Lafleur's Film Blog

10 Most Underated Movies of 2010

2011-01-03T20:35:00.000-08:00

There's no perfect way to quantify whether or not a movie is underated. This is largely due the way that the two most commonly cited rating agregators work.

IMDB, the most commonly visited movie site on the internet, generates an average score based on user feedback. While that does a pretty good job of measuring the movie's popularity, it doesn't realiably measure the quality of the movie.

The other commonly referenced review site is Rotten Tomatoes. Their standard metric is a simple percentage of accredited movie critics that give the movie a positive review. This is the metric most commonly cited by the media. There are a litany of problems with their methodology as well, but given that there are some quality control measures in place (some of which I take issue with), I will use the Rotten Tomatoes (RT) score throughout the article.

In order to quantify how underated a movie was by the critics, I have assigned number grades to the 40 or so best movies I've seen this year, and compared them with their RT scores. Here are the results.

10) The American -12 (RT: 65, Me: 77)

9) Ondine -20 (RT: 70, Me: 90)

8) Valhalla Rising -21 (RT: 69, Me: 90)

7) The Book of Eli -25 (RT: 48, Me: 73)

6) Dinner for Schmucks -26 (RT: 44, Me: 70)

5) Never Let Me Go -27 (RT: 66, Me: 93)

4) Prince of Persia -37 (RT:36, Me: 73)

3) The Wolfman -47 (RT: 33, Me: 80)

2) The Tourist -57 (RT: 20, Me: 77)

1) Jonah Hex -64 (RT: 13, Me: 77)

The 9 Worst 2010 Blockbusters I've Seen

2010-12-31T16:50:00.002-08:00

I had to insert the caveat "I've Seen", since I recognize that there are plenty of awful movies I didn't bother to watch. I'm sure that Charlie St. Cloud or Devil would have found a cushy spot on this list, but I don't waste my time on run of the mill bad movies. There's a special place in my heart for so-bad-it's-good movies, but such accidental masterpieces rarely get wide releases. I didn't bother trying to extend the list to ten, since these 9 are far worse than anything I could tack on the end.

9) Robin Hood

This was the year's second most disappointing film. Pairing a talented director like Ridley Scott with stalwart actor Russel Crowe should result in a reasonably good film. Unfortunately, the screenplay was riddled with stilted dialogue, and bizarre creative license. I don't have an issue with movies emphasizing the political elements of classic tales, but the least they could have done was get the politics right.

8) The Expendables

I don't usually expect much from generic action movies. However, this wasn't supposed to be a generic action movie. After career redeeming roles from Jean Claude Van Damme (JCVD), and Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler), it seemed that the idea behind The Expendables was to bring together a slew of washed up action stars to make a credible film. At least that's how it was billed. In the end, it was nothing special. In fact, I can barely recall the plot outline. No wonder Van Damme turned down a part. Unlike the stars of the expendables, it turns out that he actually does have a smattering of dignity.

7) Hot Tub Time Machine

I've got a pretty low bar for mainstream comedies. They aim for the lowest common denominator, and are usually not far off. At least they usually provide a few cheap laughs. Not so with Hot Tub Time Machine. It was so thoroughly unamusing that I had to re-watch Office Space afterwards to make sure I was still capable of laughing.

6) Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

I don't expect much of Oliver Stone anymore, but I had to see this since I'm interested in how complex public policy issues are distilled into film. I'll give him some credit: he didn't stoop to Michael Moore levels. Given that the cast included Carey Mullingan and Josh Brolin, and Michael Douglas, I expected this to compare favourably with the average Stone flick. In fact, it might well be his worst film. The mediocre screenplay might have been salvaged to a degree were it not for his decision to cast Shea LaBeouf in the lead role. I might have been able to take the contrived narrative, and pointless plot twists a bit more seriously if the lead role was filled by someone who could...what's that word? Act.

5) The Sorceror's Apprentice

There is nothing as annoying as a movie that tries to beat you over the head with an emotional mallet. This is exactly what The Sorceror's Apprentice does. It is a classic loser gets the girl movie, filled with precisely timed feel good music and handy little life lessons. It was probably the most annoying movie I actually sat through, but I'm holding it to a slightly lower standard, since it is a kids movie.

4) Predators

I walked out of this after the third time Topher Grace yelled out "Guys! What's happening?" That pretty much summed up how I felt about the movie at that point, so it felt like an appropriate segue. To my surprise, it turns out that the mind bogglingly bad plot got even worse after I walked out. Topher Grace evil mastermind? Really? REALLY?

3) Alice in Wonderland

This was easily the year's biggest disappointment. Had you told me at the start of the year that two of the worst films would be collaborations between Ridley Scott and Russel Crowe, and Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, I wouldn't have believed it. Like Robin Hood, Alice was a revisionist version of the tale, that successfully purged the story of everything interesting. Moreover, the sexual overtones of the film were disturbing on multiple levels. If Burton wanted to make a version of Alice for grown ups, he should have just gone ahead and done it. This wasn't subversive. It was just tasteless.

2) Splice

Trans-gendered bi-sexual incestuous inter-species sex. While there were only two scenes of this description in the movie, it was more than enough to ruin the already mediocre film.

1) Hereafter

In Hereafter, Clint Eastwood tries to do two things. First, he attempts to show how death affects three different people in different ways. Second, he strains to find a way to put these three people (from different countries) into a room. A great director would have stuck to the first. Doing both severed its ties with reality--let alone plausibility--and allowed it to become a full blown fairy tale for adults. It is two hours and nine minutes of non-stop coincidences. The only consolation was occasional unintentional humour that made the whole experience slightly less excruciating.

The Tourist: Brilliant Satire Confuses Critics

2010-12-11T23:05:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ★ 1/2

I usually make a halfhearted effort to hide my disdain for the average movie critic. After a string of excellent movies were widely panned, my patience has worn thin. The Tourist is the last straw. The critical consensus is that it has little to offer but attractive stars and a simplistic plot. They couldn't be more wrong. Ostensibly an ordinary spy film, it was in fact a biting satire of the genre.

The first thing you'll notice about the movie is that the male lead isn't exactly James Bond. Rather, Depp plays an insecure Midwestern math teacher. By contrast, Angelina Jolie stars as a worldly woman of mystery, pursued by Scotland Yard. Depp's character is just the sucker who she's dragging around, one step ahead of her pursuers. Reading this description probably makes you think that this is a parody of a Bond film. It is. This eluded the critics.

What The Tourist lacks in explosions and crass humour, it makes up with a deceptively complex plot, and a pair of clever lead roles. The sheer lack of chemistry between Depp and Jolie (which the critics failed to realize was intentional) lead to plenty of ackward humour, and clever banter. Jolie is suave, and manipulative. Depp's character is, well, a math teacher. In the hands of any other actor, the role would have been unremarkable. His halting demeanor and overrationalizing under fire had me in tears the whole way through. Maybe it's because I've seen Fear and Loathing dozens of times, but every one of Depp's bizarre mannerisms had me in stitches. I kept hearing him ask in my head "is this not a reasonable place to park?" It wasn't Johnny Depp playing a Midwestern school teacher. It was Johnny Depp playing Raoul Duke portraying a Midwestern school teacher. In short, it is the funniest movie of the year.

Hereafter (2010)

2010-11-09T22:24:00.000-08:00

★ ☆ ☆ ☆

Clint Eastwood has proven beyond all doubt that Gran Turino was a fluke. As per usual, Eastwood provided a dreary, plot driven movie with delusions of grandeur. The movie was based on a series of Paul Haggis type coincidences. It's characters were like wooden pegs that Eastwood could easily fit into an elaborate series of coincidences. There were three separate plots, and not one of them was interesting. The only virtue of the entire movie was the tsunami scene, which--other than being overly manicured--presented an interesting point of view perspective of a beach front being wiped out. This couldn't make up for the next two hours of the film. It was simplistic and poorly written. The only reason I gave it one star is that I don't know how to create a half star with html.

Hereafter is basically a cross between The Sixth Sense and Crash. If this sounds like a good thing to you, you'll probably like it.

The Social Network (2010)

2010-10-15T00:02:00.000-07:00

★ ★ ★ ★

I've always been skeptical of major box office successes, especially when they're about "true stories." Had The Social Network not been a David Fincher movie--scratch that--had David Fincher not cast Andrew Garfield, I wouldn't have made time to see it. I'm glad I did. Rather than a simple Zuckerberg biopic, Fincher and Sorkin presented the evolution of Facebook within the broader context of technological evolution. This was quite refreshing. Most historical fiction gets bogged down by a focus on the personalities involved, rather than exploring the interconnection of events. Chance exchanges of ideas, and randomness play a greater part in the entrepreneurial process than most people imagine. The great man theory of history rarely bears out in real life.

The Social Network brilliantly demonstrated how the Facebook emerged, evolved, and shaped--and was shaped by--society. The movie was "about" Mark Zuckerberg to an extent, but what really made it interesting is that it demonstrated how the Internet has obscured the boundaries of intellectual property, and how a simple idea can take hold of our collective consciousness. As the technology evolved, so did the language--and vice versa. Facebook went from being an idea tossed around by a bunch of college kids to a verb within weeks. No one really owns the idea any more than they own the verb. Yet, it has transformed into a network of 500 million users. The lawsuits are presented in a non-linear fashion. Arguments and evidence from each are presented out of turn, yet in a manner that shapes the case to the audience. Who said what? Who owns what? What evidence is real, and what is a smear job from a college paper? These things are ephemeral; subservient to the entity that a series of conscious decisions, coincidences, and mistakes have created.

The actual production value was much higher than I'd anticipated. Trent Reznor (who's music I don't actually listen to) put together an amazing score. An eclectic mix of industrial, techno, and metal drove the pace of the film. Jeff Cronenweth's cinematography beautifully transitioned from one scene to the next. The pace ebbed, and flowed, but it always felt consistent. He relied heavily on still shots to slow down the pace at the beginning, and gradually introduced more camera movement to speed things up. Tracking shots through party scenes, panning around a party bus--these are the type of things that created the kinetic atmosphere. At first nothing is moving. Once Facebook is created, nothing stops moving.

This is probably the only decent role Jesse Eisenberg will ever play. I find him intensely annoying, yet he fit this part just perfectly. Even Forrest Whittaker had one good role. More importantly, this was Andrew Garfield's first major mainstream role. He's done mostly arthouse work so far, and is about to become one of this generation's biggest stars. I suppose that will be solidified when he takes on the role of Spiderman. Also in his first major role was Justin Timberlake, who put in an admirable performance.

I've always maintained that it is exceedingly difficult to make a great film with over $50 million dollars. In order to make a production of that scale profitable, it has to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The genius of this film is that Fincher and Sorkin took an idea that has wide appeal and put just enough arthouse in it to keep demanding viewers interested, while not alienating casual movie goers. This is David Fincher's masterpiece.

Let Me In (2010)

2010-10-06T21:56:00.000-07:00

★ ★ ★ ☆

For those of us who've seen Let the Right One In, the American remake had a tough act to follow. I'll spare the suspense: Let Me In was not as good as the original. While it did some things better, it did many things worse. Despite the inconsistency, it is definetly worth the watch. Even if you've seen the original, it still manages to hold your attention. Much of this can be attributed to a number of iconic scenes, but credit is definetly due to the technical crew members for putting together one of the most technically sound movies you'll see this year. If you take a keen interest in cinematography and sound editing, you won't want to miss this. It is a tour de force on both fronts. Some phenomenal supporting roles certainly helped. However, at least one major casting mistake, and uneven dialogue marred the production value. It was good, when it could easily have been great.

The biggest issue with the film was the role of Abby. On a superficial level, Chloe Moretz did not fit the part at all. Abby ought to have been an icy, ephemeral character (as in the original). Instead, she is blonde, has a regular skin tone, and seems altogether normal. She's even less vampire like than a Twilight character. Her action sequences were also oddly clunky. Not all of the roles deficiencies can be blamed on a casting error. Her dialogue was weak--disproportionately to the relatively well written screenplay. I'm not quite sure what Matt Reeves was thinking. I suppose it can be tough to script such a feral character, but either way it was lackluster.

Owen was also a role that left something to be desired when compared to the original. Though he wasn't exactly a missfit in the role, Kodi Smit-McPhee couldn't quite live up to the original. The original role (Oskar) was among the best portrayals of a victim of bullying. The victim of bullying can also be among the most frightening avengers when given the chance. Alienation, and powerlessness can turn the most innocent child into a merciless transgressor. Owen was a reasonable facimile of this, but not on the level of Oskar.

While the lead roles were unsatisfying, a pair of supporting actors put in excellent roles. Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas are two of the best character actors around. While their roles didn't require much extension, they brought a level of gravitas to the film that was lacking from the leads.

Matt Reeves deserves credit for having made the film interesting, even for those who've seen the original. Dialogue is obviously not his strong suit, but he was able to play on the expectations of those who've seen the original. He often let the audience hang in the balance, even though they knew what to expect. I suspect the long lead up to the iconic pool scene was devised specifically with those who've seen the original in mind. It's tough to build suspence for people who know what's coming. He also managed to open the film in an interesting way, and introduce some interesting Americanizations. The Ronald Reagan speech leitmotif was interesting, though not quite exploited to full effect.

The real stars of Let Me In were not the actors, or the director. The photography and sound units stole the show. Greig Fraser did a masterful job of matching the medium to the motif. The camera lens had the feel of a window onto the cold winter mise en scene. Long cuts at times made it feel as though the camera were frozen into place. The camera constantly blurred in and out of focus, like a window frosting over, and defrosting. I've yet to see a cinematographer so effectively capture frigidity through the use of lenses. Unbearable heat has been captured many a time, but this was actually quite novel. The sound crew was able to create a stark contrast through periods of quite, and ratcheting music. The Reagan leitmotifs were especially well done, cutting into the silence with prophetic ruminations about good and evil. I can't think of a better usage of sampling in film off the top of my head.

Though imperfect, Let Me In is a must see, especially if you've seen one too many of the lame vampire movies that have been flooding theatres. Part edge of your seat thriller, part social commentary, it is among the most exciting wide releases of the year.

The Other Guys (2010)

2010-09-25T20:40:00.000-07:00

★ ★ 1/2

Full disclosure: I am not a big Will Ferrell fan. Night at the Roxbury was one of the funniest movies of the 90s, but I find that he tries to hard to fit his persona into every role he plays--like a less funny Adam Sandler. While there were glipses of this in The Other Guys, it actually worked out pretty well for once. Though it wasn't the kind of uproarious comedy it was billed as, it had its moments.

While I'm inserting caveats, I should also ad that I'm not big on Mark Wahlberg. Not that he's a bad actor. He just doesn't tend to pick great roles. Like Ferrell, he actually fit this role well. Wahlberg as a wannabe action hero and Ferrell as an accountant with a seedy past somehow seems appropriate.

On the face of it, the movie is as simple as it gets. A couple of desk jockies trying to bust the bad guys. However, there were some fairly obvious anti-corporate themes lurking in the foreground. After all, bankers ripping off a police pension fund isn't exactly politically neutral. In an odd twist, the movie attempted to explain the financial crisis (incorrectly) by flashing a bunch of graphs and factoids on the screen during the credits. I've never seen a movie get MORE political during the credits. Definitely a movie that's quite in line with the zeitgeist.

The Joneses (2009)

2010-09-21T23:45:00.000-07:00

★ ☆ ☆ ☆

The Joneses is a movie about product placement taken to the extreme. It aspires to subtle social commentary, but falls far short. Instead, it is a series of banal scenes, punctuated by blunt attacks on materialism. David Duchovny and Demi Moore have proven that washed up mainstream actors will take any role they can get, and their past fame will always find them an audience. They are every bit as disingenuous as the characters they portray. Gary Cole (better known as Lumberg) is still trading off of his Office Space fame, but with the exact opposite effect of Ron Livingston. I used to laugh any time I've seen him in a minor role, but he's completely exhausted my interest.

This movie could have only been made by a third rate European director, and only at this time in history. How else could we end up with a movie that so thorougly lacks any insight into modern American culture. I can only hope that Derrick Borte's debut is also his finale. From the looks of it, it just might be.

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

2010-08-06T19:57:00.001-07:00

★ ★ 1/2

The Kids are All Right is, well, I'm sure you can finish the pun. While the three leads were compelling, the story left much to be desired. The parallels between gay and straight marriage were interesting, but not fully persuasive. The internal dynamics seemed reasonably accurate, though they could have delved further into the family's external relationships. When they did touch on them, it felt a touch disingenuous. Though better than the average family drama, it failed to live up to the hype.

Maybe it's better to think of it as two separate movies. One is a character study of a same sex couple. The other, a tale of a sperm donor and his prodige. The first part was done fairly well. Julianne Moore and Annette Bening were both excellent. The second part, somewhat less so. Mark Ruffalo is an excellent actor, and was well suited to the role. Mia Wasikowska put in a respectable performance, Josh Hutcherson less so. As vignettes, they would have worked out very well. Combined, and added to some rather silly auxilliary plotlines, much of their force was lost. I hoped for a realistic portrait of a same sex headed couple in contemporary America. Instead, Lisa Cholodenko seems to have been primarily concerned with challenging stereotypes held by people who would never think to watch the movie. It felt self congratulatory, rather than honest.

Greenberg (2010)

2010-08-05T19:48:00.000-07:00

★ ★ 1/2

It seems that every famous, though unaccomplished actor eventually tries to prove he can act. Ben Stiller became the latest to do so, playing the title role in Greenberg. Greenberg is a hodgepodge of modern neuroses; the stereotypical product of the 80s culture. He's self involved, compulsive, nearly oblivious to his surroundings. Does Stiller pull this role off? I'd say so. There weren't any flashes of brilliance, nor obvious blunders. He was mundane; almost completely uninteresting. Given that this was the point of the role, I'd consider it a success.

Jennifer Jason Leigh's first attempt at screenwriting was respectable. She'd obviously seen Sideways a few times, and taken copious notes. Greenberg seems like a mildly anesthetized version of Giomatti's Sideways character, and the story line is eerily similar. The only obvious difference seems to be that Greenberg was once popular enough to have become a full blown narcissist. It wasn't completely unoriginal. There were some interesting jabs at awkward social conventions, and some amusing, uncomfortable barely-intergenerational-intergenerational-dialogue.

The most surprising part of the movie is Rhys Ifans' performance. Given that his career is based on providing comic relief in dramadies, I was quite surprised to find out that he's capable of being utterly morose. Newcomer Greta Gerwig was adequate as Greenberg's sophomoric love interest. Jennifer Jason Leigh's tiny role as Greenberg's ex-girlfriend was a highlight. I've seen few better advertisements for never, ever associating with an ex.

Noah Baumbach's lugubrious film is bound to turn off less patient viewers. Admittedly, it didn't hold my undivided attention. There wasn't enough depth to justify the amount of navel gazing. I'm happy to see that Ben Stiller and Rhys Ifans can pull off serious roles, but I doubt I'll get around to watching Greenberg again.

Hot Tub Time Machine (2010)

2010-08-04T20:46:00.000-07:00

★ ☆ ☆ ☆

I watched twenty three minutes and fourteen seconds of The Hot Tub Time Machine. I only got that far because I started reading reviews about ten minutes in, in a vain attempt to figure out how 63% of film critics actually gave it a positive rating. This is one of the least funny comedies I've ever seen. I can't think of a more ironic turn for John Cusack than making an awful movie about reliving the glory days in order to revive his career. Actually, it does get more ironic. This pitiful attempt may have actually succeeded.

Ondine (2010)

2010-08-02T16:23:00.000-07:00

★ ★ ★ ★

Ondine is Neil Jordan's latest attempt at fusing mythology with reality. It is also his most successful attempt. Ondine is the best motion picture of the year thus far, rivaled only by Nicolas Refn's Valhalla Rising*. While the latter created a nightmarish world from which we hope to awaken, awakening from the dreamlike Ondine is bittersweet. Alternately elegiac and hopeful, Ondine is a prose poem; a pastiche of Irish culture. There is nothing more difficult than creating a film that leaves the audience feeling hopeful, without a trace of cynicism. Ondine is one of the rare movies that does just that.

Ondine is set in a fishing village on the coast of Ireland. A local fisherman, Syracuse (Farrell) finds an unconscious woman caught in his fishing net (Bachleda). When revived, she has seemingly lost her memory. She is frightened of being seen by anyone else, so she stays at Syracuse's dead mother's home. Syracuse has lived there alone since his divorce. He is a recovering alcoholic, known to most as Circus for his drunken antics. His gravely ill daughter Annie (Barry) lives with his alcoholic ex-wife, and her boyfriend. On one of their afternoons together, Syracuse tells Annie a fictionalized version of his recent experience. Annie believes the woman to be a selkie, a mythical sea creature that resembles a human female. A series of strange occurences lead Syracuse to believe she may be right. Throughout the film, the audience is left wondering whether hapless Syracuse has stumbled onto a genuine miracle, or whether he's just lucky for a change. As the precariousness of the situation becomes evident, the question becomes all the more important. Having experienced the powerlessness of alcoholism, Syracuse wonders whether he has once again found himself in a situation beyond his grasp.

More so than any movie that comes to mind, Ondine examines the nature of mythology. Myths typically originate from a set of half truths, and are imparted to children at a young age. Purveyors of myths generally hope that these myths will impart wisdom to younger generations, helping them to avoid the errors of their forebears. But what if this isn't the case at all? Perhaps myths merely warn us of eventualities. Worse still, perhaps ingrained myths can become an impediment. Maybe straying from the path occasionally is a good idea. Maybe trusting a stranger every now and then enriches one's life. Believing that you've been granted seven years of happiness is a blessing, and a curse. The complacency caused by this mental allotment can be the cause of its abridgment. Then again, if the myth is true, then there is little to do but enjoy the moment.

Colin Farrell is among the most talented actors in Hollywood today. It is great to see that he is still willing to take on smaller roles. Actors like Farrell lend credibility to smaller productions, and have been instrumental in the current film renaissance we are experiencing. Farrell is equally at home playing the action hero, as he is a downtrodden fisherman. He's occasionally morose, sometimes clownish, but his ascetic demeanor is resilient. Alicja Bachleda makes the perfect foil. She always seems vulnerable, maintaining a near childlike wonder. She cowers from the world like a feral child (no pun intended), fickle, yet often exuberant. Ironically, the edifying force in the movie is Alison Barry. Annie is at once the most impressionable, and wisest of the characters. Always interpreter of the strange events, she seems to be the only character who understands their true significance. Her quick wit is downright shocking for a child of her age.

As we've learned from Seinfeld, the word breathtaking is often used carelessly. In the case of Ondine, it is almost an understatement. The rolling hills of the Irish coast provide a majestic backdrop, singularly appropriate for the film. Transitions between scenes are flowing, almost non-existent. Pastoral Celtic music melds one scene to the next, creating a dreamlike quality rarely seen in film.

Unfortunately, as is often the case with arthouse films, Ondine failed to secure a wide release. Unless you have the good fortune of stumbling upon it at an independent theater, I highly recommend picking up the DVD. It is the best 2010 movie I've seen thus far, and I'd be surprised if it didn't end the year that way.

*Written before viewing Never Let Me Go

The Book of Eli (2010)

2010-08-01T21:20:00.000-07:00

★ ★ 1/2

The Book of Eli is one of the most uneven movies I've seen. The Hughes Brothers, in conjunction with veteran cinematographer Don Burgess, took a mediocre screenplay, and turned it into a visual masterpiece. The film is set in a post-apocalyptic America. The clouds loom heavily over the barren countryside like a divine presence. Their eerily shifting tones suggest a reckoning to come. And that reckoning will come, courtesy of a man carrying the world's last bible. Hey, I had to take at least one jab at the plot. There will be more to come.

I hardly feel the plot is worth mentioning. Its premise is problematic, leading to an absurd finally. Everything in between was passable, at times pleasingly minimalist. Not bad for screenwriter Gary Whitta's first try. The dialogue was never laughable (an accomplishment, given the premise), though several of Oldman's lines may have been so in the hands of a lesser actor. Denzel was solid as always, playing a better action hero than I'd have imagined. Mila Kunis proved that she can play a serious role (which makes me all the more excited for Black Swan).

Despite massive budgets, few Hollywood directors seem to give much though to cinematography. You could be forgiven for thinking that they don't give a minute of thought to when they should (and shouldn't) cut, or what type of lens filter they should use. These are the little things that make good movies great (or mediocre ones palatable). These are things that Don Burgess clearly gave much thought to. The film was shot through a sepia filter, darkening the already bleak atmosphere. Long, steady shots accentuate the sterility of the nightmarish wasteland. At one point, the camera circles Eli during a barroom brawl, highlighting the sheer improbability of Eli's eventual triumph. Filmed with a fixed camera, the scene would have been nowhere near as interesting.

If you're interested in cinematography, The Book of Eli is a must see. It certainly deserves an Oscar nod in that category. Otherwise, I wouldn't be too concerned about missing it.

Dinner For Schmucks (2010)

2010-07-30T22:03:00.000-07:00

★ ★ 1/2

Dinner for Schmucks is the type of movie I usually despise. A hackneyed American version of a foreign arthouse film is about the last thing I'm likely to enjoy. I went in with that expectation, and I was pleasantly surprised. While the plot was as cliched as I'd imagined, they threw so much at the audience, that some was bound to stick. Putting Steve Carell, Jemaine Clement, and Zach Galifianakis together is likely to lead to some laughs. Add Ron Livingston, and laughs are assured.

The irony of Dinner for Schmucks is that while it was marketed as a Steve Carell movie, Carell wasn't the driving force behind the comedy. He delivered a lot of laughs, but had his fair share of misfires. The real star was Jemaine Clement. If you look close enough, you may recognize Jemaine (Kieran) from Flight of the Conchords. His character is an 'artist', specializing in grotesque portraits of himself. In short, it's the type of 'art' that an impartial observer would laugh at, but regularly appears at modern art galleries. It's a not so subtle jab at modern 'art', and Jemaine absolutely nails it.

On top of Clement's character, we also get entertaining performances from Hollywood's two leading pseudo-cameo artists: Ron Livingston, and Zach Galifianakis. Livingston (otherwise known as Peter from Office Space) doesn't have to do much to make me laugh. In fact, I burst out laughing any time I see him. Played by anyone else, his role would not have been funny--and wouldn't have intended to be. He's Peter from Office Space. He doesn't need to do anything to be funny. Galifianakis plays a 'mind controlling' IRS agent, who is Barry's (Carell) nemesis. Galifianakis makes Carell's role work. Most of the time.

I haven't mentioned Paul Rudd yet, and frankly, there isn't much reason to. He's the cliched leading man in a comedy, and we'll leave it at that. Dinner for Schmucks doesn't stand on it's own as a movie. It's more like skit comedy superimposed on a boring movie, and that's just fine with me.

Youth in Revolt (2009)

2010-07-28T21:31:00.000-07:00

★ ★ ★ ☆

The downside of subversive movies is that they are often mistaken for crass appeals to drug addled teenagers. Such is the case with Youth in Revolt. Needless to say, I didn't see it during it's theatrical run. After re-watching Juno a few days ago, I figured I'd give it a shot. I'm glad I did. Youth in Revolt is entertaining, and insightful. It examines contemporary culture through the lens of an imaginative young man, who's grounding in art house culture has ill prepared him for his place in the lower depths of the post-internet world.

Few films have honestly dealt with the realities of modern teenage life as Youth in Revolt has. We now live in a world where many parents are little more than peons, totally disconnected from the realities of the information society. Like the first generation of universally literate children, teenagers today have greater access to the world than most parents. This asymmetry makes the parent/child relationship awkward, and often counterproductive. This is Nick Twisp's reality.

Nick (Michael Cera) lives with his mother (Jean Smart), and her latest boyfriend (Zach Galifianakis). After the boyfriend is caught for selling a defective car, the family is forced to flee to a trailer park. There, Nick meets Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday). Sheeni is an escapist, stuck in a trailer park with her zealous parents. She too is enthralled with art house culture, and dreams of travelling to France. Though she claims to have a boyfriend, they do become romantically involved. Through a series of unfortunate occurrences, Nick needs to leave the trailer park. Sheeni promises that if he can find a way to come back, she will date him. In order to make this happen, Nick invents an alter ego, whom he turns to for advice on how to con his way back into her life. He is a projection of what Nick believes Sheeni wants in a man. Micheal Cera with a mustache, a cigarette, and a bad attitude. Needless to say, things get out of hand.

During his quest to re-unite with Sheeni, Nick realizes that the adults who have ruled his life thus far are not so clever. Even the police have nowhere near as much control over his life as he'd thought. While he breaks the law on more than one occasion, the irony is that he is still less base than all of the adults in the movie. The police are corrupt; his mother is a tramp; Sheeni's parents are authoritarians. In short, his 'revolt' isn't entirely unjustifiable. Forces external (and unreasonable) are shaping his life, and he merely seeks to manipulate them to fulfill his normal teenage goals. Like John Hughes movies, it seeks to show that ungrateful teenagers actually are sometimes justified in their anger. A shady police officer is the bad guy, while his mother and father (Steve Buscemi) are Blase. The only moral guidance he has in life is from film, music, his peers, and his instincts.

Despite its moral complexity, Youth in Revolt is extremely accessible, and funny. Unlike most teen movies, it is very self aware. Yes, there are clicheed moments. However, they're balanced out by self mocking irony. It is a Michael Cera movie, after all. Miguel Arteta has proven that he's quite capable of fusing crude sexual humor, and teen angst. It's harder than it sounds.

Like Juno before it, Youth in Revolt is a serious attempt to examine traditional morality from the standpoint of a young person in today's world (in all of its vulgarity). While it didn't cut quite as deep as Juno, it is one of the most thoughtful teenage films of the last two decades (granted, the bar is low). Though its theatrical run has long passed, I strongly recommend picking up the DVD. You'll watch it more than once.

Salt (2010)

2010-07-28T16:32:00.000-07:00

★ ★ ☆ ☆

Salt is an average action movie posing as a thoughtful psychological thriller. It seems like a strange cross between Jason Bourne and M. Night Shyamalan. Only explosions outnumber the plot twists. I'll grant that it was somewhat entertaining, but you've got to really suspend disbelief to allow for some of the physics defying stunts, not to mention the implausible plot line. Like I said, average action movie.

What is unique about Salt is the pacing. The plot twists are so frenetic that it seemed much longer than an hour and forty minutes. Coming from Kurt Wimmer, author of Sphere and Equilibrium, this isn't surprising. He's made a career out of throwing curveballs. Unfortunately for him, throwing the same pitch every game causes the hitter to adjust. And adjust, the audience does. Throwing in a plot twist every five minutes is distracting, not clever.

Director Philip Noyce did a reasonable job, given the script. Though the action sequences were unrealistic, they weren't lacking in suspense. My one criticism would be that sometimes it seems like snippets were filmed in fast forward. I think this was to disguise some of the lesser realistic stunts. There is at least one time where we see Angelina fly across the screen, and it's hard to tell what exactly happened to the man left laying on the ground. Now that I think about it, that was probably wise.

I haven't seen any of Angelina Jolie's previous action roles, so I really didn't know what to expect from her performance. Frankly, it wasn't bad. Some of her stunts were distractingly unrealistic, but she can't be blamed for playing the role that was written for her. I was surprised by how good her Russian pronunciation was (assuming that it was actually her voice). I'm usually annoyed when English actors pretend to be Russians, but she didn't seem anywhere near as contrived as other actors do. The rest of the cast (minus Liev Schreiber) was passable, including a solid performance from Chiwetel Ejiofor. As for Schreiber, well, he was as wooden as always.

I can't say that I'm disappointed with Salt. I expected an average movie, and that's what I got. Then again, anything is a pleasant surprise after The Sorcerer's Apprentice. For a summer movie, I'd say it's worth a watch. That is, unless you haven't seen Inception a second time yet.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010)

2010-07-21T12:27:00.000-07:00

★ ☆ ☆ ☆

There isn't much to say about The Sorcerer's Apprentice. It was awful. I don't know why Nick Cage gets messed up with junk like this. I can see Alfred Molina doing this for the money, but Nick Cage? Surely he could have found a better use of his time. Director John Turteltaub usually delivers above average action comedies. This is easily the worst thing I've seen from him. I'm not sure if I blame screenwriting pair Konner and Rosenthal more for their amateurish script (par for their course), or the casting director for finding the most annoying person on earth to play the lead. Seriously, am I the only person who wants to slap Jay Baruchel right now? The only thing that bothered me anywhere near as much as him was the generic teenage feel-good music that would burst out of nowhere, for no good reason every 8 minutes. I sat through this purely in hopes that there would be a few laughably bad scenes. It didn't even deliver that. There was no redeeming value to this movie.

Inception (2010)

2010-07-16T22:58:00.001-07:00

★ ★ ★ 1/2

Christopher Nolan is a genius. Because of this, I hold him to a higher standard than the average director. Though Inception was intriguing, it was all but doomed from the beginning. Since I heard the initial concept, I have maintained that it would be nearly impossible to pull off. Though the architecture of the film was surprisingly coherent, the film was marred by weak dialogue, and unrealistic character relationships. This is one of the most beautiful failures ever to meet the big screen. But for curious flaws, it might have been great. Nevertheless, it is a failure.

I wanted to be captivated by Inception--I really did. I have loved every Nolan feature, and was hoping he would keep his streak alive. The first time I saw Inception, I was enmeshed in the architecture of the film (yes, I'm using Nolan's vocabulary). The logic of the film was reasonable. There were no Matix-esque inconsistencies to ruin the film. Still, I didn't feel any connection to the film. The lack of major logical inconsistencies was trumped by a failure to connect on any emotional level.

Through the multiple interviews I have read, I've gleaned that Nolan views this primarily as a classical heist film. On that metric, it is better than average. As a film about the the life of the mind, it fares poorly. Several commentators have pointed out the similarities with L'Annee Derniere En Marianbad, and Solyaris, not to mention his own Memento. All were far superior. Other films about dreams, such as Waking Life and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind were also much better.

The weakest link of Inception was the relationships amongst the characters. Ariadne (Ellen Page) seemed to exist for little other than to explain the logic of the film to the audience. Her conversations with Cobb (DiCaprio) about his relationship with his wife were often redundant, bordering on annoying. I'm also confused as to why she was given an obviously French name when it is clear that she isn't French. I'd have forgiven Nolan for working with the assumption that she's an American foreign exchange student.

Weaker still was the relationship between Cobb and Saito (Ken Wantanabe). They start out as enemies, though develop a curiously emotional relationship. There didn't appear to be anything in their relationship that would suggest a flourishing bromance. I could have seen the relationship between Cobb and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) evolving to this degree, but there would have been a basis for this--they're partners.

As far as DiCaprio performances go, this was certainly at the low end. Though the role was similar to his own in Shutter Island, he seemed unable to muster up the same level of emotion. Even the conversations with his dead wife (Marion Cotillard) fell flat. This is a shame, since Cottillard was strong, as always. She is arguably the most talented actrice around, and deserves a best supporting nod. Cillian Murphy put in a strong performance, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt demonstrated that he's capable of filling a major role. I'm left wondering if Levitt's role wasn't an audition for Nolan's Dark Knight sequel. Tom Hardy's role was fairly limited, but he was solid as expected. From what I hear, he's also in the running for a spot in Nolan's next Batman film. I can't think of a better Riddler. Watch Bronson, and you'll see what I mean.

For all of it's faults, the film was a model of technical perfection. The cinematography was excellent, and the film editing was masterful. Hans Zimmer's score was masterful, and was supplemented by the best leitmotif I've ever encountered. Edith Piaf's Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien was used as a cue to wake Arthur during extractions. This worked on many levels, especially given that Cotillard played Piaf in her Oscar winning role (La Vie En Rose).

The reality is that the film was hampered by it's subject matter. When you stray into the realm of dreams, you risk cutting off any connection to reality. This is why the 'train scene', for instance (you know what I mean if you've seen the film) didn't do anything for me. There was at least one way that this could have been pulled off, but Nolan would have had to rethink much of the DiCaprio/Cotillard plotline.

Most of the flaws in Inception are a result of making a complicated subject accessible to a mass audience that is accustomed to simplistic plotlines. This is why it is nearly impossible to make a great film with more than $100 million dollars. Superhero movies have proven to be the lone exception to this rule. With that in mind, I'm glad that Nolan is returning to comic books for his next two features. It's what he does best, and he does it better than anyone else. The third part of the Dark Knight series can't come soon enough.

Following (1998)

2010-07-15T20:24:00.000-07:00

★ ★ 1/2

Christopher Nolan's Following may not be in the same league as his subsequent films, but it was an impressive debut. Especially with a $6000 budget. It is exactly as it sounds. A movie about a man who follows people. He isn't a spy, or a stalker. He just enjoys observing people. Though the premise is simple, it is immediately clear that the plot is far from it. The timeline is non-linear, and the relationships among the central characters are always in flux. Think of it as a beta version of Memento.

The plot is too clever by a half, and the action sequences are devoid of realism, but it still manages to draw in the audience. Frankly, the cinematography was far better than the average movie. The lead actors, Jeremy Theobald and Alex Haw, were surprisingly good for a pair of unknowns. Haw has since to play a role, and Theobald only brieflly re-emerged as "Younger Gotham Water Board Technician" in Batman Begins. Lucy Russell (The Blonde) has made a career of being an adjective. Her roles have included "Female Restaurant Guest" in Batman Begins, as well as "Classy Shopper 3" in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Rather a shame that none of them has ever landed a major role.

Though the film isn't terribly important on it's own, it gives us an interesting glimpse into the psyche of Christopher Nolan--or perhaps his MO. It is the only one of his films that didn't really delve into notions of truth and justice. There were hints at those themes, but they never quite developped into anything coherent. He opted instead to focus on the boundaries between curiosity, obsession, and perversion. I can't help but wonder wonder how many random people walking in the park have ended up inspiring his films. I'm not sure if this is an examination of the theme of obsession, or an elucidation of his own. Either way, it was a worthy debut.

Sugar (2008)

2010-07-13T22:25:00.000-07:00

★ ★ ★ ★

Sugar follows Miguel (Algenis Perez Soto), a young pitcher from the Dominican Republic as he attempts to work his way up to the Major Leagues. Unlike nearly every sports film I've seen, its primary focus is on the characters, rather than the game. Baseball is merely the backdrop. Far more interesting than the outcome of any single game is the struggle of Dominican players trying to turn pro. They live in strictly controlled dormatories, earning virtually no money. Unlike their American counterparts, there are no scholarships; no frat parties. Either they make it big, or they're back to the slums. The writer director team of Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck have portrayed the struggles of latino immigrants in a way that is both candid, and hopeful. Unless you count wrestling as a sport, this is easily the best sports movie I've ever seen.

**Spoilers Below**

Like The Wrestler, Sugar can hardly even be considered a sports movie. Games come and go without us knowing, or caring who won. When Miguel joins Kansas City's minor league affiliate, he has a rough, and at times comical transition into American life. His English is so bad that even ordering breakfast is a struggle. The Higgins', his adoptive American family (Ann Whitney, Richard Bull) are fanatical about their baseball, and have taken in several latino ball players on behalf of their local squad. Miguel can barely communicate with them, though he constantly feels pressure to perform well for them. He is alone, save his Domincan friend Jorge (Rayniel Rufino) in rural Iowa, hardly a place where you can get by on Spanish. He takes an interest in Anne (Ellary Porterfield), the Higgins' grand daughter, who attempts to recruit him into her all white church group. Awkwardness ensues.

American baseball proves to be different from how young Dominicans picture it. There is no quick route to success, and Dominicans do not rule the game. Miguel has a promising start to the season, but is sidelined by a minor foot injury. Jorge is cut from the team, and decides to move to New York. When Miguel returns to the team, he is unable to return to his previous form. Encouragement from his teammates, particularly Johnson (Andre Holland) keep him going for a while, but a combination of frustration and a single experiment with painkillers put him on the chopping block. Instead of accepting a relief position, he fled to New York to find his friend Jorge. Dreams rarely die with a bang; they usually end with a thud, and a shrug of the shoulders.

Miguel's savings quickly evaporate in New York, so he begins to work under the table at a diner where Jorge used to work. The two are eventually re-united, and play together in a men's league filled with former Dominican farm team players. The film ends with a tribute to these men. Dominican boys who came to America chasing the dream of major league baseball, only to default into a pursuit of the American Dream--or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Likely service workers, and likely in the country illegally, they find happiness acting out their childhood dreams on a modest field in the Bronx. It is the quintessential American story--a story that hearkens back to the days when the poem at the base of Lady Liberty was more than just an inscription.

Predators (2010)

2010-07-10T20:11:00.000-07:00

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Predators is unwatchable. I walked out around 20 minutes in. The third time Topher Grace yelled out "what is going on" seemed like an appropriate cue for my departure. It seemed like they were trying to balance humour with suspense, while achieving neither. How 65% of critics on Rotten Tomatoes were able to come up with positive ratings for this is absolutely baffling.

The only good thing that can be said about the movie is Adrian Brody's performance. From what I saw, he was solid as usual. Given that he's starred in the two worst movies I've seen this year, I'm starting to think that he's turning into Kevin Costner. Fine actor, terrible judgment.

Don' bother wasting your time with this one. It doesn't even qualify as so-bad-it's-good. It's just bad. It's too bad they didn't bring back Carl Weathers for some comic relief. The movie was a joke anyways, so they might as well have made it funny.

Jonah Hex (2010)

2010-07-05T16:45:00.001-07:00

★ ★ ★ 1/2

There are few things are likely to make me question my sanity as the only critic other than Armand White to find fault with a film. It's ever weirder being the only other critic to positively review a movie. I went into Jonah Hex expecting a laughable failure. There are few things more enjoyable than a movie that's so-bad-it's-good, and that's what I expected. Only 7% of top critics at Rotten Tomatoes rated it positively, so my expectations seemed justified. I was extremely confused coming out of the movie. I hadn't read any full reviews, but I couldn't understand what critics hated about it. Frankly, I loved it. As with any great action film, it only took about 5 minutes to figure out I was in for something special. Once again, the critical consensus is dead wrong: Jonah Hex is the best action movie so far this year.

Jonah Hex (Josh Brolin) is a Confederate soldier turned bounty hunter. Having been on both ends of heinous acts, he has been outcast from polite society, emerging only to do the dirty work of post-bellum law enforcement. He is very much in the mold of a Leone anti-hero. He roves from town to town, mercilessly dispatching anyone who does him wrong. He has an undefined relationship with Lilah (Megan Fox), a prostitute in one of the many towns he floats through on occasion. On one of his infrequent visits to Lilah, he learns that an old enemy (John Malkovich) who he'd thought to be dead had resurfaced, and is plotting to destroy the post-bellum peace. Hex, with his curious ability to confer with the dead, is the only person who can stop him.

There seem to have been two principle criticisms of the film. First, some claimed that it 'had no plot'. Second, many of the elements to the plot (or lack thereof?) seemed to be loosely stitched together. There is some superficial basis to these claims. To the extent they're true, they are virtues rather than vices.

The critics were oblivious to the subtleties that undergirded the film. The film drew heavily from a handful of genres: steampunk, superhero, western, and a splash of poetic realism. The steampunk genre requires observers to suspend belief about history and technology. Some, like Roger Ebert were not willing to do so. The superhero genre requires further suspension of disbelief, both in terms of physics, and the relative importance of the character. One shouldn't be flummoxed by a superhero bringing someone back from the dead, or being called into the oval office. These are the type of things that happen in superhero movies. It's like complaining that James Bond gets the girl, or that Garfield eats lasagna.

Ultimately, Jonah Hex is a character study. Characters who have been so abused by history, that they are almost unrecognizable. From the obvious deformity of Jonah's face, to the deadness of Lilah's eyes, it is clear that their humanity has nearly been extinguished by circumstances. Their ambiguous relationships reminds one more of two frostbite victims huddling together than a pair of lovers. Brolin and Fox were almost mechanical in their roles, and that is exactly as it ought to have been. Any moral progress Hex makes is almost accidental; a side effect of his drive for revenge. He is constantly walking the line between catharsis and damnation.

Jimmy Hayward has shown that he is not simply one of the best animators on the planet, but also a very capable director. It's ironic that the third installment of the Toy Story franchise (he was animator for the first two) came out on the same day, with the opposite critical reaction. Hayward deserves credit for taking a risk, and creating a film that didn't aim for the lowest common denominator. This is a film for cinephiles. It contains a plethora of subtle references to legendary genre films, while eschewing the excesses of the Tarantinos of the world. I only wish it had a long enough theatrical run for me to see it again.

In the Loop (2009

2010-06-25T12:15:00.001-07:00

★ ★ ★ ★

Politicians are among the favorite targets of American comedians. For some reason, this hasn't resulted in more than a handful of respectable Hollywood political satires. Thank God for the Brits. Anyone who's ever been involved in politics has surely heard of Yes, Minister! It is a cult series among politicos; the gold standard for political satire. No political satire had rivaled it, until Armando Iannucci's In The Loop. While it may not have eclipsed Yes, Minister!, it is easily the best political satire since.

Unlike the high level bureaucratic shenanigans of Yes, Minister!, In the Loop follows a British staffer who works for Minister of International Development Simon Foster (Tom Hollander). Foster unintentionally takes a controversial position on the possible invasion of Iraq, leading to an international scandal. Toby (Chris Addison) convinces his boss to take him along on a trip to D.C., where the minister hopes to repair the damage he's done. A series of further slip ups by Simon and his staff worsen the situation. A high level US politician latches onto Foster's seemingly pro-war comments, and uses them to demonstrate British support for the invasion. The hapless Minister is enlisted by an anti-war Secretary of State, who hopes to use him to turn things around. This alliance is brokered by Toby, who happens to have went to grad school with the Secretary of State's assistant. Joined by a high ranking general (James Gandalfini), this triumvirate takes on the ultimate force in DC: Zeitgeist.

While ostensibly about high level diplomacy, the significance of the film lies in its focus on the role of staffers in the political process. I suspect that Jesse Armstrong and Simon Blackwell spent a good deal of time hanging around staffers while writing the screenplay. While high level bureaucrats and political advisers try to control the agenda, the ultimate responsibility lies with an army of neophytes. No matter how much he yells and screams, the party's director of communications (Peter Capaldi) doesn't seem to have any control over the situation. While the situation is extreme, it isn't implausible. Politics accords a shocking level of power to very young people. Though none of the politicos I know has ever been involved in a scandal, it isn't too hard to imagine how a minor lapse of judgement can spiral out of control.

If you're at all interested in politics, In the Loop is a must see. It is a candid depiction of the lives of political staffers, rendered similarly to The Office. It is uncomfortable, disconcerting, and more importantly, it is absolutely hilarious.

Leaves of Grass (2009)

2010-06-22T17:47:00.000-07:00

★ ★ 1/2

In Leaves of Grass, Ed Norton plays a pair of twins, a highly renowned professor, and an Oklahoman drug dealer. Sounds like a cheasy mid-90s buddy comedy. Rather than a facile comedy of errors leaning heavily upon the physical similarities of the characters, it aimed for smart black comedy. Unfortunately it was pedantic more often than insightful. It didn't live up to the cast, let alone the subject matter.

Bill Kincaid (Norton) is a philosophy professor at Brown who is summoned back to his home town in Oklahoma by the death of his brother. When he arrives, he learns that it was a lie to get him back to help his brother out of a fix. Brady (also Norton) is a small time drug dealer who owes money to a Jewish money lender (Dreyfuss). Bill quickly realizes he has no choice but to help Brady. He is also faced with the unseemly prospect of visiting his mother, whom he had avoided for more than a decade. While there, Bill meets a young English teacher (Janet, played by Russell). Bill is a hyper rationalistic philosopher. He knows he should leave, but he can't seem to go.

The film's title was taken from Walt Whitman's famous volume of poems, which played the role of social lubricant between Bill and Janet. They discussed aethetics, careers, familial obligations--it wasn't overbearing, but it was never as interesting as the subject matter would suggest. While this subplot seemed fairly genuine, I can't say the same about the main narrative thrust. The drug dealing plot was sometimes funny, but often absurd, relying on implausible coincidences.

While Norton and Russell put in solid roles, the rest of the cast was uneven. Dreyfuss' first shaking money grubbing character just wasn't that funny. Tim Nelson wrote in way too many Jewish stereotypes and cliches into this part. None of his henchmen were interesting either. Susan Sarandon seemed surprisingly realistic as the irresponsible new age mother, but her role was limited. Familial obligation was one of the central themes of the movie, and Sarandon's performance was edifying.

If you're interested in philosophy and poetry, you may enjoy Leaves of Grass. There are major structural problems with the movie, but there are a few thoughtful scenes that make it worth a watch.

Prince of Persia (2010)

2010-06-15T21:42:00.002-07:00

★ ★ ★ ☆

Prince of Persia is a straighforward morality tale, as you would expect from a Disney film. It's special effects fail to wow, and the action sequences are not over the top. This is unusual for a movie produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. Frankly, I don't see these as deficiencies. Rather than attempting to dazzle us with gigantic monsters like Clash of the Titans did, it delivered something I didn't expect: simplicity. Aside from some light tears in the fabric of space and time, the plot was pretty straightforward. A heroic prince framed for murder flees the city with a foreign princess. While unoriginal, it was very entertaining. I enjoy morally complex films as much as anyone, but sometimes a dose of plain old good vs. evil is refreshing.

I admit that I was quite skeptical going into this. There really isn't any reason to expect much from a movie based on a video game. It also scored a paltry 39% on Rotten Tomatoes. It took a mixed review from Joe Morgenstern to convince me to see this one. Within 10 minutes, I knew I made the right decision. Though I haven't played the video game that this was based on, it did have the feel I assume the game does (from what I remember of the original Nintendo game). Prince Dastan (Gyllenhaal) constantly finds himself in vexing situations. He takes stock of his surroundings, and methodically makes improbable escapes. It resembled Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes in this respect, save that the situations take place in real time.

Jake Gyllenhall continues to prove that he's more than a washed up teen actor. This is his second respectable role in the last two years (after Brothers). Gemma Arteton was well cast as the impetuous princess, and Ben Kingsley was solid as always. Alfred Molina delivered plenty of laughs as a seedy, tax evading entrepreneur. His generally informed (though hypocritical) social commentary alone was worth the price of admission.

Big budget action movies are generally made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The goal is adequacy in every technical aspect. A few suspenseful moments, and a couple of laughs are enough to satisfy the expectations of the audience. Sadly, it's rare to even find this in a contemporary action movie. Prince of Persia is an exception. Contrary to the critical consensus, it is worth a watch.

Me and Orson Welles (2009)

2010-06-12T21:36:00.001-07:00

★ ★ ★ ☆

The thought of an Orson Welles biopic is naturally one that has intrigued me. Welles was a cinematic genius, and an eccentric--perhaps a madman. He demanded nothing less than brilliance from each and every member of his cast, and would lash out arbitrarily at anyone who fell slightly short. As a Welles aficionado, I was thrilled when I heard that Richard Linklater would be directing a film about the man. Though I was concerned with some of the casting decisions, the finished product was quite satisfying. Not only was it entertaining--it was actually quite insightful. Though many of the details were likely fictional, Linklater did a fine job of exploring the mind of Orson Welles.

The film betrayed a deep admiration for Welles' work. Adapted from a Robert Kaplow novel of the same name, it made constant references to Welles' corpus. Even in the most casual conversations, the characters would quote or paraphrase scenes from his major works. Many of these references were used to create dramatic irony for those familiar with Welles' work. Though I've not read the book, it was likely no easy task for screenwriter Holly Gent Palmo to bring such a literary flair to the big screen.

The biggest concern I had going into the film was the casting. More specifically, I was vexed by the notion of casting Zac Efron in the lead role. He isn't exactly Oscar caliber talent. The irony is that this is precisely why he fit the role. Efron was cast as an amateur actor. A more skilled lead would have seemed disingenuous in the role. It's rare that I'll praise an actor for his mediocrity, but this role demanded mediocrity. Claire Danes was respectable as Efron's love interest, and James Tupper played a convincing Joseph Cotton.

At the risk of sounding unoriginal, I will laud Christian McKay copiously for his portrayal of Welles. McKay was cast by Linklater after the director had seen him play Welles in an off Broadway production. McKay was born for the role. Aside from his resemblance to Welles (from a profile view), his emulation of Welles' mannerisms seemed completely natural. It's no easy task to seem natural when playing an eccentric like Welles. He even managed to capture his haughty speaking style. Maybe he didn't capture Welles the man. He certainly did capture Welles public persona. This is what made the film interesting. McKay constantly left the audience wondering whether the persona and the man are one and the same. On a fittingly Wellesian note, perhaps we can never truly know the man.

Splice (2010)

2010-06-09T17:38:00.000-07:00

★ ☆ ☆ ☆

**Spoiler Alert**

Ordinarily, I do my best to avoid spoilers. However, I think it would be a disservice in this case. Simply put, Splice is the most disgusting movie I have ever seen. It is the only movie that has ever made me feel physically ill. Inter-species sex? Really? I can't imagine why anyone would want to see that. I guess it wouldn't be so bad if there were redeeming qualities in the movie. There weren't. Sadly, the critics loved it. It was widely considered an intelligent exploration of the moral dimension of genetic engineering, and a parable for the difficulties of parenting. What rubbish. It had all the moral complexity that you would expect from a dinner table political discussion.

Splice is about a genetic experiment, which leads to the creation of a human/animal hybrid. The experiment began as an attempt to create a new medicinal compound, quickly spun out of control. In short, it is a diatribe against genetic engineering. While I'm sympathetic to this position, I was disapointed by the simplistic approach director Vincenzo Natali took to the issue. He aimed for a purely visceral reaction, which is exactly what he got. However, I'm not sure it actually caused anyone to think any deeper about the issue.

For a movie that has been praised for it's treatment of complex moral issues, the dialogue was surprisingly amateurish. The rushed conversations were filled with talking points, and flippant reversals. It felt like a made for tv movie, with slightly better special effects. While Adrian Brody wasn't terrible, Sarah Polley put in a performance unworthy of a b-movie. Instead of the suspense that it aimed to create, the film elicited little more than unintentional giggles, and a good deal of disgust from the audience. Guillermo del Toro should be embarrassed to have lent his name to such an amateurish production.

It seems that the entire purpose of Splice was to 'push the envelope.' Given that critics seem to mistake edginess for thoughtfulness, this was probably a good marketing ploy. Ironically, I wouldn't be surprised if this tactic was self defeating. After all, this project received $2.5 million from TeleFilm Canada, a Canadian Government funded cultural agency. Given the number of people who left the theatre in disgust, I wouldn't be surprised if there were calls to review Canadian film subsidies. Though I'm against most forms of censorship, it's hard to blame people for not wanting to fund films that they find incredibly offensive. If there is a market for inter-species sex scenes, film companies should be able to raise the money themselves. Somehow, I doubt that this market exists.

Robin Hood (2010)

2010-05-18T13:12:00.001-07:00

★ 1/2

If someone had told me last year that the two most disappointing movies of 2010 would be Tim Burton/Johnny Depp, and Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe collaborations, I might not have believed them. Sadly, this is how it turned out. Robin Hood was muddled, boring, and historically revisionist. I'm a huge fan of the surge of reinventions that have been turned out in the last few years, but Robin Hood crossed a line. It is fine to make up historical events, but it's another thing to re-write one of the most important events in human history. Worst still, unlike Gladiator, the historical fabrications actually detracted from the legend. This is Ridley Scott's fourth botched history lesson. He should stick to fiction.

Even if we ignore the numerous offenses against history, there is not much of interest in Robin Hood. It strayed too far from the original legend. The central point of the Robin Hood legend--reclaiming tax dollars from the rapacious Sheriff of Notingham--was hardly even an afterthought. The plot was too ambitious. Fabricating a connection between Robin Hood and the Magna Carta neither made the plot more interesting, nor did it make it more politically relevant. In fact, it undermined what ought to have been an extremely timely political message. Several commentator argued that Ridley Scott turned Robin Hood into an icon of the Tea Party. That is exactly the opposite of what he did. Rather, he took a tax crusader, and turned him into an crusader for representative government. The two are by no means incommensurate, but they are different issues altogether.

Perhaps the most dissatisfying part of the film is that it simultaneously attempted to de-mythologize Robin Hood, while leaving in several mythological aspects. The most notable of which would be the legend surrounding his lineage. The number of coincidences involved in this subplot could be forgiven in mythology, but not in a gritty realistic reinvention (which is what Scott presumably was trying to create.) This is especially true, given that the entire subplot was invented to make Scott's Quixotic point.

Aesthetically, the movie turned out about average. There was an early siege scene that was done quite well, though there were a fair share of scenes that were poorly done. Most notably, there were several musical scenes, most of which seemed like irritating fillers. There were also several scenes with extremely choppy cinematography that was hardly worthy of a made for TV movie. There wasn't really anything wrong with the acting. It was an average role for Russell Crowe--in other words, the role was better than average. Cate Blanchette was about as depressing as Scott intended her to be, so mission accomplished for her.

If you're just looking for an action flick where plenty of heads role, you may enjoy this. Otherwise, save your money. It was 140 minutes of my life I wish I had back. You can blame screenwriter Brian Helgeland if you like, but Ridley Scott set the creative direction. Besides, who in their right mind would hire the screenwriter who wrote The Postman?

Iron Man 2

2010-05-09T14:40:00.001-07:00

★ ★ ★ ☆

I have to say right off the bat that I was not a big fan of the original Iron Man. It was similar to Christopher Nolan's Batman series, but lacked the depth. It was a beta version, at best. To my great surprise (and contrary to the critics), Iron Man 2 surpassed the original in every way imaginable. Not only was it more fun than the original, it was actually quite thought provoking. Though it doesn't delve into the deep philosophical territory of The Dark Knight, it deals with many of the same themes in a more accessible manner. I now see the Iron Man series as a complement to Nolan's Batman series, rather than an inferior competitor.

While the critics were generally positive towards Iron Man 2, they failed to acknowledge it as anything more than an adequate sequel. The sequel was more entertaining, and more insightful. The first installment dealt with the themes of vigilantism, and technological change, but not in a way that was particularly interesting. The second installment builds on both of these themes. While the first movie created the impression that Iron Man could keep the world secure, the second demonstrated the instability of this situation. The problem is that the world isn't static. Not only is Iron Man's technological supremacy fleeting, but he will not be around forever. The great strength of Iron Man 2 is that it is more than just a superhero movie: it is a statement about international relations, and security in general. What we witness is not merely a battle between good and evil, but a genuine arms race.

When critics chided the plot for being "clunky," or "confused," they failed to appreciate this central point: real life is messier than Hollywood fairy tales. The introduction of multiple new characters--many of ambiguous significance--accentuated this point. There is a great deal of uncertainty right up until the end. Who are the real players? Is Iron Man the earth's savior, or is he merely a puppet of SHIELD? And what about Vanko? Is he the most significant villain, or is was he merely the first to put a dent in Iron Man? This made the movie interesting, not muddled.

The critics were right about a couple of things. First, there was no major climactic battle scene. I agree that this was the case, but it is partly related to my previous point. It's hard to have a climactic scene when you don't even really know who the players are. The second thing they pointed out was that the sequel had a much more light hearted tone. Most of them were happy with this. Frankly, so was I. The series was never meant to have the same gravitas as the Batman series, and trying to create that tone would likely have backfired (as it usually does with comic book movies). Injecting some humour into the movie was the right way to go. This suited Robert Downey Junior just fine. I don't personally know RDJ, but Tony Stark was an uncanny portrayal of RDJ's public persona. He not only fit the role, but he genuinely seemed to enjoy himself. While this role didn't approach his masterful portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, it was definitely another home run for RDJ.

Aside from Downey, there were plenty of great casting decisions. Sam Rockwell played a great counterpart to RDJ. While his character evolved dramatically, it never felt contrived. He seemed to grow right into the role. Mickey Rourke was predictably solid, and Samuel Jackson was well cast. My only casting complaint is Scarlett Johansson. I've never found her to be particularly talented, so I assume that she gets her parts based on her appearance. Frankly, there are much more talented actresses who happen to be more attractive. It's no coincidence that the worst scene in the movie was the one where she played the largest role.

Jon Favreau deserves some serious credit. He has created a comic book movie that is both fun, and though provoking. This is a rare, if not unique achievement. He may not be Christopher Nolan, but he sure knows how to entertain an audience.

A Prophet (2009)

2010-04-13T20:55:00.000-07:00

★ ★ ★ ☆

I suppose the fact that I refrained from giving A Prophet four stars could be construed as fairly harsh criticism. I assure you that I'm not going to go all Armand White, though I did enjoy his overstated review. A Prophet was a very enjoyable film, laced with several riveting scenes. The first murder scene (yes, there's a murder in a movie about prison violence) is among the most intense scenes you'll see anywhere. The themes of Arabs in French culture, and the prison as a farm team for criminal organizations were handled particularly well. Good as it was, it was far from perfect.

From a technical standpoint, A Prophet was pretty solid. The acting was great all around; the cinematography was exceptional. Malik (Tahar Ratim) maintained a prophetic demeanor (as it were), even in the most chaotic scenes. Director Jacques Audiard was able to create (what I assume to be) a more authentic incarceration experience than most viewers have ever experience. He managed to capture the claustrophobia, the degradation, and the sheer terror of
life in a maximum security prison.

My problems were twofold. First, I couldn't stand the ending. When contrasted with it's closest cousin, The Godfather, it's ending comes up short. To avoid spoilers, I will refrain from further comment on this point. Second, the prophetic elements muddled the point of the film. There were the subtle allusions to Muhammad, such as the 40 days in solitary, which added greatly to the film, and then the supernatural elements, like his prophetic dreams. The supernatural elements were problematic, from a normative perspective.

Essentially, A Prophet can be interpreted as an allegory for the rebellion against colonialism. After all, it is about an immigrant prisoner, who can neither read, nor write the language of overseers. He is taken on as a servant by the Sicilian prisoners, who treat him like a dog. The combination of the anti-colonial theme, and the quasi-religious elements bothered me. If religious assumptions are going to be incorporated into a film, it should be done without losing site of the moral implications. If Malik is actually a prophet, then what do his brutal actions tell us about his faith? Are drug lords the new shepherds? Either Audiard is implying that there is a God, who is quite evil, or is being inconsistent. I assume the latter is the case.

In an interview, Audiard stated that "The character of the Prophet heralds this new criminal prototype: he’s not a psychopath, he’s intelligent and almost angelic." This is what makes Malik fascinating. The religious allusions are great, but the outright supernatural elements bring up too many metaphysical questions that undermine the film. Though A Prophet is not perfect, it is a must see. Just don't let the hype create unrealistic expectations.

Things We Lost In The Fire (2007)

2010-04-11T17:34:00.000-07:00

★ ★ ★ 1/2

Some actors are typecast early in their careers. They are doomed to play the same role over and over, with decreasing success. Benicio Del Toro is one of the rare exceptions to this rule. Most of Del Toro's major roles have dealt with drugs, and addiction. Even his most recent role, The Wolfman dealt with the subject of addiction obliquely. Yet somehow, Del Toro seems to add an additional layer of complexity to his oeuvre with each role. In Fear and Loathing, he played a comedic, yet frightfully erratic junkie. In Sin City, he played a merciless, abusive drunk. His character in Things We Lost In The Fire provides a stark contrast.

Things We Lost In The Fire is a story about the fallout of a homicide. Audrey (Halle Berry), plays a widow, left with a young family, and the grief of her husband's recent death. Jerry (Del Toro), her husband's best friend, is a drug addict who is shaken by the death of his only friend. Jerry has avoided Audrey for years, since she disapproved of her husband's relationship with a heroin addict. Were it not for her husband's demise, she may not have ever seen him again. He likely would have died in an alley somewhere. This is how she felt it ought to have been.

This was arguably Del Toro's best role to date. Jerry seems to represent a best case drug rehab scenario, though we're always aware of his vulnerability. He is eerily detached, especially when listening to music or having a cigarette. He seems to immerse himself in these activities the way that only a recovering addict could. Halle Berry was no slouch either. There is a fine line between depressed and mopey. She deserves major credit for straddling that line. It's rare to see two actors so excel in such difficult roles simultaneously. There was a kind of synergy that is quite rare.

Though the acting made the movie, Susanne Bier's gritty directorial style certainly complemented the leading roles. Shifty camcorder shots helped accentuate the sense of disarray. This disarray would momentarily stop every time the camera peered into Halle Berry's eyes, or paused on Del Toro's face. It's as though Bier was trying to plunge the audience into the depth of their souls. From this close, we could just see that tiny glimmer of hope left for them. This is one of the most mature, and ultimately hopeful cinematic treatments of grief, and addiction. A wonderful English language debut for Susanne Bier.

Clash Of The Titans (2010)

2010-04-10T12:05:00.002-07:00

★ ★ ☆ ☆

Generally my expectations for action movies are quite low. Things blow up, the bad guys die, and we all live happily ever after. My expectations were a bit different for Clash of the Titans. Given how heavily it relies upon supernatural phenomena, I assumed that it was either going to be really good, or really bad. As a movie about a war between mortals and deities, there are obvious logical problems that can hinder the film. Given the fuzzy metaphysical assumptions that are adopted, any sort of realism is nearly impossible to achieve. The only potential saving grace would be if that very metaphysical scheme made an interesting philosophical point. From the outset, it seemed likely that it would be a train wreck.

Admittedly, I was wrong: Clash of the Titans was neither good, nor bad. It did a reasonable job of reigning in the excesses of supernatural movies, though didn't achieve the philosophical importance of a film like 300. Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, and Ralph Fiennes all put in respectable performances. Louis Leterrier deserves credit for taking a difficult screenplay, and making it watchable. While the screenwriters didn't entirely drop the ball, they wrote in their fair share of cliches and fell into some of the expected traps of supernatural films. I was satisfied, though after having walked out of Alice in Wonderland, I'd have been happy with just about anything.

Alice In Wonderland (2010)

2010-04-10T11:44:00.000-07:00

★ ☆ ☆ ☆

There isn't much to say about Tim Burton's Alice. It was the first movie that I actually walked out of and got a refund. The CGI was creepy, and the subtexts were extremely lewd for a kids movie. I don't think Burton really knew who his audience was. It isn't really appropriate for children, yet is completely uninteresting for adults. As a big fan of Tim Burton, and an even bigger fan of Johnny Depp, I was extremely disappointed (though I couldn't sit through enough of it to actually see Johnny). I'm at a loss for words.

The Wolfman (2010)

2010-02-23T18:58:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ★ ★

The Wolfman is yet another in a string of genre defining reinventions. It is to the monster genre what The Dark Knight is to the superhero genre, and Sherlock Holme s is to detective films. The critics weren't thrilled by it, but this shouldn't be surprising. There was relatively little violence for a horror film, and there is a level of complexity that most critics seem unable to comprehend.

Most monster movies have one of three problems. First, they fall into the trap of all supernatural movies. The character seems almost impervious to harm, thus reducing the immediacy of potential dangers. Second, they fail to create an compelling bond between the monster, and other human beings. This makes it hard to care about the monster. Third, and most common, they typically fail to conjure up the philosophical potential of the genre. Coppola's Dracula is an example of a film that avoided these pitfalls, though it was marred by other technical issues that prevented it from meeting its full potential. Aside from that, The Wolfman is the only film in the genre since the silent era I can think of that avoided these issues.

Far from simply meeting my criteria, Joe Johnston's film exceeded my expectations on every level. Within the first minute of the film, I knew it would be great. The cinematography was brilliant. Every shot had it's purpose. The often dizzying camera movement slowly fleshes out the surroundings, conveying a sense of vulnerability. We know there's something out there, and we know that there is nowhere to hide.

I cannot imagine a more perfect Wolfman than Benecio Del Toro. The additional facial hair almost looks natural on Del Toro, and his detached demeanor made him a natural for the role. Anthony Hopkins was solid as the elder Talbot, and Hugo Weaving was well cast as the lead detective. Much to my surprise, the stand out role was played by Emily Blunt. As The Wolfman's only connection to humanity, she is the thread that holds the film together.

The Wolfman explores the connection between trauma and social deviance. As we gradually discover tidbits from Lawrence's past, the allegory becomes evident. The Wolfman is a product of its environment. It is a dangerous creature, that can only be cured at great personal risk to others. Some will say that the only way to cure it is to release it from its burden. Perhaps this is the case. This is a revelation that has profound consequences with respect to rehabilitation, and mental illness. It is one of those possibilities that no one wants to explore. As human beings, we tend to avoid such unpleasant thoughts. The mark of a truly great film is that it challenges our prior beliefs. By this measure, The Wolfman is a major success. Don't let the critics dissuade you. Cinematic experiences of this quality are few and far between. Catch it while you still can.

Shotgun Stories (2007)

2010-02-22T19:53:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ★ 1/2

Shotgun Stories, directed by Jeff Nichols, is one of the best debut films I have ever seen. Few directors have the courage to ignore most film conventions, and the judgement to do so without everyone noticing. This isn't a film about heroes and villains; a battle between good and evil. Rather, it is about two families embroiled in a dispute where everyone is wrong.

The film is about the two families left behind by a recently deceased man. The man's first family shows up at his funeral, and reminds his later family that he had not always been the good man they knew him as. This simple act reignited the hatred that the two families were raised to feel towards one another. Like the Hatfields and the McCoys, the dispute takes on a life of its own. The transgression in question was committed by a dead man, and the consequences are in the past. Yet, they feel compelled to maintain the feud as a matter of honour.

The story is notable more for its omissions, and false starts than for the actual events. It was far more honest than most films. Scuffles break out, but they typically fizzle out. At least one member of each family wants to end the feud, but their reticence seems to embolden the other family members. It's as though both sides wants to maintain the animosity, but neither wants to take it beyond the occasional shoving match. There is hatred between the two families, but it is not all consuming. Minor incidents lead to further conflicts, but the escalation never seems intentional. It is an untenable equilibrium, and there is a sense of inevitable tragedy.

The passivity of the conflict is underscored by the languid pace of the film. It has a pastoral feel, which is underscored by folkish score, and minimalist dialogue. The characters are painted with an essentialist brush. Whether in their personal lives, or in the feud, they act on impulse. They give little thought to their actions, though they're never in a rush to see them through. Though some viewers may find the pacing too slow, it is hard not to get caught up in the sheer beauty of the film.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (2009)

2010-02-22T17:15:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ★ ★

Legendary director Werner Herzog has taken his career in several different directions since his glory days in the 70's. Notably, he now works almost entirely in English, and with major Hollywood actors. In Bad Lieutenant, Herzog casted Nicolas Cage to play the aptly titled main character in a wry take on the neo-noire genre. As usual, Herzog uses this film to examine the dark side of humanity, though in a more accessible manner. In marked contrast to his earlier work, Bad Lieutenant is funny, even feeling light hearted at times. The cynicism of the film is always buoyed by Nick Cage's casually vulgar performance. He makes you laugh, even when you suspect you shouldn't.

After seeing Fear and Loathing, I assumed that there was no need to ever see another drug movie. Trainspotting was the only exception that I'd found until the Bad Lieutenant. Herzog captured the casual hypocrisy of the Drug War by exploiting every imaginable stereotype about police corruption. While Cage's character was off the wall, he was never quite over the top. Somehow, it wouldn't surprise me if there were a dozen officers playing by his rules in post-Katrina New Orleans.

Despite the nonchalant attitude the film takes towards drugs and violence, it still maintains the subtlety that you would expect from a director of Herzog's stature. As the film progresses, tiny fragments of information congeal to give the seemingly aimless plot line some direction. Though it would be a stretch to call it conventional, there is a story buried beneath the rubble. Even if there wasn't, the comedy would be enough to make it worthwhile. I never thought I would say that about a Herzog film.

Shutter Island (2010)

2010-02-20T13:30:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ★ ☆

Shutter Island was a good film that could easily have been excellent. Though the film was based on a novel by Dennis Lehane, Scorsese attempted to pattern the film after Orson Welles' adaptation of The Trial. Unfortunately, the latter influence was undermined by the former. It felt as though Scorsese was attempting to stitch together two different movies.

Scorsese did an excellent job of creating a claustrophobic feeling on Shutter Island. There is only one way out, we're told, and and only by ferry. The camera was generally focused in from the characters perspective, and was always moving. It always felt like it was drawing the characters, and the audience towards some unspeakable horror. This was especially well done in the scenes inside the prison.

The oppressive grip of the island was broken in two different ways. First, there were a series of dreams that Teddy (DiCaprio) had about his dead wife, largely set within the walls of the prison. This did somewhat reduce the immediacy of the dangers lurking in the island, but did contribute to the back story. A second set of dreams went much further towards breaking the spell of the island. These dreams were centered upon dreams about Teddy's experiences in the war. These were very problematic. By transporting us through time and space, Scorsese not only slowed down the pace of the present storyline, but also eased the oppressiveness of the island. The Kafkaesque atmosphere that Scorsese ultimately fell prey to the heavy handed screenplay that is to be expected from an adaptation of a Dennis Lehane novel. We were constantly given more information than we needed, and the pacing suffered.

Aside from structural issues, Shutter Island was technically sound. Excellent performances all around, and the cinematography should nab Robert Richardson an Oscar nod. With DiCaprio, Ben Kingsley, and Mark Ruffalo playing major roles, it should be no surprise that the acting was spot on. Though far from perfect, Shutter Island is one of the year's first must see movies.

Crazy Heart (2009)

2010-02-19T17:30:00.001-08:00

★ ★ 1/2

You've no doubt heard that Crazy Heart is this year's version of The Wrestler. After all, that's how it's being promoted. Watching the film, it was entirely obvious that the director had the same comparison in mind. I'll spare you the suspense: It was nowhere near as good as The Wrester. Rather than capitalizing on the success of it's model, it was a victim of it's own ambition. If you're going to pattern your movie after a great film, it has to add something in order to avoid redundancy. By that metric, it failed. That is, unless you really liked the music.

Crazy Heart never quite captured the sense of inevitable decline found in The Wrestler, nor did it achieve the stasis of a film like Sideways. It's wasn't about a man who couldn't help himself. Rather, it was about a man marred by temporary setbacks of his own creation. It was neither sad, nor funny. Scott Cooper tried to recreate The Wrestler, but ended up with a sanitized version of Leaving Las Vegas. It wasn't a bad movie. It just wasn't particularly interesting.

As much as I like Jeff Bridges, I don't think that either he or Maggie Gyllenhaal deserved Academy Award nominations. They played the roles well, but they weren't roles that required much extension. Bridges was good, but not good enough to redeem an unremarkable film. After Mickey Rourke was overlooked for his role in The Wrestler, it would be insulting if Bridges were to take home an Oscar for a cheap knock off.

Bronson (2009)

2010-02-14T21:42:00.001-08:00

★ ★ ★ 1/2

Bronson is a film about British prisoner Michael Gordon Peterson, later dubbed Charles Bronson. Peterson was sent to prison for robbing a bank, and went on to spend the majority of his life in solitary confinement. Peterson always wanted to be famous, so he made sure to use this opportunity to build his notoriety. While he is not a household name, he has become a star to his fellow inmates, and more importantly, to himself. Bronson is a tale of the purest narcissism imaginable. Only a masterful performance could possibly make the film interesting. Fortunately, Tom Hardy delivered.

Prison films tend to be about troubled characters who are struggling to escape from their demons. Bronson is quite the opposite. Bronson has no interest in rehabilitation. It is tempting to think that he is just a masochistic lunatic. After all, right from the beginning of the film, the man invites constant physical punishment. Yet, he never seems to be malicious. Like a mischievous child, Bronson always tries to push his boundaries. He constantly provokes the guards to attack him for his own amusement. The physical punishment never seems to bother him. It seems that he is the star of his own one man show. Though his personal amusement is enough to justify his constant punishment, he relishes the notoriety that it has caused. His only use for others is as instruments. Guards, women--their only use is to further his own personal drama. This is the ultimate narcissism.

Bronson is one of the grittiest art house films around. It's repeated violent sequences are bridged together by a the main character performing a stand up routine, likely in his own mind. Though the violence is brutal, and the plot line slow, Bronson is always gripping. It's funny, yet we feel guilty about laughing. Bronson is an ascetic, or a madman. He never quite lets us into his mind, but he always reveals just enough to keep the audience wondering.

The Last Station (2009)

2010-02-13T17:10:00.001-08:00

★ ★ ☆ ☆

There are few things more difficult than turning the life of a great novelist into a film. As such, I was not expecting much from The Last Station. Sadly, I got less than I'd bargained for. I expected it to be an interesting biopic, much life you'd see on television. Even by that metric it failed.

It is a real shame to see a film about Tolstoy fall flat. There is so much that one could do with the man's life, but instead the film focused on a copyright battle. His pacifist followers were determined to release his materials into the public domain, to attempt to build his anarchist movement. The director never ceased to remind us of just how important this was. The film begins with an explanation of how important the movement is, and how crucial the copyright issue is to it's success. Unfortunately, it is not at all convincing. While Tolstoy influenced important figures such as Ghandi, and Martin Luther King, his movement never became broadly popular. Tolstoy didn't even seem to care. Had this scenario have been used ironically, it may have been interesting. Unfortunately, director Michael Hoffman seemed to take it more seriously than the author. The plot seemed stitched together; aimless.

An even more serious problem than the plotline was the fact that they even attempted to make a film about Tolstoy in English. Frankly, it is extremely unwise to make any film with English actors playing Russians. Russians have an emotional range, and accompanying mannerisms that do not come easily to non-Russians. Attempts to emulate this usually end up looking ridiculous. Even a talented actor like James McAvoy couldn't pull it off. Christopher Plummer's role didn't quite demand the same reach, and he didn't try to provide it. I'm a huge fan of Paul Giamatti, but I couldn't help but cringe at his accent. Helen Mirren was slightly better, though a tad shrill. I don't fault any of the actors, as they are all fantastic. This just wasn't the project for any of them.

One day I hope that an interesting film about Tolstoy is released. Hopefully the next time around, it is actually made in Russian. There is an obvious temptation to make everything in English, since many people don't want to deal with subtitles. This is just another example of why it's difficult for great films to be popular. Film lovers would rather watch authentic films, made in the proper language. Casual movie goers might not. Given that this was supposed to be an art house film, I'm not quite sure why they didn't give the audience a little more credit.

Moon (2009)

2010-02-13T12:38:00.000-08:00

★ ★ 1/2

Moon is the type of independent film that I should like. It is philosophical, resourceful, and well acted. Yet, there was something missing. It never quite reached the heights--or the depths--that it ought to have. It didn't add anything to a genre that has already been explored by great directors such as Tarkovsky and Kubrick.

As far as directorial debuts go, Moon was impressive. Duncan Jones did well to avoid the campiness of his father's space themed movies. However, the fact that it was an impressive debut, and that it was better than David Bowie movies, only gets Moon so far. Sam Rockwell has been heavily praised for his performance, though he never quite captured the solitude of his situation. It was kind of like watching a man furrowing his brows at his mothers funeral. Under some circumstances, that gesture would indicate an appropriate level of frustration. In this situation, it just isn't enough. Rockwell's performance was mopey, not sad. Kevin Spacey, as Moon's version of HAL 9000 was as detached as one might expect from a robot, though too much so for one that has allegedly attained consciousness. GERTY never displayed the malice, or the reticence of HAL 9000. In short, he was dull.

As far as the storyline goes, it is interesting. Given the subject matter, I would have expected it to be intriguing. The theme of cloning is one that has yet to be exhausted, and holds deep philosophical implications. Which Sam is the original? Does it matter? The first question wasn't adequately exploited, and the second was barely broached. In the end, the story fizzled out. Unable to properly explore the moral implications of the situation, they filled the vacuum with political nonsense. My advise is to watch the film, but ignore the hype. The film's greatest curse is the unreasonable expectations created by critics, rather than its modest budget.

Top 10 Films 2000-2009

2010-02-09T12:29:00.001-08:00

10) The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

Terry Gilliam films are not for everyone. They are enigmatic, and unorthodox. Few directors would make a film about a travelling sideshow, co-starring the world's shortest man. The Imaginarium is a film about the artist's quest for immortality. While Parnassus strives for authenticity, he is tempted by the lure of popularity. Clearly, this was a very personal film for Gilliam. As a director who works far outside of the mainstream, he is constantly faced with this tradeoff. As usual, Gilliam's efforts were complicated by a production disaster. This time, it was the death of Heath Ledger. Remarkably, all of the non-CGI scenes had been shot at the time of his death, so Gilliam was able to complete the film with the help of a few prominent surrogates. Somehow, everything came together. As abbreviated as his role ended up being, this was ultimately Heath Ledger's film. His entrance into the film is the most spectacular I've ever seen, and he owned the film even after he disappeared.

9) The Orphanage (2007)

The nomenclature for the "Horror" genre might as well be changed to "kinda sorta scary stuff that makes me jump outta my seat." That's about all you will usually find. There is a difference between fear and horror. The Orphanage is one of the only recent films that is both terrifying and horrifying. South American magical realism is one of the most interesting genres alive today. I was very torn between including this, or Pan's Labyrinth to represent the genre. Though Pan's Labyrinth may have had deeper philosophical implications, The Orhpanage created far more suspense, and was much more tightly constructed. Every scene contributed to the mystery, and the film ended on precisely the type of note that the genre aspires to. The blurring of imagination and reality was masterfully crafted. The idea of salvation through imagination has rarely been so maserfully illustrated.

8) Atonement (2007)

I know, I know. Just another conventional love story right? Not even close. Sappy romances are not my thing. They are typically contrived, and formulaic. Atonement did not fall into this trap. Based on one of the best novels of the decade, Atonement had far more depth than one would expect from a popular romance. Giving the audience multiple perspectives on events gave us an unusually adept insight into the minds of the characters, and showed us just how devastating a simple missunderstanding can be. Joe Wright has an uncanny eye for perspective and detail. Some directors would would stick in a a whole scene to talk about how nervous the protagonist is about a date--or worse, use a voice over, when all Joe Wright has to do is show the flicker of a lighter to convey the same emotion. Joe Wright is the closest thing our generation has to Orson Welles.

7) The Wrestler (2008)

Darren Aronofsky is one of the most talented directors around. The Wrestler is his masterpiece. The film is about a broken down wrestler trying to make his way back to the top. The film is a model of techincal perfection. The music, the cinematography, the acting--everything conspired to bring out the overwhelming sadness of the story. Against the backdrop of New Jersey, the story was bleak. However, there always seemed to be a glimmer of hope right around the corner. Mickey Rourke played the role admirably, and it is a crime that he was deprived of the Oscar. I can only think of one better comeback role in recent memory. Speaking of comeback roles, Marissa Tomei's performance was also Oscar worthy. She may already have an Oscar, but this time she actually deserved it. At it's core, The Wrestler is an elegy for the 80s. The decade was gaudy, and self absorbed. It was the first in a series of generations composed largely of perpetual adolescents. The Wrestler is a film about what happens when that adolescence ends.

6) The Dark Knight (2008)

Simply put, The Dark Knight is the greatest action film ever made. It had a complexity that is unmatched in the genre. Christopher Nolan delved even deeper into his examination of the tension between truth and justice than any of his previous films. At it's heart, the film is deeply Straussian, and forces us to contemplate whether sometimes the truth is not good enough. Perhaps we need a noble lie to inspire us to be better than we really are.

5) JCVD (2008)

I have never been more surprised by a film than I was by JCVD. The film more effectively blurred the line between documentary and fiction than anything I've seen. This is largely due to the fact that the film mirrored Jean Claude Van Damme's real life struggles. Here we have a man who has just lost a custody battle over his daughter, and who's celebrity has faded. He has never made a film he is proud of, and he approaches an art house director to see if he can make a serious film. Van Damme proved that he is more than a man with a mean roundhouse kick. Most of his lines were unscripted, including a powerful 6 minute monologue where he shatters the fourth wall, and appeals directly to the audience. Like The Wrestler, JCVD was a cinematic redemption. Only this time, it's real.

4) Boy A (2007)

Boy A takes a brutality honest look at the possibilities, and perils of rehabilitiation. Through a series of flashbacks, we get a sense of how Jack had come to be an ex convict. I can't think of a film with a linear, coterminal flashback sequence that worked out this well. Boy A succeeded where Godfather 2 failed. The urgency of the present is matched by the urgency of the past. Andrew Garfield is likely the best young actor in Hollywood. Though his rehabilitation is quite evident, he never let's his troubled past escape us. The justice system has suceeded against all odds to rehabilitate him, but not to prepare him to deal with his own terrible legacy.

3) Synecdoche, New York (2008)

Many critics consider Synecdoche to be the best film of the decade. It is a film that delves deeply into our notions of individualism, and comes to some troubling conclusions. Maybe we aren't so special. The artist, the performer, and the man on the street are all actors in their own insignificant stories. No matter how hard we try, we all end up as disapointments. All we can do is keep on striving towards the impossible ideals with which we have been furnished. Even if you disagree with the premise, it is certainly a compelling examination of secular man's search for meaning.

2) Fateless (2005)

Based on the Nobel Prize winning Holocaust novel Fatelessness, Fateless is arguably the greatest literary adaptation of all time. I suppose it didn't hurt that the Imre Kertesz, the author of the source material, wrote the screenplay. Fateless departs from the conventions that we associate with Holocaust films. Much like Empire of the Sun, the plot unfolds from the point of a child, unaware of the seriousness of the events. The film is as apolitical as one could imagine. It wasn't about the evils of the Nazis, or the missfortunes of the Jews. Rather, it was about the banality of evil. No one involved quite understands why they are doing what they do. Everyone has their specific role. Persecutor, and persecuted are equally prisoners to their circumstances. Every single character added something. The reactions of Georgi's grandparents as his father is reporting for the camps was absolutely heartbreaking. Daniel Craig's brief appearance was easily his finest role. Bleak as it was, Fateless was never quite devoid of hopefullness. Perhaps one day the guilt of the survivors will be forgotten. Alas, that may be the greatest tragedy of all.

1) Adaptation (2002)

Adaptation is one of the most complete film experiences imaginable. It is not only Kaufman's funniest movie, it is also his most intelligent. Adaptation delves into the mind of a creative genius attempting to do the impossible: make a film about flowers. He wants to eshew all of the conventions of film. No one should fall in love. No one should change. Nothing should happen. While he is trying to adapt The Orchid Thief (an extraordinary book by Susan Orlean), his brother (and alter ego) Donald is breaking into Hollywood writing a completely non-sensical screenplay which (surprise, surprise) the production companies love. Kaufman's hopeless project takes an abrupt turn after a workshop with a writing coach, recommended to him by his brother. The irony of the film is complete when he enlists his brother to help deliver the type of film that the audience actually wants.

Daybreakers (2010)

2010-01-15T11:59:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ☆ ☆

Daybreakers was an ambitious attempt to create an unconventional vampire film that would force the audience to examine the philosophical implications of the genre anew. By that metric, it failed. Unfortunately, the Spierig Brothers have no eye for subtlety. There's an old literary adage that tells authors that it's better to 'show' the audience something, rather than to 'tell' it to them. The Spierig Brothers prefer to do both. This is the kind of condescending screenwriting that gives Hollywood a bad name. The laughably bad dialogue doesn't help either.

If you can put aside any concerns for psychological realism, and artistic merit, you may still enjoy the movie. The action sequences are above average, and it does have a few laughs (not all of them are unintentional). Ethan Hawke and Sam Neil did a fair job, and Willem Dafoe was actually quite good. I'm not quite sure why the directors felt the need to blow everything up. I think they drastically overestimate how much the audience enjoys gratuitus destruction.

There really isn't much more to say about Daybreakers. It's a typical action movie that seemed like it might have some depth. The anti-pharmaceutical industry allegory was somewhat interesting, though overplayed. The screenplay was so thoroughly drenched with vampire blood that I doubt anyone actually cared about the plot. The only particular strength was the ending. It calls to mind George Constanzas thoughts on dying: “I’ve lived my whole life in shame — why should I die with dignity?” If you're looking for a generic action movie, it's probably worth your while. Just don't expect anything more from it.

Worst Blockbuster Movies of the Decade

2010-01-13T12:40:00.000-08:00

The first thing you'll notice about this list is that Battlefield Earth isn't on it. There are two reasons for this. First, it's hard to call it a blockbuster. The budget was over $40 million, but it only made about half of that back. Second, it is hilarious. Sure, it wasn't supposed to be funny, but it was. This makes it an awful movie, but not quite as bad as the 10 on the list. Without further ado:

10) G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Alright, I admit I couldn't actually bring myself to watch this one. I've heard such bad things about it from people I trust, that I feel comfortable sticking this on the list without having to sit through it. If that's not good enough for you, try sitting through it yourself.

9) Knowing

If Hollywood had a slogan, it would surely be "We Didn't Listen!" It seems that every second blockbuster is about how either we are headed for a cataclysmic event, and it could be averted if we listened to the mystics. It bothers me that Nicolas Cage takes roles like this. Cage has proven himself to be a world class actor in films such as Adaptation, The Weatherman, and Leaving Las Vegas. Unfortunately, he seems to privilege high paying roles where he doesn't have to play a loser.

8) Spider Man 3

The only thing worse than making one superhero movie starring Tobey Maguire is making three superhero movies starring Tobey Maguire. Then again, making four would be worse...you get the point.

7) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

An movie about an emo kid and his robot friends trying to save the world from a bunch of other robots. It doesn't help that the kid is Shia LaBeouf. I'm still confused why they felt the need to include not one, but two dog sex scenes in the first hour. When I figured out that it was a 2 1/2 hour movie, I gave up and walked out. I wish I had that hour of my life back.

6) The Day After Tomorrow

Filmmakers often use their craft in order to shed light on a social issue that they care dearly about. That is fine, as long as it's done honestly. Unfortunately, this was not the case in The Day After Tomorrow. The degree to which the effects of global warming was so ridiculous that it became nothing more than a joke for global warming skeptics. Of course, director Roland Emmerich isn't out to fight global warming any more than he is to shill for Mayan prophecies. He's just looking for any excuse to use special effects.

5) 2012

Yes, a second Roland Emmerich movie. His 10,000 BC nearly gave him the hat trick (in his own net?). Emmerich has no eye for subtlety. All he knows how to do is knock over buildings. I don't even particularly care that the movie is about a dumb Mayan prophecy. I'm more perturbed by his general disregard for the laws of physics. I still don't understand how a vehicle can scrape it's way under a falling bridge. It's as though he pauses and fast forwards gravity at his discretion. This is film making at it's laziest.

4) Star Wars: Episode III

To be fair, Episode I was much worse. Yet even with the low expectations most people had for this, it still managed to disappoint. It was alternatively boring, and hilarious. Neither was intentional. I can't think of a worse way to end the disgraced Star Wars franchise.

3) The Matrix Revolutions

I hated the first Matrix movie. I understand why people liked it, but I hated it. I can't imagine anyone having liked the third installment. I don't understand what the point of the third movie was. We realised that Neo was supposed to be Jesus. Do we really need a movie about him being crucified? And what is with actually creating an entity called Deus Ex Machina? (Hey, let's use a scorned literary device, and actually call it by it's name). I kind of assume the irony was intentional, but it sure sucked all the gravitas out of the series (if there was any to begin with).

2) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Indiana Jones + Shia LaBeouf + aliens. Apparently this is a formula for box office success. The only good thing about this is that it was fodder for a great South Park episode.

1) Crash

There are 8 people in LA, and their lives are intimately connected (even though most of them don't really know each other). Crash is a movie about how pervasive racism is, yet they can only demonstrate this by relying on a series of unlikely consequences. While watching it, you can just imagine the biggest possible coincidence, and it'll happen in the next scene. Even beyond the coincidences, the premise is just ridiculous. I still remember hearing about Crash on a morning talk show while having breakfast with a friend. When we heard that it was about a "philosophical carjacker," we both burst out laughing. Imagine my reaction when it won best picture.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

2010-01-10T10:44:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ★ ★

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is the most significant film event of the decade. This is not to say that it is the best film of the decade, though it is certainly near the top of that list. It's importance lies nearly as much in the circumstances of it's production and marketing as in it's actual aesthetic value. The film was nearly derailed by the untimely death of Heath Ledger, who was cast in the lead role as Tony. In order to save the production, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell offered to complete Ledger's role. The film took place partially in London, and partially in an imaginary CGI world. Miraculously, all of the non-CGI scenes were shot before Ledger's death, so the film was ultimately salvaged. For fans of the late actor, this came as a welcome surprise. Despite the fact that the Joker was Ledger's strongest role, I could not think of a more appropriate way for his career to end.

The Imaginarium is an extremely complex film. Terry Gilliam is known for throwing way more at his audience that they can handle in a single viewing. If you've seen Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, you might know what I mean. If you've seen it more than 3 times, you definitely understand. Nominally, it is simply a film about an archaic side show. The ring leader, Doctor Parnassus, has mystical abilities which allow bystanders to be transported to a mystical world, where their dreams--or nightmares--may come true. Unfortunately, this summary doesn't do it justice. There simply is no way to summarize the film. At it's core, it is about the tension between reason, and the imagination. This struggle is embodied in the aging Parnassus, who's show has long since lost any mass appeal. He lives to show the world the pleasures of the mind, though he struggles to do so in a society largely dedicated to instant gratification. In a crucial scene, Tony attempts to convince Parnassus to modernize his show. Listening to the newcomer lecture the old master, it is clear that this is an extremely personal matter for Gilliam. As a director who's films lie outside of the mainstream, Gilliam has been pressured to do so for his entire career. As we watch Parnassus fall prey to this temptation, we are also watching Gilliam do the same. Unfortunately, critics seemed to have missed the irony.

The world's that Gilliam created behind the mirror were as beautiful as anything I've seen in CGI. Though it was not as technically as impressive as Pandora was in Avatar, it was used to greater effect. The fluid melange of landscapes, mostly created from great American paintings, combined with Gilliam's array of surreal creatures and props, created a dream world of epic proportions. I now feel like I've experienced the dreams of Terry Gilliam.

Heath Ledger made the single most dramatic entrance to a film I have ever seen. Aside from the eerie effect of Ledger posthumously entering the film, the way in which he does so is particularly ominous. Ledger's death increased the gravitas of the role to a near prophetic level. Each time Ledger stepped through the mirror, I couldn't help but wonder if it would be his final exit. The themes of death and immortality have rarely seemed as imminent.

Some critics may point out that some of the dialogue is stilted. This is particularly the case in the scenes with the Devil. This is inevitable with this type of film. I chuckled during my first viewing of The Seventh Seal, when the protagonist challenges death to a chess match. It's so outlandish a proposition that it's hard to take it seriously. The same thing happens to an extent in Parnassus, though it's important to remember that it is not supposed to be as dark. Gilliam's devil is not the dark, suave figure that is typical of such films. That would be too simplistic for Gilliam's taste.

Unfortunately, Parnassus has not yet received a full release. Many theatres have not yet released it, likely because it is being crowded out by the success of Avatar. Hopefully when the Avatar hysteria dies down, Heath Ledger will get the send off he deserves.

The Hurt Locker (2009)

2010-01-06T22:10:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ★ ★

Conventional war movies bore me. In fact, there are few things that put me to sleep faster than a machine gun laden action sequence. The Hurt Locker is the latest in the underrepresented genre of war movies that are about the soldiers rather than the war. The movie follows a bomb squad through the final days of its deployment in Iraq. The film is remarkably apolitical, focusing on giving us a soldiers eye view of a combat environment. The handheld camera gives us an eye into the paranoia of soldiers in an urban combat environment. We get as close as observers can to experiencing the fog of war. In one scene, a man with a gun is picked off by a sniper. We don't know if he's an insurgent, and we never will. That is how urban warfare works.

While director Kathryn Bigalow was provided a remarkable cast for an independent production, she didn't feel the need to allot screen time based on reputation. Actors were casted for specific roles, and only got as much exposure as their role merited. Bigalow leaned heavily on two relative unknowns, Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie, who delivered stunning performances. Each character illustrated the near stoic demeanor required to perform a near suicidal mission. Yet even martyrs are prey to human frailties, and neither character was an exception.

As good as it was, the film was not perfect. The decision to include footage from the home front was at best superfluous, and there were a few departures from the soldiers point of view that diminished the aura of uncertainty. Furthermore, the scenes with the psychologist were characterized by unrealistic dialogue, and weak performances by both doctor and patient.

Shortcomings aside, the film is one of the best war movies of the decade. I would not be disappointed to see it win best picture, and would be extremely disappointed if cinematographer Barry Ackroyd was deprived of an Oscar nomination. After a series of lackluster releases, Kathryn Bigalow has proven that she can be among the best directors around.

Nine (2009)

2009-12-30T13:59:00.001-08:00

★ ★ ☆ ☆

Nine set out to combine an homage to Frederico Fellini with a dazzling musical. It accomplished neither. It is not 8 1/2, and it is not Chicago. At best, it is an elaborate ode to the glamour of 1960s Italy. At worst, it is a lavish, self indulgent tribute to Hollywood. Either way, it was a major disapointment.

Unlike Rob Marshall's previous musical, Chicago, Nine fell completely flat. The musical numbers were awkward, and monotonous. Kate Hudson's number was outright terrible. The only one that was even passable was from Marion Cotillard. Cotillard was one of the few bright spots in this otherwise mundane film. Coming off a well deserved Oscar for La Vie En Rose, Cotillard proved once again that she is one of the most skilled actresses around. This is the first movie I've ever seen where Daniel Day Lewis was actually a sore spot. Not only did he not capture the tortured film director, but his accent and mannerisms were downright annoying. He came off as more of an Italian stereotype than an actual Italian. If there was one thing I expected from Nine, it's decent acting. It seems even the otherwise stellar cast couldn't bring the uninspired story to life.

As bad a film as Nine was, the one almost saving grace was the cinematography. The interplay between light and darkness suggested the emotions that Daniel Day Lewis was supposed to conjure up. Shifting between colour and black and white was extremely effective in creating the feeling of a modernized period piece. Using several prominent backdrops from Fellini's film career helped to capture this feel, though the tiresome dialogue never ceased to ruin the effect. While Fellini's films were always subtle and indirect, Nine was quite the opposite. Rather than an ode to Fellini, the movie seemed to be a Hollywood tribute to how damn cool 1960s Italy was. I have the feeling that there is a pretty good tourism commercial buried under the rubble of this 118 minute disaster.

Unless you are extremely interested in fashion (which I am not), I can't see any reason to subject yourself to Nine. If you want to see a great modern mockumentary, pick up a copy of Adaptation. If you want to see another musical of Chicago caliber, I'd recommend Sweeny Todd. If you want to see a combination of the two, I'm afraid you'll just have to wait.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

2009-12-28T11:25:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ★ ★

The redemption of Anthony Peckham came swift and mercilessly. A few weeks ago I derided the screenwriter for his mind numbingly dull portrayal of Nelson Mandela. While the screenplay for Sherlock Holmes was a collaborative effort, it has certainly ameliorated my opinion of the man. Guy Ritchie has finally established himself as one of the premier contemporary directors. His films never lack in style, but for once that style is matched by its substance.

Though purists have derided the film from departing from the original stories, this departure was well worthwhile. Robert Downey Junior's Holmes does not resemble the stolid Victorian Holmes of Arthur Conan Doyle. I've never quite been able to drag myself through his stories, yet I was on the edge of my seat for the entire film. Downey and Jude Law made one of the best on screen partnerships in recent memory. Like Holmes and Watson, Downey and Law were mutually complementary. Even in the darkest moments, neither let the other take himself too seriously.

This was by far the best depiction of 19th Century London yet created. Rather than the putrid industrial wasteland that is typically portrayed, Richie's London was a somewhat hopeful place. The rapid development of the city is embodied in the nascent Westminster Bridge, which made for a clever backdrop. As the film progresses, we can feel the gradual triumph of science and industry over the forces of superstition and titular rule. In contrast to most films in this period, progress was not greeted with lamentations.

The rebirth of Sherlock Holmes is even more stunning than that of Batman. At best, I imagined this would have been comparable to the original Indiana Jones movies. The result far exceeded my expectations. The blend of action, comedy, and intrigue made this the most enjoyable movie of the year. I'd go so far as to say that it rivals The Dark Knight as the most enjoyable film experience of the decade.

Up in the Air (2009)

2009-12-23T19:15:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ★ ★

It is rare to find a movie about a complex political issue that isn't either simplistic, heavy handed, or just plain boring. Jason Reitman has established himself as one of the few directors capable of making these movies. On the surface, Up in the Air seems like a mess of cliches. In the first few minutes, you could be forgiven for thinking you were sitting through a Michael Moore movie. However, Reitman isn't out to create villains. His characters are more than capable of prosecuting themselves.

Reitman has a rare gift for using cliches against themselves. Reitman uses potentially cliched situations in order to challenge the preconceptions of the audience. Life does not resemble a linear narrative, and Reitman doesn't try to convince us otherwise. Like a serialised novel, the film could have satisfactorily ended several times after the first hour and a half. Yet, each prospective ending was better than the next.

Some critics lamented the tone of the film, noting that it moved sporadically between seriousness and lightheartedness. This is actually one of the film's great strengths. Rather than the standard melodramatic fare, the film portrays the vicissitudes of a man balancing a potentially depressing career with the luxurious, though isolated lifestyle that it affords him. The contrast between Ryan and his provincial family nicely illustrated the tensions in his lifestyle. When you are at home everywhere, you are at home nowhere. Placelessness is his salvation, and his curse.

Clooney deserves serious Oscar consideration. Though Ryan is still at the top of his game, Clooney conveys a sense of gradual decay, or maturing--you can never quite tell which. Anna Kendrick was excellent as the young apprentice. When Natalie appears on the scene, she threatens to render Ryan's entire lifestyle obsolete. The shrewd, yet naive Natalie never lets us forget that she is the girl that moved to Omaha for a boy. We are constantly wondering if she is in over her head, but she seems to have a resilience beyond her years.

This is Reitman's third politically relevant film, and certainly his best. Just like in his earlier films Thank You For Smoking, and Juno, Reitman doesn't go out of his way to score political points. He creates an inherently political situation, and let's us judge for ourselves. That is the mark of a mature filmmaker.

Brothers (2009)

2009-12-21T09:15:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ☆ ☆

Every now and then I see a preview that unduly prejudices me against the movie. A perfect example of this was Inglorious Basterds. I went into that movie thinking it was going to be a typical piece of extremely violent Hollywood nihilism. Basterds turned out to be one of the best films of the year. The same thing happened with Brothers. To put it bluntly, the preview was hilarious. I couldn't help but thinking it would be an awful remake of a certain recent war movie (if you've seen the preview, you know exactly which movie I'm talking about). To my surprise, the film was nowhere near as unintentionally funny, nor as simplistic as I'd imagined.

Let's start with the good. Brothers took a cliched premise, and actually made it into a thoughtful film. It did a great job of portraying the tensions endemic to second generation military families, and the hardships endured by the families of soldiers. Sam Sheppard did an admirable job portraying the war veteran father. His demon haunted past was always in the background, though he avoided the melodrama that often comes along with such roles. More surprising was Jake Gyllenhaal, who's role as the neerdowell brother was excellent. He has certainly matured as an actor in the last few years. Director Jim Sheridan did a fine job, though the highlight of the film was the work of eminent cinematographer Frederick Elmes. The cinematography in the Afghanistan scenes alone was worth the price of admission.

With all that going for it, one would think that it would be better than a two star movie. Unfortunately, there was one serious problem: Tobey Maguire. I simply could not take him seriously as a former football star, and rugged marine. Every time I look at him, I think of Terry Gilliam's description of why he cast him as the hitchhiker in Fear and Loathing: he looks like a frightened mongoose. It's no wonder that every time his pupils dilated, half the theatre erupted in laughter. Moreover, he was completely mismatched with Natalie Portman. The two had no chemistry. It felt more like she was his older sister than his wife. She is a fine actress, but was a few years too old for the role. Carey Mulligan, who played a minor role in the film, would have been a better fit. Replacing Maguire, and switching the two female roles would have greatly enhanced the quality of the film.

Overall, the film was enjoyable. There were a couple of unintended giggles, mostly during Maguire's outbursts, but everything else was done fairly well. It is a real shame that the preview gave away so many plot points. It's difficult to build suspense into a plot when the audience has already been told what happens in the first half. If you haven't yet seen the preview, skip it and just go see the movie if you get a chance. Just try not to look directly at Tobey Maguire.

Avatar: A Critical Assessment

2009-12-19T16:21:00.000-08:00

As you may have noticed, I did not include a rating for Avatar. This is not because I have no opinion about the film, or that it has no aesthetic value. The reason that I did not rate the film is that I could not in good conscious give a single star to the most offensive movie of the decade.

Going into Avatar, I knew almost nothing about the plot. I had heard that it was an anti-war allegory about the invasion of Iraq. While this didn't bother me (in no small part since I did not support the invasion of Iraq), I expected a heavy handed political message. Unsurprisingly, we find out early in the movie that a corporation, which most certainly represents the American military industrial complex, has invaded a foreign planet in order to obtain unobtainium, a precious metal. At this point I half expected a flashing disclaimer on the screen reminding us that "It's a metaphor." So that was it, I thought. An allegory about the Iraq war. Nothing remarkable. However, it soon became obvious that the allegory was not simply about the Iraq War.

The colonized Na'vi are clearly patterned after indigenous North Americans. Had this been a movie about some of the atrocities that occurred during the colonization of North America, I could have sympathised. What makes Avatar truly insidious is it's ahistorical nature. Rather than portraying a specific instance in a Western society had wronged an indigenous population, the film created an embodiment of every Western stereotype imaginable. The futuristic corporation was a staffed by soldiers that represented the American military industrial complex, who were engaging in colonialism to exploit resources with the zeal of SS operatives. There is not one human character that elicits the least bit of sympathy without entirely rejecting Western civilization. By creating a melange of all these stereotypes, the film erased the notion of Western moral progress. Unlike Dances With Wolves, which focuses on a particular historical event, Avatar creates the impression that colonialism is endemic to Western culture. It paints Western cultures as universally rapacious, insensitive, and dependant on soul destroying technology.

The irony, of course, is that the movie was released by 20th Century Fox, and consumed between $300-500 million dollars, spent mostly on the most lavish display of technological prowess in the history of Western cinema. Using this technology, the film glorifies pseudoscience and a rejection of materialism. Many critics who dislike the message of the film were willing to overlook this since they see Avatar as an important advance in motion picture technology. In this respect, the critics are correct. But surely these same critics should be alarmed that a film that contains a full scale rejection of Western civilization could be so universally praised. Perhaps what insulates Avatar from criticism is that it is not offensive to any specific group. Many critics were offended by the Passion, since it was considered offensive to Jewish people. Of course, it is easy for critics to stand up for marginalized groups. It seems that they are willing to put up with all manners of intolerance, but only when equally applied. Only universal Western self-loathing will do.

An Education (2009)

2009-12-17T18:28:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ★ ☆

An Education is a coming of age tale about a teenage girl in 1960s suburban London who's affair with an older man forever changes her life. The description makes it sound like yet another lame British dramedy starring Hugh Grant. Fortunately, that is not the case. An Education is a prescient reflection on the very nature of education. Jenny Mellor, a bright 16 year old girl, has a chance encounter with a man twice her age that leads to an unlikely romance. David is a mysterious figure. All we really know about him is that the only education he has received is from "the school of life." As a student who's life revolves around studying to attend Oxford, Jenny is drawn to David's worldliness. David introduces Jenny to art, foreign films, and fine cuisine. Meanwhile, her hapless parents are so charmed by David, that they even allow David to escort Jenny to Paris. While this seems implausible, the account is based on the real life experience of journalist Lynn Barber. After watching the film, I highly recommend reading Barber's own account of the events.

Despite the description, the film is not a conventional love story. It is not even clear that Jenny actually cares for Simon. Rather, as Roger Ebert pointed out, it is a love story between Jenny and the possibilities within herself. Ultimately, she gets from Simon what she really wanted: an education. In her travels with Simon, the provincial Jenny learned more about the world than she could ever have learned from Oxford alone.

Many critics, including Roger Ebert, have compared Carey Mulligan to Audrey Hepburn. This comparison is unfair to Mulligan, as no one could possibly live up to that reputation. Though it's unlikely that she'll be the next Audrey Hepburn, she certainly has a bright future in the industry. On the other end of the spectrum, Peter Sarsgaard's portrayal of David was a breakthrough role for an actor who had yet to get a shot at a significant role. He did not disappoint.

An Education is no mere period piece. Director Lone Sherfig did an admirable job of bringing 1960s London to life. Despite the fact that Western society has changed significantly since the 60s, the lessons of the film are as relevant as ever. Life experiences are equally as important as what we learn in classrooms. We live in an era where human beings have unprecedented access to artistic and cultural experiences, yet these are viewed as mere entertainment. Meanwhile, higher education is seen as a virtual prerequisite for adulthood. The real lesson of the film is that young people need to strike a balance between formal universities, and the university of life. That is our education.

The Road (2009)

2009-12-17T16:17:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ★ ★

Of all the popular film sub-genres, there is probably none more rife with epic failures than post-apocalyptic suspense movies. One need only think back to The Postman, or more recently 2012, to see just how wrong these movies can go. Fortunately, The Road is a marked departure from the genre. The film is set in a world devastated by an unnamed catastrophe, that has turned the planet into a barren wasteland. The story is centered upon a father and son who travel the countryside, scavenging whatever they can in order to survive. A series of flashbacks explains some of the key events, though leaves much to the imagination.

Unlike most films from the genre, The Road is very minimalist in both dialogue, and action. While there are some truly frightening scenes, the real horror lies in the sheer hopelessness of the situation. The film is perhaps the best depiction of a truly Hobbesian world that I have ever seen. The struggle goes well beyond the survival of the characters. Mortensen's unnamed character tries to pass down a moral code to his son that he himself barely remembers. An immoral world is in danger of becoming an amoral world. The prevailing barbarism gives one a sense that all of the progress from the last 3000 years is vanishing before our eyes. That is what makes the film truly frightening.

This is unquestionably Viggo Morteson's best role. It will be a real shame when he is overlooked for a Best Actor nomination. After a stellar debut with The Proposition, director John Hillcoat has established himself as one of the most talented directors around. Screenwriter Joe Penhall also deserves credit for faithfully translating Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize winning novel into a compelling film experience. The Road is certainly one of the top three films of the year thus far, arguably the best. Unfortunately it is a fairly limited release, so catch it while it lasts.

Invictus (2009)

2009-12-16T17:49:00.000-08:00

★ ★ ☆ ☆

It is hard to imagine a boring movie based on the inspiring life story of Nelson Mandela. Rather, it would have been had I not seen Invictus. I went into the movie never having seen a rugby match, so I had no idea whether or not the South African team would win the World Cup. Sadly, the tone of the movie was so thoroughly triumphant that the outcome was never in doubt. Watching the movie felt like crashing a victory party for a candidate who's been out of office for a decade. Morgan Freeman played Mandela with such a saintly demeanour, that one might think he had never been through a moment of adversity in his life. This not only detracts from the realism of the film, but it minimizes the struggle of the man, and the movement that he lead.

From a technical standpoint, there was little wrong with the film. I'm told that they did a reasonably good job of portraying the rugby match. Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman played the roles that were written for them. Unfortunately, neither role was particularly inspiring. The fault lies with screenwriter Anthony Peckham. The run time could easily have been a half hour shorter had they refrained from explaining every single event in minute detail. At one point they had Mandela explain a speech that he had given in the previous scene. Presumably Peckham doesn't think that the audience has such a short attention span that they can't remember the premise of a speech given by the protagonist in the previous scene. Rather, it seems as though he thinks the audience is unable to interpret the relatively simple events unfolding. This condescending tone is all too present in big budget Hollywood films. In trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator, they risk alienating moviegoers who don't want to be patronized. This, unfortunately, is why great blockbuster movies are so rare. Peckham has another opportunity to prove me wrong before the year is out. Hopefully his next film, Sherlock Holmes, contains a modicum of suspense. I won't hold my breath.