minority report Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Earlier today we brought you Rotten Tomatoes' list of the 100 worst reviewed films of the decade. Now, though it might be a little premature (considering that we still have a little while to go before we hit our next decade), the good folks over at I Heart Chaos have decided to get the ball rolling on those end-of-decade lists by shoveling out what they believe are the Top 50 Movies of the 2000's. Usually these kinds of things start to gain in popularity towards the end of the year, but I guess the early bird does get the worm, so let's get right to the chase and find out who made the cut.

When you've got a a list of 50, there is plenty of wiggle room, and it's a pretty comprehensive list that manages to find room for cult faves and foreign flicks. But I'll admit, even though Chaos has put together a solid list, I was a little surprised that the #1 film for this decade is Quentin Tarantino's Samurai/Cowboy epic, Kill Bill -- though that's the beauty of a list, everyone wants to have a little friendly debate, I guess. You can read the entire list over at Chaos, but rounding out the top five are The Dark Knight, No Country for Old Men, and Kinji Fukasaku's adaptation of Battle Royale.

The great thing about a long list like Chaos' is that it makes room for all kinds of movies that sometimes you just don't have room for in streamlined lists of five or ten entries. But I love a challenge, so I decided to put together a list of my top films of the 2000s ... although I've cheated just a little.

After the jump: my nominations for the top films of the 2000s...

I recall reading about real-life experiments with invisibility a couple years back, and I could have sworn I blogged about them here on Cinematical. But I must have decided to keep Harry Potter fans from getting their hopes up, despite the fact that the original article I read had specifically mentioned Potter's invisibility cloak. Plus, I must have been hesitant to attempt to explain the science behind it.

Well, now that more news has come out about the development of materials that may be able to render people and other three-dimensional objects invisible, I figure it's time to get excited. Now we can definitely wander around Hogwarts after dark without being spotted by Argus Filch. Or, for the grown up kids, you can potentially sneak into the girls' locker room. Just beware that these real-life cloaks probably don't work so well in such foggy conditions.

Once in awhile I come across little stories that are relevant to this column that don't necessarily call for so many words of commentary. But it's a shame to skip over them, so occasionally, I'd like to break The Exhibitionist up a bit and write about a few of them at once.


The first thing that caught my attention this week was a report of a study focused on ambient lighting, such as the kind used in cinemas. According to research conducted by academics at the University of Cumbria in England, and at University College Dublin in Ireland, movies should be viewed in rooms that are as well lit as the movies themselves. So, yes, that means your local multiplex has the lights dimmed way too low.

But, you wonder, isn't it dark in theaters because we can see the movie much better that way? And when we're at home don't we turn out the lights, or, when it's daytime, close the shades for the same reason? Well, yes, but incorrectly so, say Cumbria's Professor David Manning and UCD's Professor Patrick Brennan. Their findings indicate that such darkness actually hinders the eye's ability to see at optimum capability. "Ideally, ambient light should be adapted to the brightness of the screen for the eye to pick up as much detail as it can," Manning said. "However, most people prefer to watch films in a darkened room, but as the eye adapts to the surrounding light these conditions may not be conducive to picking up maximum visual detail."

I was watching my local news last night on Fox when during their entertainment portion (we love ya Toni Senecal), they absolutely bashed Tom Cruise. Which is odd for them because they don't usually go after someone hard like that. Toni? What's up? Over the weekend, Cruise's latest film Lions for Lambs -- and his first for the revived United Artists -- took in a little over $6 million. You have to go all the way back to 1986 (The Color of Money) to find another film starring Tom Cruise that opened so poorly. And this was a big deal for Cruise and United Artists; they went and snagged Robert Redford to direct, star; they got Meryl Streep and even Cruise stepped in to up the ante. They wanted raves. They wanted Oscar nods. They got ... $6 million and bad reviews.

To add insult to injury, when Fox was done ripping apart Lions for Lambs and its poor box office take, they next went after Valkyrie saying the buzz was not good and making fun of Cruise for wearing a "silly" eye patch, with a weird hairdo. Of course they spoke about the film with little to no information -- as if their core audience were a bunch of third graders who would stay away from a film simply because Cruise wears an eye patch throughout. While folks might not dig seeing Cruise in an eye patch, one thing is for sure -- they like to see the guy in action/adventure films. Mission Impossible 3 ($133 million), War of the Worlds ($234 million), Minority Report ($132 million) and even The Last Samurai ($111 million) all did very well at the box office. Are the people trying to send the man a message? And does that message go something like: "Look dude, we're not crazy about your off-screen antics. The Scientology thing is a little warped, you may have brainwashed Katie Holmes and your new baby may or may not be an alien. But we like it when you run and blow stuff up. The whole talky drama thing? Not so much. How can we take one of your films seriously when we don't take you seriously? So stick to that and we'll pay to see your movies." So, should he stick to action flicks? Should he try a comedy? Or, quite possibly, could Lambs' poor opening spell the beginning of the end for Mr. Cruise?

Get your ass to Mars ... again. According to Moviehole, there's a new Total Recall movie in the works, but it is hard to really tell if it's to be a sequel or a remake. Apparently The Weinsteins have owned the rights to the original TR for years and they had plans to do a follow up. Then Spielberg's Minority Report happened. Huh? Aside from also being adapted from a Philip K. Dick story, MR has nothing to do with TR. Except that it was originally scripted by Ronald Schusett and Gary Goldman as Total Recall 2. Of course, the end result bears no resemblance to that draft, in which Tom Cruise's character was actually Arnold Schwarzenegger's Doug Quaid, the Precogs were mutated humans (from the Martian atmosphere) and all the action took place on Mars. Still, Moviehole claims Minority Report beat The Weinsteins to the punch and so this new Total Recall project will in fact be a remake.

Personally, I don't see how Minority Report keeps The Weinsteins from doing a sequel. Dick's story had no relation to his "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale", which was the inspiration for Total Recall, and really the movie makes no reference. Sure, Schusett and Goldman's idea for a sequel is no longer possible, but there is certainly other ways to do one. However, the fact that Schwarzenegger isn't exactly an actor these days also contributes to the problems with producing a sequel. Doing a follow up without him, though, would not be that surprising. In fact, it is particularly common with Paul Verhoeven movies to do a sequel without the stars of the first film (Hollow Man II; Robocop 3; Starship Troopers 2). At least Sharon Stone is interested in a Total Recall sequel. Certainly it would be more ridiculous to go the remake route, considering how popular Verhoeven's original was -- and still is.

For those of you looking to hire Alan Hedgcock to work on your film, you might notice his websites are down (bandwith exceeded). This is either because all of Hollywood is trying to access the pages, or because the authorities have taken them down due to the fact that he has just been found guilty of conspiring to rape two children. Hedgcock, along with two other men, were sentenced to a total of 27 years in prison (Hedgcock's sentence is 8 years) for their plot to kidnap and rape two teenage sisters, as well as for possession of child pornography.

Hedgcock's special effects makeup work can be seen in 28 Days Later ..., Kingdom of Heaven, First Knight, Black Hawk Down and The Upside of Anger, among other films. He also apparently co-wrote the book Behind the Mask: The Secrets of Hollywood's Monster Makers. Evidence introduced at trial showed that it was Hedgcock who first suggested the plan -- to abduct the two girls, aged 13 and 14 -- to his partner. Together with this partner, he then detailed a plan to rape the girls in a nearby woods. Hedgcock's partner broke down and alerted police of the plans before they could be carried out. The two men were cleared on charges of conspiracy to commit murder.

We have always had a love affair with gadgets, whether a Dick Tracy decoder ring or a watch that can shoot out a grappling hook. If it's cool and useful, chances are everyone wants one. Who didn't want to be the first kid on the block with an iPod, the coolest new cell phone or a Segway? Okay, scratch that last one, but you catch our drift. Who hasn't seen a gadget in the movies at one time or another and thought, "Wow, I want one of those!"

While we still don't have robots that clean the house and the flying cars that the 1950s promised us by this time, our lives have become pretty overtaken by gadgets. You're reading this right now on a computer (or even a cell phone), which used to be a room-sized device. You probably have an iPod or some other type of music player that holds hundreds of songs, and you might be zapping your next meal in a microwave. If you travelled back in time to the 50s (or even the 1970s), with all that stuff, you'd be a human sci-fi movie.

These are some movie gadgets that would make life a bit easier, or at least a lot more enjoyable. James Bond could have monopolized this list, because gadgets really are his "thing," but we tried to spead the love around. It was tough to keep things that were magical off the list, like Harry Potter's invisibility cloak (honestly, who wouldn't want anything from the Harry Potter universe?) or the lamp from Aladdin, but we tried to keep them fairly practical as well.

Check out our ideas after the jump.

It's been awhile since we covered anything Scientology related and, I don't know about you, but I desperately need a fix. Janeane Garofalo, star of such classics as The Truth About Cats, Dogs and Why I Shouldn't Be Acting, is stirring up a bit of controversy after publicly backing the New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project on her Air America radio show, Majority Report.

The program, which is based on teachings by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, helps those who worked in and around ground zero during the immediate aftermath of 9/11 heal their mind, body and spirit. While, on paper, it sounds like a wonderful thing to be doing, many have blasted the program and questioned its validity.

Personally, if Janeane hasn't been cast in a live-action version of Daria: The Adult Years, then I really don't care to hear anything from her. If she's so hell-bent on promoting Scientology through her radio show, then perhaps she should change it from Majority Report to Minority Report. Then, maybe Tom Cruise can step in and predict a future crime or something. Eh, just an idea.

Writer Tom Lazarus has written two of the best screenplay how-to books you can find on bookshelves (Secrets of Film Writing and Rewriting Secrets of Film Writing), and Scott Frank (Out of Sight, Get Shorty, Minority Report, Little Man Tate, Dead Again) is one of the best screenwriters working today. So when the two get together you know it's going to be something quite interesting. Lazarus has an interview with Frank at his web site (Frank did the forew0ard for "Rewriting").

But it's not just a simple Q and A; not only is the interview itself wide-ranging and a must-read for film buffs, but it's also a good lesson in screenwriting --  Lazarus has structured it as a screenplay itself, complete with fade-in's and camera directions. Frank talks about the writing process, the dos and don'ts of screenwriting, and offers tips to young screenwriters.