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.