2021 was a Year of Great Auteurs and Terrible Box Office Results

To those who don’t follow the box office, it might seem like the pandemic has dealt a blow to movie theaters but the numbers have shown for quite a while that films have been in jeopardy for a few years now.

The blockbuster business model of films has geared towards blockbusters and that disincentivised films from prioritizing quality. For one, the emphasis is generally on making money opening weekend. A film might make half its money opening weekend (generally enough to break even) before audiences realize it’s not that good. It’s a curiosity that film critics even devote their time to big releases when audiences will realize a film’s a dud before it’s too late.

I often cite 2002 as the year things changed because the original Spider-Man became the first film to gross $100 million in a single weekend. Believe me, it wasn’t just me looking at a newspaper and realizing “eureka! We’re in a new era.” A lot of press was written about this milestone (which Google News hasn’t been that generous in preserving). Ironically, some of the films that topped the top ten that weekend were Changing Lanes (a thriller starring Samuel L Jackson and Ben Affleck), The Scorpion King (a Dwayne Johnson film) and The Rookie (a sentimental sports movie).

Tragically, very few films would survive in today’s market. A sports film (particularly the Kevin Costner kind) but it’s chances are slimmer, especially in today’s market.

Dwayne Johnson still makes films but they’re board game and Disney ride adaptations in the case of Jumanji and Jungle Cruise. Which brings me to the point that even tired and tested brands and genres like those mentioned above might not get financed if they’re price tag is too expensive. The only thing that sells today is what’s known as Intellectual Properties or IPs which translates to films made from a past property whether a sequel/prequel/reboot/remake of an existing film or an adaptation of a highly popular comic/TV show/broadway show/book (i.e. Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, 50 Shades of Gray). In fact, in the year 2016, only 2 films out of the top 20—La La Land and Hidden Figures—were original films.

One way around this is to hire visionaries to get an intellectual property and make it their own like Christopher Nolan, Sam Mendes, and Taiki Wahiti have done. Paul Schrader, the screenwriter of the classic film Taxi Driver, wrote and directed the brilliant film First Reformed with Ethan Hawke to the tune of $3.4 million. Director Todd Philips had much better luck when he used Taxi Driver as a heavy influence on his (marginally) comic book based film The Joker for a film that grossed roughly 100 times that amount.

This phenomenon is known as the death of the mid-range film which many people have written about:
Is the Mid-Budget Movie an Endangered Species?

This all came to a head when mega-influential director Martin Scorsese penned an essay attacking the multi-headed beast of Marvel for ruining movies.

Which Brings Us to 2021

I keep track of a list of directors I've seen 4 or more films of. Last year, of the around 45 films I saw only 2 directors that met that benchmark (Ron Howard-Hillbilly Elegy and Chris Nolan-Tenet) and very few other notable names who I just hadn't seen enough of like Lee Daniels (Billie Holiday), Charlie Kaufman (I'm Thinking of Ending Things) and Paul Greengrass (News of the World)...most films I saw were by directors who were making a film I'd seen for the first time. I think (though I could be wrong) that studio money going to trusted film makers is going down and you just have to watch a lot of indie stuff on streaming to not get typical franchise stuff. However, this year that number ballooned to 8 out of only 34 films I've seen so far*. Additionally, there are so many artistically-renowned directors that I haven't yet seen or might not see--Mike Mills, Paul Thomas Anderson, Joel (without Ethan) Coen, Chloe Zhao, Pablo Sorrentino, Pablo Lorrain, Guillermo del Toro, Peter Jackson, Sean Baker—that it's a remarkably rich slate. A few years ago with David Fincher and Steven Soderbergh moving to TV and aging masters like Mike Nichols, Francis Ford Coppola, and Jonathan Demme struggled mightily with the studio system.

Now whether they're streaming or in a theater, I'm not sure if we can declare movies dead just yet if visionary filmmakers are being able to get their visions met. This has been a great year for movies.

Most industry insiders treat Steven Spielberg’s 1975 film Jaws (followed by his friend George Lucas’s 1977 film Star Wars) is ground zero of blockbuster culture.

Spielberg’s near-impossible feat of remaking a classic--West Side Story—and turning it into an entirely new classic puts him in the category of auteurs behind this year’s wave of greatness.

However, like great auteurs in this day and age he also has no place in the new sad era of the blockbuster. Instead, it’s once again Spider-Man which grabbed those headlines with another record-breaking gross even in the age of the pandemic.

  

Every Film I Saw in 2004 Ranked

1. Life Aquatic, Wes Anderson-Didn’t fare as well as some of the other Anderson films at the time, but the theme of enemies and friends and estranged family members overcoming their detachments because of a need to belong is still prevalent in a very touching way and it’s a feast for the eyes.
2. Aviator, Martin Scorsese-Everything about this film feels grandiose in a good way. It’s a love letter to the Golden Age of Hollywood from a man who’s arguably Classic Hollywood’s most prominent fanboy. The biopic is compelling, the hokey sentiment at the ending works, and I also like the lack of resolution. I went into the film knowing very little about Howard Hughes as well.
3. Sideways, Alexander Payne-The moment in history where Alexander Payne’s neorealist screenwriting style and critical tastes aligned. It’s a tense and funny story that treats its characters with gentleness and understanding.
4. Spanglish, James L Brooks-It’s high ranking with me is affected by the fact that it mirrors my own life story because I had a live-in Spanish-speaking nanny and her daughter stay with us when I was young. But seriously, I don’t understand the hatred for this film. Aside from that, I think it’s a very well-balanced story tonally and cleverly shifts audience loyalties between the neglectful wife, the nice guy husband, and the house interloper.
5. Anchorman, Adam McKay-My first bit of education that making a good comedy can entail the same degree of artistic difficulty as a good drama. The layers of absurdism, the strength of the characters, the timing of the jokes, everything clicked to the point that I was literally laughing throughout at least 80 to 90% of the film’s running time.
6. Ray, Taylor Hackford-The debate over whether to put Ray or Finding Neverland first was a tough one. Ray was a bit more of a known story, whereas Finding Neverland found a lot of nuance in the unknown. Ray was downright inspiring though and the redemption at the end (while not a complete redemption at all) was tear jerking. I remember leaving the theater thinking, “OK, I am not gonna let my disability hold me back.” The cast of characters rotated so often, the film felt like a series of vignettes but there was enough centrality to hold it all together.
7. Finding Neverland, Marc Forster-The film appeared a little stuffy but the theme of defining your own family resonated very well and, like, Ray, the film was quite a tear jerker.
8. Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore-Whether you agree with the politics or not, Michael Moore has really broken open the mold of a stale genre. Before Michael Moore, I wasn’t a fan of the genre at all: Talking heads, newsreel footage, self-satisfying photography. No thanks, I’ll go read a book.
9. Manchurian Candidate, Jonathan Demme-Yes, it’s a remake but the story’s one of my favorite of all time so I don’t mind seeing it again, it’s transported very appropriately to a new setting, it plays well like a thriller, and Denzel, Liev and Meryl are fantastic reinterpretations.
10. Kinsey, Bill Condon-A very interesting way to tell a story that’s largely about collecting data (even if it’s about very sexy data). The central conflict is about a scientist’s struggle to present a truth in the face of moral naysayers but it nicely meanders in talking about the man’s detachment from emotional love and his complexities. In delving into side characters, it’s an early template for so many of the great serialized shows (Dexter, Transparent, House of Cards, Orphan Black, Masters of Sex) that start with a subject and work their way out.
11. I Heart Huckabees, David O Russell-An extremely innovative and resonant form of comedy. The scene of Mark Wahlberg panicking about the state of petroleum in the world while he has a real-world problem right before him in the form of a wife leaving him, spoke to me so much as someone in my head. I didn’t know whether to laugh or scratch my head, but it was really something else.
12. Mean Girls, Mark Waters-The film that launched Tina Fey into the stratosphere still holds up very well as a quintessential teen movie. The dialogue is sharp, edgy and relatable to anyone who’s felt like an outsider in their adolescence. It also captures very well how all those cliques and aliiances that you’re obsessed with in high school seem to dissolve at some point and you realize what’s ultimately important.
13. Dodgeball, Rawson Marshall Thurber-Like Anchorman, this is a film that knows where to pin its jokes for maximum effect. It’s a brilliant sports parody, pure unadulterated fun and encapsulates Vince Vaughn’s screen persona better than any other film.
14. National Treasure, John Turteltaub-I probably would’ve ranked this more in the middle of the pack back in 2004, but it’s a more memorable film down the road and one I would rewatch in a heart beat. The premise is absurd but the marriage of history and adventure is done in a much tighter way than Da Vinci Code and it skates by on a sense of fun the whole way.
15. Supersize Me, Morgan Spurlock-Morgan Spurlock’s grotesque piece of performance art is the only known example besides Michael Moore I’ve seen of a documentary breaking the mold and showing something you couldn’t get out of reading a book on the same topic.
16. Spiderman 2, Sam Raimi-Back in the day, this film got amazing reviews and topped (whatever would have been the equivalent back then of) the Rotten Tomatoes chart, and was even included in AFI’s ballot for the 100 Greatest Films of All Time. I’ve never been too keen on the Spiderman universe because the characters feel so rigidly drawn to archetypes (James Franco is the best friend but why? Can Kirsten Dunst be any more Girl Next Door?), but the story takes the hero into new territory, the special effects are very impressive and story relevant, and there’s a grandiosity to the whole film.
17. Silver City, John Sayles-A wonderful little satire and ensemble piece about government corruption and a peon in the system (Danny Huston) finding a little piece of political redemption.
18. Shrek 2, Andrew Adamson-Not sure if I loved this cartoon as much as Chadwick Bozeman’s recent SNL character but this was a great movie about how to deal with the aftermath of happily ever after. A thematically mature cartoon is pretty rare. The laughs weren’t AS strong as they could be because they were overly character-reliant and the characters -- an ogre who’s not that bad and a donkey who’s a vehicle for Eddie Murphy humor -- wore themselves out by the end of the first film.
19. Maria Full of Grace, Joshua Marston-I don’t watch foreign films nearly as often as I should because stuff like this does give me a nice insight into another part of the world. It was nice to see a protagonist like Maria here who wasn’t entirely helpless and could advocate for herself.
20. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Michel Gondry-It’s hard to separate the film from the critical love for said film. You know why it’s a great film. I don’t remember it as much. I believe a major distraction of the film was the focus given to the Elijah Wood-Mark Ruffalo-Kirsten Dunst-Tom Wilkinson as a separate B-plot rather than just a framing device. The jumps in time gave me whiplash and not in a good way (“500 Days of Summer’ steps into and out of time more gracefully). But, yes, it has a lot of great stuff in it as well.
21. Day After Tomorrow, Roland Emmerich-It goes up several points based on how well I remember it. Even though it’s extremely implausible, the plot’s not nearly as flimsy as 2012. It fits well with Emmerich’s milieu of large-scale disaster and is a fine ensemble piece. Some of the visual imagery (such as the characters outrunning cold itself or the initial onset of the storm) is indelible.
22. I Robot, Alex Poyras-Like Kinsey, this is an extremely difficult story to adapt so I have to give the film credit for making a coherent story that’s somewhat thought-provoking (what the Asimov intended his work to be) and has a genuine element of mystery. The jaded cop angle was a little strained. There was also a bit too much exposition but it would be hard not to do with source material
23. Terminal, Stephen Spielberg-There were parts that were a little schmaltzy, but it played with some interesting cinematic and spatial space (re-thinking the airport as the setting of a movie rather than a transition point) and I found the film lined with quite a bit of philosophical depth if you consider the airport to be a purgatory of sorts. The film has a nice bit of tension between Stanley Tucci’s character and Hanks. One weakness is that Hanks is a bit Tom Hanksian in a been-there-done-that kind of way which is a shame since he’s based on an actual characterthis tough.
24. Wimbledon, Richard Lorcaine-It’s not a particularly ambitious film, but three things in the film’s favor: 1) A very endearing romcom 2) one of the few sports films dealing with staying in the game past your peak 3) making tennis (an already underrated sport) sexy and exciting through great action shots and the like
25. Welcome to Mooseport, Donald Pietrie-It has a reputation buoyed by its reviews of being bland and vanilla, and to make matters worse, it’s rumored to have scared Gene Hackman into retirement, but I don’t care. To me, the film is a pleasant throwback to the 90s era of wholesome family-friendly comedy. A bit of fish-out-of-water stuff and a nice love story
26. Merchant of Venice, Michael Radford-Hard to judge this super-objectively since I saw this for a literary class on Merchant of Venice and not really for pleasure. Al Pacino deserves accolades for going for broke here and doing Shakespeare. I’d much rather see him do this than a cop or mob member or robber. Visually nice.
27. Around the World in 80 Days, Frank Coraci-When I first saw this, I thought it was a shameful dilution of a great literary work simply to give Jackie Chan a vehicle for his blend of martial arts and children’s comedy. Then, I rewatched it and discovered how marvelously fun and virtuosic a Jackie Chan movie can be. The film’s humor can seem unimpressive at points but it’s consistently filled with the kind of jokes that would delight a 12-year-old and if you meet the material halfway, there’s a good chance you’ll be able to let your inner child out.
28. Troy, Wolfgang Petersen-When I first watched the film in 2004, I felt it was shameful that the film stripped the Iliad of its cultural specificity in favor of a more broad story. Looking at the irritating complexities of Game of Thrones or Westworld or Orphan Black, I don’t necessarily think simplifying a narrative is the worst thing you can do anymore. At the same time, the film loses a little by keeping this a tale only of humans when the source material was a more extravagant opera of Gods and humans on opposite sides of a battle. If you accept that this movie is just a watered-down Brad Pitt vehicle and lower your expectations as such, it’s an easily digestible epic.
29. 50 First Dates, Peter Segal-Not a fan of Adam Sandler’s man child screen persona but he occasionally puts his characters in solid enough plots that they cancel out the weakeness of his presence enough to make a good movie. The only three Adam Sandler films I liked were Mr Deeds, Big Daddy, and this one. Sandler films are juvenile in their jokes but they also are sincerely enveloped with a lot of heart. This is an interesting premise for a love story and it mostly works in spite of how little I like Adam Sandler as an actor.
30. After the Sunset, Brett Ratner-The film strikes just the right playful tone. Pierce Brosnan, who was as heavily associated with Bond as he would ever be, had an odd penchant for playing Bond-like figures in Tailor of Panama, No Escape, Matador, and this. All four characters are what I would describe as sleazy versions of Bond. This one is an interesting role for Brosnan because it’s laced with a playful sense of (very un-Bond-like) homoeroticism between Brosnan and Harrelson while simultaneously trying to aim for a monogamous love story. Like many of Bond’s most famous films, it’s also set in the Caribbean and has a chase scene in the Junkanoo just like Thunderball.
31. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Kerry Conran-My reaction is pretty much entirely neutral. It was pleasant and technologically innovative but the technological innovations were quite distracting.
32. Incredibles, Brad Bird-I just didn’t feel particularly inspired by this. I preferred “Sky High” or the underrated Ben Stiller vehicle “Mystery Men”
33. Taxi, Tim Story-One has to admit the scene of Queen Latifah breaking all laws of traffic (and perhaps physics) to get a passenger to Laguardia in fifteen minutes is pretty solid. And who doesn’t actively fantasize about a taxi driver (or perhaps an Uber) who actually cares about getting you somewhere on time? The premise is thin, the show is inoffensive and fun, and harkens back to the days when Jimmy Fallon didn’t make me want to stab someone. If he was better in films, he might not be imposing his annoying giggly fits on the late night landscape.
34. Stepford Wives, Frank Oz-A remake of a 1975 film starring Nicole Kidman is a burnt-out TV executive whose supportive husband moves her away from the city to a pleasant suburban enclave. This is an attempt at suburban satire that morphs into a Shyamalanesque eerie town mystery. The thru-line between the former and the latter is the peril of conformity but it’s a completely different picture in the second half which invalidates much of the first half’s thematic thrust. First, the film is about a woman learning to relax and open up; than bam!-- they’re all zombies or robots or something. The film does have a twist or two but by then it’s a little too late.
35. Garden State, Zach Braff-It’s an extremely typical coming-of-age story that doesn’t have a lot of forward momentum that is overly filled with quiet spaces. The protagonist has some issues to resolve but he’s so internal and broody, that it’s not translating on screen more than a guy voicing first world problems. Aside from an extremely typical romance with a young lady, who as far as I could tell seemed mentally ill (sorry Natalie Portman, you are an Oscar winner but I couldn’t swallow your interpretation here), basically amounts to a guy trying to decide whether to go off prescription medicine of not. There is one meaningful conversation he has with his dad and when I pulled the quote on IMDB, there was a sense of poetry to that one scene, but everything else was blah.
36. Napoleon Dynamite, Jared Hess-Napoleon Dynamite has some genuinely sweet moments between its central teenage characters but I don’t find the characters to be particularly iconic. I also don’t think Idaho (from my experiences in the state) deserves this portrayal as the capital of bland weirdness.
37. Catwoman, Pitol-It had some iconically cringe-worthy scenes (the basketball game choreographed by people who don’t know how the sport works) but it was moderately watchable. Not a high compliment, I know.
38. Ocean’s 12, Stephen Soderbergh-On the one hand, the film is crafted by Soderbergh with a genuinely impressive level of slickness that helps remind us why he won a Best Director Oscar in a competitive year. On the other hand, putting all the technical expertise in the world to an ending that basically says f--- you to the audience for caring about the story doesn’t absolve you. It’s also a self-indulgent mess. You think George Clooney and Brad Pitt are egoless actors? Nearly all of their dialogue is self-praise which is even more obnoxious considering that Pitt and Clooney are doing it on a meta-level and think it’s a wonderful use of our time to revel in their smugness.
39. Lady Killers, Joel and Ethan Coen-Part of my extremely low ranking here is high hopes. Like all Coen brothers films the sense of place is very strong and I very much enjoyed Tom Hanks’ acting here. His fast-tacking huckster is a delight and one of the best performances of the year. But no one else in the movie was remotely memorable (this was the second film that Spring I’d seen featuring a character who had IBM and I found it equally unfunny the first time) nor did the group have any discernable sense of banter. The pacing between the heist and the subsequent struggle against their landlady (Irma P Hall) was a bit abrupt which made their doom feel empty in a tragic way. The original felt less ambitious but the symmetry of the character’s success and demise made for an effective moral tone poem in its simplicity.
40. The Whole Ten Yards, John Lynn-I remember almost nothing about this film and what’s even worse news for this film’s chances of implanting itself into my memory 14 years later: I remember almost nothing about the original except that it features Amanda Peete naked and that Bruce Willis subverts the mold of a hitman by also being humorous and affable. When has Bruce Willis not been affable? I don’t even remember the decision that led to me thinking I want to put myself through a forgettable two hours.
41. 13 Going on 30, Gary Winick-I don’t believe in using the word chick flick because a movie with a female-centric character or a romance can always be appealing if made well. This is not one of those movies. The story, a gender switch on “Big” starring Jennifer Garner, is short on plot movement and overindulgent in a bath of cutesiness (makeover scenes, karaoke-filled sleepovers) that’s carried entirely on the back of Garner’s gifts for physical comedy. Garner is on screen nearly 100% of the time which gives the added disadvantage of denying us any narrative-breaking B story or plot meander.
42. Along Came Polly, Jon Hamberg-Philip Seymour Hoffman, you’re so much better than this. Why did you think channeling Jack Black was a good idea here? The film has little chemistry and the tension before the two get together was skipped which made me care less about these two. Also, could they think of nothing more sophisticated for a character trait than IBS?

If they made a perfectly measured best of the decade list

Previously, I made a top 50 of the decade list. This entry is if they came up with a way to measure every film critic in America, every film buff and every academy award voter and they came up with some perfectly weighted system to measure the best films of the decade, here's what I would imagine the results would be. indicate which films are too high or low on this list. Also, I am not including more than one of any film series. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY A PERSONAL OPINION
1. Lord of the Rings: ROTK, Peter Jackson**-The definitive blockbuster of the decade. It had the trifecta of cultural buzz, box office success and critical success.
2. There Will be Blood, Paul Thomas Anderson *-Paul Thomas Anderson is a director with an increasingly more respected track record as his 90's films Boogie Nights and Magnolia have retroactively gained stature. "There Will Be Blood" has an Oscar-winning performance from Daniel Day-Lewis who's considered by critics to be a rare gem (especially since he rarely acts in movies). It's a film that touches on the themes of capitalism gone awry so it gets points for capturing the zitgiest as well as for having a bold, artistic vision.
3. City of God, Fernando Meirelles + -The '00s were a decade when international films had more of a fighting chance of entering the American mainstream if they were good enough. City of God was probably the most universally acknowledged as brilliant among those films that were widely seen by American audiences. It also has the gangster genre going for it, which is one that always gets critical acclaim.
4. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Michael Gondry-If the best-of-the decade retrospectives are to be believed, you would think that Eternal Sunshine and Sideways were the two front-runners for Best picture in the 2005 Oscar race rather than Aviator and Million Dollar Baby. My theories as to Eternal Sunshine's retroactive rise in popularity: 1) Broken storylines have defined the decade well and Eternal Sunshine had a fragmented storyline that didn't invalidate the story (i.e. Vanilla Sky, Mullholland Drive) but provided enough spin on the conventional love story 2) It merged technology with storytellling so it was kind of the next level of storytelling in that way 3) It was the most love storyesque of the three Charlie Kaufman films 4) Michael Gondry, Jim Carrey, Tom Wilkinson, Kate Winslet all have high Q ratings at the moment. Gondry was famous for music videos and short films and film students eat that s--- up
5. Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee *-A love story between two guys that was slated for Oscar Gold. Has anything like that even come close to happening before? The performances in this film are already iconic.
6. Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan-It ignited a self-feeding euphoria of "Best film ever??!" talk when it ascended to #1 on the imdb. In its defense, it redefined and transcended the superhero film genre which is THE genre who's growth defined the decade. The film boasted sensational acting, sensational choreography, sensational sound-editing, a sensational score and a sensational adaptation making it primed to sweep the Oscars in a number of ways.
7. Pan's Labyrinth, Guillermo del Toro-In terms of unquestionably innovative, this is it. The idea of taking the war picture and telling it from the point-of-view from kids and it was one of the three Amigos' films: 3 Mexican filmmakers all had big Welcome to Hollywood hits in 2006: Pan's Labrynth, Gonzalu's Babel and Cuaron's aforementioned Children of Men.
It was ranked #1 by metacritic for films of the last 10 years.
8. Wall-E, Andrew Staunton-This film truly transcended the animated film genre. It was bold enough to forego dialogue for the movie's first act and bolder still in choosing to make it's love story about two robots. It had a message but didn't come off as preachy.
9. Mulholland Drive, David Lynch +-Lynch's film had the entire audience (including the critics) simultaneously scratching their heads at the end in confusion, but one of the supposed strengths of the film is that everyone went "Huh?" in union leading to one of the few moments of universality all decade long. It wasn't just the "Huh?" and the fact that people still couldn't figure it out but Lynch's disfigured narrative was engrossing enough that it remains one of Lynch's most widely-viewed and popular works.
10. Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle **-An internationally shot film that was gritty and inspiring. Nary a bad review in sight and a near sweep at the Oscars. As it stands, the second most popular best picture winner behind LOTR. Boyle is a filmmaker for the 21st Century and this film's Best Picture award signifies a promising career that has rightfully blossomed since Trainspotting in 1996.

11. Gladiator, Ridley Scott **-Not particularly ambitious but the direction, performances, and overall production values of the picture propelled it to a best picture win. Whether a genre film like Gladiator ages well is partially dependent on the genre's level of saturation at the time of relief. Fortunately, this Roman sandals epic captured audience imaginations and created both word-of-mouth and cultural resonance.
12. Children of Men, Alfonso Cuaron **-Guys like Peter Travers at Rolling Stone and Jim Emerson at Rogerebert.com put this on their top ten list. EW listed it as one of 25 films that will remain a classic. I've seen it and I'm not sure why it was so great but it was unquestionably bold. Boldness of vision is a keyword I'm using a lot to describe what attracts critics to these films.
13. Almost Famous, Cameron Crowe-This didn't earn an Oscar nomination but retroactively it would have if critics were voting again. I've seen it pop up practically everywhere from the AV Club's list to Culture Snob to MSN Movie's list to name a few. I believe it's enhanced reputation over the years has come about because after this film, Cameron Crowe didn't make a good film again. Elizabethtown (which I personally liked) was panned for being a little too eager to tug at the heartstrings and Vanilla Sky was somewhat of a mess. The film has aged well and is the epitome of Crowe's personal touch.

14. Departed, Martin Scorsese **-Scorsesee tried hard to get an Oscar with every film he made this decade and this struck Gold. Whether it's ambitious as his two prior films, this was universally considered a crowd-pleaser. It was also a higher grossing movie than Aviator or GONY.

15. Hurt Locker, Kathyn Bighelow**-The 2000s were far more war-filled than the last two decades and the struggle to translate the conflicts from that war onto the movie screen were

16. Traffic, Steve Soderbergh*-Among films complex enough to be able to win big raves in the short-term and still feel like a work of art ten years later, this makes the list. Soderbergh won best director and Stephen Gaghan (director of Syriana) won best adapted screenplay and if they were to revote 10 years later, my bet is they would still win. Making an star-sprinkled ensemble piece that's more than the sum of its parts is rare to pull off (With so many stars appearing for narratively irrelevant cameos, I'd argue that even The Player falls short of this mark), but Traffic makes it work. Unfortunately, Soderbergh would do the exact opposite (making a movie for little reason other than the fact that high profile stars agreed to be in it) with Ocean's 12.
17. The Pianist, Roman Polanski*-Polanski's deeply personal film about art's power to heal tragedy scored some unexpected awards in the best picture race of 2002. It's a film with fairly universal praise.
18. Spiderman II, Sam Raimi- Before the Dark Knight, Spiderman II rewrote the rule book on sequels. Following up on a film that shattered records, Raimi and the filmmakers amplified the narrative by adding new angles (Spiderman's choice to be Spiderman) and revived the Superhero genre by keeping the action grounded in reality. It's a format that has been used in most of the superhero genres this decade. In short, it's been a big influence.
19. Letters from Iwo Jima, Clint Eastwood*-This has undoubtedly been the decade of Eastwood. His boldest directorial effort was telling a war story from the point of view from both sides. Whether this film changed the landscape of cinema like Unforgiven did or not, it won critics and audiences over. It was named the National Board of Review's best film of the year and made a lot of top ten lists.
20. No Country for Old Men, Joel and Ethan Coen **-It's not one that I particularly felt was worthy of best picture. Fractured endings are popular and the Coens, despite some inconsistency this decade, have overally come out of the aughts at the top of their game.
21. Lost in Translation, Sophia Coppola *-As Roger Ebert put it, this was a different kind of film that required the viewers to be patient and let love unfold at real-life pace. In a crowded year, the film eked out a best picture nomination and won a screenwriting Oscar for Sofia Coppolla
22. Memento, Christopher Nolan-The film's method of telling a story was a game changer at the time and the film holds up just as well now. Adapted from a short story by Nolan and his brother, this film was the world's first demonstration of Nolan's genius for telling a complex story and putting it to film. Curiously, Guy Pearce never got himself a slot on Christopher Nolan's preferred actor list for later movies

23. Avatar, James Cameron
24. Requiem for a Dream, Darren Aronofsky
25. Royal Tenenbaums, Wes Anderson

26. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Ang Lee *
27. Moulin Rouge!, Nicole Kidman
28. The Incredibles, Brad Bird
29. Far From Heaven, Todd Haynes
30. Chicago, Rob Marshall **
31. Little Miss Sunshine, Valerie Faris & Jonathan Dayton *
32. Grizzly Man, Warner Herzog
33. Pirates of the Carribean: Curse of the Black Pearl, Gore Verbinski
34. Munich, Stephen Spielberg *
35. Up in the Air, Jason Reitman *
36. Borat, Larry Charles
37. Juno, Jason Reitman *
38. Casino Royale, Martin Campbell
39. Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore
40. Prestige, Christopher Nolan
41. In America, Jim Sheridan
42. Michael Clayton, Tony Gileroy *
43. Hotel Rwanda, Terry George
44. Gangs of New York, Martin Scorsese *
45. Gosford Park, Rob Altman *-Altman had some struggles finding audiences in the 80's and some of the 90's, but he has a strong base of admirers and with his last few films before his death in 2006, he further cemented his legacy as one of the legends of film. Godsford Park scored Altman his 5th Oscar nomination for director and was his 3rd film to be nominated for best picture.
46. 25th Hour, Spike Lee-25th Hour is making its way on some end of the year lists for the wrong reasons as far as I'm concerned: People are making too much of it as an allegory about 9/11 but some people (like Roger Ebert) just acknowledge that it's an excellent film
47. Mystic River, Clint Eastwood*- This film would have won the Oscar for Eastwood if that pesky sequel Lord of the Rings wasn't in the way. It was an adaptation of a Dennis Lehane novel that audiences found stirring, well-acted, and emotionally resonant. It basically marked the rebirth of Clint and might have been overshadowed since by Million Dollar Baby, Letters, Changeling and Gran Torino, I've seen it sneak up on a few lists.
48. Talk to Her, Pedro Almodovar+- This list needs more foreign films and Almodovar is hard to ignore with his success in Volver, Bad Education, and
49. Little Children, Todd Fields-Fields made a couple of melodramas in this film and In the Bedroom that critics found quite effective
50. 21 Grams, Alejandro Inarritu Gonzalu-A.I.G. had 3 successful films. Amores Perros was entirely in subtitles so it had the most indie cred. Babel was the most well-publicized film because it got the Oscar nom. 21 Grams was the happy balance in the middle.

+=Best Director nom without a best picture nom
*=Best Picture nom
**=Best picture winner
Also under consideration: Dreamgirls, Bill Condon; Into the Wild, Sean Penn; Up, Pete Doctor (animated); United 93, Paul Greengrass; Bourne Ultimatum, Paul Greengrass; Crash, Paul Haggis; King Kong, Peter Jackson; Constant Gardener, Fernando Meirelles; Ray, Taylor Hackford; Blind Side, John Lee Hancock; Milk, Gus van Sant; Match Point, Woody Allen; Amilie, Jean Pierre Juenet; Big Fish, Tim Burton; Blood Diamond, Ed Zwick

Also, by year:
2000: Gladiator, Almost Famous, Traffic, CTHD, Reqiuem for a Dream
2001: Mullholland Drive, Moulan Rouge, Royal Tannenbaums, Momento, Godsford Park, (Amelie)
2002: City of God, Pianist, Far From Heaven, Gangs of New York, Chicago, 25th Hour, Talk to Her
2003: Lord of the Rings, Lost in Translation, Pirates, Mystic River, 21 Grams, In America,(Big Fish)
2004: Eternal Sunshine, Sideways, Spiderman II, Incredibles, Fahrenheit 911, Hotel Rwanda, (Ray)
2005: Brokeback Mtn, Munich, Grizzly Man, (King Kong, Crash, Match Point, Constant Gardener)
2006: Departed, Children of Men, Pan's Labrynth, Letters from Iwo Jima, Casino Royale, Little Miss Sunshine, Borat, Prestige, Little Children (United 93, Blood Diamond, Dreamgirls))
2007: There Will be Blood, No Country, Michael Clayton, Juno (Into the Wild, Bourne Ultimatum)
2008: Dark Knight, Wall-E, Slumdog Millionaire (Milk)
2009: Hurt Locker, Avatar, Up in the Air, (Up, Blind Side)

Reading through oversimplified blurbs

Yesterday in USA Today, there was a blurb that read as follows:


"Matt Damon is filmdom's sexiest moneymaker. His The Bourne Ultimatum outgunned The Simpsons at the box office ($131.6 million for Bourne in its second week vs. $128.1 million for The Simpsons). The under-the-radar leading man was named most bankable actor by Forbes. Maybe Ocean's Thirteen co-star George Clooney had the inside track last year when he said Damon should be People's next Sexiest Man Alive?"

The main takeaway from this is that Forbes Magazine really needs to stick to non-movie analysis.

It's true that the "Bourne Ultimatum" is successful but to be considered a bankable actor over the course of your career, you should have to show two hits in a row on your resume. The last movie that starred Matt Damon (an ensemble piece like "Ocean's 13" doesn't really count) was "The Good Shepherd" which netted only $59 million domestically. Not too long before that, "Syriana" netted in just $50 million despite high critical praise and Terry Gilliam's "The Brothers Grimm" earned $37 million.

Box Office Mojo calculates the average gross of a Matt Damon film to be $80.4 million dollars. If we remove the four films (not including cameos) he appeared in prior to his breakout role in Good Will Hunting ("School Ties", "Geronimo", "Courage Under Fire", and "The Rainmaker") that's adjusted to $90.2 million which is still not as good as the unadjusted figures for Jim Carrey ($102 million), Steve Carell ($108.6 million), Tom Cruise ($99.9 million, although he's averaged $120 million since his breakout role in Top Gun), Harrison Ford ($106 million), or Orlando Bloom ($207 million).

One wouldn't expect a Matt Damon movie to necessarily do well because he usually chooses roles like "Bourne Ultimatum", "Syrianna", and "Good Shepherd" with political subtexts that could tend to polarize audiences like Sean Penn. This is not to say Matt Damon is not a truly gifted and admirably intelligent actor because he is. Damon is not a bankable actor but that is because he chooses not to be: He chooses roles carefully and diversifies his challenges.

The problem is to prematurely label him as the new "It boy" in Hollywood and pin lofty commercial expectations on him and his future projects.

Lastly, who's to say "The Bourne Ultimatum" is successful? It's only been out 2 weekends, and it had a 52 percent falloff rate on the second weekend whereas 40-45 percent is considered the average drop off. The article also says it beat the Simpsons movie's 10-day total, but who cares? "The Simpsons" movie was only the sixth highest ten-day total of the summer. "Bourne Ultimatum" didn't beat "Transformers" or "Harry Potter" which didn't have the advantage of being the back-ends of trilogies.

The lesson: Do not read too much into oversimplified blurbs that are written by people with short-term memory. They're created out of little more than a need to throw a couple of facts together into a paragraph to make copy look interesting

Another case in point: USA Today's movie round-up on the front page of the Life section in this very same issue:

"Transformers at No. 11 this weekend, becomes the fourth movie to cross the $300 million mark this year, a record number. This summer is on par to become the largest of all time, with ticket sales up 6% over 2004, the current record holder."

On the contrary, this summer is highly disappointing if ticket sales are up only 6% over 2004. Transformers is the fourth movie to cross the $300 million mark but considering that past installments of the "Shrek", "Spiderman" and the "Pirates of the Caribbean" series have each grossed over $400 million* the third installments were in a position to easily sleepwalk their way into $300 million grosses, which is precisely what they did. The critical consensus is that "Shrek the Third" was an entirely unnecessary tack-on, "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" was incomprehensible, and "Spiderman III" was arguably decent with some definite cringeworthy moments. The fact that the back-ends of the three most successful summer movie trilogies of the decade were all premiering this summer and none of them grossed more than $340 million is an indication of how they disappointed audiences. "Transformers" is an unabashed success but it's still too early to tell if "Bourne Ultimatum" or "Harry Potter" will join them.

*Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, Shrek II, and Spiderman are among just seven movies to gross over $400 million. Spiderman II grossed $373 million which places it among the top 10 all-time

Predicting Pirates will sweep the box office

I don't yet have a review of Pirates of Caribbean as I will see the movie tomorrow. Nevertheless, I am going to predict that Pirates of the Caribbean comes out on top this summer at the box office race and I just wanted to post it here before the box office report comes out.

My reasons:
1. It has more family appeal than Spiderman in my opinion, because Jack Sparrow might be more popular with kids. This is just my guess but Captain Jack Sparrow might be a little bit more appealing to kids at a slightly younger age, while Spiderman/Peter Parker is more of an adolescent hero. At the same time, Pirates might appeal to adults more because because many people in their 50s or 60s might have grown up on Pirate Movies as a kid and this is an effective homage to the genre. This is interesting because it's the first time the Pirates and Spiderman, the two biggest summer giants of the decade have squared off in the same season.

2. The release schedules. Spiderman 1's release at the beginning of the summer several weeks before any other movies came out was a strategy that paid off and shot the film northward of $300 million dollars. However, with two juggernauts being released within 2 and 3 weeks of Spiderman's opening in Shrek the Third and Pirates III, that is going to cut into its intake. Expect Spiderman to drop significantly this weekend. Pirates III has a wide open field that I doubt Ocean's 13 will do much to affect in a couple of weeks. The truth is that all three films will hurt their chances to realize their maximum profit by releasing their films so close to each other. And it's such a shame because it's all on memorial day, but Pirates will hurt itself the least. Pirates might not equal Spiderman's opening 3 day record, but it might gross higher in the long run. At least, I hope so because I am a pirate lover

3. Pirates has good reviews, whatever that's worth. It's even enough to get viewers on board who aren't familiar with the series, period.


So my predictions:
Spiderman III: $360 million
Shrek the third: $319 million (on the plus, there's no other kids' movies for competition, but May is a crowded month)
Pirates II:
Opening weekend: $124 million, total $387 million



Other summer films:
-Ocean's 13 will be an interesting choice. It's director Stephen Sodebergh won an oscar for his innovative film making in traffic and has since been nothing if not innovative and constantly experimenting with the medium (i.e. Full Frontal, Bubble, Good German). At the same time, a lot of these films are just plain awful. Unfortunately, Ocean's 12 fell under the same trap of a filmmaker so caught up in experimentation that he forgot to hold his story together with a coherent plot. Still, the greatness and potential of the director is evident and that might be enough for many to fill the seats. The film's gross is also hard to predict because the previous films were released during December and this one will be released in the Summer. Considering the first one made $183 million domestically, I'm gonna guess that this one can hit the $200 million mark if it gets decent to good reviews
Prediction: $49 mil opening $220 million

-Evan Almighty: the first film was a $200 mil+ hit. Evan Almighty has practically nothing to do with Bruce Allmighty in the sense that while Morgan Freeman still plays God, Jennifer Anniston and Jim Carrey are gone. This is just a cheap attempt to capitalize on Steve Carrell's rising stock and framing it as a sequel. So the question is how appealing is Steve Carrell? Well, the 40-Year Old Virgin did well but that was through good word-of-mouth, Steve Carrell as a break-out star, a catchy gimmick, and the revered reputation of writer/director Judd Apatow. I hear that if a guy is on a TV show, it's difficult to get anyone pay to see him in a movie when the TV show is free. I bet this one will be a little subpar on expectations
Prediction: $32 mil opening $121 mil

-Fantastic Four: The first one had bad reviews, a great opening weekend at $55.7 million, and a slightly above average total at $154 million total. In other words, this difference between great opening weekend and decent total means great hype but not-so-great word of mouth. I think the studio that funded this project underestimated the need for the sequel. Jessica Alba's growth as a star attraction will have to help move this film along. The film also needs to hope that comic book geeks will flock to the film for the added attraction of the Silver Surfer and unlike the first film, moviegoers might be more deterred by bad reviews if they occur a second time. This is what sunk Tomb Raider II and Charlie's Angels II.
Prediction: $44 mil opening, $152 mil

-Transformers: The transformers are a nostalgic trip for those raised in the 80s, but that's a small, small demographic, and I don't think live action will appeal as well. It's produced by Spielberg, which might sound like a sure thing, but remember: it's not directed or written by him. I predict this to be a bust, unfortunately. I am predicting this to be a humongous, humongous flop, by the way. This is the equivalent of predicting a 13 seed over a 4 seed in the NCAA tournament
Prediction: $19 mil opening, $100 mil

-Harry Potter V: The last Harry Potter movie to open in the summer was Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azhkaban which had a respectable opening en route to $249 million dollars. I see no reason why this film will do better or worse than that one. If people are falling out of interest in the series, (which I don't think they are), I think the quality of the films is increasing anyway. It's getting a great release date, about 6 weeks after people will get tired of Pirates, so I predict slightly higher
Prediction: $66 mil opening, $258 mil

-Simpsons: Let's face it, the Simpsons are on the demise. They haven't had a remotely original episode in 5 years, at least, and while some people could successfully argue that Family Guy won't ever be as good as Simpsons was 10 years ago, in 2007, I can't see the Simpsons generating enough buzz for a decent season premiere this September, let alone show up in mass droves for a movie premiere. The Simpsons' success has always been that of casual viewership, in my opinion. It's just something decent to watch at 6 or 7 pm while preparing dinner and nothing more. It's just a generic answer you might have if someone asked you your favorite TV show and you didn't want to answer with something too wierd. Just like George Clooney when he was on E.R. and trying to become a bankable TV star, people often won't want to pay for something that's on TV.
Furthermore, I predict it will be the failure of this movie that will get people asking the long overdue question, "Is the Simpsons really that culturally relevant anymore?"
Prediction: $13 mil opening, $79 mil total

-Knocked Up: This is going to be the sleeper hit of the summer and raise Judd Apatow's profile even more. He's rumored to be launching Tom Cruise's comeback next. I've heard from everywhere it's very good, but I don't believe that'll translate into a strong weekend opening. Not with Pirates still around.
Prediction: $25 mil opening, $132 mil total

-Nancy Drew: Is the next tentpole for a series like Harry Potter? It might have that crossover appeal that parents might want to watch with their kids but it's just not being marketed heavily enough.
Prediction: $21 mil opening, $112 mil total

-Liscence to Wed: It looks like summer filler similar to RV. I'm not saying Robin Williams is by any means going downhill, but with RV, Man of the Year, and Liscence to Wed he's starting to get into too much of a comfortable zone
Predictions: $10 mil opening, $68 mil total

The era of the blockbuster

Five years ago, Spiderman burst into movie theaters across the country an unpredented three weekends before Memorial day. Boasting a head start over the rest of the summer films, an unlikely choice for the lead in Tobey MaGuire, and a legion of comic book aficianados eager for the movie's release, the film made movie history by becoming the first film to make one hundred million dollars in its opening weekend.

Since then, Spiderman 3 enters theatered the same weekend, but in an era that's completeley dominated by summer blockbusters. At $151 million Spiderman 3 broke the weekend record once again and has become the eighth picture to do so. Thirty-three movies have grossed $200 million or more domestically and 23 of those came out during the summer whereas only 28 films hit the $200 million mark before this decade.

Ten years ago, there might have been one or two big budget projects like Men in Black, Batman Forever, or Independence Day that would generate water cooler buzz all summer, but nowadays, a big-event picture enters the theaters once every other week during the summer months, with sequels, prequels, remakes. Everything practically falls into this pattern even if it's not technically a sequel. The 2002 hit Signs and M. Night Shamylan's sophomore effort, was anticipated "the next M. Night Shamylan film," which was in essence The Sixth Sense II or we could have called Michael Moore's Farenheight 911, "Bowling for Columbine II."

"Why don't the studios care about originality?" you may ask. They do. In fact, it's because of their love of filmmaking and their desire to want to make innovative and original films that the studios put us through this cycle and it also benefits us as well. Here's how:

By expending a lot of money on these cash cow films and shamelessly plugging away at them until every person and their grandmother has seen the movie twice, studios are able to pay for all the more interesting films that might not be as sure of a commercial bet. These films usually appear in theaters from around the end of the summer to the end of the year, and you can often find many of them spilling over into January and February. The films that are released during this time of year in hopes of winning Oscars, which are little toy statues that the winners like to wave around to their peers in hopes of gaining respect, power, and priority seating at high-class Hollywood establishments. It's a strange culture they have out there.

Nevertheless, once Oscar season ends, we have a season of pretty-much nothing on the movie front. Movie fans can spend their time watching the NHL or college basketball or whatever else catches their fancy, because the state of movies is pretty much unchanged. Sure, there are movies in the theaters between February and April but these are films that are released just for the sake of having something new for the movie theaters to show. With a few exceptions, these movies are usually very forgettable (If films in this category like R.V., the Pacifier, Norbit, Epic Movie, Failure to Launch, The Shaggy Dog, Date Movie or Wild Hogs become classics 10 years down the road, than I will eat my words on this one). I think of it as a kind of absence-makes-the-heart-grow-fonder-type of process where we take a break from watching current releases and might even swear off movies as a whole considering the quality of the films that comes out during this period.

This is where the summer Blockbuster season comes to the rescue. It presents us with sequels, remakes and tentpoles which are virtually impossible to turn down. Anyone who's watched Pirates of the Carribean 2 and has even the slightest interest in the characters is going to feel compelled to watch the third one just to see what happens to the characters. This is why sequels are so profitable, although that's based on the cliffhanger element being done well enough. Personally, I thought one of the weaknesses of Spiderman 2 was that it closed off all the loose threads for me to be invested in the third: Spiderman's identity revealed to Harry, Spiderman's identity revealed to Mary Jane, Spiderman's confession to his aunt, Spiderman and Mary Jane getting together, etc.

Still, the people saw it in mass droves ignoring mixed reviews because that's the power of the sequel: It's a must-see and more than that, it's a must-see on opening weekend, which some of us (myself included) have not been able to make.

The tragedy of this summer is that if we mutually agree that Ocean's 12 ruined our good faith in the Ocean's 11 and that the Rush Hour series was never very good in the first place, than the three big trilogy back-ends this summer, Shrek 3, Pirates 3, and Spiderman 3, are all taking place by Memorial Day Weekend which was when the summer seasion is traditionally supposed to start. The Early Bird catches the worm is the philosophy. So if you haven't been able to make the big opening-weekend rushes, don't worry, there's still the actual summer to see them. I myself am a little behind on starting my summer. I just saw Spiderman 3 last weekend and will see Pirates this weekend.

And the summer season is off: Spiderman breaks all the records

Well, the summer season has started (and I have yet to fully discuss that in another post that I had planned to post up) and it was a bang with the new Spiderman sequel. The critics gave it "mixed reviews" while the public saw it in record numbers. Early Sunday projections come to the tune of $149 million and all I can say is that I saw both these trends coming. It seemed obvious that the critics wouldn't like the 3rd part of a trilogy because they rarely do. The expectations are so high, that they're usually expecting the next Citizen Kane and this is usually more the case when the film directors like the 2nd half of the trilogy better. Roger Ebert called X-Men 2 the best superhero movie he'd ever seen until the year after that when he proclaimed Spiderman 2 the best superhero movie ever again, so again the expectations are going to be high.

My city paper's film critic, Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post, went on to express this self-fullfilling prophecy in her review of the film. She basically said, "Spiderman 3 cements the rule that the third leg of a trilogy will always be a massive disappointment, just like Batman Forever and X-Men 3." As I constantly try to remind people, it wasn't until Batman & Robin that the Batman series took a real dive. Batman Forever remains one of my favorite superhero films and I have yet to hear a rational argument for why X-Men 3 was not a good film. Maybe slightly less effective than the first two films, but the level of acting, plot complexity, and special effects are still way up there. By no means do I equate Brett Ratner and Bryan Singer as directors (I think much higher of the latter), but without seeing the opening credits, I would openly challenge many of the film critics who bashed X-Men 3 to identify whether it was a Singer or a Rattner movie.

I also expected Spiderman 3 to do tremendously well, but duh. The harder question is why. I much prefer the X-Men series and tried to show it to my dad once, but for some reason he has a habit of running in the opposite direction of anything that appears sci-fi and about halfway through, he felt it was just unappealling and walked away.

It was too complex for him and in that respect, Spiderman with only one hero (Peter Parker), one villain (Doc Ock or the Green Goblin), one girl (MJ), and one variable who shifts in between (Harry Osborn), it's superhero/supervillain entertainment watered down enough so that anyone can partake. That's kind of the way I see it, at least. Magneto is a villain of Shakesperean proportions and he plays games of chess with his biggest arch rival. Despite Alfred Molina and Willhem Dafoe being serviceable actors, they played one-dimenstional villains. In Spiderman 1, the Peter Parker-MJ relationship is so cliche of the girl-next-door type story, that she's even literally next door. I also didn't feel that any of the key relationships evolved organically from Spiderman 1 to Spiderman 2. Harry and Peter Parker are "best friends" but that is merely a plot point. Do we ever see the two actually canoodling as friends? Despite the cliche factor, I might say that it was a somewhat effective progression from boy having a crush on girl to the two falling in love in Spiderman 1, but in Spiderman 2, there's an awkward stability between the two and they act as if they're lifelong friends. MJ is expecting things of him as "her best friend" such as being on time to the play. It's merely a relationship established at the start of the picture to move it along from one end of the spectrum to another.

Nevertheless, I do like the Spiderman Series and would give both movies thumbs up. I think that they do a great job of intermixing the superhero within the mundane world and that's another reason why this superhero trilogy has become such a mega force at the box office. Because it attracts the comic book nerds in droves while it attracts the people who aren't drawn to comic book storytelling. I think Tobey MaGuire is cast extremely against type and it plays off especially well. I just don't think it's on the level of really great movie making

Nevertheless, I will probably see Spiderman 3, mainly because when something's this big, you've gotta jump in and see what it's all about. I'm also extremely curious to see what they've done with Thomas Haden Church