(in case you're looking for parts 1 & 2:
Movies 2003, pt. 1
Movies 2003, pt. 2)
Ok, so I started this as a “worst of” list, but then I got distracted. See, 2003 was really the year of the sequel, and for a while there it seemed like there wasn't a single original film all summer. Coincidentally, many of my least favorite memories of the year just happened to be sequels, so I I'll start off with a list of the sequels and where they ended up in my personal movie awards.
(A brief aside here. Don't look for Return of the King here. I've already talked about it and frankly, I'm not looking at it as a sequel, so it's excused from having to sit in the same company as some of these other films.)
So, without further ado, The Sequels of 2003…
X2 (aka X-Men 2: X-Men United). This is kind of a left-handed compliment, since there were so many bad sequels that being the best hardly seems like much of an accomplishment. But this one turned out to be not only the best sequel of the year, but also the best superhero movie of the year (perhaps even less of an accomplishment, when you consider it was up against the likes of The Hulk & Daredevil). But it did a nice job of extending the mythology of the X-Men, told a fun story, introduced Nightcrawler (one of the best characters of the summer) as well as a whole flock of fledgling mutants and was simply a lot of fun. A great kick-off to the summer movie season. Unfortunately, the rest of the summer hardly lived up to that standard.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. Honestly, I had little interest in this one when I saw the trailers. I wasn't interested in the logic knots they'd have to tie themselves into to explain how the terminators have come back again (turns out they just opted for predestination!) and wasn't terribly interested in what looked like a rehashing the past two movies. And my first impressions of the film weren't much better. I found the first big action scene (the truck chase through LA) ridiculously over the top and over-long. And I found much of the cemetery scene frankly absurd. But then it started getting better for me. And when I got to the completely surprising and yet imminently logical ending of the film, I found myself really liking it, despite it's awkward attempts at poking fun at the series and tendency to go over the top.
I am, of course, talking about Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions. Let's be real, right from the start—there's no way these two films could have lived up to the hype and expectations heaped upon them. The Wachowski brothers had been elevated to something approaching godhood (or at least pre-Episode I Lucas-hood) by the Matrix faithful, so it's no surprise that people came away from Revolutions disappointed. It was long, convoluted and didn't make a lot of sense on the first pass through. (I'm completely convinced that there's not one major scene in that film that couldn't have used some judicious editing—notoriously, the pointless “burly brawl” and infamous freeway chase chief among these). Then Reloaded comes along and ignores virtually every question raised by Revolutions to tell the fairly straightforward story of the defense of Zion and assault on the Machine City. For me, the biggest disappointment in these films was seeing the visual artistry, the comic book sensibility so prevalent in the Matrix diluted into something much closer to the typical Hollywood action/adventure palette in the 2 sequels. Where there were scenes throughout Matrix that visually leapt off the screen to burn themselves in my brain, there was nothing to compare with that aesthetic in Reloaded/Revolutions. That's the shame and disappointment of the two films for me.
But, if you come at the films without any preconceptions, without judging them on their antecedent, and you view the films as a whole, you'll probably find that a pretty damn good story was effectively and entertainingly told. That, for close to six hours of film time, you've been entertained and transported to a world that's interesting, dangerous and challenging. I can think of worse ways to spend my time in a theatre.
Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life. I’m not talking financially unsuccessful here (though that’s probably true as well—just ask Paramount and Eidos) but unsuccessful in terms of what they tried to do with the film. Arguably a better film than the first, this one still managed to leave me ultimately unimpressed. The story here is a vast improvement over the first film in that most of it actually makes sense (within the world of the Tomb Raider) and the action pieces actually exist as a part of the story, instead of simply excuses to put an action scene in. But, while this one has more character depth and a more logical story, they left out one key Tomb Raider ingredient. Fun. Angelina Jolie's Lara Croft may have had more depth here but she also managed to lose any sense of humor and, more importantly, the attitude that implies that, while she might be in danger, she's having the time of her life. That's the one thing the first movie got right, and the one piece sorely lacking in this one.
This one was originally a hands-down "victory" for Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. I'd enjoyed the first film, thought it was a lot of fun and was really looking forward to this one. I'd praised McG for proving that not all music-video directors were hopeless when it came to telling a coherent story and figured this one would be just as fun as the first. WOW, was I wrong. There was, arguably, a story to Full Throttle. But it probably was shorter than one of the original TV episodes. It was probably close to a half-hour into the film (and several CG-filled “stunt” sequences) before anything remotely resembling a story began to show up. But even then, it was obvious that the story was there simply as something to hang stunts and action sequences on. (It's the Porn School style of directing… just enough story to get us from bang to bang.)
But, just when I was ready to crown this piece of crap as the worst movie of the summer, along comes Bad Boys II—another case of the original being a guilty pleasure and its sequel a hideous disappointment. Knowing that it's a Michael Bay film, I didn't expect story to be much of an issue. In Bay's case, I rather expect porn-school directing. But this not only had a mediocre story, but also was filled with annoying “bits” and side stories that served no purpose other than to leave me wondering why I was watching this pointless, god-awful movie. And THEN we got to the completely ludicrous, über-jingoistic hostage-rescue-from-Cuba climax to the film and I was DONE. I'm still inclined to give the nod to Charlie's Angels as worst film of the year, but that may be because I actually paid full price to see that one in a theatre. In any case, Bad Boys II is right up there with it in the crap stratosphere.
Daredevil. It's tempting to blame this one on Ben Affleck. Has there ever been a more “vanilla” leading man? And when is the last time he's actually had a hit film? But I really can't lay the blame on him here (certainly not ALL the blame). No, the lion's share here has to go to Daredevil's director, Mark Steven Johnson, who's now in contention with Simon West (coincidentally, director of the first Tomb Raider movie) as worst hack director currently working in Hollywood. From a muddy color palette and uninteresting camera work, to annoyingly choppy fight scenes (presumably to mask the fact that all of Daredevil's New York thugs are actually Chinese stuntmen) to superheroic stunts lifted straight from Spiderman, this one failed for me on every level. (I have a friend who told me that this one actually is one of the few comic book films to actually get the comic right. In which case, I think I'll be staying away from Daredevil comics.)
Hulk. Admittedly, I wasn't terribly interested in this one from the start. Hulk was never a comic I followed much. I mean, really—all he did was smash things! So maybe I'm being hypercritical. But, even understanding that Ang Lee was trying to bring some depth into the superhero film, I have to ask how they decided THIS was the story they wanted to tell. Aside from further extending the traditionally over-long superhero origin story for this film, Lee's focus on Hulk's father issues completely ignore the much more compelling and interesting psychological story here—the fact that when he becomes the Hulk, there's a part of him that LIKES the way it feels. Enjoys the rage and the power that comes with it. Now, explore that story, and I might be interested! (And, I’m sorry, but they went to such extremes to make sure we saw that Hulk never actually killed anyone that it just became annoying. We get it, he’s the good guy. Now move on!)
LXG: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. God, do I even have to talk about this one? Over the top, CGI driven, cold and emotionless. I think that covers it. There were bright spots in the film, I suppose. I especially like the final realization of the film when you finally understand that the shaman’s "promise" that Quatermain’s been talking about throughout the movie is really a curse. But it really wasn't worth the trip to get to that point.
Story concept that's overstayed it's welcome—The Superhero/Comic Book film. Let's face it, for every X-Men and Spiderman, there are several Hulks, Daredevils and even Charlie's Angels out there on the horizon, just waiting to ambush you with bad moviemaking. This year we've got Punisher and Hellboy coming, and those are just the first two I've seen ads for. I'm sure there are more. The only question is, how many of them will actually be worth seeing? I'm betting not nearly enough of them. Lets acknowledge now that not all comics will make good movies and that not all directors can handle making them. We'll all be better off for that realization.
And, technique that's overstayed ITS welcome—The infamous CGI stunt sequence. Lets make it clear right now to directors everywhere, there's nothing thrilling or exciting about a stunt scene done using CGI. It's a great tool for creating the strange, the fantastic, the mythic (think Lord of the Rings or the Machine attack on Zion in Matrix Revolutions here) and useful in filling in the gaps in those stunt sequences that are simply too dangerous or impossible to film. But, when your entire stunt sequence is obviously CGI (Charlie's Angel's motocross scene anyone?) you're simply left with a mildly interesting piece of digital animation—a not quite compelling, ultimately empty piece of film that never engages the audience because there's nothing at stake! It's not that the audience are ghouls (although I'm sure we've got a few in most theatres) but the vicarious thrill in a stunt sequence comes from the realization that someone's put themselves at risk there and our fascination is in how they pull off the stunt. That's the reason everyone loves Jackie Chan films, despite the fact that so many of them are unwatchable to our jaded Western eyes—we're fascinated to see the man actually do those things on film. So please, let's lighten up on the CGI out there guys. You're not fooling anyone! (Not that this is likely to end anytime soon. Torque opens today and, from the trailer I saw the other day, it looks like it could qualify for an animation award, ‘cause there’s no way those stunts are actually happening!)
Now, I’m sure this leaves a lot of really bad movies off the list. Fortunately, I was able to dodge both Cat in the Hat & Haunted Mansion (see, it has a living room and a dying room!). I, along with most of the country, saw Gigli coming a mile away and stayed far away. And, of course, there was Bruce Almighty. (I know, it did well in the theatres. But it’s got Jim Carrey playing God. What more do I need to say? It’s bad and I know it.)
But I’m pretty sure I hit the worst offenders.
So, that wraps up my take on the movies of the past year. Coming up are Ladykillers; Kill Bill, Volume 2; the Stepford Wives; Spiderman 2; Shrek 2; the Incredibles… it's already shaping up to be quite a list. I can't wait!
Movies 2003, pt. 1
Movies 2003, pt. 2)
And now, the rest of the mess
Ok, so I started this as a “worst of” list, but then I got distracted. See, 2003 was really the year of the sequel, and for a while there it seemed like there wasn't a single original film all summer. Coincidentally, many of my least favorite memories of the year just happened to be sequels, so I I'll start off with a list of the sequels and where they ended up in my personal movie awards.
(A brief aside here. Don't look for Return of the King here. I've already talked about it and frankly, I'm not looking at it as a sequel, so it's excused from having to sit in the same company as some of these other films.)
So, without further ado, The Sequels of 2003…
The Best Sequel of 2003
X2 (aka X-Men 2: X-Men United). This is kind of a left-handed compliment, since there were so many bad sequels that being the best hardly seems like much of an accomplishment. But this one turned out to be not only the best sequel of the year, but also the best superhero movie of the year (perhaps even less of an accomplishment, when you consider it was up against the likes of The Hulk & Daredevil). But it did a nice job of extending the mythology of the X-Men, told a fun story, introduced Nightcrawler (one of the best characters of the summer) as well as a whole flock of fledgling mutants and was simply a lot of fun. A great kick-off to the summer movie season. Unfortunately, the rest of the summer hardly lived up to that standard.
Most Surprising Sequel
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. Honestly, I had little interest in this one when I saw the trailers. I wasn't interested in the logic knots they'd have to tie themselves into to explain how the terminators have come back again (turns out they just opted for predestination!) and wasn't terribly interested in what looked like a rehashing the past two movies. And my first impressions of the film weren't much better. I found the first big action scene (the truck chase through LA) ridiculously over the top and over-long. And I found much of the cemetery scene frankly absurd. But then it started getting better for me. And when I got to the completely surprising and yet imminently logical ending of the film, I found myself really liking it, despite it's awkward attempts at poking fun at the series and tendency to go over the top.
Most Disappointing and yet Least Appreciated Sequel(s)
I am, of course, talking about Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions. Let's be real, right from the start—there's no way these two films could have lived up to the hype and expectations heaped upon them. The Wachowski brothers had been elevated to something approaching godhood (or at least pre-Episode I Lucas-hood) by the Matrix faithful, so it's no surprise that people came away from Revolutions disappointed. It was long, convoluted and didn't make a lot of sense on the first pass through. (I'm completely convinced that there's not one major scene in that film that couldn't have used some judicious editing—notoriously, the pointless “burly brawl” and infamous freeway chase chief among these). Then Reloaded comes along and ignores virtually every question raised by Revolutions to tell the fairly straightforward story of the defense of Zion and assault on the Machine City. For me, the biggest disappointment in these films was seeing the visual artistry, the comic book sensibility so prevalent in the Matrix diluted into something much closer to the typical Hollywood action/adventure palette in the 2 sequels. Where there were scenes throughout Matrix that visually leapt off the screen to burn themselves in my brain, there was nothing to compare with that aesthetic in Reloaded/Revolutions. That's the shame and disappointment of the two films for me.
But, if you come at the films without any preconceptions, without judging them on their antecedent, and you view the films as a whole, you'll probably find that a pretty damn good story was effectively and entertainingly told. That, for close to six hours of film time, you've been entertained and transported to a world that's interesting, dangerous and challenging. I can think of worse ways to spend my time in a theatre.
Most Unsuccessful Sequel
Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life. I’m not talking financially unsuccessful here (though that’s probably true as well—just ask Paramount and Eidos) but unsuccessful in terms of what they tried to do with the film. Arguably a better film than the first, this one still managed to leave me ultimately unimpressed. The story here is a vast improvement over the first film in that most of it actually makes sense (within the world of the Tomb Raider) and the action pieces actually exist as a part of the story, instead of simply excuses to put an action scene in. But, while this one has more character depth and a more logical story, they left out one key Tomb Raider ingredient. Fun. Angelina Jolie's Lara Croft may have had more depth here but she also managed to lose any sense of humor and, more importantly, the attitude that implies that, while she might be in danger, she's having the time of her life. That's the one thing the first movie got right, and the one piece sorely lacking in this one.
Worst trashing of a “guilty pleasure” franchise
This one was originally a hands-down "victory" for Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. I'd enjoyed the first film, thought it was a lot of fun and was really looking forward to this one. I'd praised McG for proving that not all music-video directors were hopeless when it came to telling a coherent story and figured this one would be just as fun as the first. WOW, was I wrong. There was, arguably, a story to Full Throttle. But it probably was shorter than one of the original TV episodes. It was probably close to a half-hour into the film (and several CG-filled “stunt” sequences) before anything remotely resembling a story began to show up. But even then, it was obvious that the story was there simply as something to hang stunts and action sequences on. (It's the Porn School style of directing… just enough story to get us from bang to bang.)
But, just when I was ready to crown this piece of crap as the worst movie of the summer, along comes Bad Boys II—another case of the original being a guilty pleasure and its sequel a hideous disappointment. Knowing that it's a Michael Bay film, I didn't expect story to be much of an issue. In Bay's case, I rather expect porn-school directing. But this not only had a mediocre story, but also was filled with annoying “bits” and side stories that served no purpose other than to leave me wondering why I was watching this pointless, god-awful movie. And THEN we got to the completely ludicrous, über-jingoistic hostage-rescue-from-Cuba climax to the film and I was DONE. I'm still inclined to give the nod to Charlie's Angels as worst film of the year, but that may be because I actually paid full price to see that one in a theatre. In any case, Bad Boys II is right up there with it in the crap stratosphere.
The rest of my Worst Films:
Daredevil. It's tempting to blame this one on Ben Affleck. Has there ever been a more “vanilla” leading man? And when is the last time he's actually had a hit film? But I really can't lay the blame on him here (certainly not ALL the blame). No, the lion's share here has to go to Daredevil's director, Mark Steven Johnson, who's now in contention with Simon West (coincidentally, director of the first Tomb Raider movie) as worst hack director currently working in Hollywood. From a muddy color palette and uninteresting camera work, to annoyingly choppy fight scenes (presumably to mask the fact that all of Daredevil's New York thugs are actually Chinese stuntmen) to superheroic stunts lifted straight from Spiderman, this one failed for me on every level. (I have a friend who told me that this one actually is one of the few comic book films to actually get the comic right. In which case, I think I'll be staying away from Daredevil comics.)
Hulk. Admittedly, I wasn't terribly interested in this one from the start. Hulk was never a comic I followed much. I mean, really—all he did was smash things! So maybe I'm being hypercritical. But, even understanding that Ang Lee was trying to bring some depth into the superhero film, I have to ask how they decided THIS was the story they wanted to tell. Aside from further extending the traditionally over-long superhero origin story for this film, Lee's focus on Hulk's father issues completely ignore the much more compelling and interesting psychological story here—the fact that when he becomes the Hulk, there's a part of him that LIKES the way it feels. Enjoys the rage and the power that comes with it. Now, explore that story, and I might be interested! (And, I’m sorry, but they went to such extremes to make sure we saw that Hulk never actually killed anyone that it just became annoying. We get it, he’s the good guy. Now move on!)
LXG: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. God, do I even have to talk about this one? Over the top, CGI driven, cold and emotionless. I think that covers it. There were bright spots in the film, I suppose. I especially like the final realization of the film when you finally understand that the shaman’s "promise" that Quatermain’s been talking about throughout the movie is really a curse. But it really wasn't worth the trip to get to that point.
And finally, a couple of trends I've had enough of…
Story concept that's overstayed it's welcome—The Superhero/Comic Book film. Let's face it, for every X-Men and Spiderman, there are several Hulks, Daredevils and even Charlie's Angels out there on the horizon, just waiting to ambush you with bad moviemaking. This year we've got Punisher and Hellboy coming, and those are just the first two I've seen ads for. I'm sure there are more. The only question is, how many of them will actually be worth seeing? I'm betting not nearly enough of them. Lets acknowledge now that not all comics will make good movies and that not all directors can handle making them. We'll all be better off for that realization.
And, technique that's overstayed ITS welcome—The infamous CGI stunt sequence. Lets make it clear right now to directors everywhere, there's nothing thrilling or exciting about a stunt scene done using CGI. It's a great tool for creating the strange, the fantastic, the mythic (think Lord of the Rings or the Machine attack on Zion in Matrix Revolutions here) and useful in filling in the gaps in those stunt sequences that are simply too dangerous or impossible to film. But, when your entire stunt sequence is obviously CGI (Charlie's Angel's motocross scene anyone?) you're simply left with a mildly interesting piece of digital animation—a not quite compelling, ultimately empty piece of film that never engages the audience because there's nothing at stake! It's not that the audience are ghouls (although I'm sure we've got a few in most theatres) but the vicarious thrill in a stunt sequence comes from the realization that someone's put themselves at risk there and our fascination is in how they pull off the stunt. That's the reason everyone loves Jackie Chan films, despite the fact that so many of them are unwatchable to our jaded Western eyes—we're fascinated to see the man actually do those things on film. So please, let's lighten up on the CGI out there guys. You're not fooling anyone! (Not that this is likely to end anytime soon. Torque opens today and, from the trailer I saw the other day, it looks like it could qualify for an animation award, ‘cause there’s no way those stunts are actually happening!)
Now, I’m sure this leaves a lot of really bad movies off the list. Fortunately, I was able to dodge both Cat in the Hat & Haunted Mansion (see, it has a living room and a dying room!). I, along with most of the country, saw Gigli coming a mile away and stayed far away. And, of course, there was Bruce Almighty. (I know, it did well in the theatres. But it’s got Jim Carrey playing God. What more do I need to say? It’s bad and I know it.)
But I’m pretty sure I hit the worst offenders.
So, that wraps up my take on the movies of the past year. Coming up are Ladykillers; Kill Bill, Volume 2; the Stepford Wives; Spiderman 2; Shrek 2; the Incredibles… it's already shaping up to be quite a list. I can't wait!
Comments