2002 Film List - Page 8

Monsoon Wedding - A modernist picture of India with moments of pleasure and moving emotion, but too much of it's energy is expended telling 6 ok stories instead of 2 good ones. Especially troubling is the revelation of a molestation subplot with maybe 20m to go in the movie, resolving it, and then everyone's happy again. C+

The Pianist - I would have to agree with Seth and Jason. I understand narrative distance, it is something achieved to stunning effect in Terrence Malick's Days Of Heaven, but here the distancing drains the immediacy from the narrative. Instead of engaging me as a viewer, I only became more detached. As the film moves forward and the isolation increases, I grew only less interested.

There are moments of engagement, of the film rising to something more, as during the performance for the Nazi commander with a shaft of blue light turning the scene into grand melodrama. But these happenings are too few, too often the film is structured as simply moments of personal danger and tension, then make it worse, than release tension, rinse and repeat. This is a tried and true forumala in stories with strong characters, but our protagonist is virtually a blank slate.

Much like a short film I recently saw on Jewish concentration camp police, Shadows, a historical film has to have more than history to engage. I know the events well, I've read about them, seen them in many other films and TV shows. My mind was left to ponder other things, the structure, the distractingly poor digital matte paintings, and worst of all the manipulation of history with regards to the Russians, here shown as liberators and protectors. Is there a single word about the Russian invasion of Poland? The secret agreement with the Nazis to divide Polish territory? The slaughter of the Polish officer corps? The deportation of Poles to Soviet work camps? The establishment of a Jewish sector in Siberian wasteland? Systematic gang rapes of women by Soviet troops? Curious that Polanski would break out the kid gloves here.

This came out as more of a slam than I wanted it to be, but like I said, my mind was wondering
C+

Aren't you expecting too much from this movie? It seems you set it's ambitions higher than it did! This film deals with the german occupation of Poland see through the eyes of Spielman, a Jew. It's a Holocaust movie. When the Russians arrived, it was indeed liberation for Poland, in the eyes of Spielman, at that time. Then the movie stopped, as it had accomplished what it set out to do.

--
Holadem

Holadem, several of the events I mentioned took place in 1939. Spielman and his family are hearing about events related to the war and receiving newspapers and underground information. The division of Poland by the Nazis and Soviets would have been known to everyone in Poland. Things like that are quibbles, sure, but in truly great movies, I don't find myself having the time to think about and ask those questions because I'm immersed in the film.

Sure, it's asking a lot from an everyday movie, but this is a Palme D'Or winner directed by Roman Polanski and one reviewers here and some in the media have called great. A little more moral grey area could have benefited it and would have further illustrated the great tragedy of the Polish people as the Nazi nightmare gave way to a much longer Communist subjugation. Unfortunately geography left Poland with no friends.

I wish I'd said that.

Updated my list with Gangs of New York - 8/10, #7 of 2002

Going into the movie, I have to admit I did not expect all that much. I had heard that Daniel Day-Lewis was great and that the rest of the film really wasn't up to that level. After having seen it, I guess I can say that it was better than I expected but not great. DDL definitely was great in this performance. I had worries that he would be over-the-top but he didn't come across that way to me at all. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie was rather...basic. The romance did not have any real spark for me, the betrayal was predictable, and every time Bill wasn't on-screen I was waiting for him to come back.

Do I take issue with the nominations this has received? Not really. I don't think it is an undeserving film, though I don't think it should (or will) win Best Picture. It will win at least a couple awards though.

Updated with The Salton Sea (Grade = C).

Cannes, BAFTA, The Cesar and Goya Awards and the National Society of Film Critics do not appear to have this "distancing" problem others are experiencing here with The Pianist.

~Edwin

Edwin, it's just our opinion - what we felt while watching the film. I know it's won a truckload of awards, but while it may have impressed voters, I'm not convinced it's a better film than Russian Ark, Talk To Her, Punch-Drunk Love, or Far From Heaven, etc. As we all know, awards rarely go to the most deserving film.

Though he's a bit more positive on the film than I am, read J. Hoberman's review in The Village Voice (accessible through IMDB.com) as he has really captured my feelings on the 2nd part of the film.

Another historical event that could have been related in one or two lines of dialogue was that the Soviets halted their advance outside of Warsaw during the 2nd uprising and waited several weeks for the Jews to be slaughtered and the Ghetto annihilated before continuing their advance and taking the city.

Brook, that's fine. I was just making an observation. For what its worth, I did make a comment in the review thread that the main protagonist's passiveness might just be a problem with some audiences.

~Edwin

.

Actually I don't think that's illogical or mutually exclusive Arman.

While I may not agree after the fact that the film should have won the Palme D' Or, etc, The fact that it did, is directed by Polanski, and has garnered some excellent reviews, does impact my expectations before I see the film and my evaluation of it. Certainly I had higher expectations for The Pianist than I did Austin Powers III.

Guess I should have dug up the Pianist discussion thread rather than highjacking this one. Sorry. :b

Of course the main reason I said "I wish I'd said that" was because it was a phrase that got the heart of my feelings on the film in just a few words. I just thought it was well-said, no matter if the opinion was positive or negative.

Edwin, are you saying that a win means that the "distancing" effect was not there, so that a loss means that the problem possibly did exist? So the Foreign Press kept it from winning because of this issue?

I don't think wins or non-wins necessarily exclude a film from containing some aspect. In fact I have heard the film PRAISED for the cold distance it keeps from the subject, in the sense that it doesn't play for emotional reactions directly. It could be that quite a lot of people see this "removed" quality in the film but that only some of them see this as a negative, and many others might see it as a very small negative. Therefore Brook and I could easily be "correct" in noting this aspect even while the film gains critical acclaim and awards.

The key for Brook and I (along with a few others) is that we found this aspect troubling, not just that we noticed it. Had we loved the film despite or because of this aspect then this would be moot point of discussion it appears. Again, as it stands I still have the film as an 8 of 10. It just doesn't click for me as a top 10 film, but it lingers near my top 30 (and its only that far down because of such a fine crop of films from every style and genre this year).

Added Lilo and Stitch with a 7.5. I gave Ice Age a 7 for comparison. I found most of L&S to be a load of fun and I really enjoyed the characters, much more than I had expected.

Added The Pianist. I ended up appreciating the film much more than I expected. Not perfect, but pretty close. A 4.5/5 and #9 on my Top Ten.

Also updated with Road to Perdition.

That film also has the benefit of pushing my list to 35 films seen for 2002, meeting the requirements.

Go me.

RtP was a 8.5/10. Absolutely beautiful to look at.

Take care,
Chuck

Updated with Shekhar Kapur's (Elizabeth) The Four Feathers - a film of epic proportions mired, among other things, by its lack believability and sincerity including a sudden appearance of a "guardian angel", which not only feels displaced but also dishonest in its intentions.

While its story would like to instill honor, valor and redemption, the film is anything but that.

~Edwin

Updated my list with:

Igby Goes Down (***1/2 / ****)

A surprisingly fantastic movie with a great cast and acting, and a wonderful script. It shoots up to the #9 spot on my top 10 list.


Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams (*** / ****)

While not as good as the first, it's still a solid piece of imaganitive, breezy entertainment.

Lowell

Updated with Jay Russell’s Tuck Everlasting – a well-meaning film populated by veteran actors in supporting roles including Sissy Spacek, William Hurt and Ben Kingsley. It’s too bad though that Russell does not give these actors anything worthwhile to work with. In the end, they function more like box office bait.

In the end, Tuck Everlasting is another harmless little film from Disney that takes very little chances, which is not at all that surprising considering its source material. Still, its wholesome entertainment for the entire family.

~Edwin

Updated with We Were Soldiers, a good Vietnam movie that I think achieves what it sets out to do. It indulges itself a bit and I wish it had kept the deleted scene where Gibson's Colonel talks with General Westmoreland and McNamara about the fruitlessness of fighting the Vietnamese. But I especially like that it showed the fighting abilities and skill of the Vietnamese forces, and really showed the American combat philosophy of combined arms fire power application in a very understandable way.

B

Updated with Michael Caton-Jones' City By The Sea - a family drama that is fairly average all the way around.

~Edwin

Updated with a classic example of good comedy vs. bad comedy.

Mr. Deeds (** / ****)

Bad comedy. Man, Adam Sandler is on a massive downward spiral with his mainstream flicks. With this, and the awful looking Eight Crazy Nights, hopefully Anger Management is a throwback to good Sandler movies like Happy Gilmore.

Undercover Brother (*** / ****)

Good comedy. Funny and smart, just an all-around good way to spend an hour and a half. Solid.

Lowell

Igby Goes Down
8.5 of 10
The one danger this film flirts with is the concept of characters being too literate and too well-learned for their background. However, a good script, like this one, is able to make those characters so compelling that it doesn't matter. The script also flirts with being too sarcastic, a product of the 90's/00's. But Igby is allowed enough humanity to make us feel for him in the end. I can understand some audiences feeling distanced from these rich, aloof characters who act as though they have more problems than money, but I think it still makes for an interesting viewing. The dynamics between them made it a vibrant viewing for me. Just outside my top 30 in the Panic Room/The Good Girl range.

Full Frontal
7.5 of 10
Well, I liked the film everyone hated. I won't try to convince others that they were wrong, I can only state what I got out of the film. I thought, first and foremost, that Soderbergh was exploring the boundries of reality in film. What is the audience willing to accept as "truth" and why? That is a major theme within the film, including an ending shot from "reality" that sabotages that reality by pulling out to reveal that even this is simply being shot on a set with actors. Before that point the "reality" had been based on the digital video work which was contrasted with the 35mm stuff.

He also is exploring the methods in filmmaking and what those ideas bring to the process. I thought such notions came through clearly in the film (such as Pierce's character writing his "Dracula" neighbor into the screenplay, as we see it acted in the fake film within the film).

Yes, the rhythms of unscripted dialog and the use of digital video can give the film a slightly boring, chatty, arthouse feeling but honestly while this aspect kept the film from excelling it certainly wasn't outside the norm for such styles (just see Center of the World as one of many examples of the exact same style).

In the end the film's strongest point is to force the audience to reflect on how they see reality. Watching the extras confirmed that Soderbergh had such a goal.

Also, a thumbs up on the cool use of a Limey cameo, which further added to the "what is reality" line blurring. Stamp is in the film as his Limey character, though as a backdrop for a different film being done, so that his cameo is like a cameo within the fake film, or a reality within the fake film.

Maybe this is like Solaris in that I just walked away from the film with a lot more than other people did. I think it's great that Soderbergh went to this minimalist approach as a karmic reaction to his Ocean's 11 effort. To me Soderbergh is the most interesting, dynamic filmmaker today. He is showing incredible range and a willingness to pursue it.

I watched Soderbergh's Full Frontal tonight and enjoyed the heck out of it. Whether or not he accomplished whatever filmmaking goals he set for himself and his film within film within film concept, I didn't think too much about; I was too busy laughing and enjoying the performances - Nicky Katt's Hitler, David Hyde Pierce for once really acting instead of doing his Frasier shtick, David Duchovney's "stand-up", Catherine Keener showing a little soft side to her usual uber-bitch. The Blair Underwood-Julia Roberts scenes didn't work as well for me, particularly the more overt movie-within movie stuff but on the whole, I'd much rather watch this again over Oceans 11 or Traffic. B

The film is probably deeper than I give it credit for. When I see it again I'll look for the things Seth points out in his review, I just wasn't in the state of mind to get that deep into the film, it's been a bad week at work.

I have The Good Girl and Moonlight Mile on the way.

Updated with Secretary. Yeah, it took me six months to be in the right mood and neighborhood to see it. Cute movie.

Russian Ark
8.5 of 10
I guess I will put most of my discussion about this film in the arthouse/foreign film thread (2003). In short this is not a film for those people that are uncomfortable with non-narrative film. There is a vague story or process running underneath, but characters and behavior are constantly changing from moment to moment and much of what you see is sybolism or metaphor. It is best described as a cinema version of a poem, a poem celebrating Russian culture and art, specifically centered around the Hermitage.

Had I been more familiar with some of the Russian themes (as well as the language) then this rating might have been higher. This film also is a landmark in being the first true no-cuts film. It is one continuous shot and the effort in that respect is nothing short of amazing.

Updated with:

Kissing Jessica Stein (*** / ****)

and,

The Ring (*** / ****)

Lowell

Updated with The Quiet American (10/10), the best Philip Noyce film of the year. And that's saying something since the other Noyce film is the excellent Rabbit-Proof Fence!

This movie immediately sucked me from the opening shot of the peaceful river in Saigon at night, with the sounds of the war barely present in the distance. Michael Caine's narration sets the stage here, and Craig Armstrong's evocative score wraps up the package. This is a brilliant, mood-setting opening scene, and the film lives up to it until the very end.

Caine's world-weary yet lovestruck British journalist is the focus of the film, and this is possibly the finest work in the actor's storied career. He gets fine support from Brendon Fraser (yes, THAT Brendon Fraser) and the largely Vietnamese cast.

TQA has been trickling slowly onto screens, and I fear given the current political climate and the film's questioning of American involvement overseas (however well-intentioned) it's probably not going to go much wider. See it if you can, for it is truly one of the best films of 2002.