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?

Help! We've been attacked!

BEST WEBSITES OF 2008

An article recently surfaced which caught my friend's attention and he asked me to comment on it. The article is http://www.nypress.com/21/17/news&columns/feature3.cfm

Here's my response:
I think this guy has 8 or 9 articles that he merged into one and makes a lot of generalizations which don't generally hold true. You have to read it, however, like a big textbook and agree with some and disagree with some. If the guy wanted to make sense, he should have stated that his article was targeting a specific type of blogger rather than everyone except for himself. For example, I loved Bobby and Darjeerling Limited and promoted the hell out of them, which are two movies he likes.
I also think Premiere was a great magazine (which is ironic because the author hates it) and I mourn its death as much as the next guy. I actually don’t particularly want to be a “blogger” and really want to be in the print media anyway. This started out as a way to promote my stuff so that I might get hired in the print media, and I would gladly seize doing this at once, if it meant that someone in the print media who I am a fan of, could keep their job.
I think it's very sloppy to imply that Ebert has never contributed much. Yes, Ebert the TV critic just does thumbs up or thumbs down, but in writing he has great insights and he is constantly stressing to his readers in his Q and A not to pay too much attention to stars. I agree that a lot of criticism boils down to "Is the film good or bad" but that's mostly in the world of print media, anyway, because print media caters to what the everyday Joe wants to know which is "should I see this movie?” But the internet sites have the advantage along with more in-depth journals and academic literature of analysis.
He might be right that historical context is missing from the great majority of film criticism. I think that's one of the most important things you gain from studying movies is understanding history (and not film history but actual history) better. There are courses in most film curriculums that focus on movies and society, however.

Here is his list of ten things which film bloggers and other critics make the mistake of doing:
1)“The Three Amigos” Iñárritu, Cuarón and del Toro are Mexico’s greatest filmmakers while Julian Hernandez is ignored.

Yeah, sorry never heard of Hernandez. Just like every member of the public I can’t know of every person who’s ever picked up a movie camera and made a film. I’m not making a conscious decision to denounce him. If you want to promote Hernandez, fine, great. Point taken. You might also have a point that as amateurs we don’t have access to someone like Hernandez, but that’s hardly a new discovery.


2) Gus Van Sant is the new Visconti when he’s really the new Fagin, a jailbait artful dodger

Gus Van Sant isn’t that much of an auteur, I personally don’t care for him, but more to the point, he’s not the central point of a lot of discussions. In terms of a couple of his films I know of, Finding Forrester was primarily a Sean Connery vehicle and Good Will Hunting’s autuers, at least in the eyes of the public, were writer-actors Damon and Affleck who initiated the project. So to me, you might call me in agreement with you. I don’t really know who Visconti and Fagin are, sorry.

3) Documentaries ought to be partisan rather than reportorial or observational.

I think that people tend to place partisan labels on a documentary that the documentarians don’t see themselves. I also feel that Armond White shows his blog himself, person is biased against the “liberal elite” or whatever. When he writes. “but it is the shame of middle-class and middlebrow conformity that critics follow each other when praising movies that disrespect religion, rail about the current administration or feed into a sense of nihilism that only people privileged with condos and professional tenure can afford,” he clearly can’t avoid his own partisan biases either, which I think is worse when he’s trying to suppress other people’s right to voice their own opinions.

Nevertheless, I think the view of most critics is that documentaries come in all shapes in sizes: A documentary can be partisan or non-partisan, so long as it doesn’t try to pass itself as the wrong category. The current beating the HBO film “Recount” is taking, is an illustration of that point, since it’s far less observational than it claims. I think Michael Moore, which I imagine White is referring to since a discussion about documentaries can’t possibly exclude the most influential and commercially successful one of the decade, is fairly handled by critics. Most critics advise their audiences to take Moore with a grain of salt, knowing he has a clear partisan bent.

4) Chicago, Moulin Rouge and Dreamgirls equal the great MGM musicals.

Well, I am somewhat of an expert on musicals so I can answer this. First off, there’s hardly any agreement on whether Chicago or Moulan Rouge is the true second coming of the musical. There’s plenty of people who hate Chicago and like Moulan Rouge and plenty who feel the opposite. Dreamgirls is generally considered as a respectable follow-up by Condon to Chicago, treated adequately by the awards season: A proverbial “6th nominee” that feel just short of making the final five. I don’t think much of the literature on Chicago and Moulan Rouge as the revival of the musical is saying that Chicago and Moulan Rouge equal the high point of MGM but they revived the musical and made it marketable again as evidenced by the fact that after 2002, the genre was able to be marketable and Broadway adaptations (Rent, Producers, Dreamgirls), remakes (Hairspray) and all sorts of experimental films (Across the Universe and Sweeny Todd) were able to make it to theaters. If you look at the AFI list of top 25 musicals recently released, Chicago and Moulan Rouge were on their but towards the bottom, behind the great MGM musicals.


5) Paul Verhoeven’s social satire Showgirls was camp while Cronenberg’s campy melodramas are profound.

I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t think Cronenberg’s melodramas are profound. He does a good job at creating tension and makes a good thriller (are you referring to History of Violence and Eastern Promises?) but I don’t know by what criteria you call them campy. Showgirls was rated X and I was like 11 when it came out, so I didn’t see it unfortunately. Should I catch it on DVD or so, so I can enter into the conversation?

6) Brokeback Mountain was a breakthrough while all other gay-themed movies were ignored.
No, anyone who follows the Oscars is aware that Transamerica and Capote were honored well-enough. This might have been a complaint perhaps a decade ago when Ian McKellan from Gods and Monsters lost to Hillary Swank.

7) Todd Haynes’ academic dullness is anything but.
Again, I don’t think people are analyzing Todd Haynes in an auteur sense. I think people saw merit in Far From Heaven and I’m Not There (although I’m Not There had fairly mixed reactions).

8) Dogma was a legitimate film movement.
I think you mean “Dogme 95” but nonetheless, I think there’s a great deal of filmmakers who find Von Trier’s films insulting and nonsensical, and surely the general public feels antagonized by him even more. Whether it’s a legitimate film movement is not really for us to judge. That’s like judging whether you have a legitimate article. It’s an article you wrote, but does it say good or bad things, well that’s the debate. I think Dogme 95 creates more constraints on the filmmaking than its worth (he had to break some of his own rules to make Dogville), but at the same time, I think some of his ideas have some merit and some don’t. I also think it’s clearly worth studying the movement’s context in history just as you say.

9) Only non-pop Asian cinema from J-horror to Hou Hsiao Hsien counts, while Chen Kaige, Zhang Yimou and Stephen Chow are rejected. 10) Mumblecore matters.
Don’t know much about Asian cinema, so I won’t respond. Don’t know what mumblecore is.

Review of Sicko (2007)

Unfrotunately, I'll have to send you a hyperlink to the filmsite itself:
http://html.nbc4.com/sh/blogger/2007/07/my-pick-for-film-of-year-so-far-sicko.html

To the anti-Michael Moore fans about Sicko

I was moved by this film and loved it, and feel empowered by it, but I also don't really care about the health care debate either.

I imagine that if in France, everyone gets unlimited sick leave, there's going to be abuse of that system and stuff and I'm sure there are pros and cons about universal health care. I also have never had problems with the U.S. Health system because I think my parents just probably have good coverage, who knows.

I have however had problems with the U.S. legal system (I once felt mistreated by my own lawyers when I needed legal representation a little while back) and can relate to this film in the sense of greedy professions that lost sight of the little guy a long time ago (which I feel can often plague the law community).

But more than that, I don't think this movie is just about the little details. It's about, "Sticking it to the man," as Jack Black says in School of Rock, or moreover, being critical of our government and the C.E.O.s of large companies. I don't know about the specifics, but it's obvious that the C.E.O.'s of companies don't care about most of the people under them and at least, that needs to change.

Whether we go for universal healthcare or not, I don't want to see people being kicked out into the streets of L.A. because they can't pay for hospital bills. I don't want to see a medical community who treats human beings as economic commodities and tries in every way possible to cheat them out of their insurance so they can have money in their pocket. I do not want to live in a system, where doctors are rewarded for letting their patients die. Do you? Can we at least agree on this?

I mean you can debate whether these things actually happen and maybe if too much is lost by finding a better solution, but can we at least start there? Can we at be united on the front that hospitals who want their patients to die so they can profit from it is not a good thing? I don't care about anything else. You can point out that hospitals usually like their patients to live and support that with a set of facts like Michael Moore does, and if you showed me that, I'd be even happier because I'd know that the problem isn't as serious as I thought it was. I also think we can debate whether France, England, Canada and Cuba are actually better than us, but don't you agree it's a great thing Michael Moore does by raising those questions and showing us those systems so we can see for ourselves?

Keep your politics out of my movies

In response to critics who dismiss Blood Diamonds merits as a film because it's "too left-wing":

First of all, basic question. If you dismiss this as left-wing, does that mean that the right-wing view is that all these people in Africa should be killed for diamonds and that their story shouldn't be told? That's disgusting.

I hate the way our partisan political culture takes its toll on the way we see films. Movies are art serve an important function in analyzing and putting up a mirror to our culture. They should feel free to do so completely uninhibited from the potential response of self-proclaimed left or right-wing people. Unless, it's a movie like Farenheight 911 which is made with the explicit purpose of removing a president from office, movies are just movies. They might have political overtones but they deserve to be treated as works of art as such. I think we've gotten to a point in society where people just take their truly arbitrary political labels and use those biases to dissect everything around them in life.

On the note of movies just being movies, Ed Zwick clearly states in his production notes that he desires to make entertainment first and foremost. Second, he wishes to state a message. You can agree or not agree with his message but don't dimiss the art. Don't dismiss the merits of his film and don't dismiss his right to say it. Also, i hardly see how you can disagree with his message unless you're in the habit of being so attached to a set of beliefs that it's just your policy to dismiss the merits of anyone on the opposite side of those political beliefs as you. You can't honestly believe it's a bad thing to shed light on the struggles taking place on the African continent?

Top 10 Films of 2004

Review of 2004:
-This was the year of the biopic, in my opinion. Ray, Kinsey, The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Beyond the Sea, and Vera Drake were among the most successful this year. Also, there was Delovely. I don't think I'm a genius for coming to that conclusion, either. It was just an obvious trend that for some reason all happened this year.

-This was the year where there was a sense that there was a Brat Pack. The term was coined by the media somewhere (don't remember who) and they were kind of cemented. It's hard to explain how that stuff works but factors that lead to it were: 2 of the biggest water cooler movies of the summer in Anchorman and Dodgeball along with a lot of Ben Stiller movies: Envy, Starsky and Hutch, and Meet the Fockers (one of the highest grossing films of the year). The brat pack is basically Owen Wilson, Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Luke Wilson, Vince Vaughn and Will Ferrell. In this year all of those people except Owen Wilson was in Anchorman in some form or another, Stiller and Vaughn were in Dodgeball, Owen and Stiller were in Meet the Fockers and Starsky and Hutch together, and Stiller and Black were in Envy together. You can trace this group back and forward (i.e. Old School was Luke, Ferrell, and Vaughn, see the pattern?)

-This might have been the very peak of the summer blockbuster season. 2005's grosses went downhill and that's not so much because 2005 was a failure, just for the fact that 2004 had so many humongous movies hitting the theater pretty much every weekend. Troy had a big opening weekend gross of $45 million, only to be brushed aside 5 days later when Shrek 2 nearly set a box office record eventually becoming #3 all time, followed by Harry Potter with a $245 million domestic gross, followed by Spiderman 2 which dominated the box office for 2 weeks, to be then be set aside by a string of films I, Robot/Bourne Supremacy/Village, each of them grossing over $50 million opening weekend. In between, The Day After Tomorrow grossed enough its first weekend to set a record for the highest film never to hit #1. The year produced 3 films that broke into the top 10 all-time, Shrek 2, Spiderman 2, and Passion of the Christ, which brings me to the next bullet

-There was a whole thing in the press about a red-state and blue-state divide that got blown up a lot. This was representative through two big successes. One appealed to the religious right because it was a big picture about Jesus, and the other was not really religious in nature but it was made with the purpose of removing George W. Bush from office. The connection is somewhat hasty, but nevertheless: Passion of the Christ was a humongous film coming from Mel Gibson and was made even more impressive by the fact that it was in subtitles, incredibly violent and very long, which usually isn't a good formula for commercial success. On the other side, Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 set a box office record for documentaries and looked like it had the potential to really make an impact

-A couple small independent films made a splash. The first, Garden State was written, directed by and starred Zach Braff and won him the National Board of Review honor for new director, a Grammy for best soundtrack, and a lot more young fans in addition to those who love him on the TV show Scrubs. The second, Napoleon Dynamite, an offbeat film about incredibly odd characters growing up in Idaho, became a cult hit. This wasn't significant from an art standpoint (at least I hope not. I hope a lot of people don't imitate this), but it did mark a success for the people at the Sundance Film Festival where the film was originally released and sold for national distribution. The following year, Sundance also saw more success for independent films Hustle and Flow and Junebug which both got national distribution and Oscar nominations

-Lastly, it was a big year for Martin Scorsese, or at least it had the potential to be. His movie the Aviator was very hyped up and was supposed to guarantee him an Oscar. As you can see from my list, i thought it was a great film, and others did too. It also did win a lot of Oscars, but the big prize at the end of the evening went to Clint Eastwood, so Scorsese had to go back to the drawing board.

Top 10 Movies of 2004:
10. Anchorman, Adam McKay



I’m sure I’m in the minority in calling Anchorman one of the best films of the year, but when done well a pure comedy can be just as much a show of great film-making as anything else. Set in a 1970s San Diego newsroom, Anchorman is the best display of improvisational comedy on screen since Christopher Guest. The comic timing was excellent as jokes were pushed to extreme situations (i.e. the West Side Story like brawl, the random a capella rendition of “Afternoon Delight”). More than that, however, a great comedy is about the characters and what I loved about this film is how everyone in the cast stepped it up to match Will Ferrell’s intensity in mining the zaniness out of their characters.

9. Ray, Taylor Hackford



Ray showed us a portrait of a man who whether morally in the right or wrong, was unquestionably a man of great vision. Heeding his mother’s parting advice to not let anyone treat him like a charity case, Ray Charles refused to act blind. He denied himself a walking cane or even a helping hand. At the same time, however, Charles was blind in a way: to skin color. Despite the discrimination he faced, he befriended black and white people alike and musically opened himself up to both style. Jamie Foxx turns in the best performance of the year that captures the man inside and out.

8. Manchurian Candidate, Johnathan Demme



Johnathan Demme’s remake of the 1962 classic managed the rare feat of updating an original to a contemporary setting while preserving the spirit of the original. Demme’s version also plays out more like a thriller than the original much like the novel. Even by the standards of Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep, the performances are surprisingly tuned in.

7. Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore




Michael Moore didn’t succeed in changing the course of national history with his documentary. He did, however, succeed in infusing the non-fiction format with mainstream entertainment and broke a box office record along the way. More than just a presentation of facts, Moore’s documentary tells a story infused with emotion that brings the viewer to tears and laughter.

6. Spanglish, James L Brooks




In his first film of the new millennium, Brooks does a great job of exploiting both the humorous and dramatic possibilities of the cultural and class barriers between a wealthy suburban family and their new Mexican housekeeper. Adam Sandler gives a surprisingly mature performance that doesn’t compromise his likability, the underrated Tea Leoni hits the right notes as a high strung wife, and the introduction of Paz Vega as the housekeeper is a welcome surprise. She gives a delicate performance of a character that acts as a counterbalance to the dysfunction.

5. The Life Aquatic, Wes Anderson




Some were disappointed with Wes Anderson’s follow-up to The Royal Tannenbaums, but I might just be a sucker for Jack Cousteau-type adventures. Still, it’s hard to see what’s not to like with the addition of Willem Dafoe, Cate Blanchett, and Jeff Goldblum in place of frat-packers Luke Wilson and Ben Stiller, and Bill Murray back at the helm, the Life Aquatic brings an ensemble of rich and multilayered characters that mesh together in the trademark Wes-Anderson-style. The plot follows a ship out at sea and it could be argued that it’s not particularly focused, but with such beautiful visuals and a soundtrack of such original sources as David Bowie covers covered in Portuguese, it’s fine just to sit back and enjoy the ride whatever direction it takes you.

4. Sideways, Alexander Payne



A somber and highly engaging comedy that derives its humor from its strong footing in the tragedies and subsequent triumphs, however small they may be, in real life. Payne’s last film, the critically acclaimed About Schmidt starred Jack Nicholson in a toned-down role. In contrast, this film centers around four quirky character roles cast perfectly with Thomas Haden Church as the brash playboy, Sandra Oh as a raunchy single mom, Virginia Madsen as a fragile waitress, and Paul Giamatti as an introspective elementary school teacher who wants just a little more in life.

3. Motorcycle Diaries, Walter Salles




One of the greatest and most important stories of Latin-American folklore is brought to the American movie screen and turns out a winner. The Motorcycle Diaries is the firsthand account by a young Ernesto “Che” Gueverra and his traveling companion of an 800-mile motorcycle trek through South America. Guevuerra would go on to become one of world history’s most notorious revolutionary figures, and the immense appeal of this story is its tale of a naïve and innocent man before en route to becoming the icon that so many of his countrymen revere.

2. Hotel Rwanda, Terry George






Described as “Schindler’s List set in Africa,” Hotel Rwanda is an intense gritty war drama is powerful in its horrific imagery, shot on location. Yet, it is a story of hope as well. Don Cheadle plays Terry George as a hotel manager in Rwanda who first tries to save his immediate family from the conflict, but is then moved to save everyone he can. It’s a truly eye-opening experience about a part of the world and one of the many conflicts within that all-too-easily get ignored.

1. Aviator, Martin Scorsese




2004 was undoubtedly the year of the biopic with movies being made about singers, abortion activists, sex researchers, and whether Howard Hughes was a more important figure in history than Bobby Darin or Ray Charles, it was clear that no biopic story this year was told with more passion for its subject than The Aviator. Like the Golden Age of Hollywood in which the movie is set, Aviator was quality film making at every end, with big production values, a majestic score by Howard Shore, and a roster of talent so deep that bit parts were being filled out by the likes of Jude Law and Willem Dafoe. Alec Baldwin as a slithery airline executive and Kate Beckinsdale as bombastic belle Ava Gardner stand out for their performances, and Leonardo DiCaprio tosses aside his “pretty boy” persona for a deeper performance.

Michael Moore: The most powerful man on the planet

This was something I originally wrote around the summer of 2004:

It seems to me that Michael Moore, despite being just a documentary filmmaker, is the most powerful person on the planet because he is single-handedly shaping America's minds about whom to vote for in the 2004 election. This film is enormous, and it has an ability to impact people. Maybe there is a class of educated freethinkers who can think for themselves and might be able to do research about what Michael Moore is saying, but I think the majority of Americans might have just enough information to make a decision of who to vote for based on this movie. And so it follows like this, Michael Moore=the potential difference maker over who wins the election=who becomes president over the most powerful nation in the world=Which of 2 radically different visions of foreign policy are carried out.

Coming into the film, I thought that while I thought Bush was wrong about the war in Iraq, I wouldn't just hand over the presidency to anyone just to beat Bush, and I didn't like Kerry much (I wanted Dean), but the film appealed to my emotions as films do and it made me realize that "You know what: this war is wrong, it's inexcusable and I cannot commend the war effort by voting for Bush so I have to vote for the other guy." So Michael Moore got my vote and i can't tell you who else's vote he might get.

You know who else is powerful. I would say Mike Phelps is the 2nd most powerful person on the planet. You know the 19-year old swimming phenomenon who's breaking all the world records this week at the Athens Olympics. He's on TV 24 hours a day this week. You know how many people are lining up to interview him? Simply in terms of how much of the world's attention is devoted to him this week, he definitely is ranked up there with anyone. If aliens were trying to learn about the human species by watching TV, if they were watching this week, they would think that Michael Phelps was the emperor of the world.

Just imagine if Michael Phelps and Michael Moore joined forces.