Cool News
AICN-DOWNUNDER; Latauro's Worst of 2004 & His Best of the Year
Father Geek here introducing our downunder editor's year end summery... annnnnnd reminding you that ANY of these Best-Worst Lists are after all just the opinions of the individual writers not AICN in total. This year Latauro lists as his #1 bad film one I saw in 2003 and considered one of MY favorite flicks of that year. I stand by that feeling a year later, but its not my place to enter into a debate here... sooooo just remember we all have our opinions as to what makes a film enjoyable... and we differ widely on those ideas, THAT is what makes these "year end" lists so much fun...
Now here's LATAURO...
THE AICN-DOWNUNDER ANNUAL 2004...by Latauro...
THE AICN-DOWNUNDER ANNUAL 2004...by Latauro...
Well, children, here we are at the end of the year. For AICN-D (which is my
way of saying "for me" and hiding behind an institution), the big story of
the year was censorship. We saw the attempted banning of many films; some
successful, some not. We attempted to find out just what the relationship
was between the Office of Film and Literature Classification, the Federal
and State Attorneys-General, and the Australian Family Association. I feel
we did a moderate job, but it's a cause I'll attempt to step up in the new
year. The position of AICN-Downunder is that censorship is coming back in a
way that should make anyone purporting to live in a free society cringe.
It's something we'll be speaking more of later.
On another note, my attempts to see every single released film was thwarted
by having almost no time whatsoever. Therefore, the list you'll see below
doesn't take into account every release. I do, however, feel it's a fairly
accurate representation of films across the board. The only films I went to
were those that I felt had the chance to be good, and also THE PUNISHER. So
you won't see GARFIELD on the list, because if my eyeballs bleed it makes it
harder to write the column.
I did attempt some sort of cleverness this year. Every time I saw a film, if
it was incredibly good or incredibly bad, I'd write it down so as not to
forget it by the year's end. The reason for such obsessive fastidiousness?
Last year I completely forgot about RUSSIAN ARK. Had I remembered, it would
have been number four or so. But, bygones are bygones and this year the
Russians have completely failed to make another ninety minutes one-shot film
exploring their history through the eyes of a odd-haired nutball.
Disclaimer about release schedules: even though the phenomenal Greek film A
TOUCH OF SPICE was released in Australia this year, I caught it last
December, and thus it ended up in my top ten of 2003
(http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=16716). Likewise, many of the film
you'll see down below were released much earlier in their home countries but
only came out in Australia this year. Likewise (again), films like THE
AVIATOR haven't been shown to Lat yet, so if it doesn't appear on the list,
it's not necessarily a slight on Marty. Likewise (thirdly), one of the best
films I saw this year was MY NEIGHBOUR TOTORO, but as I'm about seventeen
years too late for it, I'll leave it off the list. So, forgive the seemingly
sporadic chronological nature of the list and instead flame me for my
opinions. Enjoy.
THE WORST MOVIES OF 2004
10. TROY
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17567
This was the year I made the conversion. Instead of referring to Wolfgang
Peterson as a good filmmaker who has some blights on his filmography, I
realised that he's a bit of a hack who accidentally made the brilliant DAS
BOOT.
This film was second only to KING ARTHUR in its stripping-down of all the
interesting aspects from Homer's epic, and filling the holes with plot
contrivances. Never have so many characters been aware of the fact that they
are living in the past! Why take away the most epic element of the story
(the time it takes place over) and put it over a couple of weeks?
Big waste of time.
9. THE VILLAGE
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18276
I don't like films that aren't clever but trick the audience into thinking
that they are. (This, by the way, is a theme you'll notice throughout this
list.) I don't like creative persons who buy into their own bullshit. THE
SIXTH SENSE was brilliant. UNBREAKABLE was better. SIGNS... I don't quite
know how I feel about yet. But THE VILLAGE... Jesus Christ...
M. Night reinvigorated The Twist with THE SIXTH SENSE. Seeing it done well
made studios want it done a lot. That's one thing, the man can't be held
responsible for other people wanting to copy him. But for he himself to jump
on the bandwagon of mediocrity is fairly pathetic. It's a crutch he now uses
to forgive competent but unconfident storytelling.
It's time to stop insulting audiences.
8. A MAN'S GOTTA DO/UNDER THE RADAR/AUSTRALIAN CINEMA
I didn't review the above films because it's just too depressing. This was a
chronically bad year for Australian cinema, which is why Cate Shortland's
SOMERSAULT sweeping the AFI awards was a hollow victory. The film had zero
competition, and the Australian Film Institute needs to shake things up if
it doesn't want the industry to completely cave in on itself.
We're seeing crappy gangster knockoffs, unfunny comedies, arthouse without
content. There's a cycle of unwatchable crap being churned out, films that
cannot have been funded based on their merits alone and beg the question:
who the fuck do you have to sleep with to make a decent film in this
country? If the answer is David Flint, I'm moving to New Zealand.
If you have a problem with any of this, feel free to post on talkback or
email me at AICNDownunder@hotmail.com. But before you do, I challenge you to
watch the trailer for DECK DOGZ. Then you can get back to me.
7. SHARK TALE
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18547
Frank Darabont has a little thing he sneaks into his films. Whenever there's
a graveyard, he places the letters "S", "T", "O", "R" and "Y" in there. It's
a little subliminal nudge to point out that Story is dead in Hollywood.
Well, I sure hope Mr Darabont didn't see SHARK TALE, or he'll be crying into
his Weet Bix until Lucas greenlights his INDY screenplay.
SHARK TALE has no story. It had no interesting characters. It has ugly
animation. It condones graffiti. It has lots of jokes, none of them funny.
It relies on pop-culture references when it has no ideas, which is often. It
contains plot contrivances in a pale shadow of Pixar's output. It's a bad
film.
6. I, ROBOT
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18036
I don't know what the hell film the rest of you saw. Everyone was raving
about how good I, ROBOT was, and I just didn't see it. I mean, I saw it, but
I didn't see what was good. You know what I mean.
Alex Proyas, whose films THE CROW and DARK CITY are among the highpoints of
their respective genres, didn't know what film he was making. Will Smith,
thoroughly miscast, adds to a recent filmography that makes me wonder why I
recently looked forward to seeing him in anything (WILD WILD WEST, MEN IN
BLACK II, BAD BOYS II, SHARK TALE... what the hell is going on?).
The film was, on one hand, an action vehicle for Mr Smith. That's fine, if
that's all it was, it would be disposable and forgettable. Only that's not
all it was. It was also trying to be an intelligent science fiction story,
an adaptation of a story by one of the greatest authors of all time. What we
were treated to was a character suddenly realising that a copy of "Hansel
and Gretel" at a crime scene clearly meant the victim wanted the detective
to follow the clues! Of course! Why didn't the detective think of that
originally? Forget carrying around pepper spray or handguns. The bad guys
are going to get you anyway, you should just have a copy of "Hansel and
Gretel" on you so the cop assigned to your case understands that clues lead
you to the guilty party!
I'm not being petty picking on one stupid plot point. The above is
indicative of the entire film: a loud, obnoxious film trying to pass itself
off as something legitimate.
5. KING ARTHUR
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18036
To this day, I don't understand the reasoning behind this film. Want to make
a legitimate, historically-accurate version of the King Arthur legend? Fine.
It means you're going to strip away everything interesting about the story,
but at least it'll be some indication of what may have inspired the stories.
Then - and this is the confusing bit - why invent crap that clearly was made
up for the sake of a three act popcorn buster and ruin the whole "accuracy"
thing you were going for? Unless the "accuracy" twist was a way to cram more
people into the cinema in the first place?
None of this would matter a whole lot if the film had been anything more
than a way to shorten my life by a couple of hours. A note on the extended
DVD cut: at least now the running time is closer to how long the damn thing
felt.
4. THE PUNISHER
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17823
Just go see it. You'll understand.
3. VAN HELSING
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17823
I really wanted this film to rule all. The basic idea was very cool, and I
did appreciate the two MUMMY films, though I didn't love them. It seemed
like the role Hugh Jackman was made for, and the rest of the cast only got
me more excited. Everything seemed to be going well.
It wasn't.
Stephen Somers was trying to make an homage to the Universal horror films he
loves so much. Instead, he ended up with something that looked more like
Hammer than anything else. Now, if he was *trying* to make a schlocky Hammer
horror film, it could have worked, but he chose to go with the excess
option. Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, the Werewolf and Mr Hyde were all
pathetic compared to most everything that has come before.
There's nothing worse that seeing a potentially-great film done terribly.
No, actually, there are two things worse...
2. THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17384
I can't get over how bad this film is. I mean, how many sucky elements it
contained. There's Ashton Kutcher, who is probably still stuck in the paper
bag he can't act his way out of. There's the script, which was written using
Microsoft ClichéT. There's the direction, which redefines "patchy".
There's so much to talk about with this film, the big points I covered in my
initial review. But some are worth repeating: the How To Reform a Paedophile
scene? How about big plot points that are just left hanging without any
development or resolution?
No, that's not enough. For normally I would just dismiss this film as lame
and not bother including it on this list. But - aside from Kutcher's
laughably-bad "performance" - there's one big reason it's on here: the
complete lack of logic.
This is a film that sets up a bunch of rules about how this "magical
ability" interacts with the rest of the world. It sets up rules about what
the main character does and doesn't remember, about how the world changes
when he alters the past, about cause and effect. And then, without fail, it
breaks every single one of these rules. And not just once; multiple times.
Have you ever written something with an even-slightly complicated premise?
Have you ever talked to someone about it, trying to work through plot
blocks? Every idea you come up with, you talk it through, seeing if it fits
with what came before. If it doesn't, you either discard it or change the
thing that's blocking it. Right? Those conversations were never had during
the writing of BUTTERFLY EFFECT. It's so incredibly insulting to the
audience; a way to convince people that they're watching a very clever,
original film, when really they're just watching a ripped-off premise done
with absolutely no class or scene-to-scene logic whatsoever.
And Ashton Kutcher is really fucking bad.
1. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17090
When people talk about Mel Gibson: Director, this will be The Film they talk
about. BRAVEHEART will get a mention - in fact, it will get significantly
more than a mention - but PASSION is the big one. PASSION is
career-defining.
When I first heard the idea, I was rapt. I loved the idea of a film in
Aramaic and Hebrew, but without subtitles. Gibson's desire to, as he
originally said, make a film so involved in its storytelling that audiences
would not need to understand the dialogue to understand the story, was one I
applauded. Think of your favourite sequence in a film. Does it have
dialogue? Did the shower scene in PSYCHO? The silent death in TORN CURTAIN?
What about Club Silencio in MULHOLLAND DRIVE? Okay, I'm being facetious; the
vast majority of great sequences have dialogue or narration. But my father
brought me up on a steady dose of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin (which
led me to an almost-obsessive Harpo Marx phase in my early teens), and these
guys knew what they were doing. They knew how to get emotion and story
across without having sound. ANY sound. In the early days, all of the music
was being provided by live pianists they would never meet (fun fact: Harpo
himself used the play the piano along to these films in his youth).
But I digress.
Having watched the film, I now find it impossible to imagine that Gibson
ever intended to exclude the subtitles. So many scenes hinge on it, I can
only assume that the 'subtitle-less' desire arrived briefly during
pre-production, for many scenes were undeniably dialogue-centric.
There is a sheer magnificence of the artistry. Funding it himself gave
Gibson the opportunity to not compromise on anything. He was a complete
auteur on this film, and it shows. At every moment I felt like we were
getting the filmmaker's vision: heartbreakingly beautiful cinematography and
shot design; brutal, unrelentingly honest violence; some of the most
brilliant pacing I've ever experienced in a film.
The only real qualms I have with the text (as opposed to subtext) are with a
flashback scene, and Satan. The flashback scene resorts to a standard joke
that is really beginning to wear thin. The thing about the tall tables and
chairs, Mary saying "It'll never catch on!"; cue the audience's chuckling. I
think WEDDING SINGER pretty much ran those "people in the past being
completely wrong with their predictions of the future, which is our present"
gags. It feels really out of place, and an excuse for levity. Now, as for
Satan... hm... Gibson's Satan is perhaps my favourite depiction of the devil
in any movie. It's a very clever and cinematic interpretation of the
Ultimate Evil, but it's in the wrong movie. For a film that's trying its
hardest to be "historically accurate", having Satan appear and reappear
seems a little... strange.
PASSION is very close to being a flawless movie, and that's not a term I use
lightly. SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, FIGHT CLUB, CASABLANCA... these are some of
my favourite films, and there have been times I've called them perfect. But
they certainly have many flaws between them. (TOY STORY 2 is, for the
record, the only film I've ever referred to as 'flawless'. I find no fault,
no insignificant or tiny detail out of place.)
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST comes close to being, in my eyes, an exercise in
flawless filmmaking.
So what's it doing in my worst list?
(Take cover, people, you know what's coming.)
It's pretty damn anti-Semitic.
I'm sorry, I really am. I didn't think I'd be one of these people. When all
the advance word was coming out on the film, when this group was saying it's
anti-Semitic and this other group was saying it's anything but, I honestly
thought I'd be on the other side of this. I expected myself to be one of
Gibson's defenders, loudly announcing that, despite being Jewish, I
considered those who were tearing the film down to be feigning their offence
in an effort to get free publicity.
I came out of this film angry. Impressed at the talent, but angry.
It's my responsibility to qualify these comments. Here are my responses to
the most common defenses in regards to PASSION:
How can it be anti-Semitic when the main character is Jewish? Jesus is a
Jew!
Yes, technically he is. But you can't possibly look at Jesus in this film
and believe he is being depicted solely as such. He is shown to be the Son
of God and the Father of Christianity. The Ultimate Christian who just
happened to have been born to a Jewish family.
Simon of Cyrene is Jewish, and he stops to help Jesus! He's one of the most
sympathetic characters in the film!
Actually, when Simon is ordered by the Romans to help Jesus with the cross,
he resists. He is a reluctant helper, and wants everyone to know that he is
not a criminal, he is only here because he has to be. He only becomes a
sympathetic character when he is won over by Jesus, and subsequently defends
him. This is one of the most obvious metaphors in the entire film: SIMON IS
CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY. When he becomes a Christian is when he becomes
sympathetic.
The Romans are shown to be the bad guys as much as the Jews.
No, they're not. It's the Jews who counsel and push for Jesus to be
crucified. They're the ones responsible. Pilot is shown to be stuck between
a rock and a hard place, only doing what his hand is forced to do. Yes,
there are sadistic Romans, but they are minions. They're the henchmen in a
James Bond film, or the red shirts in "Star Trek". They're fodder. Pilot may
make the wrong decision in the end, but Gibson goes to great lengths to show
that he's doing it under duress, that he is reluctant to crucify Christ.
King Herod, on the other hand, is depicted as an effeminate, corrupt fool;
more concerned with his sex parties than with political matters. (The scene
with Herod is another example of the anti-homosexual sentiment Gibson was
accused of displaying in BRAVEHEART.) I believe it was Moriarty's review
that pointed out the Gospels were written at a time when the Romans were
still in power. That for the writers of the Gospels to show the Romans as
cruel and sadistic (as other records suggest Pilot was) would be foolish. So
where were these facts in the "historical accuracy" that Gibson was striving
for? The bad guys in this film are the Jews, and despite the fact that it's
the Roman soldiers whipping the shit out of Jesus, it's the Jews who put
them up to it. If the Romans are Bond henchmen, then the Jews are Blofeld.
Take a look at the "Bad Jews" in this film, compare them to the "Good Jews".
Tell me who has the big hook nose and the heavy Semitic features, and who
has the demure, almost Anglo-Saxon faces. This isn't pedantism; all these
things were done on purpose. You don't accidentally cast a bunch of people
with these features.
I get annoyed when non-Jews insist the film isn't anti-Semitic, as if they
have a radar for it. As if they're tuned in to it. How can you (a non-Jew)
tell me (a Jew) that this film isn't offensive? I am a reasonable person and
I am offended by it.
We're all avid film lovers, and we need to be able to recognise codes and
symbols and metaphors better than this. It's not enough to say "Jesus is a
Jew" because the text says so. What does the *subtext* say? Films never
stand-up and announce their intentions (unless they really, really suck).
They creep their messages in, hide them in metaphor and allegory. That's how
it should be. Back in the 80s when American hostages were being held in
Iran, Gary Trudeau did a series in his comic strip "Doonesbury" about the
character Duke being held at gunpoint, also in Iran. The hostages' captors
gave them newspapers, but edited out any reference to their situation...
only they didn't bother with the comics. After all, what do comics really
have to say? The hostages later said that when they read "Doonesbury", they
realised that their plight was recognised by people back home, and it gave
them hope.
Films are meant to contain messages. Cinema is the best art form for showing
people something without them realising it, and it should absolutely be
utilised as such. But you can't reasonably censor a film for its subtext, so
the onus is on the filmmaker. I am honestly worried about Gibson and his
film. I worry that it will be considered the definitive account of Christ's
death. That millions will see it and the "All Jews are responsible for
Jesus's death" belief will again infest the general consciousness. That
anti-Semitism will become just a little more widespread. This is a dangerous
film, and the people who claim it is not are the people who will not be
affected by it.
This may be a flawless film, but it is far from perfect.
THE BEST MOVIES OF 2004
10. ELEPHANT
In what is probably Gus Van Sant's best work (or, at least, his most
daring), the lives of typical high schoolers are interrupted by a shocking
event. Without giving too much away (and if you haven't seen it, skip to
SHAUN), it's the most powerful and honest look at the issue of schoolyard
shootings I've ever encountered. Not that there are that many.
It's been accused of being too boring, slow-paced, dull. I found the pace to
be hypnotic, and fairly indicative of what life is really like at that age.
Most of it really is mundane, walking from corridor to corridor,
occasionally talking to people, etc... If you can give yourself over to the
style, you'll be completely immersed by it.
The scene, however, that sets it apart from anything else and elevates it to
this list is the preparation of the two kids. Before they go off on their
killing spree, one of them sits in front of the screen and plays a violent,
gun-toting, shoot-'em-up video game. As the camera pans 360 degrees, we see
the other kid playing Beethoven. Perhaps the most subtle and beautiful
comment of the difference between a CAUSE and a TRIGGER.
9. SHAUN OF THE DEAD
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18671
While I haven't exactly grown up on zombie films, I have come to appreciate
them later in life. I've gone through the works of Raimi and Jackson, begun
on Romero, and will soon begin on Fulci. I was initially concerned that my
lack of lifelong zombie love would hinder my enjoyment of SHAUN. I'm so very
glad to announce how wrong I was.
SHAUN has been on everyone's list, and everyone's extolled its virtues, so I
won't go on too long here. What I will say is that if more films understood
comedy, drama and horror half as well as this one, I for one would be a lot
happier. An instant and well-deserved classic.
8. THE DREAMERS
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17449
When I wrote my original review, my head was consumed with the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. The film sparked something in me, and when I went back to
check over what I'd written, I realised how much THE DREAMERS had summed up
everything I'd been feeling. The guilt over living my life while a tragedy
erupts in another part of the world.
Well, right now I'm feeling that. The last report I'd heard at time of
writing this, over 125 000 people had been killed by a tsunami in Asia. I'd
actually felt the winds that had resulted when driving home from my holiday
up north, but otherwise I remained personally unaffected. It's just too big
a number to contemplate, I can't wrap my head around it. So what else can I
do but continue with my life? Tonight, I'll be off celebrating New Year's
Eve. Tomorrow I'll be at work. Maybe the day after I'll catch a movie and
debate it with my friends. Is that reasonable? Is it okay for me to do that
whilst thousands suffer?
This is the question that is at the heart of THE DREAMERS, a film many
critics accused of being "out of touch". This is a WHY DON'T WE FIGHT?, an
intelligent look at the difference between what we're told to care about,
what we want to care about, and what we actually do care about. It's
beautifully told, with amazing central performances, an engaged screenplay,
and superb direction. It's set decades ago, but it's more relevant than all
the FAHRENHEIT 9/11s and BLACK HAWK DOWNs. Also, a brilliant film to boot.
7. BEFORE SUNSET
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18236
I'm a big fan of the original, so a follow-up ten years on was too good to
resist. The only hope was that it would come even a little close to living
up to the original. How surprising that it surpassed it.
SUNSET takes the brilliant route of a real-time tour through Paris,
following the two leads as they wander from place to place. While it may
seem like MY DINNER WITH ANDRE recast with far prettier people, it's
actually got some of the best characterisation and character development
ever. Hawke and Delpy know their characters backwards (as they are, clearly,
extensions of themselves), and the depictions are honest, funny, and
thoroughly believable.
The ending was called a cop-out by many, but it couldn't have been more
beautifully ambiguous and full of promise.
6. HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17776
Yeah, I unashamedly loved it. I'm a fan of the books, and while I've enjoyed
the films thus-far, I haven't felt they honestly captured the true spirit
that JK Rowling infused. She gets a lot of flack for being, well,
successful, but it's some of the best children's storytelling since the days
of Enid Blyton and Roald Dahl.
Christopher Columbus did a fairly good job with the first two; he certainly
kept to his promise of staying faithful to the texts. The problem was that
they felt far too formulaic. The entire thing felt too rigid and conscious
of honouring the source material. Alfonso Cuaron, an entirely left-field
choice for director, took the third film into a new place. While the shot
design and art direction was a big factor in this, what Cuaron brought to
the franchise was an incredibly honest look at teenagers growing up.
Like "Buffy", the challenges in HARRY POTTER are designed with two
objectives: to entertain and to serve as metaphors for growing up. Cuaron
clearly had an acute appreciation of this fact, and that shone through above
all else.
Of course, credit must also be given to all the kids, who are growing into
their roles perfectly. Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis and Michael
Gambon also deserve special credit for their superb work. Easily the
second-best kids' film of the year.
5. GARDEN STATE
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18942
Not many people understood what I meant when I said Braff was the most
accomplished writer-director-actor since Orson Welles, so I'm going to
attempt (again) to explain. Woody Allen is a great writer, and some could
accuse him of great acting (he plays himself, though he does it well), but
his direction is merely in servitude of his scripts. Likewise with Kevin
Smith. Clint Eastwood doesn't do a lot of writing, Warren Beatty does
occasionally (but has a lot of help from a lost of ghosters), and
Tarantino's acting leaves something to be desired (recasting).
While I don't think it's fair or useful to compare him to Eastwood or
Tarantino, the point I was trying to make is that it's exceptionally rare to
see a filmmaker take on all three roles with such finesse. Even rarer when
it's a debut feature.
The script could have fallen into cliché, but didn't. The direction could
have relied on cheap tricks, but didn't. The acting could have been either
too whacky or too boring, and it was neither. Braff's mix tape of a
soundtrack and his ability to use it gives the film further dimensions,
helping it to become the best dissociated-character piece since FIGHT CLUB.
4. KILL BILL
My original review of Vol. 1: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=16324
My original review of Vol. 2: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17418
I'm not putting in VOL. 2 because it wasn't the fourth best film I saw this
year. The fourth best film I saw this year were the two halves put together,
the one story told start to finish.
Tarantino doesn't just talk the talk. He has an innate understanding of why
the films he loves work, and how they could be made better. KILL BILL is
more than the sum of its parts; more than just a best-of package. It's a
revenge film that doesn't ignore the emotion, and doesn't get bogged down by
it.
It's very nearly his best film, which is saying an awful lot.
3. SPIDER-MAN 2
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17974
If nothing else, this film is here for one of the greatest emotional payoffs
ever. Ever.
That whole final exchange between Mary-Jane and Peter is one I've watched
dozens of times. Peter's been through so much crap that when MJ says it's
time someone saved him, the relief - both in Peter and the audience - is
overwhelming. Then, the sirens. He knows he has to go, but the worry he's
never had before is there... how will MJ react? "Go get 'em, tiger." She
says it so casually, so assuredly. Affirming that she not only knows, but
also understands his secret. That smile he gives in response is where the
payoff resides.
It's a perfect ending, and would have remained so even if Raimi had not
thrown in the ballsiest shot ever in a blockbuster. He knows he got his
audience, and he knows they got the ending they wanted, so he shows
Mary-Jane. He shows her worried, foreboding, anything but happy and content.
It's a suggestion of things to come, and made the most emotional blockbuster
ending ever even better.
2. THE INCREDIBLES
It's frightening to think of the pact Pixar has made with the devil in
order to produce such an amazing output. When the low-point of your
filmography is A BUG'S LIFE, you know you're doing something right.
This film managed to be one of the best superhero films ever made, one of
the best family films ever made, one of the best spy films ever made (BOURNE
only just missed the top ten cut, by the way!), and one of the best animated
films, period.
The emotion that comes from these pixels (or whatever they use these days)
is far superior to anything that comes from half the
singers/wrestles/waiters posing as actors these days.
It's too fresh in my mind for me to say anything intelligent about it, but
it's pretty damn perfect, and I can't wait to see it again.
1. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17384
Tell me you have something new to say about love. Go on. Try it. Who knows?
You may well, but statistically you don't. Statistically, if you were to
write a script or a novel or a song - particularly a song - about love, it'd
be clichéd. Boring. Saying the same old stuff.
Songs use the word "love" as a placeholder; it's the standard theme, just as
"baby" is the standard word. Films are also guilty of this. Sure, I enjoyed
the hell out of LOVE ACTUALLY, but you can't honestly tell me it was an
accurate depiction of love. If it was, then dude, I want your Hollywood
life. Rom-coms contain wacky situations followed by grand proclamations of
love. They feature characters who suddenly find themselves attracted to the
person who does nothing but confess their own undying love. In reality, the
opposite is typically true. These films contain people who supposedly can't
live without the person they're pursuing. That's not love. That's
dependency.
Look, I love rom-coms. I think ONE FINE DAY is terrific, I love NOTTING
HILL, I've even watched FORGET PARIS a bunch of times. But I'm really
starting to get sick of it. There's a reason we were given the entire plot
to ALONG CAME POLLY in the trailer: we all know what's going to happen
anyway, and that film's audience wants to know the ending before they go in.
Films have nothing new to say about the subject. They're rehashing the same
old same old, and none of it seems even remotely accurate to real life.
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND is not about love. It's about
relationships. And it's only after watching it that I realised how little
the subject has been covered. I mean, accurately covered. Woody Allen films
are rarely about the relationships themselves, but about how Alvy Singer or
Isaac Davis react to them. Kaufman and Gondry had something new to say about
relationships, and they found so much to say that the film is packed with
ideas. Not overloaded, but incredibly dense.
It's that density of ideas that makes it a film you can go back to many
times over. On my most recent viewing, I was pondering Joel's insistence
that he didn't know anything about Huckleberry Hound, when "first" meeting
Clementine. Later, he says his favourite toy was a Huckleberry Hound doll.
First viewing, I thought he was just being polite. But it's obvious that he
genuinely didn't know who Huckleberry Hound was. That memory had been
erased. He attempted to hide Clem in an early childhood memory and
subsequently caused it to be erased, thus wiping out his mother singing it
to him. The memory of his doll was erased because it made him think about
Clementine. In deleting one aspect of his life, he took away everything that
is inextricably linked to it. Small things, but vital things. It's never
mentioned outright, but it's such a strong subtextual theme, it's all I
could think about leaving the cinema.
There's a lot that impressed me. The fact that we never see his last
girlfriend, the one he was living with when he met Clem. He never seems too
distraught about breaking up with her, even though we never really cover it.
Why not? Did they not have fights? Were they not in love once? By referring
to her but never showing her, it's demonstrated that moving on is possible.
That despite momentary pain, memory deletion (or its real life quick fix
equivalent... don't look at me like that, it's a metaphor) is... I want to
say "unnecessary", but that's wrong. Just like when I wrote the initial
review, I feel unworthy to talk about it in great length. I feel the film is
better than me, smarter than me. That, even though I saw it a long time ago,
I still feel like I need to wait a while, see it some more, before I fully
comprehend it.
This is master filmmaking from creative genii who hit their strides
together. This is the performance Jim Carrey had been chasing with TRUMAN
SHOW, with MAN ON THE MOON, with THE MAJESTIC. This film is a phenomenon,
and deserves to be remembered for years and years to come.
Happy, safe, fun-filled, romantic, film-filled new year,
Latauro
AICNDownunder@hotmail.com
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17567
Peterson as a good filmmaker who has some blights on his filmography, I
realised that he's a bit of a hack who accidentally made the brilliant DAS
BOOT.
interesting aspects from Homer's epic, and filling the holes with plot
contrivances. Never have so many characters been aware of the fact that they
are living in the past! Why take away the most epic element of the story
(the time it takes place over) and put it over a couple of weeks?
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18276
that they are. (This, by the way, is a theme you'll notice throughout this
list.) I don't like creative persons who buy into their own bullshit. THE
SIXTH SENSE was brilliant. UNBREAKABLE was better. SIGNS... I don't quite
know how I feel about yet. But THE VILLAGE... Jesus Christ...
made studios want it done a lot. That's one thing, the man can't be held
responsible for other people wanting to copy him. But for he himself to jump
on the bandwagon of mediocrity is fairly pathetic. It's a crutch he now uses
to forgive competent but unconfident storytelling.
chronically bad year for Australian cinema, which is why Cate Shortland's
SOMERSAULT sweeping the AFI awards was a hollow victory. The film had zero
competition, and the Australian Film Institute needs to shake things up if
it doesn't want the industry to completely cave in on itself.
content. There's a cycle of unwatchable crap being churned out, films that
cannot have been funded based on their merits alone and beg the question:
who the fuck do you have to sleep with to make a decent film in this
country? If the answer is David Flint, I'm moving to New Zealand.
email me at AICNDownunder@hotmail.com. But before you do, I challenge you to
watch the trailer for DECK DOGZ. Then you can get back to me.
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18547
a graveyard, he places the letters "S", "T", "O", "R" and "Y" in there. It's
a little subliminal nudge to point out that Story is dead in Hollywood.
Well, I sure hope Mr Darabont didn't see SHARK TALE, or he'll be crying into
his Weet Bix until Lucas greenlights his INDY screenplay.
animation. It condones graffiti. It has lots of jokes, none of them funny.
It relies on pop-culture references when it has no ideas, which is often. It
contains plot contrivances in a pale shadow of Pixar's output. It's a bad
film.
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18036
about how good I, ROBOT was, and I just didn't see it. I mean, I saw it, but
I didn't see what was good. You know what I mean.
their respective genres, didn't know what film he was making. Will Smith,
thoroughly miscast, adds to a recent filmography that makes me wonder why I
recently looked forward to seeing him in anything (WILD WILD WEST, MEN IN
BLACK II, BAD BOYS II, SHARK TALE... what the hell is going on?).
that's all it was, it would be disposable and forgettable. Only that's not
all it was. It was also trying to be an intelligent science fiction story,
an adaptation of a story by one of the greatest authors of all time. What we
were treated to was a character suddenly realising that a copy of "Hansel
and Gretel" at a crime scene clearly meant the victim wanted the detective
to follow the clues! Of course! Why didn't the detective think of that
originally? Forget carrying around pepper spray or handguns. The bad guys
are going to get you anyway, you should just have a copy of "Hansel and
Gretel" on you so the cop assigned to your case understands that clues lead
you to the guilty party!
indicative of the entire film: a loud, obnoxious film trying to pass itself
off as something legitimate.
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18036
a legitimate, historically-accurate version of the King Arthur legend? Fine.
It means you're going to strip away everything interesting about the story,
but at least it'll be some indication of what may have inspired the stories.
up for the sake of a three act popcorn buster and ruin the whole "accuracy"
thing you were going for? Unless the "accuracy" twist was a way to cram more
people into the cinema in the first place?
than a way to shorten my life by a couple of hours. A note on the extended
DVD cut: at least now the running time is closer to how long the damn thing
felt.
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17823
3. VAN HELSING
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17823
did appreciate the two MUMMY films, though I didn't love them. It seemed
like the role Hugh Jackman was made for, and the rest of the cast only got
me more excited. Everything seemed to be going well.
loves so much. Instead, he ended up with something that looked more like
Hammer than anything else. Now, if he was *trying* to make a schlocky Hammer
horror film, it could have worked, but he chose to go with the excess
option. Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, the Werewolf and Mr Hyde were all
pathetic compared to most everything that has come before.
No, actually, there are two things worse...
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17384
contained. There's Ashton Kutcher, who is probably still stuck in the paper
bag he can't act his way out of. There's the script, which was written using
Microsoft ClichéT. There's the direction, which redefines "patchy".
initial review. But some are worth repeating: the How To Reform a Paedophile
scene? How about big plot points that are just left hanging without any
development or resolution?
and not bother including it on this list. But - aside from Kutcher's
laughably-bad "performance" - there's one big reason it's on here: the
complete lack of logic.
ability" interacts with the rest of the world. It sets up rules about what
the main character does and doesn't remember, about how the world changes
when he alters the past, about cause and effect. And then, without fail, it
breaks every single one of these rules. And not just once; multiple times.
Have you ever written something with an even-slightly complicated premise?
Have you ever talked to someone about it, trying to work through plot
blocks? Every idea you come up with, you talk it through, seeing if it fits
with what came before. If it doesn't, you either discard it or change the
thing that's blocking it. Right? Those conversations were never had during
the writing of BUTTERFLY EFFECT. It's so incredibly insulting to the
audience; a way to convince people that they're watching a very clever,
original film, when really they're just watching a ripped-off premise done
with absolutely no class or scene-to-scene logic whatsoever.
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17090
about. BRAVEHEART will get a mention - in fact, it will get significantly
more than a mention - but PASSION is the big one. PASSION is
career-defining.
Aramaic and Hebrew, but without subtitles. Gibson's desire to, as he
originally said, make a film so involved in its storytelling that audiences
would not need to understand the dialogue to understand the story, was one I
applauded. Think of your favourite sequence in a film. Does it have
dialogue? Did the shower scene in PSYCHO? The silent death in TORN CURTAIN?
What about Club Silencio in MULHOLLAND DRIVE? Okay, I'm being facetious; the
vast majority of great sequences have dialogue or narration. But my father
brought me up on a steady dose of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin (which
led me to an almost-obsessive Harpo Marx phase in my early teens), and these
guys knew what they were doing. They knew how to get emotion and story
across without having sound. ANY sound. In the early days, all of the music
was being provided by live pianists they would never meet (fun fact: Harpo
himself used the play the piano along to these films in his youth).
ever intended to exclude the subtitles. So many scenes hinge on it, I can
only assume that the 'subtitle-less' desire arrived briefly during
pre-production, for many scenes were undeniably dialogue-centric.
Gibson the opportunity to not compromise on anything. He was a complete
auteur on this film, and it shows. At every moment I felt like we were
getting the filmmaker's vision: heartbreakingly beautiful cinematography and
shot design; brutal, unrelentingly honest violence; some of the most
brilliant pacing I've ever experienced in a film.
flashback scene, and Satan. The flashback scene resorts to a standard joke
that is really beginning to wear thin. The thing about the tall tables and
chairs, Mary saying "It'll never catch on!"; cue the audience's chuckling. I
think WEDDING SINGER pretty much ran those "people in the past being
completely wrong with their predictions of the future, which is our present"
gags. It feels really out of place, and an excuse for levity. Now, as for
Satan... hm... Gibson's Satan is perhaps my favourite depiction of the devil
in any movie. It's a very clever and cinematic interpretation of the
Ultimate Evil, but it's in the wrong movie. For a film that's trying its
hardest to be "historically accurate", having Satan appear and reappear
seems a little... strange.
lightly. SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, FIGHT CLUB, CASABLANCA... these are some of
my favourite films, and there have been times I've called them perfect. But
they certainly have many flaws between them. (TOY STORY 2 is, for the
record, the only film I've ever referred to as 'flawless'. I find no fault,
no insignificant or tiny detail out of place.)
flawless filmmaking.
the advance word was coming out on the film, when this group was saying it's
anti-Semitic and this other group was saying it's anything but, I honestly
thought I'd be on the other side of this. I expected myself to be one of
Gibson's defenders, loudly announcing that, despite being Jewish, I
considered those who were tearing the film down to be feigning their offence
in an effort to get free publicity.
the most common defenses in regards to PASSION:
Jew!
and believe he is being depicted solely as such. He is shown to be the Son
of God and the Father of Christianity. The Ultimate Christian who just
happened to have been born to a Jewish family.
sympathetic characters in the film!
he resists. He is a reluctant helper, and wants everyone to know that he is
not a criminal, he is only here because he has to be. He only becomes a
sympathetic character when he is won over by Jesus, and subsequently defends
him. This is one of the most obvious metaphors in the entire film: SIMON IS
CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY. When he becomes a Christian is when he becomes
sympathetic.
crucified. They're the ones responsible. Pilot is shown to be stuck between
a rock and a hard place, only doing what his hand is forced to do. Yes,
there are sadistic Romans, but they are minions. They're the henchmen in a
James Bond film, or the red shirts in "Star Trek". They're fodder. Pilot may
make the wrong decision in the end, but Gibson goes to great lengths to show
that he's doing it under duress, that he is reluctant to crucify Christ.
King Herod, on the other hand, is depicted as an effeminate, corrupt fool;
more concerned with his sex parties than with political matters. (The scene
with Herod is another example of the anti-homosexual sentiment Gibson was
accused of displaying in BRAVEHEART.) I believe it was Moriarty's review
that pointed out the Gospels were written at a time when the Romans were
still in power. That for the writers of the Gospels to show the Romans as
cruel and sadistic (as other records suggest Pilot was) would be foolish. So
where were these facts in the "historical accuracy" that Gibson was striving
for? The bad guys in this film are the Jews, and despite the fact that it's
the Roman soldiers whipping the shit out of Jesus, it's the Jews who put
them up to it. If the Romans are Bond henchmen, then the Jews are Blofeld.
Tell me who has the big hook nose and the heavy Semitic features, and who
has the demure, almost Anglo-Saxon faces. This isn't pedantism; all these
things were done on purpose. You don't accidentally cast a bunch of people
with these features.
have a radar for it. As if they're tuned in to it. How can you (a non-Jew)
tell me (a Jew) that this film isn't offensive? I am a reasonable person and
I am offended by it.
symbols and metaphors better than this. It's not enough to say "Jesus is a
Jew" because the text says so. What does the *subtext* say? Films never
stand-up and announce their intentions (unless they really, really suck).
They creep their messages in, hide them in metaphor and allegory. That's how
it should be. Back in the 80s when American hostages were being held in
Iran, Gary Trudeau did a series in his comic strip "Doonesbury" about the
character Duke being held at gunpoint, also in Iran. The hostages' captors
gave them newspapers, but edited out any reference to their situation...
only they didn't bother with the comics. After all, what do comics really
have to say? The hostages later said that when they read "Doonesbury", they
realised that their plight was recognised by people back home, and it gave
them hope.
people something without them realising it, and it should absolutely be
utilised as such. But you can't reasonably censor a film for its subtext, so
the onus is on the filmmaker. I am honestly worried about Gibson and his
film. I worry that it will be considered the definitive account of Christ's
death. That millions will see it and the "All Jews are responsible for
Jesus's death" belief will again infest the general consciousness. That
anti-Semitism will become just a little more widespread. This is a dangerous
film, and the people who claim it is not are the people who will not be
affected by it.
10. ELEPHANT
In what is probably Gus Van Sant's best work (or, at least, his most
daring), the lives of typical high schoolers are interrupted by a shocking
event. Without giving too much away (and if you haven't seen it, skip to
SHAUN), it's the most powerful and honest look at the issue of schoolyard
shootings I've ever encountered. Not that there are that many.
It's been accused of being too boring, slow-paced, dull. I found the pace to
be hypnotic, and fairly indicative of what life is really like at that age.
Most of it really is mundane, walking from corridor to corridor,
occasionally talking to people, etc... If you can give yourself over to the
style, you'll be completely immersed by it.
The scene, however, that sets it apart from anything else and elevates it to
this list is the preparation of the two kids. Before they go off on their
killing spree, one of them sits in front of the screen and plays a violent,
gun-toting, shoot-'em-up video game. As the camera pans 360 degrees, we see
the other kid playing Beethoven. Perhaps the most subtle and beautiful
comment of the difference between a CAUSE and a TRIGGER.
9. SHAUN OF THE DEAD
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18671
While I haven't exactly grown up on zombie films, I have come to appreciate
them later in life. I've gone through the works of Raimi and Jackson, begun
on Romero, and will soon begin on Fulci. I was initially concerned that my
lack of lifelong zombie love would hinder my enjoyment of SHAUN. I'm so very
glad to announce how wrong I was.
SHAUN has been on everyone's list, and everyone's extolled its virtues, so I
won't go on too long here. What I will say is that if more films understood
comedy, drama and horror half as well as this one, I for one would be a lot
happier. An instant and well-deserved classic.
8. THE DREAMERS
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17449
When I wrote my original review, my head was consumed with the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. The film sparked something in me, and when I went back to
check over what I'd written, I realised how much THE DREAMERS had summed up
everything I'd been feeling. The guilt over living my life while a tragedy
erupts in another part of the world.
Well, right now I'm feeling that. The last report I'd heard at time of
writing this, over 125 000 people had been killed by a tsunami in Asia. I'd
actually felt the winds that had resulted when driving home from my holiday
up north, but otherwise I remained personally unaffected. It's just too big
a number to contemplate, I can't wrap my head around it. So what else can I
do but continue with my life? Tonight, I'll be off celebrating New Year's
Eve. Tomorrow I'll be at work. Maybe the day after I'll catch a movie and
debate it with my friends. Is that reasonable? Is it okay for me to do that
whilst thousands suffer?
This is the question that is at the heart of THE DREAMERS, a film many
critics accused of being "out of touch". This is a WHY DON'T WE FIGHT?, an
intelligent look at the difference between what we're told to care about,
what we want to care about, and what we actually do care about. It's
beautifully told, with amazing central performances, an engaged screenplay,
and superb direction. It's set decades ago, but it's more relevant than all
the FAHRENHEIT 9/11s and BLACK HAWK DOWNs. Also, a brilliant film to boot.
7. BEFORE SUNSET
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18236
I'm a big fan of the original, so a follow-up ten years on was too good to
resist. The only hope was that it would come even a little close to living
up to the original. How surprising that it surpassed it.
SUNSET takes the brilliant route of a real-time tour through Paris,
following the two leads as they wander from place to place. While it may
seem like MY DINNER WITH ANDRE recast with far prettier people, it's
actually got some of the best characterisation and character development
ever. Hawke and Delpy know their characters backwards (as they are, clearly,
extensions of themselves), and the depictions are honest, funny, and
thoroughly believable.
The ending was called a cop-out by many, but it couldn't have been more
beautifully ambiguous and full of promise.
6. HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17776
Yeah, I unashamedly loved it. I'm a fan of the books, and while I've enjoyed
the films thus-far, I haven't felt they honestly captured the true spirit
that JK Rowling infused. She gets a lot of flack for being, well,
successful, but it's some of the best children's storytelling since the days
of Enid Blyton and Roald Dahl.
Christopher Columbus did a fairly good job with the first two; he certainly
kept to his promise of staying faithful to the texts. The problem was that
they felt far too formulaic. The entire thing felt too rigid and conscious
of honouring the source material. Alfonso Cuaron, an entirely left-field
choice for director, took the third film into a new place. While the shot
design and art direction was a big factor in this, what Cuaron brought to
the franchise was an incredibly honest look at teenagers growing up.
Like "Buffy", the challenges in HARRY POTTER are designed with two
objectives: to entertain and to serve as metaphors for growing up. Cuaron
clearly had an acute appreciation of this fact, and that shone through above
all else.
Of course, credit must also be given to all the kids, who are growing into
their roles perfectly. Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis and Michael
Gambon also deserve special credit for their superb work. Easily the
second-best kids' film of the year.
5. GARDEN STATE
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18942
Not many people understood what I meant when I said Braff was the most
accomplished writer-director-actor since Orson Welles, so I'm going to
attempt (again) to explain. Woody Allen is a great writer, and some could
accuse him of great acting (he plays himself, though he does it well), but
his direction is merely in servitude of his scripts. Likewise with Kevin
Smith. Clint Eastwood doesn't do a lot of writing, Warren Beatty does
occasionally (but has a lot of help from a lost of ghosters), and
Tarantino's acting leaves something to be desired (recasting).
While I don't think it's fair or useful to compare him to Eastwood or
Tarantino, the point I was trying to make is that it's exceptionally rare to
see a filmmaker take on all three roles with such finesse. Even rarer when
it's a debut feature.
The script could have fallen into cliché, but didn't. The direction could
have relied on cheap tricks, but didn't. The acting could have been either
too whacky or too boring, and it was neither. Braff's mix tape of a
soundtrack and his ability to use it gives the film further dimensions,
helping it to become the best dissociated-character piece since FIGHT CLUB.
4. KILL BILL
My original review of Vol. 1: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=16324
My original review of Vol. 2: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17418
My original review of Vol. 2: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17418
I'm not putting in VOL. 2 because it wasn't the fourth best film I saw this
year. The fourth best film I saw this year were the two halves put together,
the one story told start to finish.
Tarantino doesn't just talk the talk. He has an innate understanding of why
the films he loves work, and how they could be made better. KILL BILL is
more than the sum of its parts; more than just a best-of package. It's a
revenge film that doesn't ignore the emotion, and doesn't get bogged down by
it.
It's very nearly his best film, which is saying an awful lot.
3. SPIDER-MAN 2
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17974
If nothing else, this film is here for one of the greatest emotional payoffs
ever. Ever.
That whole final exchange between Mary-Jane and Peter is one I've watched
dozens of times. Peter's been through so much crap that when MJ says it's
time someone saved him, the relief - both in Peter and the audience - is
overwhelming. Then, the sirens. He knows he has to go, but the worry he's
never had before is there... how will MJ react? "Go get 'em, tiger." She
says it so casually, so assuredly. Affirming that she not only knows, but
also understands his secret. That smile he gives in response is where the
payoff resides.
It's a perfect ending, and would have remained so even if Raimi had not
thrown in the ballsiest shot ever in a blockbuster. He knows he got his
audience, and he knows they got the ending they wanted, so he shows
Mary-Jane. He shows her worried, foreboding, anything but happy and content.
It's a suggestion of things to come, and made the most emotional blockbuster
ending ever even better.
2. THE INCREDIBLES
It's frightening to think of the pact Pixar has made with the devil in
order to produce such an amazing output. When the low-point of your
filmography is A BUG'S LIFE, you know you're doing something right.
This film managed to be one of the best superhero films ever made, one of
the best family films ever made, one of the best spy films ever made (BOURNE
only just missed the top ten cut, by the way!), and one of the best animated
films, period.
The emotion that comes from these pixels (or whatever they use these days)
is far superior to anything that comes from half the
singers/wrestles/waiters posing as actors these days.
It's too fresh in my mind for me to say anything intelligent about it, but
it's pretty damn perfect, and I can't wait to see it again.
1. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17384
Tell me you have something new to say about love. Go on. Try it. Who knows?
You may well, but statistically you don't. Statistically, if you were to
write a script or a novel or a song - particularly a song - about love, it'd
be clichéd. Boring. Saying the same old stuff.
Songs use the word "love" as a placeholder; it's the standard theme, just as
"baby" is the standard word. Films are also guilty of this. Sure, I enjoyed
the hell out of LOVE ACTUALLY, but you can't honestly tell me it was an
accurate depiction of love. If it was, then dude, I want your Hollywood
life. Rom-coms contain wacky situations followed by grand proclamations of
love. They feature characters who suddenly find themselves attracted to the
person who does nothing but confess their own undying love. In reality, the
opposite is typically true. These films contain people who supposedly can't
live without the person they're pursuing. That's not love. That's
dependency.
Look, I love rom-coms. I think ONE FINE DAY is terrific, I love NOTTING
HILL, I've even watched FORGET PARIS a bunch of times. But I'm really
starting to get sick of it. There's a reason we were given the entire plot
to ALONG CAME POLLY in the trailer: we all know what's going to happen
anyway, and that film's audience wants to know the ending before they go in.
Films have nothing new to say about the subject. They're rehashing the same
old same old, and none of it seems even remotely accurate to real life.
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND is not about love. It's about
relationships. And it's only after watching it that I realised how little
the subject has been covered. I mean, accurately covered. Woody Allen films
are rarely about the relationships themselves, but about how Alvy Singer or
Isaac Davis react to them. Kaufman and Gondry had something new to say about
relationships, and they found so much to say that the film is packed with
ideas. Not overloaded, but incredibly dense.
It's that density of ideas that makes it a film you can go back to many
times over. On my most recent viewing, I was pondering Joel's insistence
that he didn't know anything about Huckleberry Hound, when "first" meeting
Clementine. Later, he says his favourite toy was a Huckleberry Hound doll.
First viewing, I thought he was just being polite. But it's obvious that he
genuinely didn't know who Huckleberry Hound was. That memory had been
erased. He attempted to hide Clem in an early childhood memory and
subsequently caused it to be erased, thus wiping out his mother singing it
to him. The memory of his doll was erased because it made him think about
Clementine. In deleting one aspect of his life, he took away everything that
is inextricably linked to it. Small things, but vital things. It's never
mentioned outright, but it's such a strong subtextual theme, it's all I
could think about leaving the cinema.
There's a lot that impressed me. The fact that we never see his last
girlfriend, the one he was living with when he met Clem. He never seems too
distraught about breaking up with her, even though we never really cover it.
Why not? Did they not have fights? Were they not in love once? By referring
to her but never showing her, it's demonstrated that moving on is possible.
That despite momentary pain, memory deletion (or its real life quick fix
equivalent... don't look at me like that, it's a metaphor) is... I want to
say "unnecessary", but that's wrong. Just like when I wrote the initial
review, I feel unworthy to talk about it in great length. I feel the film is
better than me, smarter than me. That, even though I saw it a long time ago,
I still feel like I need to wait a while, see it some more, before I fully
comprehend it.
This is master filmmaking from creative genii who hit their strides
together. This is the performance Jim Carrey had been chasing with TRUMAN
SHOW, with MAN ON THE MOON, with THE MAJESTIC. This film is a phenomenon,
and deserves to be remembered for years and years to come.
Happy, safe, fun-filled, romantic, film-filled new year,
Latauro
AICNDownunder@hotmail.com
AICNDownunder@hotmail.com
-
+ Expand All
-
1) Just saw it and it was awesome! Cheadle is the MAN. 2) Thanks for the list/ recap Latauro. 3) And happy new year everyone. God bless!
-
PASSION is not the worst film. Judge the film for what it is and leave your anti-Christian bias at home. You idiot.
-
I wouldn't say that Passion was bad because it was anti-semitic. Gibson is an insensitive idiot, but I don't know if it's "active" anti-semitism. The film was bad because it's 2 hours of a guy getting the shit beat out of him. It's one long Catholic guilt trip, and that isn't good filmmaking. From a storytelling standpoint, it's terrible. The character of Jesus is given no depth. It sounds like a dumb criticism because we're all supposed to know who Jesus is, but it would have been nice to include some of the man's teachings. Also, the shot of the Devil at the end is one of the LAMEST things I have ever seen in my life. The film contains great visuals (Gibson owes A LOT to Caleb Deschanel), but that's not enough. Critics jerk off over Wong Kar-Wai because backs his pretty images up with substance. How anyone could put this film in the same category as Scorsese's Last Temptation, a truly brilliant and moving film (even to this non-believer), is beyond me.
-
I didn't watch "The Passion" during its run in theaters, but I did rent and watch the DVD months later. Like the reviewer, I thought the movie was well-crafted, but not even remotely historically accurate. So sad, really. Gibson is a great filmmaker, but I felt this effort was a wasted one, a guilt-ridden Catholic's "historically accurate" portrayal of events. And showing Satan killed it for me. I mean, no one has ever proven Satan exists, so I take issue with Gibson throwing the dark prince of evil in there as something "real." Evil is simply a perspective, not some spiritual being no one's ever seen. I've got news for you Mel: Satan isn't real. He's a crutch the church uses to keep its unthinking minions in line. "Buffy" presented scarier and less cardboard-cutout-y depictions of evil. I also think "Eternal Sunshine" was the best film of the year.
-
Jesus was not anti-jewish, he was Anti-Pharisee, and in my opinion the film captured this clearly enough. Why do so many Jewish people feel offended when watching this film? Do you identify with the Pharisees? Why don't you identify with the apostles? or with Mary? oh right, they were christians. That makes them Less Jewish than the Pharisees right? Isn't that a bit hypocrit? Anyway, don't want to offend nobody, peace be with ya!!
-
If the Bible is historically accurate, then Jesus met with Satan in person, after which Satan tempted him with all the kingdoms of the world. The notion of Evil as imporsonal is not a Biblical one. And Gibson was trying to capture on screen a small passage of the Bible, you know, The Book. So whats wrong with depicting Satan as a person? If the Bible is right, he IS a person.
-
No, it isn't. I didn't come away from Roots thinking that whitey should die and I didn't come away from Passion thinking ill of anyone jewish, either individually or as a group. I never heard from anybody that I know who had seen it that it was anti-Semitic. Never once.
-
Man, that movie was awesome.
-
Where da hell is WHITE CHICKS on your WORST list??? It shoulda been #2 at least!!!
-
Dec 31, 2004 4:21:01 PM CST
While I never saw the anti-Semetic views in Passion, I completel
by rylrci
Gibson is a biased, unrelenting jackass who may be anti-Semitic. The reason that the Passion was so bad wasn't because of its undertones. The film just sucked. Showing a half hour tourture sequence in beautiful cinematograhpy doesn't a great film make. The only great parts of the movie were the flashback sequences. Or the "passion" of the Christ. Why he died. Not how. It was a stupid, unnecessary film made not as Gibson's vision, but as his way to sway people's views. And FINALLY, someone else realized and noted how utterly bad The Butterfly Effect was. Geesh.
-
"The Passion" is not a bad film because it is anti-semetic nor for any other 'political' reason(s). It's bad because it's a snuff- film that tries to pass its self off as a 'Passion Play'. I guess if one gets their rocks off by watching 2 hours of brutal torture one might think it's a good film, otherwise, "The Passion" is simply revolting.
-
This guy is one of the worst "regular" reviewers I've ever seen on this site. I mean, the THINGS he gets hung up on! 'Breaking the rules' in Butterfly Effect? Sweet jeebus, EVERY SINGLE time-travel movie ever made BREAKS ITS OWN RULES -- the entire concept of time travel is a PARADOX, and it is always skirted, dodged, or outright BROKEN in movies. I,ROBOT. If you're comparing it to the NOVEL of the same name, OF COURSE YOU WILL BE DISAPPOINTED, since it all it shares with the novel is a name. EVERYONE on earth knew beforehand that this movie had a last-minute name-change. Oh, and HANSEL-and-GRETEL literally took up about 70 seconds of screen-time. I didn't particularly like that part either but seriously, that's like getting hung up on Will Smith's shoes. Don't even get me started on Passion of the Christ. WHAT A RETARD. SOMEBODY killed him, right? If not Jews, then WHO? WHO DO WE BLAME? If the ROMANS were the 'bad guys', would it then be "ANTI-ITALIAN"? What a twisted viewpoint you have! My last name is Alvarado. Hundreds of years ago, a Spanish general named Pablo Alvarado locked the doors of a Catholic church and set it on fire, killing dozens of peacful worshipers. THAT IS MY ANCESTOR, and nothing you say about him COULD EVER OFFEND ME. Why? Because it happened, son, and nothing I can do will change that-- I AM OFFENDED by what he did. P.S. PROFESSIONAL REVIEWERS are supposed to review FILMS, not their backwards personal issues with them. That is why critics who did not agree with the POLITICS of F'heit 9/11 were still able to give it positive reviews, and that is why you, SIR, are no critic.
-
Hey Latauro, how can you(a jew) tell me(a non jew) that im going to blame the jews for Jesus's death after watching this film. Im a christian and after watching this film didnot feel that way at all. Are you saying that non jews arent smart enough to see the hidden codes and subtext that you claim are in the movie? and that Mel Gibson is brainwashing us. After watching the film it seemed to me the people responsible were both the romans and the high priests who's power was threatened. Like the other post said this doesnt mean that all jews are responsible. It defintely sounds like all the Anti semitic talk you heard before hand affected your movie watching experience. It seems you were actively searching for and inventing examples of anti semitism. C'mon your example of the "bad jews" not being as attractive as the "good jews" was laughable. Did you ever think that may be the case because the high priests were older men and thus not as attractive. If i recall when they were passing judgment on Jesus there were other jews speaking up against them.
-
Don't get me wrong: if Christianity works for you, great, fine, go forth and live a "righteous life". But, that any rational, reasonably well educated, human being can actually believe that the Bible IS historically accurate however, is frankly, pretty dammned unbelievable. It's an indefensible "opinion". And don't bother trotting out any dog-eared old apologetics' arguments because none of them hold water in a rational philisophical debate.
-
Of all the worst of the year list wht does not a single one of them include "Catwoman" or "New York Minute". How quickly we forget the really bad movies.
-
Dec 31, 2004 5:05:40 PM CST
That was a good review of Passion, but you missed the blatant ra
by watashiwadare
The asian culture signifiers in the movie are dominated and mastered by anglos. The alleged love of asian cinema is given in terms of anglo dominance. It is mazing that this is a notion that is laughed away when it is extremely obvious to anyone who is not caucasian.
-
Sorry to hear about the state of film in Australia, I love the country and its colorful history. Passion is near perfect and the worse film of the year? Think about it, can you really be that blind to your anti-Christian bias, I mean really that blind? It is really sad and my heart goes out to you. Remember when the anti-Semitic allegations first broke and there was this great fear of the Christian community turning against their Jewish neighbors? Remember when the exact opposite happened? There was one report of a small backwater church putting up an anti-Semitic billboard (and the other local churches urged them to take it down) and hundreds of reported accounts of Christians reaching out and showing love to their Jewish friends. I guess the truth is in their somewhere for those who have eyes to see it.
-
Dec 31, 2004 5:33:41 PM CST
"But, that any rational, reasonably well educated, human being c
by call-me-ismael
Really Alatar-blue? Why, where you there? Do you know God personally? "If" so, what did he tell you? Now there's an equally big "if". Don't talk like you know the "truth" about anything, you sound like a pompous asshole, and i'm sure your a great guy in real life. Oh, and I manage to be a rational, well-educated human being AND a christian...At the same time! Fuck you for that, that was fucking rude.cheers!
-
Like most anyone with an axe to grind, you seem to see only the depictions of Asians vs Westerners in "Kill Bill" that support your personal bias. To accept your interpretaion is to conveniently ignore the reverence shown by Westerners to both of the Asian "Masters": Pai Mei and Hattori Hanzo. The bride is so disgusted that Elle murdered Pai Mai in the dishonorable way that she did, that she decides in THAT moment not to kill her outright, plucks out her remaining eye, and leaves her stranded in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere, blind, and with a Mamba snake to deal with. Hanzo's swords are revered above all others. Pull your head out son.
-
Dec 31, 2004 5:45:49 PM CST
Erm, that should have been: I'd say you've got a case of 'select
by skyway moaters
... watashiwadare...
-
That said, I'm not sure that Mel Gibson was trying to implicate all Jews because the ones that had him killed looked more Jewish than the others. And if anything, I think that people WITHOUT bias should tell you whether or not the movie is offensive. Fundamentalist Christians having kneejerk reactions to "His Dark Materials" or "Harry Potter" are most certainly offended, but do you listen to them?
-
Latauro was expressing his opinion. He was offended by the film, and so were plenty of other people. That's his opinion, and here it is on an absolutely free website. Nobody's forcing anyone to read this stuff. Personally, I didn't find the film to be offensive. It's a fairy tale. A prophet named Jesus was crucified 2,000 years ago by the Romans, actually one specific Roman named Pontius Pilate. Pilate, according to the historian Josephus, was a bloodthirsty maniac who enjoyed killing Jews almost as much as I enjoy getting drunk and posting condescending messages on this here Talkback board. That he would have been hesitant about nailing up old Jerusalem Slim is unlikely at best. So that's pure fabrication in my OPINION, and I won't even get started on virgin births and resurrections. Anyway, happy New Year, busters!
-
Where did I claim to know
-
...I don't know for sure whether or not Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic, and while I don't remember the movie all that well, it is a little odd that the "bad guys" would display more prominently Jewish features than everyone else. While it was a personal project and you can't stop the man from making a self-funded movie, I do kind of regret that 'Passion of the Christ' was even made because I don't think it's said anything that hasn't been said before and it's done nothing for religious discourse except set it back 50 years.
-
"Hello kettle? This is Pot. You're black."
-
... and it seems that a**holes can have opinions too. To suggest that The Passion of the Christ was the worst film of the year based on your personal belief that it was anti-semitic (which it wasn't), would be like a German saying that Schindler's List was a bad film because it portrayed all Germans in a bad light. It is amazing to me how Mel Gibson has had to feel the sting of criticism because of his aging father's beliefs. We might as well go after California "Governator" Arnold Schwarzenneger's films as well, since his father was apparently involved with the Nazi party. The again, I doubt whether any of Arnold's films would ever grace a Top 10 list (withthe possible exception of the first Terminator film). I suspect much of the hatred directed at Mel Gibson has more to do with his faith - particularly as it applies to his views on homosexuality. Too bad. I have always said that he is no more anti-gay, than he is anti-lying, anti-stealing, anti-murder, anti-adultery or anything else that the bible describes as being a sin. I certainly respect him for his faith and the courage of his convictions - regardless of whether I agree or disagree with him. Oh, and how can I take any Top 10 list seriously that doesn't include HERO in its "Best" category? Spiderman2?!! What the fuck, fanboy? It was good, but it was essentially the same movie as the original with another villian in place. If we are going to use Box Office as a criteria (and no film makes that kind of money without good word of mouth), then you certainly have to put The Passion of the Christ at the top of your Best list.
-
I still don't understand all the hate... I thought The Village was one of the best films of 2004.
-
I'm sure you don't need someone else to tell you this, but contrary to the opinions expressed on this article, you are neither an idiot nor a jackass. I also greatly appreciate the fact that you explained your reasons for liking and disliking each film this year (and admitted to having a weird Harpo Marx thing going on during adolescence) without being condescending to either us as readers or the films themselves. Enjoy New Year's.
-
Dec 31, 2004 6:39:41 PM CST
Oh yeah GreatOne, (Um, couldn't your user ID be considered blasp
by pontsing barset
It's not POSSIBLE that it's CHRISTIANS who are hopless. It MUST be those who think they see a snuff film where YOU say there isn't one huh? *** Getting a bit big for you ToughSkin*TM* britches there aren't ya'?
-
Dec 31, 2004 6:46:01 PM CST
Yes, just as was predicted by the liberal reviewers, Jewish peop
by swarmy
The only folks who saw The Passion as anti-semetic seem to be the liberal media. The rest of the country (you remember, the rest of the country between the 2 coasts Hollywood seems to think doesn't exist) didn't seem to see it at all.
-
Dec 31, 2004 6:54:03 PM CST
And as for things the "Bible describes as being a sin" Ivan_Mtl
by alatar_blue
I 'respectfully' submit the following: Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance. *** The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident and also posted on the Internet: Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination, end of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them. ***
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? *** b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? *** c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual un-cleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. *** d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? *** e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? *** f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? *** g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? *** h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? *** i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? *** j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan -
want to know why he found it hypnotic and not boring? Because only weak minded and stupid people are easily susceptible.
-
Why have Jews hijacked that word to apply merely to them? Arabs are Semitic too and Gibson didn't slate them in that turgid movie. It's not anti-Semitic, by the way. It's just utter shit. The Wicker Man is better.
-
Alatar Blue your post was hilarious! That is a great example of how foolish people confuse Levitcal law given by God to just the Israelites to apply for a specific time and place with his absolute moral law for all people for all time. Thank God we aren't required to apply those Levitcal laws to our lives today! Of course there are numerous better passages for marking homosexuality as a sin in the Bible, I guess Dr. Laura missed them; maybe you could complete your scriptural study to include the rest of the book and provide them for her.
-
My point was that you have to respect an individual's right to practice his or her faith. You single out Catholicism as being the "evil" culprit, when every major religion in the world can be accused of being "anti-gay". In fact, Islam is probably the most anti-homosexual of all the world religions. The verses from the Koran condemning homosexuality are much clearer than those that the Christians use. In all Muslim countries and all areas where the Islamic Sharia law is enforced homosexuality is strictly illegal. The debates in Islam about homosexuality are not about whether it is acceptable, but merely about how severe the punishment should be. As for myself, I don't subscribe to any particular religion - despite the fact that I was raised Catholic. Whether you believe in Creation or Darwin's Theory of Evolution (and sexual selection), both consider homosexuality to be unnatural. Now, doesn't that make for strange bedfellows? lol Anyway, I don't want to get into a debate over our particular differences of opinion regarding the subject. Suffice to say, we agree to disagree.
-
Dec 31, 2004 11:22:16 PM CST
I disliked the passion becuase it was sloppy storytelling.....
by jimmy jazz
Gibson assumed that audiences would know the backstory enough to show the crucifixion without context. This is the worst mistake a writer can make. You can't have your audience's personal contexts make up for your own vapidity and shallowness. As a result, I and others who have no emotional stake in this story, ended up watching a two hour snuff film about some nebbish getting tortured. Who is this guy? Why should we give a crap? THAT is why it was a bad movie. Anything else is just people bringing their own baggage into the movie theater.
-
Shut the fuck up, tourist.
-
Jan 01, 2005 12:46:12 AM CST
I get annoyed when Jews insist the film is anti-Semitic, as if t
by lezbo milk
Just my spin on the whole issue.
-
You owned Dr. L on that post.
-
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
HARDEEHARHARHARHADEEHARHARHARDEEHAE!! -
I find it amazing that almost a year removed from the release of The Passion of the Christ we are still getting such heated debate over the merits/shortcomings of this film.
True: The film has beautiful cinematography, the film has good acting and a novel concept of being entirely in ancient foreign languages, the film also suffers from lack of characterization, a deplorable amount of on-screen violence, and what could be construed as anti-semitic viewpoints, and the film could be dangerous.
False: The film is blatantly anti-semitic or racist, the film is horrible, the film should never have been made.
I totally agree that the film is in no way, "GREAT." Although the cinematography and acting is superb in my opinion, the film itself suffers from a total lack of characterization, and in my opinion, a lack of real depth. Although this was obviously Gibson's intent, it still doesn't make it any better a film; it suffers from these faults. However, it is not a horrible FILM by any stretch of the imagination. From a purely neutral standpoint, the film is average, possessing some very good qualities, and some very bad qualities. Whether or not it's political/religious/historical viewpoints are biased or completely accurate or not should really not play a part in this discussion. Film is primarily a creative medium, and although Gibson's intent was to make a film that depicted the last days of Christ as accuretly as possible, creative choices are ALWAYS made in film productions unless that film is a straight documentary. I would wager that more "creative" choices were made in the making of Farenheit 9/11 that edited, distorted, or rearranged material than were made in this film with its very limited source material. I thought Farenheit 9/11 was a very good movie for what it was, but surely one could not say that it was an "accurate" representation of the Bush administration any more than one could say that this film was an "accurate" portrayal of the death of Christ.
Perhaps the most ridiculous comment in all of the talkbacks that have ensued since the original post is that the film should never have been made. To say this is simply outright censorship, and in my mind, is pretty un-American (which is to say, against the 1st Amendement of our Constitution). Gibson financed this film himself; why shouldn't he have made it? Even if the film was the biggest hate-spewing, disgusting, racist film in history, I still agree with his right to make it from a Constitutional standpoint, and I will never waver from that path. Likewise, I will never waver from the path that church and state should be COMPLETELY seperate and that the government should not be sponsoring religious-based programs of ANY kind (Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or otherwise).
Well, now that I've got all of that out of the way, I've gotta say that I agree with the majority of the rest of Laturo's list. Perhaps my only gripe is that The Incredibles is not the #1 film of the year, because if you can find anything wrong with that film, I applaud you. I really haven't seen a film any more perfect than it is, and it saddens me to think that this seminal work will be overlooked by the Oscars this year due to both its family nature and its animated look.
Peace out and Happy New Year!
-
Jan 01, 2005 5:04:16 AM CST
Lautoro detected anti-semitism in the Passion so therefore it is
by jackburtonlives
i guess objectivity goes out the window if you're offended, hey.
-
See, at darkhorizons you get the lowdown on the movies you KNOW sucked big time and not some idiot using a "bottom 10" list as a coverup for their stupid and ignorant propoganda. Hell, I kept my pop-up stopper OFF so that I can at least click on one of them to support garth and his site. And I HATE pop-ups. Anyways, the "passion" film succeeds in showing us that jesus suffered for the sins of mankind. Even if it never happened its the symbolism that's important...it shows that there may be a higher power brought forth by a man unselfish and willing to sacrifice himself for ALL man, no matter their color or gender. This "review" is sad to me...it shows how low this site has sunk. Instead of presenting a REAL listing it seems hell bent on shoving left wing rhetoric in our face disguised as a "Review". I am all for multiple viewpoints on ANY given subject because I am keen on others viewpoints. Its what makes life interesting. But to come to a MOVIE site???? and see THIS? My new years resolution is to visit this site less. I ask my fellow movie geeks to do the same.
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/041231f.php -
Frankly, I'd rather eat my own shit than see "The Passion of the Christ," so regardless of whether it's perceived as being anti-Semitic, I'll reserve the right to not give a damn. As Patti Smith sang, "Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine."
-
Jan 01, 2005 9:16:47 AM CST
The reason I,Robot stands out to me as a good film is purely in
by theginger twit
And thats praise to Mr. Proyas. I found myself watching the film saying 'well done' at the end of each scene! When you compare to other CGI animation films that just always miss the mark. Proyas should have been brought in on star wars!
-
Jan 01, 2005 9:27:55 AM CST
Lat, Dude, The jewish thing you're taking a little to hard...
by theginger twit
...I agree totally on satan, in fact not 20 minutes ago i was talking with someone about how great passion is... only that fucking baldy chick just brings you back to reality. As a non jew, and a non anti-semite (That means I don't hate jews to you reflex readers... Pazuzu, I'm looking in your direction) I never once took the view that these dirty jews just want blood. I just saw the mob mentality of any street war I've been in. 3. Ow yeah, the asians and the blacks have their big devisions here in south eastern Australia. But i don't hate those cunts either. Where was I?
-
Jan 01, 2005 9:31:23 AM CST
As a person who can't see what it is that makes 'Spiderman 2' so
by theginger twit
yeah, funny that hey.
-
I haven't laughed like that at words on a compter screen in a LONG time. Now thats the Australian humour we need in our films!
-
Dickweed? Moi? Why don't YOU go fuck YOURSELF you supercilious moron. Don't try to confuse him with an opinion folks. The man is obviously the repository of all
-
no-one ever "proved" Jesus actually existed either. "Historically accurate" gospels written some 300 years (at the behest of a Roman Emperor I might add) after the (probably) mystical man supposedly lived is hardly evidence. Why the hell do you think faith is so important? Cause no rational, logical human being would ever be convinced by the actual "evidence" presented... There's far more evidence in fact (IMHO) that evil DOES exist these days, than that Jesus exists (or existed). Look at WW2, look at the situations in the Sudan, Rwanda, the Balkan states in the mid 90's, the creator's of "White Chicks"... Cheers.
-
The actors' facial features? Jesus Christ, no pun intended. Is there any excuse Jews won't use to play the victim? The Jews were in charge, Jesus was executed. No one's blaming current jews for it. But don't act like it didn't happen that way, at least in the Bible. And stop CONSTANTLY playing the victim at any possible opportunity. Oh, and Semetic means arabs as well as jews. I don't know where you guys cornered the market on that term.
-
Jan 01, 2005 11:34:07 AM CST
First of all if Mel Gibson were anti-Semetic he'd never have a j
by i dunno
You know it to be true.
-
If this jackass reviewer had stated he hated "The Passion," and bothered to give even the slightest legitimate reason, I'd be happy to nod and move on. But to drag out this anti-semitic HORSESHIT is pathetic! No one in his right mind saw that movie and wanted to go out and beat up a bunch of Jews. Unfortunately, a lot of critics and liberal morons see anything pro-Christian, and can't seem to reach the same conclusion - they fly off the deep end.
-
But I did buy "The Passion" on DVD. It sits in my fantasy section. It's pretty funny, like "Battlefield Earth."
-
Considering the entire point of Troy was to offer a
-
i agree with you in "I,Robot".
I'm not sure about your interpretation of the subtext of "ThePassion" but i'm sure i'll be cursed and shouted by other talkbackers....but i really think that you put too much in the subtext. I really didn't see any anti-jewish sentiment in the film but perhaps i'm just too dumb or stupid to see it...well whatever my opinion to "ThePassion" is i respect your opinion if you think it's anti-semitic. It's the same problem with films by Leni Riefenstahl...if a fucking living Nazi in Germany would praise Riefenstahl's movies for the great achievement of the 3rd Reich, I'd punch right into his/her face to wake him up. just for example: a racist genius who's a member of a nazi party in Germany would make a biopic about Hitler and praise him. The film is great entertaining and technically perfect, well everything works etc. BUT this film praises Hitler or his ideology(in subtext)...so in this situation, how would someone rate such a movie?
But i really don't think that we have such a situation in "ThePassion"...well never mind 'cause this film had a great financial impact BUT it didn't change our opinion or thoughts about whatever in any way and i'm certain it won't in the future.(like Fahrenheit 9/11)
The best film about Jesus was "The Last Temptation of Christ" by Scorsese but...well perhaps there are people who thinks even that movie was in any way anti-jewish... -
as a member of the Council of Christians and jews in my native land, I really didn't see The Passion of the Christ from this perspective at all. The film is certainly anti_pharisee, but NOT anti-jewish. jesus was actually an anti-religious figurre; he told the very religious people that they were 'white washed tombs'. He was Himself jewish, never decried the Jewish faith, and hung out with mainly Jewish people.
As to some of the posts here - let's have a bit more tolerance. If some-one doesn't share your worldview, that does not make them stupid. That is really puerile reasoning of the kind you would expect in kindergarten.
Do agree with the top 3 films, here, though. ESOTSM was this year's gem. -
just another thought .. hasn't Phantom of the Opera been released in Australia yet? It has to be this year's worst film. It is probably one of the worst films ever made.
-
Hey vash666, I completely agree with you, and I feel pretty damn lonely liking TROY since all people have decided to HATE it. What's funny about that is most haters seem to complain about the same thing: in that is not Homer's work. Man, it's not supposed to be! It's a WHAT IF! as you say, and a pretty effective one as well.
-
Why so angry fella? Not used to having your opinions challenged? In what way were any of my posts "pedantic", please enlighten this poor ignorant soul, if you can just come down of your pedestal for a moment. YOU'RE the (GREAT) one who's being pedantic here bub. Invest in a fucking dictionary before you go flinging about words you don't even know the definition(s) of. "Why can't you assholes just come out and admit that you're Christian-haters?" Tsk, tsk, tsk! I'm afraid I'm with Some Dude on this one, (as much as it pains me to admit it): "All religions are for retards." Organized religion has been the greatest perpetrator of 'evil' in the history of the human race. Religion is humanity
-
...it's people who get offended too easily. You know who you are. It's all you damn "offended" people that are ruining this society. It was fine to a point... equality and whatnot... but now you're just being silly.
-
;that doesn't mean its a bad film though. 'Triumph of the Will' is great filmmaking, but its message is so 'bad' that you have to factor that in. So I think Latauro dealt with this problem pretty well, although he could have reviewed it seperately instead of adding it to his worst list. The film really is just a two hour torture scene. About two thirds of the way through I started rolling my eyes - I had the kind of reaction you get when you're being bullshitted. I think the main purpose of the film is essentially to say, 'look at what the Jews did'. And what people must understand is that the Bible is not history; its propaganda for a new religion. We don't really know exactly what happened; many scholars even doubt that Jesus existed at all - but is rather an amalgamation of several religous figures of the time. And what's most important, or at least as important, about christs life are his teachings and his message - only fundies fixate on the crucifixion. BTW, Mel Gibson came up with the idea for 'The Passion' the exact same year 'Schindlers List' was in theaters. A coincidence? I wonder. My guess is that 'Passion' was Mel's answer to Spielbergs film, attempting to put Jews 'in the proper perspective' - according to him. And of course his Dad is a Holocaust denier. I'm afraid it all fits, too well. I do appreciate Gibsons boldness for making it though, and not compromising his vision. He deserves credit for that.
-
This guy would be number one with a bullet, and on this site that's saying something. He's entitled to his opinions of course, it's just a shame that so many of his opinions are so painfully fucking stupid.
-
I very much enjoyed reading this guys analysis of those 20 films. He breaks down pieces of a film and... puts them back together again in front of your eyes, to show what didn't work. More reviews from this guy please!
-
He at least gives a plain spoken reasoning as to WHY he didn't like something.Isn't THAT what a good review is supposed to do? Is a "good" critic someone that agrees with you ALL the time? No bowel movement analogies here thank you.
-
Jan 02, 2005 5:20:50 AM CST
I might get in trouble in this here TB for syaing this,
by conan_the_humble
But goddamn, tjhat was the funniest post I've read in many a moon. "Should I smite them?" That's some funny shit. If only these "hardcore" christian fanatics could actually see themselves, they would hopefully realise how ridiculous they are... Cheers.
-
Jan 02, 2005 6:36:02 AM CST
IF YOU DON'T LIKE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, YOU'RE ANTI-CHRISTIAN
by bushsux
As soon as I read that this guy ranked Passion as the year's worst film I knew a whole slew of Christian Conservatives were going to write wrath of God posts against this guy for not liking the film. According to the Bible Belters, Anyone who didn't pay to watch this film at least 19 times is an anti-Christian anti-American who should move to France. Funny thing is, these are the same christian conservatives who are whining about the upcoming movies about the crusades being "anti-Christian". Grow up, the demographic you belong to didn't always do great and wonderful things. Examine past mistakes rather than covering them up and if you want to be sensitive, don't just be sensitive to protect your own group. If you like "The Passion" so much, why don't you actually read into the movie? "The Passion" endorses pacifism, to an extreme us humans have never even known. Jesus gets the crap beaten out of him into a bloody mess, yet he begs God to do nothing and still loves us. Does this sound like someone who endorses pre-emptive wars against boxed-in little dictators that can't do anything against us? No. Yet alot of the people who loved this film and say they love Jesus voted for Bush. Who did Jesus hang around with? All the outcasts of society. The tax collectors, the prostitutes etc. He stuck with the underdogs, the little people who the mainstream, respectable people in society looked down upon as sinners. This movie grossed $360 Million at the Box Office, our government is only giving $35 million to the victims of the Tidal Wave. You see something wrong with that picture? I sure do.
-
it is already upping the donation to US$350 million and this will probably rise as the crisis deepens and the re-construction. I otherwise agreed with your comments. Cheers.
-
So he likes Passion on all fronts(which I didn't)but only because he finds it offensive, its suddenly the worst film of the year???? I don t believe this bullshit! And what exactly is wrong with a dangerous film? Not all of us want Toy story 2.I guess you're not a big fan of Frank Capra's YOUR JOB IN GERMANY or KNOW YOUR ENEMY: JAPAN either.
Their depiction of the germans and japanese is not 'historically accurate', nonetheless, they re great propaganda films.
but then again, maybe you are a fan.. -
Could you explain what is exactly wrong with being a anti-Christian bigot?
-
Jan 02, 2005 4:22:55 PM CST
You keep using that word GREATONE, "I do not think it means what
by alatar_blue
Extra credit for anyone who can identify the source of the quote. *** PEDANTIC: Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details. *** Now, who's the real retard here? You're describing yourself with this word. Barset may be a "dickweed" as you so eloquently put it, but he hasn't been pendantic in this TB.
-
Jan 02, 2005 10:14:42 PM CST
Further proof that hating Bush Jr. does not necessarily make you
by ribbons
"Don't be just sensitive towards your own group indeed." Thank you, bushsux, for another generalizing, vitriolic, supercilious, grammatically horrendous and utterly useless post.
-
Alatar. But then you already knew that didn't you? Cheers.
-
No-one has proved a person known to Christians as Jesus was the son of "god". Go to a South American Country. You'll meet plenty of people named Jesus. That doesn't make them a deity. Unfortunately some people don't wish to grasp the reality that the Christian Religion is based predominantly on myths that existed for centuries if not a millenia prior to "Jesus" walking the earth... The myth of the son of god is found in almost every religion that has ever existed including Christianity: Jesus, the ancient Egyptians: Horus, ancient Greeks: Apollo, the list goes on and on... Cheers.
-
I've read Lautaro's list and first of all, it's just the guy's fuckin' opinion. I'm getting so sick and fucking tired of all this nonsense. There are a billion movies out there and we all, as individuals, have a different viewpoint. We do not have to agree with anyone. Every critic has his or her own personal standards. Now, 'bout the Passion. I didn't like the film, not because it was supposedly anti-Semetic or overly bloody, but because the movie had no actual story and turned out to be nothing but a beautifully shot and well acted 'last hours in the life' kinda flick. Sure, everybody knows Jesus' story but I don't go to the movies to see something where I have to bring my own knowledge of the story with me. When the lights go out and the silver screen flickers on, my attention's on whatever it is they're showing me and I critize only that and all the stuff I've read on the Net or in books, and trailers I've seen... It all goes away because I'm "watching the movie". Passion never had that. It's an interesting piece and one I might own on DVD but I don't love it like I could have (I'm not a Christian, raised like one though, but not a churh-goin' fella, but I love storytelling and the Passion's one of the most iconic). I'm also not a Jew so what do I know right, but Latauro doesn't seem to understand that Passion is a movie. One that reflects, in this case, Gibson's opinion. It's not historically accurate, but it doesn't have to be. It's a dramatic re-retelling and I resent the fact everybody always gets hung up on that. Now, you'll probably say: well, then Gibson shouldn't have claimed it was accurate. So what? Everybody knows there'll never be a comic to screen, book to screen or anything to screen that is 100% the way we all want it to be! Just because the director and people claim it's accurate doesn't mean dick to me. I haven't been there, what the fuck do I know about it being accurate or not. I'll see what's up on screen and make up my own mind. The year hasn't even properly begun yet and I'm already pissed off. Talkbackers bitchin' about Harry's writing, Moriarty's opnions called unsubstantial bullshit... the list goes on... To you they may be, hell, I don't agree with all the stuff these guys write, but I do come back to this site because I'm interested in what - and this is gonna be tricky for some of you - OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY! We're all so annoyingly cynical and know-it-all-ish these days. Problem is, it's like that all over the world. The Bible was written when people thought the world was flat. Imagine what we'll know in a hundred years. We're evolutionary footnotes and we gotta make the best of our stay. Right now, we're all fucking it up big time because of one simple thing we all gotta figure out: tolerance. If we find that, we're gonna be cool and the happiest six billion creatures on this planet. Oh, and finally, stop bringing politics into the movie-debate . With a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 you can't ignore that but you still get people selling crap about Lord of the Rings being racist or, something else I sometimes wanna rip your guys' throats out for, bein' gay. SO FUCKING WHAT?! Everybody oughta lighten up, stop snorting whatever the hell they're shoving up their nostrils and relax a little. You don't like a movie, fine. You read an opinion you don't agree with and you wanna talk about it, fine. You're jewish, fine. You're Catholic, fine, you're a Muslim, fine...! That whole religion debate's stupid anyway. It all boils down to the same basic mythology and every religion is a branch of the same tree. Peace out!
-
Shit, that's news to me. Next you'll try and tell me that the Nazis didn't execute 6 million Jews. Wait, no you wouldn't - only a Nazi would make such an outrageous claim. Hmmmm..
-
You can only judge a film you have seen. Perhaps "SIDEWAYS" is the best film of the year (but if it is, Eternal Sunshine MUST run a close second), but since SIDEWAYS has not released in Australia yet, Lat (or myself) can't comment on it, and maybe the Phantom of the Opera is the WORST film of the year, but I wouldn't see it anyway regardless of what my boss says I should do.. so I can't comment on it, the only thing I can say?.. the trailer looks like garbage so I don't go see it.. Therefore neither of these two films make ANY of the Best/Worst lists you will see from Australia... Lat's list looks alot like mine with the exception of the fact that I've seen "The Life Aquatic". which was one of the best of the year too.... the 1,2, of Eternal Sunshine and the Incrediblesis spot on... The Incredibles craps on Spiderman2 and most other comic book movies, then pees on it for good measure. The Incredibles made me feel like a kid again watching an old betamax version of "FLASH GORDON".......................... SHUTUP!!! FLASH ROCKED WHEN I WAS 5?!?!?! Now?.. well the soundtrack still kicks ass.. I can't wait for Steven Sommers to ruin it so everyone will FINALLY see what a GREAT Cheese-fries movie the 1980's Flash was... My point is, I haven't been WOWED by a movie in that long... Until I saw the Incredibles, even a group of dickhead pre-teens in the audience making fart noises and yelling twaddle at the screen couldn't hinder my enjoyment of the film... HOWEVER, Eternal Sunshine is number one on my list for the simple fact that it's the finest example of live action FILM MAKING I've seen this year, as opposed to the most exhilirating.. Incredibles at Number 2.. Trust me true believers *BAMF*
-
.. and i'm sure i'm one of them from time to time. but it seems to me there's a few points people are missing here.
First of all, people are negating Latauro's position that it's anti-semitic because they see it and "it doesn't make them want to beat up Jews." Well, that's not really a defining measure here. If inciting people to violence is the only way to deem if something is anti-anything, well, that's a pretty poor measure. Secondly, people are bashing him because he placed it as the worst film because of his feelings about it. Well, dickheads, guess what? IT'S HIS FUCKING LIST. HE is calling it the worst fucking film. Latauro is not the speaker for the entire free world. It's his opinion. Agree, disagree, but for crying out loud, why does everyone have to be so childish and hateful about it? I don't know if I agree with him or not, simply because I don't have enough knowledge about the story to say. But I appreciate reading a well-thought out opinion on the subject. And as for the list itself, well-done Latauro. I enjoy reading your opinions. -
I agree on about two thirds of you worst movies list. There are plenty films worst than both iRobot and The Butterfly Effect that came out this past year. I agree with you that iRobot could have and should have been a lot better. Maybe you can come up with a film list of the most average films of 2004. This would be right at the top. My biggest complaint (from someone who hasn't read the book and does not know anything about the plot or characters) was that the entire world looked painfully fake. I was literally taken out of the story by the unrealistic looking effects work. I was reminded of Logan's Run when watching this film. The effects work of this film was on par with Logan's Run. Haven't we come 30 some years since Logan's Run? This film should have looked better than this. Will Smith was a little annoying...but then again, he usually is. This all said, it's still not one of the worst movies of the year. Off the top of my head, I'd substitute this with Alien Vs Predator. As for Butterfly Effect. Eh. You have to suspend your disbelief a little bit. Don't look so deep. I don't think it was ever meant to be very deep. Then again, I watched this film expecting a big whopping shit sandwich. I was treated to a big whopping rather stinky sandwich that actually didn't taste have bad. So I had low expectations going in. I've always thought Kutcher was a terrible actor, so I never looked for anything more from him. Once again, not a great movie, but not the greatest. Another nominee for most average film of the year. I would switch this up with...oh, let's see...didn't David Spade do a movie this year? That had to stink. And as far as your ribbing of the Passion. You know, I totally agree with you concerning the technical aspects of the film. I thought the whole Jesus inventing tall chairs thing was thoroughly stupid. I thought Satan was downright laughable in certain scenes. (The one where old scratch floats by with an ugly midget baby had me squirting my shorts) I also didn't like the end with half the city collapsing when Jesus is crusified. Where did that come from? Maybe it's to do with Beelzebub's "STELLA!" scene that happens right before that. In any event, I did want to say that I just don't see the anti-semitic thing. To tell you where I'm coming from: I'm addopted. I have no idea where my heritage stands. I could have jewish ancestry, I could have italian. Not sure. This said, I like to think that I am unbias either way. And the way I see it is that everyone is a bad guy except for Jesus. Isn't that the whole point? Not to argue religeon, but I always thought Jesus saved everyone, not just the Romans...or the jews. To do this, everyone had to refuse/deny/betray him at some point. Even Peter. The story has the Jews giving Jesus up and the Romans killing him. This way, his sacrifice means something to everyone. Okay, now, again, not the worst movie of the year. Was Dirty Dancing 2, Savanna Nights a 2004 release?
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts