KILL BILL: VOLUME 1 vs. VOLUME 2 - A Bullet Point Commentary

As promised, here’s my follow up to the posting concerning my loathing of Kill Bill Volume 1 – one of the most over-rated movies of all time. But as much as I hated the first installment, to my amazement, I loved the second one. Indeed, Volume 2 has everything Volume 1 doesn’t. You don’t even need Volume 1; everything is in Volume 2, which I think is the best film of 2004. So how does Volume 1 compare to Volume 2.

*In Volume 1 all you get is the premise of the story and then a pointless two-hour blood bath. In Volume 2 you get the actual story itself, which is then supported by a blood bath that has purpose.

*In Volume 1 the story is secondary to the violence, while in Volume 2 the violence is secondary to the story - i.e. in Volume 1 the story supports the violence, while in Volume 2 the violence supports the story (as it should be).

*Volume 1 is boring because there’s no plot and the action sequences are nothing more than pure porn violence – indeed, Volume 1 is like a two hour live version of Itchy and Scratchy where the plot is just an excuse to glorify violence. Volume 2 is far more engaging because the violence and the action sequences actually have a purpose other than glorifying violence.

*Volume 1 is devoid of any clever, trademark Tarantino dialogue. Volume 2 has plenty of it.

*Volume 1 is devoid of a sense of humour and any attempt at humour feels forced and laboured. Volume 2 is effortlessly and instrinsically funny.

*Volume 1 pretends to be more than what it is – masking porn violence under the guise of high art satire. Volume 2 has no such pretense – it’s simply a clever, funny and engaging action comedy drama.

*Except maybe for Lucy Liu, Volume 1 is devoid of any real great performances while Volume 2 has at least one Oscar worthy performance – a brilliant portrayal of Bill, by actor David Carradine.

THE BOTTOMLINE: The difference in quality between KIll Bill Volume1 and Volume 2 is like night and day. Volume 2 is everything Volume 1 is supposed to be. As I've said, Volume 2 is clever, funny and engaging while Volume 1 is overrated, over hyped, and worse of all: BORING! The two movies would work well together if you cut out about 95% of Volume 1. Other than that, just avoid Volume 1 altogether, because everything worthwhile is in Volume 2.

Kill Bill Volume 1 - 2.0 out of 10

Kill Bill Volume 2 - 8.5 out of 10

THE RICKTER-SCALE:
10 (A+) – extraordinary, a masterpiece
9.5/9.0 (A) – exceptional, a milestone
8.5/8.0 (A-) – excellent, a classic
7.5/7.0 (B+) – very good, a near classic
6.5/6.0 (B) – good
5.5/5.0 (B-) – fair
4.5/4.0 (C+) – poor
3.5/3.0 (C) – very poor, a near disaster
2.5/2.0 (C-) – terrible, a total disaster
1.5/1.0 (D+) – torture, a catastrophe
0.5/0.0 (F) – abysmal, the end of film as an art form

KING KONG - A Bullet Point Review

I’ve not been a huge fan of Peter Jackson because of all the LORD OF THE RINGS hype over the last few years. And when I heard he was doing a remake of KING KONG, I had some serious doubts. But as we all know, the creative impetus in Hollywood is all geared towards marketing and any doubts I had were assuaged by the trailer, which made the film look amazing. But unfortunately, movies are never as good as the trailers make them out to be and now that I’ve seen it, I can’t say that the film met my expectations. Indeed, in all honesty, I was disappointed. But only because my expectations were so high. It’s still a very good film. There’s just not that much to say about it except the following:

• I’ve been a big fan of Naomi Watts since her brilliant performance in MULLHOLLAND DRIVE. Here she delivers once again and although I’m not that crazy about blondes, I can see why Kong would go ape for her.
• I’ve been a big fan of Adrien Brody since his Oscar winning performance in THE PIANIST. He too doesn’t disappoint and I have to give props to Jackson for choosing such an unconventional male action lead. In fact, Watts and Brody have good chemistry and I wouldn’t mind seeing them in another film where they have more screen time together.
• The special effects are very good but not quite as good as I expected. There are definitely times that Kong’s movements seem a little too digital. Also, I find it odd that the most realistic looking dinosaurs are still from Spielberg’s 1993 classic JURASSIC PARK. It’s mind boggling that digital effects havn'tt made much progress since then.
• The action sequences are also very good but sometimes a little over done. In the original KING KONG, the giant ape battles one T-Rex. The idea that three T-Rexes are better than one is typical of the Jackson mentality as evidenced by his tedious and overdone action scenes in LORD OF THE RINGS. For instance, there’s a sequence in KING KONG involving a brontosaurus stampede that goes on way too long - and can anyone explain to me how any of the characters survived that ordeal? But still, Kong’s fight with the three T-Rexes is tremendous fun and definitely one of the film’s high points.
• I hate it when supposedly ordinary people suddenly turn into Indiana Jones in extreme circumstances. It’s one thing when that element is built into the story. But when it’s not, it’s annoying when all of a sudden the characters perform stunts that not even Spider-Man could do.
• There are some really tense and scary moments that are great fun. But I have to say – the scariest moments don’t involve any of the creatures, but rather the native peoples of Skull Island.
• There’s a pointless, distracting subplot concerning the relationship between two shipmates. This part of the story simply wastes valuable screen time and makes the movie longer than necessary.
• Jackson tries a little too hard to push the emotional elements of the story, and because the story of KING KONG is not one that I find intrinsically compelling, his efforts are wasted on me. And let’s face it, how much can one really be moved by the death of a giant ape? It’s not like they had any kind of future together.
• Much has been said about the casting of Jack Black. But his comic energy and persona actually work for the film and not against it.
  

THE BOTTOMLINE: KING KONG is a noble effort to bring the story of the giant ape into the third millennium. Despite its flaws, Jackson’s version is quite good with some exceptional visuals, digital effects and star power. And even though the movie is a little long, his pacing of the story is right on the mark and one is definitely not bored throughout the viewing experience. The action sequences may be a little over the top, but they’re still great fun. If you already love the story of KING KONG, you probably won’t be disappointed, but if you’re like me and indifferent to the story, you’re left a little underwhelmed. Despite everything, the major flaw with KING KONG may be its release date: why did they release this movie in winter – this is classic summer movie viewing.

On the Rickter-Scale, KING KONG rates a 7.0 out of 10.

THE RICKTER-SCALE:
10 (A+) – extraordinary, a masterpiece
9.5/9.0 (A) – exceptional, a milestone
8.5/8.0 (A-) – excellent, a classic
7.5/7.0 (B+) – very good, a near classic
6.5/6.0 (B) – good
5.5/5.0 (B-) – fair
4.5/4.0 (C+) – poor
3.5/3.0 (C) – very poor, a near disaster
2.5/2.0 (C-) – terrible, a total disaster
1.5/1.0 (D+) – torture, a catastrophe
0.5/0.0 (F) – abysmal, the end of film as an art form

THE BEST FAMILY FILMS OF ALL TIME

Irregardless of your faith orientation, this is the time of year that many people’s thoughts turn to those of family. Hollywood counts on this and usually releases some of its biggest G rated movies this time of year. However, in an industry that typically caters to teenagers and twenty-something males, these films are getting fewer and farther between as it gets increasingly hard to find films that the whole family can enjoy together.

In my opinion, there are two main elements that constitute a family film. First, the film has to be entertaining and engaging for both adults and children alike, or else the whole exercise of watching a movie together becomes one of aggravation and futility for one of the parties. Second, a family film should have some values that children can benefit from. Children are impressionable, and whether we believe it or not, what they see around them affects and informs their character. Thus films with life affirming values, if done intelligently, can be instrumental in helping to shape a child’s character.

Before I continue, let me just say that I normally hate these types of films. Cutesy, warm, cuddly, feel good films, with life affirming values that the whole family can enjoy together - give me a break! However, there are always exceptions and in the spirit of the holidays, I will be listing my picks for the best family films of all time.

01. The Little Mermaid (1989)
Ron Clements and John Musker (Directors)
RATED G
This is it – my number one choice for the best family film of all time, beating out such classics as The Wizard of Oz, E.T. and The Sound of Music. Nevertheless, this little gem from 1989 is nothing less than the Citizen Kane of animated musicals and the film that effectively launched a new golden era in Disney animation. Up until that point, the Disney animated musical had been pretty much dead since the seventies. Then Mermaid came along and blew everyone away including critics who made it one of the most highly acclaimed films of the year. Here for the first time, in a very long time, we witnessed something that elevated animated features beyond mere children’s entertainment with stories and characters that were a little more savvy, a little more sophisticated, a little more intelligent than many of their predecessors – a film so entertaining, that it rivals even some of the best live action films. Indeed, it’s hard for me to think of Mermaid as a mere cartoon, I think of it more as a romantic comic fantasy on par with the very best live action films of that genre.

One of the great things about Mermaid is how well it creates such classic, instantly likeable characters – characters who are able to elicit great affection from the audience, drawing us immediately into their story and into their plight. Chief among them is Ariel herself who simply lights up the screen in every frame. Her characterization is so perfect, so delightful that she is more real and likeable than most female leads in live action films. The other characters are also perfectly realized including the hilarious Sebastian, the conniving Ursula, the charming comic sidekicks Flounder and Scuttle, and even the stern but sympathetic father, King Triton.

This film really works because of its brilliant simplicity and the dramatic tension created by the story’s arch, which uses simple but effective plot devices, such as a race against time, to increase the dramatic tension, creating a real vested interest in the story’s outcome.

I’m also amazed how the various elements of the plot weave together so flawlessly. True, it’s a very simple story with few elements to juggle, but still, real thought went into even the smallest details of the story’s development to such a degree that the musical numbers and plot developments blend together seamlessly – to the point that the musical sequences seem as natural to the story as the plot developments. This is really key in any musical – if the musical sequences seem forced upon the plot and don’t seem to develop naturally from the story, they lose their impact even if the music itself is quite good.

Apart from the fact that it’s thoroughly entertaining, Mermaid is great for kids because inherent in the story are life affirming values including the importance of tolerance, the need to let go and allow others to live their lives, as well as the importance of taking risks and pursuing one’s dreams – a pretty good message in these times when everyone likes to play it safe.

Let’s not forget the film’s brilliant score, which is filled with such spectacular and unforgettable musical numbers, they rival the very best on Broadway. The Under the Sea number alone is one of the most thrilling and delightful musical sequences in the history of cinema.

02. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Steven Spielberg (Director)
RATED PG
Spielberg is often criticized for being the director who never really grew up, an immature filmmaker. But there’s a big difference between being immature, 'childish' and being ‘childlike.’ Immaturity or childishness is the less than desirable behaviours we often associate with children, things like temper tantrums, selfishness and lack of social restraint. Childlikeness, on the other hand, are those good qualities we often associate with children, but qualities that hopefully many of us carry into adult hood – qualities such as innocence, a willingness to embrace mystery, the capacity for awe and wonder and an openness to differences in others. These are the values that characterize Spielberg’s classic E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial – a story of friendship so pure and so strong that it transcends not only enormous differences, but enormous distances. This is a film that celebrates these values so effectively and with such mastery, that really, pardon the cliché, it touches the child in all of us. And this is part of Spielberg’s genius; more so than any other director, he is able to really put us back in touch with those ‘childlike’ elements that are a very important part of the human experience.

In addition, Spielberg does such a remarkable job engaging the audience and getting us to sympathize with the characters, it’s no wonder it remains one of the ten highest grossest films of all time. E.T. may be an alien, but his feeling of displacement and his yearning to return home is something all of us can identify with. Even as adults, we often experience that feeling of being lost and displaced among those who seem alien to us, and like E.T., we sometimes find friendship, acceptance and support where we least expect it.

03. Mary Poppins (1964)
Robert Stevenson (Director)
RATED G
This 1964 Disney masterpiece is simply one of the most perfectly realized children’s story ever put on film. It was nominated for an astonishing 13 Academy Awards and was one of most commercially successful films of the sixties. It also garnered Julie Andrews an Oscar for creating one of the most fun and likeable nannies in movie history.

Part of the magic of Mary Poppins is how well the film draws us into the world of the characters, a world filled with such wonder and enchantment that not only do we want to visit there, we want to remain there. Like the land of Oz, this is a world that both adults and children will want to explore and play in endlessly as the film makes it almost impossible to leave this fantasy.

What makes this a great family film is how well it celebrates the importance of family. Mr. Banks, played extremely well by David Tomlinson, is reminded of what truly matters in life as he learns to prioritize family over business. That might sound cliché but the message of the film is delivered with such charm, wit and grace, that the character’s transformation doesn't seem conventional.

In addition, the special effects, particularly the merging of live action with animation, were extremely well executed for its time and still hold up today. As well, the musical and dance sequences are nothing less than spectacular with some of the most timeless songs ever committed to film, while all the characters are memorably brought to life by first rate performances all around. In essence, Mary Poppins is infused with such a powerful sense of fun, wonder and music, that it’s a pure delight from beginning to end for both adults and children alike.

04. The Sound of Music (1965)
Robert Wise (Director)
RATED G
On the surface, this is a film that should not work. It’s cutesy, silly, nauseatingly sweet, shamefully naïve, melodramatic and cheesy. And yet there's no denying that it's also completely irresistible as The Sound of Music remains one of the most popular and beloved films in movie history. Indeed, if inflation is taken into account, it's still one of the ten most commercially successful films of all time - a testament to the fact that no one can resist this sixties film classic, not even the most jaded and hardened movie fans.

One of the main keys to the film’s success is Julie Andrews, who gives a such a great performance, she essentially creates one of the most instantly likeable and sympathetic characters in film history – so much so, that we are deeply invested in everything that happens to her and we are more than willingly to follow her through this Mr. Rogers-esque world. Indeed, it's impossible not to like this film, because it's impossible not tlike her.

In addition, there is such wonderful, creative energy in every frame that the characters and their words simply leap off the screen and entrench themselves into your consciousness, much like many of the musical sequences – legendary sequences which are impossible to forget.

The bottomline: Although Sound of Music is unbelievably saccharine, we have never seen saccharine done this well. This is nothing less than a timeless classic, one that the whole family will enjoy over and over again.

05. Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise (Directors)
RATED G
Beauty and the Beast remains the only animated film to be nominated for a best picture Oscar – a remarkable feat to say the least (no rhyme intended). But there is no question it’s nomination was well deserved because, in my opinion, it’s nothing less than the second best animated film of all time. This is simply an amazing fantasy, with an astonishing score, which, like its predecessor The Little Mermaid, rivals the very best Broadway has to offer with some of the greatest musical numbers in movie history.

What is equally remarkable is the characterization of the two lead characters, Belle (Paige O’Hara) and the Beast (Robby Benson), who, individually and as a couple, exhibit remarkable charisma and chemistry on screen, equal to anything we’ve seen in many live action films.

In addition, technically and artistically, the animation itself is actually better realized than it’s predecessor The Little Mermaid, while the messages in the film are equally as good. This is a story that basically challenges the prevalent tendency of our time to embrace superficiality, as Belle is able to look beyond the surface, beyond appearances, to see and embrace the vulnerability, innocence and beauty of a man, who by all appearances, is a monster. Her unconditional love heals is wounded self-image, breaking him out of his isolation and giving him hope.

06. Shrek (2001)
Andrew Adamson, Vicky Jenson, Scott Marshall (Directors)
RATED PG
True, this animated fantasy is a little darker, edgier and more adult oriented than all the other animated films on this list, but nevertheless, Shrek is an astonishing achievement and essential family viewing. My choice for the best film of 2001, Shrek, like Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid, is blessed with remarkable characterizations especially by Mike Myers and Cameron Diaz. Indeed, Cameron Diaz’s characterization is so effective, she is able to tap into the inner beauty of her character in a way I have rarely seen in any film, let alone an animated one. And this is what Shrek is really about, inner beauty versus superficial beauty. Like Beauty and the Beast, Shrek is a challenge to a culture that values superficial beauty far too much.

What's great about this film is its wickedly sharp and satirical writing – writing that pokes fun at numerous cultural entities, including Disney animated films, and writing that reminded me a lot of my all time favourite television comedy, The Simpsons. But as much as I love The Simpsons, I’m the first to say that I don’t really think children should be watching it. It’s far too dark and pessimistic. However, with Shrek there is enough wholesome, life affirming content to offset its darker elements and to give children a valuable and worthwhile viewing experience.

07. The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Victor Fleming, Richard Thorpe, King Vidor (Directors)
RATED G
The 1939 classic, Wizard of Oz, is still one of the most beloved films of all time, with many of its images, words and songs forever embedded into public consciousness. A major part of the appeal of Oz is that for children it’s nothing more than a delightful, whimsical adventure; but for adults it's the ultimate cinematic drug trip – i.e. an innocuos way of being high without actually getting high, as Dorothy, played memorably by Judy Garland, takes us through a surreal journey where we meet all kinds of bizarre characters, a journery where anything can happen.

In this wonderful fantasy road picture, Dorothy's trip down the yellow brick road is filled with such adventure, mystery, excitement and memorable musical sequences, that it’s unbelievably fun even when danger lurks at every corner, as her exploits becomes our exploits and her life lessons, our life lessons. Indeed, the experience of Oz is very much like being taken into a children’s book where everything is alive with great colour and imagination. Effectively, the filmmakers created a world where we all wanted to visit over and over again leaving the audience with the lasting impression – there’s no place like Oz.

08. Oliver! (1968)
Carol Reed (Director)
RATED G
The 1968 classic Oliver! is still one of the few G rated films ever to win a best picture Oscar. And it’s clear to see why as this is a marriage made in Hollywood heaven - a three-way partnership between a classic Dickens novel, superb performances and a wonderful musical score.

Mark Lester plays Oliver Twist, an orphan who lives in a time when orphans were considered cursed by God. The circumstances of his life are horrible, but Oliver manages to rise above them and prove his worth. He refuses to be determined by his past, to be a victim of circumstances. These are wonderful values that children should be exposed to and the film handles them so well and so intelligently that it’s neither insulting nor preachy. There are a couple of moments that may be too intense for younger children, but still, this is one that most of the family can enjoy together. Indeed, consider yourself thoroughly entertained.

09. Charlotte’s Web (1973)
Charles A. Nichols, Iwao Takamoto (Directors)
RATED G
Here is another film adaptation of a classic children’s story brought memorable to life by the directing team of Charles A. Nichols and Iwao Takamoto. Made in the early seventies, the animation may not be on par with what we’re used to seeing today, but the story, the characters and the music are just as well realized as some of Disney’s best.

What’s great about this story is how much it makes you care for the fate of Wilbur (an immediately sympathetic character) and how much we become invested in his destiny. Equally as impressive is the relationship between Charlotte and Wilbur, which has genuine warmth and tenderness and which translates well to film.

In addition to a host of memorable musical sequences, this is an animated feature so embedded with various wholesome coming of age lessons and themes, that it doesn’t come across as preachy because we are so completely amused in the process.

10. Aladdin (1992)
Ron Clements and John Musker (Directors)
RATED G
Although not quite in the same league as its predecessors, The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin is still one of Disney’s finest animated films and in my opinion, their last true classic in this genre. There are many elements that make this film work, but one particular stroke of genius was casting Robin Williams in the role of the genie. Williams’ considerable comic talents were always a little too overwhelming for a live action format. Casting him as the genie breaks him free of those constraints and gives him a context that more readily suits his substantial comic energy. In fact, animation seems to be a more appropriate venue for Williams’s larger than life comic persona. And with Williams as our guide, Aladdin is nothing short of a comic tour de force, employing many contemporary pop culture references in an extremely humourous and clever manner.

While celebrating values of honesty, self-respect and friendship, Aladdin also takes us to an enchanted world where flying carpets and magic spells are common place, and the directors do an excellent job of bringing us into this world, infusing it with a sense of grandeur and majesty. Indeed, many of the visuals are quite spectacular and filled with such a sense of awe and wonder it’s easy to forget that we're watching animation.

THE BEST FILMS OF 2002

For some mysterious reason, 2002 was a great year for films. Not since 1993 has there been such a strong selection of great movies from which to compose a ten best list. Usually, I have trouble coming up with enough films worthy of a top ten list, this year I had to leave so many off it hurt.

01. PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE (9.5/A)
First, forget everything you know and expect from Adam Sandler. Then forget everything you know and expect from a romantic comedy. Then forget everything you know and expect from a dark comedy. This film is none of these, all of these, and more than these. It’s simply unlike anything I’ve seen in a long time. Every line of dialogue, every plot point, every story development, every character, every visual design, every use of sound and music is so fresh, so original, so creative that it’s no wonder Anderson won the best director award at Cannes. Indeed, there is scarcely a moment in the film that is devoid of some element of genius. For Anderson not only re-invented the romantic comedy, he re-invented Adam Sandler’s persona, turning him into a tragic romantic hero while proving to the world that Sandler can act. But more importantly, this film proves that no matter how big movies get, there will always be room for smaller films with inspired genius to leave all those supposedly bigger movies in the dust.

02.BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE (9.5/A)
Documentary is not one of my favourite genres and so it’s a miracle that one made it onto my top ten list, let alone this high. But I’m not overstating it when I say this is probably the best documentary I have ever seen. Michael Moore takes the topic of gun control in America and creates something so disturbing, so compelling, so thought provoking, and yet so fun and entertaining that it rarely felt like a documentary. Indeed, I might as well have been watching Raiders of the Lost Ark; and yet at no time did the haunting power of the film’s insight and message escape me. This is simply one of the best documentaries of all time and it’s easy to see why it was the first one admitted to the Cannes Film Festival in many a year (where it received a standing ovation) and easy to see why it’s the first documentary ever to receive a Writer’s Guild nomination.

03.CHICAGO (9.0/A)
This year’s front runner in the Oscar race, Chicago, is a marriage made in Hollywood heaven; as dark comedy and social satire wed dazzling musical numbers and dance sequences – giving birth to one of the best live action musicals of all time. But apart from the fact that Chicago is great fun and great entertainment, it’s also very smart and insightful, and works delightfully well as social commentary; providing one of the most perfect cinematic critiques ever on the nature of modern media.

04.ADAPTATION (9.0/A)
From the same writing and directing team that brought us 1998’s Being John Malkovich, comes a brilliant blend of Hollywood satire and self-reflexive cinema that would have made Jean-Luc Godard envious. This is a wonderful dark comedy whose chief strength is one of the most ingenious screenplays ever devised – one that merges the elements of fantasy, reality, and satire together so perfectly and so seamlessly, that it’s difficult to determine where one element begins and where the other ends. In fact, the entire film feels strangely eternal, much like a circle, as there is no clear-cut point of origin, departure or conclusion. It even manages to be self-reflexive about being self-reflexive. Equally as amazing is the fact that while it satirizes Hollywood clichés, it’s still able to employ them successfully as clichés. When you merge all this with three great performances, the result is a comic milestone.

05.GANGS OF NEW YORK (8.5/A-)
I think the main reason this film received such luke-warm responses is the fact that this is Scorsese’s attempt to do something Titanic-esque. Basically, this is Scorsese’s Titanic – a melodramatic love story set against the back drop of a reality based historical epic. It seems that whenever Scorsese sets out to do a period piece, with some kind of love story involved, it’s met with mixed responses – remember 1993’s The Age of Innocence? But since I had no problem with either The Age of Innocence or Titanic, this was right up my alley, as Scorsese successfully transforms a mediocre story into a powerful and haunting cinematic tribute to the great City of New York.

06.THE PIANIST (8.5/A-)
It’s hard not to draw comparisons between this and Schindler’s List, but after Spielberg’s masterpiece, this is the second best narrative film on the Holocaust I've ever seen and one of Roman Polanski’s very finest. And although it’s not nearly in the same league as Schindler’s List, this compelling true life account of one musician’s struggle for survival during the unimaginable evil of the Holocaust, resonates with a power that is truly frightening, haunting and disturbing. True, the film’s form is not quite as remarkable as it’s content (as is the case with Schindler’s List); but nonetheless, Polanski does a good job of bringing this story to the screen, drawing us completely into the protagonist’s miraculous story of survival.

07.FAR FROM HEAVEN (8.5/A-)
Writer/Director Todd Haynes successfully takes our image of the fifties, as seen through the rosy coloured lenses of Douglas Sirk films, and shatters the illusion that the decade was a magical one. The sad truth is, that the fifties were anything but magical if you were any kind of minority, visible or otherwise – and this becomes tragically and painfully clear as the story unfolds. Julianne Moore plays a fifties housewife, whose world starts to crumble, when she discovers that her husband is a homosexual. Not since 1993’s The Age of Innocence, have I seen a piece that so perfectly communicates the hell of being trapped by social conventions. The real strength of the film is Moore, who takes us on a heart-wrenching, emotional roller coaster ride as her character’s world disintegrates and realizes how much she is imprisoned.

08.DOGTOWN AND Z-BOYS (8.0/A-)
All I can say is that 2002 was a great year for documentaries, as miraculously, another documentary makes my top ten list. For Dogtown and Z-Boys is one of the most exhilarating movie going experiences of 2002. This story, about a group of youths from California who were instrumental in turning the sport of skateboarding into a national obsession in the seventies, is a very unique documentary in that it’s one of the very few I’ve seen where style takes precedence over content. Usually documentaries are all about the content, and style is hardly ever a consideration. With Dogtown, this is not the case, as its visual, narrative and editing styles are so fresh and so thrilling, that the entire experience of the film feels like you, yourself are riding a skateboard. In fact, so strong is the style, that it makes the content fascinating whether you’re interested in skateboarding or not.

09.HAPPY TIMES/ a.k.a. XINGFUL SHIGUANG (8.0/A-)
This is a film that I’m almost certain very few got around to seeing, but I’m extremely grateful I did, as this is one of the freshest and most original comedy/dramas to come along in quite awhile. Famed Chinese director, Yimou Zhang, brings us a story sparkling with such originality, charm and wit, that’s it’s a sheer surprise and delight at every twist and turn. This is a film that I wish every screenwriter in Hollywood could see, as the script has enough clever and original plot developments to fill ten Hollywood screenplays. The story centers on Zhao, a man who has been unlucky in love and who wants desperately to be married. He finds a woman who he believes will stay married to him and he agrees to give her the kind of wedding he cannot possibly afford. The result is comic mayhem and compelling drama as the story takes us places we could not possibly predict. Combine all this with a powerful and moving ending and you simply have one of the best films of the year.

10.ONE HOUR PHOTO (8.0/A-)
This was the year’s best thriller – an unnerving portrayal of a one-hour photo shop employee who has just a little too much time on his hands. Robin Williams plays such employee, Seymour Parrish – a man who lives alone and who begins to develop an unhealthy attachment to one of the families who frequent the photo shop. Williams’s portrayal of Parrish is exceptional, and in any other year he would probably have received an Oscar nomination. So effective is Williams’s performance that he has you simultaneously cringing at and pitying the character. In addition, I loved how this film was photographed. Most of the scenes take place in a rather mundane looking Wal-Mart-esque store, but the cinematographer does a fantastic job of making the mundane look aesthetic – effectively giving us aestheticized banality. Perfectly paced, beautifully acted, and superbly written, with some genuinely surprising twists and turns, this is an extremely effective thriller that would have made even the legendary Hitchcock proud.

RUNNERS UP:

11.MINORITY REPORT (8.0/A-)
Despite its plot holes and over the top action sequences, this is a thoughtful and engaging futuristic thriller that also manages to be surprisingly moving. Cruise does a great job taking us through this wild adventure, but the real star of the film is its brilliant and breathtaking visuals. How this film did not get a nomination for cinematography is one of the great mysteries of our time.

12.JAN DARA (8.0/A-)
Here is another film that I’m almost certain escaped many in 2002, but this is a compelling and disturbing story about a household in 1930’s Thailand torn apart by sexual sins, sexual dysfunction and sexual exploits. With elements of Greek Tragedy, it painfully reminds us how our destinies are sometimes completely at the mercy of fate.

13.TREMBLING BEFORE G-D (8.0/A-)
This is a powerful and fascinating documentary about the conflict that Judaism creates for Jews dealing with homosexuality.

14.ABOUT SCHMIDT (7.5/B+)
This is a hilarious look at a man struggling to come to terms with life after retirement. The comedic elements of the film are far stronger than the dramatic ones, as it contains some of the very best laugh-out-loud moments of any movie of 2002.

15.THE HOURS (7.5/B+)
Anchored by four great performances, this is a moving and effective drama that tells three parallel stories about women coping with their disillusionment of life.

HONOURABLE MENTIONS:

In any other year, these films would probably have made my top ten.

25th Hour
Antwone Fisher
Bollywood/Hollywood
Catch Me if You Can
City of God
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
The Quiet American
Rabbit Proof Fence
Solaris

THE RICKTER-SCALE:
10 (A+) – extraordinary, a masterpiece
9.5/9.0 (A) – exceptional, a milestone
8.5/8.0 (A-) – excellent, a classic
7.5/7.0 (B+) – very good, a near classic
6.5/6.0 (B) – good
5.5/5.0 (B-) – fair
4.5/4.0 (C+) – poor
3.5/3.0 (C) – very poor, a near disaster
2.5/2.0 (C-) – terrible, a total disaster
1.5/1.0 (D+) – torture, a catastrophe
0.5/0.0 (F) – abysmal, the end of film as an art form

2002 OSCAR RACE

Orignally published in 2003.

This year’s Oscar race is well under way and the results promise to be just as predictable as last year’s. But I’ll still be there watching because despite all the politics, despite the painfully embarrassing musical numbers and dance sequences, despite the endless, boring thank you speeches, and despite the fact that they almost never seem to get it right – it’s still tremendous fun.

Chicago is this year’s front-runner and rightly so. It’s dazzling entertainment and worthy of all the accolades it has received thus far. With 13 nominations, it joins an elite group of films including such classics as Gone with the Wind and Forrest Gump, which also garnered 13 nominations each.

Best Picture
PICKS: It’s not the absolute best film of the year, but out of all the nominated films, Chicago is the finest one and it should win. This is a smart, savvy, darkly comic, musical masterpiece that (along with Moulin Rouge) has revived a dead genre – the live action, Hollywood musical. Both films have found a way to reinvent the genre and make it palatable to a 3rd Millennium audience. Moulin Rouge employed a post-modern approach, reinventing the old to make it new in a way that both satirizes and pays homage to the tradition. Chicago simply put a dark comic spin on what’s generally a very light hearted, saccharine genre and found an effective method of merging the musical sequences with the narrative developments in a way that doesn’t seem silly and outdated – and in a way that doesn’t take us out of the story. The two approaches are enormously successful both artistically and commercially.

PREDICTIONS: Not only should Chicago win, it will win. It won the Golden Globe Award for best picture in the comedy/musical category and statistically speaking, the film with the most Oscar nominations usually wins best picture. In addition, the director, Rob Marshall, has won the Director’s Guild Award, which is usually a very strong indication that the film itself will win Best Picture.

NIXES: There are too many nixes to list here but I will say this, there are at least a dozen films I would have nominated in this category over Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Frankly, I don’t share this Rings fever that has infected most of the movie going world. I thought Attack of the Clones was a huge disappointment, but I still would have nominated it over Two Towers. I’m not necessarily saying that Two Towers is a bad movie, and I actually liked it a little more than the first one, but it’s not a good sign when the digital character gives the best performance.

Best Actor
PICKS: I think Nicolas Cage gave the best performance out of the five nominees and should win. I think Cage is still under-appreciated as an actor, despite the fact that he has consistently given top-notch performances throughout his career. Just see Leaving Las Vegas if you have any doubts about his acting ability. His performance in Adaptation is Cage’s best since his brilliant performance in that film and he deserves the Oscar simply becuase he really gives two great performances and not just one. Although he portrays twin brothers, each character is very different and Cage plays them both to near comic perfection. And despite the fact that they look exactly alike, we always know which character is which. It’s a stellar achievement and worthy of the golden statuette even though he probably won’t get it.

PREDICTIONS: It’s hard to say at this point, but I think Jack Nicholson has the best shot at taking the trophy this year. He has received much acclaim for his role in About Schmidt and has already been graced with a few honours including a Golden Globe win which officially made him the most honoured actor in Globe history. In addition, it’s simply a wonderful performance and what makes it so great is how successfully Nicholson is able to transcend both his ‘larger-than-life’ screen persona and his ‘larger than-life’ public persona to play such an ordinary, run of the mill schmuck. It’s quite an achievement and many in Hollywood have already taken notice, as the Oscar momentum seems to be in his favour. The only thing working against him is the fact that he has already won two in this category (not to mention the best supporting Oscar he won for Terms of Endearment) and no actor has ever won three in a lead category. The Academy might just say “enough already” and give the honour to another veteran, Michael Caine, or possibly even Daniel Day-Lewis, who are also former winners.

NIXES: What the @!#* happened to Richard Gere? It’s just seems really strange that almost everyone who worked on Chicago, from the producers right down to the janitors, got nominated except him. Maybe the competition in this category was just too much this year and many worthy candidates got left out. And since Gere plays such a central role in Chicago, it would have been almost as insulting to give him a nomination in the supporting category. But still, what were they thinking? The guy even tap dances for Pete’s sake!

Speaking of worthy candidates who got left out, Leonardo Di Caprio was also snubbed this year, which is unfortunate, because not since his Oscar nominated performance in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? has Di Caprio done such great work. But again, the competition was too stiff this year and there’s the added problem of which film to nominate him for, since he delivers fine lead performances in both Gangs of New York and Catch Me If You Can.

Best Actress
PICKS: This is a real tough category in which to make a pick. For me, it’s really a three-way race between Renee Zellweger (Chicago), Nicole Kidman (The Hours) and Julianne Moore (Far From Heaven); and to be perfectly honest, I would prefer simply to declare a three-way tie between them. However, if I absolutely had to choose one, it would probably be Nicole Kidman. The reason is that Kidman doesn’t have a lot of the teary eyed scenes that Moore has or any of the flashy, jazzy scenes that Zellweger has, but her performance is absolutely riveting – even with her unnecessary and distracting prosthetic nose. Also, out of all of them, Kidman is the one who most completely inhabits her character to the extent that we never see her ‘acting.’ Indeed, all we ever see is Virginia Woolf and never once do we see Kidman herself. But again, it’s so close, that I don’t think I could choose between the three of them. Zellweger strikes such a perfect balance between star-struck, wide-eyed naivete and devious, scheming malevolence that she manages to be both titillating and frightening, while Julianne Moore plays her role with such grace, dignity and subtlety, she becomes instantly sympathetic, making the audience ache for her character.

PREDICTIONS: Julianne Moore will probably win because she is the only double nominee this time around and because she has consistently given Oscar-worthy performances throughout her career. The Academy might simply feel that it’s time to honour Moore for all her great work from both the past and the present.

NIXES: Meryl Streep is strangely absent in this category for her work in The Hours. However, many in the acting branch of the Academy probably felt that she has already received her due and that compared to all her other great body of work, this performance (although a fine one) is not quite in the same league with her others. There is also the added dilemma of which category to nominate her in – leading or supporting, since her role seems to fall somewhere between the two.

Best Director
PICKS: This is another tough category, because even though I think Chicago is a better film than Gangs of New York, and even though Rob Marshall did such a fantastic job, I think Gangs is a better example of directing because Gangs’ strength is it’s direction. In other words, the director of Chicago already had a great story and a great script to work with, while Scorsese only had a mediocre story and an average script. Nevertheless, Scorsese, through the sheer merits of his talents as a director, was able to elevate this average material into something special. With almost every scene, every shot, you can see his directing prowess changing the mundane into something out of the ordinary. Indeed, so strong is his directing ability, he manages to compensate for nearly all the inadequacies and weaknesses inherent in the story. In another director’s hand, this script would have resulted in something less than stellar; in Scorsese’s hand the results are a near instant classic. Here, he clearly shows how film is really a director’s medium. And let’s face it, he deserves the honour simply because he’s the director of Raging Bull, one of the greatest films of all time.

PREDICTIONS: Up until recently, I would have put my money on Scorsese simply because it may be the only remaining chance for the Academy to right some injustices from the past – i.e. his denial of the golden statuette for such classics as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and GoodFellas (which many, including myself, still scratch their heads in wonderment at how the Oscar could have eluded him). However, Rob Marshall (Chicago) recently won the Director’s Guild Award which is usually an almost certain bet that he will win the Oscar. Scorsese still might take it, but at this point it looks like it will be Marshall, which would make it the third time that Scorsese is beaten out by a first time director – this is the first feature film directed by Marshall and Scorsese lost out to Robert Redford (Ordinary People) in 1981 and Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves) in 1991. In both instances, it was Redford’s and Costner’s directorial debut.

NIXES: I think P.T. Anderson and Michael Moore are tragically missing from this list for their work on Punch-Drunk Love and Bowling For Columbine respectively. This is a catastrophe of such enormous proportions it leaves me speechless. Enough said.

Best Supporting Actress
PICKS: This is another tough category for me to make a pick. And once again, I think it’s really a three-way race between Meryl Streep (Adaptation), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Chicago) and Kathy Bates (About Schmidt). However, if I had to choose one, it would probably be Meryl Streep because she plays more or less the straight character to Cooper’s and Cage’s funny men; and yet she still manages to hold her own and make her character almost as memorable as theirs.

PREDICTIONS: Catherine Zeta-Jones will probably win because she gave such a luminous performance in Chicago, because in way, she is the embodiment of the all the glitz and glamour that characterizes Chicago, and of course because Streep and Bates have already won the statuette.

NIXES: Cameron Diaz is strangely absent from this list. I think this is a case where the Academy simply overlooked the performance because the role itself wasn’t quite up to par in their eyes. In other words, Queen Latifah got the nomination because she had a juicier role in a better film and not necessarily because she gave a better performance.

Best Supporting Actor
PICKS: Ed Harris should win in this category. This is one of the best actors working in Hollywood, but he consistently doesn’t get the recognition he deserves. He has given a plethora of fine performances – some of them truly great such as his portrayal of the TV executive in The Truman Show (his performance was the best thing about that film). And despite the fact that he has a very macho screen persona, he still manages to play a gay man convincingly without making the character cliché.

PREDICTIONS: Chris Cooper will probably get this one. Partly because he appears to be the front runner thus far in all the other award ceremonies and partly because he plays such an outrageous character with such intelligence, charm and wit, that he simultaneously elicits both sympathy and laughter from the audience.

NIXES: Dennis Quaid – Far From Heaven! Hellooooo! Not only is this his finest performance ever, I’m not sure we’ll ever see anything better from him. Don’t get me wrong, I think Christopher Walken is amazing and I also think he did a good job in Catch Me If You Can. But frankly, I would have nominated Quaid over him because I honestly think Quaid gave a better performance and like Ed Harris, Quaid convincingly transcended his macho screen persona to play a gay man without making the character a caricature.