MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (2)
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar, Eric Baker
Subject: The countdown begins...

10. Y Tu Mama Tambien (Alfonso Cuaron) - 'Y Tu Mama' makes it into my top ten only because, when I tried to decide between it and 'Bowling for Columbine,' I could only think of the things that annoyed me about 'Columbine.' And 'Y Tu Mama' was unlike anything I had ever seen. It’s about class, sex, friendship, loyalty. It’s a road trip movie, a coming-of-age movie, a thoughtful (if incomplete) meditation on modern-day Mexico. If the plot feels a little too tidy at the end, for the most part the film feels incredibly organic. And the acting is honest and relaxed and, in the very best way, improvisational. Maribel Verdu gives the female performance of the year as the boys’ seductress; and Gael Garcia Bernal is amazing as the lower middle class half of the two friends.

9. About Schmidt (Alexander Payne) - As a monument to the sustained greatness of Jack Nicholson, 'About Schmidt' is a great success. Film historians generations from now won’t have to ask, sadly, wistfully, what happened to Nicholson in the latter part of his career. Unfortunately, the film itself is undermined by the larger-than-life presence of Big Jack. What remains is still brilliant black comedy and keen -- if occasionally mean-spirited -- social observation. 'About Schmidt' is a more-than-worthy follow-up to Payne’s 'Election' (one of the best films of the '90s). This film, like a few other best-of-2002, will likely improve on re-examination.

8. Chicago (Rob Marshall) - As promised (by reviewers, friends, acquaintances), 'Chicago' proved to be one of the best times I’ve had at the theatre all year. It’s never more than an entertainment, and it never tries to be more than an entertainment, and that’s part of what makes this film such a fun time. As a general rule, I don’t like musicals -- not on stage and not at the movies. But 'Chicago' has great performances (it’s perfectly cast), great music, and unflagging energy. The film’s creative use of editing is alone worth great praise -- it accomplishes on film what would be impossible on stage. And the film’s cynicism -- a flaw for some critics -- is what made it so much fun for me: there were no heroes in the story and no one is redeemed; and this gave all the singing and dancing a nasty edge that made up for the film’s unapologetic superficiality. It was the quickest 113 minutes I’ve ever spent in a movie theatre.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (1)
From: Eric Baker
To: Adam Kempenaar, Sam Hallgren
Subject: From Middle Earth to the Middle Country and back again

[Editor's note: Eric has returned from delivering U.S. military secrets to China to kick off our Movie Club discussion of the best films of the year -- not his list, but a few comments to get us started. My thanks to him because, as usual, I am way behind on getting my first post up. Sam and I will definitely have something posted after lunch -- probably 10 down to 8. Also note that I think his chronology is out of whack in his final point re: Robin Williams' acting. But I don't have time to check and you get the idea. Stay tuned...]

I fully expected to be lambasted upon my return from China for my last comments about 'The Two Towers,' but it appears people didn't really disagree, or more likely, had more important things to do on their holiday. So I've spent the last few days attempting to read and digest weeks of CinemaScoped posts as well as Movie Club comments. Now I only have to dive into the flood waters of Oscar contenders that Hollywood waits to put out until the last possible moment. So far I've made it to 'Catch Me If You Can' and 'Chicago,' though deciding on the latter was a toss-up with 'Nicholas Nickleby' since both screen in Des Moines but not Iowa City. This quip by Jon Popick of Planet Sick-Boy helped sway me: "This Nickleby thing might have more homosexual undertones than an Eddie Murphy film. And just when you think it can't get any more gay, in pops Nathan Lane."

'Chicago' was fine; I enjoy a musical as much as anyone, and it was capably directed, but instead of Baz Luhrmann's eye-popping extravagance, director and choreographer Rob Marshall deigned it more appropriate to stick closely to Fosse's interpretation and merely filmed a lighted stage. Nothing wrong with that, it was a choice based on Marshall's experience I'm guessing, but it didn't have that razzle-dazzle that the lyrics themselves purport. It has been endlessly pointed out that the actors are neither professional dancers nor singers, but I didn't find any of them to be annoying. Zeta-Jones throatiness, in particular, I found intoxicating, and Gere is quite nice, but the level of dancing did appear to be gained from a mere few weeks of pre-production. On a tangent, Adam has mentioned that he thinks Gere is the breakout star of 'Chicago,' and while carrying a film with an admirable supporting cast is one thing, even getting someone to pay admission to a movie that person knows will be execrable is quite another. That's right: I'm talking about a preview I saw for 'Old School,' the Luke Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Will Ferrell vehicle about 30-somethings who open a frat house. It will suck, guaranteed; yet I chuckle at everything Ferrell does. For whatever reason, I thought it looked much better than 'The Recruit,' 'The Hours,' even '25th Hour.' But then I'm the guy who thinks 'A Night at the Roxbury' should be on the Top 10 film list of the last 25 years, so I guess that little revelation isn't going to make anyone crap their pants. Back to 'Chicago' -- I'm a pretty big fan of John C. Reilly, and I really liked his Cellophane Man routine. 'Movie Club' points out how his roles are becoming increasingly homogenous, and I think they even slip in the word cuckold. I notice Sam is complaining about Catherine Keener's tendency to take what seems like the same character or at least play her the same way every time out. And earlier this year I was fussing because a guy I had earmarked for certain Hollywood stardom, Jake Gyllenhall, had proceeded to play the same character in every movie since his breakout role in 'Donnie Darko.' It begs the question: Are these guys getting pigeonholed by agents or directors, or are they merely one-trick ponies finally exposed for what they really are? Reilly, in particular, has enough clout that he could branch out if he wanted.

I haven't had much time to think about it, but I see that Adam is requiring at least part of a top 10 list today, so I'm guessing Chicago might not make the cut. The problem is that I've seen so few films compared to published critics, especially foreign ones, I always feel a little sheepish about revealing a list. I plan to see two more today ('Gangs of NY' and 'About Schmidt'), so maybe they can round out my meager list. 'Catch Me If You Can,' the delightful Spielberg throwback to the 60s, will probably make my list. I think I liked it so much because it seemed like the anti-Spielberg film: no special effects to speak of, no anti-Semites, and no-unwieldy ending. Just straight expository storytelling of a fascinating check-kiter with a great score by Steve-o's meal ticket, John Williams. Reminiscent of 'Ocean's Eleven.' I'm still not a huge DiCaprio fan, but there's nothing disturbing about him either. Maybe that's my problem. Solid all around.

There seems to be a consensus among the critics at the Movie Club that the sole purpose of their top 10 list is to encourage people to see movies they might not otherwise view, and I suppose if any sizable number of people read this blog, that could be a subject of debate here too. But as it stands, I think we'll probably have to settle for recognizing those films we thought were best, because at least in my case, I haven't seen enough to start recommending art house forget-me-nots. Besides perhaps Jonathan Rosenbaum, no critic consistently attempts to include foreign films in their top 10 lists like Dave Kehr. He is one of four movie critics for The New York Times, and it's uncanny how the foreign films on his top 10 lists always end up screening at the Bijou, the University of Iowa's student-run theater. Other critics have included Time Out (Edelstein) or 'I'm Going Home' (Kerr), but it's almost like the Bijou has a direct line to Kehr's office. Adam B. Kempenaar and Sam, you guys live in that hub of culture, Chicago, so it will be interesting to see what foreign films crept into your canon.

Finally, Sam has commented that 'Lovely & Amazing' is the worst film of the year, and furthermore that Nicole Holofcener has her head up her ass. I have to admit I didn't hate the film, but I had some of the same problems Sam did. I think I just didn't find them as galling. For sure, pyschological evaluation can sometimes be funny in a show, such as 'Daria,' but you won't get far with it in a film. And her films don't really resolve anything -- usually the endings seem ill-conceived ways to finish something what didn't really have a beginning or middle anyhow. I still liked both of them, though, mainly because they felt real, especially when the characters were alone. I think Holofcener sometimes makes her dialogue grating, a la Chekhov, to draw the audience closer to the protagonist. At any rate, Sam is right that neither is a masterpiece.

Just something to throw out there: Sam seems sated when a movie has characters who are nuanced, have subtext, and are naturalistic. To what extent is this good writing or is it really good acting? Is Robin Williams really getting better, than worse, than better again in a one-year period when he does 'One Hour Photo' followed by 'Death to Smoochy' followed by 'Insomnia?'
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE REVIEW ROUNDUP - Remember, tomorrow Sam Hallgren and I (and Eric Baker?) will unveil our Top Ten Films of 2002. Actually, we'll start with 10-6 and leave 5-1 for Thursday just to generate some suspense. But first, I'd be remiss if I didn't get a few comments in about a couple of the movies I managed to cram in recently. I'll save discussion of '25th Hour' and 'Catch Me If You Can' for later in the week because -- spoiler alert! -- I expect both films to be in my top ten somewhere.

ADAPTATION - As many people much smarter than me have pointed out, the problem with irony is that if everything is a joke, something to ridicule and laugh at with a wink, than nothing truly meaningful can ever transpire. Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze have given us a movie that begs to be interpreted as a satirical jab at Hollywood (Roger Ebert's interpretation) -- Cage's Kaufman spells out early on exactly what his movie will NOT include (car chases, sex, drugs, characters who grow, etc...) then proceeds to fill his finale with all of those things -- while the "real" story about Kaufman's difficulties adapting 'The Orchid Thief' ends with him having a seemingly serious moment of growth and realization after the mock-tragic outcome of his twin brother, Donald. He seems to want it both ways -- to mock and ridicule and then, perhaps, sting us with seriousness at the end. But it's like crying wolf. By that point, I wasn't listening. As Sam wrote last week, "But the movie "Adaptation" is about Charlie Kaufman. He experiences his own transformation, and so the characters in his screenplay experience one as well." I am typically a big fan of irony and all things post-modern, but 'Adaptation' left me worn out and frustrated. I wouldn't say I disliked the movie by any means, though. I thought Cage and Chris Cooper were fantastic and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny. The fact that I am curious to see it again is always a positive sign.

ANTWONE FISHER - Denzel's Washington's directorial debut is impossible to watch without recalling 'Good Will Hunting' and its inspiration, 'Ordinary People,' both of which are better films. The title character (newcomer Derek Luke) isn't a genius, but he's a smart kid with anger-management and abandonment issues that only get resolved through the help of his Naval psychiatrist, Dr. Davenport (Washington). There's even the customary scene where the unwilling patient -- Antwone is sent to Davenport by his commanding officer for fighting (just like Hunting) -- initially sits silently through session after session, each character ultimately waiting for the other to blink. One interesting difference is that both 'Hunting' and 'Ordinary People' hinged on the protagonist learning to forgive himself for all of the bad he has experienced in his life ("It's not your fault, it's not your fault"), whereas 'Fisher' is all about Antwone being able to forgive the people who have hurt him -- the mother who abandoned him as a baby, the step-parents who abused him, etc... It would be easy to denouce 'Fisher' as inspirational Hollywood crap, but I was moved by the story and felt that as a director, Washington never let the movie slip too far into sentimentality. However, I can appreciate Michael Atkinson's comments in the Village Voice: "Everything—even life on an aircraft carrier—is sentimentalized... Antwone Fisher is, in the end, a navy recruitment ad writ large and cozy." The scenes aboard the aircraft carrier did strike me as cliched -- Fisher's group of friends inevitably includes one fat guy and a skinny white boy -- but Atkinson's cynicism is perhaps getting the best of him here. The ship scenes total about 10 minutes of screen time and while the movie doesn't try to hide the fact that the Navy played a pivotal role in Fisher's maturity as a man, it by no means implies that it is the only answer. To think that as a director Washington was more interested in promoting the Navy than telling Antwone Fisher's story seems to me a bit ridiculous.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

RAIN DELAY & THE HOURS - I've got less than an hour to try to squeeze in some blogging, so here goes. First off, Sam and I will not be publishing our Top Ten of 2002 until Wednesday. There are a handful of movies I have to see before then or else my list could wind up being illegitimate -- namely, 'Y Tu Mama Tambien' (which I rented on DVD this weekend) and 'Gangs of New York' (which I will see Tuesday night.) I hope to fit in 'About Schmidt' as well, but no guarantees. Tuesday I will have brief reviews of all the movies I have seen over the past two weeks that I haven't found time to write about yet -- 'Adaptation,' 'Antwone Fisher,' 'Catch Me If You Can' and Spike Lee's '25th Hour.' I'll also try to throw in some comments about two rentals from this past weekend -- 'Lovely & Amazing,' which was anything but, and 'Unfaithful.' I had to see whether Diane Lane's performance lived up to all the hype.

Considering that Sam's least favorite films of the year so far are 'Lovely and Amazing' and '13 Conversations About One Thing,' both directed by women, I can't imagine he would have enjoyed Stephen Daldry's 'The Hours' had he tagged along to the special screening I attended last Tuesday night. Of course, Daldry is not a woman, but the film is most certainly centered around women and, one could argue, presents the same set of problems as those movies. Sam wrote: "Both scripts suffered from a terminal lack of subtext and an annoying tendency to have their characters psychologically evaluate each other." Congratulations Sam, you just summed up 'The Hours' in one sentence. As is my tendency these days, I hadn't read a single review of the movie before going in, but I couldn't help but recall David Edelstein's quip in the Slate Movie Club that 'The Hours' was the longest pair of 'em he had spent all year. I feared I was going to suffer similarly after the opening credit sequence, which introduces us to the film's three female protagonists and sets up the movie's structural conceit of slipping between three different eras -- the 1920s, '50s and the present day. I expected the connections between the three characters to be clear, but I didn't expect the editing to be so obvious as to cut from Nicole Kidman's Virginia Woolf brushing her hair to Julianne Moore's '50s housewife brushing her hair, to Meryl Streep's modern day woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown brushing her hair, and so on interminably. Fortunately, the credits weren't indicative of the whole film, which isn't to say that Daldry and screenwriter David Hare couldn't have employed more subtlelty throughout. If subtext and characters who don't emotionally undress each other every time they speak is what you want in a movie -- and usually I do -- you will loathe 'The Hours.' Yet, somehow I didn't loathe it. All of the performances were predictably first-rate -- unlike Sam and a few others I know, I love Julianne Moore -- and the story cleverly culminates in a way that connects the three narratives in a literal, and not just figurative, sense. I'm sure some people in the audience saw it coming, but for me it was a "surprise" ending that worked because it felt absolutely organic, rather than shaking the foundations of the narrative. My one major criticism is one that was discussed in the Slate Movie Club to some extent -- the Philip Glass score. I come from the school that says that music in both theater and film should be felt and not heard. If you're actually listening to the score, then it is distracting you from the film. My own personal preference would be to never have to listen music with dialogue. If the screenwriter, director and actors are all doing their jobs, then I don't need music to direct my emotions. In the case of 'The Hours,' the score is not only bothersome because it enduced flashbacks of watching 'The Thin Blue Line' (also, Glass' work, of course) but it is virtually omni-present throughout the film. During the post-screening Q&A, the book's author, Michael Cunningham -- a charming, intelligent, self-deprecating but confident writer who could easily allay any problems you had with the movie -- said that the choice to use the score in such a heavy-handed manner was a deliberate one, though I can't report precisely what the intent was because I wasn't taking notes at this point and his explanation was a bit convoluted... something about standing in for the lyrical quality of the novel (not his novel, specifically, but novels in general). He admitted that it will bother some people because it is not what audiences are used to. It's definitely not background music, and it doesn't necessarily correspond with what is occurring on screen. "I love it for that," Cunningham said. So I guess we can fault the filmmakers for producing a bad/distracting score, but we can't fault them for not understanding how to use music because they clearly made a choice to use it a certain way. When asked what some of his favorite movies were growing up, Cunningham listed Altman's 'McCabe and Mrs. Miller,' 'Chinatown,' 'All About Eve' (which he followed with a humorous "of course," acknowledging the obviousness of a gay man picking that film), and the two Godfather movies.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

CS MOVIE CLUB - #2
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren
Subject: Tying up loose ends

By the length of Sam's last post, I think it's safe to say that he'll be playing the role of A.O Scott in our little movie club. If Harvey Weinstein was in charge of this blog, Sam's post would have been trimmed by at least a half-hour. Meanwhile, I'll be Roger Ebert, sneaking in 100 words or so whenever I can. Since there are enough interesting points in your comments to keep me writing for days, I'll try to pace myself and take them one at a time... which would mean starting with a discussion of 'The Hours.' However, I'm going to keep losing sleep if I don't nail the coffin shut on our feeble attempt to answer Sight & Sound with our list of the best films since 1978.

I think I revealed the list back on Dec. 20, and if you hadn't finally written about it last week, it would have been a complete waste of time. In our defense, Christmas came... and then New Years... and is it just me or, more than ever before, are all the good movies being released around the end of the year, forcing us to see everything in a whirlwind two-week period? I remember when the Fall movie season included October and November. Now all the studios are holding out for the holidays, presumably because they want their Oscar contenders as fresh as possible in everyone's mind. I suppose we'll see if all the year's best really did come out around Christmas when we reveal our top ten lists next week.

Here again is our list of the best films of the past 25 years:
1. Glengarry Glen Ross (James Foley, 1989)
2. Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980)
3. GoodFellas (Scorsese, 1991)
4. Hannah and Her Sisters (Woody Allen, 1986)
5. Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)
6. Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994)
7. Rushmore (Wes Anderson, 1998)
8. Do The Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989)
9. The Deer Hunter (Michael Cimino, 1978)
10. Henry V (Kenneth Branagh, 1989)

One thing I've always appreciated about you, Sam, in the fairly brief time we've known each other, is your fearlessness when it comes to defying conventional wisdom. This would include branding 'Lovely and Amazing' as the worst film of the year even though many critics list it among the ten best. (I still haven't seen it, unfortunately.) In your post back on Dec. 30, you had the balls -- or blatant stupidity -- to state you aren't a huge fan of Martin Scorsese. If you were picking one Scorsese film to watch, it wouldn't be 'Raging Bull' or 'GoodFellas' or any of the other more critically-adored of his films. Rather, you'd watch 'After Hours.' It's sort of like making a list of the "greatest" movies of all-time and then a separate list of your "favorite" movies of all-time. A personal example would be Kubrick's '2001,' which is an amazing technical achievement. But if I had to pick between watching it and Chevy Chase in 'Fletch', well, just call me John Cocktoasten. The thing with Scorsese though, for me anyway, is that 'Raging Bull' and 'GoodFellas' are not only deservedly recognized as great cinematic achievements, but I also love watching them. I can remember watching 'Raging Bull' the first two or three times and marveling at the acting, the cinematography, and the editing of the boxing scenes, without ever considering the complexity of LaMotta as a character, or really thinking about what Scorsese was trying to say about how you truly can't judge someone without standing in their shoes. For all of his seemingly unfounded paranoia about being betrayed and our disdain for him as a violent, overgrown kid, his worst fears are ultimately realized. LaMotta was right all along. As for 'GoodFellas,' it just proves that the "bad guys" are always the most fascinating characters. The famous steadicam shot of Henry's little stroll through the back of the Copacabana isn't just to impress Karen; Scorsese is allowing us to indulge in the fantasy as well.

We must say thanks to Eric for putting 'Henry V' high enough on his list to force it into our top ten and then quickly leaving the country before having to defend himself. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of both 'Henry V' and Kenneth Branagh. But one of the ten best films since 1978?

A.I. Fan from the Feedback Forum should know that 'Hannah Her Sisters' was not my contribution to the list. Surprisingly, I didn't pick a single Woody Allen film. If I had, it would have been 'Crimes and Misdemeanors,' but 'Hannah' does follow a close second to 'Crimes' on my list of favorite Allen films not named 'Annie Hall.'

Curiously, one selection that I find a bit questionable is Wes Anderson's 'Rushmore." It made both of your individual lists, but if 'Raging Bull' and 'GoodFellas' seem like convenient, almost de facto picks, 'Rushmore' strikes me as basically the same just for a younger generation. It's the film that movie geeks like us just have to worship, even if 'The Royal Tenenbaums' and 'Bottle Rocket' are both arguably better films.

And then there's 'Glengarry Glen Ross,' which topped our poll based on the fact that it was the only movie to appear on all three of our lists. Another movie that we can appreciate for its luminous acting and writing, but also simply enjoy watching it endlessly. I remember a friend in college telling me how he didn't really like 'Glengarry' because the 'Mr. Fuck You' scene with Alec Baldwin was so abusive that he had a bad taste in his mouth the whole rest of the film. My response was, "Yeah, and..." Is there a scene in any film ever that is more unsettling and hilarious at the same time?

Movies that were on my list that nobody else had: Lone Star, Boogie Nights, Blue Velvet, Fargo
Movies only on Eric's list: Henry V, Ordinary People, In the Mood For Love, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Days of Heaven, There's Something About Mary
Movies only on Sam's list: Yi Yi, Miller's Crossing, The Matrix, Hannah and Her Sisters, The Insider

Now that this list is officially dead and buried, we can get on with discussing 2002. Along with 'The Hours,' I'll have comments about 'Antwone Fisher,' 'Adaptation' and 'Catch Me If You Can.'

Until next time,
Adam


E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

CS MOVIE CLUB - #1
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar
Subject: 13 Conversations about 4 Movies

My reaction to the news that you were going to see "The Hours" last night: curiosity, mixed with the mild pull of duty. I had no plans myself. I almost called and asked if I could tag along or at least offer to see the film on my own so we could share fresh views. But the closer it got to quittin' time, the less I felt I had the energy to go through with it. And I want to see "The Hours." I'm curious. I didn't like the book, which had come recommended; but not long after I finished it I saw that they were making it into a film and especially when I saw the cast, I was immediately interested in seeing it. As I recall, the whole structure of the book seemed forced and kind of pretentious. Maybe I was intrigued by the poetic detail of the book, and I wondered how that would translate to the screen. Anyway, I think it's the kind of film I'd rather see on a rainy Saturday afternoon. Or in the comfort of my own home.

So instead of going to "The Hours," I went straight home after work, with the intention of pounding out my CinemaScoped post. I knew that it would take me a while to articulate (and to recall) my responses to the four year-end films I've seen since Christmas. I started writing. Didn't like how it was going. Got tempted by Netflix's latest shipment: "Lovely and Amazing." I had only rented "Lovely and Amazing" because it was being mentioned in some year-end-best conversations -- for the film itself and for Catherine Keener's performance. Writer/director Nicole Holofcener's film, a rambling examination of a few tumultuous days in the lives of three women (Keener, Emily Mortimer, and Brenda Blethyn), is the worst film I have seen all year. A terribly-directed, dramatically stagnant mess. It is beyond my comprehension what redeeming value anyone could see in this film. Keener gives a noxious variation on her caustic oddball character (as seen in "Being John Malkovich," "Out of Sight" and "Full Frontal") that actually made me cringe. Honestly, it's the worst and most misguided performance by an actor I have seen in a long, long time. The critical success of this film (84% fresh on the Tomatometer) and it's equally bad indie counterpart "13 Conversations About One Thing" (86%) -- really bewilders me. The films have been praised for their emotional directness and their honesty. Both scripts suffered from a terminal lack of subtext, and an annoying tendency to have their characters psychologically evaluate each other. I really didn't want to go on so long about this film. I want the whole experience erased from my memory. I do want to note the performance of child actor Raven Goodwin, who plays Brenda Blethyn's adopted 8-year-old daughter. I wish I could describe the sight of this child actor out-performing everyone else in the film. It is an incredibly naturalistic performance. Just hope that she lands some more roles. Please avoid "Lovely and Amazing" at all costs.

Apropos of nothing. Actresses everyone seems to like but me: Catherine Keener and Julianne Moore.

"Adaptation." I gather you didn't like it. It was almost my favorite movie of the year. Among the things I loved about it: that even though Kaufman didn't trust his adaptation of "The Orchid Thief," the stuff that we see from his adaptation (the scenes with Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper) suggests a movie that I wish I could see. And I would have resented this -- and, if I'm honest with myself, I'll admit that I did resent it a little bit -- if Nicolas Cage hadn't been so incredible and Kaufman's "self-flagellating" (your description) script wasn't so inventive and funny and Jonze's direction wasn't so detailed and inspiring. Yes, the film has flaws. I think everyone who worked on the film knew that "Adaptation" was flawed and believed it was worth working on anyway. You don't get performances as well articulated as those in "Adaptation" without the cast having complete faith in the enterprise they're taking on. Credit for this has to go to Spike Jonze. There have been arguments that the movie is narcissistic; that it's actually much more traditional than it lets on (was Fosse really being "meta" in "All That Jazz," Adam, or was he doing what Woody Allen does each and every year -- make a film about himself, sometimes casting himself in the lead, sometimes casting Kenneth Branagh or John Cusack or Sean Penn?); and that it's cynical. I really think it's brilliant. And I don't think it's cynical at all. But the ending troubles me. I was literally kept awake nights thinking about the ending. I didn't get it. In the days that followed my Christmas Day viewing of the film, I scoured critical appraisals of the film for insight into the "troublesome third act" (as it was invariably described). Most reviewers either avoided a direct discussion of it or wrote it off as an unfortunate act of hari-kari. Now that I've read several interpretations of the film's ending -- thanks in large part to the discussion on Slate's brilliant movie club -- I'm still unsatisfied. For my part, I kept going back to McKee's advice to Charlie that the ending had to come from "a change in the characters themselves." I took this to mean the Susan Orlean (Streep) and John Laroche (Cooper) characters. But the movie "Adaptation" is about Charlie Kaufman. He experiences his own transformation, and so the characters in his screenplay experience one as well. Still the ending wasn't satisfying for me. As much as I liked -- and, more importantly, believed -- Cage in the dual roles, I didn't experience anything resembling catharsis when Charlie's brother Donald dies and Charlie undergoes a sudden emotional maturity. I just didn't go there. For one thing, I was so disoriented by the last third of the movie, and that it went on as long as it did, that I lost any sense of what was real. This is a major flaw. Also, I'm not sure that Jonze and Kaufman realize, or give enough credit for, how invested the audience gets in the Streep and Cooper characters. But I wonder how it will look under re-examination. Whatever the ending is actually intended to accomplish, I trust that Jonze and Kaufman meant it to be un-cynical. Which is good enough for me. I look forward to seeing it again.

Streep's husband in "Adaptation" is played by "8 Mile" director Curtis Hanson. Why has no one pointed this out? Bizarre.

If Spike Jonze has a gift for finding reality in the absurd, Alexander Payne is just as gifted at finding the absurd that permeates reality. I first heard about "About Schmidt" early last year during the Cannes and Sundance film festivals, or maybe it was even earlier than that. It was probably my most anticipated movie of the year. I loved "Election." I loved Payne's instinct for realistic comic detail and his deadpan style. "About Schmidt" does not disappoint in this vein. It's just as textured and observant as "Election," and just as dark and funny. The problem with the film -- and it's a big one -- is the casting of Jack Nicholson. He's just too big for the part. He overwhelms the film's attention to emotional detail and its tone of desperation. I spent large parts of the film wishing they had cast someone else, maybe Robert Duvall or Paul Newman or Tom Wilkinson. It's not that Nicholson gives a bad performance -- it's actually very restrained and honest; it's just that it's Jack Nicholson-, and it was impossible for me to ever forget that fact. Warren Schmidt is a bitter, pathetic retiree. Jack Nicholson is one of the most naturally charismatic actors of all time. Have you seen "The Last Detail," Adam? Just electric charisma and talent. There's a scene in "About Schmidt" where Schmidt visits his college fraternity. We see Schmidt looking at a wall of photos cataloguing previous generations of frat brothers. The college-age Schmidt we see in the photo is unmistakably Nicholson. Grinning like a cat and up to no good. Would this man end up a retired actuary in Omaha, Nebraska? Maybe. But it takes some serious suspension of disbelief. Still. The movie is great. Not as moving as it would have been with another Schmidt?at least not for me?but still a great film by one of the most my favorite directors working today.

Next. I spent the first 40 minutes of "Gangs of New York" imagining how good the book the film is based on must be. I couldn't have been less involved in the story or the place or any of the characters. But somehow by the end of the movie, some two hours later, I was completely wrapped up in it. Despite its messiness and blatant theatricality (which starts a vice and ends a virtue), "Gangs" is one of my favorite movies of the year. I don't remember the last time I left a movie feeling so overwhelmed and fulfilled -- probably not since the first "Lord of the Rings." And as with "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring," "Gangs" succeeds in large part thanks to the performance of a "supporting" actor. In the first "Rings," Ian McKellen gave Middle Earth a sense of reality and place that kept the story firmly rooted in the familiar (something sorely lacking in "The Two Towers"). In "Gangs," Daniel Day-Lewis gives one of the most exciting performances I have ever seen in my life. His Bill the Butcher dominates the movie, and, like McKellen, defines the movie as well. To call these "supporting" roles is a serious understatement. Everything about "Gangs" is stagey and theatrical. The sets, the costumes, the performances. But if they are stagey, they are epically stagey; and it is the movie's scope that won me over. I liken those first 40 minutes to the suspension of disbelief that any playgoer must employ to accept a stage reality. Sometimes it takes until intermission for the reality of the play to take hold. Once "Gangs" really gets going, which pretty much coincides with Lewis's re-emergence as Bill the Butcher/King of the Five Points, I was swept away. When the credits finally rolled and U2 came blaring through the speakers, I felt like I'd been run over by a tank. I couldn't move. I had one of those rare movie experiences where my sense of awe became a physical sensation. For that alone, it should be my favorite movie of the year; but it's not (more on this when we reveal our top films of the year). The performances in "Gangs" are good across the board. DiCaprio seems to be getting some flak, but I liked him. He occasionally slips into 21st century naturalism, but this is Scorsese's fault as much as DiCaprio's. And Cameron Diaz is very good as well, especially as the movie goes on. Somehow Diaz has become a very reliable dramatic actress. I'm not sure how this happened. She won't get nominated, but she should. And if it were up to me, DiCaprio would get a nomination as well as best supporting actor. The only lead actor in the film is Day-Lewis. And his performance is worth the price of admission. If you haven't seen it yet, Adam, see it in the theatre. Don't risk missing the sheer size of this movie. There's a lot more I liked and didn't like about the movie; but let's discuss that once you've seen it.

Lastly, and briefly, "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers." As I've said, I liked the first one a lot. This one lost me. I was reminded of the fact that I generally don't like, and find it difficult to suspend my disbelief for, fantasy films. There wasn't enough McKellen, and I kept forgetting what the point of the whole mission was. I had too many questions. And yet the film is beautiful and a real joy to watch -- to look at, rather. Gollum is a fascinating character and a CGI miracle. I just never got caught up in the momentum of the story, which was taken a bit for granted while we were introduced to new characters, new beasties, exposed to new parts of Middle Earth, etc. It is an amazing achievement, and I'm willing to bet that the third installment will win me over again. Again, we can discuss this further when you see it.

If you haven't seen it, check out Jeffrey Wells' "Hollywood Elsewhere" column (posted today) about Daniel Day-Lewis. It's bizarre. He seems to be criticizing Lewis for choosing not to act because he doesn't find fulfillment in it. For comparison, he invokes all the hardworking stiffs out there who may not like their jobs, but who do them anyway. I'd love to see Lewis in more films myself, but if the guy doesn't want to act, leave him alone. Acting is not like other jobs. It's more like a drug habit than a job. For many professional actors, the job is frequently unfulfilling, particularly, it seems, for those we consider our very best actors (Anthony Hopkins threatens to quit the business after every other film he makes); at the end of the day, you're pretending to be someone else. And if you have exacting standards of how to achieve this magic act (of becoming someone else), you can become more and more convinced that it just isn't possible. And the effort can be physically and mentally exhausting. Many actors find peace with the profession before burning themselves out (please see the still very watchable Robert De Niro for a great example; Al Pacino is alternately phoning it in and killing himself with effort -- also, he took five years off in the 80s due to burnout). Lewis is a gifted actor; he seems born to do it. But he can't go halfway. It's all or nothing with him. It would be like asking Mr. Wells to write perfect prose every day of his life. You could go crazy trying. And it's not possible anyway. So maybe it's better to go make shoes in Italy.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on all things!

Samuel

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

RANDOM MUSINGS - Cross 'Catch Me If You Can' of my list of movies I have to see before making my best of the year list. I caught it last night and all I will say for now is that I think Ebert put the wrong Spielberg movie at the top of his list. As mentioned previously, I'll be seeing 'The Hours' tonight. That leaves 'Gangs of New York,' 'About Schmidt,' 'The Pianist,' '25th Hour' (opens Friday) and 'Talk To Her.' Movies I'd like to fit in but probably won't have time: 'The Two Towers,' 'Personal Velocity,' and 'Y Tu Mama Tambien (on DVD). My movie club mate Sam Hallgren and I will unveil our individual top ten lists next Monday to much fanfare and discussion. Eric Baker may make an appearance, but considering that 1) I have no idea where he is and 2) He has been out of the country for the past few weeks, thus missing the brunt of the year's most promising releases, he may be even more clueless than usual. Just kidding, Bakes.

In yesterday's Movie Club over at Slate, David Edelstein mentioned some email he received regarding the ending of 'Minority Report': "Let me close (finally) with Harvey Cormier of the Philosophy Department at Stony Brook. He makes that case (I first heard this over the summer) that Minority Report is not, as I've asserted, 7/8 of a great movie but 8/8 of one: that the final 20 minutes represents the dream of Tom Cruise's character while in stasis". I bring this up for no better reason than to point out that I espoused this same theory back on 7/31 and just like Edelstein, I don't buy it. Obviously, I agree that there is room for that interpretation, which is why I put it forward, but I don't believe that Spielberg intended the ending of 'Minority Report' to be read as a dream. I wish he had. It certainly would have made the movie better than it ultimately was.

My 'Chicago' review sparked a little discussion in the message boards, including Nate's bold claim that 'Chicago' is the best film of the year so far. If he loves musicals as much he says he does, I sure hope he has seen 'All That Jazz,' Bob Fosse's autobiographical tale of life as a selfish, womanizing artist with Roy Scheider as his alter-ego Joe Gideon. Charlie Kauffman may be all the post-modern rage these days, but Fosse was the king of all meta-ness before Kauffman had been to his bar mitzvah. The only difference between 'All That Jazz' and 'Adaptation' is that Fosse didn't play himself as Bob Fosse, or have Scheider play a character named "Bob Fosse." Oh, and the fact that Fosse had something interesting to say beyond self-flagellation. Frankly, this movie easily could have made my list of the Best Films of the Past 25 Years. Speaking of which... check back tomorrow!

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

A.O. SCOTT STOLE MY THUNDER - Here I was all set to announce my revelation to the world, and A.O. Scott goes and beats me to it": the best performance in 'Chicago,' the movie version of the popular Bob Fosse musical, isn't turned in by Catherine Zeta-Jones or Renee Zellweger, or even supporting scene-stealers Queen Latifah and John C. Reilly -- it's Richard Gere. An actor I haven't enjoyed watching in a movie since 'An Officer And A Gentleman,' Gere is fabulous as the fast-talking lawyer Billy Flynn -- and not because of his singing and dancing skills, although he acquits himself amiably. Rather, he is the only performer who actually shows that he can act, delivering a performance just showy enough for a Broadway bonanza while employing the same "naturalistic conventions of screen drama," as Scott puts it, to transcend mere showmanship. Actually, I'm not sure that I really appropriated Scott's remarks correctly at all, but that's why he reviews movies for the New York Times and I review movies for the seven people reading this right now. The audience I saw 'Chicago' with last weekend -- though, admittedly, mostly older women -- cooed and giggled at Gere's every line. Sure, part of this is due to his general hunkiness, but also because he earns every one of those affectionate responses with his charm. I was genuinely surprised by how much I enjoyed his performance, especially when he was the actor I was most concerned about. Casting Gere as a sleazy lawyer always seemed like uninspired casting to me because it was just too obvious. As for the general criticisms of 'Chicago' -- that Zeta-Jones can't dance, Zellweger can't sing and the music isn't really that great to begin with -- I'll happily admit to ignorance when it comes to the criteria of what a good musical should be and simply say that I enjoyed the hell out of the movie. I found the music to be generally catchy (most are tunes you've heard a million times without knowing where they came from) and director Rob Marshall, who also choreographed the film, is smart enough to keep Zeta-Jones' movements to a minimum while Zellweger seems to have a delightful voice that actually compensates for an overall performance as Roxie Hart that is just slightly overdone. She's always "performing," playing a character who is clearly in a musical, unlike Gere's Flynn who could be transplanted to a "regular" film if he could only lose his nasty habit of bursting into song. I don't expect to find 'Chicago' anywhere on my best of the year list (more on that in a shortly), but it won me over, especially the way Marshall intercuts the musical and non-musical bits without having it seem cumbersome or confusing. The Brechtian device of having each song performed for an audience on a stage, separate from the "other" movie world being portrayed, with Taye Diggs as a sort of host who calls out each number, is smart and effective.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

BOOKS ON FILM, MUSIC DOCS AND NEW DVDs - Back in August I dropped close to $100 on a membership to Cinema/Chicago because it promised discounts to the Chicago International Film Fest and free passes to special screenings -- and because you can really never have enough forms of ID. Well, the discounts at the Film Fest were good for all the movies except the ones I most wanted to see, and I've received zero invitations to special screenings... until yesterday, that is. Next Tuesday (1/7), I'll be attending a free viewing of 'The Hours', the Nicole Kidman/Meryl Streep/Julianne Moore battle for best actress based on Michael Cunningham's Pulitzer-Prize winning novel. Cunningham will be present for a post-screening discussion of the film, which should be interesting. I actually purchased the book over the holidays along with David Benioff's 'The 25th Hour,' which was the basis for Spike Lee's latest minus the "The." I'm torn right now because I'm 40 pages into 'The 25th Hour' and enjoying it, but debating whether I should commit to finishing the book before I see the movie, or just stopping now and finishing it after the film. As a general rule, if I'm going to read a book that has been made into a film, I like to read the book first since it was created first. The film is an interpretation of the book, so why not see exactly how it was interpreted -- it's a cause-and-effect sort of thing, if any of this makes any sense at all. At the same time, reading the book first can bias you toward the film if it leaves out favorite scenes, characters or subplots, in addition to ruining surprises and/or defusing suspense. I finished Chuck Pahlaniuk's 'Fight Club' about a week before seeing the movie, which meant Ed Norton's identity revelation near the end wasn't a revelation to me at all. It did shock the hell out of me reading the book, though, so I suppose I didn't really have anything spoiled for me. Coincidentally, of course, Ed Norton is also the star of '25th Hour.' * Speaking of artist appearances and the Chicago Film Fest, I never followed through on my promise to write about two music documentaries that I viewed back in September -- 'Only The Strong Survive' and 'Tribute' -- so I'll say something briefly about both now. The best part about seeing 'Survive,' a film about the great R&B and soul stars such as Sam and Dave, Wilson Pickett, and various Staxx recording artists who were big in the '50s through the '70s, is that director and documentary legend D.A. Pennebaker ('Don't Look Back') was at the screening and stuck around afterward for an audience Q&A. Pennebaker was joined by his partner/wife and co-director Chris Hegedus, one of the co-directors of last year's great 'Startup.com', and entertainment writer Roger Friedman who "stars" in the movie as he embarks on a journey to seek out his favorite performers. I enjoyed the film because I know very little about these artists and their music is great, but I think it actually would have been better served had the filmmakers stuck with the personal journey conceit. Friedman more or less disappears about 30 minutes in and the film basically becomes your grandfather's documentary. In addition, neither Pennebaker nor Friedman really probe into the lives of their subjects, settling instead for extended performance scenes comprised of copious closeups. Pennebaker addressed this concern in the post-Q&A when he said that he didn't realize he was using so many closeups until he saw the footage; while he was shooting, he was just so caught up in the revelrie of being close to these performers and their music that he kept creeping in. No documentarian is ever truly objective about their subjects, but Pennebaker and co. were maybe just a little too adoring. In contrast, the documentary 'Tribute,' about bands who devote themselves to copying their idols to sometimes ridiculous lengths, was occasionally too patronizing of its subjects -- not that these people don't deserve a little prodding. You simply can't beat watching a 40-year-old guy with a gut being forcibly put into his leather Gene Simmons garb. Or what about the 20-something dork from L.A. who is so delusional about the band Queen that while sitting outside Freddie Mercury's old L.A. home he notices a skywriter paying tribute to Princess Diana and without hesitation makes the connection that Freddie Mercury is sending him a sign -- Freddie is talking to him, showing his love for all humanity, through this skywriter? He's so emotional he almost breaks down in tears. I'm not kidding. The unintentional comedy is off the charts, which is also the movie's downfall. The movie focuses on bands paying tribute to Kiss, Queen, Judas Priest and the Monkees, and at times seems to be enjoying a little too much just how fanatical these people are in trying to emulate their heroes. It's the kind of situation where all of the people in the doc probably thought it was great to have the filmmakers around and then when they saw the final product felt betrayed because they were made to look like fools. * Hopefully you got some gift certificates for X-mas or have some extra holiday cash laying around because January is a great month for us DVD collectors. M. Night Shyamalan's 'Signs,' comes out next Tuesday (1/7) with director's commentary and deleted scenes. Not a fashionable movie to like, at least in film snob circles, but I've yet to be disappointed by Shyamalan's work. Also on the 7th is Migual Arteta's 'The Good Girl,' a film Sam and I were both ultimately disappointed with -- read our remarks from 8/27 here -- but found a number of parts to contain arguably the funniest dialogue of the year. Plus, the disc is loaded with a commentary by screenwriter and co-star Mike White, an alternate ending, director and cast commentary and deleted scenes. 'About a Boy' comes out on Jan. 14 with deleted scenes and commentary by the Weitz brothers. Then on Jan. 21 we get the collector's edition of 'The Bourne Identity' complete with cast commentary, Doug Liman commentary, deleted scenes and an alternate ending with Liman's commentary.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

THE MOST WONDERFUL TIME OF THE YEAR - Three movies. That's all I could manage to squeeze in this holiday season -- 'Adaptation,' 'Antwone Fisher,' and the original 'Planet of the Apes,' which I finally saw from start to finish on DVD. I plan to write about all three movies this week, while hopefully engaging my colleague Sam Hallgren who saw 'Adaptation', among others, and reacted a bit more favorably than I did. But before I get to those movies, and to the CS list of the top ten films since 1978, I have to take some time to plug the 5th Annual Movie Club going on over at Slate with David Edelstein, Roger Ebert, Sarah Kerr (Vogue) and A.O. Scott (NY Times). The critics are sharing their top ten lists and other assorted observations on the year in movies. Edelstein reads this blog on occasion and I'm hoping that if I suck up enough he might invite me to partake in a Movie Club in the future. I can't imagine anything cooler than being able to call A.O. Scott "Tony." But seriously, these folks are all, sadly, out of my league, which you can see for yourself by clicking here. If you have a lot of free time and self-control, I also recommend checking out the vitriolic responses the Movie Club provokes in "The Fray." Since I don't have a lot of free time and even less self-control, I just avoid "The Fray" completely now. Two years ago I entered a few debates and it consumed almost a week of my life. I guarantee there are people in there now complaining about how they've never even heard of most of the movies these critics are discussing, and how if a critic says a movie is good it must mean it sucks, etc... really enlightening stuff. Anyway, here are a few random observations on the entries so far: * Edelstein puts 'Gangs of New York' at #11 on his list with an asterisk -- like Nigel Tufnel's amp, Edelstein's list goes to 11 -- explaining: "The asterisk means I'm hedging my bets pending a look (I hope someday) at Martin Scorsese's preferred three-and-a-half hour cut." What's curious about this is that I saw Scorsese talking about 'Gangs' a few weeks ago on either Conan O'Brien or Inside the Actor's Studio -- how's that for opposite ends of the cultural spectrum? -- and I'm sure I recall him saying that there will be no "director's cut" of the movie, that what you see in the theater is his preferred length. He admitted to some back-and-forth with Harvey Weinstein but said that he wasn't forced to chop his movie up. So, either Scorsese was just playing the good soldier while promoting his movie, or Edelstein's asterisk will be there for awhile. Speaking of chopped up movies and Miramax, I can't think of another movie more bastardized by length considerations than Billy Bob Thornton's 'All The Pretty Horses.' Luscious landscapes and cinematography, Matt Damon's best performance... all for nothing. It takes Thornton almost 90 minutes to get to the plot, which I loved, but Weinstein clearly did not. Thornton's first cut was reportedly almost four hours long and at one point he considered taking his name off the final version. He should have. Watching Damon's character fall in love and then in the next scene get framed and shipped off to jail was laughable and ruined what I think could have been a truly magnificent film. * Roger Ebert puts 'Minority Report' as the #1 movie of 2002. There's been some talk on this blog about Ebert's credibility and this choice certainly seems a dubious one. Edelstein is absolutely correct when he praises "seven-eighths of Minority Report" calling it "a blast until its flat final act." I think "flat" is probably too kind, as I discussed here on 7/31. No movie with an ending that flawed belongs atop any 'best of' list. * After 'Minority Report,' the biggest surprise has to be A.O. Scott's placement of 'Storytelling' at #7. I haven't seen it on any other top ten lists and I know it won't crack mine. Some of the dialogue in the "Fiction" sequence was hilarious, but it was the first time I agreed with all of the Solondz detractors that he seemed to be taking some sort of perverse pleasure in showcasing the vulgarities of his characters. 'Happiness' wasn't much different, but the tone was more consistently ironic and humorous as opposed to angry and condescending.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

UPDATE - New Year's Resolution #1 - Stop making promises about when you will blog. Resolution #2 - Be a more consistent blogger.

Sorry, I'm swamped at work...but I've got plenty to say and will do so this afternoon. Wait, was that just a promise?

COMING SOON - Movie blogging will occur before noon today!

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

SAM GOES LIST CRAZY - Let me digress for a moment before I get to the CinemaScoped 10 films/25 years list... I don’t love Martin Scorsese. I don’t love his movies. There. I said it. I admire him. I recognize and appreciate his influence. But he’s not my favorite. Not by a long shot. There’s something about Scorsese’s films I just don’t enjoy. The urban crime dramas are gritty, sadistically playful, artistically shot and solemn as hell. “Mean Streets,” “Taxi Driver,” “Raging Bull,” “Goodfellas,” “Casino,” and “Bringing out the Dead” are all good films (OK, “Bringing out the Dead” is not good, but it fits the type), but none of them give me the emotional or visceral thrill that my favorite films do. And if I fail to mention a film during this discussion, it means I haven’t seen it. Scorsese’s other forays into filmmaking -- those outside of the underbelly-of-America genre (“Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore,” “Cape Fear,” “Age of Innocence,” “Kundun”) -- have interested me even less. My favorite Scorsese film? “After Hours.” Because it’s fun and funny and loose and improvisational. Is “After Hours” a better film than “Raging Bull?” No. “Raging Bull” -- and “Taxi Driver” and “Goodfellas” -- are masterpieces of cinematography, editing and characterization. But if you asked me to pick a Scorsese film to watch right now, I’d pick “After Hours.” I am not going to make the argument that Scorsese is overrated. I don’t think that’s true. I’m just sharing my opinion. I’m saying it’s OK to love movies and not love Scorsese.

Which brings me to the CinemaScoped list -- a list-by-committee that reveals the faults of such a list. To create a list of the best films of the last 25 years is presumptuous, futile, and impossible. It’s also a hell of a lot of fun. And it’s a great way to start a conversation. I picked on Martin Scorsese at the top of my post because I hate the fact that two of his films are on the CS list. And the fact is I put “Raging Bull” in my own top ten, but more out of reflex than anything else. Putting “Raging Bull” on the list, in my opinion, is an unconscious genuflection to a previous generation of cineastes. Or maybe I’m just bored with the obvious. Here are my three favorite picks on the CS list, all of which appeared on my own list: “Apocalypse Now.” I saw it when I was 15 and it fucked me up. It was chaotic and scary; but it had an emotional logic that -- if I didn’t entirely understand it -- I believed it. I’ve seen it repeatedly since and it still gets me. The film over-extends and implodes; but its desperation is exhilarating. It feels like the last movie ever made. “Hannah and Her Sisters.” OK, so Woody Allen hasn’t made a great movie in a decade and it’s getting harder to remember what everyone loves about this guy. Go rent this movie. Or “Manhattan” or “Crimes and Misdemeanors” or “Husbands and Wives” -- or even “Manhattan Murder Mystery.” Great writing. Great, great acting. Woody Allen is a great observer of human anxiety. He’s funny, honest, and smart. When he’s on, there is just no one better. “Rushmore.” With “Bottle Rocket” (probably my favorite film of all-time) Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson introduced me to something new in film: sincerity of the absurd. “Rushmore” uses the same formula to an even more specific and creative end. (“The Royal Tennenbaums” pushed the formula past the breaking point, and I found the film indulgent; but I have hope for future projects). For my money, I think Anderson and Wilson have the most original voice currently working in American movies. My favorite thing about “Rushmore” is its emotional honesty in the face of absurdity -- and it’s refusal to cheapen itself with cynicism. I also want to comment on the surprising appearance of “Henry V” on the CS list. This is probably the best example of the consequences of making a list by committee. I love “Henry V,” and I think anyone who has seen it can agree that it’s a well-staged and well-acted film -- definitely the best (literal) Shakespeare adaptation of the past 25 years. And what a great script! But not an influential or a landmark film. And it makes the list because Adam, Eric, and I can’t agree on another auteur to recognize: if one of us loves David Lynch or Paul Thomas Anderson or the Farrelly brothers, the other two can’t stand them; or if one of us loves “In the Mood for Love” or “Yi Yi,” the other two haven’t seen it. And so it goes. So no Oliver Stone, no Robert Altman, no Coen brothers, no Terry Gilliam, and no Jim Jarmusch. And what about “Glengarry Glen Ross?” If you’re of a certain age, this film belongs on a list all by itself. I’ve spent more time with this movie, with these characters, than I have with any other movie. It’s about salesmen. Nothing really happens. All they do is talk. Well, this is the kind of dialogue that every screenwriter wishes he could write. Funny, sharp, and destructive. And read by some of the best actors in the land. This film is just a flawless, endlessly-entertaining gem -- particularly for film and theater geeks like myself. Is it a “great” film? No. It’s the best film. Period.

Now. Here’s another list of films -- more along the lines of the type of lists that have appeared in the Feedback Forum. This is a list of my favorite movies of the past 25 years; the films that remind me why I love movies. It’s telling that the bulk of these films are from the mid-to-late 90s: these movies served as my film education. It may also help to think of these as my “desert island” movies.

Bottle Rocket/Rushmore (Wes Anderson, 1996-1999)
Mystery Train/Dead Man/Ghost Dog (Jim Jarmusch, 1989-1999)
Unforgiven (Clint Eastwood, 1992)
Midnight Run (Martin Brest, 1988)
Flirting With Disaster (David O. Russell, 1996)
The Insider (Michael Mann, 1999)
32 Short Films About Glenn Gould (Francois Girard, 1994)
Wonder Boys (Curtis Hanson, 2000)
Big Night/The Imposters (Campbell Scott/Stanley Tucci, 1996-1998)
Out of Sight/The Limey (Steven Soderbergh, 1998-1999)
The Matrix (Wachowski Brothers, 1999)
Glengarry Glen Ross (James Foley, 1992)
Hannah and Her Sisters/Husbands and Wives (Woody Allen, 1986-1992)

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

APOLOGIES - My first post in almost a week and I have absolutely nothing interesting to say. It's the holidays and I probably won't get back to my normal blog routine until next Monday. Besides, the list of movies I have to see -- "have to" because I am anxious to see them and because my end of the year list needs to be completed -- is enormous. I've listed these movies before, but just for the record one last time (in alphabetical order): 'About Schmidt,' 'Antwone Fisher,' 'Catch Me If You Can,' 'Gangs of New York,' 'Talk To Her, 'The Two Towers,' and 'The Trials of Henry Kissinger'. Apparently Roman Polanski's 'The Pianist' is only playing in NY and LA. I could write about 'Adaptation', which I saw last Saturday, but I'm not sure I know how to articulate my response yet. Let me just say it didn't live up to my expectations. Now I have to decide whether that is my fault or Spike Jonze's. Of course, comments about CS' list of the top 10 films since 1978 are forthcoming. Thanks for your patience.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

LOOSE ENDS & RANDOM MUSINGS - Before we delve into the top ten list (published below), I wanted to tie up a few loose ends... and then proceed to go off on about 12 different tangents. First, my consternation over nobody answering my trivia question about what movie takes place in Star City, Arkansas, apparently paid off. Congrats to Slate film critic David Edelstein who correctly answered Carl Franklin's 'One False Move.' He just beat CS regulars Matty Robinson (aka JoeyCotton), Island Girl and Rico. Speaking of Edelstein, check out his review of Spike Lee's '25th Hour', which he argues is more about a fear of anal rape than it is post-911 New York or the movie's themes of loyalty, friendship and misguided choices. As a devotee of the HBO show 'Oz', I don't have a problem buying Edelstein's assessment. I'm pretty sure it would be my biggest fear if I, like Ed Norton's character Monty Brogan, was heading to the slammer. If you haven't seen 'One False Move,' it's really worth checking out -- a pre-'Sling Blade' Billy Bob Thornton (as screenwriter and actor), Michael Beach (a true 'that guy') in a truly terrifying role as the calm sociopath Pluto and Bill Paxton doing his hayseed routine to perfection. I always remember Star City as a town name because it's so naturally ironic and fits so nicely in the movie since the female character at the core of the story is on the run from Los Angeles back home. I watched the movie on DVD one weekend a few years back and at work Monday -- this is Cedar Rapids, Iowa, just so you know -- I heard the woman with a slight Southern drawl in the office next to me explain to someone that she was born in Star City, Arkansas! The timing floored me. I didn't even know Star City was a real place. * During our 'Solaris' movie club back on 12/4, Sam sang the praises of Netflix, the rent-by-mail DVD company. Our mutual friend Kevin Rich was the first person I knew who was really into Netflix. He tried to sell me on its virtues back in June or July. As Sam wrote, and as you've surely heard by now, for $19.95 a month you get unlimited DVD rentals and Netflix provides you with the packaging materials to send the discs back. You keep a rental list online and Netflix just keeps going through your list sending you the ones you've requested. Keep them as long as you want, no late fees. If you typically rent just 4 our 5 DVDs a month from Blockbuster, Netflix ends up being cheaper and a hell of a lot more convenient. The problem, for me, was that I don't typically rent any DVDs much less 4 or 5 a month, and $19.95 just seemed like too much of financial commitment. What changed my mind was two things. First, I moved to Chicago, where there are more movies to see, but they're also much harder to see -- whether it's the cost and hassle of parking, public transporation, or simply making the drive from the 'burbs into the city. Furthermore, with a job that involves working long hours and most weekends, I just don't have the time to go to the theatre as frequently as I did back in Iowa City. Second, I discovered Number Slate, a Netflix rival that provides the same service, but for $13.95 per month. Call me cheap, but something about that $6 just makes it seem worthwhile. So i signed up. My first two selections, based on my rankings and which movies were immediately available, were 'Scotland, PA' and 'Planet of the Apes.' Yes, it's true; I've never seen the original 'Planet' from start to finish, which is the beauty of services like Number Slate. Sam's right, at Blockbuster you always feel compelled to spend your $4 on a new release, not some old movie that you've seen parts of but just never watched all the way through. I still haven't popped in 'Planet' yet, but I did scope out 'Scotland, PA,' an indie film written and directed by Billy Morrissette that came out on a few screens back in February. It's a moderately entertaining movie, but one that ultimately left me wondering why it deserved my time. I had zero expectations for this film; in fact, I couldn't remember anything about the movie at all when I added it to my rental list online. Set in the early 70s, the film is a comedic retelling of Shakespeare's 'MacBeth' with James LeGros and Maura Tierney starring as Joe and Pat McBeth, a couple of simple but ambitious blue collar folks working in a diner in small-town Pennsylvania. 'Scotland' joins Baz Luhrmann's 'Romeo & Juliet', the Ethan Hawke version of 'Hamlet', Gus Van Sant's 'My Own Private Idaho' (a film that probably should have made our top ten list), 'O' with Josh Hartnett, and a handful of others in what arguably has become its own genre. Maybe it's the fact that 'Henry IV', which was Van Sant's inspiration for 'Idaho,' is my favorite Shakespeare play, or maybe it's because Van Sant used Shakespeare merely as inspiration rather than as a text to update and revise, but not one movie from this "genre" since 'Idaho' has really worked for me. I think Ebert probably summed it up best in this quote taken from Rotten Tomatoes: "I enjoyed the movie in a superficial way, while never sure what its purpose was." I really can't sum up my feelings any better. It's very funny at times, especially some of the scenes involving Christopher Walken as Ernie McDuff, a detective investigating the murder that propels the McBeth's to fast-food fame. I guess if you're a big 'MacBeth' fan who takes some kind of intellectual delight in seeing all of the movie's clever references to the original, then great. If not, then so what? That's a pretty brusque review, I know, but I've got to cut this short and hopefully get to the discussion of our top ten list.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

CS' TOP TEN FILMS OF THE PAST 25 YEARS/THIS WEEKEND - Well, it's finally here. Sam, Eric and I have made our individual lists and tallied the votes of our top ten films since 1978. The idea was to see how similar it was to the recent poll in the British film magazine Sight & Sound. As you'll see, the two lists are very similar... which either means the three of us are just as snobby as a bunch of limey film critics, or we're simply not very original. (And the answer is -- both.)

1. Glengarry Glen Ross (James Foley, 1989)
2. Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980)
3. GoodFellas (Scorsese, 1991)
4. Hannah and Her Sisters (Woody Allen, 1986)
5. Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)
6. Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994)
7. Rushmore (Wes Anderson, 1998)
8. Do The Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989)
9. The Deer Hunter (Michael Cimino, 1978)
10. Henry V (Kenneth Branagh, 1989)

We'll provide some commentary about our selections Friday (or Monday). * Wow, how nice would it be to not have any commitments this weekend? It's like the movie gods are rewarding us for the past several weeks of releases like 'Maid in Manhattan.' The list of movies opening between now and Christmas that I am eager to see includes: Adaptation, About Schmidt, Antwone Fisher, Catch Me If You Can, Gangs of New York, and The Hot Chick (just kidding!). If at least three of those movies don't make my best of the year list, I will be extremely disappointed.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE CLUB: THE TWO TOWERS
From: Eric Baker
To: Adam Kempenaar, Sam Hallgren, and the multitude of readers
Subject: The Ring: My Precious

I hate it when Adam is right, but at least it will take him a while to chime in if he doesn't plan on seeing the new LOTR for awhile. I'll be stealing my thunder for my Friday review of 'The Two Towers,' but I have a lot to say about this flick. I think I'm more disappointed because I liked Part I last year so much, and I thought the possibilities were endless with where Peter Jackson could take this film (within the context of the script, of course). Instead what I got was 'Army of Darkness' without the humor, 'Braveheart' without the superior battle choreography, 'Rocky' without the deep emotional underpinning of a tough Italian kid just trying to . . . cough, ahem. Sorry about that. But we know what Jackson is trying to do here, beyond the prerequisite 'entertain the audience.' He was handed the keys to the castle on this, an opportunity to do 3 movies at once, but a situation where if he made the first one excellent, people would buy tickets to the next two just to see what else he could accomplish. He was given a modern-day 'Star Wars,' and while it's certainly better than the last two installments of that dead horse franchise, it's not great, which was what I was expecting. As viewers will see, there are some similarities to 'The Empire Strikes Back,' but Jackson didn't have the stones to veer from a happy ending. There's no sense of dramatic conflict throughout the film, especially with Frodo Baggins. And I'm anxious to read and hear what people have to say about all the face time Gollum got in this installment, specifically if people think he's the next Jar Jar Binks (I didn't mind him too much). After watching the Bravo presentation of 'Page to Screen' on 'The Fellowship of the Ring,' I remember the three screenwriters emphasizing certain themes in the film so as not to get too caught up in unnecessary plot machinations. I guess I can't say there's a ton of clunky storylines in this one, but the pacing sure seems off. This installment is the same length as the first one --roughly three hours -- but you sure do notice it this time around. I thought the first LOTR was wise to give as much screen time and story development to Ian McKellan's (Gandalf the Grey) and Ian Holm's (Bilbo Baggins) characters as possible, but here everything is a constant trudge to a battle with a pre-ordained outcome that even top-notch special effects can't enliven. Don't get me wrong, the special effects are the best part of the movie, so good in some places that I literally couldn't tell if they were real or computer-generated, which is something in this day and age. A perfect example of what I wish Jackson would have done more of is the subplot with Pippin and Merry and the Tree People. My favorite part of the movie that gets short shrift in the editing room: it's an appropriate use of special effects within the context of the story. I realize the entire film can't be similar to that, but the magic of Tolkien is each escapade is described with such detail you could create a whole movie just on that event. Adam frets below that "is it going to surprise me at all? Is it really any different than seeing a James Bond movie to some extent, except with better acting, etc." Well, if it met the criteria in the laundry list, then yes, it would be quite different from Bond. But I think it's fair to say Adam won't be surprised, and he hasn't even read the books.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

VERY DISAPPOINTED - Real quick I wanted to point out that I have received no responses to my little trivia question from Friday in the post "Speaking of movies nobody will see..." I wrote: "And if you can name what movie is set in Star City, Arkansas, you get...well, I'm not sure what you'll get other than my respect and admiration." Either my respect and admiration isn't enough of an incentive, or nobody knows the answer...or maybe nobody read the post. Who knows? The challenge still stands. Hint: It was on Roger Ebert's list of the best films of 1992.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

NEWS FLASH - 'Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' opens today. So now you know. Our own Eric Baker is seeing it this afternoon and plans on having some comments tonight, I believe...which is good because I have to admit that I don't intend to see it any time soon. I liked 'Fellowship' quite a bit and expect 'Towers' to be even better. I just can't get excited about it. Sorry. Now if 'Adaptation' or 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind' was playing nearby, I'd be waiting in line. I never read the books growing up and I seem to have an aversion to spectacle/event movies like this. Let me reiterate, I expect the movie to be great. But is it going to surprise me at all? Is it really any different than seeing a James Bond movie to some extent, except with better acting, directing, writing, production design and cinematography? Out of 78 reviews on "Rotten Tomatoes," only one critic expressed a negative reaction -- someone named Victoria Alexander from FilmsInReview.com. I appreciate Ms. Alexander's nerve -- "I'll be the reckless, foolish messenger and endure the wrath of LOTR devotees: Compared to The Fellowship, The Two Towers is a big, sprawling disappointment," she writes -- but her review is sort of like reading the phone book. Lots of information, mainly about the plot, with absolutely zero insight. I know Sam is anxious to see it and Eric will chime in with his thoughts soon. It's worth noting that Nate "The Yapp" from the Feedback Forum isn't the only person to include 'Fellowship' on his list of the best films of the past 25 years. Eric's a big dork as well. (Just kidding)

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

OUT TO LUNCH - Some good lists of the top ten movies of the last 25 years in the Feedback Forum so far. Let's see some more. Sam, Eric and I have almost finished our list and should have it up Wed. or Thurs. I'll also have a post about a Netflix rival and the movie 'Scotland, PA.'

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

WE WANT YOUR VOTE AND ARE THEY SERIOUS? - Sam, Eric and I are in the midst of whittling down our list of the top ten films of the past 25 years (see my post from last Tuesday, Dec. 3rd below). We would like your help in constructing this list. Use whatever criteria you would like. Send your picks to: CinemaScoped@attbi.com.

I have to admit I was a bit shocked (and disappointed) to see Ebert's three-star review of the new J. Lo-Cinderella tale, 'Maid In Manhattan'. But not half as shocked as I was to read Jonathan Rosenbaum's take in the Chicago Reader. You think you know someone...

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum