Top 5 Best and Worst of 2009

It’s that time kids. My top five best and worst films of 2009. The list pretty much speaks for itself, so lets roll with it:


TOP 5 BEST OF 2009



5. Public Enemies **** out of ****
Nope it wasn’t nominated for anything. It wasn’t even particularly well received by critics, but that’s their loss. Johnny Depp flexes some of his best acting muscles and Christian Bale is equally impressive. Meanwhile, it’s absolutely criminal that Billy Crudup was not nominated for a supporting actor. Despite the lack of attention given to this fine film, Michael Mann made an excellent comeback with this top notch, suave and thrilling period piece. Gangster films tend to look worse and worse as years go by, but Public Enemies put the “cool” back in it while extending the beautiful merits of digital cinema.

FULL REVIEW



4. Up **** out of ****
A movie I wish I saw earlier in the year. After Pixar proved they could go outside the box with their stories in Wall-E, Up proved that great story telling can be minimalistic, but take different forms—And I’m not talking about the fact it’s a CG animated motion picture. With a gut-wrenching opening, impressively chalked with nearly no lines, and a wonderful reverence to the value of time (and life), Up ranks among Pixar’s very best films.

NOT REVIEWED



3. Inglourious Basterds **** out of ****
Where do I begin? If it’s not Tarantino’s best movie, which I think it is, then it’s at least my favorite. A return to form for the great director, Inglourious Basterds is tiled with memorable characters, great laughs and some of the most fascinating scenes to grace the screen in years. His craft has never looked this perfect and my love for film has seldom been as passionate as it is when I watch this movie.


FULL REVIEW



2. Up in the Air **** out of ****
Jason Reitman knocks another one out of the park. Bringing text-book modernism back to the screen turned out to be a wonderful move. Up in the Air explores the paths of living in the current economic climate and ends at a destination of your choice. Strong and very funny characters carry the audience along for the journey.


FULL REVIEW



1. The Hurt Locker **** out of ****
And this is the one. Kathryn Bigelow’s war tale isn’t so much about war as it is about those who fight them. Focusing on an adrenaline fueled main character, played by the impressive Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker expresses the deepest and darkest fears of those involved in war—Including the love for it. It’s the Saving Private Ryan of our generation and it scares the hell out of me. “Awesome.” Simply put, and you can’t call too many “bests of the year” this, but it is absolutely “awesome.” I’ll be rooting for it Sunday night.

FULL REVIEW


TOP 5 WORST MOVIES OF 2009




5. X-Men Origins: Wolverine *½ out of ****
Though I’ll admit it gets better with repeated viewings, it’s still a mess. What should have been a dark, psychological origin story turns in to a bad X-Men 4, with characters that shouldn’t be involved and some really poor writing. Sure the action is fun, but reducing the title character to survive every suicidal stunt possible makes him a bore. So why care about him?


FULL REVIEW


4. The Men Who Stare At Goats * out of ****
Hippy bullshit for the masses. An all-star cast of some of the world’s best actors slip and fall face first in the dirt clot that is this movie’s script. Incoherent, contrived and contradicting-- Goats had the potential of a great movie. But it’s not a great movie. It’s just a great, big, boring disappointment. What a waste.

FULL REVIEW


3. The Hangover * out of ****
Because there’s not enough stupid, college student targeted Mt. Everests of crap out there. What scares me is that this film, the same EXACT humor we’ve seen in other terrible movies i.e. Wedding Crashers, Superbad, Knocked Up, 40 Year Old Virgin..etc… is what passes off as funny to its target audience: Dumb college students. The future of our world assuring more bad comedy is made! Lets go through the list of predictability: Drunk jokes. Check. Not sure what happened on the “crazy” night before to incite certain [non]humor. Check. Bad Las Vagas clichés. Check. Bad movie. Check and mate.

NOT REVIEWED


2. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ½ out of ****
Big, loud and stupid can be fun if the flick has certain charm to it. But this doesn’t. Bay tries way too hard to make it the “ultimate” summer flick, but bigger isn’t always better, and a lack of restraint seems to be dangerous. It’s as if the movie prefers to be as dumb as possible—Such a film makes me wonder how some directors/writers get away with what they do. Then again, what producer okays it?

FULL REVIEW


1. Dragonball: Evolution ½ out of ****
‘Nuff said…

FULL REVIEW

MOVIE REVIEW - Up in the Air

There’s a lot to be said about a film that examines the philosophy of living space. Materialistic living and courtly relationships have to be questioned without resolve in order to pull off the idea that there are many ways to go about one’s life. Up in the Air does just that—Without turning in to a giant cliché of any given film genre, director Jason Reitman’s latest masterpiece is relevant enough to tantalize the hearts of those unsure about jobs, relationships and, ultimately, where the hell to go in life.

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) travels nearly non-stop from city to city to “dismiss” people being laid-off. When his frequent flyer miles plunges him in to a potential relationship, (Alex) an ambitious, but a naive new co-worker (Natalie) shadows him and prompts him to look at his happy seclusion in a different light.

Once again my vague synopses put readers at a disadvantage, but to divulge any further would take away from the films’ experience. Furthermore, as preachy as I make this movie, it actually stays away from being over-bearing. Instead of feeling like a pretentious art house boob with unrelatable insights, it reaches far in to the climate of today’s troubles and beyond.

Clooney’s Bingham is the man everyone does and does not want to be. He twists and turns throughout the movie with a slow exit from certainty. Is living on the move from one hotel to another really what he wants? Is Natalie’s American dream more likable? Is Ryan’s poor, underprivileged brother-in-law’s quest for love-over-success worth it? Like most modernistic films there’s not so much a straight answer as there is an examination. And there in lies the beauty of Up in the Air—It really is up in the air.

One of Reitman’s great talents is always pulling out the best of characters in the worst conditions, and what’s great is that their choices are never predictable! If Juno was his take on adult-like adolescence, Up in the Air is his extreme evolution of characters from Thank You for Smoking. Bingham, like Eckhart’s character in Smoking, is suave, smart and more professional than your dad on career day. But later on the many roads of life haunt him; though he ushers those who have lost jobs to take different paths every day, the same suggestion causes him to lose a focus many people can relate to. (Don’t tell me you’ve never looked at the ceiling and wondered, “What the hell am I suppose to be doing/should do/want to do.?” Angst. Tears. My Chemical Romance. All that fun stuff.)

Thankfully, instead of telling the audience there’s only one correct path, Reitman leaves us with a mesmerized Ryan Bingham, looking at the different paths he could take for his future. Reminding me of Cast Away's ending, Up in the Air throws a whole list of air travel destinations instead of a three-way road. I find Bingham’s choices a little more realistic. Sure such a list can be overwhelming, but when is life not overwhelming? Plus look at all the fun destinations! I really enjoyed where Reitman went with this film and if he continues this type of quality he may end up being one of the very best modern directors of our time. If it's not his best film, it's close.

**** out of ****

Elements of Film Art - Sullivan's Travels and Preaching Not to Preach

I'll be posting these "reaction papers" every week. Originally for a class, these short write-ups are mainly simple overviews of elements from films I've screened in classes. These are primarily written for those who have seen the film, so if you haven't watched the movie of topic it won't make a lot of sense. Moving on...

--------------------

It’s amazing how one’s perception on a film changes within its own running time. Although I greatly enjoyed Sullivan’s Travels by the end of the movie I could only think about how its existence is a contradiction.

Sullivan’s Travels begins with great promise, but as it moves forward I can’t help but wonder if it lost its identity. Supposedly a screwball comedy, Sullivan’s Travels certainly doesn’t evoke the same laughter that His Girl Friday does. In fact the comedy feels very second tier to the dramatic elements. It’s almost as if director Sturges wanted exactly what Sullivan wants in the movie: To make a serious picture about the men and women suffering during the economic crisis. But to avoid looking too hypocritical, given the script’s “message,” he sprinkles some comedy here or there to pass it off as a screwball delight.

Now I doubt that’s really how Sturges thought of this movie, but its insight does confuse me. After spending so much time with a montage on the poor and watching the characters experience similar conditions the audience is given an ending that makes it all feel like a fluke. If laughter is really all people need, or want, then why did a “tramp” steal Sullivan’s shoes and money?

While looking through information on Sullivan’s Travels I stumbled upon a quote from The Hollywood Reporter that adequately sums up my feelings for the film, “[The film] fails to heed the message that writer Sturges proves in his script. Laughter is the thing people want-not social studies." Indeed if Sullivan’s final line were the case, where’s the laughter? Watching an ocean of homeless engulf an alley and dine on trashcans isn’t exactly hysterical. Sure Sullivan and “The Girl” grant us a few laughs, but it’s never a straight shot.

Going back to my His Girl Friday comparison, a movie I consider the king of screwball comedies, that film granted laughs every ten seconds. Sullivan’s Travels, however, lingers from one genre to another without a smooth transition. (For example, after the amusing image of a sick Sullivan swearing he’ll go back on the streets fades away the audience is gifted with a depressing montage of tramp-life at its finest.) Despite its screwball comedy reputation there’s heavy attention to serious drama. Include a moral that makes my head spin and I remain confused as to how seriously I should (or should not) take the film. On the other hand, such a contradicting film could be considered a work of genius. Like a double negative, maybe it’s supposed to support both a social commentary and a surrender to thoughtless entertainment. Although, either way it still feels messy.

MOVIE REVIEW - The Hurt Locker

About halfway through The Hurt Locker, Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner) stumbles upon a crude bomb workspace with a locker standing between two desks. There is no mention of it by the characters. They don’t open it, hell, I don’t think they even look at it. I can assume there are only bomb parts in that locker, thus making it a candidate for the film’s title. Of course the real hurt locker is present-day Iraq, but I have to wonder if that ominous locker was placed for its own aesthetic metaphor. It may sound pretentious, but it’s these same nuances that make The Hurt Locker the masterpiece it is.

Sgt. William James becomes the new team leader of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit. His teammates deem him reckless in his search for adrenaline—In contrast Sgt. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) is extremely by-the-book with the way he handles bomb tasks, and Spc. Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) lives every day in fear of death. The disparity between James and Eldridge is the most interesting comparison of today's soldiers. Whereas James will march in to a wired car without any protection, Eldridge is constantly seeking counsel from commanding officers. The film begins with a quote from journalist Chris Hedges, "The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug." This line becomes the crutch of James’ character, and it’s a crutch that scares the hell out of me.

Going back to the EOD’s infiltration of an insurgent bomb facility, James finds himself with a dead body-bomb in which he believes was a child he befriended earlier. Whether it is the child or not becomes a mute point as James continuously searches for more reasons to enter combat. This is a side of reality I’ve always been interested to see explored. So few movies touch on the soldiers who know nothing but war. Sure, First Blood was built on that, but it didn’t retain the believability that The Hurt Locker does. It’s not that James is a bad person. He’s not a warmonger or a ruthless killer by any means. In fact he may have fired the least amount of weapons in the entire movie. He simply only knows how to acknowledge his existence in the battlefield.

Along with the near-maddening mentality the characters ooze off the screen comes a tension unmatched by most films of the last decade. Prepare to chew your arm off as a frustrated James scrambles to defuse a car bomb while more and more on-lookers gather. Any of them could hold the detonator. Any of them could have planted the bomb. But no one knows for sure. It’s maddening that this is the type of combat that goes on today. Such knowledge only increases the nails-on-a-chalkboard suspense that crosses from the screen to your gut.

Oh no worries. Your stomach gets a break from all the punching the movie gives you now and then. (Amusingly, our main characters play a “manly” game of hitting each other in the gut that seems to embody what the movie is doing to its audience.) But when the last minute of the movie spins to Sgt. James’s destiny a far more terrifying realization hit me. He’s necessary. In a world with such insane venues as Iraq, this fictional character is a must. And then, perhaps just as scary, I become at ease with the idea that people like him exist. Should I? Don't know. Maybe I feel safer or maybe I'm just glad its not me out there.

With this fixation on William James, I can’t say The Hurt Locker is specifically about the Iraq War. It’s even possible the title refers to any battlefield a man stands on, but I won’t proclaim the movie is, “just about war.” Such a cliché undermines its value. Rather, The Hurt Locker stands for warriors—Warriors of today and their mentality during battle. They might be scared or they might be fearless. They could feel empowered or they might appear powerless. They might not like each other, but they’ll live with each other. The Hurt Locker doesn’t stand on a side of the political fence it worries about the modern day American soldier. If this film is any indication their job isn’t as easy as looking for a sign that says “bad guy” and squeezing the trigger. Nope, when the smoke clears, The Hurt Locker feels more like a horror picture than a war flick. Perhaps that’s an indicator of its realism. I’d have to go to Iraq to know for sure. Watch this movie and let me know if you're up for the trip.

**** out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Avatar

When Star Wars launched its phenomenon in 1977 it was completely unpredicted. This little fantasy/sci-fi picture defined a decade and has since continued to be one of the top money making franchises of all time. There was no hype. It was an explosion of bewildering success and greatness. So it’s of no surprise that studios and filmmakers have tried to recreate that scenario; but the idea that you can create such leviathans with sheer will is arrogance cooked on stupidity. The latest example is the decade’s ultimate hype-machine: Avatar.

The movie’s story? Let’s put it this way. While watching the movie my significant other leaned in to note how similar it was to Disney’s Pocahontas. My mouth hit the floor with what I can only assume was an astonishing thud—I’m sure I looked like a sorority girl on game night. She nailed it! Mind you this was said to me before either one of us saw THIS. Sure, she could have said Dances With Wolves and she would have been equally correct, but Avatar’s resemblance to the Disney film is so uncanny I had to stop and think: James Cameron had fifteen years to refine this script?

Whatever… Now you know the story of Avatar to an absolute tee. Is the absurd predictability of the story a problem? That depends on the audience. If you’re in to the irrelevant exercise of looking for originality you’ll probably hate Avatar. If you can stomach the fact that this story has been told at least four or five times per decade, post-1950s, then it can certainly be a rewarding experience. Otherwise enjoy the over-exposition of a cliché, trigger-happy badass and his military constantly bullying the savage protagonists and their “enlightened” ways. Are military folk always this thoughtless? Are native savages always right no matter what? Is blue alien sex really that hot? Yikes…

So, to that reward I mentioned. As you might have imagined, the special effects really are fantastic. Though I feel the comparisons to Jurassic Park are exaggerated, Avatar has a claim to creating photo-realistic characters and environments that will do well to aid future special effects features. The most intriguing thing about Avatar is its setting. Pandora, the planet, is truly beautiful and an incredible technical achievement that I can bank on being used again and again. Couple that with Cameron’s penchant for aggressive action sequences and you have a recipe for some exciting visuals.

However, it is a shame that these visuals are wasted on such derivative designs. As cool as the world is, putting two sets of front legs on every known animal on Earth and then painting it blue isn’t exactly what I call creative. But neither is the giant robots conjuring images from The Matrix Revolutions.

Okay, okay, I’m probably being a bit harsh. Avatar isn’t a terrible film at all, really. For its unoriginality it’s actually well told and boasts some impressive performances from most of the major players—Especially Sam Worthington! But the success of Cameron’s film relies on the hype he built for it. There was no explosion and, like the movie, there was nothing unexpected about it raping the box office. But if you strip off the fancy effects and incredible advertising you're left with just another character epic. Cameron use to be a master of great and original filmmaking, now he’s proving gimmicks are enough to make a “good movie.” It frightens me there’s a majority okay with this.

** out ****

Download to Donate: Haiti

Linkin Park is in battle-mode with their Music For Relief foundation. They've brought some artists together and released a free benefit EP for Haiti. The catch? No catch. The music is free, whether you donate or not. But unless your dick is up your own mouth, you should donate-- Especially if you download the songs.

Excellent cause and organization Linkin Park. Donate what you can, if you can.

LINK: MUSIC FOR RELIEF - DOWNLOAD TO DONATE: HAITI

Tracks:

1) Not Alone - Linkin Park

2) Mother Maria - Slash feat. Beth Hart

3) Never Let Me Down - Kenna feat. Mike Shinoda and Chad Hugo

4) Heroes - Peter Gabriel

5) Still (Acoustic Session) - Alanis Morissette

6) Resurrection - Lupe Fiasco and Kenna feat. Mike Shinoda

7) We Are One - Hoobastank

8) The Wind Blows - All-American Rejects

9) It Must Be Love - Enrique Iglesias

10) Typical Situation (Live) - Dave Matthew Band

Predator Buzz

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Lionsgate May Acquire Terminator Rights

Now that you've read the title lets assume you've asked, "For how much?" Well, apparently for the lowest common denominator. $15 million. (Halcyon was trying to sell it for $60-70 million. Ouch!) The Terminator rights aren't exactly being dogpiled by a lot of studios and my hopes of Warner Brothers acquiring it seems to be nowhere in sight. (So things are looking bleak for The Sarah Connor Chronicles.) The next in line is Summit, who is coming up in the ranks with the money they've made from the Twilight movies and a quality picture with The Hurt Locker. Despite Twilight I'd prefer Summit to grab the rights, but I have a strong feeling that's not happening.

So what say The Resistance out there? Is the studio that's given us the horrendous Saw series, Hostel, Delta Farce, the Transporter trilogy and bad documentaries really what we want for the series? And what of TSCC? Will it get a second go from Warner Brothers when the final decision is released this February?

You see that mushroom cloud? That's not Skynet. That's the franchise...

MOVIE REVIEW - Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day

EDIT: Synopsis fixed for the Boston-ites/hard core fans.

Oh, what a rush. The Boondock Saints doesn’t really have the greatest reputation among film critics, but I suppose the liberal media would slam movies like these. Being something of the year’s anti-Men Who Stare at Goats, I was pleased with the no holds barred approach of The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day. So I’m going to side-step the educated, snob-a-thon critic bullshit this time and praise it for what it is: A movie that hangs its nuts without any intention of putting them away.

After going in to hiding, the death of a priest lures the MacManus Brothers back to Boston for more “gratuitous violence.” But it turns out to be the genesis of a much larger problem that goes back before their conception. Thus, Daddy MacManus steps in to confront his past. Among the returnees are newcomers Clifton Collins Jr. as Romeo and Julie Benz as Agent Eunice Bloom. I wasn’t too keen on their addition at first, but once the movie gets rolling you won’t want them to leave.

While the film attempts to answer some questions about the MacManus family we still get what we came for—More punishment than The Punisher could ditch out. The question of whether or not they’re doing right or wrong is never brought up again. Frankly it doesn’t need to be. Murphy and Connor are completely at piece with their job and firmly believe in destroying evil. What's important is this leads to more over-the-top action sequences, some hysterical dialogue and, yes, the return of the “fucking rope.” Add to the mix Rocco’s cameo (and his cat) which distinctly slams everything Men Who Stare at Goats stood for with, “I am so sick of all of this self help, twelve step, leftover hippie generation bullshit!” and you have a recipe for a man movie. What is a man movie you ask? Many have forgotten. Predator and Dirty Harry fit the bill, but man movies don’t quite jump at you like they use to. I blame George Lucas. I can’t think of any examples since Greedo shot first. That’s another rant for another day.

What’s important to come away with is accepting, and enjoying, how the film makes no apology for being the cinematic equivalent of a hardened assassin. It is an exercise in badassery (yup, my word again) and a non-to-subtle reminder of everything a guy wishes he would be. It spits at political correctness with a grimace and smirks while shooting bad guys. Sure there isn’t much character development, but how do you develop characters as hardened and devout as the MacManus Brothers? While the most interesting players tend to be the new kids and the talented Billy Connelly as “Il Duce” (Papa MacManus), we never lose that aspiring glance we give Connor and Murphy as they slide to their knees with two guns. Why? ‘Cause they’re just that damn cool.

I’m not here to say The Boondock Saints II is the greatest balls out action flick ever, or even of the year, but it is a satisfying sequel with no interest in social sensitivity. It doesn’t make me wonder how right or wrong their actions are like the first one, but I don’t think director Troy Duffy is too concerned with those questions here. No, this time it’s about gifting the fans and keeping The Saints true to their word. Lets top it off with a very surprising ending that begs for another sequel and the politically incorrect extermination of “evil men.” Bring back the MacManus Brothers. I’m ready for round three!

*** out of ****

Spider-Man 4 Not Happening. Reboot Launches in 2012.

Well it looks like all that tireless villain speculation for the fourth Spider-Man was just wasted bandwidth. Director Sam Raimi has left the project due to a weariness of the film's 2011 release date. Tobey Maguire has jumped ship with him. Beforehand John Malkovich had confirmed he would be the Vulture. But now there will be no Malkovich, no Vulture, no Raimi, no Maguire, NO SPIDER-MAN 4. (Just in case I couldn't make it clear enough.)

So what will happen with the Spidey franchise? Well for those hoping for the series to land in the laps of Marvel/Disney-- Keep praying. Sony still has rights to produce Spider-Man films and will be doing so in the form of a reboot. Oh. Shit. For those of you happy a sequel isn't happening, tell me, is this much better?

So instead of pushing back the Spider-Man 4 release date, Sony will be producing the reboot for a 2012 release. (They couldn't push Spidey 4 to that date? Are they really dumb enough to believe the world is ending that year or what?)

As the story goes James Vanderbilt wrote both Spider-Man 4 and a reboot script as a plan B. I suspect there were some anticipated script disagreements between the studio and Raimi. (I assume over villains.) So talks went nowhere, Raimi got fed up with Sony, not wanting a Spidey 3 repeat and now we'll get a potentially cheaper Spider-Man flick with a different director, different star and (thank Christ) no Dunst.

I can definitely say I have no excitement for this project. It feels like a cheap business move and, well... it looks like a cheap business move. After Raimi and Maguire have successfully created a recognizable and iconic universe Sony's going to reboot it? Who specifically is afraid to pay up at Sony? I think this whole "reboot" idea is getting a little out of hand. When it was done with Batman Begins it was because the franchise was in need of rescuing. Not to mention it had been close to a decade since Clooney's Bat-shit. But to abandon a successful and recent franchise like Raimi's Spider-Man is just an odd and hasty move. Green over great I guess.

But I can't totally give Sony the middle finger. No Dunst is always a plus, right?