James Berardinelli Rewinds 2002 - The Year in Film

[Dutchy]

I like internet movie critic James Berardinelli, he's one of my favorites. I always read his reviews after I watch a movie.

He wrote an interesting rewind of last year: http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/comment/123102.html

Interesting stuff about how teenage boys dominate the boxoffice.

I agree with him that Minority Report is the best movie of 2002.

[CMJ]

Interesting article, thanks for the link Dutchy.

[Jedieb]

No mention of AOTC? Amazing! Wasn't it clearly one of the greatest motion pictures of all time?! What a hack?! ;)

Good article, I think he's right on about the market. I've read his stuff before. He's a solid critic.

[ReaperFett]

Something like Minority Report, one of the year's best, "only" made $130 million because too many teenage boys didn't understand it.
That's strange, because all the "teenage boys" I know liked the film.

And of course, maybe this "wise" critic can explain how it made more than The Bourne Identity, which would intrest his little important group.

[CMJ]

For all you Academy watchers...here's some great Oscar analysis I just found....

Oscarwatch Offers up End of the Year Rundown
Sasha Stone

Where's Our Frontrunner?
This is Oscarwatch's 4th year monitoring the Oscars from the beginning of the year through year's end. Usually, a frontrunner has clearly emerged as we head into the Guild Awards (DGA, WGA, PGA, SAG) in January and February. They either confirm or deny what the critics have hailed as the best of the year. This year, a few clear frontrunners have emerged, if you go by critics (see below) but Best Picture seems still up in the air, with many critics groups divided on which film should emerge in March.


There seem to be three films pulling equally at the hearts of the critics, maybe four. While Leonard Maltin, Peter Travers and Richard Roeper went for Gangs of New York (enthusiastically), others like Joel Siegel (who seems fairly in line with Academy voters) went for Chicago and The Hours. The Pianist is also making a strong showing, having been chosen by David Edelstein of Slate and David Poland of MCN. Far From Heaven was picked by Access Hollywood's critics and also won the New York Film Critics top prize. Meanwhile, About Schmidt won the Los Angeles Film Critics, and The Hours won the National Board of Review. Confused yet? It gets even trickier.

As of now, for the most part, the critics have spoken. While there are a number of critics groups left to hand out their awards, the leading contenders from critics' awards (not counting nominations) appear to be the following:

Best Picture: The Hours & The Pianist
Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis
Best Actress: Julianne Moore
Supporting Actor: Chris Cooper
Supporting Actress: Kathy Bates & Edie Falco
Director: Todd Haynes

Best Picture
Quietly, buzz is building back up for Sam Mendes Road to Perdition. The film had some momentum coming into December - having made big box office and done well with critics groups. But then it dropped off the radar, along with the sight unseen favorite, Antwone Fisher. Perdition failed to make the AFI top ten, but Antwone Fisher did. Perdition made the Broadcast Film Critics (one of the best Oscar forecasters out there), Fisher didn't. Then came the Globes, where Perdition and Fisher were both shut out. Nominated instead: Gangs of New York, The Pianist, About Schmidt, The Hours and Lord the Rings: The Two Towers. Comedy/Musical category picked up Adaptation, Chicago, About a Boy, Nicholas Nickleby and and My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Now, the Globes drama category usually matches Oscar three out of five. Comedy/Musical can pick up one or two. Which three of the five Globe dramas will chosen? Which of the musical/comedies?

Road to Perdition and Antwone Fisher are, to my mind, still very much in the race. Traditionally, the Oscars don't award the most critically acclaimed films of the year, just as they don't award merely the best money makers - it is usually a combination of those two things, along with other factors, like popularity of director, star or producer, popularity of film in general, like Titanic. Road to Perdition also has the most beautiful ad campaign to date - with thick lobby cards sticking out of every Hollywood Reporter and Variety. They have Sam Mendes, previous directing winner for American Beauty, they have Hanks and Newman. Antwone Fisher is one of the few films up for the Oscars that is a life-changing tearjerker. About Schmidt also fits that category and has another plus - it targets middle-aged white males, the Academy's majority.

The other films all have a dark side, or are carrying some kind of baggage that prevents them from being flatout frontrunners. The only film that seems to be taking an early, and strong lead is Chicago - which is an absolute crowd-pleaser. Audiences have been reported clapping after every number and clapping after the film ends. The numbers in limited release are already off the charts. It has a stumbling block - and that's that there isn't one sympathetic character in it. Of course, that's part of its charm, but will be the kind of film voters don't emotionally connect with?

After Chicago, the other film that seems strong is The Hours, which is really the opposite of Chicago - far from a crowd pleaser, but very emotionally intense. It demands your full attention from the outset and if your mind wanders for a moment it may be hard to get back on track. The Hours is getting stellar raves, which often seem to be written by people who have an appreciation for the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Michael Cunningham. It has also gotten a few very bad reviews, with TIME Magazine's Richard Schickel calling it the worst film of 2002.

Gangs of New York seems to be the edgy critical pick this year, with a strong showing among a handful of influential critics but has taken some hard hits from people like LA Times' Kenneth Turan (who also panned Titanic, famously) and Roger Ebert (who gave it a three and a half stars despite the flaws). Gangs, like most Scorsese movies, isn't going to be a crowd-pleaser. If he made those kinds of films he would be Steven Spielberg. His movies aren't usually big money makers, if they were, he'd be Steven Spielberg. But the problem is, of course, that the price tag on Gangs was $100 mil. It doesn't matter whether or not they've sold the foreign rights - people hear the price tag and they gasp. How can a rated R, Martin Scorsese movie, that is getting radically mixed reviews, make enough to break even? Nonetheless, the film is so grand in scope, a sweeping epic, by one of the country's best (and completely without an Oscar win) director - seems likely the film will, in fact, get a nomination.

In case you're on the fence about it, just remember, Godfather III was received poorly, didn't make that much at the box office and still got a Best Picture nomination.

Then there's The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Here is a film that is on par with the first, but also retains some of the same stumbling blocks of the original; to his credit, Peter Jackson didn't dumb down the material. The downside of this is that anyone who hasn't read the book may have a hard time connecting emotionally with the material. Fans of the film disagree, saying they have a wife who hadn't read the book and loved the movie, etc. There's also the option of simply picking up the book and reading it. But the film does feature the brilliant Andy Serkis as Gollum -- a digitally enhanced character that is so good you forget after a while that he's not real. Whenever Gollum and Frodo are on screen the film is exciting and dramatically interesting. Still, the vastness of the film, the hugeness of Jackson's project very nearly secures him a place in Academy history three years running. Add to that, the critics have all but gone nuts for the film. Clearly it won't have a problem with box office as it heads toward being one of the highest grossing films of all time.



So, as we head into 2003, we are still without a clear frontruner - anyone who tells you so is just plain wrong. The field is as wide open as ever, and perhaps one of the only major categories this wide open. The acting categories have their frontrunners, most people seem to think this is Scorsese's year to finally get himself an Oscar and end his reign as Most Valuable Player in the Hall of Shame. The movie, of the handful of films that seem Oscartastic, that makes a respectable show at the box office will have the best shot.

Watch out for the little movie that could: The other big box office story this year, other than Spider-Man and Two Towers, is My Big Fat Greek Wedding. This film seems guaranteed to either be nominated for, and perhaps even win, The Producers Guild award. And, except for last year, and a few other years, the PGA almost always matches up with Oscar.

As to the guild - the Writers Guild will likely award Adapted Screenplay to Donald and Charlie Kaufman for the revelation that is Adaptation, and original could go to Nia Vardalos for Greek Wedding, unless they're feeling like snobs, in which case, it may go to Gangs of New York.

The Directors Guild could either latch firmly on to whichever film is our frontrunner this year - could be Chicago, and Rob Marshall, could be The Hours and Steven Daldry - could be our Italian Stallion, Mr. Scorsese. We shall wait and see. Other strong contenders: Todd Haynes, Roman Polanski, Spike Jonze, and the barefoot vunderkind, Peter Jackson.

The Actors
If 2002 will be known as the year strong women have emerged in strong female leads - the converse could be said for the male characters in the Best Actor race. In most instances, our leading men this year have something decidedly broken about them that prevent them from being reliable heroes and/or leaders. Ironically, it is these broken men who have made up the year's most exciting performances.

Take The Jack in About Schmidt. While Nicholson did a more serious version of Warren Schmidt in last year's horribly underrated The Pledge, his Schmidt nonetheless has burrowed his way into our collective unconscious and seems to sum up the way the entire country is feeling after 9/11, particularly the men, who were unable to protect against the terrorist attack, but also the women, the mothers, the wives. We just felt obtuse suddenly and helpless -- not the pillars we once were. Nicholson has done this before - the angry young man in Five Easy Pieces, the wayward psycho in Cuckoo's Nest, and even the obsessive compulsive in As Good as It Gets. Add to that, Nicholson is, though it's rather hard to believe for an artist with such a history, at the top of his game - able to reach in and pull out stuff we've never seen before. Just when you thought you knew the man he goes and delivers us this wonderfully unpredictable, deeply sad Warren Schmidt. Were it not for his clutch of other Oscars he would easily walk away with the Oscar this year. But, as we now know, he has some stiff competition.

Chief among the competition is the most talked about performance of the year, Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher. It's an unusual thing when a performance is buzzed about to this degree. The already famous story goes that Day-Lewis was in retirement and making shoes somewhere in Italy when Scorsese asked him to do the part. Day-Lewis has said he wouldn't have done it for any other director but since the two worked together on The Age of Innocence, and since Day-Lewis has a great respect and a good working relationship with Marty, he agreed. The result is nearly unbelievable. Unlike Mr. Schmidt, but equally obtuse (an unlikely leader as well), Day-Lewis' Butcher is not going to reach in and show us any heartfelt kindness or flood of tears. But he does deliver an absolutely unpredictable character in Bill - funny and vicious, and, like all great villains, you half feel sorry for him and can only imagine what brought him on.

There's Nicolas Cage, who plays two opposing twin brothers in Adaptation -- and is surprisingly good in both parts, but gives us something we've never seen before with his freaked out, neurotic, fearful Charlie - someone who is gripped with self-loathing to the point where he can't take two steps forward without wondering about them. His brother Donald looks exactly the same but is possessed by self-confidence, which brings him much farther along than the simply talented Charlie. Cage nails the performance because he takes Charlie's desperation seriously. He doesn't make fun of him. He doesn't really make fun of Donald either - in fact, he seems to know where these two guys are coming from.

Robin Williams turned in a quietly brilliant perf for his wacked out photo clerk -- managing to erase any trace of the comedian we all know and love - his work here proves that he's not only capable of great range, he's also exhibits astonishing compassion for men who lead, as T.S. Eliot once wrote, "lives of quiet desperation." Williams' photo clerk is another offshoot of the modern American male - stuck in a subservient uniform, just one among many faceless, nameless clerks who do the consumer's bidding. Though Williams' possible nomination for the Oscars is still a long shot, his performance is worth remembering because it will have staying power, no doubt, as will the film.

Two other standouts this year are Michael Caine in The Quiet American and Adrien Brody in The Pianist - they portray men who observe, and eventually interact with war-torn history. They are both actors who can display an array of emotions with no dialogue at all but with their facial expressions. Michael Caine was once seen as the frontrunner -- but Day-Lewis and Nicholson have been getting all of the critics' awards. Nonetheless, Caine, along with Williams, has never won a lead actor Oscar

And then there's the fabulous Richard Gere in Chicago, who practically steals the movie away from the two scintillating lead females -- hardly a musical/comedy star, Gere handles the songs well enough, but he's at his best in the scenes that require him to act - particularly in the courtroom. He drives the movie, in truth, and you walk away just liking him more.

Speaking of comedy, Hugh Grant also delivered some of his best, if not his best, work in About a Boy, a film that will likely pick up some major support as the screener DVD makes the rounds. This a film that is hard to ignore - a feel-good tearjerker that talks about something very rarely explored - single men and fatherless boys and the bonds they make for the things have in common.

In the Supporting actor category, there is one obvious standout - Chris Cooper in Adaptation who delivers arguably one of the year's best lines, "I once fell madly, passionately in love with tropical fish." That is but one of Cooper's hilarious dialogue in Spike Jonze delightful film. Cooper has that unstoppable momentum, like Jennifer Connelly last year.

The other buzzed-about perf. in supporting comes from Dennis Quaid, who should give Cooper some stiff comptition - Quaid is coming off a career of not that much into one that's very promising indeed. His work in Far From Heaven as the gay husband is painful and unforgettable. What he's required to do goes beyond merely his brave move to passionately kiss another man - he must show his torture without showing it to the other characters in the scene. Quaid has said he drew from his humiliating desperation as a drug addict to help him reach the pain and shame from being a gay man trapped in a fifties nightmare.

There is also Andy Serkis in Two Towers. What to make of him is anyone's guess. On the one hand, he absolutely steals the movie. On the other hand he's digital. The Academy has deemed him eligible to be nominated for a supporting, but will the Academy, mostly made up of actors, be ready to nominate a digitally-enhanced character? It's certainly possible. Gollum is easily one of the year's most memorable characters.

Who will be the Ethan Hawke of this year? Hawke managed to surprise all Oscar pundits last year, when he started turning up in the supporting categories after acting (in what really was a leading role) opposite Denzel in Training Day. If the Academy go nuts for Salma Hayek and Frida, Alfred Molina, who may end up with a nomination anyway, could go all the way.

Then, of course, there's the ubiquitous John C. Reilly who manages to play exactly the same role in at least three different films and is touching and brilliant each of them: The Good Girl, Chicago and The Hours - the put-upon, sap of a husband.

Other performances of note:
Dennis Quaid in The Rookie - as a man who yearns for his past, and the childhood dreams residing there, who makes good on a promise to enter the major leagues as an old timer.
Al Pacino - as a cop on the edge who can't get any sleep in Insomnia - a Hitchockian hero with a disabling affliction - when Pacino underdoes he is at his best.
Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me if You Can - how can a man of Leo's height manage to look like a teenager? It's an amazing transformation and yet more evidence that DiCaprio isn't really a matinee idol so much as a character actor who is just too cute to get character parts anymore because his hoards of screaming fans won't stand for it.
Derek Luke - an unknown plucked off the street to star in Antwone Fisher - Luke exudes star-making charisma and manages some of the tougher emotional scenes in a movie full of them.
Kieran Culkin - Culkin would have an easier time of it if he wasn't the younger brother of another famous actor. But with Igby Goes Down he proves himself fully capable an actor and was won of the biggest surprises of 2002.

The Actresses
Currently, there seem to be two actresses dominating the frontrunner's position and they're both redheads.

Julianne Moore has been delivering great work for years now, exhibiting a mutability and often disappearing in the role. Nicole Kidman, likewise, has shown her versatility over the years, particularly last year with The Others and Moulin Rouge! Kidman's biggest problem seems to be that she's simply trying too hard and has been for years. She is remarkably ambitious and turns up at nearly every premiere, does every interview, does photo layouts and works the star thing at top notch. She seems also to really want an Oscar and is, this year, pulling out the stops on the publicity trail. By contrast, Moore is more reserved and humble. Kidman is underconfident and overcompensates, while Moore is shy but confident. Not surprisingly, Moore's role as Cathy in Far From Heaven is similarly humble and concentrated rather than showy, as Kidman's is. Both are brilliant actresses, no doubt. Moore gets the edge, however, for being the more emotionally accessible of the two.

For her part in The Hours Kidman has put on a prosthetic nose, which does change her look. But the problem with it is that it's distracting. People look at it, talk about it, wonder about it. Moreover, the choice seems to contradict the rest of the film. For instance, they cast the button-nosed Miranda Richardson as the sister. But pushing the nose aside for a moment, Kidman is very good in the role - and she's always good. No actress works harder than she does to get it right. But once Kidman figures out she doesn't have to try so hard, and relaxes a little into herself, she will really soar.

Speaking of relaxing, Meryl Streep surprised everyone with her work, not in The Hours (which is fairly traditional Streep) but with her comedic turn in Adaptation. Perhaps we all forgot that she can be very funny. Her Susan Orlean is all things a great performance should be - she manages not just the humorous scenes (imitating a dial tone) but she also shows a spiritual panic that she's supposed to be showing in The Hours and never quite gets there. Streep has said that she just wants to go to the Oscars one more time so she can take her youngest child, who's the only one of her children that has never gone. Somehow, it seems likely Streep will go, and how.

And then there are those Chicago broads. Renee Zellweger, who knew? What is most surprising about her work here is that, for the first time probably in her entire career, she plays a mean vixen, a scrappy, power-hungry dame -- hardly the sweet, likable heroine she usually plays. Zellweger's Roxie is no match, however, for the scene-stealing Catherine Zeta-Jones, who, like Kidman, is hungry for recognition and tries a little too hard here. No matter, she is a thrill a minute, even when she's upstaging the film's star.

The critical darling of the year is a toss up between Maggie Gyllenhaal in Secretary and Isabelle Huppert for The Piano Teacher. Gyllenhaal made her mark by playing the kind of character that goes from point A to Z seamlessly and it isn't until you get the end that you realize just how far she came. She was a revelation that burst off the screen in a film that was funny and had some clever observations about finding one's ideal match. A Harold and Maude for a different time.

Kathy Bates seems the likely frontrunner for her work in About Schmidt. But this has happened before -- she was considered a frontrunner for her work in Primary Colors. But it never came to pass. She strips down Adam nekked in About Schmidt, something most portly actresses would never do. She is fabulous in the film, particularly when speaking candidly about her hysterectomy. Her main competition comes from Zeta-Jones, Streep (of course, who I'm pegging as the early frontrunner), and Edie Falco in Sunshine State, who gets additional props for turning in the year's best television performance in the Soprano's season finale.

Salma Hayek finally realized her dream in Frida to mostly positive results. The epic scope of Frida inspired some, infuriated some but seems to be generally well-liked. Hayek is a pretty girl made good, who brought out the sensuality of Frida but came up lacking in the brooding/angst department. Nonetheless, Hayek seems poised for a nod. She'll have to duke it out with Diane Lane, the comeback kid, who has a much more powerful studio (Fox) backing her. Lane also gave among the most talked about performances of the year in Adrian Lyne's remake of Claude Chabrol's La Femme Infidele, Unfaithful. Diane Lane burst upon the scene as a young actress full of promise but seemed to drop off the map for a while and it seemed she would never realize her potential. Well, at last, the potential has been tapped and Lane can take her place among the best leading actresses of this generation. It can only go up from here. Hopefully.

There are other actresses posed to upset the frontrunners - there's the heretofore unawarded Sigourney Weaver, who is supposedly great in The Guys, the first September 11 movie. And there is Samantha Morton, who was absolutely brilliant in a supporting role in Minority Report and is also getting raves for her leading role in Movern Callar. Jennifer Aniston seemed like she would follow her winning streak from the Emmys and go on to get a Golden Globe nom - but it didn't happen. She could still make the cut, particularly if she gets a SAG nod. Her role, however, was the most subtle of all of the performances this year -- it was good but not spectacular.

The Directors
What a year for two prolific directors, Phillip Noyce and Steven Spielberg, who each delivered two films that were equally good. In Noyce's case, he went, in one year, from a big budget action director to one capable of making small films that contemplate the human experience. He did it with seeming ease, letting the material speak for itself with Rabbit-Proof Fence and The Quiet American. Noyce's biggest problem is which film will the Academy honor? Complicating matters further, Miramax is the distributor of both films and they seem to have their hands full with Chicago and Gangs of New York. Nonetheless, Noyce cries out to be acknowledged for such an extraordinary year.

Similarly, the always-reliable Spielberg, who went down some seriously dark roads with A.I., an emotionally complex and daring film that probably just freaked everybody out, last year has emerged back to his more dependable method of turning in two crowd-pleasers, with Minority Report and Catch Me if You Can. Minority Report retains some of the darkness of A.I. but also has some wonderful action sequences. As for Oscar, well, it's sci-fi. And The Academy usually goes for straight character dramas rather than fantasy or sci-fi. Nonetheless, Spielberg deserves credit for two of the year's best films. Catch Me if You Can, with its jazzy score and its wonderful acting will probably be the film the Academy is more inclined to recognize but who knows.

And then there's maverick Todd Haynes, who is one of the most daring filmmakers working today. He seems keen on experimentation and made his career on a film cast entirely with barbie dolls. Haynes is clearly a deep thinker - he watches our culture and he analyzes it. The result is fascinating filmmaking. One day Haynes will get his due. It's only been with Far From Heaven that the director has emerged as force to be reckoned with. His 1950's cinema tableau is part homage (to Douglas Sirk), part performance art (characters trapped in a '50's TV series), part just plain great drama. Strangely enough, Far From Heaven draws you in even when you know you are watching some kind of ironic commentary. Even if Far From Heaven is shut out of the Best Picture race, my money is on Haynes getting much due recognition from the Directors Guild.

And then there's Martin Scorsese. If he weren't such a committed film historian he probably wouldn't care whether or not he won an Oscar. But this is a man, an artist, who really does seem to want the Academy's approval and/or recognition, much like the pre-Schindler's List Spielberg. If he isn't recognized this year for delivering onto the world of cinema a project thirty years in the making, about his very own beloved New York, a movie that defies the norm and reaches so high and hard it is almost impossible to fully comprehend, well, that's just how it will have to be. The Academy has to vote for the movie that moved them, the one that touched them most completely - whether or not Gangs will turn them on or off will be the stuff of history. To my mind, there wasn't a more ambitious film made this year (with the possible exception of Far From Heaven and Adaptation) and to me, in the world of cinema and art, ambition counts for a lot. Scorsese's biggest stumbling block: Harvey Weinstein of Miramax, who is poised by Hollywood to take a fall. They just don't like him. And Scorsese, perhaps Chicago, could pay the price.

And what to make of Peter Jackson? How is it possible that Jackson has done what he has done with the Lord of the Rings series? Who can comprehend it? He filmed the whole big movie all at once and has been cutting and editing the material down to two movies so far. Both are complete films - big, beautiful, exciting. Both have made oodles of dough, with Two Towers passing $200 million last week with no sign of slowing down. Here is a film that is beloved by the people -- with an enormous, world-wide fan base, yet it will likely be written off because it is still in the fantasy genre, no matter how you slice it. Two Towers is darker than the first, and it's more action-packed. But it is also, to my mind, better. If Jackson keeps this up, it will be hard to ignore him when he finished the series with Return of the King. Talk about ambitious - this film goes beyond that into a realm of its own. And most of the film's success is due to Jackson's ability to imagine a world that realizes and perhaps surpasses the imagination of fans of the Tolkien book. Hats off to him.

And of course there's Rob Marshall, theatre director extraordinaire, who's vision for a film version of Chicago is what got the ball rolling. He imagined the dance numbers through Roxie's imagination. To that extent, Chicago is a musical and not a musical. What's remarkable is that Marshall also choreographed the dance numbers! Bill Condon's great script helps raunch up the otherwise unraunchy film and the result is pure entertainment from beginning to end. No, it's not Fosse, but it's Marshall, who is now slowly but surely making a big name for himself.

Finally, there's Steven Daldry, who made the sweet Billy Elliot last year, and his The Hours -- which is getting much acclaim for its ability to move seamlessly between generations and characters. While the writing is getting all the attention, it's the director's job to keep the audience in touch with the action, which is often confusing in The Hours. But Daldry does a good job making it all seem urgent and happening in one day.

There were also the great foreign directors whose films were not put up as the foreign language entry - Pedro Almodovar's stunning Talk to Her and Alfonso Cuaron's Y Tu Mama Tambien. These two directors, more than any others, have a serious shot at a directing nom for their work, which are both being featured on scads of top ten lists from here to Topeka

More unlikely, are the female directors who turned in such fine work this year - chief among them, Nicole Holofcener's Lovely and Amazing, Rebecca Miller's Personal Velocity and Jill Sprecher's 13 Conversations About One Thing. It's hard to be female and get your due as a director. But these three women are on their way.

The Screenplays
The field seems to be dominated by one script at the moment, and that's Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation, which is so layered and full or brilliance it can exist as a work of literature, on its own, without collaboration. However, the collaborators on this project were vital to the ultimate outcome of the film - namely, director Spike Jonze, whose respect for the material kept him from overworking, or making more wacky, the material. And strangely enough, Susan Orlean herself - whose own writing help imbue Kaufman's with the gentle observations of a less showy, less absurd writer. Orlean's words in Adaptation are some of the most powerful, and are an interesting juxtaposition with Kaufman's. The two together have achieved as close a thing to perfection as the world of screenplays has ever seen. Here's the great thing about it - for screenwriters who have been struggling to get a script a sold, to foist their "idea" upon humanity, to follow the regime put forth by Robert McKee, Syd Field and the like -- this is a tribute. The film makes you hopeful, humiliated and proud all at once. A feat not easily accomplished in any art form.

Crowding closely up against Adaptation, is Alfonso Cuaron's Y Tu Mama Tambien, a film whose writing is the biggest standout. This film isn't easily forgotten and presents us with a set up that then whips around and becomes something else entirely. You think, just like you think in life when you're young, that you are about to embark on a joy ride. But you come to find that questions about identity, life and death are just around the corner, waiting for you at the end of your journey. Y Tu Mama Tambien will eventually take its place among some of the best coming-of-age films ever made, like the 400 Blows and King of the Hill (still Soderbergh's best and most underrated film).

One of the things that distinguishes Chicago from Moulin Rouge is the writing. It's hard to not be upstaged by the astonishing dance numbers yet Bill Condon's Chicago script manages it with snappy, witty, economic dialogue that has more than a few whiffs of modern-day in-jokes. And, of course, there's the Jay Cocks, Steve Zaillian and Ken Lonergan trio of writers for Gangs of New York. There are some great lines uttered in Gangs, particularly those that come from Bill the Butcher. And of course there's David Hare's adaptation of Michael Cunningham's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, The Hours, which has people buzzing. All of these scripts are distinguished on their own but also help facilitate some of the best productions of the year.

And of course, there's the sleeper hit of the year, Nia Vardalos' My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which is really good because of the writing. Vardalos is a natural. She's just good at what she does. Will the film be too lowbrow for the Writers Guild and the Academy? So far, it's been too lowbrow for the critics. How can it be ignored, however?

Todd Hayne's Far From Heaven seems Vardalos' biggest competitor for Original Screenplay (unless Gangs sweeps, and yes, Vardalos appears to be going original! That's what their ad says). Honoring Haynes in the screenplay department could be a good way to honor the film without spending a BP nod on it.

Speaking of auteurs, Nicole Hoolfcener's wonderful script for Lovely and Amazing could be headed for a Writers Guild nod as well, but will they include two, count 'em, two women? Not likely. Joe Carnahan's Narc screenplay is slowly picking up buzz and could produce a sneak attack this year.

An then there is, yet again, the Lord of the Rings adaptation. Will it be honored with a nom or not? Does the Academy already figure they did it with the first one? The adaptation is immense, the undertaking grand. The film has thus far done well with tech awards but hasn't gotten any for the acting, writing or directing. Will they wait until the third installment to honor the whole project?

Speaking of adaptations, it's also the writing in About Schmidt that sets that movie apart from the rest. About a Boy as well.

One thing's for sure - the Writers Guild's winners will help clear up the muddy Best Picture race -- last year, adapted and original went on to match Oscar 100%.

[ReaperFett]

The downside of this is that anyone who hasn't read the book may have a hard time connecting emotionally with the material. Fans of the film disagree, saying they have a wife who hadn't read the book and loved the movie, etc.
One of my big flaws was I didnt attatch with anyone, Boromir in LOTR aside, and POSSIBLY Eowyn, depending on how they use her.


There's also the option of simply picking up the book and reading it.
The film has failed if you have to look at it in a different medium to appreciate it.



Adpation for Best Adapted Screenplay? That sounds funny :)

[Loki Ahmrah]

James Berardinelli is my favourite film critic, at least online. I always read his reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and find myself in agreeance with most things he has to say. Reliable guy.

[ReaperFett]

Yeah, well he sounds dumb to me! ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

About AOTC I think he gave it 3.5 stars when it came out, he just didn't see it as one of the top 10. He mentioned Spiderman but it seemed to me he thought it had a bad influence but maybe I was just reading too much into it.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
The film has failed if you have to look at it in a different medium to appreciate it.


My major gripe with the movies, actually.

[JonathanLB]

I have never read LOTR, actually, and felt the first two movies were among the 100 greatest I have ever seen. I am confident that when the third is finished, all 3 will rank in my top 50 or so, just because as a whole they are going to be even better than just one. I still think I should be able to list all 3 in 1 slot because it is one movie, like the Star Wars Saga, just broken up until parts for convenience, which is FAR different from, say, Die Hard and Die Hard 2 (Die Harder) because the second is a literal sequel, not a continuation.

"No mention of AOTC? Amazing! Wasn't it clearly one of the greatest motion pictures of all time?! What a hack?!"

Damnit that's what I was thinking! ;)

It was one of the greatest movies of all time, and fortunately I am a film critic online too with my own site and get the opportunity to voice my opinions as well :)

I am about 4-6 days away from sending my next application to the OFCS (Online Film Critics Society) to apply for membership. Last time I did, it was too late, they only accept critics from Jan. through Sep. and I applied in early Oct. I believe. This time, though, I will be ready and should be able to get in, or I don't see why not anyway as I meet the requirements and add a great deal to film criticism online with my lengthy reviews and sometimes reviews of films that are rarely reviewed anywhere else (The Skulls II, The Caddy, hehe, others).

I like this James guy too, I was just reading one of his reviews yesterday, I think he was one of the ones who didn't like The Piano Teacher, but I forget. Maybe that was someone else. Point is, I see this guy on RT a lot and read some of his reviews, yeah.

I hope someday I have a following online as he does, that would be great. But that'll be a while from now :)

[ReaperFett]

Oh, I do agree about LOTR being a slot like SW. Even more so really, because there is no "standalone" LOTR film, like ANH can be seen.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Loki Ahmrah
James Berardinelli is my favourite film critic, at least online. I always read his reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and find myself in agreeance with most things he has to say. Reliable guy.

Yeah, I agree with that. The guy also reasons resonably well and I tend to find myself agreeing with his comments on moives.

[Jedieb]

But reaper said he was dumb! :rolleyes

[ReaperFett]

And Reaper is Right! :)

[Jedieb]

Of course, he always THINKS he is. ;)

[ReaperFett]

I think I am, and indeed I am! :)

[Jedieb]

I didn't know Jon posted under more than one alias! ;)

[ReaperFett]

Oh admit it. Only your stubborness is stopping you from agreeing with me! ;)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Reaperfett is just as stubborn as Jon. That be the truth :D

[ReaperFett]

Rich coming from you! ;)

[Jedieb]

I'm with Marcus. ;)

[ReaperFett]

Only because you dont like being ALONE IN YOUR OPINIONS! ;)

[Jedieb]

2 against 1. Who's alone? ;)

[ReaperFett]

Oooooooh, against you and the guy who has been called Q'Jonn! ;)

[Jedieb]

ContraryFett stands alone. I'm sure eventually someone will stand along side you. Eventually... :)

[ReaperFett]

Oh, this from the person named after the fact that good views EBb from them, rather than flow ;)

[Jedieb]

Do your jokes ALWAYS cause people to groan? ;)

[ReaperFett]

Hey, some might like me making them groan! ;)


And come on, I make classics! CHeck the Happy Birthday thread in OOC, I made a classic Tolkien joke! :)

[Jedieb]

I'm afraid!!! :)

[ReaperFett]

I wouldnt be. You'll laugh!


And what about my LOTR joke in the review thread? Quality! And Carr laughed in Films at my Yoda joke! :)

[JonathanLB]

I am with Reaper on this, because I don't want him to be outnumbered 2 to 1. ;)

"Even more so really, because there is no "standalone" LOTR film, like ANH can be seen."

Agreed on that too. More so than SW because LOTR especially is totally one work, whereas you could in some ways see Star Wars as two stories, each trilogy, that are connected carefully but not to the degree that LOTR is, with even the first film being a serious cliffhanger.

Reaper is always right, unless he contradicts me, because I'm ALWAYS right and therefore my always-rightness takes priority over his always-rightness. ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Reaper does have funny jokes :) I am not going to take a side I rather be neutral, unless I am the deciding vote ;)

[Jedieb]

Reaper is always right, unless he contradicts me, because I'm ALWAYS right and therefore my always-rightness takes priority over his always-rightness. ;)

Thank goodness Jon went Reaper's way. I was getting worried. ;)

[ReaperFett]

Oh be quiet ThoughtEbb ;)

[Dae Jinn]

Fett has had some pretty funny moments....SOME not all though :lol

[JonathanLB]

Did anyone see that idiotic editorial from the Denver something-rather posted on TheForce.net now?!

The lady is like, "Lord of the Rings is horrible, I could not even stand to sit through the first one. It is such mindless, stupid entertainment." My god... talk about a disgrace to 1) critics 2) woman 3) every living person :)

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
The lady is like, "Lord of the Rings is horrible, I could not even stand to sit through the first one. It is such mindless, stupid entertainment."

I can relate. I was also bored to hell watching the first LOTR. :)

[JMK]

Blasphemy!

[JonathanLB]

Yeah seriously, what JMK said. The films are the most exciting around besides the Star Wars movies. Just incredible, epic storytelling that is among the greatest ever.

[Dutchy]

Nice eye candy, but the story couldn't hold my interest. I wasn't exactly glued to my seat. Cardboard characters, too. I felt very distant from what was happening on the screen.

[ReaperFett]

Aside from Boromir and the non-Frodo Hobbits, I do agree with that part about cardboard, Fellowship-wise. Especially that damn Elf.

[JonathanLB]

*shakes head* To each his own.

Dutchy, you are allowed your departures from the critical majority just as I am allowed mine :) Remember, though, about 97% of critics or something absolutely love both LOTR films, so my occassional major disagreements with critics are not that uncommon, since you, too, have movies where you are in the vast minority. :D

[Jedi Master Carr]

I mean the movies aren't for everyone, I do think they are great but I am sure there are people who wouldn't like them.

[JMK]

Of course. There are tons of people who think LotR is utterly dumb. In my opinion, these are people who lack imagination, creativity and a sense of adventure. Fantasy movies ask alot of the viewers and some just don't have it to give.

[ReaperFett]

lack imagination? Last I checked, were talking about an adaptation here ;)

[JMK]

I think if someone doesn't like a 3 hour movie, they won't invest weeks in reading the book. :p

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by JMK
Of course. There are tons of people who think LotR is utterly dumb. In my opinion, these are people who lack imagination, creativity and a sense of adventure. Fantasy movies ask alot of the viewers and some just don't have it to give.

I think movie goers around the world are voting with thier dollars right now and showing the majority love LOTR and do understand it. A lot. The only people whom seem to hate it are the ons not willign to give it a chance. It's alsothe type of movies you do need to see more than once, to capture the depth involved. Besides, they are also superbly made movies and anyone who says otherwise, well they need a good boot in the nuts. The level of details, the camera owrk, the art direction, makeup.... if you cant appreciate the story, then you really should be able to appreciate the work and the movie making craft exhibited.

[ReaperFett]

I think movie goers around the world are voting with thier dollars right now and showing the majority love LOTR and do understand it.
You go once and dont understand it, it still counts ;)


And I believe personally it's best to only see once. But there you go :)

[JMK]

The only people whom seem to hate it are the ons not willign to give it a chance.
Those are the people I'm talking about. They see the commercials and the weird looking beasts, and wizards, and nakes creatures, and swords and black rider guys flying on a dargon or something and they automatically shut the movie out. They just can't grasp it.

[ReaperFett]

The only people who I think seem to dislike it are....THOSE THAT DISLIKE IT! Im not into categorising or theorising, lets get to the heart of it! ;)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I...I think Fett is funny. :D

[JonathanLB]

I would certainly question the imagination and taste of someone who doesn't like the LOTR films at all, but that's their own deal -- I won't be asking them for movie advice, though. The LOTR films are what I call deal-breakers. If, for instance, someone doesn't like Blade II, that is fine, it means nothing to me, but if they don't like Star Wars, that's a deal-breaker. It means I won't take them very seriously as far as movies go because their taste is obviously too different from my own to heed their opinions.

"Besides, they are also superbly made movies and anyone who says otherwise, well they need a good boot in the nuts. The level of details, the camera owrk, the art direction, makeup.... if you cant appreciate the story, then you really should be able to appreciate the work and the movie making craft exhibited."

This is true, the movie making craft is just factually excellent. It's not a matter of opinion, but of fact. There is such thing as great art direction, great cinematography, great makeup, and great special effects and they do not depend on opinions. As many critics said, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is "technically" perfect. Even if you don't like the story, the way in which the films are directed from a technical standpoint is beyond reproach.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Wouldnt quite go as far as call them technically perfect, TTT does have some jumpy editing that to me suggests there are vital bits missing, cut becuase of time restrictions. FOTR:EE had much better editing and flowed so much better. I would expect the TTT:EE will also do the same. Hard to believe you could get such a great movie better... but in TTT's case an extra few minutes could have helped. I believe tho that the time runnign isnt Jackson's fault, he was contracted to make TT under 3 hours. And so he did by 50 seconds.

I understand however that New LIne, having made gazillions off LOTR so far with no end of the cash in sight have given Jackson his head he will deliver ROTK however he wishes with no restrictions. So far I understand ROTK is trackign at 3:30 min. Long as hell, but the previous two movies have proven crowds WILL watch and even want more. I'm really startign to believe we aint seen nothing yet and ROTK will top them all. I also think that New Line wont push TTT and Jackson for Best Picture / Director this year. But next year, I bet New Line will go for it, turn ROTK into a crowning achievement and end the trilogy with a blaze and attempt to get ROTK best picture and Jackson director.

[JMK]

RotK is going to be just unbelievable, 3 hours of action!

[ReaperFett]

I...I think Fett is funny. :D :o


ty :)





Jon, any other breakers?




Marcus, I thought, aside from an overuse in zooming, the camera work and cutting was a big improvement on LOTR.



RotK is going to be just unbelievable, 3 hours of action!

Nah. 1hr of Frodo whining, 30secs of action, 2hrs 59 minutes 30 seconds of Legolas kicking a shield, which ricochets through an entire army of Orcs, taking each one up. He will then get out his bow and kill each one by one, because he's "SOOOOOO KEWL!!!!"


Sorry, I can get cynical at times :)

[Diego Van Derveld]

ROFL! Me and Akrabbim were commenting about the zoom abuse as well, Fett. Its like...EXTREME CLOSE-UP...for everyone except poor Gimli ;)

[ReaperFett]

Poor guy :)

[JMK]

Yes. Yes you can. :p

[ReaperFett]

Im not far off. Watching TTT today, Im quite sure the Shield surf had as long shown as Aragorn and Gimli fighting in front of the gate. Grrrrrrrrrr.

[JonathanLB]

I'd say the two LOTR films just because of their wide-sweeping appeal, even though they are not as high as, say, Blade Runner or Alien on my list. The thing is, I cannot expect everyone to love Blade Runner just because it's great sci-fi, so if someone doesn't really appreciate it, maybe that's just because they haven't taken the time to understand it or not into sci-fi, so I wouldn't really disregard their opinions on movies in general because I myself think 2001 is not a good movie, yet many sci-fi fans think that is such a great film. I personally don't see it; the film is average sci-fi at best.

The only other movie that determines, to me, whether someone has taste in film is Citizen Kane. If someone doesn't like Citizen Kane, they just don't know what a great movie is when they see one, simple as that. If anyone understands movies, they should appreciate Citizen Kane.

[Marcus Telcontar]

The only other movie that determines, to me, whether someone has taste in film is Citizen Kane. If someone doesn't like Citizen Kane, they just don't know what a great movie is when they see one, simple as that. If anyone understands movies, they should appreciate Citizen Kane.

While CK is not my taste in movies (Actually, I think its deadly boring), I can still see how well made it is, the story, the filmkaing that sets it above just about all other films. I think LOTR so far is al ot like that - even if it's not your tastes, you have to dmit it's one hell of a work of film

[ReaperFett]

Blade Runner bored me (I'm not really a sci-fi person), not seen Citizen Kane :)

[JMK]

Blade Runner bored me to tears too. I fell asleep watching it.:\

[JonathanLB]

I feel sorry for you guys. Blade Runner is one of the 5 greatest sci-fi works of all time I think, if you just include the Star Wars Saga as one "work," which it is (though six "films"). I mean, maybe you owe it another viewing, it took me two viewings before I really loved it, although I liked it a lot the first time. It depends on your state of mind too, but U.K. audiences recently named Blade Runner the greatest movie of ALL time! I would never go that far, haha, but it is in my top 20 to 25 overall, actually. Great acting, great costumes, amazing set design and special effects that still look haunting and beautiful today, fantastic directing by one of history's notable directors (for Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, and to a lesser extent even Hannibal, Ridley Scott ranks among the 50 or so greatest directors ever, though I'd put him in my top 10). Not to mention the plot of the film, which is obviously the best part of all because there is just so much there, the entire issue of humans vs. androids/machines is explored perhaps the best of any sci-fi film.

As for Citizen Kane, I know some people find it boring, but I have to wonder if they aren't the ones who are boring, because there is nothing boring about the greatest character study in film history. It's an incredible movie and if you read my review of it, which would take probably about 45 minutes (lol), then you can appreciate it even more. I just fail to see how a film with such great dialogue and such an interesting, albeit tragic character could bore anyone. The craft of the film alone is so astonishing that I found myself in awe of the camera shots, the lighting (this is the introduction of film noir style in the United States), and of course the acting is great too. Oh well, you know it does take some studying to appreciate many of these great films as they should be. I have had to watch several movies like that two times so that the first time I could just absord the movie as it was made, then the second time I'd watch it after I had studied it in depth and found myself liking it even more. That has happened many times, even with the recent film 13 Conversations About One Thing, which I gave two viewings because I didn't feel my first really did it justice.

I don't know what to say about most audiences, though. I mean anytime a critic or film historian dares to suggest that most people simply don't appreciate good art in film, they become "elitists" and are labeled "stuck up old snobs," generally. The fact is, though, people who appreciate a wide range of films are much more likely to enjoy quality filmmaking when they see it than narrow-minded American audiences, for instance, or any other nationality that cannot remain open to all types of film. I know some people who refuse to watch black and white movies, hate subtitles, won't watch silent movies, and consider "old" movies (i.e. before 1970) really boring. Yet what they don't realize is how many great films they are missing, totally shutting out, by their stereotypes. Now I was one of those people when I was 15 or 16, I had no appreciation for any film except modern American cinema, which is acceptable -- when you are a teenager! But I expect that people who have gained a sufficient maturity begin to broaden their horizons beyond just their own country's film and beyond their normal comfort zone and start to explore movies and genres and other cultures with which they are less familiar.

I grant that I don't like many of my forrays into foreign film, but you just have to find the right ones because I've seen plenty of crappy American movies too. It's all a matter of knowing what to see. So far, although I hardly have the place to comment with my rather limited knowledge still, I must say I prefer Asian cinema to Western European cinema, but there is a lot to be said of movies from all around the world and throughout time.

It DOES take a special level of open-mindness and enthusiasm to enjoy films from the early part of the 20th century, though. You have to think not of those movies compared to our movies today in technical terms, but those movies as historically important and interesting enough to warrant watching. The Birth of a A Nation is a really good movie, no matter that it's 3 hours long and silent, somehow it STILL manages to keep audiences' attentions, or at least it did mine and many other film experts. Plus, I don't think you can appreciate anything from the last 30 years without knowing about the history of cinema from day 1 through present, but that is just my opinion. I am not there yet either, so I remain humble in my film quest because I know maybe about 5% of what I really want/need to know.

That's one major, major reason why I quit film school down at LMU. I simply felt my knowledge of film was insufficient to warrant trying to become a director at that time and was even more disgusted with the fact that I seemed to know more about movies than 90% of my fellow students. I kept thinking, "Dang, I know NOTHING about the history of film yet I've seen more movies than almost everyone in my classes, how sad is this?!" I'm talking about people who had never seen Pulp Fiction and were in film classes, people who literally watched just as many movies in theaters per year as my friends who are not into movies. I was already embarrassed with my own rather pathetic film knowledge, so when I found that other people knew less, it kind of seemed like a joke to me. When I return, I will know everything significant about movies. Everything. There will not be one director in film history who matters who I will not have studied. There won't be any major films I've not seen, not even so much as one. Then we'll see how well everyone else fares with their total lack of knowledge and how well I do with a complete knowledge. It'll be interesting to see, because I know people can succeed without knowing as much, but I personally would rather be well equipped and feel intelligent about what I want to do before I start...

[ReaperFett]

Erm, when did we name it the greatest film of all time? I follow most national votes, and SW always wins.