2002 is a year fraught with big name projects, major sequels and (hopefully) major comebacks by directors that haven’t been delivering so much in recent years. Below, a rundown of a few names you’ve probably gotten sick of hearing by now:
The rumor mill is churning, the hype is off the charts, and the three trailers released thus far have whet the appetites of fans the world over. George Lucas’ prequel trilogy continues after a three-year wait and a great deal of anticipation. How will big George manage to keep the Jedi spirit alive, while at the same time realistically creating a romance at the center of his storytelling, which in turn will frame the third and final installment of this trilogy, which must tie up loose ends, while introducing a host of new characters, employing the latest and greatest in special effects and gaining a new audience without losing its old one? Oh yeah, and there are people already in line at a movie theater in Seattle. No pressure, George, really.
The first one had a lot of laughs and a lot of fun, but let’s get serious: does Will Smith really have what it takes to remain a comedic screen presence, even after striking out this past year with “Ali?” Can the writers really work Tommy Lee Jones, who had his memory erased at the end of “Men in Black,” successfully back into the story — and will he be a success, considering his résumé hasn’t exactly been bursting lately? Whatever the case, this one’s got star power and the reputation of its predecessor to help it rise to the top.
OK, so there’s no more Cold War and no more SPECTRE, Sean Connery hasn’t had the signature shaken-not-stirred martini in almost twenty years and all of Pierce Brosnan’s entries into the series have been little more than formula action flicks. But if there’s one thing that the James Bond series has shown us, it’s that a tried and true formula works … and works … and still works even forty years after its trial run.
Wasn’t there once an episode of “Seinfeld” that illustrated the importance of going out while you’re ahead? Only two have been made and this James Bond rip-off has already outworn its yellow-toothed welcome. And with a lawsuit by MGM that has taken away the use of its original title, “Goldmember,” things aren’t looking too bright for Austin and company. Ouch, baby.
Peter Jackson, you’ve got us. Your magnificent “Fellowship of the Ring” was one of the best films of 2001 and has proven that you’ve got both technical competency and directorial flair for helming high-profile epics. But can you hold onto us? Can you take the middle chapter of Tolkien’s trilogy, arguably the most difficult and most complex to successfully adapt of the three, and blow us away a second time?
The second “Harry Potter” film in as many years. The book is better than the first, hoppefully the movie will be as well.
M. Night Shyamalan tackles the controversial subject of alien invasion, a fitting follow-up to his two equally impressive tales of the supernatural, “The Sixth Sense” and “Unbreakable.” Hopefully Shaymalan’s unorthodox method for producing thrills and chills, meaning solid writing and meticulous directing instead of a blitzkrieg of visual effects, will continue to satisfy.
Start with Sam Mendes, whose debut film was a little picture called “American Beauty” that swept the Oscars in 1999 and catapulted its director virtually overnight onto Hollywood’s A-list. Add Tom Hanks, who has two Best Actor Oscars and six nominations to his name. Then, adapt an oddly captivating cult comic book into a feature length motion picture, whose release date has been as flexible as Lester Burnham’s work schedule. This I’ve got to see.
Delayed from a 2001 release due to internal problems and a slight bit of maintenance, this is the long-awaited adaptation of a Pulitzer-prize winning novel about strong women in a world determined to crush them underfoot. Exciting is the fact that Stephen Daldry, who scored a left field Oscar nod for “Billy Elliot,” is at the helm of this one. Even more exciting is the cast; whose brilliant idea was it to put Julianne Moore, Ed Harris, Meryl Streep and Nicole Kidman (as Virginia Woolf!) as leads in the same film? This one’s got Oscar bait written all over it.
One of the most exciting directors in film today, David Fincher, teams with one of the most beloved actresses of the last two decades, Jodie Foster, to make one of the most widely anticipated thrillers around. Foster plays a mother who, with son in tow, faces off against gun-toting criminals inside an old house with a special feature: a massive, vault-like inner sanctum that the film’s title describes. “Silence of the Lambs” alumnus Foster in a gritty thriller helmed by the director who brought us “Seven,” “The Game,” and “Fight Club”? This one’s going to be a contender.
Please, please, don’t get me started, for the idea of Freddie Prinze, Jr. and Sarah Michelle Gellar and a CGI Scooby is enough to make me cringe and retch. Just remember the old adage, “hope for the best, but expect the worst….”
Comic book adaptations have hit the screen in decades past of varying degrees of both quality and faithfulness to their source material. So how will the first ever big-screen Spidey adventure stack up? Will justice be done to Marvel Comics’ most famous super hero, being played, for the record, by resident dork Toby Maguire? The trailer has our juices flowing, and man, do those stills look hot, but bare in mind that we were saying that about “Batman and Robin,” too.
Robert Ludlum’s world famous spy thriller finally gets the big screen treatment it was destined for, with Matt Damon in the title role. This one’s got a lot of anticipation riding on it from fans of thrillers, screen and print alike, but with a director well known for frenetic, fast-paced action comedies (Doug Liman of “Go” and “Swingers” fame), anything could happen.
Motion picture spectacles based on stage musicals can either be transcendent (“Cabaret”), lukewarm (“All That Jazz”) or downright awful (“Carousel”). So what’s going to happen when Miramax sticks Catherine Zeta-Jones and Renee Zellweger in the lead roles of Bob Fosse’s darkest musical of all, about the supposed “perversity” of being a celebrity? The Weinsteins plus vaudeville plus slinky black can-can dancers plus Richard Gere bringing up the rear as a sleazebag lawyer? Pure morbid curiosity is driving this one, I think.
This is going to be really cool. I’m telling you. Honestly. Look at the thing, for crying out loud. To hell with spidermen, futuristic cops, alien signs and Anakin Skywalker, I’m going to throw my hat in with the animated penguins and polar bears.
Mixed reviews on “A.I.” have prompted the need for an overhaul in all things Steven Spielberg: a return to comfortable territory for the director who built his career on sci-fi and adventure films. This one, five years in the making and starring the ubiquitous Tom Cruise, is a little bit of both, sending us back to the future in a crime story based on a short story by Philip K. Dick. There are not one, but two Pavlovian factors to make us salivate: the story, which involves a futuristic police officer who can see crimes before they happen, and the fact that Spielberg himself has described the film as “The Maltese Falcon” meets “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” meaning that the director is finally returning to the cinematic stuff (sci-fi and adventure films) that made him a name in the first place.
Martin “Still Seeking Oscar” Scorcese may finally climb back to the top in 2002, after the Evil Empi – I mean, Miramax chiefs Harvey and Bob Weinstein ordered him to cut down the film’s running time, thus pushing it out of release and Oscar contention for 2001. The trailers are riveting and the prospect of a return to form for one of film’s greatest directors of all time is making 2001’s biggest loss quickly into 2002’s surest and most exciting bet.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
