"Year's Best"? Ummm...

Rating: Null/10 (28 November 2000)

I'm often the first one to the theater when the British movies come over the pond; I AM their American demographic. So I'm generally biased towards the Brit flicks, but I can't agree that this is Y2K's Best Movie.
I have no quibbles with the acting: Jamie Bell is phenomenal - ("He's only 14!" I kept reminding myself as he danced his little heart out.) Julie Walters was superbly real and compassionate even as hard-assed as she was, and Gary Lewis as Billy Elliot's dad gave a good show. I admire the ambition of the movie and I go for the schmaltzy feel-good stuff everytime...
HOWEVER: Didn't anyone catch how sneaky the writers were? Whenever they reached a difficult point in the script - and there were plenty of 'em, of course, it's a tragedy - they just... kinda... let it go. All of a sudden: Dad's become a scab to support his son's dancing after already knocking him about for it. The older son's just as quickly accepted it, too. As do the townspeople! It goes on.
I don't doubt that people CAN come around to this sort of thing, but isn't that transformation part of the story? Most of its audience won't care because, after all, it IS a feel-good movie, but I felt sort of cheated. My two cents, anyway.