Slashdot Mirror
The Best and Worst Movies of 2003?
rufey asks: "As 2003 comes to a close, I thought it would be interesting to ask Slashdot what they thought the best and worst movie of 2003 was, and why. At the beginning of the year there was excitement about parts 2 and 3 of The Matrix triology, X-Men 2, and of course, LOTR: Return of the King. In Slashdot's opinion, what did and didn't live up to the hype and expectations, and were there any surprises?"
HELLLS YEAH.
Bubba Ho-Tep is the best damn film I've seen in a long time. An instant cult classic.
Basic plot: Elvis and a black JFK take on a 10,000 year old mummy from Egypt. It's also got a great explination for Elivs's life, times, and thoughts on fame.
See this movie. Hopefully it will make it to DVD sometime soon.
Frankly, American Splendor was utterly uniteresting to me. Lost in Translation, however, was brilliant. I dont think I ever respected Murray as an actor before - though I've thought him to be a fantastic comedian - but this movie showed that he actually had the ability to evoke complex emotion. Scarlett similarly was impressive. The two of them are the movie, and I'd be shocked if they're utterly excluded from the Oscars.
"Stumble before you crawl"
This is probably the scariest movie I've ever seen. It was released in 2003, right? If not, it's *still* my pick of 2003.
At first it looks like a juvenile cross between "Conspiracy Theory" and "The Net", but then it shifts gears and scares the living shit out of you.
I'm still freaked (can you tell?), and I only saw it once.
sigs, as if you care.
The story's the thing. The Matrix started strongly, with enough subtlety and interesting ideas paired with killer wire fights and excellent effects to capture the public eye; the 2nd film, however, floundered on screen (though I thought it was still worth the price of admission) with less story and more special effects and CGI. By the end of the third film, It was like watching a hurricane, that once was beautifully coiled, rippling with power and newness, dissipate into just another tropical storm named Huey, or something similar. I still thought the third flick was worth my ten bucks but was let down, ultimately with the 2nd and 3rd, because the beginning was so strong. With the LOTR, the story's already there and strong. Tolkien knew more world mythology by rote than most people have ever heard or read. I remember in college chuckling when coming upon certain dwarf names in some obscure book of the Dead Sea Scrolls. With that background and perspicuity already in the work, Jackson had to "merely" transfer one great media work to another format (and I applaud his efforts). Did he also make use of the best CGI available? Certainly. Did it work? Yes. Of course not everyone is pleased with casting, cuts, etc., but I've found the three Tolkien films a much more pleasing crescendo when compared with the Matrix.
Ditto. I rented it a couple of weeks ago. I was expecting "dumb and fun". What I got was "stupid and excruciating."
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Here are my top 10 of 2003 (IMDB ratings in parentheses):
10). School of Rock (7.7)
9). Kill Bill (8.2)
8). Mystic River (8.1)
7). 21 Grams (7.9)
6). Elephant (7.6)
5). Talk to Her (8.2)
4). American Splendor (8.1)
3). Gerry (6.2)
2). Spellbound (8.5)
1). Lost in Translation (8.2)
A few movies that I've heard good things about that haven't reached us yet in Boston that may end up displacing some of the above are:
- House of Sand and Fog (?)
- Girl with the Pearl Earring (7.2)
- Japanese Story (6.5)
- The Triplets of Belleville (7.2)
Movies that I can't fathom why everyone liked:
3). Better Luck Tomorrow (7.6)
2). Swimming Pool (7.1) (I didn't understand this movie until about a week after seeing it, so maybe it is good and I'm just an idiot).
1). Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (7.5)
> At the end of Reloaded, I was left with a lot of
> questions as to what was going on, and why Neo
> was able to stop the sentinels. I have various
> ideas about that, most of which involved Neo not
> actually returning to the same Matrix (or "real
> world") he had come from. It also seemed possible
> that even the original "real world" wasn't really
> the real world, but in fact another Matrix.
My god Eric! I thought *EXACTLY* the same thing! I was still wondering if they were going to do the matrix within a matrix thing when NEO was able to see things in Red instead of Green. I just figured that the Red was him seeing the real matrix instead of the Green matrix within a matrix. When NEO stopped those sentinels in the fake real world, I could ONLY assume it was another layer of matrix. Remember when they said there was an original matrix? I figured that this original matrix was the one where NEO saw things in Red.
I *STILL* think they could reopen the storyline using this premise. Maybe go deeper into prequel with Creation of the Matrix or further into the storyline with NEO reawakening in the Real World and remembering he's a programmer or something. Maybe everyone in the matrix is a vegetable in the Real World - people who's only means of communication and life are only possible within the matrix. There is still much material that could be developed.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
I guess I'll have to comment on the general negativity being expressed by people who didn't like this film, both here in this thread and elsewhere.
Most of the complaints seem to stem from a general misunderstanding of QT's intentions and motivations for this film. The film's main motifs are ACTION and REVENGE. There is nothing particularly deep or difficult to comprehend in either of these themes. Action is Hollywood's favorite device. Revenge is something that is very close to the human heart. There is no need to really look for any meaning further than this. If you do you risk missing the simplicity of this film. (And then you may not like it.)
We complain about Hollywood films being too predicable and shallow, but there is something noble in QT's quest to make a movie DELIBERATELY simple. Action is its purpose, not a device. Its plot can be implied to: Injustice, then revenge. If poetry is minimalist communication, then well... far be it from me to say spring-loaded decapitations are poetic... but it looks like I just said it anyway.
To sum up, you are DEFINEATLY allowed to not like the very graphic nature of this film. I can respect that. But otherwise you may have missed the fact that this move is intentionally simple.
One of the years best for sure.
Having read the all three of the books the compromise TLOTR, I feel the need to note that:
a) the books are simply amazing, probably one of the best pieces of literature written in the 20th century.
b) the movies are are very entertaining, with some of the CG i've ever seen.
c) anyone who has seen the movies before reading the books has missed out on a truely great experience.
The movies I think are an excellent suppliment / add-on to the books. If you see the movie before you read the books, the books then become tainted, and you start seeing all the characters as they are portrayed in the movies. You also start to compare the movie to the book, instead of the more accurately book to movie view.
In closing, TLOTR:TROTK is one of the best movies created this year. I'm just depressed for all the poor people who haven't read the books first.
David Novosel "Two roads diverged, and I - I took the one less travelled by."