Feb. 4, 2004, 8:17 a.m. CST
I can feel your joy... Very emphatic indeed! Hail Arrius
Feb. 4, 2004, 8:19 a.m. CST
by Aragorn II
could you please stop letting your mouth write checks your typing fingers can't cash.
Feb. 4, 2004, 8:34 a.m. CST
And you're dead on the money with RETURN OF THE KING. Loved it beyond the telling of it, but it was the first film of the trilogy where I thought the editing was a disappointing betrayal of the story's needs, and the characters'. Denethor's storyline didn't bother me too much, but Faramir got cheated completely, as did Eowyn in the end. Plus, here's something profoundly BAD about the movie: we see the Eagles attack and wipe out the Flying Nazgul -- something that did NOT happen in the books (the wraiths simply plunged to Earth and died). If the Eagles could take on Sauron's most fearsome airborne warriors, why didn't they simply send in a phalanx at the start, bearing Frodo and the Ring and sparing all of Middle Earth its most ghastly period of bloodshed?!?!?!?! A wee glitch, but one that bugged the crap out of me the way 40,000 other minor changes appear to have bugged some ardent Tolkienphiles. Anyway, thanks for the list -- suffice to say we're a bit behind the times down here in Bama, but all those are going to the top of the Netflix list! ;)
Feb. 4, 2004, 8:37 a.m. CST
he used to be one of the strong points to this place. unfortunately his head has swelled and his perspective has gone to shit, along with the stuff he puts up here now. i think it started with the gushing Daredevil review. the beginning of the end of Mory's credibility. the more time goes by the less in touch he has become with "the people" as his ego has grown by leaps and bounds, to the point now where he stoops to putting up some pics of his dvd racks, as if we give a shit. gee, maybe he could show us pictures of his matchbox collection too so we can all say, "oohhh, aaahhh". it is friggin February and he just now submits a top ten of 3003 list??? what happened to the one column a week promise? yep, he is assimilating to being a part of the movie industry; say what you think will make you look good, make all sorts of promises, but don't worry abuot actually backing them up. just another self-obsessed bullshitter with glory and $signs in his eyes.
Feb. 4, 2004, 8:40 a.m. CST
And they certainly do show up in the books, definitely sort of a cop-out on Tolkien's part.
Feb. 4, 2004, 8:54 a.m. CST
This is already released in Ireland and Britan. Whats the crack with that? Qual film though. Definately deserves to get an oscar or two.
Feb. 4, 2004, 9:18 a.m. CST
Haven't seen In My Skin yet, but this was one of the better lists of the year, as was to be expected of you. Any best of 2003 list excluding either City of God or Irreversible is immediately made irrelevant. Surprised not to see any documentaries on it this year, e.g. Etre et Avoir or Capturing the Friedmans. Still, great list.
Feb. 4, 2004, 9:22 a.m. CST
Yay! Someone had the right eyes to put this on a top 10 list; kudos Mori! I haven't seen "Les Triplettes..." so I don't know what to say. Oh yeah, props for "Kill Bill" as well; you were spot on in regard to the naysayers (their friggin' loss.) Bring on "Club Dread" baby! It's gonna be a great summer! Out.
Feb. 4, 2004, 9:38 a.m. CST
In LOTR, if the eagles would have tried to bring Frodo in Mordor, they would have been killed instantly by the thousands of orcs who were waiting there. The goal here was to bring them all out of Mordor to free a passage for Frodo and Sam. Otherwise, they would have been seen and killed instantly. The fight going on at the gate of Mordor was done so that the eye of Sauron would be looking outside of his own territory. It all makes sense...
Feb. 4, 2004, 10:29 a.m. CST
by Nice Marmot
Can't wait!!!! I still can't believe how bad the trailer for Super Troopers was & that I ended up ever checking it out on video. But I did & to my surprise, I loved it! It's my newest guilty pleasure. Now there's an equally shitty trailer out for Club Dread but because of S.T. I'm checking C.D. out in theaters.
Feb. 4, 2004, 10:30 a.m. CST
It was here....but now it is gone. Surely it cannot be because I dropped an F-bomb in the post?
Feb. 4, 2004, 10:34 a.m. CST
So quit yer whining.
Feb. 4, 2004, 10:43 a.m. CST
The Eagles can only help out a little, they are servants of the major diety. The last time God intervened to save the world more than half the landmass was destroyed (everything west of the Shire, end of the 1st age, The Silmarillion). That is why minor dieties such as Gandolf were only allowed to return in the form of old men - so as to limit their influence and power. The choices of the peoples of middle earth are what must ultimatly decide the fate of them all.
Feb. 4, 2004, 10:54 a.m. CST
City of God was supposed to come out on video sometime in the mext two or three weeks, but we've just recieved word that it will now be delayed, possibly until June... GREAT FILM though
Feb. 4, 2004, 11:07 a.m. CST
by Lance Rock
Feb. 4, 2004, 11:26 a.m. CST
probably isnt true. Somebody asked Ebert what the deal was with that... Q. In an interview with Salon.com, "Irreversible" director Gaspar Noe mentioned that the scene in the gay nightclub included a sound track that consisted of "27 Hz of infrasound--a low frequency sound which the police use to quell riots." Did you notice such an effect when you watched that segment? What are your thoughts on the practicality of putting such a difficult sound in the movie? Gautham Thomas, Berkeley, Calif. A. Noe told Salon's Jean Tang: "...we added 27 Hz of infrasound...You can't hear it, but it makes you shake. In a good theater with a subwoofer, you may be more scared by the sound than by what's happening on the screen. A lot of people can take the images but not the sound. Those reactions are physical." I asked an expert about this. David Bondelevich is lecturer on cinema sound at the University of Southern California. He tells me: "I haven't seen the film, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. Infrasonic sound is below the normally audible frequency range, which would be below 20 Hz. There has been research showing that 12 Hz can make you nauseated if played at very high levels. Based on this theory, police are investigating the possibility of creating weapons similar to the ones used in "Minority Report." (Fringe elements insist they are already in use.) However, theatrical sound systems are not capable of accurately reproducing sound at infrasonic frequencies, so it sounds like propaganda to me. Remember 'Sensurround?' It had a similar theory. Their press releases claimed 'people were sent screaming from the theater' and made sick in their seats, even though all it produced was make a normal rumbling sound. It was just a well-designed marketing ploy."
Feb. 4, 2004, 11:47 a.m. CST
by Dickie Greenleaf
I've read numerous year-end best-of lists from a range of critics and commentators, and I'm still at a loss as to explain why so many seem to think 2003 was a strong year. True, the best of the year, which is always a subjective observation anyway, are as good as the best of any other year, but there was not a great deal to get very excited about around and beyond those few, unlike, say, 2002 which offered in comparison an embarassment of riches. As such, it may be worth pointing out that neither IRREVERSIBLE or CITY OF GOD were in fact 2003 releases; they belonged to the previous year. Anyway, my picks for the year's best, if anybody's interested, are as follows. 1/ THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING A somewhat inevitable choice, but no less deserving because of it. A truly great film that will only get better with age. 2/ COLD MOUNTAIN It's ironic that the year the Academy finally realises that it isn't in anyway contractually beholden to the annual Miramax hype attack that the studio's marquee release was actually worthy of all the nominations it could have earned. Anthony Minghella's exquisite Civil War epic is a mature, thoughtful meditation on love and war that made for one of the most complete and satisfying film-going experiences of the year. Where the film may have failed to grip widespread audiences to the degree expected is, I think, down to the fact that the characters remain out of easy reach for an audience that is typically used to figures with whom they can readily empathise. Some have criticised the film for being cold, but this only demonstrates the shortsighted nature of too many viewers whose patience is unaccustomed to being execised in theaters. These are simply characters for whom happiness has to be hard-earned. If you don't know what I'm getting at, then consider this; I whole-heartedly agree with those who applaud the extended final act of RETURN OF THE KING as elevating the film onto a more provocative emotional plain, where living in the aftermath of great tragedy can be a deeply painful and, in some cases, unbearable cross to bear. Minghella sets COLD MOUNTAIN in its entirety on such a plain, only here there's no great, cathartic triumph to come before, and no promise of peace to look forward to. The struggles of these characters, realised by the finest ensemble performance of the year, may seem smaller but they are no less compelling. In fact, there are moments here that are as moving as offered by any other film; Ada(Nicole Kidman)'s frustration at her inability to survive productively on her own, Inman(Jude Law)'s anguished realisation that he hardly even knows Ada, though she be his only reason to make it home alive, Sera(Natalie Portman)'s desperate tears of loneliness sleeping alongside Inman having taken him in during a storm, Ruby(Renee Zelwegger)'s final acceptance of her wayward father (Brendan Gleeson)...Whilst everybody is rightly celebrating Peter Jackson's achievement with his LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, Minghella should also be congratulated for completing another trilogy of sorts, if one looks upon THE ENGLISH PATIENT, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY and COLD MOUNTAIN as being linked as they are by theme and style. 3/ MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD Simply a brilliant piece of work that excels as both a fascinating evocation of a lost time and way of life, and as a first-rate entertainment. If only all studios would give directors like Peter Weir $100+ millon to go off and make their blockbusters for them, the multiplex would be a far better place to spend time in. Here is proof positive that great spectacle can be successfully married with thoughtful intimacy and searing intelligence. I would dearly love to see Peter Weir, Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany team back up to produce a long-running series out of Patrick O'Brien's books, for they, and a team of peerless craftsmen, have made a film that truly is instantly classic. 4/ MYSTIC RIVER Without fail, every year, a collective opinion takes form on this website against a single film that virtually everybody else recognises as being great. Last year, it was GANGS OF NEW YORK and MINORITY REPORT. This year, its MYSTIC RIVER. This is Eastwood's best film after UNFORGIVEN. Provocative, emotional, haunting. The kind of caring, meticulous filmmaking that is seen all too rarely. Its an easy cliche, and one I've used repeatedly myself time after time, to compare movies of this nature on the few occasions we now see them to films made in the 70s, but there's a reason for that, and that is that the 70s were the last time that films of such a naturalistic, disquieting tone were routinely produced. In an age of derivative wire-fu and superheroes, when a film like MYSTIC RIVER arrives now, it feels unexpected. It feels special. And it certainly is. 5/ LOST IN TRANSLATION I loved this film, though I believe its more of an aquired taste than most of its admirers would care to admit. There have always been certain movies that audiences flock in droves to much to the exasperation of disbelieving critics, and movies that critics love that audiences can't qute see what the fascination is about. LOST may be one of those. I saw it with a sell-out crowd and everybody seemed to dig it, but I know there are those who were left cold by the film. This is a mood piece, in every sense. The story unfolds at its own pace, not one dictated by conventional narrative demands. Its natural, its free, its invigorating. But whether you experience it as such will depend as largely on your own mood. This is an unusual film because I think it can play as both indelibly profound and extremely lightweight. But Sofia is a real talent, there's no doubt about that. And without wishing to hark back to the whole 70s thing again, it feels good to have a Coppola film to be excited about. I think that these five films are the only ones worthy of being described as truly special, and whilst I celebrate and champion these pieces of work, and sure, there were others that I also really liked - KILL BILL Vol I., SEABISCUIT, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN - but is it so unreasonable to expect more besides. Maybe it's just because its award season and everybody's in a bit of a self-congratulatory mood, but let's not kid ourselves; 2003 was not a vintage year and we must demand more.
Feb. 4, 2004, 11:53 a.m. CST
City of God deserves to be high up there. It's an excellent film. But it's not on the same planet as Return of the King. I see your points, Mori, about the theatrical release missing material. But, two things... You have to see The Two Towers extended cut in order to appreciate Denethor's character. And, two, you like me are finding we are missing bits of the story because we know there are bits of the story missing. I've read the book, I've read the filming news. We know there will be an extended feature. We're looking for places to thickin' up the story. In a way, Peter Jackson has spoiled the public. Over the past 2 years, we've been given a longer, better production come November. We're to the point that we know the extended version is coming. So we're not settling for less. After talking to several people who have never read the book or seen any of the extended editions, I found that none of them looked for the scenes that I missed...the scenes that I knew were there. Again, I see your points, Moriarity. But Peter Jackson is going out of his way to produce a version of the film for people who "can" sit 4 hrs and 10 minutes in a theatre or on a sofa watching a movie. DVD releases don't get Academy Award nominees for Best Picture/Best Director. The work is there now and will be there even more in November. I don't think we should hold it against him because we know there will be an extended cut. Also, I totally agree with your take on the ending of the picture. There are no multiple endings to the film. The story comes full circle. In the end, it's Sam's adventure. To have it end any other way would be a betrayel to the books.
Feb. 4, 2004, 11:56 a.m. CST
'Cause if Brittany "shows her hardbody in all its glory", I'm gonna cream. Oh, and CITY OF GOD is definitely in my top three favorite films of last year. If you haven't seen it, you are doing yourself a great disservice.
Feb. 4, 2004, 12:01 p.m. CST
What a great funny show that was! Anyone else remember if fondly? Any rerun or DVD news?
Feb. 4, 2004, 12:03 p.m. CST
http://www.clubdread.com - i'm there if only because of Brittany Daniel.
Feb. 4, 2004, 2:33 p.m. CST
I loved this movie, and it's the best version that's been done thus far. People on my website thought I was crazy for putting it in my top 10, but now I'm not alone! Thank you Moriarty, for confirming that I am not insane! My Top 10 list and Peter Pan review at www.rockithardcore.com
Feb. 4, 2004, 2:59 p.m. CST
Feb. 4, 2004, 3:16 p.m. CST
Nice one Mori. I'm loving the attention this film is getting recently. For my money this is EASILY the best film i've seen on a big screen in years. YEARS. This film is alive in a way i forgot a film could be. For me it was a rare experience. A rare treat to see a film so full of life and danger. I honestly could go on and on. COG is fucking brilliant. M
Feb. 4, 2004, 3:18 p.m. CST
You are both correct...sort of. The Eagles don't fight the Nazgul in the book, or at least not right off. In the book, you get the feeling that the Eagles are hesitant to fly into mordor because of the power of Sauron and the Nazgul. It's not their fight so they stay out of it. "Gandalf", Elrond, or anyone else for that matter do not control the Eagles. They have their own kingdom and their own ruler. (For insight, read The Hobbit, or the Silmarillion) They do what they want to do. In the end, much like the Elves, they decide to send help in the only way that they feel will be beneficial. They help Gandalf retrieve the Ringbearer and his companion. PS. The only reason that they help Gandalf escape from the tower of Saruman is that they owe him a favor. This is not explained in the movies. The reason I think they are introduced near the finale of the War of the Ring in the movie is to lend dramatic tension. To give the allies help from above, to further distract Sauron from the Ringbearer. PS.PS., Spangler, "Gandalf" is not a "deity". He is a spirit. If you were to compare him to something within our own theology or belief system, he is more like a guardian angel, or angels on earth. All the wizards (or Istari) of middle earth were maiar spirits (see the Silmarillion). There were 5 of them. They were sent to unite and counsel the peoples of middle earth against the enemy. If you wanted to label them deity like, that's okay I guess. I guess you could call them demi-gods. They're like lesser Valar. The Valar themselves, specifically, the Ainur (the holy ones), were the real gods of Middle Earth. There really wasn't one God, unless you count the creator, Eru (or Illuvatar). Although, I guess the Ainur are Eru's thoughts, so if you want to get picky, you could say Eru is the one true God. However, even though Tolkien was a devout Catholic, I've always likened the theology of Middle Earth to the ancient mythologies of Europe. Each Valar seemed to govern something and had his or her own following among the denizens of Arda (Middle Earth). In any event, Spangler...you are absolutely correct in saying that Gandalf was not allowed to interfere too much. The Eagles chose not to interfere, although, I think there was something in their lore involving Manwe (one of the Ainur) and concerning Eagle involvement in the battles over Middle Earth. Sorry to ramble. Cheers.
Feb. 4, 2004, 3:23 p.m. CST
And Jordan Ladd is super, super, super hot. Petite chicks are where it is at. Moriarty may be totally planting this review, but I don't care. These guys deserve to get my $8.50, since I saw 'Troopers for free. I will check it out.
Feb. 4, 2004, 4:12 p.m. CST
by Snow Is Fun
Glad that Finding Nemo made the top 10. That was probably my favorite of the year. It's one of those movies that I can watch over and over and simply never get sick of. And I, too, remember Undeclared. It was fantasic.
Feb. 4, 2004, 4:19 p.m. CST
I'm at the movies, and this woman is walking out of Peter Pan with some kids, and she was talking to this other lady that was with her. They were basically talking shit about the movie, but their main complaint was this, "My God. That movie. Why did they have to make the mermaids bad? Everyone knows that mermaids are good!" The other lady was like, "yeah I know. Why did they have to do that?" I wanted to walk up to them and slap them each with a glove as challenge to a duel. People are stupid.
Feb. 4, 2004, 4:34 p.m. CST
by Trader Groucho
Great list Moriarty, but 2003 was more worthy of top 20 lists than top 10s. Some other films that could easily stand on the list: Girl with a Pearl Earring, Pirates of the Caribbean, Master & Commander, Down with Love, X2, In America, The Station Agent, Seabiscuit, Better Luck Tomorrow, Whale Rider, Elf, School of Rock, Love Actually, Bend it like Beckham, A Mighty Wind, Dirty Pretty Things, Thirteen.... all that without even starting to touch the documentaries. It was simply a great year for film. And I didn't even mention movies I didn't think so much of that other people loved. We should be so lucky in 2004.
Feb. 4, 2004, 4:37 p.m. CST
by Charles Grady
Strange, considering Manohla usually likes dark and violent films. Her reasoning for her CITY OF GOD walkout was something like, that it was pure exploitation with no redeeming social value, and it gave her a headache. Couldn't disagree with her more. As for Mori's list, ISN'T THIS LIST PRETTY SUSPECT considering the pretty HUGE number of films Drew DIDN'T see last year? I appreciate that he's upfront about it, and that he was genuinely busy. But a Top 10 List isn't very authoritative if you didn't see DOZENS of even the year's most acclaimed films. He may or may not end up liking them in the long run anyway, but the fact that he didn't get a chance to even SEE American Splendor, Elephant, 21 Grams, etc., makes it pretty hard to put any faith in Moriarty as a legit critic, and therefore his list has just slightly more validitythan that of some 12-yr-old fanboy in TalkBack who lists Pirates, Matrix, X2, and T3 as his Best of the Year, simply because those were the only films he even attended during the calendar year.
Feb. 4, 2004, 4:57 p.m. CST
by Charles Grady
What is UP with LA's three preeminent film critics? Here we are in the movie capital of the world, and our one major newspaper - LA TIMES - has the three worst film critics imaginable. First is the aforementioned Dargis, technically a good writer and sometimes pleasantly contrarian, but way too enamored of her own style, and of her faux-Bohemian socio-political agendas. Then comes OLD MAN KENNETH TURAN, THE worst film critic in America with the exception of Michael Medved, which is apt since they're equally conservative, old-school, easily offended old fuddy-duddys who must have A-B-C connect-the-dots classical narratives instead of any original filmmaking. Turan will go out of his way to be a full-on prick about anything new and innovative, then overpraise something like A CIVIL ACTION or THE MISSING because it's rote and straightforward enough for his aging sensibilites. This fucker has written pieces damning the societal influence of KILL BILL, and in a masterstroke even his fans couldn't abide, once did an embarrassing piece writing off our entire current generation of filmmakers -- Wes/PT Anderson, Fincher, Aaronofsky, David O. Russell, etc. -- for not being true to the tenets of classical storytelling. Then comes the sad case of Kevin Thomas, the old man who was once the Times' chief critic, but who's now reduced to only being assigned the latest teen romance, which strangely he always likes (um, positive reviews for SHE'S ALL THAT, JAWBREAKER, DOWN TO YOU, anyone?) or the latest gay hustler indie film, which appears to be his preferred genre.....Lest anyone think I was too harsh on Mori in my previous post slamming his non-attendance at many of last year's movies, let me say his style and humor is heads above that of the TOXIC THREE OF LA FILM CRITICSM, and I've ranted here to show that McWeeny would be a welcome addition to LA's film critic circle. Not likely to happen, since he wants to MAKE, not REVIEW, films, but considering the laughing stock that is L.A. film criticism, he does us proud......Anyway like I said, I'm sure about two people reading this know what the fuck I'm talking about, but for those in LA, hope you've enjoyed.
Feb. 4, 2004, 6:04 p.m. CST
i'm sorry, but anytime i read any of these internet hacks posting a "top ten" list, i can't help but chuckle. like any of it means a fucking thing. its just too ludicrous for me to even contemplate.
Feb. 4, 2004, 6:49 p.m. CST
what is it with this flick? i was so disappointed with this sugarfest ultra PC KIDS movie. and it's not even a good kids movie. their is no humour in it. the story is wafer thin and the morals pound us down. and a fish with a gimpy fin? come on! even disney doesn't crawl that low. can't you see through it all? pixar is better than the master manipulator- speilberg. it stunned me because their mantra seems to be: story! story! story! yet there was no story. sure it looked amazing and the seagulls were fun, but thats it. pixar need to take a look at a few simpsons episodes to get a grip on how to balance humour with morals.
Feb. 4, 2004, 6:53 p.m. CST
When did this happen, and why wasn't there a TalkBack about it? Kidding aside, congrats, dude. Wait... it's not Harry, right?
Feb. 4, 2004, 7:25 p.m. CST
by user id indeed!
You boys like MEXICO?!?!
Feb. 4, 2004, 8:52 p.m. CST
by Charles Grady
Not sure if you're asking from the vantage point of someone who reads Dargis or not, but her socio-political ideology and sexual preference play a huge part in her writings, so mentioning it seems like fair game, though I'll concede "Commie Lesbo" seems pretty rough, even though I intended it ironically, as my problems with Manohla aren't regarding her sexual preference, but rather her tiresome PERSONA which relies too heavily on her political leanings and seeming sexual tastes. In short, she writes like an aging Bohemian grad student, which you might know if you're familiar with her work. Hence using the term as a knowing shorthand for a type (Bohemian, intelligentsia, etc.) rather than as a way of singling out a sexual preference. Anyway, more than a few L.A. film geeks refer to Manohla in such a manner, not out of any homophobia, but rather because that's the persona she affects for her writing.
Feb. 4, 2004, 10:41 p.m. CST
This is clearly one of the major triumphs of 2003. It's on DVD now, but you can still catch it at the Arclight in Hollywood. I suggest seeing it in the theater if it's your first time. Ms. Coppola has arrived, indeed.
Feb. 4, 2004, 11:57 p.m. CST
Although I do not live in L.A.(Ohio), I agree with you on the basis of one of the male critics (I think it was Thomas) gave good reviews to "Valentine", and "American Outlaws" (both released by Warner Brothers).
Feb. 5, 2004, 12:39 a.m. CST
Feb. 5, 2004, 2:47 a.m. CST
by John Anderton
It's nice that it's #1 on your list and all... but what the fuck is it ABOUT????
Feb. 5, 2004, 3:31 a.m. CST
But since 2003 was not the great year that 2002 was for film, right now no doubt that City Of God is the best of all the films nominated at the Oscars. In no particular order my favorites of 2003(but not necesserelly the bests of 2003) were Kill Bill, Hulk, The Good Thief, Lost in Translation, X2, Open Range, Triplettes de Belleville, The Hunted, Once Upon a time in Mexico, Max.
Feb. 5, 2004, 4:12 a.m. CST
I thought you guys were Burton fans. Here's his best movie in years, and there's no reviews, no mention on the best of the year lists, nothing. What gives?
Feb. 5, 2004, 6:46 a.m. CST
by Lethal Waffle
I believe it's difficult to make a top ten for 2003... it's too close and who knows what we will think in 5 years from now of Finding Nemo for instance ? (Toy Story 2 for example totally burried the first episode...)... so I decided to offer you my very top ten list for 1990: 1. Dances with Wolves - I think it will stay a classic for a long time... the music of John Barry, the story... I love that film (especially the long version) 2. Edward Scissorhands - haven't seen Big Fish yet, but this one is definitely my favorite Tim Burton movie... it's a classic Christmas story... so beautifully shot (and again music here plays a big part) 3. Goodfellas - one of Marty's best... when Robert De Niro was still a serious actor, when Joes Pesci was not irritating and when Ray Liotta was the next big thing... Again: classic ! 4. Internal Affairs (Mike Figgis, Richard Gere)... an underrated thriller... Richard Gere is excellent here... Andy Garcia too (he was also the next big thing)... Excellent ! 5. The Hunt for Red October - the only really good Jack Ryan movie; although it's Sean Connery's film, Alec Baldwin was great. And John McTiernan proved he was (is ?) one of the best director around. 6. Total Recall - pure fun... when Arnold was not scared too much about his image... it's already looking old so will not stand too well the years 7. Pump up the Volume - a great "high school" film... I saw it when I was in high school, so maybe it's a generation thing... very cool 8. Arachnophobia - just because I hate spiders and I got nightmares for 3 days after seeing it... 9. Flatliners / Jacob's Ladder / Ghost... the first two because of the atmosphere (watch Jacob's Ladder again, it's really creepy... Flatliners a lot less but it has its moments)... Ghost is too cheesy, and now it definitely looks old (I got the DVD and it was so disapointing to see it again)... yet at that time, it was one of the year's event 10. Die Hard 2; Robocop 2; Predator 2... sequels that are all below the original, but still are quite fun (and violent too... the body counts is higher than in the originals
Feb. 5, 2004, 7:44 a.m. CST
I agree with all those I have been lucky enough to see. And I also felt with Return of the King, that it suffered more from the cuts than the others. That might be because in some ways Return was my favourite part of the book, and partly cause I am a girl and really missed the Houses of Healing scenes, as well as Saruman and the heart-wrenching crossing of Mordor by Sam and Frodo.
Feb. 5, 2004, 11:47 a.m. CST
A great film and one that will be remebered long after its theatrical release is done. Couldn't agree more about the dreadful and lackluster marketing, its as if the folks at UIP didn't even bother to see the film....too sad.
Feb. 5, 2004, 2:12 p.m. CST
I only saw two episodes of Sweet Valley High as it ended its run in syndication at a town I used to live in, but holy bejesus, those two episodes made me a lifetime Brittany Daniels fan. Compare this lady to Sara Foster from Bounce and you tell me which would more quickly thaw out a frozen caveman's dick. Excellent list M Man, especially the top 3. You forgot 28 days later however.
Feb. 5, 2004, 3:06 p.m. CST
Yeah EvilDead- what's your beef? Man, you bitchers crack me up at your remarks... heh heh heh Supertroopers was hilarious! You probably didn't even see it, if all you're comparing it to is Police Academy. Uh- that's what everyone thought BEFORE they saw the move. :)
Feb. 5, 2004, 3:07 p.m. CST
Moriarty . you continue to be one of the best things about this site . .and I have been coing here since 1997 . .just not posting.************************************Anyway, I am still so confused why Peter Pan slipped underneathe so many people's radar . .next to ROTK, Kill Bill, X2, SpellBound . .etc (you know, everyone's usual list) this move was amazing, and I saw it twice. It really treats the characters like the icons they are . .and the dialogue is always fresh and clever. For example . . ..when Peter asks the children if he wants him to teach them to fly, one of them responds, "You offend reason, sir . ." After Peter magically levitates above the bed, the boy smiles in suprise and states, "And I shall offend it with you!"*********I know bad example . .but this movie was always so alive and the dialogue was the type that you would like to memorize. Hell, read Mori's script review and that will give you a better idea. That's all . .BruceWayne
Feb. 5, 2004, 4:44 p.m. CST
by Homer Sexual
I live in LA, read all the typical mags and the Times, remember when she was writing for the Weekly. And I had no idea that she was communist or lesbian. In fact, it seems odd that a communist would write for the Times. In any case, although I often disagree with her, I am always happy to see her byline because her reviews are always interesting. Turan is perfect for the "Academy" crowd, since he likes solid, safe films. He is kind of dull, but not terrible. Kevin Thomas is a trip. His review actually sent me to see "Session 9," a real gem I would never have seen otherwise, but he also sent me to "Carrie 2," which was, um, putrid. He does like a lot of questionable movies.
Feb. 5, 2004, 4:51 p.m. CST
hahaha... what a freakin' sellout. Make your damn links to IMDb and not to amazon. Personally, I have bought 2 items from the stories, but I purposely click out to amazon.com first on my own (not link) so that this site gets didly...
Feb. 5, 2004, 7:35 p.m. CST
hate to burst the self-aggrandizement bubble, BUT... Super Troopers was a reeking, slagheap of bowl-mud. this "groop", this supposed comedic troupe...isn't fit to lick any number of previous cabal's scrotes ala groundlings or The State, etc. Super Troopers sucked so hard in so many ways it was hard to keep anything down for weeks afterward these pissants oughta piss-off into crap WB sitcom purgatory instead of mythologizing themselves AS IF there was an IOTA of talent involved feh
Feb. 5, 2004, 7:37 p.m. CST
as in Bohemian Homosexual... learn it, know it, use it... it's the new "metrosexual"... okay, now i'm gonna throw up. Word.
Feb. 5, 2004, 8:46 p.m. CST
by Bruno Diaz
Sometimes it's hard to believe someone as pretentious and utterly enamored with their own bullshit as Manohla Dargis exists. Her reviews are masturbatory and useless. Half the time you never know whether she liked the movie or not. And I'm sorry, but that is the reviewer's job - Is the movie good? It's embarassing to read even a small part of her reviews. Makes me wish I never went to college.
Feb. 5, 2004, 9:29 p.m. CST
by TheGinger Twit
Feb. 5, 2004, 10:09 p.m. CST
Feb. 6, 2004, 1:39 a.m. CST
by Trader Groucho
Maybe he wasn't threatened by Mystic River. Maybe he was annoyed by it, like me. Clint gives us ONE BRIEF SCENE with Sean bonding with his daughter. Or rather, not bonding, as he half-ignores her as she says good-bye (later we learn she intended to take off with her BF for LV). Then, when Sean comes out to see the body he goes into major league HYSTRIONICS. Clint gives us ZERO buildup to this. We're not invested in the daughter, we're not invested in Sean's relationship with the daughter. When she dies, his reaction comes off as WAY OVER THE TOP. WAY WAY WAY. And Clint knows better. He deserved the accolades for Unforgiven. He deserved more than he got for White Hunter Black Heart. His place in film history is quite secure, thank you. This film, however, is not his best work. In a year when there are just so many great films, films that drill a hole into your brain and nest there, Mystic River just doesn't cut the mustard.
Feb. 6, 2004, 6 a.m. CST
Fuck her up her stupid arse.* *Like that dude in Irreversible.
Feb. 6, 2004, 9 a.m. CST
http://www.submarino.com.br/dvds_productdetails.asp?Query=ProductPage&ProdTypeId=6&ProdId=210909&ST=SE Something around U$13,00
Feb. 6, 2004, 11:26 a.m. CST
A bunch of mutants running around in a small town with flashy powers, with not a bit of character development. I guess X3 will have more undeveloped characters (mutants) running around, that's right, the director of this movie just likes adding more and more characters, but not much else. It's just not worth it. You know this to be true.
Feb. 6, 2004, 1:29 p.m. CST
by Bruno Diaz
Does anyone have any information on an LA area screening of the Passion of the Christ? If so, please email me. I'm a journalist, and I really need the info.
Feb. 6, 2004, 2:16 p.m. CST
Take the inferior bush out and put a shaved superior one in.
Feb. 6, 2004, 2:33 p.m. CST
ONE OF THE WORST MOVIES I HAVE EVER SEEN. "Well, for a start, it's not fair to call it a movie because it's not. It's a book visualised and put on screen. It drags, crawls and stretches out at such a slow pace you can actually feel every page turning. It's monotonously slow. But the total lack of pacing is the least of Peter Jackson
Feb. 6, 2004, 4:53 p.m. CST
by Pontsing Barset
... about opinions being like assholes? ...Yup, that's the one. You didn't perchance write this drivel yourself did you? If so: Yeah I know, you're right and everyone else is wrong. *** Have a nice misfit life now won't you?
Feb. 6, 2004, 5:24 p.m. CST
But as to your superior taste in movies, familiarity with the LOTR books or your knowledge of anything to do with cinema or the movie you are commenting on, I think your pretty fucking clueless. I wish your post could be encapsuled as a sleeping aide.
Feb. 6, 2004, 5:58 p.m. CST
Feb. 7, 2004, 5:18 a.m. CST
I just watched the DVD of Lost in Crap. And that is what it is crap. Give me Meatballs, or Groundhogs Day. Bill M as best actor. Give me the drugs that you are taking. Lost in Trans sucks big time. As for Finding Nemo. I love Pixars movies so far, but this one didn't do anything for me. I guess that I don't know what I am talking about, everyone else raves about these movies.
Feb. 7, 2004, 9:45 a.m. CST
Harry and his Staff sleeped for a whole Year on this amazing Film. All the Magazines here in Europe selected this as there No.1 Movie of the Year and Harry only noticed it when it finally came on DVD as a "pwesent" to his House? I'm very happy about the Oscar-Nomination for best Director. I thought "Well, maybe it will get the Directornomination since the Directors often have cool off-beat Choices like "Being John Malkovic" in 1999 but naa... that would be to cool to be true" And there it is. ROTK is still my Choice for Movie of the Year but CoG is in the same Class so I don't think that you can argue that Return of the King is "on a different Planet" like Halloween 68 wrote in his Post. I think what he meant to say was that he and the Rest of the demented Lotr-Ultrafanatics live on another Planet which has nothing do to with our Reallity. In his Universe it's only possible to be a really great Movie if the Movie is set in Middle-Earth. A bigger epic Scale doesn't mean that it is automatically "on another Planet" than City of God. Well my Top Ten for 2003 would go like this: 1. Return of the King 2. City of God. 3. Finding Nemo 4. Lost in Translation 5. In America 6. X2 7. Kill Bill 8. The last Samurai 9. Master and Commander 10.Millenium Actress Runners-Up: Good bye Lenin, the good Thief, Hero, Hulk and Stuck on you. I still could not see Big Fish and Cold Mountain.... Most dissapointing End: a Tie between Matchstick Men and Intolerable Cruelty, both Movies would have been among my Favourites if they didn't derail their Characters in the last 10 Minutes ( In the Case of Matchstick Men it was also a very predictable Twist) worst Movies I have seen this Year: Bad Boys 2, Star Trek 10, Charlies Angels 2. Well, I normally stay away from bad Movies in the Theatre so there was't that much to complain. Matrix Revolution was only slightly better than these Movies and overall the biggest Dssapointment of the Year....And this Review in the Post by Skeleton 500 was indeed hilariously bad. Every Sentence in this Review reads as an desperate attempt to wrote the reverse of what 95% of the Critics said and 99% of the Audience. The Fact that Skeletor 500 didn't even bother to explain which Reviewer wrote this Tripe can only mean that he wrote this stuff himself. Well, it took him only 2 Years to come up with this fake Review. A Fotr-Review in 2003? He must be a busy Guy who first have to post his insightfull Articles on other Websites before he found the Time to give us all a Lesson about a Movie from 2001 in a Talkback about the Year 2003.
Feb. 7, 2004, 10:31 a.m. CST
But of course, his cut and paste is not really a review as it is a bashing just for the sake of being considered cool contrarian. Having opinion is one thing but to state falsehoods is quite another. Now thanks to Moriarity, I must see City of God.
Feb. 7, 2004, 11:08 a.m. CST
...it's a shame you prefer the fast-burn fuse over the slow one. Whilst 'Open Range' did have some flaws ('Button' I could do without) it's shootout climax was the highlight of 2003 cinema for me. Peckinpah would have been proud. More Western's please Mr.Costner.
Feb. 7, 2004, 11:55 a.m. CST
by Bourne GreyElf
saw the butterfly effect, thought it was really good.
Feb. 7, 2004, 4:44 p.m. CST
by FD Resurrected
That's a masterpiece of pure aesthetics and visceral experience. A rare film so drunk in its enthusiastic energy to experience in the theatrical screening, indeed. I had to see it twice within a week despite the arthouse theater and my home 45 miles apart. Insanely unexpected the film got nominated for four Oscars. I also saw Irreversible and liked it - a bizarre moviegoing experience, though I wouldn't recommend it to anyone but trustworthy friends with the iron stomach. I haven't seen most of the films on the list (pity I might never see Korean films on video, damn local video shops), though I did see Lost in Translation (good but damn boring at times), Finding Nemo (good but endlessly talkactive and hyperactive) and ROTK (good but poor flow and annoying pacing). I'll check out Peter Pan - could hardly believe that film might be too dark and unconventional a la Babe Pig in the City which I absolutely loved. I love dark children's films that piss off Teletubbies-addicted parents. I HATE the pretentious movie critics in LA - Manohla Dargis in particular. Thanks for being a sane voice as a LA critic in the land of dildo-up-the-ass critics who think they're hot stuff.
Feb. 7, 2004, 10:33 p.m. CST
Manohla Dargis doesn't write movie reviews, she write film criticism. Her style of establishing social context and making more critical observations than pro/con statements proves much more effective in aiding the discriminating viewer chose his or her own movies to see. And Kenneth Turan is NOT the worst film critic in America. Harry Kowles is.
Feb. 8, 2004, 4:10 a.m. CST
I used to intern at Fox when they were producing Club Dread, and had the chance to read it. At the time, I hadn't yet watched Super Troopers, but my awareness of it made me curious to check this out and see what the big deal with these so-called Broken Lizard guys. Man, what a waste of time. It was pure garbage, and I have no idea what inspired them to write it. It's certainly not scary enough to function as a slasher film, or funny enough to operate as a comedy. Granted, tone is hard to convey on the page, but it just failed on both counts. Every character was so one-dimensional and obnoxious I didn't care if they all died. There were no good one-liners or really funny or inspired sequences of note, except maybe the Pac-Man one. This sentiment was shared by several of the powers-that-be at my company, who boldly stated that they had no idea what the Lizard guys were thinking either and could see this film as being the one that kils their fledging careers. Which is a shame, since even though, when I finally did see Super Troopers, it certainly wasn't my favorite comedy, it was still pretty funny, with some inspired moments of mischievious lunacy. No such luck here. Alas, even despite their gut reaction, Fox continued to produce it presuming that because Super Troopers found an audience, this one would too. Oh, what an encouraging statement about all the Development Execs who really care more about filling seats than trying to give us our money's worth. What an encouraging statement about the mindset that allows filmmakers and "talent" to produce mediocre/bad projects (that normally wouldn't get their day in court) simply because they're temporarily considered "hot" and bankable. I hate Hollywood...
Feb. 8, 2004, 4:09 p.m. CST
by Skyway Moaters
Gawahir's ("The Eagles of Manwe"), folk DO 'engage' the Winged Nazgul above the Morannon in battle before the gates of Mordor. Paraphrased:"...there camee [names of Eagles] stooping upon the Nazgul from the upper airs..." The Nazgul however, promptly turn tail and ride hell bent for leather toward Mt. Doom; not out of fear of the Eagles, but because Sauron at that precise instant becomes aware of Frodo when he puts on the Ring in Sammath Naur, forgets everything else, and dispatches his swiftest servants to retrieve his Precioussss...
Feb. 8, 2004, 6:56 p.m. CST
Feb. 8, 2004, 8:35 p.m. CST
by Silver Shamrock
look at my dvd collection, click on my amazon links, read my best of 2003 list over one month too late... Hey buddy, how about serving us up some cool movie news for a change? think you can do that, big guy? I know it will never be as cool as you and your stunning lifestyle that we all envy, but goddamn it, humor us.
Feb. 9, 2004, 4:04 p.m. CST
Oh man i WANT to see Old Boy in the cinema but as every Korean movie i don't think that this movie is going to be released in US or in any other country...:-(
Feb. 9, 2004, 4:15 p.m. CST
motherfuckers. three years in a row. god damn it.
Feb. 9, 2004, 7:21 p.m. CST
The Eagles would have lost to the Patriots anyway.
Feb. 16, 2004, 2:19 a.m. CST