The Best and Worst movies of 2004 (so far...)

THE BEST:
1. The Incredibles
2. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
3. Shaun of the Dead
4. Spider-Man 2
5. Hero
6. Tokyo Godfathers
7. Kill Bill: Volume II
8. I, Robot
9. Cellular
10.The Clearing

Runners up: I Heart Huckabees, Troy, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Hellboy, The Passion of the Christ, The Triplets of Belleville, The Butterfly Effect

THE WORST:
1. Resident Evil: Apocalypse
2. Catwoman
3. King Arthur
4. Van Helsing
5. The Punisher
6. Birth
7. The Chronicles of Riddick
8. Alien vs. Predator
9. Exorcist: the Beginning
10. Envy

Runners up: Blade: Trinity, Dawn of the Dead, Ladder 49, The Terminal, Miracle

Ocean's Twelve

OCEAN'S TWELVE (2004) - Dec. 30, 2004
A disappointing sequel. It certainly wasn't a bad movie -- it was almost always entertaining, it was really well directed, and it was well acted. But there was nothing here even remotely as interesting as the elaborate heist from the first film. This movie is all about heists but can barely even be classified as a heist movie. They spend a good amount of time near the beginning of the film planning out a particular heist, but then when they're about to do it, it cuts to a different scene. What the..? Later we get to see the heist in a disappointingly quick flashback, but what's the deal? Why cut away right at the most interesting part? That's just a slap in the face. There are also times where the movie seems a bit on the long side (particularly during a long, superfluous sequence involving Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis). Oh well. Despite being mostly disappointing, the movie was still pretty good, and funny at times (mostly because of Matt Damon, who is a definite stand-out). ***

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU (2004) - Dec. 22, 2004
After House of Flying Daggers let me down so hard, I was starting to get worried: would two of my favourite directors let me down in the same day? Fortunately, Wes delivered the goods in a big way -- this is an instant classic and is definitely right up there with Wes' masterpiece, Rushmore. Wes continues to prove that he is one of the most visually inventive directors out there, and seems to have some kind of sixth sense that allows him to perfectly match music to his visuals. But of course, that would be meaningless if the characters and plot were no good. This is certainly not the case. Bill Murray gives what may be his best performance yet as an oceanographer who realizes that his best days are behind him. Owen Wilson sheds his usual wise-cracking persona and actually attempts to create a real character. And Willem Dafoe is hilarious as a German member of Steve Zissou's crew who sees Steve as a father. I'll have to watch it a few more times before I decide whether or not it's better than Rushmore. ****

House of Flying Daggers

HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS (2004) - Dec. 22, 2004
After the amazing Hero, Zhang Yimou missteps horribly with this disappointing kung-fu movie. Like Hero, it is in the same genre with the awful and overrated Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. However, Hero managed to transcend the genre with its breathtaking visuals, exciting action, well-developed characters and Rashomon-esque storyline. House of Flying Daggers, on the other hand, wallows in the genre, recalling all the worst elements of Crouching Tiger: the stilted romance, the over-long running time, the protracted scenes, and the unexciting action sequences. That's not to say it was a bad movie, per se. It was well directed, obviously (I don't think Zhang Yimou is capable of making a movie that doesn't look good). And for the most part I wasn't bored (though almost every scene over-stayed its welcome by at least a few minutes). But I just expect so much more from Zhang Yimou, especially after how mind-blowingly good Hero was. **1/2

I, Robot

I, ROBOT (2004) - Dec. 15, 2004 (Second Viewing)
I really like this movie. Alex Proyas certainly knows what he's doing as this movie features the coolest looking future since Blade Runner. There's a good amount of action, but it never overwhelms the plot. Plus the action is actually coherent and not way over-edited like almost every action movie these days. Proof that an action scene doesn't need a billion cuts to be exciting (I'm looking at you, Paul Greengrass). The characters and performances were all really good -- Will Smith in particular is surprisingly good as a detective who doesn't trust robots. And the special effects were quite impressive and almost entirely seamless. Proof that CG doesn't necessarily have to look fake (now I'm looking at you, George Lucas). As far as the sci-fi/action genre goes this is right up there with Total Recall. ****

Blade: Trinity

BLADE: TRINITY (2004) - Dec. 8, 2004
Mediocre. That's all I can really say about this movie. The action scenes were passable, I suppose. And the performances were all fine (with the exception of Parker Posey, who was way over-the-top as an evil vampire). Ryan Reynolds was a stand-out as a wisecracking vampire hunter, and in fact was probably the best thing about the movie. But aside from Reynolds, there was nothing exciting or even interesting about this movie. It was just going through the motions, and I was bored. **

Hold that Ghost

HOLD THAT GHOST (1941) - Dec. 7, 2004
Abbott and Costello star as a couple of guys who manage to inherit an old hotel from a gangster. They stay the night there with a group of people and find that it may or may not be haunted. Wackiness, of course, ensues. I would have preferred more interaction between Abbott and Costello (most of the humour comes from Costello's wacky reactions to various things), but it was still pretty good. **1/2

Cries and Whispers

CRIES AND WHISPERS (1972) - Dec. 5, 2004 (Second Viewing)
Another unpleasant, ultra slow-paced Ingmar Bergman movie. About a woman who is dying, and the effect this has on her two sisters and her servant. Features a very heavy-handed use of colour ("Say, red's a powerful colour. Let's make everything red!"). Has Ingmar Bergman ever made a movie with characters who aren't miserable and suicidal? *1/2

The Incredibles

THE INCREDIBLES (2004) - Dec. 5, 2004
Well, I'm sorry, but I have to say it: that was incredible! Oh man, that ruled HARD. I haven't seen a movie that good in quite a while. About a couple of super-heroes who are forced into retirement, and subsequently settle down and have a family. I liked the Watchmen-esque idea that all super-heroes become outlawed; it seems like the most plausible outcome if super-heroes were a reality. I also really like the main character and his inability to adapt to civilian life -- after living the life of a super-hero, being a low-level drone in an insurance company just can't seem to cut it. Craig T. Nelson and Holly Hunter were both perfect as the two main characters, and Jason Lee was equally good as the villain (though I have to wonder if the role was originally meant for Jack Black...). I also really liked the whole Fantastic Four inspired family dynamic they had, and how they really clicked as a family while being super-heroes. Speaking of which, I hope the director of the Fantastic Four movie was watching, because I think they pretty much got the stretchy powers perfect in this movie. I always thought those powers would look kind of creepy in motion but Brad Bird certainly makes it work. The movie struck an absolutely perfect blend of action and character stuff, and a good amount of humour too. This was easily right up there with the Toy Story movies, and as far as super-hero movies go, I think it might even be better than Spider-Man 2. ****

Persona

PERSONA (1966) - Dec. 4, 2004
A bizarre film by Ingmar Bergman. While the plot - dealing with the relationship between two women - is pretty standard Bergman, the way it plays out is certainly different. Particularly odd is the beginning, which features a lot of strange images and sounds, and almost seems like a parody of an arty foreign movie. This weirdness reoccurs at around the mid-point of the movie, and I guess it's supposed to represent the breakdown of the relationship between the two women because it happens right as things go sour. I don't know. And then it happens again at the end and I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. This is certainly Bergman's most visually-driven movie, at least that I've seen. And while it was definitely well-made I couldn't really get into it. There was the typical Bergman slow pace, which didn't help, and then towards the end I was really starting to get confused. Where the two women actually supposed to be one woman? I don't know. **

Birth

BIRTH (2004) - Dec. 2, 2004 (S)
This was probably the most well-made bad movie I've ever seen. And oh boy, was it bad. The direction (by Jonathan Glazer, whose Sexy Beast was a million times better than this) was quite good, and the performances were also quite good. I liked the score, too. But the screenplay was absolutely, jaw-droppingly ludicrous. I mean, just... Jeez. About a woman who meets a young boy who claims to be the reincarnation of her dead husband. She, of course, is skeptical at first, but quickly comes to believe him. Why? Because she is insane? Because the script requires her to? I don't know. He certainly doesn't make a convincing case. She tells a friend that he is falling in love with him. Why? What about this little boy is appealing? She can't be sexually attracted to him, unless she is a pedophile (which, as the movie progresses, seems more and more to be the case). She can't have any kind of emotional connection, as the kid does nothing but glower and act mysterious throughout the entire film. Unless her husband was the most dour man alive, I'm not buying it. And then towards the end it's revealed that nope, the kid just stole some old love letters, he was faking it. But why? As a wacky prank? What? Nicole Kidman then goes crawling back to her fiancee, who, stunningly, takes her back despite the fact that she is clearly a psychopath. Oh man. I cannot possibly fathom what Jonathan Glazer was thinking when he decided to make this movie. I can only assume that he was forced at gunpoint. And I have to say, I am offended by the comparisons to Kubrick. Sure, Glazer's style in this film does resemble Kubrick's (he even directly steals a shot or two for good measure) -- but on the same note a robot could watch all of Kubrick's films, and then make a movie that effectively emulates his style. But that doesn't mean it would be good. *1/2