Narrative Feature Films: 2003

Submitted by dgeiser13 on Sun, 02/09/2003 - 08:19
Tags: 
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Technorati
  1. Ranked and Rated
  2.  
  3. ==========================
  4.  
  5. [79] Oldboy (2003, Chan-wook Park)
  6. [77] Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003, Quentin Tarantino)
  7. [77] The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003, Peter Jackson)
  8. [74] Carandiru (2003, Hector Babenco)
  9. [74] The Memory of a Killer (2003, Erik Van Looy)
  10. [74] The Missing (2003, Ron Howard)
  11. [73] Memories of Murder (2003, Joon-ho Bong)
  12. [71] American Splendor (2003, Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini)
  13.  
  14. [71] Finding Nemo (2003, Andrew Stanton) ~ Easily the funniest Pixar feature I've seen. Special kudo's to Ellen Degeneres for keeping the humor so fresh as I'm sure some of the funniest moments were not scripted, unless writer/director Andrew Stanton is a comic genius. Great on a technical level as well. It's incredible how far computer graphics have come. The movie did a great job of conveying the vastness of the ocean. The plot was a little thin and the overall tone was a little scary. I lost count of how many times Nemo's Dad, Marlin, mentioned death and dying. I'd say definitely not a film for the 5 and under set. But other than that I have no real qualms with the film. Pixar continues it's incredibly consistent run. If I had to rank Pixar's films I don't even know if I could. Would a 5-way tie for first place suffice? Anyway, see this one on the big screen to make sure you sop up all of the details. Also, make sure to get their before the previews to see a small sneak preview of Brad Bird's The Incredibles (2004) and the short Knick Knack (1989). And staying through the end credits wouldn't hurt either. I'll probably be seeing this one again theatrically.
  15.  
  16. [69] Lost in Translation (2003, Sofia Coppola)
  17. [66] Easy (2003, Jane Weinstock)
  18. [66] Love Actually (2003, Richard Curtis)
  19. [66] Matchstick Men (2003, Ridley Scott)
  20. [66] The Matrix Reloaded (2003, Andy and Larry Wachowski)
  21. [65] Confidence (2003, James Foley)
  22. [65] The Cooler (2003, Wayne Kramer)
  23. [65] Identity (2003, James Mangold)
  24. [64] Aragami (2003, Ryuhei Kitamura)
  25. [64] A Mighty Wind (2003, Christopher Guest)
  26. [64] School of Rock (2003, Richard Linklater)
  27. [63] High Tension (2003, Alexandre Aja)
  28. [63] Intolerable Cruelty (2003, Joel Coen)
  29. [63] X2: X-Men United (2003, Bryan Singer)
  30. [62] Big Fish (2003, Tim Burton)
  31. [62] Camp (2003, Todd Graff)
  32.  
  33. [62] Elf (2003, Jon Favreau) ~ I was expecting to have a few good laughs with Elf but ended up having way more than a few. There were some scenes in this movie that caused me to laugh so hard my eyes were watering. I can't remember the last time I laughed myself even to the verge of tears in a theater so that was no small feat. The trailer barely grazed the surface of the hilarity of the full film. Will Ferrell plays Buddy, the elf, with such wide-eyed innocence that any disbelief I had was suspended high in the rafters. I especially liked the touches paying homage to the Christmas TV specials of the late 60s and early 70s. If you find yourself really needing to be cheered up in the next month or so this movie will do it.
  34.  
  35. [61] Hulk (2003, Ang Lee)
  36. [61] Out of Time (2003, Carl Franklin)
  37. [60] Down with Love (2003, Peyton Reed)
  38. [60] The Rundown (2003, Peter Berg)
  39. [60] Stuck On You (2003, Bobby and Peter Farrelly)
  40. [59] Old School (2003, Todd Phillips)
  41. [59] Something's Gotta Give (2003, Nancy Meyers)
  42. [59] Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003, Jonathan Mostow)
  43. [59] X2 (2003, Bryan Singer)
  44.  
  45. [58] The Matrix Revolutions (2003, Andy and Larry Wachowski) ~ I really, really wanted to like this movie. And I really, really did not enjoy it at all. I love the first Matrix film. I was slightly disappointed by The Matrix Reloaded but overall I thought it was pretty watchable. But The Matrix Revolutions makes The Matrix Reloaded look like a masterpiece. What's with all the meaningless exposition? Sure, there has been a substantial amount of dialogue in the movies until this point but at least before it felt like it meant something. There was no point whatsoever to 80% of the dialogue in Revolutions. I felt like I was watching a film that had been butchered by some studio-hired Editor who really didn't understand the story instead of a film that The Brothers Wachowski had basically been given carte blanche to make however they wanted. They had all of that money. They could basically have done anything with the dialogue, the effects, the pacing, the story, the visuals. Literally anything. And this is what they chose? A story composed of maudlin dialogue. B-movie fight scenes. A 15 minute chase scene so chaotic you couldn't even tell what was happening. And there were so many things which they could've taken a minute or two to explain but they chose not to.
    Spoiler: Highlight to view
    Where exactly was The Train Station? Who exactly was The Train Man? What did the Merovingian mean by the eyes of the Oracle? Did they really hand over her eyes? Was Seraph her eyes? How did Sati fit into everything?
    Damn, dudes. If you're going to make us sit there for 130 minutes the least you could do is give our brains, in addition to our eyes, something to chew on. And the ending was almost as pointless as The Ewok Celebration at the end of Return of the Jedi.
    Spoiler: Highlight to view
    Were we supposed to be happy for the 4 programs that they actually found a way to strike a peace with the humans?
    After watching them mercilessly defile human beings for the last three films? I would love to hear the Brothers spend 15 minutes explaining exactly what happened in Revolutions. I don't want to read other filmgoers thoughts (Listologists excepted) who watched the exact same film that I did try to speculate on what it all meant. I watched the movie and I still don't know. Should you really get to the end of an "epic" triology and know less than you did then when you were 2/3 of the way through? Crazy stuff, man. Really crazy. Very disappointing as a whole. A few nice touches, people fighting on the ceiling, the guy who played Bane, Smith and Neo flying through the warehouse. But what's that? About 10 minutes of film tops? There's no reason I should've been bored watching this film. And I was. Nuff said.
  46.  
  47. [58] Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003, Gore Verbinski) ~ This movie is so close to being a '6' that it can almost see the hairs on Will Ferrell's ass. It's sort of hard to pinpoint where it went wrong. The leads (Bloom, Depp, Knightley and Rush) all gave uniformly swell performances. The visual effects were great and the dialogue was laced with plenty of humor that actually worked. But the pacing in this movie was horrible, the end of the film seemed like it was never going to come, and the fight scenes although cool in spots were way too long.
    Spoiler: Highlight to view
    Sure, it's cool, that as the undead swordsmen parry their way around the moonlight and shadow filled cavern that their skeletons are visible only when the moonlight hits them.
    But do we really have to watch that for twenty minutes? After 2 or 3, almost-endings? The two thoughts which predominated my after-movie musings are that Keira Knightley is going be a big star, if her agent doesn't fly her career into the side of a mountain, and that seamless yet unbelievable special effects can be pulled off. Hear that Charlie's Angels?
  48.  
  49. [57] Basic (2003, John McTiernan)
  50. [57] Bruce Almighty (2003, Tom Shadyac)
  51.  
  52. [56] Shanghai Knights (2003, David Dobkin) ~ Although not quite as good as Shanghai Noon (which itself isn't that good, but is an enjoyable flick), Shanghai Knights delivers all of the expected goods in varying degrees with an unsteady stream of bawdy humor, action "set pieces", anachronistic language and the occasional tip-of-the-bowler to famous Brits of the period. Jackie Chan has never looked better and seems to be nearing a creative zenith in the subtlety of his stunts. Owen Wilson gets off more one-liners the 2nd-time around, some of which fit right in and others which fail totally. I would've preferred the quality of the writing, both in plot and dialogue, to be a bit more uniform throughout. The actor who played the villain in the film is a dead-ringer for a younger and skinnier Alec Baldwin (or was it Edward Burns?) which, believe it or not, was semi-distracting to me. I kept thinking about Alec's exercise regimen, which I guess is my way of saying that my mind tended to drift a little during the film and that the movie could've been punched up (read, trimmed and/or shortened) to give it a quicker feel. That being said I'm glad to see David Dobkin getting directorial work after his respectable first effort, Clay Pigeons. Most of the score and any previously recorded music were pushed way too close to the front of the mix in the overall soundtrack, I think in some weird attempt to hawk the soundtrack CD. Frame for frame Shanghai Knights had a little bit more of everything than it's predecessor but unfortunately that didn't make it better, or even as good.
  53.  
  54. [55] Gothika (2003, Mathieu Kassovitz)
  55. [55] The Recruit (2003, Roger Donaldson)
  56. [55] Underworld (2003, Len Wiseman)
  57. [54] The Italian Job (2003, F. Gary Gray)
  58. [54] Malibu's Most Wanted (2003, John Whitesell)
  59. [54] Ong-Bak: The Thai Warrior (2003, Prachya Pinkaew)
  60. [53] Daredevil (2003, Mark Steven Johnson)
  61. [53] King of the Ants (2003, Stuart Gordon)
  62. [53] Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over (2003, Robert Rodriguez)
  63. [53] Wrong Turn (2003, Rob Schmidt)
  64. [52] Anger Management (2003, Peter Segal)
  65. [52] Paycheck (2003, John Woo)
  66. [51] Bringing Down the House (2003, Adam Shankman)
  67. [49] Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003, McG)
  68. [44] The Core (2003, Jon Amiel)
  69. [40] Head of State (2003, Chris Rock)
  70.  
  71. ==========================
AAA06/01/2003

I absolutely adored Finding Nemo. What did you think?

jim06/02/2003

I'm psyched to see you both liked Finding Nemo! dgeiser13, do you think it's more intense than the other Pixar films? I ask because of your "not for the five and under crowd" comment. My daughter is five and has seen the other Pixar movies, so I was thinking this was a natural for seeing in the theater. But perhaps not?

dgeiser1306/02/2003

I'm sure it depends on the maturity level of the child as well. I saw it with my friend and her 6 year old who just closed out her kindergarten year and it never crossed my mind that it was too intense for her. And in retrospect it seems that the Pixar films have always had a little bit of edginess in at least one scene. I thought the scariest scene in Monsters, Inc. was when they had the little girl hooked up to the machine that was going to suck the essence (laughs, screams?) out of her.

It's hard to say much about the specifics without spoiling the movie. It just seemed like the major characters were always in peril, e.g. lots of chasing, sometimes violently, and Nemo's Mom and 399 brothers and sisters (as eggs) get eaten (off camera) by a barracuda.. I think this also enforces the concept that the ocean can be a very dangerous place, depending on where you live in it.

I'm sure there are plenty of 5 year olds (and maybe 5 wasn't a good cutoff point, perhaps 4 and below?) who could see the movie and not be an iota worse for the wear because of it. But others might be affected briefly. And I definitely don't picture any child being traumatized by it.

This coming from someone who has never had kids, of course. You might want to get some feedback from AAA as well and maybe hunt up one of those sites were they discuss the appropriateness of films for different ages. Hopefully you can find one that's spoiler-free.

dgeiser1306/02/2003

This Screen It review does a great job of detailing everying of interest to a parent in the movie. Unfortunately it tells you almost everything about the film but that's probably an OK price to pay. I don't think it'll lessen your enjoyment in the slightest. If you want a brief synopsis, without any spoilers, you can just read the chart at the top of the page.

jim06/03/2003

Thanks for the additional insights! I must admit I'm having a very hard time being objective about this, as I'd really like to see the movie myself!

dgeiser1306/09/2003

You're welcome. I can relate to the objectivity thing as well. So did you decide what you're going to do?

jim06/10/2003

I don't think I'll be able to keep myself from taking her. :-)

dgeiser1306/22/2003

Hey, Jim. It looks like Yahoo! has added a nice section to their movies area called Movie Mom. They've done a horrible job of promoting it, because I'm on Yahoo! Movies several times a week and I've never seen it before. I can't tell you just how accurate her recommendations are but after a cursory exploration it seems like a good resource. Her suggestions for Finding Nemo and The Hulk are pretty close to how I would've gauged them.

jim06/23/2003

Well, I took her. :-) As you'll read, your original recommendation was probably right on the money, but if I had it to do over again, I'd probably still take her. I think in the final analysis, the good outweighted the bad. My review will follow in the usual places in a couple days.

jim07/10/2003

Oo, I don't know if it's good to be that close to being a "6". :-) Nice to see a review from you; I always enjoy 'em. I'm still looking forward to that one (yes, even though it's a Bruckheimer movie based on a Disney theme park ride, fer pete's sake), but it always looked like DVD fodder to me.

jim10/09/2003

If you can find the time I'd love to hear your reviews of Matchstick Men and School of Rock. And I did un-retool my lists at your request...

:-)

(Just kidding, of course, the new format bugged me too. But you were the catalyst.)

dgeiser1310/22/2003

I'll see what I can do about the reviews. Thanks for considering my request about doing things the old way. Was I the only complaintant?

jim10/23/2003

I think one other person mentioned that they preferred 'em the old way, but I can't remember now. Even if it were just you, that would have been enough. :-) I'm much happier with them in this form.

geek11/12/2003

Is Elf really as good as I've heard? I'm still skeptical, though maybe just because I don't care for Will Ferrell. If you have a minute, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

dgeiser1311/12/2003

I personally though it was great. I wrote a paragraph above re: my experience for you. :-)

geek11/12/2003

Thanks, Dan. I guess I'll have to check it out.

AJDaGreat11/17/2003

I'd be really interested to read your thoughts on "Matrix Revolutions", if you're up for posting them!

dgeiser1311/17/2003

AJ, you are prescient. I must have been writing them while you commented. I just posted them for all to see.

ash_campbell01/22/2004

I like Knick Knack mostly bacuse of the music by Bobby McPherin...

I think you're dead-on with your comments on Pirates of the Caribbean. It's really a bad movie with one of the greatest performances I've ever seen.

lukeprog08/21/2004

No! No! I think it is an well scripted adventure story with good characters, action, effects, and, of course, Depp's performance - more akin to Raiders or The Empire Strikes Back than... whatever you'd compare it to :-)

lukeprog09/20/2004

Do you add in all those IMDB links manually, or is there an easy way to automatically link to the combined details page by recognizing the title or something?

dgeiser1309/20/2004

It's done automatically because I've been such a big supporter of Listology. It's only available in the paid Listology Pro version.

lukeprog09/20/2004

Are you serious? I wasn't even aware of a Listology Pro...

dgeiser1309/20/2004

It's a secret. Only a select few are allowed in.