Top 10 Films released in 2004
a list to close out the year
(in no particular order)

Million Dollar Baby


The Sea Inside


Spider-Man 2


The Incredibles


Garden State


I, Robot


I heart Huckabees


The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou


The Manchurian Candidate


Sideways


A real mix of Hollywood and independent films. If anything, 2004 proved that big-budget pictures can be just as intimate and personal on a human level as small or no-budget pictures, and indies can be just as pedestrian and uninspired as even the biggest summer block-buster. Movies like Spider-Man 2 and I, Robot were wise beyond their target audiences, and films like Sideways and Garden State were the 21st century equivalent of modern classics like Ordinary People (80) and The Graduate (67). Then there were films that slipped through the cracks, like The Manchurian Candidate and I heart Huckabees, in addition to the dozens of truly exceptional films that deserved to be on this list, films like: Hotel Rwanda, Finding Neverland, Kinsey, Ray, Man on Fire, The Motorcycle Diaries, Bad Education, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Before Sunset, Vera Drake, The Aviator, Crimson Gold, Fahrenheit 9/11, Collateral, House of Flying Daggers, Maria Full of Grace, Birth, Shaun of the Dead, Hero, The Five Obstructions, Infernal Affairs, Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring, Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman, The Twilight Samurai, etc. Looking back at this list, it was a very colorful year in film. The films above were not all necessarily bright and cheerful, but they each had a distinct voice and a mostly positive way of looking at the questionable conditions of the present world surrounding us. And for that, I say: bravo.

"Sand Dogs"?

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (05) teaser trailer

For those of you who still have not seen it, or simply need another hit. I swear, man, Star Wars is like crack for me, or the cosa nostra - just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in...

From imdb: "After three long years of relentless fighting, the Clone Wars are nearly at an end. With most of the Separatist leaders dead or captured, the Jedi Council dispatches Obi-Wan Kenobi to find and bring the deadly leader of the Separatist droid army, General Grievous, to justice as well as Count Dooku still in hiding. Meanwhile, back on Coruscant, Chancellor Palpatine has grown in power. His sweeping political changes transform the war-weary Republic into the mighty Galactic Empire. To his closest ally, Anakin Skywalker, he reveals the true nature of power and the promised secrets of the Force in an attempt to lure him to the dark side which puts Anakin at odds with his very pregnant, wife-in-secret, senator Amidala."

George Lucas announced that this would be the last (and darkest) Star Wars film he would make. He had plans to make Episodes VII, VIII and IX, but reconsidered. Unlike the previous Star Wars films, which were shot both on soundstages and on location, this episode was filmed entirely in the studio. The only location work was a background plate shot during the production of Episode II. Gary Oldman had agreed to be the voice of General Grievous, but pulled out of the film because it was being made using actors who are not part of the Screen Actor's Guild, of which Oldman is a member. The first teaser trailer (released on 5 November 2004) was code-named "Sand Dogs". 'Hayden Christiansen' is himself wearing the Darth Vader suit this time; it was specially molded from plastic to fit him. Camera trickery was used to make him appear taller as he is 5 inches smaller than 'Dave Prowse' , who played Darth Vader in the original trilogy. A similar trick was used during the filming of Episodes V and VI when the much smaller Bob Anderson doubled for Prowse during the fight scenes. Samuel L. Jackson (Mace Windu) said he knew that he must die in this film, so he told George Lucas he would only do the film if Mace Windu goes out in a blaze of glory and not "like some sucka". On an American late-night talk show, he confirmed that he did indeed have a meaningful death scene; and he does not go out like "some punk".

"Sucka"? "Punk"? Where's Mr T. when you need him?

how to piss off Bruce Lee

Mark Rydell's forgotten masterpiece, The Reivers (69) starring: Steve McQueen, Mitch Vogel, Will Geer, Sharon Farrell and Rupert Crosse. Written by William Faulkner. John Williams's first film score.

Can I just tell you, that out of all of the films that Steve McQueen made, only a handful of them stand out as being truly original and daring for a movie-star of his caliber to under-take, and for any star of any era. They would have to include: An Enemy of the People (78), Baby the Rain Must Fall (65) and most certainly, The Reivers. It's hard to not like this movie. Mark Rydell has always been an under-rated director (and actor for that matter). His films in the director's chair: The Cowboys (72), Cinderella Liberty (73), The Rose (79), On Golden Pond (81) and The River (84) are all classics in their own right (to some degree). Mark Rydell has often spoken about working with the temperamental McQueen. He liked to test his directors, to see how far he could push them and what they would inevitably let him get away with. Rydell was no push-over. He stood up to the mega-star and earned his respect. He would go on to direct some of the biggest names in Hollywood of all-time: John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Katharine Hepburn, Michael Caine, Diane Keaton, Jane Fonda, James Caan to name but a few. But The Reivers was Rydell's first big motion picture, and it was another departure for McQueen. In the film, he plays Faulkner's character, Boon Hogganbeck - a "reiver" as the title suggests. And just what the hell is a "reiver?" Tagline: "Boon is a reiver (that's a cheat, a liar, a brawler and womaniser) and he had just four days to teach young Lucius the facts of life (like cheating, lying, brawling and womanizing)." The story, based on Faulkner's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, is about a group of four people, a man-child, a black man, a prostitute, and an eleven year old boy on a journey to Memphis, Tennessee in the early 1900s. Doesn't exactly sound like your typical family-oriented entertainment.

But truth be told, the film is very much a sweet and good natured little film. McQueen seems out of place at first, but upon a second, third or even fourth viewing, it becomes apparent that no one else could have ever played the role. There was a time when I could see Paul Newman as "Boon," but even now as I recall some of the more memorable scenes involving the character, only one voice, one face and one name spring to mind: McQueen. Rydell and McQueen had known each other since the fifties and it was Rydell who encouraged McQueen to get into acting in the first place (rather than be a tile-setter). He also dated McQueen's future first wife, Neile. The director and star were at constant odds throughout the entire filming. McQueen would often bring along "companions" while shooting his films. During this particular film, it was Bruce Lee, then an unknown movie-star-to-be (following his exposure from TV's, The Green Hornet). McQueen was impressed by Lee's physical skills and pressured him to teach the actor martial arts. In turn, McQueen would drop Lee little acting pointers along the way. Eventually, Lee grew tired of McQueen's famous "head games" and jealous of his constant success and seperated from his on-set buddy. The following year, Lee hit the big time and dubbed himself the "Oriental Steve McQueen." Lee wrote McQueen a letter stating: "I am now more popular to a wider spread audience than you are now." McQueen responded by sending Lee an eight-by-ten glossy photo and signed it: "To Bruce, my favorite fan." Upon recieving it, Lee called McQueen and (in his broken English) said: "McQueen you muddafucker, I'm going to kill you. I rip up this picture of you." According to a long-time McQueen associate, the picture had the desired effect - it brought Lee down a notch. "That was McQueen. He loved the expression 'mind-fuck.'" Despite their mutual jealousy, Steve was asked to be a pallbearer at Lee's untimely funeral (along with James Coburn and Chuck Norris).

Rupert Crosse was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor as "Ned" in the film. He is tremendous here, as he was in his very first film, John Cassavette's Shadows (59). Crosse died of cancer only a few years later (in March of 1973) and had to be replaced by Otis Young (also excellent) in Hal Ashby's The Last Detail (73). Will Geer is also excellent and under-stated as "Boss," and his scenes with the young Mitch Vogel (who practically carries the entire film on his shoulders) are nothing short of phenominal. Vogel was involved in a potentially fatal accident during the filming. He was thrown from a horse and got away with only a broken leg. His hard work and effort in the film paid off to those who actually saw it. This is just one of those films that never really spoke to a generation, garnered enough critical praise or opened in enough theaters to ever attract the attention it deserved. It was a McQueen movie, but because he wasn't racing cars, robbing banks or shooting Mexican banditos, audiences stayed away in droves. Too bad. They missed one of their heroes' best performances, in this - one of his least remembered, least talked about, and (sadly) least respected films. The DVD is set to be released in early 2005 (finally) so now's your chance to see this little-seen masterpiece for yourself. Trust me, it's worth the price of admission. A true lost classic.

Boon Hoggenbeck: "Sometimes you have to say goodbye to the things you know and hello to the things you don't!"

big isn't always bad

Frank Capra's, It's a Wonderful Life (46) starring James Stewart
Mr. Stephen Hunter, in-house film critic for the The Washington Post, recently bashed a couple of films I really took a liking to in a recent article for the above-mentioned paper. Namley, in an article titled: "Look Back in Anger", Mr. Hunter went on to name several big-budget Hollywood studio films that provided "chagrined moviegoers" with "major disappointment." Films mentioned in the review were: Raising Helen, Exorcist: Beginning, The Day After Tomorrow, Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London, Alexander, Troy, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Spider-Man 2, I,Robot and The Manchurian Candidate. He went on to praise the popular small-budget or independently produced films of the year: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Napoleon Dynamite, Sideways, etc. How original of you Mr. Hunter, to note that the smaller, less-Hollywood films are often times more daring and original. Who does he think he is enlightening with this? Not to discredit Mr Hunter or anything, but I know more people who have seen Sideways than I, Robot. Still, just because a film is backed by the all-powerful might of a studio, doesn't mean that it's shoddy goods. How many small independent films have you seen that are just plain crap? Just as many as the big one's I presume. And vice-versa.

Sam Raimi's, Spider-Man 2 (04) starring Tobey Maguire and Alfred Molina
Many people seem to think that the independent film is something of a "new creation" to combat the ever-present threat of the big-budget studio flick with no heart. Wrong. Films have been produced outside of the studio system since the early fifties, and maybe before. Films like the Academy Award-winning Marty (55) and the now classic, The Sweet Smell of Success (57) were nothing more than indie films. But let's be honest, there is just as much of an art-form at work in the production of a big budget film as there is in a small or no-budget film. And it's just as difficult to make one or the other. There's actually alot more at stake in the production of a "big" film. Alot more artistic compromising is made. Alot more creative control is at risk. It's easy to put the blame on one of these Monsters when they go bad, but what about the "small" films that are just plain, well, bad? Not every studio-produced film is going to be like Jaws, or The Lord of the Rings. And not every indie film is going to be as good as Bottle Rocket, or Roger Dodger. But what about contemporary Hollywood films like The Road to Perdition and Mystic River? Are they bad just because they had a big budget? Do they lack, heart?

Alexander Mackendrick's, The Sweet Smell of Success (57) starring Tony Curtis and Burt Lancaster
Now, first of all, everyone is entitled to their opinion, right? That's one of the basic rules of this blog: opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one. But I really hate it when these "so-called" critics start speaking for everyone. I think it's great when an educated person with a passion for something speaks his or her mind about it - but just because you're a critic for a major newspaper, doesn't make you educated or passionate about anything. I have read Mr. Hunter's reviews before, and I usually avoid them. Not because I feel that he doesn't know what he's talking about, but because nine times out of ten I'm in complete and utter disagreement with him. Does he make any passion for film that he may have apparent in his writing? I think his articles would have the same effect if he were reviewing restaurants for the Zagat guide. He would be the exact same critic. And would somebody please explain to me once and for all: why does it matter to these assholes how much a fucking movie costs to make? And why should that affect my viewing or enjoyment of it? Now, that brings me to the point of this whole post: some people are just born critics. Everything in life is subject to some type of dissertation or harmful observation by them. Do I think that Mr. Hunter is a critic in that sense? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Clint Eastwood's, Mystic River (03) starring Sean Penn in his Oscar-winning performance
Spider-Man 2, I, Robot and The Manchurian Candidate were three of the best films of the year. Period. They had more heart in them individually than half of the independent films that have been released since the early ninties. To compare them with Agent Cody Banks 2 is not only uninformed, it's just plain retarded. Do not let some pedestrian, pompous blow-hard like Mr. Stephen Hunter sway your opinion about anything, let alone film, as well as the hundreds if not thousands of professional or published film critics out there. Most of these guys (and gals) don't live for it - they just report it like some hack commentator on the six o'clock news reading from a tele-prompter. See the films for yourself. I use this blog to vent sometimes just because I'm usually filled with so much emotion after watching certain films that I don't know what to do with all the creative energy that has been built up inside. I don't pretend to know all there is to know, but I do know what I like and I stick to it (for the most part). Which is more than I can say for Mr. Hunter. I'm not exactly sure what he likes. He loved The Twilight Samurai (released this week on DVD in region 1) and Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman. Way to go Mr. Hunter, that means you got beyond a third grade education. Of course you loved them, they're great movies - but that's just what they are: movies. These two particular films that you singled out are no more great or important works of art than the film, D.C. Cab is. They are entertainments. Nothing more, nothing less. That's what they're meant to be.

William Wyler's, Roman Holiday (53) starring Audrey Hepburn, Gregory Peck and Eddie Albert
Mr. Hunter seems to think that an enjoyable Hollywood film needs to be something like the 1953 William Wyler/Audrey Hepburn film Roman Holiday (as stated in his article). If that was the last time you were entertained by a "Hollywood" film, Mr Hunter - you need to go sell foot-wear at your local strip-mall and stop passing yourself off as a film critic to friends and family at parties. Every year there are dozens of major films that are produced with one goal in mind: to put asses in seats. To make money by entertaining the masses. It has become something of a game or a quest to seek out the truly worthy films that get wide release and still manage to be genuine or true to the very spirit of film. And what, you might ask, is my definition of the "very spirit of film": it's when a person, or group of people (ie. film-makers) manage to reach out through the lens and affect someone else to some degree. It doesn't always have to be a positive reaction, lord knows there are so many great and important films that are designed to get a negative response from the viewer - but above all, it means that the nature of the film has touched you in some way. It becomes something tangible and indelible in your own life. Something worthy.

Alexander Payne's, Sideways (04) starring Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church
There should be no difference in your mind between a big-budget or small-budget film. If it's true to itself and told with conviction than nothing else needs to be said. So, not to keep going on about this article, I would just like to encourage each and every one of you out there - to keep watching as many films as you are inspired to see. And don't let critics or certain people (myself included) sway your opinion to any degree. As a good friend of mine pointed out to me recently: "People don't see that music is just some attachment, much like a finger. It gets me through the day, and I like that I can take solace in something as comforting as words that describe how I'm feeling. I think its the same thing for you and movies." Most of you out there will only see what your gut tells you to anyway. Like everything in life, just keep an open mind, and trust your instincts. You wont always be right, but sometimes you'll find one that truly makes a difference, or changes something inside you. And if it's Sideways or Spider-Man 2, it doesn't matter - the effect is still the same.
L'chayim.

2005 trailers


Sin City Directed by Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller. An adaptation of Frank Miller's stories based in the fictional town of Sin City. Chief amongst the town's residents is Marv, who crawls the darkest areas of town looking for the person who killed his one true love, Goldie. Starring: Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, Michael Madsen, Josh Hartnett, Clive Owen, Nick Stahl, Elijah Wood, Michael Clarke Duncan, Brittany Murphy, Jaime King, Carla Gugino, Maria Bello, Rosario Dawson and Jessica Alba. Whew! What a cast. Without a doubt, the most ambitious and exciting film of 2005.


Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Directed by Tim Burton. A young boy embarks on a tour to the most magnificant chocolate factory in the world guided by it's mysterious operator. Starring: Johnny Depp, Freddie Highmore, Helena Bonham Carter, James Fox, Noah Taylor, David Kelly and Christopher Lee. This is not your father's Willy Wonka - but it is darker and more true to the source (Roald Dahl). Expect another great teaming from Burton and Depp, as well as Depp and Highmore (Finding Neverland). I find the less I expect from a Tim Burton movie - the less I am let down. Still, it looks like a return to form for the Ed Wood (94) director, and after the disappointing Big Fish (03), I'll take anything. Burton is currently filming the animated, The Corpse Bride, also starring the voice talents of Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter (Mrs. Tim Burton), Emily Watson, Albert Finney, Richard E. Grant, Joanna Lumley and Christopher Lee!


Batman Begins Directed by Christopher Nolan. The story of how Bruce Wayne became what he was destined to be: Batman. Written by David S. Goyer, based on the characters created by Bob Kane. Starring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy, Tom Wilkinson, Linus Roache, Katie Holmes and Rutger Hauer. Next to Sin City, this film gets the award for most inspiring cast of 2005. This just might be the film that transcends the comic book genre and makes super-heroes at long last respectable in the motion picture industry. Best Picture Oscar nomination perhaps? I simply can't wait.


War of the Worlds Directed by Steven Spielberg. Based on the H.G. Wells novel about, well - you know! Starring: Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Tim Robbins, Miranda Otto, David Alan Basche. While filming in Bayonne, New Jersey, Paramount Pictures (who are releasing the film) offered quick cash to residents who lived on First Street and Pointview Terrace to move their cars off the block, between a Tuesday and Friday. This was in order for the film crew to resume shooting. People tend to forget that Spielberg is a true master of the science fiction film genre. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (77), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (82), Artificial Intelligence: AI (01) and Minority Report (02, also with Cruise). This could be another Close Encounters for him. Or it could be a shit sandwich. So buy your ticket, eat your popcorn and decided for yourself. "Hey, that's my car in the movie!" - resident of First Street, Bayonne, NJ.


Constantine Directed by Francis Lawrence. Based on the DC/Vertigo comic book Hellblazer and written by Kevin Brodbin, Mark Bomback and Frank Capello, Constantine tells the story of irreverent supernatural detective John Constantine (Keanu Reeves), who has literally been to hell and back. Starring: Keanu Reeves, Rachel Weisz, Shia LaBeouf, Djimon Hounsou, Max Baker, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Gavin McGregor Rossdale and Tilda Swinton. Do you get the feeling that film-makers of comic book/graphic novel adaptations are getting wiser in '05 and learning from the mistakes made in the past couple years (Hulk 03, Daredevil 03, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen 03, The Punisher 04)? I do. And let's hope this one makes me forget all about the Matrix movies. Well, at least the second and third ones.

no flippancy

Let's be clear about one thing: Garden State (04) is not The Graduate (67) or Harold and Maude (71) - two films that it has been likened to (even by some of the film-makers). It is however the inspirational off-spring of both of these films. I would like to say that Garden State blazed a new path in film-making, or at least in the "coming home" genre of the modern screen-story, but that is not what the film set out to do. It set out to capture more than twenty-something angst. It had a more righteous agenda, and an even more unique voice. I believe, that the film-makers were simply trying to tell a story about real peeople, with real emotion - and to do it in such a way as to not only entertain, but to maybe even give substance to something that has yet to be defined for alot of young-adults - who aren't exactly adults, but aren't exactly young anymore either. What makes someone an adult? Is it that you pay taxes? Well, I got news for you, you're paying your own taxes the minute you're born into this society. Maybe being an adult is one of those things that is simply void of form - that you only recognize when you hit thirty, or forty, or fifty, or...and all you have left to think about is 'what happened to my twenties?' Youth, like life - is a state of mind. Being an adult isn't so much important as it is how we treat one another, and how much responsibility we take for ourselves. These are the things that Graden State got me thinking about. Just how accepting am I of others? Just how responsible am I for my own actions? I'll admit, sometimes I feel out of touch from the people coming up behind me (in age that is). I do not feel above them, or above Garden State for that matter (since the film speaks directly to them), because it does not exactly hit my generation. But I was touched by it. How can anyone with feelings not be? It's basic message is simple: It's okay to just be who you are, and to not know what the fuck to do next.

The film was written and directed by Zach Braff (his debut as both). He also cast himself in the lead role of Andrew "Large" Largeman. A risky but ultimately rewarding choice. Am I the only one who remembers him from the film, The Broken Hearts Club: A Romantic Comedy (00)? In it, he played another type of troubled person, also addicted to a substance and also searching for meaning. Braff is a good actor. Good in the same sense that a great actor is in his or her early days. He could evolve into something greater one day, but for now, I'll just leave it at that. The miracle was, how many hats he got to wear on the production of his first film as writer and director. He got honest performances out of every person in the cast. And although there were times where I was seeing a little too much Hal Ashby, Mike Nichols, Woody Allen and Wes Anderson influence on the screen, it was an assured and skillful approach, without the slightest bit of flippancy. So many films about "young people" today are just that: flippant. How can anyone born after 1980, take a film like Cruel Intentions (99), or She's All That (99) seriously? I guess they can't, because they're really just comedies. But wait a minute, so is Garden State. Isn't it? There have been times when recent films of this same nature have almost hit the mark (Rules of Attraction 02, Thirteen 03) but they still did not reach completely out of the box. I guess the point is, even The Graduate was a comedy, but it put into tangible terms the definition of an era. I'll go out on a limb (even though I'm not the first) and say that Garden State does exactly that for these times. It's a much smaller, more intimate film in scope than The Graduate. There are even some shaky moments in the film-making (the pacing especially) but over-all, the strengths of the film out-weigh the weaknesses. I love how the encroaching "talk" between father and son builds up almost like a title bout from Rocky. But it's all ever so subtle. It's alot like watching a masterpiece being painted right in front of your eyes, and seeing all the mistakes being made as the process is completed - and once it's done, stepping back and seeing all the mistakes come together. There are still smudges there, but something more has been created.

The music is good, but I wont go into that here. Listening to these songs and experiencing them in the film are two differnt things. If you don't like the bands on the soundtrack - don't listen to the soundtrack. The music works in the context of the story and it's one of the defining characteristics of the film. But it's not the only one. Natalie Portman as Sam, gives her best performance on screen since Léon (The Professional, 94), Heat (95) and Beautiful Girls (96). Watching her in the film is like seeing someone who you thought was plain, walk out at a party looking like Grace Kelly - not in visual terms, but in emotional. There are also some great cameos by well-respected actors like, Ian Holm and Ron Leibman to name a couple. As well as some great comedic cameos by a whole slew of unknowns. Everyone involved in the film gave it their all. You could call that desperation on the part of the struggling, or you could say it was solid casting and good (if not great) direction. The other "name" in the film is Peter Sarsgaard (as Mark). I have written alot about this man in the past, so I will spare the usual readers of my musings any further praise of this extraordinarily gifted and important actor. He plays the perfect "ass" here, and he is the emotional anchor for all of the action in the film. "Mark" is the constant. Unlike everyone else, he knows exactly who he is. He may not like it very much, but he knows he is probably going nowhere, and somehow that's more dangerous (and painful) than taking any real risks. The true marvel is that Braff (as writer and director) and Sarsgaard manage to convey this without uttering a single line. With Mark, what you see is exactly what you get. The same goes for all of the characters.

Garden State can be a little heavy-handed, but it's never preachy. It takes some big risks and it pays off. I think the film will be around for a long time. If it were made in the late sixties/early seventies under the same conditions, it would be called a classic today. In fact it was made back then - it was called: The Graduate, and Harold and Maude (the greatest film ever made about accepting your-fucked-up-self). The only difference is, Garden State is not ripping anything off, it's taking over the family business, and growing up right in front of our eyes. I wish there was a space between 4 1/2 and 5 stars to give this film. It's not like watching a perfect film unfold right in front of you (like the 5 star Rushmore, 98) but it is in it's own distinct way: one of the greatest debut films by an American director. It's not quite a 5 star film (yet), but one day - it will be.
5 out of 5 stars

More Must-Have Region 1 DVD New Releases for January 2005
Top 10 Classic Films New To DVD


1. The Warner Gangsters Collection (The Public Enemy/White Heat/Angels with Dirty Faces/Little Caesar/The Petrified Forest/The Roaring '20s) 1/25/2005


2. King Solomon's Mines (50) Warner 1/11/05


3. Ivanhoe (52) Warner 1/11/05


4. Random Harvest (42) Warner 1/11/05


5. Death Hunt (81) Anchor Bay 1/25/05


6. The Turning Point (77) Anchor Bay 1/25/05


7. Ice Station Zebra (68) Warner 1/11/05


8. One More Time/Salt & Pepper 2pk (70/68) MGM 1/25/05


9. Carrie Paramount (52) 1/18/05


10. The Letter (40) Warner 1/11/05

2004 Films also worth a buy/rental in January 05:


Paparazzi (04) Fox 1/11/05


Cellular (04) New Line 1/18/05


Friday Night Lights (04) Universal 1/18/05


The Village (04) Buena Vista 1/11/05

My Top 10 Must-Have Region 1 DVDs of Early 2005 (1st quarter)


1. Bringing Up Baby - Two-Disc Special Edition (38) Warner 2/1/05



2. Kagemusha - Criterion Collection (80) TBA


3. D.C. Cab (83) Universal 3/1/05


4. Fandango (85) Warner 3/15/05


5. Samurai Assassin (65) Koch 2/8/05


6. To Be Or Not to Be (42) Warner 3/1/05


7. Behold a Pale Horse (64) Columbia 2/22/05


8. Night and the City - Criterion Collection (50) 2/1/05


9a. Touchez Pas au Grisbi - Criterion Collection (60) 1/18/05

9b. Casque d'Or - Criterion Collection (52) 1/18/05


10. The Life of Emile Zola (37) Warner 2/1/05

also of interest:

The Agony and the Ecstasy (65) Fox 2/22/05

The Bodyguard - Two-Disc Special Edition (92) Warner 2/1/05

Chariots of Fire - Two-Disc Special Edition (81) Warner 2/1/05

Donnie Darko Director's Cut (01) Fox 2/15/05

Dutch (91) Anchor Bay 3/8/05

Exorcist: Beginning (04) Warner 3/1/05

Have Gun Will Travel: Second Season Paramount 2/22/05

Heat - Two-Disc Special Edition (95) Warner 2/22/05

Howard's End - The Merchant Ivory Collection (92) Home Vision 2/15/05

I Heart Huckabees - Two-Disc Special Edition (04) Fox 2/22/05

Intervista (87) Koch Lorber 3/8/05

Kansas City (96) New Line 2/15/05

A Letter to Three Wives (49) Fox 2/22/05

Malcolm X - Two-Disc Special Edition (92) Warner 2/8/05

Murder One - Season 1 Fox 2/8/05

Other People's Money (91) Warner 2/15/05

P.S. (04) Columbia 2/8/05

The Palm Beach Story (42) Universal 2/1/05

Ray - Limited 2-Disc Special Edition (04) Universal 2/1/05

Secrets and Lies (96) Fox 2/1/05

Shall We Dance - Japanese Version (96) Disney 2/1/05

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (45) Fox 2/22/05

Young Einstein (89) Warner 2/15/05

Kung Fu - The Complete Second Season (73) Warner 1/18/05

Title I: I, am a fugitive from a robot gang
Title II: the best Will Smith vs. robots movie ever made
Title III: best film of the year?

I stayed away from this one at first like a dog with rabies. My first impression of I, Robot was that it looked like just another big, dumb sci/fi action movie. Something to please even the lowest of common denominators. But would it be more than just a movie-movie? Will Smith has done the whole sci/fi thing before (Independence Day 96, Men in Black 97 and it's completely unnecessary sequel in 02), so there was nothing new or interesting about the casting. To be quite honest with you, Six Degrees of Seperation (93) and Ali (01) aside, I am not the world's biggest Will Smith fan. As for Asimov, well, I have never read the books that this film was based on. Jeff Vintar, who wrote the screen story and screenplay for I, Robot, was one of the writers behind Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (01). In fact, the script for I, Robot did not start with Vintar (or director Alex Proyas) but with a completely different source altogether. I, Robot (the film) began as a screenplay called "Hardwired," that was in itself a very hard-boiled type murder mystery. You could say that it was a throw-back to the Asimov stories, but with a unique voice all it's own. Twentieth Century Fox acquired the rights to Hardwired and that's when Proyas and Vintar came on the scene; but not before director Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects 95, X-Men 00 and X2 03) had already tried his hand at developing the property over at Disney. It's hard to say what the differences bewteen the material was like, but Proyas and Singer are each extremely talented film-makers with their own individual styles of approaching a story. After watching the completed film, as released by Fox, I can tell you that I am glad Mr. Proyas ended up at the helm. Not only is I, Robot an enormously entertaining film, it is one of the best science fiction films of the 21st Century.

Proyas and Vintar expanded on the material and began to mold the film into more than just a sci/fi murder mystery. It started taking on more complex under-tones and eventually evolved into one of those rare things coming out of Hollywood these days: an intelligent entertainment. Vintar began writing the screen story to fit into the Asimov stories, as a tenth addition, while writer Akiva Goldsman (A Beautiful Mind, 01) was drafted in the eleventh hour to tailor it to Will Smith's distinct film persona. You could say that the finished product plays something more like a futuristic Spartacus than say Wild, Wild West (98). Thank God. It may be hard at this point to say who is repsonsible for what, in terms of story conception, since so many people have been involved at various stages along the way (including the original 9 Robot stories by Asimov himself) but one thing is for sure, the film is 100% Proyas. Having already created two sci/fi fantasy themed films: The Crow (94) and Dark City (98), Proyas was more than well-suited to take on the men and machines of this film. You could say he was born to direct it. I feel a little funny writing about Alex Proyas since a close personal friend of mine has devoted the last 12 months of his life writing a PhD thesis on the man and his work (you know who you are) so I will spare everyone my critical analysis of Proyas' prior work, and just sum it up by saying: he's one hell of a creative visionary. He has the knack for making intelligent and complex themes accesible to a wide audience. It's not so much what he does with the writing, but it's how he designs the visual worlds for his films - and how he guides us along through them. He never takes the easy way out of a story and he's not afraid to take a few risks here and there. He is a vastly under-rated film-maker and one of the best modern story-tellers working in the medium.

Director Alex Proyas and Will Smith

Law I: A robot may not harm a human or, by inaction, allow a human being to come to harm
Law II: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law
Law III: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law

So, now that you know some of the background on the film, let me tell you why you need to see this movie. For starters, it just looks authentic. For a film as dependent upon CGI as this was, it's a miracle that Proyas managed to make it look fresh. The visual effects are present in nearly every scene, but unlike other big studio CGI films (namely the Star Wars prequels) this film could have been set in the thirties or forties, with no special effects at all and it would have retained the same environmental vitality. It has a real pulse, and I found myself at times enjoying every minute like it was the first time I had seen a visual effect before. The murder-mystery aspect of the film is also one of it's defining characteristics. Just like Proyas' earlier Dark City, I, Robot could have starred Robert Mitchum or Humphrey Bogart, and they would have looked right at home. I would not go as far as to say I, Robot is sci/fi noir (unlike the uber sci/fi noir Dark City) but it's heart belongs in the Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett stories that have clearly inspired Proyas in his film-making. If you were to take that influence out of the film, it's possible that it would have looked just like any other mainstream action film. There is one scene in particular that invokes the early "big house" films from the thirties, where one of the characters is being led down a long corridor to his state-sanctioned death. The fact that the character in this scene is a robot, yet it still packs the same emotional punch as a living, breathing person, is a testament to Proyas and his uncanny ability to make the material not only human, but hauntingly real.

Bridget Moynahan, proving why she's getting so much work (sadly, not a still from I, Robot)

Will Smith (as Del Spooner) is a wonder in the film. His character not only has real depth, but a back-story that actually works itself into the bridge of the film without seeming predictable or intended. His one-liners tend to fire off like boners at a peep show, but that's a small criticism given the over-all strength of the written character and performance. Bridget Moynahan (The Recruit, 03) on the other hand performed her role with every ounce of the non-threat that she is. She's just plain in the film. Fortunately the role called for that, but beyond this, I'm not quite sure why she is getting so much work (see photo above). Alan Tudyk (in the year's most under-rated performance) as Sonny almost walked away with the film. Aside from playing one of the robots, I will not go into who his character is, or his relation to the story, but just know that he is a cross between C-3PO and Hal 9000, with a little Charles Bronson thrown in just for good measure. James Cromwell was wasted in a bit/cameo part (but still quite effective). The same can be said for the tremendously gifted Bruce Greenwood. Chi McBride was finally cast to full effect, and I enjoyed every scene that he was in. Thankfully, he showed up quite a bit. There is alot more to be said about the making of this film, and some of the processes that went into the filming (like the use of human actors as robots) but it's probably best if you rent or buy the region 1 DVD and watch some of the "making of" featurettes on the disc. The U.S. version did not come in a deluxe edition, like it did in nearly every other country in the world it was released in, which leads me to believe that it will make another appearance in some form on DVD later in the year. That would be the only reason I would tell you to hold off on a purchase. Other than that - you shouldn't wait to see it. Despite having a PG-13 rating, the film is quite violent and the released version is apparently approved completely by the director. Although Proyas apparently had a difficult time dealing with the studio to some degree while trying to finish his film (they were probably needlessly trying to dumb it down) you could never tell by looking at the finished product. And that Marco Beltrami score (Blade II 02, Hellboy 04) is truly out of this world.

Trivia from imdb: The car featured in this film is the Audi RSQ Concept car, designed exclusively for the film. Most of the cars in the movie are modified present-day Audi cars. There are even some unmodified cars. The motorcycle that Will Smith's character rides in the movie is a 2004 MV Agusta F4-SPR. It is one of only 300 produced worldwide. Its 750cc, inline 4-cylinder engine produces 147 horsepower and can propel the bike in excess of 175 mph. Wil Wheaton and Emilio Estevez auditioned for the part of Sonny the suspect robot. When Spooner opens the door in the beginning, the robot on his doorstep has the number 42 on his head. Many SF movies contain the number 42, a reference to the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything according to Douglas Adams's "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". Another Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference is that the only good day of Spooner was a "Thursday". In the "Guide", this is the day of the week that Arthur Dent "never could get the hang of." The lettering on the police cruisers are all done in the font "Chicago," the city the film is set in. Dr. Lanning's cat is named Asimov.

Even if you are a fan of the books, don't be turned off by the way the film was marketed or how it looked in the previews. It's obviously "not like" the books. But it is mainstream film-making at it's best, and the final action set-piece is even a little throw-back to The Empire Strikes Back (80). Believe me, there is enough human emotion (and artificial emotion for that matter) and positive attributes in this film to please even the most hardcore of cynics. I should know, I expected this film to have rabies, remember? Forget the negative hype about the shoe-jokes (Converse All-Stars, 2004 edition) and sit back and enjoy the ride. In any case, if you don't see it - you might just be missing one of the most enjoyable and full-filling films of the millennium. I do not know if it was the best movie of the year. But I can say for certain that it was the most mis-percieved film by the public of 2004 (along with the incredible and equally Oscar-worthy Spider-Man 2). I doubt I, Robot will win any Oscars come Februrary (unless they are for technical awards), but so what. It's what movie-movies are meant to be, only in this case - alot more.
4 1/2 out of 5 stars

Lt. John Bergin: "We're going to miss the good old days."
Detective Del Spooner: "What good old days?"
Lt. John Bergin: "When people were killed by other people."