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
Thursday, 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)