NOTE: I'm only doing movies I've SEEN so keep your "You left that out you pice of ••••!" comments to yourself, OK, Tailgunner Joe?

A+ Movies:
Insomnia
Spider-Man

A Movies:
Attack of the Clones

B+ Movies:
Full Frontal

F Movies:
Unfaithful

An A for "Attack of the Clones"? It wasn't "Phantom Menace," but really, an A? I'd give it no higher than a C.

And you'd be wrong, because AOTC was visually stunning, the comic releif wasn't too frequent, Jar jar Binks was betterw ritten (instead of wanting to flush his ass out an airlock I actaully flet sorry for him), and, I don't care what anyone says, the love story made perfect sense, in the sense that romances between young people rarely make any sense.

I sort of agree. While I hated the performances that Christiansen (sp?) and Portman dished out, I at least felt believable chemistry between them.

Visually stunning, yes, I agree. The movie was gorgeous. I didn't see it in all of its digital glory but it was still fabulous on the screen. Too bad George Lucas wasn't paying attention to the script! I didn't find Portman and Christansen's performances bad, per se, it's just that the material itself was bad. Bad, bad, bad. Which is a shame, as it made a lot of the cast (Samuel L. Jackson in particualr) mail in their performances. Here's the deal: when I go see a movie in the "Star Wars" series, I don't want to see just another sci-fi action flick, I want to see something that is part of a truly epic series. The two prequels haven't come close to that level and they haven't even been very good movies, either. They've been bad and mediocre (in that order). Spider-Man was an "A" movie because it carried an emotional weight that Star Wars lacked. Star Wars can't get an "A" because it was basically two hours of ridiculous material, slightly redeemed by a great battle sequence at the end (especially Yoda vs. Dooku! Yee-haw!).

You say that as though you are the final authority. I give it an A beucase the story DID have weight! I'm not an articulate guy by nature so I suggest you shlep your ass over to the SW board, and go read a post by 'Kevin' about the acting and the story. If that doesn't prove to you how wrong you are, then nothing will.

Wow, and could you tone it down *real* fast, Brian, because you're pushing it here. And I would remind everyone not to respond with insults to Brian.

Yeah, Brian, what's up with all the defensiveness?

This is a discussion board, and Sparrow was attempting to discuss Attack of the Clones with you. Reasonably and intelligently, at that. You're the one who told him that he was flat wrong, end of story, go away.

I'd love to contribute to this thread, but hey, if I'm going to be flamed every time I try to disagree with you...?

Sparrow47: An A for "Attack of the Clones"? It wasn't "Phantom Menace," but really, an A? I'd give it no higher than a C.

Brian Webber: And you'd be wrong, because AOTC was visually stunning,...
Luigi Novi: Um, no, he wouldn't be "wrong." He'd have given it the grade that he felt it deserved. I think your opinion of the movie is much higher than it deserves, Brian. Does that make your opinion "wrong"?

Brian Webber: You say that as though you are the final authority.
Luigi Novi: No, he said it as though he was giving his opinion. You're the one who asserted that he was "wrong" not to like it.

Brian Webber: I suggest you shlep your ass over to the SW board, and go read a post by 'Kevin' about the acting and the story. If that doesn't prove to you how wrong you are, then nothing will.
Luigi Novi: Reading someone else's opinion about the movie or the acting will "prove" to someone with a different opinion that they're wrong? Uh....no. All it proves is that opinions vary, Brian. You and Kevin liked the movie. Sparrow and myself did not. I thought the acting was utter crud. Expressing a different opinion isn't "proof" that mine is "wrong."

To each his own.

Hey, when did this turn into PM?

Seriously, though, Brain, calm down. I'm not offended by anything you wrote, but really, it was a bit much. Now I will try and find this post that you're talking about, if I get some time over the next few days. But I find it unlikely that it can change my opinion, because in my opinion, it just wasn't a very good movie.

Luigi, Sparrow, I DID say other thing safte rthe visually stunning comment. Why are you being all Peter-like and ingoring those? Your basically debunking my opinion because of how I chose to open my list! >:-(

Why are you being all Peter-like...

Come on, Bri, no attacking the characters of Luigi & Sparrow


Oh...

ingoring

*has been reading Ratliff MiSTings; declines comment out of respect for a friend*

thing safte rthe

Huh?

'Things after the'? Is that it? Otherwise..

Brian Webber: Luigi, Sparrow, I DID say other thing safte rthe visually stunning comment. Why are you being all Peter-like and ingoring those?
Luigi Novi: I'm not. Not every single thing in a person's post has to be itemized, Brian, and I thought it went without saying that none of the things you mentioned made this film worth watching for me. Lack of comic relief in itself doesn't stand out to me as either a particularly bad or particularly good thing, the smaller amount of screen time for Binks was welcome, but not so great an aspect of the film to seriously affect my feelings of it, and in my humble opinion, I didn't buy Amidala falling for this utter creep, and the aforementioned acting was a large part of that.

Brian Webber: Your basically debunking my opinion because of how I chose to open my list!
Luigi Novi: Not at all. I'm simply expressing a different opinion, not "debunking" yours (is it even possible to "debunk" an opinion?). What provoked a reaction more than anything was the accusation that Sparrow was intentionally couching his/her opinions as if they were factual, when ironically, you were appreared to be doing so yourself.

Opinions, contrary to what you said, aren't "wrong."

Luigi, Sparrow, I DID say other thing safte rthe visually stunning comment. Why are you being all Peter-like and ingoring those? Your basically debunking my opinion because of how I chose to open my list! >:-( Brian Webber

Uh, well, I didn't. I talked about the "visual" aspects and then moved onto the preformances of Christansen and Portman (thus commenting on the love story) to springboard into what I thought was the particular weakness of the film. You're welcome to disagree but please try not to flame me when you're committing the same fouls as I supposedly am.

Bowling For Columbine: A++++++++++++++++++++++++!

Yeah, I read about it in a little blurb in Entertainment Weekly's "Movies of the Fall," and wanted to see it. In last week's, there was an entire article on it. It sounds incredible.

He actually filmed portions of it in my hometown! I was actually AT the anti-NRA rally that was shown on film, where Tom Mauser spoke about how, even if his son HADN'T been killed at Columbine he still would've come, and his son would've come with him. I didn't get to meet Michael Moore, but I did talk to a Japanese newspaper, and Congresswoman Diana DegEtte from my district (the only Dem I'm voting for this year).

Note to you CC: When Louis Armstrong's "What A Wonderful World" starts playing, break out the kleenex cause in roughly two minutes you'll need it, big time.

Okay, Bri.

The Ring: A++

Here's my list (let me even throw in my 2001 list too):

Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring--A, Tolkien on the Screen is almost perfect, some of the best scenes in cinema history right here

Black Hawk Down--A, a little cluttered, but an absolutely compelling and haunting and enjoyable movie experience

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers--A-, only loses points for lack of emotional resonance (and it does feel like a long film)

The Road to Perdition--A-, a great performance by Tom Hanks, nice work by Jude Law, beautifully directed and filmed

Star Wars: Attack of the Clones--B+, definitely a rush and I thought the performances were okay (especially Yoda's, wink wink), certainly flawed by very enjoyable.

Monsters Inc.--B+, a very well-done voice cast, but it lacked a certain punch that made it a few notches below the Toy Story films and even A Bug's Life.

Shrek--B+, clever humor, perfect voice cast, but again something missing that prevents it from getting an A rating.

Die Another Day--B, could have fleshed out characters better, but some of the best action in a Bond film in a while. Suffers from "FLASHY!" direction style.

Signs--B, a lot of fun (sometimes for the wrong reasons) that is a tad too straightforward for its own good (and could really use better effects). Sometimes very silly.

Spider-Man--B, epitome of a popcorn movie here, although I disagree with the conceptions of some of the characters. Probably about as good a portrayal of Spidey on the big screen as one can find.

Undercover Brother--B, very funny when it isn't resorting to the obvious. Neil Patrick Harris helpfully steals the film. A lot better than the previews made it out to be.

Eight Legged Freaks--B-, could use a slightly better cast at times, but an excellent comedy/spoof/goofy sci-fi horror flick. Some laugh-out-loud moments--only prob is that at the end it sort of forgets it's a comedy.

The Count of Monte Cristo--B-, enjoyable swashbuckler that has a sense of awe but little sense of razzle-dazzle; the complex novel is turned into a popcorn movie, but that's okay, should have been more like The Mask of Zorro if that's what they were shooting for. Richard Harris excellent.

Austin Powers in Goldmember--C, Goldmember is one of the least funny characters in movie history, but the movie is almost made into a classic by the hysterically funny opening sequence.

The Wedding Planner--C, it's better than I thought it would be, and Jennifer Lopez/Matthew McConnaughey make a good team (and I think it has Alex Rocco too, so that's plus points), but it really never comes alive and is very slow.

Men in Black II--C-, coasts a tad too much on the goodwill of the stars, gets sloppy in terms of writing at the end, frequently resorts to the obvious. Some funny moments, but definitely a rental.

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist!--C-, very funny before it quickly runs out of steam and just becomes annoying. Would have been a good 5-minute skit or in adapted form, a hysterical MSTK film. Probably best for genre fans.

The Ring--D+, more annoying than scary with a horrible, horrible, horrible cop-out ending. Film has a neat sense of style and a relatively good cast, but writes itself into a hole and has to use contrivances to get it out. The movie-in-the-movie is quite cool, though.

Jurassic Park III--F, quite possibly one of the worst movies ever, I mean this doesn't even have style, good effects, anything. At least The Lost World has a cast. Very good for MSTing.

Mike, Shrek, Monsters Inc. and The Wedding Planner are all from 2001.

Luigi: yeah. Mike said "let me even throw in my 2001 list too" which I suppose is fair since we never had a board for that topic.

OK, since I'm not going to be seeing any more movies till at least Valentine's Day (Daredevil, nootch), here is my definitive list for my favorite movies of 2002, in the order I saw them in.

The Fellowship of the Ring (caught it in February so it counts!)
Spider-Man
Insomnia
Attack of the Clones
Spider-Man (saw it again with my Dad)
Full Frontal (not Soderbergh's BEST work, but still pretty good; big ups to Nicky Katt for his portrayal of a bad actor doing a bad job of playing Hitler )
Bowling For Columnbine (first time I EVER paid to see a documentary, and it was WORTH IT!)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Star Trek Nemesis (Luigi says rip-ff, but I think HOMAGE to the better Trek films (II, IV, VI, and First Contact) is more appropriate)
The Two Towers

Now for the movies that were out this year that I wanted to see, but missed my chance.

Red Dragon
Minority Report
Gangs of New York
Catch Me If You Can
Road To Perdition
The Ring
MIB II
Goldmember (I know, I'm a sick little boy)
Bloody Sunday
The Kid Stays In The Picture
Read My lips
The Good Girl
One Hour Photo
Moonlight Mile
8 Mile
Punch-Drunk Love
Signs
The Red Green Movie: Duct Tape is Forever.

Stoked about in '03:

Scary Movie 3 (but ONLY because my budyd Brian Lynch is co-writing it!)
Angry Naked Pat The Movie (also by Lynch but unlike Scary Movie 2, ANP is ••••••• funny)
Jersey Girl
Daredevil
X2
The Hulk
Matrix Reloaded
Matrix Revolutions
Gigli (j.Lo as a lesbian hitman(hitperson?)? This I gotta see!)
Now You Know (diretorial debutof Jeff "Randal" Anderson of Clerks)
Autograph (thriller, directed by Vincent Perria. Go see my review for A Better Place (NOTE: It has a few spoilers).)

Aw, hell, I forgot one on my best list!

Frailty, directed by Bill Paxton.

Oh. I missed that. Thanks, Brian.

And btw, I never said ST Nemesis was a rip-off.

You called it unoriginal, which, where I come from, is just a nice way of saying it's a total rip-off. For example, I think Van Wilder was a cheap rip-off of Animal House would be spoken thusly in Denver; "Van Wilder is an unoriginal piece of work that is allegedly based on the far superior Animal House."

Brian, the movie O Brother, Where Art Thou? was, by your reckoning, a rip-off, as it was based on Homer's Odyssey, and thus not an original idea. However, despite being a retelling of Homer's Odyssey, it is still considered a good movie. That something is unoriginal does not automatically mean it's a rip-off. It's all a matter of how the source material is treated and used.

Brian Webber: You called it unoriginal, which, where I come from, is just a nice way of saying it's a total rip-off.
Luigi Novi: Well, where I come from, there is a distinction between the two, and where I come from, a person's intentions in using a certain phrase or term is an important factor in public discourse.

To me, a "rip-off" is when one creator is using more than just the basic idea or concept from another work, but is also using a lot of the details, and is not bothering to utilize his own vision or interpretation in executing that concept, in order to make that work his own, and doesn't differ from the first work in any fundamental way. One example that comes to mind are some of the elements of The Lion King, which do seem ripped from the Japanese cartoon Kimba the White Lion. (I mean did the main characters have to names that were identical except for the first letter? Did the villains in both have to be the uncle? Did both villains have to have a prominent SCAR?) In cases like that, it appears that the second creator is playing close attention to one particular work, rather than being influenced by different sources and inspirations.

With ST Nemesis, the concept of cloning, and the theme of a character experiencing doubt because of how the existence of a doppelganger reflects upon him are both ideas that were done in Time Squared and Second Chances. Was Second Chances a rip-off of Time Squared? In my opinion, no. So why would I think that ST Nemesis is a rip-off? I just don't think it utilized those themes very well, as if the inclusion of those gimmicks--without developing them--was of narrative value in itself. If you're going to use a often-used concept, fine. But if you want it to appear original, execute with a different angle, or with your own perspective of it. Logan and Baird, IMO, didn't do that, and the result is an overused gimmick that appeared to me to be unoriginal, but not a "rip-off."

A new one.

Gangs of New York--C+. It's way too long and I don't care about a lot of what happens, but it is well-acted (especially by Daniel Day-Lewis) and the flavor and look is outstanding. Kind of like living history, but then why do we need some hackneyed melodrama getting in the way?

OK, so I made a bad call Luigi. Sorry. Still, as I understood it the lifitng of elements from certain episodes and prior movies were intentioanl on Logan's part, hence me using the term homage.

As for O Brother Where Art Thou?, THAT MOVIE RULED!

Catch Me If You Can--B. A little overlong, but one of DiCaprio's best performances, capturing humor and drama (and Christopher Walken--excellent!). Full of fun period details, a great Tom Hanks supporting role (weird accent too!). A tad too long for what should be a breezy comedy-drama though (but there is one scene between DiCaprio and Walken that is heartbreaking).

A Mighty Wind--A. Funny and poignant. A perfect ensemble working together and cracking jokes while singing some astonishingly accurate folk songs. Sometimes suffers from stylistic differences (just how wacky should we be?), but excellent film.

Identity--A-. Compelling horror film that probably should appeal to non-traditional horror fans (slasher fans look elsewhere). About three, maybe four, twist endings (some easy to guess, some not so easy). Good direction.

The Matrix Reloaded--B+. A lot of people criticized the Matrix as too empty-headed, too flashy, too inane. It wasn't...this one sort of is (hopefully Revolutions will explain more). There are some really horrible scenes in this one (Zion Orgy, Merovingian), but some just-plain-jaw-dropping action scenes.

Tears of the Sun--B+. You can probably write the whole film from the preview, but it's a gritty actioner that tries to refrain from being an obvious propaganda shill. Bruce Willis wisely underplays. Film doesn't really start up until about the halfway mark, then hold on to your hat. Black Hawk Down is better, though.

Anger Management--B. Jack Nicholson seems to relish his role with a restrained Adam Sandler effective. A parade of cameoes gets too much after a while, but some are very funny. Hit-and-miss, episodic humor with a sort of sappy ending. The Buddhist camp may be the best.

Narc--B. Powerful (maybe even nasty) film. Patric is good as the narc, with Ray Liotta taking the flashy role as the possibly corrupt partner and running with it as far as he can go. Good direction, somewhat repellent at times (every character uses the "F"-word in every sentence). The ending helps.

Shanghai Knights--B. The plot is threadbare and the action (as you might expect with Jackie's age) is a little limited. The good will of Chan and Owen Wilson carry the film (and it's just long enough to not peter out). Film works best as a comedy, not a drama...but you guessed that.

The Life of David Gale--B-. I love Kevin Spacey in this role, but the film suffers from the fact that I have no idea what point it's trying to make. Is it anti-death penalty (I assume it is)? If so, the ending doesn't help the cause (and I guessed the ending). Best when it's being realistic and not melodramatic (and then it just turns into True Crime after a while).

X2--B-. Empty-headed but fun. More Magneto could have helped (and Ian McKellan steals every scene he's in). Plot points are brought up, dumped, etc. (Iceman's family, for instance). Cast ranges from good (Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart) to competent (Halle Berry) to those that bug me for some reason (Anna Paquin). Action fans may be disappointed.

Daredevil--C+. A sort of blah superhero film that starts off very well but apparently decides that having a well-constructed plot is not its intention. Affleck is fine, Duncan quite good, Garner wasted, and Farrell looking menacing but not much else. Ending is a huge letdown.