Category Archives: 2004 Films

2003 Films, 2004 Films, Favorite Film of the Year, Martial Arts, Top 100 Films, Top 250 Films

Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Volume 2-2003/2004

Leave a comment

Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Volume 2- 2003/2004

Director Quentin Tarantino

Starring Uma Thurman, David Carradine

Top 250 Films #98

Scott’s Review #322

6003123660032563

Reviewed January 3, 2016

Grade: A

Despite being released as separate films (Fall of 2003 and Spring of 2004), Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Kill Bill: Volume 2 are one grand, sprawling feature.

The films were shot as one, but at a running time of over four hours, it was impossible to release them as one, so director Quentin Tarantino decided to release his masterpiece martial arts film as two sequential films.

I have decided to review them as one since Volume 2 is a clear continuation of Volume 1.

From a story perspective, Kill Bill is a basic revenge thriller. The plot is not complex nor ingenious and is rather ordinary containing B-movie components- think the really bad Kung-Fu films of long ago.

What makes Kill Bill an extraordinary masterpiece, however, is the style that exudes from the film, thanks to the direction and creation of Tarantino.

The film is brimming with good flavor and crackling dialogue of an intelligent sort.

Characters have long conversations with each other-not for redundancy’s sake- in between the endless martial arts and bloody sequences.

We meet our heroine, The Bride (Uma Thurman), in a chapel in El Paso, Texas. About to be married to her groom, the entire wedding party is suddenly assassinated in a bloody fashion by the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad.

Their leader, Bill (David Carradine), shoots The Bride after she reveals to him that she is carrying his baby.

The film flashes forward four years later- The Bride has survived the massacre but has been comatose ever since. When a hospital worker rapes her, she escapes and vows revenge on each one of her attackers- the revenge culminating with Bill.

Her path of destruction leads her to Japan.

Like most of Tarantino’s films, Kill Bill is divided into chapters and often goes back and forth from past to present.

The brilliance of Kill Bill is its pizazz. We know The Bride will get her revenge on the assassins, we just do not know in what way or how bloody the slaughters will be.

The film contains copious amounts of blood and swords and machetes are everywhere to be found.

The slow drawl dialogue as The Bride has conversations with her prey before she kills them, oftentimes ends in a big fight scene. Her first revenge, against Vernita (Vivica A. Fox), is unique in that it takes place in Vernita’s kitchen as her young daughter is happily eating her breakfast cereal.

The entire battle ensues in the kitchen and we are left watching blood and cereal.

It is Tarantino’s unique style of filmmaking and storytelling, adding violence, and long character conversations, that give Kill Bill, and all of his other classic films, his unique brand, and stamp of approval.

I dearly hope he continues to make films that challenge the norm, for years to come.

2004 Films, Gore, Horror, Top 250 Films, Top 40 Horror Films

Saw-2004

Leave a comment

Saw-2004

Director James Wan

Starring Cary Elwes, Leigh Whannell

Top 250 Films #222

Top 40 Horror Films #34

Scott’s Review #1,285

Reviewed August 4, 2022

Grade: A

One of the many reasons that I love the horror genre so much is how it changes and develops over time. Many classic horror films are influential to more modern ones, and that’s all well and good.

But then, sometimes a new idea or style comes along that throws everything topsy-turvy and influences other films for years to come.

Saw (2004) is one of those films. It smacked everyone who thought they knew horror films upside the head with a relentless, pulsating gorefest.

I was fortunate enough to see the film when it premiered, and boy, was it the ‘water cooler’ film of its day.

The clever writing, intricate plot, and set pieces were unheard of in a world of maniac-wielding knife setups and redundant endings.

It invented the grisly ‘torture porn’ moniker that became popular with films like Hostel (2005) and many more that would come after it.

The Saw franchise ultimately produced perhaps one too many sequels that left it feeling stale and exhausted, but what an influence the original Saw had, and continues to have.

I still remember the hold the film had on me and how much it resonated with its nastiness, butchery, and enough creative killings to last a lifetime.

Needless to say, it’s not for the squeamish or faint of heart, and watching Saw now, knowing the surprise twist, doesn’t pack quite the same punch it did in 2004, but I’ll never forget how I felt when I first watched this film.

The twist ending is unforgettable.

Events get off to a kick-ass start when two men awake in peril.

Photographer Adam Stanheight (Leigh Whannell) and oncologist Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes), who do not know one another, regain consciousness while chained to pipes at either end of a filthy bathroom.

As the confused men realize they’ve been trapped by a sadistic serial killer nicknamed “Jigsaw” and must complete his perverse puzzle to live, flashbacks unravel the mystery of other character connections.

Meanwhile, Dr. Gordon’s wife (Monica Potter) and young daughter (Makenzie Vega) are forced to watch his torture via closed-circuit video.

A massive clue to the puzzle Saw presents lies right there in the bathroom, but, of course, the unwitting audience knows none of this.

The fun of the film is to sit back and let the filmmakers slowly unpeel the onion and reveal the who’s who of the backstory.

And let the blood drip.

Unlike legacy films like Halloween (1978) and Friday the 13th (1980) or even later efforts like Scream (1996) that brought thousands of rabid horror fans back to movie theaters, nobody is being chased with a knife in Saw.

It’s much more cerebral than that.

Who can ever forget the sound of Jigsaw’s grave voice pouring out of a tape recorder, stating, “I want to play a game” in a robotic tone? It is still as ominous a sound as one could imagine, and the big reveal remains a genuine shock.

Most of the characters have secrets to reveal, and most of those secrets are dirty.

Director James Wan and writer Leigh Whannell, who also stars in Saw, brilliantly craft a web of deceit amongst their players.

The characters who suffer the most have committed a hateful act of deception or schemed their way to benefit at someone else’s expense.

In perfect form, all the victims almost deserve their fates, like being caught in a shotgun trap, shot in the chest, or being forced to ‘saw’ off their foot to escape death.

The final reveal is downright freaky and will make the audience quickly rewind the film’s events in their heads. The character thought to be the main killer, and wonderfully played by creepy actor Michael Emerson (star of television’s Lost), is merely a pawn of someone more sinister.

Saw (2004) savagely hacked its way into viewers’ heads with a sophisticated, plot-driven experience, its film style enhanced by an independent look.

It’s had its day, but it must never be forgotten for the influence it left behind.

2004 Films, Chick Flicks, Comedy, Teen Comedy

Mean Girls-2004

Leave a comment

Mean Girls-2004

Director Mark Waters

Starring Lindsay Lohan

Scott’s Review #1,433

Reviewed July 21, 2024

Grade: B+

Upon its release, I doubt the creators of Mean Girls (2004) knew how influential the film would become.

Not only did it become a box-office hit, but it also became a Broadway musical, with a reboot twenty years later.

It’s also one of those films everyone has heard of and immediately knows what it’s about.

After reading a self-help book about high school social cliques, Tina Fey, who stars in it, wrote the screenplay. The book also delved into school bullying and its damaging effects.

Mean Girls, the film, is intended to be a comedy and skirts over the horror and contempt that is the reality of vulnerable students being picked on by mean girls.

I doubt that in real life, ‘mean girls’ victims’ would appreciate a comedy based on their terror and ridicule.

A darker version, while depressing, would also be closer to reality. I took Mean Girls as a fantasy.

Nonetheless, the film is a roaring success if for no other reason than its examination of the insecurities and hierarchies of the high school (and middle school) years, which 90% of adults would likely soon forget.

This is powerfully done through comedy, allowing us to laugh at the characters’ over-the-top and hypocritical actions across different scenarios.

It’s fun to watch because it takes us back to a time in cinema when its star, Lindsay Lohan, was an up-and-coming sensation, and before co-stars Rachel McAdams and Amanda Seyfried were Oscar-nominated.

Cady Heron (Lohan) is a sophisticated yet naïve student, educated in Africa by her scientist parents.

When her family moves to the suburbs of Illinois, Cady gets to experience public school and the cruel laws of popularity that divide her fellow students into tightly knit cliques.

She unwittingly finds herself in the good graces of an elite group of cool students dubbed “the Plastics,” but soon realizes how her shallow group of new friends earned this nickname.

They are led by Regina (McAdams), a rich, popular mean girl.

Things quickly go south after Cady becomes smitten with Regina’s ex, Aaron (Jonathan Bennett).

Despite the title, the film is for anyone with teenage angst, a crush on a fellow student, or feeling either left out or part of a group at the expense of other unpopular kids.

The message of Mean Girls is universal and therapeutic, as audiences can cheer along with Cady, especially when she exacts her revenge on the queen bee, Regina, hilariously.

The cat-and-mouse play between the two characters is merciless and delightful in the cruel measures to one-up the other in pure comical fashion.

Lohan and McAdams deserve kudos for energetically infusing the characters with likability, even in scenes where they should be hated.

Cheering when Regina gets hit by a bus never felt so good.

The writing is astounding and surprisingly good, with vicious, quick wit and humorous scene after scene.

Wisely, the film ends after one hour and thirty-seven minutes, which is a perfect length for a teenage comedy. Anything longer might have made it drag because the ending isn’t unexpected or a huge surprise.

Since we assume Cady will emerge victorious, which she does, the conclusion is satisfying, and the event hints at a sequel.

The film is peppered with diversity, which is also an enormous win. The principal of North Shore High School, Mr. Duvall (Tim Meadows), is black, while other ethnic characters also appear.

This provides a nice progressive message.

Watching the film twenty years following its release, I never expected to enjoy it quite so much as I did.

This is a testament to the power of Mean Girls (2004), director Mark Waters, and Tina Fey, who create something that holds up well.

2004 Films, Drama, Musical, Musical Drama, Paris, Period Drama, Romantic Drama, Theater

The Phantom of the Opera-2004

Leave a comment

The Phantom of the Opera-2004

Director Joel Schumacher

Starring Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum

Scott’s Review #1,336

Reviewed January 23, 2023

Grade: A-

Having been fortunate enough to see the legendary Broadway production of The Phantom of the Opera makes any film version seem impossible to compare to the live stage show.

The lights, the sets, the booming music, the dreaded chandelier, and presumably phenomenal acting all make for an unforgettable experience.

Since we are talking film, the cinematic version of The Phantom of the Opera (2004) is breathtaking and nearly twenty years late to the game; I should be scolded for not having seen it earlier, like when it was initially released.

It’s based on Andrew Lloyd Webber’s 1986 musical of the same name, which in turn is based on the 1910 French novel Le Fantôme de l’Opéra by Gaston Leroux.

Critics were not kind to the film, though most audiences liked it, so I almost didn’t see it, save for my hubby renting it and encouraging us to watch it.

I am glad I did because this film encompasses a feast of riches.

I wonder aloud if the fact that it was directed by Joel Schumacher, who created the dreadfully bad Batman & Robin, made seven years earlier in 1997, influenced the bad reviews.

After all, nobody likes their superhero movies butchered, and payback’s a bitch after all.

For the novice fan, the summary is as follows. Gerard Butler stars as the disfigured, reclusive Phantom who roams beneath the Paris Opera and takes budding star Christine (Emmy Rossum) under his wing.

But as he falls for her, she finds love with handsome and porcelain-like Raoul, played by Patrick Wilson, leaving the Phantom none too pleased.

If nothing else, and there is something else, the film is a spectacle. Gorgeous Parisian sophistication drips from the screen in nearly every scene, from the gloomy catacombs to the enthralling opera stage.

The costumes reek of French style, glamour, and texture, and the principal cast is easy on the eyes, to say the least.

These treats are merely a warm-up for the astounding, professional art direction, making the winter sequences dreamlike and gothic while perfectly capturing the tone.

This encapsulates the dire sequence of events and helps the viewer feel the Phantom’s pain.

The all-too-familiar numbers are modernized in just the right places, especially “The Music of the Night,” which could have been played on popular radio stations.

The lively “Masquerade” parleys into the lovely “The Phantom of the Opera” duet between the Phantom and Christine in his ugly lair.

I didn’t feel the chemistry between Rossum and Wilson the same way I did between Butler and Rossum, and maybe that’s the point. Wilson has little to work with, since the character isn’t the main attraction.

I never wanted Christine to ride off into the unknown with Raoul, but I ached for the pain that the Phantom felt for Christine’s kindness.

As much as I like Wilson the actor, I champion the casting of Rossum (unknown at this time) and Butler, who is the top draw in the talent department.

His loud, colorful musical numbers enrapture me as a viewer and grip me with their pain. The passion and magnificence are on full display.

Butler is my favorite actor.

Minnie Driver is perfect as the spoiled diva, and the supporting cast, including veteran Simon Callow, lends further credibility.

I was transported to another world while watching The Phantom of the Opera (2004) by the sheer extravagance on the screen. Schumacher more than deserves top accolades and respect for his production.

Oscar Nominations: Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Original Song-“Learn To Be Lonely”

2004 Films, Action, Comedy, Guy Films, Heist, Vegas

Ocean’s Twelve-2004

Leave a comment

Ocean’s Twelve-2004

Director Steven Soderbergh

Starring George Clooney

Scott’s Review #1,157

Reviewed June 30, 2021

Grade: B-

The casino heist gang is back together again for more action and adventure in a film that was only made because of the success of its predecessor, Ocean’s Eleven (2001).

The uninspiring title of the film, Ocean’s Twelve (2004), is a letdown compared to the fantastic and enthralling 2001 film.

What felt like a purely original idea, even though it was a remake, now feels like stale bread that was fresh only yesterday.

Thankfully, Steven Soderbergh returns to the fold, adding some style and solid direction.

The story is slow to kick off and provides an implausible and unconventional ending that doesn’t work, nearly negating most of the previous activity.

There is something a bit irritating about watching a film knowing it was made for only one reason, and that the plot seems rushed and poorly thought out.

But that’s Hollywood.

Undoubtedly, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Julia Roberts, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and other top talent enjoyed hefty paychecks.

This is also concerning, as the performances come across as ho-hum and seem to be driven by the big bucks being deposited into big bank accounts for services rendered.

The inauthenticity all around is evident in lazy acting and writing.

The foil and mark, Terry Benedict, once again played by Andy Garcia, realizes that the gang has robbed him of millions and demands the money back with interest.

Unfortunately, much of it has already been spent.

Unable to come up with the cash, the crew must come together to pull off another series of heists, this time in Europe.

Presumably, they are not well known there.

Being “forced” to do what the career criminals love to do is far-fetched.

Danny (George Clooney) and the gang hatch a plan to swap a Fabergé Imperial Coronation Egg for a holographic recreation. Linus (Damon) comes up with a second plan involving Danny’s wife, Tess (Julia Roberts), posing as a pregnant woman to get close to the Egg and swap it.

They are foiled by Lahiri (Catherine Zeta-Jones), and coincidentally, Bruce Willis, and the rest of the group is captured.

While it’s slightly clever having Willis and Roberts appear as themselves, especially when Julia Roberts plays another character in the film, it doesn’t work as well as it sounds on paper.

The story is way too convoluted, and Ocean’s Twelve quickly turns into the sort of film you tune out of, enjoying the non-story points more than the written word. In this case, that’s not a positive aspect.

The film’s successes, mainly the return of the A-list cast, are also negative.

While it’s fun to reconnect with familiar characters like Danny Ocean, Rusty (Pitt), and Linus, we know the characters too well, and they become caricatures. Meaning they behave exactly as one would expect.

Still, it is admittedly juicy and exciting to witness so many A-listers on one big screen, especially when there is trickery, scheming, and just a hint of romance to be had.

I’ll also take part in just about any film that goes on location in Paris, Rome, Monte Carlo, and Amsterdam. It’s an orgy of European history and goodness, adding cultural trimmings to a sub-par storyline.

Particularly inviting are the villa scenes set in the lush Lake Como.

Ocean’s Twelve (2004) will please only those who are obsessed enough with the franchise to enjoy what is a retread of the 2001 film, set in various parts of Europe rather than Las Vegas.

It isn’t nearly enough for me, as most cleverness and bright, crisp writing are gone.

2004 Films, Cerebral, Drama, Independent, Independent Drama, Psychological Drama

Birth-2004

Leave a comment

Birth-2004

Director Jonathan Glazer

Starring Nicole Kidman

Scott’s Review #1,124

Reviewed March 18, 2021

Grade: B+

Because of the film’s complex storyline, Birth (2004) is a tough sell for most cinema lovers.

A grown woman embarking on any romance with a ten-year-old boy will turn off viewers, though, can you even imagine if the genders were reversed?

I was fascinated by the premise and the endless possibilities of a conclusion.

I’m not quite sure what I expected to happen ultimately, but I felt slightly underwhelmed by the ending.

All in all, it is a daring effort that I wish had more payoff.

The first hour or so is extremely provocative.

Nicole Kidman excels at making the unbelievable material as believable as possible, and Jonathan Glazer directs the film very well, giving it a haunting, mysterious Stanley Kubrick vibe.

The director would come into name recognition following his 2013 masterpiece Under the Skin.

The film opens with a voiceover of an unknown man, a professor, lecturing about his disbelief in reincarnation. The audience then sees the man jogging through New York City’s Central Park, where he collapses and dies.

It takes Anna (Kidman) ten years to recover from the death of her husband, Sean (the professor), but now she’s on the verge of marrying her boyfriend, Joseph (Danny Huston), and finally moving on.

We suspect she may not be completely keen on marrying Joseph, but most of their relationship is unclear. We know that she aches for Sean.

On the night of their lavish engagement party, a young boy named Sean (Cameron Bright) turns up, claiming to be her dead husband reincarnated.

At first, she ignores the child, thinking it’s a joke, but his knowledge of her former husband’s life is uncanny, leading her to realize that he could be telling the truth slowly.

Anna is conflicted to say the very least, and Kidman effortlessly makes the audience believe that what is considered ridiculous might be true.

Is there a supernatural element here?

Her family members, led by her mother, Eleanor (Lauren Bacall), are disbelieving and antagonistic towards the boy for disrupting Anna’s life.

An issue is that, other than one supporting character, Clara (Anne Heche), who has a great opening sequence burying mysterious letters, the others have next to nothing to contribute to the story except to brood and get angry.

Bacall, in particular, is completely wasted in a role that any other older actress could have played.

Parallels to Rosemary’s Baby (1968) are hard not to make. Anna dons a similar pixie haircut to Rosemary. They both reside in swanky, old-style New York City high-rises with a ghostly, haunting feel.

The ambiance is a positive.

My favorite camera shot that Glazer includes is a lengthy one of Kidman’s Anna. In a close-up, the character’s reactions are on full display for what feels like several minutes. Kidman gets to show her tremendous range- tears, shock, realization.

I’ve noticed a similar shot in a handful of modern films, and it’s an actor’s delight- a viewer’s too!

The finale, without giving much away, is interesting to a point. The big reveal involving Clara is intriguing until the viewer backtracks and tries to add up all the events.

The fact is, they don’t add up, and I longed for something more concrete or believable.

There is no good payoff.

Birth (2004) doesn’t always add up to satisfaction, but it’s edgy, gloomy, and unpredictable, and I enjoyed those facets enough to recommend it.

This is not a mainstream film like Ghost (1990) with a similar theme- it’s much more cerebral and thought-provoking.

Kidman’s performance is the main draw here, but it’s tough to find a film in which she isn’t great.

2004 Films, Comedy, Drama, Independent, Independent Comedy, Independent Drama, Religious, Tearjerkers

Saint Ralph-2004

Leave a comment

Saint Ralph-2004

Director Michael McGowan

Starring Adam Butcher, Campbell Scott

Scott’s Review #1,118

Reviewed March 3, 2021

Grade: C

Saint Ralph (2004) is an indie drama that is overly sentimental and includes too many standard plot points.

This makes the film ho-hum and extremely cliched.

It feels like the attempt was to create a major studio film in independent clothes, but without the grit afforded most indies.

There are plenty of standard setups and by-the-numbers follow-through, rather than anything different or fresh.

The film is too charming, safe, and feel-good for my tastes. Maybe there are just too many similar movies made, so it doesn’t stand out very well.

And since it’s an indie, shouldn’t it strive for more edginess?

The message is meant to inspire, and in a way it does, but that only goes so far.

Saint Ralph is a story of a young man triumphing over insurmountable odds- wonderful but unrealistic.

The religious elements of faith, miracles, and the Catholic high school are lost on me, but some may champion those elements better.

I did enjoy the 1950s time period and its share of decade trimmings and set pieces, yet too often they feel stagey, and any authenticity doesn’t feel fresh.

Rather, like actors clad in period clothing.

The lead kid who plays Ralph (Adam Butcher) isn’t impressive enough, though Campbell Scott, who plays a priest with more wisdom than he probably should have, is the best thing about Saint Ralph.

If I’m being harsh, it’s unintentional, but Saint Ralph is a film I’ve forgotten about a day or so after seeing it. I like a film that sticks with me and makes me think about, and Saint Ralph just ain’t it.

It’s classified as a tear-jerker, and I didn’t shed one.

Ralph is a troubled kid. His father died in World War II, and his mother lies ill in a coma. He smokes and masturbates, resulting in adult intervention by way of strict Father Fitzpatrick (Gordon Pinsent) and kindly Father Hibbert (Campbell Scott).

He is encouraged to run in the upcoming Boston Marathon, and he trains mightily with the right encouragement.

He feels that if he trains hard and wins the marathon, his mother will be granted a miracle by God, wake up from her coma, and live happily ever after.

I won’t spoil the ending, but the conclusion will satisfy pious audiences.

I embrace films that feature a character championing certain hardships, and Saint Ralph does contain a youthful innocence and earnestness that holds some appeal.

I felt myself rooting for him to overcome his problems. No kid deserves those hardships.

The weakness is that I felt manipulated. Since the intention was to root for Ralph, it was clear where the film was headed, and the predictability was at an all-time high.

The training sequences are reminiscent of any sports film. Think of a young Rocky Balboa training for an upcoming fight. And the saccharine ending is riddled with predictability.

Saint Ralph (2004) will ruffle no feathers and only appeal to mainstream audiences seeking safe cinema. Most people will not remember it very well.

2004 Films, Documentary, Political Documentary

Fahrenheit 9/11-2004

Leave a comment

Fahrenheit 9/11-2004

Director Michael Moore

Starring Michael Moore

Scott’s Review #1,093

Reviewed December 22, 2020

Grade: B

Reviewing a political documentary about a president considered incompetent pre-Donald Trump is a tough task. Can anyone rival Trump’s incompetence?

In the United States circa 2016, the proverbial shit hit the fan as no other controversial figure had ever set foot in the White House.

Let’s hope that’s as bad as it gets.

To watch a documentary that ridicules George W. Bush, knowing what we now know, with the widespread notion that we would love Bush back in the office, makes Fahrenheit 9/11, directed by liberal filmmaker Michael Monroe, dated and rather superfluous.

It’s still a good watch, but it was better in 2004.

But I will soldier on, review this documentary with gusto, and remember when it was made and the issue at hand.

The United States was a tragic war zone in 2001.

I am salivating at the thought of a Moore-helmed follow-up documentary about Donald Trump, considered the worst United States president of all time.

In a clever play on titles, Moore would release Fahrenheit 11/9 in 2018 and unleash a documentary tirade on the 45th president, but only halfway through his term.

Released only halfway through Bush’s reign, Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) focuses on the devastating events of 9/11, hence the title, while questioning how and why Bush found himself in office.

The main point is how he bungled the response to 9/11 and his selfish and inept focus on Afghanistan and Iraq.

The documentary is a good piece of work and a history lesson.

To elicit controversy, and it did, Moore bravely and brazenly calls out the reasons why the United States was the target of terrorism. The events leading up to the gruesome day are chronicled with bombast and humor, sure to provoke debate among viewers who are not politically aligned.

But Moore’s documentary is not a debate. It’s a one-sided attack on Bush. Anyone with a firm “The United States is the greatest country in the world” will not like the experience, and Moore knows this, teetering carefully around the edge of mockery.

The cover art is brilliant, featuring a sly Michael Moore holding hands with a goofy-looking Bush, a shit-eating grin on his face. This implies that Bush was carried along throughout his term and helped to win the presidency.

The title, in bold red emergency letters against a White House background, tells you all you need to know about the tone of the documentary.

Republicans will despise the work.

Helpful to the documentary is that Moore narrates it, adding a good dose of sarcasm and wit to the myriad of verbal insults he hurls at the former president.

If one isn’t familiar with Moore, his hoodie-and-baseball-cap look and garish Michigan accent cement his “regular Joe” persona, though he is intelligent beyond belief.

Moore’s commentary isn’t just a way to smack Bush upside the head; there is substance here. He angrily points out the interminable amount of time it took Bush to abort storytime on 9/11 and drag his ass to a camera and microphone to address the startled nation.

The point of Fahrenheit 9/11 is to label Bush as a dangerous and flawed president and describe why. The motivation is clear- it’s an attack on Bush, pure and simple.

But it’s hardly sour grapes or dark and dreary. Moore instills humor and an exposé on the multitude of gaffes Bush made and adds appearances by Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice.

Should he be the president? Hell no! This comedy makes it easier to absorb the fact that he was.

At just over two hours, the documentary feels slightly long.

I got the point of it quickly enough and had my fill around the ninety-minute mark- the ideal length for this genre. The rest feels like overkill and redundant, though I get Moore’s point of hammering home the necessary discussion points.

I’m not sure Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) needs more than one viewing to absorb its point. It’s a well-made documentary slanted to Moore’s political leanings. But the points made are relevant, thoughtful, and factual.

For a tribute to the World Trade Center attacks, this is not a good reason to watch.

For a proper dissection of why they occurred and where the United States goes from here (in 2004 anyway), the documentary is a solid watch.

2004 Films, Action, Horror, Zombie

Dawn of the Dead-2004

Leave a comment

Dawn of the Dead-2004

Director Zack Snyder

Starring Sarah Polley

Scott’s Review #956

Reviewed November 8, 2019

Grade: C+

Dawn of the Dead (2004) is a remake of the original horror-comedy-satire film by legendary George Romero.

What the original provided in intrigue and concept is lacking in the much bloodier remake- the freshness is not there.

The film was made pre-television phenomenon The Walking Dead, but watching it now, with the zombie obsession in a steady decline, it feels tired and dated.

The film feels patterned after the successful and fresh 28 Days Later (2002).

Now set in Wisconsin (the original was in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), Ana (Sarah Polley) returns from a shift at the local hospital, where she works as a nurse.

She soon learns that massive bulletins alert to a sudden zombie plague, where former human beings have turned into cannibalistic corpses.

Her husband a victim, Ana joins a small group of survivors at the local shopping mall and attempts to stay alive while being encircled by the creatures and other not-so-nice people.

The main group includes a grizzled police sergeant, Kenneth (Ving Rhames); electronics salesman Michael; petty criminal Andre and his pregnant wife, Luda; and three guards, C.J., Bart, and Terry.

They are later joined by others who arrive via delivery truck.

The large group befriends another survivor, Andy, who is stranded in his gun store across the zombie-infested parking lot.

The rest of the film off the characters one by one in traditional horror style, while the remaining few try to figure out an escape route.

The main problem with Dawn of the Dead is that the characters are poorly written, making them one-note, not particularly interesting, and quite stereotypical.

Examples of this are the angry and defiant guards, who make trouble for the rest of the group for no other reason than to serve as a weak plot device to create drama beyond the zombies.

Kenneth is an angry cop, a lone-wolf type of character who frequently postures and preaches. Again, there is no interesting reason behind his personality.

Finally, Steve is an oversexed playboy who keeps recordings of his sexual shenanigans for repeated viewings.

The character meant to root for is Ana. We sympathize with her for her husband’s gruesome death and her struggle to stay alive, so she is the film’s hero. Her character is likable, and Polley is a worthy actress, but I wonder if a name star would have been better in this circumstance.

Polley did not last long in Hollywood, acting anyway, which only makes the film feel more dated than it already does. Many viewers will not know who the actress is.

Another irritant is the decision to make the zombies move faster. Part of the beauty of the zombies is that they are slow and brooding, unable to think, just existing in a mummy-like haze.

Suddenly, they are fast, making them harder to escape. This attempt at a modern approach, by changing too much, does not work.

Dawn of the Dead is not all dour.

Props must be given to the mall setting, updated for 2004 shopping inclusiveness. Trendy and timely stores are added, and it feels like a mall of its time. This is one aspect of the film that works and feels interesting.

Eagle-eyed viewers may spot some of their favorite stores from this decade.

The strongest part of an otherwise mediocre film is the brilliant incorporation of the heavy-metal band Disturbed’s aggressive song “Down with the Sickness” from 1999.

The song is incorporated over the stylistic end credits, and a summary of what happens to the survivors is provided over the lyrically brutal song.

Unfortunately, it is at the very end of the film where it finally hits a home run.

Since this is a remake, it is impossible not to compare it to the 1978 version in many ways.

The characters in the original had more salt, and a romance added a bit of complexity. The original also felt fun, whereas the 2004 version seems hardened and angry.

The originality that made the original fresh is lacking in this retread, limiting the unique social context and thought-provoking nature it contained.

With little reason to watch Dawn of the Dead (2004), unless it was still 2004, the original 1978 Romero version is far superior. A fun tip might be to watch them in sequence to notice differences in style and pacing, and for general comparison’s sake.

The final musical score is a win, but much of the rest is dull and dated.

2004 Films, Adventure, Christmas, Fantasy, Kids, Winter

The Polar Express-2004

Leave a comment

The Polar Express-2004

Director Robert Zemeckis

Starring Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #800

Reviewed August 8, 2018

Grade: B+

The Polar Express (2004) is a modern entry into the annals of holiday film history. Along with treasures like Rudolph, Frosty, the Grinch, and all the other standards, this film has become a popular one to watch throughout the season.

The film is not exactly like the others, since it is the first of its kind to incorporate live human characters animated using live-action motion capture animation.

The mood of the film is mysterious, edgy, and with a dark tint, so jolly it isn’t, but compelling it is, and visually it is a marvel.

The story is as follows: on a snowy Christmas Eve, a young boy living in Grand Rapids, Michigan, doubts the existence of Santa Claus.

When a steam locomotive suddenly appears outside his house, he curiously boards the train and finds a mysterious conductor (Tom Hanks) manning it.

As the train rolls away, the boy meets two other children on board and stops for another one who is also reluctant to get on.

They begin a dazzling, frozen adventure to the North Pole with the promise of receiving the first gift of Christmas from Santa Claus himself.

The main reason to recommend The Polar Express is simply the gorgeous visual treats it offers. In 2004, the film was a unique experience, and I fondly recall sitting in a dark movie theater, watching it for the first time.

There was a magical element to the surroundings, combining intrigue and fantasy that still holds up well.

For adults, I do not think the film is at all scary, but I have heard some reviewers complain that the moody ingredients are a bit frightening for children, so there is that concern. 

A major component is the mixture of human beings and animated tools. The familiar actor that everybody knows is Tom Hanks as the conductor.

Therefore, to sit back and observe the character is a wonderful thing- is it really Tom Hanks or is it an animation?

It is ultimately both, but the fun is in the observation and wondering how the filmmakers created this experience.

And listen for Hanks in other voice performances throughout the film. 

The story (or fable) itself is warm and fairly predictable. But, of course, being largely made with kids in mind, this is to be expected.

There is never a doubt that the boy (interestingly, never given a name) will ultimately believe in Santa after all and live happily ever after.

The magic is in the details, though- the boy’s journey to this realization is peppered with fun and creative richness- the little girl’s floating ticket and an ornament falling off a Christmas tree are good particulars. 

Director Robert Zemeckis and Hanks worked closely together in Forrest Gump (1994), so the pair are familiar with each other, creatively speaking. Hanks undoubtedly had much input into the decision-making, and it shows. 

I do not personally rank The Polar Express (2004) among the best of the best holiday film offerings, but I support an occasional dusting off of this work for viewing pleasure.

Perhaps over time, the animations may become dated or seem less dazzling, but the film is still worth appreciating for its creative elements.

The story is nothing spectacular (in a way, Scrooge for kids), but it makes for a pleasant family viewing experience. 

Oscar Nominations: Best Song-“Believe”, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing

2004 Films, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Boxing, Drama, Sports

Million Dollar Baby-2004

Leave a comment

Million Dollar Baby-2004

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank

Scott’s Review #798

Reviewed August 2, 2018

Grade: A

Million Dollar Baby (2004) is arguably Clint Eastwood’s best-directed film of his career.

Rivaling Mystic River (2003) by a hair, the film has a raw emotional appeal, empathetic, richly drawn characters, and a mainstream sensibility.

These combined elements resulted in huge box office success and Oscar wins for Picture, Director, Actress, and Supporting Actor in the year of its release.

Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) is a hardened boxing coach who owns a run-down Los Angeles gym. He works with his best friend and assistant, Eddie (Morgan Freeman).

When an aspiring female boxer, Maggie (Hilary Swank), arrives and begs Frankie to train her, he initially declines, but at Eddie’s urging, eventually relents and leads her to great success as a top female boxer.

Frankie and Maggie forge a close-knit, father/daughter relationship, a substitute for the damaged one he has with his daughter.

The final portion of Million Dollar Baby takes a very dark turn, as Maggie is illegally punched during a fight by a fellow boxer, causing her to develop quadriplegia. These events change the film’s tone from a very good sports drama to a great tale of morality.

Many emotions and debates ensued after this film was released, and the common question “What would you have done?” gripped viewers for months, throughout awards season.

The heartbreaking effects of the story events raise the film head and shoulders above most typical sports films.

Too often, Eastwood creates films that are palpable, but in a way generic, and very Hollywood.

Grand Torino (2008) and Invictus (2009) are good examples of this, especially Invictus, given its sports-drama element.

Some assumed that Million Dollar Baby was to be a female Rocky (1976), and the film was indeed marketed as such. For this reason, some felt robbed or duped, but I celebrate this film as leaning firmly left of center with a refreshing, progressive approach.

The performances are amazing all around, even by Eastwood, who is ever known for his acting talent. The characters are written as character-driven, but not caricatures.

Wounded, grizzled, and flawed, in his senior years, Frankie sees that his life has passed him by, having achieved nothing.

Never has Eastwood portrayed a character as complex and reserved as Frankie.

Swank deserved her second Oscar (1999’s Boys Don’t Cry was her first) for simply becoming a boxer- her pre-filming prep schedule reportedly was insane. More than the muscle and toning she achieved, are the raw acting talent and wounded emotions she possesses.

The character is portrayed as pained and vulnerable, yet very strong.

She has achieved little in her life, working as a waitress in Missouri and stealing scraps of leftovers to survive. Her family is trash through and through, only wanting her eventual riches for themselves.

The character is inevitably championed as we empathize with her plight emotionally.

Finally, Freeman deserves recognition for being the ultimate supporting actor. Eddie Dupris, a former fighter blind in one eye, is the central figure of the story and frequently narrates others’ actions, often offering a glimpse into individuals’ psyches.

The voice of reason, he is observant and analytical, almost knowing Freddie better than Freddie knows himself. They quarrel and disagree, but are forever friends and loyal to a fault.

Freeman possesses a reserve that makes the audience curious about his past life.

Million Dollar Baby (2004) is Eastwood’s best film- Mystic River comes a close second, however. A seemingly formulaic story and genre are woven into a web of humanism, emotions, and power.

The film is about the characters, which makes it succeed.

Eastwood has not quite surpassed this beautiful story, but has thankfully received dripping praise and accolades for a film not soon forgotten.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Clint Eastwood (won), Best Actor-Clint Eastwood, Best Actress-Hilary Swank (won), Best Supporting Actor-Morgan Freeman (won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing

2004 Films, Chick Flicks, Drama, Period Drama, Romantic Drama

Vanity Fair-2004

Leave a comment

Vanity Fair-2004

Director Mira Nair

Starring Reese Witherspoon

Scott’s Review #772

Reviewed June 12, 2018

Grade: B

An adaptation of the classic 1848 novel by William Makepeace Thackeray, Vanity Fair (2004) softens the traditionally unlikable, roguish character of Becky Sharp quite a bit.

This proves not to be the smartest move as the character, now more of a heroine, is watered down and forever changed, as is this film adaptation.

Reese Witherspoon (Becky) drew harsh criticism for her starring turn, but I do not think she is so bad, and the costumes and set designs are wonderful and quite the highlight of the resulting period piece.

In 1802 England, we meet Becky Sharp, a young woman who has just graduated from a School for Girls and been sent to work as a governess.

Because her father, a talented painter, is impoverished, Becky is cast aside as lower-class and deemed undesirable by anyone in the upper class, the men she is most interested in.

Despite her reputation as a tart, Becky aspires to marry rich and frequently gets into trouble with her shenanigans and smart tongue while romance blooms with the handsome Rawdon Crawley (Purefoy).

The story is supposed to encompass Becky’s life from approximately age eighteen through her mid-thirties (though Witherspoon never appears to age) and displays her trials and tribulations, her loves and losses through the years.

We follow her from rural England to London and Belgium, eventually residing in Germany, reduced to working in a casino, where the film concludes.

The film is a treat, as it features various countries as they appeared in the nineteenth century and the wars and battles of the period, making for an interesting history lesson.

The main appeal should be Becky Thatcher, since the film revolves around her, and numerous criticisms were leveled, accusing the film of casting Reese Witherspoon in the important and demanding role based on her star power at the time.

In 2004, Witherspoon was experiencing enormous film success after 2001’s Legally Blonde and 2002’s Sweet Home Alabama- admittedly fluff films- but securing her box office power nonetheless.

These films undoubtedly led to her being cast in the pivotal role, but I thought the star was perfectly adequate and gave Becky appropriate humor and zest.

Based on Witherspoon’s “girl next door” persona and the fact that she looks like a good character, it’s perplexing to cast her if filmmakers want to be true to the character.

Witherspoon was delicious in 1999’s Election as villainous Tracy Flick, a role of a lifetime. But that is the exception and not the standard.

But I digress- the bottom line is that while she is a capable actress, she does not give the gritty performance that many were expecting to be true to the character in the novel.

The rest of Vanity Fair is just mediocre as far as the story goes.

While Becky’s antics are both humorous and dramatic, her rooting value in the romance department does not come across in the 2004 film; there is not enough chemistry between the leads to warrant much support.

Opinions abound that other incarnations of Vanity Fair are far superior and more compelling than this film is, but I have yet to see any.

Compliments must be reaped on the costume department and the art direction- both are superior. Such threats are the lavish and colorful costumes and gowns that mark the time.

From the classic-style hats and highfalutin dresses featured in ball after ball, this aspect is nearly enough to recommend a watch over the dull story and, immeasurably, the highlight of the entire film.

Vanity Fair (2004) is considered a messy travesty to those well-read enough to have turned the pages of the classic novel.

Since I have not yet read the book, perhaps I enjoyed the film slightly more than I should have, but alas, I did not find the casting of Witherspoon as Becky, nor the overall product, to be drivel, as many did.

I recommend the film for the gorgeous visual treats if nothing else.

2004 Films, Action, Comedy, Screwball Comedy

White Chicks-2004

Leave a comment

White Chicks-2004

Director Keenen Ivory Wayans

Starring Shawn Wayans, Marlon Wayans

Scott’s Review #647

Reviewed May 29, 2017

Grade: D

Anything but high art, though at the time of release (2004), it seemed like a clever yet silly slapstick farce, White Chicks was a film I found rather enjoyable.

Watching the film in 2017, however, some thirteen years later, it feels dated beyond belief and as dumb as can be.

The film also contains Paris Hilton’s gimmick characters and racial overtones that were lost on me when I first saw the film.

Influenced by the drag comedy (and classic) from 1959, Some Like It Hot, the premise sounds interesting and comical.

Kevin and Marcus Copeland (played by the comical Wayans brothers) are a pair of black,  masculine, F.B.I. agents who bungle an undercover investigation and are given one last chance to redeem themselves before being booted from the bureau for good.

They are assigned the task of protecting the mega-rich cruise-line heiresses, Brittany and Tiffany Wilson, who are in town (at the Hamptons) from a planned kidnapping plot over Labor Day weekend.

Kevin and Marcus don blonde wigs, and freakish makeup, and awkwardly pose as the Wilson sisters to save their jobs.

As the story goes on, Kevin and Marcus (as Brittany and Tiffany) develop relationships with various characters, including millionaire Latrell Spencer (Terry Crews), who takes an interest in Marcus (thinking he is Tiffany, and white).

Other antics unfold as the “girls” try their best to form friendships with the heiress’s snotty friends while attempting to foil the kidnapping plot.

Similarities to the classic Wilder hit, Some Like It Hot, are tough not to notice, and director Keenen Ivory Wayans is smart to borrow from a film considered one of the greatest comedies of all time.

Just as Joe and Jerry (Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon) go on the lam to escape mafia figures out of desperation, Kevin and Marcus are desperate to keep their jobs, causing both sets of “impersonators” to suffer from dire circumstances.

Also worth mentioning are similar conclusions in both films: love interest Osgood Fielding III, also a millionaire, as is Spencer in White Chicks; each is not fazed by the “big reveal” as the men are de-masked as actually being men.

Clever in 2004, the incorporation of celebrity Paris Hilton in 2017 now seems dated and of the past.

In real life, being a hotel heiress, characters Brittany and Tiffany (cruise line heiresses) mirror Hilton as spoiled, self-centered, and oblivious to everyone around them.

The aspect was a good idea at the time of the release of the film, but now it is irrelevant, not even as a nostalgia gag- perhaps in the year 2037, White Chicks might be appreciated more, but I would not hold my breath.

The overall tone of White Chicks is also fraught with silliness and with one gag after another. Rather than being believable as females, the Wayans brothers look downright frightening and robotic as Brittany and Tiffany.

In comedies, suspension of disbelief is required, but the producers should have done a bit more to feminize the characters instead of playing them as goofs.

The ending of the film is no-frills and formulaic, with no real twist or surprise ending to speak of.

The ridiculous misunderstandings involving Kevin and Marcus’s real significant others, who foolishly believe the men are having affairs with other women, seem forced and amateurish.

Predictably, when the men profess their love for the girls earnestly, they fall for it hook, line, and sinker, and the film wraps in disappointing, standard fashion.

Cute and fresh at the time, White Chicks (2004) now feels stale and tired, with racial overtones that were deemed amusing back in the day but now seem mean-spirited and unnecessary.

The film is an attempt at recreating a classic comedy for a younger audience. Still, I would recommend seeing the original Some Like It Hot (1959) instead- it is much more enjoyable.

2004 Films, Cerebral, Drama, Romantic Drama

Closer-2004

Leave a comment

Closer-2004

Director Mike Nichols

Starring Julia Roberts, Jude Law, Natalie Portman

Scott’s Review #605

Reviewed January 11, 2017

Grade: B+

Closer (2004) is a very odd, offbeat sort of film, yet it is strangely fascinating and reels you in as the story unfolds and more is revealed.

One will become engrossed in the characters as the film is rich in nuanced character development.

Closer is very adult and not for everyone, but if you enjoy character-driven films, it’s worth checking out.

Based on a play of the same name and featuring a star-studded cast to go along with several Oscar nominations, Closer tells the story of companionship, isolation, and betrayal.

It centers on four characters (Anna-Julia Roberts, Dan-Jude Law, Alice-Natalie Portman, and Larry-Clive Owen), each of whom spends the film either bedding, scheming, or being jealous of the others.

Purely a character study, the film shows many different emotions in each, which is its strength.

To the film’s credit, it is shot much like a play; however, it is just a tad slow-moving.

However, I adored the London locales and the film’s successful attempt to make the viewer uncomfortable and just a tinge disturbed.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actor-Clive Owen, Best Supporting Actress-Natalie Portman

2004 Films, French, International, International Thriller, Psychological Thriller, Thriller

The Bridesmaid-2004

Leave a comment

The Bridesmaid-2004

Director Claude Chabrol

Starring Benoit Magimel, Laura Smet

Scott’s Review #548

Reviewed December 14, 2016

Grade: B+

A more modern offering by Claude Chabrol (many of his films were made in the 1960s and 1970s), his 2004 film entitled The Bridesmaid, continues the tradition of compelling, macabre storytelling.

It immerses the viewer in the strange behavior of the central characters as they obsess over each other in one way or another.

The film is in French.

The Bridesmaid contains two plots, one explored fully, the other not explored as much as might have been hoped- the latter being the more interesting of the two.

Philippe is his mother Christine’s only son and the only male in the household. His two other sisters live there as well.

Christine is divorced and works as a hairdresser.

The family is a rather typical one, save for a creepy, incestuous bond between Philippe and Christine, their very romantic conversations, and Philippe’s penchant for carrying around a head statue carved to resemble his mother.

He regularly sleeps with the statue and kisses it on the lips.

As the youngest daughter is to be married, Philippe meets and bonds with one of the bridesmaids, Senta.

The two embark on a torrid love affair and become inseparable. As their love flourishes, Senta becomes obsessed with her undying love for Philippe and asks him to kill a stranger as a way of proving his love for her.

This leads to confusion as Senta kills another character, thinking this is what Philippe wants. Philippe becomes both afraid and titillated by the young girl.

The main plot is very reminiscent of the Hitchcock classic Strangers on a Train (1951), in which one party is bloodthirsty and the other a more innocent victim, yet in Chabrol’s film, the other party suffers from emotional issues of their own.

Senta is unbalanced, and a mysterious figure from her past, Rita, described as her stepmother, appears a few times as she dances with her much younger partner.

A local girl mysteriously disappears early in the film, which may be a red herring or may be related to the events of the film.

I was more intrigued by the mommy/son angle, but perhaps that is Chabrol’s way of confusing the audience. Oddly, the duo has simmering chemistry, yet each character never fesses up to being obsessed with the other.

It is merely implied.

Philippe dislikes Christine’s beau, who figures prominently in the main story of Senta’s machinations, but I wanted more of Christine and Philippe.

Stylistically, The Bridesmaid is dreamy and builds at a slow momentum, similar to Chabrol’s earlier films. We are aware that the story will play out in a strange, interesting fashion, but we do not always know which road Chabrol might take, nor which plot points may or may not be revealed.

Perhaps less developed than some of his fantastic earlier efforts, but a recommended watch for someone in the mood for a morbid, left-of-center story to sink one’s teeth into.

Claude Chabrol is a director I admire greatly for his use of fascinating elements that keep the audience guessing about what is coming next, and that is a joy in itself.