JANUARY SPEW:

ANOTHER CRAPPY YEAR-END LIST

So I figured I'd write up one-a those year-end lists, where I tell you which movies I really liked, which ones I really hated, and which ones changed my life (well okay, none of them changed my life - except "Pearl Harbor" made me consider ending it). Why? Well, why does anyone write lists like these? I'M BORED, THAT'S WHY! So I figured I'd take it out on you, dear, loyal reader.

Now, honestly, I didn't see all that many films in theatres this year. Mainly because fewer and fewer films fall into the "I've gotta see it!" category every year. More fell into the "I'll catch it on video" or "Maybe when it comes on HBO" categories. A few even made it into the "While I'm burning in hell" category - I mean, what other category could something like "The Hot Chick" or "Scooby-Doo" fall into? Those flicks have "eternal damnation" written all over them.

Because I didn't brave the local sticky-plex often enough to compile a comprehensive list, I'm gonna include all the films I saw for the first time this year, no matter how old they may be. Whether I saw them in theatres, on video, or in a pain-killer-induced stupor (my back's killing me - I know, I'm getting old) on cable. Now, these aren't necessarily my Top 10 Favorites, just films that made an impression, for good or bad.  

One of my favorite films of the year starred Adam Sandler. 
And no, I DIDN'T suffer a recent brain injury.

PUNCH DRUNK LOVE: How great a filmmaker is Paul Thomas Anderson? I'll tell ya. He made an Adam Sandler movie in which he didn't alter the basic Sandler formula (insecure and hostile young man struggles through life as an outsider), but managed to make a touching, funny, romantic, thought-provoking and challenging film - in other words, succeeding where all other Sandler movies had failed. Which, of course, meant that Sandler's faithful fans didn't get it at all. And that's a compliment. Instead of focusing on Sandler's outer defenses, as in his other films, Anderson strips him of his emotional armor and shows us the uncertainty, insecurity and pent-up frustration at the heart of his character. This is a lonely, screwed-up man who longs for the touch - both physical and spiritual - of another person, but doesn't have the first idea how to open himself up enough to find it. It's almost like Pinocchio - we watch Sandler's quest to become a real, live boy. And with the help of a patient, understanding, and herself slightly eccentric woman, he does. This is a romantic comedy for neurotics, which instantly makes it more identifiable than any ten Richard Gere/Julia Roberts flicks. "Punch Drunk Love" is a fractured fairy tale for the new Millennium. 

THE LORD OF THE RINGS - THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING: I'm not talking about the theatrical version of this film. I saw that last year. Thought it was great. What I'm talking about is the extended DVD cut that came out in November. While the theatrical cut was terrific, I was amazed at how much richer and more satisfying the extra 30-minutes made the extended cut. From tiny little character moments (the Hobbits singing in a pub), to huge set-pieces (the longer version of the cave troll fight is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the original... which wasn't bad to start with), to important moments that probably should've been left in in the first place (Galadriel giving the Fellowship their gifts), the film feels deeper and stronger than ever before. The extended version is so good that it almost makes the theatrical cut obsolete. In fact, it's so good that it's already got me looking forward to the extended DVD version of "The Two Towers". Speaking of which...

THE LORD OF THE RINGS - THE TWO TOWERS: "The Two Towers" proves that "Fellowship" wasn't a fluke, and that Peter Jackson has all the mojo that George Lucas seems to have lost. (Let's hope Jackson doesn't lose it on the third film of his trilogy, like George did - but something tells me that if Ewoks showed up in Middle Earth, they'd be roasting over a spit in no time flat.) It also proves that Jackson and his co-writers (Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens and Stephen Sinclair) know when to be faithful to the original Tolkien books, and when to deviate in order to make an effective movie. "The Two Towers" strays from the text of the books far more than "Fellowship" did, but always for the best. Tolkien seemed more into creating worlds and races and languages than in storytelling. As a result, much of the action in his books feels either underwritten or leisurely (example: from the time Frodo inherits The Ring to the time that Gandalf returns to tell him that it's the ONE Ring is something like 17 years - that's right, SEVENTEEN YEARS!). But Jackson and his cohorts have made "The Lord of the Rings" into a vibrant filmic experience, while managing to stay true to all that is great in the books - and even to improve on them. If "The Return of the King" continues to uphold the high quality of the first two films in the series, we'll have had the privilege of being present for one of the great filmmaking feats in history. Kind of like those of us who were around in 1977 and 1979 felt while standing in line for "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back". 

Who'd-a thunk that one of the best performances of the year would
come from a bunch of animated pixels? Jar Jar Binks can smooch my butt.

AMELIE: Now, being a guy, when I hear someone describe a film as "magical" I know two things. 1. It's a chick flick. And 2. I'm gonna frickin' HATE it. So imagine my surprise when, after watching "Amelie", I found MYSELF describing it as "magical". What makes "Amelie" so great is how constantly inventive and chock full of ideas it is. Every character is memorable and real, while at the same time feeling fantastical and literary. The France (and, indeed, the French) in "Amelie" has no basis in reality, but it's so romantic and sensual and bursting with the joy of life that you accept it because you wish it were real. Amazingly, Jean-Pierre Jenuet has managed to create this fantasy world without sacrificing a solid, gritty, real-world footing: people are stupid and cruel, the subject of Amelie's romantic fixation works in a sex shop, Amelie herself is truly (if charmingly) neurotic, hampered by the inability to simply reach out to others and make human contact. But all this only serves to make the film feel MORE romantic, in that somehow, somewhere, maybe this magical version of Paris really does exist. However, all the film's eccentric appeal would have been lost without an actress capable of effortless charm, wit and sensuality, which Audrey Tautou brings to the film in spades. She manages to ground all Jenuet's quirky ideas and convoluted plotting, giving us a character we gladly follow and root for. (Interestingly, we root for her to overcome her own neuroses as much as we root for her to get the boy.) "Amelie" was probably the most enjoyable, feel-good movie I saw all year. How much did I like it? I not only used the word "magical", I used the word "sensual". Twice. Amazing.

Magical. Adorable. Romantic. Sensual. Quirky. Perky. Sweet.
Words I hate to use. Words which all apply. In a good way.

BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF: While we're on the subject of French cinema, I want to mention one of the biggest, sloppiest, messiest and FUNNEST films I saw this year. "Brotherhood of the Wolf" doesn't know whether it wants to be a costume drama, a horror flick, a romance, or a kick-ass kung-fu actioner... so it's all of them rolled into one. There was more than one moment when I thought that the film had veered off course and wasn't gonna find its way back, but I was wrong every time. Sure, it's episodic. Sure, it's long. Sure, it meanders all over the frickin' place. But I'm so tired of seeing films stamped out of the Syd Field/Robert McKee cookie-cutter called Hollywood, that a film which dares to take side-trips and play with structure and genres this daringly can't help but feel fresh and exciting. "Brotherhood of the Wolf" is like a French "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" - foreign films which remind us how fun moviegoing can be. Something which Hollywood seems to have forgotten.

HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS: Also known as "Harry Potter and the Same Exact Story." I mean, really, are ALL the books a rehash of the same stuff? Harry with his horrible relatives... Harry saved and taken on a magical journey to Hogwarts... Harry and his pals uncover a nefarious plan taking place within the school... Harry is nearly killed during a Quiddich match... Harry must journey into the dark forest outside the school, where he faces danger but finds an important clue... Finally Harry must venture deep within the school's catacombs to battle the evildoer, who turns out to be Lord Voldemort, the guy who killed his parents and still has a major hard-on for Harry. And if the fact that it's the same stinkin' story isn't bad enough, when you add in Chris Columbus' sterile, decidedly NON-magical direction, there isn't even anything interesting to look at. Let's hope that the third film varies, at least a LITTLE, from the first two. The fact that they've hired a new director (Alfonso Cuaron) can only be a step in the right direction. Hey, at the very least maybe we'll get to see Harry and Ron use their wands on each other (to get that joke, see Cuaron's "Y Tu Mama Tambien"). Couldn't hurt.

Okay, his fighting style made him look like a frog on diet pills,
but the build-up was pretty fun.

STAR WARS EPISODE II - ATTACK OF THE CLONES: Memo to George Lucas - HIRE A REAL WRITER! And a few actors wouldn't hurt, either. There are some rules that every filmmaker should know - such as: if you're gonna be stupid enough to include phrases like "M'lady" in the dialog, you better DAMN well hire actors who can pull it off. The toughest thing about these new "Star Wars" movies is how much I want to like them. Honest. I really, really WANT to like them. But even though they contain flashes of brilliance and some genuinely exciting stuff, they're ultimately so flat in their writing and acting and all-around execution that I can't help but feel disappointed. My advice for the next film? Seriously, they need to get a good screenwriter. If Lawrence Kasdan isn't interested, throw a pile of money at Frank Darabont - someone Lucas feels comfortable with, who isn't beholden to him for the opportunity. In short, someone who'll fix all George's crappy dialog and stilted storytelling. Also, I know Lucas is thrilled with all the new digital technology, but for chrissakes, making a movie in which the actors spend 90% of their time in front of a blue screen just saps all the energy out of their performances. It even makes normally vibrant actors like Ewan McGregor and Samuel L. Jackson bland and stiff - so when you stick charisma-challenged actors like Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman in an empty set and tell them to pretend it's a beautiful balcony overlooking a majestic lake... well, you've seen the results. From behind heavy eyelids. Digital technology is a great tool when used to accentuate a film, not when it's the end-all, be-all. Take your cameras outside, George. Build some sets, George. What the film may lose in glossy visuals it'll gain in energy and personality. Don't believe me? Give Peter Jackson a call.

SPIDERMAN: I'm not a big fan of comic book movies. In fact, I can only think of five movies adapted from comic books that are any good at all. 1. Superman. 2. Men in Black. 3. Ghost World. 4. X-Men. And now 5. Spiderman. (And don't any of you write in telling me how great the Tim Burton "Batman" movies were. They were crap. The sad part is they could've been good - all they had to do was stick to Sam Hamm's original scripts and things would have been different. But you know Burton - he's never met a story he couldn't screw up.) What do those five films have in common? They felt like MOVIES, not comics. They were well-written, well-acted, and directed by people who understood that just because it's based on a comic book doesn't mean you have to rely on garish colors and Dutch angles to make every frame look like a hand-drawn panel (I'm looking at you, Joel Schumacher). In "Spiderman", Sam Raimi seems to have realized that the wilder the world they inhabit, the more real the characters have to be. That's why the casting of Tobey Maguire was such a stroke of genius. Spiderman is a popular character because his Peter Parker alter-ego is a regular guy, with flaws and insecurities and real-life problems. He's no millionaire industrialist who can afford his own Batcave. He's not a superman from another planet. He's a goofball, just like you and me (well, like you). And with his main character grounded in emotional reality, Raimi is free to go as wild as he likes with his story. More importantly, it frees him up to be funny, and emotional, and romantic - the movie doesn't have to rely solely on big honkin' action sequences and fight scenes. I was genuinely and pleasantly surprised by how much I liked "Spiderman". It's that rare comic book movie where I didn't feel like I had to check my brain at the door - primarily because the filmmakers didn't check theirs, either. (There were two other things that made "Spiderman" so enjoyable. Say it with me, boys: Kirsten... Dunst's... nipples. My advice for the sequel? More rainy night scenes!)

It was my favorite film of 2002 - hopefully it'll be yours in 2003.

And now, my pick for the best film of the year... (drum roll, please)... 

BACHELORMAN: Sure, sure - you think just because I co-wrote and co-produced it that I'd vote "BachelorMan" the best film of the year. But lemme tell ya, you'd be wrong. Believe me, back in 1985 you wouldn't have caught me dead naming "Once Bitten" my favorite film of the year. Just because I worked on it doesn't mean I'm  blindly in love with it. No, I'm naming "BachelorMan" my favorite film of the year because... well... because it IS, that's why. It's fast, it's funny, it's edgy, and it has wonderful performances from David DeLuise and MIssi Pyle as the romantic leads. John Putch's direction is sharp, witty, and (dare I say) graceful - he did what directors are supposed to do but so often don't: enhance and elevate the material. The supporting performances are all wonderful, namely Rodney Lee Conover as BachelorMan's best friend, Sean Masterson as his rival at work (and in love), Karen Bailey as DeLuise's co-worker and sole voice of reason, and Bridget Ellen as one of DeLuise's one-night stands. But the bottom line is, "BachelorMan" isn't like any other comedy out there - it breaks all the rules, using narration, flashbacks, fantasy-sequences, animation and any other trick in the book to tell its story, and most of all, to get a laugh. This is a film which obviously didn't have a bunch of studio execs second-guessing every creative decision, shooting down anything even slightly daring or unusual. How can you tell? Because it is what the vast majority of comedies these days aren't - funny. And that's why it's my favorite film of 2002. With any luck, maybe you'll get a chance to put it on your Top 10 list in 2003.

So that's my list. Like it or lump it. Hopefully I'll work up the oomph to see a few more films in theatres this year... but seeing as one of the first releases of 2003 involves two guys and a supermodel chasing a jacket-wearing kangaroo around the Australian outback, I'm not feeling overly optimistic. But hey, what do I know? It may be one of the best kangaroo movies ever made! The "Citizen Kane" of kangaroo movies! At the very least you can make it into a drinking game when it comes out on video - take a shot every time the kangaroo kicks someone in the balls. I guarantee you'll be shitfaced within twenty minutes. See? I can find a little ray of sunshine in even the most dire circumstances... which is why I still love movies. Happy 2003 everyone.

(Want to read more about "BachelorMan", see cool behind-the-scenes pictures and even watch the trailer? Go to BachelorMan.com for the full run-down, and up-to-date news.)

If you'd like to expose yourself to more SPEW just click here to read my rantings from previous months.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page!