General Chat / Top 25 films of 2003

4. Thirteen (Catherine Hardwicke) ****



"I love you and you're brother more than anything in the world, and I'll die for you but I will not leave you alone right now."

Catherine Hardwicke's first foray into directing is hard to watch.  Definitely not because it's a bad film, far from it or it would not be occupying a spot in the Top 5 of last year.  No, it's a tough film to watch in the same way that Darren Aronokfsky's 2000 masterpiece, Requiem for a Dream, is tough to watch.  Like Requiem, Thirteen takes a section of society that we like to ignore and gives us a look that is all too real instead of sugar coating it or turning it into a dark comedy as many in the past have tried.  It pulls no punches with its material and Hardwicke shot in digital, often draining the color from the film for a very unsettling feel.  Thirteen utterly relys on the strength of its actors, and that is exactly where the film shines.  Evan Rachel Wood gives perhaps the best performance of the year, outshining both Naomi Watts and Charlize Theron in my eyes.  She melts into the role of a good teenager turned angry slut.  With her work this year in Thirteen and The Missing, she has almost instantly become one of my favorite actresses.  Holly Hunter and Nikki Reed (who's life the film is based and who co-wrote the screenplay with director Catherine Hardwicke) also give award worthy performances, especially Hunter.  There was a great amount of talent on and behind the screen here who got to prove their value with this picture.  It's an amazing and powerful film, and I should hope this not not the apex of any of their careers.

It was a great movie, but some of it seemed entirely too exaggerated.
Out of your top ten I saw Kill Bill Volume 1, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Thirteen.
I still have YET to see Finding Nemo.

1. City of God - This was the one movie from last year that I loved everything about. Great cinematography and soundtrack to go with an entertaining story and memorable characters. Definately the best of the year for me, by far.

2. 28 Days Later - I'm a fan of survival movies and zombie movies not to mention director Danny Boyle so this one hit me from all sides. It was a nice character driven piece until the horrible third act (which is a recurring problem for Danny Boyle) but the action was still well done so I didn't feel too cheated even if the unfilmed alternate ending on the DVD would have been better.

3. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World - Went to see this one on a whim and was totally surprised. I'm also a fan of sailing ships and sea battles so it was refreshing to see those details handled so well. It had some slow parts, but the performances always felt real so I didn't mind. Cinematographer Russell Boyd and Weta's SFX are the real stars here. The best looking movie of last year.

4. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - I enjoyed the movie of course, but it's my least favorite of the three. Peter Jackson overextended himself a bit with the fight scenes and the seams started to show for the first time (ie those horribly fake looking elephants). I'm waiting for the extended edition to make a final judgement though because my opinion of Two Towers went up considerably when I saw it with 30 minutes of footage restored. I thought it was too quickly paced when it needed to be slow (especially at the end) and my favorite scene in the book was left out so overall it wasn't quite the experience I was hoping for.

5. Thirteen - I loved everything this movie had to say, not because it hasn't been said before, but because it's never said enough. I live in LA so I see the billboards and the trendy shops. Beauty, youth, and sexuality are so highly prized in our culture that it creates all kinds of ridiculous expectations for teenage girls. It wasn't the best movie of the year, but it was infinately more interesting and watchable than 95% of the movies I saw.

6. Lost in Translation - I'm not a big fan of the movie, but I did enjoy it and that's more than I can say for a lot of movies. Great soundtrack, great pacing, and a couple of good performances with very little negative to say about it.

7. Intolerable Cruelty - Now this movie was good. Maybe it didn't have huge images or a pounding musical score but it did have very clever comedy and performances which manage to fit the movie without showing off. I laughed more in this movie than any other movies I saw last year.

8. In America - I wish this movie was longer cause it had a lot of good things going for it. All of the characters were enjoyable and I would have liked to have spent more time with them. The back story about the brother was worked in throughout the movie and provided a very emotional climax. Another movie I would recommend to anyone. If only there were more movies like this in the theaters instead of Garfield and Around the World in 80 Days.

9. The Matrix Reloaded - Oh yes, count me as one of the few people who walked out of the theater happy after seeing this movie. I enjoyed it, not because it was a particularly good movie, but because it dared to be preachy when all people wanted was more action and cool FX. The architect scene put a smile on my face so big it was still on there when I walked out of the theater. Take that ignorant movie-going populace.

10. Step Into Liquid - I put this here to round out the top 10 because I didn't want any movies that I didn't like in there. It was a documentary about surfing and while there was nothing amazing or profound about it (the surfers naturally talk about surfing as if it were cocaine or something) it was something I liked watching.

11. Matchstick Men - I liked this movie when I saw it, but it hasn't left a strong impression with me. Ridley Scott is still the best director working today in my opinion and this is as well made as anything he's made in the last 5 years. I can't fault this movie at all, I even liked the ending, but it is what it is and that's a fairly typical conman film.

12. Something's Gotta Give - I just saw this one and enjoyed it. It does have a lot of the typical romantic comedy Hollywood stuff, alongside some commentary on age-ism in our society. Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson are pros and they make this fun to watch.

13. Mystic River - Yes it was well made. Yes the performances were good. Yes it was a good story. It didn't do much for me, but I don't have any complaints anyway.

14. Irréversible - Alright, I didn't like it. The story wasn't interesting at all and the effect of seeing it in reverse does not magically make it better. On the other hand, the floating camera was quite cool when it wasn't ridiculously over the top (like in the S&M club). And mildly interesting was ahead of the pack in 2003.

15. Pieces of April - I'm not trying to rank indie movies higher than studio films, I just can't help it. I happened to see this one on DVD and it wasn't bad, so it gets to be number 15 on my list.

16. Whale Rider - Your average TV movie of the week which benefits from above-average acting and an exotic locale. But seriously, is there anything here that we haven't seen 100 times over? It's dressed up a little differently, but the story is student film quality at best. Well, I didn't dislike it anyway.

17. Big Fish - I thought this was a missed opportunity. I knew Spielberg was planning to direct this before it passed to Burton and though I'm not a big Spielberg fan, I can confidently say that he would have done a better job with this story. Burton fails at integrating the two main portions of the story so it plays out like 2 movies edited together. It had so much potential but it lacked the special magic that would have made it touching and memorable. As it is, it's technically well-made, but routine.

18. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - A decent summer spectacal movie which happens to include the performance of the year by Johny Depp. If you like fancy effects and goofy stories with too many unneccesary plot twists, than this is the movie for you. I enjoyed it while it lasted, but without Johny Depp, this would be hard to sit through. There's a good pirate movie waiting to be made someday, this is not it.

19. Shattered Glass
20. Seabiscuit
21. The Italian Job
22. Identity
23. Freddy vs. Jason
24. The Hulk
25. Bruce Almighty

All of those were at least decent. And the ones I didn't like:

Tears of the Sun
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
The Matrix Revolutions
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
The Last Samurai
Kill Bill: Volume I
Underworld

All 7 of those are Hollywood at it's worst. And I didn't even bother to go see movies like Bad Boys II and 2 Fast 2 Furious.

Movies from last year I'd still like to see:

Lost in La Mancha
Gerry
Winged Migration
Elephant
21 Grams
Spellbound
The Triplets of Belleville
Paycheck
Finding Nemo
X2: X-Men United
Millennium Actress
Northfork
Tibet: Cry of the Snow Lion
The Legend of Suriyothai
Better Luck Tomorrow

Ed hasn't seen Finding Nemo.


My favorite movie now is a Girl Next Door, since vtd sees every movie, have you seen that one? It had me hooked. I didn't see it in the cinema though, doesn't exist there either. Saw Troy recently, twas entertaining, but not much more.

Okay vTd, more things to argue about

I wasn't a fan of "The Last Samurai". I got nothing out of it. There was nothing wrong with the movie, it just didn't get to me. Perhaps it is because it is very hard to take Tom Cruise seriously.

"Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" was a great movie. Perhaps it should have been higher on your list.

"Lost in Translation" was horrible. I think I understand what the point of the movie was, but it was bad. If it was ment to be funny, it failed. If it was ment to be sad, it failed. If it was ment to be boring, it succeded! The only entertaining part was when he was doing to whisky commercial and the director had this long spew of directions, and then the translator says two words. And that was perhaps thirty seconds of the whole movie. I don't see what anyone sees in this movie. Shouldn't have even made the list IMO.

"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" is another reason of why I hate Universal. Universal couldn't be creative if the company depended on it. They heard Disney was comming out with a sea-adventure movie, so they thought "Let's do one too! We always need to copy everything they do!". And so they did. As a movie, it was okay. It was too drawn out. The sub-plots didn't work and the whole plot was a bit weird and slightly anti-climactic.

I didn't like "Finding Nemo". The animation was very good for computer animation, but the story was weak. Disney's latest films have pushed characterization, and I find it very distracting. The begining few minutes showed why the father was overprotective, but it was forced and really ruined the film. I found Ellen's character to be very annoying and not very funny. Best part of the film were the seagulls. "Mine!". But that's all that really held my intrest.

"Bad Boys II" got three stars? That movie was just horrible. The camera angles were horrible and the plot was even worse. It tried to be funny, but it didn't work. Big action, bad rap and big breasts lead to a failure of a movie.

"The Italian Job" was a fun movie, much better than the orignal. I was turned off by parts of it because of it's lack of realism.

Now seriously, how did "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" earn three stars? That was among the worst films last year. The acting was dumb, the plot was all over the place and made no sense. You've got some guitar playing-gun-blasting Mexican and some sort of Mexican mafia that pluck your eye balls out. What the hell was with that? The trailer was very deceiving.

Considering all the hype surrounding "21 Grams", I thought it might have been a good movie, but, it was very, very bad. The name has absolutly nothing to do with this depression-infested film. Glad to see it didn't make the list, but two stars were two to many.

"The Triplets of Belleville" was amazing! The animation was the best I have ever seen! Did you know that half that movie was computer generated? They drew in their style over the computer created shapes to give an outstanding 3D look. It's flawless. The plot was a bit weird, I grant you, but it had big laughs. The characterization was great. In terms of length, I will admit it moves slowly, but I also think that is another aspect of this movie that makes it so great. It feels like a full length feature when it runs at just over an hour.

"Tears of the Sun" was great. I have no idea what you don't like about it. The camera work was awsome, the colours were great and the message was great. My favorite scene was at the end when all the people were surrounding the tribal leader with their hands clapping in the air. The music was also a huge high point of this film. But I guess the fact that you liked "Training Day" says a lot .

And finally:
'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King".
I am not a fan of these movies. Sure the effects are flawless and the action is entertaining, but that's where it ends. Too many converstions in "Elfish" and really bad acting turn me off. The plot is a bit weak too. I know it's based on what you'll probably call "the best books ever written", but having a ring control an entire kingdom is over the top. Walking trees and other strange creatures such as Golim (who is impossible to understand) take away from it. When I saw the first on in theaters, about an hour into the film, or when Frodo was being chased by the guys on the horses, I looked at my watch thining "Good, this should be over soon", only to discover that I had another two hours to sit through.

Okay vTd, more things to argue about

Ok... most of it really isn't arguable because it's just difference of opinion. I'll get to most of it later, but there is one thing I take particular exception too.

"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" is another reason of why I hate Universal. Universal couldn't be creative if the company depended on it. They heard Disney was comming out with a sea-adventure movie, so they thought "Let's do one too! We always need to copy everything they do!". And so they did. As a movie, it was okay. It was too drawn out. The sub-plots didn't work and the whole plot was a bit weird and slightly anti-climactic.

First thing wrong with your argument, it was a film primarily financed and produced by 20th Century Fox, with both Miramax and Universal throwing in some money.

Second thing wrong with your argument... it was in production before Pirates of the Caribbean. It would have been released BEFORE Pirates of the Caribbean. It was originally slated to come out the last week of May last year, but because of the extreme Oscar buzz that it was already creating, it was pushed back to November to have a better shot at being nominated and possibly winning.

Third thing, Peter Weir wrote and directed the whole thing, this was all his. A pet project of one of the greatest directors currently working today, with nothing to do with Disney.

Fourth thing, even if it was trying to copy Disney (which it wasn't), then logically the finished product would have been much more mainstream audience friendly. It was most definitely marketed in the TV ads to capitalize on the success of PoTC, but that's the marketing department and has nothing to do with the movie. You know, something SIMILIAR to Pirates? Aside from being set on a boat, the two have absolutely nothing common.

As for your opinions on the film, there's nothing I can do about that.

It's also quite ironic you call Universal unoriginal when most of Disney's releases nowadays are The Lion King 5.825 and The Jungle Book 3.

It's also quite ironic you call Universal unoriginal when most of Disney's releases nowadays are The Lion King 5.825 and The Jungle Book 3.

I'll admit to my lack of knowledge of "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World", but a quick note about your final statement. You see, Disney has been pinching their pennies as of late, hence they're copying all their older ideas. Universal, on the other hand, copies Disney's stuff, not their own.

last samurai owned..plain and simple...masterful storytelling, and decent action=great story...

master and commander...crowe's accent was annoying...i saw it on dvd, and turned on the subtitles to try and understand him better. Also the story kinda dragged a bit..and what was with the doctor and those fruity outfits...i was like wtf?

EDIT: Nate try reading the books, and then go veiw the movie again...i gaurantee your outlook will change..

Nate try reading the books, and then go veiw the movie again...i gaurantee your outlook will change..

I've heard a lot of people say this. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think anyone should have to read a book to enjoy a movie. That said, a lot of people probably saw the movie(s), loved it/them, and didn't read the books. My lack of intrest in the fantasy genre is probably the main factor.

I'll admit to my lack of knowledge of "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World", but a quick note about your final statement. You see, Disney has been pinching their pennies as of late, hence they're copying all their older ideas. Universal, on the other hand, copies Disney's stuff, not their own.

I'd like to see a list of movie ideas that universal has copied from Disney... not themeparks, because alot of that is obvious... I'm talking solely movies here.

That said, a lot of people probably saw the movie(s), loved it/them, and didn't read the books. My lack of intrest in the fantasy genre is probably the main factor.

Case in point... me.

I read the books after seeing the first movie. Knowing the books is certainly not a requirement for loving the movies. If it were, they wouldn't have grossed 350 million each.

Don't mean to take issue with your opinion Nate, but Tears of the Sun had me bored to tears. I was checking my watch every 15 minutes. It's just kinda funny to hear you talking about Fellowship of the Ring that way when I was on the edge of my seat for the whole 3 hours and could barely stay awake through Tears of the Sun. Go figure.

Lost in Translation wasn't boring to me either. It isn't always what's happening on the screen that makes a movie interesting. With Lost in Translation there were little moments throughout that caught my attention and kept me from getting bored. Sometimes it was just a look or a gesture, not even a line of dialogue. Something quirky and human that rings true. I guess that's what vTd meant about it being truthful. Other times there's all sorts of things happening on the screen but none of it is remotely interesting so I get bored. Again, Tears of the Sun fit that description for me.

It all depends on what you go for. A beautiful image, a memorable melody, a great line, a huge explosion, suspense, drama, whatever. Different things can make or break a movie for different people. And the more movies you see, the more discriminating you get, That's no reason not to see movies though. People get on me sometimes for not liking popular movies, which seems silly to me. I love movies, that's why I watch them all the time. If I see a great movie, I'll look up the director and cinematographer and writer and cast and see what else they've done. Sooner or later you realize that there's a whole world of movies outside of Hollywood and once you see that, most of the movies made by Hollywood every year are bad in comparison. Truly great movies are rare just like trul great books and truly great art. Once you've seen one, you start to get annoyed that all movies aren't that way. That's the dilemma I'm in when I go to the theater and I see on the marquee The Terminal, The Stepford Wives, Shrek 2, Chronicles of Riddick, Garfield, and Around the World in 80 Days and I don't want to see any of them. Every once in awhile a great movie comes out though, and makes all the waiting worthwhile.

21 Grams (Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2003) **- A promising production completely destroyed by a gimmicky shattered narrative.

Considering all the hype surrounding "21 Grams", I thought it might have been a good movie, but, it was very, very bad. The name has absolutly nothing to do with this depression-infested film. Glad to see it didn't make the list, but two stars were two to many.

Now, I have to say that I disagree with both of you on this one. I thought that it was the best film of the year. While I can't deny the acclaim that LOTR: ROTK is getting (I thought it was great too), no other movie effected me as emotionally as this film did. I cant recall too many other movies that made me feel this way in a while (another one being Mystic River). Unlike VTD, I liked the way the film was edited and disagree that it was flawed in anyway. I thought it was very effective at conveying the emotion and telling the story. If the movie wasn't shot this way, we would have completely lost the suspense of the whole story. It was also done this way by Iñárritu so that he could show how each of the three main characters lives was falling apart in front of them.

I have to disagree completely with Natelox about the name having nothing to do with the film. The director says that 21 Grams is the amount of weight we lose when we die. I think that the moments of our lives, things that touched us, sad events, people we loved, people we hated, all those things that we take with us and Sean Penn is imagining, or hoping he will take with him when he dies weigh 21 Grams. At least thats my interpretation of it. Another thing is that I think we were supposed to make our own decision about the title of the movie and what it meant. Just cause its title something and you don't see it in the movie doesn't mean that it really isn't there.

One other thing about this movie I think a lot of people are over looking is the stupendous acting that went into it. Naomi Watts showed why she earned that academy award nomination (dare I say better then Charlize?), Sean Penn, while not as good as he was in Mystic River, was amazing in the film, and Benicio was amazing as well and got a well earned nomination becasue of it.

Also, when people say that the movie was depressing, that doesn't mean it was a bad movie. The film throws you out of your normal comfort zone when you see a movie, first with its nonlinear story telling as well as with its high emotional level. I feel that when a film makes you feel emotional like this one, be it depressed, mad, or happy, then it is a great movie. Not a lot of movies do that to me anymore, but this one did more then any other movie in recent years.

Now just in case anyone is wondering my top films for this year are:
1. 21 Grams
2. Lost in Translation
3. The Last Samurai
4. Mystic River
5. LOTR: ROTK
6. Monster
7. The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara
8. Cidade de Deus
9. Kill Bill Vol. 1
10. Love Actually

Movies from last year I'd still like to see: 21 Grams

See it Ed, I think you'll definately enjoy it.

Okay vTd, more things to argue about


And finally:
'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King".
I am not a fan of these movies. Sure the effects are flawless and the action is entertaining, but that's where it ends. Too many converstions in "Elfish" and really bad acting turn me off. The plot is a bit weak too. I know it's based on what you'll probably call "the best books ever written", but having a ring control an entire kingdom is over the top. Walking trees and other strange creatures such as Golim (who is impossible to understand) take away from it. When I saw the first on in theaters, about an hour into the film, or when Frodo was being chased by the guys on the horses, I looked at my watch thining "Good, this should be over soon", only to discover that I had another two hours to sit through.

^

I understand that fantasy isn't for everybody (though you did seem to like Pirates), but let's think on this.

The acting was good (unlike the debatable recent Star Wars films, though I enjoy them too). Gandalf and Sam are especially believable, as you can see the emotional turmoil boiling out of them as the story progresses and gets more serious.

Weak plot? If LOTR has a weak plot, what do other films have....none? LOTR is one of the most complicated adventure tales written, full of plot twists, deceptive characters, and complicated situations. Sure the films watered it down a bit from the novels, but you can't tell if the films are all you've seen.

The premise of a ring controlling everything isn't that farfetched any more than a space station with a super laser (Death Star), ancient artifacts in Nazi hands (potential threat in Indiana Jones films), or...a mystical coin cursed by (was it Mayans or Aztecs) in Pirates, which enabled the life after death (as skeletons no less) for Barbossa and crew? The walking trees, Gollum and other creatures only enhance the feeling that we aren't in our world anymore, we're in "Middle Earth".

I understand that it's not for everyone, but in terms of what it is and is supposed to be, it did it's job.

It is fantasy for a reason.

I saw the first LOTR movie, and was bored for the full (3hrs?) of watching it. I havent bothered even thinking about seeing another one.

My fav movie last year was Pirtates of the Caribbean, the best film ive seen in ages too. (still)

Although i didnt see Kill Bill last year, its rated as one of the worst films iv seen, the story sucked, and although the more violence the better, that also sucked, maybe it was ok for the laughing factor, though.

*edit - I just remembered watching hulk, that too, was a terrible film IMO.

Now, I have to say that I disagree with both of you on this one.  I thought that it was the best film of the year.  While I can't deny the acclaim that LOTR: ROTK is getting (I thought it was great too), no other movie effected me as emotionally as this film did.  I cant recall too many other movies that made me feel this way in a while (another one being Mystic River).  Unlike VTD, I liked the way the film was edited and disagree that it was flawed in anyway.  I thought it was very effective at conveying the emotion and telling the story.  If the movie wasn't shot this way, we would have completely lost the suspense of the whole story.  It was also done this way by Iñárritu so that he could show how each of the three main characters lives was falling apart in front of them. 

I have to disagree completely with Natelox about the name having nothing to do with the film.  The director says that 21 Grams is the amount of weight we lose when we die.  I think that the moments of our lives, things that touched us, sad events, people we loved, people we hated, all those things that we take with us and Sean Penn is imagining, or hoping he will take with him when he dies weigh 21 Grams.  At least thats my interpretation of it.  Another thing is that I think we were supposed to make our own decision about the title of the movie and what it meant.  Just cause its title something and you don't see it in the movie doesn't mean that it really isn't there. 

One other thing about this movie I think a lot of people are over looking is the stupendous acting that went into it.  Naomi Watts showed why she earned that academy award nomination (dare I say better then Charlize?), Sean Penn, while not as good as he was in Mystic River, was amazing in the film, and Benicio was amazing as well and got a well earned nomination becasue of it. 

Also, when people say that the movie was depressing, that doesn't mean it was a bad movie.  The film throws you out of your normal comfort zone when you see a movie, first with its nonlinear story telling as well as with its high emotional level.  I feel that when a film makes you feel emotional like this one, be it depressed, mad, or happy, then it is a great movie.  Not a lot of movies do that to me anymore, but this one did more then any other movie in recent years. 

Now just in case anyone is wondering my top films for this year are:
1.  21 Grams
2.  Lost in Translation
3.  The Last Samurai
4.  Mystic River
5.  LOTR: ROTK
6.  Monster
7.  The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara
8.  Cidade de Deus 
9.  Kill Bill Vol. 1
10.  Love Actually



See it Ed, I think you'll definately enjoy it.

I didn't see how shattered narrative did anything to help out the emotional resonance of the story. The entire first hour is incoherent, an endless slew of short 30 second to 1 minute scenes that seem to have nothing to do with anything, much less each other. They're so short and inconsequential that when you finally find out that some of them actually mean something, you've forgotten what happened. And this "parade" lasted so long that I completely lost interest. Maybe the most dissapointing movie of the year, though certainly not the worst.

As for Naomi Watts, she was good... but too showy, with a "screaming breakdown" scene that was just yelling out "Give me the Oscar!!!".

I stand by my opinion that Evan Rachel Wood gave the best leading female performance of the year.

I must confess to not having seen The Fog of War, it's on my Netflix queue... but so are 300 other movies.

It's not like every screaming breakdown scene is there just to get an Oscar. If it's in the script, than it's in the script. Unless it's a Miramax film that is.

Oh and I forgot about seeing Fog of War, so I guess it didn't leave too strong of an impression on me. I'd put it around 10 or 11 I guess.

PS - Didn't Evan Rachel Wood have several screaming breakdown scenes in Thirteen?

It's not like every screaming breakdown scene is there just to get an Oscar. If it's in the script, than it's in the script. Unless it's a Miramax film that is. 

PS - Didn't Evan Rachel Wood have several screaming breakdown scenes in Thirteen?

It's because it didn't feel in character for who Watts was playing. On the other hand, those scenes did fit in with Tracy as an angry slut.

I've been thinking about it... and I moved Love Actually into The Top 25 and moved In America out.

I didn't see how shattered narrative did anything to help out the emotional resonance of the story.  The entire first hour is incoherent, an endless slew of short 30 second to 1 minute scenes that seem to have nothing to do with anything, much less each other.  They're so short and inconsequential that when you finally find out that some of them actually mean something, you've forgotten what happened.  And this "parade" lasted so long that I completely lost interest.  Maybe the most dissapointing movie of the year, though certainly not the worst. 

As for Naomi Watts, she was good... but too showy, with a "screaming breakdown" scene that  was just yelling out "Give me the Oscar!!!".

I stand by my opinion that Evan Rachel Wood gave the best leading female performance of the year.

I must confess to not having seen The Fog of War, it's on my Netflix queue... but so are 300 other movies.

Eh, to each his own I guess. Although, if ya wanna talk about someone being too showy, it would have to be Jennifer Connolly in House of Sand and Fog. THe way she acted in that movie totally ruined it for me. I felt that it was terribly overacted by her and that distracted me from Kingsley's amazing performance.

While I still disagree with your thoughts on how the narrative was broken, I respect your opinion and I have seen others that agree with you as well.

But anyways, I loved Evan Rachel Wood in Thirteen as well, definately a very underrated performance from one of the better movies of this year that seemed to get passed over by hollywood.

I think you and Ed should get on top of seeing Fog of War. Even if ya don't like the movie, you'll end up learning something from it.

I think you and Ed should get on top of seeing Fog of War.  Even if ya don't like the movie, you'll end up learning something from it.

Consider it recommended.

I HATE IGNORANCE!