In my mourning of the greatest football team ever to play the game’s tragic loss, I’ve been given a chance to catch up on some films I had skipped from the previous year, and some films that are still in the theater. As some of you know, I have access to my own private theater, which has been a great opportunity to watch these films without interruption from the peanut gallery that currently makes up the movie-going public. It’s been great. No screaming kids, cell phones or crowds.
Anyway, all these movies are floating around in my brain, and I have to let out my opinion on some of them. I’m very opinionated, and this is a good venue to rant, so read on if you want. But I do have to warn you, I’m going to try not to give away too much or ruin any of the films for you, if you haven’t seen them, but I may bitch about or commend a certain scene or act. I will try to remain as vague as possible.
So here are some movies that I’ve seen over the last few weeks, in vague order from worst to best. No numbers or anything formal, as this is art, and who am I to judge the filmmakers?
Cloverfield (2008):
I’ll be the first to admit that the first ¾ of this movie was a lot of fun and really intense. That said, you really have to suspend disbelief to choke down some of the decisions made by these characters. Then, with a sequence of about 5 minutes, they manage to kill the movie. Now, if you’ve seen the film, you know what I’m taking about. There is a scene that is so gratuitous, obviously meant to throw the audience a bone, and clearly aimed at the crowd that was convinced that The Blair Witch Project should have ended with a woman in a plastic green mask jumping out of the bushes as she cackles on her broom. What about those of us who were smart enough to realize that our imagination would never be trumped by CGI?
I am Legend:
Again, don’t judge a book by its cover. I had a chance to see this movie, for free, any night I wanted, but continually passed on it. It looked that bad. But then I gave it a chance, and I was surprised at the outcome. I loved the way the narrative was told, and Will Smith was great in the role I thought he was terrible for. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m by no means recommending this movie over the several outstanding films that are available to watch. I’m just saying; if you’re home and watching TV some late night, and this movie comes on HBO or some channel, give it a shot. And, for those that have seen it – How much better a movie would this have been without the use of CGI mutants? I still can’t wrap my head around this decision. Also, props for having the saddest scene in any film last year. When he calls Sam, “Samantha”, I almost lost it, and walked out.
The Bourne Ultimatum:
I loved this series, especially the last two. The second film, The Bourne Supremacy, was my favorite. This movie was the best representation of what the books were meant to be. They were beach books. Entertainment. This film, at times seemed a little gimmicky, as Bourne relived all his turning points and decisions in the first two films, backwards. But all in all, it was a satisfying end to the trilogy, and they should leave it at that. Paul Greengrass really has a head for that kinetic action and violence, and Matt Damon was perfect in this role. If you have not scene these films, skip the next action blockbuster, and rent this trilogy. I dare you not to like them.
Alright, on to award bait:
Sweeny Todd:
If you are going to see this movie, don’t worry about missing the first half. Bathroom breaks, make yourself a snack, whatever. They beat the exposition to death, and the movie does not really start until it’s half over. That said, the last half is great. Very Tim Burton, lots of stylized violence and set pieces to admire. Even though it is extremely predictable, it’s still fun. The last half of this movie restored some faith in Tim Burton for me. His last few movies I thought were tough to watch. But seriously, skip the first half.
3:10 To Yuma:
This one fell slightly below my expectations. I thought the story was great. The acting and casting was spot on. Christian Bale, Russel Crowe and Ben Foster were fantastic. The problem I had, was with the directing. The story telling if you will. James Mangold, who also directed the equally disappointing Walk the Line, never seemed to commit to a narrative. In every scene, it was like he could not decide what he was trying to say. I’m not saying that every scene has to be complete with a moral, or pose a question. But not one scene throughout the film managed to do this. I kept waiting for some twist. Something I missed. But it never came.
American Gangster:
Not what I expected. I guess I was thinking this would be a very stylized movie, filling the gap in the public consensus where a combination Scarface and Superfly could pepper the DVD racks on every episode of MTV’s Cribs. Instead, this was a pretty bare bones Biopic. Russel Crowe’s character had obviously been played up a little to make him a formidable antagonist to Denzel’s bad ass gangster. But they both seemed very real. And kind of boring because of that. Maybe a little over the top exploitation was just what this film needed. Don’t know who bares the blame for this film not being the pop culture hit that was expected. Probably Steven Zaillian. Not for writing a bad script, but for being the wrong person to write it. But let’s give the guy a break, he did write Schindler's List.
Michael Clayton:
The best part of this film is Tom Wilkinson. By far. Without him, this film would be a little flat. We’ve seen this same film a few times already. The Constant Gardener, which was fantastic. A Civil Action, which was okay. And several others. The performances make this movie what it is. And it’s a contender. Just like Juno, which I’m about to get to; this one probably doesn’t deserve all the accolades that it has been receiving. Chalk that up to the marketing machine behind these films. Worth seeing, but don’t expect a religious experience.
Charlie Wilson’s War:
I love anything with Aaron Sorkin’s name on it. Pre 9/11 West Wing, Studio 60, you name it. And his witty dialogue is always worth the price of admission. That said, while this film had his stamp on it from the start, it never came together as the big film it was supposed to be. Look at that cast. Maybe that’s what bothered me. The big movie stars in this little film. I was always waiting for some big revelation or action sequence, but this was formatted like a great episode of an HBO series. Not much longer than a scripted hour-long without commercials either. Maybe Sorkin should get his own HBO series, where there is no continuity, and big screen guess stars can act out some historical event in every episode. I’d pay to see that.
Atonement:
Talk about unexpected. This film is very different than its marketing would have you believe. It is not a sweeping love story paced throughout decades. It’s a very surreal, intimate film that takes some wild turns. The first half is a very slowly paced episode of Masterpiece Theatre, with a looming darkness. Then, the film veers into a war film that is so lyrical, and has such complex camera work that you almost expect the soldiers to suddenly break out into song and dance. Now, once it all comes together, the separate narratives make sense, but only when you look back at it. This is a good film, and I can understand why it is getting so much praise. The costumes, the designs, and the music all have a very vintage feel that is beautiful, and very reminiscent of classic films. This is not a great film though, and it does surprise me that it is the current favorite to win, and has already won the best picture award at several ceremonies.
Into the Wild:
Ten minutes in, and I was hating this film. I figured I was in for a lecture on what was wrong in society, and a film that was going to cause every rich suburban Fish Head to pack up and leave their cushy lifestyles. But then there were glimpses of greatness. Certain scenes where this film captured something rare and very real about being on the road. About meeting people and forming brief relationships that have a greater impact on each persons life, whether they know it at the time or not. This film had many instances of flaws, but an equal amount of truly great filmmaking. I’m still trying to process whether or not I think this was a great film. It was long, but at certain times I found myself wishing they would show more of the landscapes that made up the setting of this film, and practically served as a main character. There were several interactions that occurred between the main character and people he met along his journey that hinted at the mistake he was making, and I wish this had been explored more in the film. Too many Biopics do not show the flaws of the character in focus, and try too hard to pay homage. This film is worth a viewing, if only to see the response it triggers in you. I think everyone can relate to the main idea of this film, and that gives it a personal meaning. I’m still processing this one.
Gone Baby Gone:
Dennis Lehane stories are hard not to like. Especially if you’re from Boston. They just seem to resonate. And this film adaptation is no different. What a great story. It poses a question, which is far more challenging as a narrative structure. The worst and the best of humanity are in every character. The acting was outstanding, especially the brother/sister combo of Lionel and Helene McCready. Ed Harris was outstanding as always. The one flaw of this film was Casey Affleck. Not his acting, because he was great in this role. But the casting was off from the start. Sometimes this happens in movies. You can never get past the fact that the actor is wrong for the role, and it takes something away from the film. Still, this was a great film. I’ve seen it twice now, and it still holds up, even knowing the ending from the start. And that’s the sign of a great film.
Juno:
People are calling this, “the little movie that could” which is pretty accurate because of what it has accomplished. This is a very light, uplifting film with a good message. I’ve been trying to find the flaw, where some group of nutcases can use this film to protest something, and draw attention to themselves. But it’s not there. It’s not offensive to anyone, and it’s a story about the comedic side of teen pregnancy. Never thought I’d see that on film. It’s corny and funny and everything that makes a good movie to watch with the kids. Except for the premise. I’ve seen this movie 3 times already because so many people want to see it, and I have not talked to one person that did not like it. And while that should never be the intention of art, it works for this film. Ellen Page deserves the nomination, young as she is. I never once stopped believing her situation. As far as the rest of the praise and nominations? Don’t worry. It will not win anything important. But this is one instance where it should be an honor just to be nominated.
No Country for Old Men:
I was completely surprised at the response this film has received. After the first viewing, I figured the public in general would hate this film, and that the critics would pan it because of the violence, and overall bleak outlook this film leaves you with. Shows what I know. I think this film is going to win the Oscar for best picture, and the Coen Brothers will take home the top prize for director. I don’t know if it deserves it. I do know that this is not the Coen’s best film, no matter what people are saying. This is a great film. One with a strong message. The acting was superb. Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin were both great, even though Javier Bardem gets all the press. It’s funny, 6 years ago, Roger Deakins won an Oscar for cinematography in A Beautiful Mind, when he should have one for The Man Who Wasn’t There, a Coen Brothers film that same year. This year, he’s going to win for No Country for Old Men, a Coen Brothers film, when he should win for The Assassination of Jesse James. More on that later. Anything else I can say has been said over and over already. Go see it if you haven’t already.
There Will Be Blood:
If there were an award for performance by an actor in this decade, maybe century, Daniel Day Lewis would have it locked up. He was Daniel Plainview. And Daniel was a train wreck of a human being. One that was horrible and grizzly, but impossible to look away from. This movie probably frustrates a lot of people. It is a film that spits in the face of modern filmmaking. It is utterly simplistic in its narrative, and follows the protagonist from point A to point B. And that is what sets Paul Thomas Anderson above the rest of us. The scope of his vision. If I had read this as a script, I may have dismissed it as too simple. But combine the greatest, most intense actor of his generation along with a Director with a singular vision and love of film, and you have the modern day Citizen Kane. Let’s not forget the score either. Absolutely haunting. If any portion of this film moved slow, you would never know it because of the tense music, never letting you let your guard down. Never once do you feel safe during this film, as though the title is a promise you are constantly expecting to drop like a bowling pin to the head. This is arguably the best film in a year filled with good films. Probably in the last couple of years. It may not be my favorite, as of now, but it is probably the best.
I’m Not There:
Anyone who has discussed film with me over the last decade knows too well my disdain for the Biopic. If they are autobiographical, they will almost always be in the vain of “Poor me, look what awful things I endured”, or the “Everyone but me is evil and bad and I’m really just a misunderstood, stand up drug dealer” (see Blow). If they are done post-mortem, they are the classic homage, where all the deceased’s relatives and friends tell the 2 dimensional story of how absolutely perfect this person was. And if it’s historical, then it’s almost always a collage of what people have researched and too often veers in the direction of too much historical accuracy, too little drama/story. I’m Not There sets the bar pretty high from now on. This is not a Biopic. It’s something new. It is a story about the myth of a man. A man that is still living. Each Character plays a completely different, complex individual, resulting in a mosaic of what it is to be a realistic human being. And if that was not enough for some people, the narrative structure actually works as a fluid, complete story. This was not an easy task to accomplish. There is an argument, and a mission statement made in the beginning of the film, that plays out until the end, leaving the question open. And in the segment where Cate Blanchet plays Jude Quinn, this question is most relevant. Does celebrity make one part of the collective, social consciousness? Is what you think of as self or personality decided by you, or by everyone around you? Who are you to think that you decide who you are, when millions think of you as one way or another? Who’s right, you or everyone else? This was not just a great film, but it also sets a precedent for what a Biopic, or just a creative film, can achieve.
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford:
How did this film fall through the cracks? Is it that unapproachable? Is it the cast? Casey Affleck and Brad Pitt don’t exactly scream period drama. I don’t know why this film has been so overlooked and why I can barely find a soul who has even scene it. It is the most beautifully shot film of the year, by far. I said it before, but it bears repeating; it’s funny, 6 years ago, Roger Deakins won an Oscar for cinematography in A Beautiful Mind, when he should have one for The Man Who Wasn’t There, a Coen Brothers film that same year. This year, he’s going to win for No Country for Old Men, a Coen Brothers film, when he should win for The Assassination of Jesse James. This film had Terrance Mallick written all over it. There were scenes that looked like they were cut from Days of Heaven. And, like I’m Not There, the concept of celebrity is the focus of the film. Here, celebrity is viewed almost like a disease, where one character catches it from the other and they are both worse off for it. The film somehow manages to be predictable and tense at the same time. As though you are hoping the inevitable is not as obvious as it would seem. But the story and the characters all manage to twist and turn in unexpected ways, resulting in the same conclusion. This is filmmaking at its finest, not often seen by an unknown director. Keep an eye on Andrew Dominik. I think we will be hearing his name quite a bit in the future.
Anyway, you probably stopped reading a while back, as this is an extremely long rant. So I can say anything I want at this point and no one will know. I hope a lot of people read this though, and I hope to get some angry responses from equally opinionated people. Cheers.
-Ryan
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Watchmen
“Do that thing you do.” - Laurie Juspeczyk (Jupiter)
I will always prefer to praise art that I enjoy far more than critiquing the labors of people I don’t know and will probably never meet. My fear is that, with blogging and message boards and all the other tools of the internet, it has become a compulsion for some to bash and dismantle other peoples art without ever having to show credentials or give a sense of scale to what they are comparing it to, all the while remaining faceless. That is why I would always choose to do a “top ten” list, or simply write about the films worth seeing. But every once in a while, I am compelled to be a real critic, and pass judgment on something that falls short of the standard film makers and society seek to uphold. And in this case, I will seek to defend another medium that bares the brunt of this failure.
Hopefully, this can set the scales on how to view any positive reviews I write, as this is the total opposite end of the spectrum. Just be warned; at some point, objectivity is going to go out the window, and this review will start to get personal.
Watchmen:
When I have an opportunity to see a great film that is relatively new, I try and let it sink in before truly passing judgment or putting it in its place on any all time lists. Hindsight is 20/20 and the test of time is the ultimate decider. That same rule should go for terrible films as well, so I will attempt to refrain from any severe sound bites, or claiming that this is the worst film that has ever been put to celluloid.
Notice I said “attempt”.
I will be the first to admit that I did not expect to like this film (if you can call it that). I expected to watch it and have a neat visual to go along with the original medium, but to ultimately come away from it with the realization that Alan Moore, Terry Gilliam, Paul Greengrass and Darren Aronofsky were right: The source material is unfilmable. Hell, I knew that when I picked up chapter 1 almost 20 years ago. But in recent history, going in with low expectations has helped me to enjoy several mediocre films more than I probably should have. In this case, any expectation wouldn’t have mattered.
This film is an abomination.
I could write a book on how horrible the make-up and special effects were, but will leave those alone to focus on the real issues.
This film is such a train wreck that it may be a career ender for several people that worked on it. It will, at the very least, be the last film by Director Zack Snyder that I ever pay money to see. He has the visual sensibility of a 10 year old on Ritalin, and manages to coax a terrible performance out of very capable actors. For some of the unknown actors in this film, it will be hard for them to shake such a horrible job from their acting résumés. I for one would find it hard to take Malin Akerman or Matthew Goode serious in any future roles they take, now that I have seen how atrocious they were in Watchmen.
But making a bad film can be forgiven, and that is not where the true crime in all of this lies. The unforgivable transgression is taking something that is so beloved by so many people, and butchering it all the while claiming to stay true to the source material. And even though 1 million extra copies of the trade-paperback have sold in anticipation of the film, the larger audience will be experiencing Watchmen for the first time when they see it on the screen.
Snyder claims that he took on the job of filming Watchmen, because he was afraid of it in the hands of someone that didn’t love the source material. Well, if this is at all true, it surprises me. Because that would mean that he loved the original, without understanding it. Everyone that understands the relevance of Watchmen, and why it is considered amongst the most important pieces in pop culture history, can tell you why it resonates. Two main reasons: The sardonic and satirical take on the idea of superpowers (whether they be a country or a person, either way in Moore’s eyes that equals “bully”), and the brilliant structure that to this day stands as the closest thing to prose in a visual medium (a genius, layered mosaic of panels that is the real core of Watchmen, and the reason why it is impossible to translate to film). The satire of each chapter is as poignant as Gilliam’s Brazil or Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, of which there are two forced references to in the film, almost as if only to use for arguments sake. But the narrative structure… the real heart of each chapter… is abandoned completely. It’s no big secret that the weakest aspect of Watchmen was always the plot and its characters. So why make a movie about those things, ultimately watering down the original medium. And another huge mistake – Snyder tries to make the characters in his film edgy and cool. Sure, he gets that they are also damaged and fascist, and ultimately that is what it would take to get someone to put on a costume and beat people near or to death, all in the name of some warped form of justice. But these people are not cool. They are social misfits, and barely likable. And that is what was so revolutionary about them.
Just to establish my geek credibility, I should let you know about my history with Watchmen. When I was 13 years old I picked up issues 1 and 2 of Watchmen on a recommendation from the owner of a local comic shop, just to see if I would like it. After inhaling the first 2 issues, I scrounged together $17.50 (no easy task back then) and bought the trade-paperback which collected the entire story and supplementary material. The impact this made on me at the time is still being processed today. Reading Catcher in the Rye at 15 had a similar, but less profound effect on me. I have always been wildly defensive of this masterpiece, only now I have a reason to be. I can’t imagine what it would be like to read this for the first time today, almost 30, in a world so drastically different from when I first read it. I’ll never know, because every time I pick it up (and it is still fairly often) I am instantly 13 again. For a still-life project when I was 17, I was instructed to gather items that represented me, and I included that tattered, worn out trade-paperback (which at that point, I had only probably read cover to cover, a measly number in the double digits. You read that right). That copy of Watchmen travels with me whenever I pack a bag, and has seen a few countries and oceans in its day. And you’ll notice how I refer to Watchmen as “source material” and “trade-paperback”, as opposed to “Graphic Novel”. That’s because I am old enough to remember that this was never a Graphic Novel, as it came out in chapters. “Anthology” or “comic book” would be more appropriate and less pretentious. Be wary of anyone that calls it a graphic novel, because that alone shows their ignorance. And Alan Moore, the genius recluse whose name has been dragged through the mud lately even though he did his best to distance himself from this horror, owns a small piece of my soul. He also bares the blame for why every film I see or book I read seems watered down and unwilling to take risks by comparison. Poor Alan Moore, I wish I had the strength of will to stay away from this film like you did. But curiosity got the better of me. And for all the people qualifying his attitude towards this film as lunacy; you would be a (so called) paranoid conspiracy nut too, if Hollywood was hell bent on destroying every creative property that you were unable to retain the rights to. Thankfully, they should be about done now, having saved his magnum opus for their big finale.
And that brings me to the positive buzz surrounding this film. Yeah, a lot of people have been giving this film a vague but encouraging review. That is out of fear. It’s the same reason that everybody waited, holding their breath after the film ended, not wanting to clap but at the same time not wanting to boo. Fear that they didn’t “get” it. No one wants to be outside the collective zeitgeist, when it comes to such a pop culture juggernaut. After a small amount of critics started to bad mouth the film, they were met with immediate blowback from the fanboy community. People so defensive of genre films, that they would be quick to attack anyone that points out faults in their beloved subculture. Finally, when the film reached a national release date, critics started showing some spine. Trust me, when the dust settles, this film will be viewed as what it ultimately is: An across the board failure. And everyone that didn’t have the guts to voice their opinions will be shown as the hacks they are. It happened with V for Vendetta, and now it’s happening again.
God, this film is terrible. Everyone involved should hang their heads low, and live with the shame of what they accomplished. I wish this film was never made, because all it does is tarnish something truly unique. It is unfilmable. At worst, you have this monstrosity, and at best, you have a shot for shot visual aid for the original, tapping into that rich mosaic structure. And at that point, why bother? Why encourage or even reward such xenophobia when it comes to comics. The award for reading the original should have been enough for Zack Snyder, but instead he helped destroy the thing he sought to protect in the public consensus. That is the legacy of a 2 year passion project by the director. And, though I will not say anything along the lines of it being the worst film of the decade (I would need to let it sink in for another few months), you can quote me on this little sound bite:
Watchmen the movie is a serial rapist. It raped the source material and it will rape you if you see it in the theater, as well as rob you of your hard earned cash.
I feel dirty, and need to take a shower.
Ryan Black
March 7, 2009
If you want to discuss or get my opinion on any other aspect of this film (No squid, glowing blue full frontal nudity or whatever), please E-mail me or comment on this page. Don’t forget to sign your comments. Thanks.
I will always prefer to praise art that I enjoy far more than critiquing the labors of people I don’t know and will probably never meet. My fear is that, with blogging and message boards and all the other tools of the internet, it has become a compulsion for some to bash and dismantle other peoples art without ever having to show credentials or give a sense of scale to what they are comparing it to, all the while remaining faceless. That is why I would always choose to do a “top ten” list, or simply write about the films worth seeing. But every once in a while, I am compelled to be a real critic, and pass judgment on something that falls short of the standard film makers and society seek to uphold. And in this case, I will seek to defend another medium that bares the brunt of this failure.
Hopefully, this can set the scales on how to view any positive reviews I write, as this is the total opposite end of the spectrum. Just be warned; at some point, objectivity is going to go out the window, and this review will start to get personal.
Watchmen:
When I have an opportunity to see a great film that is relatively new, I try and let it sink in before truly passing judgment or putting it in its place on any all time lists. Hindsight is 20/20 and the test of time is the ultimate decider. That same rule should go for terrible films as well, so I will attempt to refrain from any severe sound bites, or claiming that this is the worst film that has ever been put to celluloid.
Notice I said “attempt”.
I will be the first to admit that I did not expect to like this film (if you can call it that). I expected to watch it and have a neat visual to go along with the original medium, but to ultimately come away from it with the realization that Alan Moore, Terry Gilliam, Paul Greengrass and Darren Aronofsky were right: The source material is unfilmable. Hell, I knew that when I picked up chapter 1 almost 20 years ago. But in recent history, going in with low expectations has helped me to enjoy several mediocre films more than I probably should have. In this case, any expectation wouldn’t have mattered.
This film is an abomination.
I could write a book on how horrible the make-up and special effects were, but will leave those alone to focus on the real issues.
This film is such a train wreck that it may be a career ender for several people that worked on it. It will, at the very least, be the last film by Director Zack Snyder that I ever pay money to see. He has the visual sensibility of a 10 year old on Ritalin, and manages to coax a terrible performance out of very capable actors. For some of the unknown actors in this film, it will be hard for them to shake such a horrible job from their acting résumés. I for one would find it hard to take Malin Akerman or Matthew Goode serious in any future roles they take, now that I have seen how atrocious they were in Watchmen.
But making a bad film can be forgiven, and that is not where the true crime in all of this lies. The unforgivable transgression is taking something that is so beloved by so many people, and butchering it all the while claiming to stay true to the source material. And even though 1 million extra copies of the trade-paperback have sold in anticipation of the film, the larger audience will be experiencing Watchmen for the first time when they see it on the screen.
Snyder claims that he took on the job of filming Watchmen, because he was afraid of it in the hands of someone that didn’t love the source material. Well, if this is at all true, it surprises me. Because that would mean that he loved the original, without understanding it. Everyone that understands the relevance of Watchmen, and why it is considered amongst the most important pieces in pop culture history, can tell you why it resonates. Two main reasons: The sardonic and satirical take on the idea of superpowers (whether they be a country or a person, either way in Moore’s eyes that equals “bully”), and the brilliant structure that to this day stands as the closest thing to prose in a visual medium (a genius, layered mosaic of panels that is the real core of Watchmen, and the reason why it is impossible to translate to film). The satire of each chapter is as poignant as Gilliam’s Brazil or Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, of which there are two forced references to in the film, almost as if only to use for arguments sake. But the narrative structure… the real heart of each chapter… is abandoned completely. It’s no big secret that the weakest aspect of Watchmen was always the plot and its characters. So why make a movie about those things, ultimately watering down the original medium. And another huge mistake – Snyder tries to make the characters in his film edgy and cool. Sure, he gets that they are also damaged and fascist, and ultimately that is what it would take to get someone to put on a costume and beat people near or to death, all in the name of some warped form of justice. But these people are not cool. They are social misfits, and barely likable. And that is what was so revolutionary about them.
Just to establish my geek credibility, I should let you know about my history with Watchmen. When I was 13 years old I picked up issues 1 and 2 of Watchmen on a recommendation from the owner of a local comic shop, just to see if I would like it. After inhaling the first 2 issues, I scrounged together $17.50 (no easy task back then) and bought the trade-paperback which collected the entire story and supplementary material. The impact this made on me at the time is still being processed today. Reading Catcher in the Rye at 15 had a similar, but less profound effect on me. I have always been wildly defensive of this masterpiece, only now I have a reason to be. I can’t imagine what it would be like to read this for the first time today, almost 30, in a world so drastically different from when I first read it. I’ll never know, because every time I pick it up (and it is still fairly often) I am instantly 13 again. For a still-life project when I was 17, I was instructed to gather items that represented me, and I included that tattered, worn out trade-paperback (which at that point, I had only probably read cover to cover, a measly number in the double digits. You read that right). That copy of Watchmen travels with me whenever I pack a bag, and has seen a few countries and oceans in its day. And you’ll notice how I refer to Watchmen as “source material” and “trade-paperback”, as opposed to “Graphic Novel”. That’s because I am old enough to remember that this was never a Graphic Novel, as it came out in chapters. “Anthology” or “comic book” would be more appropriate and less pretentious. Be wary of anyone that calls it a graphic novel, because that alone shows their ignorance. And Alan Moore, the genius recluse whose name has been dragged through the mud lately even though he did his best to distance himself from this horror, owns a small piece of my soul. He also bares the blame for why every film I see or book I read seems watered down and unwilling to take risks by comparison. Poor Alan Moore, I wish I had the strength of will to stay away from this film like you did. But curiosity got the better of me. And for all the people qualifying his attitude towards this film as lunacy; you would be a (so called) paranoid conspiracy nut too, if Hollywood was hell bent on destroying every creative property that you were unable to retain the rights to. Thankfully, they should be about done now, having saved his magnum opus for their big finale.
And that brings me to the positive buzz surrounding this film. Yeah, a lot of people have been giving this film a vague but encouraging review. That is out of fear. It’s the same reason that everybody waited, holding their breath after the film ended, not wanting to clap but at the same time not wanting to boo. Fear that they didn’t “get” it. No one wants to be outside the collective zeitgeist, when it comes to such a pop culture juggernaut. After a small amount of critics started to bad mouth the film, they were met with immediate blowback from the fanboy community. People so defensive of genre films, that they would be quick to attack anyone that points out faults in their beloved subculture. Finally, when the film reached a national release date, critics started showing some spine. Trust me, when the dust settles, this film will be viewed as what it ultimately is: An across the board failure. And everyone that didn’t have the guts to voice their opinions will be shown as the hacks they are. It happened with V for Vendetta, and now it’s happening again.
God, this film is terrible. Everyone involved should hang their heads low, and live with the shame of what they accomplished. I wish this film was never made, because all it does is tarnish something truly unique. It is unfilmable. At worst, you have this monstrosity, and at best, you have a shot for shot visual aid for the original, tapping into that rich mosaic structure. And at that point, why bother? Why encourage or even reward such xenophobia when it comes to comics. The award for reading the original should have been enough for Zack Snyder, but instead he helped destroy the thing he sought to protect in the public consensus. That is the legacy of a 2 year passion project by the director. And, though I will not say anything along the lines of it being the worst film of the decade (I would need to let it sink in for another few months), you can quote me on this little sound bite:
Watchmen the movie is a serial rapist. It raped the source material and it will rape you if you see it in the theater, as well as rob you of your hard earned cash.
I feel dirty, and need to take a shower.
Ryan Black
March 7, 2009
If you want to discuss or get my opinion on any other aspect of this film (No squid, glowing blue full frontal nudity or whatever), please E-mail me or comment on this page. Don’t forget to sign your comments. Thanks.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
More Revies
Okay, never write a “best of” list until you have seen everything eligible for entry. This is for me, but also to clarify some statements that people needed further explanation on. There are more reviews, as well as a more in depth review of a film I’ve already commented on.
Before I get started, just another quick comment on film, taste and reviewing art. Reviewing film is important. While it is obviously a subjective medium like all other art, taste in film is developed and dictated by knowledge and not popular opinion. And because box office returns are the name of the game, popular opinion will always have its hold on the medium; and that is exactly why measures of taste are so important. Film is the last universally recognized art form. The Paris Salon of the 19th century may have been open only to the social elite, but all social classes paid close attention to what happened inside, much like the Academy Awards of today. How a film is judged is important. It is vindication. When a prestigious award is granted to a film, even if it is not deserved, it is vindication and forever dictates how that film is remembered and compared to future films. And that is why, when politics and commerce start to influence and dictate taste, it is so important that the public can filter out difference. Like I said, film is the last universally recognized form of art, and art is the height of what humanity can aspire to. Therefore, the integrity of film must be maintained and fought for no matter what the consequence. Without art, nothing we do matters. Without art, we are just mammals, reproducing and eating and sleeping and being slaves to our genetic programming.
That said; let me get to the meat of this rant. First is a review of a film that has been widely praised, and it is a film that I wrote a quick comment on before. Because I was asked to elaborate on why it did not make my short list when it is nominated for best picture and has been given great reviews across the board, I will be more than happy to further explain.
Milk:
This is an important film. And I do recommend seeing it, because it holds a mirror to important current events. It is amazing to me that Proposition 6 was passed 30 years ago, and Proposition 8 failed today. This is supposed to be a progressive nation, where the rest of the world looks to for guidance, and yet we are still taking away peoples civil rights? It is a scary thought, to think that the Christian Right has more influence today than they did 30 years ago when it comes to witch hunts and halting progress. I look forward to a day when invoking the name of a magical space being is not an acceptable response when challenged with a clear cut case of right and wrong. Also, this is a groundbreaking film in the sense that it is a mainstream film that really celebrates gay culture. And in 20 years, that is what it will be remembered for.
Okay, with that out of the way, let’s get back to the film itself. Sean Penn is amazing in this film. It is easily one of the top five performances of the year. In fact, his performance outshines his supporting cast. James Franco, while he was great in Pineapple Express, really can’t hold his own in the scenes he shares with Penn. The only other actor that really isn’t dwarfed by this performance is Josh Brolin. But that isn’t grounds for an unfavorable review. The flaw in this film is the flaw of about half of every Biopic. It is boring, and lacks real drama (for those keeping score, the other half’s flaw is being a melodramatic homage, and no I do not give the biopic a fair chance). There was one point in the story where the director’s seam lines were showing. Instead of showing us the shops on Castro where Harvey Milk was shunned away from, they told us in voiceover while on screen we watched endless people happily shaking his hand and giving him their support. That is not drama. I know why Gus Van Sant went in this direction, but it was a mistake. Throughout the film, the director shy’s away from showing Harvey’s dedicated following as a fringe group, or an opposition to the status quo. But that’s not dramatic. People love an underdog, and by showing the opposition to Harvey’s following as the fringe group of fanatics, the film fails to reach a moral or teach you anything of value. In other words, the bad guys were bad does not a good story make. This was a good film, but far from great. And if I am going to practice what I preach, I cannot allow politics to dictate taste.
In Bruges:
I didn’t think Colin Farrell had it in him. Ralph Fiennes and Brendan Gleeson can be expected to deliver consistent performances, so it was not too much of a surprise that they were both great. But to date, I’ve yet to see Farrell deliver a performance that would have set precedence for the one we see in this film.
What a great little allegory this film turned out to be. A film about sin and penance, and how they differ for each character’s larger than life personality. The themes in this film are as biblical as Dante, and I’m not just referring to the obvious analogy that Bruges ends up as in the end(As a side note, they could have done without the voiceover at the end, because if you didn’t piece it together by then, you don’t deserve to be rewarded with explanation). And the best part of all is; it’s a comedy. And it’s a darkly funny one at that. Even the extreme acts of violence are so outlandish and over the top, that they too become humorous to the point of inappropriate laughter. Other directors that use gross out and shock value violence should take note (I’m looking at you Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez) Martin McDonagh uses a touch of subtlety and focuses on the set up to achieve this desired effect without creating an ugly film… cough… Grindhouse… cough…
And one more note on the acting. Ralph Fiennes is almost unrecognizable in this role, yet they did nothing to alter his appearance. The use of facial tics and mannerism transform him completely, and it is a shame that this film came out too early for him to be remembered during award season.
Doubt:
Much has been said about the acting in this film, and it deserves the attention it is getting, but the story itself is not completely lost in these great performances. It has a particularly strong meaning for someone who was raised Catholic. This film is a lot like being on a jury: The facts are laid out for you to the best of each character’s ability, and you are asked to make a decision based on what you know and how each character reacts to interrogation. I know what I think happened, but you may not agree.
And the acting is superb. This should have been a clear winner for best ensemble at the Screen Actors Guild awards, but unfortunately like most award shows, the S.A.G. awards have become a televised popularity contest. Meryl Streep transforms into the heartless, righteous Sister Beauvier, unable to admit her own faults and unable to have her opinion swayed by such trivial things like facts or reason. The film is her own personal witch hunt, founded by the fact that this younger, more contemporary Priest has ideas for bettering the church. Ideas like taking a personal interest in the happiness and development of the children that are left in their care. So of course he is suspected of abusing the children. Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays the Priest, Father Flynn, who clearly has something to hide. Every time he is accused, he fumbles and acts guilty, and does everything but defend his innocence. He’s clearly guilty, but of what crime? Amy Adams functions as our window into this world, and is as conflicted and confused as anyone watching the film. She is a shining bright spot in an otherwise dark film. Viola Davis, who has also gained attention for her role as the mother of the child caught in the middle of this battle of wills, gives a decent performance and holds her own in her one scene with Streep. That said, I cannot understand the across the board praise for her performance. She has one scene with dialogue, and Time Magazine thinks she deserves the Oscar? Maybe I missed something.
Every time I thought that this film was leaning one way, it would turn and lean the other. At times I feared that it would justify Sister Beauvier’s righteousness, leaving us with the message that facts are not important, at least compared with a light bulb blowing out at an ominous time. But then, the film would right itself again and leave the question open. And that is what makes this film interesting. Even if she is right about Father Flynn, she is wrong in how she gets there. And even if Father Flynn is innocent of the crime in question, he is clearly trying to cover up some wrong doing in his past. I wasn’t sold on this film as I was watching it, but it all comes together in the end. If anything, it is worth seeing if only to decide the Priest’s guilt for yourself.
The Reader:
With one of the best performances I have seen this decade, Kate Winslet brings to life one of the most tragic characters ever captured on film. And it is a performance that is asked to carry a remarkable film through subtle expression and heartbreaking honesty. The Academy got it right by nominating Winslet for best actress, instead of awarding her in a supporting role as all the precursors have done (and The Weinstein Company was clearly pushing for). She is the star of this film, whether the narrative comes from her or not. I loved Winslet in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (one of my favorite films), and never expected her to surpass that performance. But with The Reader, she cements her name in a fictitious hall of fame for actors.
What an accurate observation on the human condition, and what a shining example of the power of art (in this case, literature). The tragedy of Winslet’s character Hanna is that there is no poetry in her life. She is a blank canvas, void of conscience and understanding as well as the ability to forgive. And the reason for this raw, child-like id, is that she is an illiterate and has never developed what most of us take for granted every day. The fables and stories we are taught as children help us to develop a moral center, and give us an understanding of the world. Hanna is so damaged by this, that she cannot differentiate which flaw is worse, the murder of hundreds of people or her own illiteracy. And because she has been concealing it for so long, she even goes so far as to side with the later. She plays this child-like game of “an eye for an eye” with a 15 year old boy that she then decides to sleep with. So it is all the more tragic when she is read to, inevitably developing a sense of right and wrong as well as a conscience, too late to change the mistakes of the past.
Here, Stephen Daldry crafts a film that allows the actors to say it all with a raised eyebrow, and never misses a beat. And that is a sign of a great job done by the director. Never is a theme, analogy or metaphor beaten to death (sorry, I couldn’t resist the irony). But instead, by embracing self-confidence and confidence in the actors, Daldry is able to fully explore real ideas and flaws in humanity. This film does a masterful job of pointing out our need to have examples made of people, as if to appease some warped sense of justice. In that sense, we have not come so far from sacrificing the village virgin to the god in the volcano. And there is no way to review this film without mentioning Roger Deakins. Deakins is the most consistently great Cinematographer (Director of photography for the learned crowd) working today. He is able to create scenes of such intimacy that are only added to by nakedness, instead of the nudity itself being expected to flesh out the scene.
I found this to be a very challenging film; but how you feel towards the characters or whether you think they deserve absolution or forgiveness does not matter in the end. Either way, if you love good cinema, you will find it captivating and will develop an opinion of your own.
That’s it for now. Hope you enjoyed these reviews, and that you will continue to read them as I plan to keep these going over time. Please feel free to request any reviews, and to comment on the ones you have read.
Thanks,
Ryan Black
January 29, 2009
Before I get started, just another quick comment on film, taste and reviewing art. Reviewing film is important. While it is obviously a subjective medium like all other art, taste in film is developed and dictated by knowledge and not popular opinion. And because box office returns are the name of the game, popular opinion will always have its hold on the medium; and that is exactly why measures of taste are so important. Film is the last universally recognized art form. The Paris Salon of the 19th century may have been open only to the social elite, but all social classes paid close attention to what happened inside, much like the Academy Awards of today. How a film is judged is important. It is vindication. When a prestigious award is granted to a film, even if it is not deserved, it is vindication and forever dictates how that film is remembered and compared to future films. And that is why, when politics and commerce start to influence and dictate taste, it is so important that the public can filter out difference. Like I said, film is the last universally recognized form of art, and art is the height of what humanity can aspire to. Therefore, the integrity of film must be maintained and fought for no matter what the consequence. Without art, nothing we do matters. Without art, we are just mammals, reproducing and eating and sleeping and being slaves to our genetic programming.
That said; let me get to the meat of this rant. First is a review of a film that has been widely praised, and it is a film that I wrote a quick comment on before. Because I was asked to elaborate on why it did not make my short list when it is nominated for best picture and has been given great reviews across the board, I will be more than happy to further explain.
Milk:
This is an important film. And I do recommend seeing it, because it holds a mirror to important current events. It is amazing to me that Proposition 6 was passed 30 years ago, and Proposition 8 failed today. This is supposed to be a progressive nation, where the rest of the world looks to for guidance, and yet we are still taking away peoples civil rights? It is a scary thought, to think that the Christian Right has more influence today than they did 30 years ago when it comes to witch hunts and halting progress. I look forward to a day when invoking the name of a magical space being is not an acceptable response when challenged with a clear cut case of right and wrong. Also, this is a groundbreaking film in the sense that it is a mainstream film that really celebrates gay culture. And in 20 years, that is what it will be remembered for.
Okay, with that out of the way, let’s get back to the film itself. Sean Penn is amazing in this film. It is easily one of the top five performances of the year. In fact, his performance outshines his supporting cast. James Franco, while he was great in Pineapple Express, really can’t hold his own in the scenes he shares with Penn. The only other actor that really isn’t dwarfed by this performance is Josh Brolin. But that isn’t grounds for an unfavorable review. The flaw in this film is the flaw of about half of every Biopic. It is boring, and lacks real drama (for those keeping score, the other half’s flaw is being a melodramatic homage, and no I do not give the biopic a fair chance). There was one point in the story where the director’s seam lines were showing. Instead of showing us the shops on Castro where Harvey Milk was shunned away from, they told us in voiceover while on screen we watched endless people happily shaking his hand and giving him their support. That is not drama. I know why Gus Van Sant went in this direction, but it was a mistake. Throughout the film, the director shy’s away from showing Harvey’s dedicated following as a fringe group, or an opposition to the status quo. But that’s not dramatic. People love an underdog, and by showing the opposition to Harvey’s following as the fringe group of fanatics, the film fails to reach a moral or teach you anything of value. In other words, the bad guys were bad does not a good story make. This was a good film, but far from great. And if I am going to practice what I preach, I cannot allow politics to dictate taste.
In Bruges:
I didn’t think Colin Farrell had it in him. Ralph Fiennes and Brendan Gleeson can be expected to deliver consistent performances, so it was not too much of a surprise that they were both great. But to date, I’ve yet to see Farrell deliver a performance that would have set precedence for the one we see in this film.
What a great little allegory this film turned out to be. A film about sin and penance, and how they differ for each character’s larger than life personality. The themes in this film are as biblical as Dante, and I’m not just referring to the obvious analogy that Bruges ends up as in the end(As a side note, they could have done without the voiceover at the end, because if you didn’t piece it together by then, you don’t deserve to be rewarded with explanation). And the best part of all is; it’s a comedy. And it’s a darkly funny one at that. Even the extreme acts of violence are so outlandish and over the top, that they too become humorous to the point of inappropriate laughter. Other directors that use gross out and shock value violence should take note (I’m looking at you Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez) Martin McDonagh uses a touch of subtlety and focuses on the set up to achieve this desired effect without creating an ugly film… cough… Grindhouse… cough…
And one more note on the acting. Ralph Fiennes is almost unrecognizable in this role, yet they did nothing to alter his appearance. The use of facial tics and mannerism transform him completely, and it is a shame that this film came out too early for him to be remembered during award season.
Doubt:
Much has been said about the acting in this film, and it deserves the attention it is getting, but the story itself is not completely lost in these great performances. It has a particularly strong meaning for someone who was raised Catholic. This film is a lot like being on a jury: The facts are laid out for you to the best of each character’s ability, and you are asked to make a decision based on what you know and how each character reacts to interrogation. I know what I think happened, but you may not agree.
And the acting is superb. This should have been a clear winner for best ensemble at the Screen Actors Guild awards, but unfortunately like most award shows, the S.A.G. awards have become a televised popularity contest. Meryl Streep transforms into the heartless, righteous Sister Beauvier, unable to admit her own faults and unable to have her opinion swayed by such trivial things like facts or reason. The film is her own personal witch hunt, founded by the fact that this younger, more contemporary Priest has ideas for bettering the church. Ideas like taking a personal interest in the happiness and development of the children that are left in their care. So of course he is suspected of abusing the children. Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays the Priest, Father Flynn, who clearly has something to hide. Every time he is accused, he fumbles and acts guilty, and does everything but defend his innocence. He’s clearly guilty, but of what crime? Amy Adams functions as our window into this world, and is as conflicted and confused as anyone watching the film. She is a shining bright spot in an otherwise dark film. Viola Davis, who has also gained attention for her role as the mother of the child caught in the middle of this battle of wills, gives a decent performance and holds her own in her one scene with Streep. That said, I cannot understand the across the board praise for her performance. She has one scene with dialogue, and Time Magazine thinks she deserves the Oscar? Maybe I missed something.
Every time I thought that this film was leaning one way, it would turn and lean the other. At times I feared that it would justify Sister Beauvier’s righteousness, leaving us with the message that facts are not important, at least compared with a light bulb blowing out at an ominous time. But then, the film would right itself again and leave the question open. And that is what makes this film interesting. Even if she is right about Father Flynn, she is wrong in how she gets there. And even if Father Flynn is innocent of the crime in question, he is clearly trying to cover up some wrong doing in his past. I wasn’t sold on this film as I was watching it, but it all comes together in the end. If anything, it is worth seeing if only to decide the Priest’s guilt for yourself.
The Reader:
With one of the best performances I have seen this decade, Kate Winslet brings to life one of the most tragic characters ever captured on film. And it is a performance that is asked to carry a remarkable film through subtle expression and heartbreaking honesty. The Academy got it right by nominating Winslet for best actress, instead of awarding her in a supporting role as all the precursors have done (and The Weinstein Company was clearly pushing for). She is the star of this film, whether the narrative comes from her or not. I loved Winslet in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (one of my favorite films), and never expected her to surpass that performance. But with The Reader, she cements her name in a fictitious hall of fame for actors.
What an accurate observation on the human condition, and what a shining example of the power of art (in this case, literature). The tragedy of Winslet’s character Hanna is that there is no poetry in her life. She is a blank canvas, void of conscience and understanding as well as the ability to forgive. And the reason for this raw, child-like id, is that she is an illiterate and has never developed what most of us take for granted every day. The fables and stories we are taught as children help us to develop a moral center, and give us an understanding of the world. Hanna is so damaged by this, that she cannot differentiate which flaw is worse, the murder of hundreds of people or her own illiteracy. And because she has been concealing it for so long, she even goes so far as to side with the later. She plays this child-like game of “an eye for an eye” with a 15 year old boy that she then decides to sleep with. So it is all the more tragic when she is read to, inevitably developing a sense of right and wrong as well as a conscience, too late to change the mistakes of the past.
Here, Stephen Daldry crafts a film that allows the actors to say it all with a raised eyebrow, and never misses a beat. And that is a sign of a great job done by the director. Never is a theme, analogy or metaphor beaten to death (sorry, I couldn’t resist the irony). But instead, by embracing self-confidence and confidence in the actors, Daldry is able to fully explore real ideas and flaws in humanity. This film does a masterful job of pointing out our need to have examples made of people, as if to appease some warped sense of justice. In that sense, we have not come so far from sacrificing the village virgin to the god in the volcano. And there is no way to review this film without mentioning Roger Deakins. Deakins is the most consistently great Cinematographer (Director of photography for the learned crowd) working today. He is able to create scenes of such intimacy that are only added to by nakedness, instead of the nudity itself being expected to flesh out the scene.
I found this to be a very challenging film; but how you feel towards the characters or whether you think they deserve absolution or forgiveness does not matter in the end. Either way, if you love good cinema, you will find it captivating and will develop an opinion of your own.
That’s it for now. Hope you enjoyed these reviews, and that you will continue to read them as I plan to keep these going over time. Please feel free to request any reviews, and to comment on the ones you have read.
Thanks,
Ryan Black
January 29, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Films of 2008
So, last year I posted a very long rant about the best and worst films of the year, encouraging people to read the whole thing and give their thoughts, comments and so forth. And the response was great. Tons of opinions lay bare and argued, and I loved every moment of it. But, as this years list will be more extensive and quite a bit longer, I encourage you to skip right ahead to the films that interest you in any way. Whether you are curious about them or you have seen them and want to see if our tastes are in sync. So, please read what you can and comment as much as humanly possible, as I relish the opportunity to play devil’s advocate.
First, let me comment on taste, particularly pertaining to film (though the same rules do apply to most forms of art). Taste is not opinion. It implies an existing knowledge of the art in question. If you are someone who would openly admit to not enjoying critical favorites, and instead enjoy mindless summer fair and blockbusters filled with eye candy that can be equally enjoyed by small children, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But, it is the absence of taste (and personally, I feel that having no taste and bad taste are interchangeable, as both come from a place of ignorance). Anyway, having said that, I may have scared away the same people that inquired on last years reviews about the absence of Transformers, which I would regret. Sorry for being such a snob.
And here… we… go. This year we will start with the best films, in a rough order counting down to my favorite film of the year (notice how I said favorite, and not best. I pride myself on taste, and if I were to write a “ten best” list, it wouldn’t vary much from this, but there would be some wiggle room). Plus, to borrow a line from the great Nigel Tufnel -- “These go to eleven”. Then, I will follow that by taking some cheap shots at films I was unfortunate enough to sit through this year, as well as commenting on a handful of films that are noticeably absent from this list. Enjoy.
11. Slumdog Millionaire:
This is a film that has received an endless parade of praise and is currently a front runner for best picture at the Academy Awards. So, unfortunately, that prompts me to focus on the not so great moments and decisions in this otherwise beautiful film. No one seems to be pointing out the similarities to most of Danny Boyles other films, as far as theme and basic elements. For instance -- Two brothers, the youngest one inherently good and the older one slightly more jaded and ambitious, play around trains and learn valuable, coming of age lessons, as destiny gives them a hand along the way. Sound like Slumdog Millionaire? I was describing Millions, Boyle’s film from 2004. One was disguised in the genre of Christmas film, while the other was Bollywood homage. Both are good, very human films. Structurally, these two films are nearly identical, particularly the endings which I will refrain from going into detail on. -- Okay, how’s this? A boy dives confidently into the toilet he just defecated into, for maximum gross-out humor. Slumdog Millionaire, or is it that very famous scene in Trainspotting? See what I mean? At best, this device is a ham-fisted attempt at developing a recognizable style. At worst, it’s a director’s homage to his own art. The other main complaint I have is with the acting and casting. The scenes with Jamal and Salim as children were brilliant, but as they aged and were replaced by different actors, the believability diminished with each change, and so did the acting. Also, the Bollywood style dancing seemed less stylized, and more like a page taken from any film staring Rodney Dangerfield in the eighties, with the absence of someone with an Indian accent shouting “Hey everybody, we’re all going to get laid!” Okay, I’ll stop there with the complaints. I really do enjoy Danny Boyle’s films, and this one is no exception. I just thought I would make those points to defend having it so low on this list.
10. Iron Man:
If ever there was a film made for the gear heads out there, this one was it. Besides being a very clever, funny film, loaded up with special effects and eye candy, this was a film for anyone that loves toys. Cars, jets, whatever your poison, but toys all the same. Vindication for the supposed throw-away culture we live in, where the person who dies with the most toys…. wins. What I loved most about this movie was the fact that I never expected to include it in a “best of” list of any sort. The characters were developed with the attention usually paid to much smaller films, and the story was very well crafted and rich with metaphor and analogy (I particularly enjoyed the Wizard of Oz, Tin-man looking for a heart storyline). This was a film I didn’t see coming, and was a huge step in the right direction for “event” movies in general, and not just the comic book sub-genre.
9. Changeling:
Without question, the worst advertising campaign of any film in recent history. The title still has me shaking my head. The day after seeing this film, I asked a handful of people I work with what they knew about Changeling and anything they may have heard. All agreed that it was some sort of Horror slash Sci-Fi film staring Angelina Jolie as the “heroine”. This only frustrated me further. And here’s why; there is nothing sci-fi or horror about the film, and while Jolie plays the protagonist, she is not the heroine they would have expected. This was a wonderful, period drama that is both heartbreaking and hopeful, and may even be Eastwood’s best film this year. Jolie gives an amazing performance that I hope will not be ignored or dismissed by people with the wrong perception of this film. This is a hard film, and will pull your emotional strings from start to finish. During an important courtroom scene, I thought about To Kill a Mockingbird, and what a great title that was. If this film was given a fitting title, you would have heard a lot more about it come nomination time. This film could have been a film with a long shelf life, but instead will probably fall into obscurity. And that is a real shame.
8. Gran Torino:
The Clint Eastwood film that was picked for Oscar bait, even if it is much smaller in scale (and it is small) than it’s poorly named competition. Eastwood’s performance is the whole film, start to finish. Which is truly amazing if you think about it, because he was directing himself. His portrayal of an angry, bitter racist would have been a frontrunner for best actor in most years, as he layers humor and likability into the character until you openly are rooting for him in the end. I’ve always hated the idea of a director with his name on the marquee, or when a title is preceded by “A film by ___” whoever. But in this case, Clint can take the credit. He directed, stared, helped write and edit, as well as did the score and even sung a song on the soundtrack. Amazing when you factor in how good it is.
7. Revolutionary Road:
Sam Mendes is subtlety crafting a recognizable style and poetry to his films that keeps leaving me curious in anticipation. Here, he takes the drama of American Beauty, and leaves the smug comedy behind. What he creates is something I never thought I would appreciate; a counter-culture film that doesn’t take a stand and preach a message or moral. In fact, it develops multiple layers to each decision made by the characters and the characters themselves, to the point where it is almost impossible to view this film as a third party. Instead, you are sucked into this very hard and tortured reality, making the inevitable and unavoidable tragedy all the more potent. The story is essentially about a young couple in 1950’s Connecticut who are aware of the prison that is their life. Their attempts to escape are slowly broken down by their colleagues and neighbors who cannot see the prison for the bars, and they begin to turn on and blame one another. At the heart of this film is a pair of great performances by Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio, who I’ve always seen as grossly overrated, really took me by surprise here, but it is still Winslet who steals the show. Kate Winslet is without peer in her generation of actresses.
6. Frost/Nixon:
I’ve never been a big Ron Howard fan, and I’ve always claimed to despise the idea of the biopic, unless it is something we have never seen before. For me, Howard’s The Da Vinci Code would rank up there in a list of greatest disappointments of this decade. And with the occasional exception (last year’s I’m Not There for example), the biopic will always fall prey to the same list of shortcomings. But this wasn’t the Ron Howard or Richard Nixon film I was expecting. This film had an age and atmosphere to it that I would expect from a Roman Polanski or Martin Scorsese, not the overly ambitious Howard. And, it was a film that was less about David Frost or Richard Nixon, as it was about politics in general. We tend to demonize people who don’t see things from our perspective, and it is important to keep in mind that those people are often doing what they feel is right. Frank Langella gives a performance that is rooted in acting and not imitation, unlike so many performances in films about real people (Jamie Fox in Ray). And that is an impressive feat, considering the often imitated mannerisms that come to mind when thinking of Nixon. The rest of the cast is fantastic as well, from the expressive Michael Sheen to the lovely Rebecca Hall, rounding out one of the best ensembles of the year.
5. Vicky Christina Barcelona:
Woody Allen’s best film this decade so far. It’s a rare thing when a writer/director is conscious of his or her own shortcomings, and Allen is so experienced a film maker, that he may be the only instance of where this combination can be used to benefit a film. What I mean is; the clichés that make up each of the main characters are purposefully cliché. And that’s the moral of the film, that we are each one of us clichés, and the more we think we broke the mold or strive to avoid being labeled, the bigger cliché we end up becoming. Rebecca Hall is quickly climbing the ladder of actresses to keep an eye on, and is finding herself on all the right people’s radar. Here, she gives a great performance in a film that is full of them. Javier Bardem plays a very likable character for the first time in a while, but it is Penélope Cruz who outshines the rest of the cast even though she is onscreen for a handful of minutes.
4. Let the Right One In:
The creepiest film on this list by far, Let the Right One In showcases the difference in storytelling when it comes to foreign films. Gone is the shock and gore that usually make up an American horror film (though there is plenty of blood to go around), replaced by an unease and genuine emotional confusion. Creepy doesn’t do this film justice, and they need to come up with a more potent word. Between the haunting score and the desolate, snow covered Swedish landscape; the film overwhelms you with a sense of claustrophobia and bitter, piercing cold. At times I felt conflicted as to who I was rooting for, as any semblance of right and wrong are quickly tossed aside in favor of the years most compelling romance. For those of you who thought that the romance in Wall-E was engrossing and unexpected? Wait until you see this film. The highest praise I can give a film is to say that it is entitled to interpretation, which you sometimes do not realize until long after you have got up from your seat and thrown away your popcorn crumbs. Ten minutes after the lights were on, a light bulb appeared above my head and I understood the film. Not to openly brag, but this has become a rare thing, and I am anxious to discuss this film with anyone willing to hear my thoughts once they have viewed this film. So please, please find a theater that is playing this title and see for yourself.
3. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button:
First off, let’s take a moment to acknowledge the courage it took to make a film about someone’s entire life, young and old (And that is exactly what this film is; an entire life), and have it star one of the most recognizable faces on the planet. That is one big risk that happened to pay off, as I quickly dismissed the fact that I was looking at Brad Pitt as opposed to Benjamin Button. About half way through, I realized that the gimmick of aging backwards was just slight of hand, and a way of making this story something new and different. But the film at its core is about how interesting life is, and can aspire to be. The events that make up Benjamin’s life are infinitely more interesting than the fact that he grows younger over time, and each character in the film is, at the very least, as worthy of the same attention. The acting was as seamless as the visual effects, with each character aging over the course of ninety years, but it was Tilda Swinton that I found the most charismatic. She did not have enough screen time to receive the accolades she deserves, but her character, more so than anyone else in a very rich ensemble, really summed up the mission statement best. Here, David Fincher has crafted something truly special, and of all the films that have a realistic shot at best picture, I’m pulling for this one. With the exception of Panic Room, I have loved each of Fincher’s films, and it is good to see him taking on subject matter that can be appreciated across the board. Let’s hope he gets the credit he deserves.
2. The Wrestler:
Obviously I have to mention Mickey Roarke’s performance, and it is more than noteworthy, but I really want to focus on Darren Aronofsky’s contribution more than anything. When I fist saw Pi, the film that put Aronofsky on the map, I thought it was something special, but it narrowly missed catching me at the right age. Then, Requiem for a Dream came along and knocked me down. Now, when I look back on both those films, I am not drawn in as I once was, and they both seem more suited for the MTV, attention-deficit based audience. The Fountain was esoteric and beautiful, as well as being a unique narrative that really spoke to me at a time in my life when I was beginning to lose interest in film. Anyway, my point is that I have matured along with Darren Aronofsky’s body of work. And The Wrestler, as well as being his best film so far, leaves me feeling old and washed up. Sad as that may be, it is meant as the highest form of praise. Mickey Roarke gives a performance that will be impossible to ignore for the Academy, and it is a performance that no other actor could have pulled off. The other very notable contribution to this film is Marisa Tomei, who gives her best performance to date, My Cousin Vinny be damned. It’s a shame she may not get the nomination for Best Actress because, while she is only in a few scenes, she is fantastic and absolutely vital to the film. This was a film I expected to be great, which is often the downfall of cinema, as most of the films on this list were unexpected but welcome surprises. But that is a testament as to how great this film is, because in almost any other year, this film would have taken the top spot.
1. The Dark Knight:
In a thesis paper for a course on modern mythology, I wrote that The Batman was the protagonist for the age of Freud and Psychology, as he is the damaged hero as opposed to the flawed, anti-hero of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. That’s right, I compared Batman to Shakespeare. So I may have been slightly biased or predisposed to loving this film. That said if you want a real bases for argument as to why this is the years best film, how about the fact that Heath Leger’s Joker is the greatest movie villain of all time? Not enough for you? How about the fact that it is one of, if not the best ensembles and casts this year? Or that the Director, Christopher Nolan, has quickly climbed the ladder to become the most compelling storyteller working today? Okay, fine, you still don’t see what all the praise is for. Now look back on those statements and realize that those were describing a film where the main character wears a cape, as well as a film that grossed a billion dollars world wide. This is not just my favorite film this year; it is my favorite film this decade.
So there you go. If there is anyone left to read this far along, I want to take the time to recognize a few films that were absent from this list but were enjoyed over the course of the year.
Milk:
Like Gran Torino, the film is basically Sean Penn’s performance, except that I don’t mean that as the same compliment, because Milk aspires to something more. A good film, but not deserving of a spot on such a short list of greats. Let’s hope this doesn’t sneak a spot at the main table come awards time.
Burn after Reading:
The most polarizing film this year by far, though I can’t understand why. Here is a case of expectation overpowering peoples taste. Certainly a quirky, funny film harkening back to the days of Raising Arizona, but not the heady material now associated with the Coen Brothers. I would put this film somewhere between The Man Who Wasn’t There and Intolerable Cruelty (which is a far worse film) on a list of the Coen’s comedies.
Hellboy 2:
Like Hellboy before it, this film is impossible to dismiss as summer fair, if only for the design of it all. The clever humor and characters are easy to enjoy, even if you are not wowed by the sheer scope of the sets and costumes.
Quantum of Solace:
I can’t understand how this film did not perform better at the box office. Casino Royal was met with universal praise (even if I thought the dialogue was horrendous), and this film follows the same template to a T. If fact, I thought Quantum of Solace was a better film than Casino Royal, and helped advance the character of James Bond closer to the suave, tuxedo wearing hero that has endured half a century.
So, now we can get to the disappointments. I would’ve loved to have included Twilight on this list, but will refrain from doing so because I never finished the film. About 25 minutes in, I just couldn’t take anymore. Also, films like The Eye, the Love Guru, You don’t mess with the Zohan and Bedtime Stories (in fact, anything with Adam Sandler in it) can not be commented on, because I was intelligent enough to avoid them completely.
Wall-E:
I can’t understand the critical praise that has been universally handed to this film. There were moments where this film overachieved, sure, but there were quite a few more where this film fell well short of its predecessors at Pixar. The people were poorly rendered cartoons compared to the industrial feel of everything else, which completely took me out of the movie. The romance between two toasters was cute and compelling at times, but could hardly sustain the entire film.
Tropic Thunder:
Let me first admit that Robert Downey Jr. delivers a great and funny performance, and is the highlight in both the film and the script. Take him out, and you are left with Ben Stiller trying to film himself being funny (and failing) and Tom Cruise parodying movie producers in general, as well as himself (though he seems unaware of the later). People that compare this film to Three Amigos need to have their heads examined.
Wanted:
If you’re going to make a movie all flash and zero substance, at least make it visually appealing. This film was ugly from start to finish. I described last years 300 as a homosexual, adolescent power-fantasy; and for this movie, that would have been a compliment. This film is going on the short list, with films like Grindhouse and Death Proof, which I will never watch again because they make me physically ill. Hopefully, this will be the worst movies in both Morgan Freeman’s and Angelina Jolie’s careers.
Anyway, that’s it for now. Please comment on anything you feel strongly about, whether you agree with these statements or you think I’m a hack that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Thanks,
Ryan Black
January 7, 2009
First, let me comment on taste, particularly pertaining to film (though the same rules do apply to most forms of art). Taste is not opinion. It implies an existing knowledge of the art in question. If you are someone who would openly admit to not enjoying critical favorites, and instead enjoy mindless summer fair and blockbusters filled with eye candy that can be equally enjoyed by small children, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But, it is the absence of taste (and personally, I feel that having no taste and bad taste are interchangeable, as both come from a place of ignorance). Anyway, having said that, I may have scared away the same people that inquired on last years reviews about the absence of Transformers, which I would regret. Sorry for being such a snob.
And here… we… go. This year we will start with the best films, in a rough order counting down to my favorite film of the year (notice how I said favorite, and not best. I pride myself on taste, and if I were to write a “ten best” list, it wouldn’t vary much from this, but there would be some wiggle room). Plus, to borrow a line from the great Nigel Tufnel -- “These go to eleven”. Then, I will follow that by taking some cheap shots at films I was unfortunate enough to sit through this year, as well as commenting on a handful of films that are noticeably absent from this list. Enjoy.
11. Slumdog Millionaire:
This is a film that has received an endless parade of praise and is currently a front runner for best picture at the Academy Awards. So, unfortunately, that prompts me to focus on the not so great moments and decisions in this otherwise beautiful film. No one seems to be pointing out the similarities to most of Danny Boyles other films, as far as theme and basic elements. For instance -- Two brothers, the youngest one inherently good and the older one slightly more jaded and ambitious, play around trains and learn valuable, coming of age lessons, as destiny gives them a hand along the way. Sound like Slumdog Millionaire? I was describing Millions, Boyle’s film from 2004. One was disguised in the genre of Christmas film, while the other was Bollywood homage. Both are good, very human films. Structurally, these two films are nearly identical, particularly the endings which I will refrain from going into detail on. -- Okay, how’s this? A boy dives confidently into the toilet he just defecated into, for maximum gross-out humor. Slumdog Millionaire, or is it that very famous scene in Trainspotting? See what I mean? At best, this device is a ham-fisted attempt at developing a recognizable style. At worst, it’s a director’s homage to his own art. The other main complaint I have is with the acting and casting. The scenes with Jamal and Salim as children were brilliant, but as they aged and were replaced by different actors, the believability diminished with each change, and so did the acting. Also, the Bollywood style dancing seemed less stylized, and more like a page taken from any film staring Rodney Dangerfield in the eighties, with the absence of someone with an Indian accent shouting “Hey everybody, we’re all going to get laid!” Okay, I’ll stop there with the complaints. I really do enjoy Danny Boyle’s films, and this one is no exception. I just thought I would make those points to defend having it so low on this list.
10. Iron Man:
If ever there was a film made for the gear heads out there, this one was it. Besides being a very clever, funny film, loaded up with special effects and eye candy, this was a film for anyone that loves toys. Cars, jets, whatever your poison, but toys all the same. Vindication for the supposed throw-away culture we live in, where the person who dies with the most toys…. wins. What I loved most about this movie was the fact that I never expected to include it in a “best of” list of any sort. The characters were developed with the attention usually paid to much smaller films, and the story was very well crafted and rich with metaphor and analogy (I particularly enjoyed the Wizard of Oz, Tin-man looking for a heart storyline). This was a film I didn’t see coming, and was a huge step in the right direction for “event” movies in general, and not just the comic book sub-genre.
9. Changeling:
Without question, the worst advertising campaign of any film in recent history. The title still has me shaking my head. The day after seeing this film, I asked a handful of people I work with what they knew about Changeling and anything they may have heard. All agreed that it was some sort of Horror slash Sci-Fi film staring Angelina Jolie as the “heroine”. This only frustrated me further. And here’s why; there is nothing sci-fi or horror about the film, and while Jolie plays the protagonist, she is not the heroine they would have expected. This was a wonderful, period drama that is both heartbreaking and hopeful, and may even be Eastwood’s best film this year. Jolie gives an amazing performance that I hope will not be ignored or dismissed by people with the wrong perception of this film. This is a hard film, and will pull your emotional strings from start to finish. During an important courtroom scene, I thought about To Kill a Mockingbird, and what a great title that was. If this film was given a fitting title, you would have heard a lot more about it come nomination time. This film could have been a film with a long shelf life, but instead will probably fall into obscurity. And that is a real shame.
8. Gran Torino:
The Clint Eastwood film that was picked for Oscar bait, even if it is much smaller in scale (and it is small) than it’s poorly named competition. Eastwood’s performance is the whole film, start to finish. Which is truly amazing if you think about it, because he was directing himself. His portrayal of an angry, bitter racist would have been a frontrunner for best actor in most years, as he layers humor and likability into the character until you openly are rooting for him in the end. I’ve always hated the idea of a director with his name on the marquee, or when a title is preceded by “A film by ___” whoever. But in this case, Clint can take the credit. He directed, stared, helped write and edit, as well as did the score and even sung a song on the soundtrack. Amazing when you factor in how good it is.
7. Revolutionary Road:
Sam Mendes is subtlety crafting a recognizable style and poetry to his films that keeps leaving me curious in anticipation. Here, he takes the drama of American Beauty, and leaves the smug comedy behind. What he creates is something I never thought I would appreciate; a counter-culture film that doesn’t take a stand and preach a message or moral. In fact, it develops multiple layers to each decision made by the characters and the characters themselves, to the point where it is almost impossible to view this film as a third party. Instead, you are sucked into this very hard and tortured reality, making the inevitable and unavoidable tragedy all the more potent. The story is essentially about a young couple in 1950’s Connecticut who are aware of the prison that is their life. Their attempts to escape are slowly broken down by their colleagues and neighbors who cannot see the prison for the bars, and they begin to turn on and blame one another. At the heart of this film is a pair of great performances by Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio, who I’ve always seen as grossly overrated, really took me by surprise here, but it is still Winslet who steals the show. Kate Winslet is without peer in her generation of actresses.
6. Frost/Nixon:
I’ve never been a big Ron Howard fan, and I’ve always claimed to despise the idea of the biopic, unless it is something we have never seen before. For me, Howard’s The Da Vinci Code would rank up there in a list of greatest disappointments of this decade. And with the occasional exception (last year’s I’m Not There for example), the biopic will always fall prey to the same list of shortcomings. But this wasn’t the Ron Howard or Richard Nixon film I was expecting. This film had an age and atmosphere to it that I would expect from a Roman Polanski or Martin Scorsese, not the overly ambitious Howard. And, it was a film that was less about David Frost or Richard Nixon, as it was about politics in general. We tend to demonize people who don’t see things from our perspective, and it is important to keep in mind that those people are often doing what they feel is right. Frank Langella gives a performance that is rooted in acting and not imitation, unlike so many performances in films about real people (Jamie Fox in Ray). And that is an impressive feat, considering the often imitated mannerisms that come to mind when thinking of Nixon. The rest of the cast is fantastic as well, from the expressive Michael Sheen to the lovely Rebecca Hall, rounding out one of the best ensembles of the year.
5. Vicky Christina Barcelona:
Woody Allen’s best film this decade so far. It’s a rare thing when a writer/director is conscious of his or her own shortcomings, and Allen is so experienced a film maker, that he may be the only instance of where this combination can be used to benefit a film. What I mean is; the clichés that make up each of the main characters are purposefully cliché. And that’s the moral of the film, that we are each one of us clichés, and the more we think we broke the mold or strive to avoid being labeled, the bigger cliché we end up becoming. Rebecca Hall is quickly climbing the ladder of actresses to keep an eye on, and is finding herself on all the right people’s radar. Here, she gives a great performance in a film that is full of them. Javier Bardem plays a very likable character for the first time in a while, but it is Penélope Cruz who outshines the rest of the cast even though she is onscreen for a handful of minutes.
4. Let the Right One In:
The creepiest film on this list by far, Let the Right One In showcases the difference in storytelling when it comes to foreign films. Gone is the shock and gore that usually make up an American horror film (though there is plenty of blood to go around), replaced by an unease and genuine emotional confusion. Creepy doesn’t do this film justice, and they need to come up with a more potent word. Between the haunting score and the desolate, snow covered Swedish landscape; the film overwhelms you with a sense of claustrophobia and bitter, piercing cold. At times I felt conflicted as to who I was rooting for, as any semblance of right and wrong are quickly tossed aside in favor of the years most compelling romance. For those of you who thought that the romance in Wall-E was engrossing and unexpected? Wait until you see this film. The highest praise I can give a film is to say that it is entitled to interpretation, which you sometimes do not realize until long after you have got up from your seat and thrown away your popcorn crumbs. Ten minutes after the lights were on, a light bulb appeared above my head and I understood the film. Not to openly brag, but this has become a rare thing, and I am anxious to discuss this film with anyone willing to hear my thoughts once they have viewed this film. So please, please find a theater that is playing this title and see for yourself.
3. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button:
First off, let’s take a moment to acknowledge the courage it took to make a film about someone’s entire life, young and old (And that is exactly what this film is; an entire life), and have it star one of the most recognizable faces on the planet. That is one big risk that happened to pay off, as I quickly dismissed the fact that I was looking at Brad Pitt as opposed to Benjamin Button. About half way through, I realized that the gimmick of aging backwards was just slight of hand, and a way of making this story something new and different. But the film at its core is about how interesting life is, and can aspire to be. The events that make up Benjamin’s life are infinitely more interesting than the fact that he grows younger over time, and each character in the film is, at the very least, as worthy of the same attention. The acting was as seamless as the visual effects, with each character aging over the course of ninety years, but it was Tilda Swinton that I found the most charismatic. She did not have enough screen time to receive the accolades she deserves, but her character, more so than anyone else in a very rich ensemble, really summed up the mission statement best. Here, David Fincher has crafted something truly special, and of all the films that have a realistic shot at best picture, I’m pulling for this one. With the exception of Panic Room, I have loved each of Fincher’s films, and it is good to see him taking on subject matter that can be appreciated across the board. Let’s hope he gets the credit he deserves.
2. The Wrestler:
Obviously I have to mention Mickey Roarke’s performance, and it is more than noteworthy, but I really want to focus on Darren Aronofsky’s contribution more than anything. When I fist saw Pi, the film that put Aronofsky on the map, I thought it was something special, but it narrowly missed catching me at the right age. Then, Requiem for a Dream came along and knocked me down. Now, when I look back on both those films, I am not drawn in as I once was, and they both seem more suited for the MTV, attention-deficit based audience. The Fountain was esoteric and beautiful, as well as being a unique narrative that really spoke to me at a time in my life when I was beginning to lose interest in film. Anyway, my point is that I have matured along with Darren Aronofsky’s body of work. And The Wrestler, as well as being his best film so far, leaves me feeling old and washed up. Sad as that may be, it is meant as the highest form of praise. Mickey Roarke gives a performance that will be impossible to ignore for the Academy, and it is a performance that no other actor could have pulled off. The other very notable contribution to this film is Marisa Tomei, who gives her best performance to date, My Cousin Vinny be damned. It’s a shame she may not get the nomination for Best Actress because, while she is only in a few scenes, she is fantastic and absolutely vital to the film. This was a film I expected to be great, which is often the downfall of cinema, as most of the films on this list were unexpected but welcome surprises. But that is a testament as to how great this film is, because in almost any other year, this film would have taken the top spot.
1. The Dark Knight:
In a thesis paper for a course on modern mythology, I wrote that The Batman was the protagonist for the age of Freud and Psychology, as he is the damaged hero as opposed to the flawed, anti-hero of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. That’s right, I compared Batman to Shakespeare. So I may have been slightly biased or predisposed to loving this film. That said if you want a real bases for argument as to why this is the years best film, how about the fact that Heath Leger’s Joker is the greatest movie villain of all time? Not enough for you? How about the fact that it is one of, if not the best ensembles and casts this year? Or that the Director, Christopher Nolan, has quickly climbed the ladder to become the most compelling storyteller working today? Okay, fine, you still don’t see what all the praise is for. Now look back on those statements and realize that those were describing a film where the main character wears a cape, as well as a film that grossed a billion dollars world wide. This is not just my favorite film this year; it is my favorite film this decade.
So there you go. If there is anyone left to read this far along, I want to take the time to recognize a few films that were absent from this list but were enjoyed over the course of the year.
Milk:
Like Gran Torino, the film is basically Sean Penn’s performance, except that I don’t mean that as the same compliment, because Milk aspires to something more. A good film, but not deserving of a spot on such a short list of greats. Let’s hope this doesn’t sneak a spot at the main table come awards time.
Burn after Reading:
The most polarizing film this year by far, though I can’t understand why. Here is a case of expectation overpowering peoples taste. Certainly a quirky, funny film harkening back to the days of Raising Arizona, but not the heady material now associated with the Coen Brothers. I would put this film somewhere between The Man Who Wasn’t There and Intolerable Cruelty (which is a far worse film) on a list of the Coen’s comedies.
Hellboy 2:
Like Hellboy before it, this film is impossible to dismiss as summer fair, if only for the design of it all. The clever humor and characters are easy to enjoy, even if you are not wowed by the sheer scope of the sets and costumes.
Quantum of Solace:
I can’t understand how this film did not perform better at the box office. Casino Royal was met with universal praise (even if I thought the dialogue was horrendous), and this film follows the same template to a T. If fact, I thought Quantum of Solace was a better film than Casino Royal, and helped advance the character of James Bond closer to the suave, tuxedo wearing hero that has endured half a century.
So, now we can get to the disappointments. I would’ve loved to have included Twilight on this list, but will refrain from doing so because I never finished the film. About 25 minutes in, I just couldn’t take anymore. Also, films like The Eye, the Love Guru, You don’t mess with the Zohan and Bedtime Stories (in fact, anything with Adam Sandler in it) can not be commented on, because I was intelligent enough to avoid them completely.
Wall-E:
I can’t understand the critical praise that has been universally handed to this film. There were moments where this film overachieved, sure, but there were quite a few more where this film fell well short of its predecessors at Pixar. The people were poorly rendered cartoons compared to the industrial feel of everything else, which completely took me out of the movie. The romance between two toasters was cute and compelling at times, but could hardly sustain the entire film.
Tropic Thunder:
Let me first admit that Robert Downey Jr. delivers a great and funny performance, and is the highlight in both the film and the script. Take him out, and you are left with Ben Stiller trying to film himself being funny (and failing) and Tom Cruise parodying movie producers in general, as well as himself (though he seems unaware of the later). People that compare this film to Three Amigos need to have their heads examined.
Wanted:
If you’re going to make a movie all flash and zero substance, at least make it visually appealing. This film was ugly from start to finish. I described last years 300 as a homosexual, adolescent power-fantasy; and for this movie, that would have been a compliment. This film is going on the short list, with films like Grindhouse and Death Proof, which I will never watch again because they make me physically ill. Hopefully, this will be the worst movies in both Morgan Freeman’s and Angelina Jolie’s careers.
Anyway, that’s it for now. Please comment on anything you feel strongly about, whether you agree with these statements or you think I’m a hack that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Thanks,
Ryan Black
January 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)