COMMON DENOMINATOR FILMS OF 2000 SUFFER FROM A DESIRE TO PLEASE EVERYBODY.

Byline: Bob Strauss Film Critic

Here we are, just past the midpoint of a new century's first year, and I've already seen half the makings of my top-10 movie list.

There's been ``The Decalogue,`` Krzysztof Kieslowksi's towering, 10-part examination of the human condition; ``Rear Window,'' Alfred Hitchcock's impeccably astute, entertaining and (in this time of ``Big Brother'') ultra-relevant take on that fundamental cinematic act, voyeurism; Robert Altman's panoramic study of the American character and its obsession with celebrity, ``Nashville''; Luis Bunuel's smartly surrealistic dissection of middle-class hypocrisy, ``The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie''; and ``Blood Simple,'' Joel and Ethan Coen's kicky, kinetic revitalization of film noir conventions.

Of course, I can't actually put any of those titles on a 2000 top-10 list, since they're all a decade or more old. But that doesn't change the fact that they are, far and away, the most ambitious and accomplished movies that I've seen all year.

Which is another way of saying, is this any way to start a new century?

While it's an industry tradition to release anything with a semblance of artistic merit only in the last four months of a given year, usually by this time, a dozen or so films of outstanding craftsmanship, formal invention, intelligence or entertainment value have made their way into theaters.

For example, at this juncture in 1999, we'd seen ``The Matrix,'' ``Analyze This,'' ``Election,'' ``Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,'' ``Run Lola Run,'' ``The Dream Life of Angels,'' ``Lovers on the Bridge'' and ``My Son the Fanatic.'' Even ``American Pie'' and ``The Blair Witch Project,'' despite any lapses they may have been guilty of in taste or stylistic agreeability, achieved all of the deceptively difficult goals that their makers had aimed for.

And that was before we got a gander at ``The Sixth Sense,'' and all the REALLY good stuff that started coming out in September.

The year 2000, on the other hand, has been noteworthy not just for a higher level of mediocrity than usual, but for far too many movies with substantial positive qualities that have been undermined by egregious faults of equal degree.

Even the best releases of 2000, so far, possessed flaws that nagged away at what might have been purely pleasurable experiences. ``Erin Brockovich'' is marvelously entertaining, but for that very reason, who could believe a second of this ``true life story'' actually happened in the rousing, crowd-pleasing manner depicted? The critically acclaimed ``Wonder Boys'' was certainly long on shaggy charm and by no means short of brains, but its concerns were, to pun and not to pun, academic to the point of preciousness. The year's best-reviewed European import, ``Beau Travail,'' is inarguably beautiful and uncompromising, but loses its way in an artistic severity that grows as arid as its striking desert landscapes.

As for the general run of popular movies this year: People hate 'em! Not all people, obviously, but 2000 has been marked by a phenomenon unlike any I've seen in more than a decade at this job: The response, by both critics and casual moviegoers, to just about everything has been extremely polarized.

For everyone who thought ``Mission: Impossible 2'' was a great-looking, kinetic thrill ride, you can find somebody who considered it a noisy, incoherent mess. ``Gladiator'' was either a pointless orgy of gratuitous bloodshed or a meaningful critique of gratuitous bloodshed, depending not on any intrinsic philosophical virtues but on how it struck you. ``Dinosaur's'' computer graphics were breathtakingly lifelike and its story was deadeningly rote. ``The Perfect Storm's'' storm was the white-knuckle experience of the summer, but the film's terrifyingly inept character work was almost as frightening. ``Scary Movie'' is just plain hilarious, except to the many viewers who didn't laugh once ...

And on and on it goes. Except for the movies that everyone who isn't a TV film reviewer agrees were dreadful (and they are legion: ``Gone in 60 Seconds,'' ``Battlefield Earth,'' ``Titan A.E.,'' ``Rocky and Bullwinkle'') and the one picture, ``Chicken Run,'' that impresses most who see it (though clay chickens can only achieve so much greatness), any movie you attend this year is more likely than not to trigger a fight with your date.

Of course, there is nothing new about this. People have disagreed about movies since, if not time immemorial, at least the start of the last century. But rarely have the disagreements been so extreme and plentiful.

Why have so many films been so frustratingly compromised? The usual suspects of overreaching talent, overarching egos and starting movies with unfinished scripts all clearly contribute to the situation. But I'd guess the main culprit is, ironically, the pronounced desire of filmmakers and those who pay them to appeal to as many people as possible.

Every time out. No matter how seriously that lowest-common-denominator approach betrays what any particular film is really about.

Thus the sea saga ``U-571'' starts out as a conceptual, war-of-nerves thriller based on complicated deceptions but, since that might tax the perceived mentality of action fans, halfway through it morphs into a series of unbelievable submarine stunts. Similarly, ``Shaft,'' ``The Patriot'' and ``X-Men,'' all movies with ambitions beyond hitting simple action beats, play like they're nervous about doing anything that would distract too much from those beats. They touch on serious issues but don't dig into them, wary that that might spoil the fun - in movies whose derivative stunt and effects sequences don't generate a whole lot of fun anyway.

A similar situation has been taking place on a smaller scale in the independent and foreign sectors. A handful of titles (``The Virgin Suicides,'' ``Croupier,'' ``Chuck & Buck'') have exhibited truly unique visions that were neither dependent on anachronistic Shakespeare (the updated ``Hamlet'' and ``Love's Labours Lost''), focused on trends that are already tired (``American Psycho,'' all of those rave movies) or guilty of the same emotional and political simplifications Hollywood trades in, only ``smarter'' (``Kikujiro,'' ``Sunshine,'' ``Shower'').

In the bigger picture, as with those pseudo-thoughtful small films, smartness isn't necessarily the answer. If it were, the lazy tasteless gag-filled ``Scary Movie'' would not be a bigger success than the imaginative tasteless gag-filled ``Me, Myself and Irene.'' If, as so many hopeless critics hope, the public just wants smarter movies, then ``Big Momma's House'' would not be the surprise hit of the summer.

What may be the answer is to make films that aren't afraid to be completely what they are rather than consumer-researched compendiums of clashing elements for different demographics. Sure, some folks might be alienated by, say, a Revolutionary War movie that thoroughly examines the costs and complexities of our country's birth, or by dinosaurs who act like, well, the animals that they so convincingly appear to be. But while some may then choose not to attend (gasp!) a movie they won't like anyway, those who are attracted will likely enjoy the film more, and recommend it more enthusiastically to like-minded friends.

That's how ``American Beauty'' became an unexpected blockbuster last year. And of course, more often than not, a movie that remains true to the kind of work it was intended to be, not some mutation that works against itself in careless pursuit of the wrong audience, is the best way for a film to turn out great. Hitchcock, Kieslowski, Altman, Bunuel and the Coens all could tell you that.

While I'm not real confident that I'll see that attitude being manifested anytime soon, I still look forward optimistically to the second half of the landmark year 2000. And why shouldn't I? After all, the release schedule lists ``The Exorcist,'' ``A Hard Day's Night,'' ``This Is Spinal Tap'' and Akira Kurosawa's ``Ran.'' They all sound like they might be pretty good.

CAPTION(S):

6 photos

Photo:

(1 -- cover -- color) A PUZZLING YEAR

The movies of 2000 don't quite seem to fit. Bob Strauss analyzes the pieces.

(2 -- 4) ``The Patriot,'' starring Mel Gibson, above, ``Me, Myself & Irene,'' with Jim Carrey, far left, and ``Shaft,'' starring Samuel L. Jackson, are examples of this year's movies that aim to please too many people.

(5) As with most of this year's films, ``X-Men,'' starring Halle Berry as Storm, touches on serious issues without exploring them in depth.

(6) ``U-571'' starts out as a conceptual, complicated thriller before morphing into a series of unbelievable submarine stunts.