Archive for December, 2009

My 12 Favorite Movies of 2009

(“Natch” means “Naturally”)

Right. So. I watched 50 movies this year that were released in 2009, which is a teeny tiny number when you consider most weeks had four or five movies released, which would be 250+ movies. I’m not a real critic, though, so I don’t feel bad for seeing only 50.

Bear that in mind when I present this list. These are only the ones I’ve seen, because including ones I haven’t seen would be really stupid. Wouldn’t it?

I’ll list these alphabetically, because I’m loathe to give a movie top honors when I haven’t seen so many of the allegedly awesome films of 2009. Plus I’m a scaredy cat. What if someone mocks me? Nah, no chance of that, since no one reads this.

Onward!

Coraline
District 9
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Hangover
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Invictus
Pandorum
Up
Watchmen
Where the Wild Things Are
Youth in Revolt
Zombieland

Some odd animated movies (Mr. Fox, Where the Wild Things Are, Coraline) based on kids’ books are on here. You know, there’s been a glut of animated movies over the past, oh, several years – ever since they decided to give animated features their own Oscar – so every year my expectations are lowered a smidge more, because there’s an equal likelihood that a given movie will, you know, stink. But not only were those two whimsical and different enough to capture my imagination, so too was Pixar’s Up, which did look intriguing a year or so ago but could have drowned in the sea of animated releases. But it IS Pixar, and they never bomb.

Pandorum was an innovative, creative sci-fi thriller that kept you super involved. The tight spaces, the panic, it was all there – and you felt it all along with the crew. Ditto with District 9, except the spaces were more wide open and there was the whole apartheid subtext. Each was expertly crafted.

I believe Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the best of the series to date, which is saying something. How many other long-running series (more than three films) seem to get better as the movies progress? None, right? James Bond? No. Star Wars? Not now. Carry On? No.

I think Invictus should win Best Picture – it’s that good. But it probably won’t.

Watchmen was a hell of a lot better than some nitpickers thought, too. It pushed the boundaries of superhero movies, which is a good thing. It didn’t shock for the sake of shocking. It freed superheroes (and villains) from the constraints of 70+ years of comic books. Good guys can be flawed, you know.

The Hangover was the best comedy of the year, although it’s not a movie you’d want to see with your mother. Or have your mom see it, period.

And movies like Youth in Revolt and Zombieland were off-beat and quirky without being ridiculous – except when on purpose. Well cast, and each movie had the ability to laugh at itself (if movies could, anyway).

No Comments

I may boycott the Oscars this year

In the past, I’ve found it tough to pick the Oscars, usually because I hadn’t seen many of the nominated films. Who has time to see all of them? Besides, so many of the so-called prestige films are released only in LA or NY in December, and I’m sure as hell not going to schlep up or over there to see a movie. But I digress.

This year (2010), there will be ten nominees for Best Picture, double the size in previous years. That’s daunting enough. But then when I look at lists of prospective nominees, I see a lot of junk that I thought was either mediocre or just plain bad.

What does this mean? Have I become jaded? One of the things that I love most about movies is the wonder that they show me, whether it’s eye-popping special effects or just whimsical delight. I want to feel like a kid again. Things that make my heart glad, things that make me feel pity and sympathy for a protagonist, these are all good, good things. When I go into a movie theater, I want my mind to be a fairly blank canvas on which the movie can paint an elegant, detailed piece of art. As long as it’s successful within its own boundaries (i.e., a high-voltage action movie doesn’t need to be Hamlet), I’ll go home happy. Many movies this year that are showing up on best-of lists failed to meet this modest goal for me personally, and that makes me wonder if I am worthy of judging other movies any more.

For example, while most people have loved Avatar, I found it simplistic, even insulting in its plot and character development, the astounding effects notwithstanding. That’s why I gave it two and a half stars instead of the three and a half or four that real critics felt it deserved.

Then there’s Up in the Air. I liked it. It was a good, entertaining movie. For me, though, it fell apart near the end, lapsing into unnecessary predictability, and that prevented it from being a great film.

How about An Education and A Serious Man? People laud these two as being tight, character-driven movies. Small movies, if you will, something Hollywood should do more of. Neither one worked for me. The former was saddled with a rather dumb protagonist, her great grades in school notwithstanding; the latter felt like an inside joke that made no sense to an outsider like me. And yet you’ll see them both on top lists and probably as nominees for the Oscars in March.

So am I the problem, or is it a simple matter of a difference of opinion?

Or is this just a down year for movies?

, , , ,

No Comments

502 – Avatar (**1/2)

James Cameron’s long-awaited Titanic follow-up is very pretty to look at but suffers from a flimsy plot and astoundingly stupid plot development. The characters are one dimensional, both as written and as portrayed, and there’s hardly anything unpredictable. The only thing this movie has going for it are its state-of-the-art effects, which are truly boggling.

Sam Worthington plays Jake, a paraplegic ex-Marine who’s sent to a distant moon to help humans mine a mineral called unobtainium (in the running for the least creative chemical name ever). Seems there’s a huge cache of the stuff under a huge tree in a jungle that’s populated by an indigenous race called the Na’vi, blue-skinned, really tall people with feline characteristics. Meanwhile, a scientific program headed by Grace Augustine (played by a typically stiff Sigourney Weaver) has focused on learning as much as possible about the Na’vi in order to benefit scientific knowledge. Augustine’s research (funded by the same company who’s mining the unobtainium) involves the use of avatars, in which scientists form a pyschological link with a mock-up that looks just like a native Na’Vi, the better for the humans to exist within the unbreathable atmosphere. Jake gets inside the Na’vi within his avatar and attempts to find out what they would want in exchange for moving from away from the giant store of unobtainium; during the course of his mission, he falls for the Na’vi chief’s daughter, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). (Of course he does.) And as said mission drags on, Jake’s perspective changes from meathead jerk to tree-loving jerk, and he begins to wonder if what he’s doing is right.

Is he serious? You’re an alien race (humans) and have no business on this moon. Your employer’s stated goal is to gobble up all the jewels he can find, basically raping the planet. Your employer will stop at nothing to get it, as he answers to no one. You’re being sent down to find a diplomatic way to screw the natives out of the bounty on which they sit. And he thinks this might be wrong?

A power grab ensues when the military leader of the human expedition, a Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang) decides enough is enough and wants to bomb the hell out of the Na’vi, with the approval of the head of the company, Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi), another patently obvious name. This sets up the rather obvious showdown between the primitive Na’vi and the gung-ho ex-Marine humans, who have missles and guns and ammo and rockets and helicopters and who knows, even a Star Destroyer or two. The final battle scene is overtly reminiscent of the Battle of Endor in Return of the Jedi, in which the primitive Ewoks manage to defeat a stormtrooper army using only their quick wits and some old-school, homemade traps of destruction.

It’s unfair to expect complexities and nuance in a movie of this magnitude, perhaps, because the focus is on the action. And what action! There are dogfights among floating mountains, with giant birdlike creatures (sort of like uglier versions of pterodactyls) zooming hither and yon, dodging laser fire. The Na’vi on the ground have the benefit of home-field advantage and such weapons as bows and arrows. Yes, really.

But even if the plot doesn’t need to be complex, it sure ought to make sense. Here’s a nonspoiler question to ponder. Jake, under the guise of his avatar, is taken in by the Na’vi, whose spiritual leader asks Neytiri to teach Jake their ways. Why this is to be is not terribly clear. It’s evident that the humans have made several attempts at learning the ways of the Na’vi but that prior emissaries had been scientists; as soon as Jake tells the Na’vi that he’s a warrior, they’re all about teaching him. I don’t quite follow the logic here; if I were the Na’vi and had not been able to teach the smart humans who obviously (to me) were not there to do me harm, why in the world would I want to teach someone who’s used to using aggression and violence to solve problems? I get that the Na’vi, as a warrior race, would relate more to the soldier, but surely they would be reluctant to share knowledge with someone who was outside of their group anyway, let alone with one who might well do them harm.

Moreover, I’m not sure what the Na’vi thought Jake was, really. He looked like them, through his avatar, but they referred to him at least once as an alien. My best guess is that they just thought he was from another clan. Other clan? I’ll assume that only this one clan, the Omaticaya, made its home at Hometree (yet another clumsy naming convention) and therefore was the only clan with a stake in protecting it. But if they simply thought Jake was from another clan, why did they let him in anyway? Why did they teach him? What purpose would it serve them? And on top of that, since the Omaticaya mentioned being approached by “aliens” before, doesn’t it seem more likely that they would have assumed Jake was another alien ambassador anyway? This makes my brain hurt.

I think it’s pretty obvious that Cameron wanted this to be his own Star Wars, an epic taking place on a distant world. He uses the standard Cameron recipe of astounding special effects and innovation coupled with a weak plot and laughable characters and hopes it all comes out okay (although for a movie that gestated for more than a decade, that’s simplifying things a bit). The effects, it should be noted, are really mesmerizing visuals of the jaw-dropping variety. Know those attractions at Disney or MGM in which you’re surrounded by a 360-degree screen and the camera swoops across plains, over mountain cliffs, over seas, and so forth? You feel as if you’re really part of the action, and it’s the same thing here. The 3D effects were unbelievable, and I mean that in a good way. Avatar is extraordinarily shot, using 60% CGI and 40% live action, and the two elements are flawlessly intertwined. It’s a remarkable film.

But it’s only part of a film. Like those Disney attractions, all of the entertainment is in the visuals. With a movie, I expect a little bit more. You can have a simplistic plot that follows a fairly straightforward trajectory, but it still must use a certain amount of logic, even within its own confines. Not only is the plot nonsensical and derivative, the acting is almost uniformly awful, with a miscast Worthington, in a key role, playing Jake as a cardboard cutout with little gradation and no sense of emotion. In fact, the entire movie seems to try pretty hard to keep some emotional distance from its audience, and when a film is emotionally uninvolving, it’s lost the battle for your heart.

And that’s the core problem. Despite some wonderful, beautiful effects, Avatar gives us characters in whom we can’t really get invested, and when a key element of your story is an interspecies romance, this is a crucial, fatal flaw.

Avatar: **1/2

, , , ,

3 Comments

501 – The Hangover (***)

Picture a better-written, wackier version of Bachelor Party, and you’ll have The Hangover, a tale of four buddies who head into Vegas for a night of debauchery but wake up the next morning with a tiger in the bathroom, a missing tooth, and a baby and short one dude. The Hangover is drop-dead hilarious, with situations zany enough to be outlandish but rooted just enough in reality to be remotely plausible.

On the day before their buddy Doug (Justin Bartha) is to get hitched, his pals Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) take him to Las Vegas for one more night on the town. The next morning, three of them wake up in their massive hotel suite, much the worse for wear. There’s a feline in the bathtub, a baby is screaming, Stu is missing a tooth, and Doug is nowhere to be found. Plus, none of them can remember what they did the previous night.

The boys then spend the rest of the movie trying desperately to retrace their steps and find Doug, somewhere. Not as easy as it sounds, what with the memory loss and all, and it quickly becomes apparent that they didn’t just party at one casino all night. Phil even has a bracelet from a local hospital, so you know there has to be a neat story there as well.

The movie starts off a little slowly as characters are being established; Stu is a weenie who’s henpecked by his longtime
girlfriend, played a little too rotten by Rachael Harris; Phil is a colossal jerk; and Alan is an odd duck who just plain seems a little off. During the first fifteen minutes or so, I was sort of hoping that something horrible would happen to Phil, he was so annoying, but as the movie progressed it was apparent that Phil’s jerkiness was the least of the boys’ problems.

Usually, when you have a movie in which the characters dash from crazy situation to crazy situation, the circumstances become more and more ludicrous, each wacky moment attempting to top the last. This isn’t the case with The Hangover; in fact, this movie almost works as a mystery as well. What, indeed, has happened to Doug? The introduction of secondary characters helps the plot along, it doesn’t distract or detract from it.

The cast is game and seems to be having a great time. Galifianakis is at his deadpan best as the off-kilter Alan, and Helms is a bit of a surprise as Stu (I knew he had some comedy chops as a graduate of The Daily Show, but not for a full-length feature). Then you have people like Heather Graham (where’s she been?) as the requisite stripper, Jeffrey Tambor as Doug’s future father in law, Mike Epps as, um, Black Doug, and even Mike Tyson playing – get this – himself.

There are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, and it’s reasonable to assume you’ll find this a stitch if you liked director Todd Phillips’ earlier movies: Old School and Road Trip. The Hangover is flat-out funny.

The Hangover: ***

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Brittany Murphy, 1977-2009

According to various media sources, actress Brittany Murphy has died at age 32.

Murphy reported died of cardiac arrest; she had been discovered unconscious in the shower by her mother, who then called 911. Murphy had struggled with drugs for many years, although it is not known if drugs played any role in her death.

Highlights of her movie career:

Clueless (1995) as one of Alicia Silverstone’s gal pals.
Girl, Interrupted (1999) as one of Winona Ryder’s fellow patients; she was the one who kept the chicken under her bed.
8 Mile (2002) as Eminem’s girlfriend
Happy Feet (2006) as the voice of the object of Elijah Wood’s desire

Plus a starring role on TV’s King of the Hill as Luann.

,

4 Comments

Were you looking for a new Jackass movie? You’re in luck! And it’s in 3D

Via Collider.

It’ll come out on October 15, 2010.

I’m posting this because I – seriously, now – liked the first two. They were exactly what they purported to be: guys beating the hell out of themselves. The movies were alternately hilarious and cringe worthy.

Now, it’s true that we’re a little saturated with men-getting-hit-in-the-crotch movies and TV shows. But this one will be in 3D, which I believe is really the only way to improve upon such humor.

, , ,

No Comments

The best low-budget trailer you’ll ever see?

From Yahoo.

An unknown Uruguayan filmmaker named Fede Alvarez put together a four-minute short/trailer about a robot invasion of Montevideo, Uruguay’s capital. After the vid was posted on YouTube, Hollywood studios got into a bidding war to snap up the rights. Ghost House Pictures, Sam Raimi’s company, won. Check out the clip and see what you think. Excellent use of CGI (at least I assume those aren’t actual giant robots) and very well filmed. Love the reaction shots of the kid. Definitely a movie to look for. No title yet -- Alvarez says he’ll begin from scratch.

, ,

2 Comments

500 – Youth in Revolt (***)

1106795_Youth_in_RevoltWhen you hear that Michael Cera will be playing yet another nerdy virginal dweeb, your first reaction is likely to include a couple of eyerolls and other dismissive motions. Here he plays an effete high schooler named Nick Twisp who thinks he’s found the girl of his dreams during a lakefront vacation. Only to get the girl he needs to man up and become more dangerous, so he invents a subpersona named Francois, a dashing lad full of derring-do. This black comedy has plenty of laughs amid a wacky, absurdist atmosphere.

Nick Twisp. Great name for a fictional character; terrible name for a real person, I would think. Nick is into Frank Sinatra, his computer, and classic prose; he lives with his trailer-trash mom (Jean Smart) and her ne’er-do-well current boyfriend (played with laid-back zeal by Zach Galifianakis). Nick is as stammery as any other Michael Cera character, and his approach to the fairer sex is, unsurprisingly, ineffective.

Things look up when he meets neighbor Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday, who is both enigmatic and ebullient as Sheeni), who’s gorgeous and fun to be with. It’s not long before Nick decides Sheeni’s the one for him. But it’s quickly revealed that Sheeni already has a boyfriend, a real manly man named Trent. How can anyone played by Michael Cera compete with a guy named Trent? Easy – by inventing an alter ego that gives voice to his rampaging id, a rogueish cad named Francois (because Sheeni loves French things). Francois allows Nick to do and say things that he’d never otherwise say.

And that’s when things really take off. The pleasure of this movie is twofold. First, Cera’s delivery and the script by Gustin Nash go together like Forrest Gump and Jenny. The jokes are often laugh-out-loud quality, and it’s at least partly due to Cera’s sometimes-mumbled, frightened-rabbit replies. His funny lines are played straight, and somehow it works. Second, the absurd escalating situations in which Nick finds himself – as a result of his own actions, it should be noted – are funny the same way Mr. Creosote’s predicament was funny in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life. The stuff Nick does at the behest of Francois to win Sheemi’s heart are hilarious yet unlikely – and yet they ring true nonetheless.

It also helps that Cera is supported by some damn funny actors: Galifianakis is a hoot in a somewhat dark role; Steve Buscemi plays Nick’s dad with vulgar intensity (as if he were a domesticated version of Mr. Pink); Justin Long, of all people, is Sheeni’s stoner older brother; M. Emmett Walsh (who’s perhaps a tad too old to be the father of a teen) is Sheeni’s dad; Mary Kay Place is the mom; Smart as Nick’s mom; and Adhir Kalyan as a fellow student who helps Nick in his quest for Sheeni. Oh, and Fred Willard as a neighbor who likes to save illegal immigrants from the INS.

I know the word “quirky” is overused for oddball comedies today, particularly those starring Michael Cera (who, if he plays another Nick, may as well dot his face with bloodied pieces of tissue paper), but this one outquirks most of them. Even with all the madness zooming around this film, at the heart of things is the love between a girl and a boy and the lengths either will go to protect that bond. This movie should appeal to those who like offbeat romances.

Youth in Revolt: ***

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Tangentially related: the ten most bizarre G.I. Joe episodes

The movie wasn’t too bad, all things considered. But most of us remember the cheesy 80s cartoon series, right? Real American hero, knowing is half the battle, etc.

Topless Robot gives us the ten most bizarre episodes. Some of these are scary as all get out.

,

No Comments

499 – Up in the Air (***)

uitareviewAs firer-for-hire Ryan Bingham, George Clooney is perfectly cast in Jason Reitman’s Up in the Air, and the script, based on a novel by Walter Kim, crackles with wit and maturity. Only a predictable final twenty minutes or so prevents the movie from being a bittersweet classic.

Ryan is what you call a real frequent flyer; he’s the proud owner of millions of miles in the air and scores of elite-status cards and chotchkies. His company sends him to other companies for the sole purpose of letting go staff, rather than having the senior staff do it. (Wussies.) Anyway, it pays very well, but Ryan’s on the road over 250 days a year. But he gets star treatment literally everywhere, so it all works out okay.

However, Ryan’s boss (played by an oily Jason Bateman) wants to try something a little different. A newcomer to the team, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), has the bright idea of firing people remotely. This way road warriors like Ryan could stay at home, thus saving the company travel expenses. Bateman likes it, Clooney’s Ryan does not – and why would he? He’d lose all the perks of traveling, probably lose a lot of salary, and have to deal with real life for a change. He pitches enough of a fit that boss Bateman sends him back on the road – with Natalie. You know, to show her the ropes.

Which actually brings us to one of the more poignant parts of the film. We see Ryan lowering the boom on senior management and junior staffers alike, and their reactions (from acting calmly to pouring bleach in the coffee). Reitman actually brought in people who had just lost their jobs, so their reactions are more are less genuine (they were instructed to react either as they actually did when informed of losing their jobs or how they wish they had reacted). The theme couldn’t be more timely, with the American economy doing so poorly and so many people out of work. Ryan has to deliver the news professionally and implacably, something that the straightlaced Natalie cannot always do.

A secondary thread has to do with Ryan’s relationships, those with his family and those with, well, other people in general. His sister is getting married, but he’s so self-absorbed that he can’t find time to care much about it. Then Ryan meets cute with a fellow traveler in an airport bar (Vera Farmiga) and falls in lust with what he sees as a kindred spirit.

That’s another important theme here, really: the perceived isolation in which Ryan finds himself. Sure, he’s surrounded by people all the time, but he has intentionally never pursued any kind of meaningful relationship, choosing instead to put more stock in the elite status that million-mile travelers get.

You might think that because Natalie is on the road with Ryan, the two will inevitably hook up. But this is a more-mature look at relationships than Hollywood is used to churning out. Typically, you’d expect physical sparks to fly, because Clooney is Clooney and age differences mean little in Hollywood if we’re talking an older man and a younger woman. But both Kendrick and Clooney are lights-out amazing; Kendrick in particular is tremendously effective as the inexperienced go-getter. Natalie is certainly not perfect, but she’s also not a one-dimension prude, either. In fact, the scenes in which she explains herself – whether it’s to a group of downsizers or to Ryan himself – are where the picture truly shines. Kendrick’s artful delivery evokes both sympathy and envy for Natalie, who’s in her situation of her own volition and accord.

And you might also think that because Alex (Farmiga) and Ryan meet on the road and have some fun that their relationship will immediately dissolve into a pool of boring. It’s not so. Farmiga – a largely unknown quantity to me – was fantastic, playing Alex neither as another conquest for the Ryan Express nor as the kind of woman who will settle down with someone forever and ever. In fact, she’s more than a match for Clooney in the charm department.

The movie loses its way, slightly, near the end, when a twist arrives with as little subtlety as possible. You’ll probably be able to spot the plot change from a mile away. That’s about the only thing that keeps this from being a superb movie, a sagging denouement, but certainly the three standout performances are nothing to be sneezed at.

Up in the Air: ***

, , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

498 – Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian (***)

22night600_1The sequel to Ben Stiller’s surprise 2006 hit about a museum whose exhibits come to life at night is a strong comedic surprise, with a steady pace of laughs buttressed by appealing, charismatic new characters. In fact, this one is even more successful in allowing Stiller to do what he does best: react, nonplussed, to the chaos surrounding him.

Following the events of the first movie, in which a security guard saved the denizens of the Museum of Natural History in New York from an ancient curse, Larry Daley (Stiller) is now a successful late-night-TV entrepreneur and no longer works at the museum that gave him a boost in confidence. But when he stops by one day, he discovers that some of the exhibits are being shipped south the the Smithsonian, but not all; those exhibits that remain in New York will be without the Tablet of Ahkmenrah, which gives the exhibit their nocturnal life. Through a plot contrivance, though, the tablet is swiped and activated in Washington, allowing the evil brother-pharoah of the first movie to come to life and try to steal it and open up a gate to the underworld, or something.

Admittedly, that’s a lot to digest, but it gets simpler as the plot moves along. Larry heads to DC to ward off the evil Kahmunrah (Hank Azaria), who has assembled Napolean, Al Capone, and Ivan the Terrible (Christopher Guest) to help him rule the world (of course), if he can just get his hands on that tablet. Once it’s been activated in DC, though, other denizens of the cavernous National Archives (one of the many Smithsonian museums) also come to life, such as General Custer (Bill Hader), Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams), Rodin’s The Thinker (Azaria again), and even the Tuskegee Airmen (including Craig Robinson).

A movie like this allows actors to really have fun with their roles, and it’s pretty obvious that everyone’s having a grand old time here. In particular, Adams shines (as she so often does) with the exact spunky, can-do attitude that the real-life Earhart had; she’s a delight. Azaria has three roles (The Thinker, the pharoah, and Abe Lincoln!) and excels in each one of them. One might even say he was hamming it up a bit, but this is a pretty broad comedy. Azaria apparently based Kahmunrah’s dialect on Boris Karloff as The Mummy, with sort of a cruel lisp. And Bill Hader chews scenery as Custer.

It’s safe to say that the actors make the most of their scenes, really, including those holdovers from the first film, like Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, and Robin Williams. (That this might be Williams’ best movie in years speaks volumes of the state of his career.) And through it all, Stiller bemusedly tries to save the day (he has excellent chemistry with Adams, who’s adorable).

I guess you can’t lose when you combine talking inanimate objects and historical figures. Hey, the latter worked for Bill and Ted, and it works just as well here – even better, surely, because the historical figures are given personalities. This sequel stays within its own idiom and does well on the somewhat-familiar ground.

Night at the Museum 2: ***

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments