2 Best Movies of 2003

Here we are with next in the very thrilling Best Movies of the 2000's series.  This time we have a new twist because super fan, super commentator and movie aficionado Ed F. has been included in the original babbling...

Marty:
2003 wasn't a great year if you look at Oscar nominations and of course Lord of the Rings: Return of the King won best film.¹   But if you look deeper, 2003 has tons of depth.  Look at what we got, the Matrix sequels, Michael Bay at his car blowing up best in Bad Boys II, Johnny Depp being ridiculous in the first Pirates of the Caribbean, a solid holiday film in Elf,  Tarantino being his ridiculous director self in Kill Bill: Vol 1,² under-rated Zombie killing in 28 Days Later and an over-the-top Fast and Furious sequel and Matthew McConaughey being Matthew McConaughey in the great rom-com How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.³  

However, the battle for two movies comes down to an epic showdown of Old School vs. Love Actually, which means time to break it down:

1. Rewatchability: Old School, it's hard to watch Love Actually in the middle of Summer, it just doesn't feel right. I can't remember the number of times I've watched Old School
2. Quotability: Old School, tons of classics. 
3. Star Power: Love Actually, barely.  Will Ferrel, Luke Wilson, Vince Vaughn and the short dude from Entourage are stars in their own right but there is only one Hugh Grant.  Plus, there is also my girl Keira Knightley. 
4. British Charm: Love Actually,  easily because Hugh Grant might have perfected it.
5. Frat guy hijinks: Old School, clearly the whole movie is one big party.
6. Rom-com actors that became Zombie killers: Love Actually, the bro who tries to get his best friend's hot wife is Rick from the Walking Dead. 
7. Times watched hungover in college: Old School, not even close.  

So in a close one, Old School edges out Love Actually for film of 2003 by a score of 4-3.



Sean:
Took a little break from replying to this one for no real good reason. But, with that being said, lets dive right into this.

Oscar nominations are a bad metric to measure a good movie by. So many movies come out and just based on their subject or the tone (British period pieces are a perfect example) are Oscar bait, designed to attract attention but not particularly a good movie.

Yeesh, those Matrix sequels. The first movie was so good, so pure, for lack of a better word, and then those two abominations came out. If you look at the 1st movie in depth, you see the Buddhist and other eastern religion influences on the movie. The 2nd and the 3rd do not have the same approach. They spent all their time on special effects and none on plot or story; realistically, there should have been no sequel. The first movie ended ambiguously and things should have stayed that way.

Love Actually is a very polarizing movie I have found, with people either loving it for its over the top cheesy portrayal of Christmas or loathing it to no end* (for my money, the best Christmas movie is Gremlins).

It's interesting also, going back and looking at these movies that came out when we were in college. I so rarely saw movies in college because why would you ever leave the protective environment and go to the movie theater? Those that I did see were generally not the deeper or more introspective type of movies. Usually it was an action movie like Tears of the Sun or a comedy like Old School.

So without further ado, here are some choices from me and a selection.

City of God follows 2 kids growing up in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro. It's a stark look at the drug and gang culture in Brazil and it is fantastic. I watched it recently and it gets even better with age (along with the ability to comprehend and understand more as you get older) and the subtitles become easier to deal with as well. This is my choice for best movie of 2003.

Old School is a classic, which has probably been ruined by oversaturation, but when it came out it was pretty much brilliant. The movie tails off for the last 30 minutes, but the first hour or so is pretty much gold. A great movie before the frat pack became omnipresent.

Matchstick Men was a solid movie that also dealt with untreated mental disorders which is really the perfect role for Nic Cage (or however he is spelling his name right now). An underrated movie that also starred Sam Rockwell before he made it big.

Master and Commander was a great movie that could have been made into a good series, if you think along the lines of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Based on a series of books, it follows the adventures of a English captain and his crew during the Napoleonic wars and it was actually nominated for best picture. A great movie although predictable as well.

I would comment on Last Samurai, but I think our all star commenter will have some thoughts on that.




Ed F.:
2003 is one year where I find my own tastes actually aligning pretty well with the Academy Award nominees in the major categories. Although not my personal favorite, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was a clear choice for Best Picture, and I can’t fault the decision. After The Fellowship of the Ring in 2001, it was pretty clear that these movies were worthy of award recognition, so it was just a matter of waiting two years for formal bestowal of the honor. Say what you will, but Peter Jackson did a great job with these movies at a time when he was a relatively unproven talent.

Marty’s choice of Old School as a best picture of 2003: unconventional. But I appreciate the grounds on which he made the decision. It holds up extremely well almost 10 year later, and I’m even prepared to discuss placing it in the ranks of the great comedies like Caddyshack, Ghostbusters, and certain Mel Brooks’ movies (not exactly sure why I chose these specific examples). Sean’s choice of City of God: much respect. If I could swap one of the Academy Award nominees for Best Picture, I would replace Seabiscuit with City of God. Of the other movies already discussed… I saw Love Actually some time in 2004, but can’t remember a single significant detail. (I’m placing it in my Netflix queue now.) Matchstick Men was a pretty great con-man movie, and I must admit that I never saw "the reveal" at the end coming. (A solid mini-stretch for Nicholas Cage with this and Adaptation the previous year. Also, not the type of movie you typically expect from director Ridley Scott.) I greatly admire Master and Commander; It’s a HUGE and impressive production.

A few of my own favorites from 2003…

I feel obligated to mention The Last Samurai. It’s a worthy epic that is fantastic in its production values and is quite well acted. I hesitate to impart more serious praise because it’s a relatively "safe" movie. It has a certain "I’ve seen this before" quality in the way that a morally suspect Westerner is captivated by a foreign (and overly romanticized) culture and in turn finds himself and something for which he can stand (think Dances with Wolves). It’s very well executed, but it’s difficult for epic and expensive productions to take interesting risks.

House of Sand and Fog starring Jennifer Connelly and Ben Kingsley is about a troubled woman who loses her home for neglecting to pay the appropriate real estate taxes. The house is bought at auction by an Iranian immigrant, and conflict ensues. It’s a simple story that’s simply told, but it’s a powerful meditation on how little people actually know about one another and how little they may actually want to know. The feeling of existential isolation I felt while watching this movie was only heightened by the fact that I was the only person in the theater when I saw it. I’m surprised by how much this movie has stuck with me throughout the years.

My favorite movie of the year, however, was Mystic River. For me, it’s a disturbing exploration of characters that are never free of the evils that have pursued them since they were childhood friends. Sean Penn gives an amazing performance, fully deserving of his Academy Award for Best Actor, but the entire cast is notable. (This is the movie of which I am reminded when I think of great Sean Penn performances.) Clint Eastwood, never a particularly flashy director, deserves a lot of credit here for giving his actors room to breathe. Every performance is so incredibly nuanced, and the tone of the entire movie is so perfectly honed, that the story is elevated to the level of tragedy.

Two others from 2003 that I thought were at least worth mentioning: In America and Big Fish. Big Fish received all kinds of attention and nominations during awards season, but was largely ignored at the Oscars




Marty:

I was forced to go unconventional because I didn't see/remember many of the movies, which is probably due to my excessive college binge drinking that usually involved pre-gaming by taking shots of Vladimir Vodka.  For example, I have never watched Mystic River, even though I've always wanted to.  I also have never watched Master, Commander and City of God and House of Sand and Fog.  Although the more I think about it, I'm pretty sure that my favorite "real" movie of 2003 would have to be Big Fish, because it hits me on many levels. 

I feel like I need to clarify my stance on Peter Jackson a bit.  Was Return of the King deserving of Best Picture? Yes.  Was it the best of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy? Yes.  Was Peter Jackson really good at making the world created by Tolkien come to life? Yes.  Was Peter Jackson actually being good director? I'm not sure.  I know creating that world took great artistic talents, but isn't a director supposed a director supposed to make difficult decisions and create a tight compact narrative?  He certainly did do that.  Here are the lengths of the movie: theatrical release 201 minutes, extended edition 251 minutes and special extended Blu-Ray Edition 263 min.  Basically if Peter Jackson had his way the movie would have been almost 4.5 hours in the theater.  I don't see how that can be considered being a good director.  That is more everything gets to be put in the movie.  And if you want the whole in depth experience of Lord of the Rings, then  you should read the actual books.   

With the Matrix movies, I am beginning to come to the belief that it is much easier to write an interesting opening act where you create a complex and intriguing world than it is to write a satisfying conclusion.  When the first Matrix ended the possibilities of what could happen were limitless, so of course people are going to be disappointed when the sequels involves weird cave raves, confusing rants from confusing characters and an ending that is basically Jesus dying on the cross to save everyone from their sins.  Another problem the sequels illustrate is when writers fall in love too much with a popular character and keep him or her around even though it really messes with the structure of the narrative.  Agent Smith clearly dies in the first movie, but because everyone loved him, he is written into the sequels in such a convoluted way.  It is the same problem with Homeland, Prometheus and almost anything written by Damon Linedeloff.

Finally, with Love Actually, I realize it is a holiday-based romantic comedy but it does what that kind of movie is supposed to do really well. I also wrote my breakdown in the middle of December, after I just watched it, so I can blame it on the Christmas spirit. 

We've clearly ranted on long enough and I've said more enough about 2003.

¹Insert Peter Jackson rant here.

²At first I was going to pick Kill Bill: Vol 1 as the film of the year but really Kill Bill: Vol 1 is just half of a really long movie that if I remember correctly was forced to be two movies by the studio.  So, I think that it can't qualify for best movie of the year.

³A great bet to make when watching any movie with Mr. Alright Alright in it is the over/under of when he will first be seen without his shirt off.  I think in Ghosts of Girlfriends past it might be a the 2 minute mark.