This was the only film of 2002 where I was able to forget that I was sitting in a movie theater the entire time. This film to me is really the definition of what an almost superior movie-going experience is all about. You go in, sit down, let the lights dim, and get yourself totally engrossed into the story and characters as if you’re a member of their own family. If there was ever a projection problem and the movie stopped midway, you’d have almost forgotten that you’re just sitting watching a white screen. Signs may have a glitch or two (after personal revisits), but this movie absolutely blew me the hell away at first sight.

2. Rules of Attraction

This film, written and directed by Quentin Tarantino’s pal, Roger Avary, had hooked me from the opening scene with its unique and different style of visual storytelling and its method of drawing the viewer in from its first second of screen time. But not only that, but it barely even let go as the end credits rolled up. I later realized that some of the personas involved with this story may not be the most likeable, but I never hated their presence. It’s a little add, actually, because you may not want to be friends with some of these people but they’re so intriguing to watch due to Avary’s slick writing and directing that it may not even matter to you. Avary inserts some very suave methods of telling the story visually, using various split screen motives, and fast-forwarding and rewinding within situations to move to a different angle of the general scenario to be introduced to another element.

One of the aspects that makes Rules of Attraction so impressive is that Avary takes actors we may want to like in any other film and puts a sort of devilish spin on them here. But the performances are so drawn out and almost dead-on perfect that their true intentions or overall ambitions do not get in the way of our enjoyment or sympathy. This film could have so easily been an irritating and frustrating journey, following characters we hated to death and hoped to never see again. However, at least for me, the actors knew what they were doing and the directing was right on par with what was demanded to pull off the job appropriately. If I had seen this movie a large distance ahead of time a la Signs, I probably would’ve jazzed this flick up beyond belief like I did for the Shyamalan treat.

But one thing is very evidently true – Rules of Attraction is not a mainstream piece. It shouldn’t fair overly well with those looking for plain enjoyment in a movie. However, for those who love when a film is not aimed to simply entertain via a run-of-the-mill or cliché story or one where there’s characters who have lots of personality bugs (not technical flaws, though) and is directed in a very cult classic fashion, Attraction can sell through the roof.

This movie also has one of the best music-to-scene matches I’ve seen for the entire year of 2002. Tarantino’s always great at matching musical numbers to the tone of any scenario, and Avary looks as though he’s taken the gem and applied it here. From the scene involving "Without You", to various other 80’s classics, Rules of Attraction offers a soundtrack that fits to the feel of the scenes pretty superbly.

I have very high bets that this movie is going to become an underground legend among college town dorm-rooms, and I would only start to guess how soon this movie is going to play at midnight at those theaters that offer special showings for cult-like releases.

3. Road to Perdition

As I observe endless amounts of behind-the-scenes documentaries (not the promotional type, the "real" kind), I try to make a mental analysis of what some directors do in comparison to other directors while they do their shtick on set. Some (for the most part) settle for what they get in return, some appear more visually competent, and some are very picky to the hardcore details of a simple scene. I have a heavy belief that the best filmmakers out there are those who deeply care about the smallest elements of a scenario. I’ve watched the behind-the-scenes material for The Royal Tenenbaums a couple times now and director/co-writer Wes Anderson very clearly has a knack for tackling every single detail that the camera will eventually show. Even if it’s a three-second shot, it’s got to be perfect; it’s got to be believable. And I think that if you’ve got that mindset for even the extremely minor points of a story, you’re at the top of your damn game.

I bring this up because there are so many small components in Road to Perdition that can so easily be pointed toward director Sam Mendes’ attention to small aspects. The way someone stands, the facial expressions given, the tone of voice extorted, the angle a hat (on someone) is seen in a close-up, the way hand movements and gestures are correlated; it’s all building to an experience where everything matters. And the best movies ever constructed have likely had the mindset (by the director) that even the smallest pre-cautions impact the picture. This movie is nearly superbly directed, and it’s apparent due to the fact that about everything we ever get to see unfold on the screen is performed with the outermost sincerity a film project can ever go in potential. Every actor knows their role and knows it very well to the levels of flawlessness. They could probably do the job blindfolded without the ability to physically see themselves doing their thing.

Road to Perdition sucked me into its details from the beginning and held me tight all the way through. The cinematography in this production is really damn awesome and if Conrad L. Hall does not get the achievement award for this film despite his unfortunate passing, there really shouldn’t be an Oscars ceremony period. I found Signs’ cinematography very close to the status of Perdition’s, but this film has a more definite sensation behind the camera moves. Via the cinematography, the scenes are that much more fascinating to grasp. They are not just standard or typical positions just randomly thought up; they instead add to the experience.

Signs’ shots were incredibly wondrous for me to behold as well, but Perdition offers (via the direction) an almost colder look into its world that the camera is portraying to the best it could ever display. The shots tremendously add to the overall tone and feel of the film, and that’s why there should be no objections to Hall winning this trophy if the members of the Academy have any decency in what really makes a picture.

While Road to Perdition was a really incredible viewing experience, it lacked the ability to take me fully into its universe to the point where I had forgotten I was just in a dark room watching a big theater screen. Signs was breathtaking because Shyamalan was tackling a familiar story with such smarts and masterful theories that it was almost like I was taken to another universe and totally forgotten that I was on our own. Regardless, Perdition is a film soaked in brilliant style and led by outstanding performances all around. Road to Perdition makes two-for-two for Mendes, whose future career is one I can barely even wait to witness unfold before my eyes.