The Best and Worst Movies of 2003? 1093
rufey asks: "As 2003 comes to a close, I thought it would be interesting to ask Slashdot what they thought the best and worst movie of 2003 was, and why. At the beginning of the year there was excitement about parts 2 and 3 of The Matrix triology, X-Men 2, and of course, LOTR: Return of the King. In Slashdot's opinion, what did and didn't live up to the hype and expectations, and were there any surprises?"
The Hulk (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Hulk (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Hulk (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Hulk (Score:5, Insightful)
(Revoutions, of the other hand... I've seen better writing on a cereal box. I think they really phoned that one in.)
Re:The Hulk (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone is entitled to half of their films being well-intentioned failures... that shouldn't tarnish a reputation too much. Ang Lee is floating on the upper half of that equation, and is successful overall. The Wachowskis are two and two. Personally I feel Revolutions received a lot of the venom that should have been directed towards Reloaded. Forcing Keanu to act without his eyes was a stroke of brilliance, and really helped his performance.
Hulk, CGI, DVD "extras" (Score:5, Insightful)
I made the mistake of renting Hulk on DVD. Well, at least that wouldn't have been as big a mistake as watching it in the theater. I was pretty stunned at how terrible the CGI was. Sure, I had seen the TV commericals but I naively figured that those commericals had been thrown together before the complete rendering had been completed and that the CGI in the final product would be much better than the trailers. Nope. I was really surprised.
But in watching the DVD extras my surprise turned to bewilderment and a little anger. While there was an entertaining featurette on the history of The Hulk from early comic books to TV to movies, most of the extras consisted of the movie makers going on and on about how incredible their CGI effects were and how they were doing something at a level of realism that no one else had ever tried. Now, I'll accept that perhaps what they had tried to do might have been quite ambitious but to suggest that they succeeded admirably was just too much to take. Quite frankly, I don't care how difficult the CGI technical problems are. If some average moviegoer like myself cringes at the poor quality of the effects, then you haven't succeeded at shit. It was really impossible to feel any kind of emotion because every time you saw that green bunch of silly puddy bounce around the screen you were instanteously "taken out of the movie". The poor quality of the CGI completely ruined whatever effect the director tried to accomplish.
Here on slashdot we oftentimes like to point to the extras on DVDs as a model for the RIAA to follow in terms of adding value to their product. But the more of these extras I watch, the more I'm really doubting whether they add any value. Most of these extras are simply interviews with the cast and crew gushing over what a great job they've done and how thankful they are to work with such a talented group of individuals and so on. It's really just a bunch of self-serving, back-slapping crap. The 'deleted scenes' featured on many disks are really awful to watch -- there's no wonder they were deleted! In times I've come away from a movie having a lower opinion of the film after watching these extras. Attack of the Clones is a prime example. Now, I certainly wasn't under the impression that this was some kind of masterpiece originally. But after watching the featurettes where Lucas agonizes over minute, insignificant details of the CGI characters yet doesn't seem to give a shit about the awful acting and gaping plot holes, I found myself feeling more negative about the film!
CGI has its place but it's clear that Hulk suffered tremendously because clearly the technology isn't there yet. And filmakers, make those DVD extras something worthwhile for a change, please.
GMD
Re:Hulk, CGI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hulk, CGI, DVD "extras" (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno. I submit that maybe if the Hulk had moved like a real human it might have worked better. Consider, the 'hulk dogs' - did they look convincing to you?
Human brains have some highly refined hardware for recognizing and predicting human movement. (Humans have been way more likely to fight other humans than animals throughout our history.) We're not as finely tuned to pick up on, say, quadruped motion.
Now (faithfully to the comics, I'll note) the Hulk did some things which just aren't physically possible. Tossing tanks the way he did would require him to be absurdly dense and heavy, even if his muscles were made of diamond nanofibers. If he were that heavy, he couldn't bounce around the way he did at other times. Mass, inertia, and balance didn't add up.
The point is, I think people pick up on this much faster with an anthropomorphic character than with a dinosaur, or a dragon, or a CGI cat, or what-have-you. The close-up scenes of the Hulk's face worked quite well for me, actually. I think he looked much more realistic than the people in "Final Fantasy", and I don't think the effects guys need to hang their heads in shame. I believe the technology is more "there" than you do, but that there's no amount of technology that can make an utterly impossible movement look 'real'.
Aside from that, there were other real triumphs. The multi-panel scenes took some getting used to, but really worked most of the time. The bit where Talbot is walking away from Bruce as Betty looks on, and for a moment you can see all three of their faces, tells you all about their relationships in a couple seconds.
Some of the plot was, well, problematic. The dialogue could have used polishing in places. I agree that its flaws keep it from being one of the "best" movies of the year. But where it works, it works very well, and some of the problems with it have been very overblown.
Re:The Hulk (Score:5, Funny)
This was one of the best movies of its kind that I have seen since Akira Kurasawa's "Ran".
Surprises (Score:5, Insightful)
American Splendor
Re:Surprises (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Surprises (Score:4, Informative)
I dont think I ever respected Murray as an actor before - though I've thought him to be a fantastic comedian - but this movie showed that he actually had the ability to evoke complex emotion.
What, you've never seen Rushmore? Murray won several awards [imdb.com] for his performance in that wonderful film.
Re:Surprises (Score:3, Funny)
> First time I saw it, I had never laughed so hard.
> Now, when I watch it, it brings a tear to my eye.
Groundhog Day did this for me. "Don't drive angry!" heh Though, it's not so recent.
Re:Surprises (Score:3, Informative)
Go figure.
Re:Surprises (Score:4, Interesting)
And while Murray is pulling off the acting job of his career, Sophia Coppola earns a name for herself as a director by keeping the entire thing hanging together, and delivering an astonishing romance without sentiment. Johannsen does an excellent job paired with Murray. Of the movies I've seen this year, this one sticks with me the most.
Re:Surprises (Score:4, Interesting)
Sofia Coppola deserves an Oscar for the script, and a nomination for Best Director. I'm not so sure she deserves to win, though; there were some problems with the flow and pacing, and definitely some scenes that didn't need to be there. (For example, after the nth long sequence of Scarlett Johansson wandering around, I was thinking "We get the message, already.") On the other hand, the performance that she got from Bill Murray was just incredible, so it could go either way.
It will be a shame when Bill Murray doesn't win the Oscar, because his was literally the performance of a lifetime. I was overwhelmed. There were so many moments when he could have spilled over into being "that Bill Murray character", and didn't. He showed remarkable restraint that I didn't think he was capable of. He deserves the award. I doubt he'll get it.
pfftt (Score:4, Insightful)
poll... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:poll... (Score:3, Funny)
Hello, Mummy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bubba. Ho. Tep.
Re:Hello, Mummy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bubba Ho-Tep [bubbahotep.com] is the best damn film I've seen in a long time. An instant cult classic.
Basic plot: Elvis and a black JFK take on a 10,000 year old mummy from Egypt. It's also got a great explination for Elivs's life, times, and thoughts on fame.
See this movie. Hopefully it will make it to DVD sometime soon.
Hail to the King..Yeah Baby.. (Score:5, Interesting)
But Gigli and Kangaroo Jack takes the cake for the worst ones..
Re:Hail to the King..Yeah Baby.. (Score:5, Insightful)
But Gigli and Kangaroo Jack takes the cake for the worst ones..
Not exactly. Actually, according to the IMDB bottom 100 films [imdb.com] listing, From Justin to Kelly [imdb.com] (the American Idol movie) is the #1 hands-down worst movie of all time. AND IT DESERVES IT. cf. review [everything2.com] here or on IMDB. Or..wow.
I am proud to have fought hard to get low votes for that movie. It was like Mary Poppins without Mary (or popping); like The Sound of Music without any Sound or Music worth re-hearing; like Oklahoma! only set on a god-awful Florida beach.
That said, if you want something to laugh at and have a friend who was foolish enough to pay for a copy of this tripe and you have free time and want to stare off into space for a while, From Justin to Kelly is the movie for you.
Re:Hail to the King..Yeah Baby.. (Score:5, Funny)
That's it, I'm fed up with this air-of-mystery shit! What say you we all band together and boycott clicking on needlessly obscure url descriptors like "this gem"? We few, we proud, we slashdotters, we can resist the lure of enigmatic links!
Okay, I couldn't resist...it was "Air Bud Spikes Back."
Sigh, what a downer. Damn you cjsnell. Damn you and your low slashdot number to hell! I'm so depressed, I'll think I'll go watch Chasing Papi (See? How hard was that?) [imdb.com]. I like my bad movies with a little eye candy.
Piglets Big Movie (Score:3, Funny)
I mean it did.
Put that in the bad list please.
Thanks.
Re:Piglets Big Movie (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, he likes Kiki's Delivery Service a whole lot (but that wasn't 2003, so it doesn't count).
School of Rock (Score:5, Insightful)
Not an award winner, or even close, but still a lot better than I was anticipating.
Matt Fahrenbacher
Best I've seen (Score:3, Interesting)
Les Invasions Barbares (transl. to The Barbarian Invasions) was excellent.
I still haven't seen Lost in Translation. I hear it's great. 21 Grams seems really good too.
Pirates of the Carribean was surprisingly fun. A mix between The Princess Bride (but not as good story) and old computer game Monkey Island.
I can't think of anything else right now. Haven't seen RotK yet. Hopefully it'll be better than The Two Towers.
Two that I forgot (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Best I've seen (Score:5, Informative)
I went to see RoTK yesterday. Not knowing what sort of crowd to expect, my wife and I arrived 90 mins early for a 3:15 showing, and traded tickets for the 2:15 showing once we noticed (at 2 PM) that the 3:15 line was longer than the 2:15 line!
I was waiting for it to start, and remember some guy two rows behind me muttering about third movies sucking. "I hope it doesn't suck, because it's the third movie, and the third Matrix movie sucked. So this is probably going to suck." Heh heh, dumbass.
I liked the Two Towers more than FoTR, and I liked this even better. It has everything in it that made the Two Towers enjoyable, plus more stuff. I don't consider myself a Tolkien weenie, since I've only read the book once and that was ten years ago when I was in college. So I can sometimes remember something not being in the book, and it irks me when I see deviations from the book, but if they work in the movie then I don't care.
PRO:
CON:
Re:Best I've seen (Score:4, Insightful)
The battle scenes.
I disagree. I would place the opening of "Saving Private Ryan", the first Coliseum scene in "Gladiator", or the massacre in "Last of the Mohicans" well above this. I'm probably forgetting something too. I would also rank the final fight in "Fellowship" above all the fights in the trilogy. It's important to note that these are all done on a smaller scale (even "Ryan" focuses on a small piece of beach) and with much less CG work. The CG work was excellent in RotK, but my suspension of disbelief only goes so far. The "Fellowship" fight, on the other hand, looked brutal and realistic.
Shelob
I didn't think Jackson could make a giant spider frighten me after at least ten viewings of "Aliens". I was wrong. Major, major props.
The signal fire scene.
I agree, but I doubt this was undiluted New Zealand. . . Jackson said very plainly at one point that while NZ was ideal for them, they did some doctoring to get it to look just right. Personally, after repeated viewings I still can't quite tell what shots that aren't immediately obvious as CG are manipulated, and what are original, but I doubt the signal fire scene was all natural. Still, very impressive.
Legolas's required stunt scene
I'm sorry, but the horse mounting in Two Towers fucking rocked, even if every female in the audience simultaneously climaxed. What made it so cool was the whole slo-mo lead-in from Legolas shooting arrows, and that what happens next is totally unexpected. When I watch the movies I keep rewinding that part (no, I'm not gay): I think it's the most impressively directed/coreographed scene in the trilogy. Just eye candy, yes, and nothing to do with the books, but utterly effective.
On that note, I was disappointed that they left out the part of "Fellowship" where Legolas shoots down one of the winged steeds at night (from a boat!). None of the elf stunts in the movies seemed out of place because I remembered reading that, but I wish they'd left it in - it really establishes that Elves are bad motherfuckers.
Matrix (Score:3, Interesting)
It gets my award for best ever.
Re:another category (Score:4, Funny)
--Waitaminute... They STONED him just for clapping??? Now that's some harsh critics...
Oh. You meant something else, I guess.
nemo (Score:5, Insightful)
The matrixes were ok, but didn't live up to the hype the first one caused.
i personally though 28 days later was a good movie.
if it were a poll it has a missing option... (Score:4, Funny)
"What about all of us who don't go to the movies or buy dvds, etc. and practice what we preach you insensitive clod!"
I'd have to say (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I'd have to say (Score:3, Insightful)
For movies that were absolutely terrible I vote: "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" and "Anger Management" and "American Wedding" (I didn't bother finishing that even).
Pirates of the Caribbean (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pirates of the Caribbean (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pirates of the Caribbean (Score:4, Insightful)
And my god, Pirates of the Carribean 2 [imdb.com]???
Quentens masterpiece (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quentens masterpiece (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the complaints seem to stem from a general misunderstanding of QT's intentions and motivations for this film. The film's main motifs are ACTION and REVENGE. There is nothing particularly deep or difficult to comprehend in either of these themes. Action is Hollywood's favorite device. Revenge is something that is very close to the human heart. There is no need to really look for any meaning further than this. If you do you risk missing the simplicity of this film. (And then you may not like it.)
We complain about Hollywood films being too predicable and shallow, but there is something noble in QT's quest to make a movie DELIBERATELY simple. Action is its purpose, not a device. Its plot can be implied to: Injustice, then revenge. If poetry is minimalist communication, then well... far be it from me to say spring-loaded decapitations are poetic... but it looks like I just said it anyway.
To sum up, you are DEFINEATLY allowed to not like the very graphic nature of this film. I can respect that. But otherwise you may have missed the fact that this move is intentionally simple.
One of the years best for sure.
Re:Quentens masterpiece (Score:3, Insightful)
Kill Bill had...
for (time = 0; time length; time++){
if (time % 2 == 0){
scene.coolFightScene();
}
else{
scene.shock()
}
}
Nerd humor.
Re:Quentens masterpiece (Score:3, Interesting)
I think even with all its weirdness there were really just three things that ruined it for me. The dialog, and the lack of editing, and the silly pressurized bleeding. and the dramatic pauses every 2 seconds. so I guess that was four things.
If I heard uma say "wiggle your big toe" one more time, I think I might have killed someone.
Re:Quentens masterpiece (Score:4, Insightful)
Totally boring, totally stupid, totally a complete and utter waste of time.
How someone who could make a movie as incredibly good as Pulp Fiction could make a movie as incredibly bad as Kill Bill will remain one of the greatest mysteries of my lifetime.
Re:Quentens masterpiece (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything including the introduction " XYZ cinema presentation...... Our feature presentation
The action scenes were typically eastern, down to one (wo)man against a hundred scene . The excess of swords bit and lack of comedy was more Jetli'ish than Jackie Chan (and their hong kong movies not the hollywood ones).
Overall I think that this was the best "eastern-style" action movie ever to come out of hollywood.No bombs, no guns, no 30-wheel trucks being chased by helicopters. But then again, its an acquired taste and quentin probably was hanging out in hongkong for too long for his own good.
I also like the chapterwise progression, very much anime like. Also the background scores were great if you can follow it
Anyway there is a second part coming up, if you watch the first half of "Pulp Fiction" it would have been plain boring. Just let him get out the second part and pray it doesnt end up like matrix.
Wire-fu doesn't count as "realism" (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that Kill Bill was good. The fact that they didn't use any CGI made it significantly better, IMHO. Does anybody else feel like they're overdoing it with computer graphics in some movies??? Maybe I've just seen so many well done CGI scenes that the majority of computer aided action shots just seem lame to me.....
I'm a bit puzzled that you seem to be extolling the virtues of a wire-fu flick as a pinnacle of realism. It's been a damn long time since I've seen a believable martial arts film. The wire-fu stuff is getting as overused as CGI. Seriously, if you're in a fight you don't do 10 meter backflips over your opponents. Actually, I'm not sure anyone can do flips like that regardless of whether it makes good tactical sense or not. Yes, I'm aware the capoirera contains lots of flips and cartwheel-like motions but a lot of that is built into that particular martial art because it was developed by slaves who had to disguise their practice as a dance to avoid their masters cracking down on them.
When you do a flip you are basically expending a considerable amount of effort and energy to perform a complex maneuver that temporarily blinds you, leaves you vulnerable to your opponent, and doesn't really move your center of mass very far in the horizontal direction. It's just not a wise idea to go flipping around like crazy when people armed with weapons are trying to kill you. Best just to stand your ground and block or take a step back (or to the side).
Sometimes I wonder whether the reliance on wire techniques is an attempt by Hollywood to show something outside the everyday experience of the moviegoer in the abscence of any talented martial artists. In decades past, audiences could be wowed by the superior skill of someone who could actually do martial arts well. These days, it seems like directors are insisting that the actors try to do the fight scenes and then they use wire-fu to make up for the fact that these people really can't do very much. You don't see any Bruce Lee or Jet Li types who can move incredibly fast. Instead you get Keanu Reeves or Uma Thurman doing a backflip over 3 opponents in slow motion. That just doesn't really impress me and it certainly doesn't count as realistic fighting. Why can't they hire some competant martial arts to do something REAL and just use CGI or maybe even masks to make the stunt person look like the actor?
Ah well, just my two cents. I'm just getting a little annoyed by everyone gushing over these acrobatic shows as "awesome martial arts flicks".
GMD
My nomination (Score:5, Funny)
Very touchy and intellectual.
I cried all night.
"In Slashdot's opinion..." (Score:5, Funny)
28 Days Later - best horror movie in years (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch this movie and realize that you can do sci-fi and horror without relying on the crutch of CGI effects.
Re:28 Days Later - best horror movie in years (Score:4, Funny)
The worst movie? That's an easy one. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The worst movie? That's an easy one. (Score:4, Funny)
new concept (Score:5, Funny)
Bad Santa (Score:4, Insightful)
A truly hilarious film. There was some controversy that people might have confused it for a lighter Christmas parody, but it was an excellent dark farce.
Best quote from Billy Bob Thorton, while in a Santa suit, while having anal sex with a woman: "You're not going to shit right for a week."
The Ring (Score:5, Interesting)
At first it looks like a juvenile cross between "Conspiracy Theory" and "The Net", but then it shifts gears and scares the living shit out of you.
I'm still freaked (can you tell?), and I only saw it once.
Re:The Ring (Score:3, Insightful)
Not many movies get me on the edge of my seat, but The Ring did just that.
I was pondering not seeing it, as I thought it'd be a standard 'blood and guts' horror, which I find both boring, and irritating.
It's anything but. True psychological horror.
Re:The Ring (Score:5, Insightful)
However I agree, this was an EXCELLENT horror film. I think 28 Days Later might edge it out, but as far as pure FEAR, this one is much scarier.
I'm trying to get a friend of mine to come over and watch it with me. Of course, in my opinion, if you want to watch it, you have to rent a VHS tape, NOT a DVD. You'd have to see it to know what I'm talking about.
Then in your pocket, have your cell phone (in silent mode) pre-dialed to your friend's cell... after the movie, push the "Send" button as you walk up to the VCR to push rewind or get the tape. Sure to ruin a perfectly good pair of pants.
Mark
Re:The Ring (Score:4, Interesting)
In a word, The Ring kicked my ass. Let me just say I watched it with the lights on.
Re:The Ring - japanese version is better (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all "Ringu", the Japanese version, doesn't have the double meaning that "The Ring" has. In "The Ring" , the 'ring' is both the the telephone ring and also the halo of light that the girl saw as the lid was covered over the well. This is not the case in "Ringu".
As another poster has already pointed out, "Ringu" was a bit more fantasy oriented with the girl, as well as others, being psychic. However, in "The Ring", the girl had demonic origins - her parents weren't supposed to be able to have children, but they went overseas and came back with one.
Secondly, "Ringu" was indeed a lower budget film. When the people died from the psychic girl, they were left with a grimace on their face. Where as when the demonic girl from "Ringu" killed someone, their body was left as if they had died and rotted in the well. This is a big step in not only special effects but the motivation of the killers. "The Ring" just tries to be more horrific than "Ringu" in every way that it can. But it doesn't give you an overdose of special effects - I don't think there has been such clever editing in a horror movie since the first big Dracula movie.
There are many other small details, but the difference that stuck out the most in my mind was this: At the end of the movie when the boy says "You FREED her? You weren't supposed to free her." It is such an incredible twist and it leaves you with a terrible feeling in your belly. Nothing like that happens in "Ringu".
In conclusion, it is very apparent that the American filmakers took great effort in making "The Ring" as much of an improvement as they could. But I still say that "Ringu" is worth watching, there are many details in the story that you can only get from the Japanese version - though the story lines aren't exactly the same.
Terminator 3 - ick (Score:5, Funny)
T2: "Hasta la vista, baby!"
T3: "Talk to the hand."
eww. I feel dirty just thinking about that film.
ROTK BAD. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:ROTK BAD. (Score:5, Funny)
Would that be Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil...?
Re:ROTK BAD. (Score:3, Interesting)
Kill Bill Volume 1++ (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? Because of the fighting. I'm not really into violent movies or the whole escapism thing, but seeing Uma Thurmann kick some major ass was almost sexual. A nice pastiche of the last 50 years of kung-fu cinema.
I had huge hopes for 2003 (Score:5, Insightful)
"You bow to no one..."
Worst.... Movie.... Ever.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Kangaroo Jack [rottentomatoes.com]
Best movie? Pirates of the Carabian was good, I haven't watched Seabiscuit yet (I've got it on DVD near me right now), I liked X-2, and I thought that The Matrix: Reloaded was entertaining, Nemo was fantastic, I loved A Mighty Wind, and those are the only 2k3 movies that I've seen (that I can think of) as I only watch DVDs.
Does Chicago count? It came out Dec 25th of last year, so that's within the last year (not last calender year though).
Dogville (Score:3, Interesting)
X-men 2 - I cried when I saw Nightcrawler (Score:5, Interesting)
I literally shed tears when I saw the way they did Nightcrawler... it was perfect. The attack at the beginning of the movie was perfect... I just wish that I hadn't seen the previews so that I would have been completely caught offguard.
The portrayal especially his religiousness was amazing.
The only minor problems that I overlooked:
1) He wasn't fuzzy (ie. Fuzzy Elf)
2) In the attack scene, he was clearly teleporting behind walls and such, something that he wouldn't be able to do properly. The only reason that I could think of that he would do that was because he was under the mind control and that forced him to do crazy things.
Bad Santa (Score:5, Insightful)
LotR: RotK was second in my book. I'm a geek who reads the book every year. Yet somehow I don't hold the book or its author up as holy items beyond reproach or critique. Peter Jackson has done a marvelous, magnificent thing with these three movies and I hope he wins some awards this year (best director, screenplay, and/or movie) from the big shows like Oscar and Globe. I find the nitpicks humorous and interesting as pieces of trivia, but feel sad about and pity towards those who get up in a bunch about minor inconsistencies, mistakes, and additions/omissions in such a masterpiece.
My guilty pleasure this year was The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It was much better than all the reviews led me to believe. I actually enjoyed it more than X2 by a large margin. It was a fun action movie with really cool steam-punk technology and "magical" mythical heroes. What's not to like?
My biggest disappointments were the Matrix sequals. WTF happened? Jackson did it right and the Wachowskis did not. My personal theory is that if the Wachowskis had been given the opporunity to shoot the three all at once The Matrix would be held up as a peer to LotR. The huge delay between The Matrix and Reloaded caused all kinds of subtle problems and gave the brothers too much time to think about the screenplay. Sometimes less is more.
My happiest moment was when I discovered how to rip DVDs I rent to my hard disk. Then I burn those rips onto SVCDs to pass around to my friends as cheap Christmas presents.
God bless us, every pirate!
Re: Bad Santa (Score:4, Funny)
> My guilty pleasure this year was The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It was much better than all the reviews led me to believe. I actually enjoyed it more than X2 by a large margin. It was a fun action movie with really cool steam-punk technology and "magical" mythical heroes. What's not to like?
A more formulaic movie was never made.
The Matrix v. LOTR (Score:5, Interesting)
The Triplets of Belleville. (Score:5, Insightful)
French animated feature, very bizarre and entertaining. Lots more fun to look at than any American feature cartoon in recent memory. It reminded me why I got into animation in the first place.
28 Days Later (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously though, it was the best horror/sci fi movie that I have seen in at least a decade.
The night that I saw it, I stopped to pee outside in a wooded area and every time I heard ANY sound I would spin around to make sure that it wasn't an infected coming for me.
No movie has made me get up and check to make sure my doors were locked like 28 Days Later.
I've seen more movies this year than I did since I was about 9, and there have been some real Gems. Like X2 & Underworld, but 28 Days Later really spoke to me.
The Last Samurai: GOOD! (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact... it's the first movie I've seen in a long time that pulled the romance theme without a down-and-dirty-sheets moment. Imagine that.
It also reminded me of Shogun... for any that remember the old miniseries (recently re-released on DVD) with Richard Chamberlain as a European naval pilot stranded in Japan. Could just be that Cruise resembled Blackthorne in this one, but man the guy had style! In fact... not normally being much of a Cruise fan myself, I'd recommend this movie all the movie because he really did do a good job of it.
Winner, Loser, Disappointment... (Score:3, Interesting)
Like every year, there were so many losers it is hard to pick, but Timeline gets the nod for the same reason LOTR did - how they handled a book I had read. I really liked Timeline when I read it about 4 years ago, but the hollywood hacks (no artists involved) thought all that boring history stuff would just get in the way of the big yellow fireballs. They seem to say "The book you read didn't have enough explosions, we know you'd rather have explosions than any respect for the story."
Since it inevitably came up - The Matrix finale was a disappointment, but not anywhere near the worst of the year. Seeing it in IMAX made the explosions and big yellow fireballs kind of mesmerising...
Sorry, not a very geeky list (Score:5, Interesting)
10). School of Rock [imdb.com] (7.7)
9). Kill Bill [imdb.com] (8.2)
8). Mystic River [imdb.com] (8.1)
7). 21 Grams [imdb.com] (7.9)
6). Elephant [imdb.com] (7.6)
5). Talk to Her [imdb.com] (8.2)
4). American Splendor [imdb.com] (8.1)
3). Gerry [imdb.com] (6.2)
2). Spellbound [imdb.com] (8.5)
1). Lost in Translation [imdb.com] (8.2)
A few movies that I've heard good things about that haven't reached us yet in Boston that may end up displacing some of the above are:
- House of Sand and Fog [imdb.com] (?)
- Girl with the Pearl Earring [imdb.com] (7.2)
- Japanese Story [imdb.com] (6.5)
- The Triplets of Belleville [imdb.com] (7.2)
Movies that I can't fathom why everyone liked:
3). Better Luck Tomorrow [imdb.com] (7.6)
2). Swimming Pool [imdb.com] (7.1) (I didn't understand this movie until about a week after seeing it, so maybe it is good and I'm just an idiot).
1). Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World [imdb.com] (7.5)
KILL BILL (Score:5, Interesting)
And you have to give QT props for dressing Uma up like Bruce for half the movie!
A Great Flick You Probably Missed... (Score:3, Funny)
What film am I talking about? You'll just have to see for yourself! [imdb.com].
Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why was everybody turned off by the philosophy and world building in Reloaded/Revolutions? I thought that was the best thing about the movies. Forget the fight sequences, I want more thought, more detail, more technology.
The ONLY thing that disappointed me (on an intellectual basis. On an emotional basis it made me giddy) about Revolutions, is that now after seeing the ending, and looking back on it, the story was actually written as a homage to the Final Fantasy series.
Nothing-hero is the chosen one to take command and lead the battle against multiple enemies, only to join forces with one, to fight against an even greater threat to them both.
Then take the music during the battle between Smith/Neo, and the music during the final credits (the underbeat is the same as the Boss music from FF9).
Too easy.
But still a great movie.
Why don't people get giddy about detail like I do?
A bad year except for.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lilja 4-Ever - Harrowing and one of the few movies to make me cry
28 Days Later - Brilliant low budget horror
Terminator 3 - A sequel that lived up to its predecessors
The Return Of The King - The entire trilogy is a masterpiece of modern cinema
As for the rest.... well I was severely disappointed by the Matrix sequels more than anything else. Those who respond that I "just don't get it" are missing the fact that while the IDEAS were sound, the EXECUTION left everything to be desired. A movie needs STORY, PLOT and AUDIENCE EMPATHY to be successful, not just eye candy, which while great doesn't keep you coming back over and over again.
Let's hope there's better fare in 2004.
the length of films (Score:4, Insightful)
At any rate, I'm not sure if I like it or dislike it. Part of me enjoys being able to have 3 hours of film to properly tell a story; another part of me thinks that they intentionally pad the films to make them longer (as with LotR and the overly-emotional and excessive dialog at times); yet a third part of me wonders, "Where's the goddamn intermission, I've got to piss!" - they did have intermissions back in the day for really long films. Why not now? It's painful to sit there with a full bladder, but more often than not, it's preferable to missing 5+ minutes of a film you paid $7+ to see (more if you're on a date).
Re:Most overrated... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was rated very poorly by nearly every crit...
Oh.
Re:The Matrix (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Matrix (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think they were great.
There was a lot of philosophy going on in the background, and a lot to chew over, and debate what you through really was going on.
Not many movies these days play on consequence (to whit, setting off EMP pulse in the docking bay), or the fine line in some battles (the docking bay battle swung back and forth so many times, it made gripping viewing).
I can see there'd be quite a few people for who this Matrix 2 & 3 wasn't quite their cup of tea..
Same as Final Fantasy wasn't everyone's idea of a good movie..
Personally, I loved 'em.
But, as is the nature of art, it wasn't made to please everyone. Perhaps it didn't, but I've got the feeling it'll fit in that cult niche for a goodly many years to come.
But, like I said. Purely subjective.
Re:The Matrix (Score:4, Insightful)
How soon they forget Battlefield Earth.
Re:The Matrix (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen a whole lot worse in sci-fi. Remember disney's black hole?
Re:The Matrix (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Matrix (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Matrix (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Matrix (Score:5, Interesting)
> questions as to what was going on, and why Neo
> was able to stop the sentinels. I have various
> ideas about that, most of which involved Neo not
> actually returning to the same Matrix (or "real
> world") he had come from. It also seemed possible
> that even the original "real world" wasn't really
> the real world, but in fact another Matrix.
My god Eric! I thought *EXACTLY* the same thing! I was still wondering if they were going to do the matrix within a matrix thing when NEO was able to see things in Red instead of Green. I just figured that the Red was him seeing the real matrix instead of the Green matrix within a matrix. When NEO stopped those sentinels in the fake real world, I could ONLY assume it was another layer of matrix. Remember when they said there was an original matrix? I figured that this original matrix was the one where NEO saw things in Red.
I *STILL* think they could reopen the storyline using this premise. Maybe go deeper into prequel with Creation of the Matrix or further into the storyline with NEO reawakening in the Real World and remembering he's a programmer or something. Maybe everyone in the matrix is a vegetable in the Real World - people who's only means of communication and life are only possible within the matrix. There is still much material that could be developed.
Re:The Matrix (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ug.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've not read the LOTR books, and the movies have made me want to, but I don't feel they stand strongly on their own. Large format animated picture accessories to the books, but not on their own.
Re:Ug.. (Score:5, Interesting)
a) the books are simply amazing, probably one of the best pieces of literature written in the 20th century.
b) the movies are are very entertaining, with some of the CG i've ever seen.
c) anyone who has seen the movies before reading the books has missed out on a truely great experience.
The movies I think are an excellent suppliment / add-on to the books. If you see the movie before you read the books, the books then become tainted, and you start seeing all the characters as they are portrayed in the movies. You also start to compare the movie to the book, instead of the more accurately book to movie view.
In closing, TLOTR:TROTK is one of the best movies created this year. I'm just depressed for all the poor people who haven't read the books first.
Re:Ug.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I personally have always had a hard time with books with a ton of characters. It's difficult for me to 'imagine' the appearances of a lot of different people. I tried on two separate occassions to get through the LOTR books and couldn't do it. After having seen the first two movies I sat down and read through them all and it was much easier because now I knew what the various characters looked like and it was much easier to keep track of who is who.
No way. Watch first, read later. (Score:4, Interesting)
I love the LotR book trilogy, but when watching RotK I honestly wished for a few seconds that I hadn't read the books... that all the explanations, twists and developments could have been new and surprising. Instead while I enjoyed it greatly I also caught myself thinking "Sam never put on the ring!" and "Why aren't Merry and Pippin taller from the Ent-draughts?" and "What about replanting the Shire?"
My experience with Harry Potter solidified my watch-first belief... I watched the first movie and loved it, so much so that I went out and bought the first four books (which I had been avoiding for that absurdly stupid geek reasoning "They're popular and thus must be evil."). Then I watched the second move (after reading the book) and had that same nitpicking experience. "Why is Harry falling out of the car? He never fell out of the car! That's gratuitous nonsense!"
Re:Ug.. (Score:4, Informative)
LOTR:ROTK and the rest of the series were in a rather tight bind, they had to respect the books enough(and the most-sold ever set of books of fiction in english literature kinda deserves a little). They also had to fit 5 books(in three volumes) into a three-movie set(and cut enough stuff to make it fit in the time constraints). They managed to alienate the true purists by cutting essential scenes from the movies, yet make it a wide-audience series that generated wide interest.
The cutting out of Tom Bombadil, for one example, was a perfect example of mass-marketing(it would helped to understand the world of Tolkien better, the mythology, and the role the Ring had with regards to the powers that be). It didn't include a fight scene, and the potential for special effects was minimal, so it was cut. The equivalent part with Galadriel, which served the same purpose, but to understand the relationship between the Elves' head honchos and the ring, didn't include a fight scene, but had more special effects/pizazz potential, was kept. I imagine that Saruman's invasion of The Shire(my term for it) was cut because it was hard getting that many male hobbits in uniform as to compose two opposing army units.
As for the books not standing out on their own, you're kinda missing the point... The books already are a hit, the idea is to translate the books into visual medium, for a different audience(how many people do you know would buy, then read a set of 3 800 page volumes? ), not make a related, but different product.
Re:Best: LOTR/Matrix. Worst: LOTR/Matrix (Score:5, Funny)
And what's wrong with that?
Re:X-Men2 surprise, matrix revolutions (Score:5, Funny)
Good Lord man, the reason they got away with Keanu Reeves in the first movie is because all he really had to do in that one was act confused the whole time. They ran into trouble when they actually tried to get him to act in the second and third films.
Re:I can't even remember what films I saw this yea (Score:3, Informative)