Worst Movies of 2009

The 7 WORST FILMS of 2009

7. A group of friends tried to convince me that Angels and Demons wasn't that bad. To a certain extent, they were right. While Ron Howard's sequel to The Da Vinci Code is filled with uninteresting characters, it was at least mildly amusing. But, still, I can't get over the flatness of the entire experience. Tom Hanks looks bored. If the actor doesn't even care about the movie, why should I?

6. I had similar problems with Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, which is not only a convoluted mess, but also one of the dullest films of the year. For starters, the film's titular character was woefully miscast. Robert Downey Jr's accent as the great Holmes is incoherent, and, much like Tom Hanks in Angels and Demons, Downey looks bored in the role. Where was the spark? Downey was not aided by the dreadful screenplay full of forced wit and implausible plot twists. Charmless.

5. Over the past few years, quirky characters and situations have become a staple of independent film. Many critics have accused this summer's 500 Days of Summer of being too quirky, but, for my money, the most gratingly quirky film of the year was Gigantic, a movie almost no one saw and a movie I wish I hadn't seen. Not only does this film waste the talents of Paul Dano, Zooey Deschanel, and John Goodman, it also fills every frame with tacky detail and cliches. A pathetic, pretentious waste of time.

4. When Monsters vs. Aliens opened in late March, many praised it for its 3D gimmicks and cute characters. Unfortunately, these people failed to realize the film's weak characterizations, empty story, and unimaginative jokes. To me, the film stands out as one of the shallowest films of the year. A vapid mess.


3. Sandra Bullock's good, if overpraised performance, does it best to save The Blind Side from being a complete train wreck, but, unfortunately, the film falters due to its lack of tension, sitcom characters and condescending attitude towards its subject, an overweight, impoverished, African-American teenager. A pandering, insulting snooze.

2. The Proposal, the next film on my list, also stars Sandra Bullock, except this time her performance damages an already terrible film. The Proposal gives into every romantic comedy cliche in the book. Clueless to its own mediocrity, the film traps Bullock and co-star Ryan Reynolds in a vat of generic plotting and unfunny dialogue. Fail.

1. If you know anything about my film taste, or if you have been following this blog since July, you should already know my choice for the worst film of the year. It is, of course, Michael Bay's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The fact that this movie exists is an insult to the pioneers of cinema, every great director of the past and present, and to the American public. I could go on about the confusing action sequences, the lame attempts at humor, and the film's blatantly sexist view, but I don't want to spend another minute on this sad excuse for filmmaking. So, I'll leave Hollywood with one word of advice - find every print, DVD, and Blu Ray disk of this ungodly piece of swill and destroy them.

Well, that's it, folks! My worst of 2009. Expect my Top Ten list and other end of the year features in the coming weeks.

"Avatar" Review

Since its debut last week, “Avatar” has drawn much hyperbole from both critics and audiences. While “Avatar,” and its director James Cameron (“Titanic,” “Terminator”), should be praised for the film’s groundbreaking motion capture technology, the film is by no means a masterpiece. For all of the film’s visual accomplishments, its script is riddled with flaws that prevent it from reaching the blockbuster heights of the original “Star Wars,” or even Cameron’s prior success, the “Terminator” franchise.

“Avatar” follows Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a former marine, as he joins a program searching for desirable minerals in an alien planet called Pandora. To visit Pandora, Jake becomes an avatar – a hybrid between a human and a Na’vi, the alien race on Pandora. As an avatar, his mission is to convince the Na’vi people to sacrifice the minerals found on their homeland. However, his mission becomes complicated when he falls for a Na’vi princess, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana).

Pandora, as created by Cameron, is a completely digital world, filled with dazzling imagery that lights the screen with bright colors and mesmerizing detail. When Jake first enters Pandora, the immense beauty of this new world is almost overwhelming. With lush forests, misty waterfalls, and a serene skyline, the film intoxicates its audience with its sheer gorgeousness. In short, James Cameron has made special effects beautiful again.

Unfortunately, only half of the film takes place on the planet of Pandora. The film’s other settings include a various assortment of labs and bases where the scientists and soldiers conduct experiments and devise battle plans. It is in these scenes that “Avatar” really falters and the film’s poor screenwriting becomes apparent. Nearly all of the human characters in “Avatar” are either cliché or uninteresting. Instead of making his villains complex, Cameron instead opts for boring, obvious villains like a merciless military colonel (Stephen Lang) and a greedy, insensitive businessman (Giovanni Ribisi). Through these caricatures, Cameron filters a blatant political message. Instead of conveying the film’s message through subtext, Cameron hammers his point home with blunt, unrealistic dialogue. To say the film lacks subtlety is a gross understatement.

That is not to diminish the film’s other accomplishments, which, in many respects, are unparalleled. One just wishes Cameron would have spent as much time on the screenplay as he did on the visuals. The transitions from Pandora to live action often stall the pace as well. Thankfully, the scenes on Pandora are engrossing enough to compensate for the film’s intermittent pacing. The characters on Pandora feel more interesting and well-drawn than the cartoons off planet. And, frankly, the acting is much better. Zoe Saldana delivers a convincing, emotional performance through the motion-capture. She knows exactly when to let Neytiri’s fierce guard down to show emotion. The character of Neytiri also sheds light on Cameron’s unabashed feminism. Not only is Neytiri beautiful, she’s also confident and strong. She matches, and even surpasses, the skilled bravery of her lover.

The film’s other performances are admirable, particularly Sigourney Weaver as Dr. Grace Augustine, a tough-as-nails botanist, but Cameron’s revolutionary special effects remain the film’s true star. However, the film also boasts some fantastic action set pieces, including a magnificent chase scene involving both humans and avatars, as well as an epic battle scene between the humans and the Na’vi. Cameron paces these sequences perfectly, making sure they do not become messy, convoluted, or incoherent. Mr. Cameron puts posers like Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich to shame. Very few filmmakers direct action as deftly as him.

In conclusion, “Avatar,” although cloyingly obvious in its morals, succeeds as a sci-fi, action epic. To put it bluntly, “Transformers 2” does not hold a candle to this imaginative, if deeply flawed, work of art.

B

Have you seen "Avatar?" If so, leave your opinion in the comments.

"Up in the Air" Review

“Up in the Air,” the third film by director Jason Reitman (whose previous credits include “Thank You for Smoking” and “Juno”), is unlike most studio-based comedies. For starters, it’s actually funny. However, this humor would not resonate if the film was not grounded in some humanity. Luckily, “Up in the Air” offers a social critique and a character study, both of which add depth to the film’s quick wits.

In the film, George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a professional downsizer who traverses across the nation laying off workers for corporate bosses. Through his job, Bingham has accumulated a gargantuan amount of frequent flyer miles, which he considers a great personal accomplishment. Enter Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a young business gal set on revolutionizing corporate downsizing through video conferencing. While Bingham adapts to Natalie’s new system, he meets business woman Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), a frequent flyer herself, who eagerly starts a casual affair with him.

Through this premise, Reitman, freely adapting from a novel by Walter Kirn, shows how depersonalized our society has become with the advent of new technology. This technology, along with the constant, swift nature of everyday life, has made personal relationships harder to form and retain. Reitman takes this idea to the extreme with Ryan Bingham, a man who actively resists human relationships – both at his job and with his family. Through Bingham, Retiman filters his critique of modern society.

For the most part, “Up in the Air” succeeds in its endeavors. That is not to say that the film is perfect. A montage of real laid off workers works reacting to their predicament works beautifully by itself, but, ultimately, feels unnecessary. Thankfully, these montages do not kill the storytelling, which really snaps for the film’s first two acts, offering equal doses of drama and comedy. However, as the film reaches its conclusion, the film begins to overstate its social message through some overly preachy dialogue. Fortunately, the film compensates for this ham-fisted dialogue with an ambiguous, thought-provoking ending.

Aiding the film’s witty script is a talented ensemble. George Clooney delivers a funny, but equally sad, performance as the charismatic, yet confused and lonesome, Ryan Bingham. Anna Kendrick also shows off some fine comedic chops by bringing to light Natalie’s snarky attitude and lofty ambitious. However, the true stand-out is Vera Farmiga who captures Alex’s flirtatious tendencies, while simultaneously conveying her more mysterious attributes.

Thus, overall, “Up in the Air” is a satisfying experience. While it may not rank as one of the best or most inspired films of the year, it has the power to appeal to both mainstream audiences and high-brow film lovers. And that is quite an accomplishment.

B+

Have you seen "Up in the Air?" Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

"Invictus" Review

Clint Eastwood’s “Invictus,” naively inspirational, annoyingly simplistic, and overly clichéd, details former South African President Nelson Mandela’s attempt to unite his divided country, shortly after the end of the apartheid system of racial segregation. To heal the nation, Mandela (played by Morgan Freeman) turns to the South African rugby team in hopes that they will end their losing streak and, in the process, unite and inspire the country.

“Invictus,” much like the country it depicts, is divided into two combating parts. The film starts as an interesting, although somewhat dry, examination of political idealism and how it intertwines with various racial issues. However, as the film progresses, screenwriter Anthony Peckham loses sight of Mandela’s politics, instead opting for cliché sports scenes which trivialize the weighty political issues the film beautifully illustrates in its first half.

Thus, while the film does an admirable job of showing one unconventional way in which Mandela dealt with healing a divided nation, it simply does not go far enough. A game of rugby can put a dent in the nation’s healing, but it does not have the power to solve all the country’s problems unequivocally. A country cannot just cheer its problems away with a rousing rugby game. The issue of race relations, especially after a severe oppression, is much more complex than that.

Anthony Peckham’s script is certainly not aided by Eastwood’s direction, which sentimentalizes and gives into nearly every sport cliché in the book. From constant slow-motion to incessant cheering, Eastwood loads on the cheese to an insufferable degree. During these sports sequences, tedious, trite, sentimental images replace the steady, quiet direction of the film’s first half.

The film’s last half also reduces most of the film’s ensemble to cheering spectators, no longer taking any active action to heal the country. For example, Morgan Freeman, the star of the movie, speaks no more than ten words in the film’s final forty-five minutes. Freeman fares well in the rest of the film, and so does Matt Damon as rugby star Francois Pienaar, but neither seem as emotionally connected to the material as the rest of the cast, which is comprised of mostly South Africans. Adjoa Andoh’s performance as Brenda, Mandela’s secretary, is particularly outstanding. Andoh paints Brenda as a woman who realizes both Mandela’s strengths and weaknesses and is not shy about correcting him when needed.

It’s a wonderfully detailed performance, but, like much of the good things in “Invictus,” it disappears in the film’s second hour.

C

A Few Thoughts on "The Road"

“The Road,” based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy (“No Country for Old Men”), is a mixed bag. The film follows a Man (Viggo Mortensen) and his boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee) as they attempt to survive the aftermath of an apocalyptic event. But, don’t go in expecting “2012.” “The Road” is a much obscurer, less populist film than Roland Emerich’s latest disaster fest. However, surprisingly, the action sequences in the “The Road” work much better than the dramatic scenes. The themes of the morality of survival resonate better in moments of tense conflict, rather than in scenes of emotionally charged drama. And while Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee work well with each other, the latter is far too whiney. The film also contains many flashbacks, which stall the narrative and try too hard to explain the Man’s current situation. These flashbacks not only rob the film of its universality, but also forces emotion on to scenes through overly sentimental music.

Thus, “The Road,” although beautifully filmed and quite ambitious, failed to resonate for me. I left the theater feeling dissatisfied.

C+

Have you seen “The Road?” Share your thoughts in the comments.

"Precious" Review

“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” an emotionally charged drama from director-producer Lee Daniels (“Monster’s Ball”) oozes with passion. The film tackles several (perhaps, too many) social issues with courage and unflinching detail.

In 1987 Harlem, Claireece “Precious” Jones (newcomer Gabby Sidibe), a black, overweight, illiterate, sixteen-year old girl, struggles with her abusive mother, Mary (played brilliantly by comedian Mo’Nique), attempts to salvage her education at an alternative school, and gives birth to her second child by her sexually abusive father.

Just reading the plot synopsis, one can tell that “Precious” is a heavy, even depressing, film. However, the film does not wallow in its pain and suffering. Director Daniels adds several comic moments to prevent the film from devolving into complete misery. He also includes a few fantasy sequences in which Precious escapes into a world of fashion shows, movie premieres, and gospel concerts. In many ways, these fantasy sequences provide an “escape” for the audience as well.

But the meat of the film takes place in a cold, harsh reality. Precious’ mother Mary, living off welfare checks, crucifies her child’s self-esteem with verbal and physical abuse. When Mary does not like the food Precious prepares for her, she forces Precious to eat it. When Precious attempts to talk back to her vicious mother, Mary smacks her with a frying pan. Several critics have described her as a “monster,” and while this description seems apt, it completely ignores Mary’s psychological problems, which actress Mo’nique magnificently highlights in the film’s climactic scenes.

The acting ensemble in “Precious” is universally solid. Daniels coaxes wonderful performances out of entertainers like Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz, and the aforementioned Mo’Nique – a comedian never known for her dramatic acting chops. Paula Patton is also quite good as Precious’ sympathetic teacher at the alternative school. But the real stand-out is Gabourey “Gabby” Sidibe as Precious. Sidibe’s Precious keeps a hardened face for the majority of the film, but the audience can see the hurt hidden beneath her stoic expressions. And when Precious finally break down, Sidibe handles it deftly, without devolving into over-the-top theatrics. By the film’s uplifting closing scene, the audience sees the strength in Precious as she hoists her child over her shoulder and walks bravely, head lifted proudly, through the streets of Harlem. The emotional impact of these scenes is a testament to Sidibe’s fine acting skills.

While the acting in “Precious” is top-notch, the film’s editing is convoluted and confusing. Many times, the film jumps from scene to scene without much rhythm or coherence, and at other times, scenes just “end” abruptly. Part of the problem may be the film’s unfocused narrative. Daniels and company do not seem to have a clear vision. The film shifts its focus too often, and, at times, it feels like Daniels is trying to accomplish too much by tackling several social issues at one time. Daniels even adds several stylistic flourishes. While some of these stylistic choices work (his music choices are superb), others feel obnoxious and mar the film’s emotional content.

But something about the film’s lack of restraint is good. The film may have lost some of its impact if Daniels had not incorporated so many personal touches. Even if some of his artistic choices are garish, they come from the heart. Daniels shows great passion and personal voice in his direction. While his direction makes “Precious” flawed, it also makes the film a genuinely moving experience.

B+

Have you seen "Precious?" If so, leave your thoughts in the comments.

Bullet Point Reviews

Here are a few quick, bullet point reviews for three films now available on DVD.

"Monsters vs. Aliens"

• shallow
• mindless action sequences
• uninteresting characters
• fun voice work by Seth Rogen
• forgettable
• C-

"Angels & Demons"

• overlong
• good, focused performance from Ewan McGregor
• bland performance from Tom Hanks
• plagued with far too many twists
• misses several opportunities to be more interesting
• uninspired, but somewhat amusing
• C

"Star Trek"

• fun, well-made blockbuster
• well-written characters wrapped around exciting, frenzied action sequences
• strong performances from Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto
• emotionally engaging in parts
• final action sequence lacks impact and coherence
• B+

"An Education" Review

In “An Education,” a light drama directed by Lone Scherfig, Jenny (Carrey Mulligan), a young woman hoping to attend Oxford University, falls in love with David (Peter Sarsgaard), a rich gentleman, and starts to question her academic aspirations.

The film features several great performances. Carrey Mulligan is fantastic as Jenny. She captures the character’s desire for independence with great expressive detail. From her infectious smiles to her emotional sobs, Mulligan nails nearly every emotion. Alfred Molina also delights as Jenny’s overbearing father. Molina’s performance is broadly comic and over-the-top, but in a good way. His explosions of wit and anger feel natural for a father who sincerely wants the best for his daughter.

While the performances are uniformly excellent, the film’s narrative runs snags at several instances. Many of the characters, with the exception of Jenny and her father, feel either undeveloped or clichéd. For example, the character of David, Jenny’s older lover, feels underwritten. Why is he seducing a girl nearly half his age? The script fails to gives us any insight into his motives. And although Rosamund Pike is a hoot as Helen, a rather ditzy friend of David’s, her character feels a tad one-dimensional.

What the script, written by Nick Hornby, lacks in characterization, it makes up for in theme. The film deals with the complex balance between personal pleasure and accomplishment in a way that is neither stuffy nor simplistic. Unfortunately, the script’s narrative snags prevent these themes from ever fully resonating. While the first two acts feel refreshingly light, with a few key dramatic moments sprinkled throughout, the film’s last act becomes far too heavy-handed. All of a sudden, the film deteriorates into a bunch of speeches and “profound” one-liners, and the film starts to feel artificial.

While the film’s conclusion feels artificial, the production design does not. “An Education” vibrantly recreates the culture of the 60s in both London and Paris, without drawing too much attention away from the narrative. The result is an extremely polished art design.

To conclude, “An Education” succeeds due to a few magnificent performances, but lacks a powerful, coherent script to support its weighty themes.

B-

"The Blind Side" Review

“The Blind Side,” an unfocused, breezy drama, follows Leigh Anne Toughy (Sandra Bullock) as she takes in a homeless, uneducated, black teenage boy, Michael Oher (played by Quinton Aaron), and helps him turn his life around through a mix of family, school, and football.

“The Blind Side”, directed by John Lee Hancock (“The Alamo,” “The Rookie”), could have been heavy-handed and overly dramatic – and in some scenes it is – but Hancock wisely presents the story with a light touch. Unfortunately, the film is too unfocused for the light tone to pay off.

Hancock, who also wrote the screenplay based off a true story, meanders from one genre to the next unable to find an appropriate angle from which he can anchor the story. At times, the film feels like a heart-tugging melodrama, and at other times, it feels like a primetime sitcom. And for a good ten minutes, the film’s primary focus is one football game. The result is a tedious mess that lacks emotional resonance. An audience cannot connect with a film if the film is unsure of what it wants to be.

While the film’s unfocused storyline causes it to be disengaging, the film’s condescending treatment of Michael Oher prevents the audience from sympathizing with him. “The Blind Side” seems to suggest that the only way for an impoverished black teenager to succeed is for a family of white do-gooders to help him. At no point does Michael ever take initiative and try to accomplish something for himself. Instead, he lets others guide his actions. Since Hancock fails to give Michael any fortitude or individuality, the character leaves the audience cold.

If the film succeeds in one area, it is in Sandra Bullock’s performance. Bullock manages to create a genuine character out of what could have been a bland caricature. Her character’s southern charm and generosity feels genuine. The rest of the cast is comprised mostly of caricatures. Ray McKinnon, in particular, is dreadful as Michael’s football coach.

“The Blind Side,” although refreshingly light and boosted by an admirable performance by Sandra Bullock, ultimately feels aimless due to a lack of passion and focus from its director.

C-

"A Serious Man" Review

“A Serious Man,” a dark comedy from directors Joel and Ethan Coen (“Fargo,” “The Big Lebowski,” “No Country for Old Men”), follows Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a Jewish physics professor, as his life spirals out of control once his wife (Sari Lennick) divorces him. And as Larry tries to save his relationship with his wife, life bombards him with even more problems. Soon, Larry starts questioning whether God is punishing him.

While the plot of “A Serious Man” sounds simplistic, the ideas behind the film are not. The film tackles the complexities of religion head-on. Larry, like many religious people, wonders why so many bad things happen to him, when he is trying desperately to be a serious, religious man. When he visits several rabbis for counsel, they do not seem able to give him a definite answer. Through Larry’s situation, the Coens seem to be suggesting that one cannot fully understand the method to God’s madness. According to the Coens, life does not have one definite meaning.

Likewise, “A Serious Man” does not have one definite meaning. Part of what makes the film so rich is how open it is to interpretation. The deliberately ambiguous ending begs the audience to ponder the film's meaning. Thus, the discussion that the film fosters can be almost as rewarding as the film itself.

While the film is cerebral and philosophical, “A Serious Man,” like many films by the Coen Brothers, is also quite funny. While not all of the humor works and some of it may be lost on a non-Jewish audience, several scenes rank among some of the funniest of the year. From a pair of racist neighbors to a silent rabbi, the film features several quirky, often hilarious, characters. However, one truly stands out. Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed), one of Larry’s fellow professors at the university, condescendingly consoles Larry to great comedic effect. Melamed easily gives the funniest performance in the film.

The film’s other performances are also quite good. Stuhlbarg embodies Larry with such sincerity that it is almost impossible not to sympathize with the character. Aaron Wolff also fares well as Danny Gopnik, Larry’s son. However, Richard Kind, who plays Larry’s brother Arthur, is far too over-the-top. It may not be entirely Kind’s fault, because the character feels a tad underwritten, but Kind does not help the situation by devolving into shouting instead of deepening his character.

While “A Serious Man” does not rank among the Coens’ best work, it is still undeniably strong, both stylistically and thematically. For directors with over a twenty year filmography, they continually challenge themselves to produce fresh, unique films. With the Coens still working, there is proof that creativity remains strong in modern cinema.

B+

Have you seen "A Serious Man?" If so, leave your thoughts in the comments below. Remember, you don't need a Blogger account to comment. You can use the "Name/URL" option or remain Anonymous.

"Where the Wild Things Are" Review

Shockingly honest, emotionally satisfying, and beautifully realized, “Where the Wild Things Are,” Spike Jonze’s adaption of the children’s story by Maurice Sendak, is a cinematic gem that conveys both the fragility and joy of childhood through truthful, sometimes heart-breaking, images. In short, through these images, Jonze (who also directed the equally great “Being John Malkovich”) has arguably made one of the best films about childhood emotion.

The film, brought to the screen delicately by Jonze and fellow screenwriter Dave Eggers, follows Max (played by newcomer Max Records), a lonesome young boy, as he yearns for the attention of his older sister and his caring, yet stressed, mother (Catherine Keener). Upset by this lack of attention, Max runs away from and home and into his imagination. There, on an island, he meets the Wild Things, a group of big, animal-like creatures. Not long after they meet Max, the Wild Things declare him their king. Finally feeling appreciated and loved, Max lets out a kingly battle cry, “Let the wild rumpus start!”

One could almost describe the film as a “wild rumpus” of sorts. Once Max enters the land of the Wild Things, the film becomes infused with the liveliness of a child’s imagination as it bounces from one scene to the next, somehow managing to avoid feeling unfocused or scatter-brained. Of course, the Wild Things segments would not have worked so well if it was not for the film’s opening scenes. These scenes, marvelously acted by Records and Keener, say more about child-parent relationships without words than most movies do with words. Because Max does not understand how to deal with his frustration towards his mother, nor does he fully understand where his mother is coming from, he, like many children, has to delve into his imagination to sort out his problems and come to an understanding about the meaning of love, the pain that comes with growing up, and the harshness, but also the benefits, of change.

It is through the Wild Things that Max is able to sort out his feelings. The Wild Things represent the exaggerated emotions inside of himself and the other people in his life. Through his imagination, Max is able to see certain events from his real life play out among the Wild Things. This gives him a new perspective that leads to the film’s touching climactic scenes – one which takes place in his imagination and one which takes place at home with his mother.

In fact, there is hardly a scene in “Where the Wild Things Are” that does not pierce the emotions. Nearly every frame feels intensely personal. And every frame is also beautiful. Cinematographer Lance Acord outdoes himself in probing both the light and dark landscapes in Max’s fantastical world. In fact, all of the film’s technical elements add something significant to the film to make it more effective. The film’s score, a collaboration between musician Karen O. and composer Carter Burwell, really captures the film’s melancholic, almost wistful, mood.

However, perhaps the film’s greatest technical achievement is an aspect that one hardly notices – the Wild Things themselves. Jonze and company made a wise move in not making the creatures computer generated. In fact, making them computer generated would have killed the film’s charm and originality. CGI has become the easy route nowadays, and while some computer effects can be brilliant and long-lasting, others look lazy and almost laughable a few years down the road. By making the Wild Things puppets with computer generated faces, Jonze was able to capture the emotion on the creatures’ faces without robbing them of their beautiful simplicity.

To conclude, “Where the Wild Things Are” clearly comes from a director with a unique and precise vision. Mr. Jonze has outdone himself in creating an emotional film about childhood that never rings false. Nearly every aspect of his film feels organic, as if it all came bursting forth from a place deep within him. This kind of emotional truth is hard to come by, and very few directors have the talent to convey it so purely on the screen. Thankfully, Mr. Jonze is one of them.

A

______

My Weekend

I don't know if there are any Fall/Winter movies that I am more excited for than these ones. Let's hope I'm not disappointed! Expect full reviews within the next week. I'll defenitely have my ratings finalized and in the sidebar by Sunday.

"Whip It" Review

Every once in a while, a film will start off terribly and gradually get better over the course of its running time. This is especially true of "Whip It," actress Drew Barrymore's directorial debut. After the film's first thirty minutes, I was more than ready to deliver a disappointing pan. But, as the film continued, I became won over by the film's charm.

The film follows Bliss Cavendar (Ellen Page), a bored teenager, as she attempts to fight the rather humdrum environment of her small Texan town. While shopping with her mother (Marcia Gay Harden), Bliss picks up a flyer for a womens' roller derby tournament. After attending the tournament, one of the players encourages Bliss to try out for the team. Bliss, worried about her parents' reaction, at first hesitates, but eventually decides to pursue her interests. After a difficult day of try outs, Bliss finds out that she made the team, which is rather crudely named "The Hurl Scouts."

As mentioned earlier, the first thirty minutes of "Whip It" fall completely flat. The jokes are unfunny, the characters uninteresting, and the storytelling rather limp. But, somewhere in the film's midpoint, it changes. As the film becomes more about the roller derby, an extra layer of fun is added to the film. And as the film's tone solidifies into an interesting mix of comedy and drama, the film really starts to work.

The film owes a lot to its lead star, Ellen Page. Page slips into her part with ease and effortlessly captures the rebellious nature of a teenager who feels limited by her mundane surroundings. Thus, her performance feels remarkably honest, and one could even argue it is better than her Oscar-nominated performance in 2007's "Juno." Kristen Wiig and Drew Barrymore prove to be both endearing (the former) and hysterical (the latter) in their supporting roles.

Although the film does run a bit too long, and one subplot involving a love interest feels extraneous, the film ends up being a success despite its early missteps. Like the film's lead character, "Whip It" stumbles a few times before achieving its goal.

B

"The Informant!" Review

“The Informant,” a comic thriller directed by Steven Soderbergh, follows Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon), a high-ranking employee at a food production corporation. When Whitacre realizes that the corporation is involved in price fixing scams, he becomes a whistle blower for the FBI in hopes of putting the corrupt businessmen behind bars. But, is that really his motive? Whitacre is either bipolar, schizophrenic or just a chronic liar. The more he says, the less one can make sense of his situation. At some points, he seems like a dimwitted buffoon, at other times a neurotic genius. Needless to say, watching it all play out makes for a fun, if imperfect, film experience.

“The Informant,” which is based on a true story, succeeds for two main reasons, its lead actor and its directorial panache. Damon, who is quickly joining the likes of George Clooney and Brad Pitt as one of the most iconic movie stars of the new millennium, has the character of Mark Whitacre down to a tee. He manages to capture the character’s unpredictable behavior, as well as his more self-righteous qualities. Melanie Lynskey also puts forth a solid performance as Mark’s wife Ginger Whitacre. While the duo’s actions are certainly dubious, their relationship remains solid and one could even describe their marriage as a strong one.

Also aiding the film is its direction. Soderbergh, whose previous credits include “Traffic” and “Ocean’s Eleven,” takes an interesting risk by presenting the film as a comedy. While the film does not reach the wackiness of a Coen Brothers’ picture, it does boast some pretty odd artistic choices. The film is shot like a 70s action movie with funky title cards and contains a fantastic retro score by Marvin Hamlisch. While some may be bothered by these obscure choices, they really do complement the film’s odd sense of humor.

Unfortunately, “The Informant!” falls apart in its third act. As the plot thickens, twists are thrown right and left and the film begins to lose some of its witty charm. It also devolves into a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, which proves annoying and, at times, just boring. While the film’s ending is rather disappointing, it still succeeds due to its unique visual style and wonderful lead performance. Despite its flaws, “The Informant!” illustrates how easily people, even large corporations and the federal government, can be manipulated in to believing just about anything. While crooks may utter “Trust Me,” as the film’s final music cue ironically suggests, do not believe them. Anyone can be a crook, even that smiling face behind the desk or that cheerful voice over the phone. The only people one can really trust are the artists – oh, and the critics too. (wink, wink)

B

Your thoughts? Race to the comments!

More Bullet Point Reviews

Here are a few bullet point reviews. One on a recent theater release ("Extract") and two others on films now available on DVD ("Adventureland" and "State of Play").

"Extract"

• Starts off funny, but quickly become repetitive. Jokes are run into the ground and others are just too broad. In particular, a drug sequence in the film's second act is dead on arrival. This sequence not only stalls the film's narrative but also crushes the comedic rhythm.
• Jason Bateman is great in the lead role. He really embodies the every man. Unfortunately, his relationship with his wife, played by Kirsten Wiig, makes no sense. This is problematic because their relationship is the crux of the film.
• Both Kirsten Wiig and Mila Kunis's characters feel underwritten. Their characters just feel like plot conveniences.
• J.K. Simmons needs a new agent. He keeps getting type cast in the same roles. That being said, this is one of his better performances in the recent years.
• Ben Affleck and Gene Simmons are shockingly good in their parts. They truly create the film's most memorable characters.
• The film's satire is uneven. It teeters between broad comedy, sharp digs and mean-spirited critiques too often for it to be truly successful. At the end, one is not entirely certain what director Mike Judge is trying to say.
• C+

"Adventureland"

• intimate coming of age story
• solid, if not spectacular, performances
• able to create a distinctive atmosphere that most films lack
• interesting, but not particularly engaging
• seems like it is trying to be introspective, but I did not feel compelled to think too much about it afterwards
• B

"State of Play"

• thriller injected with moral complications
• interesting study on the decline of newspapers and the rise of Internet blogging
• solid performance from Russell Crowe; middling performance from Ben Affleck
• Jason Bateman delivers a wonderfully realized supporting performance as a slimy corporate publicist.
• Rachel McAdams and Helen Mirren fare well in underwritten, and at times fairly annoying, supporting roles
• narrative is marred by a twist ending that feels convoluted and unnecessary
• manages to succeed thematically, despite its narrative pratfalls
• B+

Wow! I've been watching too many Jason Bateman and Ben Affleck films.

Be sure to leave your opinion in the comments below.

"Duplicity" Review

I reviewed "Duplicity" before I started the blog, but I still want to share my review. For me, "Duplicity" is the number two film of the year thus far. And it worked just as well, if not better, on a second viewing. Unfortunately, the film tanked at the box office and not many people got a chance to see it. It's out on DVD now and is well-worth your time. I had to slightly alter my review due to both changes in opinion and stylistic choices I made in my review at the time. It's funny. I wrote this review six months ago, and I thought it was my best. And after reading it over, I am appalled by some of my stylistic decisions. Anyway, here's my original review of "Duplicity" (with a few slight alterations).


___________________________________________________________________


About midway through Tony Gilroy’s spy thriller, “Duplicity,” corporate spy Claire Stenwick says to Ray Koval, her lover and rival, “Admit it, you don’t trust me either.” This clever quip underlines the film’s main topic, trust – particularly in relationships. And directors-screenwriter Gilroy successfully conveys this idea in a fun, stylish, clever thriller.

In Duplicity , Stenwick (Julia Roberts) and Koval (Clive Owen), two ex-government intelligence agents, team up to take down two pharmaceutical companies vying for a revolutionary new product. With Stenwick on one side and Koval on the other, the plan seems flawless, but much double-crossing and finger-pointing ensues as the con becomes more involved and the stakes higher.

While the film’s plot is complex and twisty, one never gets frustrated because the film does not take itself too seriously. And when the answers do come, they are clever and add to the film’s atmosphere. Much credit should go to Gilroy, who balances the complexity and the light humor of the film almost flawlessly. One scene near the film’s ending upsets this balance, but Gilroy is able to compensate for this small error with a pitch-perfect final scene.

Part of what makes the film so fun is the undeniable chemistry between Roberts and Owens. While Owens can be a tad dull at times, he is almost always charming. And Julia Roberts proves she still has the chops to carry a movie. She shines in both her comedic and dramatic scenes. Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson also shine with delightful performances as the two sleaze bags in charge of the rival corporations. The opening credit sequence featuring the two rivals attacking each other in slow-motion is a joy to watch and adds even more flair to an already stylish film.

One sticking point that many will have with the film is that it is too talky. While the film does feel verbose, it is still energized and engaging. One sequence – with almost no violence – in which one corporation is attempting to steal the other’s secret, is more suspenseful than most modern action movies. While many filmmakers think that suspense is created by constant action, the minds behind “ Duplicity” realize that suspense comes from the stakes of the characters, rather than how many bullets are being fired at them. Accenting the film’s suspenseful, twisty plot is James Newton Howard’s upbeat, jazzy score. Also of note is Robert Elswit’s cinematography which displays the beauty of the film’s various locales. All of these elements combine to make a fun, fluid, and truthful film experience.

A-

"Inglourious Basterds" Review

Sometimes you just have to appreciate a film for its sheer audacity. "Inglourious Basterds," directed by Quentin Tarantion ("Pulp Fiction," "Jackie Brown"), is one of those films. Not only is the film stunningly ambitious and confident, it is also one of the most challenging and unconventional mainstream releases in recent years. For starters, the film is two and a half hours long. And while the film is being marketed as a Nazi-killing action fest, only twenty minutes of the movie contain Nazi-killing action. Instead the film is filled with not one, not two, not three, but several scenes (some of them pushing twenty minutes) of dialogue. And, here's the kicker, most of that dialogue is in a foreign language. Characters speak in English, German, French, and even Italian. You know what that means! Subtitles. Still, this film was released in 3,165 theaters! That is a pretty hefty wide release. Why did the Weinstein Company take such a chance? Why didn't someone tell Tarantino to cut it down? Why didn't they just give it a limited release? Why was the budget 70 million dollars when the film was destined to only make half that much?

Needless to say, I was pretty anxious to gauge the reaction of my audience once the film ended. Would they complain about the subtitles? Bemoan the lack of action? Wonder (like I did) why the studio would release such a weird movie? To my surprise, as soon as the film ended, the theater erupted in instant applause. It did not feel forced. It was not just a few people. It was not a small applause that grew into a big one. It was an instantaneous, unanimous, excited applause. The movie going public had proven me wrong. I sat in my seat ready - almost excited - to hear the dissenting opinions from the non-movie buffs around me. But what I got was even more exciting - an audience embracing a weird, challenging film. I was dumbfounded by the reaction and almost embarrassed by my cynicism. In conclusion, let's just say it was a wake-up call.

Now, enough with this rather lengthy preamble and on with the actual review.

"Inglourious Basterds" follows two revenge plots. One of these plots follows Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), a Jew who is on the run after her family is murdered. The other thread follows Liteunant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), the leader of the Basterds - a unit of American soldiers known for their vicious murders of Nazi soldiers. Slipping in and out of both threads is Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), a cunningly evil detective whose nickname is the "Jew Hunter." And, of course, all of these characters and revenge plots collide in one of the best final acts in recent memory.

And it is not just the film's climax that is satisfying. The film's aforementioned lengthy dialogue scenes slowly build suspense from casual conversation to hectic violence. And aiding to this suspense is a trio of great performances. Brad Pitt seems to be having a blast as the Southern blood-thirsty commando and his performance is layered with delicious camp. Melanie Laurent is sympathetic as Shoshanna, while still conveying the character's thirst for revenge. And, finally, Christoph Waltz is outstanding in his performance as Hans Landa. Waltz inhabits Landa's stealthiness with ease and makes it clear that the "Jew Hunter" revels in his own cleverness. Waltz's Hans Landa will undoubtedly join the ranks of Heath Ledger's the Joker (2008's "The Dark Knight") and Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh (2007's "No Country for Old Men") to complete one of the best string of villains in film history (and I rarely make such hyperbolic statements).

Now, the film is not perfect. It does have a few minor flaws. The Basterd characters seem to conflict tonally with the world that Tarantino has created. While Shoshanna and Hans Landa seem to exist in a slightly altered reality, Lt. Aldo Rane and the Basterds reside in a Looney Tunes cartoon world. When these two worlds first meet, it feels jarring, but as the film progresses into its final act, the mixture becomes more natural as Tarantino solidifies the film's tone. Also, Eli Roth's performance as the "Jew Bear" is almost tortuously bad. The actor/director should stay behind the camera next time.

Despite the unevenness of the Basterd characters, their existence in the film is integral to the film's thematic ideas. The Basterd's vicious murders are presented in a way that is not only fun, but often hilariously kooky. The audience gets their kicks out of seeing the Nazis get their due on the silver screen. Similarly, the film's final set piece takes place in a movie theater where the Nazis get their kicks out of propaganda filmmaker Joseph Goebbels's new film "Nation's Pride." During this scene, the Nazi audience gleefully laughs and applauds as the Germans kill thousands of enemy soldiers on screen. To put it bluntly, the film that the Nazis are watching is not altogether that different than the film Tarantino has made. In fact, one could almost call "Inglourious Basterds" an anti-Nazi propaganda film. But really, the film is about the persuasive, manipulating nature of cinema. Tarantino's kinetic style and fun tone coaxes us into enjoyment. And even the more sympathetic Nazi characters are not treated kindly by the film's supposed heroes. One could even assume Tarantino is asking non-Germans (specifically, Americans) to look at their past and see their own nation’s brutalities (the massacre of the Native Americans, anyone?).

But what Tarantino is mainly commenting on - as mentioned earlier - is the power of film to manipulate its audience. The director is integral to this process. And by excessively name dropping directors in his script, Tarantino is reminding us of this. Thankfully, we do not need a reminder of how great of a filmmaker he is. "Inglourious Basterds," whether viewed as a fun World War II movie or a meta-comment on the nature of filmmaking, is a cinematic delight. In short, it’s glorious.

A-

Top 5 Films of the Year So Far

A few have requested this, so here are my Top Five Films of 2009 (So Far).

5. Star Trek

4. 500 Days of Summer

3. Inglourious Basterds

2. Duplicity

1. The Hurt Locker

Be sure to looks for my "Inglourious Basterds" review, as well as some DVD reviews, later in the week.

What are your top five films of the year (so far)? Did I miss one that you love? Are you appalled at one of my choices? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

Thoughts on "Julie and Julia"

Meryl Streep and Amy Adams star as famous chef Julia Child and lonely blogger Julie Powell (inspired to cook by Julia the former) in director/writer Nora Ephron’s “Julie and Julia.” The film’s dual stories are equal in their lightness, but not in their quality. The Julia Child segments are much more entertaining than the Julie Powell segments, mainly due to Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci’s wonderful performances. It is so much fun to watch two great veteran actors create such a believable chemistry. The same, however, cannot be said of Amy Adams and Chris Messina’s relationship – which feels less genuine and too over-the-top. But their relationship is not the film’s only problem. Unfortunately, this cinematic soufflé is a tad overcooked. Since the film’s subject matter is so light and frothy, one wishes Ephron would have kept the film at a brisk ninety minutes. Unfortunately, “Julie and Julia” overstays its welcome and suffers from a third act that lacks any dramatic tension. In conclusion, if “Julie and Julia” would have taken out some ingredients, it may have been a cinematic gourmet. However, the film’s fluffy – if somewhat enjoyable – excesses prevent it from being so.

B-

What's Left?: Cinema Soups' Most Anticipated Films for the Rest of 2009 (Part 2 of 2)

As the summer draws to a close, you may be wondering, "What's left?" No need to fear! Cinema Soup is doing the investigating for you. Check out part one of our preview here.

And now, without further ado, Part 2 of our Fall/Winter preview.

Let's start with "The Road." The film, based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy ("No Country for Old Men"), follows a man (Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smitt-McPhee) as they seek refuge and try to survive in a post-apocalyptic future. What seems to be an emotional tale of survival has been marketed as an action-packed thriller in the film's trailer (see here). Having read a few chapters of the book, I know for sure that this trailer is misleading. "The Road" should have some thrilling moments, but - if it stays true to the book - it should be more about the father-son relationship. And Hollywood is notorious for marketing dramas as thrillers, because - apparently - audiences will not be interested in a movie unless it has three explosions per second. Anyway, the film's imagery looks stunning, Viggo Mortensen looks fantastic in his role, and the film on the whole looks incredibly intriguing. Let's hope "The Road" lives up to its promise when it opens on October 16th, 2009.

Speaking of dark subject matter, in this case a dark comedy, the trailer for the Coen Brothers next film "A Serious Man" looks great. This film was completely off my radar until now. Check out my full thoughts here.

Next up is "Shutter Island," the latest film from acclaimed director Martin Scorsese ("Goodfellas," "The Departed," "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull"). "Shutter Island" follows U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) as he investigates the disappearance of a female patient from a mental hospital. As Teddy gets further enveloped in the case, he makes some shocking revelations about the establishment. It is best to leave the plot description there. Having not read the original novel, I do not know much more about the plot. However, I feel that the film's trailer may give away some crucial plot details. You can check out the trailer here, but I would suggest you stop watching after the one minute mark. Anyway, the film looks creepy, atmospheric, and suspenseful. Let's hope "Shutter Island" is another Scorsese gem when it hits theaters October 2nd, 2009.

And we will conclude with "The Lovely Bones," based on the best-selling novel by Alice Sebold. The film, directed by the great Peter Jackson ("The Lord of the Rings," "King Kong"), follows Susie Salmon, a young girl who is murdered, as she, from some sort of afterlife, watches her family cope with the tragedy of her death. The film's trailer shows off some stunning visuals, but I am mixed on the trailer as a whole. The trailer makes the movie seem tonally confused (is it a drama? thriller? fantasy?) and some of the acting looks so-so. However, the good certainly outweighs the bad. Saoirse Ronan, Susan Sarandon, and Stanley Tucci all look great in their respective roles, but, still, something just feels a little "off." Oh, well. You can't really judge a film by its trailer anyway. Here's hoping "The Lovely Bones" is lovely when it opens wide on December 11th, 2009.

Well, dear reader, what do you think? Do you disagree with my picks? Would you like to add your own? Leave your thoughts in the comments. And remember you don't have to be a member of Blogger to comment. Just use "Anonymous" or "Name/Url" in which the URL is optional. Thanks!

Bullet Point Reviews

I normally do not condone writing brief, bullet-point reviews, but I wanted to quickly convey some opinions on a few films from earlier in the year - most of which are now on DVD.

"Coraline" (directed by Henry Selick)

• lush, detailed, beautiful stop-motion animation
• surprisingly creepy story
• suffers from an uneven pace
• flips the idea of a perfect world; shows the controlling aspects of such a society
• a few peripheral characters feel unnecessary
• voice talent is superb; Teri Hatcher makes a convincing villain.
• Grade: B

"Gigantic" (directed by Matt Aselton)

• the film's quirky elements feel forced and hamper the film's plot and tone
• Zooey Deschanel fares well as an eccentric, yet somewhat childish, girlfriend to Paul Dano's character
• Paul Dano fails to give his character a real personality. Such a shame after his great turn in 2007's "There Will Be Blood."
• hindered by pretentious symbolism that is neither comprehensible or illuminating
• manages to bring up some interesting ideas about one's transition to adulthood, but the ideas ultimately fail to resonate due to the film's numerous problems.
• Grade: C-

"The Soloist" (directed by Joe Wright)

• inspirational true story
• interesting cinematography; surprisingly varied for a mainstream film
• good, but not great performances; both Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr. feel detached from the material
• Foxx's acting is a bit too showy; would have preferred a more naturalistic performance
• script feels repetitive and sometimes slips into melodrama
• relies too heavily on voice over narration to convey the lead character's emotion and motivation; some scenes with extended dialogue feel too unrealistic
• steady pace; transitions well from flashbacks to the modern day
• at least somewhat outlines the many problems on the streets of L.A.
• It provides a realistic conclusion for the two main characters. Unfortunately this conclusion is marred by an annoyingly sentimental final scene.
• Grade: C+

"500 Days of Summer" Review

“500 Days of Summer,” a romantic comedy, stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Tom,a greeting card writer with architectural aspirations, and Zooey Deschanel (“Elf”) as Summer, the girl who charms Tom with her wit and beauty. Unlike many recent romantic comedies, "500 Days of Summer" does not feel stale or formulaic. Instead, it's fun, fresh, and relatable as it explores the 500 day relationship between Tom and Summer.

Although Summer is a major character in the film, it is important to note that the film is seen strictly from Tom's perspective. This allows the audience to relate to Tom as he goes through the joys and hardships of romance. And, yes there are many hardships. As the narrator warns the audience during the film's opening, "This is not a love story." By sticking to this idea, screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber are able to craft a tale of romantic heartbreak without making the film an emotional downer.

In fact, the movie is anything but a downer. The film hums along at a good pace and deftly mixes the screenplay's dramatic and comedic beats with dynamic, vibrant visuals and one of the best soundtracks in recent years. And the movie has actual jokes in it! Can you believe that? Cleverly thought out jokes in a romantic comedy! While not all of the jokes hit and some overstay their welcome, it is refreshing to actually laugh during a romantic comedy.

Many critics have criticized the movie for its more quirky comic moments, but, to me, it was not a problem. Ever since 2006's Little Miss Sunshine it has been hip to make characters quirky and throw in a ton of pop culture references. Some movies ( Juno) force so many pop culture references down your throat that it gets annoying, cliched, and distracting from the overall story. 500 Days of Summer does not have this problem. Except for maybe one scene that references Sid Vicious, the film's quirk (I am really starting to hate this word.) feels natural to both the story and its characters. Hence, the movie never feels like it is too clever for its own good.

However, what really carries the film is its story and its performances - both of which work together to entertain the audience and convey hard emotional truths about human relationships. Gordon-Levitt really taps into Tom's idealized version of love and is able to carry the film through both its bright and dark moments. Deschanel, who is unable to give a full characterization due to the nature of her role, shines in her subtler moments when one can almost read the uncertainty on her face. Unfortunately, the supporting characters (i.e. friends, little sisters, fellow employees) come off as annoying and cliched. Thankfully, they are not given enough screen time to derail the movie into typical romantic comedy fare.

In conclusion, 500 Days of Summer - directed with much dexterity by Marc Webb - is stylish, funny and emotionally resonant. And while it may not be the best film of the year, it is certainly one of the most memorable, and without a doubt one of the best romantic comedies in recent years.

B+

Have you seen 500 Days of Summer? If so, what are your thoughts? Be sure to leave your review in the comments. No need to have a Blogger account. Just use Anonymous or Name/URL.

"We're gonna be fine."

The Coen Brothers ("No Country for Old Men," "O, Brother Where Art Thou") have just released the trailer for their new film, "A Serious Man." It is quite possibly one of the best trailers I have ever seen. I love the repetition and music cue at the end. The film is about a (serious) man whose loses control of his life after his wife divorces him. It looks deliciously dark and filled with satiric wit. "A Serious Man" opens on October 2nd, 2009.



Your thoughts? Race to the comments!

What's Left?: Cinema Soups' Most Anticipated Films for the Rest of 2009

As the film year reaches its midpoint, you may be wondering, well, what's left?

Well, my friends, there are many things to look forward to. And we will explore some of the most anticipated (at least in this blogger's eyes) films of the rest of the year in this two-part series. So, let's dive in!

Let's start with the big banana - the film everyone has been anticipating, the film that will shatter the earth and cure all diseases. Well, maybe not that last one. James Cameron's "Avatar" has been in production forever. There's been so much hype surrounding Cameron's supposedly ground-breaking new motion capture technology used in the film, yet we have not even seen a simple trailer, and the movie comes out in December! The average person who does not follow internet movie hype has probably never even heard of it. And the movie's budget is supposedly around $300 million + ! Things just don't seem to add up. How will the movie live up to its hype? How will it ever make its money back? What the heck is it even about? Well, I think we have an answer to that last question- albeit a vague one. "Avatar" follows a man named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) as he explores a new world called Pandora. But in order to get into this new world, he has to make a duplicate of himself called an "avatar" which will disguise him from the Na'vi race (see left picture) on Pandora's planet. Sigourney Weaver and Zoe Saldana are also set to star. I can't wait, but, let's just say, I am a little more skeptical than most film buffs. "Avatar" opens wide December 18th, 2009.

Next up is Spike Jonzes's adaptation of Maurice Sendak's classic children's book "Where the Wild Things Are." You can hear me rave about the trailer here. There really isn't much more to say. The film looks beautiful, emotional, and creative. Hopefully, it will entertain children and adults alike, and do gangbusters at the box office (wishful thinking). I also hope that it is as good as the trailer makes it out to be. I fear that the movie studio may try to tinker with it and tarnsish Jonze's vision. Sigh. Sometimes, you just got to let the director do his thing. And usually great things happen (EXAMPLE). Here's hoping that great things will happen when "Where the Wild Things Are" opens on October 16th, 2009.

When I first heard about Lone Sherfig's "An Education," I thought the film was going to be typical, shlocky Oscar bait. However, once the trailer (embedded below) appeared, my mind changed in an instant. The film, unlike many award hogging character dramas, does not seem to be drenched in its own self-importance. Rather, the film seems light, funny, and powerful without feeling pretentious or heavy-handed. "An Education" follows Jenny (Carrey Mulligan), a young girl about to set off to college in the 1960s, as she engages in a relationship with an older man (Peter Sarsgaard) much to the dismay of her overbearing father (Alfred Molina). And, as the trailer suggests, Jenny soon learns that "sometimes an education isn't by the book." Well, let's hope this film is one "for the books" when it arrives in theaters on October 9th, 2009.

Well, that's all for part one of this series. Expect part two to be up sometime next week.

Be sure to leave your thoughts in the comments below!

"The Hurt Locker" Review

“The Hurt Locker,” now playing in limited release, hammers its audience with unrelenting suspense, shocks them with its amazing authenticity, and illuminates them to the day-to-day struggles of a bomb tech soldier in Iraq.

The film, directed by Kathryn Bigelow (“Point Break”), mainly follows Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) as he is transferred to a new bomb tech unit in Iraq due to the unfortunate death of the unit’s previous leader (Guy Pearce). While working to diffuse bombs, the reckless and over confident James comes into conflict with his comrades, the no-nonsense Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and the timid Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty).

“The Hurt Locker” is an action movie. There’s no doubt about that, but it’s a decidedly different type of action movie – an action movie that is rooted in character. To be honest, “The Hurt Locker” may be one of the best mixes of character drama and suspenseful action in recent years. Bigelow does not make one false step in her direction. And while Mark Boal’s script does have its problems, Bigelow maneuvers around them with dexterity and confidence. In other words, she makes the script’s small hiccups disappear and moves the film along at a near impeccable pace. The film truly is a triumph of directing.

Part of what makes Bigelow’s direction so fantastic is her keen eye for suspense. When the film starts, the audience is quickly thrust into a suspenseful action sequence. As the sequence continues, both the stakes of the situation and the realness of the characters are established. Thus, the suspense continues to build until the sequence reaches its explosive conclusion. And with each new sequence, the characters become more fleshed out and relatable – making the suspense subsequently higher each time. Also adding to the suspense is how realistically the film is shot. Bigelow has the geography of her scenes perfectly laid out. The audience knows where each character is, what they are doing, and why they are doing it. And when Bigelow and cinematographer Barry Ackroyd use hand held cameras, it is coherent, unlike most recent Hollywood action films.

Something that further separates “The Hurt Locker” from recent action films is its performances – which are uniformly solid. Jeremy Renner is outstanding as Sergeant James. He perfectly embodies the character’s unpredictability and sells the movie’s main thematic idea: “war is a drug.” James has an addiction – an addiction that frightens his comrade Owen Eldridge. The relatively unknown Brian Garaghty shines in his portrayal of Eldrige and beautifully conveys the character’s fear and awkwardness. Anthony Mackie also fares well in his performance as Sergeant Sanborn, but his character feels a tad undeveloped. When Sanborn has a fairly emotional scene near the film’s closure, it does not feel earned. Thankfully, Mackie’s acting chops save the moment from completely falling flat.

While the script has its flaws, it is still fairly well-developed. Screenwriter Mark Boal’s dialogue really sells the authenticity of the film. And by focusing on three different soldiers, Boal is able to show how different people react to war and high risk situations. It also enables him to weave a few different ideas around the film’s main thesis – the aforementioned idea that “war is a drug.” And – excluding one distracting sequence in the film’s middle – Boal does not stray from this idea or the film’s overall plot.

In conclusion, “The Hurt Locker,” directed with great skill by Kathryn Bigelow, is one of the year’s best films.

A-

Leave your thoughts in the comments below! Anyone can leave a comment. Just use the "Name/Url" option where the "URL" is optional. You can even make up a screen name if you don't want to put your real name down.

Really America...

...You made this number one at the box office this weekend.

I understand it's a children's movie. I really do! The point is that there are probably better (funnier, more inventive) children's movies out there. Now, this all sounds extremely hypocritical considering I have not even seen the movie, but sometimes you can just tell. I could tell from the trailer that the film was going to be super annoying and filled with bathroom humor, cute animals, and nonstop furry action. In other words, it is manufactured to make money and get a few cheap laughs from kids without truly challenging their imaginations or capturing a childlike state of wonder.

sigh...

Meanwhile, this October, what looks like a truly inventive film will come out! It's a film that looks like it will challenge children's imaginations and capture a childlike state of wonder.

In case you have not seen it, here is the trailer for Spike Jonze's "Where the Wild Things Are," based on the beloved children's book by Maurice Sendak.

What a beaute! This trailer almost made me cry. It beautifuly captures the wonder, fear and innocence of a childhood. And it's just a trailer! I hope the film lives up to my expectations when it hits theaters October 16th. One thing is for sure. It will defenitely be better than G-Force.

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Reminder: you don't need a Blogger account to comment, just use "Anonymous" or "Name/Url."

Peter Jackson Talking About Hollywood's Slump

Recently, at the San Diego Comic Convention (which is now really a movie convention), Mr. Peter Jackson (director of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy) talks about Hollywood's recent creative slump, and the unique power of film.

See for yourself:

Amen, Mr. Jackson. Amen.

Thanks to In Contention for the video.

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. (Just a reminder: there's no need to get a Blogger account to comment. You can either use "Anonymous" or "Name/Optional Url."

"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" Review

In “Harry Potter and Half-Blood Prince,” the sixth installment of the “Harry Potter” series, the characters in J.K. Rowling’s massive epic are finally given some room to breathe. Instead of trying to cram several elements into one film, director David Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves are able to pare things down to the absolute essential. Thus, instead of feeling bloated like Yates’s previous Potter venture, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” this film feels more developed.

The film – obviously a continuation of the previous five – sees Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) continue his relationship with Professor Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), develop feelings for his best friend’s sister, and learn more about the Dark Lord Voldemort’s past. That plot synopsis will either make sense to you, or it will not. If it does not, I suggest going to the beginning of the series and start your “Harry Potter” adventures there. It is important to note that this film does not stand on its own. If a newbie were to walk into this film, they would be terribly confused. This is a continuation of the previous five (as I mentioned above) and one really needs to see the previous installments before diving into this one. In fact, one of the best things about this film is how continuous it is with the rest of the “Potter” films. While the rest of the films feel like separate entities, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” feels much more connected to the other films in the series. Several elements from the previous film, such as the Marauder’s Map, the Room of Requirement, and the Invisibility Cloak, all return and create a wonderful continuity between this film and the ones that precede it.

The acting – as almost always in the “Potter” films – is top-notch. It seems as if the producers have managed to cast nearly every famous British thespian by now. It is a joy to watch such greats as Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter, Maggie Smith, and Julie Walters create such vivid characters in each film. While much of the adult cast is not given a whole lot to do, they still put in solid performances and never act like they are “above” the material. The newest addition to the all-star cast is Jim Broadbent, who plays Harry’s new potions teacher – Professor Horace Slughorn. Broadbent adds a level of nuance to the performance by expertly mixing the character’s broad comedy and tragic regret. And it’s all in his face. Broadbent is such an expressive actor that one can clearly see all the emotions that are running through his characters.

While the adult actors have always been great, the teenage actors have certainly evolved from there rather flat performances in earlier films. Although Dan Radcliffe – who really improved in film number five – is not given much to do in terms of emotion, he manages to give Harry a more proactive feel. But this film really belongs to Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, the two young actors who play Harry’s best friends Ron and Hermione. Grint, in particular, is able to really flex his comedic muscle in scenes involving his annoyingly clingy girlfriend Lavender Brown (Jessie Cave). Meanwhile, Emma Watson really gains more control over her characterization of Hermione. While Watson has been known to overact in past films, she strikes a much better balance in this film and is able to convey teenage heartbreak without it seeming childish or melodramatic. And that is a really hard task to accomplish. Also, Tom Felton adds some much need complexity and conflict to the character of Draco Malfoy. And Evanna Lynch still feels perfectly cast as the wonderfully eccentric Luna Lovegood.

As one can tell from reading my descriptions of the performances, this film involves a good amount of teenage romance. This element both adds and subtracts from the quality of the film. While the humor and angst conveyed through the romance sub plots are a nice relief from much of the darkness of the film, they sometimes feel a bit too fluffy – particularly in the film’s middle section. Being a Harry Potter devotee, I do not mind it because I think it deepens the characters, but I can definitely see how it could annoy some non-fans and it does cause the pace to lag in a few scenes. Also, the relationship between Harry Potter and Ron’s sister Ginny Weasley (played by Bonnie Wright) does not work at all. It feels forced, awkward and sometimes even creepy. Radcliffe has absolutely no chemistry with Wright, and Wright feels miscast. She does not really embody the spunkiness of the Ginny we see in the books.

Even though the pace is still a bit uneven, David Yates has definitely improved as a director. His scenes have more rhythm and pack more of a punch. Although he still ends some scenes rather abruptly, the scenes feel more complete and less rushed than his previous work in “Order of the Phoenix.” And the film looks beautiful. Director of Photography Bruno Delbonnel and Yates give the film an interesting visual look that makes it stand out from most recent blockbusters. It’s so pleasantly surprising to see a studio give this much artistic freedom to a film with such a high budget.

It is also great that the filmmakers took more artistic license when adapting from the source material. Many fans have complained that the film’s ending feels anticlimactic due to the excision of a big battle scene. While I can understand this disappointment, it does not bother me. To me, the ending of “Order of the Phoenix” – with all of its crazy wand effects – feels vapid and emotionless, while this most recent film’s ending feels more psychological and impactful.
In conclusion, the “Potter” films will never be masterpieces like Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy. The source material’s complexity, as well as several inconsistencies in direction and writing, prevents it from being so. Still, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” manages to capture the characters from the books and present them in an artful way. And that’s more than one can say for most Hollywood films.

B+ [More of a B in terms of quality, but I really enjoyed it as a Potter fan, so I gave it a boost.]


Thanks for reading! Leave your opinion in the comments below.

A Few Words on "The Proposal"

1.5 stars out of 5/ D+

"The Proposal," a romantic comedy starring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds, may be the laziest film of the year. The plot revolves around a rich book editor (Bullock) who brides her assistant (Reynolds) to marry her, so she will not be deported to Canada, her native country. What could have been a delectable comedy treat ends up being a predictable, unfunny mess. In fact, the script is so formulaic it could be mistaken for a math equation. Uptight business woman. Check. Cute Dog. Check. Batty Grandma. Check. Unexpected couple. Check. Crazy Male Dancer. Check. The bad part is that nothing in that equation is funny. Ryan Reynolds tries to make something of the material, but instead just ends up making a bunch of confused facial expressions. And Sandra Bullock is not funny at all. Honestly, she may be the least funny person in Hollywood at the moment. Meanwhile, Betty White (the aforementioned batty Grandma) brings some charm to the film, but mostly comes off as over the top and annoying. In conclusion, "The Proposal" is one of the most unoriginal comedies of the year. By the end of the movie, I wanted to be deported to Canada, just to escape the film's consistent mediocrity.

Ranking the Harry Potter Films

Now that there are six of them, ranking the Potter films has become all the rage. So, I've decided to take a crack at it. From Best to Worst.



1. "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban." This film beautifully directed by the enormously gifted Alfonso Cuaron (see "Children of Men") is by far the most human and visually engaging of all the Potter films. Instead of settling for the sap of the earlier films, Cuaron and his team put the focus on the characters. The relationship between Professor Lupin (David Thewlis) and Harry is very well rendered. It's a shame that David Thewlis has been given so little to do in later films, as he is easily the best of Harry's on screen mentors. On a different note, the time turner sequence is my all-time favorite sequence in any Potter film.



2. "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." I'll keep this short since I will be writing my review later this week. I think that this is the film that best captured the characters from the books. David Yates is really growing on me as a director.



3. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." David Yates's Potter debut is good, but not great. Imelda Staunton - who plays control freak Dolores Umbridge - really raises this film up a notch. Her rise to power is scary, and pink. I feel like the pace lags a bit in this film mainly due to how many scenes were crammed in. Yates unfortunately gives the film very little room to breathe. Thankfully, the young actors show vast improvement in this version, particularly Dan Radcliffe's Harry. The acting in this film defenitely makes up for the lackluster finale. I would have preferred a psychological duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore, not a second-rate fireworks show. Overall, this film works due to Yates splendid work with the actors. The political undertones are also a nice touch.



4. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." Director Chris Colombus manages to capture the magic of introducing Jo Rowling's deeply imaginative world. The beautiful thing about "Sorcerer's Stone" - both the book and the film - is that it is seen through the eyes of a child. We feel the same childish delight that Harry feels as we see Diagon Alley, Platform 9 and 3/4, and Hogwarts for the first time. Unfortunately, the film is almost a bit too cheery at times. Colombus's love for sap is evident here, but rarely enters gag-inducing territory. The computer effects in this film are also noticably bad. And don't get me started on the scene where Harry, Ron and Hermione all scream at the same time like they popped out of one of Colombus's previous films "Home Alone."



5. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire." This film - directed by Mike Newell ("Four Weddings and a Funeral") is the worst adaptation for the books. Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) is all wrong. What's with the screaming and man-handling Harry? Ick. Also, the characters go nowhere in this film. Harry is as blank as ever. Hermione is useless except for a few quick facts before the tasks. Ron is the only one that develops, but after awhile, he just returns to comic relief. That being said, the film's action set-pieces are the most memorable of all the films. The dragon scene is breathtaking, as is the underwater task. The third task, the maze, is changed, and for the better in my opinion. I love the creepy atmosphere of the maze attacking the contestants. Voldemort's return to power is also pretty neat, but in the end, this movie feels pretty limp in terms of character development - which is obviously one of Rowling's strengths as a writer. Kudos to Miranda Richardson for her all to brief appearance as gossip journalist Rita Skeeter.



6. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets." Coincidentally, this is also my least favorite of the books. And since Chris Colombus and screenwriter Steve Kloves slavisly adhere to the book, I didn't like the movie too much either. If you are going to adapt this book, the only feasible way would be to make it like a puplpy horror flick, but instead Colombus films it in his light, sentimental tones that annoy me so. While that angle works for the first film's sense of wonder and discovery, it feels stale in this one. Also, I don't think Ron does anything but eat and act scared of spiders in this movie. Literally, that's it. And don't get me started on the final scene - which is by far the stupidest and most gag-inducing scene in Potter film history. "There's no Hogwarts without you Hagrid!" Who writes this stuff? Apparently, Steve Kloves did not. It was all Colombus's doing. Ugh! I hate that scene. Everything does not need to be tied up in a pretty little sentimental bow, Colombus. Okay? RANT OVER. All my qualms aside, I do think Kenneth Branagh is absolutely smashing as the phony celeb wizard Gilderoy Lockhart. Dobby's pretty awesome too, and I like the basilik scene.



In conclusion, I think the Potter films have many strengths, but obviously some work much better than others. Expect my review of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" later this week.



Feel free to leave comments. You don't have to be a registered member of Blogger. Just use Anonymous or "Name/Url" in which the Url is optional. I am eager to see how others would rank the Potter series.

Character Actor Profile: Tom Wilkinson

Have you ever seen someone in a movie, swear that you have seen them before, but cannot quite put your finger on the actor's name? You're not alone. So, to bring these underappreciated actors and actresses to forefront, I've decided to start a series highlighting some of my favorites. In this series, I will pick out three different films starring my character actor of choice and review his or her performance.



My first pick: Tom Wilkinson



Mr. Wilkinson has a very extensive filmography (see: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0929489/). From horror films ("The Exorcism of Emily Rose") to light English comedies ("The Importance of Being Earnest") to comic book adaptations ("Batman Begins"), he seems to sneak himself into several films a year - almost like a mouse infiltrating a neighborhood of different houses, except Mr. Wilkinson is far from unwanted.

In Tony Gilroy's "Duplicity," Wilkinson plays Howard Tully, a corporate executive for a major pharmaceutical company. It does not take long for one to notice how much fun Wilkinson is having with the role. He embodies Tully with a sense of crafty calmness, an almost perfect contrast to Paul Giamatti's Richard Garsik (Tully's corporate enemy) who is an sleazy, dim-witted neurotic. Wilkinson gives you the feeling that Tully is in complete control - without an ounce of worry. This characterization is a joy to watch and - more importantly - makes perfect sense once the film has made its final reveal.



In 2007's "Michael Clayton" - also directed by Tony Gilroy - Wilkinson plays Arthur Edens, a lawyer at a well-established law firm. But, like most Tom Wilkinson roles, that would be just a bit too normal. So, of course, Wilkinson's character is suffering from a psychological breakdown after investigating a case involving a chemical company. Wilkinson nails the obsession of the character. His performance feels BIG, but never devolves into histrionics. The film's opening - a monologue by Wilkinson as the camera is racing through the law firm - is almost chilling in its intensity and brings the audience into the film immediately. And the intensity hardly ever lets up - especially when Wilkinson is on screen.

Perhaps Wilkinson's most critically acclaimed performance isin Todd Field's "In the Bedroom." In the film, Wilkinson plays Matt Fowler, a man stricken with grief after the death of his son Frank. Wilkinson - along with Sissy Spacek who plays his wife - beautifully convey the grieving process. The interactions between Wilkinson and Spacek are scarily realistic. Instead of going completely over-the-top, Wilkinson - with help from the great screenplay - depicts Matt's grief through simpler, quieter moments where the character is clearly just trying to get his son's death off his mind. This performance is one of Wilkinson's few leading roles, and it is easily one of his best.

So, what do you think? Are you with me in praising Wilkinson for his versatility, or do you think he is massively overrated? Are there any other character actors that you feel don't get enough praise? Feel free to answer these questions in the comments.

Also, you do not need a Blogger account to leave a comment. You can either use "Anonymous" or "Name/Url" in which the URL is optional.