Father Geek here introducing our downunder editor's year end summery... annnnnnd reminding you that ANY of these Best-Worst Lists are after all just the opinions of the individual writers not AICN in total. This year Latauro lists as his #1 bad film one I saw in 2003 and considered one of MY favorite flicks of that year. I stand by that feeling a year later, but its not my place to enter into a debate here... sooooo just remember we all have our opinions as to what makes a film enjoyable... and we differ widely on those ideas, THAT is what makes these "year end" lists so much fun...

Now here's LATAURO...

THE AICN-DOWNUNDER ANNUAL 2004...

by Latauro...

Well, children, here we are at the end of the year. For AICN-D (which is my way of saying "for me" and hiding behind an institution), the big story of the year was censorship. We saw the attempted banning of many films; some successful, some not. We attempted to find out just what the relationship was between the Office of Film and Literature Classification, the Federal and State Attorneys-General, and the Australian Family Association. I feel we did a moderate job, but it's a cause I'll attempt to step up in the new year. The position of AICN-Downunder is that censorship is coming back in a way that should make anyone purporting to live in a free society cringe. It's something we'll be speaking more of later.

On another note, my attempts to see every single released film was thwarted by having almost no time whatsoever. Therefore, the list you'll see below doesn't take into account every release. I do, however, feel it's a fairly accurate representation of films across the board. The only films I went to were those that I felt had the chance to be good, and also THE PUNISHER. So you won't see GARFIELD on the list, because if my eyeballs bleed it makes it harder to write the column.

I did attempt some sort of cleverness this year. Every time I saw a film, if it was incredibly good or incredibly bad, I'd write it down so as not to forget it by the year's end. The reason for such obsessive fastidiousness? Last year I completely forgot about RUSSIAN ARK. Had I remembered, it would have been number four or so. But, bygones are bygones and this year the Russians have completely failed to make another ninety minutes one-shot film exploring their history through the eyes of a odd-haired nutball.

Disclaimer about release schedules: even though the phenomenal Greek film A TOUCH OF SPICE was released in Australia this year, I caught it last December, and thus it ended up in my top ten of 2003 (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=16716). Likewise, many of the film you'll see down below were released much earlier in their home countries but only came out in Australia this year. Likewise (again), films like THE AVIATOR haven't been shown to Lat yet, so if it doesn't appear on the list, it's not necessarily a slight on Marty. Likewise (thirdly), one of the best films I saw this year was MY NEIGHBOUR TOTORO, but as I'm about seventeen years too late for it, I'll leave it off the list. So, forgive the seemingly sporadic chronological nature of the list and instead flame me for my opinions. Enjoy.

THE WORST MOVIES OF 2004

10. TROY

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17567

This was the year I made the conversion. Instead of referring to Wolfgang Peterson as a good filmmaker who has some blights on his filmography, I realised that he's a bit of a hack who accidentally made the brilliant DAS BOOT.

This film was second only to KING ARTHUR in its stripping-down of all the interesting aspects from Homer's epic, and filling the holes with plot contrivances. Never have so many characters been aware of the fact that they are living in the past! Why take away the most epic element of the story (the time it takes place over) and put it over a couple of weeks?

Big waste of time.

9. THE VILLAGE

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18276

I don't like films that aren't clever but trick the audience into thinking that they are. (This, by the way, is a theme you'll notice throughout this list.) I don't like creative persons who buy into their own bullshit. THE SIXTH SENSE was brilliant. UNBREAKABLE was better. SIGNS... I don't quite know how I feel about yet. But THE VILLAGE... Jesus Christ...

M. Night reinvigorated The Twist with THE SIXTH SENSE. Seeing it done well made studios want it done a lot. That's one thing, the man can't be held responsible for other people wanting to copy him. But for he himself to jump on the bandwagon of mediocrity is fairly pathetic. It's a crutch he now uses to forgive competent but unconfident storytelling.

It's time to stop insulting audiences.

8. A MAN'S GOTTA DO/UNDER THE RADAR/AUSTRALIAN CINEMA

I didn't review the above films because it's just too depressing. This was a chronically bad year for Australian cinema, which is why Cate Shortland's SOMERSAULT sweeping the AFI awards was a hollow victory. The film had zero competition, and the Australian Film Institute needs to shake things up if it doesn't want the industry to completely cave in on itself.

We're seeing crappy gangster knockoffs, unfunny comedies, arthouse without content. There's a cycle of unwatchable crap being churned out, films that cannot have been funded based on their merits alone and beg the question: who the fuck do you have to sleep with to make a decent film in this country? If the answer is David Flint, I'm moving to New Zealand.

If you have a problem with any of this, feel free to post on talkback or email me at AICNDownunder@hotmail.com. But before you do, I challenge you to watch the trailer for DECK DOGZ. Then you can get back to me.

7. SHARK TALE

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18547

Frank Darabont has a little thing he sneaks into his films. Whenever there's a graveyard, he places the letters "S", "T", "O", "R" and "Y" in there. It's a little subliminal nudge to point out that Story is dead in Hollywood. Well, I sure hope Mr Darabont didn't see SHARK TALE, or he'll be crying into his Weet Bix until Lucas greenlights his INDY screenplay.

SHARK TALE has no story. It had no interesting characters. It has ugly animation. It condones graffiti. It has lots of jokes, none of them funny. It relies on pop-culture references when it has no ideas, which is often. It contains plot contrivances in a pale shadow of Pixar's output. It's a bad film.

6. I, ROBOT

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18036

I don't know what the hell film the rest of you saw. Everyone was raving about how good I, ROBOT was, and I just didn't see it. I mean, I saw it, but I didn't see what was good. You know what I mean.

Alex Proyas, whose films THE CROW and DARK CITY are among the highpoints of their respective genres, didn't know what film he was making. Will Smith, thoroughly miscast, adds to a recent filmography that makes me wonder why I recently looked forward to seeing him in anything (WILD WILD WEST, MEN IN BLACK II, BAD BOYS II, SHARK TALE... what the hell is going on?).

The film was, on one hand, an action vehicle for Mr Smith. That's fine, if that's all it was, it would be disposable and forgettable. Only that's not all it was. It was also trying to be an intelligent science fiction story, an adaptation of a story by one of the greatest authors of all time. What we were treated to was a character suddenly realising that a copy of "Hansel and Gretel" at a crime scene clearly meant the victim wanted the detective to follow the clues! Of course! Why didn't the detective think of that originally? Forget carrying around pepper spray or handguns. The bad guys are going to get you anyway, you should just have a copy of "Hansel and Gretel" on you so the cop assigned to your case understands that clues lead you to the guilty party!

I'm not being petty picking on one stupid plot point. The above is indicative of the entire film: a loud, obnoxious film trying to pass itself off as something legitimate.

5. KING ARTHUR

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18036

To this day, I don't understand the reasoning behind this film. Want to make a legitimate, historically-accurate version of the King Arthur legend? Fine. It means you're going to strip away everything interesting about the story, but at least it'll be some indication of what may have inspired the stories.

Then - and this is the confusing bit - why invent crap that clearly was made up for the sake of a three act popcorn buster and ruin the whole "accuracy" thing you were going for? Unless the "accuracy" twist was a way to cram more people into the cinema in the first place?

None of this would matter a whole lot if the film had been anything more than a way to shorten my life by a couple of hours. A note on the extended DVD cut: at least now the running time is closer to how long the damn thing felt.

4. THE PUNISHER

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17823

Just go see it. You'll understand.

3. VAN HELSING

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17823

I really wanted this film to rule all. The basic idea was very cool, and I did appreciate the two MUMMY films, though I didn't love them. It seemed like the role Hugh Jackman was made for, and the rest of the cast only got me more excited. Everything seemed to be going well.

It wasn't.

Stephen Somers was trying to make an homage to the Universal horror films he loves so much. Instead, he ended up with something that looked more like Hammer than anything else. Now, if he was *trying* to make a schlocky Hammer horror film, it could have worked, but he chose to go with the excess option. Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, the Werewolf and Mr Hyde were all pathetic compared to most everything that has come before.

There's nothing worse that seeing a potentially-great film done terribly. No, actually, there are two things worse...

2. THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17384

I can't get over how bad this film is. I mean, how many sucky elements it contained. There's Ashton Kutcher, who is probably still stuck in the paper bag he can't act his way out of. There's the script, which was written using Microsoft ClichéT. There's the direction, which redefines "patchy".

There's so much to talk about with this film, the big points I covered in my initial review. But some are worth repeating: the How To Reform a Paedophile scene? How about big plot points that are just left hanging without any development or resolution?

No, that's not enough. For normally I would just dismiss this film as lame and not bother including it on this list. But - aside from Kutcher's laughably-bad "performance" - there's one big reason it's on here: the complete lack of logic.

This is a film that sets up a bunch of rules about how this "magical ability" interacts with the rest of the world. It sets up rules about what the main character does and doesn't remember, about how the world changes when he alters the past, about cause and effect. And then, without fail, it breaks every single one of these rules. And not just once; multiple times. Have you ever written something with an even-slightly complicated premise? Have you ever talked to someone about it, trying to work through plot blocks? Every idea you come up with, you talk it through, seeing if it fits with what came before. If it doesn't, you either discard it or change the thing that's blocking it. Right? Those conversations were never had during the writing of BUTTERFLY EFFECT. It's so incredibly insulting to the audience; a way to convince people that they're watching a very clever, original film, when really they're just watching a ripped-off premise done with absolutely no class or scene-to-scene logic whatsoever.

And Ashton Kutcher is really fucking bad.

1. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17090

When people talk about Mel Gibson: Director, this will be The Film they talk about. BRAVEHEART will get a mention - in fact, it will get significantly more than a mention - but PASSION is the big one. PASSION is career-defining.

When I first heard the idea, I was rapt. I loved the idea of a film in Aramaic and Hebrew, but without subtitles. Gibson's desire to, as he originally said, make a film so involved in its storytelling that audiences would not need to understand the dialogue to understand the story, was one I applauded. Think of your favourite sequence in a film. Does it have dialogue? Did the shower scene in PSYCHO? The silent death in TORN CURTAIN? What about Club Silencio in MULHOLLAND DRIVE? Okay, I'm being facetious; the vast majority of great sequences have dialogue or narration. But my father brought me up on a steady dose of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin (which led me to an almost-obsessive Harpo Marx phase in my early teens), and these guys knew what they were doing. They knew how to get emotion and story across without having sound. ANY sound. In the early days, all of the music was being provided by live pianists they would never meet (fun fact: Harpo himself used the play the piano along to these films in his youth).

But I digress.

Having watched the film, I now find it impossible to imagine that Gibson ever intended to exclude the subtitles. So many scenes hinge on it, I can only assume that the 'subtitle-less' desire arrived briefly during pre-production, for many scenes were undeniably dialogue-centric.

There is a sheer magnificence of the artistry. Funding it himself gave Gibson the opportunity to not compromise on anything. He was a complete auteur on this film, and it shows. At every moment I felt like we were getting the filmmaker's vision: heartbreakingly beautiful cinematography and shot design; brutal, unrelentingly honest violence; some of the most brilliant pacing I've ever experienced in a film.

The only real qualms I have with the text (as opposed to subtext) are with a flashback scene, and Satan. The flashback scene resorts to a standard joke that is really beginning to wear thin. The thing about the tall tables and chairs, Mary saying "It'll never catch on!"; cue the audience's chuckling. I think WEDDING SINGER pretty much ran those "people in the past being completely wrong with their predictions of the future, which is our present" gags. It feels really out of place, and an excuse for levity. Now, as for Satan... hm... Gibson's Satan is perhaps my favourite depiction of the devil in any movie. It's a very clever and cinematic interpretation of the Ultimate Evil, but it's in the wrong movie. For a film that's trying its hardest to be "historically accurate", having Satan appear and reappear seems a little... strange.

PASSION is very close to being a flawless movie, and that's not a term I use lightly. SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, FIGHT CLUB, CASABLANCA... these are some of my favourite films, and there have been times I've called them perfect. But they certainly have many flaws between them. (TOY STORY 2 is, for the record, the only film I've ever referred to as 'flawless'. I find no fault, no insignificant or tiny detail out of place.)

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST comes close to being, in my eyes, an exercise in flawless filmmaking.

So what's it doing in my worst list?

(Take cover, people, you know what's coming.)

It's pretty damn anti-Semitic.

I'm sorry, I really am. I didn't think I'd be one of these people. When all the advance word was coming out on the film, when this group was saying it's anti-Semitic and this other group was saying it's anything but, I honestly thought I'd be on the other side of this. I expected myself to be one of Gibson's defenders, loudly announcing that, despite being Jewish, I considered those who were tearing the film down to be feigning their offence in an effort to get free publicity.

I came out of this film angry. Impressed at the talent, but angry.

It's my responsibility to qualify these comments. Here are my responses to the most common defenses in regards to PASSION:

How can it be anti-Semitic when the main character is Jewish? Jesus is a Jew!

Yes, technically he is. But you can't possibly look at Jesus in this film and believe he is being depicted solely as such. He is shown to be the Son of God and the Father of Christianity. The Ultimate Christian who just happened to have been born to a Jewish family.

Simon of Cyrene is Jewish, and he stops to help Jesus! He's one of the most sympathetic characters in the film!

Actually, when Simon is ordered by the Romans to help Jesus with the cross, he resists. He is a reluctant helper, and wants everyone to know that he is not a criminal, he is only here because he has to be. He only becomes a sympathetic character when he is won over by Jesus, and subsequently defends him. This is one of the most obvious metaphors in the entire film: SIMON IS CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY. When he becomes a Christian is when he becomes sympathetic.

The Romans are shown to be the bad guys as much as the Jews.

No, they're not. It's the Jews who counsel and push for Jesus to be crucified. They're the ones responsible. Pilot is shown to be stuck between a rock and a hard place, only doing what his hand is forced to do. Yes, there are sadistic Romans, but they are minions. They're the henchmen in a James Bond film, or the red shirts in "Star Trek". They're fodder. Pilot may make the wrong decision in the end, but Gibson goes to great lengths to show that he's doing it under duress, that he is reluctant to crucify Christ. King Herod, on the other hand, is depicted as an effeminate, corrupt fool; more concerned with his sex parties than with political matters. (The scene with Herod is another example of the anti-homosexual sentiment Gibson was accused of displaying in BRAVEHEART.) I believe it was Moriarty's review that pointed out the Gospels were written at a time when the Romans were still in power. That for the writers of the Gospels to show the Romans as cruel and sadistic (as other records suggest Pilot was) would be foolish. So where were these facts in the "historical accuracy" that Gibson was striving for? The bad guys in this film are the Jews, and despite the fact that it's the Roman soldiers whipping the shit out of Jesus, it's the Jews who put them up to it. If the Romans are Bond henchmen, then the Jews are Blofeld.

Take a look at the "Bad Jews" in this film, compare them to the "Good Jews". Tell me who has the big hook nose and the heavy Semitic features, and who has the demure, almost Anglo-Saxon faces. This isn't pedantism; all these things were done on purpose. You don't accidentally cast a bunch of people with these features.

I get annoyed when non-Jews insist the film isn't anti-Semitic, as if they have a radar for it. As if they're tuned in to it. How can you (a non-Jew) tell me (a Jew) that this film isn't offensive? I am a reasonable person and I am offended by it.

We're all avid film lovers, and we need to be able to recognise codes and symbols and metaphors better than this. It's not enough to say "Jesus is a Jew" because the text says so. What does the *subtext* say? Films never stand-up and announce their intentions (unless they really, really suck). They creep their messages in, hide them in metaphor and allegory. That's how it should be. Back in the 80s when American hostages were being held in Iran, Gary Trudeau did a series in his comic strip "Doonesbury" about the character Duke being held at gunpoint, also in Iran. The hostages' captors gave them newspapers, but edited out any reference to their situation... only they didn't bother with the comics. After all, what do comics really have to say? The hostages later said that when they read "Doonesbury", they realised that their plight was recognised by people back home, and it gave them hope.

Films are meant to contain messages. Cinema is the best art form for showing people something without them realising it, and it should absolutely be utilised as such. But you can't reasonably censor a film for its subtext, so the onus is on the filmmaker. I am honestly worried about Gibson and his film. I worry that it will be considered the definitive account of Christ's death. That millions will see it and the "All Jews are responsible for Jesus's death" belief will again infest the general consciousness. That anti-Semitism will become just a little more widespread. This is a dangerous film, and the people who claim it is not are the people who will not be affected by it.

This may be a flawless film, but it is far from perfect.

THE BEST MOVIES OF 2004

10. ELEPHANT

In what is probably Gus Van Sant's best work (or, at least, his most daring), the lives of typical high schoolers are interrupted by a shocking event. Without giving too much away (and if you haven't seen it, skip to SHAUN), it's the most powerful and honest look at the issue of schoolyard shootings I've ever encountered. Not that there are that many.

It's been accused of being too boring, slow-paced, dull. I found the pace to be hypnotic, and fairly indicative of what life is really like at that age. Most of it really is mundane, walking from corridor to corridor, occasionally talking to people, etc... If you can give yourself over to the style, you'll be completely immersed by it.

The scene, however, that sets it apart from anything else and elevates it to this list is the preparation of the two kids. Before they go off on their killing spree, one of them sits in front of the screen and plays a violent, gun-toting, shoot-'em-up video game. As the camera pans 360 degrees, we see the other kid playing Beethoven. Perhaps the most subtle and beautiful comment of the difference between a CAUSE and a TRIGGER.

9. SHAUN OF THE DEAD

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18671

While I haven't exactly grown up on zombie films, I have come to appreciate them later in life. I've gone through the works of Raimi and Jackson, begun on Romero, and will soon begin on Fulci. I was initially concerned that my lack of lifelong zombie love would hinder my enjoyment of SHAUN. I'm so very glad to announce how wrong I was.

SHAUN has been on everyone's list, and everyone's extolled its virtues, so I won't go on too long here. What I will say is that if more films understood comedy, drama and horror half as well as this one, I for one would be a lot happier. An instant and well-deserved classic.

8. THE DREAMERS

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17449

When I wrote my original review, my head was consumed with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The film sparked something in me, and when I went back to check over what I'd written, I realised how much THE DREAMERS had summed up everything I'd been feeling. The guilt over living my life while a tragedy erupts in another part of the world.

Well, right now I'm feeling that. The last report I'd heard at time of writing this, over 125 000 people had been killed by a tsunami in Asia. I'd actually felt the winds that had resulted when driving home from my holiday up north, but otherwise I remained personally unaffected. It's just too big a number to contemplate, I can't wrap my head around it. So what else can I do but continue with my life? Tonight, I'll be off celebrating New Year's Eve. Tomorrow I'll be at work. Maybe the day after I'll catch a movie and debate it with my friends. Is that reasonable? Is it okay for me to do that whilst thousands suffer?

This is the question that is at the heart of THE DREAMERS, a film many critics accused of being "out of touch". This is a WHY DON'T WE FIGHT?, an intelligent look at the difference between what we're told to care about, what we want to care about, and what we actually do care about. It's beautifully told, with amazing central performances, an engaged screenplay, and superb direction. It's set decades ago, but it's more relevant than all the FAHRENHEIT 9/11s and BLACK HAWK DOWNs. Also, a brilliant film to boot.

7. BEFORE SUNSET

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18236

I'm a big fan of the original, so a follow-up ten years on was too good to resist. The only hope was that it would come even a little close to living up to the original. How surprising that it surpassed it.

SUNSET takes the brilliant route of a real-time tour through Paris, following the two leads as they wander from place to place. While it may seem like MY DINNER WITH ANDRE recast with far prettier people, it's actually got some of the best characterisation and character development ever. Hawke and Delpy know their characters backwards (as they are, clearly, extensions of themselves), and the depictions are honest, funny, and thoroughly believable.

The ending was called a cop-out by many, but it couldn't have been more beautifully ambiguous and full of promise.

6. HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17776

Yeah, I unashamedly loved it. I'm a fan of the books, and while I've enjoyed the films thus-far, I haven't felt they honestly captured the true spirit that JK Rowling infused. She gets a lot of flack for being, well, successful, but it's some of the best children's storytelling since the days of Enid Blyton and Roald Dahl.

Christopher Columbus did a fairly good job with the first two; he certainly kept to his promise of staying faithful to the texts. The problem was that they felt far too formulaic. The entire thing felt too rigid and conscious of honouring the source material. Alfonso Cuaron, an entirely left-field choice for director, took the third film into a new place. While the shot design and art direction was a big factor in this, what Cuaron brought to the franchise was an incredibly honest look at teenagers growing up.

Like "Buffy", the challenges in HARRY POTTER are designed with two objectives: to entertain and to serve as metaphors for growing up. Cuaron clearly had an acute appreciation of this fact, and that shone through above all else.

Of course, credit must also be given to all the kids, who are growing into their roles perfectly. Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis and Michael Gambon also deserve special credit for their superb work. Easily the second-best kids' film of the year.

5. GARDEN STATE

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18942

Not many people understood what I meant when I said Braff was the most accomplished writer-director-actor since Orson Welles, so I'm going to attempt (again) to explain. Woody Allen is a great writer, and some could accuse him of great acting (he plays himself, though he does it well), but his direction is merely in servitude of his scripts. Likewise with Kevin Smith. Clint Eastwood doesn't do a lot of writing, Warren Beatty does occasionally (but has a lot of help from a lost of ghosters), and Tarantino's acting leaves something to be desired (recasting).

While I don't think it's fair or useful to compare him to Eastwood or Tarantino, the point I was trying to make is that it's exceptionally rare to see a filmmaker take on all three roles with such finesse. Even rarer when it's a debut feature.

The script could have fallen into cliché, but didn't. The direction could have relied on cheap tricks, but didn't. The acting could have been either too whacky or too boring, and it was neither. Braff's mix tape of a soundtrack and his ability to use it gives the film further dimensions, helping it to become the best dissociated-character piece since FIGHT CLUB.

4. KILL BILL

My original review of Vol. 1: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=16324

My original review of Vol. 2: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17418

I'm not putting in VOL. 2 because it wasn't the fourth best film I saw this year. The fourth best film I saw this year were the two halves put together, the one story told start to finish.

Tarantino doesn't just talk the talk. He has an innate understanding of why the films he loves work, and how they could be made better. KILL BILL is more than the sum of its parts; more than just a best-of package. It's a revenge film that doesn't ignore the emotion, and doesn't get bogged down by it.

It's very nearly his best film, which is saying an awful lot.

3. SPIDER-MAN 2

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17974

If nothing else, this film is here for one of the greatest emotional payoffs ever. Ever.

That whole final exchange between Mary-Jane and Peter is one I've watched dozens of times. Peter's been through so much crap that when MJ says it's time someone saved him, the relief - both in Peter and the audience - is overwhelming. Then, the sirens. He knows he has to go, but the worry he's never had before is there... how will MJ react? "Go get 'em, tiger." She says it so casually, so assuredly. Affirming that she not only knows, but also understands his secret. That smile he gives in response is where the payoff resides.

It's a perfect ending, and would have remained so even if Raimi had not thrown in the ballsiest shot ever in a blockbuster. He knows he got his audience, and he knows they got the ending they wanted, so he shows Mary-Jane. He shows her worried, foreboding, anything but happy and content. It's a suggestion of things to come, and made the most emotional blockbuster ending ever even better.

2. THE INCREDIBLES

It's frightening to think of the pact Pixar has made with the devil in order to produce such an amazing output. When the low-point of your filmography is A BUG'S LIFE, you know you're doing something right.

This film managed to be one of the best superhero films ever made, one of the best family films ever made, one of the best spy films ever made (BOURNE only just missed the top ten cut, by the way!), and one of the best animated films, period.

The emotion that comes from these pixels (or whatever they use these days) is far superior to anything that comes from half the singers/wrestles/waiters posing as actors these days.

It's too fresh in my mind for me to say anything intelligent about it, but it's pretty damn perfect, and I can't wait to see it again.

1. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND

My original review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17384

Tell me you have something new to say about love. Go on. Try it. Who knows? You may well, but statistically you don't. Statistically, if you were to write a script or a novel or a song - particularly a song - about love, it'd be clichéd. Boring. Saying the same old stuff.

Songs use the word "love" as a placeholder; it's the standard theme, just as "baby" is the standard word. Films are also guilty of this. Sure, I enjoyed the hell out of LOVE ACTUALLY, but you can't honestly tell me it was an accurate depiction of love. If it was, then dude, I want your Hollywood life. Rom-coms contain wacky situations followed by grand proclamations of love. They feature characters who suddenly find themselves attracted to the person who does nothing but confess their own undying love. In reality, the opposite is typically true. These films contain people who supposedly can't live without the person they're pursuing. That's not love. That's dependency.

Look, I love rom-coms. I think ONE FINE DAY is terrific, I love NOTTING HILL, I've even watched FORGET PARIS a bunch of times. But I'm really starting to get sick of it. There's a reason we were given the entire plot to ALONG CAME POLLY in the trailer: we all know what's going to happen anyway, and that film's audience wants to know the ending before they go in. Films have nothing new to say about the subject. They're rehashing the same old same old, and none of it seems even remotely accurate to real life.

ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND is not about love. It's about relationships. And it's only after watching it that I realised how little the subject has been covered. I mean, accurately covered. Woody Allen films are rarely about the relationships themselves, but about how Alvy Singer or Isaac Davis react to them. Kaufman and Gondry had something new to say about relationships, and they found so much to say that the film is packed with ideas. Not overloaded, but incredibly dense.

It's that density of ideas that makes it a film you can go back to many times over. On my most recent viewing, I was pondering Joel's insistence that he didn't know anything about Huckleberry Hound, when "first" meeting Clementine. Later, he says his favourite toy was a Huckleberry Hound doll. First viewing, I thought he was just being polite. But it's obvious that he genuinely didn't know who Huckleberry Hound was. That memory had been erased. He attempted to hide Clem in an early childhood memory and subsequently caused it to be erased, thus wiping out his mother singing it to him. The memory of his doll was erased because it made him think about Clementine. In deleting one aspect of his life, he took away everything that is inextricably linked to it. Small things, but vital things. It's never mentioned outright, but it's such a strong subtextual theme, it's all I could think about leaving the cinema.

There's a lot that impressed me. The fact that we never see his last girlfriend, the one he was living with when he met Clem. He never seems too distraught about breaking up with her, even though we never really cover it. Why not? Did they not have fights? Were they not in love once? By referring to her but never showing her, it's demonstrated that moving on is possible. That despite momentary pain, memory deletion (or its real life quick fix equivalent... don't look at me like that, it's a metaphor) is... I want to say "unnecessary", but that's wrong. Just like when I wrote the initial review, I feel unworthy to talk about it in great length. I feel the film is better than me, smarter than me. That, even though I saw it a long time ago, I still feel like I need to wait a while, see it some more, before I fully comprehend it.

This is master filmmaking from creative genii who hit their strides together. This is the performance Jim Carrey had been chasing with TRUMAN SHOW, with MAN ON THE MOON, with THE MAJESTIC. This film is a phenomenon, and deserves to be remembered for years and years to come.

Happy, safe, fun-filled, romantic, film-filled new year,

Latauro

AICNDownunder@hotmail.com