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

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

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

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

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

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

COMING SOON - Movie blogging will occur before noon today!

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

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

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

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

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

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