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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on all things!

Samuel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMING SOON - Movie blogging will occur before noon today!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKING OF MOVIES NOBODY WILL SEE - Has anyone seen this new movie 'Russian Ark', which is shot in one long, unbroken take? Here's the NY Times' blurb about it:

Russian Ark" is a magnificent conjuring act, an eerie historical mirage evoked in a single sweeping wave of the hand by Alexander Sokurov. The 96-minute film, shot in high-definition video in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg, consists of one continuous, uninterrupted take. Thanks to recent technological innovation, it is the longest unbroken shot in the history of film. As the Steadicam operated by Tilman Büttner (the German cinematographer of "Run Lola Run") floats through the museum's galleries, a cast of 2,000 actors and extras act out random, whimsical moments of Russian imperial history that dissolve into one other like chapters of a dream.

And here I thought Welles' long take at the beginning of 'Touch of Evil' -- and Altman's spoof at the beginning of 'The Player', and Scorsese's tracking shot into the Copacabana in 'GoodFellas' -- were the most amazing uses of the long take in cinema. Sadly, like 'Adaptation', it's not playing in Chicago. How did the Windy City suddenly become Star City, Arkansas? And if you can name what movie is set in Star City, Arkansas, you get...well, I'm not sure what you'll get other than my respect and admiration.


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

RABBIT-PROOF FENCE - I've been promising comments about Philip Noyce's 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' (opened limited, 11/29) for so long that whatever I have to say about it now will probably be a disappointment -- especially considering I saw the movie back in October at the Chicago International Film Festival and have no notes to reflect on. But then this is a movie playing on like five screens in the whole world so this post will be relevant to almost noone. Set in Australia in 1931, the movie is based on the true story of an Aboriginie girl named Molly Craig who was taken from her home along with two friends to a British training facility. According to British policy at the time, "half-caste" children (whose mothers were Aboriginal and whose fathers were white) were required to be removed and trained to work as servants. The end goal was that through marriage the half-caste children would eventually reproduce and somewhere down the genetic line the Aboriginal half would be washed away. It's basically an aristrocratic brand of ethnic cleansing -- the same horror but with tea and crumpets instead of guns and bombs, which is what makes it seem all the more horrific. If your interest isn't sparked yet, I haven't even gotten to the heart of the story, which follows Molly and her friends as they escape from the facility and embark on a 1500-mile journey back home using the titular fence as their guide. That's three kids. 1500 miles. Walking. The movie is a remarkable one, primarily because the story itself is so remarkable. Using non-professional actors and a cinema verite style, Noyce's only misstep is that he marks the line between good (the kind-hearted, happy natives) and evil (the British regulators) a little too neatly, at least in the scenes with Kenneth Branagh who plays A.O. Neville, the man in charge of overseeing the half-castes. The scenes of the Australian landscape are bathed in a warm, yellow glow against a clear-blue sky and shot with simple, fluid camera movements. There are also not as many close-ups, which would cinematically accomplish what the British were doing to the Aboriginies, which is to remove them from their surroundings. In contrast, all of Neville's scenes are a crisp, cold blue with harsh whites and sharp cuts that immediately make you uneasy. It's just a little too obvious for my taste, especially when Branagh is consistently shot at a low angle to signifiy his power. Noyce doesn't want us to think even for a second that their is any kind of nobility in Neville's endeavor -- and there definitely isn't -- but the fact is that evil people very rarely view themselves as being evil. They're just doing what they believe is right, no matter how misguided it might appear to others, or to us 70 years later. Neville is positively sure he is helping the Aboriginies, an irony that Noyce could have toyed with a bit more rather than color-coding who the bad guy is. Switching gears for a second, Sam piqued my interest with something he mentioned in his musings on Wednesday. With regard to 'Monsoon Wedding', he wrote: "Are actors in foreign films inherently more believable than actors (particularly well-known actors) in English-language films." I'll raise you one: Are non-professional actors, especially foreign ones, inherently more believable than professional actors (particularly well-known ones)? I automatically attributed a certain naturality to the behavior of these girls -- actual Aboriginie girls playing Aboriginie girls -- that I'm not sure I would have granted to regular actors. And I find that I always have this reaction with foreign non-actors. Is it because they are speaking in a foreign tongue and our ears are not able to pick up the kind of inflections that sometimes make a performance seem fake? Take Ed Burns' 'The Brothers' McMullen, for example. Burns cast is actual girlfriend at the time, Maxine Bahns, who had never acted before, to play his love interest in the movie. And really all she is doing is playing herself -- a 20-something living in New York, probably a student, which she was at the time. But her performance is textbook bad acting, horrible even by low-budget indie standards. Why couldn't I buy her performance, but every time I see a non-actor in a foreign movie -- any of Rossellini's and Fellini's neorealist efforts, the recent 'Himalaya', and so on -- I am inevitably convinced buy it? I'm not sure, but Noyce's semi-neorealist aesthetic worked for me and I was moved by the story and the performances of the girls, particularly the lead.

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

MY RANDOM MUSINGS- You've heard the rumors, and, alas, they appear to be true. A deal is apparently in place that would have Sly Stallone lacing up the gloves one more time to play the Italian Stallion in 'Rocky VI' -- something about running a youth center and being roped back in for one more fight. I think what I'm looking forward to most is the inevitable scene where Talia Shires yells, "You're gonna get killed!" Stallone, who did write the screenplay to the best-picture winning original -- 'Rocky' beat 'All The President's Men', 'Network', and 'Taxi Driver' in 1976; think about that for a sec -- is reportedly developing the script. We can only hope the dialogue is as good as his last effort, 'Driven', which produced this gem: "Faith is like a good disease...it's contagious." As a blogger I know I'm supposed to come up with fountains of snarky remarks here -- and I picked this story to comment on just for that reason -- but I can't bring myself to do it. The story is it's own punchline. * I was flipping channels this past weekend and came across 'As Good As It Gets', a film that was nominated for best picture and earned an Oscar for its star, Jack Nicholson, back in 1997. I've caught parts of this movie on TV a few times since seeing it in the theater and I'm always struck by an awful feeling of self-loathing for having actually enjoyed it the first time I saw it. As some CS readers will recall, I ranted about this same subject on my old Iowa City radio show, "Burn Hollywood Burn," earlier in the year, but I just can't seem to let it go. This time I had the pleasure of tuning in to see Nicholson deliver his "Don't knock on my door ever again you little queer speech" to Greg Kinnear. How did I fall for this? How did I find this amusing? And how did Nicholson win an Oscar for such a tedious, ham-fisted performance? His delivery is so protracted as he basks in his "Jack-ness" that the scene becomes interminable. He just seems to be working sooo hard. "Mugging" is probably the best word to describe it, which is exactly what Slate's David Edelstein does when mentioning the performance in his tepid review of Nicholson's latest, 'About Schmidt', which was written and directed by Alexander Payne of 'Election' fame and opens Friday. (See, this post is topical after all.) Sadly, it only opens in NY and LA, which leaves the rest of us with: 'Maid In Manhattan', 'Star Trek: Nemesis', 'The Hot Chick', and 'Drumline'. Ouch. Guess the DVD player will see some action this weekend. 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' comments coming Friday...no really.

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

SAM'S RANDOM MUSINGS - In my effort to catch up on this year's best-reviewed films, I saw "Monsoon Wedding" over the weekend. As I watched it, it was impossible for me not to compare it to this year's biggest box office surprise (and recent Oscar-talk bait) "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." A comparison may be unfair, because they are very different films; but watching the two films in fairly close succession has given me some clarity in articulating what I didn't like about "Fat Greek Wedding" (which itself might be redundant and unnecessary). Using a camera that remains in almost constant motion, "Monsoon Wedding" succeeds in submerging you into the frenzy of the few days preceding an upper middle class "dot com" wedding in New Delhi, India. The script, which has characters speaking interchangeably in English and Hindi, offers only scant help in sorting out the various and sundry family members; but what you get is a wonderfully chaotic portrait of a family in transition. Despite reports that the characters that make up Nia Vardalos' Fat Greek Family are based on actual family members, the film is still a canvas painted with a large, cartoonish brush, and the script is little more than a series of hit-and-miss punch lines. “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” still works on the strength of the actors, but no better than an above-average sit-com. The extended family in Mira Nair's "Monsoon Wedding" looks, feels, and sounds like a real family. When the film strays from character into plot, the film loses momentum and occasionally comes off as contrived, but I found these mild distractions. The sheer volume of ideas and characters and sights and sounds that the film introduces is intoxicating. Nair doesn’t condescend to any of her characters; instead, she mines humor out of a community of (very un-cartoonish) individuals who are provoked to sometimes outrageous fits of passion due to extraordinary circumstances. The extraordinary circumstances in this case being a wedding that brings together a bride and groom who have only met days before their wedding (it’s an arranged wedding); family members who have used the springboard of the global economy to leave New Delhi and India; and members of opposing classes and castes who struggle to shed the burden of history, while still embracing tradition. Not everything works in Nair’s film, and end is more cathartic than it is dramatically sound; but there is a contagious spirit of well-earned fun to the film. Definitely one of the better movies I’ve seen this year.

Something on a related topic that my girlfriend raised after we watched “Monsoon Wedding” that Adam and Eric might have an opinion on: Are actors in foreign films inherently more believable than actors (particularly well-known actors) in English-language films? I don’t watch a lot of foreign films, but I don’t go out of my way to avoid them either; and I think there’s some truth to this. I know with “Monsoon Wedding” I shut off the part of my brain that, with American films, is used to identify examples of illogic or inconsistency. I don’t know anything about traditional Indian customs, so I paid more attention to the story and the relationships. Ignorance is bliss. The same could be said for the power of unknown actors. Joaquin Phoenix is great in “To Die For” (for example), but the impact of his performance was all the greater because we had no expectations of him. There are a thousand examples of this; I just can’t think of any. Guy Pearce and (the relatively unknown) Russell Crowe in “LA Confidential;” Matthew McConaughey in “Dazed and Confused” (it’s impossible to watch that film now and not see “Matthew McConaughey;” whereas, when I first saw it, I thought to myself: “where did they find THAT guy?”). There are some films out there that I’m convinced I would have loved if they had been re-cast with unknown actors (“The Thin Red Line” comes immediately to mind; or basically any war movie where you know the guy played by Bruce Willis or whoever probably isn’t going to die). Thoughts on this, guys?

Final thought on the best sports movie of all time. I insist that anyone who claims that “The Natural” is their favorite sports movie should go and watch it again (as I did less than a month ago). It is atrocious. Terribly cast and boringly acted, it has almost nothing to do with baseball. It is moralistic, misogynistic and trite. I can’t believe I sat through it as a child. What a boring movie. A single caveat: the scene at the end still gives me chills. But that’s because it’s a baseball fantasy, and I love baseball. The music, the cinematography. You don’t need the rest of the film to appreciate that. “Hoosiers,” which I also saw again recently, is hands-down the best sports movie of all time. No question. Three things allow it to trump the entertainment value of “Bull Durham”: it’s based on a true story; it makes you feel like shooting hoops; and it’s got Gene Hackman’s laugh (which, in the event of his passing, should be put in the Smithsonian).

SPORTS MOVIES - I'm going to have a review of 'Rabbit-Proof Fence' tomorrow along with some other random musings. But until then, Rico has provoked a bit of a debate in the Feedback Forum on the subject of sports movies...why I'm not entirely sure, but it's worth commenting on nevertheless. Everyone seems to agree that 'Field of Dreams' belongs at the top of the list or at least near it, and as a baseball fan first and foremost, and as someone who (rightly or wrongly) doesn't consider 'Raging Bull' to be a "sports movie", I'm inclined to agree. Sure Ray Liotta plays Shoeless Joe Jackson as a righty -- how did the casting agent/filmmakers overlook this? -- and they mispronounce White Sox pitcher Eddie Cicotte as 'Che-cotty' when it should be 'See-cot', as anyone who has seen Sayles' great 'Eight Men Out' is well aware, but it's truly an American classic. It's a movie that's as much about fathers and sons as it is baseball. 'Bull Durham' is a close second because, as LawDog admits, I can watch it three times a week and not get tired of it. Joeycotton stands out from the group by putting 'Slap Shot' at the top of his list and then slamming 'The Natural' as "the worst sports movie ever." Shamefully, I have never seen 'Slap Shot' despite the fact that I work for a professional hockey team! I come to work each day scared to death that I'll be found out, outed for all of my co-workers to humiliate and ridicule. As for 'The Natural', Joeyc and the Movie Club's own Sam Hallgren are on crack if they hate this movie. Much like 'Field of Dreams' and it's source material -- the book 'Shoeless Joe' -- 'The Natural' is actually a better movie than a book, even if Barry Levinson makes Roy Hobbs into the embodiment of perfection and Hollywood-izes the ending. Manipulative? Maybe, but if you don't get a chill down your spine when the ball hits the lights at the end and the sparks fly onto the field, then I say there's something wrong with you. I am absolutely unashamed about the fact that this moment provokes the same response from me today as it did when I was 12. For what it's worth, ESPN Page 2 produced this list awhile back of their top 20 sports movies of all-time. You can also read Bob Halloran's missive about how 'Bull Durham' is over-rated, self-indulgent crap. He argues his points well even if there is only one criticism that really holds up, which is the fact that Nuke (Tim Robbins) somehow gets called up straight from "A" ball to "The Show," skipping the usual "AA" and "AAA." My college roommates and I, who watched this movie about 100 times senior year, have always had a problem with this bit of fantasy too. And who knows, maybe Halloran is right about 'Durham.' After all, Ron Shelton did direct the dreadful 'Cobb' and the even more dreadful -- I mean despicably bad -- 'Play It To The Bone.' I also dislike Shelton's 'Tin Cup' about as much as Halloran does 'Durham' -- probably for the same primary reason, too, which is that everyone else seems to love it way too much. But don't you ever say an unkind word about 'White Men Can't Jump'. Forget Newman and Redford, Astaire and Rogers, has there ever been a better on-screen duo than Woody Harrelson and Wesley Snipes?

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