Best Films of 2002

[ArpHagenbach]

I love Almodovar, but this one is hideously misogynistic - and those dances are whack! Everyone was bamboozled on this one.

[Johann]

ooh, I really loved these 5 films.


Men in Black 2
Scooby Doo
Resident Evil
The Scorpion King
Crossroads

Cheeky monkey.

[Ricardo]

Well, I suppose you have to give the public what they want, and if credit is what matters, i'll take credit.

No seriously, Scooby Doo was great. It really was. Now...... am i still joking? Je suis monsieur mysterie........

[Johann]

Those films have an audience, and while they are not my particular taste, I welcome "blockbusters" because they generate lots of dinero. (which allows Harvey Weinstein to bank on projects like Gangs of New York)

If these "hollywood" movies were flops, THEN there would be a problem. case in point: Emmerich's Godzilla (ID4 gave this guy a false sense of security. ROLAND! There was nothing else to see in the summer of 1996! (not to mention Will Smith was Mr. Popularity)That's my theory, anyway.

[Chris Knipp]

I finally closed out my Best Lists last week, even though 2002 contenders are actually still being released locally. Here are my lists (in alphabetical order):


Ten Best US:

ADAPTATION
THE BELIEVER
CATCH ME IF YOU CAN
CHICAGO
THE GOOD GIRL
IGBY GOES DOWN
LORD OF THE RINGS II
ONE HOUR PHOTO
PERSONAL VELOCITY
PUNCH DRUNK LOVE

Ten Best Foreign:

ALL OR NOTHING
ATANARJUAT -- THE FAST RUNNER
EL CRIMEN DEL PADRE AMARO
THE PIANIST
LA PIANISTE
THE SON'S ROOM (LA STANZA DEL FIGLIO)
READ MY LIPS (SUR MES LEVRES) + TIME OUT
TALK TO HER
WHAT TIME IS IT THERE?
Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN


I have additional lists of must-sees and wish-I'd-seens that I'll spare you, but I'll give my US Most Overrated List:

ABOUT SCHMIDT
FAR FROM HEAVEN
THE HOURS
THE ROAD TO PERDITION

I know there will be strong disagreements on these. Bear in mind that I think they should be seen; I just don't buy the audience ratings or the interpretations being put on these four films. Interest in THE ROAD TO PERDITION may be waning, but the other three are riding high.

CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND makes me more and more a Charlie Kaufman fan, and it could have been on my 2002 lists, but it didn’t open in the Bay Area till yesterday. So goes the distribution system.

[tabuno]

I must say this person knows movie "class" when he experiences it.

[Johann]

From your lists Chris, I sense you prefer films that have better production value than acting. SO DO I

[pmw]

Thus far we've had fairly different takes on a few of the goods/bads from this year: igby, punch drunk love, talk to her, about schmidt, far from heaven. BUT, Adaptation is where we come together. Really enjoyed the ideas and the construction.
Cheers!
P

[Chris Knipp]

What about "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind"? It's that one made me realize I really like this Charlie Kaufman guy.

[tabuno]

I saw "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" over the weekend as well as "Adaptations" earlier this month and I'm really, really impressed. Both movies are among my favorites during the past year. Both have really unique plots, twists, great characters, substantive and meaningful.

[Chris Knipp]

I think you really have to know where Charlie Kaufman’s coming from to appreciate his screenplays. When I saw “Being John Malkovitch “ I was prejudiced against it due to all the hype about how hip it was but more and more I’m catching on that Charlie is all about a meta-fiction kind of thing – something I know about from books. The twists are new and fresh, though, and it's cool that the best people are hot to work with him.

Only good can come out of this.

[Johann]

I'm happy that Richard Gere got the golden globe this year. I know Nic Cage is great in Adaptation (I'm seeing it tonight), but I find that his roles have too much "Nicolas" in them.
Bringing Out The Dead aside (I love that movie), his performances seem too smooth, too easy, and I don't think he has reams of acting talent. I saw the trailer for Captain Corelli's Mandolin and started laughing. This flick just reeks of "trying too hard".
Cage's films are good at best (Wild at Heart & Raising Arizona were above avg.) and I feel he has a long way to go before he can call himself a "skilled actor". (Oscar be damned)

[miseenscene]

Cage is one of numerous big name actors who play the same side of themselves in every film, to some degree. Nicholson, Harrison Ford, Nick Nolte... these guys make a living playing themselves. To some extent, I think every actor and actress does that. The truly chameleonlike ones are so "out there," they almost never make it big because they're NOT recognizable.

I actually thought Cage did a good job playing off his neuroses in "Adaptation." he milks them in every film, but his variance between Donald and Charlie allowed for a wide range of Cage-isms to come out. I don't think he'll get any major awards for it, but he deserves the recognition.

[tabuno]

miseenscene - I agree. Nicholas Cage in playing these two different roles in the same movie, especially in such close proximity and give and take, takes more than basic acting. Such acting does deserve recognition.

[Chris Knipp]

Yes and he had good material to work with, plus there was a strong contrast between the two twin brothers, and it wasn't so hard for Cage to make the distinction for us, though no doubt about the fact that he makes it well. In "Dead Ringers," the creepy Cronenberg movie about the drug addict gynecologist twins both played by Jeremy Irons, it wasn't so easy to tell them apart, but the effect was still compelling and weird to watch them together. Did you see it?

I think Cage is quite a good actor, admirable for his willingness to take risks and his dedication and energy, but not supremely gifted as some are, and so sometimes he seems to be working too hard. "Adaptation" made use of that, because the sad sack frustrated brother, Charlie Kaufman, was always working hard and getting nowhere. If you ask me it was the more laid back brother Donald that was more of a stretch for Nick – but that was the secondary character.

A lot of the best movie actors, the matinee idols everybody loves, just played themselves. You have to hold back in movies, not project too much, not be stagey. There's a video of a movie acting class taught by Michael Caine -- a master of the craft -- that explains this very well. Daniel Day-Lewis is a wonderful actor -- he has played so many different roles and done them well -- a real chameleon type -- but by the same token that may not be completely cinematic, and maybe his performance in "Gangs of New York" which everybody is raving about is a bit too actor-y. Working a little hard, but still with a lot of panache. I didn't completely like the character. I thought it was put together piece by piece and you could see the separate parts. You can see that when people comment on the voice and accent, the moustache, the gestures, etc. -- they see the separate parts because it isn't entirely a unified whole. I like Johnny Depp better because he has played a lot of different roles but he's laid back in all of them. Even as Hunter S. Thompson he is pretty laid back, you feel he's just having a good laugh. In "Dead Man" he's very neutral, deadpan, like Buster Keaton, and that is his greatest role. I think Caine would approve of his performance there. But my idea of a great chameleon performance in a movie where the actor disappears into the role is Leo Di Caprio in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape." Scorsese said he didn’t know Di Caprio wasn’t a retarded boy when he saw the movie. I didn’t either.

I wouldn't say Jack Nicholson always plays himself but that at a certain point he began doing so, when he became a big star, and his personality began to dominate. But not always even now. I don't buy that he disappears into "About Schmidt," but I do think he disappeared into that Sean Penn movie a couple of years ago--"The Pledge", which is a wonderful performance in a fine movie.

Sure, every actor is "playing himself" -- playing himself as he would be if he were that person in that situation. But nobody is King Lear, so "playing yourself" in King Lear is still a big stretch for anybody. It's a feat of the imagination, even if it comes out of you. Where else is it going to come from?

Well, then you get into English (technical) vs. American (method) acting. According to English style, it doesn’t come out of you, because it’s somebody else, so you have to create the character out of technique. But it's an artificial distinction to separate technical from method acting. All the distinctions about acting are artificial. Acting is fundamentally a mystery. It comes down to instinct -- and technique, always both.

I’m just throwing this out for anyone to comment.