The Best of 2004 - A Future Look

**tabuno** · 07-07-2004, 01:03 AM

With the movie season more than half over, it's almost time to begin looking at this year's crop of movies and the awards season both the ones seen and the ones remaining to be seen.

1. Kill Bill No. 2. This is the best movie of the year from a script, cinematography, character standpoint. A substantive and deeper as well as more edgy, emotional version than the over the top Volume No. 1 which tended towards satire of a number of genre.

2. Spartan. This is one of the best espionage movies in many years, recalling past Cold War movies with their edgy (less action oriented) more implied emotional roller coaster that depends more of acting, performance, and script handling than special effects and over the top thrills.

3. Spiderman 2. Easily one of the best of the year because it captures both the superhero pyrotechnics along with a solid storyline and character development. A great Jaws - the Movie -renovation that combines many of the psychological elements of good film making.

4. Passion of the Christ. A stirring 24 hour intense and focussed look at one of the most famous characters of all of theater. The emotional tragedy and intensity, the sincerity of character and original language and apparent veracity-looking, sounding film is a brilliant example of movie-making.

5. Against the Ropes. Meg Ryan performs one of her best roles in a difficult genre of male boxing. She achieves a underrated Demi Moore performance (as in Strip Tease) that was overlooked because of the nature of the male sport. A good look a the sport and the humanity that Ryan brought to a true story, real life character.

6. Connie and Carla. One of the more difficult performances of women acting as men acting as women. This movie captured the humorous and sensitive nature of the sexes along with a delightful David Duchovy straight man.

7. Day After Tomorrow. The biggest, explosive disaster movie of all time that almost contained a strong human story. A well balanced movie of an epic magnitude without getting lost in the special effects.

8. The Terminal. A different and well acted Tom Hanks in a microcosm of a world in an air terminal. An almost independent movie feel along with a more bittersweet ending that allows the audience to focus on humanity instead of fantasy.

9. The Stepford Wives. A rather off-kilter horror-comedy movie (a very difficult blend) done well that brings smiles to the more mature audiences.

Honorable Mention.

13 Going On 30. Jennifer Garner will puts on a delicious show.

Mean Girls. A relevant, above average coming of age movie.

50 First Dates. Drew and Adam are continuing their development as actors.

Movies To Watch For

The Bourne Supremacy (July 23, 2004)
Catwoman (July 23, 2004)
The Manchurian Candidate (July 30, 2004)
Collateral (August 6, 2004)
Shall We Dance (remake - October 15, 2004)
Alexander (November 5, 2004)

**Johann** · 07-07-2004, 12:20 PM

Good topic, tabuno!

Yes, the year is zipping by.

I agree that Kill Bill vol.2 is one of the years best films and Spiderman 2 will make my top ten for year with no problem. (I'm seeing it again on friday- I'll comment more after)

I haven't seen Spartan and I wish I saw it during it's run- I love Mamet. Chris' review is probably bang-on. I'll rent the DVD.

The Passion of the Christ was great in terms of production value and pure "moviemaking", but it's content leaves me a little indifferent. It's hard to make the final days of Christ seem important anymore. I would have liked it more if it played as a silent film and black and white. That would have been something to rave about. Nothing new in this film, except gratuitous violence.

I haven't seen Spielberg's latest, and I don't know if I will. I'm losing interest in Tom Hanks fast. The Ladykillers? Please.
The Terminal is probably really sharp- just like Catch Me If You Can, and I'll wait until it's on DVD.

Oliver Stone's Alexander may be the best film of the year. I'm so biased for Stone it's embarrasing. All apologies.
This one will be AMAZING. I'm just as pumped for Alexander as I was for Eyes Wide Shut. Godspeed in that editing room, Oliver...

The rest of the films on your lists were standard movies, tabuno.

**JustaFied** · 07-07-2004, 07:37 PM

Some films I'm looking forward to seeing the remainder of the year:

Proof - John Madden's film adaptation of David Auburn's Pulitzer Prize winning play. Gwyenth Paltrow plays the lead.

Garden State - Looks interesting, though some claim it's a knockoff of The Graduate.

I Heart Huckabee's - David O. Russell's first film since Three Kings. A movie about existential issues, starring Jude Law, Naomi Watts, and Dustin Hoffman. Cool.

The Life Aquatic - Will Wes Anderson's fourth film be a dud? Were those rumors true about chaos on the set and an unhappy Bill Murray? Stay tuned.

And of course, Alexander.

**tabuno** · 07-25-2004, 10:10 PM

In a great year for spy movies, The Bourne Supremacy came out to compete with Spartan for best espionage movie of the year. Bourne is more mainstream but as realistic in many ways as Spartan. Brian Cox weakened The Bourne Supremacy somewhat and its ending is more in line with American tastes so that Spartan comes out with the more edgier feel and best honors I believe. However, The Bourne Supremacy would rank in one of my top ten movies of the year.

It is time for a new spy hero, one that bleeds and doesn't have to rely on over the top special effects to earn his or her credentials.

**HorseradishTree** · 07-26-2004, 03:30 PM

Finally saw Spartan. Mamet has done it again.

Like his other films, Mamet keeps straight and minute dialogue throughout with fine performances to practice them. Things slowly develop and grab you in. Definitely on my top ten for '04.

**arsaib4** · 08-05-2004, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by Johann

Oliver Stone's Alexander may be the best film of the year. I'm so biased for Stone it's embarrasing. All apologies.

No apologies necessay, i'm a huge fan also who was just as exited about Alexander as you seem to be UNTIL i saw the commercial and from the look of it, atleast to me, it's more 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Troy' than what i was expecting based on Stone's previous work.

Now the American film i am most looking forward to becomes Russel's I Heart Huckabee's, Isabelle Huppert supposedly has a small part in the film.

**tabuno** · 08-08-2004, 11:43 PM

"Alexander" directed by Oliver Stone starring Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, and Anthony Hopkins versus "Troy" directed by Wolfgang Petersen starring Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, and
Orlando Bloom.

Such direct competition may cancel each other out this year. It will be interesting to see which, if either, movie will be able to breakout this year and be remembered until the next year.

**JustaFied** · 08-19-2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by arsaib4
Now the American film i am most looking forward to becomes Russel's I Heart Huckabee's, Isabelle Huppert supposedly has a small part in the film.

Trailer's up now:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_se...art_huckabees/

I have no idea what the film is about based on the trailer, but it sure looks interesting. I guess it subject matter is existentialism in America. Jason Schwartzman (of "Rushmore" fame) and Dustin Hoffman are in it; they're probably related in the film, as they look so much alike.

Also, David O. Russell has just made a documentary on the Iraq war. Conveniently, it will be included in a newly released DVD of "Three Kings", which was of course about the first Gulf War. Here's an article:
'Three Kings' Director Plans Documentary on Iraq War
By SHARON WAXMAN

Published: August 16, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/movies/16warn.html

**pmw** · 08-19-2004, 07:03 PM

Well, I happened to catch a screening of I Heart Huckabees the other day and I was...sorry to say...disappointed. I really wanted a good one, because I've liked Russel's other work, but this didn't cut it for me. It felt like he was trying to be "quirky" (ala anderson and the other anderson), and there was a lot of borrowing from other recent films. It just didn't have Russel's personal stamp and in terms of ideas, I'm not sure that it really goes anywhere. The energy of the movie was impressive, but I didn't get along with the substance.

On the other hand, "Sideways" from Alexander Payne (About Schmidt) was tremendous, and I think maybe among the top 3 of the year for me. I will try and write more about both in better terms in the coming days. After seeing Sideways, Im again excited about american filmmakers. He's really testing the boundaries and playing with alot of American themes. Really great film.

P

**JustaFied** · 08-19-2004, 07:21 PM

Thanks for the recommendation on "Sideways". Glad to see Payne's back on track after "About Schmidt", which I found a bit stale.

Maybe "I Heart Huckabee's" is more akin to Russell's first two films ("Spanking the Monkey" and "Flirting with Disaster") than to "Three Kings"? The latter seemed to be more focused and serious. "Flirting with Disaster" is all over the place (literally as well, they travel around the country), it would therefore probably qualify as "quirky", but I still found its light comedic touch refreshing.

**arsaib4** · 08-19-2004, 07:27 PM

Thanks Justafied, an interesting article to say the least. Our opinions about the war and the rest matter little when the participants feel this way. Btw, this dvd release of Three Kings is a re-release, right?

Sorry to hear about I Heart Huckabees pmw, I was looking forward to it and still am but what you had to say sounds just the way i'd describe most american indies nowadays.

**pmw** · 08-19-2004, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by arsaib4

Sorry to hear about I Heart Huckabees pmw, I was looking forward to it and still am but what you had to say sounds just the way i'd describe most american indies nowadays.

It seems like most American film makers want to be media darlings, a Sunday Times "genius", instead of...well just plain old original/artful/interesting filmmakers. I think we're really in the thick of it lately, and I imagine it will thin out in a few years, but seems like every wants to cash in being a frazzley-haired auteur. Ugh.

I did like Three Kings though. For sure. And Im very gald it's being rereleased. Its perhaps more relevant now than when it came out originally. So good to see filmmakers using their influence in interesting ways.

P

**JustaFied** · 08-20-2004, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by pmw
It seems like most American film makers want to be media darlings, a Sunday Times "genius", instead of...well just plain old original/artful/interesting filmmakers. I think we're really in the thick of it lately, and I imagine it will thin out in a few years, but seems like every wants to cash in being a frazzley-haired auteur. Ugh.

I'm not necessarily arguing with you here, but just curious what examples you're thinking of specifically. What is it about the films of these "media darlings" that you don't like?

**pmw** · 08-20-2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by JustaFied
I'm not necessarily arguing with you here, but just curious what examples you're thinking of specifically. What is it about the films of these "media darlings" that you don't like?

I think it's that they're made in too much of an attempt to reflect the filmmaker as auteur/media darling/etc instead of to create a work that stands on its own, uninfringed upon by the image of the filmmaker. Now, if the films Im thinking of were great films, that would be fine, but they seem to come up short as films. Aesthetically, there are some characterics that link them - the characters are disenfranchised, self-indulgent, cute and increasingly uninteresting. They coopt an indie aesthetic but bear few of the original elements that I think are needed to validate a film as artistically innovative.

I hate to dump on Zach Braff, but his film is a pre-packaged indie-darling that is so insipidly boring but has no problem coopting aesthetic/conceptual elements of a few certain films that we could all identify. To me this is really boring. Sure, borrow some of the elements around you, but make something new and relevant for pete's sake (me).

I feel the same way about Sofia, although I know a lot of people would disagree. To be completely honest, were I to have made a film a number of years ago, I probably would have been guilty of the same. But more recent interest in foreign offerings and to art at large has reminded me of a more interesting purpose in film - to make something compelling that does something new and innovates in some way. Part and parcel with that is an understanding of what came before your film/art/book/whatever, and of course you work in a contemporary context, but you have to blaze some new ground to be my media darling. I am more than happy to heap accolades on a great film/filmmaker.

hmm... hope that's a start to a very difficult question. There are a lot of intentions, definitions and details that I've stepped around here... as well as subjective opinions.

Let me go a little further. I think it may be that these films don't know why they quote what they quote. They don't know what to do with the quotes to make them interesting again. It's just a hip time to be using certain quotes. And it's recycled and watered down with each successive use. Lot's more can be said Im sure... What do you think?

P

**arsaib4** · 08-20-2004, 04:01 PM

I agree with what Peter had to say earlier, but after reading his post one might say, well, why dump on Zach Braff or Sofia Coppola as they are very young filmmakers, give them time to develop. Not a bad point at all, but here they are not just being compared to other american filmmakers and their lesser films, their efforts especially after the kind of publicity they got are being put along side Reygadas' Japon and Zvyagintsev's The Return and this is where they come up short, way short in the eyes of a knowledgable fan.

On the other hand when an american filmmaker is cited to be an origianal voice like Peter Sollet (Raising Victor Vargas), not just here but around the world, our public thanks to our fine distribution, never get a chance to truly appreciate the effort.