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (5 stars)

  3. Dodgeball
    (4.5 stars)

  4. Collateral
    (4.5 stars)
  5. Shaun Of The Dead (4.5 stars)
  6. Kill Bill, Vol 2 (4.5 stars)
  7. Lost In Translation (4.5 stars)
  8. Kinsey (4 stars)
  9. Danny Deckchair (4 stars)

  10. Zatoichi
    (4 stars)

Extraordinary films from previous years that I saw for the first time in 2004 include
Wilbur (Wants To Kill Himself)
,
Touching The Void
,
Peter Pan (2003)
,
The Pledge
,
Holes
, and
Chinatown
. Upon reflection (and seeing it a second time), Spider-Man 2, which I had previously rated 4.5 stars, I don’t think quite so highly of any more. Still 4 stars, but not a top 10 film.

And the worst ones? Here are the bottom feeders:

  1. National Treasure (0.5 stars)
  2. Johnny English (1 stars)
  3. Spy Kids 3D (1.5 stars)
  4. Good Boy (1.5 stars)
  5. Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (1.5 stars)
  6. The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen (1.5 stars)
  7. Once Upon A Time In Mexico (1.5 stars)
  8. Bad Boys II (1.5 stars)

The two performances that will stick with me most from 2004 are Simon Pegg in Shaun of the Dead, and Ben Stiller in Dodgeball. Both are displays of sheer comic genius. David Carradine’s portrayal of Bill in Kill Bill, Vol 2, was also very well done, especially in the way he underplayed Bill’s depths, and his fundamental tragedy.

Curiously, there isn’t much in 2005 that I’m explicitly looking forward to. I definitely want to catch Ocean’s 12, Ray, and Million Dollar Baby when they open over here, and I suppose I’ll end up seeing the new Star Wars thing, too, but there’s nothing big that’s really got me by the balls right now. With 155 films still backed up in my ScreenSelect queue, though, I don’t think I’ll be running out of viewing material any time soon.

Unusual .UK subdomains

I thought that all .uk net addresses were further scoped by an appropriate second-level domain, e.g. “.co.uk” for companies, “.ac.uk” for academic institutions, “.gov.uk” for governmenty-type stuff, but apparently not: I mis-typed my shortcut for Bloglines yesterday, and ended up at the British Library, which is just “bl.uk”.

There are a few other anomalous British second-level domains floating around, such as “nls.uk” for the National Library of Scotland, and “nel.uk” for the National Engineering Laboratory. From this page at Nominet (the people who run the .uk top-level domain), it looks like they were created before the .uk structure was formalised.

That’s your piece of trivia for the day.

Peter Sarsgaard lookalike

Peter Sarsgaard has been bothering me since I saw the film Kinsey last month. There was something about him that reminded me of someone else…another actor…something about his wide lips and crinkle-eyed smile.

I only figured it out today: it’s Gene Kelly.

Peter SarsgaardGene Kelly

Someone back me up here? I know the similarity isn’t necessarily obvious from these head shots…but it’s definitely there.

On having an iPod

So I bought an iPod while we were on holiday. The 20GB model. And, boy, it is gorgeous. I must have spent hours ogling its sleek design, running my fingers over its sensuous, smooth surfaces, and taking great delight in the touch-sensitive action of the clickwheel. And that was before I loaded it up with any music.

Of course, I then went out and got a protective case for it. (Or rather, Pat and Susan bought me one for my birthday.) Rather than carrying a thin, elegant, and gloriously tactile gadget in my pocket, I now walk around with a much thicker, rubberised white plastic and perspex brick.

It’s still recognizably an iPod, and the functionality of the thing hasn’t changed, but even though I appreciate the extra protection the case provides, I’m feeling somewhat dubious about it. I’m not ungrateful for the present, mind–I asked for it, and Susan took me down to the local Apple store where I chose it myself. As cases go, it’s great. But using a case diminishes the iPod itself.

If I just wanted a music player, and wasn’t concerned about looks or design, I could have bought a cheaper gadget. But I didn’t. I bought the iPod because it is, quite simply, beautiful. And now I’m covering it up? It’s like buying a Porsche and never driving it for fear of chipping the paintwork. The fear is driven by a sense of frugality, but also by a certain embarrassment at being able to afford to pay over the odds for a mere whim. Call it Rich Man’s Angst. I get nervous and awkward when I have to go Christmas shopping, too. When did Christmas stop being fun?

Anyhoo…. I still love my iPod, and using it has given me the urge to tidy up my music collection. I first got an MP3 player in 1999. It had a whopping 64MB of memory, so space was at a premium. I still have a whole bunch of CD rips encoded at 96Kbps, and they sound pretty bad, especially when I’m using the Belkin TuneCast FM transmitter to listen to them over the car radio. A lot of those files aren’t properly tagged with ID3 metadata, either.

It looks like I’m going to have to (have to) spend some time re-encoding a pile of CDs. Which makes me wonder: is it time to switch from MP3 to AAC? I like MP3 for its portability and compatibility, but with iTunes on my PC and an iPod in my pocket, what exactly do I need the compatibility for? If I’m willing to put in the effort now to re-encode my CDs into AAC, I’m sure I can manage it again in a few years’ time when a better codec comes along. Considering that the bulk of my collection is encoded in MP3 at 196KBps or higher, going AAC probably will save me some space, too. The 2GB I have to spare won’t last me another year…