The Film Babble Blog Top Ten Movies Of 2005

What with the Oscar nominations being announced last week, the Golden Globes, and all them magazine lists I figured it was high time I get off my ass and update this blog and list : Film Babble Blog's Top Ten Movies Of 2005 01 PALINDROMES (Dir. Todd Solondz) Though ignored when first released and completely forgotten this awards season I believe this film will leave more of a mark on movie lover's psyches in years to come than crap like CRASH. Although not a sequel to WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE Solondz sets this in the same world with Weiner family values, white trash ethics, and plenty of good ole character assassination fun! 02 MARCH OF THE PENGUINS (Dir. Luc Jacquet) Yes it's a documentary that could play any night on PBS with little fanfare and it's a simple premise and all. but what a film-matic treat any way you look at it! And yes I just simply love penguins. It's about time they had a movie. Okay?!!? 03 CAPOTE (Dir. Bennett Miller) One of the few deserving Oscars this year went to Philip Seymour Hoffman for his dead-on portrayal in this moving movie - respectful to the times and the crime yet unforgiving and brutal to the man in the spotlight. 04 THE SQUID AND THE WHALE (Dir. Noah Baumbach) Divorce 80's style with parents played by Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney and their troubled offspring (Jesse Eisenberg and Owen Kline) - harsh but sharp with a great soundtrack (Loudon Wainwright III, Bert Jansch, and the plagiarized Pink Floyd). 05 NO DIRECTION HOME (Dir. Martin Scorsese) It was only given a small theatrical release in LA and NY but this long awaited Dylan at his prime powerhouse may be the finest rock doc ever. Period. 06 SARABAND (Dir. Igmar Bergman) Made for Swedish TV in 2003 this updating of SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE (again, not a sequel) finds Johann (Erland Josephson) and Marianne (Liv Ullman) re-uniting after 30 years to look back over their tortured existence. Johann : "I've ransacked My past now that I have the answer sheet". Heavy, man. 07 ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW (Dir. Miranda July) Quirky but not cloying...and funny too. 08 WALLACE AND GROMMIT : THE CURSE OF THE WERE RABBIT (Dir. Steve Box & Nick Park) 09 HEAD ON (Dir. Fatih Akin) 10 ENRON (Dir. Alex Gibney) Another damn documentary but such a damn neccessary one. More later...

Movies And Books, Movies And Books...

Pony-boy (C. Thomas Howell): “All I did was walk home from the movie.”

Darrel (Patrick Swayze): “Movies and books, movies and books! I wish you could concentrate on something else once in a while”

Sodapop (Rob Lowe): “Try girls and cars. Works for me.”

From Francis Ford Coppola's movie adaptation of S.E. Hinton's 1967 novel THE OUTSIDERS.

A recent Time magazine article titled Books Vs. Movies (I'd link it but it's premium content - greedy corporate bastards!) again put up the ancient argument - "which is better" in the context of such event movies coming out before this years end like THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA and MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA as well as the already released HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE, SHOPGIRL, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, and even WALK THE LINE which was based on two Johnny Cash autobiographies, Man in Black and CASH: The Autobiography.

I've only seen a few of the movies I mentioned above (SHOPGIRL and WALK THE LINE) but lately I have noticed I have a tendency to read or re-read the book before I see the new movie version.

Anticipating CAPOTE a couple of months ago I bought a paperback of Truman Capote's 1966 true crime novel "In Cold Blood" and also watched the 1967 movie version - I guess as a way of doing some homework on the subject or maybe just a geeky habit of wanting to know all the source material available. Sigh. This makes me recall that back in '92 I read "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" a few months before Spike Lee's epic cinematic rendition hit the screens. Jeez! I guess I got it bad.

Despite the old cliche "the movie is always better than the book," there are a number of notable exceptions like BEING THERE, THE GODFATHER and FIGHT CLUB. Many people love certain movies never knowing there was a book and vice versa. I, for years, never knew that HAROLD AND MAUDE was originally a novella written by Colin Higgins who adapted it into the screenplay for the hal Ashby film.

A few movies I've seen lately that were based on books:

COLD MOUNTAIN  (Dir. Anthony Minghella, 2003)

Yes, I know just about everyone, especially here in N.C. read the 1997 Charles Frasier novel at the end of the last decade and then saw the movie a couple years ago, but I only just caught up with both. The book was elegantly written, with details that were almost too much to absorb (the food descriptions were crazy!), all of which I enjoyed immensely. The movie not so much. While well cast (Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, Renee Zelleweger, Philip Seymour Hoffman were all perfect for their roles) was icky, overly glossy, stupidly reducing the love story elements into romance novel fodder. Dammit! They TITANIC-ized it!

THE OUTSIDERS: THE COMPLETE NOVEL
(Dir. Francis Ford Coppola, 1983/2005)

I read the S.E. Hinton book of this way back in Jr. High School in the early 80's like most people in my demographic I guess and was interested to hear that Coppola had restored footage to the movie to make it closer to the book. It does work a little better though despite its boys-club cast (Swayze, Cruise, Lowe, Estevez, etc) its still the feminine cheesy melodrama it will always be in our hearts. Or at least my demographic's hearts.

THE WARRIORS (Dir. Walter Hill, 1979) 

This is another one that I didn't realize til now was based on a book (by Sol Yurick) until recently. Though it was originally a pulp novel, the new Ultimate Director's Cut has wipes and transitions added to make the film look more like a comic book - characters morph into still frame cartoons contained in black border boxes at the end of sequences and then we are whisked away to another panel. 

The effect doesn't bother me but on this here internet there are many fan-boy complaints about Lucas-like tinkering and some such spoiling of a masterpiece. Yeah, its like someone painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa, sure.

More later...

DVD Review: THE INTERPRETER

Now out on DVD:

THE INTERPRETER (Dir. Sydney Pollack)



This came out last summer and failed to make a splash. I watched it on DVD this last week and could see why. Not that it is outright horrible just pretty bad. Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn (once again humorless as Hell) aren’t convincing as their characters, particularly not with Kidman’s accent or always perfect hair. 

Catherine Keener as Penn’s Secret Service partner has very little to do. There are so many lamely plotted sequences and laughable conveniences that any element of suspense or actual sentiment is in vain. Pity too. Pollack has made a number of fine films, a much better example of a political thriller of his was THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR (1975). 

Honestly though, Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway looked like just like the big name movie stars they were in that too, but they sure sold it better than Penn and Kidman here. Maybe the only thing worth seeing on the DVD is a bonus feature about Pollack's choice of the widescreen format over full frame: "I'm making a plea for my colleagues and myself who spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to tell you the story in the best possible way visually and then someone else has to come in and cut the edges off of all of that and pan and scan it so you're not seeing what story we tried to tell you." 

Pollack once brought a lawsuit on a Danish TV station for how they pan and scanned one of his films, "mutilated it" he said. To fight to preserve the full visual imagery of one's art is a pretty cool stance - too bad THE INTERPRETER is not. 

Special Features: Audio Commentary by Director Sydney Pollack, alternate ending, deleted scenes, featurettes: "Sydney Pollack at Work: From Concept to Cutting Room," "Interpreting Pan & Scan vs. Widescreen," "A Day in the Life of Real Interpreters," and "The Ultimate Movie Set: The United Nations."

More later...