Top 10 Movies of 2004...

1) Hotel Rwanda
2) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
3) Kill Bill (both parts)
4) The Aviator
5) Finding Neverland
6) The Blind Swordsman: Zatôichi
7) The Village
8) Hero
9) Spiderman 2
10) Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence

Listed from here down in the original chronological order I saw them.

The Butterfly Effect. I wasn't sure what to expect from it but it was actually pretty good. It involves a guy who has black-outs all his life and when he's in college, realizes he can read his old journals and travel back to those memory holes and watch and/or change the outcome of events. It becomes a problem when he starts to change things, with the best of intentions. The ending (which I won't ruin) had a resolution I hadn't expected yet was somehow appropriate. Ashton Kutcher's presence in the story doesn't ruin the movie--in fact, his acting is good and he's totally believable (who woulda thunk it? Maybe this really is the End Times ;-). A good effort and I recommend it.

Hidalgo. It was okay but I've seen better. The idea of a guy going to race in a big race in Saudi Arabia (I think) was good, but some of it could've been better. Mostly, it was story logic problems that bothered me. Why would someone as powerful as the Sheik be so unguarded that his daughter could be kidnapped so easily? Also, the whole soul searching thing was a good aspect of the story but when he's hallucinating out in the desert and sees the Indian spirits/tribesmen and starts chanting in Sioux, I found it a little silly (also, how could someone be that out of it with those big, thick clouds in the background? I half expected it to start raining or some damn thing--of course, that would've thrown all credibility out the window). He's parched and dying out in the desert along with his horse, then when he realizes the end of the race is so near, both he and the horse suddenly have enough energy to rise, ride faster then they ever have and win the race? That hardly seemed realistic. The Sheik's daughter acts like she has feelings for the main character (and vice-versa) but then they don't end up together in the end (and since it's a fictious story, what difference does it make?--remember, it's "based off" a true story, it's not actually a true story). And the horse has a few too many facial expressions--to the point of losing credibility of being a real horse and not just cgi in those scenes. Finally, why would a half aboriginal person have blond hair and blue eyes? All in all, an mediocre effort and I recommend a pass on it.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It was the latest movie scripted by Charlie Kaufman (I enjoyed his last movie--Adaptation--so I thought I'd check this one out). I think it was pretty good overall. It followed Jim Carrey's Joel character (serious role, so he's not that annoying in this movie) who's girlfriend, Clementine, breaks up with him after a fight and then goes and has her memory of him erased. He's miserable and then decides to have the procedure done on himself as well. Part way through it, he realizes he wants his memories and tries to fight the process. It was a sweet and, I think, honest look at being a couple...he hates several of the things she does and she hates his "nice" mentality and his calm, steady approach to life. Yet, they also both love the things they hate about one another as well (confusing, contradictory and yet completely believable). If this type of film is your cup of tea, I definitely think you'll like it...I did.

Hellboy. Well, I have to agree with Ebert and Roeper that the story was a confusing mess...it started off with some nazis trying to unleash hell on Earth (for some reason--one has to wonder why anyone would want to destroy the planet in any story. What ultimate point is there in doing so? I mean, wouldn't they die along with everyone else? Good plan there!) The story's best parts involved the actual character of Hellboy, played by Ron Perlman in his best role to date--he really brought the character to life and made him likeable. Additonally, his love interest (played by Selma Blair) was an interesting character and their interactions were the best part of the movie, imo. So, is it faithful to the comic book? Beats the hell out of me as I've never read it. The story was confusing and forgettable, as I mentioned, but some of this may be the result of bad editing--I got the impression while watching the show that several scenes had been longer and it's possible more story elements had been better explained originally and then cut down to focus on the action. If true, that's a real shame because the story needed a bit more explanation in places then we got (the DVD is supposed to be longer when it comes out, though). If you need a reason to see this movie, see it for Perlman's enjoyable portrayal of Hellboy. Acting, special fx and direction aside, the story needed to be a bit better then it was and I can only say the movie was mediocre overall because of it (I can see why they chose April to release it). Okay, but it could've been better...

Kill Bill (both parts) over the last two days. It's easier to take collectively and I agree that part two helps explain the story a lot better then part one did. It's an interesting blend of various film styles, weird music, distinctive characters and bad 70s b-movie kung fu action (I think that was one of the best parts, actually). The Bride's kung fu teacher was hilarious--his acting was perfect and the dubbing for the laughter was great (the character's supposed to be laughing and the actor's mouth is closed and straight! :-) During the fights in part one, many limbs are severed and far too much fake blood is spurting out of everyone--which is campy goodness. I recommend watching both parts back to back--it works a lot better that way. Not the best movie ever made but it is original and a welcome change of pace over a lot of the more conventional fare that's out of late and it does pay hommage to it's roots very well... (I think it's fair to say this movie will gain a cult following in the years to come).

Van Helsing. It's not exactly a bad movie...it's from the same guy who wrote/directed The Mummy and The Mummy Returns and has the same sort of writing, the same iffy cgi, the same one-note acting and the same corny feel as those two movies. It's a competently done flick but I like my movies like this to be either really, really corny (like Kill Bill) or really serious (like Star Trek) not this in-between kind of style that this guy does. I also like that Kate Beckinsale is in it--so far, I've yet to see her actually act in a movie, but she looks so good, it doesn't much matter to me whether she can act or not (her Romanian accent is terrible, btw). The movie is a decent throw away summer flick (as far as I'm concerned), so if you're planning to go see it you may or may not like it, depending mostly on your tastes...

Shrek 2. What can I say about this one? It's every bit as good as the first one...the animation and acting are top notch, but more importantly, so is the story. Shrek and Fiona go to meet her family in the kingdom of Far Far Away (which looks a lot like Hollywood). Antonio Banderas' Puss in Boots is hilarious and probably the best new character in the show (he's like a cute Zorro). If you liked the first one, you *must* see this one! (And if you haven't seen the first one, go do that--now!--then, go see the second one).

Troy. It wasn't bad but it could've been better... the movie featured several A-list actors and they all did a fine job with their respective roles. I think the movie's main problem was that it was too long and too epic in it's scope to really focus on a select few characters. Because of this, we get a lot about all of the characters but not enough to really care about them like we should. Brad Pitt's Achilles was overdeveloped--yes, he needed to be vain and war weary, but did we really need to know more about him then that? A sub-plot involving Achilles and a priestess was unnecessary and made the story way too damn long--it could've (and should've) been cut entirely. Helen of Troy was nice looking, but hardly so beautiful that they'd set a thousand ships to sail for her safe return. Orlando Bloom, a well-known Hollywood pretty boy got to play a pretty boy prince (named Paris) in the movie (which is funny). Of all the characters, I liked the King of Troy, Priam, and his son, Hector, the best--they both seemed like warm characters and not just selfish jerks like all the other characters came across as. The fights were good and the special fx were up to the task, as well as the music score. Also, there were some places where the directing could've been a bit tighter--too many shots of characters looking apprehensive at the approaching invaders, comes to mind, as does several shots that go on too long where they're trying to play up the melodrama for all it's worth. The only other recent movie I can compare this film to is Gladiator, and by comparison, Troy doesn't hold a candle to it. Gladiator had less characters, a better focus on their personalities, a tighter script, way better directing and music. Troy was a decent enough movie but it could've been better overall and I can't really recommend it.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. It was pretty good in general... if you've seen the first two movies, you pretty much know what to expect. Supposedly this installment was darker, but it just seemed like a natural progression in these characters. Ron didn't get to do too much in this one strangely... The special effects were great, as usual, although I thought the werewolf in one part looked kind of stupid (but that's my two cents on it....they wanted that look). Recommended if you're a fan of the HP stories...

The Blind Swordsman: Zatôichi. I saw this movie today with Tom and Alyson... a sub-titled asian movie about a blind swordsman (obviously) and his encounters with several gangs in rural japan of 18/19th century. This movie displayed the eastern humor abundant in Iron Monkey (as well as tackling serious issues)...the cinematography was well done and almost artsy (but not overdone). I do think the movie was a tad long (it was only two hours but I felt it could've been edited slightly more) and the movie also suffered a little from cgi blood splatter in the movie (which looked fake). On the good side, it had some story surprises to it and the characters were mostly distinctive and interesting. It's only playing at one theatre in all of Edmonton and this leads me to suspect it's in either limited or small scale release but if you can stand a subtitled movie and like samurai-style action, this is a movie to see.

Spiderman 2. This movie is one of the best I've seen this year and is either as good as the first or even better. The visual effects, writing, acting and dialogue were excellent. Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus seemed true to the character in the comics. Minor nitpicks: Why does Peter keep taking his mask off so much in the story? That seemed unwise to me, since he's screwed if someone finds out who he really is. Also, Mary Jane would have to be retarded not to have figured out who Peter really is after all that... I have no major problems with this movie overall and it ranks as the best of the super hero movies out there. Highly recommended.

I, Robot. There's been some debate about whether or not this movie is any good. First off, no, it's not a faithful adaptation of any Isaac Asimov story... to tell the truth, though, I'm glad it isn't. The two Asimov stories I ever read were long winded and dull--not conducive to making a screenplay out of (at least, not an action movie anyway). What are we left with then? Like other movies based very loosely off of sci-fi stories (Blade Runner, Total Recall and Minority Report come to mind) this story is more like a very surface exploration of the concepts that the original author came up (i.e. true to the spirit of the idea). The Three Laws of Robotics (the one and only thing actually from Asimov in this movie) serve as the centerpoint of the story and we get an action story that delves shallowly into concepts like whether or not androids can feel emotion and whether if they are smart enough to serve and feel, should they still be slaves just because they're machines. One could make an entire movie around these ideas but it would not have mass market appeal to the general audience so this is as likely as close as we will ever get to the underlying ideas. The special effects were 98% very good (a couple of instances early on in the movie I noticed Will Smith's character seemed a little too close to an effect--like when he crosses the police line and when he stands by a virtual window. Almost like either he moved past the mark points slightly or perhaps the animators were just being sloppy? I suspect the former). The androids are actually very nice looking (the commercials make them look terrible but the close-ups in the actual movie reveal much more detail underneath their skin). The sterile look of the robots combined with their varied eye colors reminded me of those iMacs from a couple of years ago with the various colors (clever of somebody). The story treaded familiar territory (ironically, themes first visited by Asimov himself) yet I felt the overall presentation worked. I feel this is very good sci-fi action movie (not as good as Minority Report, but still good). The movie's director was the guy who did The Crow and Dark City, Alex Proyas. If you like sci-fi and action, this is a film worth checking out...

Collateral. It was pretty good in general. The same director as the movie Heat (and also an urban crime drama like that previous movie) it shares the same style. Max, who is a taxi driver, picks up Vincent who promises him a good payday for the night if he agrees to drive him around L.A for the night. All goes well until at the first stop the guy Vincent goes to see suddenly crashes out of the window and lands on the cab. Max quickly concludes Vicent killed him, but the other sets him straight--"I just shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him" (I love that line!) Victor coerces him into driving four more places so he can finish off his list of hits... the movie features several well rounded characters (Tom Cruise as Vincent, Jamie Foxx as Max) and is full of many interesting character moments between all the gunplay (which also proves good enough to sustain our interest). I had a few minor quibbles with the show--the ending was too hollywood for me (interestingly, I had the same problem with Heat) but still good enough. Worth checking out if you like a good crime drama... (Aug. 12/04)

Alien vs. Predator. Who do you get to do a movie version of a popular video game (based off two previous movie franchises and a comic series)? Paul W.S. Anderson, of course. The same guy who wrote/directed Mortal Kombat I and Resident Evil I. So, how'd it turn out? Well, it gets points for trying and I think it does a decent-to-good job overall. The special fx are top notch and the first hour or so of the movie where everything is set up is excellent. We get a story with some bizarre mysteries--a pyramid set 2000 feet under the surface of Antarctica and that contains characteristics of several different ancient cultures. A businessman named Weyland (played by Lance Henriksen--the guy who played Bishop in Aliens) leads a team to explore this newly discovered wonder, in the hopes of leaving behind a legacy to the world. The discovery also alerts a ship in orbit of the moon and it sends it's own crew down. The inevitable showdown between the ignorant Human explorers, the Predators and the Aliens results not long after and there is where the movie could be a bit better. We get some good action, true, but I wish there'd been a bit more of it after all is said and done--if the movie were even 10 minutes longer we could get a bit more action/potential story. It just seems like too much build up and too little pay off. Obviously, many characters get killed and the eventual escape seems a bit too quick (I can only hope there's more footage somewhere that will show up on the inevitable Director's/Collector's DVD). The epilogue was a bit cheesy and it was way too obvious they'd leave it open for the inevitable sequel (should this one do good box office). How does it stack up to the other Alien and Predator movies? I'd say somewhere in the middle... A decent movie, but could've been a bit better. Recommended if you loved the prior movies but not an essential see if you're not a fan. (Aug. 13/04)

The Village. The latest movie from M. Night Shyamalan.... apparently, this movie has gotten decidely mixed reviews. Even Ebert and Roeper split on it (Ebert didn't like it/Roeper loved it). I saw it and admit I was surprised at the story....the commercials make it seem like it's about a town beseiged by monsters in the nearby woods. While this is a part of the story, it's not the whole of it and anyone expecting a scarefest will be disappointed when they go to see it. Like with his previous movies, Shyamalan delivers very distinctive characters in the form of Lucius--the quiet, thoughtful man and Ivy, the blind woman who speaks her mind. The remaining characters were also interesting but I have to say I was impressed by these two the most--Ivy especially was a delightful character (I tried to write a character like that once and couldn't get anywhere close to capturing the offbeat charm Shyamalan delivers here). The story starts with the villagers and their simple life and soon comes to the attacks by creatures called "Those We Do Not Speak Of". Things get even more muddled as they go and we quickly discover nothing is as it seems. The ending surprised me and I think the entire story is very well done. It's well written and acted and asks some bigger questions of the audience. It's also not the usual schlock Hollywood is famous for turning out--it takes it's time developing and some people will not warm to it, but movie lovers looking for something more interesting will enjoy it. Easily Shyamalan at his best. Highly recommended. (Aug. 31/04)

Hero. Another tale from the producers of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Like the previous movie, this show is entirely in chinese (w/sub-titles). This is a very good story that takes place in ancient times when China was still seven kingdoms and one king ambitiously sets out to unite the kingdoms under his rule. He is confronted one day by a man who comes to his court and informs him he has eliminated three assassins out to murder him. The story is largely made up of flashbacks that convey the story as the man (called "Nameless") relays it to the king. The action sequences are spectacular, the film makes use of the exaagerated style of Crouching Tiger as well as bombarding the viewer with color and interesting environments. Each part of the story has a color scheme all it's own... the entire story is well done and has a broad philosophical point to it all. It's appealing to the action fan and also the art fan. Not everyone will like this film but it will appeal to those that like a bit more then the usual brainless action movies that come out. Recommended. (Sept. 6/04)

Resident Evil: Apocalypse. This is a very good sequel to the original movie (which was based off the video game) and a good video game movie in general. The second chapter of the story picks up right where the last segment left off, adding new characters like Jill Valentine to the mix (she's the heroine of the video game series) as well as bringing back Milla Jovovich's Alice. Keep in mind that video game movies have traditionally been terrible (Super Mario Bros, Double Dragon, House of the Dead, etc.) and that even good video game movies are not neccessarily all that good by conventional movie standards. RE2 has shallow characterization, lots of explosions, convenient plot twists and evil corporate double-thinks. Paul W.S. Anderson wrote and produced (but didn't direct this time--he was busy with AVP) and this is his typical shallow story style. Also, as is the case with EVERY SINGLE MOVIE HE'S EVER DONE, the ending is not really an ending at all but a lame-ass set up for the next thrilling chapter. I mean, can this guy ever just end a movie on a happy note? Do we have to sit through the perdictable "surprise" ending? My criticisms aside, this is a good movie for what it is--a no-brainer action movie that you watch, eat some popcorn and then forget about. Don't think too deeply about the story's flaws (there are many). I mainly recommend a pass on this one unless you liked the first RE movie... (Sept. 22/04)

The Forgotten. It was an interesting premise...a woman's son is erased from the world and only she can remember. As it goes on, it seems something otherwordly may have a hand in matters. It wasn't a bad movie but it could've been better with a better writer and director. Too much of the movie seems to be the two protagonists running around pointlessly trying to decide what to do next. Both characters were one-dimensional--there to do their parts and nothing more. This sort of premise has been done before and better--Dark City comes to mind (as do countless TV shows). I also thought James Horner's music was too violin heavy, which made the music too overwrought and repetitive. A decent movie overall, but not a great movie. (Oct. 17/04)

Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence. This is the first and best movie I've ever seen to successfully merge cgi and cel animation so seamlessly. This movie looks fantastic on a technical level--there are myriad breathtaking shots that look beautiful on the silverscreen and this movie should definitely receive an oscar nomination for it's animation (it likely won't but it should). In one scene, the character gets out of a car and it actually shifts from his weight! I've never seen that in any animated movie ever before. The story is a little more typical police work fare but done very well in the japanese anime style (it brings to mind Patlabor--a superb police story). I'm guilty of not having seen the first Ghost in the Shell (I've had it in my DVD collection for a couple of years and still not watched it) but the story stands pretty well on it's own (it's a direct continuation of the first). There's action, philosophy and some interesting scenes that come of it all. If you like animation at all, you must see this movie because it's worth it (for the visuals, if nothing else). (Nov. 3/04)

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. My impression of this movie is that it was okay but it could've been so much better. To it's credit, the movie had a good story idea and some excellent actors at it's disposal. However, the editing needed to be tighter and the script should've been refined further. The story seemed to meander a little too much--a better script would've tightened the story and allowed it to focus more on certain aspects of the movie we got rather then have it all over the place. Some things in the movie weren't terribly neccessary (like Bill Murray's Zissou being impotent--this revelation didn't seem to have any point being there). It wasn't a terrible movie but it could've been so much more... (Dec. 26/04)

The Aviator. This was a very good movie about the legendary Howard Hughes. Leonardo Dicaprio is the lead character and does an excellent job as do the all-star cast (including Alec Baldwin, Alan Alda, Kate Blanchett, Kate Beckinsale, Willem Defoe, Brent Spiner, Jude Law, Gwen Stefani, Ian Holm, John C. Reilly, etc.) The movie apparently covers Hughes earlier years and does an excellent job being brutally honest--it doesn't shy away from his eventual descent into madness but it also pays respect to the man who was a visionary in his time. The movie is really long--about three hours--but the time is necessary to convey the entire story and I didn't feel anything extraneous was left in. Both Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Blanchett deserve a big nod for their convincing roles as Hughes and Katherine Hepburn respectively. Blanchett especially makes an offbeat and charming Hepburn. The very ending of the movie is a bit abrupt but the story does have a satisfying emotional pay-off. Despite being about a man who will go insane and become a recluse, this movie is surprisingly upbeat. It's more about having dreams and pursuing them to their ultimate end then the darkness life can throw at you. Highly recommended. (Jan. 9/05)

The House of Flying Daggers. Like Crouching Tiger and Hero before it, comes another live action martial arts movie with exaggerated fight scenes. Unlike Hero, this movie follows a much more linear storyline although it does have some plot twists towards the end of the film. The movie's two main characters Jin and Mei (same actress from Crouching Tiger) came across as having good chemistry. It was a good movie with some excellent visuals, fight choreography and acting. To compare it to the other asian movies I've seen these past months, I would say it ranks behind them (Zatoichi was the best then Hero then this). It's not a bad movie, I just think they were a bit better. I'm also tired of exaggerated fights and would prefer to see the odd movie with realistic fighting for a change--this new style has become a sub-genre onto itself. Still, if you like martial arts movies (and can tolerate sub-titles), I do recommend this one. (Jan. 10/05)

Finding Neverland. This is the story of author J.M. Barrie's journey to create the play Peter Pan. It says in the credits "Inspired by True Events" which suggests to me that it's generally true but greatly embellished by the author/screenwriter. J.M. Barrie meets a young widow and her children and takes to them, finding his own inner child while devising a sort of chronicle about his imaginary adventures with the boys that ends up becoming his next play. This is a very good movie that mirrors Peter Pan in the sense that it demonstrates that we all need to have an inner child--to maintain that sense of wonder but that we cannot avoid the inevitabilities of life. The movie was a good work on its own but they could've made it a little bit longer (it was only 101 mins). It works as it is, but they could've touched it up in places--especially in regards to Barrie's relationship to the kids mother. It takes pains to assure that everything is above board between them but then later states that he has love for her. I was unclear whether they meant plutonic or romantic (the movie moves forward in time in places so it's possible they had something going later on, but I wasn't certain). Irregardless, this is a very good movie about spirit, responsibility and the human heart. Highly recommended. (Jan. 16/05)

Hotel Rwanda. This is a very powerful movie that brings the horror of the 1994 Rwandan civil war to life. It centers on a man named Paul Rusesabagina (played by Don Cheadle) who is a manger (and then later, THE Manager) of a four star hotel in Rwanda in 1994. He is a kind man who knows how to grease the wheels to get his job done. When the civil war begins, he is faced with having to take in first friends and neighbors then later refugees or letting them die in the streets from the army. The conflict was basically a war between the dominant Hutu and the Tutsi tribes. Paul himself is a Hutu while his wife is a Tutsi... the film makes it clear he is not interested in politics, merely living his life and conducting his business until the war begins. Once he takes in the refugees, he uses ever trick in the book and every technique he knows to keep the Hutus from coming into the hotel and killing everyone they deem an enemy. At first, he hopes the United Nations will intervene but when a force does arrive, they only bother to clear all the whites and foreigners out, while leaving the Rwandans to their fates. The UN Colonel who does all the talking in the film is a Canadian, which I felt was a nice touch (played by American Nick Nolte. The maple leaf patch is clearly on his shoulder in most shots). Colonel Oliver, foreign journalists and Red Cross workers want to help but are powerless to do much in the face of such overwhelming odds and with no support from home (Col. Oliver tells Paul he has 300 soldiers for the entire country and can only leave four to try and guard the hotel). I admit I was somewhat naive about what happened in Rwanda back then. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is still happening in the world today (recently in the Sudan). It's not often when a movie can get an emotional response out of me but I admit I was moved by this film...by the horrors of the bodies laying in the streets (almost one million people were killed) and also by Paul's courage and hope in the face of adversity. This is a brilliant, touching story and a true one... very highly recommended. (Jan. 25/05)