Tuesday, January 28, 2003
Friday, January 24, 2003
RANDOM MUSING - Something for Eric and Sam to perhaps consider before our next Movie Club... What movies did you not like much in the theater, but now find yourself liking a lot whenever you catch them on video/DVD or cable? Conversely, what movies did you really like in the theater and now find that you don't like much at all? I've mentioned before how I somehow liked 'As Good As It Gets' when I saw it originally, but now have realized it's almost as bad as it gets. I find it terribly smug and overbearing. What brought this on is HBO's near constant showing this month of 'Ocean's Eleven,' a film I was lukewarm on when I reviewed it upon its release. I guess I stand by my criticisms, especially Brad Pitt's annoying facial tick where he puts his lips together and opens them again quickly after every line he says; someone tell me you noticed this and were bothered by it too. But every time I start watching it, I can't help but get sucked into it. Dialogue that I never thought was nearly as clever as it wanted to be when I first saw it, now brings a smile to face, such as when Danny (George Clooney) asks his ex-wife, Tess (Julia Roberts), if her new lover (Andy Garcia) makes her laugh. "He doesn't make me cry," she replies. Other great, more humorous, lines:
Tess: You're a thief and a liar.
Danny: I only lied about being a thief, and I don't do that anymore.
Tess: Steal?
Danny: Lie.
Ruben: Look, we all go way back and uh, I owe you from the thing with the guy in the place and I'll never forget it.
Danny: That was our pleasure.
Rusty: I'd never been to Belize.
[While they are watching a dozen Chinese acrobats at a circus]
Danny: Which one is the amazing Yen?
Rusty: He's the little Chinese guy.
Rusty: What's with the orange?
Saul: My doctor says I need vitamins.
Rusty: So why don't you just take vitamins?
[Discussing possible candidates for their crew]
Danny: Phil Torenteen...
Rusty: Dead.
Danny: No kidding. On the job?
Rusty: Skin cancer.
Danny: Send flowers?
Rusty: Dated his wife for a while.
I know Sam is a big fan of Soderbergh's commentary on the DVD, if not a big fan of the movie. I should probably check it out considering I've owned it for about a year now.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Tess: You're a thief and a liar.
Danny: I only lied about being a thief, and I don't do that anymore.
Tess: Steal?
Danny: Lie.
Ruben: Look, we all go way back and uh, I owe you from the thing with the guy in the place and I'll never forget it.
Danny: That was our pleasure.
Rusty: I'd never been to Belize.
[While they are watching a dozen Chinese acrobats at a circus]
Danny: Which one is the amazing Yen?
Rusty: He's the little Chinese guy.
Rusty: What's with the orange?
Saul: My doctor says I need vitamins.
Rusty: So why don't you just take vitamins?
[Discussing possible candidates for their crew]
Danny: Phil Torenteen...
Rusty: Dead.
Danny: No kidding. On the job?
Rusty: Skin cancer.
Danny: Send flowers?
Rusty: Dated his wife for a while.
I know Sam is a big fan of Soderbergh's commentary on the DVD, if not a big fan of the movie. I should probably check it out considering I've owned it for about a year now.
MY LARRY KING COLUMN - Item! Face time with Mr. CinemaScoped himself if you can name the film where Adam got the shark's constant movement reference.
Item! From China comes the one great movie, the one to defeat all the others. Such is the hype that surrounded me during my visit there, especially after a few of them found out I write about film. The movie is called Hero and it had just come out in December of last year, so there was a massive Western-style advertising blitz to accompany it. Miramax has bought the distribution rights and this has made some fans angry because they have already announced they may fiddle with the length and are unclear when they will release it. The movie features Asian stars Jet Li ('Fists of Legend,' 'The Black Mask'), Tony Leung Chiu Wai and Maggie Cheung of 'In the Mood for Love,' and Ziyi Zhang of 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.' It is directed by the acclaimed Yimou Zhang ('Happy Times' and 'The Road Home') so it isn't short on name recognition, at least to the Chinese. My guide in Beijing said he had seen it seven times already in the first month it opened, and promised it was much better than 'Crouching Tiger,' which many Chinese are using as a benchmark since it was so popular worldwide. The interesting facet of all this bluster to me was that the Chinese I talked with all seemed to think 'Crouching Tiger' was a very mediocre movie, not representative of what Chinese cinema can accomplish. More of an attempt from an American ensconced in Hollywood to return to his roots in China than a typical Chinese production. A few of them described to me that for a film to be considered "great" in China it has to have a mix of critical success and box office success, but the latter is much more important. I'm guessing because of their history, they would view critics, who attempt to influence what "the masses" think, skeptically, but probably wouldn't go so far as to send me to a labor camp (though they still do have pictures of Mao everywhere). And the only American movies they officially import are the 10 highest grossing from Hollywood the previous year. Of course, you can get any movie you want if you look hard enough on the street. Hell, you can get anything you want if you look around on the street, but that's another subject. So look out for 'Hero,' the Chinese are waiting for your reaction.
Item! We already have the recipe for chop suey and the character of Charlie Chan, so why does America need to keep trading with China? We have this stuff down pat, can't we just send all the extra Orientals piling up over here back where they came from? Kidding, of course...
Item! I was surprised after reading Adam's review and subsequent honorable mention of 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' to see how poorly it did at the Australian box office. It wasn't even playing at any Australian cinema I could find with the Internet's limited ability to check such things, and I don't even think it made as much money there as it did in the U.S. The user review on Imdb.com right now suggests part of the reason why the film is not selling like hotcakes down under, mainly that the film itself isn't so remarkable to natives even though the subject matter may be a revelation to Americans. I was there a year ago, and it was still hot topic then, with museum exhibitions in Melbourne and Sydney on the Stolen Generation and its impact. Heady stuff, and the Imdb review suggests there are still huge problems with racism in parts of Australia. I guess I'm just surprised this isn't more popular there given its critical acclaim here, but then anyone who's ever seen me dress knows I don't exactly have my thumb on the pulse of contemporary tastes.
Item! It was nice that Daniel Day-Lewis, the one guy who was the "native," decided to put some effort into his role and adopt a vulgar Five Points patois, while immigrants DiCaprio and Diaz seemed content to ramble on in their broken English.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Item! From China comes the one great movie, the one to defeat all the others. Such is the hype that surrounded me during my visit there, especially after a few of them found out I write about film. The movie is called Hero and it had just come out in December of last year, so there was a massive Western-style advertising blitz to accompany it. Miramax has bought the distribution rights and this has made some fans angry because they have already announced they may fiddle with the length and are unclear when they will release it. The movie features Asian stars Jet Li ('Fists of Legend,' 'The Black Mask'), Tony Leung Chiu Wai and Maggie Cheung of 'In the Mood for Love,' and Ziyi Zhang of 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.' It is directed by the acclaimed Yimou Zhang ('Happy Times' and 'The Road Home') so it isn't short on name recognition, at least to the Chinese. My guide in Beijing said he had seen it seven times already in the first month it opened, and promised it was much better than 'Crouching Tiger,' which many Chinese are using as a benchmark since it was so popular worldwide. The interesting facet of all this bluster to me was that the Chinese I talked with all seemed to think 'Crouching Tiger' was a very mediocre movie, not representative of what Chinese cinema can accomplish. More of an attempt from an American ensconced in Hollywood to return to his roots in China than a typical Chinese production. A few of them described to me that for a film to be considered "great" in China it has to have a mix of critical success and box office success, but the latter is much more important. I'm guessing because of their history, they would view critics, who attempt to influence what "the masses" think, skeptically, but probably wouldn't go so far as to send me to a labor camp (though they still do have pictures of Mao everywhere). And the only American movies they officially import are the 10 highest grossing from Hollywood the previous year. Of course, you can get any movie you want if you look hard enough on the street. Hell, you can get anything you want if you look around on the street, but that's another subject. So look out for 'Hero,' the Chinese are waiting for your reaction.
Item! We already have the recipe for chop suey and the character of Charlie Chan, so why does America need to keep trading with China? We have this stuff down pat, can't we just send all the extra Orientals piling up over here back where they came from? Kidding, of course...
Item! I was surprised after reading Adam's review and subsequent honorable mention of 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' to see how poorly it did at the Australian box office. It wasn't even playing at any Australian cinema I could find with the Internet's limited ability to check such things, and I don't even think it made as much money there as it did in the U.S. The user review on Imdb.com right now suggests part of the reason why the film is not selling like hotcakes down under, mainly that the film itself isn't so remarkable to natives even though the subject matter may be a revelation to Americans. I was there a year ago, and it was still hot topic then, with museum exhibitions in Melbourne and Sydney on the Stolen Generation and its impact. Heady stuff, and the Imdb review suggests there are still huge problems with racism in parts of Australia. I guess I'm just surprised this isn't more popular there given its critical acclaim here, but then anyone who's ever seen me dress knows I don't exactly have my thumb on the pulse of contemporary tastes.
Item! It was nice that Daniel Day-Lewis, the one guy who was the "native," decided to put some effort into his role and adopt a vulgar Five Points patois, while immigrants DiCaprio and Diaz seemed content to ramble on in their broken English.
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (12)
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: Eric, who the hell is Ndugu?
I mentioned earlier in the week that I wanted to discuss the issue of film critics and whether they really do, as David Edelstein argued in the Slate Movie Club, have wildly different tastes in movies. Edelstein was responding to Variety editor Peter Bart's inane charge that movie critics are a bunch of obscurantists. While I definitely agree that it is just as dangerous to lump film critics into a collective "we" as it is to lump moviegoers together -- as in, "that's not what 'the people' want to see," as if all audiences shared a brain -- I was nevertheless struck this year by how similar many critics' end-of-the-year lists were. Here in Chicago, for example, Tribune critics Michael Wilmington and Mark Caro shared, I think, six films and even had the same three films in order, except one had them at 6-8 while the other had them at 7-9. (Sorry, I can't be more specific because the article is at home and I can't access it online.) And did any film critic in the country not have 'The Pianist' or 'Talk to Her' on their lists? 'Far From Heaven' and 'Y tu mama tambien,' were also almost universal choices.
And then there's Sam, Eric and myself, who all managed to rank 'Punch-Drunk Love' as the best film of the year. By my count, out of a possible thirty choices, only 16 movies were mentioned between our three lists, and only five or six were unique to one list. Even our worst-of lists are pretty much the same, as I too would rank 'Hollywood Ending,' 'XXX' and 'Lovely and Amazing' right up there. I would also like to add to this list: 'Attack of the Clones,' 'Orange County' (please tell me you are kidding, joeyc), 'Queen of the Damned,' 'John Q,' 'The Scorpion King,' and 'Mr. Deeds.
Believe me, I'm not really trying to argue that film critics are interchangeable. I mean, Sam, Eric and I have definitely had our disagreements over the past few months -- '8 Mile,' 'Solaris' among them -- as did A.O. Scott, Sarah Kerr, Edelstein and Roger Ebert over at Slate regarding 'Adaptation,' 'About Schmidt' and others. But this year I was able to see a little clearer why so many people regard film critics as one collective voice to consider -- or, more commonly (unfortunately), to dismiss completely.
I can't say much on the issue about Todd Solondz versus Alexander Payne because I haven't seen 'Citizen Ruth' or 'About Schmidt.' However, I'm not sure you framed the debate accurately, Eric. "But when Adam and other critics poo-poo Solondz for demeaning his audience, I just don't see why they have a different reaction to Payne ('Election' and 'Citizen Ruth' use the same techniques as 'About Schmidt.')" I don't think the primary criticism of Solondz is that he demeans his audience. As Salon's Charles Taylor argues in his dismissal of 'Storytelling,' Solondz is a filmmaker who can never resist getting laughs at the expense of those blue-collar people he's supposed to be so concerned about. The common sensibility of these filmmakers is that they invite the audience to share their feelings of superiority to the people they put on screen." Patronizing his audience, then, is essentially just a byproduct of his condescension toward his characters. As convincing as Taylor and other critics are, I have a hard time buying it simply because it strikes me as incredibly reductive to think that Solondz makes movies about freakshow characters because he needs to improve his self-esteem. Isn't a more plausible argument that he simply does relate to these types of characters? I'm with Sam, however, that 'Storytelling' just didn't work for me. The classroom scenes during the Fiction section are incredibly funny, especially if you have ever been part of any kind of writing workshop. It's deadly and hilariously accurate. But I just got bogged down during Non-Fiction, though I can't completely articulate why other than it lost its dark comic edge. I simply stopped laughing with the characters -- or, if you believe Charles Taylor, "at" them.
Monday I'll write about 'The Pianist' and 'Max.' This weekend I plan to see 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind,' and 'City of God.' Guys, up for a Movie Club next week about George Clooney's directorial debut?
-Adam
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: Eric, who the hell is Ndugu?
I mentioned earlier in the week that I wanted to discuss the issue of film critics and whether they really do, as David Edelstein argued in the Slate Movie Club, have wildly different tastes in movies. Edelstein was responding to Variety editor Peter Bart's inane charge that movie critics are a bunch of obscurantists. While I definitely agree that it is just as dangerous to lump film critics into a collective "we" as it is to lump moviegoers together -- as in, "that's not what 'the people' want to see," as if all audiences shared a brain -- I was nevertheless struck this year by how similar many critics' end-of-the-year lists were. Here in Chicago, for example, Tribune critics Michael Wilmington and Mark Caro shared, I think, six films and even had the same three films in order, except one had them at 6-8 while the other had them at 7-9. (Sorry, I can't be more specific because the article is at home and I can't access it online.) And did any film critic in the country not have 'The Pianist' or 'Talk to Her' on their lists? 'Far From Heaven' and 'Y tu mama tambien,' were also almost universal choices.
And then there's Sam, Eric and myself, who all managed to rank 'Punch-Drunk Love' as the best film of the year. By my count, out of a possible thirty choices, only 16 movies were mentioned between our three lists, and only five or six were unique to one list. Even our worst-of lists are pretty much the same, as I too would rank 'Hollywood Ending,' 'XXX' and 'Lovely and Amazing' right up there. I would also like to add to this list: 'Attack of the Clones,' 'Orange County' (please tell me you are kidding, joeyc), 'Queen of the Damned,' 'John Q,' 'The Scorpion King,' and 'Mr. Deeds.
Believe me, I'm not really trying to argue that film critics are interchangeable. I mean, Sam, Eric and I have definitely had our disagreements over the past few months -- '8 Mile,' 'Solaris' among them -- as did A.O. Scott, Sarah Kerr, Edelstein and Roger Ebert over at Slate regarding 'Adaptation,' 'About Schmidt' and others. But this year I was able to see a little clearer why so many people regard film critics as one collective voice to consider -- or, more commonly (unfortunately), to dismiss completely.
I can't say much on the issue about Todd Solondz versus Alexander Payne because I haven't seen 'Citizen Ruth' or 'About Schmidt.' However, I'm not sure you framed the debate accurately, Eric. "But when Adam and other critics poo-poo Solondz for demeaning his audience, I just don't see why they have a different reaction to Payne ('Election' and 'Citizen Ruth' use the same techniques as 'About Schmidt.')" I don't think the primary criticism of Solondz is that he demeans his audience. As Salon's Charles Taylor argues in his dismissal of 'Storytelling,' Solondz is a filmmaker who can never resist getting laughs at the expense of those blue-collar people he's supposed to be so concerned about. The common sensibility of these filmmakers is that they invite the audience to share their feelings of superiority to the people they put on screen." Patronizing his audience, then, is essentially just a byproduct of his condescension toward his characters. As convincing as Taylor and other critics are, I have a hard time buying it simply because it strikes me as incredibly reductive to think that Solondz makes movies about freakshow characters because he needs to improve his self-esteem. Isn't a more plausible argument that he simply does relate to these types of characters? I'm with Sam, however, that 'Storytelling' just didn't work for me. The classroom scenes during the Fiction section are incredibly funny, especially if you have ever been part of any kind of writing workshop. It's deadly and hilariously accurate. But I just got bogged down during Non-Fiction, though I can't completely articulate why other than it lost its dark comic edge. I simply stopped laughing with the characters -- or, if you believe Charles Taylor, "at" them.
Monday I'll write about 'The Pianist' and 'Max.' This weekend I plan to see 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind,' and 'City of God.' Guys, up for a Movie Club next week about George Clooney's directorial debut?
-Adam
DEAD SHARK - A Movie Club, I think, is like a shark. You know? It has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we got on our hands is a dead shark. And I'm solely to blame for it. I WILL post this afternoon to tie up our discussion of the best films of 2002.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
MOVIE CLUB: BEST FILMS OF 2002 (11)
From: Sam
To: Adam, Eric, (Readers)
Subject: Alexander Payne, Todd Solondz, more LISTS
I’ll take up Eric’s Alexander Payne/Todd Solondz challenge briefly. “Happiness” remains one of the most distinctive movies I have ever seen. It’s inappropriate to say that it’s one of my “favorite” movies, because I can’t imagine under what circumstances I would revisit the movie; but I was very impressed and even moved by it. I thought it was smart and funny and brave. (But only brave because of how smart and funny it was; if it was merely “shocking” I’m not sure I would have finished it). That said, “Storytelling” didn’t do anything for me. I’m not sure who it was on the Slate Movie Club who mentioned it, but he/she took note of the tired subject matter of the film. I agree. It’s not that the film wasn’t funny -- it was, occasionally -- it’s that it wasn’t relevant. Fiction versus fact. The whole thing struck me as unoriginal and too-broadly written. And then it struck me as misanthropic. But only after I had lost interest in the story. I don’t think Payne hates people -- like Solondz seems to at times; I think he finds people absurd. Their routines; their passions; their relationships with one another. This occasionally slips into mean-spiritedness, but less so, I think, than some people accuse him of. As I’ve said, “About Schmidt” isn’t a perfect movie, but I think it’s very keenly written.
Inspired by the obscure, international flavor of Eric’s top-ten list, I want to mention one film that would have been in my top-ten, but I removed it because I saw it at the Chicago International Film Festival and it won’t make it into theatres until February: “The Dancer Upstairs.” Directed by John Malkovich, the movie takes place in an unnamed South American country that is under siege by a Marxist guerrilla group. Heavy stuff. Malkovich adds some absurd touches (which largely work), and the movie is fascinating, and features one of the best performances I saw all year -- Javier Bardem, who plays the determined cop who goes after the group’s leader. I don’t think this movie was pre-released in New York and L.A. to make it eligible for Oscar time, but I don’t know why. It’s terrific.
My Cinemascoped Awards:
Movies that would have made my top-ten list if, God forbid, I hadn’t seen any of the movies that actually made my top-ten list (in order, from “really good” to “inoffensive fun”): Bowling for Columbine, Full Frontal, CQ, Minority Report, Changing Lanes, Monsoon Wedding, Human Nature, Panic Room, Spider Man, My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
Basically, the above are movies that I liked more than I disliked. Below is a list of prestige misses. Movies that I wanted to like or was told I would like and that I did not like. Or disappointed me. I’m listing them below as a way of saying “Yes, I saw them; they’re not in my top-ten list (or any other list) because I didn’t like them.” These also appear in order; from “disappointing; but decent” to “pretentious and boring as hell.”
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Secretary, The Good Girl, Solaris, Far From Heaven, Tully, 8 Mile, Insomnia, Road to Perdition.
Worst films of the year: 1) XXX. Truly, epically bad. Offensively bad. I was taken hostage by the promotional siege that preceded this film and when it was all over, I just felt dirty. And also bored. 2) The Adventures of Pluto Nash. No, I wasn’t even on an airplane when I saw this. In fact, up until last week, I had completely forgotten the experience. Just a waste of everyone’s time. Alec Baldwin’s un-credited cameo keeps this from being even worse than “XXX.” 3) Lovely and Amazing. We’ve talked this one to death. Incompetent filmmaking. 4) 13 Conversations About One Thing. Only good in comparison to “Lovely and Amazing.” Pretentious and lazy. Some decent acting. 5) Hollywood Ending. The worst Woody Allen movie I’ve ever seen. Not funny at all. Avoid at all costs. Everyone involved should be embarrassed. Especially the Wood-man. Tea Leoni is the exception only because she is one of the most attractive women currently living.
Best performances (female): Meryl Streep (Adaptation), Maribel Verdu (Y Tu Mama Tambien), Emily Watson (Punch Drunk Love), Renee Zelwegger (Chicago), Cate Blanchett (Heaven), Franka Potente (The Bourne Identity), Cameron Diaz (Gangs of New York), Toni Collette (About a Boy).
Best performances (male): Daniel Day-Lewis (Gangs of New York), Nicolas Cage (Adaptation), Campbell Scott (Roger Dodger), Javier Bardem (The Dancer Upstairs), Gael Garcia Bernal (Y Tu Mama Tambien), Samuel L. Jackson (Changing Lanes), Chris Cooper (Adaptation), Ryhs Ifans (Human Nature), Richard Gere (Chicago), Hugh Grant (About a Boy), Nicholas Hoult (About a Boy), Nicky Katt (Full Frontal).
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Sam
To: Adam, Eric, (Readers)
Subject: Alexander Payne, Todd Solondz, more LISTS
I’ll take up Eric’s Alexander Payne/Todd Solondz challenge briefly. “Happiness” remains one of the most distinctive movies I have ever seen. It’s inappropriate to say that it’s one of my “favorite” movies, because I can’t imagine under what circumstances I would revisit the movie; but I was very impressed and even moved by it. I thought it was smart and funny and brave. (But only brave because of how smart and funny it was; if it was merely “shocking” I’m not sure I would have finished it). That said, “Storytelling” didn’t do anything for me. I’m not sure who it was on the Slate Movie Club who mentioned it, but he/she took note of the tired subject matter of the film. I agree. It’s not that the film wasn’t funny -- it was, occasionally -- it’s that it wasn’t relevant. Fiction versus fact. The whole thing struck me as unoriginal and too-broadly written. And then it struck me as misanthropic. But only after I had lost interest in the story. I don’t think Payne hates people -- like Solondz seems to at times; I think he finds people absurd. Their routines; their passions; their relationships with one another. This occasionally slips into mean-spiritedness, but less so, I think, than some people accuse him of. As I’ve said, “About Schmidt” isn’t a perfect movie, but I think it’s very keenly written.
Inspired by the obscure, international flavor of Eric’s top-ten list, I want to mention one film that would have been in my top-ten, but I removed it because I saw it at the Chicago International Film Festival and it won’t make it into theatres until February: “The Dancer Upstairs.” Directed by John Malkovich, the movie takes place in an unnamed South American country that is under siege by a Marxist guerrilla group. Heavy stuff. Malkovich adds some absurd touches (which largely work), and the movie is fascinating, and features one of the best performances I saw all year -- Javier Bardem, who plays the determined cop who goes after the group’s leader. I don’t think this movie was pre-released in New York and L.A. to make it eligible for Oscar time, but I don’t know why. It’s terrific.
My Cinemascoped Awards:
Movies that would have made my top-ten list if, God forbid, I hadn’t seen any of the movies that actually made my top-ten list (in order, from “really good” to “inoffensive fun”): Bowling for Columbine, Full Frontal, CQ, Minority Report, Changing Lanes, Monsoon Wedding, Human Nature, Panic Room, Spider Man, My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
Basically, the above are movies that I liked more than I disliked. Below is a list of prestige misses. Movies that I wanted to like or was told I would like and that I did not like. Or disappointed me. I’m listing them below as a way of saying “Yes, I saw them; they’re not in my top-ten list (or any other list) because I didn’t like them.” These also appear in order; from “disappointing; but decent” to “pretentious and boring as hell.”
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Secretary, The Good Girl, Solaris, Far From Heaven, Tully, 8 Mile, Insomnia, Road to Perdition.
Worst films of the year: 1) XXX. Truly, epically bad. Offensively bad. I was taken hostage by the promotional siege that preceded this film and when it was all over, I just felt dirty. And also bored. 2) The Adventures of Pluto Nash. No, I wasn’t even on an airplane when I saw this. In fact, up until last week, I had completely forgotten the experience. Just a waste of everyone’s time. Alec Baldwin’s un-credited cameo keeps this from being even worse than “XXX.” 3) Lovely and Amazing. We’ve talked this one to death. Incompetent filmmaking. 4) 13 Conversations About One Thing. Only good in comparison to “Lovely and Amazing.” Pretentious and lazy. Some decent acting. 5) Hollywood Ending. The worst Woody Allen movie I’ve ever seen. Not funny at all. Avoid at all costs. Everyone involved should be embarrassed. Especially the Wood-man. Tea Leoni is the exception only because she is one of the most attractive women currently living.
Best performances (female): Meryl Streep (Adaptation), Maribel Verdu (Y Tu Mama Tambien), Emily Watson (Punch Drunk Love), Renee Zelwegger (Chicago), Cate Blanchett (Heaven), Franka Potente (The Bourne Identity), Cameron Diaz (Gangs of New York), Toni Collette (About a Boy).
Best performances (male): Daniel Day-Lewis (Gangs of New York), Nicolas Cage (Adaptation), Campbell Scott (Roger Dodger), Javier Bardem (The Dancer Upstairs), Gael Garcia Bernal (Y Tu Mama Tambien), Samuel L. Jackson (Changing Lanes), Chris Cooper (Adaptation), Ryhs Ifans (Human Nature), Richard Gere (Chicago), Hugh Grant (About a Boy), Nicholas Hoult (About a Boy), Nicky Katt (Full Frontal).
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (10)
From: Eric Baker
To: Adam Kempenaar, Sam Hallgren
Subject: The Rest of the List
4. Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese) - Had I seen the movie before I started my list, this movie would probably be tenth and not fourth, but I have to include it somewhere in here just because of how great it looks. Set design and costumes are rarely enough to make me recommend a picture, and in all honesty, it's probably Daniel Day-Lewis's performance that towers above all others, but what a great picture to look at. If Day-Lewis doesn't at least get nominated for an Oscar I'll be shocked.
3. Adaptation (Spike Jonze) - I think Charlie Kaufman might be the most talented screenwriter working today, even though, as David Edelstein points out, he failed to adapt the material. I still don't know how I feel about the movie, but I plan to see 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.' And you can say this about Jonze: at a time when studios are scrambling to scoop up directors of successful MTV videos, partially based on the trail blazed by Jonze, he has never stooped to the quick-cut style editing that is used so often by these auteurs in lieu of actual picture composition.
2. About a Boy (Chris and Paul Weitz) - Excellent all around, the role Hugh Grant was born to play, and Toni Collette is magnifique. I echo everything you guys said, but I was most surprised by the steady directing job of the Weitz brothers, whose previous experience to that point was the first 'American Pie' movie, which, while funny, is completely different material than Hornby. [Editor's note: Let's not forget the horrific 'Down to Earth.'] They've now catapulted to 'Meet the Fokkers,' due out this year, so maybe they're the next big thing.
1. Punch-Drunk Love (P.T. Anderson) - How boring is this? All of us sitting in front of our computers for days and can't find a different movie to praise. I could have, of course, being last guy on the totem pole, but I really thought it was the best movie I saw this year. What surprised me was Adam's listing of 'Punch-Drunk' this high, since he thought 'Boogie Nights' and possibly 'Magnolia' were superior films. He even included 'Boogie Nights' on his list of top 10 movies from the last quarter century, which set off quite a lot of internal arguing when we were trying to put our master list together. Nevertheless, it is a superior movie, probably the best performance Adam Sandler will ever give, and brilliant use of music by Anderson.
I don't think anything really surprised me in your lists, guys, except maybe that both of you included 'The Bourne Identity.' I knew Adam liked it, but I didn't know how much, and I guess I don't really chat much with Sam. I didn't buy Matt Damon as an action hero, partially because of the sped-up fight sequences that I thought made the movie seem cartoonish-goofy, sort of like a 'Under Siege 2' but with a better script. I realize that is my problem, not the movie's, I just hope Damon is not planning a future as an action star, and with a quick click to Imdb.com I see his next big project is a Farrelly Brothers movie, so I have nothing to worry about.
On a humorous note, I received several reactions after the 'Daily Iowan' finally published my review of 'The Two Towers.' Granted, it's not great, but all the email I got was negative: one guy sent me a virus, and another gave me the basic "You're an idiot! Did you even read the book?" treatment. The moral of the story, as Adam has often pointed out, it's good to know people are reading your stuff, no matter how repulsed their reaction.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Eric Baker
To: Adam Kempenaar, Sam Hallgren
Subject: The Rest of the List
4. Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese) - Had I seen the movie before I started my list, this movie would probably be tenth and not fourth, but I have to include it somewhere in here just because of how great it looks. Set design and costumes are rarely enough to make me recommend a picture, and in all honesty, it's probably Daniel Day-Lewis's performance that towers above all others, but what a great picture to look at. If Day-Lewis doesn't at least get nominated for an Oscar I'll be shocked.
3. Adaptation (Spike Jonze) - I think Charlie Kaufman might be the most talented screenwriter working today, even though, as David Edelstein points out, he failed to adapt the material. I still don't know how I feel about the movie, but I plan to see 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.' And you can say this about Jonze: at a time when studios are scrambling to scoop up directors of successful MTV videos, partially based on the trail blazed by Jonze, he has never stooped to the quick-cut style editing that is used so often by these auteurs in lieu of actual picture composition.
2. About a Boy (Chris and Paul Weitz) - Excellent all around, the role Hugh Grant was born to play, and Toni Collette is magnifique. I echo everything you guys said, but I was most surprised by the steady directing job of the Weitz brothers, whose previous experience to that point was the first 'American Pie' movie, which, while funny, is completely different material than Hornby. [Editor's note: Let's not forget the horrific 'Down to Earth.'] They've now catapulted to 'Meet the Fokkers,' due out this year, so maybe they're the next big thing.
1. Punch-Drunk Love (P.T. Anderson) - How boring is this? All of us sitting in front of our computers for days and can't find a different movie to praise. I could have, of course, being last guy on the totem pole, but I really thought it was the best movie I saw this year. What surprised me was Adam's listing of 'Punch-Drunk' this high, since he thought 'Boogie Nights' and possibly 'Magnolia' were superior films. He even included 'Boogie Nights' on his list of top 10 movies from the last quarter century, which set off quite a lot of internal arguing when we were trying to put our master list together. Nevertheless, it is a superior movie, probably the best performance Adam Sandler will ever give, and brilliant use of music by Anderson.
I don't think anything really surprised me in your lists, guys, except maybe that both of you included 'The Bourne Identity.' I knew Adam liked it, but I didn't know how much, and I guess I don't really chat much with Sam. I didn't buy Matt Damon as an action hero, partially because of the sped-up fight sequences that I thought made the movie seem cartoonish-goofy, sort of like a 'Under Siege 2' but with a better script. I realize that is my problem, not the movie's, I just hope Damon is not planning a future as an action star, and with a quick click to Imdb.com I see his next big project is a Farrelly Brothers movie, so I have nothing to worry about.
On a humorous note, I received several reactions after the 'Daily Iowan' finally published my review of 'The Two Towers.' Granted, it's not great, but all the email I got was negative: one guy sent me a virus, and another gave me the basic "You're an idiot! Did you even read the book?" treatment. The moral of the story, as Adam has often pointed out, it's good to know people are reading your stuff, no matter how repulsed their reaction.
RAIN DELAY - No posts will be up until later this afternoon. Hopefully Eric will finish his top ten list -- as promised yesterday! (he should have learned from my past transgressions) -- and Sam might chime in with some comments about our lists. I'll be at another special screening tonight of the film 'Max,' with Noah Taylor ('Shine') as an aspiring art student named Adolf Hitler and John Cusack as his mentor. I'd love to hear from some readers with their top ten movies of the year. I'll post responses here. Send them to the email below.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (9)
From: Eric Baker
To: Sam Hallgren, Adam Kempenaar
Subject: Is a Solondz a Payne by any other name?
Sam, Adam, and even Ndugu, riddle me this: How is Alexander Payne's accurately hewn depiction of Midwestern life any less condescending than Todd Solondz's vision of suburbia? Is it because he uses lilting chamber music to anesthetize his audience and humorous voice-overs? Payne's new film, 'About Schmidt,' which made Sam's top 10 list along with several critics, is a fine film with the great Jack Nicholson and a legitimately superb supporting role by Kathy Bates. But at the same time, Solondz's 'Storytelling,' which made A.O. Scott's top 10 list but no other critic's that I know of, got short shrift both in the Movie Club on Slate and here on CinemaScoped. I don't have a huge problem with this -- it's not his best movie, plus there are plenty of other great movies this year to choose from. But when Adam and other critics poo-poo Solondz for demeaning his audience, I just don't see why they have a different reaction to Payne ('Election' and 'Citizen Ruth' use the same techniques as 'About Schmidt.') Solondz deals with a lot more taboo subjects than Payne (pre-teen rape), but his willingness to delve into uncomfortable subjects makes him immeasurably funnier in my book. Especially when over-earnest directors like Payne go on record in interviews saying things like ,"I hope we can all learn something important from this film. That's why I made it." (paraphrasing, of course, but what a douche bag.) Rant over.
I was hoping there would be some difference to our lists, because I still haven't seen some of the movies on your lists, but our readers may be disappointed.
7. Karmen Gei (Joseph Gai Ramaka) - If 'The New York Times,' that gray old rag, can do it, so can I. This movie officially came out in 2001, but I'm guessing most people still haven't seen it and it's a fluke it came to Iowa City anyway (thanks to the Bijou) so I'm ranking it in the year I viewed it. Based extremely loosely on the musical 'Carmen,' this Senegalese drama is more about color, dancing, and desire. Djeinaba Diop Gai is incendiary as Karmen Gei, and it's impossible for the story to lag when it's only 86 minutes. Look for it at a specialty video store near you.
6. Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore) - I loved this film even though it is a tad preachy. I think we've gone over this one ad nauseum in this forum, but just like the final half-hour of 'The Natural' (which was on Bravo again last night), I got choked up when they played the 911 calls over the security camera footage from the attacks. Powerful, thought-provoking film even if it doesn't provide any "big answers."
5. Y Tu Mama Tambien (Alfonso Cuaron) - Some of the comments by Sarah Kerr in Slate's Movie Club made me think twice about the realism of the plot in this one, but I remember when I saw it in the theater, all those concerns melted away. I liked it for too many reasons to enumerate, but as Adam has mentioned, the somber voiceover provides the perfect counter-balance to the playfulness of the film. Maybe the best use of one since 'Double Indemnity.'
Final Four later in the day, I promise. Plus, Eric gets dressed down by his readers.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Eric Baker
To: Sam Hallgren, Adam Kempenaar
Subject: Is a Solondz a Payne by any other name?
Sam, Adam, and even Ndugu, riddle me this: How is Alexander Payne's accurately hewn depiction of Midwestern life any less condescending than Todd Solondz's vision of suburbia? Is it because he uses lilting chamber music to anesthetize his audience and humorous voice-overs? Payne's new film, 'About Schmidt,' which made Sam's top 10 list along with several critics, is a fine film with the great Jack Nicholson and a legitimately superb supporting role by Kathy Bates. But at the same time, Solondz's 'Storytelling,' which made A.O. Scott's top 10 list but no other critic's that I know of, got short shrift both in the Movie Club on Slate and here on CinemaScoped. I don't have a huge problem with this -- it's not his best movie, plus there are plenty of other great movies this year to choose from. But when Adam and other critics poo-poo Solondz for demeaning his audience, I just don't see why they have a different reaction to Payne ('Election' and 'Citizen Ruth' use the same techniques as 'About Schmidt.') Solondz deals with a lot more taboo subjects than Payne (pre-teen rape), but his willingness to delve into uncomfortable subjects makes him immeasurably funnier in my book. Especially when over-earnest directors like Payne go on record in interviews saying things like ,"I hope we can all learn something important from this film. That's why I made it." (paraphrasing, of course, but what a douche bag.) Rant over.
I was hoping there would be some difference to our lists, because I still haven't seen some of the movies on your lists, but our readers may be disappointed.
7. Karmen Gei (Joseph Gai Ramaka) - If 'The New York Times,' that gray old rag, can do it, so can I. This movie officially came out in 2001, but I'm guessing most people still haven't seen it and it's a fluke it came to Iowa City anyway (thanks to the Bijou) so I'm ranking it in the year I viewed it. Based extremely loosely on the musical 'Carmen,' this Senegalese drama is more about color, dancing, and desire. Djeinaba Diop Gai is incendiary as Karmen Gei, and it's impossible for the story to lag when it's only 86 minutes. Look for it at a specialty video store near you.
6. Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore) - I loved this film even though it is a tad preachy. I think we've gone over this one ad nauseum in this forum, but just like the final half-hour of 'The Natural' (which was on Bravo again last night), I got choked up when they played the 911 calls over the security camera footage from the attacks. Powerful, thought-provoking film even if it doesn't provide any "big answers."
5. Y Tu Mama Tambien (Alfonso Cuaron) - Some of the comments by Sarah Kerr in Slate's Movie Club made me think twice about the realism of the plot in this one, but I remember when I saw it in the theater, all those concerns melted away. I liked it for too many reasons to enumerate, but as Adam has mentioned, the somber voiceover provides the perfect counter-balance to the playfulness of the film. Maybe the best use of one since 'Double Indemnity.'
Final Four later in the day, I promise. Plus, Eric gets dressed down by his readers.
Monday, January 20, 2003
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (8)
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: Adam and Sam's taste test
There's so much I wanted to discuss today -- the Golden Globes, my reaction to Roman Polanski's 'The Pianist,' which I finally saw last night and walked out devastated in the best way possible, and David Edelstein's suggestion during the Slate Movie Club that film critics have wildly divergent tastes. Unfortunately, time isn't on my side and I need to end the drama surrounding my top ten films of the year, in addition to handing out some awards. My reasons for wanting to comment on the issue of film critics and taste should be obvious to anyone who compares my best-of list to your's, Sam.
4. Roger Dodger (Dylan Kidd) - In the current issue of Film Comment there's a feature called "When Interns Attack" where the high-brow mag's unpaid interns get to rip on their least favorite movies of the year. About 'Roger Dodger,' they quip: "Mr. DP, is that an earthquake in your pocket or are you just really excited to see me?" I love this line because it's funny, but also because I, too, was initially turned off by Kidd's blatant indie-ness -- shaky, hand-held camera with countless closeups, opening lunch scene with neurotic New Yorkers spouting pseudo-intellectual babble. By the end of this opening scene, however, I was laughing hysterically at the title character's bluntness, his ability to talk without censoring himself in any way. The dialogue throughout is some of the sharpest and funniest of the year, but what elevates the movie is the complexity of Campbell Scott's character and performance. Roger is absolutely enigmatic, a selfish, immature, confident womanizer who also reveals himself to be a thoughtful, intelligent, insecure romantic.
3. 25th Hour (Spike Lee) - If you thought the Philip Glass score in 'The Hours' was annoying, Terence Blanchard's is at least... well, 25 times worse in '25th Hour.' The first 90 minutes are nearly wall-to-wall music, which is typical for Lee but really annoyed me here because the cast and script -- David Benioff's screenplay (based on his novel) is probably the best Lee has had to work with since his own 'Do The Right Thing' -- are so terrific. There are few things I'd rather watch more than Philip Seymour Hoffman and Barry Pepper talk about anything. And yet, there's Blanchard hammering every crescendo in the conversation as the two discuss the pending imprisonment of their friend Monty (Ed Norton) with the remains of the World Trade Center in the background. OK, so that's what I didn't like. Fortunately, the music stops just in time for one of the best scenes in the film -- a verbal showdown between Pepper and Rosario Dawson, who plays Monty's girlfriend and possible betrayer. Pepper stands out among all of the talented performers. Like Lee's best films, '25th Hour' is essentially an art film, with (mostly) unsympathetic characters and plot machinations that don't resolve, made to look like a Hollywood movie. The ending is a magnificently ambiguous, bravura piece of filmmaking.
2. Catch Me If You Can (Steven Spielberg) - Forget 'Adaptation,' the year's real post-modern triumph is ironically (wink, wink) the most conventional. Frank Abagnale (Leo DiCaprio) is a con man who owes his charmed life as an airline pilot, lawyer, and doctor, to the power of the image. If you can look and act the part -- as seen on television and the movies -- people will accept you as the real thing. Although I've never been a huge Spielberg fan, 'Catch' is a near flawless piece of entertainment. My only quibble would be a scene between DiCaprio and 'Alias' star Jennifer Garner as a high-priced prostitute that is so overplayed it almost grinds the movie to a halt. DiCaprio is better here (read "more believable") than he is in 'Gangs of New York,' displaying a natural charm and confidence that belies an innocent naivete. As we've come to expect, Spielberg spins Abagnale's tale into the search for a father figure in the form of Tom Hanks' by-the-books FBI agent who is always just a step behind. And this time, I fell for it completely. It's one of the most intriguing on-screen relationships since Tilda Swinton and her blackmailer in 'The Deep End.'
1. Punch-Drunk Love (P.T. Anderson) - I'm with you completely, Sam. I'm not sure I can explain exactly why this movie was my favorite film of the year, except that it is the movie I most want to see again. Just as David Lynch does, Anderson has created a film world that always seems skewed, artificial. But then he inhabits this world with characters who display all of the feelings of insecurity and rage and loneliness that we find in everyday life. Watching the two collide is a beautiful trainwreck.
Movies that would be in my top ten had I seen them earlier: Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Pianist
Honorable mention: Signs, Antwone Fisher, Minority Report, The Hours, 13 Conversations About One Thing, All Or Nothing, Chicago, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Spider-Man, Tadpole
Movies I expected to be better: Bowling for Columbine, Lovely & Amazing, The Sunshine State, Adaptation, Storytelling, Igby Goes Down
Could have been worse: Frailty, The Rookie, Changing Lanes, Hart's War
Best ending that never was: Ben Affleck's last line of dialogue in 'Changing Lanes'
Best performances of the year: Daniel Day-Lewis ('Gangs of New York), Barry Pepper ('25th Hour'), Natasha McElhone ('Solaris'), Richard Gere ('Chicago'), Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid ('Far From Heaven'), Campbell Scott ('Roger Dodger'), Hugh Grant ('About a Boy'), Christopher Walken ('Catch Me If You Can'), Adrien Brody ('The Pianist')
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: Adam and Sam's taste test
There's so much I wanted to discuss today -- the Golden Globes, my reaction to Roman Polanski's 'The Pianist,' which I finally saw last night and walked out devastated in the best way possible, and David Edelstein's suggestion during the Slate Movie Club that film critics have wildly divergent tastes. Unfortunately, time isn't on my side and I need to end the drama surrounding my top ten films of the year, in addition to handing out some awards. My reasons for wanting to comment on the issue of film critics and taste should be obvious to anyone who compares my best-of list to your's, Sam.
4. Roger Dodger (Dylan Kidd) - In the current issue of Film Comment there's a feature called "When Interns Attack" where the high-brow mag's unpaid interns get to rip on their least favorite movies of the year. About 'Roger Dodger,' they quip: "Mr. DP, is that an earthquake in your pocket or are you just really excited to see me?" I love this line because it's funny, but also because I, too, was initially turned off by Kidd's blatant indie-ness -- shaky, hand-held camera with countless closeups, opening lunch scene with neurotic New Yorkers spouting pseudo-intellectual babble. By the end of this opening scene, however, I was laughing hysterically at the title character's bluntness, his ability to talk without censoring himself in any way. The dialogue throughout is some of the sharpest and funniest of the year, but what elevates the movie is the complexity of Campbell Scott's character and performance. Roger is absolutely enigmatic, a selfish, immature, confident womanizer who also reveals himself to be a thoughtful, intelligent, insecure romantic.
3. 25th Hour (Spike Lee) - If you thought the Philip Glass score in 'The Hours' was annoying, Terence Blanchard's is at least... well, 25 times worse in '25th Hour.' The first 90 minutes are nearly wall-to-wall music, which is typical for Lee but really annoyed me here because the cast and script -- David Benioff's screenplay (based on his novel) is probably the best Lee has had to work with since his own 'Do The Right Thing' -- are so terrific. There are few things I'd rather watch more than Philip Seymour Hoffman and Barry Pepper talk about anything. And yet, there's Blanchard hammering every crescendo in the conversation as the two discuss the pending imprisonment of their friend Monty (Ed Norton) with the remains of the World Trade Center in the background. OK, so that's what I didn't like. Fortunately, the music stops just in time for one of the best scenes in the film -- a verbal showdown between Pepper and Rosario Dawson, who plays Monty's girlfriend and possible betrayer. Pepper stands out among all of the talented performers. Like Lee's best films, '25th Hour' is essentially an art film, with (mostly) unsympathetic characters and plot machinations that don't resolve, made to look like a Hollywood movie. The ending is a magnificently ambiguous, bravura piece of filmmaking.
2. Catch Me If You Can (Steven Spielberg) - Forget 'Adaptation,' the year's real post-modern triumph is ironically (wink, wink) the most conventional. Frank Abagnale (Leo DiCaprio) is a con man who owes his charmed life as an airline pilot, lawyer, and doctor, to the power of the image. If you can look and act the part -- as seen on television and the movies -- people will accept you as the real thing. Although I've never been a huge Spielberg fan, 'Catch' is a near flawless piece of entertainment. My only quibble would be a scene between DiCaprio and 'Alias' star Jennifer Garner as a high-priced prostitute that is so overplayed it almost grinds the movie to a halt. DiCaprio is better here (read "more believable") than he is in 'Gangs of New York,' displaying a natural charm and confidence that belies an innocent naivete. As we've come to expect, Spielberg spins Abagnale's tale into the search for a father figure in the form of Tom Hanks' by-the-books FBI agent who is always just a step behind. And this time, I fell for it completely. It's one of the most intriguing on-screen relationships since Tilda Swinton and her blackmailer in 'The Deep End.'
1. Punch-Drunk Love (P.T. Anderson) - I'm with you completely, Sam. I'm not sure I can explain exactly why this movie was my favorite film of the year, except that it is the movie I most want to see again. Just as David Lynch does, Anderson has created a film world that always seems skewed, artificial. But then he inhabits this world with characters who display all of the feelings of insecurity and rage and loneliness that we find in everyday life. Watching the two collide is a beautiful trainwreck.
Movies that would be in my top ten had I seen them earlier: Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Pianist
Honorable mention: Signs, Antwone Fisher, Minority Report, The Hours, 13 Conversations About One Thing, All Or Nothing, Chicago, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Spider-Man, Tadpole
Movies I expected to be better: Bowling for Columbine, Lovely & Amazing, The Sunshine State, Adaptation, Storytelling, Igby Goes Down
Could have been worse: Frailty, The Rookie, Changing Lanes, Hart's War
Best ending that never was: Ben Affleck's last line of dialogue in 'Changing Lanes'
Best performances of the year: Daniel Day-Lewis ('Gangs of New York), Barry Pepper ('25th Hour'), Natasha McElhone ('Solaris'), Richard Gere ('Chicago'), Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid ('Far From Heaven'), Campbell Scott ('Roger Dodger'), Hugh Grant ('About a Boy'), Christopher Walken ('Catch Me If You Can'), Adrien Brody ('The Pianist')
MOVIE CLUB: BEST FILMS OF 2002 (7)
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar, Eric Baker
Subject: The final countdown
4. Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese) - I saw this film on the heels of my heretic comments about Scorsese in this forum a week ago. The first 40 minutes of the film confirmed my opinion of Scorsese as someone who has been too hastily canonized. Then the film completely won me over with its epic theatricality and the huge scope of the storytelling. The film is a mess of over-plotting and misplaced ambition, but what an experience. It is an understatement to say that Daniel Day-Lewis gives the performance of the year. It is one of the most awe-inspiring performances I have ever seen in my life. If you’re going to see it, see it on the big screen. And try not to go in expecting a masterpiece. It’s an event.
3. Roger Dodger (Dylan Kidd) - This film doesn’t even get into theatres without Campbell Scott’s performance as the eponymous lead character. It’s not a bad script; but without the depth and intelligence that Scott brings to the role, the character comes off as inexcusably vile and misogynistic. As it is, it’s one of the best “talking” movies since “Glengarry Glen Ross.” The plot is pretty flimsy, but acts as a great device to get Roger talking; and that’s what makes this movie so great. It’s a film-length character study, and Kidd puts Roger in every conceivable scenario to show off the character’s various dimensions (or lack there of). This movie makes it into my top ten -- and so far into my top ten -- because Scott delivers the most sustained, honest performance I’ve seen all year. Just a pleasure to watch.
2. Adaptation (Spike Jonze) - Adaptation may be self-indulgent and unsatisfying, but it’s not cynical. The movie is searching for something: truth, happiness, normality (to be honest, I don’t know). It manages to take itself very seriously and all the while sustain a great sense of humor about itself. I found it completely original and creative and fun -- and, at the same time, I found it moving and serious and thought-provoking. And it has the best ensemble cast of any movie this year. Jonze and Kaufman have set a standard of creative originality that is unmatched by anyone else working today. I’ll take all this film’s faults for the sheer audacity and good humor of the attempt.
1. Punch-Drunk Love (Paul Thomas Anderson) - To be honest, I’m not sure how this film ended up as my best film of the year. I suppose, like Adaptation, I was won over by its creativity and its commitment to its own eccentricity. I loved being able to abandon any sense of the “real world” (as I know and understand it) and instead accept the reality of Anderson’s film. I wish more films would use this kind of carefree (but disciplined) logic. The movie left me feeling giddy and fulfilled -- like I had eaten some delicious exotic fruit. I know I had some problems with this movie when I saw it, but for the life of me I can’t remember a single one. I can’t wait to see it again.
-Sam
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar, Eric Baker
Subject: The final countdown
4. Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese) - I saw this film on the heels of my heretic comments about Scorsese in this forum a week ago. The first 40 minutes of the film confirmed my opinion of Scorsese as someone who has been too hastily canonized. Then the film completely won me over with its epic theatricality and the huge scope of the storytelling. The film is a mess of over-plotting and misplaced ambition, but what an experience. It is an understatement to say that Daniel Day-Lewis gives the performance of the year. It is one of the most awe-inspiring performances I have ever seen in my life. If you’re going to see it, see it on the big screen. And try not to go in expecting a masterpiece. It’s an event.
3. Roger Dodger (Dylan Kidd) - This film doesn’t even get into theatres without Campbell Scott’s performance as the eponymous lead character. It’s not a bad script; but without the depth and intelligence that Scott brings to the role, the character comes off as inexcusably vile and misogynistic. As it is, it’s one of the best “talking” movies since “Glengarry Glen Ross.” The plot is pretty flimsy, but acts as a great device to get Roger talking; and that’s what makes this movie so great. It’s a film-length character study, and Kidd puts Roger in every conceivable scenario to show off the character’s various dimensions (or lack there of). This movie makes it into my top ten -- and so far into my top ten -- because Scott delivers the most sustained, honest performance I’ve seen all year. Just a pleasure to watch.
2. Adaptation (Spike Jonze) - Adaptation may be self-indulgent and unsatisfying, but it’s not cynical. The movie is searching for something: truth, happiness, normality (to be honest, I don’t know). It manages to take itself very seriously and all the while sustain a great sense of humor about itself. I found it completely original and creative and fun -- and, at the same time, I found it moving and serious and thought-provoking. And it has the best ensemble cast of any movie this year. Jonze and Kaufman have set a standard of creative originality that is unmatched by anyone else working today. I’ll take all this film’s faults for the sheer audacity and good humor of the attempt.
1. Punch-Drunk Love (Paul Thomas Anderson) - To be honest, I’m not sure how this film ended up as my best film of the year. I suppose, like Adaptation, I was won over by its creativity and its commitment to its own eccentricity. I loved being able to abandon any sense of the “real world” (as I know and understand it) and instead accept the reality of Anderson’s film. I wish more films would use this kind of carefree (but disciplined) logic. The movie left me feeling giddy and fulfilled -- like I had eaten some delicious exotic fruit. I know I had some problems with this movie when I saw it, but for the life of me I can’t remember a single one. I can’t wait to see it again.
-Sam
Friday, January 17, 2003
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (6)
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: List hell
I'm only three movies in -- 7 through 5 are below -- and I already hate my top ten list. Did I really like '8 Mile' better than 'Gangs of New York' and 'Far From Heaven'? If I was standing in front of the DVD rack right now and could only buy one disc, couldn't I just as easily walk out with 'Heaven' or 'Gangs' before '8 Mile'? It's keeping me up at night. On top of that, when I made my list I still had an hour left of 'Y Tu Mama Tambien,' which I was enjoying immensely. Without seeing the whole thing, however, I couldn't rank it. Well, I finally finished it last night and loved it, so much so that it easily deserves a spot in the top ten. I guess it will have to be my honorable mention. Sam, your praise of the cast is well-deserved. As I discussed in my remarks on 'Rabbit-Proof Fence,' maybe it's because it is a foreign film, but the actors seem so incredibly natural. Watching the two leads I felt almost like I was watching a documentary, as if Julio and Tenoch were actual friends, which is I suppose why the ending left me so stunned. I don't want to give anything away to our readers, although nothing is particularly surprising about the conclusion. In fact, I'm sure you two have had enough experiences with great friends you had as teenagers to know that the ending was probably inevitable. But the movie stands as a brilliant record of the last gasp before the sterileness of adulthood. The use of narration is magnificent because it does exaxctly what a voice-over should do, which is to illuminate, to add something to the film rather than merely fill in information that should be shown to us in the first place.
As you know, Eric, I too have a fondness for the comedic stylings of Will Ferrell -- at least when he was leading the 'Saturday Night Live' cast. My first reaction to the 'Old School' trailer was what you'd expect from a movie snob, something like, "What in the hell are Luke Wilson and Vince Vaughn thinking making trash like this?" And then I saw a longer preview before 'Catch Me If You Can,' and I'll admit it -- at least three or four jokes had me giggling with embarrassment. Although completely the antithesis of Owen Wilson, who is far more subtle a comedian, Ferrell is like Wilson in that they are able to make an unfunny line funny just in the way they deliver it. Come to think of it, Vaughn is exactly the same way. It would truly pain me to pay money for this movie, but I may have to do it. Prediction: the guilty pleasure of the year.
Eric's question about John C. Reilly, Catherine Keener and Jake Gyllenhaal -- "Are these guys getting pigeonholed by agents or directors, or are they merely one-trick ponies finally exposed for what they really are? -- is a good one. I don't really know the answer, though I guess I believe all three are talented enough to tackle other types of characters. Certainly Reilly has proven himself over the years in a variety of roles, and it was nice to see him playing something other than the dimwitted husband in 'Gangs of New York.' Keener and Gyllenhaal, on the other hand, need to branch out. 'Lovely & Amazing' soured me on them both for awhile.
Now back to the list...
7. About a Boy (Chris and Paul Weitz) - I said pretty much everything I wanted to say about this movie in my review, so I'll be brief. I was skeptical about this film because the previews made it seem so sappy, and granted it is pretty sentimental at times. But this is more than made up for by Hugh Grant's quick-witted cynicism. He finally drops his usual bag of tricks -- namely, blinking and stuttering -- and just enjoys playing a cad who cares for himself above everyone else. Like you Sam, I enjoyed Toni Collette as well -- or as I like to call her, the 'female Billy Bob Thornton.' A good book and a good film.
6. Solaris (Steven Soderbergh) - As anyone who remembers our discussion from Dec. 2 knows, I was the only one who really loved this film. Soderbergh's now signature technique of overlapping dialogue with images from past, present and future moments has never been more effective, save for maybe the love scene from 'Out of Sight.' But even then, as in 'The Limey,' it seemed a bit gimmicky rather than in full service of the story. Here the cinematography and editing matches the eerie, perpetually dream-like quality of Chris Kelvin's (George Clooney) predicament.
5. The Bourne Identity (Doug Liman) - Unlike you Sam, who seems to feel a bit guilty about enjoying this summer thriller, I am unashamed about ranking it among my top five. A spy movie that focuses on character over explosions and special effects -- what a concept. Liman's technique is stylish without seeming grandiose, and the penultimate finale -- Bourne's (Matt Damon) hushed, tense confrontation in a field with a spy (the great Clive Owen) who has been assigned to kill him -- is spectacular. I also loved Franke Potente as Bourne's love interest, precisely because she adds a dimension of reality and honesty, as you so nicely put it, Sam -- a dimension usually absent from movies in this genre.
- Adam
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: List hell
I'm only three movies in -- 7 through 5 are below -- and I already hate my top ten list. Did I really like '8 Mile' better than 'Gangs of New York' and 'Far From Heaven'? If I was standing in front of the DVD rack right now and could only buy one disc, couldn't I just as easily walk out with 'Heaven' or 'Gangs' before '8 Mile'? It's keeping me up at night. On top of that, when I made my list I still had an hour left of 'Y Tu Mama Tambien,' which I was enjoying immensely. Without seeing the whole thing, however, I couldn't rank it. Well, I finally finished it last night and loved it, so much so that it easily deserves a spot in the top ten. I guess it will have to be my honorable mention. Sam, your praise of the cast is well-deserved. As I discussed in my remarks on 'Rabbit-Proof Fence,' maybe it's because it is a foreign film, but the actors seem so incredibly natural. Watching the two leads I felt almost like I was watching a documentary, as if Julio and Tenoch were actual friends, which is I suppose why the ending left me so stunned. I don't want to give anything away to our readers, although nothing is particularly surprising about the conclusion. In fact, I'm sure you two have had enough experiences with great friends you had as teenagers to know that the ending was probably inevitable. But the movie stands as a brilliant record of the last gasp before the sterileness of adulthood. The use of narration is magnificent because it does exaxctly what a voice-over should do, which is to illuminate, to add something to the film rather than merely fill in information that should be shown to us in the first place.
As you know, Eric, I too have a fondness for the comedic stylings of Will Ferrell -- at least when he was leading the 'Saturday Night Live' cast. My first reaction to the 'Old School' trailer was what you'd expect from a movie snob, something like, "What in the hell are Luke Wilson and Vince Vaughn thinking making trash like this?" And then I saw a longer preview before 'Catch Me If You Can,' and I'll admit it -- at least three or four jokes had me giggling with embarrassment. Although completely the antithesis of Owen Wilson, who is far more subtle a comedian, Ferrell is like Wilson in that they are able to make an unfunny line funny just in the way they deliver it. Come to think of it, Vaughn is exactly the same way. It would truly pain me to pay money for this movie, but I may have to do it. Prediction: the guilty pleasure of the year.
Eric's question about John C. Reilly, Catherine Keener and Jake Gyllenhaal -- "Are these guys getting pigeonholed by agents or directors, or are they merely one-trick ponies finally exposed for what they really are? -- is a good one. I don't really know the answer, though I guess I believe all three are talented enough to tackle other types of characters. Certainly Reilly has proven himself over the years in a variety of roles, and it was nice to see him playing something other than the dimwitted husband in 'Gangs of New York.' Keener and Gyllenhaal, on the other hand, need to branch out. 'Lovely & Amazing' soured me on them both for awhile.
Now back to the list...
7. About a Boy (Chris and Paul Weitz) - I said pretty much everything I wanted to say about this movie in my review, so I'll be brief. I was skeptical about this film because the previews made it seem so sappy, and granted it is pretty sentimental at times. But this is more than made up for by Hugh Grant's quick-witted cynicism. He finally drops his usual bag of tricks -- namely, blinking and stuttering -- and just enjoys playing a cad who cares for himself above everyone else. Like you Sam, I enjoyed Toni Collette as well -- or as I like to call her, the 'female Billy Bob Thornton.' A good book and a good film.
6. Solaris (Steven Soderbergh) - As anyone who remembers our discussion from Dec. 2 knows, I was the only one who really loved this film. Soderbergh's now signature technique of overlapping dialogue with images from past, present and future moments has never been more effective, save for maybe the love scene from 'Out of Sight.' But even then, as in 'The Limey,' it seemed a bit gimmicky rather than in full service of the story. Here the cinematography and editing matches the eerie, perpetually dream-like quality of Chris Kelvin's (George Clooney) predicament.
5. The Bourne Identity (Doug Liman) - Unlike you Sam, who seems to feel a bit guilty about enjoying this summer thriller, I am unashamed about ranking it among my top five. A spy movie that focuses on character over explosions and special effects -- what a concept. Liman's technique is stylish without seeming grandiose, and the penultimate finale -- Bourne's (Matt Damon) hushed, tense confrontation in a field with a spy (the great Clive Owen) who has been assigned to kill him -- is spectacular. I also loved Franke Potente as Bourne's love interest, precisely because she adds a dimension of reality and honesty, as you so nicely put it, Sam -- a dimension usually absent from movies in this genre.
- Adam
Thursday, January 16, 2003
MOVIE CLUB: BEST FILMS OF 2002 (5)
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar, Eric Baker
Subject: The countdown continues...
I know that we spent some time several months ago talking about the various methods we used to determine our top ten lists. As Adam writes, the process is arbitrary -- not to mention, like any movie-related experience, completely subjective -- and a little silly; but it does give you a chance to really think about what you like and why. As I compiled my list -- particularly as I got closer to the top of my list -- I started to notice a kind of trend. More often than not, it was a performance, or a set of performances -- and not the movie itself (or the script or the cinematography or the soundtrack) -- that set a movie apart for me. And a great performance combined with a unique directorial vision is more than enough to win me over (as you will see shortly in my top five movies). And speaking of great performances, Eric asks how much a good screenplay has to do with the performance. He could be asking the same thing about a good director or a good editor. I’m sure that some great performances have been created in the editing room. I don’t claim to be an expert on the process of movie-making, or what it takes to bring a screenplay to the screen. I can only judge what I see, and unfairly or not, I lay the burden of the performance -- good or bad -- with the actor.
7. About a Boy (Chris Weitz and Paul Weitz) - I saw this movie last March, and for a while, it was the only 2002 film I had any affection for at all. It’s difficult to recall my exact impression, but I remember really loving the kid (Nicholas Hoult) they got to play Hugh Grant’s “ward.” I don’t know where they found this kid, but he is perfect for the part. Not a Hollywood “weird kid.” An honest-to-god weirdo. The movie succeeds largely due to the fun dynamic between Grant and Hoult. Also good is Toni Collette -- who, to be honest, is incapable of turning in a bad performance. You could pretty much put Toni Collette and Cate Blanchett in every movie and it would be watchable because of them. Anyway. About a Boy. Good times. Funny. Well-written and directed. A little forced at the beginning as I recall.
6. The Bourne Identity (Doug Liman) - Maybe I just didn’t expect anything from this movie, but I loved it. We’ll see how it holds up under re-examination. The movie is helped tremendously by Franke Potente in the love-interest/sidekick role. Her presence adds a dimension of reality and honesty to the film that is impossible to overstate. Matt Damon acquits himself nicely as Bourne. When I saw it this summer, I was so pleasantly surprised at its lack of jokiness, its grainy realism, and its uncluttered plotting. At the end of the day, it’s just a simple summer action movie. But while I was watching it, I managed to forget that.
5. Heaven (Tom Tykwer) - It was 10 pm on a Monday evening in November. I was at an art house theatre in downtown Chicago. I had already sat through a movie (Tully) that had left me unfulfilled and sleepy. I had work the next day, but I decided to sneak into Tom Tykwer's’s “Heaven” with the faint hope that it would revitalize me. It did. After sitting through Tully’s lackadaisical plotting and uninspired direction, Heaven was a powerful antidote. Based on the late (some would say great) Krzysztof Kieslowski’s un-produced script, Tom Tykwer's uses brilliant and beautiful cinematography and applies a technician’s discipline to bring Kieslowski’s heavily philosophical story to life. If the story becomes occasionally burdened with the moral dilemma that lies at the heart of the film, the performances by Cate Blanchett and Giovanni Ribisi more than make up for it. I’m not sure this film should be so high on my list, but it’s effect on me -- with its potent visuals and committed performances -- has lingered with me longer than many other 2002 movies.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar, Eric Baker
Subject: The countdown continues...
I know that we spent some time several months ago talking about the various methods we used to determine our top ten lists. As Adam writes, the process is arbitrary -- not to mention, like any movie-related experience, completely subjective -- and a little silly; but it does give you a chance to really think about what you like and why. As I compiled my list -- particularly as I got closer to the top of my list -- I started to notice a kind of trend. More often than not, it was a performance, or a set of performances -- and not the movie itself (or the script or the cinematography or the soundtrack) -- that set a movie apart for me. And a great performance combined with a unique directorial vision is more than enough to win me over (as you will see shortly in my top five movies). And speaking of great performances, Eric asks how much a good screenplay has to do with the performance. He could be asking the same thing about a good director or a good editor. I’m sure that some great performances have been created in the editing room. I don’t claim to be an expert on the process of movie-making, or what it takes to bring a screenplay to the screen. I can only judge what I see, and unfairly or not, I lay the burden of the performance -- good or bad -- with the actor.
7. About a Boy (Chris Weitz and Paul Weitz) - I saw this movie last March, and for a while, it was the only 2002 film I had any affection for at all. It’s difficult to recall my exact impression, but I remember really loving the kid (Nicholas Hoult) they got to play Hugh Grant’s “ward.” I don’t know where they found this kid, but he is perfect for the part. Not a Hollywood “weird kid.” An honest-to-god weirdo. The movie succeeds largely due to the fun dynamic between Grant and Hoult. Also good is Toni Collette -- who, to be honest, is incapable of turning in a bad performance. You could pretty much put Toni Collette and Cate Blanchett in every movie and it would be watchable because of them. Anyway. About a Boy. Good times. Funny. Well-written and directed. A little forced at the beginning as I recall.
6. The Bourne Identity (Doug Liman) - Maybe I just didn’t expect anything from this movie, but I loved it. We’ll see how it holds up under re-examination. The movie is helped tremendously by Franke Potente in the love-interest/sidekick role. Her presence adds a dimension of reality and honesty to the film that is impossible to overstate. Matt Damon acquits himself nicely as Bourne. When I saw it this summer, I was so pleasantly surprised at its lack of jokiness, its grainy realism, and its uncluttered plotting. At the end of the day, it’s just a simple summer action movie. But while I was watching it, I managed to forget that.
5. Heaven (Tom Tykwer) - It was 10 pm on a Monday evening in November. I was at an art house theatre in downtown Chicago. I had already sat through a movie (Tully) that had left me unfulfilled and sleepy. I had work the next day, but I decided to sneak into Tom Tykwer's’s “Heaven” with the faint hope that it would revitalize me. It did. After sitting through Tully’s lackadaisical plotting and uninspired direction, Heaven was a powerful antidote. Based on the late (some would say great) Krzysztof Kieslowski’s un-produced script, Tom Tykwer's uses brilliant and beautiful cinematography and applies a technician’s discipline to bring Kieslowski’s heavily philosophical story to life. If the story becomes occasionally burdened with the moral dilemma that lies at the heart of the film, the performances by Cate Blanchett and Giovanni Ribisi more than make up for it. I’m not sure this film should be so high on my list, but it’s effect on me -- with its potent visuals and committed performances -- has lingered with me longer than many other 2002 movies.
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (4)
From: Eric Baker
To: Sam Hallgren, Adam Kempenaar
Subject: A Tribute, and a few fine films of 2002
I just watched a masterpiece. After finally reading "In Cold Blood" over the holidays, Truman Capote's 1965 masterwork recounting the brutal murder of a Kansas farm family and subsequent tracking, trial, and execution of the killers, I had to see the film version which was done two years later by Richard Brooks in the very same Holcomb, Kansas where the crime occurred. Ultimately intended as a statement against the death penalty (maybe Illinois Gov. Ryan read it over the holidays, too) because six people died in cold blood, not just the family farm of four murdered on that cool November night in 1959, Capote's work stands as the standard-bearer for a genre. It established true crime drama as we know it and its popularity legitimized the currency of the literary journalism movement taking shape in the 1960s. Anyone preparing to become a journalist needs to read it, even though Tru (I'm one of his friends, he let me call him that) played fast and loose with the facts on occasion. Ebert gives a much better review of the film than I ever could, and puts a few somewhat current events concerning Robert Blake, the lead actor, in context. So why does any of this matter? Because this film marked a watershed period for a cinematographer in 1967, a guy named Conrad Hall who died on Jan. 4 of this year. I'm surprised Adam didn't comment on this, but the more I see of Hall's films, he strikes me as a guy with a vision. His camerawork and lighting have a trademark almost. 'In Cold Blood' was the third Oscar of many nominations for Hall, and Jeffrey Wells over at Movie Poop Shoot is convinced he will win posthumously this year for 'Road to Perdition.' For all the shortcomings I found in that film, I have to admit the shots were pretty magnificent. His resume is vast and varied, but just his films that received Academy nominations include: Saboteur: Code Name Morituri (1965), The Professionals (1966), In Cold Blood (1967), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969, for which he won the Oscar), The Day of the Locust (1975), Tequila Sunrise (1988), Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993), and American Beauty (2000, for which he won another Oscar).
Like Adam, a lot of these films will probably be kicked off my list once likely Oscar nominees like 'The Pianist' and 'The Quiet American' are given wider release, but duty demands a list:
10. Catch Me If You Can (Steven Spielberg) - I've pretty much said it all already. It could have been 'Chicago,' but I didn't like that one as much as 'Moulin Rouge,' or maybe more to the point, 'Dancer in the Dark.' Some critics have complained that it is overly long, but compared with 'A.I.' and 'Minority Report,' they should be happy that Stevie limited himself.
9. The Good Girl (Miguel Arteta) - I think I actually saw this one with both Sam and Adam in the same theater, something of a rarity for our so-called 'club.' The writing (Mike White, of 'Chuck and Buck' fame) was uproarious, and although the ending was unfulfilling, the acting of Jennifer Aniston and Zooey Deschanel is of a high caliber. It's pretty much a movie about people getting shat upon, but with some tender moments, and of course John C. Reilly and Jake Gyllenhall reprising the same roles I complained about in my last post.
8. Warm Water Under a Red Bridge (Shohei Imamura) - A laugh-out-loud adventure film from master Japanese director Imamura wherein a sad-sack and sacked Tokyo businessman travels to a small town looking for a valuable statue he heard about from a street bum and discovers a woman with gushing orgasms instead. How's that for a one sentence run-on exegesis? Just watch it, trust me.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Eric Baker
To: Sam Hallgren, Adam Kempenaar
Subject: A Tribute, and a few fine films of 2002
I just watched a masterpiece. After finally reading "In Cold Blood" over the holidays, Truman Capote's 1965 masterwork recounting the brutal murder of a Kansas farm family and subsequent tracking, trial, and execution of the killers, I had to see the film version which was done two years later by Richard Brooks in the very same Holcomb, Kansas where the crime occurred. Ultimately intended as a statement against the death penalty (maybe Illinois Gov. Ryan read it over the holidays, too) because six people died in cold blood, not just the family farm of four murdered on that cool November night in 1959, Capote's work stands as the standard-bearer for a genre. It established true crime drama as we know it and its popularity legitimized the currency of the literary journalism movement taking shape in the 1960s. Anyone preparing to become a journalist needs to read it, even though Tru (I'm one of his friends, he let me call him that) played fast and loose with the facts on occasion. Ebert gives a much better review of the film than I ever could, and puts a few somewhat current events concerning Robert Blake, the lead actor, in context. So why does any of this matter? Because this film marked a watershed period for a cinematographer in 1967, a guy named Conrad Hall who died on Jan. 4 of this year. I'm surprised Adam didn't comment on this, but the more I see of Hall's films, he strikes me as a guy with a vision. His camerawork and lighting have a trademark almost. 'In Cold Blood' was the third Oscar of many nominations for Hall, and Jeffrey Wells over at Movie Poop Shoot is convinced he will win posthumously this year for 'Road to Perdition.' For all the shortcomings I found in that film, I have to admit the shots were pretty magnificent. His resume is vast and varied, but just his films that received Academy nominations include: Saboteur: Code Name Morituri (1965), The Professionals (1966), In Cold Blood (1967), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969, for which he won the Oscar), The Day of the Locust (1975), Tequila Sunrise (1988), Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993), and American Beauty (2000, for which he won another Oscar).
Like Adam, a lot of these films will probably be kicked off my list once likely Oscar nominees like 'The Pianist' and 'The Quiet American' are given wider release, but duty demands a list:
10. Catch Me If You Can (Steven Spielberg) - I've pretty much said it all already. It could have been 'Chicago,' but I didn't like that one as much as 'Moulin Rouge,' or maybe more to the point, 'Dancer in the Dark.' Some critics have complained that it is overly long, but compared with 'A.I.' and 'Minority Report,' they should be happy that Stevie limited himself.
9. The Good Girl (Miguel Arteta) - I think I actually saw this one with both Sam and Adam in the same theater, something of a rarity for our so-called 'club.' The writing (Mike White, of 'Chuck and Buck' fame) was uproarious, and although the ending was unfulfilling, the acting of Jennifer Aniston and Zooey Deschanel is of a high caliber. It's pretty much a movie about people getting shat upon, but with some tender moments, and of course John C. Reilly and Jake Gyllenhall reprising the same roles I complained about in my last post.
8. Warm Water Under a Red Bridge (Shohei Imamura) - A laugh-out-loud adventure film from master Japanese director Imamura wherein a sad-sack and sacked Tokyo businessman travels to a small town looking for a valuable statue he heard about from a street bum and discovers a woman with gushing orgasms instead. How's that for a one sentence run-on exegesis? Just watch it, trust me.
Wednesday, January 15, 2003
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (3)
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: A great year?
According to every critic I've read so far, 2002 was a very good year for movies. Considering that I have a solid list of 11 movies ranked among the elite of the year, followed by 10 more that just missed the cut, I'm inclinded to agree. Even the bad movies, or at least films I was ultimately critical of, were better than in years past -- films such as 'The Good Girl,' and 'Igby Goes Down, which I will discuss in more detail later. Of course, trying to rank movies in order of greatness is an arbitary and excruciating waste of time, but I find that often it does help me pinpoint exactly what I did or didn't like about a movie. My system, as mentioned in previous CS Movie Clubs, is fairly simple. I ask myself which film I am most anxious to see again/own on DVD, assuming all discs are created equal.
Now for the disclaimer. There are a handful of films I have yet to see that adorn a number of critics' ten-best lists and very well could end up sneaking onto mine at a later date. Recent films include: 'The Pianist', 'About Schmidt', 'Talk To Her.' Older films I wish I had seen: 'Bloody Sunday,' 'Auto Focus,' 'Red Dragon,' 'Full Frontal.' And for all of you Tolkien geeks out there: 'The Two Towers.' I want to see it, I really do. I just didn't expect it to make my top ten list, so it wasn't a priority. I'm ashamed to be comprising a list that doesn't at least consider the first three films I mentioned; I have no remorse about missing 'The Two Towers.' Sorry.
10. Far From Heaven(Todd Haynes) - Some complained that Haynes' lavish recreation of a Douglas Sirk '50s melodrama was like looking at a museum exhibit. But Haynes thwarts this criticism by making the social commentary as relevant now as it was then -- carefully exploring issues of race, gender, and sexual identity. Julianne Moore delivers arguably her best performance as the model housewife and mother whose seemingly perfect world is turned upside down. Her Cathy Whitaker is never a caricature, the woman who is concerned with social status above all else, while Dennis Quaid also turns in a career-defining performance as Cathy's closeted husband. I feared Quaid would seem too virile and macho for the role, but these traits just serve to make his downfall all the more tragic. Both deserve Oscar nominations, as does Edward Lachmann for cinematography and Peter Rogness for art direction.
9. Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese) - Besides all of the usual Scorsese charms, including plenty of graphic violence, 'Gangs' is a must-see for Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as Bill the Butcher. Yes, he's slightly cartoonish with his exaggerated posture and accent, but he's absolutely terrifying as the 'godfather' of New York's Five Points. And like all good villains, he's multi-dimensional -- a character who is capable of feeling love, respect and friendship like everyone else, while also being able to rip out a man's heart without blinking. Even at 168 minutes the film could have used another half-hour -- I never quite believed Vallon's (Leonardo DiCaprio) quick ascension as the leader of the Irish immigrants -- and the voice-over should have been excised completely, but Scorsese's attention to detail and operatic style is irresistible.
8. 8 Mile (Curtis Hanson) - 'L.A. Confidential,' 'Wonder Boys,' and now this. Who knew the director of 'The Hand That Rocks The Cradle' could be so good? Hanson never lets '8 Mile's inspirational story of a talented young rapper trying to survive in a rough section of Detroit get preachy, and Eminem proves he's got legitimate acting chops to go along with his rhymimg skillzzzz. The "battle" scenes between the hip-hop wannabes are electric. It's a movie that's concerned just as much with personal responsibility and integrity as it is music.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: A great year?
According to every critic I've read so far, 2002 was a very good year for movies. Considering that I have a solid list of 11 movies ranked among the elite of the year, followed by 10 more that just missed the cut, I'm inclinded to agree. Even the bad movies, or at least films I was ultimately critical of, were better than in years past -- films such as 'The Good Girl,' and 'Igby Goes Down, which I will discuss in more detail later. Of course, trying to rank movies in order of greatness is an arbitary and excruciating waste of time, but I find that often it does help me pinpoint exactly what I did or didn't like about a movie. My system, as mentioned in previous CS Movie Clubs, is fairly simple. I ask myself which film I am most anxious to see again/own on DVD, assuming all discs are created equal.
Now for the disclaimer. There are a handful of films I have yet to see that adorn a number of critics' ten-best lists and very well could end up sneaking onto mine at a later date. Recent films include: 'The Pianist', 'About Schmidt', 'Talk To Her.' Older films I wish I had seen: 'Bloody Sunday,' 'Auto Focus,' 'Red Dragon,' 'Full Frontal.' And for all of you Tolkien geeks out there: 'The Two Towers.' I want to see it, I really do. I just didn't expect it to make my top ten list, so it wasn't a priority. I'm ashamed to be comprising a list that doesn't at least consider the first three films I mentioned; I have no remorse about missing 'The Two Towers.' Sorry.
10. Far From Heaven(Todd Haynes) - Some complained that Haynes' lavish recreation of a Douglas Sirk '50s melodrama was like looking at a museum exhibit. But Haynes thwarts this criticism by making the social commentary as relevant now as it was then -- carefully exploring issues of race, gender, and sexual identity. Julianne Moore delivers arguably her best performance as the model housewife and mother whose seemingly perfect world is turned upside down. Her Cathy Whitaker is never a caricature, the woman who is concerned with social status above all else, while Dennis Quaid also turns in a career-defining performance as Cathy's closeted husband. I feared Quaid would seem too virile and macho for the role, but these traits just serve to make his downfall all the more tragic. Both deserve Oscar nominations, as does Edward Lachmann for cinematography and Peter Rogness for art direction.
9. Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese) - Besides all of the usual Scorsese charms, including plenty of graphic violence, 'Gangs' is a must-see for Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as Bill the Butcher. Yes, he's slightly cartoonish with his exaggerated posture and accent, but he's absolutely terrifying as the 'godfather' of New York's Five Points. And like all good villains, he's multi-dimensional -- a character who is capable of feeling love, respect and friendship like everyone else, while also being able to rip out a man's heart without blinking. Even at 168 minutes the film could have used another half-hour -- I never quite believed Vallon's (Leonardo DiCaprio) quick ascension as the leader of the Irish immigrants -- and the voice-over should have been excised completely, but Scorsese's attention to detail and operatic style is irresistible.
8. 8 Mile (Curtis Hanson) - 'L.A. Confidential,' 'Wonder Boys,' and now this. Who knew the director of 'The Hand That Rocks The Cradle' could be so good? Hanson never lets '8 Mile's inspirational story of a talented young rapper trying to survive in a rough section of Detroit get preachy, and Eminem proves he's got legitimate acting chops to go along with his rhymimg skillzzzz. The "battle" scenes between the hip-hop wannabes are electric. It's a movie that's concerned just as much with personal responsibility and integrity as it is music.
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
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.
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
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?'
Tuesday, January 14, 2003
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
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.
Monday, January 13, 2003
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
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.
Thursday, January 09, 2003
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)