8 Best Movies of 2002

Now that the Holidays are over.  We can get back to the important thing in life, like discussing movies from over 10 years ago...

Sean:

There were some interesting movies in 2002. The main movies that stand out in my mind are a couple of action films, which, considering my age and maturity level, makes a degree of sense. But there were some other movies with depth and layers as well.

Blackhawk Down was a college dorm room staple. Viewed solely for people shooting guns and blowing shit up. A dependable  if unremarkable action film about an event that I was not really old enough to comprehend when it first happened. 

The first Bourne movie came out in 2002 which started the trilogy. A dependable action film, basically an amnesiac James Bond type. Worth a watch if it's on, plus the idea of 5'8 (on a good day) Matt Damon playing a superspy one man army is always good for a chuckle.

Minority Report: Based on a Phillip K Dick short story, this movie is ostensibly about crime prevention and technology, but digging deeper the movie is all about the notion of free will. If crime can be predicted and stopped before it is actually committed, if human behavior can be mapped before actually occurring, than the question is, what decisions are actually made? If everything is pre-ordained, then you are just following what has already been laid out for you. It brings to mind the famous quote from Lawrence of Arabia, "nothing is written". In this dystopian future, due to the use of pre-cogs, everything is written. Free will and decision making do not exist, as every action has already been laid out and mapped before it is even to occur. This is probably my pick for movie of the year for 2002.

One Hour Photo: This movie. Yeesh. Such a creepy movie, purely because of the casting of Robin Williams as a serial borderline pedophile type who works at a photo development lab. It's interesting to see actors take on roles that stretch their typical typecast roles (See Smith, Will) and go for outside the box parts. This was definitely the case for this movie. 

8 Mile: A movie that reads and plays like an autobiography of Marshal Mathers life and rise to fame and fortune. Chronicling his ups and downs and also starring the late Brittany Murphy, this is a gritty movie which ends with a glimmer of hope but does not delude the viewer into thinking the protagonist, Rabbit, has finally made it big. Probably known best for its soundtrack. A solid if unspectacular movie. 

Confession: I have never seen Gangs of New York in its entirety. Starring two of the better actors of our lifetime in Daniel Day Lewis and Leonardo Dicaprio, I just have not had the patience to sit down and watch the movie start to finish. I think if I did, this would probably be my nominee for best movie in 2002. 

Catch Me If You Can is a great movie. Also starring Leo Dicaprio, its a light hearted approach (for most of the movie at least) to identity theft. An enjoyable movie which does not take itself too seriously and also features the great Christopher Walken.

Interested to see your thoughts...

Marty:

Good overview of 2002.  There might not be one huge star in the whole year but there is tons of depth.  I'd say it was a pretty, pretty good year.  

First, some quick thoughts about some of the movies you mentioned.  The first Bourne movie is more than just an amnesiac James Bond movie, I think it represents the beginning of realistic action movie trend that continues today.  Just look at the Bond movies since the first Bourne.  Basically, Bond movies are no longer Bond movies, instead they are serious movies about a serious brooding secret-agent.  I almost went with Bourne as my movie of the year.  8 Mile is an underrated movie, the build up to the final rap battle where he eviscerates Papa Doc is pretty awesome. And Eminem is really good even if he is playing himself.  By the way its unbelievable that you have never seen the entire Gangs of New York.  Daniel Day Lewis might be at his finest in the movie.  I just love how Daniel Day Lewis stays in character throughout the whole filming.  It would have been awesome watching Bill the Butcher in real day interactions like ordering McDonald's.  Although, I can't make it the best movie of the year because I never really have the urge to watch it when I see that it is on.  

Second, there were some pretty good movies that you left out, which adds to the deep class of 2002.  The Pianist, I remember Adrian Brody being really good in the movie, but Roman Polanski is a horrible human being so f' that movie.  There was another Lord of the Rings, but Pete Jackson has already been covered.  Adaptation was a really good movie with a good performance from Nic Cage.  28 Days Later is probably the best zombie movie ever created.  Tom Hanks was pretty solid in Road to Perdition, but that movie dragged on a bit.  The second Star Wars Prequel came out and it wasn't as horrible as the worst, mainly because there was no annoying little kid.  Signs was Sign with M. Night being M. Night.  Finally, I'll have to mention Thirteen, my Dad was all about this movie when it came out and made me watch it, if you want to see a crazy story about teenagers and mothers with really good acting check it out.      

My pick for best movie of 2002 comes down to Minority Report and Spider-Man.  I love Spidey¹ and you would think it would be a slam-dunk for movie of the year, but a few things bring it down such as the CGI that looks pretty bad, Tobey McGuire being Tobey McGuire and the fact that they just recently released Spider-Man,with the same story.  With Minority Report, there is a lot of good about the movie especially the story and the concept that really makes you think.  Spielberg created a great vision of the future with the crazy cars, the hand gesture computers and the retina scanning advertisements.  And you have Tom Cruise.  Who doesn't love Cruise?²  I still like to think that everything that happens after Cruise is arrested is just a dream Cruise is having while locked up including his release and exoneration. But since the ending is really a classic Spielberg happy ending and because I really love Spidey, I'm going with Spider-Man as the best movie of 2002.³  Who cares about CGI or Tobey, the Spider-Man origin story is the best. And Raimi did a great job of making you feel like you were in a world where Spider-Man really exists.  The ending is pretty big time with Mary Jane realizing Peter Parker is Spider-Man.  With great power, comes great responsibility indeed. 

With all of the good movies that we've both mentioned, neither of us mentioned the supposed best picture winner, Chicago.  I mean seriously, that was the best picture of 2002? Ugh.  

Sean:

It was tough for me to review some of those movies because I had never actually seen them. I had heard good things about Adaptation but never seen it. Same thing with the Pianist. I thought Road to Perdition was good (with a Daniel Craig casting as a sniveling son) but a little too long and drawn out for my tastes. I didn't even go into Spiderman because that is your favorite movie evah. Polanski is a horrible human being, but who cares? It doesn't make Chinatown a less awesome movie. You still root for the Steelers who employ rapists and domestic abusers. Terrible people make good shit all the time. Cest la vie as a wise man says. 

I disagree about Bourne. An amnesiac man can defeat a CIA trained network of assassins. Bullshit. That is not a realistic movie. He wouldnt last two days. The CIA would find him and kill him. That movie should be a 20 minute show. Man wakes up in water, makes it to land, CIA drone kills him, end scene. 

I think the problem with Gangs of New York is that it's too long for you to be flipping channels, catch it on and sit down and watch and you cant just jump into it and watch it. 

Signs was probably the 2nd or 3rd best M Night movie, which is damning with faint praise. I had high hope for World War Z and was a big fan of the book but the movie is looking like a disaster; your 28 days later call will stand. 

I wonder if Spiderman would have been a better movie if it had not gotten the Hollywood treatment and gotten two sequels. It stands up just fine on its own, but the sequels are horrible, in my opinion and cheapen the series as a whole. I think Tobey Maguire was the perfect person to cast for that movie. His whole movie career he has basically been different iterations of Peter Parker. The kid in Cider House Diaries, the too small jockey in Seabiscuit, and his character who he played in Ride With The Devil whose name escapes me now. I think the problem was before the 2nd Batman movie, everyone took superhero movies with a grain of salt, and looked at them as glorified movies for grown up kids. I wonder how that would play now? I think you also would need to make Spiderman darker if you were going to remake it. 

The Academy Awards is a sack of shit. Chicago winning is proof enough of this.

Marty:

The fact that he is a horrible person means I'm not going to rave about how awesome his movies are.   With him you also have the added bonus of his fanboys constantly raving about how awesome he is and how he gets unfair treatment. The dude is a fugitive who uses his money to escape justice.  By the way you will never hear me raving about how awesome the Steelers are when they are starting a formerly accused rapist at QB.

I meant realistic in the sense that the action is not over-the-top and there isn't some ridiculous villain shouting catch phrases.  Just compare the Die Another Day, which was also released in 2002, to Casino Royale, which is basically a Bourne wannabe with James Bond.  

M. Night has made two legitimate movies in my book, Sixth Sense and Unbreakable.  Sixth Sense is such a shocker when you see it.  And Unbreakable has the always cool combination of Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson.  That movie is way underrated. 

I'll give you half-right/half-wrong with the Spider-Man sequels.  Spider-Man 2 is a great movie and is perhaps the greatest superhero movie made.  It's well made with good performances from good actors.  I'll give you Spider-Man 3 being bad, although I have to admit I loved emo-Spidey.  I think reason that people like the sequels less is because of Tobey Maguire.  Tobey Maguire does understated/discovering⁴ things really well, which makes him great for a young unconfident Peter Parker.  However, Tobey Maguire does not have the charisma or charm to pull off the cocky wise-cracking person that Spider-Man is supposed to become.  They really might have been better off with sticking with James Franco as Peter Parker.  I disagree with Spider-Man not playing well today, because of the darkness of the Dark Knight.  The Dark Knight worked so well because the Joker is probably the best villain you can have in a superhero movie and Heath Ledger was great as the joker.  People want superhero movies to be entertaining.  The amount of darkness is irrelevant.  As long as it is well-made, then people will like it.  For example, the Avengers is much lighter than the Batman movies and it made tons and tons of money and was better reviewed than Dark Knight Rises.  There will be plenty more to say about superhero movies in upcoming years.

It's just fun to point out how ridiculous the Academy Awards are.  I'll let you have the last say about 2002...

Sean:

Don't forget James Harrison. Polanski is an awful person and I would never defend him. Chinatown is a good movie. The two have fuck all to do with each other. 

That makes sense for Bourne now that you explained it. The Bond movies with Daniel Craig are basically Bourne movies. 

You are correct about M. Night. Unbreakable was such a cool concept for a movie and 6th sense is probably (with Memento and Inception) one of the cooler ideas for a movie in the past 15-20 years. 

Maybe you misunderstood my point with Spiderman. People weren't taking superhero movies seriously back in the early 2000's and the idea of an actor getting nominated for an academy award would be unheard of back then. People might look at it differently now because of those movies that have come out that people took seriously and looked at with more than a skeptical view. The amount of money a film makes and "better reviews" are irrelevant to if a movie is actually good. Amount of money especially. Spiderman 2 discussion will have to wait for that year, but I am interested to see your defense/argument as to it being the best superhero movie ever. That is quite the bold statement. 

You are right about the Academy Awards. They have gotten better as of late but when you go back and look at some of the decisions and the winners and it boggles the mind. But at the same time, movie tastes are such a personal thing. It's like arguing who was better at baseball, Kirby Puckett or Willie Stargell.⁵

¹ The Spider-Man costume my Mom hand made for me in 3rd grade will always be the best Halloween costume I've ever had.  

² The more I look at past movies, the more I realize how much I like Cruise.  Cruise is awesome.  He has charisma.  He acts well.  And he runs awesomely. 

³ At first I had Minority Report, but it just didn't feel right.

⁴ See Pleasantville. 
⁵ The answer is obviously Kirby Puckett (Marty’s ever so rare footnote response: you obviously were afraid of comparing Kirby Puckett to Dave Parker, cause that is no contest, but that’s a whole different discussion for a different day).